Minimizing Save scumming. Or is it too much of a hassle?

[HangedMan]

The difference is, if you get your way, the people who want to save often can NOT play the game the way they want to play it. They're forced to play it the way YOU want to play.

 

Yet if the option to save anytime is present, you can still play the way you want; it just requires a bit of willpower on your behalf. But at least in this situation the OPTION is there for you to play as you like.

Can I print and frame this post?

Not before I do!

[alanschu]

Love forum pseudocode!

[Osvir]

Blah I mixed it up, this is what I meant (I have Diablo as "Save anywhere" and Baldur's Gate as "Checkpoints" on page 11. Which is incorrect).

 

Fixed:

Do Background Research:

I think we got this covered but for the sake of it... only going to use "RPG" elements

A* Diablo uses a Checkpoint system. You'll always start off from the "Beginning" of the level. Waypoints help you get back on track though.

B* Baldur's Gate uses a "Free" system where you can save at any point in the game. Very flexible as every player can choose their own "preference" (Self-discipline) but also very easy to "abuse".

C* Final Fantasy uses a combination of the two, wherein you can save at any point on the world map, with "Fixed" save points in dungeons.

 

Graph:

Can save?

0's = False

1's = True

 

A: Each "1" corresponds to an Act. Act 1, Act 2, Act 3 in this case.

[100001000010000]

 

B: Save anywhere

[111111111111111]

 

C: Each "0" corresponds to a Dungeon. Dungeons do most commonly have a Save point as you enter them, and right before a boss (most commonly the case).

[111011101110111]

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's a rather long list of game mechanics, ideas and even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed.

Only for those players who couldn't control themselves.

[Delterius]

There's a rather long list of game mechanics, ideas and even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed.

Only for those players who couldn't control themselves.

The choice to not exploit bad design doesn't make it any better.

[gandalf.nho]

If someone doesn't like save scumming then don't use but not force other people to use only savepoints/checkpoints. I don't have time to replay 1 hour of game because of something outside my control.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Save scumming? Never heard of that term before. Is that some pegorative term to players who want to save the game whenever they want? What then is Checkpoint Saving? Checkpoint scumming?

 

I don't see the problem with playing a game and then saving it where you are. And then returning to the game later to continue the game where you left off. I don't understand why anyone would be against this way of playing.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Shardbearer]

It probably has been said before, but isn't this why there are 3 different hardcore modes?

[Tsuga C]

Don't bother trying to limit the way people play a single-player game. Frankly, it's none of your business and if I have something to attend to, I want to be able to stop and save right where I am without losing 30-45 minutes of play and a really fortuitous, randomly generated piece of swag I just picked up 5 minutes ago.

[Fluffle]

Save scumming? Never heard of that term before. Is that some pegorative term to players who want to save the game whenever they want? What then is Checkpoint Saving? Checkpoint scumming?

 

I don't see the problem with playing a game and then saving it where you are. And then returning to the game later to continue the game where you left off. I don't understand why anyone would be against this way of playing.

 

Obviously some people like to play without save scumming. And because they like it that way they feel that everybody must be enforced to play the game that way. That would be just.

 

As I said on the comment kickstarter site:

 

If you dont like save scumming, then just dont use it. Use one of the hardcore modes, or play a normal game and do not reload when you feel that this reloading is inappropriate.

But please refrain from trying to enforce your way of playing and enjoying a game on other players.

 

A game should be based on inclusion, not exclusion.

[Fluffle]

 

The choice to not exploit bad design doesn't make it any better.

 

Your choice of calling this design a "bad design" and put this, which is your opinion, as a matter of fact doesn't make it any better either.

 

I'm fine with this design choice, so are other players. It's a matter of opinion.

And just like I will not let you force me to play a game the way you would enjoy.

I will not let you either force your opinion on me as a fact.

 

For me putting this as a fact, just shows how you obviously like to force things upon others.

Which is the whole point of this topic, is it not?

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, sometimes it can help.

Think Alpha Protocol or TOR, so you can't easily take back your choices in dialogue.

 

Of course, the majority hated AP's system for some reason, so, yeah... :/

[ogrezilla]

There's a rather long list of game mechanics, ideas and even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed.

Only for those players who couldn't control themselves.

The choice to not exploit bad design doesn't make it any better.

can you give a few examples of game mechanics, ideas or even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed that can't be ignored by simply not save scumming? As of page 12 I have yet to see a single example.

Edited October 11, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Delterius]

There's a rather long list of game mechanics, ideas and even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed.

Only for those players who couldn't control themselves.

The choice to not exploit bad design doesn't make it any better.

can you give a few examples of game mechanics, ideas or even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed that can't be ignored by simply not save scumming? As of page 12 I have yet to see a single example.

 

I don't understand the point of the last part of your question. The poster I was responding to seemingly agreed that, if a player abused save scumming, a number of mechanics lose their meaning (and I already discussed this with you, character death is one of the single largest mechanic that loses meaning - other examples are most everything based on randomness, such as healing touches, wizard spell learning and the wild mage kit from BG2 ToB, and so on). Building up on that, I stated that, just because we can pretend that the unbalance isn't there, it doesn't make it go away.

 

And I highly doubt most of us did even that.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Any system can be abused. Check point saving can be abused. The game mechanics can be abused. If gamers want to abuse a system, they'll find a way. It's up to the gamer whether they wan't to abuse it or not.

[Delterius]

Any system can be abused. Check point saving can be abused. The game mechanics can be abused. If gamers want to abuse a system, they'll find a way. It's up to the gamer whether they wan't to abuse it or not.

 

In what specific ways do you believe my suggestion can be abused?

[AlphaShard]

There's a rather long list of game mechanics, ideas and even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed.

Only for those players who couldn't control themselves.

The choice to not exploit bad design doesn't make it any better.

can you give a few examples of game mechanics, ideas or even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed that can't be ignored by simply not save scumming? As of page 12 I have yet to see a single example.

 

I don't understand the point of the last part of your question. The poster I was responding to seemingly agreed that, if a player abused save scumming, a number of mechanics lose their meaning (and I already discussed this with you, character death is one of the single largest mechanic that loses meaning - other examples are most everything based on randomness, such as healing touches, wizard spell learning and the wild mage kit from BG2 ToB, and so on). Building up on that, I stated that, just because we can pretend that the unbalance isn't there, it doesn't make it go away.

 

And I highly doubt most of us did even that.

 

You can lower difficulty to learn all spells at 100% and max HP rolls.

[ogrezilla]

There's a rather long list of game mechanics, ideas and even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed.

Only for those players who couldn't control themselves.

The choice to not exploit bad design doesn't make it any better.

can you give a few examples of game mechanics, ideas or even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed that can't be ignored by simply not save scumming? As of page 12 I have yet to see a single example.

 

I don't understand the point of the last part of your question. The poster I was responding to seemingly agreed that, if a player abused save scumming, a number of mechanics lose their meaning (and I already discussed this with you, character death is one of the single largest mechanic that loses meaning - other examples are most everything based on randomness, such as healing touches, wizard spell learning and the wild mage kit from BG2 ToB, and so on). Building up on that, I stated that, just because we can pretend that the unbalance isn't there, it doesn't make it go away.

 

And I highly doubt most of us did even that.

My point is if you don't abuse the save system, the problems you mentioned literally do go away. If I am misunderstanding your point (and I think I might be), I apologize.

Edited October 11, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Delterius]

There's a rather long list of game mechanics, ideas and even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed.

Only for those players who couldn't control themselves.

The choice to not exploit bad design doesn't make it any better.

can you give a few examples of game mechanics, ideas or even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed that can't be ignored by simply not save scumming? As of page 12 I have yet to see a single example.

 

I don't understand the point of the last part of your question. The poster I was responding to seemingly agreed that, if a player abused save scumming, a number of mechanics lose their meaning (and I already discussed this with you, character death is one of the single largest mechanic that loses meaning - other examples are most everything based on randomness, such as healing touches, wizard spell learning and the wild mage kit from BG2 ToB, and so on). Building up on that, I stated that, just because we can pretend that the unbalance isn't there, it doesn't make it go away.

 

And I highly doubt most of us did even that.

 

You can lower difficulty to learn all spells at 100% and max HP rolls.

 

True, that does make that one specific example bad.

[Delterius]

My point is if you don't abuse the save system, the problems you mentioned literally do go away. If I am misunderstanding your point (and I think I might be), I apologize.

 

If there was a spell in every spell level that completely outclassed their peers, would you believe its a good design decision to expect players to not make use of that resource? After all, the problem would 'literally go away' if you just don't 'abuse' the system (a word that I don't like to use in these cases, but I fail to avoid anyway).

[AlphaShard]

My point is if you don't abuse the save system, the problems you mentioned literally do go away. If I am misunderstanding your point (and I think I might be), I apologize.

 

If there was a spell in every spell level that completely outclassed their peers, would you believe its a good design decision to expect players to not make use of that resource? After all, the problem would 'literally go away' if you just don't 'abuse' the system (a word that I don't like to use in these cases, but I fail to avoid anyway).

 

Some do, some don't. Not EVERYONE does Save Scumming.

Edited October 11, 2012 by AlphaShard

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

In what specific ways do you believe my suggestion can be abused?

 

Diablo 3 is a great game in abusing Checkpoint scumming. Also I can name many other games that also abuse checkpoint scumming.

[ogrezilla]

My point is if you don't abuse the save system, the problems you mentioned literally do go away. If I am misunderstanding your point (and I think I might be), I apologize.

 

If there was a spell in every spell level that completely outclassed their peers, would you believe its a good design decision to expect players to not make use of that resource? After all, the problem would 'literally go away' if you just don't 'abuse' the system (a word that I don't like to use in these cases, but I fail to avoid anyway).

not a good comparison though. Fixing the spells has no drawback while "fixing" the save system has a major drawback.

 

Effects of balancing the imbalanced spells: the game balance improves. There is no negative.

Effects of removing the imbalanced save system: the game balance improves. but the game also introduces more tedium by forcing players to repeat content.

 

I've said somewhere in this thread that I can see where people are coming from who want to limit saving. I will admit that there are positives as far as game balance. But the negatives of the alternative systems simply outweigh any potential positives that I have seen mentioned. Especially since pretty much any negative of the save anywhere system can simply be ignored whereas the negatives of the limited save system are strictly enforced.

Edited October 11, 2012 by ogrezilla

[TrashMan]

I've said somewhere in this thread that I can see where people are coming from who want to limit saving. I will admit that there are positives as far as game balance. But the negatives of the alternative systems simply outweigh any potential positives that I have seen mentioned.

 

in YOUR oppinion. And plenty of people apparently disagree.

 

 

Especially since pretty much any negative of the save anywhere system can simply be ignored whereas the negatives of the limited save system are strictly enforced.

 

No. It cannot simply "be ignored".

You keep talking about it like it's some kind of comprmise, when it isn't.

My frustration remains in full, your goes away completely. How the hell is that a compromise?

[TrashMan]

The difference is, if you get your way, the people who want to save often can NOT play the game the way they want to play it. They're forced to play it the way YOU want to play.

 

Yet if the option to save anytime is present, you can still play the way you want; it just requires a bit of willpower on your behalf. But at least in this situation the OPTION is there for you to play as you like.

 

 

The difference is in your head, because you consider it acceptable as a "compromise".

It isn't.

No amount of willpower changes the reality.

 

Also, all games are forced to be played in one game or another.

After all, I can't play Amnesia as a FPS, now can I?

Hence, I am forced to play a certain (sneaky-hidey) way.

 

And also the idea that game should enable anything as an option is also a flawed one. It shouldn't. That's what mod tools are for.

 

People who want to save "often" can save - only not as often as they would like. Big whoopin loss.