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

[JFSOCC]

what I'm proposing is not to make it impossible, but a choice. Yes I can save, but it will be a debuff directly after load, for a few rounds/dialogue panes. This way people can still save whenever, if it matters enough to them, but they'll be encouraged not to do so frivolously.

 

This serves no purpose. There's no true reason for such a mechanic. None of the "arguments" put forth as to why it's a good idea to limit saving are convincing.

 

And really, there's a vast difference between "encouragement" and "punishment." You really think your debuff idea is an encouragement? Wow.

 

Ultimately, your stance is meaningless. There's Trial of Iron for ya, probably other difficulty options to tweak saving too. It's a single-player game, so someone else doing the save-reload dance 30 times against Firkraag shouldn't bother you one whit (and if it does, well.... pathetic).

 

/facepalm

The purpose it would serve is to discourage players from ruining their own game, without making it impossible for them to do so if they feel it's important enough. temporary debufs are proposed because it means it doesn't permanently penalize a player.

what I'm proposing is not to make it impossible, but a choice. Yes I can save, but it will be a debuff directly after load, for a few rounds/dialogue panes. This way people can still save whenever, if it matters enough to them, but they'll be encouraged not to do so frivolously.

 

Ah, yes, Obsidian needs to discourage stay-at-home Moms from frivolously jumping up whenever the baby cries ... Seriously, folks have lots of reasons to save frequently that have nothing to do with save scumming--and really don't need designers of entertainment deliberately adding a debuff to the annoyance of interruptions.

Because mothers with babies are the main target demographic for Project Eternity. When I go and play an RPG game, I know I'm going to be behind my computer for a while.

 

what I'm proposing is not to make it impossible, but a choice. Yes I can save, but it will be a debuff directly after load, for a few rounds/dialogue panes. This way people can still save whenever, if it matters enough to them, but they'll be encouraged not to do so frivolously.

And how do you justify that from an in-game perspective?

I don't. I was merely trying to "think with the team" and offer suggestions and alternatives to help out with what some consider an issue.

 

As to the last post, I'm not a zealot, I too believe everyone should be allowed to ruin their own game as much as they please.

that doesn't mean that making that easy is the correct design choice. The developpers have some power to influence how you enjoy the game, and discouraging people from doing something that seems to make sense (maximizing efficiency, - something which is hardwired in our brain to attempt) but may actually ruin game fun (because it can kill challenge, -you can keep going back infinitely till you brute force your way through by trying everything)

And people who make the choices to ruin their game fun might not do so deliberately, they may not even realise that it is the effect it will have.

 

When I was about 11 years old I played Delta Force 1, I cheated all the way through, mostly because I was not confident of my abilities. Later I realised I had deprived myself of an immersive and tense experience, of getting skillful because I had gone the easy way. I played it again and without cheats found I enjoyed the game much more.

 

Most of the replies to me have been of categorical thinking: Things that prevent save scumming are bad, because it decreases player freedom to do what they want. You hold this player freedom sacred.

The consequentialist philosophy is that this will lead to many players unwittingly ruining their game, they might end up with a less than satisfactory experience of the game.

 

The issue is not one of Freedom VS constraint, but rather one of "How can I encourage the player to enjoy the game the most, without holding their hand and deciding everything for them"

 

In this case I think that there is some merit to the idea of preventing save scumming. though the precise method that works best is up for debate. (aside from whether to do it, how it could be done.) I thought of debuffs, but I also said that this should only be in places where save scumming may negatively affect enjoyment the most, by killing difficulty; During conversation trees and mid combat (but not just as combat starts), and how in some cases no penalty is needed at all (safe locations)

 

Mothers who need to take care of their babies no doubt can use the pause option, and if you want to save to come back hours or days later, I'm sure you can use 5 minutes time to go through this encounter you're busy with now, or if it's early enough during the encounter, replay it from the start.

I don;t foresee a situation where a pause will not suffice at a moments notice, and if it's more than a moments notice "I really start having to do something else NOW" I wonder if you maybe aren't brilliant in planning your game session.

Edited October 14, 2012 by JFSOCC

[Wench]

Oh my gosh this is a stupid argument. Limiting player choice is never the option because some people can't help but abuse the system. Some of us might want to *gasps* play a game for the story and not want to have to deal with annoying repetitive battles. Combat is not the soul focus of the game so don't make it too annoying .

[metiman]

JFSOCC, have you considered the fact that some people (myself for instance) would simply not buy the game at all if it does not allow unlimited saves? If you consider console game saving to be superior to PC game saving then of course you will be happy, but traditional PC gamers will not be. We expect unlimited saves in the same way that console kiddies expect checkpoint saves. There is no game that I would buy without unlimited save. Period. Perhaps console players feel the same way and will not buy this game because they are not actually forced to play the game in the way that they claim to want.

 

I'm an adult. I don't have unlmiited time or patience to replay the same segment of a game over and over again until I just want to smash my fist through something or ideally into whoever made the stupid decision to consolize the save game system. And, no, lowering the difficulty so that everything is easy and I never die is not a solution either. If I never fail and only succeed then the combat is too easy by definition.

 

Frankly I think any console gamers who are hoping to see checkpoint saving, even optional checkpoint saving, are going to be very dissapointed. There is simply no way it is going to happen. This isn't a console game and it is not intended to play like one either. I realize that console gamers are in the majority now, and publishers are powerless to resist their demands, but the whole point of a kickstarter is that the developers don't have to worry about such things. They finally have a chance to make a game that they really want to make. You are simply not going to be able to prove that console style saves are inherently superior to PC style saves. It's pointless to even try. Checkpoint saves are fine if you are a teenager with unlimited amounts of patience and free time. For everyone else they have little value.

 

Checkpoints are also too expensive to implement as an option. A simpler system, like a timer that you can set to prevent yourself from saving more often than you would like, OTOH would be pretty cheap to implement. As long as it's optional I wouldn't have a major problem with them devoting maybe 4-8 hours of programming time to the idea, although I do think it is pointless to try to prevent people from doing what they obviously want to do. To me, the whole idea is just bizarre. Ironman is going to be implemented. That should be more than enough. Any further pandering to those with poor self-control is ridiculous.

[Ieo]

The purpose it would serve is to discourage players from ruining their own game, .

 

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your useless post since this statement illustrates your incapable frame of mind so completely.

 

Whose game?

Whose game?

 

Oh, Obsidian's game?

 

Oh, no, you mean that person's game, that guy who lives over five thousand kilometers from you?

 

Hey, he seems to be enjoying himself, even with the saves and reloads. Ouch, he just reloaded again, but is that a grin? Looks like he's not ruining his game fun, wow! It's amazing!

 

Players of a single-player game might actually enjoy playing in different ways! Imagine that.

 

 

People like you who are so small-minded just flabbergast me. I'm sure you're so proud to give gamers and the gaming industry a bad name for being antisocial or sociopathic basement nerds. I'm glad that Obsidian isn't catering to such boneheads with the default setting.

[Reddie]

The developpers have some power to influence how you enjoy the game, and discouraging people from doing something that seems to make sense (maximizing efficiency, - something which is hardwired in our brain to attempt) but may actually ruin game fun (because it can kill challenge, -you can keep going back infinitely till you brute force your way through by trying everything)

And people who make the choices to ruin their game fun might not do so deliberately, they may not even realise that it is the effect it will have.

 

When I was about 11 years old I played Delta Force 1, I cheated all the way through, mostly because I was not confident of my abilities. Later I realised I had deprived myself of an immersive and tense experience, of getting skillful because I had gone the easy way. I played it again and without cheats found I enjoyed the game much more.

 

Most of the replies to me have been of categorical thinking: Things that prevent save scumming are bad, because it decreases player freedom to do what they want. You hold this player freedom sacred.

The consequentialist philosophy is that this will lead to many players unwittingly ruining their game, they might end up with a less than satisfactory experience of the game.

 

The issue is not one of Freedom VS constraint, but rather one of "How can I encourage the player to enjoy the game the most, without holding their hand and deciding everything for them"

 

Why do you want to impose on other people your definition of enjoying? Personally, I couldn't care less about your childhood expieriences. If you feel cheating ruined game for you - DON'T USE IT. If you feel saving ruins game for you - DON'T USE IT. But don't demand your attitude be "encouraged" with game mechanics. Everyone and their dog has own idea of enjoyable gameplay, yours is neither better nor worse.

[GhostofAnakin]

The purpose it would serve is to discourage players from ruining their own game, without making it impossible for them to do so if they feel it's important enough. temporary debufs are proposed because it means it doesn't permanently penalize a player.

 

The bolded part in particular is a good example of the flaw in your argument for this mechanic. The problem with your suggestion is you're assuming every player thinks like you do, and thus this mechanic serves its intended purpose only if that assumption (which is clearly wrong, based on the replies in this thread) is correct.

 

You know what two game mechanics would ruin *my* game? Not being able to save at any time I want, or being punished for saving my game when I felt like it.

Edited October 14, 2012 by GhostofAnakin

[HangedMan]

Personally, I'm hoping the next update will address saving in the game so we can finally move on from this topic. It's been going around in circles for quite a number of days now. Nobody is making any progress.

[JFSOCC]

Ok, I'm a little upset, some of you clearly didn't read what I said, if you're not even willing to hear me out, why are we even discussing?

Oh my gosh this is a stupid argument. Limiting player choice is never the option because some people can't help but abuse the system. Some of us might want to *gasps* play a game for the story and not want to have to deal with annoying repetitive battles. Combat is not the soul focus of the game so don't make it too annoying .

If you'd seen the suggestion you'd have found that it imposes no limits, you can still save whenever you want. I've also suggested that penalties at other times would not be severe or even extant at all. it depends on the situation, that can include combat, or a tough dialogue, but doesn't have to.

 

JFSOCC, have you considered the fact that some people (myself for instance) would simply not buy the game at all if it does not allow unlimited saves? If you consider console game saving to be superior to PC game saving then of course you will be happy, but traditional PC gamers will not be. We expect unlimited saves in the same way that console kiddies expect checkpoint saves. There is no game that I would buy without unlimited save. Period. Perhaps console players feel the same way and will not buy this game because they are not actually forced to play the game in the way that they claim to want.

If you had even bothered to read you'll find that I'm not limiting save games with my suggestion, at all.

The purpose it would serve is to discourage players from ruining their own game, .

 

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your useless post since this statement illustrates your incapable frame of mind so completely.

 

 

You should have. your argument is invalid because you didn't even read what I said. talk about wilful ignorance.

The developpers have some power to influence how you enjoy the game, and discouraging people from doing something that seems to make sense (maximizing efficiency, - something which is hardwired in our brain to attempt) but may actually ruin game fun (because it can kill challenge, -you can keep going back infinitely till you brute force your way through by trying everything)

And people who make the choices to ruin their game fun might not do so deliberately, they may not even realise that it is the effect it will have.

 

When I was about 11 years old I played Delta Force 1, I cheated all the way through, mostly because I was not confident of my abilities. Later I realised I had deprived myself of an immersive and tense experience, of getting skillful because I had gone the easy way. I played it again and without cheats found I enjoyed the game much more.

 

Most of the replies to me have been of categorical thinking: Things that prevent save scumming are bad, because it decreases player freedom to do what they want. You hold this player freedom sacred.

The consequentialist philosophy is that this will lead to many players unwittingly ruining their game, they might end up with a less than satisfactory experience of the game.

 

The issue is not one of Freedom VS constraint, but rather one of "How can I encourage the player to enjoy the game the most, without holding their hand and deciding everything for them"

 

Why do you want to impose on other people your definition of enjoying? Personally, I couldn't care less about your childhood expieriences. If you feel cheating ruined game for you - DON'T USE IT. If you feel saving ruins game for you - DON'T USE IT. But don't demand your attitude be "encouraged" with game mechanics. Everyone and their dog has own idea of enjoyable gameplay, yours is neither better nor worse.

 

That's incorrect on 2 levels:

1. I do not force my way of playing it on anyone. you can still play however you want.

2. Save scumming actually does make the game less enjoyable. it's just counter intuitive to believe that because the brain is hard wired for efficiency.

The purpose it would serve is to discourage players from ruining their own game, without making it impossible for them to do so if they feel it's important enough. temporary debufs are proposed because it means it doesn't permanently penalize a player.

 

The bolded part in particular is a good example of the flaw in your argument for this mechanic. The problem with your suggestion is you're assuming every player thinks like you do, and thus this mechanic serves its intended purpose only if that assumption (which is clearly wrong, based on the replies in this thread) is correct.

 

You know what two game mechanics would ruin *my* game? Not being able to save at any time I want, or being punished for saving my game when I felt like it.

wel 1, you'd be able to save whenever you want, 2, you would only be punished when it would give you an unfair advantage. it would be minor, it would be temporary , and it would make you use discretion when you do save. but if you must save, you could still do it.

 

It wouldn't be the end of the world, I don't even think it would be annoying, it just encourages you to be a bit more tactical.

 

finally, and I cannot stress this enough, I'm merely trying to suggest possibilities. try to work with me, rather than be rusted stuck in your absolute view that player freedom is the highest good ever and can never be wrong.

Edited October 14, 2012 by JFSOCC

[LadyCrimson]

2. Save scumming actually does make the game less enjoyable.

Subjective.

 

This thread is becoming very circular. I'd like to see more suggestions for actual solutions/compromises and less commenting on whether or not other people's personal preferences for how they like to play a game are right or wrong.

[JFSOCC]

it's a prediction. People have been shown time and again to be very poor judges of what will bring them happiness. There are some very interesting studies on the matter.

[Ieo]

it's a prediction. People have been shown time and again to be very poor judges of what will bring them happiness. There are some very interesting studies on the matter.

 

It's also a prediction that it's actually people like you who are unable to prevent yourself from "savescumming" and thus demand a mechanic because you lack any self-control and are projecting it on others to save your own ego.

 

04 October 2012 KS Q&A with Feargus

 

Question: PE will have a "save anytime, save anywhere" system like the IE games?

 

Feargus: Yes, save anywhere you want.

[JFSOCC]

people like me?

I think I made a pretty good case earlier on how I've learned that this is not enjoyable. but that lesson did come at the cost of enjoyment of a game I otherwise would have enjoyed from the outset.

Edit: Why the hell do I feel that I must defend my character? I was hoping for constructive discussion.

Edited October 14, 2012 by JFSOCC

[Elerond]

In normal mode, PE style games should never ever have save or load restrictions that are not caused by technical issues.

 

Because it only causes discomfort for those who want play game in short periods of time or with experimenting play style. And you don't achive really anything as there is always other ways to cheat (which are usually more efficient). For example player can always edit his/her stats and etc. things if s/he feels like in data files, which is in PE very easy to do as they are made as open as possible to help modders work. And even games which have only binary files you can always use hex editor and in those games that don't save any data to harddisc you can use hexeditor's that run background hexeditors. So if player want to cheat, s/he will.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Elerond

[Carmelle]

I like "save scumming". I like to be able to see where different branches may have taken me without needing to replaying the entire game just to see. So sue me. It makes MY game more enjoyable. You don't like it? Don't do it. This is such a silly thread...

[Hassat Hunter]

Yeah, I also like to save a lot, I don't like redoing sections over and over and over.

Which limited saving would require to do...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sylvius: would you also enjoy the freedom to decide your character statistics freely? Would it bother you if the game got too hard or too easy as a consequence?

I would enjoy that, and making the game harder or easier could potentially be the reason I did that.

 

As long as the mechanics are well documented, any ensuing balance mistakes are the fault of the player.

[Slaunyeh]

Edit: Why the hell do I feel that I must defend my character? I was hoping for constructive discussion.

 

I don't think you will get a constructive discussion as long as your argument boils down to "anyone who disagrees with me obviously doesn't know what's good for them." (And, seriously, can we drop the 'saving your game is cheating' argument? It's not doing anyone any favours.)

 

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain how saving anywhere will inherently ruin the game, the game design, and everyone's enjoyment of the game. Last time we asked, the response was something like "oh, you can't explain how, but it does". Sorry, but that's not good enough.

[HangedMan]

Edit: Why the hell do I feel that I must defend my character? I was hoping for constructive discussion.

 

I don't think you will get a constructive discussion as long as your argument boils down to "anyone who disagrees with me obviously doesn't know what's good for them." (And, seriously, can we drop the 'saving your game is cheating' argument? It's not doing anyone any favours.)

 

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain how saving anywhere will inherently ruin the game, the game design, and everyone's enjoyment of the game. Last time we asked, the response was something like "oh, you can't explain how, but it does". Sorry, but that's not good enough.

 

I agree, and furthermore, I am still waiting, too. I remember my own round of questioning being entirely ignore.

[JFSOCC]

Edit: Why the hell do I feel that I must defend my character? I was hoping for constructive discussion.

 

I don't think you will get a constructive discussion as long as your argument boils down to "anyone who disagrees with me obviously doesn't know what's good for them." (And, seriously, can we drop the 'saving your game is cheating' argument? It's not doing anyone any favours.)

 

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain how saving anywhere will inherently ruin the game, the game design, and everyone's enjoyment of the game. Last time we asked, the response was something like "oh, you can't explain how, but it does". Sorry, but that's not good enough.

I'm sorry if I come across as arrogant, that is certainly not my intent. I do feel frustrated as I fear my argument is not coming across; I am after all, using arguments, despite being told that I'm not. Must be bad communication on my part.

The argument that saving anywhere will ruin the game is a simple one: You kill the challenge of the game if you can retry every encounter, whether combat or dialogue, because you are certain to always overcome every obstacle, without having to change your behaviour. You don't have to get better at tactics, you don't have to moderate your words to get the best result. You just have to brute force all the possibilities and then pick the one that yields the desired results the best way.

Rewards will lose all meaning, since you will always have the best of the best, challenges will lose all meaning, because you will always overcome them so exceptionally well.

everything will go your way. always. all.the.time.

I suppose that in the information age which is upon us this is the case anyway, where everyone can look up solutions online.

In the end I can't prevent anyone from playing how they choose, and I wouldn't seek to. I would however like to find a way to encourage players to enjoy the challenge, rather than seek to breeze through.

perhaps coupling mechanics like summoning sickness to difficulty settings is an idea?

[Loki Ador]

JFSOCC, one question : what do you want for the game:

 

1) the option to deactivate the possibility to save anywhere anytime, or the option to introduce some drawbacks to save scumming ?

 

2) or the implementation of such limitating or discouraging mechanisms in the game, without any option to toggle them off ?

 

Just to know your position

Edited October 15, 2012 by Loki Ador

[Loki Ador]

Edit: remove duplicate

Edited October 15, 2012 by Loki Ador

[metiman]

JFSOCC, you do realize that there is going to be an ironman mode, right? The whole point of it is for people like you who think saving ruins the challenge of the game. What problem do you have with ironman mode?

[JFSOCC]

JFSOCC, one question : what do you want for the game:

 

1) the option to deactivate the possibility to save anywhere anytime, or the option to introduce some drawbacks to save scumming ?

 

2) or the implementation of such limitating or discouraging mechanisms in the game, without any option to toggle them off ?

 

Just to know your position

1)Drawbacks to save scumming (but still be able to save anywhere)

 

JFSOCC, you do realize that there is going to be an ironman mode, right? The whole point of it is for people like you who think saving ruins the challenge of the game. What problem do you have with ironman mode?

Ironman mode is for hardcore players who think there is NEVER a good reason for saving during inopportune times in the game, I don't want to go that far. it shouldn't be one extreme or the other.

[JediMB]

I still propose that there's some kind of middle ground option (options are good), between the regular "save anywhere" mode and the "Trial of Iron" mode.

 

For example, that particular mode could allow the player to save only where the characters can rest, but still allow an unlimited number of save files.

 

It wouldn't take any significant resources to implement, and I don't see why not all players would be happy this way.

 

Yeah save points like in Final Fantasy games can still be too far away for when RL demands your attention RIGHT NOW and not a minute later. The save points would be in the middle or right before a boss battle allowing someone to save scum anyways.

 

Good point. Another issue would be that placing a "save point" of sorts just before a boss would in a sense work as a spoiler for the encounter, where the boss might otherwise be a surprise.

 

That said, a scripted autosave/checkpoint before boss encounters (instead of a save point) would be a relatively smooth solution. That way you wouldn't have to replay content after failing an encounter that is by design unusually difficult, but you'd also be stopped from save scumming for regular encounters.

[Loki Ador]

1)Drawbacks to save scumming (but still be able to save anywhere)

 

 

Well I have misformulated my question: this drawback for saving anywhere anytime, do you want it to be:

 

1) an option that can be toggled off (thus making save scumming drawback free if the player deactivates the feature) ?

 

2) or a feature that cannot be toggled off ?

Edited October 15, 2012 by Loki Ador