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

[Umberlin]

Again, second paraphraph of the original post.

 

And then the people you have issue with just save/quit and reload.

 

Just implement a save anytime system and realize that some people will exploit that fact, and others won't. Do not complicate things. People who are going to play legitimately will play legitimately all on their own. No meddling required. Anything beyond that is, "None of your business, keep your nose out."

[Arkeus]

Again, second paraphraph of the original post.

 

And then the people you have issue with just save/quit and reload.

 

Just implement a save anytime system and realize that some people will exploit that fact, and others won't. Do not complicate things. People who are going to play legitimately will play legitimately all on their own. No meddling required. Anything beyond that is, "None of your business, keep your nose out."

 

Are you joking?

This isn't about other people not playing the game correctly, it's about me having trouble playing the game correctly if there is a clearly superior way to play it that is within the vanilla game.

 

If we can save scum (not talking about the ability to save if you need to leave here, but about saving&continue) this means that it fosters to the players, that mean me and other people, a feeling of "you don't need to be as careful", because obviously if i need to take two hours of dangerous playing with a 3-members party going back to a temple and spend half my money raising the deads, or reloading, i will almost certainly cave in and just reload.

 

You are basically saying the equivalent of "having friendly fire off by default" or "having all the attributes without cooldowns nor any kind of restrictions all the time" in the 'normal' option.

 

Yes, it limits what people can do. But guess what? This is what a game is supposed to do, forcing the players to play. If you don't like playing, you can just toggle off the friendly fire and toggle down the enemy damage and engage easy mode.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Arkeus

[Umberlin]

it's about me having trouble playing the game correctly if there is a clearly superior way to play it that is within the vanilla game.

 

Learn basic self control.

 

People that are going to play legitimately are going to play legitimately all on their own, no meddling required. If you aren't one of those people, that's on you.

 

The save anytime feature is a given if you want to be friendly to the fact that people have real lives to deal with, even during their personal time they've set aside for a hobby, be it unexpectedly or otherwise.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Umberlin

[LadyCrimson]

I pose that, limiting the locations where the player may save,

No.

I absolutely dislike the "save point" concept in games, even if you have multiple save slots for it instead of a single-save (urgh). Unless each save point is about 10 minutes apart, which to me says why have it in the first place then. I like being able to save anywhere, anytime. This is a single-player game and whether or not a player chooses to reload a game and lessen their "challenge" by doing so is up to them. From my perspective, this is one of those things where having the discipline to do or not do should remain tied to the player, not the game design.

[Umberlin]

I pose that, limiting the locations where the player may save,

No.

I absolutely dislike the "save point" concept in games, even if you have multiple save slots for it instead of a single-save (urgh). Unless each save point is about 10 minutes apart, which to me says why have it in the first place then. I like being able to save anywhere, anytime. This is a single-player game and whether or not a player chooses to reload a game and lesson their "challenge" by doing so is up to them. From my perspective, this is one of those things where having the discipline to do or not do should remain tied to the player, not the game design.

 

Agreed.

[metiman]

I don't see how you can "be careful" on a first playthrough of a new cRPG in any way that is likely to save your life. Let's say there is a dragon. You can choose to fight it or to leave it alone. If you have just saved you might choose to fight it. If you haven't....well all I can say is I would leave it alone. The essential problem with anything but a save-at-will system is that it encourages repetition. I realize that that is probably your point. You want the extra repetition to make the penalty for dying even greater. At least I assume. That does somewhat clash with the fact that you approve of "raise dead".

 

You say that death is not the only issue, but saving to prevent any other issue just seems petty. And the game should be difficult enough that death is always a very likely possibility. Ideally death of your entire party. Even more ideally gibbed so that you can't even use "raise dead".

Edited October 7, 2012 by metiman

[Undecaf]

I don't particularly mind "save scumming" when it comes to difficult combat situations. "Having" to retry an ordeal for multiple times, if feeling compelled to, is something I find punishment enough.

 

That said, I would like to see some measures taken to discourage the savescumming of the more mundane skillbased tasks, like lockpicking (if the system for those tasks is character skill versus task difficulty chance - which I would hope it will be), because there's usually no "punishment" or cost for savescumming and retrying for those kinds of attempts other than the loadscreen.

 

For an example, having a lockpicking attempt take a certain amount of time for the character (based on the attempters skill and the difficulty of the task) would create a situation where constant retries would become a chore (and if people still would relentlessly go through retrying again and again and again for the - possible - eventual success; I'd say they've earned the rewards). Or something like that.

[ogrezilla]

save points are only a good mechanic when the content you have to repeat is enjoyable to repeat. In an action game, the whole point is the combat so its typically fine. But in a tactical game like this, its typically not that fun to repeat yourself. I get the point you are making. I've thought about it before too. But I think save scumming the lesser evil compared to the alternative of having to repeat content you've already completed.

[Arkeus]

I don't see how you can "be careful" on a first playthrough of a new cRPG in any way that is likely to save your life. Let's say there is a dragon. You can choose to fight it or to leave it alone. If you have just saved you might choose to fight it. If you haven't....well all I can say is I would leave it alone.

 

Is that a problem? If you feel you are not going to be able to win against an enemy, then yes, you should leave it alone. Then, if you want, you can come back a couple of level aters, stock fulls of potions and scrolls and wands and anti-dragon gear, and try to kill him.

 

That's exactly why not being able to save all the time is good.

 

Of course, at least in the longer quests, there is merit in having the ability to save when the floor is 'cleared' of enemies, so that you don't have to lose 5hrs of gameplay if you get TPK, just half an hour or so.

 

save points are only a good mechanic when the content you have to repeat is enjoyable to repeat. In an action game, the whole point is the combat so its typically fine. But in a tactical game like this, its typically not that fun to repeat yourself. I get the point you are making. I've thought about it before too. But I think save scumming the lesser evil compared to the alternative of having to repeat content you've already completed.

 

This is a fair point. I guess there is a balance to be had there.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Arkeus

[TrashMan]

Just implement a save anytime system and realize that some people will exploit that fact, and others won't. Do not complicate things. People who are going to play legitimately will play legitimately all on their own. No meddling required. Anything beyond that is, "None of your business, keep your nose out."

 

I disagree.

 

As I said, people are terrible at self-control, especially when there are rewards for not doing so.

 

Sometimes a developer has to enforce specific restriction if he wants to create the atmosphere he wants.

[ogrezilla]

if they manage to remove things that I don't enjoy repeating, I have no problem with something like save points as the OP described. Mainly, get rid of trash fights. But then what's the point? You'll likely just have to walk more.

 

Honestly, I think its less of a big deal with combat though. I would more like it there to encourage people to stick with their decisions even if it ended up leading to consequences they didn't like.

[Waywocket]

I pose that, limiting the locations where the player may save, would greatly limit save scumming in general.

 

This is the worst idea I've ever heard. Your idea is bad, and you should feel bad.

 

There is no discussion that can possibly be had here. You can't get anywhere sensible from this starting point. It's moronic, awful, unspeakably terrible, a repetition of the worst game design errors ever made.

 

Go away and play on your XBox or whatever it is you do for fun, rather than trying to ruin other people's games with your idiocy.

 

/ignore

[metiman]

I don't see how you can "be careful" on a first playthrough of a new cRPG in any way that is likely to save your life. Let's say there is a dragon. You can choose to fight it or to leave it alone. If you have just saved you might choose to fight it. If you haven't....well all I can say is I would leave it alone.

 

Is that a problem? If you feel you are not going to be able to win against an enemy, then yes, you should leave it alone. Then, if you want, you can come back a couple of level aters, stock fulls of potions and scrolls and wands and anti-dragon gear, and try to kill him.

That's exactly why not being able to save all the time is good. Of course, at least in the longer quests, there is merit in having the ability to save when the floor is 'cleared' of enemies, so that you don't have to lose 5hrs of gameplay if you get TPK, just half an hour or so.

 

And what happens if I feel the same way when I return? Not that I probably would have a chance to return because I'd probably already be dead and have to restart the game far enough back that I'd rather just go play a different game or go do something in the real world. The problem is I (personally) would only ever attempt encounters with monsters that are, say, several levels lower than my party where there is no chance of my dying. I would never even enter into very difficult battles and IMHO that is boring. I die quite frequently when I play BG2 with SCSII. I cannot even imagine how frequently I would die with something like Improved Anvil installed.

 

I don't understand how more repetition is better. That's all this is asking for. To replay areas that you handled succesfully again and again in order to do a totally different encounter that you are not able to handle succesfully. Of course there is also the issue that ignoring the dragon may not be optional. At least at some point you may have to face him and you may die again and again and have to replay unrelated areas each and every time until you just want to never have to even look at that game ever again.

[ogrezilla]

good lord I agree with metiman what is this. seriously though, I definitely do agree with metiman here. I would attack that dragon because how else do I know if I can kill it? And even if its a fight I'm supposed to be able to win, and I lose. Is it actually enjoyable to repeat things to get back to that spot?

 

I pose that, limiting the locations where the player may save, would greatly limit save scumming in general.

 

This is the worst idea I've ever heard. Your idea is bad, and you should feel bad.

 

There is no discussion that can possibly be had here. You can't get anywhere sensible from this starting point. It's moronic, awful, unspeakably terrible, a repetition of the worst game design errors ever made.

 

Go away and play on your XBox or whatever it is you do for fun, rather than trying to ruin other people's games with your idiocy.

 

/ignore

 

this is ridiculous though.

[codexer]

The problem is I (personally) would only ever attempt encounters with monsters that are, say, several levels lower than my party where there is no chance of my dying. I would never even enter into very difficult battles and IMHO that is boring.

This is a silly argument. If you think it's boring to play overly cautious then stop doing it! You're basically admitting here that the game-mechanic of limited saving is forcing the player to become better at the game. This is a good thing.

 

I don't understand how more repetition is better. That's all this is asking for. To replay areas that you handled succesfully again and again in order to do a totally different encounter that you are not able to handle succesfully.

Repetition is simply the punishment for playing bad.

 

Of course there is also the issue that ignoring the dragon may not be optional. At least at some point you may have to face him and you may die again and again and have to replay unrelated areas each and every time until you just want to never have to even look at that game ever again.

That's about the point when you lower the difficulty a bit~

 

 

Having limitations on savings makes the game harder because it requires that you play more consistently. It's a degree of difficulty that can't just be likened to increasing how much HP and damage the enemies do; it's another "dimension" of difficulty.

 

I'm totally in the camp of something that's in between pure Ironman and free-saving.

Edited October 7, 2012 by codexer

[metiman]

All of this is moot. You guys don't seriously believe that Obsidian is going to implement some console-like checkpoint save system do you? Not gonna happen. You already have ironman mode with no saves at all. Surely you should be happy with that.

 

1. Punishing the player more by making them replay more of the game will make them become a better player of another game because they will stop playing this one.

 

2. I agree that repetition = punishment, but how is that a good thing? Repetition is boring almost by definition. A repetitive game is a boring game.

 

3. Lowering the difficultly will make the combat boring. Too easy. The bottom line is if the penalty for death is too great the game just isn't fun to play. I have the same issue with ironman mode that I have with limited saves.

Edited October 7, 2012 by metiman

[nikolokolus]

In the immortal words of Bill Murray, "It just doesn't matter."

[TrashMan]

3. Lowering the difficultly will make the combat boring. Too easy. The bottom line is if the penalty for death is too great the game just isn't fun to play. I have the same issue with ironman mode that I have with limited saves.

 

Bollocks.

In PnP the penaly for death is permanent loss of character. Can't have a bigger penalty than that and people love playing.

 

However. There might be a way around this.

Let the player save whenever he wants.

HOWEVER - when he hits the "rest" bottun, the result becomes permanent (for that specific area) - if the monsters attack you, re-loading won't help you, as they will ALWAYS attack you no matter how many times you reload and rest on that location.

 

 

 

 

Just like anything along these lines . . . the second you try and punish or limit the people exploiting a system, the fallout still lands on the people that aren't exploiting it, in addition to the originally intended targets. I'm never a fan of any system that's going to punish or limit people that were never a problem, in order to take care of the ones who will inevitably find a way around any limitations you put in place anyways.

 

Bollcoks again.

The people that aren't exploiting it shoudl care because from their POV nothing should change.

[Volourn]

You should be able to save anywhere. This is soemthing that should be solely up to the player. If they feel the need to save before every convo just so they 'cheat' the system .

 

I personally don't want to replay the last half hour b/c of this crap. I want to get to actual new contact. If a beat an encounter I beat the encounter.

 

At best not allowing one to save in the middle of combat (or convo) is acceptable but still there is no need to dumb this stuff down or babysit the player. there's alreayd enough of that in games including PE.

[TrashMan]

It's not about babysitting hte player, it's about enforcing a specific atmospehre and mentality.

 

I'm quite sure that are people who were irritated that when playing Amensia, they didn't have a gun to shoot the monster. Adding a gun wouldn't improve the experience despite what many would say.

[moridin84]

All I'm hearing is that limiting saving is about all "punishing the player" and "making the player suffer".

 

I'll pass on that.

Edited October 7, 2012 by moridin84

[ogrezilla]

having to repeat content actively worsens the experience of the game.

Edited October 7, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Volourn]

"It's not about babysitting hte player, it's about enforcing a specific atmospehre and mentality."

 

It doesn't enforce anything except make me waste time replaying soemthing I already passed/beat.

 

If I beat an encounter I don't feel the need to beat it again. I also don't want to read the same dialogue multiple times just to get back to where I was. that's lame. That's not hardcore. That's just lame. It is so FFish and JRPGness. LAME.

 

It most certainly doesn't improve atmopshere. And, the only mentality I get from it laughing at the system lameness.

[ogrezilla]

it works when the attrition is designed to be a part of the challenge and fun of the game. That tends to not really be the point of tactical games.

[codexer]

So let me get this straight. Y'all who're against limiting saving want the ability to save in combat and dialogue? Or do you want a limited saving at just certain times, like for example outside of combat and dialogue?

 

For you in the first camp. I hope you realize that the combat can be portioned up into a series of random rolls of which you can come out on top in each case? In fact, playing optimally will be doing just that. This is obviously very bad design because the game becomes deterministic; the enemy will fail and you will succeed. Playing optimally will be tedious but valid inside the constraints of the game, i.e. without cheating.

 

If you're in the second camp then you've chosen some rules and limits to how and when saving should be allowed. Why are these limits and rules the right ones? Is it these rules that create the best RPG-experiance? Is the possibility to save before disarming a trap a good thing? I would say no. I would say that what we try to emulate with these games is the pen&paper RPG-experiance, and in it there is no save function at all. I don't like ironman as a default though. Because of game bugs and computer mishaps it's too much on the line to only have one save-file. I propose something that's in between. Not so often that you can exploit it, but often enough that you don't have to worry about losing every will to play the game when you have to reload. I propose something like a save every 30 min, in practice that might be two times per level of a dungeon.