The Powergaming Problem

[Hormalakh]

I'm sorry: I thought you meant that there should be only one "most efficient" build and multiple "efficient enough" builds. I was arguing that you should have multiple "most efficient" builds, not just one.C

 

Carry on.

[Adhin]

Said it countless times (including in this thread) the stuff they where talking about is about evening out XP distributions to broaden play styles. So all the figuring out the best, semi-cheese ways to deal with any given encounter? Absolutely 'nothing' to do with that, at all, and will ultimately probably always be there.

[Frisk]

If someone wants to play the game with an "optimized" character, doing maximum damage - fine....let him.

 

If someone wants to do a speed run, finising the game in as short time as possible - fine ... let him.

 

If someone wants to play the game with just a single char, no companions - fine ... let him.

 

If someone wants to play the game naked - fine ... let him.

 

Who cares? Why should anyone be concerned with how anyone else wants to play, as long as the player has fun doing things his (or her) way? Just provide some settings that allow players to adjust the difficulty level (and provide the modding community with the info it needs to offer more options). Then just let people have fun their way....it's as simple as that.

[Arkeus]

 

Who cares? Why should anyone be concerned with how anyone else wants to play, as long as the player has fun doing things his (or her) way? Just provide some settings that allow players to adjust the difficulty level (and provide the modding community with the info it needs to offer more options). Then just let people have fun their way....it's as simple as that.

No it isn't.

Because someone who wants to play a effective character that isn't cheese, e.g a semi-normal character that is of a preferred class, will always know that by picking, say, storm instead of haste, he is making his character much weaker, even if it make 'sense'.

 

By "letting players what they want to do", you are basically saying Any players that doesn't meta-game will always know that he is purposefully making his character weak.

 

And this is not something that most players like knowing, that they are making their characters weak.

[Gromnir]

Then just let people have fun their way....it's as simple as that.

 

the problem is those people don't necessarily have fun. again, the 2 most common complaints we has see for games is:

 

1) game were too easy

 

2) game were too difficult

 

same game usual gets loads of complaints 1 & 2.

 

let people do whatever they want to do does not mean you is increasing fun factor... 'cause people is stoopid. why has obsidian favoured point-buy v. rolling for stats in previous d&d games? why not just let people choose whatever starting stats they wish? these is games, so people wanna win. but the Win mentality is not a good in a game that is designed to be beatable by everybody.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps please understand that we do not personally care if somebody powergames themselves into boredom. how you play doesn't impact us at all. nevertheless, we understand why it is in the developer's best interest to consider ways to prevent powergame.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Gromnir

[rjshae]

I'm fairly sure that the Romans "power gamed" their way into owning an empire. Their tools and tactics were steadily optimized over time, and if something didn't work they changed it.

 

I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with building your character with the optimal set of skills to be an adventurer. But it is more fun when there are a number of different optimal paths, just like there are a number of different ways for a player to contribute to a winning sports team.

[Frisk]

ps please understand that we do not personally care if somebody powergames themselves into boredom. how you play doesn't impact us at all. nevertheless, we understand why it is in the developer's best interest to consider ways to prevent powergame.

 

I don't agree with that at all. I would say that it is in the developer's best interest to make a game that people enjoy. That's all.

 

If people enjoy "powergaming" (whatever they consider it to mean), let them.

 

If people think the game is too hard or too easy, then allow them to change the difficulty settings until the game is of appropriate difficulty for their taste.

 

Too many people seem to think that the purpose of playing a game is to "win" ... I completely disagree - the primary purpose is to enjoy the game...even if "winning" is meaningless. Consider PS:E (which is my favourite game of all times). Did you "win" the game - or did you just reach a satisfying, appropriate end, having a lot of fun in the process?

[Gromnir]

ps please understand that we do not personally care if somebody powergames themselves into boredom. how you play doesn't impact us at all. nevertheless, we understand why it is in the developer's best interest to consider ways to prevent powergame.

 

 

 

If people enjoy "powergaming" (whatever they consider it to mean), let them.

 

 

 

you can keep saying that, but perhaps you should try a different approach: ask self why developers keeps finding ways to prevent powergame. like it or not, and sometimes in spite o' what they say, developers put considerable effort into prevention o' powering through games. so, ask self the why question. developers has been doing for decades. they simply morons?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Tsuga C]

That foolish folks powergame themselves into boredom with a cRPG and then post their contempt for the "lack of challenge" offered by the game must make the developers want to slap the little dweebs silly. Honestly, kids, if you're looking to boost your self-esteem, try accomplishing something worthwhile in the real world instead of seeking a virtual b00bjob or peniz extension via Project: Eternity.

 

Note to developers: if you allow for multi-classing, please avoid front-loading any of the classes (e.g. D&D 3.X rangers with dual-wielding at level 1). Let 'em all ramp up gradually so as to eliminate the "one-and-done" syndrome so favored by the powergamers.

[Uomoz]

Do you guys believe BG was made to be powerplayed? I think not! But is a singleplayer game! "Efficient" builds should exist but hard to find\master. Like in BG, where they probably got it right: first playthrough you do not-efficient builds, 3-4th playthrough you master all the mechanics and "powerplay".

[Gromnir]

you can keep saying that, but perhaps you should try a different approach: ask self why developers keeps finding ways to prevent powergame. like it or not, and sometimes in spite o' what they say, developers put considerable effort into prevention o' powering through games. so, ask self the why question. developers has been doing for decades. they simply morons?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Name one game that focused on this issue other than online games where players compete each other? Powergaming exist in every RPG game. You are talking about situation in which some skill or set of skills give significant game breaking power. That's called bugs and should be avoided. But it has nothing to do with preventing powergaming.

 

huh? every game we has followed has seen developers concern selves with balance in favor o' powergame. harm from d&d 3.0 were not a bug, but it got nixed. why? heck, there were a particular amusing incident regarding kits and iwd2. josh offered up some potential kits that were quite balanced and creative. fans hated... not powerful enough. as a joke, josh offers an alternative... an avatar o' death. people didn't get the joke-- they loved the new-and-improved kit. were probable our favorite board moment o' the year.

 

...

 

is this your first rodeo?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Arkeus]

This is bullcrap.

If taking storm doesn't mean that the character will loose every other fight and if it's not essentially make the game unplayable than there is no problem in the game. The problem is in such gamer who is butthurt that somewhere there is a guy that created a character that deals 5 damage more and have a 3 points better armor class.

I don't care that the best damage dealing character would be dwarf with two-handed sword, because I like my dwarfs shielded and axed. I don't have trouble sleeping at night because it's not the best build. if I can successfully play it than it's no problem. If someone have inferiority problems because of a game, he shouldn't play he should see a shrink.

 

It's not about 'inferiority problems', it's that willfully taking an obviously inferior path never feels good. You might love Druids or dwarven fighters to the point that you will take them even if they are weak (i am that way with druids), but that doesn't mean that it's not annoying to willfully making your character weak.

 

Especially if you like overcoming challenges. In that case, if you can beat the game with a weak char in the hardest difficulty, you'll feel something is wrong with the game, and if you can't, well, you may feel you need to use a stronger char.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Arkeus

[Hassat Hunter]

To not gimp people who prefer talking and cheating.

That was supposed to read "talking and sneaking", not sure what happened there.

 

Aaaaanyways... all this talk of combat builds. About being weak. One might forget you can have a build made for conversation. For stealth. For crafting... but nope, all people here think about is the build good for combat.

Problem right there...

[Hormalakh]

I don't think everyone is using the same definition for powergaming, so I'm not going to bother with those arguments for or against PG.

 

Regardless, I do have to say: No specific class should ever be weak in and of itself. If it's a "weak class" they sohuldn't even bother with the development time. Why bother with all these extra classes and different options if they're inherently weak? What's the point? Making sure that character classes and options are balanced always makes for a good game.

 

Nor should there be a weak skill. If it's weak, as the devs have already said, they're not going to implement it. The best games always have balance...

Edited October 24, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Archmage Silver]

Munchkin Mode is a must-have. At least for the second playthrough.

 

Powergaming just adds flavor for those of us who want to partake in it.

[XenoReaper]

A couple of things to add to the discussion.

 

First off- the devs have already said there will be two separate skill trees (and separate points for each): One Combat tree, and one non-combat tree (with differences for each class, at least for the combat tree). So, yes, I think we should all expect a good deal of combat regardless of the build. We probably *won't* be able to just sneak through every dungeon or talk through each fight...

 

Second- plenty have said "Why bother? It's a single-player game!" but we're forgetting one important fact. This game is single-player only. That isn't necessarily going to be the case for future installments. With that said, though, I am not terribly concerned. If it turns out that there are some "superior" builds (or just plain broken ones) then perhaps those issues can be discovered and solutions can be devised for the expansion or even a PE sequel.

[Joukehainen]

Hey what's wrong with powergaming? I don't do it myself but have a couple friends who do, nothing wrong with that, it's their style.

 

As was said before me, as long as a game has variables and can be influenced by you, the player, there are going to be ways of "powergaming" or getting the most out with the least effort/time; or, conversely, spending oodles of time farming for some rare drop/train up some character / whathaveyou.

 

If people want to powergame, all power to them. Doesn't affect me other than maybe watching the occasional youtube video of some crazy accomplishment someone made.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Joukehainen

[Utukka]

This is bullcrap.

If taking storm doesn't mean that the character will loose every other fight and if it's not essentially make the game unplayable than there is no problem in the game. The problem is in such gamer who is butthurt that somewhere there is a guy that created a character that deals 5 damage more and have a 3 points better armor class.

I don't care that the best damage dealing character would be dwarf with two-handed sword, because I like my dwarfs shielded and axed. I don't have trouble sleeping at night because it's not the best build. if I can successfully play it than it's no problem. If someone have inferiority problems because of a game, he shouldn't play he should see a shrink.

 

It's not about 'inferiority problems', it's that willfully taking an obviously inferior path never feels good. You might love Druids or dwarven fighters to the point that you will take them even if they are weak (i am that way with druids), but that doesn't mean that it's not annoying to willfully making your character weak.

 

Especially if you like overcoming challenges. In that case, if you can beat the game with a weak char in the hardest difficulty, you'll feel something is wrong with the game, and if you can't, well, you may feel you need to use a stronger char.

 

He didn't say the build was weak, he just said it wasn't the most optimal. Big difference between a build that can't complete the game and a build struggling more than another. Sad to say, there will always be 1 build that is "the best" wether it's by a foot or a mile. The worst part is that developers tend to nerf rather than buff the weak.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Utukka

[Hassat Hunter]

The worst part is that developers tend to nerf rather than buff the weak.

A game a little harder is better than too easy because all classes get godlike powers to match an overpowered one.

[Utukka]

The worst part is that developers tend to nerf rather than buff the weak.

A game a little harder is better than too easy because all classes get godlike powers to match an overpowered one.

 

I agree but obviously it comes down to how "overpowered" and how "weak" we are talking. Look at d3 for example, few builds that dominate, handful that work, then a ton of worthless abilities.They have quite a bit of skills that you can easily look and see that they need buffed.

[Gatt9]

I don't think everyone is using the same definition for powergaming, so I'm not going to bother with those arguments for or against PG.

 

Regardless, I do have to say: No specific class should ever be weak in and of itself. If it's a "weak class" they sohuldn't even bother with the development time. Why bother with all these extra classes and different options if they're inherently weak? What's the point? Making sure that character classes and options are balanced always makes for a good game.

 

Nor should there be a weak skill. If it's weak, as the devs have already said, they're not going to implement it. The best games always have balance...

 

Actually, real balance is an undesirable state. Real balance means that everyone has an equal chance at everything, everyone does the same damage, etc. Real balance means everyone is equivalent. Which makes for an *incredibly* boring game.

 

The ideal situation is controlled imbalance, it's when people can excel at things through the choices they've made and manage something every other choice couldn't have done. But in aquiring that ability, a tradeoff was made that puts some other choice above them in other situations.

 

Mage vs Fighter is a good example. A Mage is ideally able to achieve a great variety of effects and intermittently deal a great deal more damage, but in exchange can absorb very little punishment and has finite resources. A Fighter is limited in the things he can do, but deals more consistent damage, has infinite resources, and can absorb large amounts of damage. Are they balanced? Never have been, but they're generally controlled imbalances until some later factor is introduces (Kensai) or some basic rules are not implemented (CRPG Rest Spamming because there's no restriction on resting).

 

As far as power-gaming goes, there's no way to eliminate it unless you implement a "Real balance" game system, which again is incredibly boring. Unless everyone is absolutely identical, every reward is absolutely identical, there's a way to Powergame.

[Gromnir]

I don't think everyone is using the same definition for powergaming, so I'm not going to bother with those arguments for or against PG.

 

Regardless, I do have to say: No specific class should ever be weak in and of itself. If it's a "weak class" they sohuldn't even bother with the development time. Why bother with all these extra classes and different options if they're inherently weak? What's the point? Making sure that character classes and options are balanced always makes for a good game.

 

Nor should there be a weak skill. If it's weak, as the devs have already said, they're not going to implement it. The best games always have balance...

 

Actually, real balance is an undesirable state. Real balance means that everyone has an equal chance at everything, everyone does the same damage, etc. Real balance means everyone is equivalent. Which makes for an *incredibly* boring game.

 

 

 

this is called strawman.

 

*shrug*

 

people, against their own advantage, want to win. if you, as a developer, provide a clear winning build, power or whatever, a disproportionate % of people will choose the win. such an eventuality is not good for numerous reasons discussed above.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hormalakh]

I don't think everyone is using the same definition for powergaming, so I'm not going to bother with those arguments for or against PG.

 

Regardless, I do have to say: No specific class should ever be weak in and of itself. If it's a "weak class" they sohuldn't even bother with the development time. Why bother with all these extra classes and different options if they're inherently weak? What's the point? Making sure that character classes and options are balanced always makes for a good game.

 

Nor should there be a weak skill. If it's weak, as the devs have already said, they're not going to implement it. The best games always have balance...

 

Actually, real balance is an undesirable state. Real balance means that everyone has an equal chance at everything, everyone does the same damage, etc. Real balance means everyone is equivalent. Which makes for an *incredibly* boring game.

 

The ideal situation is controlled imbalance, it's when people can excel at things through the choices they've made and manage something every other choice couldn't have done. But in aquiring that ability, a tradeoff was made that puts some other choice above them in other situations.

 

Mage vs Fighter is a good example. A Mage is ideally able to achieve a great variety of effects and intermittently deal a great deal more damage, but in exchange can absorb very little punishment and has finite resources. A Fighter is limited in the things he can do, but deals more consistent damage, has infinite resources, and can absorb large amounts of damage. Are they balanced? Never have been, but they're generally controlled imbalances until some later factor is introduces (Kensai) or some basic rules are not implemented (CRPG Rest Spamming because there's no restriction on resting).

 

As far as power-gaming goes, there's no way to eliminate it unless you implement a "Real balance" game system, which again is incredibly boring. Unless everyone is absolutely identical, every reward is absolutely identical, there's a way to Powergame.

 

Being identical doesn't equal "game balance". A balance is a metaphor used to describe two very different builds having equal viability and only losing viability due to player skill or knowledge of that build.

 

A good example is Starcraft 1 or 2. I know these aren't RPGs, but they are games renowned for their balance. There are three completely different races (zerg, protoss, terran) which all play completely differently (different builds), but each race has an approximately equal viability on each map. The difference between winning and losing doesn't come from an innate strength or weakness in the race, but rather the playstyle and strategy of the player.

 

My argument is that, by definition, an RPG is a game where different characters are created to journey into a world. These characters and builds are created by the player - within specific limitations created by the game developer. While there are some so-called "builds" that aren't strategic, a majority of character builds should be equal in viability (even though they may be different in play-style). Ultimately, it should be the player's skill that determines victory or loss, not a randomized variable. This equality in viability of different actual character builds is the definition of balance.

 

There is another aspect of balance and that has to do with player builds being balanced against the "gameworld" itself. This usually isn't a problem in RTS because the "gameworld" is ultimately another race/similarly balanced enemy. But in RPGs the gameworld is very different from the characters built at the beginning of the game. A player character that becomes so powerful so that there is no challenge left in the gameworld usually means that either 1) the player is at the endgame scenario 2) the player has surpassed the challenge rating for that particular area and is now enjoying the boons of his character's (and the players) hard work - thus you can completely destroy 100 of those enemies that kept giving you grief much earlier in the game- or 3) the player's character build is unbalanced against his enemies. #3 makes a game feel like a chore and is called "grinding." It might be fun for some people to kill innummerable numbers of extremely weak enemies for a short period of time, but the lack of challenge makes these games incredibly unsatisfying over long periods for most players. A game that has no challenge, isn't a game. It's a chore.

 

Balanced games make those games 1) fair and 2) rewarding when the player beats it. This is because the player knows that his/her victory was not a matter of chance but rather actual skill. Of course, there can be a partially random aspect to the game, but minimizing this is best.

 

This is all completely off-topic because none of this has to do with "power-gaming." Which brings me back to the previous comment that I made. People are using different definitions of power-gaming in this thread. If by power-gaming, we're talking about finding the best strategy towards a certain build, then I wouldn't even call that power-gaming, I'd call that strategizing. But clamoring that there should only be one character build in the game that destroys everything else without any strategy coming into play isn't powergaming, it's gaming the system. Why even give the option to players to make their own character's at that point? That isn't fun for any player. The challenge is no longer in the adventure of your created character build; the challenge (and ultimately the game) has become "can you figure out which singular build the devs were thinking you need for this particular game?" The adventure portion is just a simulator to see if you got the right answer.

 

Hope this makes sense. Sorry it was long.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I don't understand why people are comparing powergaming to cheating. Powergaming isn't cheating, it's just min-maxing and optimising your character. Doesn't everybody want the best out of their characters? I know I do.

[Gromnir]

huh? every game we has followed has seen developers concern selves with balance in favor o' powergame. harm from d&d 3.0 were not a bug, but it got nixed. why? heck, there were a particular amusing incident regarding kits and iwd2. josh offered up some potential kits that were quite balanced and creative. fans hated... not powerful enough. as a joke, josh offers an alternative... an avatar o' death. people didn't get the joke-- they loved the new-and-improved kit. were probable our favorite board moment o' the year.

 

...

 

is this your first rodeo?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Oh yeah, "every game" that's an excellent example. Yet all RPG games I played since the 90's have a clearly better builds and inferior ones. You still don't understand the different between "better" and "broken",

 

people, against their own advantage, want to win. if you, as a developer, provide a clear winning build, power or whatever, a disproportionate % of people will choose the win. such an eventuality is not good for numerous reasons discussed above.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

So basically you mean that everybody played IWD with the same party? Everybody made Kensai/Mage build for BG2? And everybody played sorcerer/barbarian/dragon disciple in NWN?

Newsflash for you, they did not. Regardless the fact that in case of power these were the best builds.

 

what is with you and the hyperbole and strawman?

 

1) the fact that you has played games with superior builds is NOT evidence of developers indifference to balance

 

duh. am not gonna explain this one 'cause it seems obvious.

 

2) hyperbole is ugly

 

nobody suggested that Everybody played kensai/mages in bg2... but there were quite a few, and no doubt more than there woulda' been if kensai/mages were better balanced. am sure that the ranger/cleric had all kinda role-play appeal, but the fact that you could dual-wield warhammers and cast all druid and cleric spells probable had more to do with its popularity. and yeah, there were any number o' stoopid bits o' nonsense from the nwn2 games. role-play were reason for so many folks taking falchion as their weapon choice? really? please.

 

am starting to seriously repeat self here, so please come up with something new. powergame has counter-intuitive result of making game less fun for many powergamers as it makes the game too easy. powergamers then do the wacky dance and complain 'bout ease of game. powergame also leads to disproportionate % o' players choosing perceived win builds. if all builds were better balanced, you would gets more replayability and you would gets people choosing for kewl 'stead of power.

 

ignore reality if you wish, but developers invariably claim to spend considerable time on balance might be better to ask self why they do so then to continue to pretend that no such balancing is occurring.

 

HA! Good Fun!