Experience Inequality

[teknoman2]

Then there should be more highest reward ends to a quest. But to reward someone who puts no effort in the game the same as someone actually tries to accomplish more is dumb.

i think you 're missing the point. if you reward something more, then you give incentive to the player to abbandon their chosen play style in favor of that extra reward. i play the cold merc that does anything for money, no questions asked. to stick to my chosen path, in your example i would just kill the target on sight. but if i know that i wil get rewarded more for playing Ghandi i would be very tempted do that... it is a form of roleplay to decide based on the size of the reward (my favorite in fact), but it's not who my character is in that particular playthrough. i should not get penalized by the game for playing that way.

besides why one option should be considered hard work and the other lazy? killing a guy in the middle of the street would invite all sorts of trouble. to kill him stealthilly in his house would take careful planning and patience. so killing one or the other would not be much easier than talking them into trusting each other... it would just take a different kind of skill set

Edited October 24, 2012 by teknoman2

[teknoman2]

i think you 're missing the point. if you reward something more, then you give incentive to the player to abbandon their chosen play style in favor of that extra reward. i play the cold merc that does anything for money, no questions asked. to stick to my chosen path, in your example i would just kill the target on sight. but if i know that i wil get rewarded more for playing Ghandi i would be very tempted do that... it is a form of roleplay to decide based on the size of the reward (my favorite in fact), but it's not who my character is in that particular playthrough. i should not get penalized by the game for playing that way.

besides why one option should be considered hard work and the other lazy? killing a guy in the middle of the street would invite all sorts of trouble. to kill him stealthilly in his house would take careful planning and patience. so killing one or the other would not be much easier than talking them into trusting each other... it would just take a different kind of skill set

 

So basically if someone rushes through the game skipping sidequests, because he plays an impatient guy that doesn't like to stride from choosen path, should have at the end the same amount of experience as someone that plays game thorough?! That's just stupid.

 

Even the mercenary can be stupid, killing a guy because someone said so, or smart, bargaining for better deal and choosing the better option for himself. Taking the easiest solution should be less rewarded than digging deeper in to the plot.

 

That's how every good RPG was designed. In fallout 2 you got the quest to deal with Gecko situation from president of Vault City. You could simply kill the ghoul or repair or destroy the reactor plant and even going deeper as to establish a beneficial connection between the two settlements. If those two approaches were rewarded the same amount of experience when one require actual thinking and the other just shooting stuff that would be beyond idiotic.

 

If someone likes to just kill everything and rush through the game that way, that's ok. But don't expect to get the same benefits as people who like to think and enjoy story, setting and sidequest, no way hose.

 

Even in PnP extra effort is awarded with more exp. And there is no excuse - but I play the idiot that doesn't know other words than quest, kill, yes, no in RPG. That's your choice and bear the consequences.

of course not. if the total amount of xp in the game is 200k, then 100k will be from the main quest and 100k from side quests. if you do not do any side quests, you will have 100k xp at the end of the game, with the level that comes from that amount.

the gecko example is poor. your reward for solving the quest given to you at vault city, was always the same no matter the way you solved it. if however you chose to solve it peacefully, you would get some more quests along the way and that increased your profit. that is different than saying "if i kill the guy they asked me to kill i get 1000xp, if i talk to him i get 2000xp". no matter how you solve the quest you must get 1000xp. what could happen if you talked to him and finished the quest in a peacefull maner, is that you could get another quest from the guy you spared, worth another 1000xp.

[Hassat Hunter]

Someone's been playing a certain Vampire: Bloodlines quest in Chinatown...

 

Which was also a good example of keeping XP gains simple, what with it's bugs and XP-exploits not being countable on 2 hands anymore...

[Rahkir]

Then there should be more highest reward ends to a quest. But to reward someone who puts no effort in the game the same as someone actually tries to accomplish more is dumb.

i think you 're missing the point. if you reward something more, then you give incentive to the player to abbandon their chosen play style in favor of that extra reward. i play the cold merc that does anything for money, no questions asked. to stick to my chosen path, in your example i would just kill the target on sight. but if i know that i wil get rewarded more for playing Ghandi i would be very tempted do that... it is a form of roleplay to decide based on the size of the reward (my favorite in fact), but it's not who my character is in that particular playthrough. i should not get penalized by the game for playing that way.

besides why one option should be considered hard work and the other lazy? killing a guy in the middle of the street would invite all sorts of trouble. to kill him stealthilly in his house would take careful planning and patience. so killing one or the other would not be much easier than talking them into trusting each other... it would just take a different kind of skill set

How would you know with absolute certainty which choice offers the best reward? Which path is the best for a powergamer? The only way I know is to check a walkthrough or use some external knowledge that would not have been available to the character you're roleplaying. That doesn't seem like roleplaying to me. And your character sticking to their beliefs even when there is an incentive not to makes them seem so much more real! Is your cold and ruthless mercernary really cold and ruthless if he would be warm and forgiving if it gave him a better reward?

 

Even if exp is all the same, I am 90% positive PE will offer varying rewards for different paths. Because the fact is, you're not going to get the same items or opportunities no matter what you do. Sometimes the goody-two-shoes diplomat is going to have a better skill set for the situation. Sometimes the cold, ruthless diplomat is going to have a better roleplaying vantage point. Sometimes diplomacy isn't even an applicable skill set. If you agree that certain skill sets will not be applicable everywhere, then you agree that they are of varying effectiveness in certain situations. This also applies to objectives where diplomacy is not completely irrelevant, but is not as good of a choice as violence. Some choices are better than others; it's a fact. Trying to design every objective with an equivalent method of solution for any number of skill sets would be near impossible. Sometimes diplomacy is better fit to solve a scenario. Sometimes violence is a better fit. Sometimes neither is a good fit and something else must be attempted. The key is to have a balance of different situation in which different characters shine. As some people have mentioned before, if all characters shine equally in all situations, it doesn't seem like they really shine at all. Being inadequate in certain situations highlights so much more those situations in which we are the embodiment of a virtue or skill. At least in a party-based game. If you are a solo protagonist in a non-team oriented game, designing an enjoyable experience is different.

[AGX-17]

Why shouldn't it? Objective, break into an enemy stronghold. You can stealth your way in, fast talk or bribe some guards, maybe even get through based on character affiliation with a specific faction or just overall fame, lastly maybe you just kill everyone who tries to stop you. No matter what you did you broke into the enemy stronghold, same objective, same exp

 

That implies all of the paths are linear from a to b. What if you literally can't just force your six man group into a well defended strong hold? You'll need to pursue other means (maybe by getting outside help, etc. then using force (like a trojan horse)). Or are you saying every single obstacle in the game should be directly solvable by combat, stealth and diplomacy? That is what I said leads to linear a to b design. Moreover diplomacy is going to be impossible at times. So will stealth. What if your opponent doesnt care what you say? What if someone breaks into your inn room and attacks you? Is the "stealth" solution to hide under the covers? What if there's a hostage situation and you can't save the hostage by brute force but you can by stealth/diplomacy (which may also require more time, thinking and planning); should you get the same reward either way?

That is; is the objective to save the hostage? If yes, combat would fail. Are there two different objectives? Save the hostage or exterminate the kidnappers, if so are they both of equivalent challenge and if not, should the reward be the same regardless?

 

One thing Obsidian has always said they're aiming for is viability of every possible build. Someone who invests entirely in combat shouldn't be punished and forced to start over any more than someone who invests entirely in charm and conversational abilities.

[Rahkir]

I'm not saying that they should; the ability to progress through the story is different than having every option unanimously always be the -most- viable. Meaning, there would be no most viable option, all options and paths would be equally viable. Maybe that's what you want, but to me, that takes some of the meaning out of choice. But I'm not the type to take the most viable path just because it is so; sometimes I like a challenge, especially if it fits with the character I'm playing.

 

Edit- and this still could be easily balanced so that different builds are most viable at different times. It's overall balance without every situation being a flat line.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Rahkir

[Hassat Hunter]

that takes some of the meaning out of choice.

Not really.

The choice is no longer bound to "getting more XP for doing X than Y", but rather how you get there, and what the results will be on the gameworld.

Also it will make sure that no choice is 'better' than the other. Which then wouldn't be much of a choice at all.

[Nomine Vacans]

Outcome should match effort. More complex (yet still rational) solutions should be revarded better than simplistic ones. Solving a problem and runing away from it is not the same.

[teknoman2]

Outcome should match effort. More complex (yet still rational) solutions should be revarded better than simplistic ones. Solving a problem and runing away from it is not the same.

i dont argue with that, but i think the best option is to have all paths available for solving a quest require an equal effort, with varying but balanced rewards based on the outcome, except for xp that will always be the same.

now if you are a dumb barbarian but you decide you want to solve a quest by talking, you have to save, try, fail, load, retry, reload and so on until you succeed. it takes more effort because you try to use skills on which you have not invested, should it pay more? if it did, a guy who invested heavily on his social skills, would breeze through the quest and get more than the guy who, having invested in combat, solves it with violence.

a barbarian, would not be able to talk 2 feuding families into making peace, so he would just kill one (easily since he is a war machine and they are civilians) and get paid by the other, getting 500xp. a silver tongued chanter however would be able to do it (easily if he has the skills) and would get also 500 xp. then the chanter would get a bonus quest because of what he did, that the barbarian would lose, gaining another 500xp. however the chanter would not get access to a certain dungeon where only a barbarian can enter and gain 500xp by clearing it. of course if you have a silver tongued barbarian, you can have access to both, however a barbarian who invested in social skills, will probably not have the combat skills needed to clear the dungeon

Edited October 25, 2012 by teknoman2

[Gatt9]

Outcome should match effort. More complex (yet still rational) solutions should be revarded better than simplistic ones. Solving a problem and runing away from it is not the same.

i dont argue with that, but i think the best option is to have all paths available for solving a quest require an equal effort, with varying but balanced rewards based on the outcome, except for xp that will always be the same.

now if you are a dumb barbarian but you decide you want to solve a quest by talking, you have to save, try, fail, load, retry, reload and so on until you succeed. it takes more effort because you try to use skills on which you have not invested, should it pay more? if it did, a guy who invested heavily on his social skills, would breeze through the quest and get more than the guy who, having invested in combat, solves it with violence.

a barbarian, would not be able to talk 2 feuding families into making peace, so he would just kill one (easily since he is a war machine and they are civilians) and get paid by the other, getting 500xp. a silver tongued chanter however would be able to do it (easily if he has the skills) and would get also 500 xp. then the chanter would get a bonus quest because of what he did, that the barbarian would lose, gaining another 500xp. however the chanter would not get access to a certain dungeon where only a barbarian can enter and gain 500xp by clearing it. of course if you have a silver tongued barbarian, you can have access to both, however a barbarian who invested in social skills, will probably not have the combat skills needed to clear the dungeon

 

You're on a slippery slope though, the next logical step forward would be "All rewards should be the same at all levels", for the very same reasons being used to justify making xp rewards the same.

[Pshaw]

I'm ok with some amount of inequity between combat and non-combat options so long as it's not a huge gap. If we're talking about a 25% difference in what is probably an encounter that would yield 10% or less of a level it's not enough to really invest tons of time in fine tuning. However you've got to give something to the stealth character who is skipping the majority of combat otherwise they won't be able to complete the game.

 

I'd really be more interested in them trying to balance out the number of 'good' and 'evil' side quests. I always feel that being a noble character yields more quests and being evil means skipping quests (content) entirely or completing the quests in a petulant fashion. Just being angry and impatient while helping an old lady find her cat doesn't really fit in to my idea of an evil character who would just not be inclined in anyway shape or form.