Solution for random chance events and reloads

[Hassat Hunter]

As for the "wastes dev time" argument, adding another column to a spreadsheet (randomly generated numbers at that) is not labor intensive.. don't know what else I can say about that.

While I don't exactly get how random number + DC mumbled to skillcheck match works... it still requires to spreadsheet every lock in the game. Which does also... take time.

 

While spreadsheeting might be more efficient for many things, I think for placing containers throughout the game a DC in the crate (or whatever)'s file itself with a default would be far less time consuming and convient for the developers.

[SGray]

it still requires to spreadsheet every lock in the game. Which does also... take time.

This. And not only locks, but difficulty class of every possible random-based action. Where and when all those numbers will be sored and generated exactly? At the game start? And carry all those numbers in a save with you through all the game? What if some content is added? Not at the start but, before entering the location? Save at the entrance, run to target, try, load. There are middle- decisions but all are equally bad and can be abused. And any of such systems would require creating lists, enumerating all possible difficulty classes for all actions.

Mentioned above XCom 2012 seed system was just as bad and abusive - move to adjacent square and retry, take action with another squadmate and retry again.

 

I'm in favor of static skill checks or fixed maximum random roll when not in battle. And ironman (one save, only for save and exit, diablo like) option for those who'll like it, which is already announced.

Edited November 15, 2012 by SGray

[anubite]

I'm not entirely sure how you would stop save scumming. The suggestion to "write/read to a file" all the time, even if it's not your save file, is a bad one. Loading from a file is a slow action and it's sure to be corrupted at some point. What's stopping me from not just reloading from my last save if I screw up some random encounter? If I screw it up, I'd rather not get the encounter at all, so I'll just reload it anyway. There's nothing stopping anyone from force quitting an application and stopping any autosave or post-save method you have.

[Kaz]

As for the "wastes dev time" argument, adding another column to a spreadsheet (randomly generated numbers at that) is not labor intensive.. don't know what else I can say about that.

While I don't exactly get how random number + DC mumbled to skillcheck match works... it still requires to spreadsheet every lock in the game. Which does also... take time.

 

While spreadsheeting might be more efficient for many things, I think for placing containers throughout the game a DC in the crate (or whatever)'s file itself with a default would be far less time consuming and convient for the developers.

 

Yes, this takes time. It's also work that will happen regardless of the suggestions I'm making in this post. Someone still has to go through and make decisions on difficulty for each check. And that data will have to be stored somewhere, with or without my proposed feature. Like I said above, to append a random attribute to a data set is not a big deal. Details like the format of data are trivial to me and I'd rather focus on how to take away the incentive to reload when faced with events based on chance. From a game design stand point, I think it's a good thing to aim to minimize behavior that disrupts flow and immersion. Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

I'm not entirely sure how you would stop save scumming. The suggestion to "write/read to a file" all the time, even if it's not your save file, is a bad one.

 

That is not what I'm suggesting. Please go over my initial post again.

 

 

What's stopping me from not just reloading from my last save if I screw up some random encounter?

 

My initial idea was talking about pre-designed events that include a random chance like picking locks, pick pocketing, speech based risks you take, etc. I hadn't considered the random elements that go into combat, but I'd agree there's not a whole lot stopping you from reloading if a battle turns bad. There's no way to eliminate save scumming, I'm aware of that, and it's also not my intention. What I'm trying to do here is throw out ideas to help minimize scenarios where players feel the need to reload in the first place. So in the combat example, I'd suggest adding more ways to retreat from battle. Smoke bomb, short term group invisibility, or whatever. Give a chance for players to learn from mistakes, or retreat after a series of horrible dice rolls while remaining in the game and without the need for a reload.

 

Edit: I can also see how the retreat mechanic could be abused to slowly chip away from the opponent's hit points. This needs to be a topic on it's own but as a crude solution "using an escape / retreat skill triggers enemy HP to regenerate" could work. Will give it more thought later.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Kaz

[Hassat Hunter]

There is a big difference between custom adding each crate to a spreadsheet, and having to store their access yes or no compared to simply placing a pre-generated crate with a difficulty modifier that can then be adjusted.

The same crate could, unaltered, even be used in several different locations (as many games like KOTOR2 do), a huge timesaver. I don't think your spreadsheet with having each container an unique hash to match up with the seed.

Unless of course you do also do cheap and make some basic layouts many containers use. But in that case, if that container is frequent, certain seeds may certainly be screwed.

Not a good gameplay design that.

Details like the format of data are trivial to me

They are however not when making a game with the size and depth of PE.

Then something like "1-10 gold containers using a re-used template" instead of each having a manually added entry to a spreadsheet makes a big difference.

and I'd rather focus on how to take away the incentive to reload when faced with events based on chance.

My opinion is still, why bother with that. Rather see why it's based on chance anyway, and then do something about that. Unless it's combat of course. That benefits from a good layer of random added to it.

It's like some people suggesting in other threads to not have the result of your actions be fixed, but random amongst a set amount of options. Would many opt to reload for the best solution if it's apparent? Probably.

Resulting conclusion being; why bother with that in the first place. Give more ways to solve the quest, with fixed solutions. People are then subjegated to what they have done. Rather than what the RNG tells they achieved.

[Teahive]

If you want to make die rolls persistent for every (non-combat) challenge you might as well assume that the skill check itself is fully deterministic when playing the game, but that the success threshold for each challenge has been randomised just once. Which is fairly easy to implement using just a single seed value in the savegame. In fact you could just assume that this randomisation has already been done by the designer.

 

In such a system you'd always know that if you fail a test, you'll fail it again unless you boost your skills. Which does have some advantages.

[TMTVL]

If anyone who wants to suggest something funky would first like to stop and think "would that take longer to code/design/...?" Don't forget we're on a one year budget.

 

I'm also getting flashbacks to playing Oblivion on my laptop where I had to carry 500 lockpicks with me 'cause I couldn't run the game properly and even an easy lock could take 10 lockpicks with my awesome lockpick machine character.

[Dream]

I'd say that's a balancing issue, not a fault of the system.

 

Who cares if a single player is balanced? Is the idea that someone somewhere is playing the game in a way you don't like such a painful idea to you that you feel the developer should force a certain (yours) play style on everyone?

 

Kensai/mage and Kensai/thief dual classes broke the **** out of BG2/ToB but I never played one and didn't particularly care that someone else chose to.

[marelooke]

Tbh it depends on the kind of events. I think this is exactly what they were aiming for in Alpha Protocol with the timed dialogues and savepoints, forcing a fast decision that you're then stuck with. Personally I hated it and I shelved the game over it (I like to think decisions through, especially dialogue responses, but that's another subject)

 

For other things it really depends, I've often found it annoying when things just depended on randomness, like lockpicking. I think it's fair game that if your thief cannot pick the lock and you try to force it there's a chance you'll break stuff in there. It still beats just not being able to access the chest in my book. But I dislike it when things stay random even if you have the skills for them.

 

Case in point, in BG2 you could fail at picking a lock, but if your thief had the skills to pick said lock you could try again and eventually succeed, you can argue that having to keep trying is annoying, but this I could live with. Now assuming my thief has a maxed out lockpicking skill and due to randomness he fails picking a low level lock I'd be mighty annoyed if that would lock me out of said chest forever. Now I would be way less annoyed if I knowingly tried to pick (or force) a lock I didn't have the skills for and I could get behind that locking you out of said chest forever in that playthrough. I have pretty much the same feeling about social skills, if you don't quite have the skills and you try and fail it should lock you out, but if you did invest enough in said skill you should just succeed.

 

Maybe I missed something and that's what you're aiming for, in which case I hope I at least clarified things for others reading the thread

[JOG]

Constant reloads and various techniques to make them happen faster were responsible for many broken savegames in various past games, unpatched BG2 was a good example as are all recent Bethsoft games.

 

For non-combat skill-checks, a better approach is IMO to reduce the need for reloads: when a failed pickpocket attempt leads to a conversation where you can feign an excuse or simply run away, there is less need for a reload than when a failed pickpocket attempt practically means game over because the whole town gets hostile. Or simply remove the random element, and have a minimum skill value at which an action will automatically succeed (see dialogue in FO:NV)

 

For combat, storing the random seed worked pretty well for me in Jagged Alliance, it forced you to try different tactics, instead of trying the same thing repeatedly until it finally worked. The game actually pre-rolled the next couple of skil-checks, so when you knew that the 3rd roll in that round would critically fail you could do something unimportant or even change your timing so that the opponents have that 3rd roll. But JA is mainly turn based combat; in a real time with pause system, there are so many variables you can't really pre-calculate every single action in combat, and even if you could it would be a very frustrating experience, when you know you're doomed to die exactly 10.45 seconds after loading this savegame.

Edited November 27, 2012 by JOG

[BetrayTheWorld]

I think I have an idea that could deter players from reloading over and over to get the best results in events based on chance. It's pretty simple, and I wouldn't be surprised if others have suggested this..

 

Once a player commits to a random event, the game globally stores and locks that variable for that specific play through.

 

For implementation this means assigning a unique ID to every new game you create, and making sure save games that branch from it inherits the same ID. You'll also need a file to store all of the random checks the player makes. With this system if the player fails or succeeds at any check, the event is recorded on a file independent from your save game and associated with the play through. Once you fail or succeed in a pickpocket check, the result will always be the same for that party on that particular check no matter how many times you reload.

 

Now, cheaters will always cheat, and this is by no means a way to secure that data. If someone really wanted to alter that file it would be a fairly easy task. No the point is to make the designer's intention more black and white for the player. It was never intended by the original designers to allow thieves with 15% pickpocket to steal plate mail by reloading a bunch. But because it was possible using only legitimate features like "load game" it allowed for a lot of gray area.

 

This system still leaves room for the player to reload if there's a negative result and avoid the check altogether, but it prevents him from reloading until there's a positive one.

 

No.

 

If you don't like reloading when something goes wrong, then don't. Others don't have time to play through a game more than once or twice. Some people would prefer to have the experience they're looking for the first time through. I don't think there is any logical reason to stop them from being able to do that. If this was an "optional only" setting that you could select at the beginning of the game to keep yourself from yielding to temptation, I would support it. However, barring that, see the first word of my post.

[Umberlin]

Or you could just not reload your game, and save Obsidian the time developing features specifically for people who are stangely paranoid about how others play, save and reload their single-player games that have absolutely no effect on you.

 

This is simple, you have will power, use it. There is no need for anything else, because anything else can be subverted just as easily, put up a wall and the people that really wanted to get over the wall will still find a way. Meanwhile, the people that were always going to play legitimately in the first place, will play legitimately whether there is a wall or not. As for the people with no self control, well, that's simple too. I don't care about people with no self control, unless their particular brand of no self control is the sort that leads to actual real life violence . . . we have a nice prison system to take care of 'those' ones though.

 

Short answer: "Learn self control, get your nose out of other people's approach to their single-player hobby."

 

We have multiple modes of play, already, for people that want different modes of play. Play in the mode that suits you. Get over what other people do.

[jivex5k]

^^^^ That guy gets it.

 

Edited post since my point's already been made.

Edited November 27, 2012 by jivex5k

[Kaz]

@BetrayTheWorld I'm totally open to this being an option you can enable.

 

Or you could just not reload your game, and save Obsidian the time developing features specifically for people who are stangely paranoid about how others play, save and reload their single-player games that have absolutely no effect on you.

You may draw any conclusion you wish, but the intent of this thread was to talk about ways to minimize cases where reloading is advantageous to the player, not about governing someone else's play-style or preference. That's a rather silly assumption.

 

The proposed idea does not affect the majority of players who accept the initial check / roll and move on. The only change you'd notice is the fact that results of random checks remain consistent between reloads. Regardless of this being a single player role playing game, or nebulous things like will power, I just see a loophole in a game and throwing out ideas to patch it in a non intrusive way. What is the issue with that? And specifically what is your play-style you insist on protecting and how am I impeding on it? Help me out so I can understand where you're coming from.

 

Some people would prefer to have the experience they're looking for the first time through.

As BetrayTheWorld pointed out, some people don't have time for multiple play-throughs and would rather experience as much content as they can in the initial run. I think that's totally valid, but if that was your stance it would make more sense to close the loophole and ask for an option to always roll the maximum on checks. (in effect weeding out random chance and treating checks as static thresholds) It would save you the time reloading until you got your desired result.

 

I'll skip the "rather have devs spend time elsewhere" argument as I've stated my opinion on that a few times already. Hint: it doesn't take much.

 

Short answer: "Learn self control, get your nose out of other people's approach to their single-player hobby."

 

I see this type of argument a lot, and it's rather weak. You're basically at the voting station telling people to stop voting because they disagree with your views. Users here have every right to voice their opinions, it's what this forum is for. Counter arguments are great, suppression of ideas gets us nowhere. Relax, it's not like any of us have a final say on the matter anyway.

[Heresiarch]

Actually, I am all for pre-generated "random" stuff as long as it does not screw you up too bad. There should be a balance between good and bad events.

 

Answering the question about self-control and envy for other players, that's not it. I don't care if other player cheat or even butter up their DVD and eat it for breakfast. But I do want to be unable to change certain things with save/load scamming. First, because it's inherently broken as a by-product of the whole save/load mechanic. Second, as a player I want to know that something (not explicitly scripted) is actually beyond my control. So if something bad happens, it doesn't mean that I (as a player, not as a character) screwed up and have to suffer the consequences for being such an idiot. It's just that **** happens and life is a bitch even in video games.

 

Think about how your apprentices in Planar Sphere could fail a dangerous project badly. So you could take a greater risk for a greater reward. Now, if you just stay in the sphere the whole time, wait until they are done, and save/load unless you get exactly what you want, it kinda kills the experience. The mere possibility of doing it does, actually. So I would say pre-generated random events are a great idea whether an optional feature or not.

[Nerei]

Actually, I am all for pre-generated "random" stuff as long as it does not screw you up too bad. There should be a balance between good and bad events.

 

Answering the question about self-control and envy for other players, that's not it. I don't care if other player cheat or even butter up their DVD and eat it for breakfast. But I do want to be unable to change certain things with save/load scamming. First, because it's inherently broken as a by-product of the whole save/load mechanic. Second, as a player I want to know that something (not explicitly scripted) is actually beyond my control. So if something bad happens, it doesn't mean that I (as a player, not as a character) screwed up and have to suffer the consequences for being such an idiot. It's just that **** happens and life is a bitch even in video games.

 

Think about how your apprentices in Planar Sphere could fail a dangerous project badly. So you could take a greater risk for a greater reward. Now, if you just stay in the sphere the whole time, wait until they are done, and save/load unless you get exactly what you want, it kinda kills the experience. The mere possibility of doing it does, actually. So I would say pre-generated random events are a great idea whether an optional feature or not.

 

That is probably solved just as easily with the trial of iron (ironman) difficulty option that is already going to be included, unless you copy your savegame you pretty much have to accept all results you get there.

[Lephys]

When I read the thread title, and started out at the beginning, reading though, I misunderstood the OP and thought this was referring to random factors during quests and random event encounters and such.

 

Now, having read through a good bit, I have to say that I think worrying with anything involving skill checks is just-plain not worth it. I don't see how randomizing the difficulties of locks and pickpocketing attempts on NPCs really gains the player much at all, so I don't see the need to lock those in to prevent reloading to "re-roll" that factor. That would actually encourage MORE re-rolling. Because you'd get to a dilapidated barn door with a lock that some child hand-crafted, and you'd be asking yourself "Why is this thing's difficulty check over 9,000?!"

 

However, when it comes to random events and happenings around you(i.e. some random thief shows up and pickpockets you, and you've got to chase him down, but it could happen at any point in the game while you're in a town), I think that, assuming Obsidian decides to implement such things and has a good reason for doing so, such things should be locked. It's kind of silly to be able to reload your save from 10 seconds ago and basically "skip" the random event, then do this every single time it comes up throughout the entire playthrough, so that you effectively never have to partake in any of these random events. A system that would determine that thief-guy is going to show up the next time you enter a town or something would be easy and effective, since you wouldn't know how far back you'd need to reload to hit before that roll occurred and was stored. Meanwhile, the rest of the game is unaffected, and you can reload to get your 45 lockpicks back in your inventory to your heart's content.

 

If random events are intentional, then causing the game to re-roll until they don't occur or until you get your preferred outcome would technically be a bug. Determining the roll that causes the event to trigger more than 5 seconds before it triggers would tackle it nicely. But, again, it really depends on the intended design of the game.

[Kaz]

@Lephys

Just to clear things up a bit, this idea simply locks the result of a check. The difficulty levels will be designed by the devs and won't be randomized. (unless of course they choose to do so)

 

Here's an example. After considering your thieving skill including any buffs etc. and the difficulty level of the lock it is determined that you have a 70% chance in succeeding to pick a certain lock. You go ahead and attempt to pick it. The game rolls a number between 0-100 and produces 20. Sad panda face. (You needed to roll 30 or greater to unlock a 70% lock) The game then saves the number you rolled(20) and remembers it for the entire play-through. That's the part what this whole thread is about. So trying the same lock after any amount of reloading will always produce the roll of 20. You could also return to this lock at a later time when your skills have improved or have better gear, and attempt it again. This time let's say because your skills have improved you have a 90% chance to crack it (needs a roll of 10 or greater). Your initial rather sucky roll is now sufficient to open the lock. Hooray~!

I'm not entirely sure whether improvement in skill should grant a new roll or not. From a role playing standpoint it seems like it should re-roll once a character attempts the check with his/her new found skills. Those are minor details though.

[Dream]

@BetrayTheWorld I'm totally open to this being an option you can enable.

 

Or you could just not reload your game, and save Obsidian the time developing features specifically for people who are stangely paranoid about how others play, save and reload their single-player games that have absolutely no effect on you.

You may draw any conclusion you wish, but the intent of this thread was to talk about ways to minimize cases where reloading is advantageous to the player, not about governing someone else's play-style or preference. That's a rather silly assumption.

 

Those are literally the same things. You want to minimize cases where reloading is advantageous to the player because you don't like how said player plays the game.

[Kaz]

@Dream Oh you again Welcome back. And how exactly is said player playing the game? Supposedly not reloading - right? And how does locking check results affect play styles like that?

 

*drum roll*

 

They don't.

[Dream]

@Dream Oh you again Welcome back. And how exactly is said player playing the game? Supposedly not reloading - right? And how does locking check results affect play styles like that?

 

*drum roll*

 

They don't.

 

What?

 

He is playing the game by reloading; that's the point.

[Kaz]

@Dream I've actually asked what his play-style was in regard to this in a post earlier and still waiting a reply.

It's interesting how you know the gaming habits of this forum member, where has he stated he reloads for these things?

[Dream]

@Dream I've actually asked what his play-style was in regard to this in a post earlier and still waiting a reply.

It's interesting how you know the gaming habits of this forum member, where has he stated he reloads for these things?

 

I don't even understand what you're trying to argue here. I replied to you stating that this thread is not about you wanting to force your play style on others and how that was bull****, or are you implying that there is no one who's play style includes reloading constantly until you get a successful skill check? I'll tell you right now: there are people who play like that; hell, I play like that.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Dream

[limith]

It's a single player game. Make no-reloads for ironman mode. But that aside, I don't support hurdles to reloading.

[Umberlin]

You may draw any conclusion you wish, but the intent of this thread was to talk about ways to minimize cases where reloading is advantageous to the player, not about governing someone else's play-style or preference.

 

Put it how you want it still comes down to the same thing, governing how people, who have no effect on your game, play. The result? The result is still the same. People, who were going to abuse the system, will either find a way around your solution, or find another way to get way they want. Meanwhile, the people that were going to play legitimately all along, were going to play legitimately regardless of what you suggested.

 

As for the no will power people, I don't care, because they need to learn basic self control.

 

I just see a loophole

 

I see a fairly basic, tried and true, save and reload system, meant for a game with different modes for different player types of different skill levels already implemented, with no need for your solution. There are modes, like the ironman mode, for people that want a different system. There is no need for further solution.Think about people besides yourself for five seconds, and realize that there are countless people out there, all with real lives and responsibilities of all sorts, and they don't need you playing mommy or daddy for them while taking part in their single player, spare time, no stress, hobby that has absolutely no effect on you.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Umberlin