Level scaling and its misuse

[Valorian]

So now we're calling it "committing murders" and not "killing enemies".

 

I'd expect the developers to offer us an environment where we can choose our allies and enemies, and each choice is equally valid. In this context, yes, killing other sentient beings which could be our allies under different circumstances is murder.

 

So if it's not a sentient being then it's ok to give xp?

 

Now it's not about sociopathic behavior, but instead about the possibility of making allies? If we can't make an ally out of a sentient being then it's ok to murder it?

 

What about sentient beings that want to murder us and become red as soon as they see us? Is it ok to kill them and get xp for doing so? Or should we just run to the next map and pray to god they change their minds and become allies?

 

 

It's also not just the spiritual successor of the H&S-wank IWD series.

 

And guess what.. both games had kill XP. Yes, yes, even your beloved PST. Shocker!!

[aluminiumtrioxid]

So now we're calling it "committing murders" and not "killing enemies".

 

I'd expect the developers to offer us an environment where we can choose our allies and enemies, and each choice is equally valid. In this context, yes, killing other sentient beings which could be our allies under different circumstances is murder.

 

So if it's not a sentient being then it's ok to give xp?

 

Now it's not about sociopathic behavior, but instead about the possibility of making allies? If we can't make an ally out of a sentient being then it's ok to murder it?

 

What about sentient beings that want to murder us and become red as soon as they see us? Is it ok to kill them and get xp for doing so? Or should we just run to the next map and pray to god they change their minds and become allies?

 

I find your misguided attempts to undermine the moral foundation of my arguments really pointless, because they don't have one.

 

Also, just to kick the absurdity meter into overdrive territory, and stop pretending that this argument ever had a point: I find your example of red-colored enemies trying to murder us extremely offensive and racist! How dare you use an example where color is an indicator of a sentient being's disposition toward us?! Hurr durr!

 

It's also not just the spiritual successor of the H&S-wank IWD series.

 

And guess what.. both games had kill XP. Yes, yes, even your beloved PST. Shocker!!

 

And how is this an argument against objective-based xp?

Edited January 11, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valorian]

Edit: anyway, have you ever thought about how utterly absurd it is that we're arguing about the validity of a feature which will not be in the game, in a topic which has nothing to do with said feature?

 

Arguing about anything on a forum is absurd so I don't find this particular instance of absurdity any more absurd than the norm.

 

Also, it's fun to poke at degenerashoun from time to time.

[TRX850]

And we were so close to Stockholm Syndrome kicking in.

[Valorian]

I find your misguided attempts to undermine the moral foundation of my arguments really pointless, because they don't have one.

 

Right, they don't have one at all.

You're jumping like Super Mario from foundation to foundation and they keep failing, but now you've run out of foundations to jump on.

 

 

And how is this an argument against objective-based xp?

 

Don't know, ask yourself why did you mention a game that you liked a lot which had kill XP in an argument against kill XP.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Right, they don't have one at all.

You're jumping like Super Mario from foundation to foundation and they keep failing, but now you've run out of foundations to jump on.

 

Congratulations, you've managed to win an argument over the internet. +1500 XP for completing the objective

 

 

You're still treating this whole matter as if somehow the quality of the game would fundamentally depend on how the experience is handed out.

Edited January 11, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valorian]

Right, they don't have one at all.

You're jumping like Super Mario from foundation to foundation and they keep failing, but now you've run out of foundations to jump on.

 

Congratulations, you've managed to win an argument over the internet. +1500 XP. (You may decide whether it's for winning the encounter or completing the objective ).

 

 

You're still treating this whole matter as if somehow the quality of the game would fundamentally depend on how the experience is handed out.

 

Thank you for giving me xp, I appreciate it.

But that's not important, what is really important here is that I'm helping you. I'm helping you to let it out and finally feel free: "I HATE COMBAT! I HATE IT SO MUCH!!!"

 

*channels Oprah* I invite you and other people who are vehemently against combat xp to let it out, reapeat the quote, and embrace freedom of the mind and peace of the soul.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Thank you for giving me xp, I appreciate it.

But that's not important, what is really important here is that I'm helping you. I'm helping you to let it out and finally feel free: "I HATE COMBAT! I HATE IT SO MUCH!!!"

 

 

Wrong. I love combat. But the peaceful solution is more efficient in most games, and my expectations would be severely violated if it turned out that killing things was more profitable.

[Valorian]

Wrong. I love combat. But the peaceful solution is more efficient in most games, and my expectations would be severely violated if it turned out that killing things was more profitable.

 

Oh well, I wouldn't want you to feel violated...

[J.E. Sawyer]

Oh, ok. So you're going to punish players who make pacifist choices, because they will receive less cash and loot to sell.

No. Awarding loot is not systemic.

[PrimeJunta]

I <3 this thread.

[Viperswhip]

DAO did this very well, so did Planescape. You just get more powerful as you go along. Those were very story based games though, I don't know how this will work in Eternity.

 

In DAO there were some encounters you just couldn't really do, mostly optionals, if you hadn't leveled enough. It was less about the stats then the abilities you needed to get the encounter finished in a timely fashion.

[Helm]

Oh, ok. So you're going to punish players who make pacifist choices, because they will receive less cash and loot to sell.

No. Awarding loot is not systemic.

So loot is uncommon or what? In other words it is quest based and not quest and combat based? Which means that mobs only drop weapons and armor?

 

And what if someone sells all of the armor and weapons he finds on mobs? How will you try to balance out a pacifist's disadvantage in this case?

Edited January 11, 2013 by Helm

[Somna]

Oh, ok. So you're going to punish players who make pacifist choices, because they will receive less cash and loot to sell.

No. Awarding loot is not systemic.

So loot is uncommon or what? In other words it is quest based and not quest and combat based? Which means that mobs only drop weapons and armor?

 

And what if someone sells all of the armor and weapons he finds on mobs? How will you try to balance out a pacifist's disadvantage in this case?

 

You sound like you really need to read (or re-read) the information they've already released. That would probably trim half of your questions before you even post them.

 

Here's Marceror's thread stalking compliation on Sorcerer's Net. He also includes sources for things mentioned on other gaming sites/reddit/etc:

http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=58186

[Helm]

Oh, ok. So you're going to punish players who make pacifist choices, because they will receive less cash and loot to sell.

No. Awarding loot is not systemic.

So loot is uncommon or what? In other words it is quest based and not quest and combat based? Which means that mobs only drop weapons and armor?

 

And what if someone sells all of the armor and weapons he finds on mobs? How will you try to balance out a pacifist's disadvantage in this case?

 

You sound like you really need to read (or re-read) the information they've already released. That would probably trim half of your questions before you even post them.

 

Here's Marceror's thread stalking compliation on Sorcerer's Net. He also includes sources for things mentioned on other gaming sites/reddit/etc:

http://www.sorcerers...ead.php?t=58186

Oh, ok. Seeing you know every detail about the game then you can answer my questions in 2 sentences instead of the 3 that you just wrote.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Loot in IE games (and PE games) is typically hand-placed with very little randomization involved. I.e., it is not systemic. Some loot is in containers, some loot is given as quest rewards, and some loot is on creatures. Not all creatures carry loot. In Temple of Elemental Evil, on the fourth level of the temple, there's a massive fight before a room containing treasure chests with molds/jellies/puddings. You don't have to actually do the massive fight to get to the treasure chests (and if you're sneaky enough, you don't have to fight the critters near the chests). However, Hedrack, the high priest, carries several nice items. If you want to get those items, you have to weigh your own personal material cost to get through the fight against what you will get out of it. The important thing is that there's a decision to make. In terms of gaining loot, it's not a no-brainer.

 

Hacking terminals in Deus Ex: Human Revolution is pure benefit. Killing every hostile creature you detect in Icewind Dale is pure benefit. You always get something out of it and you are implicitly short-changing yourself when you pass up an opportunity to do so, even when you don't particularly want to do it for any other reason. That's because the rewards are systemic, universal to how the game works. You can systemically micro-reward every action the player performs and attempt to balance all of these things relative to each other, or you can back the systemic rewards out to something that is less specific, more abstract, and easier to balance overall. For us, quests are pure benefit. Completing objectives within quests are pure benefit. At a high level, pursuing objectives and completing quests comprise a huge amount of what you're focused on doing in the IE games (and will in PE as well).

 

E: Bonus picture of my halfling thief robbing the temple and avoiding the massive combat.

 

[Gfted1]

And what if someone sells all of the armor and weapons he finds on mobs? How will you try to balance out a pacifist's disadvantage in this case?

 

Two words: deep stash.

 

I kid, I kid. I cant even really remember which degenerative action is being removed by the advent of the deep stash.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Two words: deep stash.

 

I kid, I kid. I cant even really remember which degenerative action is being removed by the advent of the deep stash.

Players making five trips in and out of a dungeon after clearing it to haul all of the loot out.

[Lephys]

See, as much perfect sense as Josh's explanation makes up there, some people are still going to pretend this is merely a battle between two preferences: Enjoying the acquisition of XP for the act of killing, and enjoying not getting XP for the act of killing.

 

You can lead a horse to observable factors and effects, but you can't make it consider them. 8P

[Tsuga C]

Two words: deep stash.

 

I kid, I kid. I cant even really remember which degenerative action is being removed by the advent of the deep stash.

Players making five trips in and out of a dungeon after clearing it to haul all of the loot out.

 

The first thing I did in NWN2 was open the console and give my character 4 Bags of Holding. I absolutely despise pointless time sinks. My gaming time is invaluable and I have no problem whatsoever pretending that I made those five trips. I know Sylvius the Mad might argue with me on this point, but those five trips really don't do much for my roleplaying experience.

[Labadal]

No one ever played Vampire: Bloodlines - The Masquerade? I'm assuming exp will work in a similar way in Eternity, and I don't mind at all. I don't see what the problem is? They'll offer different ways to solve quests but want to give similar exp to different solutions. Let's not pretend that a lot of gamers don't powergame and go for the option that gives most exp. Not because it is the solution they actually want from a story perspective, but just to get the most exp out of the system. Let's say your about to make your way into a fortress. You either engage the guards and gain entrance. This grants you objective exp. But maybe another player wants to sneak in through a hidden back entrance. He'll also gain objective xp. I don't see what the problem is. I wouldn't automatically avoid combat just for gaining exp from the other option. If I make a character that can handle himself well in a fight, I will try to force my way through.

[Somna]

No one ever played Vampire: Bloodlines - The Masquerade? I'm assuming exp will work in a similar way in Eternity, and I don't mind at all. I don't see what the problem is? They'll offer different ways to solve quests but want to give similar exp to different solutions. Let's not pretend that a lot of gamers don't powergame and go for the option that gives most exp. Not because it is the solution they actually want from a story perspective, but just to get the most exp out of the system. Let's say your about to make your way into a fortress. You either engage the guards and gain entrance. This grants you objective exp. But maybe another player wants to sneak in through a hidden back entrance. He'll also gain objective xp. I don't see what the problem is. I wouldn't automatically avoid combat just for gaining exp from the other option. If I make a character that can handle himself well in a fight, I will try to force my way through.

 

There really isn't a problem. It's just a "Ew, DIFFERENT" reaction that people can have to something Pen and Paper campaigns can do all the time.

[Labadal]

No one ever played Vampire: Bloodlines - The Masquerade? I'm assuming exp will work in a similar way in Eternity, and I don't mind at all. I don't see what the problem is? They'll offer different ways to solve quests but want to give similar exp to different solutions. Let's not pretend that a lot of gamers don't powergame and go for the option that gives most exp. Not because it is the solution they actually want from a story perspective, but just to get the most exp out of the system. Let's say your about to make your way into a fortress. You either engage the guards and gain entrance. This grants you objective exp. But maybe another player wants to sneak in through a hidden back entrance. He'll also gain objective xp. I don't see what the problem is. I wouldn't automatically avoid combat just for gaining exp from the other option. If I make a character that can handle himself well in a fight, I will try to force my way through.

 

There really isn't a problem. It's just a "Ew, DIFFERENT" reaction that people can have to something Pen and Paper campaigns can do all the time.

 

I don't mind those systems either, but they are easy to abuse if one wants to. I finished my replay of PS:T today. Most of the exp came from solving quests. At the beginning of the game, thugs did give exp in fights, but the exp wasn't really a big deal. It wasn't even comparable to exp awarded from completed quests. I chose to fight in some quests, not because I thought it would grant me lots of exp, no, it was because I wanted to see how I would fare in those fights.

[Valorian]

But this is all excellent. I mean their goal to accommodate various play styles and roleplaying possibilities, right?

 

The first character I'm going to roleplay will be a sneaky orlan diplomat with a royal accent, elegant eyeglasses and a gun (just in case). He will sneak and talk past encounters, swiftly and painlessly, hoarding objective and exploration XP.

 

 

On the second playthrough I'll roleplay a barbarian elf. He will be of the "less talk, more action" type. He'll avoid boring people and their excruciatingly logorrheic speeches. Doing so, the elven barbarian will probably miss on lots of objective based xp.

He will excell at combat though and will kill enemies with passion and zeal. Unfortunately for him, he won't improve his combat skills by killing enemies... he will die asking himself "why?".

 

Do not worry though, my dear barbarian elf, even if you're likely going to be 5 levels below the sneaky orlan diplomat by the time you reach the first crit path special encounter - it's going to be fine: level scaling will abduct your enemies and replace them with rubber versions!

[Labadal]

But this is all excellent. I mean their goal to accommodate various play styles and roleplaying possibilities, right?

 

The first character I'm going to roleplay will be a sneaky orlan diplomat with a royal accent, elegant eyeglasses and a gun (just in case). He will sneak and talk past encounters, swiftly and painlessly, hoarding objective and exploration XP.

 

 

On the second playthrough I'll roleplay a barbarian elf. He will be of the "less talk, more action" type. He'll avoid boring people and their excruciatingly logorrheic speeches. Doing so, the elven barbarian will probably miss on lots of objective based xp.

He will excell at combat though and will kill enemies with passion and zeal. Unfortunately for him, he won't improve his combat skills by killing enemies... he will die asking himself "why?".

 

Do not worry though, my dear barbarian elf, even if you're likely going to be 5 levels below the sneaky orlan diplomat by the time you reach the first crit path special encounter - it's going to be fine: level scaling will abduct your enemies and replace them with rubber versions!

 

A big question mark appears over my head.

 

Killing enemies doesn't mean you won't get exp. A lot (most?) of objectives will most probably involve combat. Clearing that objective (fight your way into enemy territory or whatever) will grant you exp. I think some people here are being silly and obnoxious.