Level scaling and its misuse

[Valorian]

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.

 

My barbarian elf mostly avoids other people's "objectives". He's kind of a fantasy anarchist.

 

I agree with you about people being a bit silly. I don't know about obnoxious though (you sound kind of mad?), I find the word "sheep" more appropriate.

[Labadal]

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.

 

My barbarian elf mostly avoids other people's "objectives". He's kind of a fantasy anarchist.

 

I agree with you about people being a bit silly. I don't know about obnoxious though (you sound kind of mad?), I find the word "sheep" more appropriate.

 

My post wasn't aimed at you personally(I know I quoted you) even if I found it a bit silly (not obnoxious). I'm not saying everyone has to like this approach and some people argument about their viewpoint in a good way. However, there are some pisters in here that are acting in a very childish manner. I like it when people chip in with their opinions, but there are good ways and bad ways to do it.

[Lephys]

Unless you're suggesting that there's no way they could not have arbitrarily stationed enemies strewn about the landscape, Valorian, then how does killing things not complete any other objective, which COULD (and often will) have an alternative means of completion?

[Gfted1]

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.

 

People actually do that? Make numerous trips in and out to loot every common bauble? I usually just replace whatever was the least valuable object in my bags with whatever more valuable thing I just found. Im not 100% clear how having an inaccessible portion of your pack prevents that.

 

So then I assume loot decays after a some time?

[Labadal]

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.

 

People actually do that? Make numerous trips in and out to loot every common bauble? I usually just replace whatever was the least valuable object in my bags with whatever more valuable thing I just found. Im not 100% clear how having an inaccessible portion of your pack prevents that.

 

So then I assume loot decays after a some time?

 

You'd be surprised how many people do that. I used to do the same thing. I can't be bothered doing that now, but some years ago? Loot it all, no matter how many trips it took.

[rjshae]

People actually do that? Make numerous trips in and out to loot every common bauble? I usually just replace whatever was the least valuable object in my bags with whatever more valuable thing I just found. Im not 100% clear how having an inaccessible portion of your pack prevents that.

 

So then I assume loot decays after a some time?

 

You'd be surprised how many people do that. I used to do the same thing. I can't be bothered doing that now, but some years ago? Loot it all, no matter how many trips it took.

I usually only did that when I was short on cash and the loot consisted of pricy but heavy objects like plate mail or longbows. But you could rack up quite a bit that way in the old gold-box games, what with enemies all equipped with magic armor and weapons.

[Valorian]

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.

 

My barbarian elf mostly avoids other people's "objectives". He's kind of a fantasy anarchist.

 

I agree with you about people being a bit silly. I don't know about obnoxious though (you sound kind of mad?), I find the word "sheep" more appropriate.

 

However, there are some pisters in here that are acting in a very childish manner.

 

I agree, but you have to understand that a sheep is childish by its nature.

 

For instance, when sheep see their shepherd it's a moment of immense pleasure, a sort of self-induced nirvana mixed with hysteria. I certainly see how you could associate such behavior with a human child, but do not confuse sheep and children.

 

A sheep loves the shepherd and fears him at the same time. If sheep could express their love for the shepherd, they would; abundantly. To make a mundane example.. if sheep had a like button for their shepherd, they'd press it furiously and repeatedly as soon as the shepherd appears or shows them a finger.

 

 

Oh hi there, Lephys. You were asking something about how and why would my barbarian elf lose lots of xp when avoiding extensive conversations with people? Dunno, maybe a peasant could ask him to bring back his cat? That's called an 'objective', right?

[Lephys]

Oh hi there, Lephys. You were asking something about how and why would my barbarian elf lose lots of xp when avoiding extensive conversations with people? Dunno, maybe a peasant could ask him to bring back his cat? That's called an 'objective', right?

 

I actually asked how killing something wouldn't constitute the completion of an objective, as you inferred that offering exp gain for the completion of objectives instead of per kill would cause problems for people who would rather kill things than not-kill things in order to accomplish some goal. I asked how they were mutually exclusive (as this is the only possible way in which someone would be incapable of both killing things AND still gaining experience). But, good hustle.

 

To answer your question, No. It's actually simply called an objective without any quotation marks or apostrophes, since it actually meets the definition of the word "objective" rather than only mistakenly or allegedly doing so.

 

How, exactly, is the situation of your barbarian elf "losing lots of xp" because he didn't feel like finding the peasant cat ANY DIFFERENT than in dozens of existing games that DO reward kills with xp? Either way, he's "losing" the XP from content that he chose not to tackle. Unless of course you're suggesting that all objectives should involve combat, or all XP gain should come only from combat?

 

As always, I await your extremely reasonable response involving both the ultra-productive statement of my ignorance (despite the fact that I'm actually just asking you a question, rather than even claiming to know something absolutely) and the ferociously constructive dodging of my question anyway. ^_^

[Hormalakh]

Man this thread is just obnoxious... *continues to eat popcorn*

[Valorian]

Oh hi there, Lephys. You were asking something about how and why would my barbarian elf lose lots of xp when avoiding extensive conversations with people? Dunno, maybe a peasant could ask him to bring back his cat? That's called an 'objective', right?

 

 

I actually asked how killing something wouldn't constitute the completion of an objective

 

Killing hostile creatures obviously doesn't constitute the completion of an objective in itself, since if it did... then you'd get xp directly for completing said objctive of killing hostile creatures.

 

How, exactly, is the situation of your barbarian elf "losing lots of xp" because he didn't feel like finding the peasant cat ANY DIFFERENT than in dozens of existing games that DO reward kills with xp?

 

Precisely because... surprise, surprise... in those games you do get xp for killing enemies. And it's not a marginal amount of xp. You can do just fine without rescuing cats.

 

[Lephys]

Killing hostile creatures obviously doesn't constitute the completion of an objective in itself, since if it did... then you'd get xp directly for completing said objctive of killing hostile creatures.

 

It sure doesn't. But killing hostile creatures is often a step in the process of completing an objective. You killed hostile creatures to complete an objective, and you got XP for the completion of that objective, therefore you gained XP for killing hostile creatures.

 

Precisely because... surprise, surprise... in those games you do get xp for killing enemies. And it's not a marginal amount of xp. You can do just fine without rescuing cats.

 

So, let me get this straight... either the mere act of killing enemies must immediately grant XP, OR killing must in no way ever be even remotely affiliated with the gain of XP? Your barbarian who likes to kill will never ever be able to gain XP unless he tracks down cats (which can never be in any danger from hostile creatures) and eloquently parleys with nobles and sneaks past hostile enemies (which, again, either don't exist or pose absolutely no threat whatsoever, or cannot be engaged in combat)?

 

Because, surprise surprise! That's the only way your concern isn't moot.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Lephys

[Valorian]

Killing hostile creatures obviously doesn't constitute the completion of an objective in itself, since if it did... then you'd get xp directly for completing said objctive of killing hostile creatures.

 

It sure doesn't. But killing hostile creatures is often a step in the process of completing an objective. You killed hostile creatures to complete an objective, and you got XP for the completion of that objective, therefore you gained XP for killing hostile creatures.

 

 

 

How . many . times . will . I . have . to . spell . it . out . for . you . ?

 

A - step. Some - times. Only - a - step. It's the key part. Concentrate. You still have to bring the cat back and talk to the peasant. You still have to free the maiden. You still have to unlock the door and find the lost underpants.

If only objectives grant xp, and if my character doesn't engage in completing said artificial 'objectives', he will end up underleveled.

 

So, let me get this straight... either the mere act of killing enemies must immediately grant XP, OR killing must in no way ever be even remotely affiliated with the gain of XP? Your barbarian who likes to kill will never ever be able to gain XP unless he tracks down cats (which can never be in any danger from hostile creatures) and eloquently parleys with nobles and sneaks past hostile enemies (which, again, either don't exist or pose absolutely no threat whatsoever, or cannot be engaged in combat)?

 

Because, surprise surprise! That's the only way your concern isn't moot.

 

.. I thought I was clear enough, but maybe I wasn't since you continue with your obtuse mantra.

 

If the act of killing things that are out there for your blood grants xp, it should grant it immediately, and not when I find the lost cat, underpants or maiden. Because the barbarian elf is not interested in finding a lost cat, underpants and freeing the maiden.

 

Barbarian elf enters an area. Slays dozens of giants. Doesn't find the cat/elephant/Waldo. Gets 0 xp.

...

 

 

I have to say that I'm deeply sorry for offending sheep with an unfortunate comparison I made before. To all sheep out there: forgive me!

[Lephys]

How . many . times . will . I . have . to . spell . it . out . for . you . ?

 

Ehh, well, this is actually the first time you've "Spelled it out" for me. You simply stated something before without explanation. Which is why I asked for explanation, in case it was something I didn't think of or wasn't aware of, instead of just telling you you're wrong. It's exactly the same reason I ask questions like "Is this not the case?", etc. Also, I'm not sure dropping periods like birdseed in the park really has anything to do with spelling something out. *shrug*

 

A - step. Some - times. Only - a - step. It's the key part. Concentrate. You still have to bring the cat back and talk to the peasant. You still have to free the maiden. You still have to unlock the door and find the lost underpants.

 

Ohhhhh, I'm sorry. I was so far off before. I've figured out the flaws in my thinking. The act of killing enemies is only a step. Step one for completing an objective: launching the game EXE. Step two: Clicking on the menu to load or being a game. Step three...

 

Seriously, man. How ridiculously technical do you need to get with this? If Goblins have carried the maiden into a cave, and they're about to sacrifice/eat her, and you run in and slaughter them, apparently she's still not "freed." I mean, she's still got all that vicious cave air between you and her, maybe even a lethal rope! Only the players who enjoy the super huge additional "step" of moving their party 10 feet and interacting with the maiden are going to get XP. But what about the poor, poor barbarian elf who wants to slaughter everyone in the room, but could care less about his moving-10-feet-across-the-cave-room-and-interacting-with-the-maiden skill? Oh, man, he's totally screwed. ALL he did was kill the Goblins that were the only thing keeping the maiden from carrying on life in a free, non-captive manner, but he's got to go through allllll that trouble of ACTUALLY freeing her.

 

Oh, wait, wait. I just found a problem. You see, the person who uses stealth to sneak PAST the enemies hasn't ACTUALLY looted the chest yet. Man, you're right. This system is terrible! Code blue, Obsidian! CODE BLUE! You're actually only awarding XP to the people who... *gasp*... perform more than one step towards a given objective! How dare you require us to interact with chests and engage in dialogue with maidens! Gyah! The nerve of these people... u_u

 

If the act of killing things that are out there for your blood grants xp, it should grant it immediately, and not when I find the lost cat, underpants or maiden. Because the barbarian elf is not interested in finding a lost cat, underpants and freeing the maiden.

 

Barbarian elf enters an area. Slays dozens of giants. Doesn't find the cat/elephant/Waldo. Gets 0 xp.

...

 

Once again, you are unimaginably overflowing with absolute truth. The only possible objectives are those that killing enemies does not directly achieve. It is 100% impossible for the only obstacle between your group and the cat/maiden/underpants to be a group of enemies that needs a-killin'. I don't know why I keep thinking such silly things are possible. I mean, it's not like there are any examples of such things, like "prevent the Bandits from taking over the city." "Oh, you've killed all the Bandits because you love combat so much and not because you care about preventing them from taking over the city! Oh, but look, dead Bandits simply can't take over a city!"

 

That's just... preposterous. That's gotta be like the only existing example of anything even REMOTELY close to possible (even though it's still completely impossible).

 

Everything I know is false, and every character of text typed by your hands is another step on the road to enlightenment. 8D

 

*Cannot contain his anticipation*

Edited January 12, 2013 by Lephys

[aluminiumtrioxid]

If only objectives grant xp, and if my character doesn't engage in completing said artificial 'objectives', he will end up underleveled.

 

 

Which is a consequence to your choice of playing the game inefficiently (through the power of roleplaying, but still - would the concern of "my character is a pacifist, so in the first mandatory fight he can't fight, thus the concept of mandatory fights is inherently wrong, because it hinders my ability to play a pacifist" be valid?).

Edited January 12, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[PrimeJunta]

:raises hand:

 

Teacher! Teacher! I thought the point of playing a computer role-playing game was to complete quests? Wouldn't "not engaging in completing ... artificial 'objectives'" and then complaining about being underleveled be a bit like complaining about not winning any races in a racing game because you think it's more fun to drive around the track in the opposite direction?

 

:re-lurk:

 

(This thread is full of epic.)

[Valorian]

Oh, look. My little, but fervorous fan club has gathered. Whassup kids?

 

There, there, I see you have some small issues with learning new things. No problem. If you can't learn it using logic, you'll have to learn it by heart. So let's start with the basic premise, please repeat it after me:

 

Barbarian elf enters an area. Slays dozens of giants. Doesn't find the cat/elephant/Waldo. Gets 0 xp. His combat skills do not improve, at all.

Barbarian elf enters the same area after a month. Finds cat/elephant/Waldo. Gets 1000 xp. His combat skills miraculously improve.

Game has tactical and intense combat encounters all over the place.

 

 

And keep repeating it for about 16 months, every time you refresh our beloved Obsidian forum pages. Maybe you'll get it just in time.

[PrimeJunta]

Oh, so you're saying it's not realistic? :innocent look:

[TRX850]

Oh, so you're saying it's not realistic? :innocent look:

 

I think he's saying it's a misuse of level scaling. Maybe we should start a forum topic?

 

No wait!

[Valorian]

Oh, so you're saying it's not realistic?

 

Senseless.

[PrimeJunta]

You know, Val, I just thought of something. I gather you'd prefer a system where your abilities improve as you use them -- for example, your barbarian's fighting skills improve by fighting. I've heard there's a somewhat obscure computer role-playing game franchise where it works exactly like this: your block skill improves by practicing blocking, your jumping skill improves by practicing jumping, your sword skill improves by hitting things with a sword, and so on. In fact this is just about the only way you can improve these skills in it.

 

What's more, there's no limitation to where you can go, enemies respawn so you'll never run out, and pretty much any character can do anything. Why don't you give it a whirl? I can't quite recall the name at the moment, though. Older Books, or something like that. Ask around, I'm sure somebody else does though.

[Valorian]

Valorian: 'XP for kills'.

: You want 'learn by doing'.

 

No.

[PrimeJunta]

Valorian: 'XP for kills'.

: You want 'learn by doing'.

 

No.

 

Okay. So you want XP for killing things because your elf chick's combat abilities should go up when she has practice killing things, but you don't want your elf chick's shield block ability to go up when she practices blocking things with a shield because...?

[LadyCrimson]

Is this thread still going?

[Helm]

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.

Well, at least you have described how your "non systemic" loot system will work (instead of being vague). Thank you for that.

 

But of course it's a no brainer in your example. Kill everything and get more loot and xp if you need xp and more good loot otherwise you just sneak past and empty the chests. But that is a decision I should make and not one that the game designers (you and Cain) should make for me.

 

In PE the default action would just be: sneak past with your entire team (because every class can be stealthy) unless you need some more loot to sell for cash, but you will probably have more than enough cash from killing some unchallenging trash mobs and emptying treasure chests anyway.

 

The only reason to even kill anything in PE is for loot to sell, so you have cash for combat items, which are never used, because your jolly crew of bandits always ignores combat, because there is no point in combat other than to gather cash, which you don't need because you never engage in combat. lol

Hacking terminals in Deus Ex: Human Revolution is pure benefit.

That was just a extremely minor bad game design decision. You should have gotten xp for either using the password too. Or no xp for unlocking a computer at all. Problem fixed.

Killing every hostile creature you detect in Icewind Dale is pure benefit.

You have said many times that you have played D&D for years and absolutely love it. But after over 20 years of D&D you have suddenly realised that "kill and objective xp" is fundamentally bad and degenerate game design?

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.

Yeah, I know, I know. It's degenerate game design. Seriously, since when is it obligatory to do every quest and kill every monster in Baldur's Gate? You could skip entire areas if you wanted to and still win, because the fundamental design of the game was fantastic.

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.

Well, of course quests will be pure benefit in PE, it will actually be the only benefit. lol

Those who prefer to sneak their way through the entire game (at least where it is possible) would technically be at a disadvantage, because they will have less loot, but practically they won't even be at a disadvantage, because they won't even need cash anyway (as I described above).

 

You and Cain seem to more focused on how to implement the ability to "pacifist sneak" your way through practically the entire game and are protecting this unorthdox game design in every way possible.

 

Well, as Confucius say: "Sneak make powerful warrior, get objective xp. Combat no make you stronger than sneaky, combat always bad choice".

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.

Makes sense. One should only need to sneak through the entire endless paths dungeon once after you have opened all of the chests and stolen the loot.

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

Oh man, the IE games had so much degenerate game design, as Josh has already said many times. Health bars that DO NOT regenerate like in Call of Dooty is degenerate, being able to miss your oponent is degenerate, not being able to sneak through the whole game is degenerate, etc. I don't blame you for not being able to keep up.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Helm

[Valorian]

Valorian: 'XP for kills'.

: You want 'learn by doing'.

 

No.

 

Okay. So you want XP for killing things because your elf chick's combat abilities should go up when she has practice killing things, but you don't want your elf chick's shield block ability to go up when she practices blocking things with a shield because...?

 

 

But her block ability will improve after accumulating enough combat experience. This system also offers a wider array of possibilities for character advancement.