Level scaling and its misuse

[PrimeJunta]

Yep, but why is it better to tie that improvement to killing something rather than to fighting something?

 

You could make an argument based on realism for tying it to fighting something, regardless of outcome -- in fact, IRL people tend to learn more about failures than successes (assuming they survive, of course).

 

However, you said your argument isn't based on realism. Fine. I agree; putting realism over fun in a game like P:E is a bad idea.

 

But in that case, how is awarding XP for victory in battle better than awarding it for achieving a quest objective? In both cases, you're rewarding the player for accomplishing something: winning a battle, or achieving some quest- or story-related objective. Neither makes much sense from a realistic POV, but both make sense from a gamist POV.

 

Suppose you have Rudolph the Rogue, Barbara the Barbarian, and Valorian the Munchkin attempting to obtain the Eyes of the Lizard God Ssilt from the Temple of Fanged Evil. Rudolph the Rogue sneaks in and filches the Eyes from under the noses of the Lizard Priests, and sneaks out. Barbara the Barbarian smashes everyone in her way into a bloody paste, grabs the Eyes, and marches home in victory. Valorian the Munchkin sneaks in, filches the eye, sneaks out, returns, and kills the Lizard Priests.

 

Now, the question. Who do you think should get the most XP for what s/he did, and why?

Edited January 12, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

(cleverly avoids having to have an actual argument by being insanely condescending)

 

 

I believe you still didn't convince anybody why is it so terribly bad if a design decision penalizes a suboptimal playing strategy (which is not used by the overwhelming majority of players anyway).

Edited January 12, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Helm]

Suppose you have Rudolph the Rogue, Barbara the Barbarian, and Valorian the Munchkin attempting to obtain the Eyes of the Lizard God Ssilt from the Temple of Fanged Evil. Rudolph the Rogue sneaks in and filches the Eyes from under the noses of the Lizard Priests, and sneaks out. Barbara the Barbarian smashes everyone in her way into a bloody paste, grabs the Eyes, and marches home in victory. Valorian the Munchkin sneaks in, filches the eye, sneaks out, returns, and kills the Lizard Priests.

 

Now, the question. Who do you think should get the most XP for what s/he did, and why?

Well, that would be bad game design if the game gave those who sneak just as much xp as those who fight. So "Valorian the Munchkin" and "Barbara the Barbarian" should get the most and exactly the same amount of xp.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Helm

[PrimeJunta]

@Helm, cool. Why do you think it would be bad game design?

[Valorian]

But in that case, how is awarding XP for victory in battle better than awarding it for achieving a quest objective?

 

It is not better. They can coexist. There is no need to remove xp for victory in battle to please fanatics who hate combat.

 

 

Suppose you have Rudolph the Rogue, Barbara the Barbarian, and Valorian the Munchkin attempting to obtain the Eyes of the Lizard God Ssilt from the Temple of Fanged Evil. Rudolph the Rogue sneaks in and filches the Eyes from under the noses of the Lizard Priests, and sneaks out. Barbara the Barbarian smashes everyone in her way into a bloody paste, grabs the Eyes, and marches home in victory. Valorian the Munchkin sneaks in, filches the eye, sneaks out, returns, and kills the Lizard Priests.

 

Now, the question. Who do you think should get the most XP for what s/he did, and why?

 

If they are going to reward efficiency, which is an aspect of intelligence - Valorian the Munchkin would get the most XP. He obtained the eye without causing a bloody mess that could've potentially endangered the object and later removed the threat of the lizard priest.

 

The least xp should go to the adventurer who left the lizard priest alive because there's this horrific possibilty that the lizard priest, who's alive and kicking, will hunt him down with his minions and end his miserable thieving life.

 

Valorian and Barbara get a bonus to XP because they also made a huge favor to all incompetent wannabe adventurers, like Junta the Wonderboy, who would get disintegrated by the fearsome lizard priest with a mere gesture of his hand.

[Valorian]

I believe you still didn't convince anybody why is it so terribly bad if a design decision penalizes a suboptimal playing strategy (which is not used by the overwhelming majority of players anyway).

 

In fact, I'm not trying to convince anybody. That would be like convincing those hordes of peasants, from a distant past, that Earth is not flat.

 

I can understand the pain of those who tried.

[PrimeJunta]

That's Ms. Juanita, Dread Schoolmistress to you.

 

Okay, let's try another hypothetical. Suppose you have to obtain the Holy Symbol of Saint Mercius of the Mace from the Hospice of St. Mercius, because you need it to defeat the Vile Overlord of Darkness. The monks of the Hospice selflessly care for plague victims, orphans, and abandoned kittycats, but are so attached to the Holy Symbol that they will defend it to the death; they won't even lend it to anyone, for any purpose. And they're not actually using it for anything.

 

Rudolph the Rogue hires an expert counterfeiter to make a perfect copy of the Holy Symbol, disguises himself as a plague victim to get checked in, and in the dead of night, substitutes the counterfeit for the real Holy Symbol, hides it in a bodily orifice, then gets better, checks out, uses the Holy Symbol to defeat the Vile Overlord, and then posts the real Holy Symbol back to the monks in an unmarked brown paper parcel.

 

Barbara the Barbarian smashes the monks into a bloody paste, grabs the Symbol, defeats the Overlord. For lack of care by the monks, the country is overrun by the plague and three out of four of its inhabitants die, including, ultimately, Barbara.

 

Valorian the Munchkin obtains the Symbol like Rudolph, then comes back to kill the monks, then defeats the Overlord, then dies of the plague.

 

Who should get most XP, and why?

Edited January 12, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Valorian]

That's Ms. Juanita, Dread Schoolmistress to you.

 

Okay, let's try another hypothetical. Suppose you have to obtain the Holy Symbol of Saint Mercius of the Mace from the Hospice of St. Mercius, because you need it to defeat the Vile Overlord of Darkness. The monks of the Hospice selflessly care for plague victims, orphans, and abandoned kittycats, but are so attached to the Holy Symbol that they will defend it to the death; they won't even lend it to anyone, for any purpose. And they're not actually using it for anything.

 

Rudolph the Rogue hires an expert counterfeiter to make a perfect copy of the Holy Symbol, disguises himself as a plague victim to get checked in, and in the dead of night, substitutes the counterfeit for the real Holy Symbol, hides it in a bodily orifice, then gets better, checks out, uses the Holy Symbol to defeat the Vile Overlord, and then posts the real Holy Symbol back to the monks in an unmarked brown paper parcel.

 

Barbara the Barbarian smashes the monks into a bloody paste, grabs the Symbol, defeats the Overlord. For lack of care by the monks, the country is overrun by the plague and three out of four of its inhabitants die, including, ultimately, Barbara.

 

Valorian the Munchkin makes like Rudolph, then comes back to kill the monks, then defeats the Overlord, then dies of the plague.

 

Who should get most XP, and why?

 

Monks should get the least XP because they're extremely egoistic and foolish to not lend an artifact to help defeat the Vile Overlord of Darkness.

 

Valorian would again get the most XP, he defeated both the selfish monks and the Overlord.

 

Sadly for Rudolph, while visiting the hospice he was infected with the plague and died as well.

[PrimeJunta]

Thank you for your patience and explanations. I think I understand your preferences and priorities better now, even if I don't share them.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

In fact, I'm not trying to convince anybody.

 

This explains the notable lack of arguments that make sense, then.

[Lephys]

Since there'll be a separation between combat and non-combat skill-point pools (whatever the specifics), why couldn't using combat to complete an objective award combat experience, and using non-combat to complete an objective award non-combat experience?

 

Also, unless the entire game can be completed without combat (which I'm pretty sure is not the case, based on a quote from Sawyer about combat being a pretty integral part of a large chunk of the game), why is it bad for the player to sometimes gain combat skill points without actually having killed things?

 

No one's saying that it's at all likely you're going to go through an entire forest AND cave and retrieve a quest artifact from a chest at the end of the cave without ever having to fight anything... well, except maybe Valorian, who won't answer anything non-vaguely, so it's hard to tell, really.

 

Oooh! Here's a good one! What if you defeat enemies with poison, or traps? If you get combat experience just for killing, then you'd gain physical ability sheerly by causing the demise of the enemies, even though all you did was pull a lever, or cut a rope, or put some poison in some water. Sharp_One actually already mentioned this (the poison example). Hmm... well, again, it's not as if dispatching those enemies (via whatever means) could possibly constitute the completion of an objective. Clearly, if you FOUGHT them and they died, then you wouldn't get any experience. You would instead have to talk to a little boy about his cat so that they'd die. (See, Valorian? I'm learning!)

 

Man... I keep imagining visions of other games, with little lists titled "Quest objectives," under which things such as "Eliminate the troll" or "Retrieve the relic" can be found. But that's just silly. Combat and objectives are absolutely mutually exclusive, and the only people who are going to get to level up in this game are going to be the pacifists. In fact, I think they're probably gonna put in a ticker. For every minute you go without killing something, you'll gain 100 XP. And you should get like 500 XP every time you revive an enemy who happened to have met his demise on his own.

 

Those are the two options, either XP is awarded for the sheer act of killing, no matter what, or it's never, ever awarded when killing is involved. That's just logic, man. There's nothing we can do about it, -___-

[Helm]

Since there'll be a separation between combat and non-combat skill-point pools (whatever the specifics), why couldn't using combat to complete an objective award combat experience, and using non-combat to complete an objective award non-combat experience?

Because Josh knows we're all stupid and he is trying to help us. He also doesn't want to pacifist players to be at a disadvantage. Thank you Josh.

I.e. If the game used the system you just mentioned, then somebody who only sneaks would break the game, because he would not be able to pass obligatory combat situations.

Also, unless the entire game can be completed without combat (which I'm pretty sure is not the case, based on a quote from Sawyer about combat being a pretty integral part of a large chunk of the game), why is it bad for the player to sometimes gain combat skill points without actually having killed things?

 

No one's saying that it's at all likely you're going to go through an entire forest AND cave and retrieve a quest artifact from a chest at the end of the cave without ever having to fight anything... well, except maybe Valorian, who won't answer anything non-vaguely, so it's hard to tell, really.

Combat in PE is only for "fun" (except for the few obligatory situations where combat is required) and sneaking is only for "fun". The prize comes from reaching a goal however you like.

Those who sneak will not be at a disadvantage in any way, and will not have less loot than someone who engages in combat for "fun". So it is very likely that most will just sneak through the game, seeing that combat is somewhat pointless and just takes longer.

Those are the two options, either XP is awarded for the sheer act of killing, no matter what, or it's never, ever awarded when killing is involved. That's just logic, man. There's nothing we can do about it, -___-

No combat xp, because Josh and Tim don't want pacifists or those who like to sneak to be at a disadvantage.

[PrimeJunta]

Those who sneak will not be at a disadvantage in any way, and will not have less loot than someone who engages in combat for "fun". So it is very likely that most will just sneak through the game, seeing that combat is somewhat pointless and just takes longer.

 

If that happens, they will have seriously failed. P:E is a combat-heavy game. I would expect sneaking to require trickier and more specialized parties. If you're looking for the easiest and most straightforward way through the game, I'm fairly certain it's gonna involve a lotta fighting.

 

I do appreciate them making the effort to make non-combat options viable as well, though, at least in places.

[Lephys]

^^ Really, Helm? I actually enjoy your sensical contributions in plenty of other threads, but now you're just arbitrarily quoting things to re-voice your complaints with no consideration for what was actually said.

 

I really need to find that quote about the extent to which combat will be necessary in P:E. I think it was from a Q&A or something, or maybe the AMA. Anywho, someone specifically asked them "So, you want everyone to just be able to Deus Ex this thing and always have the option of not-fighting stuff?" The development team responded with, essentially, "No, there's pretty much going to be a lot of combat, as part of the game design. But we don't want to make it 97% combat and 3% opportunity's to achieve things via non-combat." That's paraphrased, just to re-iterate.

 

Even without having said that, what I don't understand is why you (and Valorian) are incapable of saying "If that's the case, then they'll need to make sure combat is still pretty integral throughout the game, because if it's done improperly, the combat-lovers will get gipped." But, instead, you're not saying that, and instead are inferring that you know for a fact that only some piddly portion of the game will require combat. Right up there, you even said "seeing that combat is somewhat pointless and just takes longer."

 

How does combat automatically take longer? How do you know it doesn't take 5 straight-minutes to successfully sneak past all the baddies and retrieve some quest item? You're just allowing your frustration with your perceptions of what COULD go wrong with the proposed system run wild and build up, so that you're just posting things out of sheer frustration. Take a deep breath, and actually consider what people are saying. I promise it will not hurt you.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Lephys

[Helm]

Even without having said that, what I don't understand is why you (and Valorian) are incapable of saying "If that's the case, then they'll need to make sure combat is still pretty integral throughout the game, because if it's done improperly, the combat-lovers will get gipped." But, instead, you're not saying that, and instead are inferring that you know for a fact that only some piddly portion of the game will require combat. Right up there, you even said "seeing that combat is somewhat pointless and just takes longer."

Of course combat will be pointless, but it will be fun as josh said. I guess.

[Lephys]

Of course combat will be pointless, but it will be fun as josh said. I guess.

 

Okay, I'll meet you on your level of "discussion":

 

Obviously Josh's system is awesome and will clearly be enjoyable and will grant combat-goers plenty of XP.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Of course combat will be pointless, but it will be fun as josh said. I guess.

 

Playing P:E instead of using our free time for, say, physical exercise or self-education is also pointless. Does the fun we receive from playing P:E mitigate our concern for utility? Yes! So, what's so wrong with doing things because we enjoy them?

Edited January 12, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Karkarov]

Who should get most XP, and why?

I can't say but I hope Rudolph has some really good health insurance. Even if he doesn't get the plague getting that holy symbol out of his "orifice" is going to chafe.

[keiichimorisato98]

i just hope they don't use experience scaling, this ruined pokemon:B&W for me because i was getting 100 exp from level 60 pokemon because i had a 75 pokemon which needed 50k+ experience.

[PrimeJunta]

I can't say but I hope Rudolph has some really good health insurance. Even if he doesn't get the plague getting that holy symbol out of his "orifice" is going to chafe.

 

St. Mercius's province is fertility. The holy symbol is a life-size depiction of his... mace.

[Valorian]

Those who sneak will not be at a disadvantage in any way, and will not have less loot than someone who engages in combat for "fun". So it is very likely that most will just sneak through the game, seeing that combat is somewhat pointless and just takes longer.

 

If that happens, they will have seriously failed. P:E is a combat-heavy game. I would expect sneaking to require trickier and more specialized parties.

 

Regarding loot.. There's one important thing to keep in mind.

 

A party that consistently avoids combat is much less dependent on loot/money than a party that fights its way through monsters.

Consumables and expensive weapons/shields/armor matter much more to a combat focused party.

[Valorian]

Josh's system is awesome and will clearly be enjoyable and will grant combat-goers plenty of XP.

 

 

See, even you can express your point of view in a succinct manner without going into a logorrheic frenzy.

 

Bravo!

[PrimeJunta]

A party that consistently avoids combat is much less dependent on loot/money than a party that fights its way through monsters.

Consumables and expensive weapons/shields/armor matter much more to a combat focused party.

 

That's a good point. There are a number of ways to address it though. I hope they will. For example, there could be tough, unavoidable combat -- a less combat-focused party would be at a disadvantage there, and would have to go through more consumables to survive that than a more combat-focused party. Or you could require different types of consumables for noncombat solutions -- invisibility potions for stealth, for example.

 

That said, this being a single-player game, there's not much point to chasing perfect balance. I'm a happy camper if I can get viable, interesting, and noticeably different playthroughs with different types of parties and strategies. If the game doesn't have too many obviously exploitable mechanics, so much the better.

[Helm]

A party that consistently avoids combat is much less dependent on loot/money than a party that fights its way through monsters.

Consumables and expensive weapons/shields/armor matter much more to a combat focused party.

 

That's a good point. There are a number of ways to address it though. I hope they will. For example, there could be tough, unavoidable combat -- a less combat-focused party would be at a disadvantage there, and would have to go through more consumables to survive that than a more combat-focused party. Or you could require different types of consumables for noncombat solutions -- invisibility potions for stealth, for example.

Whatever they are up to, pacifist players will not be at a disadvantage at all. You can fight, you can sneak or you can do both and will never be at a disadvantage, because only questing in PE is pure benefit, nothing else.

[PrimeJunta]

@Helm, you keep saying that but it don't mean it's true. We don't know what mechanics are involved with stealth or diplomacy. We don't know what trade-offs are involved. We don't know what resources will be needed. We don't know which parts of the game will have avoidable combat, and which won't.

 

For example, suppose a mega-awesome weapon is behind a sidequest that involves extremely tough, unavoidable fights. This will be simply inaccessible to a pacifist player, because s/he won't be able to beat those fights (or doesn't want to, which is what makes him/her the pacifist). Further suppose that the main quest contains a minimum of one tough unavoidable fight. Now who's at the disadvantage -- the pacifist who doesn't have the mega-awesome sword of slayingness, or the combat-oriented party who got it?

 

Basically, all I'm picking up here is a lot of butthurt about non-combat paths being accommodated at all. Non-combat questing can involve lots of creative, fun, interesting, and challenging stuff. Why should that be rewarded less than hacking your way through everything?

 

Finally, XP in itself is a huge abstraction. Quest XP is better than combat XP because it makes it easier to balance the game, leaving fewer exploitable mechanics that reward degenerate gameplay.

 

(And no, I won't shed a manly tear for people going wee-wee-wee about possibilities for degenerate gameplay being taken away. I'm sure there's an Easy mode out there that'll make it possible for you to beat the game even if you won't be able to grind your way to max level by swatting respawning rats or find an exploit in the economy that lets you buy +5 swords of awesome for everybody before you're out of chapter 1.)

 

TL;DR: You're working up massive butthurt by extrapolating wildly about stuff that just isn't there.