Level scaling and its misuse

[Lephys]

Lephys, your detachment from reality is amusing.

 

You've been advocating level scaling in a form that's nothing like what Sawyer described in this thread. Yet you start a charade how people suddenly accept it even if "you were saying the same things all along!" ...

 

This coming from the person who not only didn't read the majority of my posts, but also took the time to specifically state such.

 

And example of a hypothetical RPG situation in which adjusting levels could be extremely beneficial is not the same thing as my specifically advocating that that particular example be placed into the game. All I ever said was "level scaling can be used in a specific implementation, rather than applied across the board like you're describing," and all I ever got in response was "LEVEL-SCALING IS INHERENTLY FECES, AND IT CAN ONLY BE USED TO SCALE EVERYTHING IN THE GAME DIRECTLY TO THE PLAYER'S CURRENT LEVEL!"

 

So, yes, I actually advocate what Josh has described, and always have, specifically because it uses some level scaling, as opposed to all level scaling. The levels of certain enemies will be different, WHEN it is is beneficial, and they'll remain static when it is not. That is exactly what I've been merely stating is even possible this entire time.

 

Tuning one encounter here and there to be based around a close set of levels like 10-15 is not level scaling.

 

This is not even a matter of opinion. I'm not righter than you guys. Reason is right, and you're simply ignoring it. Level scaling is mathematical scaling of things that comprise character/creature/entity levels in an RPG that uses a level system. "Level scaling throughout the entire game" is level scaling that is used throughout the entire game. Saying there's no such thing as level scaling that's not used through the entire game is like saying that frosting isn't frosting if you don't cover an entire cake with it.

 

So, yeah, it really does sadden me that a discussion on "Level scaling and its misuse" got twisted into this "You can only possibly be stating things which you're claiming will and should be in P:E, no matter what you say, and the phrase 'level scaling' automatically means what I think of when I hear it, which are entire games that are level scaled."

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Wow, sounds like a cool game where combat is always avoided because it is pointless.

 

Yeah, rewarding sociopathic behavior is so much better and is proven to enhance gameplay in every possible way imaginable.

Please. Go and play the Sims or My Little Pony and leave Baldur's Gate to us psychos and sociopaths.

 

Using violence and/or threats of violence as the main method for solving problems should not be encouraged if your aim is to create a believable and immersive universe for actual roleplaying instead of hack&slash action. Mainly because, you know, there are actual consequences of killing other sentient beings in most rational universes. Most of them involve the people whom you have angered by killing their relatives/favorite lackeys/pet dogs/whatever doing everything in their power to make life as unpleasant to you as possible. And, inevitably, some of these quite understandably angry people will be stronger than you (and your party).

Integrating this philosophy as a gameplay element is a win-win scenario - those who like combat will get even more combat, while those who choose an alternate way of dealing with the situation can experience the smug satisfaction which accompanies the realization that they had the foresight to deal with a problem before it even became one.

[TRX850]

Ladies and Gentle-hobbits...Saywer has left the building.

[Lephys]

Ladies and Gentle-hobbits...Saywer has left the building.

 

I applaud him for stepping into the fray like that and providing insight to design decisions. With limited time like his, I honestly don't know how he puts up with all the flak so well.

 

I'm really glad they've decided to scale certain things, and they didn't just look at it from an all-or-nothing perspective and toss out the idea all together. But then, they're smart people, those developers. They're crafty like that,

[TRX850]

Ladies and Gentle-hobbits...Saywer has left the building.

 

I applaud him for stepping into the fray like that and providing insight to design decisions. With limited time like his, I honestly don't know how he puts up with all the flak so well.

 

I'm really glad they've decided to scale certain things, and they didn't just look at it from an all-or-nothing perspective and toss out the idea all together. But then, they're smart people, those developers. They're crafty like that,

 

That awkward moment when you realize you've misspelled someone's name and you can't edit the post.

[Valorian]

Ultimately, it comes down to how people play the game. If players really do wind up avoiding combat all the time (I don't believe this will be the case), that's not what we're trying to encourage/reward.

 

 

There are many reasons why I like being rewarded with XP after defeating an enemy.

One of them is the feeling of accomplishment. When I cut down a specific enemy I'd like to know its power value expressed in XP. I want to know how successful my party was at dealing with the foe. XP per enemy offers this. An elegant XP system would take into account the character's level and the specific challenge rating/level of the enemy.

So if you, let's say, kill an aumaua barbarian that is 4 levels above your PC - it will be reflected in the XP reward. The higher the XP reward and the lower time & resources spent = more success.

I also enjoy the thrill of leveling up in the middle of the fight which can change the tides of battle.

 

I believe that not all solutions to encounters should offer the same XP.

Why would someone who spends valuable consumables and time podering about tactics in combat get the same reward as someone who just sneaks past the encounter or selects a few dialogue options to be done with it?

Ultimately, it would be disappointing that a game with a focus on tactical combat actually promotes avoiding combat (yeah, even the "but enjoyment!" value thins out after a certain amount of time spent fighting).

It's also indicative that out of 12 abilities for base classes... 12 are used to defeat enemies in combat. Yet the "abstraction of xp" doesn't take into account combat at all.

 

 

There are other options to achieve the gameplay you are aiming for rather than outright removing direct XP for defeating enemies. For starters, clever scripting. Those who wish to kill, get xp when they kill. Those who wish to avoid combat and just complete the objective get xp when they complete the objective, but don't get any xp for getting back and killing enemies linked to the objective.

[Valorian]

This coming from the person who not only didn't read the majority of my posts, but also took the time to specifically state such.

 

I have just quoted your post in which you are all worked up about the need to scale optional non-linear content, because it's apparently a huge problem if it isn't tailored to the player's level. Not a huge problem anymore though, after Sawyer's post..

You are ignoring reality and facts again.

 

 

So I did read some of your posts. On the other hand, I have no intention to read your excruciatingly boring essays where you reapeat the same illogical notions over and over again. Like your brilliant, Nobel worthy essays on "why is level scaling the exact same thing as difficulty levels".

It's obvious that you get lost in those litanies, forgetting what you're writing, who were you responding to, what was it about...

 

AND IT CAN ONLY BE USED TO SCALE EVERYTHING IN THE GAME DIRECTLY TO THE PLAYER'S CURRENT LEVEL!"

 

I've never said that. You can turn off caps lock.

But it doesn't come off as a shock that a person who is detached from reality is also a liar.

[Helm]

Okay, so NPCs drop worthless loot (if at all). Check.

No.

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

 

Interesting... But perhaps you have contrived a mechanic to fix this?

 

Wow, sounds like a cool game where combat is always avoided because it is pointless.

 

Yeah, rewarding sociopathic behavior is so much better and is proven to enhance gameplay in every possible way imaginable.

Please. Go and play the Sims or My Little Pony and leave Baldur's Gate to us psychos and sociopaths.

 

Using violence and/or threats of violence as the main method for solving problems should not be encouraged if your aim is to create a believable and immersive universe for actual roleplaying instead of hack&slash action. Mainly because, you know, there are actual consequences of killing other sentient beings in most rational universes. Most of them involve the people whom you have angered by killing their relatives/favorite lackeys/pet dogs/whatever doing everything in their power to make life as unpleasant to you as possible. And, inevitably, some of these quite understandably angry people will be stronger than you (and your party).

Integrating this philosophy as a gameplay element is a win-win scenario - those who like combat will get even more combat, while those who choose an alternate way of dealing with the situation can experience the smug satisfaction which accompanies the realization that they had the foresight to deal with a problem before it even became one.

Are you some kind of ****ing clown or comedian? You just said: "kill xp is for sociopaths" and now you are talking about conflict resolution or something.

 

FYI: You will have to kill in this game no matter what you do (Sawyer has said combat cannot be totally avoided), so if you play PE it then you are also a sociopath (as you like to say) because you will have to kill. And I have no idea how receiving xp for a kill makes a player a sociopath and not receiving xp for a kill makes the player a pacifist or a sane person.

 

BTW: Just because you receive xp for kills does not mean that you should not be able to solve a conflict peacefully (in a conversation for example).

 

My god, is today "stupid logic day" or what?

Edited January 11, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

I'm really glad they've decided to scale certain things, and they didn't just look at it from an all-or-nothing perspective and toss out the idea all together. But then, they're smart people, those developers. They're crafty like that,

Not like this is new or something. The IE games all used minimal scaling. I emphasize MINIMAL.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Are you some kind of ****ing clown or comedian? You just said: "kill xp is for sociopaths" and now you are talking about conflict resolution or something.

 

FYI: You will have to kill in this game no matter what you do (Sawyer has said combat cannot be totally avoided), so if you play PE it then you are also a sociopath (as you like to say) because you will have to kill. And I have no idea how receiving xp for a kill makes a player a sociopath and not receiving xp for a kill makes the player a pacifist or a sane person.

 

BTW: Just because you receive xp for kills does not mean that you should not be able to solve a conflict peacefully (in a conversation for example).

 

My god, is today "stupid logic day" or what?

 

FYI, insulting fellow forum members and using strawman arguments is usually not very well received here. You'll look uncivilized and rather foolish at best. I don't intend to waste my time arguing with someone who is either incapable of understanding written text, or wilfully misinterprets what I'm saying.

[Helm]

Are you some kind of ****ing clown or comedian? You just said: "kill xp is for sociopaths" and now you are talking about conflict resolution or something.

 

FYI: You will have to kill in this game no matter what you do (Sawyer has said combat cannot be totally avoided), so if you play PE it then you are also a sociopath (as you like to say) because you will have to kill. And I have no idea how receiving xp for a kill makes a player a sociopath and not receiving xp for a kill makes the player a pacifist or a sane person.

 

BTW: Just because you receive xp for kills does not mean that you should not be able to solve a conflict peacefully (in a conversation for example).

 

My god, is today "stupid logic day" or what?

 

FYI, insulting fellow forum members and using strawman arguments is usually not very well received here. You'll look uncivilized and rather foolish at best. I don't intend to waste my time arguing with someone who is either incapable of understanding written text, or wilfully misinterprets what I'm saying.

lol. You said that kill xp is for sociopaths (so killing and not receiving xp makes you sane) did you not? Yeah, Gary Gygax is a ****ing psychopath because he implemented kill xp in D and D. Saywer is a ****ing psychopath because he played pen and paper D and D a lot and loved it. LOL

 

Stop whining just because I am telling you that argumentation does not make any sense at all. I'm sorry, that I have to be so direct and aggressive, but sometimes that is the only way to make stubborn people understand that they are absolutely wrong.

 

And Also don't try to change the subject by all of a sudden talking conflict resolution, etc. So, stop wasting my time with your ridiculous posts please and go and play the Sims or something.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Helm

[aluminiumtrioxid]

And Also don't try to change the subject by all of a sudden talking conflict resolution, etc. So, stop wasting my time with your ridiculous posts please and go and play the Sims or something.

 

I'm afraid it's not I who is changing the subject. Would you care to point out where exactly did I say "kill xp is for sociopaths"?

[Helm]

And Also don't try to change the subject by all of a sudden talking conflict resolution, etc. So, stop wasting my time with your ridiculous posts please and go and play the Sims or something.

 

I'm afraid it's not I who is changing the subject. Would you care to point out where exactly did I say "kill xp is for sociopaths"?

lol. you mean your post on the last page?

 

 

Yeah, rewarding sociopathic behavior is so much better and is proven to enhance gameplay in every possible way imaginable.

Killing an evil ork in in a game is "sociopathic behavior". lol

 

Btw, you did the change the subject. It went from "rewarding combat with xp is sociopathic behavior" to "One should be able to resolve a conflict peacefully, if ones wishes". I do agree with you on the second quote, but you also just changed the subject... maybe you actually did realise that your first post was ridiculous.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Helm

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Yeah, rewarding sociopathic behavior is so much better and is proven to enhance gameplay in every possible way imaginable.

Killing an evil ork in in a game is "sociopathic behavior". lol

 

And since when is "rewarding the act of killing systemically encourages sociopathic behavior" equal to "kill xp is for sociopaths"? If you can't tell the difference, you really are hopeless.

 

Edit: also, I think "evil orks" have a place in Forgotten Realms and Lord of the Rings, where Always chaotic evil is true, but not in an rpg intended for actual mature audiences.

Edited January 11, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Helm]

Yeah, rewarding sociopathic behavior is so much better and is proven to enhance gameplay in every possible way imaginable.

Killing an evil ork in in a game is "sociopathic behavior". lol

 

And since when is "rewarding the act of killing encourages sociopathic behavior" equal to "kill xp is for sociopaths"? If you can't tell the difference, you really are hopeless.

Killing something (like an ork) = sociopathic behavior, and rewarding that is baaaaad. bad, bad, bad. lol. That is what you wrote, but apparently you don't even understand what you wrote yourself.

 

I pointed out that yor post is ridiculous (killing an ork is not sociopathic behavior), but you don't understand, and now you are pissed off and keep on bothering me. The end.

I am just going to ignore you from now on, that seems to be the only solution.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Killing something (like an ork) = sociopathic behavior, and rewarding that is baaaaad. bad, bad, bad. lol. That is what you wrote, but apparently you don't even understand what you wrote yourself.

 

Are you really incapable of understanding how rewarding the act of killing encourages killing things indiscriminately? Also, before you start complaining, there is a difference between "encourages" and "inevitably leads to".

Why on earth is it so hard to accept that maybe we shouldn't reward massacring entire towns for xp gain?

 

Edit: just as a side note, I think I am the authority of what I mean when I write something, since I am the one who knocks wrote the actual thing.

Edited January 11, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valorian]

Rewarding the act of siding with bandits, thieves and murderers to complete quests encourages sociopathic behavior and therefore should not grant any XP.

 

[Helm]

Killing something (like an ork) = sociopathic behavior, and rewarding that is baaaaad. bad, bad, bad. lol. That is what you wrote, but apparently you don't even understand what you wrote yourself.

Are you really incapable of understanding how rewarding the act of killing encourages killing things indiscriminately? Also, before you start complaining, there is a difference between "encourages" and "inevitably leads to".Why on earth is it so hard to accept that maybe we shouldn't reward massacring entire towns for xp gain?Edit: just as a side note, I think I am the authority of what I mean when I write something, since I am the one who knocks wrote the actual thing.

Huh? You wrote: Yeah, rewarding sociopathic behavior is so much better and is proven to enhance gameplay in every possible way imaginable.

 

Let me translate what you wrote so you understand: "Killing sociopathic. Reward get for sociopathic behavior bad. Better no reward for sociopathic acting. That better much." *grunt* I see you little buddy sharp_one doesn't get it either. He is also still pissed because me and Valorian told him he had no idea what he was talking about.

Oh woops, I wanted to ignore you. hehe

Edited January 11, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

Rewarding the act of siding with bandits, thieves and murderers to complete quests encourages sociopathic behavior and therefore should not grant any XP.

 

Yeah, LOL. Evil characters should not get any XP, because they are sociopaths and sociopathic behavior should not be rewarded. LOL

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Rewarding the act of siding with bandits, thieves and murderers to complete quests encourages sociopathic behavior roleplaying and therefore should not grant any XP.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

 

Are you really incapable of understanding how rewarding the act of killing encourages killing things indiscriminately?

 

Huh? You wrote:Yeah, rewarding sociopathic behavior is so much better and is proven to enhance gameplay in every possible way imaginable.

 

Let me translate what you wrote so you understand: "Killing sociopathic. Reward get for sociopathic behavior bad. Better no reward for sociopathic acting. That better much." *grunt*I see you little buddy sharp_one doesn't get it either. He is also still pissed because me and Valorian told him he had no idea what he was talking about. Oh woops, I wanted to ignore you. hehe

 

Bugs are insects. Therefore, all insects must be bugs.

 

Are you sure you want to continue pointlessly trying to prove to me that I was saying a completely different thing from what I've said, just because your ego is bruised by your own assumption that I implied you're a sociopath?

Edited January 11, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valorian]

Rewarding the act of siding with bandits, thieves and murderers to complete quests encourages sociopathic behavior roleplaying and therefore should not grant any XP.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

Playing, for instance, a barbarian that kills things because he prefers to use the sword rather than putting on eyeglasses and asking the skeleton warrior in a British accent "Excuse me, may I pass?", is not roleplaying?

 

How come when you murder yourself it's sociopathic behavior, but when you join sociopathic gangs to help them murder, destroy and steal - it's suddenly roleplaying?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Playing, for instance, a barbarian that kills things because he prefers to use the sword rather than putting on eyeglasses and asking the skeleton warrior in a British accent "Excuse me, may I pass?", is not roleplaying?

 

How come when you murder yourself it's sociopathic behavior, but when you join sociopathic gangs to help them murder, destroy and steal - it's suddenly roleplaying?

 

It is, but when exactly was this called into question?

 

Again, just for the minority who are seemingly incapable or unwilling to interpret subtext (and/or are infamiliar with the concept of exaggerating for sarcastic purposes): killing in itself is not (necessarily) sociopathic behavior. But when you hand out xp for committing murders, you basically encourage the players to kill everything in their way who doesn't give a quest (rewarding more xp than the amount you'd gain by slaying them - although you can still kill them after you've done said quest). I believe massacring friendly towns in order to level up can be interpreted as sociopathic behavior, don't you agree?

 

Also note that I never said that roleplaying a sociopath is morally reprehensible and therefore should be excluded from the options in the game. (I may have implied, though, that the possibility of playing a typical munchkinish murderhobo - commonly referred to as "adventurer" in D&D terms - holds little interest for me in a game intended to a) be a spiritual successor for Planescape: Torment and b) create an immersive and believable game world my character is a part of.)

Edited January 11, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valorian]

Playing, for instance, a barbarian that kills things because he prefers to use the sword rather than putting on eyeglasses and asking the skeleton warrior in a British accent "Excuse me, may I pass?", is not roleplaying?

 

How come when you murder yourself it's sociopathic behavior, but when you join sociopathic gangs to help them murder, destroy and steal - it's suddenly roleplaying?

 

It is, but when exactly was this called into question?

 

When you started posting about encouraging sociopathic behavior and then tripped over it.

 

 

killing in itself is not (necessarily) sociopathic behavior.

 

Indeed. Especially if we're talking about a game. And especially a game which is supposedly going to offer lots of tactical combat.

 

But when you hand out xp for committing murders, you basically encourage the players to kill everything in their way who doesn't give a quest (rewarding more xp than the amount you'd gain by slaying them - although you can still kill them after you've done said quest).

 

So now we're calling it "committing murders" and not "killing enemies". Okay, that being out of the way... From what aspect is it wrong to encourage combat in a game with lots of tactical combat, lots of combat abilities and lots of loot used in combat? From a moral aspect? Because it's sociopathic? But then we go back to the sociopathic problem of joining sociopathic guilds.. why would we encourage this no-no behavior by giving xp?

 

You can't kill them for xp if it's scripted to not give an xp reward after the quest.

 

I believe massacring friendly towns in order to level up can be interpreted as sociopathic behavior, don't you agree?

 

I believe this is really the smallest of the weak arguments against kill XP that is thrown around a lot.

I don't think anyone would find it problematic that killing a random unarmed peasant or citizen grants 0 XP.

 

a) be a spiritual successor for Planescape: Torment and b) create an immersive and believable game world my character is a part of.)

 

The problem is you might have misread some marketing lines. It's not just the spiritual successor for PST.

[Helm]

Playing, for instance, a barbarian that kills things because he prefers to use the sword rather than putting on eyeglasses and asking the skeleton warrior in a British accent "Excuse me, may I pass?", is not roleplaying?

 

How come when you murder yourself it's sociopathic behavior, but when you join sociopathic gangs to help them murder, destroy and steal - it's suddenly roleplaying?

I believe massacring friendly towns in order to level up can be interpreted as sociopathic behavior, don't you agree?

Yes. Unless it is an orc bandit town full of filthy raiding, pillaging and murdering orcs lead by an evil lich who eats the brains of children and tortures kittens. DIE ORCS AND LICH LEADER, DIEEE!!!

 

*ahem* Anyway, you got like 1 xp for killing a peaceful villager in BG... and then came teh Flaming Fist to kick your ass. Real hard. And then you were dead.

 

Oh yeah, it was worth it. You leveled up real fast that way.

 

"I SURRRVE TEH FLAMING FIST"

[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.

 

It's not just the spiritual successor for PST.

 

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

 

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?

Edited January 11, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid