Degenerate Gameplay

[Lephys]

4) It is not possible to script the game to not reward xp for killing under certain circumstances (where it makes sense). The god of combat xp will otherwise cause the programmer's computer explode and engulf Obsidian's office killing everybody.

 

If you admit it makes sense for combat xp to sometimes not be awarded (when you have already committed to a solution that produces no hostility or reason for combat whatsoever, so that the player's desire for more XP on top of the quest-completion XP would be quite literally the ONLY incentive for the combat), then what's so different about the objective-only XP method?

 

Choose to kill all those peeps instead of trying to solve the problem at hand in a different manner? You achieve an outcome to the dilemma, and you gain XP (for combat, because that's the only action you took.) You use some method that isn't combat (and achieve possibly a different, yet still viable outcome to the dilemma, mind you)? You gain experience for that method you used, even though it wasn't combat.

 

If it "makes sense" not to award combat XP for killing the people you just specifically opted to make peace with INSTEAD of killing, then what's the problem? No one's going to kill all the people, THEN make peace with the dead corpses for extra XP, either.

 

Also, regarding your favorite "Josh Sawyer said" reference, about pacifists not getting "punished" in terms of loot, I think you misunderstand.

 

Pretend there are 100 items of loot in the game, total. They are all the equipment, potions, herbs, whatever, in the entire game.

 

50 of them are part of the critical path of the game, and are right there for you to grab no matter how you play through the game.

 

25 of them are only obtainable via optional combat (when you COULD kill things, but don't have to to complete a quest/the game.)

 

25 of them are only obtainable via optional non-combat (diplomacy, sneak, what-have-you).

 

Therefore, if you play through the whole game, gathering all loot that is available from your given choices, and you choose ALL combat options, you end up with the core 50 plus the 25 from non-mandatory combat, resulting in 75 of 100 loot items in the game.

 

If you do the same thing, but choose all non-combat options whenever you can, and none of the optional combat options, you get the core 50 plus the 25 exclusive to non-combat options, resulting in 75 of 100 loot items in the game.

 

So, you're not "punished" for not choosing the combat options, because if you were, then combat would ALWAYS result in a greater reward (which is exactly what you've been claiming is the problem with the current system and non-combat options, for some reason). You get a balanced amount of items and loot, either way.

 

This is no different from any other RPG with locked things in it that require really high lockpicking skill to access, AND really tough combat counters that require really high combat skills to complete (and therefore get loot/XP rewards from).

 

The above example math works for XP, also. Some xp can only be gotten through combat, and some can only be gotten through non-combat choices (when you can't do both, like simultaneously spare people's lives AND kill them). Meaning, if you do nothing but combat options, and you want more rewards, you can always get more by doing some non-combat stuff, and vice versa if you've thus far done only non-combat objectives and want more rewards.

 

Where is the inherent imbalance?

 

I understand the desire for xp upon kills. I do. It makes sense. But it ALSO makes sense, within a system in which we already accept plenty of other abstractions of things, for SOME combat to not directly award XP, and for SOME non-combat to not directly award anything, either.

 

When Josh says "loot is not systemic," what he means is that, the purpose of enemies in RPGs is not purely to be loot/xp factories. Loot is balanced throughout a variety of systems and mechanics. If not-killing things never gets you anything, then stealth, diplomacy, and all that other stuff is pointless. And if the two never collide (quests/scenarios with mutually-exclusive combat/non-combat choices and outcomes), then you arbitrarily eliminate a lot of the depth of the game's story and just wind up with a big sandbox. So, SOMEtimes, not-killing something will be viable, even when killing them is also viable, which can ONLY mean that you get something either way.

 

Again, I understand the seeming problem with "Wait, I killed stuff just now and didn't immediately get XP?" I do. No one's saying combat XP doesn't make any sense. BUT, it ALSO makes sense to do it a different way. It's two mutually exclusive systems being compared. Not "LOLS, let's just take an old IE game, remove combat XP, and call it a day, ^_^"

 

The game is being designed around the fact that characters will not receive xp for the sheer act of assaulting things. Using your exact reasoning, in a system with combat XP, the player is "punished" for not killing every single enemy there is. So, if you design a cave with a horde of undead pouring out of a portal, and you're supposed to escape, you're basically giving the player a reason to try to fight an infinite horde instead of escape, when the characters would really have no reason to do anything but run.

[Razsius]

Oh it's been such a long time I actually forgot it could be fun to *post* on forums instead of lurk on them.  Aluminiumtrioxid I am having fun... this is a bad, bad thing.  I'll give you a piece of friendly advice as thanks for providing me with a small bit of pleasure after a long boring day at work.  I am not the best of guys to "challenge"...

 

Yes, combat xp advocates just love to talk about these "entirely different xp based problems", but always fail to provide examples of it. If you can, do so. If not, shut the hell up already about it.

Besides, if I look upon the RPGs of the last two plus decades, I can pretty much tell you, they didn't do much to close these loopholes. If they'd have done so, we would likely not have this conversation. Perhaps you should go and actually play them instead of talking nonsense?

 

Oh Aluminium you ask me for examples that you yourself have already provided to... yourself.  Remember this guy?

 

Razsius, on 16 January 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

I've got one and only one real question to those that prefer the objective based xp system.  If you've played Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, what reason do you have to clear out the entire sewer system in Hollywood and why is it a "viable" or "good" choice (emotional diapering yourself notwithstanding)?

No reason. However, is that a problem with the principle, or the implementation?

 

I phrased my question very succinctly in an effort to get an answer that I (quite frankly) already expected.  According to your very reason there is no actual purpose to fighting through that sewer system.  In other words it is meaningless to use combat in that situation.  Does that sound like good game design to you?  If yes, please never ever design a game.  If no, then you have made my case for me .

 

But i'm not being very fair here am I?  Let's instead assume that those little critters dropped loot.  Let us then assume it would follow the model of all previous IE games in that they would drop loot on par with "trash mobs".  In this case probably somewhere along the lines of halfway through the game the items would probably have been sold for something equivalent to pocket change.  Oops.. we seemed to have moved the "carrot" of xp to the "carrot" of loot.  Well i'll be that almost sounds slightly problematic and perhaps quite similar to the very thing we were supposedly trying to avoid with an objective based xp system.  Funny that .

 

As for the loopholes there are solutions to them.  In Baldur's Gate you got xp from scribing scrolls and disarming traps yet you got neither in Icewind Dale.  It's almost like they closed some loopholes.  There also have been instances of rpgs designed so that you get neither loot nor experience from summoned monsters which strangely enough can be an all the time type of thing in an objective based xp system.  Funny how a solution to a perceived problem in a combat xp based system gets taken to a global scale in an objective based xp system.  This forces me the player to deal with a problem *I* now have on my hands because it was *forced* upon me by a developer looking to "probably balance things" I wouldn't have used in the first place.   I have provided my example for you now I will provide a counter example to solidify my point.  I see that you thoroughly enjoy romance in your rpgs.  Let's assume there was absolutely no way to avoid them in a play through of PE.  Would you feel just a tad angry that suddenly this applied in PE when it was always optional in the IE games?  Why?

 

Oh and I have played many rpgs in the past Fallout 1+2, BG series, IWD (playing), PS: T, etc.  Yea remember those guys?  All had combat xp based systems.

 

@Lephys

 

You do realize that because you get equal loot in either scenario the "smart" thing to do is exactly what Helm has been saying for the past what 6+ pages?  In other words, take the path of least resistance.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Razsius

[PrimeJunta]

I phrased my question very succinctly in an effort to get an answer that I (quite frankly) already expected.  According to your very reason there is no actual purpose to fighting through that sewer system.  In other words it is meaningless to use combat in that situation.  Does that sound like good game design to you?  If yes, please never ever design a game.  If no, then you have made my case for me .

/me raises hand

 

I don't understand. Why is it bad design not to reward players for clearing those sewers instead of sneaking through them?

[TRX850]

Anybody want some cake? There's plenty to go around.

[UpgrayeDD]

 

I phrased my question very succinctly in an effort to get an answer that I (quite frankly) already expected.  According to your very reason there is no actual purpose to fighting through that sewer system.  In other words it is meaningless to use combat in that situation.  Does that sound like good game design to you?  If yes, please never ever design a game.  If no, then you have made my case for me .

/me raises hand

 

I don't understand. Why is it bad design not to reward players for clearing those sewers instead of sneaking through them?

You don't considering add an entire area that players think is a waste of time is bad design?  If players get to an area and think "well skip this ****"  thats not a problem?  And in the example that cat gave how is the jungle not meant to be something skipped over?  Maybe thats the biggest problem between the two camps.  One side sees stealthing as skipping content and the other side sees it as something that is the content.  Some people think experience comes from conflict and actions and other people think its about getting from A to B.

[Razsius]

 

I phrased my question very succinctly in an effort to get an answer that I (quite frankly) already expected.  According to your very reason there is no actual purpose to fighting through that sewer system.  In other words it is meaningless to use combat in that situation.  Does that sound like good game design to you?  If yes, please never ever design a game.  If no, then you have made my case for me .

/me raises hand

 

I don't understand. Why is it bad design not to reward players for clearing those sewers instead of sneaking through them?

In a developer sense, it's bad design for a system built to provide choice to effectively not have one (a choice).  It's like all those options in JRPGs where your two choices for the "help the farmer" quest being "Yes" and "No" only if you select "No" the option pops up once again with an "Are you sure?" until you hit the "Yes" button.  In a player sense, the quickest and most efficient method of getting through the sewers is *very* apparent.  Only crazy bastards and rpers choose option 1 (ie fight their way through).  I am one of those crazy bastards btw.  In a game world sense, it makes absolutely no sense for you the vampire to allow rogue errant vampire creations to run rampart through the sewers of Hollywood because the Sabat don't give a flying rip about breaking the Masquerade and if it is broken it would spell the inevitable doom of you and the entire vampire race.  Letting even one of those little critters get to the surface and start killing the crap out of humans would almost definitely lead to the Masquerade breaking.  The game system however, does not recognize this very deadly threat.  There are four other similar cases (though not as pronounced) in Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

 

The combat xp system fudges this a bit in a sense that you do not feel like you are accomplishing nothing or that your work is basically meaningless.  You *are* getting something in the form of xp that advances your character.  There is a very real reason you (the player) would now wish to fight through the sewers.  This doesn't fix the glaringly obvious problem but instead uses the rpg equivalent of the mathematical letter "i" to "hand wave" the "math".  Ironically, you would now have to make an actual choice.  The sewers would become "Do I use every last bullet I have to wreak all the critters in the sewer system to get gobs (hopefully) of xp or do I use significantly less resources to sneak or run by them all?"

 

Edit: Again there is no such thing as parity of choice.  I have absolutely have no clue why Josh thinks there is.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Razsius

[PrimeJunta]

@Razsius: if those critters really are a deadly threat, why not make cleaning them up a quest?

 

Suppose you sneak your way through, avoiding combat, then mention it to that freaky Nosferatu guy at the other end. He goes "Oh carp, that sounds nasty. Somebody really ought to do something about them. Would you...?" Then you could go back and splat them, then come back for the quest XP. Or if you already did on your way there, you can go "Well, I already smeared them all over the walls akshually," and he'd go  "Good boy, Raszius, here's your XP. DING!"

 

Point being: if something really needs killing, then presumably there's someone in the game world who wants it dead, in which case it makes perfect sense to make it a quest. On the other hand if something is there just as an obstacle to getting spit done, it doesn't matter how you got around it, in which case there's no point in favoring one particular approach (e.g. killing) over another (e.g. sneaking). Take that adventure staple: the guard. The poor sod is just doing his job. You need to get to whatever he's guarding. There's no compelling reason to kill him if you can just, oh, sap him, or sneak past him, or pickpocket his key. Why automatically grant extra XP for killing him?

[TRX850]

Maybe there should be an "XP decision tree" that awards XP for defeating hostile enemies, but less, or none, if you attacked a neutral person/creature first?

 

i.e. if they were not presenting themselves as a "combat threat" then killing someone who was unprepared for combat doesn't count towards XP.

 

This might solve the degenerative issue of completing a quest via non-violent means then going back and killing everything for extra XP.

 

????

[PrimeJunta]

There are certainly ways of making combat-XP less "degenerative," but since there are fundamentally less problematic alternatives available, what's the point?

 

It's fiddly, involves more scripting, more testing, and more bugs, and every decision like that comes with its own downsides. For one thing, I think a world that behaves consistently is inherently more enjoyable to play in than one where the rules change all the time. I know I felt a bit gypped when I was suddenly getting 0 XP for those respawning shades, for example. Objective-XP is easily understandable and transparent; kill XP that you sometimes get and sometimes don't would likely just feel random and frustrating.

[TRX850]

There wouldn't be anything "random" to a rule which states you get XP for killing actively hostile enemies, and none for a cheap shot at a guard who was not actively hostile.

 

If their selection circle is red, and they're coming at you, then it's a clear opportunity for an XP kill.

 

If their selection circle is not red, and you want to stab a merchant in the face because he questioned your mother's marital status, then it's clearly not worth kill XP.

 

 

Remember, fighters and fightery types kill. It's what they do. It's what they train to do. They prepare for it. They yearn for it. They welcome it. They revel in it.

 

Denying them kill XP as they progress through a quest, is akin to undermining their usefulness. The fact that they *might* get an equivalent amount of XP after completing a quest has, if anything, a demotivating aspect to it.

 

Another analogy: If my employer promised to pay my salary YEARLY, and I reluctantly agreed, I'd spend the whole year grumpy and second-guessing their intentions, even if their intentions were good. In a game world, this comes down to player expectation. If they receive naff all XP during a standard game session, the entertainment value would diminish. Whereas if you rewarded them for what they're good at, at regular intervals, it keeps the sense of progress alive.

[Razsius]

 

 

@Razsius: if those critters really are a deadly threat, why not make cleaning them up a quest?

 

Suppose you sneak your way through, avoiding combat, then mention it to that freaky Nosferatu guy at the other end. He goes "Oh carp, that sounds nasty. Somebody really ought to do something about them. Would you...?" Then you could go back and splat them, then come back for the quest XP. Or if you already did on your way there, you can go "Well, I already smeared them all over the walls akshually," and he'd go  "Good boy, Raszius, here's your XP. DING!"

 

Point being: if something really needs killing, then presumably there's someone in the game world who wants it dead, in which case it makes perfect sense to make it a quest. On the other hand if something is there just as an obstacle to getting spit done, it doesn't matter how you got around it, in which case there's no point in favoring one particular approach (e.g. killing) over another (e.g. sneaking). Take that adventure staple: the guard. The poor sod is just doing his job. You need to get to whatever he's guarding. There's no compelling reason to kill him if you can just, oh, sap him, or sneak past him, or pickpocket his key. Why automatically grant extra XP for killing him?

 

Your solution works for the extremely linear game that is Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines but adding kill quests to every marauding orc band in PE should basically be unfeasible (as I would hope the game isn't nearly as linear).  At the same time however, the solution is one of those annoying mmo staples the kill x or kill x critters quests.  How would you parse the 15 level mega dungeon for example?  Are there npcs who have no business being in a deadly dungeon scattered about to provide "milestones"?  Are there x number of quests for the dungeon itself in the nearby town?  Or is there one lump sum for completing all 15 levels?  Any of those 3 options has the very real potential of driving me nuts.  One of the things that majorly annoyed me about Watcher's Tower is how it really didn't feel like a dungeon with every Tom, **** and Harry just chilling in it.  Regardless, cleaning out a dungeon of vicious hero eating monsters should have some form of benefit for you the player.  The benefit is again obvious if you get xp for every one of them you kill.

 

As for your question, if the quest given to you was "Grab McGuffin and do so as quietly as possible" then there might be associated faction loss with killing the guard or the quest giver might spit in your face instead of reward you for doing a good job.  If you have a particular munchkin type player who would try to get around those two negatives by turning in the quest to then go back and kill the guard maybe the place is sealed off because of your recent theft which would make sense within the game world and really only piss off players who are trying to munchkin.  Most of the xp loopholes could be fixed easily by having negatives like VtM: B had with Humanity loss.

 

Edit: There is a certain irony that I, myself, have a potential solution for the objective based xp crowd for the mega dungeon.  That's a Design Challenge for another time however.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Razsius

[Helm]

My favorite quotes of the day :

Some people think experience comes from conflict and actions and other people think its about getting from A to B.

In a developer sense, it's bad design for a system built to provide choice to effectively not have one (a choice). [...] The combat xp system fudges this a bit in a sense that you do not feel like you are accomplishing nothing or that your work is basically meaningless. [...] Again there is no such thing as parity of choice. I have absolutely have no clue why Josh thinks there is.

Denying them kill XP as they progress through a quest, is akin to undermining their usefulness. The fact that they *might* get an equivalent amount of XP after completing a quest has, if anything, a demotivating aspect to it.

Your solution [kill quests] works for the extremely linear game that is Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines but adding kill quests to every marauding orc band in PE should basically be unfeasible (as I would hope the game isn't nearly as linear). At the same time however, the solution is one of those annoying mmo staples the kill x or kill x critters quests. How would you parse the 15 level mega dungeon for example?

 

Edited January 18, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

There are certainly ways of making combat-XP less "degenerative," but since there are fundamentally less problematic alternatives available, what's the point?

Removing combat xp (from tactical combat based game!) is very problematic. Removing quest xp is very problematic. Removing diplomacy xp is very problematic.

[Kaldurenik]

I honestly dont see the problem that some people here have.

 

Maybe someone could explain it?

[PrimeJunta]

Your solution works for the extremely linear game that is Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines but adding kill quests to every marauding orc band in PE should basically be unfeasible (as I would hope the game isn't nearly as linear).  At the same time however, the solution is one of those annoying mmo staples the kill x or kill x critters quests.

What's wrong with having the Baron of Derpwood offer a bounty of 10 zorkmids per dead orc, payable upon presentation of an orc snout?

How would you parse the 15 level mega dungeon for example?  Are there npcs who have no business being in a deadly dungeon scattered about to provide "milestones"?  Are there x number of quests for the dungeon itself in the nearby town?  Or is there one lump sum for completing all 15 levels?

I'm kinda interested to see how the P:E team does decide to handle it, since on the face of it The Endless Paths sounds very Diablo-esque (except not randomly generated) and as such a good candidate for an area where kill XP would work without creating perverse incentives. My guess is exploration XP -- they have said that that's in. So for example n * (dungeon level) XP for every room you enter.

Any of those 3 options has the very real potential of driving me nuts.  One of the things that majorly annoyed me about Watcher's Tower is how it really didn't feel like a dungeon with every Tom, **** and Harry just chilling in it.  Regardless, cleaning out a dungeon of vicious hero eating monsters should have some form of benefit for you the player.  The benefit is again obvious if you get xp for every one of them you kill. 

As for your question, if the quest given to you was "Grab McGuffin and do so as quietly as possible" then there might be associated faction loss with killing the guard or the quest giver might spit in your face instead of reward you for doing a good job.  If you have a particular munchkin type player who would try to get around those two negatives by turning in the quest to then go back and kill the guard maybe the place is sealed off because of your recent theft which would make sense within the game world and really only piss off players who are trying to munchkin.  Most of the xp loopholes could be fixed easily by having negatives like VtM: B had with Humanity loss.

Yup, you can certainly work your way around the problems. My point is that with a kill XP system, you will have to constantly work around questions like this, whereas with an objective XP system you don't -- you just decide what you want to reward, and reward it, end of story. Systemic XP is problematic precisely because the bigger your game gets, the harder it gets to manage, and the more exceptions or special cases you have to add: locking areas (which always feels artificial to me), disappearing former foes (also artificial unless there's an in-game rationale for it), switching off kill XP for certain foes (e.g. those spawned by a spawn-o-mat, à la that BG2 temple). This is poor design IMO; you're taking something that doesn't really work very well and then adding patches to sort of keep it afloat.

 

Edit: There is a certain irony that I, myself, have a potential solution for the objective based xp crowd for the mega dungeon.  That's a Design Challenge for another time however.

I'm curious to hear it.

[Helm]

 

Your solution works for the extremely linear game that is Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines but adding kill quests to every marauding orc band in PE should basically be unfeasible (as I would hope the game isn't nearly as linear).  At the same time however, the solution is one of those annoying mmo staples the kill x or kill x critters quests.

What's wrong with having the Baron of Derpwood offer a bounty of 10 zorkmids per dead orc, payable upon presentation of an orc snout?

What's wrong with killing 10 orcs for 1 zorkmid and 10xp each?

 

 

How would you parse the 15 level mega dungeon for example?  Are there npcs who have no business being in a deadly dungeon scattered about to provide "milestones"?  Are there x number of quests for the dungeon itself in the nearby town?  Or is there one lump sum for completing all 15 levels?

I'm kinda interested to see how the P:E team does decide to handle it, since on the face of it The Endless Paths sounds very Diablo-esque (except not randomly generated) and as such a good candidate for an area where kill XP would work without creating perverse incentives.

So combat xp + combat loot is a perverse incentive, but if the Baron of Derpwood offers a bounty of 10 zorkmids + xp per dead orc/kobold/whatever, then it isn't a perverse incentive?

 

Yeah, that really makes sense (not).

Yup, you can certainly work your way around the problems. My point is that with a kill XP system, you will have to constantly work around questions like this, whereas with an objective XP system you don't -- you just decide what you want to reward, and reward it, end of story.

Yes, true. Because we are all retards that can't quell compulsive killing for xp (but refuse to kill for loot or any other reason).

 

Anyway, his proposal to add a simple mechanic to prevent "xp double dipping" and "xp loopholes" is legit. scripting would also work.

[Valorian]

It is delightful to see that more and more people are starting to voice serious concerns against the " 'objective' xp only " system. The faithfully blind are very loud, as it is usually the case, but the voice of reason is becoming even louder.

[TrashMan]

I honestly dont see the problem that some people here have.

 

Maybe someone could explain it?

 

Apparently some people fear that getting rid of kill XP will mean they can't game the system and min-max enough for their tastes.

Go figure.

 

 

Also, quest XP? A more accurate term would be OBJETIVE XP.

Quest is tied to much to quest givers and actual contracts.

[TRX850]

I prefer the old way, not simply because that's the way it's always been done (in IE games anyway). I'm all for considering change if the innovation doesn't nerf my enjoyment. From reading posts in this thread and others, there are partial solutions that appear to come close to solving the issue, but then we are promptly reminded of the potentially endless and staggering number of ways a player can break (intentionally or unintentionally) the XP mechanic.

 

Most players, whether they realize it or not, think only of their characters' development, and don't particularly have any loyalty to quest-givers beyond the fact they provide opportunities to gain more XP and build their characters up even further.  It may not be the popular view, but I think character development tends to trump story development.

[PrimeJunta]

 So combat xp + combat loot is a perverse incentive, but if the Baron of Derpwood offers a bounty of 10 zorkmids + xp per dead orc/kobold/whatever, then it isn't a perverse incentive?

 

Yeah, that really makes sense (not).

Yes, dear. That's because if the Baron of Derpwood offers the bounty, it becomes an in-game objective. Therefore, because whacking them aligns with designer intent, by definition, it is not degenerate behavior.

 

This really shouldn't be that hard to understand. What you, Raszius et al. are proposing is providing a systemic reward, then identifying situations when it will produce perverse incentives, and then patching it up by removing the possibility to get it, such as by magically disappearing the critters, locking you out of areas, or making them exceptional 0 XP kills.

 

Conversely, what P:E is going to have is no systemic reward, but situational rewards wherever and however the game designers feel they're appropriate. They can even put in kill XP for specific creatures by designating them objectives and manually connecting XP awards to killing them, if they feel so inclined.

 

The former means that you have to anticipate degenerate player behavior, and then actively dis-incetivize it. The latter means that you just have to incentivize non-degenerate player behavior, and let the player do whatever he wants.

 

The latter is fundamentally easier, because it's very, very difficult to anticipate everything a player might want to do.

Edited January 18, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[TrashMan]

It is delightful to see that more and more people are starting to voice serious concerns against the " 'objective' xp only " system. The faithfully blind are very loud, as it is usually the case, but the voice of reason is becoming even louder.

Really? From where I'm standing it looks like the voice of reason (objective XP) is being ignored.

[Valorian]

 

I honestly dont see the problem that some people here have.

 

Maybe someone could explain it?

 

Apparently some people fear that getting rid of kill XP will mean they can't game the system and min-max enough for their tastes.

Go figure.

No.

Removing something that was present for 20+ years in rpgs, and proven to work just fine, would diminish their enjoyment of the game.

 

This has to do with min-maxing as much as your furious crybaby campaign, against rogue's sneak attacks being a rogue's exclusive, had to do with common sense.

[Helm]

 

 

 

 

So combat xp + combat loot is a perverse incentive, but if the Baron of Derpwood offers a bounty of 10 zorkmids + xp per dead orc/kobold/whatever, then it isn't a perverse incentive?

 

Yeah, that really makes sense (not).

Yes, dear. That's because if the Baron of Derpwood offers the bounty, it becomes an in-game objective. Therefore, because whacking them aligns with designer intent, by definition, it is not degenerate behavior.

Are you some kind of clown that is trying to be funny or do you just have no idea what you are writing? Because that makes absolutely no sense at all. What you just wrote is the most contradictory and ridiculous post in this whole thread.

 

This is what you wrote:

"If a designer implements objective xp, then it aligns with designer intent, by definition, it is not perverse degenerate behavior."

 

on the other hand:

"If a designer implements combat xp, then it does not align with designer intent, by definition, it is perverse degenerate behavior."

 

Are you high or what the heck is wrong with you?

BTW, you also really have to stop calling the system used in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape degenerate. They are great games. Jeez.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Helm

[Kaldurenik]

 

I honestly dont see the problem that some people here have.

 

Maybe someone could explain it?

 

Apparently some people fear that getting rid of kill XP will mean they can't game the system and min-max enough for their tastes.

Go figure.

 

 

Also, quest XP? A more accurate term would be OBJETIVE XP.

Quest is tied to much to quest givers and actual contracts.

Aha... Well one can still "min / max" people that want to go back and kill everything that move can still do so. They wont get any experience once they completed the quest. However they will get gold & items. And if Obsidian balance the game abit so that not all the best items are in chests and they are more spread out. Puzzles, hidden object, chests, special creatures then it should be okey.

 

Overall i think we will see a more "balanced" game with more options and more playstyles by using a objective based system... No one will be weak because they decided to talk their way out of issues. Instead the experience will be balanced around everyone having the same experience (- side objectives). At said point.

 

But yeah like i said before i dont see the problem.

[PrimeJunta]

@Helm: The definition of degenerate strategy is something like "player behavior which is not aligned with the design goals of the game, but which results in an advantage for the player." If the designer has explicitly designated killing a group of monsters as a goal, then killing those monsters is, by definition, not degenerate behavior. That is because objective XP has to be intentionally placed. 

 

Systemic rewards, on the other hand, tend to incentivize degenerate behavior, such as hunting for traps only to spring them, locks only to pick them, or monsters only to kill them.

 

Intentional incentive -> desired behavior = good design. Systemic incentive -> unintended incentive -> degenerate behavior = bad. Simple!

 

Of course, if the designer's intention is that the player goes around killing everything, then killing everything is not degenerate behavior, and kill XP is a perfectly good way of incentivizing it. This is the case in Diablo or NetHack, for example. From what I've understood, this is not the P:E team's design intention, though. Therefore, no kill XP.