Degenerate Gameplay

[Valorian]

Amentep, I want the xp system to be balanced towards giving the most xp for the hardest and most demanding options.

 

So you'd be okay with a system that, for example, doesn't reward combat against weaker enemies at all, but still rewards stealth options?

 

So lets say a CR encounter 2 levels above the party gives the same XP to stealth and combat but a CR encounter 5 levels below the party only gives XP to the stealth party (because there's still some "effort" involved on the part of the sneaking party in sneaking but not in fighting the punny fellows)?

 

What effort is there to sneaking past a significantly inferior enemy? Also, what's the danger? What's the consequence for being spotted and heard? :D

You do have to take consequences into account for success/failure when employing such a philosophical stretching of circumstances.

 

Penalties to combat if caught sneaking plus the alerting of ALL monsters in the area to your presence (ruling out sneaking further even against more advanced foes, requiring retreat/failure of the objective or heavier combat resource investment than a combat path)?

 

: *cat is bored* Yeah, because that would make so much sense.

[Helm]

It seems to me that the disagreement here is one side believing that stealth won't (or perhaps can't?) have an equivalent resource drain to combat. Would that be accurate?

You don't have to use some stealth ability to avoid every combat situation you know.

 

And how could the resource drain be the same (if there even is any for sneaking)? Josh already said that pacifist sneaking will not be penalized in any way.

 

And what takes longer, combat or sneaking? Where are you more likely to make a mistake and get your party seriously injured, combat or sneaking? In which situation do you have to make wise tactical decisions, combat or sneaking? What defines a tactical combat based game, combat or sneaking?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[Amentep]

You don't have to use some stealth ability to avoid every combat situation you know.

 

And how could the resource drain be the same (if there even is any for sneaking)? Josh already said that pacifist sneaking will not be penalized in any way.

 

And what takes longer, combat or sneaking?

 

If you're wanting to do a "legit" stealth build, then you'd have to use stealth ability to avoid combat as much as possible (since I'd think a stealth build should be weaker to a combat build for, you know, combat).

 

I assumed Josh was talking about penalized in terms of losing out on XP with which to improve the area of focus (stealth, diplomacy). If Combat + Quest Xp is implemented and the stealth path only gives quest XP, then stealth parties are going to take significantly longer to advance their skills, leading to stealth paths "deadending" because the party is too under leveled to succeed in high level stealth checks.

 

Depends on how sneaking is implement. If we're not talking about magical invisibility and silence, it might take a good bit of time to work characters around paths without being spotted.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Amentep

[JFSOCC]

Helm, your fears are ungrounded, many people have tried to make this clear to you. All game-play styles will be available, and sometimes some will be more viable or logical than others. Combat will not be less of a possibility, but other paths are now possible too. Your choices will depend on the skills of your party and your playstyle. The XP rewards for combat specifically were removed because combat was often the no-brainer answer. So rather than becoming less viable from an equal position, it's becoming equally viable from a preferential position.

I've seen this thread degenerate into factions and negative language. that is not conducive to good argument. so let's get back to arguing the points, shall we?

[Helm]

You don't have to use some stealth ability to avoid every combat situation you know.

 

And how could the resource drain be the same (if there even is any for sneaking)? Josh already said that pacifist sneaking will not be penalized in any way.

 

And what takes longer, combat or sneaking?

 

If you're wanting to do a "legit" stealth build, then you'd have to use stealth ability to avoid combat as much as possible (since I'd think a stealth build should be weaker to a combat build for, you know, combat).

 

I assumed Josh was talking about penalized in terms of losing out on XP with which to improve the area of focus (stealth, diplomacy). If Combat + Quest Xp is implemented and the stealth path only gives quest XP, then stealth parties are going to take significantly longer to advance their skills, leading to stealth paths "deadending" because the party is too under leveled to succeed in high level stealth checks.

 

Depends on how sneaking is implement. If we're not talking about magical invisibility and silence, it might take a good bit of time to work characters around paths without being spotted.

Avoiding combat will always yield the best results (unless it is some rare elite mob with good $$$ loot). Even if you penalize or remove the stealth ability.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[Amentep]

Avoiding combat will always yield the best results. Even if you penalize or remove the stealth ability.

 

If stealth and combat paths both drain equivalent resources...how is avoiding combat better than not avoiding combat?

[JFSOCC]

You don't have to use some stealth ability to avoid every combat situation you know.

 

And how could the resource drain be the same (if there even is any for sneaking)? Josh already said that pacifist sneaking will not be penalized in any way.

 

And what takes longer, combat or sneaking?

 

If you're wanting to do a "legit" stealth build, then you'd have to use stealth ability to avoid combat as much as possible (since I'd think a stealth build should be weaker to a combat build for, you know, combat).

 

I assumed Josh was talking about penalized in terms of losing out on XP with which to improve the area of focus (stealth, diplomacy). If Combat + Quest Xp is implemented and the stealth path only gives quest XP, then stealth parties are going to take significantly longer to advance their skills, leading to stealth paths "deadending" because the party is too under leveled to succeed in high level stealth checks.

 

Depends on how sneaking is implement. If we're not talking about magical invisibility and silence, it might take a good bit of time to work characters around paths without being spotted.

Avoiding combat will always yield the best results (unless it is some rare elite mob with good $$$ loot). Even if you penalize or remove the stealth ability.

you don't know that. the game hasn't been made yet.

[Helm]

Avoiding combat will always yield the best results. Even if you penalize or remove the stealth ability.

 

If stealth and combat paths both drain equivalent resources...how is avoiding combat better than not avoiding combat?

Like I said, you don't have to have a stealth ability to avoid combat and avoiding combat is not being penalized in any way whatsoever. Penalizing sneaking or avoiding combat would also violate Sawyers stance on "degenerate design". I have to find the link.

 

Avoiding combat always yields better results.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[Hassat Hunter]

Good luck guys talking to the brick wall who can't properly see Josh's words.

 

I kind of given up...

[Helm]

Good luck guys talking to the brick wall who can't properly see Josh's words.

 

I kind of given up...

Which one of us are you talking about?

[Valorian]

*Cat sneaks in*

 

-) Non-combat will be favored because alternatives to combat are easier, less complex, cost less resources and take generally less time to complete. IE games are indicative in this regard, seeing how stealth and dialgue worked there.

 

-) That is not true!

What if....

It costs 100 000 gold pieces to make a diplomacy check??

 

interjects: You've just upgraded the cost to an unreasonable level, not the complexity of choosing dialogue options.

 

It costs potions(!) if you want to sneak around??

 

interjects: It is unreasonable to expect them to design stealth around drinking invisibility potions. Then that's not sneaking around, it's drinking around.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Amentep, I want the xp system to be balanced towards giving the most xp for the hardest and most demanding options.

This.

 

Why should one player who simply sneaks through an area receive the exact same amount of xp as another who fights his way through?

 

Because he played the game in a clever and efficient way? Shall the developers, perhaps, insert a "shoot yourself in the foot" button in the game, and each time you press it, you gain xp for neatly crippling yourself?

 

Also, it's a despicable act to affiliate the obviously superior race of cats with quite stupid viewpoints. Shame on you people.

Edited January 16, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Helm]

Because he played the game in a clever and efficient way?

You're right, absolutely right. Sneaking is the clever and efficient way of playing PE.

[Hormalakh]

A few things.

 

1- killing orcs "to save a little girl" shouldn't require XP for your character to do the quest. If you wish to role-play the good character you would save the girl. if you wish to role-play the bad character, you would kill the girl. both quests should not allow XP to factor into the equation. Role-playing should be the factor. You can do this easier when you're rewarding objective-based xp only.

 

2- there are too many different options for rewarding xp if you were to script everything. exceptions and individually scripting each enemy to give xp or not give xp is bound to create bugs and errors that can be avoided with objective-based xp.

 

3- objective-based xp does not preclude players getting xp for killing certain enemies (if they are an objective). by making each specific kill an objective-based one, systemic errors are less likely to occur.

 

4- until you figure out a way to limit players from gaining xp without having to play against their character, combat xp doesn't make sense for a game trying to show-case the RPG elements of "letting you play your character the way you want." An example (or two or three) is druids killing animals, pacifists having to kill everything with XP just to keep up with the joneses, etc.

 

5- combat should be enjoyable without the requirement of "XP" to make it fun. If XP is what you, as the player, consider "reward" this is shining light on the fact that combat isn't particularly fun. developers should go back and fix combat, not sugar-coat combat by giving XP.

 

6- why is it wrong for you not to kill everything in sight?

 

7- each combat should be a decision. If xp (the ultimate commodity reward, XP is useful everywhere) is the reward, there is no decision. Hand-placed loot considerations (from killing enemies) and the risk of combat make for a more interesting choice. Is it worth the risk to utilize your resources now for the possible loot gained? With XP, you are always sure that the reward is worth the risk. Difficult battles always pay well in XP and easy battles pay a little in XP (yet they still pay).

 

---

 

finally, i'm frankly a little tired of seeing the same comments about "degeneracy" over and over again. Snide comments about "here we go again, now the devs are calling us degenerates!" have been explained by Sawyer and others numerous times. Seriously, get over yourselves. Degeneracy isn't directed at you. Stop it with the useless snide remarks. It adds nothing to the conversation and wastes other readers' time.

[ReyVagabond]

Amentep, I want the xp system to be balanced towards giving the most xp for the hardest and most demanding options.

This.

 

Why should one player who simply sneaks through an area receive the exact same amount of xp as another who fights his way through?

 

Because he played the game in a clever and efficient way? Shall the developers, perhaps, insert a "shoot yourself in the foot" button in the game, and each time you press it, you gain xp for neatly crippling yourself?

 

Also, it's a despicable act to affiliate the obviously superior race of cats with quite stupid viewpoints. Shame on you people.

 

Im with him, the most eficient way to do stuff should give you the better reward.

its the more practical and more sane way to do stuff.

 

Think of stories like Lord of the rings, how much time they try to sneak instead of ok, ill go straight and kill everything in my path.

 

Sneaking is more efficient consumes less resourses, so because you where more efficient you gain more EXP. Just as life beeing more Efficient is more rewarding.

[Hormalakh]

completing ojectives regardless of how you complete them should be the design. devs should not reward specific playstyles, they should reward players completing objectives in any way that they wish. this expands playing styles and creativity.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Because he played the game in a clever and efficient way?

You're right, absolutely right. Sneaking is the clever and efficient way of playing PE.

 

That is your argument for combat xp, isn't it? "Sneaking(/diplomacy) consumes less time and resources." Thus, isn't sneaking (and diplomacy) a more efficient (and, by extension, clever) way to play?

[Helm]

Sneaking is more efficient consumes less resourses, so because you where more efficient you gain more EXP.

Like I said, sneaking will be the most efficient way of playing PE. And you will be rewarded for doing it too. Thats the way it is.

[UpgrayeDD]

Amentep, I want the xp system to be balanced towards giving the most xp for the hardest and most demanding options.

This.

 

Why should one player who simply sneaks through an area receive the exact same amount of xp as another who fights his way through?

 

Because he played the game in a clever and efficient way? Shall the developers, perhaps, insert a "shoot yourself in the foot" button in the game, and each time you press it, you gain xp for neatly crippling yourself?

 

Also, it's a despicable act to affiliate the obviously superior race of cats with quite stupid viewpoints. Shame on you people.

Your right they need the winStealth button is the obvious answer. Or the don't go near unneccesary combat button, because it will waste you time. If I'm exploring the wilderness and see a hostile yeti roaming around well %*^& that hes a waste of time. I might come across a pack of werewolves similar to what was in Baldurs gate 2 but unless I get an object to defeat them for attacking me then skip that too because I don't need the longswords they drop. THe shadows on the way to the sun temple? Waste of time if the don't give exp so avoid them too. Unless they are going to micromanage everything in exporable areas to give Exp or do away with them completely then most of those fights would be pointless. Edited January 16, 2013 by UpgrayeDD

[PrimeJunta]

If I'm exploring the wilderness and see a hostile yeti roaming around well %*^& that hes a waste of time. I might come across a pack of werewolves similar to what was in Baldurs gate 2 but unless I get an object to defeat them for attacking me then skip that too because I don't need the longswords they drop. THe shadows on the way to the sun temple? Waste of time if the don't give exp so avoid them too. Unless they are going to micromanage everything in exporable areas to give Exp or do away with them completely then most of those fights would be pointless.

 

And this is bad, because...?

[Hormalakh]

A perfect example of non-XP giving was actually Baldur's Gate 2 in the Sun Temple. The shadows kept coming and you could keep killing them but they netted you 0 XP. You didn't "waste" time with the shadows all day. You killed the few that you had to to clear a path and moved on. Nobody complained about that, did they?

 

And the combat-lovers got to combat it up.

 

h/t UpgrayDD for reminding me about the Sun Temple.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Hormalakh

[UpgrayeDD]

If I'm exploring the wilderness and see a hostile yeti roaming around well %*^& that hes a waste of time. I might come across a pack of werewolves similar to what was in Baldurs gate 2 but unless I get an object to defeat them for attacking me then skip that too because I don't need the longswords they drop. THe shadows on the way to the sun temple? Waste of time if the don't give exp so avoid them too. Unless they are going to micromanage everything in exporable areas to give Exp or do away with them completely then most of those fights would be pointless.

 

And this is bad, because...?

yeah because convincing bandits not to attack you deserves Exp but killing a hostile yeti that eats people is nothing right?

[Hormalakh]

If I'm exploring the wilderness and see a hostile yeti roaming around well %*^& that hes a waste of time. I might come across a pack of werewolves similar to what was in Baldurs gate 2 but unless I get an object to defeat them for attacking me then skip that too because I don't need the longswords they drop. THe shadows on the way to the sun temple? Waste of time if the don't give exp so avoid them too. Unless they are going to micromanage everything in exporable areas to give Exp or do away with them completely then most of those fights would be pointless.

 

And this is bad, because...?

yeah because convincing bandits not to attack you deserves Exp but killing a hostile yeti that eats people is nothing right?

 

if the townspeople asked you to kill the yeti and it becomes an objective, what's wrong with dealing with the problem however you wish to? killing him, talking to him to not come back (taking his loot with him), and probably a few other creative ways that i can't think of right now. what's the problem?

[Helm]

5- combat should be enjoyable without the requirement of "XP" to make it fun. If XP is what you, as the player, consider "reward" this is shining light on the fact that combat isn't particularly fun. developers should go back and fix combat, not sugar-coat combat by giving XP.

I agree. That is why xp for all optional content like sidequests should be removed from the game. Nobody should be rewarded for doing anything, which will make the game just as fun if not more.

[Hormalakh]

5- combat should be enjoyable without the requirement of "XP" to make it fun. If XP is what you, as the player, consider "reward" this is shining light on the fact that combat isn't particularly fun. developers should go back and fix combat, not sugar-coat combat by giving XP.

I agree. That is why xp for all optional content like sidequests should be removed from the game. Nobody should be rewarded for doing anything, which will make the game just as fun if not more.

 

don't be daft. side content means creating extra objectives for players to finish if they wish. those who are interested in saving every cat from every tree should be able to. those who want to see what happens next in the story don't have to. what does this have to do with combat xp?

 

Take Windspear Hills from BG2. Let's say the main objective (worth 50k XP) was to save the Paladin's boy. Let's say that the paladin also told you that he hated Fiirkaag and wanted to get rid of him from the Hills. That would be an optional objective. You could tell him to leave the hills and never come back (and he'd take his Holy Avenger with him) or you could kill him. That can also net you 5k XP once you get rid of Firrkaag. Where is the issue?

 

E: if you haven't played BG2 you wouldn't realize this, but you can save the boy without killing Fiirkaag. You just side-step the dude.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Hormalakh