Degenerate Gameplay

[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.

 

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?

Yes, that is true for PE. Sneaking will be the most efficient way to play the game, and you are right. Everybody will of course choose the most efficient path, seeing that it doesn't really make sense to do anything else other than sneak and make wise diplomatic decisions.

[PrimeJunta]

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

 

If it's hostile and eats people, I would expect someone to want it dead. That's a quest right there. If nobody wants it dead, why would you want to kill it? If just you want it dead, why would you deserve a reward for killing it?

 

Anyway, I'm done with this topic. It's just going round and round in circles. Enough.

[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?

 

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?

So the only way to advance your character is in doing whatever an npc tells you to? For some reason a dirty peasant holds the key to my growth? Not that I think the devs would make every objective come from an npc but should that be the case it would be terrible design.

[Hormalakh]

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?

Yes, that is true for PE. Sneaking will be the most efficient way to play the game, and you are right. Everybody will of course choose the most efficient path, seeing that it doesn't really make sense to do anything else other than sneak and make wise diplomatic decisions.

 

This "most efficient" path is not how Sawyer's design decisions have been made until now. What makes you think that this will be the case? He has always tried to make design decisions that have difficult choices. Stop coming up with ridiculous examples that go counter to how the mechanics are going to work.

[ReyVagabond]

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.

 

I think he was beeing sarcastic. but even if he was not!

Ill say this if they make the game XP free, not Levels no xp.

 

Character progretion comes from the story, at key parts, I would not care!

[Gfted1]

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.

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?

 

Sorry but a method of gameplay that offers advantages over other methods (using less resources) is "degerative gameplay". One of the goals of P:E it to program around every uncontrollable human compulsion ("I just cant help myself from pushing the button!!11!") so mechanics like this must be revised to include some method of whacking the player with a rolled up newspaper to ensure they toe the line. Sneaking and diplomacy will have to come with some "cost". Maybe losing one health per second while in stealth mode? I cant think of a good way to cost the player for a diplomacy check. Failing either will probably just result in combat but thats not enough.

[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?

So the only way to advance your character is in doing whatever an npc tells you to? For some reason a dirty peasant holds the key to my growth? Not that I think the devs would make every objective come from an npc but should that be the case it would be terrible design.

Yes. The dirty NPCs hold the key to your growth. Is there an issue? Are you going to tell me how this is communism and socialism and how the liberal elite are trying to take your god-given rights to "play your game your way?"

 

Don't be silly.

 

Either the NPCs tell you to kill the yeti or something else tells you to do it. In any case, the idea that killing this yeti will net you XP is relayed to you. Then you go kill it.

[Hormalakh]

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.

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?

 

Sorry but a method of gameplay that offers advantages over other methods (using less resources) is "degerative gameplay". One of the goals of P:E it to program around every uncontrollable human compulsion ("I just cant help myself from pushing the button!!11!") so mechanics like this must be revised to include some method of whacking the player with a rolled up newspaper to ensure they toe the line. Sneaking and diplomacy will have to come with some "cost". Maybe losing one health per second while in stealth mode? I cant think of a good way to cost the player for a diplomacy check. Failing either will probably just result in combat but thats not enough.

the cost is that you lose out on loot or some other reward. the point is that sawyer would not create such a one-sided scenario and call that deciding. you've been around long enough on the boards to realize that sawyer's definition of "choice" is true. he's given plenty of examples, why are you ignoring those?

[Helm]

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?

Yup. In PE you would of course kill Firkrag for the loot, becase he is an elite mob. And after that you sneak until you reach the next elite mob, because it is the most efficient way of playing the game.

[Hormalakh]

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?

Yup. In PE you would of course kill Firkrag for the loot, becase he is an elite mob. And after that you sneak until you reach the next elite mob, because it is the most efficient way of playing the game.

 

Windspear Hills had narrow hallways that meant you couldn't avoid combat: it would be difficult to by-pass every single combat encounter. And to sneak until you reach the next elite mob would mean you'd need a party of all theives with extremely high sneak skill. Or a whole bunch of invisibility spells. you'd also miss out on the armor and weapons that the enemies would drop (the little loot). So if you're good at combat and think you can fight the minions without too much expense you'd kill them and net the loot. If you're a weakling who just runs away from each enemy, you could be a poor weakling (no loot for you).

 

This is choice in character and playstyle. See how varied your characters can be now? I doubt you do, so we'll continue this little dance...

[UpgrayeDD]

Yes. The dirty NPCs hold the key to your growth. Is there an issue? Are you going to tell me how this is communism and socialism and how the liberal elite are trying to take your god-given rights to "play your game your way?"

 

Don't be silly.

 

Either the NPCs tell you to kill the yeti or something else tells you to do it. In any case, the idea that killing this yeti will net you XP is relayed to you. Then you go kill it.

So are the only enemies in existence going to be ones that directing affect the local populace? That would feel very linear. And anything that doesn't affect them just becomes a waste of time then.

[Helm]

This "most efficient" path is not how Sawyer's design decisions have been made until now. What makes you think that this will be the case? He has always tried to make design decisions that have difficult choices. Stop coming up with ridiculous examples that go counter to how the mechanics are going to work.

I am not talking about conflict resolution or killing elite mobs for good loot $$$. I am talking about regular adventuring or sneaking past regular mobs on the way to your destination. Sneaking is the most efficient way to play PE under such circumstances as we have already ascertained. It would not make sense to play such a large portion of the game the unefficient way.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[Hormalakh]

Yes. The dirty NPCs hold the key to your growth. Is there an issue? Are you going to tell me how this is communism and socialism and how the liberal elite are trying to take your god-given rights to "play your game your way?"

 

Don't be silly.

 

Either the NPCs tell you to kill the yeti or something else tells you to do it. In any case, the idea that killing this yeti will net you XP is relayed to you. Then you go kill it.

So are the only enemies in existence going to be ones that directing affect the local populace? That would feel very linear. And anything that doesn't affect them just becomes a waste of time then.

 

Seriously?

 

Your character is also part of the game. Your character will have his or her own needs and objectives will also come from that. Whatever the story is, there will be a driving force for your character to continue with the game. Objectives can be derived from those internal drivers.

 

Or gods. Perhaps a god asks you to do something. Or maybe you're a priest and your god demands something. The "objective givers" are innummerable.

 

Come now. Don't act like this is something new. Were you ever upset when in previous games, you were given quests by their respective "quest givers?" What's the difference now? Killing enemies didn't really further the game - it didn't really make the game any less linear. Exploration always comes naturally. If you explore you find new quests. If you want to explore every location, yuo'll have to fight some enemies on the way. They just don't give you xp.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Hormalakh]

This "most efficient" path is not how Sawyer's design decisions have been made until now. What makes you think that this will be the case? He has always tried to make design decisions that have difficult choices. Stop coming up with ridiculous examples that go counter to how the mechanics are going to work.

I am not talking about conflict resolution or killing elite mobs for good loot $$$. I am talking about regular adventuring or sneaking past regular mobs on the way to your destination. Sneaking is the most efficient way to play PE under such circumstances as we have already ascertained. It would not make sense to play such a large portion of the game the unefficient way.

If you are not good at sneaking, it is inefficient to sneak past enemies. If you can handle the combat with minimal loss it would make more sense to kill the enemies and proceed than try to sneak past (and fail, being caught with your pants around your ankles and your enemies at your back).

 

Like I said Windspear Hills had narrow halls. You can't sneak past that. If you need to find a key to continue down the dungeon and that key is stuck in a room full of vampires, you can try sneaking past them and trying to unlock the chest to get the key, you can turn undead them (and they flee) and get the chest, you can fight through them. All of these options become actual decisions. XP isn't a factor anymore and you can play with or without combat.

[Helm]

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?

No. They were just an unavoidable obstacle.

[Gfted1]

the cost is that you lose out on loot or some other reward. the point is that sawyer would not create such a one-sided scenario and call that deciding. you've been around long enough on the boards to realize that sawyer's definition of "choice" is true. he's given plenty of examples, why are you ignoring those?

 

No.

 

Sawyers definition of "choice" seems to be "its a choice as long as you do it my way or suffer the consequences". A "choice" is whether to push the rest button or not, a "choice" is choosing to heal or continuing, a "choice" is what you put or do not put into inventory, etc...

[Hormalakh]

So people here have played Doom right? It's an oldie but a good one. You didn't get XP in that game for exploring and trying to find secret areas. Did you guys find those games to be "linear" where you walked straight through a hallway? Did you sneak past every single enemy while exploring?

[Hormalakh]

the cost is that you lose out on loot or some other reward. the point is that sawyer would not create such a one-sided scenario and call that deciding. you've been around long enough on the boards to realize that sawyer's definition of "choice" is true. he's given plenty of examples, why are you ignoring those?

 

No.

 

Sawyers definition of "choice" seems to be "its a choice as long as you do it my way or suffer the consequences". A "choice" is whether to push the rest button or not, a "choice" is choosing to heal or continuing, a "choice" is what you put or do not put into inventory, etc...

 

He said loot isn't systemic. he didn't say loot doesn't exist. please read carefully before reaching your conclusions. In any case, his design decisions are the ways he wants to tackle certain issues found in the previous games. Being able to rest without any risk involved wasn't a choice: it was a decision already made for you. You go into fights with full spells and health if you could do it. if you didn't rest, that wasn't because you made a "choice" not to rest. That was because you forgot to or just didn't realize it. If resting had some sort of actual decision process then you could call it a choice. But if there is no question to answer it becomes moot.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Gfted1]

I was responding to your comment "the cost is that you lose out on loot". He clearly states that is not the case. Please pay attention to your own posts before replying.

[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?

No. They were just an unavoidable obstacle.

 

I don't understand the green dragon. Am I missing something?

 

You still got your combat didn't you? An unavoidable combat is still combat. What exactly is your point? You wanted combat, I gave you scenarios where you get combat. If you want to choose combat, you are free to do so. It's just that the decision becomes a difficult one for you to make now and you're just frustrated that the answer isn't so easy to make. you have to sit and figure out whether fighting mobs is worth it or not. In the past it was a no-brainer. Now, it's not so easy to make that choice. Josh's design works as planned.

[Helm]

Windspear Hills had narrow hallways that meant you couldn't avoid combat: it would be difficult to by-pass every single combat encounter.

If the entire world in PE was just a long tunnel, then it would still be more efficient to sneak. Unless the game of course forces me always to fight.

But the world will not be a tunnel (that is unorthodox), so sneaking will be the most efficient way to play the game.

[Razsius]

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.

 

I didn't realize I was funding Thief III. Am I allowed to be a little angry here? This kind of feels like a bait and switch.

 

Personally, I find it somewhat funny that I see Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines being touted as some awesome game inspiring objective based xp system. That might be true if you already hated combat in the first place. You see there are two particular instances where the objective based xp was a rather nice touch. Infiltrating the museum without killing a soul in there was one of them. This made perfect sense within the game context and was rewarded *more* xp anyways. Not to mention killing the human guards would've given you a big humanity hit. It made very, very logical sense that you want to get in, get the McGuffin (in this case the sarcophagus) and get out. The second instance was stealing the suitcase from the two gangs (bonus points for getting to watch them kill each other). However, there were FIVE (yes five) instances where the combat was absolutely atrocious largely because of the quest based xp system.

 

Because i've stated atrocious combat and Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines in the same thought train, you already understand where one of those areas would be if you've played the game. Yes, i'm referring to the sewers. The feeling of a near endless hell of eliminating countless small, fast, deadly critters that can kill you at the drop of a hat if you're not careful makes for perhaps the least enjoyable part of the game. They give you zero xp, they give you no loot, there are a ton of them and the game world does nothing to reflect that they are no longer in it. The "smart" player finds any way possible not to engage in combat with them but the game world tells you that a feral vampire creation running amok in the sewers of Hollywood just might expose your race to the veritable "light of day". I always seem to leave that part of the game with 0 ammo left and a large headache. It's a shame I didn't sneak my way through to get the same amount of xp. The four other areas are the Chinatown vamps, LaCroix's tower, the appartment complex filled with vamps and the vampire hunter stronghold. All of them area basically the exact same situation. All of them are GLARING weaknesses of the game itself that strangely does not present itself in the normal play of something like Baldur's Gate.

 

I agree with Helm, Gifted, Val and some others that an objective based xp system makes little sense in a game that supposedly heavily involves combat. Saying that diplomacy and/or sneaking options are not more efficient than combat is saying that combat is not only not rewarded and tedious but also very easy (at the same time this also states that sneaking and diplomacy options are not worth it).

 

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)?

[Hormalakh]

I was responding to your comment "the cost is that you lose out on loot". He clearly states that is not the case. Please pay attention to your own posts before replying.

 

He said loot isn't systemic. he didn't say loot doesn't exist. please read carefully before reaching your conclusions.

 

Stylized for your reading pleasure.

[Gfted1]

A pacifist run does not lose out on loot.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Sneaking and diplomacy will have to come with some "cost". Maybe losing one health per second while in stealth mode? I cant think of a good way to cost the player for a diplomacy check. Failing either will probably just result in combat but thats not enough.

 

There will be quests where the obviously advantageous method of conflict resolution will be combat (somebody pays you to get rid of some bandits); there will be times where stealth will be more advantageous (did you honestly think you could get away with slaughtering those museum guards?); and there will be times when diplomacy wins the day (getting the leader of that country to sign that treaty is going to be hard if complex sentences are beyond your abilities). Also, there will likely be some situations where the obvious solution is not the best one (remember those orks you massacred in chapter 1? Yeah, you totally could have gotten them to be your private army with the macguffin you got in this sidequest in chapter 4 - if you had the lore skills to decipher how to use it, or were clever enough to think about hiring a professional to do it for you...).

 

Also, "diplomacy checks" did have a cost in Alpha Protocol, they probably will find a way to make it a valid playstyle.

 

 

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?

Edited January 16, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid