Degenerate Gameplay

[Hormalakh]

 

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)?

 

That's the point right there. Was combat in VtMB fun? If it wasn't fun for you you wouldn't enjoy the sewers. It isn't objective XP that was the problem, it was the boring slog of the same enemies in combat that was the problem. With XP you just kill them knowing "hey at least I get some XP." It's a sugar-coated crappy part of the game, no pun intended.

 

Also, why do you have to kill everything in sight? If they attack you, why is running away not an option?

[Hormalakh]

A pacifist run does not lose out on loot.

 

Josh? Is that you? Are you hiding behind a puppet ID? Oh you're not Josh? Then why are you saying things with such conviction without bringing evidence?

Loot in IE games (and PE games) is typically hand-placed with very little randomization involved. I.e., it is not systemic. Some loot is in containers, some loot is given as quest rewards, and some loot is on creatures. Not all creatures carry loot. In Temple of Elemental Evil, on the fourth level of the temple, there's a massive fight before a room containing treasure chests with molds/jellies/puddings. You don't have to actually do the massive fight to get to the treasure chests (and if you're sneaky enough, you don't have to fight the critters near the chests). However, Hedrack, the high priest, carries several nice items. If you want to get those items, you have to weigh your own personal material cost to get through the fight against what you will get out of it. The important thing is that there's a decision to make. In terms of gaining loot, it's not a no-brainer.

 

 

I don't want you miss it this time, so I bolded it, italicized it, underlined it, and colored it red. Don't miss it again!

 

Once more. Just in case.

Some loot is in containers, some loot is given as quest rewards, and some loot is on creatures. Not all creatures carry loot.

 

BTW this is from the same link you quote 5 minutes ago. It was also the same place that Josh Sawyer addressed your concerns about "degenerate gameplay." It seems that you didn't read his comments or chose to ignore them.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Helm]

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).

Sneaking doesn't mean that you always use a stealth ability. You can just avoid combat. And if I am not good at sneaking, then I will spend all of my xp points on my sneak ability it until I am.

[Razsius]

Also, why do you have to kill everything in sight? If they attack you, why is running away not an option?

 

It is an option and it's the best one for every combat heavy part of the game. The reason you *want* to kill all those obnoxious "sameish" enemies is they might start running amok in the streets of Hollywood breaking the Masquerade which equals your player characters death (and the extinction of his race as well). The game system built into the game however does not reflect this.

 

That was all in bold in my previous post so you could realize that.

 

Edit: I generally love combat in games btw. I would not be playing Icewind Dale right now if I didn't.

 

Edit 2:

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

 

Then why have combat in a combat heavy game in the first place? The answer is probably both to your question btw.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Razsius

[JFSOCC]

let's play a game of sawyer said. If I were him I'd be getting a bit scared of us about now.

[Helm]

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?

I'm not sure if it is wise to compare a shooter to a cRPG.

[Hormalakh]

Also, why do you have to kill everything in sight? If they attack you, why is running away not an option?

 

It is an option and it's the best one for every combat heavy part of the game. The reason you *want* to kill all those obnoxious "sameish" enemies is they might start running amok in the streets of Hollywood breaking the Masquerade which equals your player characters death (and the extinction of his race as well). The game system built into the game however does not reflect this.

 

That was all in bold in my previous post so you could realize that.

 

I didn't read your whole post. I have made it a point not to read long posts anymore. That's why I quoted a certain section of your post. I did go back and re-read the bolded portion. I would say that that would be an example of poor game design. If the game states a reason as you why you want to kill enemies and then doesn't follow through with actual repercussions, that is an example of "degenerate gameplay."

 

You wouldn't want to kill those sewer enemies if you could get out of it because the game hasn't made a consideration for them. Similarly, in IE games you would always want to rest after each fight becasue the game hasn't made a consideration for "rest-spamming."

 

Unless you'd like to LARP your game. Which isn't a problem. I won't make a judgement on that - whatever players find fun.

 

From the game design standpoint though, your example is the fault of the developers, not the players.The fault wasn't the lack of combat XP, the fault was not implementing what they said they would with the "overrunning of enemies."

 

E: this is what I meant earlier about sugar-coating combat. In such a scenario, the lack of gameplay elements stands in starkly as a failure. If you sugar-coat it with XP, players dont' care as much. But is the problem really solved or are developers just sticking a band-aid on the main issue and obfuscating it?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Gfted1]

~noise~

A pacifist run does not lose out on loot.

 

Thats all, no more, no less. Perhaps you should go clean out your shorts from that fit.

[Hormalakh]

~noise~

A pacifist run does not lose out on loot.

 

Thats all, no more, no less. Perhaps you should go clean out your shorts from that fit.

 

Wow a moderator too. Thanks for responding to the points I made. I take it that you have no more points to make because I have addressed them? you're welcome.

[Gfted1]

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 understand all of that but thats not what Im disputing. Im saying that combat has costs. No matter what (as it currently stands) you will take damage from every mook every round. Theres a health cost there. The price of that cost is to return to somewhere the rest (heal). To rest you will have to pay for an inn or campsite or whatever. God forbid someone in your party gets reduced to 0 health. After they rub some dirt on it and pop tall they will wake up gimped. How do you fix the gimp? Some cost undoubtedly. Thats what I mean. Stealth and diplomacy only cost is failure which will most likely result in combat but if they succeed I dont see any cost.

[Helm]

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

 

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.

I am Greenballz the dragon. You need not know more.

 

I can just kill elite mobs and sneak past the rest. It really is the most efficient way to play PE and always get the best loot. And I don't think it will be too hard to see if a mob is elite or not, should be a no-brainer.

[Hormalakh]

Well folks thanks for the lulz. See you around.

[Amentep]

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...

 

What part of his later post did you not understand?

 

Loot in IE games (and PE games) is typically hand-placed with very little randomization involved.

 

Hence why he says loot isn't systemic.

 

A pacifist run does not lose out on loot.

 

They lose out on loot that is held by advesaries they don't kill. That's the point I took from his TOEE example.

 

I understand all of that but thats not what Im disputing. Im saying that combat has costs. No matter what (as it currently stands) you will take damage from every mook every round. Theres a health cost there. The price of that cost is to return to somewhere the rest (heal). To rest you will have to pay for an inn or campsite or whatever. God forbid someone in your party gets reduced to 0 health. After they rub some dirt on it and pop tall they will wake up gimped. How do you fix the gimp? Some cost undoubtedly. Thats what I mean. Stealth and diplomacy only cost is failure which will most likely result in combat but if they succeed I dont see any cost.

 

We do not know WHAT Stealth and Diplomacy cost. You are assuming that its going to be no cost. I'm assuming that Sawyer & co are going to assign it costs that makes the choice of stealth as (or as little) resource intensive as the next option.

 

Until we hear more, we're all just speculating.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Amentep

[Helm]

A pacifist run does not lose out on loot.

 

Loot in IE games (and PE games) is typically hand-placed with very little randomization involved. I.e., it is not systemic. Some loot is in containers, some loot is given as quest rewards, and some loot is on creatures. Not all creatures carry loot. In Temple of Elemental Evil, on the fourth level of the temple, there's a massive fight before a room containing treasure chests with molds/jellies/puddings. You don't have to actually do the massive fight to get to the treasure chests (and if you're sneaky enough, you don't have to fight the critters near the chests). However, Hedrack, the high priest, carries several nice items. If you want to get those items, you have to weigh your own personal material cost to get through the fight against what you will get out of it. The important thing is that there's a decision to make. In terms of gaining loot, it's not a no-brainer.

Don't forget the resources for combat. It says so right there, "not a no brainer" and stuff, it might not even really be worth it to fight him. But as I have said many times, killing elites will usually be a good idea to get some good loot. The rest can be ignored, because it will not be punished. And on a pacifist run you still get the chests with the good (probably better) loot.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

Hence why he says loot isn't systemic.

If you place the best loot in chests, then who gets tthe best loot? Exactly, those who sneak and those who fight. Like Sawyer said, you won't be punished for your gamestyle. More below.

A pacifist run does not lose out on loot.

They lose out on loot that is held by advesaries they don't kill. That's the point I took from his TOEE example.

you have to weigh your own personal material cost to get through the fight against what you will get out of it. So it probably won't be worth it, especially if you can just sneak past and get the easy (good?) loot from the chests.

 

Don't forget, just as Sawyer said, combat costs resources.

[Razsius]

Also, why do you have to kill everything in sight? If they attack you, why is running away not an option?

 

It is an option and it's the best one for every combat heavy part of the game. The reason you *want* to kill all those obnoxious "sameish" enemies is they might start running amok in the streets of Hollywood breaking the Masquerade which equals your player characters death (and the extinction of his race as well). The game system built into the game however does not reflect this.

 

That was all in bold in my previous post so you could realize that.

 

I didn't read your whole post. I have made it a point not to read long posts anymore. That's why I quoted a certain section of your post. I did go back and re-read the bolded portion. I would say that that would be an example of poor game design. If the game states a reason as you why you want to kill enemies and then doesn't follow through with actual repercussions, that is an example of "degenerate gameplay."

 

You wouldn't want to kill those sewer enemies if you could get out of it because the game hasn't made a consideration for them. Similarly, in IE games you would always want to rest after each fight becasue the game hasn't made a consideration for "rest-spamming."

 

Unless you'd like to LARP your game. Which isn't a problem. I won't make a judgement on that - whatever players find fun.

 

From the game design standpoint though, your example is the fault of the developers, not the players.The fault wasn't the lack of combat XP, the fault was not implementing what they said they would with the "overrunning of enemies."

 

E: this is what I meant earlier about sugar-coating combat. In such a scenario, the lack of gameplay elements stands in starkly as a failure. If you sugar-coat it with XP, players dont' care as much. But is the problem really solved or are developers just sticking a band-aid on the main issue and obfuscating it?

 

What you seem to be missing is that this "degenerate gameplay" if you will is now forced upon me by an objective based xp system. I care very little about the rest spamming issue because I never spammed rest myself. I, as a player, would have to go out of my way in order for it to become an issue (and in this case it would be only my issue). EVERYONE who played Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines knows those sewers all too well i'm sure and decided themselves whether they'd role play what would be a plausible course of action or not. This happened not just once but on four other separate occasions (basically whenever combat got lengthy).

 

Effectively, this was introducing a design error that you couldn't avoid and your "solution" to it is anything but simple. Having to plot out the consequences of every single goblin band you eliminate would I suspect be far too time consuming for the developers to do. It makes you wonder why you'd axe combat xp in the first place. Let's face it parity of choices is a myth. There will always be a "best" option among the lot of them whether it's combat one time, diplomacy another and stealth a third. Why should the least efficient method give out the same xp and rewards as the most efficient method?

 

Objective xp just makes so little sense to me it's ridiculous.

 

Edit: You'll have to forgive me for taking the time to read your entire post before responding to it btw.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Razsius

[Lephys]

Sneaking doesn't mean that you always use a stealth ability. You can just avoid combat.

 

So now we're assuming there are going to be ultra-convenient alternate tunnels everywhere that always lead to the chest behind the big group of enemies, are we? . Lovely.

 

 

If you place the best loot in chests, then who gets tthe best loot? Exactly, those who sneak and those who fight. Like Sawyer said, you won't be punished for your gamestyle.

 

The key words there being "If." Where in "No. Awarding loot is not systemic." (which is exactly what you just linked to) does Josh say "All the best loot in the game will be placed in non-combat-obtainable chests. Suck it, combat-advocates!"? Please, please point it out for me. Pretty please. I'll give you a dollar.

 

you have to weigh your own personal material cost to get through the fight against what you will get out of it.

 

All that means is, you have no way of knowing what's in the contents of a chest behind some enemies, and what the enemies, themselves, are carrying (you can see weapons and equipment, maybe, but what about small bags of gemstones or gold?). At the very least, not-killing them means you miss out on ANYTHING they're carrying regardless of whether or not it's uber equipment that you want to use, or lesser equipment that you want to sell. Josh has expressed an intent to deal with loot bloat, but I don't recall anyone at Obsidian saying anything about "No enemies will ever drop anything except for elites, and you'll know exactly who these elites are, and what they will drop!". If they did, then, again, please show me. I would seriously like to know, because I missed it (Not sarcasm... sincerity.)

 

If you opt to attempt to kill the enemies, between your player skill at controlling your party, the difficulty setting of the game, and your party's build, you have 1 of 2 outcomes:

 

A)You are unable to defeat them and must reload from a previous save and give up on killing them, or

B)You defeat them (however many tries it takes, you either eventually win or you don't), get anything they were carrying (which, until they announce loot lists on mouse-over, I'm going to consider that we probably don't have any way of knowing without killing them and checking), then STILL get to go open the chest.

 

How does the amount of stuff enemies had on their persons + contents of chest somehow = only the contents of the chest? And if the combat loot is NEVER a significant enough addition to the chest contents, then that's a balancing issue, not a problem with the system itself. If you heat water on a stove, and fail to bring it to a boil (you only get it to 200 degrees Fahrenheit), the method you're using to boil it (heating it) isn't the problem. The exact value of the temperature you reached is the problem. i.e. balancing.

 

You're perfectly free to believe they'll terribly balance the game, but that's pretty much just a guess (Like, "I believe we will have exactly 10 hurricanes next year, instead of some other number of hurricanes!"), and has absolutely nothing to do with the system. Hell, in a system that awards XP for each and every enemy killed, if it only gave you 5 XP for each enemy, and you always needed 20,000 to gain a level, then you'd still be upset because of balancing issues, even though it was using the system you favor.

 

So, I'd very much like to know why we should all assume the same things you assume.

 

 

Also, no one addressed this example I gave earlier:

Example situation: There are some bandits rather forcibly interrogating a finely-dressed merchant. You have no idea who he is, but, unbeknownst to you, he will be in your debt (if you save him) and can offer you very cool rewards in the form of quality equipment and/or discounts, etc. BUT, you came to this bandit camp because you knew that they were amassing stolen goods. So, you know there's a chest in this tent full of nice goodies. You don't know exactly what, but bandits don't steal mundane things of no value. However, they're being quite liberal with their efforts to "make him talk." So, if you take the time to slowly make your way past all of them without being detected to avoid combat and get to the chest, he will die.

 

So, A) The optimal solution isn't really clear, because you're not even sure what the exact rewards will be (which could be the case in the majority of the game), and B) You're prevented from both taking advantage of the resource-saving avoidance of combat that stealth provides AND saving the merchant, meaning that you can't use both approaches.

 

If you'd like to ignore it, I suppose nothing's stopping you. It just seems to me like it disproves the "Combat avoidance is always the better option" hypothesis. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Valorian]

Sneaking doesn't mean that you always use a stealth ability. You can just avoid combat.

 

So now we're assuming there are going to be ultra-convenient alternate tunnels everywhere that always lead to the chest behind the big group of enemies, are we? . Lovely.

 

 

If you place the best loot in chests, then who gets tthe best loot? Exactly, those who sneak and those who fight. Like Sawyer said, you won't be punished for your gamestyle.

 

The key words there being "If." Where in "No. Awarding loot is not systemic." (which is exactly what you just linked to) does Josh say "All the best loot in the game will be placed in non-combat-obtainable chests. Suck it, combat-advocates!"? Please, please point it out for me. Pretty please. I'll give you a dollar.

 

you have to weigh your own personal material cost to get through the fight against what you will get out of it.

 

All that means is, you have no way of knowing what's in the contents of a chest behind some enemies, and what the enemies, themselves, are carrying (you can see weapons and equipment, maybe, but what about small bags of gemstones or gold?). At the very least, not-killing them means you miss out on ANYTHING they're carrying regardless of whether or not it's uber equipment that you want to use, or lesser equipment that you want to sell. Josh has expressed an intent to deal with loot bloat, but I don't recall anyone at Obsidian saying anything about "No enemies will ever drop anything except for elites, and you'll know exactly who these elites are, and what they will drop!". If they did, then, again, please show me. I would seriously like to know, because I missed it (Not sarcasm... sincerity.)

 

If you opt to attempt to kill the enemies, between your player skill at controlling your party, the difficulty setting of the game, and your party's build, you have 1 of 2 outcomes:

 

 

A)You are unable to defeat them and must reload from a previous save and give up on killing them, or

B)You defeat them (however many tries it takes, you either eventually win or you don't), get anything they were carrying (which, until they announce loot lists on mouse-over, I'm going to consider that we probably don't have any way of knowing without killing them and checking), then STILL get to go open the chest.

 

How does the amount of stuff enemies had on their persons + contents of chest somehow = only the contents of the chest? And if the combat loot is NEVER a significant enough addition to the chest contents, then that's a balancing issue, not a problem with the system itself. If you heat water on a stove, and fail to bring it to a boil (you only get it to 200 degrees Fahrenheit), the method you're using to boil it (heating it) isn't the problem. The exact value of the temperature you reached is the problem. i.e. balancing.

 

You're perfectly free to believe they'll terribly balance the game, but that's pretty much just a guess (Like, "I believe we will have exactly 10 hurricanes next year, instead of some other number of hurricanes!"), and has absolutely nothing to do with the system. Hell, in a system that awards XP for each and every enemy killed, if it only gave you 5 XP for each enemy, and you always needed 20,000 to gain a level, then you'd still be upset because of balancing issues, even though it was using the system you favor.

 

So, I'd very much like to know why we should all assume the same things you assume.

 

 

Also, no one addressed this example I gave earlier:

Example situation: There are some bandits rather forcibly interrogating a finely-dressed merchant. You have no idea who he is, but, unbeknownst to you, he will be in your debt (if you save him) and can offer you very cool rewards in the form of quality equipment and/or discounts, etc. BUT, you came to this bandit camp because you knew that they were amassing stolen goods. So, you know there's a chest in this tent full of nice goodies. You don't know exactly what, but bandits don't steal mundane things of no value. However, they're being quite liberal with their efforts to "make him talk." So, if you take the time to slowly make your way past all of them without being detected to avoid combat and get to the chest, he will die.

 

So, A) The optimal solution isn't really clear, because you're not even sure what the exact rewards will be (which could be the case in the majority of the game), and B) You're prevented from both taking advantage of the resource-saving avoidance of combat that stealth provides AND saving the merchant, meaning that you can't use both approaches.

 

If you'd like to ignore it, I suppose nothing's stopping you. It just seems to me like it disproves the "Combat avoidance is always the better option" hypothesis. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

* opens thread, wall of text falls down and almost kills Cat*

 

 

[Hassat Hunter]

First of all;

A pacifist run does not lose out on loot.

means you don't get NO loot. Nowhere does it state an EQUAL amount of loot (which is impossible, since kills drop loot).

It simply says "you can get loot outside of combat"

 

WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO READ AND UNDERSTAND???

 

However, there were FIVE (yes five) instances where the combat was absolutely atrocious largely because of the quest based xp system.

And let's see how much attrocious sequences a game has that does give XP per kill.

 

DA2: Entire game

DA:O: Large fractions, like the ending, dwarven tunnels, etc.

KOTORs: Malachor, Star Forge (although it was cut up with cutscenes and conversations making it better than Malachor), Taris sewers.

PS:T: Everything after Sigil

Drakensang; The game was so good, I can barely remember anything of the 2 game's ingame. Should tell something. :/

BG1: Forests, mines, endgame.

BG2: Underdark.

Divinity 2: The Fortresses (and I heard they were workse before the DKS).

 

So yeah... it's really exclusive to Bloodlines.

The point is, pointless combat is boring and stale in any game. Wheter it gives XP or not. Go ahead to the Codex and say the end of Dragon Age: Origins was awesome, since the grind was accompanied by XP. I expect a lot of laughter.

We're just too kind here to do so...

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.

Please tell me how Malachor is the best part of KOTOR2.

Exactly.

Giving XP wouldn't have changed this. It would still be an abymyssal part of the game. Blame the design.

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.

One could think because BG didn't have such a long slog of boring combat? Not even the finale?

I feel free to point you to Dragon Age: Origins though, who "fixed" that by having it. XP included.

 

Hint; It sucks.

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).

Have you played Commando's? It's HARD. Really hard.

I don't really know of the other stealth games like Splinter Cell, since they're not my type of games, despite what certain people here try to convince you off...

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)?

None whatsoever. And the question should be; why should it? Why, considering it's already a drap slog, should we go out of our way to kill all enemies?

What reason is there to promote that? What is wrong with allowing a regular path without killing everything?

 

I guarantee you, if you had to kill everything, the place would have an even worse rep than it does now. Is that good for a game, truly?

Well folks thanks for the lulz. See you around.

Well, you made a valiant effort. But you see what we had to deal with in the first few pages of this thread. Thanks for trying!

[Utukka]

Sorry to skip a bit here but I have to ask....if the big concern here is people who complete the stealth option then go back to slaughter the guards for exp..why would they skip creatures that might have good/interesting loot? I understand the idea that objective based exp is meant to keep people in roleplay mode instead of min/max, but a person who cares about getting an extra 100 xp is probably gonna go back for the loot or whatever benefit that combat can give....if the loot/benefit from combat isn't worth going back for, then my assumption would be that combat to begin with wouldn't be the worthwhile choice or each choice is equally bad. In the end, as long there is a worthwhile benefit to completing the other aspect, said player will do it. Self control is your friend fellow roleplayers.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Utukka

[Razsius]

And let's see how much attrocious sequences a game has that does give XP per kill.

 

DA2: Entire game

DA:O: Large fractions, like the ending, dwarven tunnels, etc.

KOTORs: Malachor, Star Forge (although it was cut up with cutscenes and conversations making it better than Malachor), Taris sewers.

PS:T: Everything after Sigil

Drakensang; The game was so good, I can barely remember anything of the 2 game's ingame. Should tell something. :/

BG1: Forests, mines, endgame.

BG2: Underdark.

Divinity 2: The Fortresses (and I heard they were workse before the DKS).

 

So yeah... it's really exclusive to Bloodlines.

The point is, pointless combat is boring and stale in any game. Wheter it gives XP or not. Go ahead to the Codex and say the end of Dragon Age: Origins was awesome, since the grind was accompanied by XP. I expect a lot of laughter.

We're just too kind here to do so...

 

You seem to assume a lot what my tastes are but i'll bite.

 

DA1+2: Haven't played either of them.

KOTORs: Regarding the Star Forge the respawns are endless so you *have* to get to where you need to go. It's probably one of the most realistic renditions of invading the equivalent of a gigantic space station. You *will* die because you *will* be overrun eventually. That's not a slog that's realistic. Can't remember the sewers btw. Malachor doesn't even count because KOTOR2 was largely unfinished. I doubt Obsidian's version of Malachor being "done" was a long slog through a ton of enemies. Most of your crew barely makes an appearance after all.

PS:T: You didn't play Planescape for the combat that's for sure. Might be the only one I can give you but even the Modron Cube felt like slightly less of a chore when you got some xp for it.

Drakensang: Never played it.

BG 1+2: You're moving into dangerous territory now. Never, not one single time, was I sitting there wishing there was less combat in the BGs. There's no way in hell I would've put 1000+ hours into 4+ entire run throughs of the game series if I felt as such.

Divinity 2: Haven't played it though I was checking it out on Steam the other day wondering if I should get the Divinities. Looked a little too much like Diablo (a series I can't stand anymore). Still thinking about it.

 

One could think because BG didn't have such a long slog of boring combat? Not even the finale?

I feel free to point you to Dragon Age: Origins though, who "fixed" that by having it. XP included.

 

Are we even talking about the same game? Where was this "boring slog" in Baldur's Gate? We talking about that tiny little maze at the end? I notice your examples are at the very end of the games where xp does nothing anymore or is almost irrelevant... I wonder if there's some kind of connection there?

 

Have you played Commando's? It's HARD. Really hard.

I don't really know of the other stealth games like Splinter Cell, since they're not my type of games, despite what certain people here try to convince you off...

 

What is this game and why do I care about it? Is it an RPG? Splinter Cell is a third person stealth game btw which works a hell of a lot better then a top down isometric game where you control a party of six. I don't necessarily want Obsidian to spend a good chunk of their 4 million dollars to craft some super elaborate stealth system.

 

None whatsoever. And the question should be; why should it? Why, considering it's already a drap slog, should we go out of our way to kill all enemies?

What reason is there to promote that? What is wrong with allowing a regular path without killing everything?

 

*You* might not care but the vampire you play should. As for a regular path without killing since when was that ever disallowed. Objective based xp or not it should always be a path you can take. "Viable" however, is dealing with the consequences of that action. Btw, I always did it the hard way. Whether I was a Malk that could invisible past them all or not I eliminated every single one of them (it was not fun).

 

I guarantee you, if you had to kill everything, the place would have an even worse rep than it does now. Is that good for a game, truly?

 

That certainly *is* the question isn't it?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Razsius

[Lephys]

Sorry to skip a bit here but I have to ask....if the big concern here is people who complete the stealth option then go back to slaughter the guards for exp..why would they skip creatures that might have good/interesting loot? I understand the idea that objective based exp is meant to keep people in roleplay mode instead of min/max, but a person who cares about getting an extra 100 xp is probably gonna go back for the loot or whatever benefit that combat can give....if the loot/benefit from combat isn't worth going back for, then my assumption would be that combat to begin with wouldn't be the worthwhile choice or each choice is equally bad. In the end, as long there is a worthwhile benefit to completing the other aspect, said player will do it. Self control is your friend fellow roleplayers.

 

This is too vague a context for the problem. There is no problem with you sneaking past a group of enemies to get to a chest, looting it, then turning around and killing all the enemies for their loot. If the looting of something in the chest was tagged as a quest objective (the contents of the chest were valuable to the story/game-world and not just valuable to your characters within the standard loot system), then you'd get an XP reward for reaching and looting that chest. If you ALSO killed the group of enemies that prevented you from simply waltzing up to the chest and opening it (instead of masterfully sneaking past them with a sneaky, sneaky build), then you also get any loot from those enemies.

 

The problem comes when you get to a "do I just let a fight break out here, or do I go through the trouble of 10 more minutes of dialogue and careful choices to make sure a fight doesn't break out here?" choice, resolve the situation peacefully, THEN, purely because you can get XP for it, go instigate a fight with the no-longer-hostile NPCs and kill them all and take all their stuff.

 

Of course, really, I just think the game shouldn't let you do that anyway. In the event that you get any XP for resolving the situation peacefully, I think utilizing any ability to fight anyway should either result in no combat XP (which is the specific argument in this thread) OR the deduction of the Peaceful Resolution XP. Either way, you wind up with pretty much the same result. You only get the combat choice XP, or the Peaceful Resolution XP.

 

That's the thing about Objective-based XP that no one seems to get. Is it abstracting the 100% realistic gain of experience you would normally receive from combat "practice"? Yes. But ALL the experience is abstractly granted. It represents the challenges you overcome to actually accomplish things.

 

In a lot of games, you have exploration XP. "You've discovered, Such-And-Such-Vale!". That's not rewarding you for how many footsteps you took. You can run in circles for hours and hours and hours and never gain a single XP point. But, you happen to move in the right direction, and reach the right spot, and you've discovered something! Again, if you want nothing to be abstracted, then you might say "That shouldn't get XP!" Or "All you did was move!". But, A) you generally have to do more than just move to get from wherever you started to the location of the discovered place (including fight things), and B) that's also why you tend to get 1,000 XP for a quest, and about 50 for discovering a place.

 

But wait, all those bands of orcs I ran across on the way to Such-And-Such-Vale were avoidable, so I don't get anything for them! How do you know that's the case? Maybe "Drive the orcs from the Blargity-Blarg Plains outside of the village of SquibblesVille" is an objective. And, again, if you went around and there were countless instances of combat, left-and-right, that were purely for funsies, then that would be a balance issue. NOT an issue inherent to the system. Want combat to provide XP? Design it to contribute toward an objective outcome. Want Stealth to provide XP? Have it contribute toward an objective outcome.

 

Hell, who's to say "clear the cave of Orcs" won't be an objective, and "sneak past the orcs to just loot stuff" will? Just because you COULD sneak or you COULD kill things in a given scenario doesn't mean that every act of sneaking or every single act of killing must provide you with XP. Sometimes all you'll get is loot. Sometimes maybe you'll gain reputation. And any combination of the three. Maybe even more different resources. Who knows? I don't, because the game design's not finished or detailed yet.

[Utukka]

^I suppose I find loot/full exploration/story opportunity more motivating than XP. The example earlier of Jaheira killing animals for XP is probably the best example I've seen for not having XP based on "combat" but I think that could easily be solved by just not granting XP for them. Being that everything is hand placed, it seems easily controllable even tho I guess it may be less confusing for new players to not have combat XP. Personally, I think it can be done either way and still achieve the same results.

 

For your example about the NPCs, I get that people used to use diplomacy to get the XP and then kill the no longer hostile NPC to get the combat xp and items. Removing the XP and putting at the end would help deter such action but the fact remains that a diplomat or "peaceful" party will still break role in order to get the loot or w/e other benefit to be gained. I don't think either result is better than the other.

 

As for design, ya, games not done or available in detail so ya, it's just random thoughts/discussion from all sides.

[UpgrayeDD]

First of all;

A pacifist run does not lose out on loot.

means you don't get NO loot. Nowhere does it state an EQUAL amount of loot (which is impossible, since kills drop loot).

It simply says "you can get loot outside of combat"

 

WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO READ AND UNDERSTAND??

so you fight the fights that give the best loot and ignore the rest

WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO READ AND UNDERSTAND??

[Helm]

First of all;

A pacifist run does not lose out on loot.

means you don't get NO loot. Nowhere does it state an EQUAL amount of loot (which is impossible, since kills drop loot).

It simply says "you can get loot outside of combat"

 

WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO READ AND UNDERSTAND???

Combat requires more resources. Resources cost loot (cash).

Sneaking requires no resources. = Pacifists will not be punished with less loot.

 

q.e.d

However, there were FIVE (yes five) instances where the combat was absolutely atrocious largely because of the quest based xp system.

And let's see how much attrocious sequences a game has that does give XP per kill.

 

DA2: Entire game

DA:O: Large fractions, like the ending, dwarven tunnels, etc.

KOTORs: Malachor, Star Forge (although it was cut up with cutscenes and conversations making it better than Malachor), Taris sewers.

PS:T: Everything after Sigil

Drakensang; The game was so good, I can barely remember anything of the 2 game's ingame. Should tell something. :/

BG1: Forests, mines, endgame.

BG2: Underdark.

Divinity 2: The Fortresses (and I heard they were workse before the DKS).

 

So yeah... it's really exclusive to Bloodlines.

I think it's funny how you point out that certain minor areas in "combat + quest xp" games did not reward combat with xp as "proof" that quest only xp is better.

 

And Dragon age 2 used quest xp only? Wow, it was a bad game too. Thanks, I didn't know that. Now I have "proof" that quest only xp will suck for PE.