Degenerate Gameplay

[aluminiumtrioxid]

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

 

 

I think we can safely assume that it will not necessarily require resources (very rarely did I have to use potions or wands in the IE games), and what you gain will usually be better than what you lose (3 charges of the fireball wand and 2 strength potions for the Awesomium-forged Sword of Awesomeness? C'mon...).

[Helm]

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 what the "quest xp only" advocates are saying:

1) Humans only kill for xp and cannot restrain themselves from going on a murdering spree to kill every living thing in the game if they are rewarded for doing it. In other words, all humans are complete morons and must be restrained from killing for xp by the game designers.

 

2) No Human would ever go on a killing spree for loot, because loot is not a reward. Only combat xp is a reward.

 

3) Killing everything only for loot or for fun is completely fine. No, killing for loot is still not a reward.

 

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.

 

5) Quest xp and quest loot are not rewards for doing a quest, Humans complete the side quests only for fun and roleplaying. Only the goddess of quest xp and quest loot demands the implementation of quest xp and quest loot, otherwise the programmer's computer will explode and engulf Obsidian's office killing everybody.

 

6) Those who like combat will always engage in combat, even though the reward for avoiding combat will be greater in PE, because those who like combat are complete morons and choose the unwise path.

 

Number 2) is actually true for Project Eternity, because loot is not a rare resource. You will not need to kill to get decent loot, i.e. you will always have enough no matter what you do.

[JFSOCC]

 

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??

 

I can use big text too!

Since you don't know what the best results will be prior to having played the encounter, the information that you need to make that decision won't be available.

[Helm]

^I suppose I find loot/full exploration/story opportunity more motivating than XP. The example earlier of [the druid] 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.

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.

[Helm]

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

 

 

I think we can safely assume that it will not necessarily require resources (very rarely did I have to use potions or wands in the IE games), and what you gain will usually be better than what you lose (3 charges of the fireball wand and 2 strength potions for the Awesomium-forged Sword of Awesomeness? C'mon...).

"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."

[aluminiumtrioxid]

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 what the "quest xp only" advocates are saying:

 

 

You forgot the most important one: it would take an unreasonable amount of time to precisely hand-craft the exp value of every critter, build level-appropiate encounters from given xp budgets, assign different xp values to different non-combat methods in a manner which is not only balanced with the amount the players would gain by slaughtering critters, but remains balanced regardless of the actual level of the player (thus, xp value of the critters). Ugh.

 

 

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

 

 

I think we can safely assume that it will not necessarily require resources (very rarely did I have to use potions or wands in the IE games), and what you gain will usually be better than what you lose (3 charges of the fireball wand and 2 strength potions for the Awesomium-forged Sword of Awesomeness? C'mon...).

"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."

 

Yeah, like, you can't ever buy scrolls/wands/potions. Material cost? Check.

 

Not to mention that the required cost to get through any given fight will be different based on the difficulty level you play on. So there will be players for whom the cost will outweigh the benefits, and there will be players for whom the question is a no-brainer. Shocker!

Edited January 17, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[IndiraLightfoot]

THIS THREAD SUFFERS FROM SOME DEGENERATE POSTING

[Helm]

"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."

 

Yeah, like, you can't ever buy scrolls/wands/potions. Material cost? Check.

 

Not to mention that the required cost to get through any given fight will be different based on the difficulty level you play on. So there will be players for whom the cost will outweigh the benefits, and there will be players for whom the question is a no-brainer. Shocker!

I just said that you have material costs for combat.

 

Yes, killing elites for loot and avoiding every other combat situation will be the no-brainer path of choice for PE. As you have just said, the only reason to engage in combat is for loot (reward).

Edited January 17, 2013 by Helm

[aluminiumtrioxid]

"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."

 

Yeah, like, you can't ever buy scrolls/wands/potions. Material cost? Check.

 

Not to mention that the required cost to get through any given fight will be different based on the difficulty level you play on. So there will be players for whom the cost will outweigh the benefits, and there will be players for whom the question is a no-brainer. Shocker!

I just said that you have material costs for combat.

 

Yes, killing elites for loot and avoiding every other combat situation will be the no-brainer path of choice for PE. as you have said, the only reason to engage in combat is for loot (reward).

 

So... if the non-elite fights do reward you with (small) loot, your problem is "They reward you with loot! People will slaughter everything because of that! Hahaah! Contradiction!", but if they don't, you whine about how stealth is more effective?

 

Also, you've managed not to adress any of my points.

Edited January 17, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Helm]

So... if the non-elite fights do reward you with (small) loot, your problem is "They reward you with loot! People will slaughter everything because of that! Hahaah! Contradiction!", but if they don't, you whine about how stealth is more effective?

 

Also, you've managed not to adress any of my points.

*sigh*

 

Elites (lieutenants/bosses) are rare.

And:

 

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

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

 

q.e.d

Edited January 17, 2013 by Helm

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

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

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

 

q.e.d

 

 

A great counterargument to "implementing combat xp in the right way would be an even bigger waste of time and resources than implementing romances." Congrats.

[Helm]

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

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

 

q.e.d

 

 

A great counterargument to "implementing combat xp in the right way would be an even bigger waste of time and resources than implementing romances." Congrats.

7) If anything I don't like is implemented (combat xp), then it is a major waste of time and resources.

 

I will add that to the list. Thanks.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

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

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

 

q.e.d

 

 

A great counterargument to "implementing combat xp in the right way would be an even bigger waste of time and resources than implementing romances." Congrats.

7) If anything I don't like is implemented (combat xp), then it is a major waste of time and resources.

 

I will add that to the list. Thanks.

 

I have given you a detailed list how many additional tasks would come with implementing combat xp (not to mention the additional chance for bugs and the resources spent to eliminate them). Since objective xp accomplishes the task just as well, I think it is reasonable to say combat xp is unnecessary.

 

Also, if your problem is "combat costs resources", maybe you could admit you're a little **** (= ) and set the difficulty on a lower level, where the cost/benefit ratio better suits your tastes?

Edited January 17, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Helm]

I have given you a detailed list how many additional tasks would come with implementing combat xp (not to mention the additional chance for bugs and the resources spent to eliminate them). Since objective xp accomplishes the task just as well, I think it is reasonable to say combat xp is unnecessary.

Implementing combat xp costs hundreds of thousands - wait millions of dollars to implement. Quest only xp costs absolutely nothing to implement, anything that I like is implemented for free by the tooth fairy.

 

I will add this to my list.

Also, if your problem is "combat costs resources", maybe you could admit you're a little **** (= ) and set the difficulty on a lower level, where the cost/benefit ratio better suits your tastes?

8 ) Avoiding combat means you are a moron. Even though avoiding combat is the most efficient and smartest way to play the game, according to aluminiumtrioxid

 

Btw, while playing Deus Ex I lowered the difficulty of the game to "stupid", because I was playing the game wrong by being stealthy, even though the game rewards you for be stealthy. Yes, this is a contradiction. It is also sarcasm.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Implementing combat xp costs hundreds of thousands - wait millions of dollars to implement. Quest only xp costs absolutely nothing to implement, anything that I like is implemented for free by the tooth fairy.

 

I will add this to my list.

 

8 ) Avoiding combat means you are a moron. Even though avoiding combat is the most efficient and smartest way to play the game, according to aluminiumtrioxid

 

Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm by declaring War on Straw about points I didn't make start to wear on me.

 

Please, point out how the additional problems I illustrated about implementing combat xp are also present in the objective xp system, or how additional problems will arise which are not present when you use combat+objective xp.

 

Why would avoiding combat mean you're a moron? Whining about how combat isn't profitable on a given difficulty level because you don't have the required tactical skill to make sure the benefits outweigh the costs, instead of lowering the difficulty - that makes you a moron.

 

Not to mention how inherently flawed your argument about Deus Ex is - if the developers implement stealth and diplomacy to be as valid playstyles as combat is, PE ceases to be a game solely about combat, no matter how much it hurts the H&S-loving folks. Thus, there is no reason to cry about how it doesn't reward a playstyle which is a core component of the game, not the only one.

Edited January 17, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Helm]

Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm by declaring War on Straw about points I didn't make starts to wear on me.

 

Please, point out how the additional problems I illustrated about implementing combat xp are also present in the objective xp system, or how additional problems will arise which are not present when you use combat+objective xp.

 

Why would avoiding combat mean you're a moron? Whining about how combat isn't profitable on a given difficulty level because you don't have the required tactical skill to make sure the benefits outweigh the costs, instead of lowering the difficulty - that makes you a moron.

9) Only the implementation of combat xp is problematic. Implementing any other content (like quest only xp) is not problematic at all.

 

10) Avoiding combat does not mean you are a moron. Although avoiding combat to yield the better result makes you a moron. This is because the god of contradiction will otherwise make your head explode.

 

11) A human's ability to see if a mob is elite (boss or lieutenant) and will drop good loot is improved by lowering the difficulty of the game. This is because obsidian has hired a magical fairy that grants all players who lower the difficulty the ability to see if a mob is elite or not.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

(blabbers incoherently)

 

*Heisenberg's cat is wondering* The use of strawman arguments and deftly avoiding to provide meaningful counterarguments instantly make someone a master of rhetorics. Protagoras would be proud.

Edited January 17, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Helm]

(blabbers incoherently)

 

*Heisenberg's cat is wondering* The use of strawman arguments and deftly avoiding to provide meaningful counterarguments instantly make someone a master of rhetorics.

Running out of arguments?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Running out of arguments?

 

I have provided my arguments; you have consistently failed to adress them, and masked your inability to do so with poorly-executed sarcasm. Still waiting for the counterarguments which can actually hold water.

[Helm]

Running out of arguments?

 

I have provided my arguments; you have consistently failed to adress them, and masked your inability to do so with poorly-executed sarcasm. Still waiting for the counterarguments which can actually hold water.

I have addressed all your arguments.

 

For example: You said implementing combat + quest xp is costly and time-consuming and that is a reason why it should not be implemented. I said that is true for implementing any content. In other words, that is a bad argument.

 

Should I repeat myself for the rest too?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Helm

[Valorian]

 

The Cat is one and only. And this is not my , but a copycat.

 

My Cat would reduce you to shreds if you ever tried to kidnap it.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I have addressed all your arguments.

 

For example: You said implementing combat + quest xp is costly and time-consuming. I said that is true for implementing any content. In other words, that is a bad argument.

 

Should I repeat myself for the rest too?

 

I provided you with specific examples of extra effort which are not present in the objective-based exp system. You failed to explain why those examples don't hold water, nor did you provide examples where combat+objective exp require less effort to implement than objective-only. I wouldn't consider "umm, surely there are extra costs of implementing objective-only xp, like... umm... yes, there must be" a meaningful counterexample.

 

Maybe you should point out how the rest of your arguments are more effective than the example you chose, yes.

 

The Cat is one and only. And this is not my , but a copycat.

 

My Cat would reduce you to shreds if you ever tried to kidnap it.

 

*Heisenberg's cat protests* Your cat is a disgrace to the species, and I have no desire to associate myself with it in any way.

Edited January 17, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valorian]

*Heisenberg's cat protests* Your cat is a disgrace to the species, and I have no desire to associate myself with it in any way.

 

Your cat is a retard.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

*Heisenberg's cat protests* Your cat is a disgrace to the species, and I have no desire to associate myself with it in any way.

 

Your cat is a retard.

 

Shall I descend to your level and announce "no, yours is!"? Or can the conversation continue in a spirit which would not make even a 10 years old laugh at how infantile we are?

Edited January 17, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[PrimeJunta]

Here's my cat!