Degenerate Gameplay

[ReyVagabond]

Here's my cat!

 

 

 

If thats your cat, cudos man, i love your cat, he is a cute bacement cat!

 

Also Cudos for the Volturno.

Edited January 17, 2013 by ReyVagabond

[PrimeJunta]

She's most definitely my cat. Here she is with my dog. You can tell who's the boss maybe.

 

 

[Amentep]

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.

 

If you place the best loot in chests, because loot isn't assigned at a system level but hand assigned then the problem still isn't systemic, ie the system is not designed to require the best loot in chests.

 

Why you think that developers who've stressed how they want to make all paths viable would put the best loot in chests exclusively is beyond me. I'd think they'd want to think carefully about where the loot goes and what choices they want the player to face, personally. Particularly since where the loot is seems to be up to them (as opposed to random drops assigned by the system)

 

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.

 

It depends on what "good" loot is. Loot in the chest might be loot that replaces resources lost in stealth or that that improves stealth / lockpicking but doesn't do much at combat. Loot on the 10 monsters might be better defensive / combat equipment and less use to a thief or loot that replinishes combat resources. So the combat party is encouraged to fight for loot, but the stealth party gets rewards for stealth.

 

Combat costs resources, sure. Since they want to make every path viable, any player path is going to have to cost resorces, otherwise it won't be balanced (which, as far as I've read, is the goal of their design decisions - to create viable balanced paths for different game style of play that doesn't inherently make any path optimal over another).

 

*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

 

I'm sorry but your logic is faulty. "Pacifists will not be punished with less loot" does not imply that "sneaking requires no resources".

 

Please show me where Josh - or anyone else on the Obsidian team - has explicitly stated that "sneaking requires no resources" and I'm willing to say that your fears are valid. Otherwise you're making a huge assumption without any basis to do so (yet).

[TrashMan]

I have addressed all your arguments.

 

You actually didn't do a good job of doing that.

 

Sarcasm and ignoring are not valid counter-arguments. All you do is basicly insult the pro-quest XP crowd.

 

 

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?

 

Actually, it's your argument that is a bad argument.

 

"X cost resources, and since everything costs resources, that means Y cost resources too?"

Well Sherlock, way to be Captain Obvious. the questio nis never weather feature A cost resoruces or not- the question is if it costs more or less.

And quest-based XP is by nature simpler to balance, hence requireing LESS resources.

[Helm]

If you place the best loot in chests, because loot isn't assigned at a system level but hand assigned then the problem still isn't systemic, ie the system is not designed to require the best loot in chests.

 

Why you think that developers who've stressed how they want to make all paths viable would put the best loot in chests exclusively is beyond me. I'd think they'd want to think carefully about where the loot goes and what choices they want the player to face, personally. Particularly since where the loot is seems to be up to them (as opposed to random drops assigned by the system) [...] Combat costs resources, sure. Since they want to make every path viable, any player path is going to have to cost resorces, otherwise it won't be balanced (which, as far as I've read, is the goal of their design decisions - to create viable balanced paths for different game style of play that doesn't inherently make any path optimal over another).

 

I'm sorry but your logic is faulty. "Pacifists will not be punished with less loot" does not imply that "sneaking requires no resources".

Please show me where Josh - or anyone else on the Obsidian team - has explicitly stated that "sneaking requires no resources" and I'm willing to say that your fears are valid. Otherwise you're making a huge assumption without any basis to do so (yet).

 

True, but then it would contradict with what Josh said here and what he said about only questing is pure benefit (i.e. quest loot) and nothing else.

I really have to find that post where Josh talks about "degenerate gaming". He said that a player should do what he wants and no play style should be punished in any way.

 

Avoiding combat (not necessarily stealthy) will always yield the best results. If you fight, then you lose resources and gain resources, in other words, you don't gain any resources and you don't lose any.

If you avoid the combat, then the outcome will be the same, but you will a) possibly have more health b) not have endangered your party and c) have the same amount of loot and xp as somebody who decided to fight in that encounter.

 

I already showed you the links, but I have to look for the one where Josh talks about degenerate gaming.

Fighting => you lose resources (-1), you gain resources (+1), enviroment loot (1) =1

Sneaking => you lose no resources (0), enviroment loot (1) = 1

Sneaking (what you just said) => you lose resources (-1), enviroment loot (1) = 0

 

If you lost resources for stealth abilites, then stealth would not be a viable option, because you would run out of resources very quickly. I have posted this link about 20 times: Sneaking will not be punished, i.e. the stealth option will always be available.

Not to mention that simply not engaging in combat (running away, whatever) does not cost resources, which is rather obvious. I cannot stress this enough.

The most profitable option will of course be to skip all combat, except for elites (rare mobs with good loot $$$).

[Helm]

You actually didn't do a good job of doing that.

Oh, i'm sorry. Now my opinion is insulting you.

Actually, it's your argument that is a bad argument.

Implementing any feature costs resources you know. It's just not a waste if i implement what you like. Right? Why don't we just remove xp all together? Costs less resources.

 

Like I said, bad illogical argument.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Helm

[ReyVagabond]

Back to topic.

 

I a person that would love only Objective EXP. I can say this.

 

Yes i have problems, Yes i cant control myself, Yes as soon i know about a game exploit ill use it, even if it ruins my fun, why i dont know. I'm weak.

 

I know its my problem not your problem.

 

I want Objective EXP. so I during my many play troughs will not suffer from the sintom of Man with my party with all fighter i was way ahead of level because i killed so many more monsters.

Or man why do i ever bother with Diplomacy with my Mage if i can kill every one and get more XP and loot.

 

Personaly the "cost" of fighting was never a big deal for me not even in BG1 where resting was a pain and geting healed has expencive, personaly i plan my fights ahead, i reload if nesesary, so the cost is little to nothing.

For my kind of playstile. I love fighting thats why i love this kind of games, RTS and Turn baced like Jagged Aliance, or X-Com, and so on.

Because i prefer fighting as my main way of resloving conflicts in this game, i want not to say even once, man i should have played a group of fighters i would have been more fun and be at hier level by now.

I dont want to say "Nice if I stay here wandering some Random mob will come here and if i kill 40 more ill level up". yeah thats not a good way to spend 2 hours of game play.

Becuase i have done that in the past. And in retrospective was the lowpoints of the game.

 

Thats why i want Objective baced XP to not feel discuraged to go away from my confort zone and try new things in the game.

If with degenerate information i know X charater has some cool loot, most lickly ill engane in that battle to earn it. But i dont want to feel, man playin that other way was so much better than this one.

In all terms balance. Expirice balance.

And personaly the Safest most unexpencive, clean and fast way to do it, is Just reward the objective acomplished.

Of course we They could make a Intricate system of XP, and how much XP this gives and that gives, and if I sneak past X enemy awars That many XP. and so on and so on.

But lets say, objective baced XP consumes ONE man 100 hours of programin.

And the intricate System cost SAME man 500 hours of programin.

That means in the first example that man 400 hours could be spend. doing something else.

 

But i dont work on Obsidian i dont know how much time it takes for all i know it could be the same amount of time, or just a little more.

 

What i do know it i want to feel like every play stile is Viable and by any given moment of the game, 2 players that have done the same amount of content in the game have a grate advantage one over the other.

[Amentep]

True, but then it would contradict with what Josh said here and what he said about only questing is pure benefit (i.e. quest loot) and nothing else.

I really have to find that post where Josh talks about "degenerate gaming". He said that a player should do what he wants and no play style should be punished in any way.

 

Questing is pure benefit - completing a quest will always give you XP and some loot. That link doesn't say how much benefit or what kind of benefit.

 

I'm still stuck on how a stance you agree was intended by Josh - "He said that a player should do what he wants and no play style should be punished in any way" - is being read to mean "Combat based play style will be punished."

 

Avoiding combat (not necessarily stealthy) will always yield the best results. If you fight, then you lose resources and gain resources, in other words, you don't gain any resources and you don't lose any.

If you avoid the combat, then the outcome will be the same, but you will a) possibly have more health b) not have endangered your party and c) have the same amount of loot and xp as somebody who decided to fight in that encounter.

 

I already showed you the links, but I have to look for the one where Josh talks about degenerate gaming.

Fighting => you lose resources (-1), you gain resources (+1), enviroment loot (1) =1

Sneaking => you lose no resources (0), enviroment loot (1) = 1

Sneaking (what you just said) => you lose resources (-1), enviroment loot (1) = 0

 

I still haven't seen a link that says sneaking loses no resources. I'd appreciate it, really.

 

But lets assume that you are right and that sneaking costs no resources.

 

Lets say there are two types of loot, resource loot (loot that replenishes your resources like stamina potions) and equipment loot (stuff you wear). And this loot is found two places, dead bodies and environment.

 

Fighting => you lose resources (-1) you gain resources loot (+1) and equipment loot (+1) from two places dead bodies and environment (x2). Net reward of 3 [2*(1+1)-1 = 2*2-1 = 4-1 = 3]

 

Stealth => you don't lose resources (0), you gain resources loot (+1) and environmental loot (+1) from one place, environment. Net reward of 2 [1+1*1 = 2]

 

Both groups are rewarded for their playstyle. Both are viable paths. Combat has higher risk / reward. Both groups get XP under quest objectives, so the next quest both groups are able to further their play style through "leveling".

 

If you lost resources for stealth abilites, then stealth would not be a viable option, because you would run out of resources very quickly. I have posted this link about 20 times: Sneaking will not be punished, i.e. the stealth option will always be available.

Not to mention that simply not engaging in combat (running away, whatever) does not cost resources, which is rather obvious. I cannot stress this enough.

The most profitable option will of course be to skip all combat, except for elites (rare mobs with good loot $$$).

 

That link does not say sneaking will not be punished. What it says is that the placement of loot isn't determined by the system (random loot drop tables assigned by the program) but that loot is assigned by the determination of the production team.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Amentep

[Helm]

Well, Amentep, we have explained it to you a few times and I can't make it any clearer. Those who sneak will get the same enviroment and quest loot as those who fight (loot is "systemic" as Josh likes to say). Those who fight will use resources and also gain resources to replenish these lost resources from fighting. The outcome will be the same for 2 activities. The obvious choice then is: to sneak and avoid combat.

 

If a stealth ability required resources, then those who fight would have an advantage, because they would have more loot. Josh said that this will not be the case.

 

And avoiding combat cannot require any resources. You could avoid combat in Baldur's Gate too.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Helm

[aluminiumtrioxid]

She's most definitely my cat.

Here she is with my dog. You can tell who's the boss maybe.

 

 

 

 

Awwww, she's beautiful :3

 

Helm, you seem to keep avoiding the points I've made. Also, the exact amount of resources you lose in combat will mostly be determined by your skill as a player, so saying that "you gain the same amount of resources you've lost by choosing to fight" is a faulty argument.

Edited January 17, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Helm]

Helm, you seem to keep avoiding the points I've made. Also, the exact amount of resources you lose in combat will mostly be determined by your skill as a player, so saying that "you gain the same amount of resources you've lost by choosing to fight" is a faulty argument.

If you can read: I did not say that the loot will be exactly the same. The outcome will be the same (for practically every encounter). And you of course won't avoid the rare elites with good loot (if you want to at least). It will only even be worth fighting the elites, because they (might) have good loot. And thats it.

 

But not like it makes a difference. Sneaking and avoiding combat is the acitivity of choice because it won't be punished with less loot as Josh has already said. It does not mean you will ignore every single combat situation as I have just said. But you will avoid most of them.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Helm

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I did not say that the loot will be exactly the same. The outcome will be the same (for practically every encounter).

 

You're still assuming that player skill doesn't play any part in the outcome, which, I'm convinced, is likely not true.

[rjshae]

 

Awww....

[Amentep]

Well, Amentep, we have explained it to you a few times and I can't make it any clearer.

 

I appreciate you trying! I do. If stealth depletes stamina, though, doesn't it deplete resources?

 

Those who sneak will get the same enviroment and quest loot as those who fight (loot is "systemic" as Josh likes to say).

 

Awarding loot is not systemic.

 

Emphasis mine, but Josh is saying loot isn't systemic.

[Helm]

I did not say that the loot will be exactly the same. The outcome will be the same (for practically every encounter).

 

You're still assuming that player skill doesn't play any part in the outcome, which, I'm convinced, is likely not true.

Well, if I play the game on easy as a skilled player, then I will have more loot from fighting, sure. Maybe I will kill everything in the whole game (on easy) for loot that I don't need.

 

But seriously, in the end that will not really make a difference. Every player will receive enough loot for his play style as Josh has said. The only benefit is from questing, nothing else.

[Gfted1]

I did not say that the loot will be exactly the same. The outcome will be the same (for practically every encounter).

 

You're still assuming that player skill doesn't play any part in the outcome, which, I'm convinced, is likely not true.

 

But does it really? As currently envisioned there is no missing, so no matter how fractional the damage may be, no matter the player stategy, no matter the gear used, a death by 1000 cuts is still death. Death requires you to "pay" something to get ungimped and damage to health (also unavoidable) requires you to "pay" something to get better. The only thing to keep this from degenerative gameplay is to level the playing field by associating some "cost" to stealth and diplomacy. People keep saying there WILL be some cost but we dont really know that and what could it be? Chugging 6 invisiblitiy potions to stealth your whole party would count but I think Sawyer said something about every class being able to sneak. What would be a good "cost" for diplomacy IYO?

[Helm]

I appreciate you trying! I do. If stealth depletes stamina, though, doesn't it deplete resources?

I personally wouldn't consider that a resource though, seeing that it regenerates. But yes, it could be used for a stealth mechanic.

 

I suppose stealth will be like in commandos (but much simpler of course) as Josh says here. Stealth is a good idea, for some quests it would be an interesting an excellent alternative to a diplomatic resolution (Maybe @Valorian can post his examples here, they were excellent), but that still doesn't fix the problem that you will avoid every combat situation like the pest if you can.

 

Emphasis mine, but Josh is saying loot isn't systemic.

Woops. Typo.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Helm

[Amentep]

I appreciate you trying! I do. If stealth depletes stamina, though, doesn't it deplete resources?

I personally wouldn't consider that a resource though, seeing that it regenerates. But yes, it could be used for a stealth mechanic.

 

I suppose stealth will be like in commandos (but much simpler of course) as Josh says here. Stealth is a good idea, for some quests it would be an interesting an excellent alternative to a diplomatic resolution (Maybe @Valorian can post his examples here, they were excellent), but that still doesn't fix the problem that you will avoid every combat situation like the pest if you can.

 

Well we know spells are a resource and that there will be combat abilities. Seems to me that stealth abilities and stamina could be valid resources for stealth, and therefore there can be a 'cost' associated with stealth paths (in that stealthing now may effect your ability to stealth later unless you waste your time waiting or expend stamina potions or something).

 

I think at this point I can't really add anything new to the debate; really we'll need to know more of how they're doing certain things to see if your fears are right or not. I still have a hard time believing that developers who made the change to Quest XP so that all play styles could be valid would recreate a system where one play style is optimal over the other (in the broad sense, as opposed to the micro sense).

 

Emphasis mine, but Josh is saying loot isn't systemic.

Woops. Typo.

 

hahah, oops.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Amentep

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I did not say that the loot will be exactly the same. The outcome will be the same (for practically every encounter).

 

You're still assuming that player skill doesn't play any part in the outcome, which, I'm convinced, is likely not true.

 

As currently envisioned there is no missing, so no matter how fractional the damage may be, no matter the player stategy, no matter the gear used, a death by 1000 cuts is still death.

 

What would be a good "cost" for diplomacy IYO?

 

You can still paralyze your opponents to cut their throats while they can do nothing about it, slow them down and pepper them with arrows as they are making a futile effort to get close to you, set up traps and lead them to their deaths, summon cannon fodder creatures to take the brunt of the damage while you're sniping them from afar... actually, there are quite a lot of strategies aimed to prevent the enemy from being able to even attack you.

 

Having to bribe people to get information which opens up new (not necessarily dialogue) options jumps to my mind immediately. Also, certain creatures may require you to sacrifice a portion of your life force when dealing with them. Maybe your "strong" soul allows you to sense the general mood or personality type of the person you're dealing with, thus allowing you to better anticipate what you should say to them, at the cost of some soul energy or whatever. Some nobles may be unwilling to interact with you unless you have a suitably regal appearance, thus forcing you to spend money on getting fine clothing. Et cetera.

Edited January 17, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Somna]

A simple diplomacy cost could be restricted environment access.

 

Making a deal with the bandits? Then you're not going into their treasure cache, unless you want to waste the money you just gave them.

[Helm]

I still have a hard time believing that developers who made the change to Quest XP so that all play styles could be valid would recreate a system where one play style is optimal over the other (in the broad sense, as opposed to the micro sense).

I feel (felt) the same way. But the more I think about it the more I don't like it. I really didn't give it much thought at the beginning, but that has changed as you can see.

 

I think the game can have both (stealth and combat), but "quest xp only" is not the solution. The system would have to be much more complicated in order to 1) cater to the fans of the IE games so that they don't feel estranged and 2) to cater to those who like stealth/pacifist gaming.

 

Anything can be fixed and Josh has enough time to do it. We'll see what happens.

[Razsius]

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.

 

Wait, what!? You act as if the last two plus decades of RPGs *were not* balanced around combat xp based systems. So what you're trying to say is that the last two decades (20+ years of iteration on this system people) meant absolutely nothing in the progress department of being able to close various xp loopholes that you have to go out of your way to abuse? Instead, the "solution" is to implement a system that comes with an entirely different set of xp based problems that we have not used for the last 20+ years. Maybe we should give up the title of "smartest species on the planet" and instead redeem the title "absolute dumbest species on the planet."

 

Well we know spells are a resource and that there will be combat abilities. Seems to me that stealth abilities and stamina could be valid resources for stealth, and therefore there can be a 'cost' associated with stealth paths (in that stealthing now may effect your ability to stealth later unless you waste your time waiting or expend stamina potions or something).

 

I think at this point I can't really add anything new to the debate; really we'll need to know more of how they're doing certain things to see if your fears are right or not. I still have a hard time believing that developers who made the change to Quest XP so that all play styles could be valid would recreate a system where one play style is optimal over the other (in the broad sense, as opposed to the micro sense).

 

We need to get back on track here. Even if there is an associated risk or cost to using something like stealth or diplomacy this does not necessarily mean you now have parity of choice which again is a complete myth. I have never in the past 20+ some odd years of playing rpgs, mmos, fps games, adventure games, tbs games, rts games, etc. found a parity of choice among them. Not. One. Single. Time. If stealth options take slightly more resources than combat options then diplomacy is the available most efficient choice. If both stealth and diplomacy suffer from too much resource attrition than meaningless combat in an objective based xp system is the most efficient method.

 

God what a can of worms Josh has opened...

[Valorian]

You act as if the last two plus decades of RPGs *were not* balanced around combat xp based systems. So what you're trying to say is that the last two decades (20+ years of iteration on this system people) meant absolutely nothing in the progress department of being able to close various xp loopholes that you have to go out of your way to abuse? Instead, the "solution" is to implement a system that comes with an entirely different set of xp based problems that we have not used for the last 20+ years.

 

Yes, they're trying to find a "solution" to an inexistent problem. Desperately. And failing, of course.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

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.

 

Wait, what!? You act as if the last two plus decades of RPGs *were not* balanced around combat xp based systems. So what you're trying to say is that the last two decades (20+ years of iteration on this system people) meant absolutely nothing in the progress department of being able to close various xp loopholes that you have to go out of your way to abuse? Instead, the "solution" is to implement a system that comes with an entirely different set of xp based problems that we have not used for the last 20+ years. Maybe we should give up the title of "smartest species on the planet" and instead redeem the title "absolute dumbest species on the planet."

 

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

 

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

[Amentep]

To be fair, any system is going to have problems so trading one XP system for another is to some degree trading one set of problems for another; the question will always be "what system has the least number of problems for the goal of the game?" I think.

 

Since the developers seem to want to make viable paths for stealth and diplomacy to exist outside of supporting combat (as they were in IE games), they seem to want to not have combat as the optimal conflict resolution solution (this is not to say that they want combat to not be attractive or viable, however, only that it won't be optimal).