Degenerate Gameplay

[TRX850]

Systemic rewards, on the other hand, tend to incentivize degenerate behavior, such as hunting for traps only to spring them, locks only to pick them, or monsters only to kill them.

 

There seems to be a lot of obsessing about traps and locks in this discussion. It's not merely the trap or lock that's the focus, but what lies beyond them.  A trap can guard against access to other areas. A lock can guard against a player receiving a bonus item.  I think this was discussed in one form or another a few times.

 

And the thing about a player gaining an "advantage" really does seem irrelevant in a single player game.  If it's a sudden, huge advantage out of kilter with the game, then fair enough. But gaining small advantages over a period of time is a legitimate style of play. It may seem pointless to some, but you could argue that viewpoint about every single play style that isn't considered favourable or "normal" because there really is no such thing as normal play style.

[PrimeJunta]

And the thing about a player gaining an "advantage" really does seem irrelevant in a single player game.  If it's a sudden, huge advantage out of kilter with the game, then fair enough. But gaining small advantages over a period of time is a legitimate style of play. It may seem pointless to some, but you could argue that viewpoint about every single play style that isn't considered favourable or "normal" because there really is no such thing as normal play style.

Actually, there is such a thing as a "normal" playstyle: it is the playstyle (or styles) the designer has in mind when designing the game. You could idealize that by considering a super-intelligent Valorian (hard to do, I understand, but you can try). Namely, somebody who retains every bit of information handed to him by the game, and pursues the most efficient (=biggest net reward) strategy in response to it. I.e., someone who responds to the incentives handed by the game perfectly mechanically, like a marionette dancing on strings.

 

In a perfectly-designed game, this idealized Valorian will have a great time, never having to do anything that's repetitive, tedious or boring. No obsessive hunting for traps, locks, or killable monsters; no camping by spawn-o-mats and grinding until level cap; no trekking endlessly back and forth to bring rusty daggers from a faraway dungeon to a shopkeeper, and so on and so forth.

 

Thing is, if you design a game for this idealized Valorian, other less efficient players will usually have a great time too -- the only thing you'll have to take into account is that they may not be quite as efficient and therefore you might have to find ways to tone down the difficulty for them. And if you're able to give players the freedom to do other stuff as well without being penalized (too much) for it, then so much the better.

[Helm]

@Helm: The definition of degenerate strategy is something like "player behavior which is not aligned with the design goals of the game, but which results in an advantage for the player." If the designer has explicitly designated killing a group of monsters as a goal, then killing those monsters is, by definition, not degenerate behavior. That is because objective XP has to be intentionally placed.

Oh really? And what does that have to do with combat xp then? Why is objective xp not degenerate and combat xp is degenerate if a game designer implements it? That is what you just wrote. Illogical and contradictory bullcrap, because you apparently have no idea what you are saying.

[Helm]

But yeah like i said before i dont see the problem.

The problem is that it makes combat in a tactical combat based pointless, because avoiding combat will yield the best results.

 

Take the time and skim through the thread, there has been quite a bit of argumentation on this matter. You can than decide what sounds better to you.

[PrimeJunta]

Oh really? And what does that have to do with combat xp then? Why is objective xp not degenerate and combat xp is degenerate if a game designer implements it? That is what you just wrote. Illogical and contradictory bullcrap, because you apparently have no idea what you are saying.

There is a crucial difference between systemic rewards and contingent (explicitly placed) rewards. Please explain, in your own words, what the difference is, and get back to me.

[Helm]

 

Oh really? And what does that have to do with combat xp then? Why is objective xp not degenerate and combat xp is degenerate if a game designer implements it? That is what you just wrote. Illogical and contradictory bullcrap, because you apparently have no idea what you are saying.

There is a crucial difference between systemic rewards and contingent (explicitly placed) rewards. Please explain, in your own words, what the difference is, and get back to me.

it's amusing to watch you try and worm your way out of your contradictory statement.

 

But I'll leave it at that. It is just another amusing post from PJ (that I will quote if needed).

[Valorian]

The  is butthurt again and desperately seeks vindication by including me in his small examples. LoL

 

[Amentep]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So combat xp + combat loot is a perverse incentive, but if the Baron of Derpwood offers a bounty of 10 zorkmids + xp per dead orc/kobold/whatever, then it isn't a perverse incentive?

 

Yeah, that really makes sense (not).

Yes, dear. That's because if the Baron of Derpwood offers the bounty, it becomes an in-game objective. Therefore, because whacking them aligns with designer intent, by definition, it is not degenerate behavior.

 

 

Are you some kind of clown that is trying to be funny or do you just have no idea what you are writing? Because that makes absolutely no sense at all. What you just wrote is the most contradictory and ridiculous post in this whole thread.

 

This is what you wrote:

"If a designer implements objective xp, then it aligns with designer intent, by definition, it is not perverse degenerate behavior."

 

on the other hand:

"If a designer implements combat xp, then it does not align with designer intent, by definition, it is perverse degenerate behavior."

 

Are you high or what the heck is wrong with you?

BTW, you also really have to stop calling the system used in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape degenerate. They are great games. Jeez.

 

 

 

As I understand it, "Degenerate gameplay" - as defined in the way PJ is using it - refers to influences systems have on players that aren't going to what the intent of the developers is.

 

So if a player earns XP in the way that the developers intended (Objective XP, Combat XP, learn by doing XP) then the gameplay is not degenerate.

 

So the goal, then, is to look at the unintended consequences of the system and see how those consequences can be dealt with. The example that is "pro" objective XP is the player being encouraged by the system to complete a quest by persuading the villain to give up the hostage to complete the quest for XP then killing the villain for XP earning more XP than if the player either killed the villain outright. The system in this case has been created as such that it encourages an unintended behavior because it will greatly benefit the player.

 

Now one suggestion to "fix" this is to write code that says "if quest complete, don't give Kill XP". But if you have 1,000 quests, you have to do these exceptions 1,000 times; however if you design your system not to have these consequences to begin with. So we get the suggestion of not rewarding the player for kills, but only for quests, thus not incentivising completing quests in a peaceful way then going bi-polar and killing everyone.

 

So with Quest XP you then have a new problem - the potential for the system to incentivise the player to always take the path of least resistance with regard to completing the quest. This is a valid fear, and so our discussions are mostly centered on whether we think it is possible for a high level solution to exist to not encourage players to not use combat (which clearly isn't the developers intent since I've seen Josh talk heavily about wanting players to have good quality combat - to the point that he responded to one question by saying if you didn't like IE combat you won't like PE).

[PrimeJunta]

So with Quest XP you then have a new problem - the potential for the system to incentivise the player to always take the path of least resistance with regard to completing the quest.

If by "path of least resistance" you mean "most efficient path," then this is not a problem: it is good. It rewards players who are smart or skilled enough to figure out what is the most efficient way to deal with any particular situation. The most efficient way shouldn't be the most obvious way of course -- if the quests end up that way, then that's poor quest design. It's the same principle that rewards the most efficient killers in a game based on kill XP. The only difference is that the game rewards efficiency in quest resolution by any means available, not only killing.

[Amentep]

 

 

So with Quest XP you then have a new problem - the potential for the system to incentivise the player to always take the path of least resistance with regard to completing the quest.

If by "path of least resistance" you mean "most efficient path," then this is not a problem: it is good. It rewards players who are smart or skilled enough to figure out what is the most efficient way to deal with any particular situation. The most efficient way shouldn't be the most obvious way of course -- if the quests end up that way, then that's poor quest design. It's the same principle that rewards the most efficient killers in a game based on kill XP. The only difference is that the game rewards efficiency in quest resolution by any means available, not only killing.

 

 

 

 

 

No, I really mean "path of least resistance"; ie the game encourages the player to play in one way over all others at a universal level thus discouraging the player from playing the game in the way they want. In a well balanced design, a "most efficient path" for a particular quest doesn't rule out the validity of the other paths (thus the player who plays combat doesn't feel cheated sticking to a combat path because he's wasting his resources unnecessarily, nor does the stealth player end up 7 levels too low and unable to continue because they missed out on kill xp).

 

Its the difference between having three good paths and having two bad paths and a good path.

 

This is the problem most of the combat fans are having - the idea that the cost of resources on combat will make combat unattractive (a bad path) for all quests; in short the game will encourage non-combat paths over combat.

 

Note I also recognize this is a seismic shift from the IE games in which combat really is the primary conflict resolution method.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Amentep

[PrimeJunta]

No, I really mean "path of least resistance"; ie the game encourages the player to play in one way over all others at a universal level thus discouraging the player from playing the game in the way they want. In a well balanced design, a "most efficient path" for a particular quest doesn't rule out the validity of the other paths (thus the player who plays combat doesn't feel cheated sticking to a combat path because he's wasting his resources unnecessarily, nor does the stealth player end up 7 levels too low and unable to continue because they missed out on kill xp).

Right, thanks for clearing that up. I agree; a well-balanced system should not favor any single approach over others. I was thinking of particular situations, where the most efficient path is determined by whoever designed the problem and its possible solutions.

Its the difference between having three good paths and having two bad paths and a good path.

 

This is the problem most of the combat fans are having - the idea that the cost of resources on combat will make combat unattractive (a bad path) for all quests; in short the game will encourage non-combat paths over combat.

 

Note I also recognize this is a seismic shift from the IE games in which combat really is the primary conflict resolution method.

 

Yep. If combat does end up systemically costlier, then that is poor design. However, I trust that JES wouldn't make such an elementary design mistake; it's not like this is his first game.

[TRX850]

There also needs to be a clear distinction between the term "combat" and "combat strategy". The latter is the cornerstone of IE games. An exciting combat encounter will have all the hallmarks of good combat strategy. One that usually involves many different play styles, tactics, spell combos, sneak attacks, summoning, turning, raging, singing, and a raft of special talents.

 

Since they're expending so much time and effort on the new combat system, I damn well want some XP rewards from combat. Not in 30 minutes time after I've marched back to a slippery car-salesman-like gnome who was too lazy to do it himself.

 

....grrr....I'm off to bake a cake.

[Jobby]

This has been stated and restated numerous times but surely combat loot (esp rare items) is more than enough incentive to outweigh the "lost resources" from fighting, especially as with this game engine we should be able to see unique weapons in game, therefore we can decide "oo his morningstar looks nice, think i'll take the combat approach" sure it's encouraging greed but in a way that also encourages varied playstyles.

[Hassat Hunter]

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

WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO READ AND UNDERSTAND??

 

You wouldn't know which one that were. Unless you're playing with a guide next to you.

 

And why anyone would do that beats me.

But I guess for you guys efficiency beats any kind of fun.

 

Let me ask you.

Killing dude X gives you a +2 weapon.

Exploring a cave for 15 minutes gives you the same +2 weapon.

 

Are you still going to cry "stealth is more efficient" etc.? Because I doubt killing the dude costs the same time...

[Hassat Hunter]

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.

You seriously FAIL reading don't ya? Those all GIVE XP.

And suck. And give XP while sucking.

 

Nope, DA2 didn't do that... congrats on confirming you really REALLY suck at reading.

 

Added to ignore... should have done that much earlier.

[TRX850]

Let me ask you.

Killing dude X gives you a +2 weapon.

Exploring a cave for 15 minutes gives you the same +2 weapon.

 

Are you still going to cry "stealth is more efficient" etc.? Because I doubt killing the dude costs the same time...

I think there's something exceptional about the type of player the IE games attract.

 

Namely, we are in fact patient when it comes to immersive RPGs. I'd imagine most players wouldn't find it anywhere near as fun if their goal was to play the game in the shortest time possible.

 

Some might after a few playthroughs, but generally, I get the feeling that we're all more than happy to spend extra time adventuring in this type of world.

[Hassat Hunter]

 

Oh Aluminium you ask me for examples that you yourself have already provided to... yourself.  Remember this guy?

 

 

 

Razsius, on 16 January 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

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?

 

 

I phrased my question very succinctly in an effort to get an answer that I (quite frankly) already expected.  According to your very reason there is no actual purpose to fighting through that sewer system.  In other words it is meaningless to use combat in that situation.  Does that sound like good game design to you?  If yes, please never ever design a game.  If no, then you have made my case for me

I am sure glad you're not a game-developer.

Why would it be GOOD gamedesign to force people to kill every enemy in a long boring sequence. Next you know you'll be telling me OE should have made a [sorry, you cannot enter the core and confront Darth Traya enter until you killed EVERYTHING on Malachor] cause that would have made Malachor so much better.

 

As for the loopholes there are solutions to them.  In Baldur's Gate you got xp from scribing scrolls and disarming traps yet you got neither in Icewind Dale.  It's almost like they closed some loopholes.

Well, then you should be glad. If removing the XP gains is fixing loopholes, this is the ultimate loophole fix.

""You got XP from killing individual enemies in BG and IceWind Dale", you don't get that in PE. It's almost like they closed some loopholes."

Edited January 18, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Hassat Hunter]

You don't considering add an entire area that players think is a waste of time is bad design?  If players get to an area and think "well skip this ****"  thats not a problem?  And in the example that cat gave how is the jungle not meant to be something skipped over?  Maybe thats the biggest problem between the two camps.  One side sees stealthing as skipping content and the other side sees it as something that is the content.  Some people think experience comes from conflict and actions and other people think its about getting from A to B.

No, the conflict comes because;

 

Group A (the combat-XP people) think the sewers suck because it didn't give XP. And with combat-XP it wouldn't suck

Group B (the objective-XP people) see the sewers sucking isn't related to any XP design. Not getting XP is not the cause, and giving it is not the solution. The design itself is just horribly flawed. And not a system for reward changes that. It's just that they dropped the ball there.

Which is a very real risk regardless of the system (see also Dragon Age and Divinity 2).

 

Both groups do think the place is a waste of time, and bad. And no, we don't think that because "we sneak through"... we think so because it really is horribly designed. And making it a place to rush through is indeed something we don't want either. But it's a no-issue if areas are just properly populated with GOOD encounters, hidden treasures, quests, NPC's etc.

 

 

 

[Hassat Hunter]

It is delightful to see that more and more people are starting to voice serious concerns against the " 'objective' xp only " system. The faithfully blind are very loud, as it is usually the case, but the voice of reason is becoming even louder.

Could be me... but the objective-XP pro's are getting constant reinforcements. The pro-combat XP seem the same 3 or 4 guys from the start. Not really getting bigger.

And that also should say something about who is very loud...

Edited January 18, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Hassat Hunter]

I think there's something exceptional about the type of player the IE games attract.

 

Namely, we are in fact patient when it comes to immersive RPGs. I'd imagine most players wouldn't find it anywhere near as fun if their goal was to play the game in the shortest time possible.

 

Some might after a few playthroughs, but generally, I get the feeling that we're all more than happy to spend extra time adventuring in this type of world.

True enough.

Yet here people are claiming everyone would be more than willing to skip content and stuff and just get it over with.

That in any games everyone obviously picks the obvious "fastest path" of "least resistance"

 

It even goes so far that I get insulted for playing Deus Ex gunnery. And I am obviously a sucky player to still do that since "stealth is so much better"... even if in DX neither combat nor stealth player are penalised. Or actually forced to deviate from their path... or even tempted.

[Jobby]

My only hangup with the objective based system is that i don't necessarily want to see every playstyle get rewarded identically everytime, I'd like to see more challenging playstyes for certain quests reap the greatest rewards. 

 

And in regards to stealth being the easy way out, i don't understand why that needs to be the case.

[PrimeJunta]

My only hangup with the objective based system is that i don't necessarily want to see every playstyle get rewarded identically everytime, I'd like to see more challenging playstyes for certain quests reap the greatest rewards. 

The nice thing with objective-XP is that it allows quest designers to do just that, with a very precise level of control too.

[PrimeJunta]

It even goes so far that I get insulted for playing Deus Ex gunnery. And I am obviously a sucky player to still do that since "stealth is so much better"... even if in DX neither combat nor stealth player are penalised. Or actually forced to deviate from their path... or even tempted.

Hur. My most fun DX playthrough was definitely the one where I maxed out my heavy weapons skill. KABOOM!

[Helm]

You seriously FAIL reading don't ya? Those all GIVE XP.

And suck. And give XP while sucking.

 

Nope, DA2 didn't do that... congrats on confirming you really REALLY suck at reading.

 

Added to ignore... should have done that much earlier.

 

Oh woops, like I said your posts are hard to read (you win the rage troll prize for the most undescernable postings) and I was out of context (for some reason). Not to mention that your posts are always full of garbage and troll rage. Sorry that I didn't take more time to read your crap whining again.

 

BTW, Having a bad day? You seem to be very agressive today. Or are you still mad because you lost our last discussion that started here? You know, where you were expecting me to sort through your 3500 posts to find some info and some other bull****.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

My only hangup with the objective based system is that i don't necessarily want to see every playstyle get rewarded identically everytime, I'd like to see more challenging playstyes for certain quests reap the greatest rewards. 

 

And in regards to stealth being the easy way out, i don't understand why that needs to be the case.

 

This is true. But those who prefer sneaking and avoiding combat don't really care.

 

 

My only hangup with the objective based system is that i don't necessarily want to see every playstyle get rewarded identically everytime, I'd like to see more challenging playstyes for certain quests reap the greatest rewards.

The nice thing with objective-XP is that it allows quest designers to do just that, with a very precise level of control too.

 

 

 

No it doesn't. Avoiding combat yields the best results then.