Degenerate Gameplay

[Razsius]

@PrimeJunta

Sorry Prime I was all but nodding off at the keyboard I had to get some rest.  Don't worry you'll never be able to scare me off .

 

 

What's wrong with having the Baron of Derpwood offer a bounty of 10 zorkmids per dead orc, payable upon presentation of an orc snout?

 

 

For one that awards no actual xp and essentially moves our xp "carrot" into a loot or gold "carrot".  Second, if the Baron of Derpwood only awards you for killing orcs then you have no quest giver for killing hobgoblins.  Assuming this is "corrected," then do you spend a ton of developer resources creating various quest givers to give incentives for killing x race for some doohickey they drop to get gold?  Third, where are the quest givers?  Are they scattered about across all the towns forcing you the player to visit various places for your goblin scalp turn ins and what have you?  Maybe all the kill x guys are in a single place so that you only have to make a trip to a single town/city that's halfway across the world every single time you want to be rewarded for your effort.  I'm not being fair again let's assume instead they code in a "monster bounty hunter" of sorts that accepts the noses of any monsters you kill.  We're going to forgo realism and assume every monster actually has a nose.  Also, there will be a "bounty hunter" in every town.  Funny this is starting to look like an mmo...

 

Where's the point where this does not feel "patchwork" if you will like fixing a select few loopholes in your combat xp system?  I just had to derive an entirely new network of objective based quests just to fix a single issue of objective based xp.  Why were we getting rid of combat xp again?

 

 

I'm kinda interested to see how the P:E team does decide to handle it, since on the face of it The Endless Paths sounds very Diablo-esque (except not randomly generated) and as such a good candidate for an area where kill XP would work without creating perverse incentives. My guess is exploration XP -- they have said that that's in. So for example n * (dungeon level) XP for every room you enter.

 

 

You'll have to forgive me for being a little more concerned then "let's see what the developers come up with".  I have seen *no* evidence of a solution to the problem.  Yours for example rewards as was previously stated getting from point A to point B in the least resource intensive manner possible (this *should* be the stealthy approach or it is no longer a choice).  As for stating that kill xp would make sense here.  Wouldn't that be yet another loophole you had to fix in the objective xp based system?

 

 

Yup, you can certainly work your way around the problems. My point is that with a kill XP system, you will have to constantly work around questions like this, whereas with an objective XP system you don't -- you just decide what you want to reward, and reward it, end of story.

 

 

This is patently false Prime and you know it.  I expect a little more from someone i'm responding to.  You, yourself, are providing solutions that are either metagamey in an mmo sense or a direct reversion to the entire system itself.  If that isn't a "patch" to it I don't know what is.

 

 

Systemic XP is problematic precisely because the bigger your game gets, the harder it gets to manage, and the more exceptions or special cases you have to add: locking areas (which always feels artificial to me), disappearing former foes (also artificial unless there's an in-game rationale for it), switching off kill XP for certain foes (e.g. those spawned by a spawn-o-mat, à la that BG2 temple). This is poor design IMO; you're taking something that doesn't really work very well and then adding patches to sort of keep it afloat.

 

 

Let's go back to that grab McGuffin quest.  The munchkin goes back to find significantly more guards in the area he just stole from and a magical lock on the door.  To get back inside the place he robbed he has to kill the Mage investigating the crime which will provide a huge rep hit in the city he currently occupies.  The munchkin has even more targets now but for each one he kills he gains some pretty massive reputation penalties.  No city in real life will take anyone killing their authorities lying down.  Eventually, the player character should be run out of the city or just plain hunted down on sight.  If Josh and co want to make a robust reputation system this event should influence *other* towns and cities as well.  Get a reputation for being a scumbag and reap some pretty nasty penalties to all but the most evil of npcs interacting with you.  This could influence things like going back on your word.  As for spawn-o-mats 0 xp is only one solution.  Hypothetically spawn-o-mats should have you, the player, *wanting* to close them.  Low level shadow spawning 1 at a time?  Meh!  Who cares.. maybe i'll just farm.  Beholders spawning at an exponential rate?  You can bet even the munchkin's going to want to close those things before he has 50+ elder beholders all using his party as target practice.

 

 

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.

 

 

IWD had no xp gain for either trap disarming or lock picking.  I think they had to code in xp for both of those in BG so the solution was to save time and not code it in.

 

 

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.

 

 

While this is true, i've never seen a parity of choice even in a game JES has designed.

 

 

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.

 

 

If unique loot is dropped from named mobs then that would be Helm's most efficient method.  If random trash mobs named "Orc" occasionally drop "rare" items then you now have Diablo and most mmos method of dividing up loot gain (ie dumb luck).  Which would beg the question why would I want such a system in my supposedly IE game successor?

 

Also we have just moved the "carrot" from xp to loot.

 

@Hassat

 

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...

 

 

Congratulations the path of least resistance is now combat because spending exponentially more time to get the exact same or much less reward is destroying the entire reason you are giving parity of xp to the quest.

 

 

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.

 

 

You just can't read can you?  I gave you like 3 or 4 different reasons why you'd want to kill those critters but the biggest problem is the answer to my question (twice no less) was that the particular area of combat I was referring to was MEANINGLESS to clear.  If that's not an "f you!" to the player I don't know what is.  This was not the only area it happened in VtM: B either.  Remember those vampire hunters hunting LaCroix and the rest of your race?  Yea there's no reason to kill all of *them* either.  Objective xp giving more "choices" is an absolute joke.  It just shifted combat being the most efficient method to stealth approaches being infinitely better.

 

 

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."

 

 

And thus we would fix the fun right out of the game.  Maybe enemies shouldn't drop loot at all!  Instead we should have all loot be at the end of the dungeon in a big chest or awarded to you by the npc quest giver.  We need some more equality of choice after all.  You'll notice I didn't have an actual problem with disarming traps = xp and scribing scrolls = xp.  Quite frankly, i'm not even sure how you were supposed to abuse those two there were only x amount of scrolls and traps in the BG series anyways.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Razsius

[PrimeJunta]

That's OK, Raszius. I'm done with this topic. You guys wore me out. Now all you have to do is convince JES.

[Razsius]

That's OK, Raszius. I'm done with this topic. You guys wore me out. Now all you have to do is convince JES.

 

 

Heh, I suppose you guys will win in the end I very much doubt JES is even reading this travesty of a thread.

 

Edit: I'm just not that optimistic after all...

Edited January 18, 2013 by Razsius

[TRX850]

That's OK, Raszius. I'm done with this topic. You guys wore me out. Now all you have to do is convince JES.

 

If you just stand still for a bit, you'll regenerate.

[Gfted1]

[TrashMan]

No.

Removing something that was present for 20+ years in rpgs, and proven to work just fine, would diminish their enjoyment of the game.

 

This has to do with min-maxing as much as your furious crybaby campaign, against rogue's sneak attacks being a rogue's exclusive, had to do with common sense.

Actually it doesn't work "just fine".

 

Face it - objective-based XP is simpler to implement, more fair to everyone and easier to balance

 

[Valorian]

 

That's OK, Raszius. I'm done with this topic. You guys wore me out. Now all you have to do is convince JES.

 

If you just stand still for a bit, you'll regenerate.

He can't. The compulsion driving his fingers is too powerful to control.

[PrimeJunta]

 

That's OK, Raszius. I'm done with this topic. You guys wore me out. Now all you have to do is convince JES.

 

If you just stand still for a bit, you'll regenerate.

Luckily I found a potion of restore stamina. Currently imbibing. It also appears to have a mild Confusion effect though.

[Amentep]

 

 

No.

Removing something that was present for 20+ years in rpgs, and proven to work just fine, would diminish their enjoyment of the game.

 

This has to do with min-maxing as much as your furious crybaby campaign, against rogue's sneak attacks being a rogue's exclusive, had to do with common sense.

Actually it doesn't work "just fine".

 

Face it - objective-based XP is simpler to implement, more fair to everyone and easier to balance

 

 

 

 

To be fair, when I started playing D&D back in the early 80s, we never got XP for killing a monster (*rolls hit* "I hit the monster" "Okay, add 100 xp to your character sheet and tell me if you level up"). We waited for the battle to be over or for the night to be over before the DM calculated XP for the combat, the quest or the night.

 

So part of why I'm not terribly beholden to kill XP is that my P&P background was never hinged on it. People who've only played computer games might have a different experience. But then the first computer games I played - like SSI's Phantasie were "all or nothing" propositions. Get into a fight and kill a couple of monsters but have to run away? Too bad - no XP for you.

 

So the idea that the only way to do a game is to dole out XP every time the player opens a lock, kills a monster, lances a bunion or whatever just isn't there for me. Not that I hate it either; different systems bring their own pluses and minuses and can be equally fun to play.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Amentep

[IndiraLightfoot]

Ah, those were the days! Then we have something in common in our PnP background, and it sure does explain why kill xp is no necessity at all for me. Games heavily built on hack-n-slash and getting kill xp is arcade for me. I remember Gauntlet fondly, but it is far from a CRPG.  On the opposite end of the arcade spectrum you had the cinematic Dragon's Lair, and still today I'm no cutscene freak either.

[Helm]

-

Edited January 18, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

 

That's OK, Raszius. I'm done with this topic. You guys wore me out. Now all you have to do is convince JES.

 

If you just stand still for a bit, you'll regenerate.

Good one. lol

[Helm]

 

That's OK, Raszius. I'm done with this topic. You guys wore me out. Now all you have to do is convince JES.

 

 

Heh, I suppose you guys will win in the end I very much doubt JES is even reading this travesty of a thread.

 

Edit: I'm just not that optimistic after all...

 

Well, he knows it exists, I've seen him in here before. He left pretty quickly though. heh

[Lephys]

@Valorian: I'm saving you the trouble of responding by acknowledging here and now that you did not read this. You're welcome. There was a .0001% chance you might've gotten a hand cramp or something.

@Lephys

 

You do realize that because you get equal loot in either scenario the "smart" thing to do is exactly what Helm has been saying for the past what 6+ pages?  In other words, take the path of least resistance.

Then, by that same line of reason, what's the point in picking one class over another, if they all get the same number of abilities to choose from?

 

All loot is not created equal. If you get a Masterwork Mace from a chest, and you get 1300 gold from killing some foes, then the path of least resistance ends with you 1300 gold poorer.

 

That's really the problem here... things with variable amounts keep being cited as being inherently worse than other things with variable amounts. Clearly, if ALL combat in the game were not rewarded with any XP, then there'd be a problem. But if some things require you to successfully combat hostiles, and those things ALSO give you XP, then you were given XP for combat (you could not have gotten that XP without combat.) If even ONE instance of combat in the entire game gives you XP, then "combat is ALWAYS worse" is not true. Therefore, the actual problem is "combat doesn't give enough experience to be a valid option as compared to combat-avoiding options." So what do you do? You adjust things. That's called balancing.

 

If you award combat XP for every kill, then you automatically have to adjust the total number of creatures ever available to be killed, and/or the amount of XP each creature kill gives, and/or the difficulty level for all subsequent content. So, how much would be enough? We keep getting examples of "If I killed 10 guys, and I COULD'VE also done ANYTHING else in the universe that didn't involve killing those 10 guys, and I still get XP for either, I should get more for the killing." Well, if you get more for the killing, how much? You can't have killing everything in the game put you at level 170, and killing only the things you HAVE to kill put you at level 30 at the end of the game. How the hell do you balance that? It's either WAY too easy for the combat-choosers, or WAY to difficult for the people you've told "Hey, it's totally a viable option to not kill these things, and we still let you advance through all the content to this point of no return at the end of the game."

 

So, if the devs say "Okay, you get 1XP every time you kill something," is that enough? Probably not, right? That would just feel like a slap in the face. So how much? 20? 30? 70? It's most likely going to be higher for tougher fights, and lower for easier fights, right? But, you're surely not going to fight nothing but stuff that's 4 levels lower than you, so, again, you come back to the fact that only a certain range of XP per kill is valid. Or, maybe you decided to just say "Okay, well, we'll just have like 5 enemies per group, instead of 10. That should cut all the XP gain down to a reasonable, balanced number for all available combat encounters." Well, you think no one's gonna complain about "Why don't we ever get to fight more than 5 things? There are 6 people in my party! I expect the challenge of numbers to not be forcibly reduced!"

 

And say you DO just give everyone plenty of XP per kill. You've either got to remove the non-combat options you're calling "viable," or let people get to the end of the game completely under-leveled, like I said.

 

It all comes down to balance, no matter what. Which is why, it doesn't matter what system you use, really. It matters how you address all the factors.

 

Starting with the number 2 and need to get to 50? Let's use addition, because I like addition. So we have to add 48. But wait, you hate addition, and like multiplication better? Okay, well, we can't just multiply 2 by 48 and still end up with 50, so now we have to change that 48 to a 25.

 

Every single value has an effect, and they must all be addressed, based on SOME kind of standard.

 

I really don't see the problem, unless things aren't properly balanced.

 

It's just like someone said about that Vampire: The Masquerade example. IF you give objective-only XP, then let's say you fight your way through 50 enemies, and you "Find the exit to the sewer." That's your objective completion, and you get 5,000 XP.  Well, you just got 100 XP per enemy, if you killed them all. You just didn't get it all at once.

 

- Was the problem that it was too long and tedious? Then make the area smaller/less-convoluted, and/or reduce the number of enemies.

- Was it that you didn't have to kill them all, and you still got the total XP? Then have them all in the immediate path, and make them threatening enough to kill you (be faster than you) if you try to ignore them and run.

- Was the problem that someone else just stealthed their whole party through the whole thing and still got 5,000 XP? Then don't let them do that (give them infra-red vision, or very good hearing or smell, or just make them move around a lot to pretty much make it impossible to path through them without bumping into them. Also, don't make your Stealth system insta-win.)

- Was it that you want the XP more often instead of waiting 'till the end? Then design a series of "checkpoints" (which makes perfect sense in a sewer-system-type layout, anyway) at which you gain 1500XP or so.

 

See, either system has issues to address. It's about addressing whatever issues present themselves as a result of whatever system you use. All I keep seeing are overly-specific examples of scenarios using VERY specific factor values, with the system swapped out, and then "See, it will ALWAYS be like this!"

 

Also, mechanically, using a "combat-kill XP system" and using an objective-only-XP system in which every single instance of combat is part of a designated objective are quite literally the exact same thing. One overtly speaks the term "objective," and the other does not. "Objective" is just something that nets you XP, so if a kill nets you XP, it inherently becomes an objective, within that system.

 

So, yes, again, I don't see a problem with the system. Only specific references of unbalanced circumstances.

 

"We can't use a Hitpoint system, 'cause if you ever got like 1,000,000,000 HP and the enemies all had like 10 HP, that wouldn't work! Let's change the whole method of keeping track of mortality, instead of just balancing our game accordingly!"

 

Feh, I say. FEH! o_O

Edited January 19, 2013 by Lephys

[Hassat Hunter]

I may attend to the Paladins point is I am not tired later.

 

For now;

 

Hard isn't just giving enemies more damage and HP (IE games). Hard can replace enemies with stronger foes, or add enemies.

Under a XP-per-kill system this means people playing hard get more XP. Hence people playing that level faster. And hard may turn easier than the "easy" path eventually not giving that XP.

Under an objective system that's not a problem. If they not turn back to the combat-XP system it will be. And they have ANOTHER factor of balance to add in the equation.

Instead of designing encounters the developers want, they suddenly have EVEN MORE restrictions enemies and setups they can use (not to underlevel or overlevel easy or hard combatpaths).

 

Tell me how you solve this, combat-XP people. And no, making hard using just basic added damage and HP is no solution...

[TRX850]

 

 

No.

Removing something that was present for 20+ years in rpgs, and proven to work just fine, would diminish their enjoyment of the game.

 

This has to do with min-maxing as much as your furious crybaby campaign, against rogue's sneak attacks being a rogue's exclusive, had to do with common sense.

Actually it doesn't work "just fine".

 

Face it - objective-based XP is simpler to implement, more fair to everyone and easier to balance

 

 

 

To be fair, when I started playing D&D back in the early 80s, we never got XP for killing a monster (*rolls hit* "I hit the monster" "Okay, add 100 xp to your character sheet and tell me if you level up"). We waited for the battle to be over or for the night to be over before the DM calculated XP for the combat, the quest or the night.

 

So part of why I'm not terribly beholden to kill XP is that my P&P background was never hinged on it. People who've only played computer games might have a different experience. But then the first computer games I played - like SSI's Phantasie were "all or nothing" propositions. Get into a fight and kill a couple of monsters but have to run away? Too bad - no XP for you.

 

So the idea that the only way to do a game is to dole out XP every time the player opens a lock, kills a monster, lances a bunion or whatever just isn't there for me. Not that I hate it either; different systems bring their own pluses and minuses and can be equally fun to play.

 

That's how we'd also play sometimes. The crucial difference is that we had a DM who would gently keep us on track with the current quest so we didn't stray. In a computer game where players tend to rail against linear design, it means you don't *have* to stick to linear quest completion. You could accept half a dozen quests in town, and do a little bit of one, more in another one, wander across to the edge of the map (continent), accept a few more quests, accidentally kill a plot based character because he was "looking at you funny" and so on and so forth.

 

Yes, it would be "cleaner" if you just stuck to your quests like a good little adventurer, but for many many legitimate reasons (you're playing evil, or have a God complex, or some other roleplaying theme) any quest can be broken at any time. You can of course go back to a quest later, but if your reputation has altered things, or you've managed to unknowingly complete parts of other quests, but not in a way the quest-giver wanted, then there are just too many ways to break Quest-XP as the core reward system. Now you might say, 'no one in their right mind would do all that stuff I described above' ^^, and I would like to think that were true, but you should never underestimate a player's desire to be creative/different/idiotic/weird or menial in their own game. If they do sway from the quests, but are still adventuring and discovering things and defeating "enemies", then that's not a good reason to remove their XP rewards. It's simply not the same as PnP. Which is a damn shame.

[Hassat Hunter]

If you complete an objective for a quest, even if you don't have the quest, you would still get the XP.

Also, there is XP for exploring. And as stated before, for quests/objectives it's given in fractions, so if you do partial quest here, partial there, you still gain XP.

 

Honestly; I think all your "fears" and "gapholes" are unfounded and simply not there...

Edited January 19, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[TRX850]

It seems like this year we are in a position to redefine what it means to "earn a reward". Some players think it should be decided in different ways and larger chunks than others.

 

I agree there needs to be some clamping down on giving away "unearned" rewards. That's what we're really talking about here. And I'm pretty sure we all want the same thing in the end, and feel the joy at having earned that magic weapon, or those boots of speed, or that awesome new combat maneuver, or a new spell level. Progression is what keeps us interested.

 

I just don't want to lose that old school IE sense of progression to a new system that deals out XP in wider intervals that coerces me to play a certain way. If anything, it seems to have the opposite effect of allowing choice.

 

Edit:

 

If there were exploration XP rewards dotted about all over the place, you'd be encouraging players to trigger them all without engaging in the related quest. So it still seems like this method is open to degenerate behaviour.

Edited January 19, 2013 by TRX850

[Razsius]

 

 

That's OK, Raszius. I'm done with this topic. You guys wore me out. Now all you have to do is convince JES.

 

If you just stand still for a bit, you'll regenerate.

Luckily I found a potion of restore stamina. Currently imbibing. It also appears to have a mild Confusion effect though.

 

You're good potatoes Prime.  I've got nothing against you (you argue well and seem reasonable).  Have a beer on the house *raises Dr. Pepper can and toasts monitor*.  My apologies, I do owe you something though... I forgot to respond to it in my haste to get out the bloody door for work as I got called in (yet again!).

 

I'm curious to hear it.

 

I remember I read one of those in game books when I was playing Morrowind that told a story about an archaeologist who was doing a dig into one of the Dwemer ruins.  It was a fascinating as hell read.  The Endless Paths is supposed to be this giant mega dungeon with a known history behind it.  It would be great if (for once) there was not say some arch demon at the very end of it and instead something cool and special for reaching the very end.  Why are you (the player character) the only one interested in exploring the place?  What if there was some resident archaeologist looking to explore the ruins in the game that then recruited your party as one of *many* to delve it's depths.  You'd interact with a bunch of npcs that would establish a home base on a previous floor that you'd helped clear.  You could have all kinds of crazy quests associated with your "dig team" and the npcs themselves would help open new areas on the floors (like slowly removing rubble in collapsed passages, etc.).  You could hit roadblocks that essentially would require you to perform quests to help gather your dig team to help you get past say a flooded chamber or a colossal sentient mist that mind screws your party when you open the "do not open" door.  So, so many ways you could run away with the idea.  I even had the idea that the two mega cities we had would compete to become the one to fund the "dig" because The Endless Paths would've been a strategic stronghold between the two cities.  You could support one city or the other or even fund the "dig" yourself.  Anyways, i'll probably eventually create a thread on it someday.

 

Oh and yes that would be developer resource intensive but I think it would be beyond worth it.

 

@Helm

 

Well, he knows it exists, I've seen him in here before. He left pretty quickly though. heh

 

Can't imagine why.  Nothing here but us rabid backers.   All things considered I really do want Josh to pop in and come up with some awesome objective based system that alleviates my fears.  I took a look at the combat thread and it brought a smile to my face.  I was a little worried with that "no miss" thing.

 

@Lephys

 

Giant block of text that falls and crushes Raz

 

Dear God it hurts go easy on me Lephys!  It's not so much that I don't appreciate that you realize that... concessions... would have to be made but that it's just really, really hard to imagine in an IE based game.  Also some of the solutions to our various objective xp problems look like a leaning toward combat based xp.  On the converse, some of the solutions to our combat xp based problems are a leaning toward objective based xp.  It does make me wonder if there's a viable "middle ground" (hmm).  At the same time, however, I do realize that the goals of both the xp systems tend to be entirely different and i'd say UpgrayeDD hit it on the head with the rewarding for combat or rewarding to get from point A to point B.  THOSE are perhaps the things hard to reconcile.  Take the BG series for example, I don't know about you but I noticed that there was a whole bunch of combat in it.  Cloakwood, Gnoll Fortress (packed full of mobs), De'Arnise Hold, fighting off an entire army in ToB, etc.  IWD had *hordes* of enemies (almost too many if you ask me).  Does it really make sense to reward these huge encounters with xp at various "checkpoints" and why do it anyways (and where are said "checkpoints" while you wander a wilderness?)  Is it to reward sneaky guys or pacifists?  Why do these have to be equal paths?  Bluffing your way past everything should have negative consequences just like killing everything and the kitchen sink should.  Instead, I'd say greatly reward players for brokering alliances that would greatly help you in the future (as in MORE xp then a combat based option) or by not alerting or killing innocent guards on the way to steal a McGuffin.  Players should *not* be rewarded for sneaking past everything or by roleplaying a coward.

 

 

It seems like this year we are in a position to redefine what it means to "earn a reward". Some players think it should be decided in different ways and larger chunks than others.

 

I agree there needs to be some clamping down on giving away "unearned" rewards. That's what we're really talking about here. And I'm pretty sure we all want the same thing in the end, and feel the joy at having earned that magic weapon, or those boots of speed, or that awesome new combat maneuver, or a new spell level. Progression is what keeps us interested.

 

I just don't want to lose that old school IE sense of progression to a new system that deals out XP in wider intervals that coerces me to play a certain way. If anything, it seems to have the opposite effect of allowing choice.

 

Edit:

 

If there were exploration XP rewards dotted about all over the place, you'd be encouraging players to trigger them all without engaging in the related quest. So it still seems like this method is open to degenerate behaviour.

 

My sentiments exactly.  I definitely think both sides are missing each other.  Objective based xp system (to me) feels more forceful then a combat xp based one.  As for exploration xp... why do we keep stealing lame mmo xp and quest systems to "add to" the spiritual successor of perhaps some of the best rpgs of all time?

 

There just has to be a better way... there just has to.

[PrimeJunta]

I like that idea for Endless Paths.

 

I'm imagining something like this, inspired by Fritz Leiber's Quarmall: the once-capital of a once-great empire ruled by sorcerers who kept expanding it downwards for their arcane wizardly reasons, long since fallen into decline so only ruins are visible above-ground. Now it has disintegrated into factions controlling multiple levels. Some of their rulers are sorcerers pretending to the "true" rulership of Od Nua. Some were created by locally successful rebellions. Each of them has their factions as well. Teams of slaves kidnapped from among surface-dwellers and magically mutated into little more than beasts of burden man the air-pumps and mushroom farms. 

 

And of course, many levels have been abandoned entirely and left to the ghosts of the ancients as well as creatures who have crept in through cracks and never-inhabited cave systems extending into the darkness. Centuries of magical mutation have left their mark on both the citizens of Od Nua, and the inhabitants of the spaces in-between.

 

I think there's lots of room for doing something fresh with the basic notion of a really deep dungeon. It doesn't always have to be "go kill the balrog" or "go fetch the McGuffin." There are some seriously inventive writers on board, and I trust they'll come up with something that'll surprise all of us.

[Hassat Hunter]

If there were exploration XP rewards dotted about all over the place, you'd be encouraging players to trigger them all without engaging in the related quest. So it still seems like this method is open to degenerate behaviour.

 

It first perfectly in the idea, more content? More reward. IMO the way it should be.

And why is it degenerate to have people experience more of the world? Is it "degenerate" to make players experience the whole game? Sounds odd to me...

 

The only way you're not getting rewarded if you stay in the same old areas doing nothing new.

 

To me, that sounds like grinding.

 

As for exploration xp... why do we keep stealing lame mmo xp and quest systems to "add to" the spiritual successor of perhaps some of the best rpgs of all time?

 

Deus Ex was released before WoW if you must know... and it's pretty much from there.

 

Also, I seriously doubt ANYONE would want mmo quest systems in PE. So not sure what that's about...

Edited January 19, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Helm]

We are advocating for a quest/objective + combat xp based system, just like in the IE games, the spiritual predecessors of Project Eternity.

 

These are my favorite pro quest/objective + combat xp quotes of the day, part 2. Part 1 can be found here.

 

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.

Most players, whether they realize it or not, think only of their characters' development, and don't particularly have any loyalty to quest-givers beyond the fact they provide opportunities to gain more XP and build their characters up even further. It may not be the popular view, but I think character development tends to trump story development.

[About having bounty xp replace quest xp] For one that awards no actual xp and essentially moves our xp "carrot" into a loot or gold "carrot". Second, if the Baron of Derpwood only awards you for killing orcs then you have no quest giver for killing hobgoblins. Assuming this is "corrected," then do you spend a ton of developer resources creating various quest givers to give incentives for killing x race for some doohickey they drop to get gold? Third, where are the quest givers? Are they scattered about across all the towns forcing you the player to visit various places for your goblin scalp turn ins and what have you? Maybe all the kill x guys are in a single place so that you only have to make a trip to a single town/city that's halfway across the world every single time you want to be rewarded for your effort. I'm not being fair again let's assume instead they code in a "monster bounty hunter" of sorts that accepts the noses of any monsters you kill. We're going to forgo realism and assume every monster actually has a nose. Also, there will be a "bounty hunter" in every town. Funny this is starting to look like an mmo...

This was not the only area it happened in VtM: B either. Remember those vampire hunters hunting LaCroix and the rest of your race? Yea there's no reason to kill all of *them* either. Objective xp giving more "choices" is an absolute joke. It just shifted combat being the most efficient method to stealth approaches being infinitely better.

[on removing XP gains to fix xp loopholes] And thus we would fix the fun right out of the game. Maybe enemies shouldn't drop loot at all! Instead we should have all loot be at the end of the dungeon in a big chest or awarded to you by the npc quest giver. We need some more equality of choice after all.

Yes, it would be "cleaner" if you just stuck to your quests like a good little adventurer, but for many many legitimate reasons (you're playing evil, or have a God complex, or some other roleplaying theme) any quest can be broken at any time. You can of course go back to a quest later, but if your reputation has altered things, or you've managed to unknowingly complete parts of other quests, but not in a way the quest-giver wanted, then there are just too many ways to break Quest-XP as the core reward system. [...] If they do sway from the quests, but are still adventuring and discovering things and defeating "enemies", then that's not a good reason to remove their XP rewards. It's simply not the same as PnP. Which is a damn shame.

I agree there needs to be some clamping down on giving away "unearned" rewards. That's what we're really talking about here. And I'm pretty sure we all want the same thing in the end, and feel the joy at having earned that magic weapon, or those boots of speed, or that awesome new combat maneuver, or a new spell level. Progression is what keeps us interested.

I just don't want to lose that old school IE sense of progression to a new system that deals out XP in wider intervals that coerces me to play a certain way. If anything, it seems to have the opposite effect of allowing choice.

If there were exploration XP rewards dotted about all over the place, you'd be encouraging players to trigger them all without engaging in the related quest. So it still seems like this method is open to degenerate behaviour.

Bluffing your way past everything should have negative consequences just like killing everything and the kitchen sink should. Instead, I'd say greatly reward players for brokering alliances that would greatly help you in the future (as in MORE xp then a combat based option) or by not alerting or killing innocent guards on the way to steal a McGuffin. Players should *not* be rewarded for sneaking past everything or by roleplaying a coward. [...] Objective based xp system (to me) feels more forceful then a combat xp based one. As for exploration xp... why do we keep stealing lame mmo xp and quest systems to "add to" the spiritual successor of perhaps some of the best rpgs of all time?

[Helm]

 

If there were exploration XP rewards dotted about all over the place, you'd be encouraging players to trigger them all without engaging in the related quest. So it still seems like this method is open to degenerate behaviour.

 

It first perfectly in the idea, more content? More reward. IMO the way it should be.

And why is it degenerate to have people experience more of the world? Is it "degenerate" to make players experience the whole game? Sounds odd to me...

Apparently you did not understand what he wrote.

 

You keep arguing that combat xp leads to degenerate gameplay because it rewards the player for combnat, which in turns forces the player to kill and murder everything that moves (which is not true by the way). TRX850 then concludes, that exploration xp must also be degenerate, because it also rewards forces the player to search for every last area, nook and cranny for that precious exploration xp. 

Please note, he has nothing against exploration xp, that only exists in your head because you did not understand his argumentation.

 

So, I ask you: Why is it not degenerate to reward a player for exploring and why is it degenerate to reward him for combat, even though PE is a tactical combat based game?

Edited January 19, 2013 by Helm

[Sacred_Path]

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.

"Kill the bandits that kidnapped my daughter" is a different objective than "Save my daughter" because the bandits will kill the merchant's daughter as soon as you attack. Sneaking past the bandits to where she's held, then sneaking out again with her yields a greater or smaller award depending on the difficulty of either approach. The devs can then choose on a whim to close this quest, or give you the opportunity to go back and kill the bandits (which might not be trivial for a party specializing in stealth). Sounds contrived if it happens all the time? Right, but I think it's a given that many quests will only allow 1 approach out of the big 3. You can still pick&choose at this stage.

Most players, whether they realize it or not, think only of their characters' development, and don't particularly have any loyalty to quest-givers beyond the fact they provide opportunities to gain more XP and build their characters up even further. It may not be the popular view, but I think character development tends to trump story development.

How does objective XP hinder character development? If you only follow objectives to get those XP to level up, fine.

[About having bounty xp replace quest xp] For one that awards no actual xp and essentially moves our xp "carrot" into a loot or gold "carrot". Second, if the Baron of Derpwood only awards you for killing orcs then you have no quest giver for killing hobgoblins. Assuming this is "corrected," then do you spend a ton of developer resources creating various quest givers to give incentives for killing x race for some doohickey they drop to get gold? Third, where are the quest givers? Are they scattered about across all the towns forcing you the player to visit various places for your goblin scalp turn ins and what have you? Maybe all the kill x guys are in a single place so that you only have to make a trip to a single town/city that's halfway across the world every single time you want to be rewarded for your effort. I'm not being fair again let's assume instead they code in a "monster bounty hunter" of sorts that accepts the noses of any monsters you kill. We're going to forgo realism and assume every monster actually has a nose. Also, there will be a "bounty hunter" in every town. Funny this is starting to look like an mmo...

It was unclear from PrimeJunta's post if he wanted to say/ include actual XP, but let's say it's about gold.

How many additional ressources do you think it would take, assuming those monsters are already properly implemented into the game, to put in 1 NPC who rewards you with X gold per head?

Where those quest givers are? In the vicinity of the monsters they want you to exterminate, perchance? Or would that be too obvious for your taste?

Trying to establish the nature of relationships between monsters and civilization is hardly "going MMO". It's something that games surprisingly often lack, and omission isn't inherently better in this case than trying.

 

brb no patience

[Helm]

Question: What about the doomsayers that predict there'll always be ways to sneak around foes?

Josh Sawyer: oh no the players did what they wanted to do

Source

 

Well, avoiding combat will always yield the best results and Sawyer won't change it, no combat xp. There is no more choice, just ignore combat if you can. Or attack. Who cares. Annoying pointless combat is now a feature of this "great" game. Wow, I can hardly wait for the "WTF is this?" reviews. lol

 

At least Shadowrun and Wasteland 2 are looking real good, that is probably because the lead designers are not ****ing retarded morons like Josh Sawyer, who only wants the game to cater to retarded morons like himself.

 

Later @mates of the pro combat xp faction. It was fun. And cross your fingers, maybe Feargus or Avellone will finally realise that Sawyer is an idiot and fire his sorry wannabe designer ass... or maybe the game will just fail miserably (which is more likely) buh bye.