Degenerate Gameplay

[Helm]

^

Trolling is not going to solve this problem @Lephys

Although this is actually not even a problem in my opinion, seeing that the spiritual predecessors of PE (the IE games) did not have a substantial sneaking ability. -Valorian's Cat

[Kissamies]

Coming from PnP systems that don't generally give XP, CP, karma, or whatever for defeating individual enemies, I've always disliked the kill XP in these games. It's gamey and makes me feel that I'm missing out unless I exterminate everything. That feeling I can resist, but it also makes me feel that if I sneak past too many enemies, I'm not getting the XP the devs expect me to have and my character will be too weak later on. These together make me fight more tedious trash combat that I'd like and tempt me to act against my character concept, unless that concept is a murdering psycopath.

 

I'd be happier without kill XP. Maybe there could be some other kinds of rewards like achievements or in game reputation. Kill a hundred Orcs and the Orcs will fear you.

[Helm]

What you noobs talkin' about? Every game should have quest xp only so that we can sneak and avoid the combat that I hate!

 

Oh shut up ninja. Like you just said, "quest xp only" is for those who hate combat. That does not makes sense for a game that is supposed to be based upon tactical and strategical combat.

 

I know kitty, like golly jeez Ninja, wuts your problem? By the way In Deus Ex: Invisible War (Deus Ex 2) they tried a different approach and catered to the Call of Dooty fans. And it sucked ballz. Really, it sucked. And the fans were pissed, which is understandable.

 

Screw you, you green ballz! And you too fluffballz. I am hoping that they implement a mechanic so that I can sneak past every combat situation in Call of Duty! Just like they are planning for PE. Combat sucks!

 

Skullzzzzzzz. More orc skullzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

Hey guys, wuts up? I just finished X-Com: Enemy Unknown. Great game, lots of phun.

 

Yeah, that was a great game Mr. Alien. It really was lots of fun.

 

That game sucked! I couldn't avoid combat!

 

Wut? Are you some kind of moron Ninja?

 

Yeah, he hates any game where you can't avoid combat and wants every single game to have a substantial stealth ability.

 

lol

 

lol. yessssss. more skullzzzzzzz. more lich skullzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Hassat Hunter]

Here we go again... you can find my opinion (a lot of times and in-depth) in the Level Scaling thread. It's about 60+ pages, hard to miss.

 

A quick sum-up, and saying I generally agree with PrimeJunta, who probably wrote it better than me.

 

* Yes, you can code it up to give 0XP in situations. And scale down XP's. And super-balance encounters. But it's much easier for developers to create a proper balance of powers if they don't have to balance between no kills - murdering psychopath. And this development time can be spend on other things, making a general better game.

* No kill XP doesn't mean you can or will run from every encounter. I'm not sure why some people are reveling in fighting for XP and claim to run if it's gone. Isn't that pretty much end-game MMO too. MMO-ers are known to be slaughter every living thing in sight to level. Murder murder murder. And even without XP in the endgame they revel in supreme murder. Keeping in MMO-style, I play TOR. Did I get XP for combat? Yup. Did I stealth past them since fighting a billion thrash mobs suck? Yes. I was weaker for it though. In a system like PE's that wouldn't be the case though.

I do notice some players see things differently. My friend zbyl drops quest no longer giving XP, I still play them just to get the story, the dialogue, the options (as little as TOR offers true).

But with a full game build on that, what's not to love. Reward exploring, doing quests, trying new strategies. Not be bound by "well, I can make peace, but killing everyone makes 100x the XP (KOTOR2)"...

* JE Sawyers example is completely right. DX:HR is a good example how NOT to do it. Odd for a game that supposedly allows all playstyles. While it doesn't. You do have to ponder a system where you rather lockpick a door even if you have the key or code because it's more profitable. Not like the original Deus Ex where a code or key was a reward, saving you valuable tools instead of rewarding you. Exploration not rewarded, even punished slightly. That's not the direction I would like PE to go.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Helm]

No kill XP doesn't mean you can or will run from every encounter. I'm not sure why some people are reveling in fighting for XP and claim to run if it's gone.

Sure it does. why waste time and resources on a pointless chore that also yields the worst results? You will of course have to fight to remove obstacles.... But oh, woops, in PE you can just sneak by those too.

 

And why is sidequesting awarded with xp then? Oh yeah, because otherwise nobody would do them.

JE Sawyers example is completely right. DX:HR is a good example how NOT to do it. Odd for a game that supposedly allows all playstyles. While it doesn't. You do have to ponder a system where you rather lockpick a door even if you have the key or code because it's more profitable.

Then you should hate the design of PE also. Avoiding combat in PE is pure benefit, because it yields the best results. But somebody who hates combat would of course not have a problem with this.

 

By the way, stealth and non lethal fighting has always yielded the best result in Deus Ex 1 + 3. Nobody minded, because Deus Ex is a stealth game and that is what we wanted and also expected.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Helm

[PrimeJunta]

@Helm. We have no indication whatsoever that avoiding combat is pure benefit. In fact JES went out of his way to say that he wants to avoid situations where one approach to a problem is always pure benefit -- e.g. lockpicking over using keys in DX:HR. You're just assuming as a matter of course that noncombat solutions to problems carry no cost -- opportunity cost, resource cost, some other cost.

 

I can think of a half-dozen ways off the top of my head to make it not always so, and I think it would be very surprising if the game turned out that way, especially with JES's known obsession with balancing everything against everything else.

[Nixl]

I feel that a potential solution is to create random encounters that reward XP. These encounters could be elaborate or even just random challenges (rather than a genric bandit, you run into the boss). This assumes that travel and the map is akin to Fallout and Arcanum.

 

To an extent, I still prefer the old XP system (or Kill XP). Although after playing Vampire the Masquerade (VMB) nothing is inherently wrong with an objective based system.

 

VMB, however, was a relatively small game world where combat usually did not occur outside the objectives. In PE, I do have an expectation that the world will be larger and more open. With a bigger world, I assume that there will be more combat outisde objectives compared to VBM. I do think an objective based system would face issues in a larger world with less structure.

 

I could see people simply skipping or evading such fights after a time if there is little to no benefit to them. To clarify, I am not discussing fights involved in the objectives or quests, but rather anything that falls outisde of quests. Leading back to my suggestion, I think random encounters provide a better middle-ground between objective and kill based XP.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Nixl

[Hassat Hunter]

Sure it does. why waste time and resources on a pointless chore that also yields the worst results? You will of course have to fight to remove obstacles.... But oh, woops, in PE you can just sneak by those too.

Who says killing a mob takes resources? Instead of simply gaining them?

Why waste time and gain resources indeed. Silly game. We should just get our resources without effort! (I can do sarcasm too )

 

Good luck sneaking. Go play BG or BG2, go to a chokepoint and sneak past them WITH YOUR WHOLE PARTY. I guarantee failure. I'm not going to assume PE grants everyone stealth either...

And why is sidequesting awarded with xp then? Oh yeah, because otherwise nobody would do them.

If no one does a sidequest without reward, I think the sidequest is horribly flawed. Seeing as this is Obsidian, I doubt we'll get kill X foes sidequests, and only deep stories.

And sometimes, stories can be their own reward.

 

If you don't see this, may I suggest MMORPG's? They would fit you perfectly, no plot, just grinding. Yay! Because *obviously* one can't play a game for it's story...

Then you should hate the design of PE also. Avoiding combat in PE is pure benefit, because it yields the best results. But somebody who hates combat would of course not have a problem with this.

Says you.

I say you're wrong.

Who'se words are more correct?

Just saying stuff and claiming they are facts isn't much of a proof, ya know?

 

FYI... Stealth wields the best effect in DX:HR. And I hated that.

By the way, stealth and non lethal fighting has always yielded the best result in Deus Ex 1 + 3. Nobody minded, because Deus Ex is a stealth game and that is what we wanted and also expected.

False.

DX1 killing everyone gave you a clear way to explore every nook and cranny at your leisure. That didn't mean it was the best way, or the only way. Neither was stealth. Neither didn't give much pro's or con's... exploring and questing did (hey, look, so does PE).

DX3 however killing gave 0XP while stealth gave 1000XP. I can hardly say that's giving you an option.

[JFSOCC]

How they do so is debatable, but never forget that effort, risk, and reward have to balance out at some point - when it comes to a game. Challenge, in my opinion, is very important and should always be present. I'm not a fan of 'trash' encounters for that very reason, and I'm less in favor of trash encounters with reward attached to them, mostly because I feel - again - challenge is important, however, I'd add that so is rewarding the effort and risk involved in taking on a challenge. As such, if you do have trash or easier encounters I like a system that makes those 'a part of a whole challenge' rather than presented as a challenge themselves, because, simply, they rarely are. I never am happy with an encounter I don't have to think about, and take on tactically. If I can steamroll, or get through somehow without real thought, then something has gone wrong . . . at least for me.

 

But that's my opinion, which, really, doesn't amount to much.

yes, I hate grind. Edited January 15, 2013 by JFSOCC

[JFSOCC]

Rule #1 of PE, any gameplay that insnt in lockstep with the developer is degenerative gameplay. To combat these players daring to choose how they want to play, all normal mechanics will have some form of negative reinforcement tacked on to make it inconvienient to use.

 

 

Quite the opposite, encounter xp means you can choose your own way to solve the encounter, whether you prefer stealth, combat, or social skills. And all these lead to the same or similar rewards. So it rewards how you prefer to play.

[Helm]

@Hassat Hunter

 

 

Every class in PE can sneak and sneaking will not be penalized, i.e. you will not have to kill for loot, there will be plenty in the enviroment and as quest rewards.

 

Please, tell Josh there should be no reward for doing anything optional (like side quests or combat in side quests), because this improves gameplay. You have just proven that side quests and combat xp are not needed.

 

You apparently have not played Deus Ex 1 then, because stealth was always rewarded. Items and Health were scarce and it forced you to make wise stealthy decisions This also made sense, it was a stealth game. And we all loved it for that.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Helm

[PrimeJunta]

Oh, Helm, Helm. You still don't appear to have grasped that quests are the defining core mechanic of a cRPG, and therefore demanding that they don't award XP is as silly as demanding that a racing game doesn't reward you for winning races. This is getting a little absurd actually...

[Helm]

I was being sarcastic, because both are important in a game that is based on tactical and strategical combat. I'm sorry that you could not understand my sarcasm, I didn't want to make it so complicated to understand.

[PrimeJunta]

Ah. Humor. I have heard speak of it. It is a ritual practiced by your species, no?

Edited January 15, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Helm]

Yes. I, Greenballz the dragon, love humor. It is cherished ritual of our species. But RPGs are no joking matter.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Helm

[Gfted1]

Rule #1 of PE, any gameplay that insnt in lockstep with the developer is degenerative gameplay. To combat these players daring to choose how they want to play, all normal mechanics will have some form of negative reinforcement tacked on to make it inconvienient to use.

You're not pushing a conversation forward if you just make things up, tovarishch. They have proposed precisely zero things to actually stop us from fighting. They have removed one of the rewards for it, and if you think that that's the same thing, then I don't know why you care all that much because apparently you don't like fighting in the first place.

 

I havent said anything about kill experiece so Im not sure what youre referring to. My comment was addressing the overall philosophy of project Eternity.

 

For the record, I love killing stuff and being rewarded for it either by becoming a more powerful character (level up from eperience gain) or by getting some sweet loot from the defeated enemy (Holy Avenger from Firkraag). Im open to other methods of accomplising those two objectives but I also understrand other peoples point about how removing kill experience and loot would dramatically lower any true need to engage in combat except when absolutely required by the game. Combat "costs" the player, either by the requirement to repair gear, repair characters or use consumables. Sneaking and diplomacy cost nothing. Sounds a little degenerative now that I think about it.

[PrimeJunta]

Sneaking and diplomacy cost nothing. Sounds a little degenerative now that I think about it.

 

People keep saying that, but it ain't necessarily true at all.

 

What if sneaking your (non-all-rogue) party through an area requires that everybody drinks an invisibility potion, or your spellcaster maintains a "cloak" spell? That's resources diverted away from battle.

 

What if your diplomatic solution requires that you bribe an official with 10,000 zorkmids? Again, resources consumed.

 

What if your diplomatic solution requires that you put points in Persuasion rather than Weaponcrafting, and Weaponcrafting gives you a supply of more effective arrows for use in combat? Again, cost.

 

I could go on, but you get the picture.

[JOG]

In P&P you usually do XP at the end of the session, it's left to the DM's discretion whether he simply gives the XP worth of slain opponents or gives XP for good roleplaying. When XP is given to each character separately, and combat XP is determined by damage done or critters killed, then the scout and the healer who didn't do much during combat but were essential before and after will come off badly.

 

This also effects class roles: In most fantasy books and P&P groups the rogue gets the most of his spotlight outside combat, and more often than not stays in the background during combat. His job was clearing the traps on the way to the encounter, spot the enemy and tell the group so they could prepare, now he stays back for "rear cover", keeping one eye open for enemy reinforcements and hidden spellcasters and the other on the cute healer's chest. After all, someone needs to make sure that she is ready to patch up the survivors when combat is done.

 

In computer games the rogue became the dual wielding DPS fighter who is in constant competition with the claymore swinging weapon master, and the healer is dispensable because after combat the fallen wake up automatically and HP regenerate anyway. (Yes, I know there is no healing magic in PE, so let's call her a medic.)

 

 

As for the "combat experience" most characters are only so eager to fight, because their *players* know that they can reload and try that battle time and again. In a hardcore-scenario with fixed safepoints or no reload at all, we'd think twice whether that combat is actually worth it, and that's the crux - in a tactics / strategy game the main gameplay element should obviously be combat, but in a role playing game, 95% of the characters would avoid unneccessary fights if they had a say in that matter, because the characters that live within the game world know nothing about XP.

 

A party that was hired to kill the dragon will do so and get XP, whether that XP is given for reducing the dragon to 0 HP, or for completing the dragon-slayer quest is irrelevant. If the party was hired to rescue the virgin, on the other hand, the dragon-hating paladin should have a hard time convincing the rest of the party to actually challenge the beast, when the girl can be freed without a fight. Of course the rogue may mess it up by trying to steal the dragon's hoard, and they may still get into a fight; but even then, the experience of fighting a dragon and the experience of filching a dragon's dinner (and hoard) right under its nose, should balance each other.

Edited January 15, 2013 by JOG

[Valorian]

There is an obvious reason why in P&P it's preferable to spread out XP gain. In P&P it's humans doing the math and keeping track of things, in a computer game... it's the computer.

[TMZuk]

I dislike killpoints with a vengeance. I never reward killpoints when being a PnP GM. Never, never, never.

 

And if they are bad in PnP campiagns, they are worse in CRPGs. They are bad because they encourage the player to hunt around every corner of the world, simply looking for something to kill! XP should be rewarded for roleplay and for acomplishing something.

 

If your character wishes to escape captivity, he or she could be faced with three options:

 

A: Kill Everyone Now! Self-explanatory, I believe.

 

B: The Fools are Blind and Deaf! Your character could sneak past the God of Guards, he/she is that good!

 

C: What A Bunch of Suckers! The Devil would be afraid negotiating with your character.

 

So, why should one of these options be worth more, xp-wise, than another? You as player design a character. The game should present an equal number of opportunities for all designs. There should of course also be situations where either guile is useless, violence is futile or stealth pointless. That forces the character to rely on companions for certain situations.

 

What I love about many oldschool games, like FO and FO2, Arcanum and similar games, is that a quest only have a goal, not a set approach. Get rid of killpoints, and we are, in my opinion, one step closer to the feeling of the game being believable.

[UpgrayeDD]

What's wrong with these degenerate strategies? They're tedious and boring, that's what. Battling your way through a demon-infested dungeon to close the portal before you get overwhelmed by the spawning hordes is inherently more exciting than staying put and swatting them until you hit level cap and then breezing your way through the now pitifully weak (by comparison) demons.

well you can do this in mmo's too but I don't recall seeing players standing around in the same spot for hours on end swatitng demons. If it is something that you would do it sounds like the problem is with you and not the game. And should you do that and it makes the devs angry then again that sounds like the problem is with them for getting butt hurt over someones choice of playstyle.

I mean, if I randomly encounter a group of orcs, tromping around in the woods, why should I sneak past them or negotiate with them if I don't gain the reward of experience?

No you should totally be able to walk up and high fives them and bypass them by talking to them " hey guys whats up. Oh you're hunting elves again? Sweet I was about to get some myself so I can sow their skin into my new coat to match yours. Good hunting guys" And that should be perfectly viable to do. However why should that grant the same Exp so someone who fought throught the 10 orcs you ran into that nearly killed Vogo Frog master and made me use two rare healing potions? The avoidance of risk is a reward in itself. Its the reason people sneak and negotiate. The best way to handle the situation is to give ~800 Exp for "dealing with the orc band" and 150~200 spread among the band. There would be no benifet in talking and then killing which is what has Prime's panties in a twist. You'd still get a huge chunk of the total experience you could have gotten from the encounter. And with how big the game is going to be there should be more then enough encounters to hit cap with out needing those bits here and there that your risk avoiding lost you

[Valorian]

So, why should one of these options be worth more, xp-wise, than another?

 

Because it's quite possible that these options need different amounts of skill/time/resources, on a case by case scenario.

[Helm]

@TMZuk

 

TMZuk, adventuring, questing and roleplaying causes players to look around every corner of the world, not combat xp.

 

combat xp is great in crpgs. otherwise you wouldn't be here. and this game would have never been kickstarted. proof: Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we! Introducing Obsidian's PROJECT ETERNITY. skullzzzzzzzzz gimme dire wolf skullzzzzzzzz

 

a non-violent option often times rewards you more xp, for example by making wise choices. Brains and brawn should be rewarded, not just one or the other. It was like that in those Fallout games you love, and they had combat xp too.

 

Fallout and Fallout 2 have combat xp. And you love them, but hate combat xp? What a contradiction.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Helm

[Failion]

The mobs can give little exp and if they can focus on the quests giving most of the exp. But they should have it like fallout new vegas. Where if you kill 10,000 of a enemy type. You get a very minor bonus against them or something from it. Small addicting little things like that made people love new vegas. A reward that is there. But is unnecessary unless you want to get it.

[JOG]

And that should be perfectly viable to do. However why should that grant the same Exp so someone who fought throught the 10 orcs you ran into that nearly killed Vogo Frog master and made me use two rare healing potions?

 

That argument would work if healing potions actually were valuable (only a dozen or so in the whole game, or an insanely high price and a working economy where you actually want to buy stuff, instead of looting and crafting it, and money would be so scarce that you need to decide what to buy with it)

 

Avoiding battle could have long-term consequences, like the elves not dealing with you because they were killed by orcs, or found out you befriended them, but seeking battle should have long-term consequences as well. In real life and P&P such consequences include injury and death, nobody fears them in computer games anymore. In BG, if one character died, you had to decide whether to reload or to haul the dead character to the next temple and pay 1000g. In Fallout they were gone for good, unless you reloaded. In today's games they jump to their feet right after the last enemy died and are restored to full health within a few minutes.

 

Another price to pay for seeking the thrill of combat (in character) and lots of extra XP (out of character) could be the reputation you build up. When your party is well known to wade knee deep in the guts of everything that dared to stand in their way, they obviously won't be the right types for a diplomatic mission, of course a bunch of cowards who avoid all fights won't be the right choice for a seek-and-destroy mission behind the frontline.

Edited January 15, 2013 by JOG