Degenerate Gameplay

[UpgrayeDD]

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.

If you want the game to be believable then you should gain most Exp outside of combat training ceasesly to become the best of the best at you skills. So in keeping with your goal we should do away with Exp in quests and spend our days training in the mountains

 

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.

Well if both B and C are true then it sounds like there was no challange at all in your given scenario. If they are doing a task that is so incrediable easy to them why are they being awarded at all. I think we should award them for eating pie while we are at it. A seems to be the only choice where you don't imply that its a walk in the park.

[Somna]

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.

People don't normally do that in MMOs after Everquest because it's not designed to be efficient. There are some exceptions (as FFXI Abyssea XP farming comes to mind), but outside of the really old MMOs, camping a specific set of spawns is a tactic that hasn't been an efficient source of XP in a long time.

 

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

As much as I like non-combat approaches, I don't think it makes sense to have a diplomatic option on a group that is completely hostile to you. One thing I don't like about PnP diplomacy is that, by rules as written, it is possible to turn people who want to tear you into kibble into your friends solely with use of the Diplomacy skill and feats. There should be a reason the random orc party will want to talk to you in the first place before that option should even be made available.

[jivex5k]

How is degenerate gameplay even a thing?

You can't play a game the wrong way. It's a game, enjoy it!

 

*Concision edit*

 

Quite the contrary. Logic dictates what is wrong. If you design a program intended to produce the correct mathematical answer to the problem "2+2=", and it produces 4, then it is right. Anything else would be wrong. However, if you design a program to produce the number that is 1 more than the answer to "2+2=", then "4" as a result would be wrong.

 

i.e., right and wrong are determined by contextual factors. If there was no wrong way to play a game, then literally any action you took would be a correct way to play the game. Eating a sandwich with your computer not even powered on would be a correct way to play the game, just because you decided it was. Either something dictates what's correct and what isn't, or nothing does. You can't have both or neither.

LOL

That was good, brightened my day.

And who says eating a sandwich with the screen off is the wrong way to play the game? It's my way of playing it, and it feels right.

If I get more joy out of playing it that way then I couldn't care less if someone else thinks it's wrong.

Some of my best memories are playing Mario Kart 64 with the screen off and a subway bacon and ranch sub.

 

 

Honestly you guys should be more open minded about no combat xp. It's not going to ruin the game.

Edited January 15, 2013 by jivex5k

[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.

Every class can sneak. Doesn't mean every class has it easy. And maybe has to spend value skill, feats and what-not in it to succeed.

Everyone could sneak in Alpha Protocol. In Vampire: Bloodlines. In Deus Ex.

Did everyone do so? Was it the only sollutions. Was it super-duper-easy?

Exactly.

 

Also, the second quote has to do with pacifistic ways to finish quest. What that has to do with sneaking around mobs fails to grasp me. But maybe you can enlighten me, you seem to read differently from intended words... maybe share some light how you see JE's words.

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.

Leaving side-quests aside (WTF?) combat is a means to complete a goal. Just like the other options. There IS a reward. Just not based on simple genocide, but completing something requiring said genocide.

Orcs threatnen village? Check. Persuade them to leave. Reward. Kill them. Reward. Means of combat? Resolution.

 

HELM INTERRUPTION:

But then everyone picks persuade. Combat useless! Hate! You suck!

 

Well, it would be the best resolution. Of course for it, people needed to have invested into the persuade skill. Instead of another perhaps better skill. Should they profit from their choices? Yes they should. Just as combat-heavy people profit from picking the combat skills and being able to smash easily. Since the skill to avoid wont always be in your repertoire

 

Do I need to be clearer?

(I assume so. I always need to. Hence the XP-thread before getting massive)

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.

Lol. Headshot! 1-4 bullets. Costs? 1.

And it made going around and searching for items on the map a breeze. I generally overflooded with items.

Yes, you could stealth. But I suck at it. And murdered plenty of enemies. Did I get punished? Nope. Was it harder than stealth? Nope. Did I close XP-rewards others could only get? Nope.

Perhaps the only exclusions where hostage situations. But if you were playing properly, you could gun them too without failing.

 

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

Because older games had X doesn't mean X is good, or everyone wants X.

Enough threads here that have complains and want stuff in all those 3 games gone. Like identifying items, an overload of potions, and whatnot. Search around.

Also funny is what 2 of the RPG's generally considered "The best ever" are combat-XP less games... namely Deus Ex and Vampire: Bloodlines (PS:T ending the trio).

One could pick a conclusion out of this. Or one could, like you, stick their head in the sands and go "but it was in the old games. That's proof it works!"

[UpgrayeDD]

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.

I agree with you but judging from the design philsophy of the dev's I highly doubt that they would penalize a choice of dealing with the enemy as it would "encourage" you to deal with the problem a certain way. Which is what they have said they want to avoid.

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)

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but it was my understanding that they wanted stamina easily replaceable and health a much harder resource to replenish. So would it be hard to replenish if potions to cure health damage were easy to come by?

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.

We'll I don't think I've ever seen a game enlist a hero for his diplomatic prowess. Most of the time heroes are choosen for such missions it is in a situation where they expect failure to negotiate and want capable warriors there to handle the escalating situation should it arise. And dimplomatic situations could mean bluffing and intimidation. In both casing the people you did this to wouldn't bother trying to spread you name far and wide. And the same goes for killing. Dadmen tell no tales.

[Hassat Hunter]

Honestly you guys should be more open minded about no combat xp. It's not going to ruin the game.

But they HATE combat. They hate combat SO much they only do it if it gives XP.

 

So combat should give XP so they can do more combat. Which they hate.

 

Edited January 15, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[JFSOCC]

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

except until a player gets there he'll have no idea how much he has yet to gain. XP at some early point in the game will always be preferable to the risk, because you can reload.

[jivex5k]

Essentially this whole combat xp argument can be boiled down to this:

 

Do you feel the victory in combat is enough reward in itself?

[UpgrayeDD]

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

As much as I like non-combat approaches, I don't think it makes sense to have a diplomatic option on a group that is completely hostile to you. One thing I don't like about PnP diplomacy is that, by rules as written, it is possible to turn people who want to tear you into kibble into your friends solely with use of the Diplomacy skill and feats. There should be a reason the random orc party will want to talk to you in the first place before that option should even be made available.

Well as they are out hunting elves unless I happen to have one in my party then they likely wouldn't jump the gun. Especially considering that I saw them first and showed no immediatly hostile action. And when I make it clear that not only that I don't like the elves but that I like to decorate my clothing with them it would create a bond. And I totallysupport that as a choice to deal with them. But its easier to deal with them with a few chat options then to fight a hunting party of orcs armed to the teeth and ready for battle. Which is why I don't think they should be awarded equally. At best the combat heavy party reaches cap a little sooner then the party opting out of unnecessary combat.

[Hassat Hunter]

If the reward is for dealing with them, talking or fighting does the same.

 

Avoiding as some here fear though... that's pointless if you want your precious XP.

 

I don't see the issue...

[UpgrayeDD]

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

except until a player gets there he'll have no idea how much he has yet to gain. XP at some early point in the game will always be preferable to the risk, because you can reload.

Unless you're playing in ironman mode in which case avoiding combat is king and the best way to proceed. But in normal play if you lose a character yeah theres always the reload and if you find its too tough then you can always sneak or talk through(which are the paths of least resistance). Once you make the rewards equal(or near enough) for all paths Most people(not all) will opt for the easiest path.

[UpgrayeDD]

If the reward is for dealing with them, talking or fighting does the same.

 

Avoiding as some here fear though... that's pointless if you want your precious XP.

 

I don't see the issue...

If someone would pay you 25 dollors to deliver a letter and another would pay you the same to deliver a 25 Pound package in the opposite direction which would you choose?

[UpgrayeDD]

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

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

Wouldn't that make combat obviously the better choice and what the dev's said they don't want?

[Somna]

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

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

Wouldn't that make combat obviously the better choice and what the dev's said they don't want?

 

Depends on the rewards you get.

 

Although why you want to initiate combat with an official and not except potentially dangerous consequences...

[Helm]

@Hassat Hunter

 

Deus Ex 1 was stealth game, and that is why stealth in almost every single situation was rewarded. Anyone who has played Deus Ex or can use Google knows that too. i.e. you needed 1 bullet for a stealth headshot, maybe 5-10 or more if you were not stealthy.

 

No, only those who hate combat want quest only xp, so that they have a real good reason to avoid the "annoying" combat. Skullzzzzzz more Hassat skullzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Vampire: Bloodlines is a linear game with very little loot, and Deus Ex is a stealth game and that is why quest xp fits. They are very different from the IE games, so stop comparing apples with oranges.

 

I see you did not understand my sarcasm, when I said that xp for all optional content should removed ( I am not surprised). Both quest xp AND combat xp are important.

[Sacred_Path]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/degenerate

 

1. to fall below a normal or desirable level in physical, mental, or moral qualities; deteriorate: The morale of the soldiers degenerated, and they were unable to fight.

 

Going with that definition no behavior in gaming can be called degenerate if it challenges your skills, either manually or mentally. Roaming the map looking for anything to kill can't be called degenerate if it pushes your skills as a player every single time because i.e. the combat has a lot of tactical depth to it and the game is very unforgiving. It may be farming, it may go against the devs' intentions (referring to the portal example), but it's not even mindless grinding. This is even more true if you stay entirely within the set rules (by doing combat w/o reliance on abuse of AI or glitches). If the portal in our example enabled you to mindlessly, effortlessly grind your way to the level cap, that's a different matter.

[UpgrayeDD]

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

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

Wouldn't that make combat obviously the better choice and what the dev's said they don't want?

 

Depends on the rewards you get.

 

Although why you want to initiate combat with an official and not except potentially dangerous consequences...

A dimplomatic solution does not mean you are talking to a diplomat. If I talk an angry drunk down that is a diplomatic solution with someone who may or may not be an official Edited January 15, 2013 by UpgrayeDD

[Fearabbit]

I just want to say that Valorian's Cat had some excellent points, but then it got into a bad neighborhood and completely changed its opinion due to bad influences of dragons and skeletons and it's... it's breaking my heart.

 

Also JOG and Hassat Hunter made some good points.

[Somna]

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

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

Wouldn't that make combat obviously the better choice and what the dev's said they don't want?

 

Depends on the rewards you get.

 

Although why you want to initiate combat with an official and not except potentially dangerous consequences...

A dimplomatic solution does not mean you are talking to a diplomat. If I talk an angry drunk down that is a diplomatic solution with someone who may or may not be an offical

 

Your point would make a lot more sense if you actually kept to the same examples provided instead of constantly spinning off different ones when responded to.

 

Random orc parties are not automatically composed of honorable orcs and bribing officials does not suddenly turn into talking down an angry drunk.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Somna

[Helm]

Hassat Hunter made some good points.

I'm surprised that you say that. Not only are they ridiculous and wrong (Deus Ex stuff), but also almost unreadable.

 

I just want to say that Valorian's Cat had some excellent points, but then it got into a bad neighborhood and completely changed its opinion due to bad influences of dragons and skeletons and it's... it's breaking my heart.

The opinion has not changed. It's still the same, pro combat + quest xp.

[PrimeJunta]

http://dictionary.re...owse/degenerate

 

1. to fall below a normal or desirable level in physical, mental, or moral qualities; deteriorate: The morale of the soldiers degenerated, and they were unable to fight.

 

Going with that definition no behavior in gaming can be called degenerate if it challenges your skills, either manually or mentally. Roaming the map looking for anything to kill can't be called degenerate if it pushes your skills as a player every single time because i.e. the combat has a lot of tactical depth to it and the game is very unforgiving. It may be farming, it may go against the devs' intentions (referring to the portal example), but it's not even mindless grinding. This is even more true if you stay entirely within the set rules (by doing combat w/o reliance on abuse of AI or glitches). If the portal in our example enabled you to mindlessly, effortlessly grind your way to the level cap, that's a different matter.

 

That's quibbling with words. "Degenerate strategy" has a precise and generally accepted meaning in game design, which is how it's being used here. So I'm not following you on this tangent, TYVM. Whether it's an apposite term or not is a different matter, and one I don't want to get into either.

[PrimeJunta]

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

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

Wouldn't that make combat obviously the better choice and what the dev's said they don't want?

 

I'm pretty sure JES was referring to systemic features. Combat XP is a systemic feature. Lockpicking XP is also a systemic feature. Random loot drops are systemic features. OTOH a quest nexus where you can talk, fight, or sneak, and your choice may have varying costs and outcomes, is a situational feature.

 

The good thing about a system that treats stealth/combat/diplomacy/other neutrally is that it will easily permit crafting situations which favor any or none of the available solutions, without having to go through the extra effort of figuring out how systemic features affect the design of the problem. You can intentionally make one approach better than another in a particular situation, and then make some other approach better in some other situation. In a multi-path game, a big part of the fun is figuring out which is the best way to approach a problem, and not always picking the optimal one. Unforeseen consequences FTW!

[UpgrayeDD]

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

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

Wouldn't that make combat obviously the better choice and what the dev's said they don't want?

 

Depends on the rewards you get.

 

Although why you want to initiate combat with an official and not except potentially dangerous consequences...

A dimplomatic solution does not mean you are talking to a diplomat. If I talk an angry drunk down that is a diplomatic solution with someone who may or may not be an offical

 

Your point would make a lot more sense if you actually kept to the same examples provided instead of constantly spinning off different ones when responded to.

 

Random orc parties are not automatically composed of honorable orcs and bribing officials does not suddenly turn into talking down an angry drunk.

sorry I misread that. And I agree it should come with consequences(rep loss, possible law men coming after you) But unless avoiding those things are worth the 10000 to you then the choice is still clear on which is easier.

[Sacred_Path]

That's quibbling with words. "Degenerate strategy" has a precise and generally accepted meaning in game design, which is how it's being used here. So I'm not following you on this tangent, TYVM. Whether it's an apposite term or not is a different matter, and one I don't want to get into either.

 

If you think it's down to semantics, you're wrong. From your source:

A degenerate strategy is a way of playing a video game that exploits an oversight in gameplay mechanics or design.

 

It may be that the never closing, XP spawning portal is an oversight/ weakness in design, but it can't possibly be called degenerate behavior if what you do as completely conforming to the rules, and just as challenging (or more challenging) than other ways of gaining XP in your game. If players have to turn to a weakness in design to derive some challenge and excitement from your game, the problem obviously isn't this one oversight, IT'S THE ENTIRE REST OF YOUR GAME. If you give the player the choice between sneaking past 3 encounters by pressing a button for every party member (following the order of quests as you received them) or leveling up by engaging in difficult combat (this more often than you intended), the designation of this as "degenerate gaming" is simply inappropriate as it assigns fault to the wrong recipient.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Hassat Hunter]

If someone would pay you 25 dollors to deliver a letter and another would pay you the same to deliver a 25 Pound package in the opposite direction which would you choose?

I'm a completionist, I would do both!

But if I had to pick, probably the most trustworthy person. I rather do a bit more heavy work than be framed delivering an Anthrax letter and go to jail.

If some of you would also look a bit more gray than the ultimate black and white, maybe it would be a bit easier to see our points... see?

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

Wouldn't that make combat obviously the better choice and what the dev's said they don't want?

Only in the black and white world.

You say it yourself, combat exhausts resources. All of you prone on the hard healing potions, the armor repair (dear god, don't be in), the whatsnot. Total cost might also be 10000 zorkmids. So again, no one perfect version.

 

And knowing Obsidian I think persuasion is going to be harder hopefully than picking a single option. Think of something DX:HR did right. It wasn't easy to persuade someone. Sometimes combat was easier.

Deus Ex 1 was stealth game, and that is why stealth in almost every single situation was rewarded. Anyone who has played Deus Ex or can use Google knows that too. i.e. you needed 1 bullet for a stealth headshot, maybe 5-10 or more if you were not stealthy.

I've played Deus Ex. Multiple times.

And I tell you no. It's not.

Skills could improve your accuracy. Then you had the scope. The overpowered laser dot.

Aiming isn't STEALTH. It's aiming. Not gunning around like an idiot.

 

Sadly enough, some people can't comprehend the principle, as can be seen by many people very confused with Alpha Protocol. I can't see how anyone would call the pistol in AP anything but overpowered, but apparently some can't use it... people...

No, only those who hate combat want quest only xp, so that they have a real good reason to avoid the "annoying" combat. Skullzzzzzz more Hassat skullzzzzzzzzzzzz

Yeah, cause I wont skip combat when it gives no XP, you will. That obviously makes me then one hater of combat and skipper of annoying combat.

OBVIOUSLY.

Vampire: Bloodlines is a linear game with very little loot, and Deus Ex is a stealth game and that is why quest xp fits. They are very different from the IE games, so stop comparing apples with oranges.

And PE is a storydriven game, and that is why quest XP fits.

Back to you...