Degenerate Gameplay

[Hassat Hunter]

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.

Hate to tell you, but some people can infact read.

[UpgrayeDD]

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.

It sounds to me like you think everything should be allowed and viable as long as it fits your definition of what is allowed and viable.

[Valorian]

I lend my to Helm from time to time. likes him.

 

 

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.

 

 

: Hence people who like their jobs refuse to get paid for it and instead get moneyz by doing side quests.

 

My really needs some rest away from dejenereshoun .

[PrimeJunta]

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.

 

That is true. Those are also two very big ifs. I'd say that NetHack and Diablo are two examples of games where they hold, more or less, although they have their degenerate strategies as well (e.g. pudding farming in NetHack).

 

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.

 

But that's not why they do it! They do it for the same reason rats push a lever to get a pellet. They don't enjoy pushing the damn lever; they do it for the pellet. It's known as Skinner conditioning, and MMO's are built on it because it's the only way to keep players playing. "Challenge and excitement" have nothing to do with it.

 

Believe me, if there was a button you could press every half-second to gain 1 XP, there would be players out there who would keep hitting it and do nothing else until they hit the level cap or died of carpal tunnel syndrome. I'm not making this up -- this is how people behave. This is how Blizzard made it's billions, for cryin' out loud!

 

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.

 

You really ought to read JES's posts on the topic, 'cuz you've got it backwards again. A degenerate strategy is not the player's fault -- the player is only doing what players do, i.e., responding rationally to the incentives handed out by the game. It's the designer's fault, for setting things up in such a way that the game rewards the strategies.

[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?

 

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!

I am all for giving options in how things are done but I don't believe every option should be rewarded equally. If to get past the guard without killing him I must convince his sweatheart to forgive him that is going to be worth more then my rogue knife him then and there. I am not advocating for combat to always be the best rewarded. I'm saying there needs to be a balance between the difficulty of a way of getting things done and the rewards that follow.

[Hassat Hunter]

: Hence people who like their jobs refuse to get paid for it and instead get moneyz by doing side quests.

Ehm, no... they just get paid A LOAN (goal completion, or usually, a month work), instead of PER HOUR (per kill).

 

Do you have a great post on how loans are bad and everyone should be paid by the hour or everyone stops working? I would love to read it...

[Helm]

[almsot unreadable nonsense]

 

I don't want to avoid combat because I love it. You want to avoid combat, because you hate it. There is a difference.

 

Sneaking up on an enemy and shooting him in the head is stealth. I know you don't get it, but that really is stealth and Deus Ex rewards you for that because it is a stealth game. I guess I have to use Google and post 20 links until you get it.

 

And "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past" is story driven and has no xp. According to your ridiculous logic no xp would also be a great option for PE. Like I said, stop comparing apples and oranges, Deus Ex, Zelda, Bloodlines and the IE Games are all totally different. The IE games and the spiritual successor PE are tactical and strategical combat based games, that is why quest + combat xp fits. skulllzzzzzzz more kobold skulllzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Edited January 15, 2013 by Helm

[UpgrayeDD]

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.

 

That is true. Those are also two very big ifs. I'd say that NetHack and Diablo are two examples of games where they hold, more or less, although they have their degenerate strategies as well (e.g. pudding farming in NetHack).

 

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.

 

But that's not why they do it! They do it for the same reason rats push a lever to get a pellet. They don't enjoy pushing the damn lever; they do it for the pellet. It's known as Skinner conditioning, and MMO's are built on it because it's the only way to keep players playing. "Challenge and excitement" have nothing to do with it.

 

Believe me, if there was a button you could press every half-second to gain 1 XP, there would be players out there who would keep hitting it and do nothing else until they hit the level cap or died of carpal tunnel syndrome. I'm not making this up -- this is how people behave. This is how Blizzard made it's billions, for cryin' out loud!

 

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.

 

You really ought to read JES's posts on the topic, 'cuz you've got it backwards again. A degenerate strategy is not the player's fault -- the player is only doing what players do, i.e., responding rationally to the incentives handed out by the game. It's the designer's fault, for setting things up in such a way that the game rewards the strategies.

the thing you don't seem to get at all is that if the difficult combat and the sneaking past reward the same way. Well um lets see which do I pick.....

[Hassat Hunter]

But that's not why they do it! They do it for the same reason rats push a lever to get a pellet. They don't enjoy pushing the damn lever; they do it for the pellet. It's known as Skinner conditioning, and MMO's are built on it because it's the only way to keep players playing. "Challenge and excitement" have nothing to do with it.

 

Believe me, if there was a button you could press every half-second to gain 1 XP, there would be players out there who would keep hitting it and do nothing else until they hit the level cap or died of carpal tunnel syndrome. I'm not making this up -- this is how people behave. This is how Blizzard made it's billions, for cryin' out loud!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD69PAIqiYo

Edited January 15, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Valorian]

: Hence people who like their jobs refuse to get paid for it and instead get moneyz by doing side quests.

Ehm, no... they just get paid A LOAN (goal completion, or usually, a month work), instead of PER HOUR (per kill).

 

Do you have a great post on how loans are bad and everyone should be paid by the hour or everyone stops working? I would love to read it...

 

: People are paid per hour (kill). That's why you get paid more if you work overtime/overhours. That's why you get paid less if you take days off.

* gives link* http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/overtime.htm

[Fearabbit]

[almsot unreadable nonsense]

 

I don't want to avoid combat because I love it. You want to avoid combat, because you hate it. There is a difference.

 

Nobody here hates combat. People don't like various aspects of grinding. There's a difference. (Please stop saying that people hate combat.)

Also the point remains, "He who loveth combatte shalt not have need of reward in the form of Combatte XP, your argument is invalid. Verily."

 

Also concerning Valorian's Cat, it had a perfectly fine position before where it offered solutions to problems of "degenerate gameplay" while still keeping its focus on a preference for Combat XP. Now, having listened for too long to the venomous parseltongue of the dragon, it accuses people of "hating", it doesn't listen to arguments anymore (and, like its dragon friend, simply sees incomprehensible gibberish in a well-structured post)... I'd say it has changed in a horrible way.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Fearabbit

[Helm]

But that's not why they do it! They do it for the same reason rats push a lever to get a pellet. They don't enjoy pushing the damn lever; they do it for the pellet. It's known as Skinner conditioning, and MMO's are built on it because it's the only way to keep players playing. "Challenge and excitement" have nothing to do with it.

A reward is not required you say? Well then, remove xp for side quests too. Sounds like fun.

[Hassat Hunter]

Complete and utter nonsense

I don't want to avoid combat because I love it. You want to avoid combat, because you hate it. There is a difference.

I do you say. Well, maybe you missed the dozens or so times stating I WONT.

Can't blame me for your reading incompetence.

 

I do wish people would actually read my posts instead of making assumptions what I do. Same happened in the previous thread, where I apparently wanted to control other peoples games, and I only did it because I think they were wrong. That I hate and avoid combat is new... although equally untrue.

Sneaking up on an enemy and shooting him in the head is stealth.

I fail to see what is stealth about SHOOTING SOMEONE IN THE FACE AT POINT-BLANK.

And no, forcing people to close in instead of shooting over 100km like CoD isn't my definition of "stealth" either...

 

It's (again) called "not being an utter moron"...

And "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past" is story driven and has no xp. According to your ridiculous logic no xp would also be a great option for PE. Like I said, stop comparing apples and oranges, Deus Ex, Zelda, Bloodlines and the IE Games are all totally different.

LOL.

"You talk of RPG's. So I mention a non-RPG. But YOU (yes, you, not me) should stop comparing apples and oranges.

Of course if I do it it's totally okay.

The IE games and the spiritual successor PE are tactical and strategical combat based games, that is why quest + combat xp fits.

Someone hasn't playes PS:T I presume?

It should give you a good indication of how to work with minimal combat. Untill it falls apart in the end that is.

 

So, no, again...

But I see you're not reading my posts anyway, so it's probably a waste of time to try to talk to you. Talking to a brick wall isn't what I am here for.

[Sacred_Path]

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.

 

That is true. Those are also two very big ifs. I'd say that NetHack and Diablo are two examples of games where they hold, more or less, although they have their degenerate strategies as well (e.g. pudding farming in NetHack).

 

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.

 

But that's not why they do it! They do it for the same reason rats push a lever to get a pellet. They don't enjoy pushing the damn lever; they do it for the pellet. It's known as Skinner conditioning, and MMO's are built on it because it's the only way to keep players playing. "Challenge and excitement" have nothing to do with it.

 

Believe me, if there was a button you could press every half-second to gain 1 XP, there would be players out there who would keep hitting it and do nothing else until they hit the level cap or died of carpal tunnel syndrome. I'm not making this up -- this is how people behave. This is how Blizzard made it's billions, for cryin' out loud!

 

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.

 

You really ought to read JES's posts on the topic, 'cuz you've got it backwards again. A degenerate strategy is not the player's fault -- the player is only doing what players do, i.e., responding rationally to the incentives handed out by the game. It's the designer's fault, for setting things up in such a way that the game rewards the strategies.

 

I think you ought not lump together two kinds of players; those who abuse flaws and glitches intentionally, and those who don't.

 

Let me cite one example which I think is truly degenerate gaming: rest spamming in IE games.

 

It's degenerate firstly because there's no "proper" way to use resting in those games at all. Even as a player with the best intentions, you just didn't what the "balanced" or intended way to rest was. And it was so powerful compared to 1) resting only in inns 2) resting rarely 3) never resting that everyone ended up binging on it. It was secondly degenerate because it was a mind-numbing, repetitive task that took no skill.

 

It was easily discernible that rest spamming unbalanced the games, yet you had no way (except completely arbitrary limitations you made up yourself) to avoid it. That's a big glaring fault in a game's design and needs to be addressed.

 

I think I've read the Sawyer post in question, and I agree it's not about assigning blame, it's just the question of who can do what on their end. I'm not even contesting that there are players that act like rodents or have really bad self-control, but I think those should be the lesser of the devs' concerns. I'm all for fixing bugs and closing obvious loopholes, of course; but I think my point is to focus more on those people who want a good, hard challenge from a game and are willing to stay away from abusing glitches if they can help it. It's obvious that they're catering to this crowd here by i.e. balancing the game for an Ironman mode, so I'm not worrying. It's a bit of a tangent though, I agree.

[UpgrayeDD]

: Hence people who like their jobs refuse to get paid for it and instead get moneyz by doing side quests.

Ehm, no... they just get paid A LOAN (goal completion, or usually, a month work), instead of PER HOUR (per kill).

 

Do you have a great post on how loans are bad and everyone should be paid by the hour or everyone stops working? I would love to read it...

I'm pretty sure you mean a pay check for a pay period. However how much you recieve is still determed by how much work you did. Worker A builds a wall and it takes him 32 hours of work to do. Worker B builds a wall thats bigger and it takes him 40 hours to do so. Guess who got paid more?

[Helm]

Nobody here hates combat. People don't like various aspects of grinding. There's a difference. (Please stop saying that people hate combat.)

I only respond to quotes like "They hate combat, that is why they like combat xp". Which is ridiculous. It is the other way around.

Sadly, you only see it one sided (the side you prefer).

 

By the way, if you tried grinding in Baldur's Gate... then you are a moron, because it is not only a pointless, but an impossible task.

[Valorian]

Also concerning Valorian's Cat, it had a perfectly fine position before where it offered solutions to problems of "degenerate gameplay" while still keeping its focus on a preference for Combat XP. Now, having listened for too long to the venomous parseltongue of the dragon, it accuses people of "hating", it doesn't listen to arguments anymore (and, like its dragon friend, simply sees incomprehensible gibberish in a well-structured post)... I'd say it has changed in a horrible way.

 

Are you trying to turn my Cat against Helm? Because that won't happen.. We both believe he's fighting for a good cause.

[Kaz]

This could be a way to support alternative styles of questing while retaining combat XP.

 

1. A quest is allotted a pot of XP which is granted to the player upon completion.

2. If the player kills enemies associated with said quest along the way, you get full combat XP, and the same amount is subtracted from the XP pot.

3. Upon quest completion all remaining enemies' XP is reduced to 0.

 

This is essentially what has been proposed by the devs, with the only difference being combat XP rewarded on the spot. Players can mix and match when to sneak/fight and gain the same amount of XP when all is said and done.

[Hassat Hunter]

: People are paid per hour (kill). That's why you get paid more if you work overtime/overhours. That's why you get paid less if you take days off.

* gives link* http://www.dol.gov/d...rs/overtime.htm

Congrats, you just discoverd side-quests...

 

Also, note how you do not get paid per hour ON TOP of your loan? There you go...

[Helm]

[undescernable and illogical trolling and rage]

 

Yesssss. Let the rage out, because you know we are right. rage, little Hassat, raaaageeeee. skullzzzzzzzz

 

There is no point in discussing with you. You need to calm down first and learn how to write succint and descernable posts. Not to mention that I keep on repeating myself. And you don't understand anything anyway, because of you major lack of comprehension skills.

 

skullzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Gfted1]

This is essentially what has been proposed by the devs, with the only difference being combat XP rewarded on the spot. Players can mix and match when to sneak/fight and gain the same amount of XP when all is said and done.

 

 

No. There is no kill experience whatsoever.

[PrimeJunta]

I think you ought not lump together two kinds of players; those who abuse flaws and glitches intentionally, and those who don't.

 

Yeah, you could divide players into two camps -- those who respond strongly to systemic incentives, and those who don't. Those who don't usually have some reason they don't; for example, they role-play some particular kind of character even if it goes against the grain of the incentives. LARPing in other words. Or maybe they're in it for the story, just not interested in figuring out the game system, or just casually play through once. Which is all cool IMO. I've played a few games like that myself -- ones I didn't really care about enough to get deeply into. Mass Effect to name one relatively modern one. Played through it once, didn't bother returning to it for any reason.

 

But that, IMO, is a red herring. I simply cannot think any good reason not to try to align systemic incentives with in-game objectives. Why wouldn't you want to do that?

 

Let me cite one example which I think is truly degenerate gaming: rest spamming in IE games.

 

It's degenerate firstly because there's no "proper" way to use resting in those games at all. Even as a player with the best intentions, you just didn't what the "balanced" or intended way to rest was. And it was so powerful compared to 1) resting only in inns 2) resting rarely 3) never resting that everyone ended up binging on it. It was secondly degenerate because it was a mind-numbing, repetitive task that took no skill.

 

It was easily discernible that rest spamming unbalanced the games, yet you had no way (except completely arbitrary limitations you made up yourself) to avoid it. That's a big glaring fault in a game's design and needs to be addressed.

 

Yup, that's a good example.

 

I think I've read the Sawyer post in question, and I agree it's not about assigning blame, it's just the question of who can do what on their end. I'm not even contesting that there are players that act like rodents or have really bad self-control, but I think those should be the lesser of the devs' concerns. I'm all for fixing bugs and closing obvious loopholes, of course; but I think my point is to focus more on those people who want a good, hard challenge from a game and are willing to stay away from abusing glitches if they can help it. It's obvious that they're catering to this crowd here by i.e. balancing the game for an Ironman mode, so I'm not worrying. It's a bit of a tangent though, I agree.

 

I may be a bit more of a game design geek than most people, since I am a software designer myself. As such, I am irritated no end by design flaws, and perhaps for that very reason I tend to notice them... and then get caught in the ensuing degenerate strategies. More casual players probably won't care; they'll never get deep enough into the system to catch any but the most glaringly obvious misalignments, like that rest-spamming you mentioned for example. And some of the truly hardcore consciously eschew the degenerate strategies they know about, and are strong-willed enough to stick to their decision. Perhaps some aren't even bothered by the availability of such strategies. For me, just knowing that they're there, within arms reach, greatly reduces my enjoyment of a game.

 

Point being: I see no reason whatsoever not to attempt to create the most elegant, least exploitable game system as well aligned with the in-game objectives your game as you're able. I mean sure, nothing's perfect and eventually you're going to have to stop faffing about with it and let it go, and there will probably still be the odd exploit left in, but leaving in misaligned incentives that you know to be misaligned is just pointless and stupid IMO.

[UpgrayeDD]

This could be a way to support alternative styles of questing while retaining combat XP.

 

1. A quest is allotted a pot of XP which is granted to the player upon completion.

2. If the player kills enemies associated with said quest along the way, you get full combat XP, and the same amount is subtracted from the XP pot.

3. Upon quest completion all remaining enemies' XP is reduced to 0.

 

This is essentially what has been proposed by the devs, with the only difference being combat XP rewarded on the spot. Players can mix and match when to sneak/fight and gain the same amount of XP when all is said and done.

It doesn't really solve the issue of avoiding combat becoming the best solution though.

[Hassat Hunter]

Also, to many people complaining about XP, as an example how RPG's can be done well even without XP;

http://www.gog.com/gamecard/silver

 

It simply levels you up on defeating a boss.

[Amentep]

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.

 

PnP diplomacy can always be trumped by the DM. If a band of orcs are slaughtering the country side, the DM should have the orcs attack rather than parley. There's got to be some logic behind what is happening and the DM should control that logic.

 

But that's the advantage of PnP, that things a lot more flexible than they'll ever be in a programmed game.

 

This could be a way to support alternative styles of questing while retaining combat XP.

 

1. A quest is allotted a pot of XP which is granted to the player upon completion.

2. If the player kills enemies associated with said quest along the way, you get full combat XP, and the same amount is subtracted from the XP pot.

3. Upon quest completion all remaining enemies' XP is reduced to 0.

 

This is essentially what has been proposed by the devs, with the only difference being combat XP rewarded on the spot. Players can mix and match when to sneak/fight and gain the same amount of XP when all is said and done.

It doesn't really solve the issue of avoiding combat becoming the best solution though.

 

Wouldn't - in a well designed system - the best solution be based on the party build?

 

ie, if you have a group of fighters and battle mages then surely the outlay of resources is going to be minimal compared to having the same group try a diplomatic or sneaky solution?