Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[PrimeJunta]

Since the Degenerate Gameplay thread is starting to... degenerate, I thought I'd raise one substantial point that came up in it. For those who missed the fun, background.

 

It's been established that P:E will only have quest XP, rather than combat XP (à la Infinity Engine) or XP for doing things (à la KOTOR1/2). One substantive objection has been raised about this:

 

"Assuming that combat consumes resources and stealth/non-combat doesn't, won't this create a systemic incentive for avoiding combat?"

 

The answer to that objection is "Yes, it does," of course. And that would be bad, not to mention contrary to Josh Sawyer's explicitly stated design goal of crafting a system that does not systematically favor any approach over others.

 

Which is why I think the problem should be addressed. For example, you could have minor loot drops that would roughly compensate for typical resources used to win that combat. Or you could impose resource costs on stealth and other non-combat activities.

 

Here's a sketch for a stealth system with resource costs, as an example of how it could be done.

 

1 Moving while stealthed uses stamina. It regenerates when standing still.

2 Any character can enter stealth mode.

3 Any stealthed character has a chance of being spotted.

4 Heavy armor makes you easier to spot and increases the stamina cost.

5 Being a rogue or adding points to your sneak skill will make you harder to spot and will reduce the stamina cost of stealth.

6 Consumables exist to temporarily boost your sneak skill. These are used up when consumed.

7 Magic exists to temporarily boost your stealth. These take up your spell-caster's spell-casting capability.

8 Sneak buffs are incompatible with combat buffs. Use one, lose the other.

 

Consequence: a party who decides to sneak through an enemy-infested area will have to do it pretty carefully. They'll trade off combat spells for stealth spells (7), have to acquire and use sneak buffs (6), forego combat buffs [8], and have to use light rather than heavy armor (4). Since they're avoiding combat, the cost of failure is very high -- if they're spotted (3), they'll very likely be in a tactically poor position, low on stamina (1), lightly armored (4), and un-buffed for combat [8].

 

If implemented this way, would stealth still sound like the systemically favored way to solve problems? If so, why? Would this kind of system be fun to play? Why or why not? Any other ideas? Discuss.

Edited January 16, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Sacred_Path]

Which is why I think the problem should be addressed. For example, you could have minor loot drops that would roughly compensate for typical resources used to win that combat.

 

Pretty much this. If you want what other people are carrying, you'll have to kill them, most of the time. It's natural and not contrived.

 

 

]1 Moving while stealthed uses stamina. [/b]It regenerates when standing still.

2 Any character can enter stealth mode.

3 Any stealthed character has a chance of being spotted.

4 Heavy armor makes you easier to spot and increases the stamina cost.

5 Being a rogue or adding points to your sneak skill will make you harder to spot and will reduce the stamina cost of stealth.

6 Consumables exist to temporarily boost your sneak skill. These are used up when consumed.

7 Magic exists to temporarily boost your stealth. These take up your spell-caster's spell-casting capability.

8 Sneak buffs are incompatible with combat buffs. Use one, lose the other.

 

Consequence: a party who decides to sneak through an enemy-infested area will have to do it pretty carefully. They'll trade off combat spells for stealth spells (7), have to acquire and use sneak buffs (6), forego combat buffs [8], and have to use light rather than heavy armor (4). Since they're avoiding combat, the cost of failure is very high -- if they're spotted (3), they'll very likely be in a tactically poor position, low on stamina (1), lightly armored (4), and un-buffed for combat [8].

 

Deciding between combat and sneak buffs would be neat, though I'd rather they achieve that by limiting your spell slots (as they seem to do, see 'resting'). I'd like it to be a bit more ingrained though, not entirely situational; like, you can't have a party that's great at stealth and combat. Maybe by forcing you to choose between spells that enhance stealth and combat utility spells.

[PrimeJunta]

That would work. Ideally, building a stealth-focused party would be a strategic decision you'd make early in the game and, for best results, stick with it. That would certainly come with trade-offs; a party of lightly-armored sneaky commandos would necessarily not be as good going toe-to-toe as a party of heavily-armored wrecking balls.

[Helm]

I see that it has now finally been accepted that there is a problem with with "quest only xp".

 

Yeah Helm, this is a good thing! We could have both, but it would require a system that has never been implemented in a game before. Like I have said before, quest only xp is not the answer.

 

Hmm, Kitty. You're right, we could make it work. But there has to be some kind of substantial tradeoff, otherwise having stealth will not make sense. The player has to be forced to make a decision and must stick with it.

 

Yes. But it will be hard to implement in a party based game. But if it was possible then we could have the game appeal to those who like stealth and those who like combat. skullzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Okay guys, we need some kind of hybrid system. A system where there is combat xp and a reward for sneaking, I will call it "sneak xp". But you can only do one or the other. What do you guys think?

 

(That sounds great Helm!!!)

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[PrimeJunta]

Sneak XP would be extremely problematic, as it would very easily turn into a grindable exploit. To prevent it, you'd have to add yet more complication. Where I'm at, that dog don't hunt.

 

In any case, I intended this discussion to proceed from the assumption that the quest XP/combat XP discussion is already settled; i.e., XP doesn't enter into it anymore at all. If you like, why not start another thread specifically about the advantages and drawbacks of different XP schemes?

[Helm]

^

Oh, my mistake. I thought you wanted to fix the problem, but I see that you prefer to be stubborn and will try to fix what cannot be fixed, because avoiding combat will still give the best results. You just want to make it harder to sneak past obstacles (that can't be avoided). lol

 

Wel, this thread is worthless then. It was stupid of me to think that you would actually like to reason.

 

By the way, nothing is exploitable if implemented right. But like I said, you are stubborn.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[PrimeJunta]

Actually, sneaking to avoid combat successfully could very well give the best results. On the other hand, failing to sneak successfully could have very dire results, i.e., getting into a tough battle poorly equipped and with low stamina.

 

This would make stealth a high-risk/high-reward strategy, and combat a low-risk/low-reward strategy. Do you see a problem with that?

 

Also, if you want to discuss combat XP vs quest XP vs activity XP, please start another thread for it. I'll be happy to discuss it with you, but not on this one.

[Helm]

Actually, sneaking to avoid combat successfully could very well give the best results. On the other hand, failing to sneak successfully could have very dire results, i.e., getting into a tough battle poorly equipped and with low stamina.

Wut? I thought this was supposed to be an IE style game... but apparently you want now want to mutate it into a Commandos style game. Interesting (no, not really).

 

Well, I shall leave you to your evil doings and won't bump this thread anymore.

[PrimeJunta]

Thank you, I appreciate that.

[Jobby]

I don't understand why when people simply want to expand upon things that have been previously done (I.E. engine stealth) they get accused of tampering or mutating the game into something else, commandos style stealth was very well done (line of sight, light and noise) and if resources allowed would be a wonderful addition to any rpg, as opposed to the random dice roll which is unaffected by any of the aforementioned.

 

Clearly Commandos was solely a stealth combat game whilst P.E. will have a whole host of other things going on, however if the unity engine allows these mechanics to be introduced i don't see why they shouldn't, but anyway in regards to the OP, i agree with all 8 points raised as well as adding in if you don't want to kill someone you don't get their rare stuff, this could also tie in with actual motivation to be evil, which is severely lacking in just about any rpg i've ever played.

[Hassat Hunter]

I see that it has now finally been accepted that there is a problem with with "quest only xp".

Failure to read has striken again...

Okay guys, we need some kind of hybrid system. A system where there is combat xp and a reward for sneaking, I will call it "sneak xp". But you can only do one or the other. What do you guys think?

I see my explenation of why "sneak XP" is a technological and programmers nightmare in the other thread fell on deaf ears. I'm not surprised.

 

As stated there, I don't think it will be too much of a problem. As you already stated, yes, sneaking allows you to pass combat. But if you do not advance in it, it's hard to succeed. And you likely need to be thinly armored to successfully sneak your party. Not to mention your party setup will be nowhere near as buffed or tactically in the right position as when you want combat

So the counter would be;

 

* Fight everyone, harm a little from all.

* Try to sneak past everyone. No harm at all if success, but if you fail, you're likely to be harmed A LOT.

 

Balances out to me...

One could cheat of course by reloading if they are detected, but well, you can cheat that way in combat too. Doesn't make the mechanics bad.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Helm]

I see that it has now finally been accepted that there is a problem with with "quest only xp".

Failure to read has striken again...

You failure to read conext and reasonably deduct has striken again. There is a problem with quest only xp and that is why this thread exists. The OP even wrote about it in the first sentence. I don't expect you to understand though, because that is not one of your strengths.

 

Okay guys, we need some kind of hybrid system. A system where there is combat xp and a reward for sneaking, I will call it "sneak xp". But you can only do one or the other. What do you guys think?

I see my explenation of why "sneak XP" is a technological and programmers nightmare in the other thread fell on deaf ears. I'm not surprised.

I see that you expect everyone to read every post you have written, even in a thread that someone might have never seen, which is a ridiculous any extremely illogical proposition. I'm not surprised actually, seeing that logic is not one of your strengths.

 

Not to mention that you did not understand what I wrote (like I said, I'm not surprised), not to mention that it was just a simple proposition an not a demand (I guess you can't tell the difference). Those who like to sneak must have to make a major tradeoff and they must also have to be rewarded xp in a different way. How? I am not sure. It might help if you would actually post your link to what you wrote about this instead of trolling.

 

Ok, you can now post your undescernable post of troll rage (the way you like answer).

[Hassat Hunter]

I see that you expect everyone to read every post you have written, even in a thread that someone might have never seen, which is a ridiculous any extremely illogical proposition.

It was a post aimed to you. In a thread you obviously seen.

I don't expect everyone to have read it, no. But since it was aimed at you, I was expecting YOU to have read it.

 

Apparently, you didn't however. I'm not shocked (imagining some reading a post aimed at them. I have some messed up logic indeed!). And that you fail to see what it was about you and somehow make it "you expect everyone to read all you posts" should show you how good you are in interpretating words.

 

Hint; not good.

 

Also, weren't you supposed to NOT respond in this topic anymore? I remember reading it... somewhere. Like a few posts higher. Odd.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Helm]

I see that you expect everyone to read every post you have written, even in a thread that someone might have never seen, which is a ridiculous any extremely illogical proposition.

It was a post aimed to you. In a thread you obviously seen.

I don't expect everyone to have read it, no. But since it was aimed at you, I was expecting YOU to have read it.

 

Apparently, you didn't however. I'm not shocked (imagining some reading a post aimed at them. I have some messed up logic indeed!).

Yeah, I remember. You said that there is a post on some big ol' thread on this forum and that we should go looking for it or something. Yeah thanks. I will now go search through every one of your posts (wow, 3600 posts, i hope they are not all from that last few months) from the to find some info that you wrote because you are too lazy to find it yourself. Yeah, that really makes sense (no, it doesn't).

 

Like I said, look for it yourself and post it if you think it is good. That is what everybody else does.

Also, weren't you supposed to NOT respond in this topic anymore? I remember reading it... somewhere. Like a few posts higher. Odd.

I was obviously talking about productive posts. But I will respond to trolling. I don't mind answering to your troll posts so that we can destroy the whole point of this thread in the first place. Really, I don't have a problem with that.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[Hassat Hunter]

It's in the degenerate gameplay thread...

[Helm]

It's in the degenerate gameplay thread...

lol. Ok, then at least give me the link to the post in the degenerate gameplay thread that describes how to find the post that you are talking about.

 

Not to mention that I am not the only one reading this forum you know. Maybe somebody else wants to read some of your "wisdom"?

[PrimeJunta]

Helm, would you be so kind as to not derail discussions in which you have no interest in participating?

 

Thank you very much in advance.

[Helm]

Helm, would you be so kind as to not derail discussions in which you have no interest in participating?

 

Thank you very much in advance.

Well, Hassat Hunter chose to troll me in your thread (a thread that might actually interest him, funny how that works). So it's not my fault.

 

The side effect of course is the derailing, which you will have to live with until Hassat has stopped his trolling spree.

[Fearabbit]

Sneak XP? I thought this was an IE game! There was no such thing as Sneak XP in Baldur's Gate!

 

Okay, being serious now. I think the points in the OP are great and would make it really interesting and rewarding to use Stealth. What I dislike about many RPGs is that they implement the feature, but don't do it well, especially when it comes to your Party.

 

Using vision cones and noise radii as in Commandos would of course be an excellent addition. You could make it so that Stealth within the vision cones will NEVER work (unless you're invisible) and noise will make the enemies turn in that direction. That way, sneaking gets the same tactical treatment that combat does. I really don't like the idea that your skill affects your chance of being spotted - instead, make it so that a high skill reduces your noise radius. That's what I'd like, a system that has an actual chance of failure if you use the wrong tactics, but that can be very satisfying otherwise.

 

Implementing this shouldn't be a problem. It's a simple yet effective system. However, I definitely wouldn't want this to affect the level design of dungeons etc. in any way, except maybe for a couple of dungeons or a couple of key locations.

What I mean is that I wouldn't want level design as in Dishonored or DE:HR where you can "ghost" the whole level, just because stealth is a feature. Stealth should still mainly be used in towns etc. to gain information and gold, I think, and maybe in certain stealth quests. Dungeons should still largely focus on combat.

[PrimeJunta]

@Fearabbit, great ideas all around. To clarify, when I said "reduces your chances of being spotted" I meant that as a high-level abstraction -- reducing the spot radius and noise radius are very good ways of accomplishing it.

 

I would also like lighting to factor into it. If you're in deep shadow you might not be spotted even if you're in someone's vision cone. Conversely if you're carrying a light source, you're automatically de-stealthed.

[Jobby]

The major issue with stealth in these games as opposed to dishonored or hitman is that you have a party of 6 to sneak around which isn't really feasible, so it would be nice to be able to split your party up and perhaps sneak the lightly armored characters into a flanking position before you initiate combat, or use them to flick switches that could, for example, drop a drawbridge on a guard etc..

It would also be great to have some assassination quests where you get a bonus for being unseen, as long as it allows you to use one character.

 

I just don't really see anyone sneaking their entire party through the entire game, i doubt the sneaking mechanics will be that easy without making a very unbalanced party that will still have to fight some battles (unless they put in a pacifist option).

[PrimeJunta]

Mmmmaybe. I still think you might be able to roll up a properly ninja'ed up party, especially if there's magic to support the stealth mechanics. Mass invisibility + mass silence?

 

In fact, I think it might be quite interesting to play such a party. They'd kick ass at infiltration and assassination, but be genuinely challenged when forced toe-to-toe. Probably too hard for Ironman, given what will probably happen if you're spotted at the wrong time, but still...

[Jobby]

I guess that could be quite fun, my point was merely that from what i can ascertain (and from previous experience with I.E. games) stealth is more about tactics and positioning than the absolute avoidance of combat, of course that could just be my playstyle, are we allowed to create an entire party from scratch btw?

[Valorian]

Sneak XP would be extremely problematic, as it would very easily turn into a grindable exploit.

 

Nope, it wouldn't. If a group was scripted to give XP only once for sneaking past them. And if you kill them after that you'd get no xp either.

[PrimeJunta]

I guess that could be quite fun, my point was merely that from what i can ascertain (and from previous experience with I.E. games) stealth is more about tactics and positioning than the absolute avoidance of combat, of course that could just be my playstyle, are we allowed to create an entire party from scratch btw?

 

True. And yes, we are, that's what the Adventurers' Hall stretch goal was all about. Also, since we're starting at level one and there's a good deal of freedom when developing the characters, I've no doubt you can choose stealth-oriented skills, spells, and perks when leveling up your companions too.