Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[Sacred_Path]

You apparently can't tell the difference between fundamental cRPG mechanics (for IE style tactical combat based games) and D&D rules. I wouldn't be surprised if really thought that combat xp was only used in D&D games.

 

I reiterate, you assume that kill XP is so fundamental for a CRPG that you cannot for the life of you imagine any other approach. Since you're not a full retard, I think it's a form of pouting. But there's no need to pout Little Helm, I'm sure you'll find another (probably flawed) mechanic in P:E that you'll come to love and defend just like that anachronism (kill XP).

Edited January 18, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Jobby]

I really don't understand why people are getting so upset over this, at the end of the day you will receive xp and your character will level up, is the manner in which the xp is dished out all that important? I'm not defending the "overlords" i just don't see the issue. 

 

As far as I can see this system should make game balance easier for devs, therefore more time spent on content and less on balance, which is surely a good thing.

[Osvir]

First, I'm not a big fan of the "improve by doing" mechanic (improving your stealth by being stealth, improving your combat by fighting etc.). Realistic in a sense, perhaps, but also hugely prone to abuse. The Elder Scrolls series works this way, and it's by far the most exploitable cRPG system I've played; the incentives are totally wacky in it. Specifically, "learn by doing" encourages pointless busywork even more than action-XP, whether from combat, stealth, lockpicking or whatever. When I was playing Morrowind, I was jumping whenever traveling anywhere, 'cuz that's how I improve my athletics skill. Must've looked like an idiot.

Yes, we probably did

 

The difference between TES and IE is that in TES there's abundant amount of experience (possibly infinite) whilst in the IE games you don't encounter that problem because experience is limited. I'm thinking about ways to make a Stealth-Mechanic that gives experience like a Combat-Mechanic. "Take down Bandit = 15 experience". What would the Stealth equivalent be? "Get past Bandit = 15 experience"? or would it be "Hide in that shadow = 15 experience"?

 

That's why Objective Based experience is brilliant for a Stealth-Mechanic, but utterly horrible for a Combat-Mechanic. Because when you get to the Windmill you can ask the program "Is Bandit alive?" with a following "If [True] = Gain 15 experience". Similarly "If [False] = Gain 15 experience" and you'll see how odd it looks like.

 

2 Paths:

[Combat] = Guard Dead = 15 Experience

[stealth] = Guard Alive = 15 Experience

 

^That l don't like.

 

More thoughts to make "Experience" a little bit more interesting, because that's what it is about right?:

 

Fable (TLC) goes about like this. This is an active choice I make before I even begin combat. What kind of experience do I want to get?:

Red - Combat Experience. In Fable this translates to fighting up close and personal.

Blue - Magic Experience. In Fable this translates to using magic.

Yellow - Guile Experience In Fable this translates to using a bow.

 

^That is a form of a solution. I'm trying to combine that together with your idea PrimeJunta, and I can see it working both in an Active form and in a Passive/Objective form. So when you get to the Windmill, you have already decided in-before which sort of experience you are directed towards and want. Either in the forms of a Guild that you go to (Might & Magic Trainers), or simply going into "Records" in the UI and choosing "Get Stealth Experience". Instead of "Active" Stealth Experience, it'd be more like "We saw that you finished this Quest without killing anyone, here's some Stealth Experience".

 

---------------------------- Related and important question, that I think needs to be addressed.

 

Party pool of experience or an individual character experience?

 

Forton has his own experience pool based on his actions, Aloth has his own and the main character has his own? Some of the best games I have played has this, Disgaea, Final Fantasy Tactics. There is just one little problem with it, in my opinion, and that's when one character gets all of the glory (through luck) and gets to level 482 and everyone else is at level 8. Though, I am the one to blame for it entirely. I'm just digging

 

Could Reputation be a part of some "Experience" gain? How much can you pool different stuff together to cause some sort of push-pull effect.

 

Reputation+Resources+Objective

[PrimeJunta]

Do you play like that, like a rat running around in a maze, obsessively hunting for locks to pick, traps to disarm, and goblins to kill, when the reward for each of those actions is XP?

 

Because I don't. I take my time and enjoy the game.

Real-l-ly? Then why are you intentionally gimping your character by playing in a sub-optimal way? "I guess I'll shiv myself in the kidneys now and go into battle naked LOL" was the way you put it elsewhere, I think. Unless it was Helm, of course; you two are a bit hard to tell apart.

[Helm]

 

 

You apparently can't tell the difference between fundamental cRPG mechanics (for IE style tactical combat based games) and D&D rules. I wouldn't be surprised if really thought that combat xp was only used in D&D games.

I reiterate, you assume that kill XP is so fundamental for a CRPG that you cannot for the life of you imagine any other approach. Since you're not a full retard, I think it's a form of pouting. But there's no need to pout Little Helm, I'm sure you'll find another (probably flawed) mechanic in P:E that you'll come to love and defend just like that anachronism (kill XP).

It is fundamental for a party based tactical combat game.

 

But apparently you have lost the ability to comprehend written and spoken text from the slamming of your head into the monitor all those countless times. All that just because of the "annoying combat" in the IE games, you could have just simply turned down the difficulty to easy you know.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Helm

[Valorian]

 

Do you play like that, like a rat running around in a maze, obsessively hunting for locks to pick, traps to disarm, and goblins to kill, when the reward for each of those actions is XP?

 

Because I don't. I take my time and enjoy the game.

Real-l-ly? Then why are you intentionally gimping your character by playing in a sub-optimal way? "I guess I'll shiv myself in the kidneys now and go into battle naked LOL" was the way you put it elsewhere, I think. Unless it was Helm, of course; you two are a bit hard to tell apart.

How am I intentionally gimping my character if I don't feel the compulsion to obsessively run around the sewers like a rat, like you do?

 

If there are obsessive-compulsive rats in sewers I just unleash my Cat to do the job.

[Sacred_Path]

It is fundamental for a party based tactical combat game.

 

But apparently you have lost the ability to comprehend written and spoken text from the slamming of your head into the monitor all those countless times. All that just because of the "annoying combat" in the IE games, you could have just simply turned down the difficulty to easy you know.

 

Do you realize your rhetoric becomes more and more muddled? All of a sudden IE games are "tactical combat games", RPG doesn't even figure in there anymore. Of course, if you're under the impression that these games are isometric shooters with a level progression mechanic, it's becoming more obvious what your problem is.

 

See, people who function normally mentally can enjoy one thing (like kill XP) but also enjoy another, especially if it's an obvious improvement (as in this case).

 

Also, normal people feel bad when they spam up a perfectly productive thread like this with random snubs. I know I do now

[TRX850]

"Some players aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some players just want to watch the world burn."

[Amentep]

 

The difference between TES and IE is that in TES there's abundant amount of experience (possibly infinite) whilst in the IE games you don't encounter that problem because experience is limited. I'm thinking about ways to make a Stealth-Mechanic that gives experience like a Combat-Mechanic. "Take down Bandit = 15 experience". What would the Stealth equivalent be? "Get past Bandit = 15 experience"? or would it be "Hide in that shadow = 15 experience"?

As I understand it, the objective in both cases would be "get past bandit"; the objective XP system should not care what method is used to get past the bandit. So satisfying the objective could be based on three things for example:

 

Did the bandit let the party past [Y/N] (yes = diplomacy success)

Did the bandit spot the party [Y/N] (N = stealth success)

Is the bandit alive? [Y/N] (N = combat success)

 

You could penalize stealth here by making the combat success something like "Did the bandit spot the party from stealth [Y/N] and is the bandit alive [Y/N] where a NN = combat success and a YN is failure of the objective (if the bandit spotted the party and initiated combat, then the party fails the stealth path and gets no reward for winning the combat objective; if the party changed their mind and went to stealth to combat, though, they could still get the combat XP).

 

Even if the stealth party failed the objective, they could - for some quests at least - still satisfy the quest (and other objectives). They just get no XP for failing the objective.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Amentep

[PrimeJunta]

How am I intentionally gimping my character if I don't feel the compulsion to obsessively run around the sewers like a rat, like you do?

By not going after all the XP that's available in the game.

[Valorian]

 

How am I intentionally gimping my character if I don't feel the compulsion to obsessively run around the sewers like a rat, like you do?

By not going after all the XP that's available in the game.

I don't see this as "gimping my character". You do?

[Helm]

 

 

 

 

It is fundamental for a party based tactical combat game.

 

But apparently you have lost the ability to comprehend written and spoken text from the slamming of your head into the monitor all those countless times. All that just because of the "annoying combat" in the IE games, you could have just simply turned down the difficulty to easy you know.

 

Do you realize your rhetoric becomes more and more muddled? All of a sudden IE games are "tactical combat games", RPG doesn't even figure in there anymore. Of course, if you're under the impression that these games are isometric shooters with a level progression mechanic, it's becoming more obvious what your problem is.

 

See, people who function normally mentally can enjoy one thing (like kill XP) but also enjoy another, especially if it's an obvious improvement (as in this case).

 

Also, normal people feel bad when they spam up a perfectly productive thread like this with random snubs. I know I do now

Oh, I'm sorry that I did not write "role playing party based tactical combat game". I thought it was obvious that this is a cRPG. Because that is what is says on the front page. I just forgot about your little problem with comprehension and logical deduction. Sorry about that.

 

Not to mention that I have never said anything about "party based isometric shooters with a level progression mechanic" in any relation whatsoever. You must be suffering from a delirium. You poor thing.

 

Like I said, keep your head away from monitors. Your next disupute with one could prove fatal after all of the damage that has already been done.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Helm

[Jobby]

 

 

 

As I understand it, the objective in both cases would be "get past bandit"; the objective XP system should not care what method is used to get past the bandit. So satisfying the objective could be based on three things for example:

 

Did the bandit let the party past [Y/N] (yes = diplomacy success)

Did the bandit spot the party [Y/N] (N = stealth success)

Is the bandit alive? [Y/N] (N = combat success)

^^^ This, nobody is penalised for the way they choose to complete an objective and everyone is equally rewarded, throw in some optional objectives to encourage people to try out different playstyles and keep the incentive to not just create a tank/sneak/diplomacy party and i think it could be a wonderful system.

[PrimeJunta]

I don't see this as "gimping my character". You do?

So you're not into powergaming after all? That's a bit of a U-turn.

[Sacred_Path]

Oh, I'm sorry that I did not write "role playing party based tactical combat game". I thought it was obvious that this is a cRPG. Because that is what is says on the front page. I just forgot about your little problem with comprehension and logical deduction. Sorry about that.

So you didn't know you're supposed to write the things you mean, and mean the things you write. That's one of the more inventive reasons for backpedaling I've seen!

 

Now, you should probably go back to posting "STELTH IZ TOO EAZY AND ALWAYS WINS" in one form or another.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Helm]

 

 

 

 

Oh, I'm sorry that I did not write "role playing party based tactical combat game". I thought it was obvious that this is a cRPG. Because that is what is says on the front page. I just forgot about your little problem with comprehension and logical deduction. Sorry about that.

So you didn't know you're supposed to write the things you mean, and mean the things you write. That's one of the more inventive reasons for backpedaling I've seen!

I will always write that Project Eternity and the Infinity Engine games are cRPGs when responding to you and will never assume that you know that anymore. I am deeply and truly sorry that I have insulted you by not respecting you or your encumbrance.

Now, you should probably go back to posting "STELTH IZ TOO EAZY AND ALWAYS WINS" in one form or another.

Yes. And then I will visit the Call of Duty forums afterwards and post "COMBET IZ TOO EAZY AND ALWAYS WINS" because I always get killed while trying to avoid combat. Edited January 18, 2013 by Helm

[Sacred_Path]

Yes. And then I will visit the Call of Duty forums afterwards and post "COMBET IZ TOO EAZY AND ALWAYS WINS" because I always get killed while trying to avoid combat.

V. good. So we can agree that while in a shooter like CoD combat should be the dominant way of conflict resolution, a game with the premise "3 approaches are viable" should indeed offer all 3 approaches.

[Helm]

 

Yes. And then I will visit the Call of Duty forums afterwards and post "COMBET IZ TOO EAZY AND ALWAYS WINS" because I always get killed while trying to avoid combat.

V. good. So we can agree that while in a shooter like CoD combat should be the dominant way of conflict resolution, a game with the premise "3 approaches are viable" should indeed offer all 3 approaches.

Wut? Why did you like my post?

 

And about the Call of Duty thing, that was sarcasm dude.

 

Not to mention that I don't have a problem with stealth. I just don't like it's implementation. Read this.

[Osvir]

 

 

 

 

As I understand it, the objective in both cases would be "get past bandit"; the objective XP system should not care what method is used to get past the bandit. So satisfying the objective could be based on three things for example:

 

Did the bandit let the party past [Y/N] (yes = diplomacy success)

Did the bandit spot the party [Y/N] (N = stealth success)

Is the bandit alive? [Y/N] (N = combat success)

^^^ This, nobody is penalised for the way they choose to complete an objective and everyone is equally rewarded, throw in some optional objectives to encourage people to try out different playstyles and keep the incentive to not just create a tank/sneak/diplomacy party and i think it could be a wonderful system.

What I am curious about is, could you be rewarded in different ways? Or do you reward yourself in different ways?

 

I think the answer is a given.

 

Dishonored does work in a way like this, somewhat. The runes are the "Objective", in a way. Gold could be seen as "Experience" for Equipment.

[Jobby]

 

 

 

 

 

As I understand it, the objective in both cases would be "get past bandit"; the objective XP system should not care what method is used to get past the bandit. So satisfying the objective could be based on three things for example:

 

Did the bandit let the party past [Y/N] (yes = diplomacy success)

Did the bandit spot the party [Y/N] (N = stealth success)

Is the bandit alive? [Y/N] (N = combat success)

^^^ This, nobody is penalised for the way they choose to complete an objective and everyone is equally rewarded, throw in some optional objectives to encourage people to try out different playstyles and keep the incentive to not just create a tank/sneak/diplomacy party and i think it could be a wonderful system.

What I am curious about is, could you be rewarded in different ways? Or do you reward yourself in different ways?

 

I think the answer is a given.

 

Dishonored does work in a way like this, somewhat. The runes are the "Objective", in a way. Gold could be seen as "Experience" for Equipment.

Of course, the outcome cannot be identical, the combat route perhaps lets you pick up some additional equipment or money, the sneak route could prevent, for example, the "bandit faction" from knowing you had a part to play in whatever the greater goal was, therefore you wont be instantly hated etc.. 

 

Other repercussions from this could be that when you get to the bandit leader and decide you want to kill him there are extra guards to fight becuase you avoided them on the way in.

[Sacred_Path]

And about the Call of Duty thing, that was sarcasm dude.

oh wow, thanks for clearing that up

 

Not to mention that I don't have a problem with stealth. I just don't like it's implementation. Read this.

For someone who doesn't have a problem with stealth, you've made a point of ignoring every single attempt someone made at explaining why stealth might not be too easy, or unbalanced in P:E. And by "its implementation" are you specifically referring to P:E (which we know nothing about yet) or just any other game ever that had stealth?

 

As to your points:

 

1) How do you not need stealth to avoid combat, if i.e. you have to pass under the eyes of enemy scouts through a stretch of land?

 

3) "Stealth is too easy becuz easy."

 

4) "Since stealth is easy becuz easy, it should only be rewarded if it's more effective than combat." Which would pretty much force the devs to always make the stealth option more effective than combat. Which is what you rail against. (?!)

 

5) We actually agree here. It always makes me blink when someone claims "this game is well-designed because you can play through it without ever fighting!". Which is only essential if the game has been advertised with the phrase "this is THE game for pacifists!!!1!".

[Amentep]

5) We actually agree here. It always makes me blink when someone claims "this game is well-designed because you can play through it without ever fighting!". Which is only essential if the game has been advertised with the phrase "this is THE game for pacifists!!!1!".

I would think that the statement would really be "this game is well-designed because you play through it without ever fighting" is an additive statement to the idea that the game is also able to be played through with fighting.

 

Part of the issue with trying to open up the paths of PE - as I see it at least - is that the IE games really have only one method to get through the game and that's combat.

 

And that's fine, but it also makes non-combat skills and abilities relatively irrelevant to the game. And that's also fine. The IE games were great fun. But because the game was geared into combat, the kind of things you could do with say, a thief or a smart, charming bard in P&P were non-existence (I'd go so far to say that bards suck in IE games; combat-wise they're worse wizards, worse thieves, the songs are really only useful at low level and the flexibility of the class outside of combat is lost in the IE series).

 

So now we come to PE and PE has the ability to go back and rethink the system of the game. And they have an opportunity to add value to skills that may not be useful in combat (and in fact may be useful in avoiding combat). And I think its great to look at this so long as combat isn't devalued. Having a reason to take a character who may not provide combat utility because they might provide other useful skills seems to be something worth doing, IMO.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Amen...tep!

[Sacred_Path]

I would think that the statement would really be "this game is well-designed because you play through it without ever fighting" is an additive statement to the idea that the game is also able to be played through with fighting.

 

Part of the issue with trying to open up the paths of PE - as I see it at least - is that the IE games really have only one method to get through the game and that's combat.

Different peeps have different preferences. What I wish for with P:E is a game that makes good use of combat, stealth, diplomacy, and all the flavour-y entertaining things you can do by using miscellaneous skills. If I often have the option to choose my approach, I'll be happy. I wouldn't be more happy if I could get by by doing the same thing a hundred times. IMO it makes for a very gamey feel if you can navigate a character through a war-torn world filled with monsters because he can become practically invisible or enemies are so stupid you can always talk them out of fighting even if they have the upper hand. Like I said, if the game was advertised as a game where pacifist runs are possible, then the devs had better follow up on this claim. It's not something that would entice me specifically though.

[TRX850]

So now we come to PE and PE has the ability to go back and rethink the system of the game. And they have an opportunity to add value to skills that may not be useful in combat (and in fact may be useful in avoiding combat). And I think its great to look at this so long as combat isn't devalued. Having a reason to take a character who may not provide combat utility because they might provide other useful skills seems to be something worth doing, IMO.

 

This is the real crux of the issue, and I think you hit the nail on the head. Rather than removing the thrill/benefit of instant XP from combat, more opportunities to make the array of other skills more useful/profitable should be the approach.