Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[PrimeJunta]

@TRX, you're still not quite getting the problem with perverse incentives and degenerate strategies though. If killing something always nets you XP, and XP are universally desirable, then killing something is universally desirable. It doesn't matter how much you ratchet up the rewards for other skills, since using other skills + killing everything is always better rewarded than using other skills + not killing everything.

 

If you want to avoid that, you end up where that guy who looks like the paladin from BG ends up -- i.e., locking you out of areas after "completing" them, making monsters unkillable, explicitly assigning 0XP to them, or just magically disappearing them when no longer needed. Which is fiddly, complicated, error-prone, needs extra testing, and usually makes no sense for in-game reasons.

[TRX850]

It doesn't matter how much you ratchet up the rewards for other skills, since using other skills + killing everything is always better rewarded than using other skills + not killing everything.

 

That is *precisely* why it's the smart thing to do for a player who wants to maximize his character(s) development via XP.

 

I sincerely believe you have our long term enjoyment in mind. I really believe that.

 

But you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to normalize everything. If a player wants an advantage by *doing everything* then let them. Don't punish them. I keep saying this yet people are determined to use the word "balance" as justification to penalize a type of play style that will ultimately NOT AFFECT THEIR OWN GAME.

[Sacred_Path]

But you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to normalize everything. If a player wants an advantage by *doing everything* then let them. Don't punish them. I keep saying this yet people are determined to use the word "balance" as justification to penalize a type of play style that will ultimately NOT AFFECT THEIR OWN GAME.

In that case, I'd like to reference my posts about degenerate gaming. IOW, if the game becomes easier by doing every quest/ killing every foe, give an incentive to avoid this behavior as much as possible; i.e., find ways to keep track of "time spent" in a way that reflects the player's efficiency well. If he didn't take hours (= ingame months) of grinding but headed to the next boss right away, give the player a little pat on the head. Level scaling of the main quest might be another way around rewarding grinding.

[TRX850]

Why is it so wrong for a player to do whatever the hell he/she wants in their own game?

 

If this was an MMO, then I agree on the zero tolerance of exploitation.

 

I honestly can't remember who is in favour of quest-only XP, who isn't, who doesn't give a rats, and who is wiping their own poo in their hair.

 

What is the obsession with punishing someone who wants OPTIONS to play the game they paid for, the way they want to play it?

 

If they just so happen to choose a path that the devs think is the most exciting, then good for them.

 

Sometimes, after a player gets to know the game, they want to go into overdrive, or underdrive, or just-plain-weird-drive.

 

Let them.

 

IE games are pretty flexible in how you design characters and choose skills and feats and spells.  Why the hell can't it be flexible when it comes to powergaming or weirdgaming?

 

If I choose to powergame on a playthrough, are you gonna come round my house and tut tut behind me because I've optimized everything and my character levels are higher than yours?

 

Sweet Jumping Jesus.

Edited January 18, 2013 by TRX850

[TRX850]

if the game becomes easier by doing every quest/ killing every foe, give an incentive to avoid this behavior as much as possible

Er, no. This is exactly the thing I don't want to see in an RPG. Ever.

 

I want to behave as I choose in my own game, thankyou.

 

I look forward to the first "Let's Play P:E" YouTube series that isn't nerfed by "balance monkeys" interfering with a player's behaviour.

[Sacred_Path]

 

 

if the game becomes easier by doing every quest/ killing every foe, give an incentive to avoid this behavior as much as possible

Er, no. This is exactly the thing I don't want to see in an RPG. Ever.

 

I want to behave as I choose in my own game, thankyou.

 

I look forward to the first "Let's Play P:E" YouTube series that isn't nerfed by "balance monkeys" interfering with a player's behaviour.

 

 

 

 

isn't that, like, a very broad statement against balance in general?

 

edit: btw, I probably didn't express myself clearly. Let's say there's a little score you get at the end of the game (hello Might&Magic) that factors in time spent. You wouldn't be rushed through the game, you just would be "rewarded" for dealing with obstacles efficiently. No harm done to anyone.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Jobby]

I get what you mean TRX and yes choice must be maximised and the game should not be designed to force your hand one way or another, but surely lockpicking a door you have the keys to or completing a quest with diplomacy then killing the dude anyway (both of which i have done btw) aren't really choices, they're really stupid loopholes to gain extra xp that ruin immersion and encourage metagaming. 

[TRX850]

edit: btw, I probably didn't express myself clearly. Let's say there's a little score you get at the end of the game (hello Might&Magic) that factors in time spent. You wouldn't be rushed through the game, you just would be "rewarded" for dealing with obstacles efficiently. No harm done to anyone.

If the quest had a "time is money" factor, and rewarded efficiency, that's a fair reward. But I don't want to be punished if I did it in a way that maximized my combat and skill ability and cleaned the place up in the process. As far as I'm concerned, I achieved the quest, and then some.

 

I should be rewarded even more for my initiative and thoroughness.

[TRX850]

I get what you mean TRX and yes choice must be maximised and the game should not be designed to force your hand one way or another, but surely lockpicking a door you have the keys to or completing a quest with diplomacy then killing the dude anyway (both of which i have done btw) aren't really choices, they're really stupid loopholes to gain extra xp that ruin immersion and encourage metagaming. 

 

If you are awarded the XP when you unlock the door, there's no problem. As long as you don't get the XP when you find the key. That's a simple design issue.

 

If you are a successful diplomat, AND and cold blooded killer, then why wouldn't you receive kill XP? Your reputation will take a hit. There's the trade-off. Again, a simple design issue.

 

I just don't see any attraction in "bullying" a player out of XP, when they have the right to any play style they want.

 

Some of you play the cold blooded killer sometimes, no doubt.

 

People are turning a design issue into a moral one. At least in some examples anyway. Which is bad bad bad bad bad.

[Sacred_Path]

If the quest had a "time is money" factor, and rewarded efficiency, that's a fair reward. But I don't want to be punished if I did it in a way that maximized my combat and skill ability and cleaned the place up in the process. As far as I'm concerned, I achieved the quest, and then some.

 

I should be rewarded even more for my initiative and thoroughness.

 

I'd prefer if this was taken care of by giving optional objectives. Retrieve item from fallen stronghold, get reward. Drive out invaders and reclaim stronghold, get bonus.

[TRX850]

I'd prefer if this was taken care of by giving optional objectives. Retrieve item from fallen stronghold, get reward. Drive out invaders and reclaim stronghold, get bonus.

 

That's a fair design consideration. I sure hope no one wants to disincentivize optional objectives now, because shock, horror! they might reward additional XP.

[Hassat Hunter]

Making sneaking a risky endeavor would be another.

I don't believe Stealth is the "I win" button most make it out to be.

 

As stated, you need to invest in it. Wear less armor. Etc.

If you fail, you're in a bind. It's not as riskfree as others want you to believe just to sell their "stealth is the only way to play this game" misguided idea, in order to pronely put combat on a number one spot.

 

Because we all know grinding makes games better, right?

[Hassat Hunter]

If they ditched the "Quest only XP" and awarded individual task XP, you could do everything you describe here, and it should be an awesome experience.

Ehm, 'individual task XP' IS "Quest XP"... a better phrase would be "Objective XP" really (it's just longer and has not such a nice ring to it, but more properly reflects the system PE uses).

 

You aren't just rewarded for quests, but objectives. And that can include finding areas, proceeding along (like the next level of a dungeon) or, well, anything really.

 

The sky's the limit.

 

EDIT:

Oh, I guess I misread and you mean XP per every task you do. A bit like the Elder Scrolls principle. Yeah, rather not. Rewarding everything, from combat to locks to talking to picking flowers only makes people need to do tasks they don't want to to advance. Something that's exactly the opposite from what's intended, that people can play how they want and are not forced to abandon their style and play otherwise, accept tasks they don't want for XP. Making the game more fun, not a job...

Edited January 18, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[PrimeJunta]

But you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to normalize everything. If a player wants an advantage by *doing everything* then let them. Don't punish them. I keep saying this yet people are determined to use the word "balance" as justification to penalize a type of play style that will ultimately NOT AFFECT THEIR OWN GAME.

I have no desire to stop players from getting an advantage by "doing everything." I'm just changing the definition of "doing everything" from "pick every lock, untrap every trap, kill every monster" to "achieve every objective."

[PrimeJunta]

That's a fair design consideration. I sure hope no one wants to disincentivize optional objectives now, because shock, horror! they might reward additional XP.

In case you were wondering, I like objective-XP precisely because it's a great way to encourage players to pursue optional objectives. IOW, have no fear on that score.

[TRX850]

Rewarding everything, from combat to locks to talking to picking flowers only makes people need to do tasks they don't want to to advance. Something that's exactly the opposite from what's intended, that people can play how they want and are not forced to abandon their style and play otherwise, accept tasks they don't want for XP. Making the game more fun, not a job...

I wasn't suggesting XP for every tiny interaction. Just the choices or skill checks that avert non-trivial threats or gain non-trivial items/info. And of course combat XP.

 

And I think people are assuming way too much when they suggest that other roleplaying elements would be boring or no fun.  If there's a design element that has no purpose in the game, then that's one thing. If it's a design element that allows you to roleplay, well then, roleplay. It's what the RP in RPG stands for.

Edited January 18, 2013 by TRX850

[PrimeJunta]

What a strange trip this topic has been. I think I'm about done with it. Now all you guys have to do is convince JE Sawyer.

 

Here's another one of my cat. She finds the whole discussion very bizarre and thinks we'd be better off just waiting for the game to be released and seeing how it turns out. Also, meow, and more toona.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

 

 

And for the record, I admire your argument. I wish a few more of us cared so much about other players' experiences.

It's the job of the devs to do this. That is to say a lot of us make our arguments while trying to look at the problem from the designer/developer's perspective. That is why some of us come to similar conclusions to the devs.

 

 

Indeed.

I generally also look at the issue not from a gamers stand, but also developer.

 

And for developers, there's a LOT to gain. It's easier to implement, balance, test, create. Allowing the use of more precious time to other systems and developments. Also helping gamers.

 

But from a gamers point it's good too. As stated, no need to grind all locks/mines/enemies etc. just to keep up. More options for the player to roleplay. The more players can enjoy a game the better no? Also, what's a system that is complex, but still easy. Aside from the difficulty adding 10 different XP's and then modifying them on the row when stuff happens, how do you explain to players how the system works.

 

Imagine the fireball damage saying 10. Clear, no?

Now it says "10. -2 if in water. -2 if in the air. If used after another fireball +3. +2 while on fire. If the enemy is already burning 0. If the enemy is iced 20. -4 if you cast any fire-based spell in the last 45s. +2 if you wear magic robes."

That's... just too much, wouldn't you agree?

[Hassat Hunter]

It doesn't take into account changing loyalties from either the players or the quest-giver, during the quest itself.

 

What if you learn part way through the quest that the quest-giver is in fact the enemy, and instead of returning the Holy Shamoly Bastard Sword of Unpleasantness to him, you want to use it against him and nick his stuff? That's not 100% completing the quest, in favour of something arguably more appropriate.

I'm going to assume you have little experience with OE. Or RPG's in general.

 

Quests aren't simple "give X to Y", they allow multiple paths, solutions. If you discover the quest giver is the enemy, and you kill him... congrats... Quest completed.

I'm not sure why you think OE is such a newbie gamedev that this would instead lead to a quest failure and no reward.

 

EDIT

Also, AGAIN, "quest XP" is really "objective XP"... it's not awarded ONLY for quests, nor only at the end of them.

If the quest is very long and hefty (like the MQ) there will be several objectives inbetween who give XP rewards. So abandoning a quest halfway could have still benefitted you, depending on the quest.

Why I have to explain this to someone who played Vampire: Bloodlines, though, is beyond me... (or maybe I am confusing you with someone else)

Edited January 18, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[TRX850]

 

It doesn't take into account changing loyalties from either the players or the quest-giver, during the quest itself.

 

What if you learn part way through the quest that the quest-giver is in fact the enemy, and instead of returning the Holy Shamoly Bastard Sword of Unpleasantness to him, you want to use it against him and nick his stuff? That's not 100% completing the quest, in favour of something arguably more appropriate.

I'm going to assume you have little experience with OE. Or RPG's in general.

 

Quests aren't simple "give X to Y", they allow multiple paths, solutions. If you discover the quest giver is the enemy, and you kill him... congrats... Quest completed.

I'm not sure why you think OE is such a newbie gamedev that this would instead lead to a quest failure and no reward.

I gave that example because in traditional IE games, the quest-giver tends to remain neutral throughout. And since they've discussed using a dynamic reputation system in place of alignment, I actually thought the devs might take advantage of that and allow the party reputation to dynamically affect everyone in the game, including the quest-giver. But I see your point. They would still anticipate quest-giver-death as one possible outcome and adjust the quest and reward potential accordingly. So I stand corrected.

[TRX850]

EDIT

Also, AGAIN, "quest XP" is really "objective XP"... it's not awarded ONLY for quests, nor only at the end of them.

If the quest is very long and hefty (like the MQ) there will be several objectives inbetween who give XP rewards. So abandoning a quest halfway could have still benefitted you, depending on the quest.

Why I have to explain this to someone who played Vampire: Bloodlines, though, is beyond me... (or maybe I am confusing you with someone else)

I have never played Vampire: Bloodlines.

[TRX850]

Caaaaaaaake!

 

Cake for everyone!

 

Come and get your caaaaaaaake! 

[Helm]

Caaaaaaaake!

 

Cake for everyone!

 

Come and get your caaaaaaaake! 

Wut? What happened?

[TRX850]

Wut? What happened?

I'm not exactly sure. All I know is there's cake!

[Helm]

 

Wut? What happened?

I'm not exactly sure. All I know is there's cake!

Ahh, ok. Me an Greenballz    will have a slice then.