Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[AGX-17]

I don't see any sense to "sneaking yields material rewards just by virtue of performing it. And everyone can do it, even a plate armored, blessed until he glows golden light paladin." What is sneaking? Trying to avoid attention, not ****ting loot.

 

 

(oh and btw, I'm a cat person too, so nothing against the furry fellas),

 

 

I am offended that you are stating that anyone who has a pet cat is a degenerate furry fetishist.

Edited January 20, 2013 by AGX-17

[TRX850]

I don't see any sense to "sneaking yields material rewards just by virtue of performing it. And everyone can do it, even a plate armored, blessed until he glows golden light paladin." What is sneaking? Trying to avoid attention, not ****ting loot.

 

 

(oh and btw, I'm a cat person too, so nothing against the furry fellas),

 

 

I am offended that you are stating that anyone who has a pet cat is a degenerate furry fetishist.

 

I see tabloid journalism is not dead.

[Lephys]

 

Current quest design involves only 1 choice: Kill the things and get XP, or don't kill the things and get XP.

Yup, you're right. Less choice. Because choosing is hard.

 

So remove the choice of engaging in combat or not, just make it a no-brainer.

 

Bah, that was supposed to be "or don't kill the things and don't get XP." Sorry about that. Simple typo.

 

I didn't mean "the currently proposed quest system." I meant "Take a quest you're in the process of ironing out the details for, because you're the developer, and what you have so far is just a quest that involves killing things, and if you don't do it, you simply don't get anything."

 

Man, that was a pretty crucial typo, haha.

 

And, TRX, my point is, from a purely logical standpoint, if it's perfectly fine to have combat only reward you after 30 minutes of continuous fighting (dragon), then what is inherently wrong with having to fight 100 orcs for 30 minutes (arbitrary example duration) instead of a dragon?

 

"Because you're killing things" is not what makes one wrong and the other fine. It's what you're deciding is a good basis for things being "okay." But based upon what actual effective difference? As I said, if "because you're killing things" was the only reason, then that would be happenstance. The devs could just say "Okay, all combat groups are replaced with single enemies. Now everything's fine." But, I bet there would still be a perceived problem.

 

That's what I'm getting at.

 

If you're absolutely fine with attempting a combat challenge that you know, up-front, isn't going to yield anything if you don't completely finish it, then why is objective-only XP problematic when they're telling you up-front "the objective that earns you XP is killing all 100 orcs"? Why is it even valid to say "Hey, wait a minute... I killed like 99 of those, and never went back and finished off the last one or even got past that whole valley, so I missed out on any content that was past that obstacle or anything. I SO should've gotten XP for those 99 kills, now that I've been lazy and changed my mind about being okay with the encounter from the get-go."

 

Fighting the dragon takes combat resources, and time, and effort, and you never get that back. Just like the orcs. However, it's okay when it's a dragon? There's only a problem when it HAPPENS to be multiple enemies instead of just one?

 

It seems like you either enjoy and want to partake in the content, or you don't, from the get-go. If you want to, then it doesn't matter to you how you get the XP (if you kill all 100 orcs, no matter what, because you don't want to NOT complete it, for whatever reason, then you get XP for all the orc deaths). And if you don't want to do it, then XP-per-kill's implementation would be the only conditional incentive to make you do it anyway. That is the definition of "grind," methinks. "Having" to do something you have no wish to do, purely for the usefulness of the reward gained.

 

Awarding XP only at the end of all 100 orcs IN NO WAY encourages you to fight some of the orcs, then not fight the rest. It either encourages you to attempt to kill all of the orcs, or to not even attempt to engage them at all. So, the "Oh no, I didn't kill all of them, but now I'm upset because I feel I deserved XP for the ones I DID kill" dilemma isn't even a problem caused by the XP system.

 

Also, I'm not even against the killing of all 100 orcs resulting in more XP than simply completing the objective (sneaking, etc. to get past them).

Edited January 22, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

My caffeine for the day might not have kicked in yet. All along I've been in favour of a combination of combat xp AND objective/quest xp. The archetypal fighter that kills everything is unlikely to gain xp for successful diplomacy or stealth alternatives, so they won't have the advantage there. I just want a system that equally rewards all play styles over the course of the game (not necessarily with each encounter, that would be a design nightmare), but I would like the xp as I go (if I choose to fight) the way it was always done.

[Amentep]

Never liked VTMB for discouraging combat approach.

I never felt discouraged from combat in VtM:B. But then if I build a character for combat, I'm generally expecting combat to be my primary means of conflict resolution - whether the game is giving me XP for every kill or not.

[Sacred_Path]

 

 

Never liked VTMB for discouraging combat approach.

I never felt discouraged from combat in VtM:B. But then if I build a character for combat, I'm generally expecting combat to be my primary means of conflict resolution - whether the game is giving me XP for every kill or not.

 

 

 

Pretty much this. Let's assume that stealth in P:E takes some specialization. I think that after the first playthrough, you'd like to try something else. Same goes for combat of course. So even if they don't achieve some mythical perfect balance, there should be enough incentives for playing the game with different approaches.

[PrimeJunta]

Yah, perfect balance -- or parity of choice if you will -- is a mirage. But if balance is good enough that there's going to be a period of vigorous discussion about which build/party is "the best" with a relatively broad spread of contenders, then that's already pretty good. Certainly way better than in most games.

 

Also VtM:B did that bit pretty well -- the various bloodlines were genuinely differentiated, and it was not obvious which clan was "best." They just had different attractions. I played with most of 'em, and enjoyed all of them, Ventrue the least though.

[Hassat Hunter]

I never felt discouraged from combat in VtM:B. But then if I build a character for combat, I'm generally expecting combat to be my primary means of conflict resolution - whether the game is giving me XP for every kill or not.

I never liked sneaking about in VTMB, so yeah, I also murdered everyone. No XP. Not a problem with it.

 

As long as it's fun.

 

And if people do want to sneak they can. I am not so petty as to suggest that they should be punished just because I like combat more...

[Amentep]

 

 

I never felt discouraged from combat in VtM:B. But then if I build a character for combat, I'm generally expecting combat to be my primary means of conflict resolution - whether the game is giving me XP for every kill or not.

I never liked sneaking about in VTMB, so yeah, I also murdered everyone. No XP. Not a problem with it.

 

As long as it's fun.

 

And if people do want to sneak they can. I am not so petty as to suggest that they should be punished just because I like combat more...

 

 

 

Oh I sneaked if my character was sneaky. Its just that for me, if I'm building a character to do certain things I tend to play them doing those certain things whether the game is going to give me XP for it or not. I may be atypical in this regard though.

[Hassat Hunter]

I doubt we at the OE boards are the typical gamers :D

[TrashMan]

If I kill half the orcs, but have to retreat wounded, and head back to town to heal up, and some lady wants her basement cleared of rats, and some girl wants her cat rescued from a tree, (oh and btw, I'm a cat person too, so nothing against the furry fellas), and some assassin ambushes me and I'm forced to fight, then the XP I would have gotten from killing half the orcs might mean the difference between levelling up and not levelling up before the assassin was part of the equation.

 

I'm not advocating that combat is the only play style that counts, it's just easier to use combat in the example given.

 

No, ti's not. You just have a very narrow view of the problem.

 

1) objective-based XP is granted upon completion of an objetive. You don't have to KILL all goblins to get XP. An objective can be something as simple as SURVIVING.

 

2) The idea that XP has to be awarded a certain way. XP in itself is an abstraction, so going that it "doesn't make sense to not get XP for killing stuff immediately" is easiyl countered by "it doesnt' make sense you get XP to use for anything other than axe swinigng" or any other kind of rationalization anyone else can make.

 

3) So what? What does the assasin have to actually do with it? If the experience from 5 dead goblins makes that much of a difference, either the game is HORRIBLEYbalanced or you suck.

 

 

The perception of being duped is that that  - your perception.

 

[TRX850]

I just meant if you are close to levelling up, say 100 xp away, it seems a bit iffy to "do a whole lot more stuff to complete the current quest" so you can get a big chunk of xp that awards say 1000 xp in one go. Why not just do it the old way, and gain smaller increments as you go? It gives the player the perception that they have more control over their character development, because as I mentioned further back, your characters are what you're really attached to in the game. And the story/quests themselves tend to come second.

 

It's not a case of having a narrow view. It's a case of recognising that character development is the product of adventuring.

[Amentep]

I just meant if you are close to levelling up, say 100 xp away, it seems a bit iffy to "do a whole lot more stuff to complete the current quest" so you can get a big chunk of xp that awards say 1000 xp in one go. Why not just do it the old way, and gain smaller increments as you go? It gives the player the perception that they have more control over their character development, because as I mentioned further back, your characters are what you're really attached to in the game. And the story/quests themselves tend to come second.

 

It's not a case of having a narrow view. It's a case of recognising that character development is the product of adventuring.

But aren't you saying then, that Character Development comes from adventuring and "adventuring" is actually killing every creature you come across (for Kill XP)? Or am I misinterpreting you?

 

To my mind character development is the choices you make as your character (and thus what choices your character can make based on race, class, skills and experience) as you move through stories and quests. Not how many orcs I killed.

[TRX850]

It shouldn't matter where the xp comes from. It was just that that example was a combat example. If you were 100 xp away from levelling up, and you managed to use stealth or diplomacy or some other non-combat method of achieving something worth experience, then why should you have to complete the whole side quest (or a sub-section of it) to gain a large chunk of xp that would take you well over the 100 xp you needed to go up a level? Why not break it up into smaller intervals, like the old way, so your character can level up *during* the quest, and not after it?

 

And I don't want to kill everything I meet. I don't know why that keeps coming up. Maybe because kill xp is usually a known quantity, whereas other types of xp awards are at the whim of the devs and not known until you actually do it.

 

My point is, quests are fine, because it's what we're doing for 90% of the game, but we ultimately do the quests so we can develop our characters. I'm not sure I know any RPGers that play RPGs who aren't interested in character development.

[Amentep]

It shouldn't matter where the xp comes from. It was just that that example was a combat example. If you were 100 xp away from levelling up, and you managed to use stealth or diplomacy or some other non-combat method of achieving something worth experience, then why should you have to complete the whole side quest (or a sub-section of it) to gain a large chunk of xp that would take you well over the 100 xp you needed to go up a level? Why not break it up into smaller intervals, like the old way, so your character can level up *during* the quest, and not after it?

Why does it matter? What if the game is similar to the Elder Scrolls and you can't level up unless you can rest in a town anyhow? Or visit a "trainer" who then allows you to level up?

 

Realistically, it actually kind of doesn't make sense to level up in the middle of battle, but its all an abstraction so I'm a bit stuck on why it matters whether you level up after completing a quest or objective in the quest or level up after whacking 5 of 10 orcs.

 

And I don't want to kill everything I meet. I don't know why that keeps coming up. Maybe because kill xp is usually a known quantity, whereas other types of xp awards are at the whim of the devs and not known until you actually do it.

It keeps coming up because one of the issues with Quest XP that I keep hearing is people want to get XP for killing things.

[Gfted1]

Why does kill EP = "Rarg, I must compulsively kill every creature in the game"? Is this another example of "cant control self"?

[TRX850]

After reading and contributing to some of the other threads, I actually wouldn't mind the option to level up either at camp or in town. But I would like to know mid-quest/mid-battle that I have enough xp to then go on and do that at the earliest opportunity if I want. But by withholding xp during a quest, it seems to limit choice when it comes to character development, in this example, levelling up.

 

It's still a case of swings and roundabouts. But this new system seems to limit *when* you can level up, which suggests having less choice.

[TRX850]

Why does kill EP = "Rarg, I must compulsively kill every creature in the game"? Is this another example of "cant control self"?

 

That's what I'd like to know. (see link)

Edited January 24, 2013 by TRX850

[Amentep]

Why does kill EP = "Rarg, I must compulsively kill every creature in the game"? Is this another example of "cant control self"?

It doesn't. But giving XP to stealth or quests doesn't mean killing is devalued either, which seems to be what we keep going on about.

 

"I should be rewarded for killing 5 orcs out of a 10 orc band even though I retreated tail between my legs and quest/objective XP won't allow that"

 

"But rewarding it that was won't allow a stealth path to be viable"

 

"But if the stealth path is viable, I won't be able to kill anything because I'll always stealth"

 

etc...

[TRX850]

Maybe because in the previous examples in this thread, people thought there would always be a combat/stealth/diplomatic solution to every encounter/task, which is unrealistic.

 

Some fights you have to fight. Some areas, you're better off being sneaky. Sometimes, words can solve problems.

 

Just not all at the same time.

[Amentep]

Maybe because in the previous examples in this thread, people thought there would always be a combat/stealth/diplomatic solution to every encounter/task, which is unrealistic.

 

Some fights you have to fight. Some areas, you're better off being sneaky. Sometimes, words can solve problems.

 

Just not all at the same time.

 

And yet...that's what we seem to keep going around and around on...

[Lephys]

Why does kill EP = "Rarg, I must compulsively kill every creature in the game"? Is this another example of "cant control self"?

 

I'm going to assume "EP" is supposed to be "XP." I'm not trying to be snide, I just am not 100% certain "EP" doesn't stand for something I don't know about.

 

It doesn't automatically mean that, just like putting in a game of dice in the tavern that awards XP instead of money doesn't automatically mean it either. But wouldn't you see a problem with a dice game that awards XP?

 

XP differs from loot and money in that it is NECESSARY in a level-based, progression-balanced game. It's integral to the progression of both the characters AND the story/challenges/encounters. Loot and money are less integral. They're more versatile, so they could be spent on things that don't directly affect character progression (which directly affects whether or not you can even complete the game.)

 

If you have 50 combat encounters tied to actual progression and accomplishment, each with 10 enemies, why does it need to be possible to kill 9 out of 10 of those enemies in all 50 instances and get XP for all of that fighting, purely for the sake of fighting, without accomplishing a single thing? It's an optional XP factory.

 

Besides, I think TRX's examples still assume an overestimation of the breadth of objectives. It's entirely possible that some quests will contain optional kill objectives. So, if there's a group of 5 goblins, what is the point in making sure the player can kill 4 of those and still get a reward? Is it logical to even want that last 100XP to level up THAT badly, just to kill the 5th goblin? And, if the only possible reasoning for choosing to combat things is:

 

A) I just love combat (it's its own reward for me, regardless of whatever rewards I get that might be helpful to the rest of the game)   AND/OR

B) I love loot and XP that I get from combat    AND/OR

C) It's required to progress the game/this portion of content and I don't mind that.

 

So, where does "But I really only want to choose to fight SOME things rather than ALL the things in a given group," fit in without contradicting the other reasons? If you hate combat, then you'll avoid any optional combat you can. If you hate it TOO much, you probably just won't even play the game (unless you're masochistic, and pay money to play games that piss you off.) And if you HAVE to kill stuff, then running away and never coming back to finish them isn't an option, unless you just quit playing the game all together.

 

That only leaves the actual desire to combat (for whatever reason... be it fun or rewards, or both, and/or optional progression.) So, why would you simultaneously desire to fight things you don't even HAVE to fight, AND not want to fight all of them?

 

In other words, even in a system that awards XP for every kill, why would you only kill 4 out of 5 things (for 200 XP) with absolutely NO desire to ever finish off that 5th thing (which would give you 50 more XP, for a total of 250), which would be significantly easier all by its lonesome than fighting the whole group was AND might even help you complete another objective for even more XP (not to mention provide you with loot and/or money, and/or enjoyment of the game's combat system)? You probably wouldn't, right? One enemy left, 50 XP, followed by potential loot and other quest objectives with no more obstacles in between your party and them? Hells yeah!

 

So, why then, if you suddenly say "Well, you kill all 5 of those guys, and we'll give you 250XP," are you going to be like "Whooaaaa... where's the incentive to kill only 4 of them?! What if I don't WANT to kill all 5, but I want to kill 4?"

 

If you don't want to kill all 5, then you must have a reason. "I had to flee and go back to town this one time" is not a reason, unless the game's so imbalanced that it takes 50 minutes and 900 gold just to return to the place from whence you fled to finish killing that 1 enemy.

 

In other words, it simply doesn't make sense to say "I'm so upset with the fact that I didn't get XP for these 4 goblins, I NEVER want to come back and kill the 5th goblin for the same amount of XP and rewards I would've gotten in a system that awards me for the first 4 goblins."

 

Lastly, in the "I only have 100XP until level-up" example, why do you desire to level up? To improve your combat capability (among other things), correct? To what end? To never fight anything else ever again? I understand the desire to not have to fight 17 groups of enemies over a 30 minute span JUST to get SOME XP. But I don't think that being too imbalanced automatically leads to the logical conclusion that the only reasonable way to balance it is for EACH and EVERY enemy to award XP upon death. As long as the game's balanced around the fact that XP isn't awarded for each individual kill, I bet you won't even notice the difference after playing for an hour or so. For realsies.

[IndiraLightfoot]

For any D&D buff, EP brings back sweet memories. Up until 3rd ed D&D it was a coin: Electrum Piece. Two EPs was one GP - Gold Piece.

 

[Somna]

 

For any D&D buff, EP brings back sweet memories. Up until 3rd ed D&D it was a coin: Electrum Piece. Two EPs was one GP - Gold Piece.

 

And hence why Experience Points is normally EXP for us, and not XP.

[TRX850]

Running away from a fight in an IE game might seem like an odd thing to some players. Personally, I prefer to finish what I started, and treat each encounter like a transaction, because unfinished business is always messy. But if you were halfway through a fight and it suddenly turned bad, you could flee back the way you came, and attempt to rest at camp or go back to town. Either way, the previous battle is unfinished, at least in terms of its design purpose.

 

Now, my question is: is it more reasonable to allow a party to flee from battle and try again later, albeit with fewer enemies, than to reload when things go bad?

 

When you flee from battle, regroup, and reappraise the situation, it demonstrates an applied strategy and that the party/player has learned something. Whereas reloading is always the easy way out. The real problem we're discussing here is whether or not the party had a legitimate reason to flee, heal and return, or were attempting to exploit the game somehow.

 

And logically, every battle the party does win will inevitably become easier towards the end of that battle as enemy numbers dwindle. Does the party suddenly have an unfair advantage because they're winning the fight?