Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[Lephys]

^ Well, there's no problem at all with running away. The proposed example of a problem scenario was basically "What if you need to run away, and you never come back and finish the fight?"

 

So, all I was getting at was, if you only ran away because you HAD to (out of health, etc.), then what makes that anything more than a simple delay to finishing off the remainder of a group of enemies (which you KNOW you can now kill, because you already killed most of them and will be returning fully healed), which you never didn't want to kill (for fun, rewards, progression, you pick...)?

 

In other words, why wouldn't you come back? If anything, it seems like awarding you for 4 out of 5 kills actually encourages leaving the fight undone, whereas only awarding you for all 5 kills actually encourages returning to finish things. The only beneficial difference to kill-XP seems to be that you can partake in less combat instead of more and still get stuff for it, which seems to completely contradict the "you pacifists can have your objective XP, since you'll want to avoid fights, but I want to fight EVERYTHING, so give me XP even when I don't fight everything" reasoning that's been echoed several times.

 

I, again, do not think the desire to gain XP for kills, in and of itself, is flawed. But to suggest that only combat objectives awarding XP after potentially multiple kills is inherently a problem seems to go against all evidence as to the contrary.

[TRX850]

If it was part of a larger quest, then presumably you'd come back to complete that quest, and reap all the rewards available (loot, xp, intel, story advancement and so forth).

 

If you didn't come back, you wouldn't receive those rewards.  And if it was part of the main quest, then I'm guessing you'd be in limbo until you completed it and unlocked the next chapter.

[Lephys]

If it was part of a larger quest, then presumably you'd come back to complete that quest, and reap all the rewards available (loot, xp, intel, story advancement and so forth).

 

If you didn't come back, you wouldn't receive those rewards.  And if it was part of the main quest, then I'm guessing you'd be in limbo until you completed it and unlocked the next chapter.

Precisely. The argument was "But, even though I didn't complete that quest, I still did SOMEthing. I expended effort and resources, and therefore should've gotten XP for what I DID do."

 

That's why I made the big, scary dragon comparison again. Dragon takes 30 minutes to kill, and you only fight it for 20 minutes, then have to leave and never return (not the system's fault, and not any different with per-kill-XP), it's totally fine. There's no problem. But, if 20 trolls take 30 minutes to kill, and you only fight them for 20 minutes, then have to flee and never return (again, nothing's stopping you from returning, and the trolls don't even replenish their numbers like the dragon does its HP, typically), NOW there's a problem.

 

That was what didn't make any sense.

[TRX850]

I understand the dilemma. But kill xp only comes from defeating 100% of a single, individual enemy. It's how the D&D game mechanic has always worked.

 

Single powerful enemies would most likely be handled as boss level encounters though. The Guardian in IWD2 for example. And it's why there are CR stats that reflect the xp reward differently when fighting easy and difficult enemies.

 

Unless they invent a system that determines partial xp for a partial single enemy engagement, you'll still have to defeat 100% of that individual enemy.

 

Edit:

 

Partial xp for a single enemy, where you kept leaving and returning to the fight would definitely look like an exploit though, assuming both parties involved were able to restart the battle fully rested.

Edited January 25, 2013 by TRX850

[Lephys]

Unless they invent a system that determines partial xp for a partial single enemy engagement, you'll still have to defeat 100% of that individual enemy.

 

Edit:

 

Partial xp for a single enemy, where you kept leaving and returning to the fight would definitely look like an exploit though, assuming both parties involved were able to restart the battle fully rested.

 

Exactly. So, a big scary dragon that you got down to 20% health, who didn't regenerate at all, would be a direct comparison to a group of 20 enemies, of which you killed 16, who didn't come back. OR, you could have the dragon regenerate AND the 16 enemies replenish. If one is fine and the other is not, then you're using different reasoning for each situation (the dragon and the group).

[TRX850]

 

 

 

If one is fine and the other is not, then you're using different reasoning for each situation (the dragon and the group).

 

1 x Dragon = 1 enemy.

20 x Orcs = 20 enemies.

 

You must defeat 100% of a single dragon to gain kill xp.

 

You must defeat 100% of a single orc to gain kill xp.

If there are 20 orcs, this rule applies to each of them.

 

There are no special cases.

 

Dragons have a much higher CR and therefore a much higher xp reward.

Orcs have a lower CR and therefore a lower xp reward.

 

What am I missing?

[TRX850]

Is it possible we need to look at "Encounter Challenge Rating" as opposed to individual "Enemy Challenge Rating" ?

 

Is that the question you're asking?

[Lephys]

Here's my question. What's the reasoning behind 1 enemy only providing XP after 30 minutes of combat being perfectly fine, but 2 enemies only providing you XP after 30 minutes being inherently problematic?

 

"Because precedent" is not a reason. It's a choice. A choice is made for a reason. How does reason support that decision?

 

What changes for the player when something's dead as opposed to something being not-dead after the same expenditure of time, resources, and effort?

 

Here's a supporting question:

 

Why don't we say "I should receive loot upon each enemy death, rather than having to wait until combat is over to be able to loot all the bodies because the remaining enemies are still attacking me and preventing me from looting."?

Edited January 25, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

Here's my question. What's the reasoning behind 1 enemy only providing XP after 30 minutes of combat being perfectly fine, but 2 enemies only providing you XP after 30 minutes being inherently problematic?

 

"Because precedent" is not a reason. It's a choice. A choice is made for a reason. How does reason support that decision?

 

What changes for the player when something's dead as opposed to something being not-dead after the same expenditure of time, resources, and effort?

 

Here's a supporting question:

 

Why don't we say "I should receive loot upon each enemy death, rather than having to wait until combat is over to be able to loot all the bodies because the remaining enemies are still attacking me and preventing me from looting."?

 

It's not simply precedent. It's because you've "eliminated a threat". What we're really talking about here is the scale of the threat. A greater reward for a greater threat (which inevitably takes longer to overcome).

 

As you kill your way through those 20 orcs, you're gradually reducing the threat as you go, so the duration can't be compared to the time it takes to battle a dragon. It's a series of much smaller threats spread out over a long duration. Which is not the same as battling a much higher threat for a long duration. Hence the greater xp reward for defeating the dragon.

 

Edit:

 

IOW: Challenge Rating needs to be taken into consideration.

Edited January 25, 2013 by TRX850

[Osvir]

Before you figure out the challenge rating of 20 Orcs, perhaps starting with the challenge rating of 1 should suffice for now and then take "Grouped Action" into consideration based on "How strong is 1 guy?"? Gets easier to do the "1+1+1+1" thing for later, I think.

This list is also taking into consideration if the PC Party is in some ways "Standard Built" versus Enemy Party that is "Standard Built". Neither side has any Advantages or Disadvantages. Basically, 1 Orc is as strong as 1 PC in this example below, so 1 character versus 6 Orcs would be like facing 6 of your characters in terms of Strength (in essence: better run).

How strong is 1 Orc?

>> 1on1, challenging?

>> 2on1, with difficulty?

>> 3on1, start to get easy?

>> 4on1, easy?

>> 5on1, easier?

>> 6on1, don't even register because "squish"?

How strong are 2 Orcs?
>> 1on2, run?
>> 2on2, challenging?
>> 3on2, with difficulty?
>> 4on2, start to get easy?
>> 5on2, easy?
>> 6on2, easier?

How strong are 3 Orcs?
>> 1on3, run!
>> 2on3, run?
>> 3on3, challenging?
>> 4on3, with difficulty?
>> 5on3, start to get easy?
>> 6on3, easy?

 

How strong are 4 Orcs? 
>> 1on4, run!! 
>> 2on4, run! 
>> 3on4, run? 
>> 4on4, challenging? 
>> 5on4, with difficulty? 
>> 6on3, start to get easy?

How strong are 5 Orcs? 
>> 1on5, run!!! 
>> 2on5, run!!
>> 3on5, run! 
>> 4on5, run? 
>> 5on5, challenging? 
>> 6on3, with difficulty?

How strong are 6 Orcs? 
>> 1on6, run!!!! 
>> 2on6, run!!!
>> 3on6, run!! 
>> 4on6, run! 
>> 5on6, run? 
>> 6on6, challenging?
 

The difference between ("2on1, with difficulty?") and ("6on3, easy?") is that in 6on3 you can focus down 1 guy with 6 characters, whilst in 2on1 you focus down 1 guy (that might be strong) with 2 guys. That's why the challenge rating is different.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Osvir

[TRX850]

<scratches head> This is a formula for an "Encounter Challenge Rating" rather than a single enemy challenge rating?

 

You could expand on that, adding in so many more combat factors, like archers being a threat to you, but you're unable to be a threat to them, and so on. Gets rather knotty.

 

The previous discussion was about whether it's fair to fight a single enemy for a long duration and not come away with any xp. As opposed to fighting many enemies over a long duration and gaining xp per individual kill.

 

By the way, I searched the forums for "Challenge Rating" and realized there were quite a few older topics on quest-only-xp vs combat xp vs degenerate behaviour.

 

It still seems to me that the latter situation can so easily be addressed by making the reputation system an integral part of a player's choice to slaughter everything, including examples of completing a quest "peacefully" then returning and killing everything.

 

Also, with the introduction of Souls. Either have your Soul betray you for behaviour that willfully goes against quest-giver agreements (i.e. slaughtering them and all their kin), or have a "You can do what you like, but remember, God is watching" approach, which guilts a player into staying within their good/evil (and all variations thereof) chosen play style. If they handle "degenerate behaviour" this way, it allows for total choice of play style. Otherwise, they're just penalizing evil play style, which I thought we were trying to avoid this time around?

Edited January 25, 2013 by TRX850

[Hassat Hunter]

I somehow figure objective XP is easier, clearer for all parties, and making each battle affect some reputation is just silly.

 

I agree with Lephys. You're so prone on the "100XP to level up" and "threat removal"...

But with about 12-15 levels and the expected gametime the first will be pretty rare and spread out, and as for the second... there is still a threat as long as all orcs live. So I don't think it stands water that you should be rewarded for 'removing threat' when you're just thinning it instead.

[TRX850]

I somehow figure objective XP is easier, clearer for all parties, and making each battle affect some reputation is just silly.

 

I agree with Lephys. You're so prone on the "100XP to level up" and "threat removal"...

But with about 12-15 levels and the expected gametime the first will be pretty rare and spread out, and as for the second... there is still a threat as long as all orcs live. So I don't think it stands water that you should be rewarded for 'removing threat' when you're just thinning it instead.

 

Hassat, with respect, you sound like a man whose faith has been questioned. I'm not here to rattle anyone. I'm not here to be an arse.

 

I've demonstrated through rational and lateral thinking that with some of the new concepts that OE are bringing to the table, that they can address these hotly contested topics.

 

I'm a problem solver, not a sh!te stirrer. If you've read my other threads, you'd know that.

 

I'm an advocate for player choice. I'm old enough and bitter enough to see when choice is compromised via broad, sweeping comments.

 

Don't jump on a bandwagon that is unproven or easy. That way lies folly.

 

I spent twelve years as an IT professional, which ultimately means they paid me to test and break software. It's what I'm good at. It's what I look for. And reading these threads, I'm reading between the lines, putting the words into vision. Visualising the end product. Producing suggestions that encompass all play styles, and not just the lawful good ones.

 

Do I like playing the good guy? Yes. I do. But I also play Devil's Advocate and champion the arsehole. Because sometimes, we learn something about ourselves when we make different choices. Sometimes we learn something about ourselves when we're honest, and not bullied by political correctness. <-- why on earth would you want to be yourself in a game world that promotes escapism? Why would you waste that opportunity?

 

Ok, I've finished my rant now. You don't have to answer me, just answer yourself.

 

And please, read through all of these comments. You will see we are actually on the same page.

 

Have a good day, sir.

[Lephys]

It's not simply precedent. It's because you've "eliminated a threat". What we're really talking about here is the scale of the threat. A greater reward for a greater threat (which inevitably takes longer to overcome).

 

Exactly. 20 orcs is a greater threat than 1 orc, in the exact same way that 1 dragon is a greater threat than 1 orc. But it was suggested by the Advocacy of Combat Kill XP Foundation that if there are 20 orcs, it is inherently wrong to award XP at the end of the whole group "threat," whereas if you replace those 20 orcs with a single dragon (all other factors remaining equal), it's totally fine to wait until after the player has spent the time, effort, and resources necessary to eliminate the "threat."

 

So, I ask, what's the problem with considering multiple enemies (that are all engaging in the same, single combat encounter... not 20 enemies scattered across the wilderness or anything) a single "threat"? What is the player losing when he has to kill all 20 orcs for a reward that he ISN'T losing when he has to kill a whole dragon for a reward? Or, better yet, what is the difference between killing 1 orc and killing 20 orcs, besides time, effort, and resources? And if there isn't any other difference, then why is it okay, in the case of the dragon, to simply make 1 enemy take as long and as many resources to fight as 20 of another?

 

"Because he might want to not fight all 20 before getting a reward" doesn't work, unless it also works for the dragon: "Because he might not want to fight all of the dragon before getting a reward." If the dragon's fine with him, then he's willing to spend the 30 minutes and health and resources necessary to kill the entire dragon, so, if in the orc example he's not okay with spending the same amount of time in combat and using the same amount of resources before getting a reward, then we're comparing apples to oranges. The factors have to be the same for a reasonable problem to be found.

 

Let me ask you this:

 

If all our lives we had been getting XP only for combat encounters instead of each enemy, would anyone still feel that it's somehow cheating the player not to award XP upon each kill? Also, as I said before, if the player knows that killing less than 20 orcs will get him nothing, what incentive is there to ever not look at it like it's a dragon fight, and either engage them or don't? In other words, if its perfectly valid that the player should get 16-orcs worth of XP when he leaves 4 alive and NEVER comes back to kill them, ever, then it logically follows that the player should be able to kill 80% of the dragon, get XP for that, and never ever come back to finish off the dragon (the dragon would probably remain at 20% health forever, to copy the fact that the orcs don't replenish their numbers when you leave.)

 

So, I just want to know, if the kill XP necessity isn't just precedent, then what is it? Why does it matter if you've eliminated a threat or not if the threat can always be infinitely variable?

 

Also, I may be mistaken, but I believe there are some RPG systems that award XP per kill, but they don't award the XP until combat is over. Just thought that was an interesting tidbit, and I wish I could remember what game(s) I'm thinking of...

Edited January 26, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

Short answer: the greater the threat, the more unfair life is.

[Lephys]

Short answer: the greater the threat, the more unfair life is.

 

But, strangely, the more we're okay with it.

 

"7-hour, multi-stage boss fight? Totally cool. Group of enemies in a cave amounting to a 10-minute fight? CAN'T WAIT 10 WHOLE MINUTES FOR XP! >_<"

 

(I'm not trying to attack anyone. Just humorously exaggerating for the sake of the point, is all.)

[Somna]

[...]

Also, I may be mistaken, but I believe there are some RPG systems that award XP per kill, but they don't award the XP until combat is over. Just thought that was an interesting tidbit, and I wish I could remember what game(s) I'm thinking of...

Dungeons and Dragons.

 

Or if you want cRPG ones, every single Gold Box game out there, and I think a few of the early jRPGs. Also, if you run, you get 0 XP regardless of how many things you kill. However, all their battles take you to a separate interface from the main one you use to walk around -- which is probably part of the reason why XP on death will feels more natural to people in a game that doesn't do that.

[Hassat Hunter]

Hassat, with respect, you sound like a man whose faith has been questioned. I'm not here to rattle anyone. I'm not here to be an arse.

The funny thing being I'm an atheist

 

I just dont want OE to cave in to the voice of loudness in certain cases where the system thought about is a definite improvement to the system the voice wants. XP-per-kill being one example.

 

I don't want them to make one system inherently better than the rest. Even when I am going to use the system (probably wont do sneaking, it's not my way. Talking's good though).

 

Also, considering the time provided, the budget, I want a behind-the-scenes system for developers (and modmakers) that's easy to implement, control and debug. That makes balancing easier. That functionally allows those different pathways.

 

When looking at it from both player-and-developer perspective, I think, there's no reason to use XP-per-kill above Objective-XP. Atleast for the type of game OE makes (it works fine in MMO's or Diablo's or Borderlands).

I've demonstrated through rational and lateral thinking that with some of the new concepts that OE are bringing to the table, that they can address these hotly contested topics.

True.

But while it works in Freelancer, I rather also stay away from reputation requiring you to slaughter bunches of people to get the desired result. Except for those key-kills (leaders, massacaring hideouts, not just one single low-key member affecting it already).

I'm a problem solver, not a sh!te stirrer. If you've read my other threads, you'd know that.

I know. But that isn't going to mean I agree with everything you apply as "problem solved"... what for discussion would there even be if I did?

Don't jump on a bandwagon that is unproven or easy. That way lies folly.

Just because it hasn't been done on an IE-type game makes it unproven. However that doesn't automatically makes it bad. AS some people in other threads where prone to point out ("It works in Bloodlines, doesn't mean it can work on IE"). That's just a lack of vision. Yes, one is 3D and 1 person, other 2D isometric and with a group of 6. So what? Doesn't still mean there are quests, objectives, areas and enemies to overcome.

Easy can be good. Easy for the developers to add, for players to understand. All nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn't compromise gameplay. Making convoluted hard-to-understand systems can be fun for some gamers, but most generally want clarity.

I spent twelve years as an IT professional, which ultimately means they paid me to test and break software. It's what I'm good at. It's what I look for. And reading these threads, I'm reading between the lines, putting the words into vision. Visualising the end product. Producing suggestions that encompass all play styles, and not just the lawful good ones.

Well, I don't have that. I just got my experiences as gamer and noob-mod maker. Seeing what was horrbily broken (mine and lock XP in KOTOR2/BG2, the entire XP-system in general in DX:HR etc.)

I'm pretty sure most of us (a few exclusions) do read between the lines and think broader than a single encounter, and how it would impact the entire game. How the systems other produce works fine for their example, but not the whole game as a whole. And work together to overcome said problems.

Which actually was the point of the thread. To not go "Stealth is easiest path. End of story" ad continuem but to solve a fix for a problem perceived, without immediately opening the can of pandora upon the game just so someone gets "Hope".

 

Most of us look from different standpoints. Diplomacy, stealth, combat (again, a few exceptions) and want to make some sort of balance between them. Not overpowering one or the other. Light or Dark could also be a good distinction there, I agree.

And please, read through all of these comments. You will see we are actually on the same page.

I read them. But you're difficult to percieve sometimes. I pretty much go on a post-to-post basis, otherwise I completely lose track 0_o

[TRX850]

The funny thing being I'm an atheist

 

But while it works in Freelancer, I rather also stay away from reputation requiring you to slaughter bunches of people to get the desired result. Except for those key-kills (leaders, massacaring hideouts, not just one single low-key member affecting it already).

 

Hey man, thanks for replying. This ^^ thing here about reputation. I mean if your character accepts a quest, completes the quest, then returns to the quest-giver for a reward, then slaughters the quest-giver (and his people) it should negatively affect your reputation with future factions. That example is pretty much how they've described degenerate gaming. A kind of double-dipping on xp, with no consequences. But if a player knew that his/her reputation would take a dive from this sort of behaviour, and potentially mean lost future quests (and xp) then they might think twice about doing it. Degenerate behaviour is really a chaotic evil play style, because you're betraying your employer in effect, or just killing innocent people. If they acknowledged that behaviour as evil, they could let the reputation system handle it, instead of designing ways to prevent it. If you want to play a psycho nutter killing machine, you should be able to, but you also accept the consequences. I.e. don't let moral high ground affect the design of the game, let your moral choices affect your reputation. Easy peasy.

 

PS. I'm an atheist too.

[Osvir]

<scratches head> This is a formula for an "Encounter Challenge Rating" rather than a single enemy challenge rating?

 

I was just trying to figure out some sort of "How strong are you versus how strong is the opponent?". Now there's millions of other parameters that can be taken into consideration (Tactics/Spells etc. etc.) but I tried to be as simplistic as possible.

 

I think you need to define "Player" and "Encounter" before you can pit them against each other.

 

In the example I was simply going for a "Player has 100 Health and 10 Damage vs Orc has 100 Health and 10 Damage".

 

Static = "Who hits first wins"

Dynamic = Add in Tactic, Dodging, AI etc. etc. and it isn't "Who hits first" but "Who reacts first". Even if you hit first (in Dynamic) you could lose depending on AI Abilities & the usage of AI.

[Hassat Hunter]

@ TRX850

 

Sounds good to me. Of course if you get a choice in a quest, kill X or Y, it should affect reputation. And the kill-quest giver is good too.

Just not every single member in the organisation gives you a hit, even if no-one even knows who they are (like you when you start working for the, )

[Valorian]

"I mean if your character accepts a quest, completes the quest, then returns to the quest-giver for a reward, then slaughters the quest-giver (and his people) it should negatively affect your reputation with future factions. That example is pretty much how they've described degenerate gaming. A kind of double-dipping on xp, with no consequences. But if a player knew that his/her reputation would take a dive from this sort of behaviour, and potentially mean lost future quests (and xp) then they might think twice about doing it."

 

 

Indeed. Quite a simple and natural solution to the "problem", without using radical "solutions" like removing combat XP altogether.

[Osvir]

Does Combat Experience have to be = I took Bandit down, now I got more experience!!

Can it not be = I took Bandit down, now I get more [Component] that I can use to upgrade my [Gear]!

[Component] having 2 uses:

[Combat Path] = Uses this when taking down [Enemy], upgrading [Gear] progressively.
[Non-Combat Path] = Uses this when shopping after [Pickpocketing].

[Combat Path]
* Start at Square 1.
* Go out in the wilds, kill some fools. Get [Loot] (X amount of [income]+Y amount of [Component]).
* [Reputation]+[Faction] Relevant Line.
* Go to [blacksmith].
* Use [income] to buy more/upgrade [Gear] with [Component]

[Non-Combat Path]
* Start at Square 1.

* [Pickpocket] for [income].
* [Reputation]+[Faction] Relevant Line.
* Go to [blacksmith].
* Use [income] to buy more/upgrade [Gear] with [Component]

What needs to be balanced, in this case is:
* [Pickpocket] gets only [income] = To balance, let's say it gives you 50 [income] from stealing from 5 [Citizens].
* [Combat] gets [income]+[Loot]+[Component] - To balance, let's say you get 20 [income] from slaying 5 [bandits]. +[Loot] that can be sold for perhaps 10 [income] and [Component] to be able to upgrade [Gear] once.

- Non-Combat has 50 [income]
- Combat has 30 [income]+[Component]

[Component] costs 20 [income] at [blacksmith].

- Non-Combat can upgrade [Gear] twice, and keep 10 [income].
- Combat can upgrade [Gear] once, and keep 10 [income]+having 1 [Component] from earlier.

[Pickpocket] = Having a [Risk]. Picking pockets too much = Getting some form of [Heat] in a City (Guards looking for you, Ciphers "GPSing" you etc. etc. Wizards laying out traps) etc. etc. and if it goes to the extreme, a God could be introduced (plot-wise) which starts a Quest-tree and/or simply gives the Main Character a "Slap". <- That depends on what a "God" thinks about the Character stealing all the [income] from a City. The point, [Risk]-ful enough for the Player to consider "Maybe I shouldn't steal any more".

[Reputation] with [City Faction] could get super "low" but at the same time you get a super "high" [Reputation] with the [Thief Faction]. It could be a [Risk] still.

[Valorian]

"Can it not be = I took Bandit down, now I get more [Component] that I can use to upgrade my [Gear]!"

 

No. XP = XP. Loot = loot. Experience isn't loot.

[Osvir]

I know [Experience] isn't [Loot] but what is the difference?

I am also trying to view [Component] rather than [Loot], which I value as two different variables.

A. [Experience] = Get 15/150 Experience by killing that fool!
B. [Component] = Upgrade [Gear] by killing that fool!

1. [Experience] = You need to kill 10 Bandits to gain a [Level]
2. [Component] = Killing 10 Bandits progressively makes you stronger, and the Characters "Strength" would be equivalent to gaining a [Level] as seen above in example 1.

There is difference though, in [Experience] you have to take down 10 Bandits to gain a level, with [Component] you get 1/10th Level for each Bandit you slay. Going [Non-Combat] you get your [Component] from a different source and by a different style of playing.

EDIT:
You can't balance [Combat Experience] for a [Non-Combat Path] because that Path avoids Combat. You can balance [Component] to work for both Play-styles.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Osvir