Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[Valorian]

The difference is huge, but you're too pretty to lose sleep over it trying to figure it out. So don't.

 

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

 

[Osvir]

Oh wording~ where have you gone off to?

"What is the difference between [Experience] and [Component]?"

Is what was supposed to follow, and it does follow after the context you plucked out.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Osvir

[Lephys]

 

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.

 

 

Not that I don't think there should be times when you should be able to deceive people and kill people you just "helped," but I want it to make sense. There should be plenty of times when you simply can't do so, because your party would either abandon you for being a psycho ("But... we just totally saved those people's lives, and you chose to specifically avoid combat at all costs, and you weren't bluffing! What the EFF, man?!") or try to kill you or something, unless all the NPC companions are just cool with you being a psycho.

 

What I'm saying is, it should be clear whether or not you're choosing "My character decides to prevent a conflict BECAUSE IT IS IN HIS NATURE TO STRIVE FOR PEACE" or "My character decides simply to avoid conflict in this one instance, but only because he'll probably gain something more valuable by not-killing them."

 

Example:

 

Situation A) You promise someone you'll help get them to safety when escaping from some dungeon, but only (secretly) because they're useful in your escape (even though your character doesn't really care about their well-being, there's no reason to kill them yet). You find out they know where some valuable outpost or treasure, etc, is. When you get to the exit, after promising you'll help them find it, you kill them and take some map fragment or clue and all their belongings, because you're actually a greedy bastard.

 

Situation B) You actually let them go, and help them escape, and you're friends, and they tell you where the treasure is, and someone's threatening their family, so they need to deal with that first, and you go out of your way to help them with that (has absolutely no gain for you except kindness as its own reward, because the person and their family have pretty much no belongings except the person's immediate, decent equipment). THEN, once they thank you and wish you well, you simply turn around and slaughter them. It has nothing to do with any dialogue choice, or anything you did to indicate you wished to kill them, and now you just do.

 

Situation B doesn't make much sense. In Situation A, you're bluffing to use someone as a tool for your own gain. In Situation B, you did things PURELY for others' gain, then immediately did things that contradicted your previous actions. Again, I'm pretty sure all your companions would say "Dear GODS, man! That wasn't even a double-cross! You're just a psycho-murderer! You even HELP people, first, THEN kill them!", and probably just try to kill you on the spot (most of them. Certain ones might just shrug it off.)

 

It's basically the same premise as "You can simply kill everyone in the whole city, for no reason, at any time." If you can do that, either the entire city has no bearing on the main story, or you just essentially ended the game early.

 

Even "evil" people don't want everyone dead for no reason. They just want to control everything and gain stuff from everyone. Only psychos irrationally kill everyone for no reason.

 

 

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

 

 

I wouldn't call it a problem, as much as a completely unnecessary factor. And I have yet to see anyone suggest the removal of combat XP altogether. Merely a different method of awarding it.

 

Your advocation of per-kill XP is perfectly valid already without exaggerating the opposite stance beyond the realm of accuracy to make it seem more ridiculous.

 

 

Also, just something I thought of (in general, not in direct response to the quotes in this post), if it only makes perfect sense that you don't get XP until something dies (you remove a "threat"), no matter how long that takes, then I suppose you can't have any soldiers in city barracks or town guards training against dummies, or practicing with bows against targets, since they'll never gain any experience until they actually kill something. Training is impossible when only threat-reduction = XP. Yet another way in which the logic doesn't match up.

[Valorian]

But.. you do see the difference between hitting a dummy that can't hit you back and killing an enemy that can potentially end your life, right? You do realize that for balance reasons the former usually doesn't give XP, while the latter does?

[TRX850]

Which is why it's better to let the P:E reputation system handle a player's choices, particularly the extreme ones. If you took Option B above, then your NPCs have every right to walk away from you, providing it's obviously against their faction ideology.

 

If they all walked away, most players would simply reload and choose a less-extreme or even sensible option.

[Lephys]

But.. you do see the difference between hitting a dummy that can't hit you back and killing an enemy that can potentially end your life, right? You do realize that for balance reasons the former usually doesn't give XP, while the latter does?

 

"For balance reasons" being the key words. Meaning that we're fine with breaking from a perfectly logical system for the sake of balance. Which is why I say it's perfectly fine to say "I'd really like XP for each kill," but it's both unnecessary and incorrect to say "It's DEFINITELY an inherent, logical problem with the death of any living thing that could harm you NOT resulting in immediate XP, u_u."

 

It's completely contradictory to suggest that tons of things that should grant XP don't need to, and that's perfectly fine; meanwhile, kills are a thing that should grant XP, and therefore MUST.

 

In a system that doesn't award XP for the literal experiences of your characters, we typically set kills as XP "checkpoints" because we like it and it's convenient, not because logic dictates that we must. The possibility that more than one kill will be necessary to reach an XP "checkpoint" is a potential balancing issue, at worst. It is a concern, but whether or not it is a problem depends upon other factors.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

I want XP for learning how to take a p*ss while wearing full plate armour.

[Hassat Hunter]

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

True. If that was the "only" problem, and not one out of a dozen or 2 that are tackled using Objective-XP instead.

 

While I am certain all could be fixed while still giving XP-per-kill, the entire system would be ultra-hacky at best. Leading to bugs, difficulty for modders and developers and confused players. If it even works proper at all times (which is extremely unlikely, even after a few patches).

 

Which would be best?

[Valorian]

 

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

While I am certain all could be fixed while still giving XP-per-kill, the entire system would be ultra-hacky at best. Leading to bugs, difficulty for modders and developers and confused players.

 

Right. Because it's never been done before (xp-per-kill), let alone thousands of times, it would surely lead to bugs and player/modder/developer confusion.

 

 Such an astute guy, this Hassat.

[Osvir]

Let's take a look at it again:

[Combat Experience] = Get experience for killing.
[Non-Combat Experience] = ^What do I gain from that??

That's the problem, now, what is the solution?

EDIT: That's why [Objective Based Experience] is better because it can give to both [Combat] and [Non-Combat].

I would personally prefer if it was something like this:

[Experience] = Character Level/Spiritual Level/Life Experience etc.etc.
[Component] = Combat "Experience". How strong your gear is and how you've customized it for -your- playstyle. Perhaps you upgrade it to be more [Combat]-oriented, or you've upgraded it to be more [Magical]-oriented, or [stealth]-oriented, or [Archer]-oriented, or [scholar/Diplomatic]-oriented etc. etc. etc. etc.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Osvir

[TRX850]

For those who want to play a Blackguard for example, killing in cold blood is a legitimate play style.

 

So the design solution needs to have a combination of combat xp, quest xp, and reputation management. All three elements work together to serve all play styles.

[TrashMan]

No, it doesn't NEED to have that.

 

 

Objective XP covers everything already.

[TRX850]

No, it doesn't NEED to have that.

 

 

Objective XP covers everything already.

 

TrashMan, I really like your avatar. It's cool. I want to ask you though, if you were playing BG1/BG2 as a Blackguard and making evil or morally questionable choices, how do you think objective only xp would cover that?

[Hassat Hunter]

Right. Because it's never been done before (xp-per-kill), let alone thousands of times, it would surely lead to bugs and player/modder/developer confusion.

 

Such an astute guy, this Hassat.

Someone didn't check the BG/BG2 (especially this one)/PS:T/KOTOR unofficial patch notes to see how many XP issues where resolved. And TSLRCM can't even fix the engine-bound "place mine, go other area, return, disarm mine, XP" mechanic KOTOR2 has.

 

Yeah, the current XP systems where *just fine*...

Except for the dozens and dozens of times it horribly failed.

 

And these games didn't even try to make non-combat viable in a lot of scenario's, as per PE's design goal.

if you were playing BG1/BG2 as a Blackguard and making evil or morally questionable choices, how do you think objective only xp would cover that?

Why does evil being murder everyone?

 

Wouldn't it be more evil to do a goal to gather food for the orphanage, and instead of giving it to them, selling it for your own personal profit.

Or is evil only evil if you kill the orphanage for XP?

 

I'd personally say I rather want evil to be the first evil than the second evil. And yes, Objective XP can fit that concept and goal perfectly.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Lephys]

TrashMan, I really like your avatar. It's cool. I want to ask you though, if you were playing BG1/BG2 as a Blackguard and making evil or morally questionable choices, how do you think objective only xp would cover that?

 

Sorry, I know I'm not Trashman, but I think I have the answer.

 

What is "By simply accounting for morally-questionable objective handling," Alex.

 

That's just the thing. Killing something is only NOT an objective when it is specifically designated as such by the game's design/programming. Ending all life in the whole game world is not a viable objective (as a story generally relies upon the interaction of living entities), so even someone who wants to kill their way through every situation they can is going to be limited to only certain situations. But, IN those situations, if killing actually serves a purpose toward some end, it should probably be rewarded with XP. If you just run through the woods killing squirrels and bears, you shouldn't gain XP. Why would you even want to do that UNLESS you just happened to get XP for it, or unless you just happened to enjoy playing with the combat mechanics of the game for the sheer fun of it (in which case there's no reason to INSIST upon a reward for every single act of ending life.)

 

No one's against being able to kill more things as opposed to fewer things in an RPG and getting rewards for it. What we're against is encouraging behavior that's in no way a part of the game. There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone who runs through the forest, ridding it of all its fauna. There's just something wrong with childishly demanding a reward for every action you simply see fit to perform.

 

XP isn't candy. It serves a purpose within a logic-based system that serves as a backbone for the entire game. It'd be nice to be able to sell stuff right when you pick it up, instead of having to lug loot around that you only have for its monetary value, but I comprehend why it is that we can't do that, and that's perfectly fine with me. Even though I obtain loot for each thing I kill and loot or each chest/container I open, I can't USE it 'til I get back to a town or settlement. I'm not about to demand that we not be required to perform a certain amount of work before being able to sell things and upgrade our equipment.

 

That wasn't directed at you, TRX. I simply don't understand why people cannot see that it isn't some crazy imbalance in the game for every living thing not to instantly imbue your characters with extra skills, stats, and abilities when TONS of things in the game don't immediately give you a usable reward. And that killing things will be rewarded as an objective.

 

I challenge you to go play any other RPG (that doesn't have infinitely respawnable mobs/content) and write down EXACTLY how many times you go kill 90% of a group of enemies and never finish off the rest. And how many times you can kill PART of a group of enemies, but then LESS than 100% of that group of enemies is somehow even MORE difficult than the whole group was and prevents you from killing any more of them at all. How many times can you prove the viability of the feeble "I need XP without actually killing all the enemies within 3-feet of each other and/or accomplishing anything but the death of things!" example before you either hit a dead end or accidentally kill a whole group/complete an objective beyond sheer killing? How many levels can you gain by doing this?

 

Someone do that, post it on youtube, and then we'll have scientific evidence that the argument isn't ridiculous. If you want to play the game without ever getting anywhere, and you want XP for it no matter what, then you need a game that consists of a clickable button that says "Kill something" and a little XP counter. Every time you click the button, you get XP. There you go. That's the most perfect game design I can think of if you're simultaneously anti-progress and pro-kill-XP.

 

You could always just sell/give your copy of P:E to a friend and pick up Diablo if you don't already own it. That game's literally designed around the idea of kill XP. 99.9% of that game is killing, and the other .1% is UI.

[TRX850]

It's not about having an xp addiction. It's about allowing the reputation system to handle your choices, and affect the story around you.

 

- If I kill a merchant in cold blood, other merchants in the area may double their prices or refuse to serve me. If I am faced with the latter, I am now forced to look elsewhere to buy and sell items. So I've lost out.

 

- If I complete a quest for a neutral quest-giver (for xp), then betray him by killing him and all his cronies (for xp), then other factions aligned with his may deny me future side-quests. So I've lost out.

 

- In the previous example, I could still coincidentally kill some or all of the creatures in one of those future side-quests (for xp), but I would no longer be entitled to the finishing quest xp, because I wasn't able to establish it as a quest. So I've lost out.

 

- If I kill a local hero in cold blood, then I should expect assassins everywhere. I should expect merchants to call for the authorities. I should even expect my own companions to leave the party if it was against their "alignment" or ideology. So I've lost out.

 

See where this is going?

 

If you played the game as a law-abiding sneaky diplomat, merchants will do business with you. Friendly factions will do business with you. Local heroes may join with you or offer you clues, info, or side-quests.

 

Playing an evil hack-and-slasher means you now have to seek out darker quests and quest-givers. Shady merchants may appear. Anti-heroes seeking vengeance may enlist your services. It'd be a very different game, and the end-quest could provide some unique surprises.

 

The xp gain for these two scenarios may be quite different overall, or they may even balance out. It's hard to say without knowing how the devs will place opportunities for either situation. But at the very least, neither play style should be denied xp for their choices.

[Lephys]

I'm not against the reputation system working like that at all. That's what it's there for. To function in ways only reputation can.

 

But, in a game that requires XP (as combat is heavily prevalent as a mandatory means of conflict resolution throughout the story), you've either got to make some of the optional stuff necessary, or you've got to just make it all optional. Well, IF you're going to make any of it necessary (either an optional choice to handle an unavoidable situation, or just a single optional non-combat quest/objective that you can either do or not do, that gets you part of the XP you need to stay up to par on story challenges), you can't just offer non-XP in place of XP.

 

In other words, if you say "Oh, just let reputation be the balancing factor when XP's out of whack between combat and non-combat routes," you're going to have to allow reputation to allow that non-combat-picking player to beat the game, or make the rest of the game easier.

 

I'm not talking about non-combat people being JUST as proficient at combat as the combat people. But they shouldn't have a FAR tougher time of things just because they handled things with cleverness rather than brawn. "Chose all the non-combat options you could in branches where combat WOULD'VE given you XP? Welp, have fun being 7 levels behind the other guys..."

 

That isn't going to cut it.

 

Am I saying that every single time you award 100XP for combat, you have to award 100XP for something that isn't combat? No. But, you've gotta balance it out in the end. It's not a matter of whether or not you use XP, or loot, or reputation, or quest opportunities (which really just leads to potential XP, loot, or reputation, as far as things that actually affect balancing go). It's a matter of making sure they all balance out well when all's said and done.

 

Money is sometimes not needed or useful in progression. Loot is sometimes not needed or useful in progression. Reputation is sometimes not needed or useful in progression. XP is ALWAYS useful and needed in progression. So, you simply have to make sure you don't say "Don't worry... you'll get a yummy cookie!" to the people who choose the non-combat options YOU provided them in your game design.

 

XP is not about pleasing the player. It's the core of character/party progression. It is not a shiny. When everything else can be about aesthetics, and style, and player pleasing, and niceties, and obtaining things, XP is always about pacing and balancing progression. The only reason it exists is so that you can start the game as not uber-beings, and become better as you go (so that you're not fighting the exact same challenge factors the whole way through, and you can actually experience the progression of things and the fruits of your characters efforts and accomplishments.)

 

So, yeah, if balanced objective XP doesn't cut it, I don't see any possibility other than XP addiction. XP slot machines, baby.

[TRX850]

If I keep arbitrarily killing things (for xp), then it should close off future opportunities for me to "double-dip". So a law abiding player will get their kill/objective/quest xp, but a deviant will not. They will only get kill xp and forfeit the quest xp.

 

So it's up to them to either change their behaviour, or seek out dark quests for kill/objective/quest xp that a law-abiding type may not have access to, or may not want.

 

It's swings and roundabouts.

[TrashMan]

 

No, it doesn't NEED to have that.

 

 

Objective XP covers everything already.

 

TrashMan, I really like your avatar. It's cool. I want to ask you though, if you were playing BG1/BG2 as a Blackguard and making evil or morally questionable choices, how do you think objective only xp would cover that?

 

Easily.

Everyone has objectives.

 

It can be something as simple as "survive this battle" (even if you started it).

 

 

And technicly, if everything you do grants experience, then I see no reason why XP should be granted for KILLING an opponent as opposed to everything else..

How about hitting it? Parrying? Every time you hit = 1XP

Everything is a learning experience.

 

 

[Hassat Hunter]

You know, using ANOTHER system (in this case reputation) to make up for a failing XP-system seems... inefficient? Making things harder to balance? And to overview?

 

It's adding layers to the issue. It's what some designers indeed do, work on adding more problems on the existing problems instead of just fixing them. And all you get is a weak pyramid of cards that collapses when you touch it.

 

So, I would personally say, they should fix the XP before adding reputation affecting it. Since it's only getting downhill if 2 systems affect something, and the underlying system is proven to be very unstable and not working properly.

And fixing 2 systems, as a programmer like you should know, similtaniously will be a lot easier than to have a working foundation and fix the one system on top.

[TRX850]

Removing the kill xp option is a knee-jerk reaction to what some people are calling degenerate behaviour, when it is in fact a valid play style for chaotic and/or evil characters.

 

Kill xp isn't a broken system. Erratic player behaviour is the real issue, i.e. a lawful or good character suddenly deciding to kill a forest full of bears and squirrels for the xp.

 

The reputation system was already in BG1/BG2 etc, but it only affected things like merchants prices, whether your companions stayed with you, and how often you were confronted by the law.

 

I'm looking at page 143 of the original BG manual, which lists all the ways your reputation can suffer:

- Killing an innocent

- Injuring an innocent

- Stealing

- Killing a Flaming Fist soldier

- The "worse" your starting alignment

 

Kill xp works. And objective/quest xp works. They may require tweaking, but they are certainly not broken.

 

They've already stated they are going to use a dynamic reputation system in P:E that decides how various factions react to you, based on your actions.

 

If they use the BG system as a basis, then build on that, then that seems like the most efficient design option. There's really no need to re-invent the wheel. Only to make sure the wagon they're attached to doesn't break down at the first pot hole.

[Helm]

I see nothing has changed here much after my "voluntary" break from the forum.

The spiritual predecessors of PE (Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape Torment) were degenerate games because they all had the degenerate gaming phenomena called combat xp.

Quite ironic, seeing that they are considered to be some of the RPGs ever made. That is why PE is being made actually.

 

Ah yes, same old ****.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Helm

[TRX850]

Well I stand by my comments because I care about the Baldur's Gate legacy and have invested in Project Eternity. The developers finally have an opportunity to properly adjudicate player behaviour via the new reputation system, and allow the game engine to make some sophisticated decisions on how to react to that behaviour.

 

As an analogy: If someone repeatedly speeds past your house in their car, day after day, you don't organize a petition to close off the street or put speed bumps outside your house. You notify the authorities and they will deal with it.

[Helm]

^

I am totally on your side TRX850 and agree with you 110%

 

But about the BG Legacy you are talking about: The Mr. Lead Designer Sawyer hates BG, so don't expect PE to have much in common with one of the greatest RPG Series ever made.

 

Oh yeah, Sawyer does love Skyrim though....

[Gfted1]

That was a discouraging read.