Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[Valorian]

 

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.

 

 

 

1) Excellent argument against kill XP!  ...   Not.

 

Every possible element of the game can lead to bugs. Should we remove companions, factions, spells, abilities...? Because, bummer!, they all cause lots of bugs.

 

 

2) Excellent argument against kill XP yet again!  ...  Not.

 

You'd get no combat XP for killing defenseless children in an orphanage.

[Lephys]

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.

 

Nope. It's exactly this simple:

 

Kill XP = "I want to award XP for the death of things."

Objective/quest XP = "I want to award XP for things that I designate as accomplishments that warrant XP gain."

 

What do ALL of the above have in common? They're all actions/events/phenomena that you, the designer, decide you want to award XP for. So, at the very least, its unnecessarily complicated to have a system that denotes kill XP as separate from objective XP.

 

That's what the decision's about. In fact, I'd say that the only arguments against the use of objective-only XP, so far, would be more accurately described as knee-jerk reactions to a simple change to a familiar system, out of sheer worry at potential imbalance. That's why all the example situations presented in order to point out the "flaw" in the objective-only XP system have been quite impractical, at best. Unless you believe they're going to have Diablo-style dungeons/areas simply teeming with living things awaiting sweet, sweet death, which will take up all your time and effort at the helm of your keyboard and mouse and never give you anything for your troubles.

 

Which, again, would be a balance issue, not a system issue. The system doesn't cause any problems that aren't fixable without amending the confines/capabilities of the system. Not that anyone's pointed out so far, at least.

[TRX850]

I will probably play the law abiding citizen-turned-hero on the first playthrough. And I will make all the obvious "good" choices. And I will want to complete all my quests like a good little adventurer.

 

On the second playthrough, I might want to play a chaotic bull-buggering lunatic. But wait! I can't! There's no incentive to do nasty stuff, because the core mechanics assumed I would play nice.

 

Oh well, they just wasted all that time and money putting in a reputation system that could measure behaviour, but it'll always be lop-sided towards good. And everyone will be standing around, scratchin' their arses wondering how *that* could have happened.

 

And the silly thing is, there will be an "XP Mod" to fix it, released within a week. Because that's what modders do. They tweak games the way they should've been tweaked in the first place.

 

Sad.

[Lephys]

^ I'm truly failing to comprehend why you continuously reference things that aren't mutually exclusive to objective-based-XP.

 

You can make the reputation system do whatever you want. You can also make XP do whatever you want. I'm not seeing the restrictions here. o_o

 

Also, an XP "fix" mod would need to re-balance the entire game. If they want to do that, then awesome. But it's not going to "fix" anything that wasn't already imbalanced in the first place, which has nothing to do with the method of awarding XP, and everything to do with what you decide to award XP for, and what you decide not to award it for.

 

I don't know if we'll be getting XP every time we finish a dialogue with someone in a chain of quest-related dialogues, but I'm not automatically worried that this means we'll have to go 3 hours of dialogue without getting XP, or that I simply won't be awarded an amount of XP that's proportionate to the resource requirements of my accomplishment.

 

Since text tone is iffy, I'd just like to re-iterate that it is not my intention to simply antagonize. I just don't see how any of the referenced problems are inherent to the decision to designate tasks/accomplishments as "objectives" in order to handle the distribution of XP in an RPG.

[TRX850]

I don't want xp for every little thing. I'm saying if you want to play badass, you shouldn't be tied to *only* the quest objectives defined by quest-givers.

 

If you hack up a forest of bears and squirrels for the xp, you'll likely attract the notice of druidic factions looking for answers.

 

If you hack up a few merchants for the xp, you'll likely attract anything from law enforcement to assassins following you around.

 

Neither of those scenarios might be a game objective, but you should still have the option of doing it, *if* it's in your character's nature to do so.

 

My worry is that a certain level of morality will unintentionally go into the core mechanics, when that area in particular should remain unbiased. Anything to do with good and bad behaviour should go into the content only, and be handled by the reputation system. Core mechanics should be robotic and unjudgemental. Otherwise there's no point in a reputation system.

[Lephys]

No one has yet decreed "all objectives should be generated ONLY by quest-givers, u_u."

Also, I don't see why random fauna should award XP any more than random fauna should drop money and weapons. Which is yet another way in which objective-base XP comes in handy.

Did you run around in the forest for 6 hours and found 3 random bears catching fish by the river and slew them? Well, you don't get XP, because what challenge was a bear that has no armor or weapons of its own, was caught completely off-guard, and probably took a couple of good sword stabs or arrows before it ceased to live?

Alternatively, did you find a cave in the woods in which dwelled 10 bears? Did you fight your way past them (they were desperately protecting their cavey home) to get the journal off the dead guy in the back of the cave? Congratulations! You not only overcame an actually-challenging combat scenario, but you also accomplished something else constructive toward then entire story/progress aspects of the game! 8D You get XP!

Granted, I'm not against you getting SOMETHING from random fauna (like crafting components, or... whatever you can think of, really), and for it affecting reputation. Again, completely separate matters. There are hundreds-upon-hundreds of other scenarios in which you can play a murderous Mister McFightyGuy if you so choose.

The question is this: IF those random forest creatures didn't give you XP, would you still even worry about killing them, ever? If they gave you nothing at all? Probably not. Would you even care if the forest was populated with random animal mobs if they didn't give you anything? No. I mean, maybe for immersion's sake, but you wouldn't really care whether or not you could fight them. Fighting them would be immersive at best, and annoying at worst.

Hey, if someone wants to run amok slaying bears and squirrels, then I'm all for the game letting them. But, there's a difference between something being doable in the game, and something being a viable means of actually progressing in the game. Killing random things that happen to be alive, for absolutely no other reason (they're not in your way, they're not carrying valuables, no one sees you do it so your reputation isn't affected, etc.) simply does not need to affect your progression through the level system.

 

That and only that. Can every single thing you're allowed to attack and kill have some kind of impact on something in the game (besides just "Yay, that happened to be fun because I prefer combat mechanics, 8D!")? Sure. But it doesn't need to be XP. You can have some group of druids hate you for killing animals (and, like I said, ideally there's some other reason for killing animals than simply pissing off druids), or you can have the druids not care one way or the other. That has nothing to do with whether or not bears and squirrels are an XP objective. No one said "only objective-based reputation!"

 

Again, XP is not a cookie. It is directly tied to accomplishments within the game. There have always been things that you couldn't kill or that didn't give you anything (or that gave you like 7 XP when you needed 28,000 to level up, which is basically the same thing as nothing, in the grand scheme of things) throughout RPGs. But now, people are seeing "Some things won't necessarily award you XP just for killing them," and everyone keeps imagining scenarios from games specifically designed to factor in per-kill-XP, simply with all the per-kill-XP removed.

 

P:E will be designed with their method for awarding XP in mind. Meaning, again, that if you kill a random bear in the woods, that might not be deemed an objective. But, if you encounter 5 tents and a campfire surrounded by a group of bandits, killing them all would most likely be an objective, among other things.

[TRX850]

It's ok that we can agree to disagree on this topic. That's cool. But I fear that you're still missing what I'm saying.

 

In your above example, you're pre-applying logic and rationale to illogical and irrational behaviour, and discounting that from the core mechanics. Whilst I don't condone bad behaviour in the real world, you should still have the option in the game world to act irrationally (if you're playing chaotic or evil for example) provided there are consequences.

 

So instead of pre-judging the killing of random bears as non-sensical or irrational, you simply apply the same core mechanic, like the bear's CR vs your party's power level, and let the core mechanics deal with xp. It might be low. It might be zero. That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that your chaotic character should never be penalized for acting chaotically.

 

Edit:

 

That's what the reputation system is for.

Edited January 29, 2013 by TRX850

[Lephys]

We're not agreeing to disagree, though. And I'm sorry to say that you're still misunderstanding me, which is why it seems that I'm misunderstanding you.

You're applying "XP is used to favor a choice" rationale, rather than "XP doesn't need to even be used like that" rationale that I emphasized.

In no way did I express any desire to punish the slaying of random woodland creatures (which seems to be our current mechanic/gameplay sample).

If you had a game that required your character to have a golden ticket to get through a toll booth at some point, then you'd have to make sure that, by the time they got to that toll booth, they can acquire a golden ticket. Therefore, maybe you have a couple of different ways they can get that ticket, but they only need one. If you say "Hey, you should be able to slaughter all the people in the town, if you want. Doesn't matter if they're innocent or you have a reason for it, you can totally do that." That's fine. But, how much sense would it make to say "You know what? Every one of them drops 100 golden tickets! 8D!"

Or better example, what if everything you killed gave you +1 maximum HP? It's a conflict of interest, is what it is. You probably wouldn't want to award maximum HP for the simple action of killing a thing that had a life bar. It would be silly.

Now, if you're off to go actually do something, and you happen to want to kill bears along the way, then you'll get XP because you're actually making progress toward tougher challenges, quests, and objectives, which are sequential to some degree within the overall game. And yes, if bears and squirrels are in the game, I think it should be for more than just immersion ("Oh look! They're so cute! But you can't even interact with them in any way, shape, or fashion.").

I don't know how to specify the exact mentality I'm pointing out is bad. It's the difference between:

"Those bears that you've already put in the game should serve a purpose, and I should be able to kill them because they're living creatures. YOU WANT TO ARBITRARILY DISCOURAGE KILLING!"

and

"There were only 5 bears for me to kill, and they only gave me 15 XP a piece. You should've put infinite bears there! There should be bears for me to kill and XP to gain simply because I want to kill bears and gain XP for killing bears! YOU WANT TO ARBITRARILY DISCOURAGE KILLING!"

 

 

I know that's an extreme example (I'm not saying you're suggesting those exact words or anything), but I don't know how else to make sure I stressed the exact line of thinking I was trying to stress.

 

I mean this in the most literal, precise way possible: Sometimes you should get a reward for killing things, and sometimes you shouldn't, in the exact same way that you should sometimes get a reward for not-killing things, and sometimes you shouldn't. And even when you do (with both types of action), it doesn't always need to be XP. XP serves a very specific purpose. It can partially be a reward, in a way, but it's never ONLY a reward. It is always a progression-manager, no matter what other function it ever serves.

 

So, deciding what does and doesn't get XP is a COMPLETELY separate choice from deciding whether or not to balance the viability of stylistic/preferential/behavioral decision options available to the player.

 

Does that make sense? More details/factors are required than "something had a heartbeat, and now it doesn't" to grant XP, because there are specific reasons to implement living entities in RPGs besides just "so that it can be killed for a reward."

 

 

TL;DR version: There's a difference between penalizing a specific instance of chaotic behavior, and simply not-rewarding a specific instance of chaotic behavior.

 

Or rather, I believe chaotic methods should be rewarded just as ordered methods are, not chaotic actions and ordered actions.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Lephys

[Helm]

[PrimeJunta]

Helm cannot into reading. (

[Helm]

Helm cannot into reading. (

PrimeJunta cannot into writing.

 

[PrimeJunta]

Helm can't into internets either, apparently.

 

Edit: Fuuu, urbandictionary+PHPbb can't into query strings with spaces, escaped or not.

Edited January 30, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Helm]

lol, that has to be the stupidest entry in the urban dictionary.<br /><br />What is even more ridiculous is that you expect everyone to know this entry.

[PrimeJunta]

I expected you to understand the meaning. If you hadn't come across the expression before, you'd recognize it the next time. Pointing it out to you explicitly is just a public service I do out of the kindness of my heart.

[Helm]

Out of the kindness of your heart? O rly? You just said I "can't into internets", because I did not know that urban term.

 

But I'll let it slide. Again... No need to dig deeper.

[PrimeJunta]

Yes, I'm a very kind person. Some people need tough love though. In this case, I'm teaching you a valuable life lesson about behavior. You thought you were making fun of my poor English. I repaid this with two kindnesses, first, educating you about an Internet idiom you didn't know about, and second, doing so in a tone that reflected your attempt at mockery right back at you.

 

We'll have you fit to move out of your mom's basement yet, never fear.

[Helm]

Hehe.

 

Well, I see this isn't going anywhere, you are just trying to pick a fight. Well, I am not interested in your cat fight. later PJ.

[Lephys]

Hehe.

 

Well, I see this isn't going anywhere, you are just trying to pick a fight. Well, I am not interested in your cat fight. later PJ.

 

Crap, he's left? Now how are we ever going to know how inevitably horrid P:E is going to be, as well as the extreme folly of our discussive, discussive ways?

 

... I'm... I think I'm going into withdrawals...! *hugs knees and rapidly rocks back and forth*... o_o... I'm starting to forget whether or not Josh Sawyer hates all the Kickstarter backers, and whether or not non-combat options are always going to be the best choice! I need a reminder, STAT! I need a fix!!!

[Osvir]

Some drive-by thoughts for a Wizard whilst playing TES: Arena.

* More methods for Sneaking:
Float/Levitate = Shouldn't make a sound (except when casting spell). A "Tenser's Floating Disc", used to transport several members without a sound through a dungeon?

[Lephys]

^ I've always loved Tenser's Floating Disc. And whenever we played D&D, I always tried to figure out how to use spells like that in a variety of ways, haha. I think I mentioned it before, but I once used Disguise Self (I think that's the spell name) to make myself appear to be a skeleton, then Mirror Image to make myself appear to be a bunch of skeletons. I proceeded to confuse the hell out of some necromancers.

 

In a lot of cRPGs, stuff like Mirror Image gets reduced to the purely-combat-oriented effect of "There's now a chance for the enemy to attack not-you, increasing your chances of avoiding damage." And with the floating disc, it tends to be simplified to "Now you can carry more stuff."

 

I also love how it was always parallel to the ground, so everyone would slide off if you took it up stairs, ^_^

[Osvir]

Furthermore, Mirror Image thoughts (sparked reading your post):
* If P:E uses Tiles, could a Mirror Image~similar or equivalent spell, cast an illusion on the walls all around? Giving that "endless" mirror effect, making the enemy lose Morale+Attacking walls/floors/roofs wildly and you can either leave him there in his manifested madness or take him out easily.

Another Stealth method would be to cause some sort of "ruckus" by throwing an illusion spell on one guy, making him attack his bro next to him. That should call lots of Guards surrounding the "mischief" you did to go to this location, to put the raging guy down.

Basically setting up a "Guard AoE Beacon" that draws in surrounding guards allowing the Player to sneak by even further ahead, however, on the way out the area should be re-patrolled. Though you could exploit it easily, unless some sort of "Once a Day" ability.

[Ffordesoon]

I would like for the game to be good.

 

/thread

[Ffordesoon]

Oh, also? I am very very tired of reading Helm's one post about how his cousin's sister's brother 's roommate's orthodontist saw Josh Sawyer eating straight from a trash can, so can he stop posting it, please?

[Lephys]

I would like for the game to be good.

 

/thread

That might be a problem, since P:E won't have a moral-ometer. The game's "alignment" will really be dependent upon its choices and actions throughout its entirety. If it DECIDES to crash on you all the time, then maybe it's evil. But it could always later decide to stop crashing and begin functioning flawlessly.

[Helm]

Oh, also? I am very very tired of reading Helm's one post about how his cousin's sister's brother 's roommate's orthodontist saw Josh Sawyer eating straight from a trash can, so can he stop posting it, please?

You forgot my parents, they saw it too.

 

You know, of he who hates Baldur's Gate but loves Skyrim.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Helm