Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[Helm]

 

 

Not saying that's what I want, but I could see it being done.

I wonder why....

 

I'm crazy?  They're already doing it?  You can't leave me hanging like that...!

No, you're just a crazy fan like me.

 

TRX850 already answered it though. This is still an RPG and you need xp points to level up.

 

Sure, some quests could reward you with something other than xp (for whatever reason), but that is besides the point.

[Ffordesoon]

@Helm:

 

Funny, because when I think of RPGs, the IE games and Fallout are the first ones that come to mind. Certainly, I consider them the pinnacle of the Western approach to the genre. Not that you'll believe me, because why should facts get in the way of your childish vendetta against Josh Sawyer for not designing his game to your exact specifications.

 

I did quite enjoy Skyrim (which I fully expect you to cite as "proof" that I "don't understand" RPGs, because you are bad at reading), but I would readily admit it has serious problems with its RPG mechanics. I wouldn't call them fatal by any means, but they do impact the game.

 

I would also call Skyrim an RPG, because that's what it is. By my reckoning, any game in which you define a character in whole or in part is deserving of the term RPG. It may not be a particularly deep RPG when considered solely as an RPG, but it is an RPG. Even you said that building a character is the key part of an RPG. You build a character in Skyrim.

 

Yes, every character ultimately ends up becoming a generalist, but that is a problem with the way leveling works in Skyrim, not a reason to disqualify it from being an RPG. A generalist in Skyrim is still a character who has been defined by the player; two Level 70 generalists that serve the same function in combat might not have the exact same perks checked in their perk trees, and thus one is only pretty good at melee combat while the other's great at it. That is a difference between the characters. It is not a large difference, but it is a difference.

 

I do like that you skipped over my actual substantive points and called them "a bunch of BS." I'm going to take that as an admission of defeat.

 

Finally, you appear to have misinterpreted (quite deliberately, I assume) my answer to your question. I said that I would be willing to try a system that doesn't give you XP for anything. Whether or not I would want such a system in PE is a different question, one to which I would answer firmly in the negative. Kill XP is not important to maintaining the integrity of the IE experience; quest XP absolutely is.

 

Alright, go on, dig the hole deeper. I'll wait.

[Helm]

Even more senseless  BS

More from the whining and taunting troll I see.

 

You don't even respond to what I write, you just pull nonsense out of your ass. I write 3 sentences and state how you have no idea what you are talking about and you just write 5 paragraphs full of taunts/insults and how awesome Skyrim is.   hehe. Not to mention that your comprehension skill is absolutely abysmal.

 

Look, I know this is really, really hard for you to understand, but a RPG has XP (in some type of form). Even in Skyrim you have XP (learning by doing). Anything else and it is not an RPG. I am trying to make this clear to you but you refuse or can't seem to understand. I am really starting to think that the latter is actually the case.

 

And yes, although Skyrim is a mediocre game, it is (probably) the most dumbed down and worst RPG ever made... So I am really not surprised that you think it is an awesome "RPG".

[Lephys]

I know you mean that. But you admit that only sometimes. However I say, that the promise of fun should always lurk there in each potential combat. Removing XP and mob loot makes it less likely and achieves something like “aaaa, goblins again, that’s boring, lets sneak past them”. At the end you will end up in an adventure type game where the essence is in the story and in game choices/decisions. I’d say that’s not the aspect which made the mentioned CRPGS so attractive.

It's true enough that removing combat XP and "mob" loot would be problematic. That's precisely why I don't recall ever advocating that. Ever. *shrug*

Who said that we only want combat xp and no quest xp?

 

For the 100th time, we want BOTH.

Who said you didn't, much less said it 100 times? o_o

[Ffordesoon]

@Helm:

 

See? You're bad at reading.

[Bitula]

I also like Skyrim for special reasons. But who would care to buy an isometric version of Skyrim type game. Dumbing down both graphics and mechanics is too much. It’s like retro for graphics but modernization (“streamline”) for mechanics and game play. No thanks.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Bitula

[TrashMan]

I personally like Skyrim. It is a good RPG, but a different type of a RPG.

 

 

A RPG stands for Role Playing Game - as long as you are playing a role, it technicly is a RPG.

It doesn't technicly NEED XP or stats. Frankly, it might be interesting to try a game like that.

 

This is one of the reasons I don't consider JRPG's as true RPG's - they may have interesting stories and characters (sometimes) but you don't really play a role. You play BATTLES. The characters are completely pre-defined in personality and there is nothing to play or decide.

 

Not to say that makes them bad games - quite the contrary - but definitions exist for a reason.

[Bitula]

I personally like Skyrim. It is a good RPG, but a different type of a RPG.

 

 

A RPG stands for Role Playing Game - as long as you are playing a role, it technicly is a RPG.

It doesn't technicly NEED XP or stats. Frankly, it might be interesting to try a game like that.

 

This is one of the reasons I don't consider JRPG's as true RPG's - they may have interesting stories and characters (sometimes) but you don't really play a role. You play BATTLES. The characters are completely pre-defined in personality and there is nothing to play or decide.

 

Not to say that makes them bad games - quite the contrary - but definitions exist for a reason.

Defining a game genre by its title or a label on the intro screen or CD BOX is meaningless. I would just then say that the old goldbox games (like Pool of Radiance), BG, IWD etc. were not that much RPG as you would imagine. And I want those sort of games, not a game conceived from analyzing the words in the abbreviation called RPG.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Bitula

[Helm]

@Helm:

 

See? You're bad at reading.

The only one with terrible comprehension skills is you. Not to mention that you have no idea what an RPG is, or actually like what distuinguishes an RPG. And now that you have run out of ridiculous arguments you have resorted to pure taunting. lol. How lame.

 

Well, at least you seem to have realised that you have no idea what you are talking about and have stopped writing endless posts full of utter BS.

[Helm]

A RPG stands for Role Playing Game - as long as you are playing a role, it technicly is a RPG.

It doesn't technicly NEED XP or stats. Frankly, it might be interesting to try a game like that.

 We already have that, Zelda is a good example. Zelda has progession but it is not an RPG, it is an ARPG (Action RPG).

 

RPGs have XP points or a very similar mechanic.

[Ffordesoon]

@Helm:

 

No. You're the one who seems determined not to read your own posts. Why should I bother replying if you don't know or care about what you just said?

[Helm]

Yeah, your comprenhension skills are truly absolutely abysmal.

 

But it is interesting to watch you try to squirm your way out after writing so many ridiculous posts.

[Lephys]

Yeah, your comprenhension skills are truly absolutely abysmal.

If his comprehension skills are so terrible, why do you keep repeating things you're CERTAIN he will be incapable of comprehending?

 

Wait, don't tell me... my inquiry skills are truly abysmal?

[Ffordesoon]

@Helm:

 

You're right, we're all too stupid to understand you. I mean, we don't understand RPGs, right? Just like Josh Sawyer who hates BG2 and loves Skyrim and I heard he punched a baby just for looking at him funny. We all want RPGs to be action games with twitch combat like Skyrim which Josh Sawyer who is a terrible human being likes, right?

 

Why can't me and Josh and Lephys and all the other people who are definitely conspiring to bring about the fall of RPGs just shut up and let you take over? I mean, you are a genius who knows what an RPG is and what it isn't, there's no question of that. Why do simpletons like us always stand in your way? Ah, if we would just listen, we would see that you, o warrior-poet, are a light shining in the darkness, a way through the neverending tempest that is this sad life!

 

It must be so frustrating to be a scholar of your caliber! It's no wonder you're so absurdly condescending to everyone who doesn't agree with you - I mean, it's gotta be tough among us proles, yeah? If we would just accept that the definition of an RPG is whatever you like at any given moment, such wonders we could create! Characters making wise decisions and showered with kill XP for that wisdom! Limited inventory space to reward wise decisions! Enemies that look exactly like Josh Sawyer who hates BG2 and loves Skyrim and may or may not be the son of the devil!

 

Gosh, it makes me weep just to picture it...!

 

Oh, if only we understood that an RPG is about building a character! If only we realized that loot and experience points are a reward for making tactically sound decisions! If only we could see that character skill should matter more than player skill in a real RPG! If only we knew the pleasures of a narrative that rewards choice with appropriate consequences! If only we enjoyed satisfying, tactically complex combat!

 

But, alas, we do not. How could we? We're so stupid! Not like you, o mighty prophet, wisest of the wise, bravest of the brave!

 

But there is hope, my lord! Josh and Lephys and myself resolved to enter into a secret compact with you at the last meeting of the conspiracy to murder RPGs. Yea, as Vilquar did betray the People to the illithids, so too would we sell out our fellows!

 

To convince you of our intentions, we bring tribute, my lord! Our copies of Skyrim, signed by the accursed Howard of Todd himself! We shall break these with a hammer atop your altar, my lord, and prove our reverence! Surely this will please you, o lord of lords, eminence of eminences?

 

WE REPENT, LORD HELM! WE REPENT!

[Gfted1]

Everyone please debate the posts, not the posters.

[Lephys]

@Ffordesoon:

 

I know people get frustrating sometimes, but yeah... we just need to stick to the topic. If he doesn't want to provide anything response-worthy, then let him post away while we continue sticking to the topic.

[Ffordesoon]

Oh, very well. That was fun to write, though.

[mokona]

If you want what other people are carrying, you'll have to kill them, most of the time. It's natural and not contrived.

Project Eternity is supposed to be a story game. In a story game, my characters kill NPCs for "political reasons". That monster is chained up and can't follow you if you avoid him? Stealth. Those guards, if left behind you, could join forces in a pincer move with the next set of guards you encounter? Kill them so that you haven't left yourself vulnerable. That creature (I hesitate to call murders people) murders innocent people or will go on to kill your countrymen/friends/babies/whatever if avoided? Kill him!

 

Include consequences in the game for using stealth in some situations. The problem, of course, is then you need to give the players clues as if consequences might exist or not in each situation. Another way to look at it, stealth is always contains a reasonably small risk that not killing the person/monster the first time you had the chance will make a later situation harder than it had to be.

[Helm]

[biggest load of utter rage BS in this thread]

Like I said, you just like to write 10 paragraphs of BS and whine instead of actually discussing. Like I said, it is interesting to watch you try to squirm your way out after writing so many ridiculous posts.

 

I rest my case.

 

BTW, I didn't read you rage post.

[Helm]

 

If you want what other people are carrying, you'll have to kill them, most of the time. It's natural and not contrived.

Project Eternity is supposed to be a story game. In a story game, my characters kill NPCs for "political reasons". That monster is chained up and can't follow you if you avoid him? Stealth. Those guards, if left behind you, could join forces in a pincer move with the next set of guards you encounter? Kill them so that you haven't left yourself vulnerable. That creature (I hesitate to call murders people) murders innocent people or will go on to kill your countrymen/friends/babies/whatever if avoided? Kill him!

 

Include consequences in the game for using stealth in some situations. The problem, of course, is then you need to give the players clues as if consequences might exist or not in each situation. Another way to look at it, stealth is always contains a reasonably small risk that not killing the person/monster the first time you had the chance will make a later situation harder than it had to be.

Choice and Consequence, one of the pillars of a great RPG.

[TrashMan]

 

I personally like Skyrim. It is a good RPG, but a different type of a RPG.

 

 

A RPG stands for Role Playing Game - as long as you are playing a role, it technicly is a RPG.

It doesn't technicly NEED XP or stats. Frankly, it might be interesting to try a game like that.

 

This is one of the reasons I don't consider JRPG's as true RPG's - they may have interesting stories and characters (sometimes) but you don't really play a role. You play BATTLES. The characters are completely pre-defined in personality and there is nothing to play or decide.

 

Not to say that makes them bad games - quite the contrary - but definitions exist for a reason.

Defining a game genre by its title or a label on the intro screen or CD BOX is meaningless. I would just then say that the old goldbox games (like Pool of Radiance), BG, IWD etc. were not that much RPG as you would imagine. And I want those sort of games, not a game conceived from analyzing the words in the abbreviation called RPG.

 

 

Oh? So the title of a genre is meaningless?

How do you think genres get a title?

Or do you think words adn names are completley meaningless?

 

So I guess a "horror" is not defined by it attempting to invoke fear/horror?

 

[TrashMan]

 

I personally like Skyrim. It is a good RPG, but a different type of a RPG.

 

 

A RPG stands for Role Playing Game - as long as you are playing a role, it technicly is a RPG.

It doesn't technicly NEED XP or stats. Frankly, it might be interesting to try a game like that.

 

This is one of the reasons I don't consider JRPG's as true RPG's - they may have interesting stories and characters (sometimes) but you don't really play a role. You play BATTLES. The characters are completely pre-defined in personality and there is nothing to play or decide.

 

Not to say that makes them bad games - quite the contrary - but definitions exist for a reason.

Defining a game genre by its title or a label on the intro screen or CD BOX is meaningless. I would just then say that the old goldbox games (like Pool of Radiance), BG, IWD etc. were not that much RPG as you would imagine. And I want those sort of games, not a game conceived from analyzing the words in the abbreviation called RPG.

 

 

Oh? So the title of a genre is meaningless?

How do you think genres get a title?

Or do you think words and names are completley meaningless?

 

So I guess a "horror" is not defined by it attempting to invoke fear/horror?

 

[TrashMan]

You should be rewarded for overcoming challenges. Gaining xp for overcoming challenges plays a pivitol role in any RPG. In a tactical combat based RPG combat is a challenge and you should be rewarded for it. This is the way it was done in the IE games and it should stay this way!

 

But sadly being rewarded for overcoming challnges is being thrown straight out the window in PE and has been replaced with a "cross the imaginary line for xp" system. Every PnP system rewards you for overcoming challenges, D&D, Pathfinder and even GURPS. But not PE, nope.

Quest only xp is utter BS in an IE style RPG. It works great for stealth games, but not for combat based games. I can only hope that Josh and Tim finally realise that their streamlining of the xp system is the wrong way to go. They will only succeed in alienating the fans of the IE games and nothing else.

 

I can't blame them for trying though, but it just won't work as they plan. I can only hope that they realise this during development.

 

Like a horse with blinders, you only see a very narrow path ahead of you and nothing else.

 

No, just because IE games did X doens't mean PE MUST do that too.

 

The idea that player should be rewarded for everything is nothing more than conditioning.

And how does objective-XP take away that reward? It doesn't.

 

You are just throwing a hissy fit over nothing.

[Bitula]

 

 

I personally like Skyrim. It is a good RPG, but a different type of a RPG.

 

 

A RPG stands for Role Playing Game - as long as you are playing a role, it technicly is a RPG.

It doesn't technicly NEED XP or stats. Frankly, it might be interesting to try a game like that.

 

This is one of the reasons I don't consider JRPG's as true RPG's - they may have interesting stories and characters (sometimes) but you don't really play a role. You play BATTLES. The characters are completely pre-defined in personality and there is nothing to play or decide.

 

Not to say that makes them bad games - quite the contrary - but definitions exist for a reason.

Defining a game genre by its title or a label on the intro screen or CD BOX is meaningless. I would just then say that the old goldbox games (like Pool of Radiance), BG, IWD etc. were not that much RPG as you would imagine. And I want those sort of games, not a game conceived from analyzing the words in the abbreviation called RPG.

 

 

Oh? So the title of a genre is meaningless?

How do you think genres get a title?

Or do you think words and names are completley meaningless?

 

So I guess a "horror" is not defined by it attempting to invoke fear/horror?

 

You are just being an extremist now. What I say, that in the special case which we are discussing it is much more important to define what were BG-type games like, than discussing what is RPG, – a very broad term with many possible meanings -, about in general. Btw, mentioned games were not just RPG style, but also adventure, strategy, tactical, AD&D style etc. RPG actually wasn’t the essence of these, unless by RPG you mean character sheets, attributes, skills, XP etc., which mind you many people associate with the RPG “label” itself, which unless you start abstract word-analysis is a historical fact when connected to these old school games.

[Razsius]

It seems i'm missing all the fun in this thread.
 
You know it's funny in the Degenerate Gameplay thread I attempted an actual compromise and it didn't seem to work.  Instead, I got called childish and generally didn't have any of my pertinent questions actually answered.  It really was a somewhat ongoing thing however, so i'm not entirely sure what this meant.  I could figure it only meant one of two things.  People simply did not know the answer to them or the questions were entirely too pertinent.  I suspect the latter.  Needless to say though compromising will not be happening again.  I only ever allow myself to make the same mistake once.
 
@Ffordesoon
 

Kill XP is not important to maintaining the integrity of the IE experience; quest XP absolutely is.

 
That has to be the most arbitrary statement i've ever seen.
 
@Lephys
 

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.

 

Yes, but who defines when this should occur and why? As well, should this effect a potential loss in player choice?

Concerning your analogy from the other thread Lephys regarding a glass filled with water, I will expand upon it. The water in the glass is the level of "fun" a player might be having (in this case drinking). The problem is an objective xp based system is more a goblet then a glass (ie the design is significantly more complex). The glass of water (kill xp system) has a rather large crack in it that spills the water only when people attempt to be overly greedy and chug the water a certain way. The goblet (objective xp based) system "allows" you to spill water all over your shirt if you attempt to drink from a certain side of the goblet as it has a much larger crack in it. I know of zero masterwork designers who can make a flawless glass or goblet. If you have a specific example in mind feel free to share.

Lately, i've been playing the hell out of Arcanum. Man is it ever a great game as i'm having a blast. The irony is it's yet another game that was mentioned on the kickstarter video that not only is based off a kill xp system but one that rewards how many times you hit the mob. Oh the metagaming you could do because of that. Now I realize that this system is not exactly the most balanced so I will give an example scenario within the game that is "fixable" by an objective based system.

If you've played Arcanum at all then you would know there's a quest that involves finding a vital piece of information about a very important ring (to you). The quest eventually leads you inside a tomb filled with zombies. These zombies award no loot but do award kill xp (obviously). The necromancers at the very end have the answers you need. You do not have to kill them (in fact it might be a bad idea to do so) and yes there is most definitely a way to munchkin this particular quest. There are three levels to the tomb and a stealth character might miss out on a significant chunk of xp for not killing however, unlike the character I have made and play a stealthy, thief character by this point in time has emptied the contents of a significant number of locked chests more then I have. What would be the BEST way to "fix" this in an objective based xp system?

Or is this going to be another question noone can answer?

 

Edit: You can change any of the Arcanum mechanics or parts of the quest itself just don't change the nature of the quest at all (the necromancers have vital information that you need).

Edited February 8, 2013 by Razsius