Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hey Raz, this debate is still smouldering throughout various threads.  So here's my updated view on things.

 

 

The best real world example I can think of is the separation of Church from State.

The State represents the core game mechanics, which should forever be incorruptible and unbiased, and should only deal with numbers.

The Church is the game system where morality and behaviour is adjudicated, and either rewarded or punished, based on factional beliefs, and susceptible to corruption and dubious special cases.

Which in game terms means, let your character run around and be the character they are. Noble, nefarious, indifferent, and various shades in between. Allow them to make adult choices that reflect their agenda. Only the player knows their agenda, not the game engine.

However, if/when they do make choices that require a behavioural check, then apply the full force of the factional reward/punishment system.

It allows freedom of choice to play against the system.  To earn XP from whatever agenda the player has decided, and then accept the consequences of their actions.

Don't ever bring morality into the core game mechanics.

 

Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Raz, this debate is still smouldering throughout various threads.  So here's my updated view on things.

 

 

The best real world example I can think of is the separation of Church from State.

 

The State represents the core game mechanics, which should forever be incorruptible and unbiased, and should only deal with numbers.

 

The Church is the game system where morality and behaviour is adjudicated, and either rewarded or punished, based on factional beliefs, and susceptible to corruption and dubious special cases.

 

Which in game terms means, let your character run around and be the character they are. Noble, nefarious, indifferent, and various shades in between. Allow them to make adult choices that reflect their agenda. Only the player knows their agenda, not the game engine.

 

However, if/when they do make choices that require a behavioural check, then apply the full force of the factional reward/punishment system.

 

It allows freedom of choice to play against the system.  To earn XP from whatever agenda the player has decided, and then accept the consequences of their actions.

 

Don't ever bring morality into the core game mechanics.

 

 

 

I hear ya TRX850.  I also have updated my view of things.  Your way of thinking is essentially my way of thinking there's no real reason to actually compromise anyways (the compromised system is metagamey in it's own way anyways).  The reputation system should effect how your game plays is the most logical, concise and most importantly realistic version of how to "fix" munchkining.  Kill quest givers for no explicit reason at all and the reputation system/companion system will take into account that you might actually just be a psychopath.  It makes perfect sense and doesn't actually remove any player choice but you would "pay" in essence for your choice.  It would also add a sense of realism and depth to the RPGs we all know and love to play.  As well, having the game world change based on your choices has been something i've long wanted to see robustly implemented in the game archetype that's been my passion for the better part of 20+ years.  The "price" of developing such a robust system would be more then well spent developer resources hence there is no real reason not to put it in.

 

As a sidenote, let me clarify a few things concerning my views of the munchkin.  Personally, I don't give a flying rip whether they do things like rest spam or go out of their way to get the most "optimal" form of xp in a system.  The only thing it seems to really influence is whether they get enjoyment out of their game hence my above (horribly weak) analogy.  The only time I DO care about munchkins is when developers decide to adopt a system to fix something I never took advantage of in the first place and only largely because i've gotten previously burned by the "fix" before.  That obviously would not make me the happiest of campers.

 

Anyways, good to see ya TRX850 i'll try to provide some backup across the threads (though i'm the slowest of slow typists).

 

Edit: Oh and again Arcanum has to be one of the best games i've played in awhile.  It's been a hell of a lot more fun then PS: T which was sadly quite disappointing because of all the hype.  Arcanum has to be the sleeper hit of the decade.  Why didn't anyone tell me this sooner?

Edited by Razsius
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Raszius:

 

Upon rereading, I agree. It seems overly arbitrary. That's because I didn't do enough to link that statement to my larger argument, for which I apologize.

 

To be clearer, a successor to the IE games should reward quest XP or an equivalent because the IE games themselves were quest-focused. Killing monsters was almost always in the service of a quest or getting to a quest. Even Icewind Dale tended to be structured like this - although if we were talking about a successor to only IWD, I would be arguing in favor of kill XP, because those games were built around combat.

 

Basically, my point is that the game's progression structure should be built around the primary activity the player is engaging in. If PE is a combat-focused game like IWD, the player should primarily be rewarded for engaging in combat, because that encourages her to engage in more combat. If it's a quest-focused game, the player should primarily be rewarded for questing, because that encourages the player to do more quests. If it's a stealth-focused game (which it pretty obviously won't be), the player should etc.

 

Pretty much Game Design 101, yeah?

 

It's worth noting also that I wouldn't be opposed to combat/kill XP being awarded in the game. I can understand the arguments being made by those on both sides of the debate, but for me personally, it's not a big issue either way.

 

The only point I've been making is that, if PE is anything like Baldur's Gate or Planescape (which seems more likely than it mainly being an IWD successor), kill XP is not crucial to the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

To me it looks the other way around.

The goblet is secure and simple and the glass is dirty, broken and cracked all over.

  • Like 1

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire reason this whole thing started (the decision, by Obsidian, to deal with XP awards on an objective basis) was because, in the previous (standard/typical) system, all dead things gave XP, but all non-combat tasks performed did not. In other words, they'd often say "Hey, look how clever you could be in this situation with stealth!". But then, you'd do that, and you'd get some different stuff, and some different outcome, but no 3000 XP that the combat guy got SIMPLY because he killed things (he'd get that even without completing the quest/objective, so the quest/objective was COMPLETELY separate from kill-xp). So, every single time you had an either/or (I'm referring to individual optional non-combat quests/objectives, and individual optional combat quests/objectives... ONLY mutually-exclusive branching path options in the same quest/objective), you had a progression discrepancy. In other words, if you had 15 of those, then you're basically saying (with example numbers) "Hey, you can totally handle these 15 situations however you want, because our game is so deep, but have fun without that 45000XP from all the deaths of things! LOLZ!"

 

Sure, sometimes you got lockpicking XP, or talking-your-way-out-of-something XP (sometimes this was one in the same as the objective-completion XP), but you were never going to pick 20 locks (as compared to the 20 things you could kill for XP) or talk your way out of 20 situations (as compared to the 20 things you could kill for XP), and you pretty much never got anywhere NEAR the amount of XP you got by killing all things.

 

So, yes, it was a problem. Could it be fixed? Sure it could. The XP rewards for non-combat solutions/paths (that the design itself is calling viable, and is supposedly designed around the viability of) through certain quests (especially key quests, etc.) should be more in line with what was gained from combat XP. That doesn't mean perfectly equal to, all the time. It simply means "If I handled 10 key situations with talk/stealth/cake-juggling instead of combat, when I could only do one or the other, I shouldn't be 8 levels below the combat-happy player at this point in the game simply because of my playstyle.

 

Maybe you're 1 level behind? Maybe you got more other stuff? Maybe you got access to further quest/objective paths when the combat people's got cut off (they killed a person who would've given them some other quest or something, etc.)? Sure, that's all fine and dandy. But, in the long run, you should be decently on-par with the combat people in terms of raw level progression, as the entire combat-encounter-centered nature of the main storyline/questline depends upon it.

 

In a completely separate (but related) note, it makes sense that some instances of killing/lockpicking/talking maybe shouldn't award XP (depending on the design of the game). If there are a bunch of creatures in cages, for example, and you can either set them free or kill them as part of a quest, killing them shouldn't get you any XP. They're not even CHALLENGING you. They're simply existing. Killing them is for the SOLE purpose of eliminating their existence, not gaining combat prowess. Likewise, you don't want people running up and down a city street at night, unlocking and re-locking people's doors simply to gain levels. It doesn't make any sense. (See? It's not about hating combat, :) ).

 

So, what did Obsidian do? "Hmm... let's just make the whole SYSTEM run on designated objectives, rather than saying "Okay, kills award XP, AND objectives (which are specifically designated accomplishments of various types) award XP." Yay, simpler! Now, any particular exceptions to the "combat earns you combat prowess" rule can easily be toggled to "not-objective," and the same goes for random unlockings, etc."

 

The system still even allows for INDIVIDUAL enemies to produce experience. So, the decision of whether or not to do that is up to the development team.

 

So, yes, I really don't comprehend all this argument against the system itself, as it's the same thing as "kill-XP + quest/objective XP," only much more efficient. "Everything that dies gives you XP" favors a certain playstyle when "everything action that isn't killing also gives you XP every single time" isn't in the system. So, the first step of an actual argument here is "Do we want literally every skill-based action (lockpicking, diplomacy, killing, etc.) to award XP, or do we have a design in which SOME of these actions shouldn't actually progress your character levels?"

 

"People like getting XP for everything that dies" is not a valid reason to make a design choice like that, as it affects a lot of other things. It's not a matter of "I either like the people who like getting kill-XP, or I hate them." That's not what fuels the choice. It's how it affects and restricts the design of your game that matters.

 

It's exactly the same as having some optional "find this kid's lost rat" quest in your game that provides 999,999,999,999XP, getting your party to level 374, when all other total experience in the game only gets you to level 35. Does that hurt anyone? Yes, actually. Some people want to help a virtual small child find his lost rat, but they don't want to be level 374. So, you can't just say "Well don't do that quest, then." Well, now that's not fair. People who happen to not care that they're level 374 halfway through the game get to do that quest with no "penalty" really, and people whose playstyle doesn't involve suddenly becoming level 374 don't get to do that, without being essentially penalized. So, toning down the XP for that quest isn't out of hatred for the people who like being level 374, it's sheer balancing because being level 374, especially from a single, easy, "optional" quest is completely ridiculous and makes the entire game lopsided. It's just plain terrible design.

 

I don't know what else to say about this, really. Maybe someone'll actually read it, and go "Ohhh, I see... I should probably stop arguing about how people who like the objective-based XP HATE combat, because those two things have nothing to do with each other." Maybe not. *shrug*

 

For what it's worth, the reputation system should integrate with all of the above, whatever the design decisions. It shouldn't serve in place of anything in the decision of how to handle XP, because you can't just not-handle XP. It will, however, work itself in as a form of "reward" or unique outcome, just as loot and quest opportunities and XP and currency and merchant discounts and party members and everything else of the sort does. Which is why XP shouldn't be seen as the end-all-be-all reward for all situations. It's fine for some things not to award it (regardless of whether or not those "things" are combat, speech, stealth, exploration, animal husbandry, bipedal locomotion, etc.). It's indiscriminate in terms of playstyles.

  • Like 2

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, to put it in a more succinct summary, they chose to make the XP reward system resemble more how tabletop games grant XP -- chunks at a time rather than on the fly as they come in.

 

Razsius: I saw your previous -- very long -- post with the multiple path examples, but I don't see how it was a compromise of...anything.  I didn't even realize you were considering it some kind of compromise until you mentioned it in here.  Could you deign to clarify what, exactly, you were trying to compromise?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what else to say about this, really. Maybe someone'll actually read it

 

I read your post! :)

 

I agree with your assessment of why this whole debate came about.  We don't know much about this reputation/faction system yet, but we shouldn't underestimate the potential it has to affect player behaviour in the long term.  I'm starting to think of it as a kind of "Big Brother" system that would kick in if I did something out of character.  Not simply if I did something unlawful or antagonistic.

 

I see this game accommodating all play styles equally by employing a combination of kill XP, quest XP, and consequence management from a Big Brother system.

  • Like 1

Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't know what else to say about this, really. Maybe someone'll actually read it

 

I read your post! :)

 

 

Well I appreciate it. I don't expect everyone to read all my posts, as I know they can get long, but it's pretty ridiculous for people to skip them, then respond to me anyway, telling me what my argument is and isn't.

 

Annnywho, yeah, I like to think of it like this:

 

You do stuff, and things consequently result from it. Everything is just a big set of consequences, both positive and negative. The consequences of opening a chest? Obviously loot (generally... maybe it was a trap? Your lockpicking skill can't repel emptyness of THIS magnitude!!!), and maybe XP (depending on the needs of level-progression balancing and, whether or not that chest affected more than just you getting some goodies). You kill things? The consequences are loot, and possibly reputation, and possibly XP, and health/spells-per-day loss (dependent upon how much attention to strategy and efficiency you employed), and the enjoyment of the hopefully-awesome combat system.

 

Maybe the consequences are additional quest options. Maybe they're specific items. Maybe they're just straight-up skill points (some veteran guy trains you for saving his arse)? Maybe they're any combination of the above. That's kind of the whole point, when it comes down to balancing, and the game functioning as one coherent entity. You don't have rewards and reputation and quests and exploration and options and choices as all different things. They all work side-by-side in the design of the game.

 

I know we don't know many details of the reputation system yet, but I have a feeling it's going to be pretty great. At the very least, an advancement over previous games' morality meters and simple faction gauges. And hopefully it is. And that's what we should be discussing.

 

What does this system have the potential to do? What CAN this system accomplish? Not "I think you're wrong in thinking that the devs will actually use the system that well, u_u. I think they aren't going to award XP for combat often enough. They're going to favor a playstyle."

 

I'm not here to predict the future. I'm just here to contribute to it. And all this "I'm worried that bad design could possibly happen here, and so therefore I'm just gonna blame the system for the bad design that I'm going to assume will happen" isn't helping the discussion at all. And I'm not pointing fingers at specific people, so if you've never said such a thing in your life, then my statement doesn't refer to you. I don't even care who it specifically is. I'm not trying to personally call anyone out. I just think there's plenty here to constructively discuss, but people keep saying "what if we explored this option?", and other people keep replying "No, exploring that option is STUPID, because of this one example that shows that using that option COULD produce a bad design!"

 

Again I'll say, hitpoints are a system. Too many hitpoints is a bad design, but is fixed via balancing (basically, making better decisions within the chosen system), NOT by replacing hitpoints. Replacing hitpoints would be overkill, just because the creatures in your game seemed to take too long to fight, or be too tough from having so many hitpoints.

 

To all who support the killy paths and don't want to get gipped, let's share some ways in which that could be achieved in an objective-based system. Not how you think the devs will end up doing it, but how you think they COULD and SHOULD do it. This is constructive, because we either find out useful design possibilities, or we discover that the system does, in fact, have an inherent flaw.

 

An "objective" could be ANYTHING you want. Anything. Don't assume quest-givers, or "good" actions, or item-fetching... Literally anything at all that could ever be accomplished from any perspective. If there's a problem with the system, tell me with an example that illustrates something the system HAS to do, not something it simply could, maybe do.

 

If you need to use 17 paragraphs, then awesome. I will read them all, and discuss the pros and cons of things 'til the cows come home, and we'll all be much the wiser about this topic and potential useful design details.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ The devs needs to decide whether these two scenarios are workable designs:

1. A sneaky diplomatic pacifist avoiding combat for most of the game, but is awarded quest XP which means (among other things) their combat ability increases even while being mostly under-utilized.

2. An axe-wielding, bull-buggering lunatic that slashes their way through everything, and is awarded quest XP that means (among other things) skills like stealth and diplomacy increase even though never utilized.

I would hazard a guess that in most level-based cRPGs, these sorts of extremes are unavoidable, at least in concept, if not in practice.

One of the reasons I'm advocating an unbiased Cause and Effect core design is because sometimes when you analyze extremes, you find solutions to mechanics that were previously put in the "too hard" basket which inevitably led to lop-sided behaviour and/or degenerate play.

It would be very interesting indeed if the devs designed the game for purely evil and/or non-compliant game play, and then measured how the core mechanics reacted, compared to lawful/compliant game play. I'm only speculating here, but I dare say they'd find ways to improve the overall design.
 

Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice posts Lephys.

 

@ TRX; If pacifists spend too much skill points in combat or combat people spend all their level up stuff in stealth, it's not the systems fault. And I rather want people to decide what to pick themselves on level up rather than forcing it upon them.

Even more so since we use a group. Having one rogue not being able to progress stealth cause I kill everyone would be, well, bad...

I'm more interested in is the system that we have balanced and works for the game than is it superior/inferior to other models.

Most of us here are interested in that.

And with the goals set out for PE, and the potential roleplaying kill-XP doesn't fit it. It would balance towards one side, not overall.

The systems themselves aren't inferior or superior by themselves. But they have a measure of efficiency for the game discussed. In this case; PE. 

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?

Not much to it.

The XP could be awarded per level, or at the end. Whatever the dev wishes.

Combat players would have the difficulty of advancing by combat (but no need to clear the entire surface). Stealth players have the difficulty of sneaking past the zombies in narrow hallways.

Both of them not rewarded or penaltied by XP, nor their systems influenced by XP.

Diplomacy chars still have to stealth or fight till the necromancer, but no-one really expects every situation to be stealthable, fightable or talkable. That would just be stupid and gamicky.

And that's also why you would want a balanced party. And while, sure, your fighter party works great murdering, good luck when you have to flee the immortial god you can't persuade. Just a team of devs? Well, good luck getting to the people you wish to talk to. Stealth supreme? You're going to have a tough time when you sneaked into the enemy camp and the entire camp falls over you as they're around, living and notified of your presence.

^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's objective XP.

 

Not sure where people got the idea you only get XP from quests from...

Edited by Hassat Hunter

^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's objective XP.

 

Not sure where people got the idea you only get XP from quests from...

Well hope you are right, because reading the forums I find several opinions that quest only XP is a final decision, whether you call it objective XP or not. What’s an objective XP is still not clear though…  Anyone care to summarize, what does that term mean?

 

Edit: If you mean objective-based XP, that’s same as quest based, or what’s the difference between an objective and a guest? If you mean objective – in the sense of not subjective – then I don’t know what that means.

Edited by Bitula
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's objective XP.

 

Not sure where people got the idea you only get XP from quests from...

Well hope you are right, because reading the forums I find several opinions that quest only XP is a final decision, whether you call it objective XP or not. What’s an objective XP is still not clear though…  Anyone care to summarize, what does that term mean?

 

Edit: If you mean objective-based XP, that’s same as quest based, or what’s the difference between an objective and a guest? If you mean objective – in the sense of not subjective – then I don’t know what that means.

Basically it's another term for quest, yes, that they neatly come up with trying to blur issues with it (and they succeeded to do so among a portion of the fanbase).

Oh, there'll also be exploration quests - you visit some new area and you get XP for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's objective XP.

 

Not sure where people got the idea you only get XP from quests from...

Well hope you are right, because reading the forums I find several opinions that quest only XP is a final decision, whether you call it objective XP or not. What’s an objective XP is still not clear though…  Anyone care to summarize, what does that term mean?

 

Edit: If you mean objective-based XP, that’s same as quest based, or what’s the difference between an objective and a guest? If you mean objective – in the sense of not subjective – then I don’t know what that means.

Basically it's another term for quest, yes, that they neatly come up with trying to blur issues with it (and they succeeded to do so among a portion of the fanbase).

Oh, there'll also be exploration quests - you visit some new area and you get XP for that.

Ah yeah, these were my exact impressions reading the related threads. Thanks for the confirmation. I can now just hope that the developers will make up their minds or that the scarce official info regarding this issue was misinterpreted by the fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought they said that objectives were what made up quests, not quests themselves.  Am I misremembering?

I don’t know, but even if so. What would be the difference between objectives and quests? If objectives are just sub-quests then essentially nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't let Valorian cloud your mind with misinformation.

What he says isn't true.

 

An objective is exactly that, and objective. It's up to developers to deside what that is. Progress, quests, killing a critical foe, exploring. It's all possible.

But it's customly set by developers, as to reward the players playing the game.

^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I thought they said that objectives were what made up quests, not quests themselves.  Am I misremembering?

I don’t know, but even if so. What would be the difference between objectives and quests? If objectives are just sub-quests then essentially nothing.

 

An objective would be the things you do to complete the quest. 

 

Therefore "get past orc band" could be an objective of a larger quest and the player rewarded for satisfying (killing/sneaking/persuading) the objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ffordesoon

 

The only point I've been making is that, if PE is anything like Baldur's Gate or Planescape (which seems more likely than it mainly being an IWD successor), kill XP is not crucial to the game.

 

Wait, why? I mean I can kind of understand why you'd say that for Planescape as the game was heavily focused on dialogue and learning things about your past etc. as well as the combat being atrocious but even Chris believed that he should have added more combat to the game (though I might highly disagree with this considering how the combat was terrible in that game). Baldur's Gate literally had you fighting entire armies in the end so where exactly is the line between "combat game" and a "quest focused" one?

@TrashMan

Ouch man i'm sorry. If the kill xp system is something you consider that bad then you're probably not having much fun playing a great many of the rpgs out there... I feel ya in a way at least.

@Lephys

 

In a completely separate (but related) note, it makes sense that some instances of killing/lockpicking/talking maybe shouldn't award XP (depending on the design of the game). If there are a bunch of creatures in cages, for example, and you can either set them free or kill them as part of a quest, killing them shouldn't get you any XP. They're not even CHALLENGING you. They're simply existing. Killing them is for the SOLE purpose of eliminating their existence, not gaining combat prowess. Likewise, you don't want people running up and down a city street at night, unlocking and re-locking people's doors simply to gain levels. It doesn't make any sense. (See? It's not about hating combat, :) ).

 

Your example makes absolutely no sense Lephys. If the quest is to set the creatures free OR to kill them then it stands to reason that the quest would reward BOTH paths regardless of whether you (the designer) would think it's right or not. To not do so is not only to have essentially lied to the player but you would've taken their freedom of choice along with it. You can set the creatures free and gain something from it or you can kill them and gain nothing. There's only one path there Lephys. This is a prime example of why I hate an "objective" based system. I don't need it to make choices for me. As for your second example no you don't want people using obvious exploits to gain an unnatural number of levels. You should design a game that doesn't have these and I don't think anyone's arguing against that.

 

So, what did Obsidian do? "Hmm... let's just make the whole SYSTEM run on designated objectives, rather than saying "Okay, kills award XP, AND objectives (which are specifically designated accomplishments of various types) award XP." Yay, simpler! Now, any particular exceptions to the "combat earns you combat prowess" rule can easily be toggled to "not-objective," and the same goes for random unlockings, etc."

 

So the idea is to reward the player whenever the designer wishes rather than when the player is playing the game? Talk about a completely arbitrary system.

 

The system still even allows for INDIVIDUAL enemies to produce experience. So, the decision of whether or not to do that is up to the development team.

 

Which is a more arbitrary version of a kill xp system. Sounds like "fun".

 

So, yes, I really don't comprehend all this argument against the system itself, as it's the same thing as "kill-XP + quest/objective XP," only much more efficient. "Everything that dies gives you XP" favors a certain playstyle when "everything action that isn't killing also gives you XP every single time" isn't in the system. So, the first step of an actual argument here is "Do we want literally every skill-based action (lockpicking, diplomacy, killing, etc.) to award XP, or do we have a design in which SOME of these actions shouldn't actually progress your character levels?"

 

Answer: yes, yes I do want every skill based action to award xp. In fact, with TRX850's robust as hell reputation system I want some of the more "simplistic" quests as well to be in the game. Trying to join a guild of badass mercenaries that have a reputation of being the go to guys? I want them to test my skills to make sure i'm a good fit and send me on a "kill x amount of bandits" quest. Trying to join the Night Thieves guild? You'd better be able to rob x amount of houses blind before you can join. Bonus points if the "simple" quests turn into something more or play a larger role in the quest chain for the faction. Want to join both to get both sets of xp? Maybe mercs and thieves don't play so nice. Maybe mercs chop limbs off thieves? You can still do it though you'd just have to live with whatever consequences come about.

 

For what it's worth, the reputation system should integrate with all of the above, whatever the design decisions. It shouldn't serve in place of anything in the decision of how to handle XP, because you can't just not-handle XP. It will, however, work itself in as a form of "reward" or unique outcome, just as loot and quest opportunities and XP and currency and merchant discounts and party members and everything else of the sort does. Which is why XP shouldn't be seen as the end-all-be-all reward for all situations. It's fine for some things not to award it (regardless of whether or not those "things" are combat, speech, stealth, exploration, animal husbandry, bipedal locomotion, etc.). It's indiscriminate in terms of playstyles.

 

Completely untrue statement. Xp is always discriminate against certain playstyles. If this was not true, this argument would not be around in the first place. No matter what system you use nor how you award the xp you will always, always, ALWAYS run into this. Arbitrarily not awarding xp "in certain instances" does NOT fix this. Giving equal rewards to unequal paths also does NOT fix this. Rewarding for every action someone takes does NOT fix this. Rewarding someone similiarly or even moreso depending on whether the solution was "most correct" does NOT fix this. Parity of choice only comes about when paths are not equal but are too difficult to discern the "best" path. A robust reputation system however, would truly make things "equal" because it simply does not discriminate against playstyle. If for every action you took in game you had to pay an "equal" consequence you would have a near perfect balancing system and it would be one that never, ever limited a player's choice. This is the solution, it really is that simple.

 

I'm not here to predict the future. I'm just here to contribute to it. And all this "I'm worried that bad design could possibly happen here, and so therefore I'm just gonna blame the system for the bad design that I'm going to assume will happen" isn't helping the discussion at all. And I'm not pointing fingers at specific people, so if you've never said such a thing in your life, then my statement doesn't refer to you. I don't even care who it specifically is. I'm not trying to personally call anyone out. I just think there's plenty here to constructively discuss, but people keep saying "what if we explored this option?", and other people keep replying "No, exploring that option is STUPID, because of this one example that shows that using that option COULD produce a bad design!"

 

Lephys what is this? 'I'm kinda not naming any names but there are varying individuals or maybe not that don't wish to explore options within the objective based xp system or simply say that any "compromise" will never work because they can't think ahead.'

Did that about sum it up? Let's just leave statements like this *out* of our posts next time eh? If you don't wish to discuss anything or keep an open mind that's fine too but let's leave the pitiful beat around the politically correct bush attacks at "someone(s)" for these "others" to do.

 

To all who support the killy paths and don't want to get gipped, let's share some ways in which that could be achieved in an objective-based system. Not how you think the devs will end up doing it, but how you think they COULD and SHOULD do it. This is constructive, because we either find out useful design possibilities, or we discover that the system does, in fact, have an inherent flaw.

 

Been there, done that. It promoted no discussion and provided no commentary on the matter of any real worth. So no, I won't be doing that again. Compromise is inherently flawed anyways because it's inherently arbitrary.

@Somna

No need to worry about it. The compromise was inherently flawed but if you really want to know Helm quoted me on the very last page of the Degenerate Gameplay thread that outlined the structure of the flawed compromise.

@Hassat

 

Not much to it.
The XP could be awarded per level, or at the end. Whatever the dev wishes.
Combat players would have the difficulty of advancing by combat (but no need to clear the entire surface). Stealth players have the difficulty of sneaking past the zombies in narrow hallways.
Both of them not rewarded or penaltied by XP, nor their systems influenced by XP.
Diplomacy chars still have to stealth or fight till the necromancer, but no-one really expects every situation to be stealthable, fightable or talkable. That would just be stupid and gamicky.
And that's also why you would want a balanced party. And while, sure, your fighter party works great murdering, good luck when you have to flee the immortial god you can't persuade. Just a team of devs? Well, good luck getting to the people you wish to talk to. Stealth supreme? You're going to have a tough time when you sneaked into the enemy camp and the entire camp falls over you as they're around, living and notified of your presence

 

You really think that's the *best* solution Hassat? Because those particular zombies award no loot (and now no xp) there is *no* reason to fight. Arcanum's prowling had no resource cost to speak of and while it might be somewhat difficult to have gotten around all those zombies you would've been awarded the same amount of xp as someone who fought them all. It took me more then three-quarters of my entire healing supply plus half my molotov supply to kill them all. The resource cost for the various paths is more then a little out of kilter. Essentially, this objective based system has shifted the "correct" path through from combat to as little combat as you can afford (ie stealth). Maybe you find this to be perfectly valid solution but this is Razsius' 101 of "why I hate the ever living crap out of the 'objective' xp based system." It's not objective for one and it just swings the pendulum a different way for another.

It's VtM: B all over again. Honestly, I wasn't expecting a response like that. I was expecting something I couldn't predict... something... better?

Edited by Razsius
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't let Valorian cloud your mind with misinformation.

What he says isn't true.

 

An objective is exactly that, and objective. It's up to developers to deside what that is. Progress, quests, killing a critical foe, exploring. It's all possible.

But it's customly set by developers, as to reward the players playing the game.

And kill xp isn't customly set by developers? It appears out of nowhere, randomly, like plague? retard.gif

 

Also, objectives *are* partial quests, subquests or mini quests, whatever you prefer. Exploring is now a quest in itself, you get XP for seeing new areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, objectives *are* partial quests, subquests or mini quests, whatever you prefer. Exploring is now a quest in itself, you get XP for seeing new areas.

the utter inability of kill XP proponents to understand why anything that's not a kill should give XP amuses and baffles me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

the utter inability of kill XP proponents to understand why anything that's not a kill should give XP amuses and baffles me.

 

Why you *wouldn't* want kill xp in a "combat focused" game baffles the hell out of me.

 

 

I think we should be able to agree on the fact that XP should be given for overcoming obstacles. Therefore, if you have to i.e. bypass enemies to get to the other side of the map (from where you can unlock a new region), then getting there is worth XP. Some want to make it sound like "walking around will give you XP! It's the downfall of the Occident!!"

 

In IE games the routine would be: kill all monsters on the map for XP and loot, then do the rest spam, then move on to the next area. P:E hopefully makes it much more of a choice if you want to spend ressources on clearing maps and getting to other hostile areas.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...