Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[TRX850]

I don't always want to take the combat route, because I don't always want to kill everything.  But if the game puts a bunch of tough enemies in my way, who award no XP and no loot, then there's no sensible reason to fight them. All that's happened is the game has removed a player's choice.  But if those same tough enemies awarded XP and loot, I now have an informed choice.

 

And with a reputation/faction system in place, I have to take into consideration who I might antagonize if I choose to fight.  XP rewards do not exist in a vacuum.

Edited February 11, 2013 by TRX850

[Razsius]

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

 

Except there was already an inherent choice in clearing an IE game map. The player who completely cleared the map had to spend the time and resources to do so. He was rewarded xp for doing this. A player who wished to stealth through the map would've payed limited or ZERO resources to do so. He would've lost out on xp. This is an actual choice because there are consequences for BOTH actions.

 

Edit: Though the consequences might be unequal.

 

 

XP rewards do not exist in a vacuum.

 

Lol that is so true.  Balance can so be achieved in other ways.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Razsius

[Lephys]

Razsius, on 11 Feb 2013 - 13:31, said:

@Lephys

 

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.

When did I say the quest wouldn't reward you if you killed them? The KILLS wouldn't reward you. You don't get 50XP per creature-in-a-cage. You get some amount of XP for handling the situation with the creatures.

 

This is a prime example of why you hate poorly-implemented objective based systems. If you are given a choice by the game's design, then you get absolutely nothing for one option rather than another, that has nothing to do with the system. The nature of objectives didn't prevent you from getting a reward there. Someone on the development team did, when he said "You know what? This thing that should be an objective isn't one." You could do that with ANY system.

 

If you pour water into a glass, and you accidentally knock the glass over, does that mean that pouring water in a glass inherently leads to spilled water? No. No it doesn't.

Quote

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.

... What? o_O. That's how EVERY game is designed. The developer designs the game. It's not like they pick game code off of game-code trees, and then brutally extract certain parts of the code because they're mean. "This game fruit naturally rewards you with XP for every single footstep, and I REMOVED that from the code! MUAHAHAHAHA!"

 

The only time you EVER get anything in a game is when the developer makes the game provide you with something. Arbitrary? Sure, if they don't have a reason for what they do. Again, man is fallable. That's why there are bugs in games, and parts of games that entire fanbases rage about "could've been better." Hell, I just played Dead Space 3, and they use an arbitrary checkpoint system for saving, even though the previous game had plentiful, fixed-location save stations, so you KNEW when you were saving and when you weren't. Terrible decision? Yes. Does that mean checkpoints are bad? No. It means they used them like idiots.

Quote

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

*Spanish accent* You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Quote

Answer: yes, yes I do want every skill based action to award xp.

Really? Every action? You just want to buy padlocks from a merchant, and unlock and re-lock them, dozens of times, and just keep on leveling up? Every successful sword stroke in combat should give you XP, because, I mean, that's based on skill checks (the whole miss/graze/hit/crit system). Because, when I say "every action," I mean "every action." Which is why I keep having to clear up assumptions that people keep making about words, which is the problem with this whole "objective-based XP" thing in the first place. "Whoa whoa whoa, we don't know what the objectives will be! So I'm going to assume they're not ever going to be things that I want them to be, u_u"

Quote

Completely untrue statement. Xp is always discriminate against certain playstyles.

So... numerical values are always discriminate against certain playstyles? Because that's what XP is. A simple point-value system designed to pace progression in a game. You could even design an RPG to award some amount of XP every in-game hour. Would that discriminate against a playstyle? I think not. It would seem, then, that XP, itself, is indiscriminate, and the implementation of XP is the only thing that can discriminate.

Quote

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.'

It was an up-front clarification of exactly what that was a response to, in an effort to avoid the "I never said that!" replies. Basically, if you never said that, then I wasn't saying you did. That's what that was.

Quote

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.

Done that? When? All I saw was "See, here's why objective-XP won't work, because such-and-such PROBABLY wouldn't be an objective, or they'll probably do something else wrong in the implementation."

[Sacred_Path]

Except there was already an inherent choice in clearing an IE game map. The player who completely cleared the map had to spend the time and resources to do so. He was rewarded xp for doing this. A player who wished to stealth through the map would've payed limited or ZERO resources to do so. He would've lost out on xp. This is an actual choice because there are consequences for BOTH actions.

 

Edit: Though the consequences might be unequal.

Ressources were often not spent at all in IE games because rest spamming took care of most of your needs. Rarely were you forced to use potions or wands when you could cast all your buffs and plenty of healing spells. Also stealthy play was not a choice most of the time because you needed those XP. Therefore, like I said, the obvious route was killing everything and going everywhere.

[TRX850]

Also stealthy play was not a choice most of the time because you needed those XP. Therefore, like I said, the obvious route was killing everything and going everywhere.

 

But with a spanky new reputation/faction system in place, killing everything and going (unstealthily) everywhere could lead to potentially undesirable consequences for a careless player. This new system, which they've said they are developing, gives the player a choice. i.e. Kill certain enemies and you may antagonize Faction X, which leads to future conflict.  Sneak by certain enemies or negotiate peacefully with them, and you've remained neutral with Faction X, so no obvious future conflict.

 

Now, does that present players with a choice, or does it decide for them?

[Razsius]

@Lephys

 

When did I say the quest wouldn't reward you if you killed them? The KILLS wouldn't reward you. You don't get 50XP per creature-in-a-cage. You get some amount of XP for handling the situation with the creatures.

This is a prime example of why you hate poorly-implemented objective based systems. If you are given a choice by the game's design, then you get absolutely nothing for one option rather than another, that has nothing to do with the system. The nature of objectives didn't prevent you from getting a reward there. Someone on the development team did, when he said "You know what? This thing that should be an objective isn't one." You could do that with ANY system.

If you pour water into a glass, and you accidentally knock the glass over, does that mean that pouring water in a glass inherently leads to spilled water? No. No it doesn't.

 

Depends on how the quest is implemented. If there's a release them or gas them button then it should reward equal xp but if you have to engage in actual combat and spend time stabbing them in the face (even if it is to kill a helpless creature in a cage) then you should get xp per kill. Oh and even if there is a button for the gas but the player instead decides (for whatever reason) to take the time to stab them in the face because he/she is rping a sadist then there should be reward for the time. Let the robust reputation system handle the consequences of the actions. In case you don't understand by now I don't like equal rewards for unequal actions. Nor do I like having to divine how a quest "should" play out. I do not like systems that essentially dictate how I should play. I have yet to see an example of how an objective based system does not do this. You gave a flawed example of how it would "not make sense" to reward "x" (in this case killing a helpless creature in a cage) I gave you a counter example that provided a path for a player to do so and even outside of something I would think of doing. I never play evil characters but it really isn't my right to say someone is playing the game the "wrong way." I kind of had to learn that fact when I played VtM: B because I realized the path I preferred was closed off or not accounted for. This "objective" based xp system simply does not make sense.

 

The only time you EVER get anything in a game is when the developer makes the game provide you with something. Arbitrary? Sure, if they don't have a reason for what they do. Again, man is fallable. That's why there are bugs in games, and parts of games that entire fanbases rage about "could've been better." Hell, I just played Dead Space 3, and they use an arbitrary checkpoint system for saving, even though the previous game had plentiful, fixed-location save stations, so you KNEW when you were saving and when you weren't. Terrible decision? Yes. Does that mean checkpoints are bad? No. It means they used them like idiots.

 

This is a prime example of how easy it is to confuse and confine a player. Your main problem with the Dead Space 3 game is that the checkpoint system makes little sense compared to their prior system. The system itself is not inherently flawed but it makes very little sense compared to something they've used in the past. The fact of the matter is the system they used in Dead Space 3 is not actually flawed but the fact that you can't understand why they would've used such a system *is*. So why would it be a "terrible decision" Lephys? Does this argument sound familiar? I certainly hope it does.

 

Really? Every action? You just want to buy padlocks from a merchant, and unlock and re-lock them, dozens of times, and just keep on leveling up? Every successful sword stroke in combat should give you XP, because, I mean, that's based on skill checks (the whole miss/graze/hit/crit system). Because, when I say "every action," I mean "every action." Which is why I keep having to clear up assumptions that people keep making about words, which is the problem with this whole "objective-based XP" thing in the first place. "Whoa whoa whoa, we don't know what the objectives will be! So I'm going to assume they're not ever going to be things that I want them to be, u_u"

 

I believe I said this prior to your quoted statement.

 

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.

 

If you don't feel like reading what I type then i'll pass on actually responding and yes i'm well aware that you can make anything an objective or quest but if you do it so randomly that you lose the player in the process it's kind of pointless and if you don't reward every "path" a player might take then they lose choice. Balancing between those two is anything but easy. If it was you would've given me a satisfactory example or example game by now. I'm still waiting btw if you do have one in mind.

 

So... numerical values are always discriminate against certain playstyles? Because that's what XP is. A simple point-value system designed to pace progression in a game. You could even design an RPG to award some amount of XP every in-game hour. Would that discriminate against a playstyle? I think not. It would seem, then, that XP, itself, is indiscriminate, and the implementation of XP is the only thing that can discriminate

 

Yes, yes they do. Your example system rewards the player for the amount of time they spend playing the game. The one who plays the game the longest will have the most xp. It's not quite as easy to implement a balanced system as you think it is Lephys.

 

It was an up-front clarification of exactly what that was a response to, in an effort to avoid the "I never said that!" replies. Basically, if you never said that, then I wasn't saying you did. That's what that was.

 

I never asked that. It was fairly obvious from my second statement that you were simply describing "someone(s)" which would be fine if "someone(s)" knew who they/he/she were. If you don't wish to clarify the statement then it might be best not to post it in the first place.

 

Done that? When? All I saw was "See, here's why objective-XP won't work, because such-and-such PROBABLY wouldn't be an objective, or they'll probably do something else wrong in the implementation."

 

It's perfectly fine if you completely missed my Degenerate Gameplay example. I don't feel like retyping the whole thing however.

 

@Sacred Path

 

 

Ressources were often not spent at all in IE games because rest spamming took care of most of your needs. Rarely were you forced to use potions
or wands when you could cast all your buffs and plenty of healing spells. Also stealthy play was not a choice most of the time because you
needed those XP. Therefore, like I said, the obvious route was killing everything and going everywhere.

 

Then the problem you had was not with the xp system but the fact that there was no resource cost for performing the combat action.  They're already fixing the rest spam issue with rest checkpoints.  It never came up for me because I wouldn't spam rest but I could see it being an issue.  Also regarding the xp issue that was part of the "cost" of the choice.  If you add TRX850s system into the equation there is again more "cost" for both of the paths.  If there are no consequences of a choice then there is no choice.

[Sacred_Path]

Then the problem you had was not with the xp system but the fact that there was no resource cost for performing the combat action.  They're already fixing the rest spam issue with rest checkpoints.

I don't have major problems with the IE XP system at all, I just think objective XP is better. Yes the no ressource cost thing was one thing that was problematic about combat in IE that will be fixed, but on top of that, you're now given the choice of how you want to deal with an encounter. Which is actually like a free lunch for everyone who doesn't have major problems with stealth. Again, sneaking by wasn't even an option most of the time in IE (unless you were playing oddball games like lone ranger/ party of svirfneblin in IWD2). Do you really have an opinion like "I'll never sneak by an enemy ever, not even on my 4th playthrough!" ?

[Lephys]

Depends on how the quest is implemented.

*Heavenly choir of angels with harps*

 

Case and point. No matter how you handle XP, this holds true. Replace "quest" with "objective" and it covers this entire issue.

 

So can we please actually discuss how to implement the quest, and not 1,000 ways in which the quest can be crappily implemented?

[Ffordesoon]

@Razsius:

 

The "line between the two" is pretty simple, actually. It all depends on what the point of combat is within the framework established by the game. If combat is something thrown in your way to stop you achieving a story-related goal, then the game as a whole is focused on the achievement of that goal.

 

In a good quest-focused (which I should really amend to "objective-focused," as that's more accurate) game, you are fighting an army off in order to save Steve the bard, a cool NPC you really like, from being executed for treason (or whatever), not because it's super-fun to fight dudes (though it hopefully is). Combat is an obstacle that gets in the way of simply walking into town and freeing Steve, because freeing Steve wouldn't be dramatically satisfying if you could do it easily.

 

In a good combat-focused game, combat encounters are an end in themselves. The goal of them from a player's perspective is to continually provide levels and loot so the PC can continually get better at combat. Combat-focused games may provide flimsy justifications for combat, but the combat itself is the point. There might be an ostensible story goal, but it's usually a variation on "get the Chalice of Ultimate Awesomeness so you can be awesome at being awesome!" A combat-focused RPG is a dungeon crawler, basically.

[TRX850]

I think we should merge the terms "Combat Focused" and "Quest Focused" into the term "Consequence Focused" and re-evaluate our expectations.

[Jarmo]

 

"Assuming that combat consumes resources and stealth/non-combat doesn't, won't this create a systemic incentive for avoiding combat?"

 

 

 

Combat also earns you resources in the form of loot. Imbalance solved.

 

--

Edit. The thread has 24 pages instead of 1 as I thought.. 

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jarmo

[Ffordesoon]

Addendum to previous: I should mention that I totally agree that every choice should have a consequence, and with the idea that the same amount of XP for easy stealth and difficult combat weights the player's choice in favor of stealth. I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise, though.

 

What I support is separate but equal consequences for all possible choices. If you sneak into a noble's house, steal a thing, and sneak out of it undetected, the other nobles in the area should beef up their security as a result. If you attempt to play a diplomatic pacifist in all situations, you should be regarded as weak and ineffectual by some people, and your camp should be marked as easy pickings by a group of passing bandits. If you kill everyone in an area owned by a certain faction, that faction should send mobs after you.

 

The point is to react to the player's choices appropriately, not simply to facilitate all the choices a player might make. That's where the TES games always fall down for me, which is why I say they're Mary-Sue Simulators first and foremost. I absolutely believe in locking players out of content, or an option with which to access that content, because of something they did hours before.

 

That's where the issue really lies, I think, and it's what those on all sides of this debate seem to have failed to adequately express. Our (by which I mean everyone on this forum) ideal PE experience is one that is equally non-ideal for all players. By which I mean that every player should feel as if he or she could've done things differently and gotten a different result, but no player should feel as though the game didn't play fair with them by not facilitating that result.

 

EDIT: @TRX-80:

 

When talking about the design focus of other RPGs, no, we shouldn't. Diablo is combat-focused, and Torment is quest-focused. That doesn't make one automatically worse or better than the other, but it does mean that one is pretty obviously different from the other.

 

When talking about PE, however, I agree.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Ffordesoon

[TRX850]

Some basic examples of how a combination of XP incentives (both combat and quest/objective) and consequences of actions can shape future events depending on the party's agenda.

 

Side-Quest A.

Diplomatic XP Outcomes
- You have strengthened ties between the Barbarian tribe and coastal traders.
- You have been gifted with the Sacred Axe of Netheril.
- You have learned the location of a secret treasure cache.
- Positive Reputation Consequences

Stealthy XP Outcomes
- You have successfully snuck into the Barbarian village and stolen the Sacred Axe of Netheril.
- You have overheard the location of a secret treasure cache.
- Neutral Reputation Consequences

Combat XP Outcomes
- You have destroyed the Barbarian tribe, but fleeing villagers will no doubt spread word of your villainous exploits.
- You have looted the Sacred Axe of Netheril from the Barbarian tribe.
- Negative Reputation Consequences

Side-Quest B.

Diplomatic XP Outcomes
- You have convinced the Bandit gang to move on for now, but they will likely re-settle further south along the coastway.
- Neutral Reputation Consequences

Stealthy XP Outcomes
- While avoiding confrontation, you witness the Bandit gang rob and murder a trading caravan. Lord Ravencroft will be furious at your inaction.
- Negative Reputation Consequences

Combat XP Outcomes
- You have removed the Bandit threat and reopened coastal trading routes.
- Positive Reputation Consequences

 

[Lephys]

I simply don't see the point in distinguishing between "combat" and "quest/objective" there.

 

You've essentially listed 3 categories of objectives: Diplomatic, stealth, and combat. Everything in each of those side-quest example lists is an objective, from a given perspective. Some are mutually-exclusive, and some are not.

[TRX850]

^^ The point was to illustrate that certain choices have either a positive, neutral, or negative reputation/faction outcome, or consequence.  And can be different from one side quest to the next.

 

Some choices will give mutually exclusive outcomes, as they should.  But all allow for a preferred play style and don't unfairly punish other play styles.

 

In the first combat example, you'd receive combat XP and loot, but miss out on XP for the diplomatic or stealthy options. You'd miss out on discovering the location of the hidden treasure, AND your reputation would take a hit. Presumably because you'd be playing with a chaotic or evil agenda.  So it's swings and roundabouts.

 

The second example was for a more compliant or mainstream play style.  But notice how the reputation consequences differ between A and B.

 

Edit:

 

The outcomes reflect the party's agenda, not the quest objectives.

Edited February 12, 2013 by TRX850

[Lephys]

It is a good point, and a good illustration of that point. My only point is that an objective-based XP system can handle that whole thing. The reputation system is in there regardless, because it is awesome and has nothing to do with HOW XP is granted. Combat XP IS objective XP. "Your objective was to combat something, and you did. Have some XP," OR "You accomplished an objective via combat as opposed to some other means. Have some XP for your accomplishment and method."

[TRX850]

We did discuss the difference before.  And it's subtle.

 

You might kill half the enemies and need to flee.

You might backstab a single enemy and slink away.

You might not return to the quest at all.

You might return after some time, and be denied the kill XP the whole time you've been away.

 

Combat XP deals with a "partial outcome" cleanly, whereas objective XP does not.

 

Which is why I see the solution being a combination of combat XP, objective XP, and consequences.

[Lephys]

Well, again, this is simply an assumption on the restrictions of an "objective." An objective could feasibly be "Kill this particular creature/person." So, the only real difference is that you're saying "I want the death of each individual enemy to count as a completed objective."

 

Personally, I think "what if someone wants really badly to fight a whole group of enemies but for some reason just kills 3 of them and runs away, never to return, or ever get anything that was beyond those enemies, ever?" is a silly scenario to worry about, but that still has nothing to do with using or not-using objective-based XP, either way.

[TRX850]

It comes down to granularity.  My understanding was that an objective could mean defeating multiple foes to count as completed.

 

It would be rather silly to have every individual creature in the game defined as an objective.  That defeats the purpose of grouping multiple activities and outcomes into a single objective.

 

I think it's also because combat is (possibly?) the only activity in the game that can have a partial outcome when it comes to a group of enemies.

 

It doesn't work that way with other activities or skill checks.  You either succeed at disarming a trap or you don't. Or appraising an item. Or tumbling during battle. Or crafting an item. Or taunting an enemy. Or casting a spell.

 

Combat XP is a catch-all method for handling partial outcomes of combat.

 

Edit:

 

It's also a method that allows for chaotic/irrational game play if your lead character is so inclined, as discussed in the Cause and Effect thread.

Edited February 12, 2013 by TRX850

[Lephys]

It would be rather silly to have every individual creature in the game defined as an objective.

And yet, that's how it is with per-kill XP. The only difference is that "kill" is used as a term, rather than "objective." A condition that, when met, earns you XP could be called a blegiouashedr for all it matters. Or it could be called nothing. It's still the same thing as an objective.

 

Besides, if you treat combat XP separately, then you'd always have to go in and reduce the "quest XP" for the objective/quest associated with that combat by how ever much the combat awarded just for kills.

 

Example:

 

Objective - Rescue Mick Favis from the Bandits.

 

Well, if you kill all 10 bandits that are the only things keeping him in the cell, that's part of rescuing him from the bandits. So, if rescuing Mick Favis is supposed to grant you 500XP for the completion of an objective, then that value is based on the things you had to do to to warrant Mick Favis's freedom. If you get 50XP per bandit you kill, and you kill all 10, then you've got 500XP. Great. Now you just untie Mick's hands, and BOOM! 500XP! But, wait... you were already rewarded for taking care of the threat of the bandits. And now you're being rewarded for taking care of the threat of the bandits?

 

Also, there's still the "I just dropped a big boulder on 10 bandits and got as much XP as someone who fought them with swords and sorcery for 5 minutes" dilemma. Why does pushing a boulder constitute the same amount of experience as practicing fighting skills and besting people at combat? The same with poisoning. A Rogue could stealthily sneak in and poison all 10 bandits without being detected (maybe he poisons their wine.) All he did was be stealthy (has nothing to do with combat), and deposit poison into a wine decanter (also nothing to do with combat). Yet he gets "combat XP" because they died?

 

That just further illustrates the objective nature of a kill or death. Again, if combat, itself, is what you're trying to reward, then you've got The Elder Scrolls's skill-based leveling system, where the more you fight, the more your fighting levels up. It doesn't make sense to keep gaining Pottery skill points and HP just because you fight things a lot. So, either the system is including combat in its abstraction of all the things that comprise character advancement, or it's separating all the things into individual components and advancing the character in each of them separately. Those are the only two systems that make any sense, as far as combat XP goes.

 

I'm not against combat always producing XP, but I don't see how it should be the exception to a rule. You already gain loot, and reputation consequences, and possibly even quest beginnings, etc., from combat, regardless of whether or not it was deemed an objective. I don't see how everything that isn't combat should only grant you XP whenever it actually accomplishes something more, but combat should always supply XP whenever the player partakes in it, even if it doesn't accomplish anything other than successful combat.

[TRX850]

I understand your argument, as always.

 

If there is more inherent risk in choosing the combat option over stealth, then maybe you should be rewarded more?  It might seem like doubling up, but that's only because in your example you coincidentally chose the same XP value for objective success as the sum total of kill XP.  500 in this case.  But it doesn't have to be equal amounts. What if it was 1000XP for the objective, regardless of which way you accomplished it? 500XP for killing, and 1000XP for quest completion, compared to 1000XP for poisoning them, without the risk of combat.

 

It doesn't mean that every quest/objective will favour combat, for the reasons I gave in my consequences example a few posts back. People need to remember that it's the sum total of all quests and side-quests in the game that should provide a good balance of beneficial play styles, rather than aim for equal outcomes/XP per objective.

[Lephys]

Well, I'm all for all playstyles. But, within reason, obviously. I mean, if someone wants to jump their characters off cliffs, and that's their "playstyle," I don't think there should be awesome loot and XP rewards for jumping your party off cliffs. Obviously there's gotta be a reason to it, because any given player could enjoy ANYthing you can imagine. Sheer opinion/preference is not a consistent foundation for determining what options to support in your game's design. Clearly (I'm not saying you're suggesting otherwise.)

 

But, what this brings me to is, I'm not sure "Every time I get to a group of enemies, I only want to kill like 30% of them, then never ever do anything else that involves the rest of those enemies ever again" is really a viable playstyle we should be worrying about. That would be just as silly as saying "I want to unlock the 5 doors that block access to this awesome treasure chest, but then I don't want to unlock the chest, but I still want the loot." That's not a playstyle. It's a combination of entitlement and laziness.

 

That being said, I don't see an actual problem (I don't see anyone getting screwed over here who isn't screwing over themselves, voluntarily) with awarding combat XP for a whole group of bandits at once (I'm not talking 100 bandits here... more like a party of bandits), only, instead of the individual bandits.

 

Look at the following example:

 

You need to rescue Mick, but there are 10 bandits there. Sneaking is for sissies! You engage the bandits in combat, and, after a couple of minutes, you stand victorious. +500XP (arbitrary example numbers, really) for dealing with the bandits (optional, since you could've snuck past them, in this particular scenario, without ever being spotted.) You get inside and rescue Mick (maybe you get +100XP here? Who knows...).

 

Okay, rewind that same exact scenario, and give XP per kill, instead. You need to rescue Mick, but there are 10 bandits. *ATTACK*. After a couple minutes, you are victorious. +500XP (although you technically got it in little pieces.) For all practical purposes, there is no difference. I don't recall any RPG that let you pause in mid-combat and spend your level-up points on your Swordey Stabby skill to beef it up by 7 points, then unpause and resume combat, the next stroke of your sword dealing 10 more damage than the previous. The reason is because that would be a bit ludicrous, even within an abstracted system. That's almost like looting mid-combat whilst everything's paused.

 

And yes, I realize that all different combat-containing scenarios would require the same kind of consideration. But that's the same consideration that an entire game design requires. With per-kill XP, it has to be decided how much XP each kill will grant, based on the difficulty of the enemies, the number and availability, the level difference between them and your character, how many total levels the game is designed/balanced for, etc.

 

In the long haul, I see almost no difference between having a bunch of enemies give you 7XP per kill (when you need 10,000XP to level up) and simply giving you none (upon death), ESPECIALLY if you take that 7 XP per foe (let's say there were 10 of them) and simply grant 70 more XP for dealing with the objective that those 10 foes were impeding your completion of.

 

This comes right back to the "slaying this one, big tough thing gets you XP" example. It completely depends on the context, every single time. It's no different from deciding what quests to even put into a game in the typical system. "Okay, if these things are gonna give XP no matter what when they die, then should we put them here, in a cave? Is there even anything else in that cave? Are they going to be difficult enough that they should be some sort of legendary creature quest or something? Maybe their hides/components are worth something to some guy?" See, you could have the objective "obtain legendary basilisk hide," and the only way to obtain that would be to kill the basilisk. You could not lull the basilisk into a super relaxed state of safety and comfort, then RIP its hide off its body and flee. And you wouldn't even need some guy to tell you, beforehand, "Hey, I totally need a basilisk hide!" for it to be an objective. It's simply an objective, regardless, and now you have to find out who needs that hide (for further rewards/objective opportunities, most likely).

[Hassat Hunter]

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.

That all on the presumption stealth is easy, stealth takes no resources.

I don't presume such things. So no, I wouldn't agree with that equal rewarding is making combat useless. Since in order to stealth the zombies one needs to invest. To plan. To have difficulty too.

 

Mostly everyone in this thread assumes stealth is a "golden ticket out of prison"... I have a feeling once people realise that's not necessarily the case for PE and that no, stealth isn't the easy option compared to combat, these kind of 'poins' loose a lot of their power.

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

Do I have to state the difference between one value, set at desire, and a value used thousands of times in the game again?

If the objective XP value is modified, that's it, over and done. If the XP-value is modified all 1000s of foes set around in the world are affected. Balance, carefully nurtured, is much harder to achieve when having to deal with such impossible to balance odds. You'll be severly limiting yourself in the use of foes (since their XP affect balance), respawns, and encounters. The proposed system of encounters scaling with difficulty could potentially lead to hard being easier than easy due to the increased XP. Again, limiting freedom for developers to create encounters, scenerio's due to having to cope with the system.

 

Is that better, I ask you seriously...?

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Stealth is likely to be very difficult with a group of six characters. Magic is certainly an asset, but not infallible, and can be easily balanced by developers. Unless it's very dark, your character is carrying almost no gear, AND the guard you are sneaking past has a very restrictive helmet, a person is most likely going to fail sneaking past. These complications are compounded in any sort of open room, lit room, or hallway without alcoves or very large and plentiful pillars.

 

Stealth, realistically, is not easy--particularly for a group of six gear laden adventurers. Furthermore, should you fail, you will likely be in a tactically disadvantaged position. There are more scenarios where it will cost less for a group of seasoned and experienced professional mercanaries to cleave their way through an obstacle than slip by it--be assured. Likewise, there will be certain tasks far better suited to subtle sneaking. Different tools for different problems.

 

The idea that all tactics for all quests everywhere must be equal is absurd.

[TRX850]

@Lephys, I personally would support disabling level up during combat. Just grey it out, and allow players to level up either at a rest spot afterwards or in town or whatever. Easy.

 

And I wasn't suggesting that running away or delaying objectives was a preferred play style. More of a necessity in some circumstances. I'd much rather run away when all my characters were reduced to 1 HP, rest up, and return to finish what I started, rather than let everyone die, then reload.

 

And in answer to another point, Challenge Rating (CR) is there to adjust XP rewards when party level and enemy level differ.  If my party was vastly superior to a group of bandits, I know in advance they will net me little or no XP.  But I'm still gonna wipe the floor with them because I want their loot.

 

And we also previously discussed fighting multiple enemies over time, compared with one enemy for the same duration. The greater the threat, the more unfair it is. That's not my rule. That's just the way life is. The XP system shouldn't have to divvy out points based on how long you take.  I'm not sure what else you're asking, but in terms of design, I still believe combat XP will handle any partial outcomes of combat.