Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[Hassat Hunter]

The IE games allow you to individually steer your party, just like Commando's does.

 

Yes, moving all 6 members along may take a while...

 

Hey, weren't there people saying sneaking was far quicker? Guess it ain't...

[jivex5k]

If combat is fun I know I won't avoid it to save time and resources, I will look for it.

Stealthing or avoiding fights could also require time and resources.

Besides, what about the loot from the enemies?

[Amentep]

Sneak XP would be extremely problematic, as it would very easily turn into a grindable exploit.

 

Nope, it wouldn't. If a group was scripted to give XP only once for sneaking past them. And if you kill them after that you'd get no xp either.

 

I suppose you could assign a system that gives an opponent a set of xp that is "taken" when the player kills or stealths the enemy, thus allowing the xp to be gainable only once.

 

I'm not entirely sure how that's fundamentally different from assigning an objective "get past the enemy" to a quest and rewarding the same amound of total XP for the objective as to the individual kills/stealths.

[Valorian]

Sneak XP would be extremely problematic, as it would very easily turn into a grindable exploit.

 

Nope, it wouldn't. If a group was scripted to give XP only once for sneaking past them. And if you kill them after that you'd get no xp either.

 

I suppose you could assign a system that gives an opponent a set of xp that is "taken" when the player kills or stealths the enemy, thus allowing the xp to be gainable only once.

 

I'm not entirely sure how that's fundamentally different from assigning an objective "get past the enemy" to a quest and rewarding the same amound of total XP for the objective as to the individual kills/stealths.

 

It's diffent because...

The player could kill 5 enemies from a group of 10 and then run away to survive. He'd get no xp under the "quest xp only" system.

[Hassat Hunter]

I'm not entirely sure how that's fundamentally different from assigning an objective "get past the enemy" to a quest and rewarding the same amound of total XP for the objective as to the individual kills/stealths.

It'll be a hell easier to program... that's the difference.

 

What seems easy on paper can be hard to replicate in a game. Like "add physics"...

[PrimeJunta]

It's diffent because...

The player could kill 5 enemies from a group of 10 and then run away to survive. He'd get no xp under the "quest xp only" system.

 

Assuming that most players will want to complete most quests they accept, this seems like a fairly minor difference in terms of results, but much, much more complicated to implement. What, exactly, counts as 'sneaking past an enemy' anyway? This is clearly more ambiguous than killing them.

 

The incentives are slightly different, though -- the scheme you're proposing rewards trying, whereas the quest-xp system rewards succeeding.

 

Personally I strongly favor incentive schemes that reward results rather than process. For example, I would prefer to be paid for outputs rather than by the hour. In fact I think a big reason things go wrong in the workplace is because people are rewarded for adherence to process rather than for achieving objectives. But that's waaaayyy off topic... except insofar as XP is an incentive scheme.

Edited January 16, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Valorian]

The incentives are slightly different, though -- the scheme you're proposing rewards trying, whereas the quest-xp system rewards succeeding.

 

 

No, it doesn't. The 5 dead monsters are a very real success.

Why should you wait, for instance, an in-game month to get rewarded (if ever) for overcoming 5 monsters?

[Hassat Hunter]

Why should you wait, for instance, an in-game month to get rewarded (if ever) for overcoming 5 monsters?

Why do you need an instant-reward?

 

Why return to the quest-giver for the reward? Give it right away, makes it go faster. Why reward option A with dialogue A later and B with B later. Such a late reward is silly... just give XP and the later dialogue should do C whatever you did.

[PrimeJunta]

No, it doesn't. The 5 dead monsters are a very real success.

Why should you wait, for instance, an in-game month to get rewarded (if ever) for overcoming 5 monsters?

 

I wrote a bunch of code today. It runs and does something. It is not, however, yet useful for accomplishing anything. Do you think I should be rewarded for writing those lines of code? Me, no. I think I only deserve a reward once that part is finished and ready to accomplish the purpose for which I'm writing it.

[Amentep]

Sneak XP would be extremely problematic, as it would very easily turn into a grindable exploit.

 

Nope, it wouldn't. If a group was scripted to give XP only once for sneaking past them. And if you kill them after that you'd get no xp either.

 

I suppose you could assign a system that gives an opponent a set of xp that is "taken" when the player kills or stealths the enemy, thus allowing the xp to be gainable only once.

 

I'm not entirely sure how that's fundamentally different from assigning an objective "get past the enemy" to a quest and rewarding the same amound of total XP for the objective as to the individual kills/stealths.

 

It's diffent because...

The player could kill 5 enemies from a group of 10 and then run away to survive. He'd get no xp under the "quest xp only" system.

 

To counter this argument, I'll ask - why should the player be rewarded for loosing combat against a group? If a Dragon gives 100,000,000 combat XP, should a player who gets the dragon to half her HP before running away get 50,000,000 combat xp? Because that's equivilent to killing 5 of 10 in a group...

Edited January 16, 2013 by Amentep

[jivex5k]

The major issue with stealth in these games as opposed to dishonored or hitman is that you have a party of 6 to sneak around which isn't really feasible, so it would be nice to be able to split your party up and perhaps sneak the lightly armored characters into a flanking position before you initiate combat, or use them to flick switches that could, for example, drop a drawbridge on a guard etc..

It would also be great to have some assassination quests where you get a bonus for being unseen, as long as it allows you to use one character.

 

I just don't really see anyone sneaking their entire party through the entire game, i doubt the sneaking mechanics will be that easy without making a very unbalanced party that will still have to fight some battles (unless they put in a pacifist option).

That's a great point!

[Valorian]

Why should you wait, for instance, an in-game month to get rewarded (if ever) for overcoming 5 monsters?

Why do you need an instant-reward?

 

Why return to the quest-giver for the reward? Give it right away, makes it go faster. Why reward option A with dialogue A later and B with B later. Such a late reward is silly... just give XP and the later dialogue should do C whatever you did.

 

Because you're not yet strong enough to kill the remaining 5? Because you forgot about that optional side quest and moved on?

 

I wrote a bunch of code today. It runs and does something. It is not, however, yet useful for accomplishing anything. Do you think I should be rewarded for writing those lines of code? Me, no. I think I only deserve a reward once that part is finished and ready to accomplish the purpose for which I'm writing it.

 

You should never be rewarded for writing anything, really.

No, writing gibberish code is not the same thing as defeating 5 monsters and improving your combat skills in the process.

[jivex5k]

I see that it has now finally been accepted that there is a problem with with "quest only xp".

 

No, there's really not a problem with it at all as long as combat is fun for me.

 

I don't get why you guys are so worried it will ruin the game, it won't.

 

Assuming the combat system is engaging, winning the battle is enough of a reward because:

1. You beat them! Congrats, you're doing good, it's pretty satisfying using tactics to take out hard enemies, or even steamrolling lesser ones.

2. You get loot!

3. The story or side story will be progressing.

4. You know you're slightly closer to finishing the quest and getting a nice fat XP reward.

5. It's fun! Isn't that the whole point?

 

I also like it because:

1. It eliminates the need for grinding.

2. It forces you to go into a quest and sticking with that particular skill set. No leveling up mid quest and getting a handy ability you realize you could really use.

3. It's a fresh idea!

 

As for the whole sneaking thing...if your so worried about doing the absolute best in the game and saving every resource and saying I don't want to get into fights because it's not the absolute most efficient path....well that's on you. No one forces you to avoid fights, and it probably won't be that easy to sneak an entire party by some enemies.

 

Sneaking past every enemy to conserve resources sounds pretty damn boring to me, this isn't metal gear solid.

 

Now if the combat system sucks...this whole game will suck so it will all be moot.

Edited January 16, 2013 by jivex5k

[Valorian]

To counter this argument, I'll ask - why should the player be rewarded for loosing combat against a group? If a Dragon gives 100,000,000 combat XP, should a player who gets the dragon to half her HP before running away get 50,000,000 combat xp? Because that's equivilent to killing 5 of 10 in a group...

 

Because the dragon will regenerate his stamina back when you leave, just like the player. Will rest too, probably.

 

The 5 monsters will stay dead.

[Amentep]

To counter this argument, I'll ask - why should the player be rewarded for loosing combat against a group? If a Dragon gives 100,000,000 combat XP, should a player who gets the dragon to half her HP before running away get 50,000,000 combat xp? Because that's equivilent to killing 5 of 10 in a group...

 

Because the dragon will regenerate his stamina back when you leave, just like the player. Will rest too, probably.

 

The 5 monsters will stay dead.

 

But what if the 5 remaining monsters are rejoined by 5 of their pals (respawn)? From a game standpoint, the encounter is still the same, so rewarding the failure to take the 10 monsters all at once with a combat xp system will reward you constantly. (Do we know if PE monsters will respawn?)

[Valorian]

To counter this argument, I'll ask - why should the player be rewarded for loosing combat against a group? If a Dragon gives 100,000,000 combat XP, should a player who gets the dragon to half her HP before running away get 50,000,000 combat xp? Because that's equivilent to killing 5 of 10 in a group...

 

Because the dragon will regenerate his stamina back when you leave, just like the player. Will rest too, probably.

 

The 5 monsters will stay dead.

 

But what if the 5 remaining monsters are rejoined by 5 of their pals (respawn)? From a game standpoint, the encounter is still the same, so rewarding the failure to take the 10 monsters all at once with a combat xp system will reward you constantly. (Do we know if PE monsters will respawn?)

 

What if... respawns?

What if... plague strikes?

What if... earthquake?

 

You still improved your skills by killing them.

 

There shouldn't be raspawns because this means unlimited loot and/or xp for the player so it's an inherently negative machanic, unless it's a MMO.

 

 

No, I won't accept the "learn by doing" xp for hitting the dragon, because this is not the spiritual successor to TES and I wouldn't like the silliness that springs from such a system in PE.

[Amentep]

But what if the 5 remaining monsters are rejoined by 5 of their pals (respawn)? From a game standpoint, the encounter is still the same, so rewarding the failure to take the 10 monsters all at once with a combat xp system will reward you constantly. (Do we know if PE monsters will respawn?)

 

What if... respawns?

What if... plague strikes?

What if... earthquake?

 

You still improved your skills by killing them.

 

There shouldn't be raspawns because this means unlimited loot and/or xp for the player so it's an inherently negative machanic, unless it's a MMO.

 

No, I won't accept the "learn by doing" xp for hitting the dragon, because this is not the spiritual successor to TES and I wouldn't like the silliness that springs from such a system in PE.

 

I don't want a learn by doing system either (I think I said that up in the thread). Why would respawns effect loot (or are you saying that your party, after killing 5 monsters, stopped in combat to loot the bodies? No wonder they lost to the remaining 5! )

 

You're still improving your skills by killing them - by killing all of them not half of them (as an old music teacher once said "perfect practice makes perfect" doing it wrong doesn't improve you any!)

Edited January 16, 2013 by Amentep

[PrimeJunta]

I apologize, Valorian. I mistakenly assumed that you wanted to have a meaningful exchange of ideas. If you just want to trade barbs instead, you're going to have to find somebody else to do it with.

 

I won't waste your time again. Send me a PM me if you change your mind.

[Valorian]

I don't want a learn by doing system either (I think I said that up in the thread). Why would respawns effect loot (or are you saying that your party, after killing 5 monsters, stopped in combat to loot the bodies? No wonder they lost to the remaining 5! )

 

It affects loot. In IE games it is very easy to take loot during combat.

A rogue taking a strong stamina potion from a corpse could change the battle.

 

You're still improving your skills by killing them - by killing all of them not half of them

 

It only works like that... if the world follows your twisted logic. But that's highly unlikely.

[Valorian]

The discussion amounts to this:

 

-) Non-combat will be favored because alternatives to combat are easier, less complex, cost less resources and take generally less time to complete. IE games are indicative in this regard, seeing how stealth and dialgue worked there.

 

-) That is not true!

What if....

It costs 100 000 gold pieces to make a diplomacy check??

 

interjects: You've just upgraded the cost to an unreasonable level, not the complexity of choosing dialogue options.

 

It costs potions(!) if you want to sneak around??

 

interjects: It is unreasonable to expect them to design stealth around drinking invisibility potions. Then that's not sneaking around, it's drinking around.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Valorian

[Helm]

It is unreasonable to expect them to design stealth around drinking invisibility potions. Then that's not sneaking around, it's drinking around.

lol

 

Funny. But true.

[Sacred_Path]

interjects: It is unreasonable to expect them to design stealth around drinking invisibility potions. Then that's not sneaking around, it's drinking around.

 

OMIGAD.

 

I wonder what you thought about combat in the IE games, where combat was designed around chugging health potions (well, stitching needles or smth in PS:T's case). According to your logic, that wasn't fighting, it's drinking.

 

What about the fact that at higher levels, IE (=DnD) combat tended to become a game of your tanks playing merry-go-round while success came from your casters pulling off the right (AoE) spells at the right time? Then that wasn't fighting or drinking, it's casting.

[Hassat Hunter]

You know in IE resting was free, and healed right.

 

OMG... Combat costs 0 resources.

 

[Valorian]

interjects: It is unreasonable to expect them to design stealth around drinking invisibility potions. Then that's not sneaking around, it's drinking around.

 

OMIGAD.

 

I wonder what you thought about combat in the IE games, where combat was designed around chugging health potions (well, stitching needles or smth in PS:T's case). According to your logic, that wasn't fighting, it's drinking.

 

What about the fact that at higher levels, IE (=DnD) combat tended to become a game of your tanks playing merry-go-round while success came from your casters pulling off the right (AoE) spells at the right time? Then that wasn't fighting or drinking, it's casting.

 

*wonders why anyone would think that designing a play style around chugging potions is not inherently a negative thing*

 

*wonders how he played without casters just fine and why would anyone think that casting combat spells in combat is something odd*

[Valorian]

You know in IE resting was free, and healed right.

 

OMG... Combat costs 0 resources.

 

 

: Potions don't reappear as you wake up though.