Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[Lephys]

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.

I'm not suggesting it won't. It will, just fine. I've played plenty of "kill XP" games, and I enjoy them. But, at the same time, it's not a big deal if XP is handled in a different manner. Why? Because it's not really hurting anything, except a scenario in which you run away and never return.

 

Also, we're only talking about the optional stuff, here. If the vast majority of the game is going to require you to overcome combat obstacles, then it doesn't matter HOW that XP is awarded, again, since not killing all the things results in a halt to your progression through the game. Which is again why I say, if you're going out of your way to kill things (be it for pure enjoyment, or loot, or XP), why would you suddenly stop killing things part of the way through a group of things, then decide never again to finish killing those things ever in the future, then blame the game for your lack of XP gained?

 

Also, I think that, with all this in mind, there shouldn't just be optional things floating about that CAN be killed for XP, but are in no way affiliated with any other objective, whatsoever (like blocking something you're trying to get to, or being diplomacizable to some end, or being part of some threat to a village or group, or having a bounty on its head, or guarding loot/quest items, etc.). Those things have to be put there by the devs, and it's completely unnecessary to Diabloe-esquely populate an area with killable things in a game like P:E unless your SOLE intention is for there to be things to kill, purely for the gain of XP and for no other reason whatsoever.

 

So, about the ONLY thing that objective-based XP might not end up handling (even though it still actually can) are the partial outcomes of combat. For everything else, there's Mastercard.

[TRX850]

We're getting somewhat closer to an understanding here, just like before. I can feel it.

 

There are many other reasons why you might not complete an objective all in one go.

- You're traveling overland from A to B, but pass the fringes of a xvart camp, and before you know it, a few of the little buggers come at you. So you kill those, and continue on your way. That's a partial objective.

- Early in the game, you might arbitrarily kill a few bears in the forest which belong to a druidic faction. Maybe you got too close and aggro'd them and decided to fight. Then later in the game, you encounter an evil dude who wants the forest cleared of animals. Well, you've actually killed a few bears already, but have no intention of killing 57 other bears. That's a partial objective.

- You might end up killing 5 out of 10 bandits before they suffer a morale failure and try to run away. You're only able to shoot 2 more with arrows before the rest escape. That's a partial objective.

 

I think what you're talking about is how does the game engine determine a party's intent before the fact.  Whereas my argument is about adjudicating behaviour after the fact. So I still go back to my Cause and Effect argument.  Award the player with an unbiased core mechanic, THEN determine the effects (if any) against their reputation and whether there's a ripple effect onto various factions.

[Lephys]

We're getting somewhat closer to an understanding here, just like before. I can feel it.

 

There are many other reasons why you might not complete an objective all in one go.

- You're traveling overland from A to B, but pass the fringes of a xvart camp, and before you know it, a few of the little buggers come at you. So you kill those, and continue on your way. That's a partial objective.

- Early in the game, you might arbitrarily kill a few bears in the forest which belong to a druidic faction. Maybe you got too close and aggro'd them and decided to fight. Then later in the game, you encounter an evil dude who wants the forest cleared of animals. Well, you've actually killed a few bears already, but have no intention of killing 57 other bears. That's a partial objective.

- You might end up killing 5 out of 10 bandits before they suffer a morale failure and try to run away. You're only able to shoot 2 more with arrows before the rest escape. That's a partial objective.

 

I think what you're talking about is how does the game engine determine a party's intent before the fact.  Whereas my argument is about adjudicating behaviour after the fact. So I still go back to my Cause and Effect argument.  Award the player with an unbiased core mechanic, THEN determine the effects (if any) against their reputation and whether there's a ripple effect onto various factions.

I dunno... I just... I mean, the game doesn't really NEED to accommodate part of an objective that wasn't finished all in one go.

 

Also, I'm with you, but an unbiased core mechanic is not "You totally get XP every time you decide to hack something up, but you don't get XP every time you sneak past things or unlock things or talk to people or get good deals on the loot you sell or locate and gather some herbs."

 

If a couple of little buggars from the buggar camp wander over and you fight them, then how is that any different from wandering into a spike trap instead of circumventing it? You don't get anything for the spike trap, but it took health and combat resources from you. You actually DO get loot from the little buggar patrol.

 

Now, if you went and cleared half the buggar camp, then the game actually encouraged you to leave and never come back, then there would be a problem.

 

In other words, how is "You wandered into a bear, and now you have to fight it (or reload and not-wander into it), but you don't get any XP for just the death of this stray bear" biased, as opposed to unbiased? Is the spike trap scenario favoring the playstyle of avoiding spike traps? Is the fact that you lose more health and use up more abilities in combat the more inefficiently you control your party biased against people who don't make very intelligent combat decisions and hate being not-invulnerable?

 

Everyone seems to love pointing out how not granting kill XP for all things made dead is discriminating against a combat-heavy playstyle, but how is "You always get more XP if you kill things" unbiased against all other playstyles? Sure, you can forcibly MAKE it unbiased by compensating in every single instance with non-combat exception XP, but isn't it simply easier to say "If you should get XP for it, it's an objective or a direct part of one, and if you shouldn't, it isn't."?

 

And no, I'm not worried about the game's ability to discern player intent. If your intent is to kill stuff (whether it be for the fun of it, or XP, or loot, or quest completion, etc), then you're going to kill the stuff. If it isn't, then you aren't going to. That's all the game needs to know, really. You can be as conflicted as you want, and all that matters is what you ultimately do or don't do.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

I dunno... I just... I mean, the game doesn't really NEED to accommodate part of an objective that wasn't finished all in one go.

 

Sure it does. For the reasons I gave above.

 

Also, I'm with you, but an unbiased core mechanic is not "You totally get XP every time you decide to hack something up, but you don't get XP every time you sneak past things or unlock things or talk to people or get good deals on the loot you sell or locate and gather some herbs."

 

I've suggested before that XP should be awarded for overcoming non-trivial threats or gaining non-trivial items/lore. Dangerous traps. Fast talking. Getting a good deal.

 

It's actually rewarding you for investing in skills. Last time I checked, that's true in the real world too.

 

If a couple of little buggars from the buggar camp wander over and you fight them, then how is that any different from wandering into a spike trap instead of circumventing it? You don't get anything for the spike trap, but it took health and combat resources from you. You actually DO get loot from the little buggar patrol.

 

As above. You should get XP for disarming a dangerous spike trap. The number of traps and locked doors/chests in P:E is a finite number, so at least the total XP reward would be a known value.

 

Now, if you went and cleared half the buggar camp, then the game actually encouraged you to leave and never come back, then there would be a problem.

 

Agreed. But the game doesn't take into account the party's current agenda. You might be in a hurry to get from A to B, with the intention of returning afterwards to the xvart camp. It has no way of knowing that until you return. Why deny them XP for a partial objective that wasn't their main focus for now?

 

In other words, how is "You wandered into a bear, and now you have to fight it (or reload and not-wander into it), but you don't get any XP for just the death of this stray bear" biased, as opposed to unbiased? Is the spike trap scenario favoring the playstyle of avoiding spike traps? Is the fact that you lose more health and use up more abilities in combat the more inefficiently you control your party biased against people who don't make very intelligent combat decisions and hate being not-invulnerable?

 

The core mechanic will determine if any XP for the bear is awarded based on a CR value. Then the reputation/faction system will determine what ripple effect killing a bear has. Maybe that druidic faction will come pay you a visit? Maybe you got a bearskin pelt out of it?

 

And you could net some XP for that trap if you successfully detected and disarmed it, as I mentioned above.

 

Everyone seems to love pointing out how not granting kill XP for all things made dead is discriminating against a combat-heavy playstyle, but how is "You always get more XP if you kill things" unbiased against all other playstyles? Sure, you can forcibly MAKE it unbiased by compensating in every single instance with non-combat exception XP, but isn't it simply easier to say "If you should get XP for it, it's an objective or a direct part of one, and if you shouldn't, it isn't."?

 

The devs will probably design everything in the game to belong to an objective in one way or another. And for all the reasons I gave, and a whole lot more I'm sure I'll think of tonight, there needs to be a system to handle partial outcomes.

 

I don't want extra XP.  That's not what my argument is about.  It's about giving the player the freedom of choice, and not allowing the "system" to largely decide it for you.  I will most likely play a good guy the first couple of playthroughs, and will play with a rational mindset.  But eventually, whether I intentionally turn maverick -- or have no option but to end up with a few messy objectives -- in terms of design, combat XP will handle the messy bits.

 

Edit:

 

And no, I'm not worried about the game's ability to discern player intent. If your intent is to kill stuff (whether it be for the fun of it, or XP, or loot, or quest completion, etc), then you're going to kill the stuff. If it isn't, then you aren't going to. That's all the game needs to know, really. You can be as conflicted as you want, and all that matters is what you ultimately do or don't do.

 

Using the old system, fighters got naff all skill points to invest every level, whereas rogues received a ton.  And what are rogues good at? Stealth and Negotiation. Bards and Monks come second, and maybe rangers. At least in IWD2 they did.

 

So, if a non-fighter character prefers not to fight, preferring to use his/her non-combat skills, wouldn't it make more sense to award XP for those skills to balance things out more?  XP for lockpicking and disarming traps.  XP for brokering a particularly sensitive peace deal, or talking your way out of trouble.  And so on.

 

A combat-ready fighter won't have the same skill-set, so the bulk of their XP comes from fighting.  A sneaky diplomat won't be killing as much, so the bulk of their XP comes from stealth and fast talking.

Edited February 12, 2013 by TRX850

[Ganrich]

I am in the camp of objective XP only should be fine. I do understand why others are opposed to it though.

 

I have seen the argument that the stealthy or diplomatic characters don't have the same risks as the combat characters would. In some situations this could be the case, but in many it could also be the farthest thing from the truth. Also, people are worried about people skipping all combat since XP isn't going to be rewarded there thus going through the game faster etc etc, and I understand this worry as well.

 

Using Lephys's 10 bandit example:

 

Fighter chooses to to cut to the chase and just kill the ten bandits. Death upon failure. While Xp, loot, and possible renown/reputation/faction stuff upon success.

 

Rogue attempts to sneak by bandits.... PRISON BREAK!!!!! Failure leads to combat because Johnny bandit # 1 heard that twig break, and that puts the rogue where the fighter started. Except the rogue isn't John Rambo, and he was just caught with his pants down. He is now stuck fighting the bandit group and is much less equipped for front line fighting, and thus he is in more danger on failure than the fighter would be. Success at stealth means more or less what the fighter got save some loot maybe, unless he used the poison method.

 

Diplomat character attempts to strike a deal with the bandits. He makes an offer that the bandits can't refuse. Wrong. The leader of the bandit group is furious at your attempt and you are in the same shoes now that the rogue would be in. This example can be easier depending on class. A paladin would have an easier time failing (and fighting his/her way out) than a bard, for instance. However, failure results in combat. Success results in similar rewards to the rogues prison break attempt.

 

Failure in the second 2 cases results in combat regardless, and possibly puts players of those play styles in MORE danger than the fighter. I call that pretty fair, all in all. It isn't perfect, but nothing is.

 

I know there are definitely examples where the system doesn't work perfectly, and I hope OEI has the foresight to avoid these scenarios. I think a system that sometimes shows flaws is better than a combat xp system that always has a flaw of leaving other playstyles at a disadvantage. I have faith in Obsidian, myself. I know this isn't set in stone yet, as well. If it needs to change... it will be changed. I think Sawyer has said it would, in fact, change if it didn't work out.

 

I like the idea because it increases replayability, for me, at least. 3 different ways to play the game. I am still open to change my mind, but this is where I am on the subject at the moment. I think the only thing I will miss is the lucky level up right before, or during, a boss fight in a big dungeon. I think I can make due, though.

[TRX850]

I haven't read all 480 posts in this forum, but I've read quite a few. And the feeling I get from both sides of the argument is that some people want XP rewards a certain way, but are not entirely sure why they want it that way, other than claiming it's tidier or better.

 

My viewpoint is from a purely design angle.  It has nothing to do with play style.  I like sneaking and negotiating and investigating mysteries.  Combat is a by-product of adventuring that happens to be challenging and fun.  Excitement followed by reflection.  Like a good movie that draws you in.

 

I stand by my earlier comments that combat XP is needed to handle situations that quest/objective XP cannot.  Namely partial or unintentional involvement in an objective, or a desire to play against the system with a chaotic or evil lead character.  I honestly don't know why people are so against having this simple system in place to support quest XP rewards.  No one ever said it should replace it.  I just find it amusing that "someone" quite a while back stated that combat XP was proven to be a bad system and therefore quest XP was the answer, and so many people believed it without a shred of evidence and jumped on a band wagon without realising what they'd agreed to.

 

I learned a long time ago that you can't stop someone who is determined to miss the point.  And once someone digs their heels into an idea, it's highly unlikely you'll change their mind. Having said that, I know that most of you here are intelligent enough to know that claims without evidence are not claims at all, and while all of us still speculate, including myself, the only reasonable outcome has to be based on good, clear examples that bring reason and rationale to the discussion.  I doubt the devs are reading any of this, but I believe they will find the best design solution in the end.

[Jarmo]

Anyhoo.  

 

There were some NWN (or was it NWN2) modules, either the Dreamcatcher-Demon by Adam Miller or Elegia or Hex Coda by Stefan Gagne that had objective only XP implemented. (all the modules were pure awesomeness BTW)

 

The system didn't actually affect my playthroughs one bit. Didn't even notice it, only later noticed the XP thing from some discussion (and that's why I don't even remember what module it was). I just did what my character would do and everything worked, got new levels every now and then. I don't actually tend to pay attention to how many XP points the random orc netted anyway.

 

The only place where I've adjusted my actions based on XP rewards has been disarming/recovering traps and picking locks.

And that was both for good and bad, good as in I no longer plow through smaller traps and trust my ring of regeneration to undo the scratches,

bad as in going out of my way to disarm all the traps, even the ones completely out of my way I would otherwise leave well alone.

[Bitula]

I wouldn’t mind the objective system if the battle encounters were inherently objectives themselves. It wouldn’t matter then too much, whether the developers reward XP according to the number and difficulty (ECL) of creatures, the difficulty of combat measured in a different way, number of loot, or significance of the encounter. This would still be close to combat XP. What matters is that it should never happen that a trivially challenging (or just not plain easy) combat rewards no XP at all. That is unnatural, unrealistic and will leave you forever unsatisfied: what possible game experience (not XP) and loot have I missed.

[Sacred_Path]

I stand by my earlier comments that combat XP is needed to handle situations that quest/objective XP cannot.  Namely partial or unintentional involvement in an objective, or a desire to play against the system with a chaotic or evil lead character.

Does it occur to you there should be ways to play the game... wrong? *gasp* I know I know, there's the school of thought that proclaims "but it's an Urr-Pee-Jee!" therefore whatever you do should be viable. I think that's ludicrous. You could roleplay a character that kills any NPC in an IE game, but it would cause you to lose the game. That's alright. If you choose to never actively pursue any objective in a game with objective XP that might lead you to being seriously underpowered. That's ok. There's player freedom but there's also design and the skill (not just will) to play the game effectively.

[TRX850]

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the game engine should provide the player with choice, even if it's the *illusion* of choice, and then let the reputation/faction system handle the consequences of their actions.  If a player starts killing everyone in sight, then yes, the game will react harshly, prompting the player with the option to choose a better strategy.  But by not providing that option in the first place, the game is deciding what is best for the player without them really having to decide.  Have you ever wondered what would happen if you betrayed someone in the game?  Or started off evil then decided to turn good? Or vice versa?  It's called choice. Or would you not want to have that choice available to you?

[TrashMan]

 

 

I stand by my earlier comments that combat XP is needed to handle situations that quest/objective XP cannot.  Namely partial or unintentional involvement in an objective, or a desire to play against the system with a chaotic or evil lead character.

 

What?

Objective XP can handle all situations, because objectives are neutral.

It doesn't matter how you handle the encounter.

 

 

[Sacred_Path]

But by not providing that option in the first place, the game is deciding what is best for the player without them really having to decide.

Noone is talking about taking the option to kill anything away though. You just don't get the usual reward (XP) for it.

Have you ever wondered what would happen if you betrayed someone in the game?  Or started off evil then decided to turn good? Or vice versa?  It's called choice. Or would you not want to have that choice available to you?

There's nothing about that the objective XP system couldn't handle though. Turn around in the middle of a quest? Fine, you probably already got some objectives done. It's more of a question of how much choice the game is designed for, rather than what the XP system is.

[Hassat Hunter]

TRX, have you ever mentioned why partially completed objectives NEED rewards? It's an objective, you get rewarded when it's done. If it's not done, it's simply not done. I don't see why you should be rewarded for sloppy work. That's like praising a developer for shipping their game in an unfixed state. It's okay, you did partial work, here's your XP.

Give me a good reason why going out on a quest to find object X, you retrieve it, then you never return it should be rewarded. Any.

 

Because so far the only reason you have given is 'it just has' and 'I have shown you why it's important to reward ****ing hack-jobs before' (I haven't found it).

 

If you kill 3 of the sverf long before and never return for the other 7 you SHOULDN'T be rewarded. If you kill 2 out of 50 (horrible objective, don't design quests please) bears you SHOULDN'T be rewarded. If you run away tail between your legs you SHOULDN'T be rewarded. Well, unless the goal was 'survive' or 'flee' and you did that successfully. But in your example it was just the player FAILING.

 

I have a hard mind grasping the concept of rewarding failures, half-jobs and incompetance. Must be me...

 

And no, just "adding reputation" wont fix it. Especially seeing how you also hammer killing gaining losses and penalties. It sounds more to me a system like you suggest would make combat less viable than objective XP (which doesn't) since each kill harms your reputation somewhere. Which... would be bad wouldn't you agree?

 

Don't get me wrong, the reputation system not like BG but differenting on groups is great. But seriously, it shouldn't affect combat at all. Cause it's just ruining a good system making it a patchjob for another system. Patchjobs are bad, mkay?

 

Also, if you have been unable to find the reason why Lephys or me are pro-objective system, even if it's posted so many times, you do a sloppy job reading. We're both really sure why we want it. We try to explain it over and over, but it doesn't seem to hang.

 

Heck, even in my previous post there are several good reasons why objective-XP over kill-XP suits PE and it's design documentation better.

Dangerous traps. Fast talking. Getting a good deal.

Didn't you play BG2, KOTOR2? Read the thread? Seen the insane Degenerate behavior traps. Or just read Jarmo's post above.

It should show you the fallacify of thinking "rewarding for traps/door unlocking etc." is good. It may look so on paper, but in reality in gameplay, it's only deteremental.

As stated, picking a door is it's OWN reward. Disarming a trap is it's OWN reward. No need to smack XP on it. It's somewhat the same with combat. You already get loot, satisfaction, a clear playing field. No need to double-reward.

It's actually rewarding you for investing in skills. Last time I checked, that's true in the real world too.

Indeed. Your skills allow you to pass that persuasion check, unlock the door, disarm the mine. I just don't see why you need to get XP for it too. Unless you really want a system where finding 40 traps (think the expansion dungeon of BG1, forgot the name) doesn't mean avoiding them or disarming, but disarming them all.

Also it would make locked doors and traps suddenly fall in balance, instead of designing an area. I rather want area designers to do their thing, without the XP system shoving in their face "you can't place a full mine-trap here, it would harm XP"... think Telos or Goto's Yacht in KOTOR2 for a good example where level design and XP design (per mine) seriously hampers the overall game (and no, I don't talk about the stupid AI being unable to detect mines and just charging them)...

The devs will probably design everything in the game to belong to an objective in one way or another. And for all the reasons I gave, and a whole lot more I'm sure I'll think of tonight, there needs to be a system to handle partial outcomes.

Again, I ask... why? Why account for players being ignorant, or doing half-jobs? Why should the gamedevs take into account someone driving through the McDrive and not ordering anything, but they plan "to return later"... what was the point of it? There was no point.

If we start rewarding 'no point' then indeed the objective system would falter and die... since it's intention is to...

*dramatic music*

REWARD DOING SOMETHING USEFUL. Or well, having 'a point'.

 

If we start handling "partial objectives" the entire system crashes and burns down. And the game will be sloppy indeed. I rather, with all my limited power, prevent such a stupid thing from happening.

It's about giving the player the freedom of choice, and not allowing the "system" to largely decide it for you.  I will most likely play a good guy the first couple of playthroughs, and will play with a rational mindset.  But eventually, whether I intentionally turn maverick -- or have no option but to end up with a few messy objectives -- in terms of design, combat XP will handle the messy bits.

It wont. The goal is set, it's up to the player to achieve it. The system is completely oblivious and doesn't give a **** how you do it. Just... do it. If you don't do it, or partially do it... good for you. But no cookie. You may have your reasons, or not.

 

And again, you can't think of evil further than "murder everyone"... and combine that with 'OE wont take evil into account'. Conclusion taken "we need combat XP".

Problem with the conclusion however are the initial 2 statements being false. I would be seriously dissapointed if 'evil' is slaughtering anyone. But I am not going to assume it's so cause we're still talking about OE. And they hopefully not make fallicity statements like 'evil = killing, so killing XP must be in for evil player". Rather... evil objectives. Helping the bandits. Saving the kitty to wreck it's neck infront of the little girl asking you to save it. Forcing a hooker looking for freedom to work for you. Much more satisfying than murder everyone.

My viewpoint is from a purely design angle.

I feel to see a design perspective where it's beneficial to add another layer to the already complex XP system in the form of reputation intead of basing it on your ingame actions rather than compensate for each individual kill.

But maybe I am just a crazy developer. Maybe.

 

And I guarantee you, I look to it from a designer AND players perspective. Weighing dev-time to effect, not cutting corners and doing the best for gamers too. I don't want either group skimped out. I want level designers and encounter designers free reign. Tightly balanced leveling and progression. I want the game to have a story, a path that stews you forward. A lush world to explore. And all the suggestions are to make the game so.

Would you not want the game like that?

Like a good movie that draws you in.

Oh, nice anatology. Now tell me why the player should leave during 3/4th of the movie and have the full game experience, as you proclamate several times with "partial objectives need reward".

What sane point do you have leaving 3/4th in. Is it common. Do movie makers need to compensate for the people doing this?

I learned a long time ago that you can't stop someone who is determined to miss the point.

I've seen far too much of it in this thread, the degenerate thread and the XP-discussion thread before that, yes.

[Valorian]

 

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.

Yeah, it's amazing. The topic is comedy gold.

 

90% of a character's stats, between talents and attributes and whatnot, are focused on and meant for killing. Yet, when you kill something, you don't improve said stats.

 

 

Oh, look, there's a Wasteland 2 gameplay video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8-lG1CFZR4

 

But... I... I can't believe it! People get XP for killing things in this game! So they get better at killing things by killing things! This shocking concept is preposterous. It is HORRIFYING!! It will RUIN the game!

 

(Note that if Josh/Tim said they're going with a standard XP system, including kill XP naturally, not a single drone would voice their opinion against it, let alone write countless essays on how kill XP is the end of the world.)

[Amentep]

(Note that if Josh/Tim said they're going with a standard XP system, including kill XP naturally, not a single drone would voice their opinion against it, let alone write countless essays on how kill XP is the end of the world.)

 

To be fair, I'm not complaining about this system anymore than I'd be complaining about a standard XP system. 

 

But given that I've seen threads against kill XP crop up in conversations about other RPGs in development, I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

[Sacred_Path]

90% of a character's stats, between talents and attributes and whatnot, are focused on and meant for killing. Yet, when you kill something, you don't improve said stats.

Let's break down your run-off-the-mill CRPG stats:

 

STR: melee damage, carrying capacity, ability to bash containers

 

DEX: thieving, evasion, ranged combat

 

END: health meter, stamina, resistances

 

INT: skill/ magic related

 

CHA: ditto

 

WIS: " "

 

I think we can also expect a good number of non-combat skills, as they get their own pool of skill points. Talents/ feats can just as well pertain to sneaking, diplomacy and spellcasting.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Off-topic: That Wasteland 2-video was great! Thanks for sharing, Valorian! 

Given the links between OEI and InXile, it is fair to assume that W2 will be hinting a bit at what we can expect for PE, and what I'm seeing makes me very happy indeed. I'm so happy I got a kickstarter reward tier where this game will be on my harddrive in not even a year, hopefully.

[Razsius]

This might be my very last post on the subject.  I'm kind of thinking about going the way of PrimeJunta and bowing out.  Lephys statement that kill xp proponents had somehow been holding out on a way to magically make objective xp work was just a little irksome.  Lephys if I knew that I would've posted it a long, long time ago.  I don't know if you realize that or not.

 

@Ffordesoon

 

I think I understand where you are coming from.  I might not agree... but I understand.

 

I remember this one time where Anomen and Keldorn decided to strike up a conversation while I was playing BG: ToB.  Anomen was going on and on about how awesome being good is and that life was all happy fun time flowers for paladins/clerics like Keldorn and him.  Keldorn then proceeded to tell a rather graphic and somewhat horrifying story about his past.  Anomen didn't have much to say on the matter... in fact I really didn't either.  For just a single moment I think I had forgotten that Keldorn was actually just a companion in a game I was playing rather then a veteran warrior who was telling a story with a moral to it.  For once, a companion had gotten past the usual characterization that they are so much known for and instead become much closer to a character written from a great book (ie they are human rather than having human-like traits).  It's probably the best writing in a rpg i've seen to date.  Nothing else has ever made me forget myself... nothing.

 

You see the problem with objective xp is that it is an inherently static system.  It simply cannot mold or adapt itself to a players whims as it only rewards players for whatever the predefined objectives actually are.  Let's assume that a player is attempting to complete an evil quest that involves killing off an entire village.  Just go in, slaughter them all and then return to the quest giver and get whatever xp and rewards you get (maybe loot off the corpses as well).  This particular player likes to rp his character and make choices based on personality he/she has set or maybe the player is so into the nuanced atmosphere of the game they have "lost" themselves if you will having fun beyond measure.  He/she kills off the entire village except for a single child and for whatever reason (rping or otherwise) simply cannot bring him/herself to kill off that last npc and complete the quest.  An "objective" xp system awards no xp for this because the predefined objective of the evil questgiver was to make sure noone lives in the village but the player simply cannot complete the quest.  You see the funny thing is in this case the player *has* completed a huge objective (because objectives aren't quests remember?) the player character has simply had a change of heart but the predifined game system that is staring the player blatantly in the face will simply not recognize this.  In a kill xp system the player would've gotten the "reward" of the xp per militia/town guard/innocent villager death and might've racked up a considerable sum of xp.  Thing is this particular player might not actually *want* this xp because of the player character's change of heart and because you can't actually not earn the xp in this case.  It would forever be staring the player in the face "you have gotten more experienced by killing the innocent."  The player character now has "history."

 

To simply say this was not accounted for in the game goals would be a crushing defeat for any player choice.  Supposedly the CRPG fanbase are much more into roleplaying and exalting player choice over those "stupid people" who like JRPGs anyways.  So if the answer is "not supported because game" then there really isn't much more to talk about is there?  Maybe the supposedly open minded are instead very close minded individuals and really can't purport to be much of anything besides maybe hypocrites.  If you do not understand this example there really isn't much more I can say/type on the matter.  There is only one real thing I could say to you if that were the case.

 

I hope you never run into a game system that crushes your preferred playstyle.

 

That is all.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Razsius

[Amentep]

Razsius, I do want to say that I appreciate your posts on the topic; even if we don't agree on them.

 

You see the problem with objective xp is that it is an inherently static system.  It simply cannot mold or adapt itself to a players whims as it only rewards players for whatever the predefined objectives actually are.

 

Isn't that true of the kill XP system for any path that doesn't include killing?

One thing you can't do in the IE games is have stealth be anything but combat support (ie it can't be its own end to solving quests) because unless you kill it you don't get XP. But you need XP to be more stealthy so unless you kill you can't stealth later in the game.

And thus the conundrum - how to not invalidate different playstyles.

 

Let's assume that a player is attempting to complete an evil quest that involves killing off an entire village.  Just go in, slaughter them all and then return to the quest giver and get whatever xp and rewards you get (maybe loot off the corpses as well).  This particular player likes to rp his character and make choices based on personality he/she has set or maybe the player is so into the nuanced atmosphere of the game they have "lost" themselves if you will having fun beyond measure.  He/she kills off the entire village except for a single child and for whatever reason (rping or otherwise) simply cannot bring him/herself to kill off that last npc and complete the quest.  An "objective" xp system awards no xp for this because the predefined objective of the evil questgiver was to make sure noone lives in the village but the player simply cannot complete the quest.  You see the funny thing is in this case the player *has* completed a huge objective (because objectives aren't quests remember?) the player character has simply had a change of heart but the predifined game system that is staring the player blatantly in the face will simply not recognize this.  In a kill xp system the player would've gotten the "reward" of the xp per militia/town guard/innocent villager death and might've racked up a considerable sum of xp.  Thing is this particular player might not actually *want* this xp because of the player characters change of heart and because you can't actually not earn the xp in this case.  It would forever be staring the player in the face "you have gotten more experienced by killing the innocent."  The player character now has "history."

 

And yet if the quest is "Kill the village", your objectives could be "Kill the militia", "Kill the town elder", "kill all adults", "kill all children". The game no longer cares how you do it (so you could poison the town well or turn the militia commander against the town elder, etc). But for the person who goes in fighting - under your scenario they'd still get Objective XP for everything but "kill all children".

(Note this could be where the quest objectives could be better defined than "kill"; what if you take the child to an orphanage several miles away - technically the town is still cleared if the objectives are fixed as such).
 

I hope you never run into a game system that crushes your preferred playstyle.
 
That is all.

 

To be fair, someone who wanted to play the IE games as a diplomat or as a stealth character (some thing that was more viable in Fallout, for example, prior to BG1 coming out) kill XP did eliminate their preferred playstyle.

But if objective XP does end up making fighting a less desirable path like you fear than I'd say its failed its goal - which is to make fighting, stealth and diplomacy all viable - in a general sense (but not in a specific sense that this is always the case, only that at the top level that it is).

[TRX850]

Well said Raz.

 

I was going to write a lengthy response to Hassat Hunter, answering his questions, but there's not much more to say that hasn't already been said. One last example I'll mention is something that happens to many players.  You take on a quest, and get part way through, only to find it's way too difficult for your current level.  So you head off somewhere else and complete a couple of easier quests to get your levels up, then return to the original quest.  Hassat would have you believe that that's a "sloppy" play style.  And according to his design, you wouldn't get the partial XP for doing the early part of the quest.  Which by anyone else's standard is just plain unacceptable.

 

The same goes for similar "change of heart" examples.  You get part way through a quest only to learn that the quest-giver is not who they appear to be, so you might refuse to complete the quest and abandon it and/or kill the quest-giver.

 

This thread is nearing its allotted number of 500 posts, so will close down soon.  I've mostly stopped worrying about the XP issue anyway. As I've mentioned before, if the XP system is gimped towards a play style that doesn't suit a lot of players, an "XP Mod" will be just around the corner, thanks to the modding community.

 

TRX, out.

[Valorian]

Off-topic: That Wasteland 2-video was great! Thanks for sharing, Valorian! 

It's excellent, yes. I love the feel, environment, visuals, combat... I did not expect them to be able to reach this level of quality.

 

Even though I'm more of a fantasy rpg than sci-fi rpg type I had learned to like the latter with Fallout 1/2, a few years ago, so I'm eagerly looking forward W2. They seem more down to Earth when it comes to certain aspects (kill XP for instance) and I appreciate it.

[Razsius]

@Amentep

Isn't that true of the kill XP system for any path that doesn't include killing?

 
You still forget there's a quest (objective if you so wish) xp system in place in the IE games as well.  They are largely combat based games so a lot of things turn into combat but it's not like i'm against awarding a living avalanche of xp for doing something like diplomatically negotiating an alliance of the two strongest factions.

 

And yet if the quest is "Kill the village", your objectives could be "Kill the militia", "Kill the town elder", "kill all adults", "kill all children". The game no longer cares how you do it (so you could poison the town well or turn the militia commander against the town elder, etc). But for the person who goes in fighting - under your scenario they'd still get Objective XP for everything but "kill all children".

(Note this could be where the quest objectives could be better defined than "kill"; what if you take the child to an orphanage several miles away - technically the town is still cleared if the objectives are fixed as such).

 

Except this particular player could have the change of heart at any particular time it could be at the very first guard, somewhere in the middle or the very last child and why would the evil quest giver set such objectives? Earlier in the thread people found it absurd that you'd get rewarded for partial completions.

Here's xp for killing all the town guards from a quest giver that requires annihilation? Not to mention the aforementioned objectives are "arbitrary" anyways.

 

To be fair, someone who wanted to play the IE games as a diplomat or as a stealth character (some thing that was more viable in Fallout, for example, prior to BG1 coming out) kill XP did eliminate their preferred playstyle.

 

I'll concede the point here but I think Project Eternity is going to be a little more open ended anyways. Playing my assassin through the BG series was some of the most fun i've had however though yes it obviously included lots of killing. I'd like it to be a touch more like Arcanum myself which seems to reward players a little bit more evenly in regards to playstyles (though it's still somewhat combat weighted). As long as players get BAWS xp for being a boss as a diplomat or thief when it makes the most sense I think this can be handily remedied. Still this was purported to be a combat focused game so...

 

@Valorian

It's excellent, yes. I love the feel, environment, visuals, combat... I did not expect them to be able to reach this level of quality.

 

Even though I'm more of a fantasy rpg than sci-fi rpg type I had learned to like the latter with Fallout 1/2, a few years ago, so I'm
eagerly looking forward W2. They seem more down to Earth when it comes to certain aspects (kill XP for instance) and I appreciate it.

 

That atmospheric music is A++ quality seriously.  I think Mark Morgan's the one who wrote the Planescape soundtrack (don't quote me) and that was easily some of the best stuff i've ever heard.  I didn't think they'd have that much, this quickly at such a high as hell quality.  I am more then a little happy that i'll be getting a copy of that game because of the reward tier I pledged to for PE.  Makes me a little sad i'm not backing Wasteland 2 but I just didn't have the money back then.

 

Kickstarter's been giving me nothing but good vibes lately.  We might just have a new age of awesome games.  Age of Games returns!

 

@TRX850

TRX, out.

 

See ya on the upswing TRX *nods*.

 

Edit:

 

Razsius, I do want to say that I appreciate your posts on the topic; even if we don't agree on them.

 

Thanks btw, that does actually mean something to me and though I might be a little... coarse at times it's only because I expect reasonable answers from you guys.  I always assume you can change my mind with something I didn't think of.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Razsius

[Amentep]

I'll concede the point here but I think Project Eternity is going to be a little more open ended anyways. Playing my assassin through the BG series was some of the most fun i've had however though yes it obviously included lots of killing. I'd like it to be a touch more like Arcanum myself which seems to reward players a little bit more evenly in regards to playstyles (though it's still somewhat combat weighted). As long as players get BAWS xp for being a boss as a diplomat or thief when it makes the most sense I think this can be handily remedied. Still this was purported to be a combat focused game so...

Josh answered a question from someone about not liking IE combat and he basically said that if you didn't like that combat you probably wouldn't like PE (as I recall). So I think there's still a lot of combat focus.

 

But at this point I think we're stuck with wait and see in terms of finding more details to determine whether the system is going to work or not for combat focus.

[TRX850]

To be fair, someone who wanted to play the IE games as a diplomat or as a stealth character (some thing that was more viable in Fallout, for example, prior to BG1 coming out) kill XP did eliminate their preferred playstyle.

 

Then the game should award XP for key skills that allow those play styles to shine.

 

Disarmed a deadly trap? Award XP.

 

Negotiated your way through a grueling stand-off? Award XP.

 

It's so, so simple, yet people seem to hate the idea of being rewarded for what they're good at.

[Razsius]

 

To be fair, someone who wanted to play the IE games as a diplomat or as a stealth character (some thing that was more viable in Fallout, for example, prior to BG1 coming out) kill XP did eliminate their preferred playstyle.

 

Then the game should award XP for key skills that allow those play styles to shine.

 

Disarmed a deadly trap? Award XP.

 

Negotiated your way through a grueling stand-off? Award XP.

 

It's so, so simple, yet people seem to hate the idea of being rewarded for what they're good at.

 

I don't get it either.  In fact, I even wanted you to be awarded for just learning more about the game world's history and lore and about the backround of certain key characters but Lephys would probably give me an example of how reading every book the developers place would over level you compared to someone who didn't.  But the minute I attach "objectives" to this reading it would be perfectly fine.  Do people really want the system to point out how they should play?

 

Edit: In fact, why *shouldn't* I get xp from reading books.  I learn plenty from what I read.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Razsius