Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[Razsius]

I don't understand. It felt like we were getting somewhere for a second, but then the old binary "quest XP vs. kill XP" mentality rose up again. The system we're talking about here is not even dependent on quests or kills. It's dependent on overcoming challenges.

 

Did nobody here actually play New Vegas? You were rewarded with XP and perks for completing skill challenges, including killing a certain number of creatures. Yes, there was also kill XP, but that was a holdover from Fallout 3.

 

The point is, Sawyer has said that he wants skill challenges similar to those in New Vegas to be in PE. Disarm a bunch of traps, get rewarded with XP. Fight a bunch of dudes, get rewarded with XP. Read a bunch of books, get rewarded with XP. Sneak past a bunch of guys, get rewarded with XP. The idea is for the game to reward the things you like doing with XP. How is this any different philosophically from a per-kill XP system? It's the same amount of XP, but parceled out in lump sums.

 

Remember also that this XP gain is an objective in itself; it's kept entirely separate from quests. If you kill five guys and run away without ever completing the quest attached to the fight, that counts toward your kill total regardless. If you encounter enemies in between locations, and you kill them, that counts toward your kill total. Kill one innocent dude for looking at you funny, and that's counted as a kill too. Kill a hundred guys, and you get a hundred guys' worth of XP. Repeat the feat, and you get another hundred guys' worth.

 

And I know the objection there is, "Well, what if one of the guys you kill is a crazy-difficult boss, huh? Surely you don't want to be deprived of XP for vanquishing him?"

 

No, because there could be a separate XP bonus for beating him, plus he counts toward your kill total.

 

New Vegas had its own set of issues, it's true, but the only thing that system does differently from a per-kill system is avoid the headache of having to plan out how much XP each individual enemy is worth, thereby making it much easier to balance. It also serves as a way to prevent people from killing villagers and the like solely to level up, without taking a moral stance on the killing of villagers. You can kill villagers and be a bad guy while earning XP, but you have to prove you like killing villagers.

 

Doesn't this actually promote the very "degenerate" gameplay the xp system was supposed to avoid?  If a player's at 99/100 traps disarmed for this "challenge" what's the blatantly obvious course of action they are going to take?

 

No... no wait! I got it!

 

I found a way for this objective xp system to work and it's so obvious too!  I'd be converted to the objective xp system cause with these easy steps.

 

1) Award xp to the player for doing things they want to do.  This could be killing a bandit, disarming a trap, pickpocketing someone, reading an in game book to learn about game lore, etc.

2) Set the aforementioned objectives' intervals to 1 and make the objectives repeatable.

3) Award higher tiered rewards to higher tiered objectives.  Things like "kill the divine dragon Asura" would award much higher amounts of xp along with perks or skills.  Killing 25 basilisks awards the Stone Cold Killer trait or something.

4) List all of them somewhere (preferably in the journal).

5) Profit

 

XP problem solved.  Objective xp proponents get what they wish and players lose no freedom.  There you go Lephys I found your silver bullet.

 

 

PS. Raszius is a class act. That avi is unfair, though. Who's gonna argue with Keldorn?

 

You're pretty boss yourself Prime and yes Keldorn is obviously my favorite Baldur's Gate character .

[IndiraLightfoot]

1) Award xp to the player for doing things they want to do.  This could be killing a bandit, disarming a trap, pickpocketing someone, reading an in game book to learn about game lore, etc.

2) Set the aforementioned objectives' intervals to 1 and make the objectives repeatable.

 

Razsius, the more productive side to the debate of this thread is really enjoyable, but here I'm afraid you lost me. Aren't you basically saying here (by interval 1) that each single kill, each single trap, each picked pocket, should be seen as a tiny micro-objective? And if that's true, that would be exactly the same system as the great majority of CRPGs adhere to: Kill xp, trap xp, pick-pocket xp, etc. Or perhaps I've just misunderstood it all, I am a bit bushed.

Edited February 13, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[Razsius]

 

1) Award xp to the player for doing things they want to do.  This could be killing a bandit, disarming a trap, pickpocketing someone, reading an in game book to learn about game lore, etc.

2) Set the aforementioned objectives' intervals to 1 and make the objectives repeatable.

 

Razsius, the more productive side to the debate of this thread is really enjouyable, but here I'm afraid you lost me. Aren't you basically saying here (by interval 1) that each single kill, each single trap, each picked pocket, should be seen as a tiny micro-objective? And if that's true, that would be exactly the same system as the great majority of CRPGs adhere to: Kill xp, trap xp, pick-pocket xp, etc. Or perhaps I've just misunderstood it all, I am a bit bushed.

 

No, the objectives are simply set to the number 1 instead of say 5, 10, 20 or 34.678235.  It's a perfectly valid number after all and it's also the easiest to count by thus it simply makes the most sense for the sake of balance.

[TrashMan]

 

Exactly. You only get better at killing when you kill something. It's called abstraction. There's no need to further atomize kill XP.

 

So are you saying you DON'T get experience by fighting a dragon?
You only learn something if you actually kill it?
That's not how learning works.
 
And before you bash on learn-by-doing, try to rememeber that Elder
Scrolls is not the ONLY LBD possible implementation out there.

There are good ones - like Jagged Alliance 2.

Have you noticed the irony, guys? The people who argued in favor of learn by doing, in this thread, are against kill XP. And you know why they perform this suicide of logic? Because they think they're making a point against kill XP, somehow.

 

 

If there is butchering and abuse of logic it's being done by you.

 

So abstraction A (that makes more sense) is not OK, but abstraction b (that makes less) is...because?  

Because you want to get your reward?

 

Have you actually managed to bring up a single good argument for it? Everything I saw so far basicly boils down't to "I want it". And nothing more.

 

 

And no actually, in JA2 you get better by doing things, only when and where you can do them is limited. So you don't have to kill an enemy to better at shooting - you have ot hit the target. And the worse the conditions, the better the bonus.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Alright...

But if they are set to 1 and they are repeatable, wouldn't that be a redundant system to the classic dishing out of kill xp etc?

 

Ex: An objective with interval 1 and that is repeatable is: Kill a revenant!

"Alrightie then", party says, and they go and do that.  Objective xp is rewarded.

Then the counter is reset: Kill a revenant. Party oblige. Objective xp is rewarded.

 

And just to reveal how confused I am: How come objectives can have intervals like 25 too, like offing those basilisks? And in those elongated objectives, there would be perks rewarded?

 

Please, give me two examples: One easy interval 1-case and then that 25 basilisk-case.

Edited February 13, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[Razsius]

Alright...

But if they are set to 1 and they are repeatable, wouldn't that be a redundant system to the classic dishing out of kill xp etc?

 

Ex: An objective with interval 1 and that is repeatable is: Kill a revenant!

"Alrightie then", party says, and they go and do that.  Objective xp is rewarded.

Then the counter is reset: Kill a revenant. Party oblige. Objective xp is rewarded.

 

And just to reveal how condused I am: How come objectives can have intervals like 25 too, like offing those basilisks? And in those elongated objectives, there would be perks rewarded?

 

Please, give me two examples: One easy interval 1-case and then that 25 basilisk-case.

 

Okay let's see... you lockpick the door and get xp for completing the sub-objective of "I want the chest of loot inside this noble's house" you are awarded xp for completing said sub-objective.

 

As for the basilisk case Stone Cold Killer might be a bonus to petrification resistance or a damage increase vs. basilisks because you have fought the basilisks enough times and learned as a human to get better at killing/not dying to them.

 

That make sense?

 

Edit: Oh and you wouldn't have kill xp only objective xp so the system wouldn't be redundant.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Razsius

[IndiraLightfoot]

Alright, now compare that to Fallout New Vegas which I am playing nw actually:

 Would each interval-1 objective accomplished ever reach some perk-reward? Or is it just a few select objectives that are difficult which do get perks as a possible reward?

 

If you would remove kill xp from FNV, then you would have no xp but quest xp with your system, since it rewards skill challenges, those repetitive things - like shooting a gun or picking a lock, with a perk after 100 times or something. Are you perhaps proposing Skyrim's learning by doing-system with those interval 1-objectives, but levels will replace perks? After several of those interval 1s stacked, suddenly the level meter goes "ding"? 

[Razsius]

Alright, now compare that to Fallout New Vegas which I am playing nw actually:

 Would each interval-1 objective accomplished ever reach some perk-reward? Or is it just a few select objectives that are difficult which do get perks as a possible reward?

 

If you would remove kill xp from FNV, then you would have no xp but quest xp with your system, since it rewards skill challenges, those repetitive things - like shooting a gun or picking a lock, with a perk after 100 times or something. Are you perhaps proposing Skyrim's learning by doing-system with those interval 1-objectives, but levels will replace perks? After several of those interval 1s stacked, suddenly the level meter goes "ding"? 

 

No, no, no per swing of sword etc. would get a bit ridiculous and be problematic like Arcanum.  The sub objectives would simply be things that you do on the way towards whatever larger objective/quests you are going for (lockpicking doors/chests to rob the house, killing barbarians to wipe out the barbarian clan, etc.).  The perks would only be gained for the higher tier things like killing 100 bandits or w/e or robbing Bill the Uber Noble's house blind.  All the sub objectives would give normal xp and you'd level normally like the IE games.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Razsius

[LadyCrimson]

It's that time again - post limit.