Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[Hormalakh]

If they ditched the "Quest only XP" and awarded individual task XP, you could do everything you describe here, and it should be an awesome experience.

 

-snip-

Not to mention that this doesn't disincentivize against "double-dipping" in XP points. For a singular quest, it doesn't disincentivize against doing the combat for the XP and finishing the quest and then going back and picking up all the lockpick xp that you missed (for the same quest). The locks don't matter anymore, but the XP is just sitting there. Anyway, off-topic.

[TRX850]

If they ditched the "Quest only XP" and awarded individual task XP, you could do everything you describe here, and it should be an awesome experience.

 

It would be less awesome than with quest only XP. Why? Because picking only one of the approaches and neglecting the others will yield less XP, and a weaker character and party. If your wrecking-ball party didn't untrap and lockpick wherever they could, they'd miss out on that XP. If your sneaky party didn't kill everything they could, they'd miss out on that XP.

 

Seriously. How hard is this to understand? Task XP -- whether it's for killing or lockpicking -- creates perverse incentives that do not align with in-game goals, and thereby rewards players who play in an inefficient way ("do everything whether it gets you closer to your in-game goal or not") rather than a party that thinks and plays in-game ("do your best to achieve your in-game goals.")

 

If you want to pick every lock and disarm every trap, that's your right, and you should be awarded fittingly.

 

"Fittingly" meaning "in no way at all" -- beyond the immediate consequence of your action. The award for picking a lock should be an unlocked lock. There should be no advantage to picking a lock over using a key, if you happen to have it. It's what's behind the lock that's important. Maybe it's the princess you're supposed to rescue. In a quest-based game, now that is a useful point to award XP.

 

It seems you are confusing MMO exploitable behaviour with a single player game.

 

I'm not confusing anything, because it's the same behavior. Pull lever. Get pellet. Ding!

 

If you are the only person playing your single player game, then......er.....don't misbehave? I'm not sure how we got here.

 

We got here because you don't understand what's the difference between compulsively pushing a button to get a shiny, and doing something because it's engaging, interesting, exciting, challenging, or engrossing.

 

I'll try one more time. Compare these two:

 

Open bag of chips. Take a chip. Yummy. Take another chip. Yummy. Take another chip. Yummy. Repeat until bag is empty.

 

Open The Fellowship of the Ring. Start reading. Interesting. Keep reading. Whoa dude. Keep reading more. WTF are these black riders all about? Keep reading. Whew, that was close. And who is this Strider type? Keep reading. Oh ****, I hope Frodo pulls through. Keep reading. Dude, elves! Continue until Sam & Rosie get married and everybody lives happily ever after, or at least until they die.

 

Do you see any difference between these two experiences? Even a teensy tiny little one? Okay, good. Hold that thought.

 

Now think of a computer role-playing game with a great, sweeping, epic story, big world, horrendous beasties, great heroes, what have you.

 

Would it be better, or worse, if there's a bag of chips every few feet making you go "Rip. Oo, yummy. Take another one. Oo, yummy. Take another one. Oo, yummy?"

 

If this still doesn't communicate the idea, I'm sorry, I can't help you any more. You can lead a horse to water and all that commotion.

 

Please don't be frustrated. I understand the examples you give. I too want a compelling, exhilarating experience. And I would also like choice. I want the Tolkien version, for sure.

 

If we compare the stealth and combat options, which was your original point, you could still do one or the other, or both, and change your play style a few times, and still be rewarded with XP *and* an amazing story if they were both in there together. Why can't lockpicking XP and combat XP and story immersion/quest XP all exist together? If you play the game 4 times in 4 different ways, you will have 4 different outcomes with presumably 4 different XP levels at the end of it.

 

Powergamers will be powergamers. Roleplayers will be roleplayers. Many will choose an intermediate path.

 

And what I meant by MMO exploitation is when you have many people in the same world, playing the same game, able to affect one another through exploits. I agree, that shouldn't happen. But I still have to come back to the point that it's YOU who are in control of your gaming experience. If you choose Path A, the outcome will be different to Path B, C, and D, and every permutation thereof. There's no way the devs can design a game that will allow you to have nearly the same XP with so many different play styles.

 

Please. Let's see what the devs say in the next couple of updates about their strategy. There should be a way to cover all or most eventualities and to keep the cake flowing.

Edited January 17, 2013 by TRX850

[PrimeJunta]

...a cRPG is discovering places, uncovering lore, interacting with characters, solving problems, unraveling the great mysteries of the plot, and developing my party and my character.

 

I hear what you're saying. My previous comment was a gut feeling I got from skimming reading through the thread.

 

But what you're after ^^^^ (the bit I quoted here) is something you can already do in most RPGs. My point was that preventing behaviour in other players who are not playing the same P:E playthrough as you has no effect on your enjoyment level. Only your own play style can dictate that. What others do in their own game is their business.

 

The problem is that we're looking at the... thing from different points of view. I'm thinking of it from the designer's point of view. The question I'm asking is "What kinds of mechanics should a game have so that it supports as broad a range of different playstyles and experiences as possible, without favoring one over the other, nor rewarding behavior taken for out-of-game reasons?" IOW, I want to see a game system that's as "neutral" as possible, which gives both content designers and players as much freedom as possible.

 

Concretely? If MCA decides he wants to write up a township full of antagonistic and allied factions, fiendish intrigue, criminal masterminds, gangs, enforcers, police, lone lunatics, sneaky heists and stealthy assassinations, the game system should make that as easy as possible. And if the player decides he wants to approach that township as a paladin in shining armor, always honorable, protecting the weak, raising the downtrodden, bringing down the corrupt, the game should support that. And if the player decides he wants to approach the township as a leader of a band of highly efficient assassins-for-hire, ready to contract to the highest bidder for stealthy nighttime burglaries and daring gangland hits, then the game should support that too.

 

And if TIm Cain wants to design a wizard's tower filled with fiendish traps, deadly guardians, etc. etc., the system should support that just as well. And if the player wants to approach that as a wrecking ball or a sneaky spy, etc. etc.

 

What that means is that the mechanics of the system should not autonomously give any of these approaches greater rewards than any others. And fishing for XP -- opening every lock, untrapping every trap, killing every killable creature -- is one very particular approach, and one that's usually disproportionately rewarded by cRPG's. Perhaps that's one reason for all the whining, actually -- it's always been rewarded, so cRPG nerds have trained themselves into playing this way, and now they feel uncomfortable if that extra special reward is taken away. Pure conservatism, IOW.

 

Really, I'm not trying to undermine anyone here. Discussion is good.

 

A minefield with loads of XP opportunities seems like an XP hotspot, and maybe they should have designed it so that it didn't give so much XP. I can't comment, because I haven't played the games you mentioned.

 

Or better still, with no reward for untrapping, the designers wouldn't have to worry about whether they're unintentionally creating an XP hotspot by placing mines or traps or even a Spawn-O-Mat somewhere. They can just do whatever they feel fits the area or quest they're designing, and then explicitly assign the XP rewards for completing it to specific points in it. Much easier to control -- and way, way easier to balance late in the game, since all you have to do is adjust the XP rewards at those specific points, rather than adding or removing mines or adjusting the systemic XP reward for defusing a mine.

 

A well-rounded party will (and should) attempt to utilize all the skills available to them. That's intelligent play. My fighters will gain kill XP. My rogue will gain lock/traps XP. I honestly don't see the problem. All I can do is ask you to consider what I mentioned about wanting *other players* to conform to something that won't affect you.

 

Now....would you like a piece of cake?

 

This I already addressed elsewhere. Once more, it's a red herring. Kindly stop waving it around, it stinks.

[PrimeJunta]

A final thought re powergaming: a quest-XP only system won't do anything to stop that, and it shouldn't. What it does is align the powergamer's motivations with the in-game goals. Instead of hunting after wandering monsters, spawn points, locks, and traps, the powergamer would have to hunt for quests, the most efficient (=least resource-consuming) ways to complete them, and the most efficient ways to build powerful characters and parties.

 

And I am 100% certain that every intelligent powergamer will find that a LOT more enjoyable than trying to kill everything, unlock everything, and untrap everything, whether it makes sense or not. Even Valorian and Helm. They just haven't realized it yet.

[TRX850]

If they ditched the "Quest only XP" and awarded individual task XP, you could do everything you describe here, and it should be an awesome experience.

 

-snip-

Not to mention that this doesn't disincentivize against "double-dipping" in XP points. For a singular quest, it doesn't disincentivize against doing the combat for the XP and finishing the quest and then going back and picking up all the lockpick xp that you missed (for the same quest). The locks don't matter anymore, but the XP is just sitting there. Anyway, off-topic.

 

If a well-rounded party slaughtered and lockpicked their way through a quest, they should gain XP for combat AND locks IMO.

 

If they slaughtered their way through a quest, then went back for the locks, they're still overcoming individual obstacles, and should be rewarded the same.

 

There's still the danger of chests setting off traps, and while I agree to some extent that the reward should be what's IN the chest that counts, I still think there should be some XP for untrapping and/or unlocking an obstacle.

 

What we need to know is the enemy to lock/trap ratio in a typical IE game. I'm sure it'd be something like 50:1 or 100:1 or something that wouldn't threaten the stability of the cosmos

[TRX850]

A final thought re powergaming: a quest-XP only system won't do anything to stop that, and it shouldn't. What it does is align the powergamer's motivations with the in-game goals. Instead of hunting after wandering monsters, spawn points, locks, and traps, the powergamer would have to hunt for quests, the most efficient (=least resource-consuming) ways to complete them, and the most efficient ways to build powerful characters and parties.

 

And I am 100% certain that every intelligent powergamer will find that a LOT more enjoyable than trying to kill everything, unlock everything, and untrap everything, whether it makes sense or not. Even Valorian and Helm. They just haven't realized it yet.

 

Allow the quest-giver to react to your reputation, before and during the quest.

 

You may learn new information and change your mind about the quest-giver.

 

Or the quest-giver may learn new information and change their mind about you.

 

It simplifies and justifies an open-ended quest scenario, and leaves open the option for the devs to make the friendly/neutral quest-giver into an enemy, and expand adventuring/roleplaying opportunities even further.

 

Designing quests as a "closed circuit" concept could punish more players than it rewards.

[PrimeJunta]

If they slaughtered their way through a quest, then went back for the locks, they're still overcoming individual obstacles, and should be rewarded the same.

 

There's still the danger of chests setting off traps, and while I agree to some extent that the reward should be what's IN the chest that counts, I still think there should be some XP for untrapping and/or unlocking an obstacle.

 

It's only an obstacle if there's something meaningful behind it. A locked door that stands between you and the princess you're rescuing is an obstacle. A locked broom closet door is just a locked door. It would be stupid and pointless to reward you for picking the broom closet door lock. It would be even stupider and more pointless to give the same reward for picking both locks. The fact that most cRPG's do this doesn't make it any less stupid or wrong.

 

And don't give me "but doing stuff is practice and practice makes perfect:" that's another red herring. XP is a very high-level abstraction that represents and lumps together all your experience and then lets you, metagame, decide what, specifically you've learned. It's a simple system that gets the job done and gives a lot of freedom to decide which way you want to go. I like it. The "practice makes perfect" rationale will give us a system where you improve skills by using them: picking locks will make you better at lockpicking, but won't give you generic XP to spend on, e.g., deciphering ancient poetry. And we know just how well THAT works in a cRPG (see Oblivion).

 

[N.b.: It can work very well in PnP -- Call of Cthulhu has such a system, for example; with a GM around to just say "Sorry, you don't get to check your Archaeology skill just by spending your weekend at the British Museum looking at sarcophagi" it's extremely playable. But that's because deciding whether a skill check "counts" is always a judgment call -- if you were staring at those sarcophagi because you're investigating the gruesome, supernatural death of an egyptologist and learned something pertinent to that, then yeah, it'd count, but if you just went there to herp derp practice your archaeology, then it doesn't. A computer can't easily make these judgment calls, so putting it in a cRPG will lead to very wonky results.]

 

What we need to know is the enemy to lock/trap ratio in a typical IE game. I'm sure it'd be something like 50:1 or 100:1 or something that wouldn't threaten the stability of the cosmos

 

And why is that? Because the systemic imbalances in the game force game designers to design around them. They can't put in a spawn-o-mat or a big field of traps without either creating an XP hotspot or having to locally change the rules (like with those 0 XP shades in that one temple in BG2). Both are bad. Lose the XP-for-process thing and the problem never arises in the first place.

[Hormalakh]

one thing that came to mind when considering this is that a lot of times, we do not know what kind of loot is located in chests. but in a lot of older games, it was fairly obvious where the "good loot" was on enemies. Named enemies usually had good loot. common ones usually didn't.

 

as long as OEI makes it a point for players to realize that it isn't always so easy to determine which enemies have good loot drops (only the bosses have good loot, etc) then it still becomes a decision when it comes to fighting mobs. there is a risk of handling a fight and not gaining much from it.

[Osvir]

I want to play the game by actively seeking combat. Then I want to play it again, but this time I want to find diplomatic solutions wherever I can. And then I want to play it a third time, this time picking my battles carefully, avoiding ones I don't want to fight and getting maximum advantage in the ones I do. Then a fourth time, but now I want to disable and circumvent as many enemies as I can instead of killing them all outright.

 

Different Factions. Quests for the Thieves Guild makes your party better Thieves. Choosing one Faction over another one, and you get locked out. Going to all of the Factions, trying to attain a neutral position would or could get you a Jack of All Trades build. From another thread: Shopkeepers being, in a sense, more like trainers. Upgrading your gear as you go along in different ways.

 

I am more interested in the actual "Growth" than the "Level Up". What's the difference? "Level Up" is a sudden improvement ("Gain Experience at End of the Quest"-type). "Growth" is a constant improvement, it might not be much improvement, but still something. Gear could be a part of this calculation, maintenance and improvements. Doing tasks for a Faction. Fighting enemies is also a subject of "Growth".

 

The problem is the direction of the Growth when you've got a Rogue, a Fighter, a Wizard and Priest in your party. Does the Wizard get combat experience when the Fighter does? Vice versa about Magic?

 

A shadow would only give experience once, if you sneak in it. Just like fighting an enemy could give experience only once (initiating the fight) and the experience can be handed out at the "end" of the fight (be it running away or defeating, one gives more experience over the other). If you get 100 experience in total, perhaps you get 25 experience running away, and when you return you and defeat the opponent you get the rest 75 (if they are even still there). The game should be able to document your movement by triggers as well, and with Boolean (True/False) values such as "Guard dead?".

 

I think Objective-Based Experience is way more attractive for a non-lethal path, you went through the bandit camp unseen and return to the Thieves Guild and you've finished the quest gallantly. Now you get experience for what you did, and you'd get a lot of it towards "Sneaking".

 

For a more combat approach, I personally don't see the Objective-Based Experience much. The Boolean values would be "True" (enemies dead) so you wouldn't get any experience towards sneaking, but surely you should get better at fighting. Probably on the spot as well, and you wouldn't have to return to the Soldier's Guild just to get better combat experience. Teacher/Student complex. Quest-Giver/Player.

 

Quest-giver sends off the player party on Quest. Player kills everything, returns to QG. Quest-giver asks "Now what did you learn?". Now you earn the experience. Is every quest going to be like that?

 

All Classes/Races should be able to sneak!!

 

There's also a question I've been curious about...

 

Would we be able to decide "growth" beforehand? "I want you to get Thief experience!", as an option for the Rogue. So the Rogue always gets experience towards some "Thief" Build, or I could choose another option that's more "combat" oriented, making the Rogue more combaty and lacking in stealthy.

 

Dishonored does it amazingly well, in my opinion. The balancing stuff between combat and stealth. You get a certain amount of gold and skill points between mission, enough so you can spend it in some aspects but not all at once. Heck you just can't become a master at every skill, and you only get enough gold between missions to be able to upgrade your gear in some limited ways. Dishonored used "Runes" though, for "Skill Up" resources.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Osvir

[TRX850]

I think we are actually in agreement on certain things. It's just a matter of how we define similar scenarios.

 

I actually didn't mean a "practice makes perfect" approach. I meant the challenge of getting through a locked/trapped door which has consequences if you get it wrong.

 

The combat approach is to smash it down and potentially alert enemies in the area. A simple, but unrewarding choice.

The stealthy approach is to try your luck at avoiding a fireball going off in your face and/or remaining hidden from enemies. Worth rewarding if you succeed. So a risk-reward justification for having it.

 

And I agree that past workarounds look bad and are something we can only learn from.

 

I also think the devs and players alike, should learn to trust fellow players more. I own a big fast motorcycle that's capable of getting me in trouble pretty quickly. But I obey the rules and enjoy my experience more that way. *Knowing* that I can go crazy if I want to is still an option. But it's up to me to decide if I want to accept the consequences or not.

 

And for the record, I admire your argument. I wish a few more of us cared so much about other players' experiences.

[Hormalakh]

And for the record, I admire your argument. I wish a few more of us cared so much about other players' experiences.

It's the job of the devs to do this. That is to say a lot of us make our arguments while trying to look at the problem from the designer/developer's perspective. That is why some of us come to similar conclusions to the devs. Edited January 17, 2013 by Hormalakh

[TRX850]

And for the record, I admire your argument. I wish a few more of us cared so much about other players' experiences.

It's the job of the devs to do this. That is to say a lot of us make our arguments while trying to look at the problem from the designer/developer's perspective. That is why some of us come to similar conclusions to the devs.

 

I understand that. I was a programmer myself for more than a decade and was even part of a start-up games company. I'm a problem-solver. An optimizer.

 

I also know when to stand back and consider the most important goal within an "entertainment industry" brief: To entertain.

 

My gut is telling me that in spite of all our noble intentions here, we may have lost sight of that goal.

[Hormalakh]

I prefer to withhold judgement until I've actually seen something. Anything really. At this point everything is conjecture and nothing is real.

[TRX850]

The first rule of Project Eternity, is you do not talk about Project Eternity.

 

The second rule of Project Eternity....

[PrimeJunta]

Since we're speculating about motivations here, allow me as well.

 

I think a lot of the angst we're seeing about mechanics is a case of "beware what you ask for, you may receive it." We, Kickstarter backers, asked the dev team to be open about how they're making the game. They are. Put another way, we asked to be allowed a peek into the sausage factory. And now that we're seeing what go into the sausages, some of us are getting kind of grossed out.

 

When playing a cRPG, I think most of us want to be swept away by it, into another world full of excitement, adventure, and winsome pointy-eared elven maidens. What we're doing here is looking at the plumbing underneath that world. It turns out to be rather... unexciting. Un-fantastic. We're talking costs and incentives, frameworks and systems. I think this is a big turn-off to most people. They'd rather not think too hard of what goes into designing the skeleton of the giant on whose skin all those elven maids frolic in the noonday sunne. I think the subset of gamers who really want to think hard about those underlying mechanics -- like Hormalakh here, and me, and a few others -- is really pretty small. The rest are afraid to dissect why they loved some game so much, for fear of spoiling the experience. I loved the bejeezus out of Fallout and have played it probably a dozen times through, but I still think the crit system blows goats, and was tolerable only because of the variety of gross and funny death animations. If I say something like that about, say, BG2, I get "he's saying the game sucked herp derp."

 

Beware what you ask for; you may receive it.

[UpgrayeDD]

We need to just get rid or quest exp altogether. If I find I want to spend my time working at the baker shop and painting at the art gallery I need ways to level up too. Doing a quest because "ding! XP!" is a weak, metagame reason. Doing a quest because there's something you want on the other side is a good, in-game reason. I want to get rid of the weak metagame reasons because they cheapen the strong in-game reasons, and thereby reduce my enjoyment of the game. What's more, I believe that 99% of the people whining about no-quest-XP will enjoy a game with properly aligned incentives more as well, they just don't realize it themselves.

 

Which is why I propose aging xp. The longer you spend in the game world the more you level up. No long should we be penalized for skiping quests that we don't want to. I much prefere to chat with the local politicians on about trade routes and make money blacksmithing. Aging Exp would make both perfectly viable options. It is perfectly fair and allows for the most variety of playstyles. I look forward to my playthroughs as Master pimp thurlow, day dreamer karen, and artisan wilks.

Edited January 17, 2013 by UpgrayeDD

[TRX850]

Beware what you ask for; you may receive it.

 

I was actually going to say the same thing. And yes, I'm an under-the-hood person too. But until we know more, as Hormalakh said, we can only speculate.

 

I think we got our Kickstarter money's worth today though.

[PrimeJunta]

We need to just get rid or quest exp altogether. If I find I want to spend my time working at the baker shop and painting at the art gallery I need ways to level up too. Doing a quest because "ding! XP!" is a weak, metagame reason. Doing a quest because there's something you want on the other side is a good, in-game reason. I want to get rid of the weak metagame reasons because they cheapen the strong in-game reasons, and thereby reduce my enjoyment of the game. What's more, I believe that 99% of the people whining about no-quest-XP will enjoy a game with properly aligned incentives more as well, they just don't realize it themselves.

 

Which is why I propose aging xp. The longer you spend in the game world the more you level up. No long should we be penalized for skiping quests that we don't want to. I much prefere to chat with the local politicians on about trade routes and make money blacksmithing. Aging Exp would make both perfectly viable options. It is perfectly fair and allows for the most variety of playstyles. I look forward to my playthroughs as Master pimp thurlow, day dreamer karen, and artisan wilks.

 

I realize you were being sarcastic, but I'll point out the flaw in your attempt at reductio ad absurdum nevertheless.

 

Aging XP has the same problem as kill XP or sneak XP: it is not aligned with in-game goals. Your objective is not to age. If you implemented aging XP, it would give players an incentive to pass as much time as possible. They would leave the game running over the weekend, or if there's a rest mechanic, spam that to let the days fly by.

 

In a cRPG, the mechanic most closely aligned with in-game goals is the quest. Completing a quest objective is the cRPG equivalent of winning a race in a racing game. Winning a battle or picking a lock is the cRPG equivalent of overtaking a competitor in a racing game.

 

Therefore, quest XP. QED.

[TRX850]

He should have offered cake...

[UpgrayeDD]

I thought that the in game goals were fun and accomidaring as many play styles as possible. Which aging exp does both.and if someone wanted max levels with no effort most games include such tools which will do the job much faster without consuming the use of you PC. If it's defecate gameplay to sniff out and kill as many monster as possible why is it not degerate gameplay to do as many quests as possible? What if I want to enjoy the beautiful locactions andnrub elbows with the locals. Why should skipping quests punish me for it? Just like the fun of combat is it's own reward shouldn't that apply to questing as well? Oh and don't forget the huge advantage the questers will have in money and loot

Edited January 17, 2013 by UpgrayeDD

[Helm]

In a cRPG, the mechanic most closely aligned with in-game goals is the quest. Completing a quest objective is the cRPG equivalent of winning a race in a racing game. Winning a battle or picking a lock is the cRPG equivalent of overtaking a competitor in a racing game.

 

Therefore, quest XP. QED.

Oh, now you are comparing racing games to cRPGs.

 

Let me try: Fondling in a sex-simulator is the equivalent of winning a battle or picking a lock in a cRPG. STDs are the equivalent of losing health in an cRPG. Visiting the doctor for STD-healing is the equivalent of healing wounds in a cRPG. Giving cash to your pimp is like paying bandits so they spare your life in a cRPG. Sex toys are like loot in a cRPG.

 

The orgasm is the equivalent of quest xp. And, of course, having sex with 100 women is like completing a cRPG.

 

Wow, this is fun.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Helm

[PrimeJunta]

I thought that the in game goals were fun and accomidaring as many play styles as possible.

 

Then you're confused. In-game goals are whatever the game creators decide are the in-game goals. The game system within which the game creators work do the accommodation and provide the incentives that direct player behavior.

 

Which aging exp does both.and if someone wanted max levels with no effort most games include such tools which will do the job much faster without consuming the use of you PC. If it's defecate gameplay to sniff out and kill as many monster as possible why is it not degerate gameplay to do as many quests as possible?

 

:sigh: Because a quest objective is an in-game goal, and the job of the game system is to provide incentives for you to complete in-game goals. Whereas picking a lock or killing a monster is a means to an end, ways to complete those goals.

 

You can set your own goals on top of that, naturally (aka LARPing), so if you want to go on a murder rampage there's nothing stopping you. Or you can LARP a pacifist and try not to kill anyone. These goals are not aligned with the in-game ones, therefore there's no reason the game engine should reward (or punish) them. It's not the devs' job to anticipate any and all additional LARPy goals you may want to set for yourself; their job is to worry about the goals they're setting for you, and to make sure you're properly incentivized to pursue them.

 

What if I want to enjoy the beautiful locactions andnrub elbows with the locals. Why should skipping quests punish me for it?

 

Why would you need to skip quests to do that?

 

Just like the fun of combat is it's own reward shouldn't that apply to questing as well? Oh and don't forget the huge advantage the questers will have in money and loot

 

 

This time I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or just really dim. Here's a clue: you cannot complete a quest-based cRPG without completing the main quest. That makes the quest the core mechanic for delivering the content. Everything else is a subsystem. This is different from, say, Diablo, where combat is the core mechanic: any quests are distractions; the objective is to fight your way to the final boss and then defeat the final boss. All fighting, all the time.

[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.

 

So, wait, if you spend 5 minutes combatting something, and it happens to die, then logic dictates that you gained combat experience (fitness, weapon technique practice, dodging/blocking practice, etc.) and should be rewarded. BUT, if you spend 5 minutes combatting something, and it happens to not-die, then, logically, you didn't gain any combat experience?

 

 

Hyperbole. And they're not going to use a learn-by-hitting xp system.

[UpgrayeDD]

I thought that the in game goals were fun and accomidaring as many play styles as possible.

 

Then you're confused. In-game goals are whatever the game creators decide are the in-game goals. The game system within which the game creators work do the accommodation and provide the incentives that direct player behavior.

Any game creator that doesn't make fun the top goal of their game needs to quit the business.

 

Which aging exp does both.and if someone wanted max levels with no effort most games include such tools which will do the job much faster without consuming the use of you PC. If it's defecate gameplay to sniff out and kill as many monster as possible why is it not degerate gameplay to do as many quests as possible?

 

:sigh: Because a quest objective is an in-game goal, and the job of the game system is to provide incentives for you to complete in-game goals. Whereas picking a lock or killing a monster is a means to an end, ways to complete those goals.

 

You can set your own goals on top of that, naturally (aka LARPing), so if you want to go on a murder rampage there's nothing stopping you. Or you can LARP a pacifist and try not to kill anyone. These goals are not aligned with the in-game ones, therefore there's no reason the game engine should reward (or punish) them. It's not the devs' job to anticipate any and all additional LARPy goals you may want to set for yourself; their job is to worry about the goals they're setting for you, and to make sure you're properly incentivized to pursue them.

So treasure and the satisifaction of doing the quest are not enough incentive to do something? If picking the lock for the 150 gold pieces is enough incentive why is returning the stolen ruby of zara for 1000 gold pieces and a sweet axe not good enough?

What if I want to enjoy the beautiful locactions andnrub elbows with the locals. Why should skipping quests punish me for it?

Why would you need to skip quests to do that?

What if my character likes small talk, gossip, and crafting. Why should I need to delve into dangerous situations just to advance my character.

Just like the fun of combat is it's own reward shouldn't that apply to questing as well? Oh and don't forget the huge advantage the questers will have in money and loot

 

This time I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or just really dim. Here's a clue: you cannot complete a quest-based cRPG without completing the main quest. That makes the quest the core mechanic for delivering the content. Everything else is a subsystem. This is different from, say, Diablo, where combat is the core mechanic: any quests are distractions; the objective is to fight your way to the final boss and then defeat the final boss. All fighting, all the time.

And that has what to do with being able to advance my character through other mean? Edited January 17, 2013 by UpgrayeDD

[Sacred_Path]

In a cRPG, the mechanic most closely aligned with in-game goals is the quest. Completing a quest objective is the cRPG equivalent of winning a race in a racing game. Winning a battle or picking a lock is the cRPG equivalent of overtaking a competitor in a racing game.

 

Therefore, quest XP. QED.

 

But, since that's only true for the main quest, why give XP on side quests? Saving the kitty isn't part of the main quest. It's not an objective in any way to save as many kittens as you can.

 

You could of course say that implicitly, the main quest requires you to do some optional questing to gain enough XP. In that case, you could still argue for some quests to give XP, and some not.