Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[Helm]

-

Edited January 17, 2013 by Helm

[Somna]

(1) Always award XP for resolving anything defined as an "obstacle."

(2) Only award XP if an "obstacle" is resolved in the context of an "objective."

Like:

 

Sneak past enemies for 50xp OR

Fight enemies for 50xp

 

Nice. You have just made avoiding combat much more attractive. Not to mention that any other creatures (not part of an objective) can still, will and should be avoided.

 

But this is great for those who hate combat. Really, it is.

 

Your TL;DR filter is broken. That was part of his point on why throwing in a name of "objective XP" is bad.

[Osvir]

Thus far this is what we are getting, to my understanding:

* 1. Quest Experience to level up your character in class, revelation... Soul. The main character is getting more experienced, basically. World-Experience. What makes the character stronger, what kind of path he/she on, in what direction is it taking him/her? Did you finish Chapter 1 as a complete schmuck or did you play it safe and were you kind? What happens in Chapter 2? You traveled to another location. Spiritual.

 

This is what we are not getting:

- Non-Combat Experience, you finished Quest 1 in Chapter 1. Boolean value (True/False), "Are any of the Guards still alive?" = Experience. Lockpicking a certain type of LOCK, rather than every chest, yields some experience. That would be (imo) more preferable. [speech]. More applicable to "Quest" experience. You got back to the Thieves Guild unharmed and unscathed as well as undetected, they give you praise and you share experience. You learned most at the end of the journey.

 

* 2. Interactive Experience, with sub-system. An Interactive Experience Table is progressive growth and here's how I'm thinking:

 

- Close Combat, not weapon proficiency but Close Combat in itself having sub-tiers that grows in battle. If you're using a sword you get better with a sword, doesn't need to be any flashy super moves but if you want that Whirlwind Ability to be optimized you'd better practice using a Spear, or Dual-Wield. You should be able to see what you can access at higher levels (Like Diablo 2), you get a spreadsheet in front of you and you can decide how you want to build your character right from the start.

 

- Magical Experience, casting a spell yields experience (Once per spell) and other magical fluff stuff. Determines strength, and what types of spells you can have and or what kind of spells you learn. Throw a lot of Fire spells? Get better with Fire magic, it could even transform your Grimoire into a Fiery Burning Tome, the cover having patterns looking like it comes from Hell. Could "Action" = "Evolution"?

 

Fable utilizes a system like this (Yellow/Guile, Red/Melee, Blue/Magic), managing this across 6 party members might be a little bit mind daunting however, it could also be very very logical and simple. Build your Wizard like a Fighter and your Wizard starts to transform like a Fighter, etc.etc.. Also, would the Wizard gain Close Combat experience when the Fighter does? Does the Fighter gain Magical Experience when the Wizard does?

 

Is Experience going to be a shared Party Pool or an Individual Pool?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Osvir

[Helm]

(1) Always award XP for resolving anything defined as an "obstacle."

(2) Only award XP if an "obstacle" is resolved in the context of an "objective."

Like:

 

Sneak past enemies for 50xp OR

Fight enemies for 50xp

 

Nice. You have just made avoiding combat much more attractive. Not to mention that any other creatures (not part of an objective) can still, will and should be avoided.

 

But this is great for those who hate combat. Really, it is.

 

Your TL;DR filter is broken. That was part of his point on why throwing in a name of "objective XP" is bad.

Oh, ok. I didn't bother to read his while post, it's all garbage anyway. I shall revise.

[Helm]

So, for my revised Rescue the Farmer's Daughter quest, I'll have

 

* ReachWindmill: 200 XP

* EnterWindmill: 200 XP

* ReachDaughter: 200 XP

* ReturnDaughterToFarmer: 400 XP

Oh yeah, like this is any better then what they are palnning. This is just pretty much just a standard quest xp system.

 

And then you sneak past every enemy, because there is not point in fighting. You get the enviroment and quest loot, and that's it. Great! lol

[Valorian]

PJunta, your logorrheic frenzy hasn't addressed the crucial problem. How does your segmental/arbitrary-objective-xp-system solve the issue of sneaking around enemies being the optimal solution?

 

 

: Please elaborate. Without sci-fi examples.

 

[PrimeJunta]

PJunta, your logorrheic frenzy hasn't addressed the crucial problem. How does your segmental/arbitrary-objective-xp-system solve the issue of sneaking around enemies being the optimal solution?

 

It doesn't. That's not what it's for.

 

However, the resource-consuming high risk/high reward stealth system described in the first message of this thread does. I'll be happy to discuss that with you once you indicate that you actually want to engage in discussion rather than just blowing raspberries.

[Valorian]

Your first post hasn't offered valid/reasonable alternatives.

 

 

: *Cat still eagerly awaits wall of text*

 

Do not disappoint Cat.

[Helm]

Look, Greenballz is also disappointed.

 

That it isn't a solution. That is just normal quest and objective xp. I am so disappointed.

 

 

Poor Greenballz...

[Amentep]

So, for my revised Rescue the Farmer's Daughter quest, I'll have

 

* ReachWindmill: 200 XP

* EnterWindmill: 200 XP

* ReachDaughter: 200 XP

* ReturnDaughterToFarmer: 400 XP

Oh yeah, like this is any better then what they are palnning. This is just pretty much just a standard quest xp system.

 

And then you sneak past every enemy, because there is not point in fighting. You get the enviroment and quest loot, and that's it. Great! lol

 

it seems to me that the problem boils down to whether the developers understand the paths and risks/rewards being offered.

 

In reality what the example describes to me is a "single path" satisfaction of objective ("Return Daughter to Farmer") with the path being "ReachWindmill", "EnterWindmill" and "ReachDaughter". This is exactly why the people who fear combat being made unattractive are arguing against Quest XP because if all solutions are equal, then the solution that requires the least investment of resources vs reward becomes the optimal solution.

 

In my mind (and I could be wrong), to make Stealth, Diplomacy and Combat as equal paths, they can't be treated as equal in solutions. The only way for this to work from my (limited and non-game designing) perspective is that you have to understand the different paths (and therefore the different objectives) each path takes.

 

So for an objective of "Return Daughter to Farmer" you'd have to understand how each path is -

 

a stealth path may start with the party doing reconasaince around the area and finding a secret path that gets them past the guards outside and into the windmill; they then have to navigate the rooms avoiding being seen (otherwise they move to the combat path without a "boss" fight) to find the girl, then do the same to escape out the window. Rewards are given for finding the hidden path, for getting the girl and for getting her back to her dad and for not being noticed. Equipment look is found once the secret path is taken that would be better "stealth" equipment; loot in the rooms is stamina rebuilding (because I'm assuming stamina is drained in stealth mode). So 4 XP rewards, one stealth loot and some resource loot.

 

A combat party goes to the guards at the gate and intimidates the guards, then fights there way through the windmill to the girl. The man behind the kidnappers shows up (either warned by the guards, or someone in his employ spotted the dead guards if not killed instead of intimidated) for a fight. The party wins and takes the girl home. The party gets rewards for getting past the first guards, killing the second guards, killing the kidnapper and getting the girl home. They get the loot in the rooms (resource loot) and off the dead bodies (equipment loot geared towards combat). So 4 XP rewards, and multiple resource and equipment loot.

 

A diplomat takes the quest and starts asking questions around town. They find an informant who gives the diplomat the name and location of the kidnapper. The diplomat makes his way into the house through some fast talking, meets with the kidnapper. Here he persuades the kidnapper to let the girl go (if the diplomat fails, they have to take the Combat or Stealth path), they go to the windmill where the girl is freed. He takes the girl home, where he must negotiate the other part of the agreement with the kidnapper (if it fails, the kidnapper will later kill the girl and the farmer and put a bounty on the party). Once the agreement is made, the kidnapper or farmer gives the party a monetary loot. The party is rewarded for finding the informant, for getting into the house, for persuading the kidnapper and for persuading the farmer. They get loot in the form of a large monetary reward which can buy better diplomat equipment or grease others palms. So 4 XP rewards and money.

 

Each path is rewarded, each path gets rewards that further encourage actions in the future along the same path. It is possible to go from one path to the other with the similar altering of immediate objectives and therefor rewards and risk.

 

...or something...there's a reason I'm not a game designer.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Amentep

[Fearabbit]

There will always be an imbalance, but you can reduce it without ruining anyone's experience. It's basically a win-win situation if it's done right, while the "XP for every little thing you do" system is inherently bad for some players.

 

This statement is causing me great concern. Ruining a player's experience, and inherently bad?

 

How did we get to this being on the cards?

 

When I say "inherently bad for some players" (notice the "some"), I'm talking about the problem that has been argued about the whole time in the other thread, degenerate gameplay. You don't want to kill all enemies, but you feel compelled to do so because it gives you all the benefits while not killing them doesn't. If that goes on for too long it ruins some people's experience. I think that this was the reason I ultimately stopped playing NWN, if memory serves me correctly.

And this is "inherent" because XP is directly tied to these actions, so you have to do all of them to get the most out of the system. You can argue "but they don't have to", but that's not true; some people have to. They feel compelled to do so, and they don't like it.

 

Quest/Objective XP might not be the perfect system, but a certain amount of people who had exactly that problem will like this system a lot better. So that's a win. But will certain people lose out on something? Not inherently. There is technically no gameplay style that doesn't have its benefits.

You might argue "but now avoiding combat is better than actually fighting!". Even if that were the case (and that largely depends on level design, loot and all kinds of unknown factors that we shouldn't speculate about), we'd be talking about a whole different level:

In the Combat XP system, fighting is better than sneaking because it gives you 100% of XP and loot vs. maybe 50% of XP and 50% of loot. In the Quest XP system, the worst scenario is that a combat-player loses a couple more healing potions or has to rest more often or needs to restock on ammunition, while 100% of XP and loot are still guaranteed. (While sneaking most likely will still give you LESS loot no matter how weird Gifted's and Helm's interpretation of "loot is not systemic" is.)

 

So this is what I meant when I said: You are not actively (and inherently) ruining anyone's experience by switching from Combat XP to Quest XP. You're not making any experience worse. Some people get a vastly improved experience, others get exactly the same experience as before.

 

And to make sure that all paths through a quest are both equally valid and equally challenging, we've come here to discuss how to make stealth more difficult and less "reload until you succeed"-ish. I think we've come up with great things and I truly believe that with such a system implemented in the game, nobody would ever choose stealth over combat if they don't actually enjoy sneaking.

 

@Others and the current ongoing discussion:

I won't respond to that discussion unless I hear anyone dissecting the various scenarios that have come up to prove that sneaking is NOT always the best solution. Just to name two, they were:

1. You are in a bandit camp, undetected. The bandits are torturing a merchant, and he will die soon unless you draw attention to yourself. However you only came here to get a certain MacGuffin for your current quest, which you can get if you sneak past the bandits. (The merchant, if rescued, gives you discounts and other goodies.)
   
2. You are in a dungeon, and there are enemies in the hall you need to go through. They will hear you and see you if you get too close. There is no alternate route.
   

[PrimeJunta]

@Amentep -- Okay, let's take this thought experiment a bit further.

 

At this point, let's scratch the alternative path (ladder + window). I just put that in to demonstrate how I could yank Valorian around like a rat in a maze with obstacle-XP. So we're back at the original setup: [Daughter] in [Windmill] guarded by [Orcs], with [bandits] on the road to the windmill, and a [Locked Door] to overcome. To get past [bandits] you can fight them, sneak past them, intimidate them [if you meet the prerequisites], or bribe them. To get past [Orcs] you can fight them, sneak past them, or pay the ransom.

 

And let's still assume objective-XP only: [ReachWindmill], [EnterWindmill], [ReachDaughter], [ExitWindmillWithDaughter], [ReturnDaughterToFarmer]. Same XP reward no matter how you accomplish it. Let's further assume that [Farmer] will reward you with 400 ZM if you return the daughter alive, and [Orcs] guard a [Chest] which contains 1000 ZM and a Sword of the Munchkin.

 

The upshot is that the player who manages to accomplish all objectives (and get the treasure from [Chest]) with the least resources spent gets the biggest reward (since net reward is [XP + loot] - [resources spent].

 

Now, let's look at what the various approaches mean. Let's also assume that we have a stealth system somewhat like the one in the beginning of the thread in place.

 

* [bandits].

** Fighting them means expenditure of Health and other possible resources. The better you are at fighting, the lower the resource cost. Upshot: better fighters are rewarded.

** Intimidating them successfully has zero cost. Upshot: if you have previously spent strategic resources to make yourself more intimidating (e.g. by killing lots of bandits so you've got a scary reputation for it), you now get payoff for that investment.

** Bribing them costs zorkmids, and is not obviously more advantageous than fighting them.

** Sneaking past them carries no cost if you succeed.

*** If you fail, you will be in a worse position to fight them than if you had chosen that path to start with, and the ensuing fight will be that much more costly.

 

* [Door]

** Picking the lock costs a [Lockpick].

** Using Key is pure benefit. That's a reward for being more thorough preparing for the quest -- you talked to the Miller and convinced him to lend you the key.

** Bashing in the door carries no resource cost, but will alert [Orcs], making the fight against them more difficult, and making it impossible to sneak past them.

 

* [Orcs]

** Fighting them carries a resource cost. The better you are at fighting, the lower the cost.

** Paying Ransom costs ZM, and is not obviously the cheapest way to go.

** Sneaking past them successfully: see Bandits, except this will be much more difficult since you're indoors in close quarters.

 

Now. Sneaking. Let's assume that sneaking has not been made too easy: if you've done nothing to improve your stealth, the bandits and the orcs will both spot you, and you will pay in the form of a more difficult fight (and possibly dead hostage -> quest failure). That means that to do it successfully, you'll have to expend resources:

* [invisibility Potion], cost 400 ZM.

* [invisibility Spell], uses up combat spell slot.

* [boosted Sneak Skill], uses up skill points that could have been used for something else. This is known as an opportunity cost.

* [be A Rogue], which means you're not, for example, a fighter or a wizard -- that's another opportunity cost.

 

The bottom line? In this system, sneaking is a high risk, high reward strategy. If you're successful, you'll (probably) expend less resources than if you had taken on the bandits+orcs head-on. If you fail, you will take more damage in the ensuing fight. If you want to boost your odds of success, you will have to spend resources.

 

Finally, this is just one quest. Not every quest has to be perfectly balanced between approaches. It's perfectly fine to have a quest where stealth is, indeed, the most efficient option. It's also perfectly fine to have quests where combat or diplomacy are the most efficient options. It's precisely this kind of variety that makes the game interesting. If you know that sneaking (or fighting, or diplomacy) is always the best option, things get boring, and there's no point even trying to look for alternative approaches.

 

(Of course, Valorian would just save, sneak, and reload from the save every time he's spotted. Or, perhaps, fight the bandits and the orcs and reload from the save every time he thinks he took too many hits. Assuming the save system allows that. Which is another degenerate strategy, and a reason I think most savegame systems suck, but that's a whole 'nuther thread.)

[PrimeJunta]

Quest/Objective XP might not be the perfect system,

 

No, it isn't. It's just better in most ways than kill-XP, action-XP, or obstacle-XP.

 

XP itself isn't the perfect system. It's a serviceable system. Other character development systems exists. Some of them are arguably better. I would like to play a well-made XP-less cRPG too, but P:E isn't it; it would take it too far from its IE roots.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Great breakdown, PrimeJunta!

 

And another good thing with this system is that you can take a shot at one approach sometimes and then regroup and try another. I think there was some honey farm in Skyrim outside Riften, and I was rather low-level, but my character was a sneaky one. So I tried several times to sneak by (re-loading even), but I couldn't find a way in. So, I took the violent approach and shot them all down with my hefty bow. According to Skyrim's system I got xp for sneaking alhough I failed my objectve, and then I got xp too for killing the bandits.

 

In the system proposed here, if I did the same thing (if possible to sneak away wounded and retry) I would only have got combat xp for that objective. Great!

Edited January 17, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[Amentep]

Finally, this is just one quest. Not every quest has to be perfectly balanced between approaches. It's perfectly fine to have a quest where stealth is, indeed, the most efficient option. It's also perfectly fine to have quests where combat or diplomacy are the most efficient options. It's precisely this kind of variety that makes the game interesting. If you know that sneaking (or fighting, or diplomacy) is always the best option, things get boring, and there's no point even trying to look for alternative approaches.

 

I actually agree with this; balance isn't a one-to-one microtranslation, balance is looking at a totality. As I mentioned before (or was it in the other thread) a balance approach might lead to a quest that has 15 objectives; a stealth path might solve the quest in 4 objectives, the diplomatic 5 and the combat 6 objectives; the different objectives really look at the different complexity and risk each path has. Another quest may also have 15 objectives, but maybe combat has 3 objectives, stealth 8 and diplomatic 4. Fairly in each case the most objectives should indicate the greatest risk and therefor the greatest reward. But regardless of which path you take, there is some reward (so the stealthy party, after completing 7 quests isn't left unable to complete another quest because they can't accumulate enough XP through stealth paths without also getting kill xp, as would happen under the IE system).

 

EDIT: It occurs to me after reading what I wrote to fix some typos, that the inherent difference is that stealth in IE (and diplomacy too) are ultimately Combat tactics; ie the only way that a player will use them in a viable way is to support the combat path.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Amentep

[IndiraLightfoot]

Me too, Amentep. Balance is an overarching matter, not something that must be there in each and every little objective.

 

Btw, your new avatar/portrait looks almost like a living, breathing version of Kaelyn the Dove, that is my portrait. Cool!

[Amentep]

Haha, there is a kind of eerie resemblance, now that you mention it!

 

(the avatar is Peggy Neal as Jenny from the late 1960s Japanese / US sci-fi co-production of TERROR BENEATH THE SEA)

 

RE: Balance - I think microbalance is where we keep getting lost in the trees with a lot of this, when I think the goal is macrobalance.

[Kissamies]

Another thing about killing things vs sneaking past them and this might have been mentioned before - I haven't read it all: When you kill enemies they are not going to bother you again, but if you sneak past them you might have to sneak past them again when forced to backtrack. I think most players, myself included, will prefer the certainty of dispatched enemies in many situations especially when the perceived cost of dealing with them is low.

[Somna]

It may be more illustrative to take more thought out scenarios to back up the thought that Stealth isn't always a good choice. So far, there is:

 

1 Timer-based scenario

1 Location based scenario

 

However, there is the glaring problem that we really need more information. It's almost like they need to also give us their aborted ideas to play with as well.

[Amentep]

Another thing about killing things vs sneaking past them and this might have been mentioned before - I haven't read it all: When you kill enemies they are not going to bother you again, but if you sneak past them you might have to sneak past them again when forced to backtrack. I think most players, myself included, will prefer the certainty of dispatched enemies in many situations especially when the perceived cost of dealing with them is low.

 

Plus even if you don't have to backtrack, there's nothing like the outer guards walking inside when you fail to stealth past the inside guards, making you fight two groups at once...

[Sacred_Path]

Another thing about killing things vs sneaking past them and this might have been mentioned before - I haven't read it all: When you kill enemies they are not going to bother you again, but if you sneak past them you might have to sneak past them again when forced to backtrack. I think most players, myself included, will prefer the certainty of dispatched enemies in many situations especially when the perceived cost of dealing with them is low.

 

This. Also, for obvious reasons, no resting (however it is handled) in areas where enemies are lurking around.

[Heresiarch]

I have to heartily disapprove of the whole idea.

 

Stealth should not be an alternative to combat It should be an optional element which lets the player gain tactical advantage over his enemies, by heaving his rogue sneak behind enemy lines and blow up his gunpowder barrels. Or poison his wells. Or murder his women and enslave his children. Or simply wait there until after his mates engage the enemy to backstab the exposed leader, commander or whatever. Anyway the whole thing should end in a skirmish.

 

Not to mention that any game with "sneak is for everyone" mechanic ends up making it useless for everyone, except the characters who heavily invested in the skill. So it does not matter if rules allow fighters in full plate to sneak. They end up doing it so terribly that it's pretty much the same as not being able to sneak at all.

[PrimeJunta]

@Heresiarch, that's a completely valid way of approaching stealth mechanics as well. In a game that's more IW-esque (i.e., relatively straightforward, combat-heavy dungeon crawler), that's probably the best way to handle it; it is useful without being a dominant strategy. I certainly won't complain if P:E decides to go that way, and executes it well. That would certainly be better than a half-arsed implementation of both combat and stealth.

 

But if there's resource enough to pull it off, I personally would prefer good implementations of both, with at least some cases where combat is not the only, or the best, approach. It would make for more variety in gameplay and better replay value.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Amentep: Uncanny is the word... Perhaps it reveals the taste of the artist who made the Kaelyn portrait?

"Terror Beneath the Sea", I haven't seen that. Thanks for the indirect tip!

 

Heresiarch: In order to pull party-based sneak-bys off you'd need a party of Lightfoots ( :D ), indeed. And as you say, you need to invest quite a bit into it to make it useful. This make stealth PCs a minority, I reckon, so no worries for all combat lovers out there. "Sneak for everone" will be for a brave few. What you call "optional" is just but one aspect of stealth and sneaking.

 

A stealth party could be quite varied and fun. Imagine a ninja-type rogue, a druidic sort of priest, a lightrobed wizard and an agile barbarian with a soft hide armour, etc. It could be fun, adventurous and absurd, just the way I like it. In Fallout New Vegas you get caught all the time and you need to fight your way out. That can be done with parties too. In Dishonored there was one thing I disliked, if I was a stealthy Corvo and got caught, all hell broke lose and that far too quick and dirty, it was almost impossible to get out of the situation (at least when I was a newbie, now I can get out of most situs).

 

P.S. Edit: Lol, I just posted and saw PrimeJunta's reply. That's my point, ideally we should have both.

Edited January 17, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[SqueakyCat]

PrimeJunta - Here is an example of objective based experience Labadal gave last month (post #26):

 

http://forums.obsidi...ce/page__st__26

 

It's what ultimately made me rethink my position on combat experience. Something like this is workable for me. You're still getting incremental experience and not just big chunks, and it accomodates people who prefer not to fight and solve conflict in a different manner.

 

Even Gifted1 thought it was a good example.

 

At the end of the day we just don't have enough information on stealth/diplomacy to even form an educated guess so everything is pure speculation at this point. Maybe Josh will shed some light next Tuesday.

 

O/T: Valorian, my avatar wants to know what happened to your cat -- did he put up a good fight with bleach bottle, but ultimately lose? Condolences.

Edited January 17, 2013 by SqueakyCat