Balancing Stealth vs Combat II

[TrashMan]

TRX, you're confusing the crap out of me... sometimes you get so close, only to drift so far away.

 

For example every single game to point with XP for every little damn thing (DX:HR, BG2, KOTOR2, the entire freaking TES series) has shown how that leads to issues. Yet still people put it up as some holy grail fix for non-combat. It's not just theory here, it's been proven again and again in games.

 

 

Incorrect.

It all depends on implementation and different games have different implementation.

[Hassat Hunter]

Which game does?

[TRX850]

Also last one at TRX again; Why the obsession with in-combat level ups.

 

Hassat, you must be skimming through these threads, because I have said on the old thread and this one that I would rather level up outside of combat. Not in combat. I'm happy to make camp or go to town, or training halls or whatever. That would be more interesting and make levelling up a bit of an event in itself.  But I also don't have anything against anyone who prefers to level up the old way. It's really not an issue for me.

 

Also, I'm not talking about carrying over flawed XP systems from the games you mentioned.  P:E is having a facelift to prevent or deter degenerate behaviour, or at least that's the way I understood Josh Sawyer's comments.  XP in itself wasn't the problem.  The problem was the core design surrounding it.  So if they are addressing the core design for P:E, then there's no need to get rid of combat XP, because it should now work at supporting quest XP the way it was always supposed to.

[Hassat Hunter]

Except the core design of PE, like enemy groups varying on difficult automatically clash with kill-XP. Hard isn't so hard if you get 50% or more bonus XP leaving the easy players behind.

 

And if it's a non-issue for you, why is leaving XP to the end an issue for only that reason? Or is leaving, then returning later and only then getting the reward an issue? You wont level up frequent. If you leave to get stronger, it's mostly just the gear, not levels. So it makes no difference at all in the grand scheme of things.

Except giving the devs less leeway to make things their way, make non-combat paths less viable, and generally make balancing more difficult...

[TRX850]

Even if you don't level up, you should still be entitled to XP you got from killing enemies in one half of a quest.  There's any number of reasons not to do the quest in a linear fashion.  You might have multiple quests active at any one time, and choose to do parts of them in any order you like. Quest XP encourages linear play. Combat XP gives you freedom.

 

And btw, it's combat XP AND quest XP that work together, not one or the other. I keep saying this. If you have both systems in place, everyone benefits.

[TrashMan]

Which game does?

 

 

For example? Jagged Alliance 2.

 

The system is very balanced and you can't really munchkin it around.

You can't create a super-merc.

Swinging your sword at empty air for hours to increase your skill wouldn't work there.

[Ffordesoon]

Bravado points: these are points you gain for every significant act you perform--every creature you kill, door you unlock, creature you sneak past, trap you avoid, and so forth.

 

Each time you return to camp for healing, your current bravado points are cut in half.

 

When you are awarded a chunk of XP, you gain a percentage XP bonus (+0/5/10/20%) based upon your bravado points. Your bravado points are then reduced by the net XP award, to a minimum of zero.

 

When you level up, your bravado points are reset to zero.

 

I love this idea so much.

[JFSOCC]

You'd still be rewarding people for play which might (or might not) be degenerate.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Good point, JFSOCC! And a very important point can be deduced from it:

Game mechanics of all sorts are inherently degenerate in some form or another, so perhaps would the debate in this thread benefit from us laying all arguments about degenerate gameplay aside?

What matters is a clever, neat and solid xp system that can handle combat-xp and on-combat xp in a consistent and rewarding manner that feels as natural and non-contrived as possible to the players.

[jamoecw]

as far as stealth vs. combat, why not have stealth aid combat in some meaningful way.  you could make it so that you don't lose stealth on attacking, you just are easier to spot and enemies have a location they need to check out.  so if one was fighting a dragon, the dragon might breath fire at the spot, for a group of 10 orcs they might rush to the spot.  so if you can kill an orc with one well placed shot, you will have to be far enough away from the location you fired from to remain hidden when they get to the location, for the dragon you'd have to have some sort of fire protection.  if each shot increased the chances of being spotted it would restrict the rate at which you could fire and remain hidden, ensuring that you had to build stealthily as well as for damage.  something like this would increase tactical options for players, allowing for a wider playstyle (without getting into the whole is one arbitrary method of gaining a metaphysical stat, better than another).

[Lephys]

You're talking about multiple enemies in a single encounter counting as one "XP Checkpoint".  I'm talking about single enemies regardless of whether they're on their own or in a group. If I fight one at a time, short time = low xp and long time = high xp.

 

Whether squirrels or unarmed peasants give 0 XP or 1 XP isn't the issue.

You didn't even answer my question in any way, shape, or fashion. You basically just said my question doesn't exist, and that the only question that DOES exist is one I didn't ask.

 

Whether squirrels give 0 XP or 1 XP isn't the issue, and I didn't say it was. WHY they give 0 or 1 XP is the issue.

 

If you're level 2, and you fight a Goblin in an RPG with the kill-XP system, it gives you (arbitrarily plucked example number) 40XP. When you're level 7, that same Goblin no longer gives you 40XP, right? It gives you like 10, or 7, or none. At some point it gives you none. Based on CR (Challenge Rating, I think?)? Isn't that what you, yourself, said and supported? The CR calculations in the kill-XP system? Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm trying to keep this very, very simple.

 

Okay, WHY does the goblin give you less XP as you progress past it in level? Is it because less of a thing is dying? Nope. Still 1 whole goblin dying, every time. So, the dying was just arbitrarily picked. "Well, something should die fairly often, out of all the combat you do, so that seems like a pretty good switch for an XP reward, eh?"

 

Okay, so why DOES the goblin give you less XP? And why does it eventually give you none? That decision is obviously based on something. Again, video game code doesn't grow on a shrub, and they just pluck it and add in a few things. So, that system you enjoy (which is totally fine) decides how and when to hand out XP, based on a logical system. What could that system be? What is different when you get less or no XP from a weaker enemy, that's the same thing that's different when you get more XP from a tougher enemy?

 

I'll give you a hint: It's the thing you said none of this has anything to do with.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

I don't think we're in disagreement about how Challenge Ratings work.  Those values are up to OE to decide.  But it's mostly incidental, coincidence even, that a weaker enemy will usually take less time to defeat than a much stronger one.  Maybe the lowest XP award should always be greater than zero, I don't know.  If a squirrel or unarmed peasant can still potentially graze you to death, then they must still be a threat.

Edited February 14, 2013 by TRX850

[Lephys]

I don't think we're in disagreement about how Challenge Ratings work.  Those values are up to OE to decide.  But it's mostly incidental, coincidence even, that a weaker enemy will usually take less time to defeat than a much stronger one.  Maybe the lowest XP award should always be greater than zero, I don't know.  If a squirrel or unarmed peasant can still potentially graze you to death, then they must still be a threat.

You're missing the point. The point is that we decide that a weaker enemy should provide less XP, and a stronger one should provide more, and we're (even you're) fine with that.

 

It isn't coincidence by any stretch of the imagination. It's deliberate design. And why do we decide that? Because the time/effort/resources required to overcome a combat challenge should be proportionate to the amount of XP gained. Is this not true?

 

I.e. There's no problem with a combat challenge taking 30 minutes and 20 healing potions, or 10 seconds and 0 healing potions. The kill-XP system doesn't care how much time and effort something takes, it simply adjusts the reward accordingly (even to "none" when something is too weak and takes too little time and effort to justify a reward.)

 

So, what if you use the EXACT SAME system, but instead of saying "Well, we'll award XP whenever something dies (if it grants XP), you say "Let's award XP every time 3 things die." Is that a problem for the system to handle? What is different, in terms of the basis for which you're awarding XP? Absolutely nothing. As far as the system is concerned, you get awarded for 3-things worth of combat time and effort. Just like with a single, tougher enemy, you're getting rewarded for that much more combat time and effort (and resources, don't forget resources) than a significantly weaker enemy.

 

What's a coincidence is whether or not it was 1 enemy or 17 enemies that warranted that amount of time, effort, and resources.

 

Again, I'm not talking about enemies scattered throughout the land. I'm not talking about a counter for enemies you kill no matter where or when, that happens to award you when you get to 17. That's why I made the hydra example. To illustrate that there's hardly any difference between multiple enemies, and a single enemy, as some enemies can attack multiple targets, and teleport around the battlefield and/or make clones of themselves and/or occupy multiple different locations (like the heads of a hydra).

 

You're obviously going to have SOME objectives be attached to a group of 4, and some attached to a group of 15, and some attached to a single enemy (like a dragon). It's not as if, just because single enemies don't always grant XP, it's always going to take you 30 minutes of combat to get any XP.

 

But, that's all AFTER the fact. I'm going ahead and addressing all that because you keep mentioning it, but it's beside the main point. The main point is that the very basis for the kill-XP system, and the basis for the objective-XP system are actually one in the same.

 

And, I'm sorry, but if partial-group-killings not awarding you XP is such a big problem, you either won't play the game, or (if it's a lesser problem) you won't try to take on groups of enemies unless you're quite sure you can take them all. You'll go heal before you even fight the group at all, if they're completely optional and you're fighting them at your leisure anyway. You're not going to say "I know part of this group won't give me XP, but let's try it, knowing that," then kill 5 of them and have to run away to heal, and think "Man, that's so unfair that I voluntarily decided to take the risk of not getting any XP by not killing the whole objective group, but that I didn't get any XP for that voluntary decision!"

 

That's not a playstyle. That's a terrible decision. That's no different from entering a cave, not-knowing what's in there, and having to leave before you get all the way to the end of it (where it turns out a chest full of sparklies is), and saying "That's no fair! That loot should've been already attained, since I spent all this time and effort making my way 90% through the cave! What if I want to run off into Neverland now, and never come back to this cave? I don't get the loot UNTIL I come back, take out this last group of enemies guarding it, and unlock it?! I want my loot more often than that!"

 

Also, either you want rewards to be based on time and effort, or you don't. If you don't, then tiny goblins can give you 700XP, and huge trolls can give you 5, and that would be totally fine by you (hypothetically). So, again I say, BOTH systems are based on the rewardment of time and effort based on quantity. And since the game is literally built out of math, I'd say that yes, it IS that mathematical. That's why they do such a good job of making a game, when we can immerse ourselves in it and not even worry about (or even be ware of) the world being made out of math code.

[TRX850]

Ok, I got as far as this: "Let's award XP every time 3 things die" and had to reply.

 

"Let's award XP every time 3 things die" might be an objective.  Go kill 3 ankhegs for 500XP each, but only get the 1500XP after the 3rd one is dead.

 

You might kill the first one, but your party gets injured.  You walk to the other end of the field and encounter the second. You defeat it, but your party has been decimated.

 

You return to town to heal up and reconsider.  While there, you accept some easier quests and go do those for a while.

 

But......you're saying I won't get my 1000XP (2 x 500) because I didn't trigger a "Let's award XP every time 3 things die" objective.

 

Well, there's my problem. I want XP after defeating a single foe.  It's so simple. It's so easy to understand.  It covers all situations. All play styles. All choices.

 

You can go back and kill that 3rd ankheg if you want, once your party it healed.  It's up to you.  Maybe there's a bonus of 100XP for completing the objective. But forcing a player to do things in threes or any other number that is greater than one is eliminating choice. It becomes linear.  It becomes predictable. I don't know why this is still unclear. I really don't.

Edited February 14, 2013 by TRX850

[Lephys]

*siiiiigh*...

 

Just, please, please, just do nothing but answer me this:

 

What is the difference between seeing that group of 3 ankhegs and saying "Hmm, should I take that on for 1500XP?", and seeing one Rock Troll that's exactly as tough to fight and defeat as all 3 ankhegs at once, and saying "Hmm, should I try to defeat that WHOLE Rock Troll for 1500XP?"?

 

Seriously, however silly it seems, please analyze that in your head. Literally ask yourself "What are the differences here?", and write them on a piece of paper if you need to. The point is in this. Not in "Oh, so I'm saying that's why we should have to fight 3 instead of one," or "Okay, maybe squirrels and peasants should or shouldn't give you 1XP instead of 0XP." Just look at that one thing, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

Other than that 900HP and 90 damage constituted 3 ankhegs (each with 300HP and 30 damage), instead of the one troll having all 900HP and 90 damage? (Simple example math... obviously to make them the exact same amount of challenge, all manner of variables would have to be balanced, not just multiplied by 3 for the troll. I understand this, but it complicates examples, and I don't have time to calculate it all right now.)

 

Do you see? If a group of 3 things was balanced to have an EXACTLY IDENTICAL challenge rating as a single other enemy, then you simply CANNOT (reasonably) demand to get XP for each of the 3 enemies without also demanding to get XP for 1/3 of the single, tough enemy.

 

I'm not telling you you're an idiot for liking each kill rewarding XP. I'm pointing out that it's fundamentally the same thing (since a kill is an undefined thing that is COMPLETELY variable in what it takes to achieve) in both systems.

 

You keep defending the "what if I get hurt bad and have to run off?" scenario, which isn't any less viable when individual kills grant XP. If you get hurt bad from the Rock Troll and have to run off, you couldn't care less that you've expended all that time and effort fighting him and come away with nothing. But, magically, if you split that Rock Troll into 2, half-strength Rock Trolls (basically the EXACT same amount of threat), you're suddenly going to feel the EXTREME urge to only kill one of them, then sue the system for not giving you XP until you kill the 2nd one? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

The problem here is, you keep thinking up scenarios in the context of other games. You're not thinking in the context of "the system is decided upon, THEN we place enemies and set all the factors that determine their CR's and all that jazz, and set the player's party's stats and HP and everything in accordance with all that." You're plucking 10 enemies out of some other game (in which they designed everything with the understanding that fighting individual enemies is completely viable and will frequently occur), and thinking "Man, if I have to kill a group of 10 enemies as I'm imagining them from Baldur's Gate, that would realllllly suck."

 

Either way, my point stands. It makes perfect sense. If you'll just acknowledge that sensical system makes sense, you can STILL totally prefer kill-XP. That doesn't make you stupid or wrong or anything. But, on the other hand, preferring kill-XP has nothing to do with whether or not the two systems function on the same logic, which is the main point I'm trying to get across (and failing, apparently).

[TRX850]

Just, please, please, just do nothing but answer me this:

 

What is the difference between seeing that group of 3 ankhegs and saying "Hmm, should I take that on for 1500XP?", and seeing one Rock Troll that's exactly as tough to fight and defeat as all 3 ankhegs at once, and saying "Hmm, should I try to defeat that WHOLE Rock Troll for 1500XP?"?

 

You're changing my description though.  A "group" of 3 ankhegs is not the same as 3 "separate" ankhegs spread out across a field.

 

If while fighting the first ankheg, it's obvious I don't have the right weapons or tools for the job, it might take me a while to defeat it, but I can then decide to go off and find a better weapon or whatever.  Or I might be injured and need to heal up before returning.  Or it's just costing me too many resources at this point in the game. And so I divert from this objective for a while.

 

I do try to read all of your posts, Lephys. I really do.  Each time there's a wall of text though, it's so hard to sift out the points you are trying to make.  All I can say is that with BOTH combat XP AND quest XP, it will not affect the play style of those who prefer a more objective approach to the game.  But without combat XP, you're severely limiting choice for all those other players who prefer a different, non-linear play style. So if we have both systems in place, there's no case to answer. It's that simple.

[Lephys]

You're changing my description though.  A "group" of 3 ankhegs is not the same as 3 "separate" ankhegs spread out across a field.

I know I type a lot, and I'm sorry for that. I'll try to keep this brief.

 

I already addressed the fact that I misunderstood you about the spread-out enemies (I believe up there with a 10-goblin example or some such), and that there's no reason to assume that the most often you're going to get rewarded with XP for combat within an objective is after slaying 3 enemies strewn randomly throughout an area. Awarding 1,000 XP only every time you manage to track, hunt down, and kill 10 bandits hiding all throughout the world in bushes and shrubs WOULD be ridiculous. Not because it limits choice, but because it's terrible design with the system being wielded by the devs.

 

If while fighting the first ankheg, it's obvious I don't have the right weapons or tools for the job, it might take me a while to defeat it, but I can then decide to go off and find a better weapon or whatever.  Or I might be injured and need to heal up before returning.  Or it's just costing me too many resources at this point in the game. And so I divert from this objective for a while.

You still know up-front whether or not that one ankheg is going to give you anything or not, and the decision of whether or not to even try to fight the first one AS WELL AS the decision to divert from that objective to go off and do other things are both based on that knowledge. It's the same as if I present you with a quest that says "Go and collect 100 sparkly baubles." You know you aren't getting anything until you collect all 100, right then and there. You're going to make your decision then and there of whether or not its worth it. If it isn't, then you're not even going to WORRY with sparkly baubles for now. You're not going to collect 50 of them at that point, intentionally, then say "Man... why didn't I get XP for getting 50 of them instead of all of them! What a waste of time!". You knew collecting 50 of them was (in your eyes) a waste of time before you decided to do it.

All I can say is that with BOTH combat XP AND quest XP, it will not affect the play style of those who prefer a more objective approach to the game.  But without combat XP, you're severely limiting choice for all those other players who prefer a different, non-linear play style. So if we have both systems in place, there's no case to answer. It's that simple.

All I can say is that combat XP and quest XP are the same system, arbitrarily split into 2 categories. Without kill-XP, you're not limiting player choice. The player choice is still fully there. XP awards cannot be the determining factor for what is and isn't player choice, or everything that doesn't provide XP would be arguably a limitation of player choice, which is obviously not the case. "I talked to lots of people and asked about things, and didn't get any XP until I accomplished some magical 'quest' by talking to the right people about the right things. My playstyle of talking to people is SO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST!"

 

That's clearly an invalid argument. And so is the combat one. Again, if they spread things out around the world and make you kill them all, or they make you go 30 minutes at a time without getting XP, THEN there would be an issue. And that's an issue with the specific paramaters (i.e. mainly time involved, here) of the specific implementation. Not "They didn't give me XP whenever things died, and that means I only get it every 30 minutes, and there's a huge problem, and no one who likes combat can feasibly play this game."

 

The only "playstyle" that will be affected on any significant level by the officially announced XP system is the "frequently travel about and go out of your way to kill portions of groups of enemies, all in different areas/objectives, and never actually complete or accomplish anything" playstyle. And I don't think we owe it to people who want to be irrational the luxury of choice, there, at the cost of other game design factors.

 

You may be upset when you kill 5 orcs and don't get any XP yet, but when you kill the other 5 (all standing 10 feet away from you) and get to the cave mouth, then get the same amount of XP as all of them individually would provide, I promise it's not going to hurt your gameplay at all.

 

Your only valid concern is "Obsidian, don't implement this stupidly!". Which is fine, but there's no reason we should assume they will. Only to hope they won't, 'cause they're smart people.

 

(I totally failed at brevity, -____-)

Edited February 15, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

The only "playstyle" that will be affected on any significant level by the officially announced XP system is the "frequently travel about and go out of your way to kill portions of groups of enemies, all in different areas/objectives, and never actually complete or accomplish anything" playstyle. And I don't think we owe it to people who want to be irrational the luxury of choice, there, at the cost of other game design factors.

 

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Lephys, I gotta say, I expected more from you.

 

Nowhere in my previous example was I "going out of my way" to nerf an objective.  Combat XP, as a system, should be as simple as a single "OnDeath (Award XP)" line of code. Which should be a sub-set of what quest XP does anyway. There's no added cost.

 

And your idea of "never actually completing or accomplishing anything" is simply ridiculous.  All you're doing is arguing against choice.  If you want to work your way through individual quests from start to finish, you can do that if you want. But many players don't, either by choice or by circumstance.  Now I'm definitely not responding further to this debate.  I'm happy to discuss the topic of stealth vs combat though, but there's really not a lot more to say on that either.

 

And thank you for your attempt at brevity.

[Lephys]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Lephys, I gotta say, I expected more from you.

Then I literally have no clue what you expect from me. o_o

 

Nowhere in my previous example was I "going out of my way" to nerf an objective.

I never said anything of the sort. I said the only choice that's affected is that choice. If you're not making that choice, then awesome pawsum. That's also part of the point. That only ridiculous people would make such a "choice." Which you are not. A ridiculous person, that is.

 

And your idea of "never actually completing or accomplishing anything" is simply ridiculous.  All you're doing is arguing against choice.

It's not an idea. It's a choice. And yes, I am arguing against it, because it's ridiculous. I'm not arguing against Choice, itself. I'm doing only 2 things here:

 

1) Pointing out that, while you're correct about some choices being non-viable, you're mistaken about which ones they are.

2) Arguing against the ridiculousness of accommodating the only non-viable choices inherently defined by the objective-based XP system.

 

I know you aren't meaning to do so, but you keep missing those points, and making this about whether or not we should have blue kool-aid, or purple kool-aid, and whether or not the preference for one or the other is wrong. Neither is wrong. They're simply beside the point.

 

And if you aren't responding any more, then I am sad. But alas, such is life. Whether or not we ever come to a mutual understanding on this topic will hardly affect the spinning of the Earth. *shrug*

[JFSOCC]

But......you're saying I won't get my 1000XP (2 x 500) because I didn't trigger a "Let's award XP every time 3 things die" objective.

If you were supposed to kill three things and only killed two, then you didn't do what you were supposed to. so why would you deserve a reward?

Besides you could always come back and kill the last one.

Edited February 15, 2013 by JFSOCC

[IndiraLightfoot]

That gave me an idea: For certain types of monsters, such as those of the insect family (beetles, ankhegs, ants), not killing all of them in a certain area means that there are more when you come back. So, say, a group of ankhegs in a habitat (a few fields) is an objective, then if you don't kill them all in a sweep, you will have them back at full strength next time (soemtimes there'll even be more of them, entire infestations). The same goes for certain fast-breeding mammals, like giant rats. And while I'm at it: If a dozen kobolds in a forested valley is an objective, then failing to kill them all we'll also mean that there are mor of them next time: Why? Coz the survivors have mustered reinforcements, sometimes a few stronger opponents. A kobold chief they knew next door or that weird cave troll they've been getting along so well with up in the crags. What do you think?

[TrashMan]

That gave me an idea: For certain types of monsters, such as those of the insect family (beetles, ankhegs, ants), not killing all of them in a certain area means that there are more when you come back. So, say, a group of ankhegs in a habitat (a few fields) is an objective, then if you don't kill them all in a sweep, you will have them back at full strength next time (soemtimes there'll even be more of them, entire infestations). The same goes for certain fast-breeding mammals, like giant rats. And while I'm at it: If a dozen kobolds in a forested valley is an objective, then failing to kill them all we'll also mean that there are mor of them next time: Why? Coz the survivors have mustered reinforcements, sometimes a few stronger opponents. A kobold chief they knew next door or that weird cave troll they've been getting along so well with up in the crags. What do you think?

 

 

Consequences for taking too long or ditching quests? Yes please.

 

However, if TRH gets his way, then it would be a perfect grind for kill XP.....

[TRX850]

I'm not debating mechanics any more, so let me put it another way: Ask yourselves what kind of game you really want.

One where you're sent here and there and always do what you're told, and never change your ways?

Or one that allows for complex characters to emerge? Characters who agree to one thing, then do another, either due to their own agenda, or because the game surreptitiously entices them to change?

This is a different scenario to my recent examples, but let me say that logic on paper only goes so far in a game before something more important takes its place.  The number one rule in the entertainment business is to entertain. And if the game encourages you to always do what you are told before accepting a reward, then the experience becomes nothing more than a sea of beige.

Rewards should be everywhere. But the real story is about you.
 

I don't want to gimp your game. I want to empower you. I want your adrenaline to surge when you suddenly realize the only way out of a situation is to back off and betray your own kind. And then feel the hurt. And then prompt you to see it through, no matter what. And if you're strong enough, you can choose a path of redemption. To undo what you did. And then be awash with the sheer rollercoaster of emotions. The sheer audacity of your actions. All brought about by choice.

You can have that. Or you can be beige and trigger a few quest markers.
 

Edited February 15, 2013 by TRX850

[TrashMan]

Except your definition of "combat XP done right" is arbitrary and objective XP does everything you claim you want.

[TRX850]

^ Dude....