Balancing Stealth vs Combat II

[Ffordesoon]

mommy why is everybody shouting

 

i scared

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

*looks at OP*

 

*reads pages 2 and 3*

 

Looks like the negativity cesspool is back...

 

Obviously my suggestion on having Challenge-based XP was ditched so people could resume the bitching.

 

Challenge-based XP is better than Objective or Kill-based XP because it accomplishes the goals of both.

 

It allows the player to complete quests utilizing methods other than combat.(Best of Objective)

 

It gives the player a XP reward for dealing with difficult random encounters.(Best of Kill)

 

The player isn't punished for not fighting(Negative of Kill)

 

The player isn't forced to do quests for XP(Negative of Objective)

[IndiraLightfoot]

Fear not, captain KaineParker!

That Cesspool Ooze will soon shrivel up. Two or three beams from my positivitron wand, and it's history!

And alas, I have a feeling that our good old monk will bring borth his razor and do short work of this debate!

No, I don't mean Forton, captain. I mean, Occam.

[Valorian]

So the other thread was put to rest.

Ah, but it'll bear the scars of gigantic posts and genocide of logic (by Hassat and co.) FOREVER...

Speaking of which, continuing a tangent from the other thread:

: You support kill KP. Then why you no like learn by hitting/doing!?

 

 : Because we wouldn't like kill XP to be atomized.

 

: Ha! Why!? It can be done right, like in some other game I mentioned!

 

 

 : It brings several issues to the table. Why does hitting a dummy yeld no XP, then? Exploits in the form of hitting a creature, getting better by landing each blow, letting it regenerate stamina back, rinse & repeat... etc.

 

 

: But both are logical!! You said it makes sense that killing a creature makes you better at combat, but so does hitting a creature! Am I right!?

 

 : Yes.

 

: So... I win!?

 

  : No. In fact, you're offering further atomization of kill XP, i.e. hit XP, as a "counter argument" (*cat says in a derisive tone*) for a game wide application of kill XP. Since you have been vehement in defending objective XP only, atomizing XP even more than kill XP ever could, thus going even further away from objective XP only, would be a double lose for you.

 

[TRX850]

How about a secondary stealth ability that works with Sneaking?

Distract Enemy

1. Throw a Thunderstone/Widget in an area where nearby enemies are gathered. (A hallway outside an occupied room).
2. Enemies within range make a Listen check.

3a. Failure = Enemies do nothing. Go to 5b.
3b. Success = Enemies enter Detect Mode (Active Search/Spot mode).

4. Enemies who are actively searching/spotting make an Intelligence check.

5a. Failure = Enemies Investigate noise location (small XP gain).
5b. Success = Enemies remain where they are.

Investigating enemies will return to their post after 1 minute. At which point the detect mode will reset (including non-investigating enemies). XP gains can only be awarded once for each enemy.

The Widget could be something a rogue (or stealthy character) crafts from various components. The purpose is to make noise on deployment. Maybe a small wooden wheel that sounds like footsteps as it rolls down a corridor. The enemy's intelligence check could be opposed to the effectiveness-level of the widget being deployed.

During the distraction attempt, hiding and moving silently functions as normal.
 

[Hassat Hunter]

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.

No, you shouldn't be entitled to screwing up. You don't get XP for half the kills. You don't get XP for half the sneaking either. You don't pick half the dialogue options of the diplomat and then be a total **** and expect your diplomat-XP reward.

Extreme hand-holding, a plentititude of cookie-giving and fearing to just hold people responsible for their actions and petting them with silk gloves are trademarks of modern games designed for the lowest commiditor. We're going back to old-games style here. No rewards for incompetance. No dying and getting XP/money in the profit, not fumbling about like an idiot still getting you rewarded.

There are plenty of games, especially MMORPG's who will fit you if you really need extreme cookie-receiving.

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.

You STILL don't realise "quest XP" (aka Objective XP) isn't given for full quests, do you?

Example;

The Guild of Extreme Murderous Killing wants you to slaughter 4 camps of bandits. Each is an individual objective. You kill 2 camps (2 objectives). So you still have XP. If you back out murdering the 3rd (and no "there was a little girl bandit so I didn't want to kill them no more" bs, please), no, you wont get XP from that camp. It doesn't matter you killed half, none-for-you. Give me a good reason why you would? And you can't even blame you left half-way without anything, you got XP from 2 camps. Just not this 3rd camp, nor the fourth, nor the overall achievement of the mission.

Same goes for, say, the Infinite Dungeon. It's, what, 15 levels now? If you get a reward each level nothing stops you from doing all in a row, mix and match overall levels, in the end, at the start. Nothing requires you to do all. So no, it doesn't hamper choice.

But yes, you do get no XP if you stand infront of the dungeon level exit and you know using it grants XP and then leaving and never return. I seriously don't suggest developers accomidate such gameplay though. Since only idiots would do that.

You only get your cookie for actually doing something. Not doing nothing but still expecting to get rewards. If you just randomly do missions and objectives you'll still get rewards, so your gamestyle is still totally supported. Except if you stop infront of EVERY little objective then search another that you *just* not complete.

And say seriously, who-ever is going to play like that. Only people who actually have played the game before and do this for a challenge. Hey another choice!

 

But hey, **** that and just add kill-XP, right? Who wants to have the choice to play stealthy or diplomatic? You just need your playstyle supported, damn those of others.

I don't want that... I want as much players playing as they want as they can. And if mr. Combat somehow doesn't do combat, it's not the gamemechanics that should be evaluated, but mr. Combat's willingness to do combat. Maybe one of the other styles suits him better. Ones that are ACTUALLY supported now... unlike the old RPG's like Baldur's Gate II...

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.

Obviously not, since oterwise, we wouldn't have this discussion.

It works fine if you barely allow non-combat choices. But the developers of PE decide they want to give the player more liberty, more choices. And that includes updating the way the system grants XP.

I understand the fears of those combat-lovers that due to integration of proper gameplay of others their suffers, but really, with objective-XP, it doesn't.

 

Take a look at IWD2 (From BG2).

Since traps no longer gave XP everyone avoided them right?

WRONG. After all, it's a little hard to avoid something strewn over the entire width of the room. Same with stealth. Like traps, the oh-so-black and white "combat is useless, everyone will stealth" will simply not happen. It's not that easy.

Another one... Mages never scribbled spells, since they no longer gave XP...

WRONG.

Last one, people no longer opened doors and locks since they gave no XP...

WRONG. There is no additional reward needed in the form of XP to make chests and doors unlocking good. Just like people who want combat, a clear map or just easy passage would need XP just to do it. There will be loot in the chest/combat. If you want it, you take it. It's its own reward, no XP needed. If you want to enter a temple, then walk out, combat is your only option. Stealth will need to stealth in, stealth out.

 

Heck, some people might even fight hard fights or gimp themselves hard just for fun, even without reward. The Ring of Kangaxx is awesome, but would people fight and kill him even if he dropped nothing and gave no XP just to prove they could. Surely. It's an entirely optional encounter too, so the whole 'go halway and then give up' wouldn't really work, since you're already at the end of the path anyway.

Challenge-based XP is better than Objective or Kill-based XP because it accomplishes the goals of both.

How can Challenge based XP be better than Objective XP if it's a different name for the same thing.

It's like saying "Mountain Lion is better than Puma or Cougar"... what?

[Lephys]

How about when it's feasible and not arbitrary or irrational, things besides combat (such as Stealth) CAN produce a different outcome in a given situation while still handling the situation in some form, not simply avoiding the situation all together, and therefore also gets rewarded, not necessarily in the same way as combat, but obviously still with XP so that the people who choose to spend the time and effort required to produce that different outcome aren't screwed over for no reason? And how about the same goes for people who choose the combat method of handling the feasibly multi-method situation?

 

I really don't think it's more complicated than that. More complex? Sure. We could discuss the specifics of how all the potential systems and implementations in the entire game all interact with each-other, and the quest system, and the calculation of XP, and the balancing of enemies' hitpoints, and which situations might allow for multiple methods of handling, and which ones might not. None of that has any bearing on the fact that it's pretty silly not to design the game with the idea of the equal treatment of any options that are labeled, by the design of the game, as viable.

 

It's no different from classes not being gimped when compared to each other. In certain situations, your Wizard's going to much-more-easily/effectively blast (pun intended) the living hell out of your foes, and in other situations, your Warrior's going to much-more-easily/effectively block and slice the living hell out of foes. Sometimes your Rogue will be MVP, and sometimes your Cipher will. Some people will play a group of 6 Warriors, and they'll be THAT much more effective in Warrior-susceptible challenges, and have that much harder of a time in Warrior-resistant challenges.

 

The people who spend all their time focusing on resolving things through dialogue, when possible, will get outcomes to things that the people who always fight their way to a solution will not, and vice versa.

 

And then there was harmony.

 

Regardless of whether or not you call everything objectives, or you divide up XP rewards specifically between combat and non-combat, if XP rewards are properly implemented to do their job, everyone wins. If they aren't, we flood forums and review sites with Obsidian hate and wailing, and the gaming world is a sad panda.

 

This isn't Highlander. Either system works if you do it right, so it really doesn't matter if everyone understands both systems' ability to do so or not, because they still do.

 

Since they've announced the system they're going to use, and everyone freaked out about it, I thought it might be prudent to explain that the freakout was unwarranted, but apparently that's a stupid idea, so... go on... on with your panic.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

It just occurred to me.

 

The negative comments here reflect a "can't do" mentality, rather than a "can do" approach. Maybe because of different cultures or upbringing.

 

I've lived in different countries, and I remember the signs in public places that said "Keep Off the Grass".

 

But where I live now, there are signs that say "Please, Walk on the Grass".

 

The whole negative argument about "you shouldn't be allowed to do this" or "you shouldn't get XP for that" stems from a different world view to what an RPG should be.  Maybe my view is wrong, holy crap!  But I thought OE were making a "spiritual successor" to the Baldur's Gate franchise.  And in those games, you could walk on the grass.  In those games, you could decline a quest if you didn't like the quest-giver. You could even kill a quest-giver if you wanted to. Then go off and get XP for killing the monsters they wanted dead anyway. And it wasn't part of a quest. And you didn't think twice about it. Because it was *your* story.

 

That sounds like freedom of choice to me.

[Hassat Hunter]

You still don't get objectives aren't exclusively part of quests, do you?

[TRX850]

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if P:E (a game with Mature themes) encouraged players to learn the rules then break the rules.

 

Does anyone here think that thugs and assassins would bat an eyelid over double-crossing someone?  No? Then why should you, if that's the character you're playing?

 

If you're still unsure about that, read up on Cause and Effect.

 

There's cake available.    And I'll be asking questions later.

[JFSOCC]

Please dear Afochion just kill this discussion with fire.

[TRX850]

Piew-piew, pieeww! *BOOM!* *BA-bOOm!* SqueeEEAAARRRrrglessSSPLAAAboofff......

 

...

 

Wait, no XP?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

How can Challenge based XP be better than Objective XP if it's a different name for the same thing.

It's like saying "Mountain Lion is better than Puma or Cougar"... what?

Because Challenge XP isn't Objective XP.

 

Objective XP is awarded by completing objectives ONLY. That means the player has to have an objective and is not rewarded with XP for dealing with random encounters or wandering in to a dungeon(or other area) for no other reason than they want to explore.

 

Challenge XP is awarded by completing challenges. This could dealing with a group of monsters, getting through a treacherous dungeon, or completing an objective. It would also be method neutral allowing non-combat solutions to be as rewarding as combat. It also rewards players who get through a difficult random encounter with XP.

 

I think incinerating this thread is a good idea, unless Indra shows up with his/her positron blaster.

[Razsius]

So uh i've kind of maybe just maybe been playing the hell out of Fire Emblem: Awakening instead of say responding to this thread.  Still I must admit I am a little surprised at some of the discussion that has cropped up.  It's almost like how we have to make up new grievances in an effort to never actually agree on anything.  I think one of the original reasons of the objective xp vs kill xp 100 year war was to allow "alternate" paths or solutions to be on par or as rewarded as when you take the kill path.  Personally, I disagree with this sentiment because assuming you broker something like an alliance between the two strongest factions you should get way the bloody fing hell MORE xp then with the kill xp path.  Regardless, I ended up attempting to agree with the sentiments of individuals who number among the objective xp crowd and decided to come up with a solution that allowed viable freedom to the player.

 

Strangely enough, after setting up a minimum sub objective if you will this seemed to be viewed as somewhat arbitrary decision.  I have no idea why this would be.  Some people wished to express that instead of xp being rewarded for completions that they should instead be rewarded for partial completions.  This makes absolutely no sense because these are the same individuals who prior argued *against* partial completions.  If you lower the health of a single orc to 20% you get NO xp for this because you did not actually complete the sub objective of "kill the orc".  While it is true that you can somewhat arbitrarily set any number of health percentages to lower a mob's health to then reward xp, it makes about as much sense as rewarding xp for a half picked lock.  Not only that lowering a mob's health to 0 would easily be the "cleanest" solution.  It enables to the developers to set a  point of balancing that is simple and easy to provide parity for.  As well, it is a point basically all players know and are more than a little used to.  So while I can somewhat understand sentiments against setting it up how I set it up it basically boils down to whether I agree with an elder scrolls based xp system.  Considering the original goal was to find an objective xp based system that worked you might end up ticking me off just a little if you decide to move the goal posts on me.

 

It should be noted that we have also already largely addressed balancing issues with a reputation system that provides consequences for whatever choice you may make.  The answer really is thus.  A real life example of the most "efficient" method of getting cash would be to rob a bank.  Seeing as how it is the *most* efficient method to get quick cash it stands to reason that large flocks of people would be attempting to do this.  However, they are not.  Why?  Well since noone ever seems to answer my questions anyways i'll answer it FOR you.  It's simple, the consequences outweigh any potential "efficiency."  In a sense, this is what we look at such a reputation system to achieve.  ACTUAL "parity" of choice.

 

Now what was the problem again?

 

Edit: Raz does not condone the robbing of banks.

 

As a side note, Fire Emblem: Awakening is my very first Fire Emblem and boy it sure as hell ain't a cakewalk even early on (Classic Mode on Hard).

 

@KaineParker

 

Seriously is there an easy way to get funds in this game... feels like an actual war.  I don't want to lose any of my units and my war chest seems to stay permanently empty.  I all but screamed at my Gameboy when some gerbil of a enemy one-shot Sumia.  I was like "Like HELL i'll let you kill Chrom's future waifu!"

 

*Ahem* anyways carry on folks.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Razsius

[Ffordesoon]

@Raszius:

 

Surprisingly, we are in agreement on every point. Yes, even the ones about Fire Emblem. Which is wicked awesome.

 

*raises hand skyward in expectation of a high-five from Raz*

 

I'm playing on Classic Normal, BTW, and it's still an MF. I've reset the game four times now so a character doesn't have to die.

 

Weirdly, three of those times, it was Sumia who bit it. It's like she's marked for death!

[Razsius]

@Raszius:

 

Surprisingly, we are in agreement on every point. Yes, even the ones about Fire Emblem. Which is wicked awesome.

 

*raises hand skyward in expectation of a high-five from Raz*

 

I'm playing on Classic Normal, BTW, and it's still an MF. I've reset the game four times now so a character doesn't have to die.

 

Weirdly, three of those times, it was Sumia who bit it. It's like she's marked for death!

 

Now we're talkin'!  *High fives Ffordesoon*

 

Yea Fire Emblem definitely isn't your grandmother's SRPG.  Chapter 3 was the first time I had to realize that i'd better start taking it as serious or more serious than Advance Wars (made by the same company which I totally didn't know).  What happened (because I am a *complete* newbie to Fire Emblem) is I sent Fredrick in to mop up the top half of the map.  He proceeded to get one-shot by the guy with the hammer then Sumia bit it to an archer then My Unit got crit and one shot.  Bing!  Bang!  BOOM!  You're dead!

 

I generally *start* playing ALL of my games on Hard or above.  I just hit Chapter 6 of this game and to think there's a Lunatic and a Lunatic+ difficulty makes me want to cry.  This might be the only game I can't complete on max difficulty and I play Ys games as well.  I really hope I get better at this game.  I saw a developer round table where one of the devs flat out admits that Lunatic difficulty 'just ain't right' basically.

 

I want someone to hold me...

 

Edit: This thread is now about Fire Emblem: Awakening.

 

Oh, and I bought a Gameboy 3DS XL simply to play this game.  It was well worth it.

 

Edit 2: We got any Fire Emblem veterans in here that can give us newbies some advice?

Edited February 17, 2013 by Razsius

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

@Raszius:

Surprisingly, we are in agreement on every point. Yes, even the ones about Fire Emblem. Which is wicked awesome.

*raises hand skyward in expectation of a high-five from Raz*

I'm playing on Classic Normal, BTW, and it's still an MF. I've reset the game four times now so a character doesn't have to die.

Weirdly, three of those times, it was Sumia who bit it. It's like she's marked for death!

 

Now we're talkin'!  *High fives Ffordesoon*

 

Yea Fire Emblem definitely isn't your grandmother's SRPG.  Chapter 3 was the first time I had to realize that i'd better start taking it as serious or more serious than Advance Wars (made by the same company which I totally didn't know).  What happened (because I am a *complete* newbie to Fire Emblem) is I sent Fredrick in to mop up the top half of the map.  He proceeded to get one-shot by the guy with the hammer then Sumia bit it to an archer then My Unit got crit and one shot.  Bing!  Bang!  BOOM!  You're dead!

 

I generally *start* playing ALL of my games on Hard or above.  I just hit Chapter 6 of this game and to think there's a Lunatic and a Lunatic+ difficulty makes me want to cry.  This might be the only game I can't complete on max difficulty and I play Ys games as well.  I really hope I get better at this game.  I saw a developer round table where one of the devs flat out admits that Lunatic difficulty 'just ain't right' basically.

 

I want someone to hold me...

 

Edit: This thread is now about Fire Emblem: Awakening.

 

Oh, and I bought a Gameboy 3DS XL simply to play this game.  It was well worth it.

 

Edit 2: We got any Fire Emblem veterans in here that can give us newbies some advice?

Maybe I can be of some assistance.

 

FEA is a bit different from most FE games, because now rescue(pair up in FEA) gives you bonuses instead of penalties and you can grind and class change, which can allow you to max out stats on pretty much any character. To make up for that, enemies stats seem to have been jacked up and the game seems to be generally harder than pretty much every other FE game. Still the basic rules are the same and here is some advice for you new guys(BTW welcome aboard!).

 

Pay attention to the weapon triangle. Switching weapons can reduce the amount of damage and chance to hit, take this in to account when dealing with foes, particularly axe users.

 

Keep the team pretty diverse. You will want a good mix of units to rely on.

 

Avoid using units that will rot in the barracks. XP is precious, you do not want someone who you do not intend to use sucking it away from you are going to use and need strong.

 

Heal early and heal often. Healers have no other way to gain XP than by healing(or doing other **** with the staff) and if you want to promote around the same time as the other units, you will want to heal as much as possible.

 

Wait for promotion. While it is a long climb to get to level 20, it is well worth the wait. Those 10 extra level ups make a huge difference and if you promote too early(right at level 10) your unit(s) will get their asses handed to them.

 

Conserve your weapons. Weapons wear out and new ones cost money, make sure that you don't waste your fancy silver weaponry on foes steel or even iron could have handled.

 

Other than that basic advice, here is my personal thoughts on the classes.

 

Thieves kick ass. They can promote to Assassin or Trickster, but IMO the latter isn't that great and the former is just amazing.

 

Swordmasters are also great. They won't get hit much and can double attack pretty much anyone.

 

Berserkers are almost always a better choice than Warriors. You will have to reclass to get one(Vaike can do it) but it is well worth it.

 

Heroes are really good. They are incredibly well balanced and work well against pretty much any foe. Promote fighters into Heroes instead of Warriors if they can reclass into Berserkers.

 

Paladins are much better than Great Knights. Great Knights aren't bad, they just don't work as well as a cavalier promotion. Also Generals aren't that great on most maps.

 

Sages are great. I'd promote your Clerics/Priests into this instead of War Monk/War Cleric, unless you reclassed a physical class into a Cleric/Priest or the character had really high STR.

 

Bow Knights are a good first promotion, but Snipers beat them out later in the game.

 

Dark Mages are rare, but they can be pretty good if used right. Sorcerers are a little weaker with magic than sages, but make up for it by having good defense.

 

Great Lords are good, but Lucina has better caps than Chrom. I'll wait for the DLC with the Demon Fighter Scroll in it before I endorse a final class for Chrom.

 

Grandmaster is in the same situation as Great Lord.

 

Wyvern units are pretty good, think flying General for promotion. In this game the alternate promotion is a but weaker but makes up for it by having higher speed, skill, and resistance.

 

Pegasus units are also good. Great against mages and quick foes, by watch out for bow users and high power units.

[Hassat Hunter]

Because Challenge XP isn't Objective XP.

Oh yes, it is.

This could dealing with a group of monsters, getting through a treacherous dungeon, or completing an objective. It would also be method neutral allowing non-combat solutions to be as rewarding as combat. It also rewards players who get through a difficult random encounter with XP.

That's what we indeed call... an "objective"... it's not at all different from your challenges.

 

Though it speaks for itself if people misunderstand that that's why there is so much objection.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Ffordesoon]

@Razsius:

 

I agree. Fire Emblem thread now. More useful.

 

@KaineParker:

 

Hey, thanks! :D

[Lephys]

The whole negative argument about "you shouldn't be allowed to do this" or "you shouldn't get XP for that" stems from a different world view to what an RPG should be.  Maybe my view is wrong, holy crap!  But I thought OE were making a "spiritual successor" to the Baldur's Gate franchise.  And in those games, you could walk on the grass.  In those games, you could decline a quest if you didn't like the quest-giver. You could even kill a quest-giver if you wanted to. Then go off and get XP for killing the monsters they wanted dead anyway. And it wasn't part of a quest. And you didn't think twice about it. Because it was *your* story.

 

That sounds like freedom of choice to me.

 

Okay, 1,000 Lotus Blossum Celestial Brevity Technique, GO!!!

 

The solitary flaw that still exists in what you've said up there is that the only two possibilities aren't:

 

1) You are literally not even able to walk on the grass, or

2) You can walk on the grass AND get a shiny new Lexus, purely because you walked on the grass.

 

The third possibility of "You are free to roam all over the grass, as much as you choose, but that action, alone, doesn't get you a shiny new Lexus" is there, and doesn't, in any way, limit player choice.

 

Note that I'm not suggesting walking on the grass should never get you anything. But, yet again, there are more options than "nothing" and "a shiny new Lexus (aka XP)."

 

I don't think anyone in this entire thread (or the previous one) wants you to not be able to walk on the grass. It's simply pointless to provide an incentive to step on as many blades of grass as possible, rather than only providing an incentive to actually achieve something (whatever your choice on WHAT to achieve) by traversing the grass.

 

That reasoning holds true for everything in the game you can possibly think of. Sneaking doesn't reward you. Accomplishing something via sneaking rewards you. Killing doesn't reward you. Accomplishing something by killing rewards you. Traveling doesn't reward you. Accomplishing something by traveling rewards you. Talking doesn't reward you. Accomplishing something by talking rewards you.

 

Obviously, the balance is in deciding the level of accomplishment. But, while you can say "killing something IS an accomplishment," you could say that for ANYthing (a footstep, simple respiration to provide energy to your muscles, giving someone a paper cut, etc.), which is why some reasonable basis is needed to decide what is and isn't a reward-worthy accomplishment. And "because something died" is not reason. It's a decision based on the idea that the range of time/effort required to cause the death of a hostile thing is an acceptable range for variable XP rewards. It is not a decision made because it is the only feasible decision. And that's all there is to it.

 

Again, kill-XP is fine, but so is objective-XP. And since they're using objective XP, it's wiser to evaluate its potential implementation in a constructive fashion than to focus so hard on the fact that there are ways in which it could be horribly implemented, and sit around pointing out all the flaws in said horrible implementations, which we could simply opt not to use.