How "grindy" will the game be?

[eschaton]

In general, I've been disappointed with the movement of RPG games toward the action side of things.  I'm aware that PE will in no way be an action RPG like Diablo, or a recent Bioware-style hybrid, but even within the old IE games, there was a huge variance.  On one hand, the Icewind Dale games were essentially nothing but a long, hard, slog grind through dungeon after dungeon (usually in linear order) with minimal dialogue and character interaction.  On the other extreme, Planescape: Torment was arguably less combat-focused than any major CRPG made in the past 20 years.  There was only one respawning XP farming area, which was essentially skippable, and dialogue occupied a lot more of your time than combat.  The Baldur's Gate series fell between these extremes, although it became a bit less combat heavy as time passed.  

 

I'm hoping the game is a bit less combat focused than the Icewind Dale series.  I enjoyed creating and equipping an entire party in those games, but the unrelenting grind of the games after time just didn't feel fun.  Maybe it was just a symptom of a well-balanced game, but I just could never hit the same stride I did with higher-level parties in the Baldur's Gate series, and the lack of a "town side" of the game meant there were no breaks from the dungeon crawling.  

 

The movement away from XP for kills seems like a great step to me, which suggests the game is not going to be about "grind."  You actually have incentive to avoid trash encounters at least.  Some other things I'd like to see to lessen the grind.

 

More realistic combat odds: You should not be able to defeat even a weaker party with many more members due to flanking issues, unless you have serious crowd control, or favorable geography.  The game should be set up so a party of roughly equal size to you offers deadly challenge - not throw wave after wave of mooks.  

 

Less kamikaze enemies:  If you get ambushed by bandits, they should under most circumstances flee once you kill a substantial number of them (and, given you don't get XP from them, and they probably have trash equipment, you have no reason to pursue).  Wild animals (which aren't magical) should usually back down when seriously wounded as well.  Fighting to the death should be limited to hardened soldiers, and various magical constructs.  

 

Limited respawn:  If the game goes on over a long period, it might make sense for new enemies to take up residence in dungeons you cleared.  But in general, having the exact same trash encounters come back often doesn't make game sense.  

 

Sometimes, Orcs don't attack you:  Put every other "evil" intelligent monster here as well.  They have their own agendas they are going about, which in some cases, won't involve being immediately hostile to the party traveling through the area.  Presuming the game doesn't have level scaling, it would be awesome if intelligent foes could actually know your approximate challenge level, and avoid a challenge if they knew chances were high they'd end up dead.  

 

Anyway, thoughts?  

[Gfted1]

Unless there will be MMO type quests that require you to get amount of something, removing kill XP should remove all "grinding" from the game. There is no point to combat since you wont need to kill for XP, money or loot and can take the diplomatic path for most rewards. Sawyer did mention that combat isn't totally unavoidable as there will be some "core" battles or some loot that you will have to fight for if you want it, but for the most part I don't think you have to worry about grinding for anything.

[eschaton]

Unless there will be MMO type quests that require you to get <X> amount of something, removing kill XP should remove all "grinding" from the game. There is no point to combat since you wont need to kill for XP, money or loot and can take the diplomatic path for most rewards. Sawyer did mention that combat isn't totally unavoidable as there will be some "core" battles or some loot that you will have to fight for if you want it, but for the most part I don't think you have to worry about grinding for anything.

 

I'd agree, except.

 

1.  We don't really have an answer yet on money loot (I found most enemies in IE games weren't worth the loot unless they were named, but YMMV).  Personally I'm not a big fan of undroppable items - I think every enemy ought to have everything strippable (as was the case in say Arcanum or Fallout), although it could always get ruined during combat.  Given we have infinite inventory, this means collecting 100 rusty shortswords suddenly becomes less time consuming (presuming you can find someone to sell them).  I would never do this sort of crap though, and hopefully the game is balanced so that the cost in terms of wasted equipment (arrows, bandages, healing potions, etc) is higher for most low-level encounters than the loot gained.  Killing everything in sight shouldn't be a consequence-free way to make money.  

 

2.  We might still run into the issue, for example, in a dungeon where the actual encounter we need to make is at the bottom, but there's all these unrelated (in terms of the principal antagonist, not the game design) encounters we need to get through to actually get there.  I really hope the game doesn't throw such at us, or allows a "backdoor" into such areas in all cases.  But this remains to be seen.  

[Gfted1]

I'd agree, except.

 

1.  We don't really have an answer yet on money loot (I found most enemies in IE games weren't worth the loot unless they were named, but YMMV).  Personally I'm not a big fan of undroppable items - I think every enemy ought to have everything strippable (as was the case in say Arcanum or Fallout), although it could always get ruined during combat.  Given we have infinite inventory, this means collecting 100 rusty shortswords suddenly becomes less time consuming (presuming you can find someone to sell them).  I would never do this sort of crap though, and hopefully the game is balanced so that the cost in terms of wasted equipment (arrows, bandages, healing potions, etc) is higher for most low-level encounters than the loot gained.  Killing everything in sight shouldn't be a consequence-free way to make money.

My point here was that you probably wont have to kill for money loot anyway. Since we can strip mine every lootable item from every environment, you will probably make a great living just selling off random junk that you would have otherwise left on the ground in a game that has inventory item and weight limits. 

 

2.  We might still run into the issue, for example, in a dungeon where the actual encounter we need to make is at the bottom, but there's all these unrelated (in terms of the principal antagonist, not the game design) encounters we need to get through to actually get there.  I really hope the game doesn't throw such at us, or allows a "backdoor" into such areas in all cases.  But this remains to be seen.

I cant imagine a game that allows you to backdoor right to the boss / goal but crazier things happen in PE. You have a good point about all the mooks that are between you and the goal but since diplomacy and stealth have been used as examples of how to avoid most combat it sounds like there will be ways to avoid / befriend / trick your way through.

[rjshae]

Avoiding most combat sounds a little... boring. I'd rather have combat that require unique and creative tactics to solve.

[Gfted1]

Aye, but whats the point? Unless you as a player enjoy combat (I do), then combat seems to be a negative return as it will cost you resources to win the battles and time to go back to a rest spot to heal from the battles. Ive never played a diplomatic character in my life, maybe this will be a good opening for me.

[eschaton]

 

I cant imagine a game that allows you to backdoor right to the boss / goal but crazier things happen in PE. You have a good point about all the mooks that are between you and the goal but since diplomacy and stealth have been used as examples of how to avoid most combat it sounds like there will be ways to avoid / befriend / trick your way through.

 

I could see smart ways around it, besides a literal back door.  Maybe you bribe your way in.  Maybe you find some drunk guy at a tavern - you either talk the password out of him, steal his key, or slit his throat in a back alley and steal his key.  Maybe there's a "puzzle door."  Maybe there's another faction in the dungeon, and if you do a different quest for them, they'll arrange for passage through the dungeon unmolested.  There's many, many different options.  

[rjshae]

Aye, but whats the point? Unless you as a player enjoy combat (I do), then combat seems to be a negative return as it will cost you resources to win the battles and time to go back to a rest spot to heal from the battles. Ive never played a diplomatic character in my life, maybe this will be a good opening for me.

 

Exactly the point. Combat has a cost with no benefit. Ergo, it becomes an adventure game withe the occasional boss battle. Zzz...

[Lephys]

We've been through this in another thread. I'm not going to tell you to love XP-less combat or anything, but please at least consider the fact that combat isn't devoid of benefit.

 

A) There will be times when you cannot achieve the same results via another means (i.e. diplomacy, stealth, etc.). In fact, there might be times when a direct approach is literally suicide (you can't take out 74 palace guards or something), but a Stealth approach actually gets you access to a non-suicide combat approach (you sneakily make your way into some back courtyard, then STILL have to fight your way past some guards, because they're guarding the perimeter so tightly, etc.). I don't know how many, so I'm not going to tell you that "most of the time, combat will offer unique results." But, equally as silly is assuming that "most of the time," there won't be a point to combat, because an alternative will offer literally the same results with a better cost-benefit ratio.

 

B) Combat can often get you things that other approaches cannot. If you kill the bandit leader (who is a 5-year veteran pilferer), you get his I-get-the-best-of-all-our-spoils gear/personal belongings. If you come to some sort of diplomatic agreement and go your separate ways, you don't. That's as simple an example as I can think of.

 

I beseech you: Please just consider all the facets of this whole XP thing, rather than looking at one and flooding your perspective with it. I really don't think it's going to be as crazy/terrible as you seem to think. Just for what it's worth...

 

Anywho, regarding the OP, I'd say that the problem isn't so much the focus on action, but the lack of variety in that action. I say we have some pause-and-rotate 3D scenes involving strategic slo-mo and a background of arbitrary sparks, all supporting an extremely epic match of word tennis between two characters.

 

Or, better yet, figure out some awesome means of dialogue reactivity interspersed throughout some bouts of combat. In-your-face lockpicking action! 8D

[rjshae]

B) Combat can often get you things that other approaches cannot. If you kill the bandit leader (who is a 5-year veteran pilferer), you get his I-get-the-best-of-all-our-spoils gear/personal belongings. If you come to some sort of diplomatic agreement and go your separate ways, you don't. That's as simple an example as I can think of.

 

Yes well that's the key factor isn't it: will any loot be dropped?

[Gfted1]

Afaik, yes.

[Ulquiorra]

I think that quest shoud not only have difrent way of solution based on class abilitis but alco there shoud be some quest that you coud take only if you have specific class.

 

A for example "grinding" quest to kill 15 wolfes/ wywerns for ranger. Quest to kill 10 bandits for fighters but for example creating new type of spell for mages. Makeing new type of trap or stealing some gold from a noble men for rogues.

 

In woud not be something werif if hunting oriented ranger hunts animals/ monster. Fighter is exeptic chalanges etc. But it schoud also be quest more realated to base class. A fighting undead or healing qounded people for priests/ paladins etc ... it coud be another way to make game deeper and more difrent based on class ...

[Lephys]

Yes well that's the key factor isn't it: will any loot be dropped?

I'm pretty sure. I haven't seen any statement about intentionally not having loot drop, and Josh Sawyer specifically mentioned loot drops. The only real decisive design sentiment they've expressed is that they don't want constant crazy-valuable loot drops left and right. Basically, they don't want to make Diablo: Eternity.

 

I think it's more that killing 5 bandits isn't always going to be worth the same thing. Sometimes you might find some really nice sword, or sometimes you might find 2 shillings and some rusted old equipment.

 

Josh made mention of being able to actually see the specific equipment on a foe, visually represented on the in-game model. So, you're probably not going to be playing a guessing game. To put it simply, in regard to deciding whether or not combat is going to be worth the loot, keep an eye out for goblins wearing gold crowns and swinging jewel-encrusted swords, and steer clear of impoverished-looking foes. 8P

 

I'm well aware things could still be done wrong and suck, but I hardly believe everything automatically sucks, just because you don't necessarily always get XP and/or quality loot, just for the sheer act of stopping hearts.

 

It's easy to look at this as one big currency exchange. Kill some bandits to rescue a captive? Okay, that costs you in combat-resources currency, and is tough in that way, if you want to try that. Hmmm, what if you just sneak past them and rescue the person? Well, the bandits don't just cease to exist. If you didn't kill them, then they're going to continue doing what it is captive-taking bandits do. Maybe they try again, or they get really mad and attack the nearby settlement, etc. If you killed them, that wouldn't have happened.

 

Just because the immediate pros and cons seem to favor non-combat doesn't mean the two options can't still be balanced in a way. Again, it CAN be done wrong, but it can also be done right. It's simply an incentive to actually consider all options before choosing one, even if that one is still combat.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Lephys

[mcmanusaur]

Just going to mention that the level of combat focus in a game is different from the level of grinding (there is non-combat grinding), but I'd prefer less of both if possible.

[Lephys]

Just going to mention that the level of combat focus in a game is different from the level of grinding (there is non-combat grinding), but I'd prefer less of both if possible.

Me too. Unless "herbalist" is a valid crafting profession. In which case, the more mortar & pestle grinding, the better!

[eschaton]

 

Exactly the point. Combat has a cost with no benefit. Ergo, it becomes an adventure game withe the occasional boss battle. Zzz...

 

COMBAT IS NOT WHAT MAKES AN RPG.  If you can play a role in a story which reacts to your choices, it's an RPG.  If it has a stats-heavy system and a well-defined, branching story, it's a CRPG/Western RPG.  While combat-free CRPGs have been very rare to absent, it's not unknown in P&P, and the amount of actual combat encounters is generally smaller even in the ones with traditional combat system.  

 

Regardless, I don't want a combat free experience.  I just want to have a game for once where I'm not the angel of death sweeping up all mooks before me.  I like my killing in games more measured and tactical.  

 

That loot is still dropped is good.  And it's sort of realistic in the incentives it gives me.  If I kill for gold, and I'm fairly wealthy, I'm going to stop mowing down orcs and filthy bandits after awhile, and go after bandit kings, giants and dragons.  Yes, the risk is great, but the reward is actually worth the effort.  Hell, even in Baldur's Gate, after awhile I just stopped picking up piddly little gemstones from Gibberlings and the like.  

[Sensuki]

Been playing Expeditions: Conquistador recently which is a game that doesn't reward you XP for combat. It works just fine if the combat is fun (after a while it lacks a bit of variety but hey for an $80K budget it's pretty damn good).

 

Don't worry P:E won't be combat free.

[rjshae]

 

 

Exactly the point. Combat has a cost with no benefit. Ergo, it becomes an adventure game withe the occasional boss battle. Zzz...

 

COMBAT IS NOT WHAT MAKES AN RPG.  If you can play a role in a story which reacts to your choices, it's an RPG.  If it has a stats-heavy system and a well-defined, branching story, it's a CRPG/Western RPG.  While combat-free CRPGs have been very rare to absent, it's not unknown in P&P, and the amount of actual combat encounters is generally smaller even in the ones with traditional combat system. 

 

This is true, but irrelevant. If I want a non-combat game then I'll deliberately pick one. For me the primary benefit of a party-based CRPG is to allow tactical options in combat.

Edited June 13, 2013 by rjshae

[Ulquiorra]

 

COMBAT IS NOT WHAT MAKES AN RPG. 

 

 

I agree with you but not intaierly.

 

This game is clased based so fore some classes that are combat oriented combat is part of rpg. I fighter and barberian shoud almost allways end up fighting with someone .. so we can't turn battles complatly ..

 

But for rouges, mages, priests etc i agree with you that combat is not most important. The most inportant for mages is to learning new way of magic, spells or simple get more knowledge .. for rogues it is simple gaining more gold be all mean .. but also fight for fighters so ...

[PrimeJunta]

Well, we know that (a) the game is going to be combat heavy and a completely "pacifist" play-through will almost certainly not be possible, (b) character-building is strongly combat focused, © there will not be combat XP, and (d) there will be no systemic loot (i.e., all loot will be hand-placed, including death drops).

 

From that we can infer that grinding will not be possible. Knowing JES's design priorities, it's unlikely the game will have opportunities for other types of farming either. On the other hand, since the game will have quest/objective XP, "completionism" will result in faster character progression. So "grindy" players will be scouring the game for quests rather than monsters.

 

I too would like to see cRPG's break out of the mold where violence is the main mechanic with which you interact with the world. Perhaps T:ToN will go in that direction; I don't think P:E will however.

[eschaton]

This is true, but irrelevant. If I want a non-combat game then I'll deliberately pick one. For me the primary benefit of a party-based CRPG is to allow tactical options in combat.

 

As I said, I have no issue with combat per-se.  I just want fewer mandatory encounters, and those which exist to be strategic and trying.  It's always been unrealistic in CRPGs how everywhere you go, everyone wants to fight you to the death.  Given PE has gotten rid of combat XP on death, there's really no reason to chase down fleeing hostiles at all (unless there's a story reason, like they're a sentry or have a mission critical item).

 

Which makes me think, it would have been cool if instead of eliminating combat XP, they just tied it to "defeating" hostiles.  This would mean you get just as much XP for knocking someone unconscious, capturing them alive, or making them flee the scene, as killing them.  This is more battle realistic anyway, because you generally are considered to "win" an engagement IRL if you cause the enemy to flee the battlefield.  

 

This game is clased based so fore some classes that are combat oriented combat is part of rpg. I fighter and barberian shoud almost allways end up fighting with someone .. so we can't turn battles complatly ..

 

But again, if you look at a medieval knight, they didn't spend every day they were not traveling killing someone.  By necessity, battles were fairly rare because they were deadly.  Or look at someone like a brigand.  They might kill people without compunction, but if intimidation worked better, they'd often take that route (particularly with armed opponents) as it eliminated any risk to themselves or their colleagues.  

[Gfted1]

...(d) there will be no systemic loot (i.e., all loot will be hand-placed, including death drops).

 

I think this will be a very helpful tool for determining which mooks are trash mobs and which mooks are worth bothering to kill. Trash mooks will drop your every day filler loot to be sold to merchants but the Good Stuff will most likely be in set piece battles ala BG2 (IE: Twisted Rune drops Staff of the Magi, Frikraag drops Holy Avenger). IMO, this will telegraph who to bother with and who to avoid, which I will appreciate in PE.

 

Ive never heard of the "you can see the loot on them in minute detail" mentioned earlier. Cant imagine that level of detail being present in an isometric view.

[eschaton]

Ive never heard of the "you can see the loot on them in minute detail" mentioned earlier. Cant imagine that level of detail being present in an isometric view.

 

You could definitely see all equipped armor/clothing and weapons in Arcanum.  To a lesser degree the same was true in Fallout (base clothing was not strippable).  In the Infinity Engine games this was less true because there were very few rendered armors, and weapons really only varied in terms of color. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hmm, if designed like Baldur's Gate(where there was enough XP to hit the level cap several times over) will grinding even be useful if you could do it in PE? Also, what if XP was rewarded with dealing with random encounters, but not ties to combat, so you would get a reward for either butchering a group of bandits or talking them down? IMO, that sounds pretty reasonable.

[Sabotin]

I think for me a game becomes "grindy" when my enjoyment of the parts between various goals drops past a certain point.

 

There's many causes of that, most often monotony of the gameplay.

 

For example when I rush-search a dungeon just to get to the boss or and complete some quest. This isn't necessarily just for combat either. It's the same feeling when I need to run back and forth a hundred times or need to reexplore the same area multiple times or get a checklist of minor quests off my back.

 

The game can feel grindy even disregarding this, if the pacing isn't how it suits me. it maybe be the best thing since sliced bread, but a constant "adrenaline high" from intensive combat is off putting to me. I just can't handle a constant mental readiness and reactivity. On the other side of the coin, drudging through lines and lines of dialogue can be just as grindy.

 

As you can read in this post, I feel that this topic is extremely subjective, depending on each individual where a certain line is. And not just that, I think that these lines change through time, too. I know I'll never recapture the magic of when I first played various IE games. Regardless that I can play them right now again it's just not the same thing.

I considered IWD2 to be the perfect blend between combat/story/puzzles/etc for something I'd consider an action rpg, being its own game rather than an emulation of Diablo2. Replaying it again after years I found it less desirable, just giving up after reaching and remembering all the hoops and turns at the Hand fortress (which I previously enjoyed!).

 

You know what, it changes even day by day depending how I feel...

 

Back to PE; It says that it harkens back to the good old day of Infinity games. So I assume that the game won't be "modernized" and provide instant gratification every 3 seconds. So I do think that at some point it will feel grindy. Though how much and in what way remains to be seen, since this can be a pacing tool in and of itself.