On PE difficulty mechanics, objective xp and combat, stealth, sweet-talking

[IndiraLightfoot]

With this thread title I'm trying to capture the most discussed issues in the "Can I Even Handle A game Like PE Any Longer?"-thread. As it's reaching its max number of posts, I've started this one, for those who wish to debate these issues further. And please keep it reasonably constructive and civilized, folks (mental note: this includes me as well)!

[Labadal]

Here's what I think.

 

Objective XP isn't something I haven't seen in other role playing games and it never bothered me before. I will most likely play the game more than once ( I know this might not be the case for the majority of players). Fighting only to get exp has never been important for me. It's all about reaching the goal. If a monster grants a huge amount of exp in a game that awards exp for killing stuff, I'll grind fights with that monster. I wouldn't fight it because I love fighting the same monster over and over again, I'd just want the exp.

 

Sweet talking your way through or sneaking through a lot of the game is a good option for those that do not like combat. If you only liked to battle in the IE games because each monster kill gave exp, then I guess you would be disappointed and I can understand that.

One example of a game that lets you sneak or talk your way through the entire game was Fallout: New Vegas. I had a lot of fun with that run. It doesn't mean I won't ever enjoy the game with a combat focused character, something I have done (ofcourse).

 

About games that only reward objective exp; two of my all time favorite games do this. Bloodlines does this and so does Arcanum. I didn't feel like the games suffered for that reason.

[Silent Winter]

For me, I like the objective XP idea.

I'm almost certainly going to do multiple play-throughs and if I can overcome quests in different ways, then it'll add more to the rp aspects.  BUT, if there is greater xp-reward for one solution then I'll feel gimped by doing it the other way.

 

So one play-through will involve mighty warriors, carving up the land of trash-mobs (or hopefully PE equivalent entertaining combat mobs)

Another will be stealthing through and another would be talking my way through.

Obviously there won't be a 'one-solution-for-all' game so there'll always be a need for combat and dialogue and maybe a bit of stealth in every game - Above, I'm speaking of the general play-style.

 

Now, if I'm sneaking around and THEN coming up against an unavoidable tough fight that my sneaking skills won't help with, it'd be a kick in the a**e by the devs if I were underlevelled at the time.  IF my sneaking skills could still help with the fight (back-stabbing for example) then it wouldn't be such an issue.  (Can't see the same for talking - maybe if you could persuade some of the boss' henchman to run away?).

 

So that's my take on it.  I'd like to see multiple solutions, equally rewarded - both for encouraging roleplaying and for multiple varied play-throughs

 

Edit: slow-typing so echoed some of what Labadal said - I agree (obviously )

Edited January 22, 2014 by Silent Winter

[FlintlockJazz]

Well, to get the ball rolling I got to say I don't have much problem with most of the stuff that's been released. 

 

I like objective xp, gives a reason to not just slaughter everything to munch on their xp but doesn't penalise you for slaughtering everything if you want to (unlike other games like Deus Ex Human Revolution wherein not doing non-lethal takedowns meant you lost out on xp).  It's a carte blanche to deal with the situation however you want, whether it be by taking your time to ninj your way in and out undetected or the simple approach of just slaughtering and smacking down your nemesis, leaving the results only to be the ingame reaction to your behaviour.  The fact that there is going to be things like exploration xp as well just sounds awesome, means that xp is not just a murder-score for your murder-hobos but rather a reward for acting like an adventurer!

 

Stealth I'm not so clear on, not had a chance to fully read it and a bit confused from what I have heard beyond the idea of detection circles to be honest, but I am happy they are looking into it in such detail since I honestly just expected them to do what Baldur's Gate did.  It gives me hope that I may be able to play the party as the special ops squad I have envisioned real adventuring parties would operate as, rather like how Conan and co break into places in the first original Conan the Barbarian film (and why I have disliked the rogue's insistence of hoarding all the stealth options to himself and denying them to the others despite being an essential skill for all adventurers just as weapon skills are).  I hope that my desire to play a party of adventurers who ninj their way through the dungeon, sneaking up on rooms, getting into position to take down their enemies quickly before casting silence on the room just as they enter so that no one outside hears as they kill the guards inside may one day come true!!

 

Edit: And while I was typing all that, others beat me to it!  Just ignore the first line regarding getting the ball rolling folks!

Edited January 22, 2014 by FlintlockJazz

[PrimeJunta]

@Labadal Arcanum has combat XP. However it's awarded in a screwy way. You get it for every hit on an enemy, and it's personal rather than divided between the party. This in fact screws things up big-time as a "social" character who relies on minions to do the fighting will get way less XP than others, and a character with high accuracy but low damage will get way more XP than a character who does the same damage with fewer hits. This seriously screws up one of the most attractive features in the game, i.e., that it's possible to do things in a crazily wide variety of ways.

 

(On second thought, let's not discuss the various ways in which Arcanum is unbalanced. That would be a long discussion. I figure MCA has already given Tim Cain a piece of his mind about it anyway.)

[IndiraLightfoot]

I'm intrigued by the objective xp as well, and I have faith that Obsidian will balance things so that stealth and sweet-talking will be context-sensitive, difficult and varied, just as I hope combat to be, and from what we know so far, PE will still be a very combat-heavy game.  

[FlintlockJazz]

Oh, conversation, that's another thing I like actually.  Having to play a socialite because none of your companions can take it has always bugged me, and so I am glad they are doing it off attributes instead.  It also means that having an option unlocked due to high attribute doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be a I-win option either: I personally never had a problem with an influence skill giving conversation options that may not always work or even had a worse effect (as I saw knowing when to use an ability and when NOT to use it as part of the challenge) but some felt (understandably) that if you invested points in it then it should always be beneficial, and so basing options off attributes that define your character but whose main purpose mechanically is to provide bonuses elsewhere so that their options not being beneficial might be better accepted by them.  I mean, I can see how taking the Intellect option when talking to someone who has a problem with 'smarty-pants' might not be so good, sure you get to show off how you know stuff but they don't like that...

[Labadal]

@Labadal Arcanum has combat XP. However it's awarded in a screwy way. You get it for every hit on an enemy, and it's personal rather than divided between the party. This in fact screws things up big-time as a "social" character who relies on minions to do the fighting will get way less XP than others, and a character with high accuracy but low damage will get way more XP than a character who does the same damage with fewer hits. This seriously screws up one of the most attractive features in the game, i.e., that it's possible to do things in a crazily wide variety of ways.

 

(On second thought, let's not discuss the various ways in which Arcanum is unbalanced. That would be a long discussion. I figure MCA has already given Tim Cain a piece of his mind about it anyway.)

 

I forgot that. You're right. Although, my last playthrough was mostly peaceful and when i couldn't do that, I had my 8 companions deal with mobs. Arcanum is unbalanced, there's no way anyone could argue with that. Still, I like the game a lot.

[Karkarov]

Objective XP works, it is that simple.  I have seen it used in other games, some even RPG's, and it played fine.  After awhile you stopped even noticing that you didn't get exp for things like kills or disabling traps.  It also made it nice to not break up the flow of a mission/adventure since no one got exp until an actual objective was "done" you never had to stop at a strange time such as right before a climactic encounter to level people up etc etc while the big bad calmly stood there and tapped his boots waiting for you to finish assigning stats or skill points.  You stay immersed in what you are doing and things just flow as they should.  Which is another reason I think they should maybe consider controlled resting (within reason, like there is no reason you shouldn't be able to pitch a tent pretty much anywhere in the wilderness).

 

As for sneaking and fast talking.  I honestly doubt there will be many cases where you can complete an entire objective just doing one or the other.  Sure you will be able to on some, such as say solving a murder plot at a fancy gala held in some mansion.  I see most missions/quests etc as being multi tiered and more complex though and I expect there will be points where you can solve one part of it with some stealth for example but will ultimately need to fight your way through other parts.  For example you have been hired to take out a local group of bandits, maybe you can stealth through their outer perimeter at the camp but once you get inside the main parts it is too well patrolled.  Maybe you can even bribe or intimidate the leader to pack up and ship out once you get him alone.  However once in that heavy patrol interior those guys will spot you and you have to fight your way through.

 

See what I am saying?

[IndiraLightfoot]

As for sneaking and fast talking.  I honestly doubt there will be many cases where you can complete an entire objective just doing one or the other.  Sure you will be able to on some, such as say solving a murder plot at a fancy gala held in some mansion.  I see most missions/quests etc as being multi tiered and more complex though and I expect there will be points where you can solve one part of it with some stealth for example but will ultimately need to fight your way through other parts.  For example you have been hired to take out a local group of bandits, maybe you can stealth through their outer perimeter at the camp but once you get inside the main parts it is too well patrolled.  Maybe you can even bribe or intimidate the leader to pack up and ship out once you get him alone.  However once in that heavy patrol interior those guys will spot you and you have to fight your way through.

 

This can't be emphasized enough. It will be certain parts in complex sequences that can be attempted to be solved in fashions like those.

[PrimeJunta]

@Karkarov very well put, couldn't agree more.

[Yonjuro]

 

First off, I believe there won't even be a persuasion skill in PoE. Attributes and other skills will be checked however. I also believe it's likely that these will be for your main character only, i.e. you can't spread them across the party. I agree that if, indeed, it is possible to spread the required "talky" skills across the party, this aspect will get a great deal diluted.

 

Second, two of the points I listed aren't about ability/attribute checks at all: they're about reputation mechanics. These aren't subject to this problem.

 

And third, the other two points are about raising the cost of talk solutions.

 

The upshot of these adjustments is that you'll have to work harder to be able to resolve things through dialog. If reputation mechanics are solid, you won't be able to max out your rep among all factions and all personality traits. This means that you'll have to play more strategically if you want to resolve things by talking: make hard choices about which factions or personal reputation traits to cultivate and which to ignore. Screw it up and these solutions simply won't be available, and even in the best case, you'll never see all of the talky solutions in a single play-through as some of them will be mutually exclusive.

 

So yes, ultimately you will click on a dialog option, and that single click as such can only ever be as interesting as a single click can be. The interesting part is making that dialog option available in the first place. That's strategic difficulty, which is every bit as important as tactical difficulty.

 

That would be interesting, connecting reputation to talking your way out of fights. It would provide a mechanics (you need some work put in to it for it to work), a choice (not every reputation would work on everyone) and a way to balance it (gaining a reputation could be harder on higher difficulty). I like it, kudos.

 

I think Josh mentioned that the party is gonna work like in IWD2, that means that you can change the party leader and that everyone in the party can specialize a different skill, so there is no need to pool resources apart from something like stealth.

 

 

(Moved from the old thread.)

 

 This is a nice idea. If your reputation is a bit more brutal than average, you might end up having an easier time talking your way out of some fights later (of course, this could backfire in some cases too). So, it may give you strategic options like 'scorched earth policy' on some early fights to help you talk your way out of later ones.

[Sir Chaox]

Deus Ex was a great example of XP rewarded for accomplishing goals. It didn't matter how you got to a point, you would get relatively the same amount of XP. Although you could sorta cheat the system by taking every route and get additional XP sometimes (go through hidden areas to get partial objective XP).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Objective XP is nice not because it makes the game easier(although a competent designer can still provide challenges, and if you think Obsidian isn't competent, giving them money to make a game is strange), but because it doesn't overly penalize or reward for role-playing in a role-playing game. If I'm playing a merciful hero, why should I get less XP because I decide to spare a foe I bested in combat? Why should someone who effortlessly butchers random villages be rewarded with XP for something that was at best a 15-minute click fest?

 

Isn't a better option typing XP to completing objectives and rewarding them for that? If you enjoy the challenges of combat you can still take enjoyment out of the combat encounters, the only thing that changes for you is that XP is rewarded in bulk after completing an objective rather than in smaller increments everytime you slay a mook.

 

If you dislike combat so much the only reason you grinded through it was to be rewarded with XP, you should try playing a game that you actually enjoy playing.

Edited January 23, 2014 by KaineParker

[Lephys]

People like to ignore the fact that the line of reasoning behind "non-combat things are easier and therefore shouldn't provide as much XP" is the same as the one behind "efficiently dispatching of foes in combat, with, say, a single big AoE spell is easier, and therefore shouldn't provide as much XP as tirelessly beating all the enemies to death using pencils, while wearing no armor and utilizing no intelligent tactics."

Edited January 23, 2014 by Lephys

[Sir Chaox]

People like to ignore the fact that the line of reasoning behind "non-combat things are easier and therefore shouldn't provide as much XP" is the same as the one behind "efficiently dispatching of foes in combat, with, say, a single big AoE spell is easier, and therefore shouldn't provide as much XP as tirelessly beating all the enemies to death using pencils, while wearing no armor and utilizing no intelligent tactics."

 

To add, you'd be building your characters around non-combat skills versus combat skills, and would need the similar amounts of experience (let's say the same amount) to continue to hone those skills and match the non-combat challenges proposed in the game; it is not like people who choose to go non-combat with their characters do not need experience at all to successfully meet these new challenges, like a combat character would. Any kind of character could potentially need the same amount of experience; it depends on if the game offers enough depth in these different areas (stealth, diplomacy, etc.).

[Stun]

I'm intrigued by the objective xp as well, and I have faith that Obsidian will balance things so that stealth and sweet-talking will be context-sensitive, difficult and varied, just as I hope combat to be, and from what we know so far, PE will still be a very combat-heavy game.

If reaching an ideal balance was the goal, then wouldn't it make more sense if XP was doled out across the board? You know, in difficult, varied ways with speech, stealth, quest, and combat? It just seems odd to me that they'd decide to totally block out the ability to gain exp from partaking in what will probably be the most prolific part of the game.

 

In other words, it's not "balance" if non-combat skills are rewarded but combat skills are not. Just saying.

 

 

 

Personally though, I'm really not that concerned about Balance. You can have a great game without it. What I'm worried about is if they go overboard and we end up getting a game that tries so hard to "correct" the "flaws" of the IE games that it ends up being a totally alien experience. The IE games Rewarded you immensely for combat. That's what they did. And while those games would have probably been better if they had more non-combat exp-gaining opportunities, the solution isn't to outright eliminate the ability to gain exp from engaging in combat. The solution is to just hand out more exp for non-combat skill use.

[Stun]

If I'm playing a merciful hero, why should I get less XP because I decide to spare a foe I bested in combat? Why should someone who effortlessly butchers random villages be rewarded with XP for something that was at best a 15-minute click fest?

Yep. This is why I have mixed feelings about a system that doesn't reward exp for kills. It does indeed promote true role playing. And that's good. The problem with it though is that it's a bit too extreme for my tastes. It's not a matter of getting less exp for doing something. It's a matter of getting NO exp for doing something.... even if that something happened to be a very difficult combat encounter that required a lot of teamwork, strategy, consumables and time. Edited January 23, 2014 by Stun

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Right, except the issue here isn't a matter of getting less exp for doing something. It's a matter of getting NO exp for doing something.... even if that something happened to be a very difficult combat encounter that required a lot of teamwork, strategy, and consumables. That's the only thing I have a problem with.

Said combat encounter will likely be part of an objective, unless Obsidian happens to be bad designers. Seeing as the lead is the same guy behind IWD, I don't see that being an issue at all.

[Lephys]

If reaching an ideal balance was the goal, then wouldn't it make more sense if XP was doled out across the board? You know, in difficult, varied ways with speech, stealth, quest, and combat? It just seems odd to me that they'd decide to totally block out the ability to gain exp from partaking in what will probably be the most prolific part of the game.

Stun, what reason is there to pretend that "you don't get xp every single time an individual soul's flame is extinguished by your hand" automatically means "you don't EVER get XP when ANY soul's flames are extinguished by your hand"?

 

How is that the current system is incapable of doing exactly what you're suggesting should be in the interest of balance, above?

 

Sure, they COULD botch the crap out of it. No one's denying that. But that's due to no fault of the system, itself. If "handle the village's bandit problem" is an objective, then killing the bandits meets that objective, and thus awards you XP, no? So does sneaking out at night and stealing all the bandits' provisions (which takes a lot longer than just killing them, probably), and so does elaborately speaking to every individual bandit to successfully get them all to paranoidly turn on each other.

 

Boom. Balance. Not to mention, if "most" of the game is going to involve unavoidable combat (sure, it's vague figures, but look at all they've said any time pacifist runs are mentioned, and look at their focus on making everything have some combat benefit/viability), then how much sense would it make for them to say "70% of the game is mandatory combat, but, for some reason we're never going to attribute combat to any objectives whatsoever, u_u"? Pretty silly, honestly.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Personally though, I'm really not that concerned about Balance. You can have a great game without it. What I'm worried about is if they go overboard and we end up getting a game that tries so hard to "correct" the "flaws" of the IE games that it ends up being a totally alien experience. The IE games Rewarded you immensely for combat. That's what they did. And while those games would have probably been better if they had more non-combat exp-gaining opportunities, the solution isn't to outright eliminate the ability to gain exp from engaging in combat. The solution is to just hand out more exp for non-combat skill use.

 

Indeed, too much balance and you have probably wrecked the game, since whatever character you invest in, you'll get more or less exactly the same sense of power and progress, as it were.

As for you other worry, I do  understand where you come from. I've played all those great D&D CRPGs so many times, so I really hope that the vibe is lost on the way, and "vibe" being in this case: atmosphere, some of the basic RPG systems, a reasonable PnP-feel, scope, a decent freedom of exploring and doing things in my own way, and yeah, even combat and speech skills.

 

Btw, the stealth system is a new one, but for me, it looks very promising indeed.

[Yonjuro]

 

Personally though, I'm really not that concerned about Balance. You can have a great game without it. What I'm worried about is if they go overboard and we end up getting a game that tries so hard to "correct" the "flaws" of the IE games that it ends up being a totally alien experience. The IE games Rewarded you immensely for combat. That's what they did. And while those games would have probably been better if they had more non-combat exp-gaining opportunities, the solution isn't to outright eliminate the ability to gain exp from engaging in combat. The solution is to just hand out more exp for non-combat skill use.

 

Indeed, too much balance and you have probably wrecked the game, since whatever character you invest in, you'll get more or less exactly the same sense of power and progress, as it were.

As for you other worry, I do  understand where you come from. I've played all those great D&D CRPGs so many times, so I really hope that the vibe is lost on the way, 

 

 Yes, exactly. I'm convinced that we'll see something that's very well written and very well engineered.

 

 I hope it's also fun to play. BG 1&2, flaws and all, were a lot of fun.

[Azmodan]

I'm hoping that in addition to regular XP and item rewards, some quests or monsters (e.g. defeating a monster using some specific approach), might yield small "storyline" rewards like the Witcher's trophies, which give a minor enhancement to either a stat or resistance etc.

Basically an acknowledgement that "Yes, you did something unusual that now gives you a slightly better insight bonus in a relevant category"

 

Back in PST, there was Fell's Tattoo Parlour - and the idea was that the Nameless One got tattoos that depicted the resolution of major story events. If you as a player never re-visited that locale, significantly during late-game or side-stepped some of the optional quests, you missed out on some interesting rewards that acknowledged your actions (as a storyline reward) as well as gave you small but meaningful boosts.

 

XP, gold and phat lewtz are delicious, but even something simple, like a statue, portrait of your PC or a song dedicated to you as a reward by a grateful NPC, seasons that feeling of gratification

[teknoman2]

@Labadal Arcanum has combat XP. However it's awarded in a screwy way. You get it for every hit on an enemy, and it's personal rather than divided between the party. This in fact screws things up big-time as a "social" character who relies on minions to do the fighting will get way less XP than others, and a character with high accuracy but low damage will get way more XP than a character who does the same damage with fewer hits. This seriously screws up one of the most attractive features in the game, i.e., that it's possible to do things in a crazily wide variety of ways.

 

(On second thought, let's not discuss the various ways in which Arcanum is unbalanced. That would be a long discussion. I figure MCA has already given Tim Cain a piece of his mind about it anyway.)

actually the companions in arcanum do not get xp in the fight. they level up at the same time as you do. i had a lv28 character and i took a lv5 in the party. he got to lv6 when i got to 29. he got to lv7 when i got to 30. he was not getting any individual xp, he just waited for me to level up to get his next level too. 

[PrimeJunta]

@teknoman2 That's correct. Thanks for setting the record straight.