Discussion: the PoE beta xp system

[frapillo80]

 

 

 

ps

 

iwd2 has little o' what we would define as filler combat, but again, you still haven't given a useful definition, so we cannot say what you mean by filler. as we noted above, mc is a boardie who has been open and honest about his preference for fighting... in tunnels. the game progression is iwd2 (am sure you mean something by this that is different than other folks) were right up his alley. game progression were achieved by providing the player with a multitude of varied combat situations. the fight against the goblins at the targos wall were a much different encounter and were requiring different tactics than were the fight against sherinical outside the ice temple, or the swarm o' hook horrors that dropped from the ceiling, or whatever. the story and rp elements were largely muted in iwd2, and the sequence of combats, which unlike bg were having us rely on a wide variety o' tactics to be overcoming them, were the raison d'etre o' iwd2 gameplay. fighting... in tunnels. arguably the only obvious filler combats in iwd2, for Gromnir at least, were the initial goblin encounters on the targos docks, but we recognize that the game had no tutorial and that level 1-3 is extreme lethal in d&d d20-- one critical hit = insta-death. first few encounters in iwd2 is a tutorial and a chance for some free xp to level beyond insta-death. so, in point o' fact, we wouldn't consider such stuff filler either.

 

but again, we specific avoided defining filler, and we will continue to do so, 'cause is your non-explanation. you may instead wanna argue with us that iwd2 game progression were not what we suggest or that we is wrong about varied combats, but until you actual explain, you is simply proving our point.

 

it's the schools. we hear critical thinking and analysis given as goals, but we so rare see any o' that stuff. and is not just US schools neither as we taught in europe for awhile... decades ago.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I liked how you conveniently dropped out other examples. And yeah, IWD2 is pretty much a definition of trash mobs. No need to defend it. You are right to point out that it is the reason it was created; to be a diablo clone in IE with party.

 

Frankly that is exactly how I would describe PoE combat right now. Except Diablo is a more honest game and plays better as it has no party.

Sorry for the OT, but are the devs really taking IWD1/2's combat as a model? I thought it was just a rethorical thing, I mean, interactions like in BG2, exploration like in BG1, story like Ps:T, and of course, what have you got left when you get to IWD? you have to say 'combat', I thought.

 

*shudders* IWD1/2, with their rail-roaded sequence of never-ending, ever-winding tunnels filled with identical trash-mob after trash-mob, no AI to speak of...oh, my.

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Gromnir]

 

 

ps

 

iwd2 has little o' what we would define as filler combat, but again, you still haven't given a useful definition, so we cannot say what you mean by filler. as we noted above, mc is a boardie who has been open and honest about his preference for fighting... in tunnels. the game progression is iwd2 (am sure you mean something by this that is different than other folks) were right up his alley. game progression were achieved by providing the player with a multitude of varied combat situations. the fight against the goblins at the targos wall were a much different encounter and were requiring different tactics than were the fight against sherinical outside the ice temple, or the swarm o' hook horrors that dropped from the ceiling, or whatever. the story and rp elements were largely muted in iwd2, and the sequence of combats, which unlike bg were having us rely on a wide variety o' tactics to be overcoming them, were the  raison d'etre o' iwd2 gameplay. fighting... in tunnels. arguably the only obvious filler combats in iwd2, for Gromnir at least, were the initial goblin encounters on the targos docks, but we recognize that the game had no tutorial and that level 1-3 is extreme lethal in d&d d20-- one critical hit = insta-death. first few encounters in iwd2 is a tutorial and a chance for some free xp to level beyond insta-death. so, in point o' fact, we wouldn't consider such stuff filler either.

 

but again, we specific avoided defining filler, and we will continue to do so, 'cause is your non-explanation. you may instead wanna argue with us that iwd2 game progression were not what we suggest or that we is wrong about varied combats, but until you actual explain, you is simply proving our point. 

 

it's the schools. we hear critical thinking and analysis given as goals, but we so rare see any o' that stuff. and is not just US schools neither as we taught in europe for awhile... decades ago.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I liked how you conveniently dropped out other examples. And yeah, IWD2 is pretty much a definition of trash mobs. No need to defend it. You are right to point out that it is the reason it was created; to be a diablo clone in IE with party. 

 

Frankly that is exactly how I would describe PoE combat right now. Except Diablo is a more honest game and plays better as it has no party. 

 

nothing convenient. look at time of the posting.  we were writing and posting at the same time as your most recent reply. add lack o' observation skills to our grumpy old guy complaints.

 

'course you still actual haven't done as requested.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

ps

 

iwd2 has little o' what we would define as filler combat, but again, you still haven't given a useful definition, so we cannot say what you mean by filler. as we noted above, mc is a boardie who has been open and honest about his preference for fighting... in tunnels. the game progression is iwd2 (am sure you mean something by this that is different than other folks) were right up his alley. game progression were achieved by providing the player with a multitude of varied combat situations. the fight against the goblins at the targos wall were a much different encounter and were requiring different tactics than were the fight against sherinical outside the ice temple, or the swarm o' hook horrors that dropped from the ceiling, or whatever. the story and rp elements were largely muted in iwd2, and the sequence of combats, which unlike bg were having us rely on a wide variety o' tactics to be overcoming them, were the raison d'etre o' iwd2 gameplay. fighting... in tunnels. arguably the only obvious filler combats in iwd2, for Gromnir at least, were the initial goblin encounters on the targos docks, but we recognize that the game had no tutorial and that level 1-3 is extreme lethal in d&d d20-- one critical hit = insta-death. first few encounters in iwd2 is a tutorial and a chance for some free xp to level beyond insta-death. so, in point o' fact, we wouldn't consider such stuff filler either.

 

but again, we specific avoided defining filler, and we will continue to do so, 'cause is your non-explanation. you may instead wanna argue with us that iwd2 game progression were not what we suggest or that we is wrong about varied combats, but until you actual explain, you is simply proving our point.

 

it's the schools. we hear critical thinking and analysis given as goals, but we so rare see any o' that stuff. and is not just US schools neither as we taught in europe for awhile... decades ago.

 

HA! Good Fun!

I liked how you conveniently dropped out other examples. And yeah, IWD2 is pretty much a definition of trash mobs. No need to defend it. You are right to point out that it is the reason it was created; to be a diablo clone in IE with party.

 

Frankly that is exactly how I would describe PoE combat right now. Except Diablo is a more honest game and plays better as it has no party.

Sorry for the OT, but are the devs really taking IWD1/2's combat as a model? I thought it was just a rethorical thing, I mean, interactions like in BG2, exploration like in BG1, story like Ps:T, and of course, what have you got left when you get to IWD? you have to say 'combat'

*shudders* IWD1/2, with their rail-roaded sequence of never-ending, ever-winding tunnels filled with identical trash-mob after trash-mob, no AI to speak of...oh, my.

 

read the kickstarter page. late to the party or not, some o' this stuff has been thrown in your face and you still don't see it.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Captain Shrek]

 

 

 

ps

 

iwd2 has little o' what we would define as filler combat, but again, you still haven't given a useful definition, so we cannot say what you mean by filler. as we noted above, mc is a boardie who has been open and honest about his preference for fighting... in tunnels. the game progression is iwd2 (am sure you mean something by this that is different than other folks) were right up his alley. game progression were achieved by providing the player with a multitude of varied combat situations. the fight against the goblins at the targos wall were a much different encounter and were requiring different tactics than were the fight against sherinical outside the ice temple, or the swarm o' hook horrors that dropped from the ceiling, or whatever. the story and rp elements were largely muted in iwd2, and the sequence of combats, which unlike bg were having us rely on a wide variety o' tactics to be overcoming them, were the  raison d'etre o' iwd2 gameplay. fighting... in tunnels. arguably the only obvious filler combats in iwd2, for Gromnir at least, were the initial goblin encounters on the targos docks, but we recognize that the game had no tutorial and that level 1-3 is extreme lethal in d&d d20-- one critical hit = insta-death. first few encounters in iwd2 is a tutorial and a chance for some free xp to level beyond insta-death. so, in point o' fact, we wouldn't consider such stuff filler either.

 

but again, we specific avoided defining filler, and we will continue to do so, 'cause is your non-explanation. you may instead wanna argue with us that iwd2 game progression were not what we suggest or that we is wrong about varied combats, but until you actual explain, you is simply proving our point. 

 

it's the schools. we hear critical thinking and analysis given as goals, but we so rare see any o' that stuff. and is not just US schools neither as we taught in europe for awhile... decades ago.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I liked how you conveniently dropped out other examples. And yeah, IWD2 is pretty much a definition of trash mobs. No need to defend it. You are right to point out that it is the reason it was created; to be a diablo clone in IE with party. 

 

Frankly that is exactly how I would describe PoE combat right now. Except Diablo is a more honest game and plays better as it has no party. 

 

nothing convenient. look at time of the posting.  we were writing and posting at the same time as your most recent reply. add lack o' observation skills to our grumpy old guy complaints.

 

'course you still actual haven't done as requested.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Maybe you should notice that I am talking about NWN and NWN2 ine earlier posts....

[frapillo80]

read the kickstarter page.

 

HA! Good Fun!

As I explained (and quite clearly, one might even say. You know, in the post you just quoted yourself. In just a few lines, even) I genuinely though it amounted to a rethorical/marketing thing. But this would actually explain why the current trash mobs were never perceived as bad design.

 

Oh, well. I hope at least that David Wallace will grant us all the gift of a "PoE Stratagems" mod...

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Namutree]

 

In IWD/IWD2/NWN2/NWN you could NOT afford to NOT fight the trash mobs as they gave out XP. Losing that XP made you characters weaker later on. This is plain effing horrible design. It enforces a kind of gameplay that you can not enjoy even if you like the story. 

 

In IWD2 you could easily affort not to fight the goblins and you wouldn't even lose out on xp since you could just rest in a higher level area and kill like 1 of the monsters. There; all the xp the goblins give and more has been gained.

[Captain Shrek]

 

 

In IWD/IWD2/NWN2/NWN you could NOT afford to NOT fight the trash mobs as they gave out XP. Losing that XP made you characters weaker later on. This is plain effing horrible design. It enforces a kind of gameplay that you can not enjoy even if you like the story. 

 

In IWD2 you could easily affort not to fight the goblins and you wouldn't even lose out on xp since you could just rest in a higher level area and kill like 1 of the monsters. There; all the xp the goblins give and more has been gained.

 

Then why put the goblins there at all? 

 

Also, it is not completely true. You had to kill the goblins to level up in the first place, or rely on lucky rolls. degenerative gameplay. no?

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

ps

 

iwd2 has little o' what we would define as filler combat, but again, you still haven't given a useful definition, so we cannot say what you mean by filler. as we noted above, mc is a boardie who has been open and honest about his preference for fighting... in tunnels. the game progression is iwd2 (am sure you mean something by this that is different than other folks) were right up his alley. game progression were achieved by providing the player with a multitude of varied combat situations. the fight against the goblins at the targos wall were a much different encounter and were requiring different tactics than were the fight against sherinical outside the ice temple, or the swarm o' hook horrors that dropped from the ceiling, or whatever. the story and rp elements were largely muted in iwd2, and the sequence of combats, which unlike bg were having us rely on a wide variety o' tactics to be overcoming them, were the  raison d'etre o' iwd2 gameplay. fighting... in tunnels. arguably the only obvious filler combats in iwd2, for Gromnir at least, were the initial goblin encounters on the targos docks, but we recognize that the game had no tutorial and that level 1-3 is extreme lethal in d&d d20-- one critical hit = insta-death. first few encounters in iwd2 is a tutorial and a chance for some free xp to level beyond insta-death. so, in point o' fact, we wouldn't consider such stuff filler either.

 

but again, we specific avoided defining filler, and we will continue to do so, 'cause is your non-explanation. you may instead wanna argue with us that iwd2 game progression were not what we suggest or that we is wrong about varied combats, but until you actual explain, you is simply proving our point. 

 

it's the schools. we hear critical thinking and analysis given as goals, but we so rare see any o' that stuff. and is not just US schools neither as we taught in europe for awhile... decades ago.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I liked how you conveniently dropped out other examples. And yeah, IWD2 is pretty much a definition of trash mobs. No need to defend it. You are right to point out that it is the reason it was created; to be a diablo clone in IE with party. 

 

Frankly that is exactly how I would describe PoE combat right now. Except Diablo is a more honest game and plays better as it has no party. 

 

nothing convenient. look at time of the posting.  we were writing and posting at the same time as your most recent reply. add lack o' observation skills to our grumpy old guy complaints.

 

'course you still actual haven't done as requested.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Maybe you should notice that I am talking about NWN and NWN2 ine earlier posts....

 

and in your previous example all you said were crap such as, "2) NWN2 : Zombies and Orcs. WHHHHYYYY?? "

 

our point were that you haven't explained. to run down each of your examples o' non-explanation would be absolutely asinine. 

 

...

 

wth? 

 

as for 80, folks seem kinda schizophrenic as to what they wanna take as meaningful from the kickstarter.  why should you be any different? 'course this ain't even a situation where you mistakenly infer something that weren't stated. still, have developers say they is gonna do combat like iwd, than have you surprised that combat is like iwd is... amusing. you is confused by kill xp because you is late to party and it doesn't mention such on kickstarter. you is equal confused when something is actual stated on kickstarter page.

 

am kinda wondering what obsidian coulda' done to help somebody with your specific... needs.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 25, 2014 by Gromnir

[Namutree]

 

 

 

In IWD/IWD2/NWN2/NWN you could NOT afford to NOT fight the trash mobs as they gave out XP. Losing that XP made you characters weaker later on. This is plain effing horrible design. It enforces a kind of gameplay that you can not enjoy even if you like the story. 

 

In IWD2 you could easily affort not to fight the goblins and you wouldn't even lose out on xp since you could just rest in a higher level area and kill like 1 of the monsters. There; all the xp the goblins give and more has been gained.

 

Then why put the goblins there at all? 

 

Also, it is not completely true. You had to kill the goblins to level up in the first place, or rely on lucky rolls. degenerative gameplay. no?

 

This is why the goblins are there:

A) Make the city seem like it's under attack.

B) Provide simple enemies for newcomers to the IE games to learn how the game works.

C) To make the game a tiny bit more challenging.

 

The goblins don't provide much xp; you'll level up from the quest xp though after the siege of the town is over.

 

EDIT: Spelling errors!

Edited September 25, 2014 by Namutree

[Gromnir]

 You had to kill the goblins to level up in the first place, or rely on lucky rolls. degenerative gameplay. no?

 

*nods head in agreement*

 

d&d were/is poor rule mechanic for a crpg. is good you noticed. developers had to make concessions to d&d, and the level 1-3 nonsense were always a hurdle for bis/obsidian when doing the d20 games. 

 

as we said earlier, sometimes it is better to respond serious to silly. 'course as we stated earlier, and as namutree echoes, the initial goblins is as much a tutorial as anything. "B) Provide simple enemies for newcomers to the IE games to learn how the game works."

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps "but again, we specific avoided defining filler, and we will continue to do so, 'cause is your non-explanation. you may instead wanna argue with us that iwd2 game progression were not what we suggest or that we is wrong about varied combats, but until you actual explain, you is simply proving our point. "

 

is like we is nostradamus, or some folks is so darn predictable. you choose.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Gromnir

[Elerond]

 

read the kickstarter page.

 

HA! Good Fun!

As I explained (and quite clearly, one might even say. You know, in the post you just quoted yourself. In just a few lines, even) I genuinely though it amounted to a rethorical/marketing thing. But this would actually explain why the current trash mobs were never perceived as bad design.

 

Oh, well. I hope at least that David Wallace will grant us all the gift of a "PoE Stratagems" mod...

 

 

Kickstarter page is part of legally binding contract between Obsidian and the backers, and Obsidian was aware of this fact when they made their kickstarter campaign and they have always acted like this is the case, so you can be pretty sure that they try their best to follow everything that they said in that page and their following promises in updates. And it is also why their promises are quite vague in specifics, as they didn't want to tie their hands too much.

[Captain Shrek]

 

This is why the goblins are there:

 

A) Make the city seem like it's under attack.

B) Provide simple enemies for newcomers to the IE games to learn how the game works.

C) To make the game a tiny bit more challenging.

 

The goblins don't provide much xp; you'll level up from the quest xp though after the siege of the town is over.

 

EDIT: Spelling errors!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually none of these reasons make the trash necessary. And it is dishonest to say that the trash mobs were restricted to the opening area. I am replaying IWD2 right now so I will come up with a good list later if that is necessary. But I feel I am unable to get my point through: These mobs add nothing to the game. The feel of the attack can be managed without such things. Just play Blackguards. See for yourself. The XP to level up is a pretty bad reason as well; the could have still given it through quest XP/Boss battle XP. Same goes for newcomer training. This was probably the most ridiculous reason for trash mobs. It would be much more instructive to have better encounters that are practically leading you through different kinds of ability uses instead of samey trash which actually made you insensitive to the game. 

Edited September 25, 2014 by Captain Shrek

[Namutree]

 

 

This is why the goblins are there:

 

A) Make the city seem like it's under attack.

B) Provide simple enemies for newcomers to the IE games to learn how the game works.

C) To make the game a tiny bit more challenging.

 

The goblins don't provide much xp; you'll level up from the quest xp though after the siege of the town is over.

 

EDIT: Spelling errors!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually none of these reasons make the trash necessary. And it is dishonest to say that the trash mobs were restricted to the opening area. I am replaying IWD2 right now so I will come up with a good list later if that is necessary. But I feel I am unable to get my point through: These mobs add nothing to the game. The feel of the attack can be managed without such things. Just play Blackguards. See for yourself. 

 

I never said they were necessary; I was merely responding to your question as to why they are there. The mobs do add something to the game; just because there are better ways than trash mobs to accomplish the goals of Obsidian doesn't mean the trash mobs didn't add anything. 

 

 

 Same goes for newcomer training. This was probably the most ridiculous reason for trash mobs. It would be much more instructive to have better encounters that are practically leading you through different kinds of ability uses instead of samey trash which actually made you insensitive to the game. 

 

I'm sure there are better ways of training noobs. Oh well though; the mobs were used as a tutorial and did their job.

[frapillo80]

It's odd. I keep finding flaming accusations to the players' degenerative playing, but I never come across the actual term "developer degenerative design". As I see it, the dev has the responsibility to design the game competently enough so that encourages what he considers "non degenerative design" (granted, some players will still play their way, but if they have fun, what's the problem). Else he has failed ad a designer, at least according to his own parameters.

I don't think anybody (well, possibly somebody did) ever played PS:T in that kind of way that would currently be called "degenerative", and guess why? Because the content that encouraged playing it in the way the devs wanted was Top Notch. It's just as simple as that.

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Captain Shrek]

It's odd. I keep finding flaming accusations to the players' degenerative playing, but I never come across the actual term "developer degenerative design". As I see it, the dev has the responsibility to design the game competently enough so that encourages what he considers "non degenerative design" (granted, some players will still play their way, but if they have fun, what's the problem). Else he has failed ad a designer, at least according to his own parameters.

I don't think anybody (well, possibly somebody did) ever played PS:T in that kind of way that would currently be called "degenerative", and guess why? Because the content that encouraged playing it in the way the devs wanted was Top Notch. It's just as simple as that.

Which bothers me a lot too.

 

I mean look at this:

 

Rest-spamming, Save-scumming. The words basically accuse US, players for 'degenerative' gameplay. Well, I really ask is that is fair. The developer actually put all the features which cause this SOME times by SOME players. But they end up blaming us. Sounds like escapist attitude to me.

 

Even worse, I do not understand why the developer has to care how I play the game. Maybe the only reason is the developers themselves are degenerative players and end up projecting it on us. I really can not sympathize with them...

[Cantousent]

How does the lack of kill XP prevent you from playing the game you want? Before I get a flippant nonsense answer, the fact is you can do all the same things. You have no less freedom. You don't want freedom. You aren't a patriot. You don't stand for the lofty goal of Democracy. You are no freedom fighter. You simply want the devs to provide the XP crack to which you are addicted.

[Gfted1]

[Elerond]

According to Josh (by paraphrasing) degenerative gameplay is gameplay that against designers intent but using it benefits player in such degree that game encourages to use such gameplay is main way to play the game or not using such gameplay puts player unfavorable position compared to those that used such gameplay. And that degenerative is always designers fault and there is nothing wrong in that players play optimally in given ruleset even if it goes against designers intent and seem odd from game world perspective.

 

Rest-spamming, save-scumming etc. behaviors that go against designers' intent and game world logic are symptoms that are caused flaws in game design. Which is why designers try not to create flaws in the rule set they are designing and not demanding players to use such behaviors if they are possible when they are playing games they have designed (at least usually this is the case) . 

 

I would guess that problem that some people have with term "degenerative gameplay" rises probably that they have absolute opposite view in game design than designers themselves, which makes them to associate term with themselves instead with designers like they do. Such terminological misassociating seems to happen time to time in projects with multidisciplinary approach, which makes defining terms even more important what they typically are in the projects.

 

I also would guess that they don't use degenerative design instead of degenerative gameplay is that they describe how product works instead of how they work.

 

But it seem somewhat malicious to attack designers time and time again because of this term, even though they have multiple times explained what they mean with it. But who I am to stop good witch burning. 

[illathid]

 

+1 for being able to wade through Gromnir's "in character" writing. I gave up a while back. Gromnir, seriously, cut it out--it's not cute, it's just annoying.  I know that sounds harsh but somebody needs to let you know. It dilutes your points and makes you sound childish at best and schizophrenic at worst.

Gromnir has been doing his charachter for ~15 years now. You aren't the first to complain about it and you aren't going to be the last.

 

Hell, Bioware put a charachter in Throne of Baal (I think?) based on him.

 

 

When ever I read any of Gromnir's posts, they all sound like Jim Cumming's Gromnir in my head.

Edited September 25, 2014 by illathid

[Captain Shrek]

According to Josh (by paraphrasing) degenerative gameplay is gameplay that against designers intent but using it benefits player in such degree that game encourages to use such gameplay is main way to play the game or not using such gameplay puts player unfavorable position compared to those that used such gameplay. And that degenerative is always designers fault and there is nothing wrong in that players play optimally in given ruleset even if it goes against designers intent and seem odd from game world perspective.

 

Rest-spamming, save-scumming etc. behaviors that go against designers' intent and game world logic are symptoms that are caused flaws in game design. Which is why designers try not to create flaws in the rule set they are designing and not demanding players to use such behaviors if they are possible when they are playing games they have designed (at least usually this is the case) . 

 

I would guess that problem that some people have with term "degenerative gameplay" rises probably that they have absolute opposite view in game design than designers themselves, which makes them to associate term with themselves instead with designers like they do. Such terminological misassociating seems to happen time to time in projects with multidisciplinary approach, which makes defining terms even more important what they typically are in the projects.

 

I also would guess that they don't use degenerative design instead of degenerative gameplay is that they describe how product works instead of how they work.

 

But it seem somewhat malicious to attack designers time and time again because of this term, even though they have multiple times explained what they mean with it. But who I am to stop good witch burning. 

 

 

It is hardly witch burning. If you actually ever played obsidian games, you'd automatically realize that their strong suit is Storytelling and not combat/game play design. I would have conceded to your point if there was SINGLE game where the combat was good. I am sorry to report, that there isn't. And I mean not just the design of the combat mechanics, I mean the encounters themselves which are practically very easy to get right even if you are working with a bad engine / some one else'e mechanics. Frankly, I am very surprised that they went for RTwP with Elves the first chance they got to go free for their own desires. 

[frapillo80]

According to Josh (by paraphrasing) degenerative gameplay is gameplay that against designers intent but using it benefits player in such degree that game encourages to use such gameplay is main way to play the game or not using such gameplay puts player unfavorable position compared to those that used such gameplay. And that degenerative is always designers fault and there is nothing wrong in that players play optimally in given ruleset even if it goes against designers intent and seem odd from game world perspective.

 

Rest-spamming, save-scumming etc. behaviors that go against designers' intent and game world logic are symptoms that are caused flaws in game design. Which is why designers try not to create flaws in the rule set they are designing and not demanding players to use such behaviors if they are possible when they are playing games they have designed (at least usually this is the case) .

 

I would guess that problem that some people have with term "degenerative gameplay" rises probably that they have absolute opposite view in game design than designers themselves, which makes them to associate term with themselves instead with designers like they do. Such terminological misassociating seems to happen time to time in projects with multidisciplinary approach, which makes defining terms even more important what they typically are in the projects.

 

I also would guess that they don't use degenerative design instead of degenerative gameplay is that they describe how product works instead of how they work.

 

But it seem somewhat malicious to attack designers time and time again because of this term, even though they have multiple times explained what they mean with it. But who I am to stop good witch burning.

Just to clarify: when I said "I keep finding flaming accusations to degenerative gameplay etc. etc." I meant in the forums, and that they are used by forumists, not by devs, to predictably shoot down any attempt of criticism to game design. But I stand on my position that should a dev complain about degenerative playing, he's shooting himself in the foot since it's exclusively his own resposibility to design/balance the game in order to encourage the kind of gaming he prefers.

I mean, if I complain that people are not using my articles properly because they use them to make roll-ups instead of reading them, it's probably because my articles suck.

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Elerond]

 

According to Josh (by paraphrasing) degenerative gameplay is gameplay that against designers intent but using it benefits player in such degree that game encourages to use such gameplay is main way to play the game or not using such gameplay puts player unfavorable position compared to those that used such gameplay. And that degenerative is always designers fault and there is nothing wrong in that players play optimally in given ruleset even if it goes against designers intent and seem odd from game world perspective.

 

Rest-spamming, save-scumming etc. behaviors that go against designers' intent and game world logic are symptoms that are caused flaws in game design. Which is why designers try not to create flaws in the rule set they are designing and not demanding players to use such behaviors if they are possible when they are playing games they have designed (at least usually this is the case) . 

 

I would guess that problem that some people have with term "degenerative gameplay" rises probably that they have absolute opposite view in game design than designers themselves, which makes them to associate term with themselves instead with designers like they do. Such terminological misassociating seems to happen time to time in projects with multidisciplinary approach, which makes defining terms even more important what they typically are in the projects.

 

I also would guess that they don't use degenerative design instead of degenerative gameplay is that they describe how product works instead of how they work.

 

But it seem somewhat malicious to attack designers time and time again because of this term, even though they have multiple times explained what they mean with it. But who I am to stop good witch burning. 

 

 

It is hardly witch burning. If you actually ever played obsidian games, you'd automatically realize that their strong suit is Storytelling and not combat/game play design. I would have conceded to your point if there was SINGLE game where the combat was good. I am sorry to report, that there isn't. And I mean not just the design of the combat mechanics, I mean the encounters themselves which are practically very easy to get right even if you are working with a bad engine / some one else'e mechanics. Frankly, I am very surprised that they went for RTwP with Elves the first chance they got to go free for their own desires. 

 

 

I would think that if they haven't ever succeeded to design good combat there is even more need to them to emphasize their design efforts this time in that aspect of the game, so that they don't yet again reproduce their past mistakes, yes?

 

I would guess that they went with their own sense of nostalgia .

[Captain Shrek]

You are right. Only the final product will tell us if that horse sense was leading them true. Let's wait then I guess, breaths held in unison. 

[frapillo80]

 

 

 

 

According to Josh (by paraphrasing) degenerative gameplay is gameplay that against designers intent but using it benefits player in such degree that game encourages to use such gameplay is main way to play the game or not using such gameplay puts player unfavorable position compared to those that used such gameplay. And that degenerative is always designers fault and there is nothing wrong in that players play optimally in given ruleset even if it goes against designers intent and seem odd from game world perspective.

 

Rest-spamming, save-scumming etc. behaviors that go against designers' intent and game world logic are symptoms that are caused flaws in game design. Which is why designers try not to create flaws in the rule set they are designing and not demanding players to use such behaviors if they are possible when they are playing games they have designed (at least usually this is the case) .

 

I would guess that problem that some people have with term "degenerative gameplay" rises probably that they have absolute opposite view in game design than designers themselves, which makes them to associate term with themselves instead with designers like they do. Such terminological misassociating seems to happen time to time in projects with multidisciplinary approach, which makes defining terms even more important what they typically are in the projects.

 

I also would guess that they don't use degenerative design instead of degenerative gameplay is that they describe how product works instead of how they work.

 

But it seem somewhat malicious to attack designers time and time again because of this term, even though they have multiple times explained what they mean with it. But who I am to stop good witch burning.

It is hardly witch burning. If you actually ever played obsidian games, you'd automatically realize that their strong suit is Storytelling and not combat/game play design. I would have conceded to your point if there was SINGLE game where the combat was good. I am sorry to report, that there isn't. And I mean not just the design of the combat mechanics, I mean the encounters themselves which are practically very easy to get right even if you are working with a bad engine / some one else'e mechanics. Frankly, I am very surprised that they went for RTwP with Elves the first chance they got to go free for their own desires.

I would think that if they haven't ever succeeded to design good combat there is even more need to them to emphasize their design efforts this time in that aspect of the game, so that they don't yet again reproduce their past mistakes, yes?

 

I would guess that they went with their own sense of nostalgia .

But again, it was not meant for the devs, and from what I've read these days they've shown to be more receptive than I would have thought (which doesn't prevent this big mouth of mine from criticizing all the time those which I perceive, probably incorrectly, as flaws). I hope with all my heart the final version will blow me away.

 

But I still want David Wallace's "PoE Stratagems".

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Elerond]

 

According to Josh (by paraphrasing) degenerative gameplay is gameplay that against designers intent but using it benefits player in such degree that game encourages to use such gameplay is main way to play the game or not using such gameplay puts player unfavorable position compared to those that used such gameplay. And that degenerative is always designers fault and there is nothing wrong in that players play optimally in given ruleset even if it goes against designers intent and seem odd from game world perspective.

 

Rest-spamming, save-scumming etc. behaviors that go against designers' intent and game world logic are symptoms that are caused flaws in game design. Which is why designers try not to create flaws in the rule set they are designing and not demanding players to use such behaviors if they are possible when they are playing games they have designed (at least usually this is the case) .

 

I would guess that problem that some people have with term "degenerative gameplay" rises probably that they have absolute opposite view in game design than designers themselves, which makes them to associate term with themselves instead with designers like they do. Such terminological misassociating seems to happen time to time in projects with multidisciplinary approach, which makes defining terms even more important what they typically are in the projects.

 

I also would guess that they don't use degenerative design instead of degenerative gameplay is that they describe how product works instead of how they work.

 

But it seem somewhat malicious to attack designers time and time again because of this term, even though they have multiple times explained what they mean with it. But who I am to stop good witch burning.

Just to clarify: when I said "I keep finding flaming accusations to degenerative gameplay etc. etc." I meant in the forums, and that they are used by forumists, not by devs, to predictably shoot down any attempt of criticism to game design. But I stand on my position that should a dev complain about degenerative playing, he's shooting himself in the foot since it's exclusively his own resposibility to design/balance the game in order to encourage the kind of gaming he prefers.

I mean, if I complain that people are not using my articles properly because they use them to make roll-ups instead of reading them, it's probably because my articles suck.

 

 

But developers (at least PoE's) don't complain that people play their game wrongly, but instead they blame themselves doing bad job with game's design. It is forumists nature to use degenerative gameplay and any other term as they see fit best with their current argument. This goes especially for such terms like "spiritual successor", "combat xp", "objective xp", "quest xp" and "romance"  in this forums.