702 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Orchomene wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
Or to put it differently, let's apply the same logic to slightly different scenario -- a player who spends 30 minutes practicing  non-combat solutions should accumulate more xp than the player who spends 5 minutes practicing non-combat solutions. Yes or no? If not, why not?

I don't think so. Its not the time spent or the effort put in that is important (to my taste), it's the result.

Well, except in the discussed situations the results are actually different. However, the argument is being made that some of these results "don't matter because that wasn't part of specified objective". The catch is, using this logic no optional activity in the game ever should then reward player with xp, because these activities are never stated as required, either, and lot of them don't even get mentioned.

For the same combat, someone having a party not well prepared and built could take 30 minutes to defeat all opponents where someone else could breaze through it in 5 minutes. At the end, the one that took only 5 minutes should earn the same amount of XP, doesn't it ?

This is quite different situation because in this case the results actually are the same. And yes, i'd agree in this situation the xp gained should be the same. However, if one player has 6 such fights during their 30 minutes while the other has just one during their 5 minutes... quite obviously the total results are pretty different in these cases.

[tmp7704]

soteria wrote...

You'd have a point, but I explained myself better in another post. I don't mean rewarding the player for accomplishing tasks doesn't matter; I mean requiring "practice at combat skills" to level up is nonsensical since at least half the exp in Dragon Age is quest exp already.

But then as long as levelling up is actually enhancing your combat skills (because there's very few non-combat skills you can enhance instead) i don't exactly see it as nonsense that combat practice allows the player to unlock these skills faster. And since it's just half of xp that's gained this way you can't say it's exactly required -- a player who spends less time practicing combat won't have as many combat-oriented skills at the end of the day, but they can finish the game just the same.

[soteria]

But then as long as levelling up is actually enhancing your combat skills (because there's very few non-combat skills you can enhance instead) i don't exactly see it as nonsense that combat practice allows the player to unlock these skills faster. And since it's just half of xp that's gained this way you can't say it's exactly required -- a player who spends less time practicing combat won't have as many combat-oriented skills at the end of the day, but they can finish the game just the same.

Sigh... are you just repeating yourself for the fun of it? You've already made this argument, and it's already been addressed.

A character that avoids combat in DA:O is asking to have a hard time first because it can't be done most of the time, second because he'll miss powerful items, third because he'll miss needed consumables and money, and finally because at a lower level many of the bosses and later game fights are far more difficult. All we want is more non-combat solutions to quests so we can, you know, role-play. In an RPG.

[AlanC9]

I'm not a huge fan of AD&D, but one thing I liked about the system is that all sorts of training and whatnot were supposed to happen during downtime from adventuring. So someone could just come up with a new weapons proficiency without justifying it by anything that happened during the play session. RPGs aren't and should not try to be simulations.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Exactly. Not everything that happens to your characters gets explicitly portrayed.

[soteria]

^^ lol. I had to laugh at that. I wonder if Virgil will see that and respond.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So do I.

If someone else advances my position, that suggests I'm not so unusual. And AlanC9 did a good job of offering the tabletop basis for the feature.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 juillet 2010 - 11:44 .

[tmp7704]

soteria wrote...

A character that avoids combat in DA:O is asking to have a hard time first because it can't be done most of the time, second because he'll miss powerful items, third because he'll miss needed consumables and money, and finally because at a lower level many of the bosses and later game fights are far more difficult.

Yes; a character who doesn't practice combat much is going to have harder time defeating enemies than character who does. Is it something to complain about? I'd think that's actually something a role-player out of all people would appreciate.

I also don't quite see how this makes fighting as much as possible a mandatory activity, unless you're under a belief that it's mandatory for the player to make things as easy for them as they can above all else? Again, that'd seem like very game-oriented rather than rp-oriented mindset.

All we want is more non-combat solutions to quests so we can, you know, role-play. In an RPG.

This may be what you personally want, but the OP's demand go quite further than that. He even spells it out in the subject of the thread, for this matter.

[soteria]

Yes; a character who doesn't practice combat much is going to have harder time defeating enemies than character who does. Is it something to complain about? I'd think that's actually something a role-player out of all people would appreciate.

I also don't quite see how this makes fighting as much as possible a mandatory activity, unless you're under a belief that it's mandatory for the player to make things as easy for them as they can above all else? Again, that'd seem like very game-oriented rather than rp-oriented mindset.

Par for the course for you, here. Ignore every point except the easiest one to respond to.

One of the few good things that ME2 implemented was mission xp. A far better system, although it needs a lot of improvement over ME2. What it needs is:

-to actually present other options than fighting.

-hidden bonus xp for discovering stuff, finding solutions, sneaking past the guard etc, etc.

-more roleplay, as the combat in DA:O and even more in ME2 was so much just a filler between the actual RP situations.

-variable xp outcome, instead of the fixed amounts in ME2.

That's what the OP actually says, which is no more than an amplification on what I said. The purpose of moving all exp to (essentially) quest rewards is to move the emphasis away from just killing everything all the time, allowing more variety both in the combat encounters and non-combat solutions.

[Faust1979]

 it's a video game they shouldn't have to worry about being to realistic.

[tmp7704]

soteria wrote...

Par for the course for you, here. Ignore every point except the easiest one to respond to.

What other points did you make? "Missing out on powerful items and consumables and gold" ties up to what i've addressed, as these items and consumables are without exception used to help the character in combat. And gold is used to buy powerful items and consumables which are etc and so on. So it all leads to combat being more difficult for character who doesn't participate in it much.

The other part, how it is difficult for a character not to participate in combat... yes, it's true. But what exactly does that have to do with the tangent of "xp shouldn't be rewarded for fighting enemies"?

That's what the OP actually says, which is no more than an amplification on what I said. The purpose of moving all exp to (essentially) quest rewards is to move the emphasis away from just killing everything all the time, allowing more variety both in the combat encounters and non-combat solutions.

This goes quite beyond "amplification" i'm afraid. There is a difference between just asking for alternative paths, and asking for both alternative paths and removal of inventive to participate in the path currently available. Or to put it differently, what you call amplification should be more correctly called escalation (of demands)

[CakesOnAPlane]

I would say yes normally for an RPG (eg Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines does it well) but it's such a combat orientated game that ******'s not usually whether you kill, but more how you kill. SO I think it's fine as it is.

[Gaxhung]

@op

You are a case of intelligent man with nothing better to do.

[soteria]

The other part, how it is difficult for a character not to participate in combat... yes, it's true. But what exactly does that have to do with the tangent of "xp shouldn't be rewarded for fighting enemies"?

Because it allows encounter and quest design changes. Dungeons in DA:O are designed just like the dungeons in WoW--go in and kill enemies for exp and loot. The more enemies you kill, the bigger your reward. And while only allowing combat as a viable solution is great in WoW, I'd prefer a few more options in a true RPG.

This goes quite beyond "amplification" i'm afraid. There is a difference between just asking for alternative paths, and asking for both alternative paths and removal of inventive to participate in the path currently available. Or to put it differently, what you call amplification should be more correctly called escalation (of demands)

Ah, I see.  You're actually one of those who think combat wouldn't be worth doing if you didn't get rewarded more highly for doing that than anything else?  It's equal incentive to take either path that we're asking for, with situational bonuses for going above and beyond.  Actually, the combat option would still be more highly rewarded in loot, but I guess you think combat is so boring you need a LARGE incentive to take part?

Modifié par soteria, 23 juillet 2010 - 12:47 .

[Dick Delaware]

slimgrin wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...

 it's a video game they shouldn't have to worry about being to realistic.

Lol. Once in a while, a post comes along that cuts through the crap and gets right to the point.

Look, throughout this whole thread you have said nothing substantive. If you want to make snarky comments, cool, but that's misrepresenting the OP's position. Of course it's unrealistic, nobody cares - stuff like HP, Skill points, etc is all meant as an abstraction. The point here is that doing things differently would be better design as it would allow for more role-playing. Sort of important in a role-playing game. As soteria said,  "The purpose of moving all exp to (essentially) quest rewards is to move the emphasis away from just killing everything all the time, allowing more variety both in the combat encounters and non-combat solutions."

You still get XP if you decide to hack your way through a mission. Who cares if you get that XP now or at the end of a mission? Other RPG's have done this, Bloodlines was a superb RPG that did this, so I don't see what's so avant-garde here. What really should be the question here is why a game that's hailed as a deep role-playing experience uses an XP system that is almost identical to a hack & slash like Diablo.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 23 juillet 2010 - 12:44 .

[Dick Delaware]

People, encounter design was probably the single biggest flaw of in Origins. How many times were you ambushed by mobs of darkspawn / bandits / cultists / undead who fought exactly the same, were composed of the same proportions of mages/warriors/rogues, and did the same thing when you went through sidequests, random encounters, the Deep Roads, Korcari Wilds, etc.

The problem with XP per kill is that it forces the designer to throw these repetitive mobs after you with little thought so that you level up. If, on the other hand, you allow proper rewards for gaining XP in other ways or use XP for quest completion, you have fights that are generally far more tactical, designed much more thoughtfully, AND allow for possible solutions that may not even involve combat.

And lastly, if you feel that taking away XP for individual kills and putting them at the end of a quest kills the incentive to fight and makes combat boring, why? What difference does it make if you have 10 bandits each worth 100XP and on a quest to prevent them from extorting the villagers, you get 1,000 XP for killing them at the end of the mission rather than after each individual bandit? Also, if the prospect of getting loot and gaining levels is the only thing that makes your combat system fun, you simply have a terrible combat system.

First person shooters, strategy games and even a few RPG's have managed to have fun combat on it's own forever. It's not some ridiculous notion.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 23 juillet 2010 - 12:58 .

[soteria]

The problem with XP per kill is that it forces the designer to throw these repetitive mobs after you with little thought so that you level up. If, on the other hand, you allow proper rewards for gaining XP in other ways or use XP for quest completion, you have fights that are generally far more tactical, designed much more thoughtfully, AND allow for possible solutions that may not even involve combat.

And in other cases they have to limit numbers to keep your level under control. No respawns or infinite enemies to give a particular encounter more urgency.

[tmp7704]

soteria wrote...

The other part, how it is difficult for a character not to participate in combat... yes, it's true. But what exactly does that have to do with the tangent of "xp shouldn't be rewarded for fighting enemies"?

Because it allows encounter and quest design changes. Dungeons in DA:O are designed just like the dungeons in WoW--go in and kill enemies for exp and loot. The more enemies you kill, the bigger your reward. And while only allowing combat as a viable solution is great in WoW, I'd prefer a few more options in a true RPG.

But such enounter and quest design changes can be done perfectly well without touching this element of the game, it's not associated in the sense a game cannot provide alternative paths as long as combat is rewarded in some manner.

Those non-combat options aren't really all that great when they require you to give up gold, loot, consumables, and exp to pursue them. The opportunity cost of not pursuing combat would be large even if other options were there. And they're not.

Well, isn't that a bit of requesting to have the cake and eat it, too? I mean, skipping the combat can be seen as an advantage in its own right -- it means you don't have to use all these potions, you don't need expensive gear to sustain you in the fight, and you don't need extra gold to afford both. Why is it then exactly a problem that the player wouldn't be rewarded with things for which have no use in their playstyle anyway?

And this is just one way to look at it, the other is -- who is to say that these alternative paths cannot provide rewards of their own, ones which in turn wouldn't be available to the player who focuses on combat? As simple example, Alpha Protocol is a game which allows the player to sneak past enemies and in some situations avoid the fights (or refrain from executing defeated enemies)  These decisions and activities get rewarded with increase to the player's attributes, with granting them discounts at stores of factions related to people the player spared, or even with unlocking completely new vendors, information sources and options in the missions which follow. Why not think in this manner -- how the game can be more diverse depending on player's style -- instead of demanding it should be stripped from some elements and made more of the same for everyone? (which especially grates when it's done in the name of 'providing more options')

[Dick Delaware]

CakesOnAPlane wrote...

I would say yes normally for an RPG (eg Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines does it well) but it's such a combat orientated game that ******'s not usually whether you kill, but more how you kill. SO I think it's fine as it is.

Certainly, but is that what it should be? Shouldn't a dungeon-crawler or a hack n' slash be more about how you kill rather than a game that's supposed to be a proper RPG?  Considering the exact flaws in Origins we've been talking about here with the bad encounter design and lack of multiple quest solutions can be traced to a certain degree to the XP per kill system, I think it's important to consider.

[Dick Delaware]

tmp7704 wrote...
But such enounter and quest design changes can be done perfectly well without touching this element of the game, it's not associated in the sense a game cannot provide alternative paths as long as combat is rewarded in some manner.

As I stated in my previous post:

The problem with XP per kill is that it forces the designer to throw these repetitive mobs after you with little thought so that you level up. If, on the other hand, you allow proper rewards for gaining XP in other ways or use XP for quest completion, you have fights that are generally far more tactical, designed much more thoughtfully, AND allow for possible solutions that may not even involve combat.

Could you imagine poorly designed encounters like those in the random encounters, side quest, The Deep Roads in an XP for quest completion system? I certainly couldn't, because the designer would have no reason to throw mobs of identical enemies at you. 

Doing this would not give combat less incentive, if anything it would make it more exciting. We'd have more battles like the ones against Revenants or the High Dragon that way and less repetitive bandit killing for two hours.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later when I'm less busy.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 23 juillet 2010 - 01:16 .

[soteria]

But such enounter and quest design changes can be done perfectly well without touching this element of the game, it's not associated in the sense a game cannot provide alternative paths as long as combat is rewarded in some manner.

It is rewarded--for quest resolution.

Well, isn't that a bit of requesting to have the cake and eat it, too? I mean, skipping the combat can be seen as an advantage in its own right -- it means you don't have to use all these potions, you don't need expensive gear to sustain you in the fight, and you don't need extra gold to afford both. Why is it then exactly a problem that the player wouldn't be rewarded with things for which have no use in their playstyle anyway?

Because sometimes combat is going to be unavoidable, even assuming you wanted to always choose the non-violent solution. Otherwise, many players would like to choose combat as a solution in some cases, talking in others, and stealth in still others. "No use in their playstyle" is a gross misrepresentation of our (or, at least my) position.

You keep on insisting on calling this a "demand" when really it's no more than an idea we're suggesting. Whatever. Saying this would make the game "more of the same for everyone" is completely the opposite of the truth and ignores everything we've been saying for the past 13 pages.

I've never played Alpha Protocol and can't comment on its features.

[tmp7704]

Dick Delaware wrote...

The problem with XP per kill is that it forces the designer to throw these repetitive mobs after you with little thought so that you level up.

You are presuming here the developer is doing that just because they feel it's their obligation to "level the player up". Which i think reverses the cause and effect, so to speak. If the concern of the developer was to level the player up at certain rate, then they can get that under much better control by actually skipping these individual rewards and levelling the player automatically when and how they see fit.

I suspect it's quite closer to the truth that the developers think the combat system they invented is fun, and such the fights they throw at the player are going to be fun for the player as well, and so that's exactly what they provide the player with. And the xp is attached there as icing on the cake, the simple feedback which is recognized as something the players tend to enjoy.
 
Of course, if you happen to be a person who doesn't find this combat they invented to be that much fun then it sucks to be faced with design like that. I just don't think the developers are quite on the same page, here.

And lastly, if you feel that taking away XP for individual kills and putting them at the end of a quest kills the incentive to fight and makes combat boring, why? What difference does it make if you have 10 bandits each worth 100XP and on a quest to prevent them from extorting the villagers, you get 1,000 XP for killing them at the end of the mission rather than after each individual bandit?

This is basic psychology -- a reward provided immediately after activity is completed creates much stronger association in our brains between the activity itself and the pleasure. It's just how we're wired as species (and it's not just humans, this is very low-level mechanics present also in other species) You can look up Skinner Box ( http://en.wikipedia....tioning_chamber ) for some details on how it works.