702 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

soteria 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.

It is rewarded--for quest resolution.

I'm sorry, i simply don't get your comment here. Yes, under the proposed system "combat is rewarded in the sense there's reward for quest resolution" but this completely ignores my point which was that you don't need to make such change in order to have what you say you demand first and foremost (the ability to accomplish tasks in more than one way)

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.

So then in such situations combat will be more difficult for the player who normally shies away from it. And a character who is a jack of all trades is more likely to be master of none, compared to someone specializing in one task. But then again, what is exactly so objectionable about it? What role-playing sensitivity does it offend?

If you look at it from another angle -- a character who focuses on their combat skills isn't likely to do as great in diplomacy and/or stealth if they try them, because chances are they've been neglecting these skills. In fact there's a number of quests in DA which only provide the "best" resolution if the player can actually convince characters to do something, or if they have non-combat related skills they can utilize, instead of outright killing people. Would you advocate such instances should be removed from the game as well, and that all these quests should be doable also by simply killing things?

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.

Maybe you simply don't realize the side-effects of your proposal? When i say "more of the same for everyone" i refer to this idea that it shouldn't matter how the player does things, and at the end of day they should just get the same reward(s) everyone else does for completing the same task to the same degree. If this is indeed "completely opposite to the truth" then please, explain how this makes things different for players depending what approach they've chosen to take? Especially when at the same time you argue the very reason for removing combat xp etc is to prevent some players from getting things and benefits other players wouldn't get?

Modifié par tmp7704, 23 juillet 2010 - 01:54 .

[Sidney]

slimgrin wrote...

And as to the last part about postponing xp till the mission's end, what about not even knowing exactly how we got it?  Another 'radical' ME2 Invention.

You got it for doing your job. Simple neat and clean.

Other than having the attention span of a ferrett on crack there's no need to see 15 XP floating over the head of your last victim. There is no value in any term to just killing guard #3. It isn't like killing guard #3 is worth 1/10 the value of stopping "the evil plot".  Stop the plan, by whatever means available and you've done your job and get your reward.

People are just used to that sort of feedback and so they like it but they have no thought as to why they do it other than, it just is.

[Zal Air]

and so this thread continues.. no matter which way you slice or dice it, a new system for xp needs to be created. If you want to get xp from killing that is fine, but on the other hand if you want to get xp from dialogue that "kills" the fighting part as you just hit "yes" or "no" option in dialogue.



ME2 version of xp at mission end could be an alternative but it still leaves the open end of fight for xp or hit the dialogue button for mission end.



The best that I have experienced to xp leveling so far would be Oblivion even though they were out of wack for certain abilities gaining level.



What I mean is you gained levels for using your skills not for completing objectives.



The difference between the 2 games is that DA is an objective type game where Oblivion is not.



Eh, I lost my train of thought in my drunken rambling, take it as you wish.

[Dick Delaware]

tmp7704 wrote...
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.

I like the combat in Dragon Age, it's just that encounter design was clearly a flaw here. Or do you disagree? Personally, I find fighting mobs of hurlocks / undead / bandits with the same tactics and the same rogue/mage/warrior composition to be poor implementation of combat encounters, even for a solid combat system that Dragon Age has going for it. Fighting dragons and revenants on the other hand, was exciting because they offered unique challenges that most of the encounters didn't. Really, if XP was awarded for solving quests, the game wouldn't have to throw repetitive encounters at you.

Whether the developers think the combat system was fun is irrelevant here. I'm sure the Oblivion devs thought level-scaling was a good idea at the time too. Look, someone has to design the encounters, someone has to ensure that the player is at an appropriate skill level to face challenges at certain areas. Because XP is based per kill, ensuring that the player gets enough XP to be strong enough to fight enemies is done by throwing trash mobs at you. Also, some of it is done by level-scaling, which is somewhat different, but also a bad idea.

tmp7704 wrote...
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.

So, having incremental XP for killing things instead of a solution-based XP system that allows for role-playing is better because... our brains are wired for it. C'mon why not just shoot up heroin then? That creates much more intense pleasure, no?

Look, your article is fine, but the link here is tenuous and not a good reason to put incremental additions of "4XP!!" pop up on-screen so ADD gamers get a big woody. That is not a valid reason.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 23 juillet 2010 - 03:08 .

[Dick Delaware]

slimgrin wrote...

That is some wicked leap of logic there, Dick. From gaming to Heroin. 

I am amazed at the the condescension in this thread: "Well, we of the story master-race don't need xp, while the rest of you sorry Diablo-loving plebs crave your digital heroin, your digital pats on the head, your digital woody..."

To be fair, tmp brought the whole brain link thing up. However, I'll grant you that my own analogy was ridiculous too. But come on, unless you have the attention span of a chipmunk, not getting immediate feedback with a bar filling up isn't that big a deal.

My posts, soteria's and the OP's have been quite clear on why this would be a better system. I love Diablo. But that game is a hack and slash - the entire point of the game is killing monsters, it's all combat all the time, and it's great at what it does. However, for a game like Dragon Age, a game that sets out to be something different - a story-driven RPG that allows you to change the outcome of situations, interact with NPC's, and play a character a particular way, to use the exact same system for character progression just doesn't make any sense at all. 

I made no judgment about Diablo in any of my posts. All I said that it doesn't make sense to use Diablo-style XP in a traditional RPG. Don't you find the encounter design in the game sorely lacking? And don't you think that didn't have something to do with all the stuff I mentioned in the post I made right above yours?

slimgrin wrote...
You get xp on the spot, or you get it at the end of your quest. As long as you are offered options in the way you achieve it, what is the f*cking difference? Immersion? Do the floaty numbers scare people or something?

But that's what I've been trying to say. You aren't offered options because the current system rewards you XP only for killing things, disincentivizing the player the few times you actually do have an alternate solution. Dragon Age, apart from Redcliffe - Sacred Ashes and a little bit of the Landsmeet, is pretty much identical in terms of playthroughs for two different players - and that's the problem, you don't get nearly the same level of freedom as you do in that well-constructed questline. Every problem you encounter in the Deep Roads or most of the Brecilian Forest is dealt with the exact same way, the only difference is in how you kill it. Sorta like Diablo. Sure, you get some moral choice at the end and a couple of minutes of dialogue, but that's after several hours of filler combat and dungeon-crawling. I said nearly the exact same thing you wrote in your quote in the previous page:

"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?"

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 23 juillet 2010 - 05:41 .

[Dick Delaware]

Actually, maybe it's best we stop here. I don't think we're going anywhere.

[Orchomene]

I'm not specifically for removing XP per kill, I'm for rewarding XP for alternative paths.
I give you an example of such situation.
An hostage is held by a "bandit".
You can :
- kill the bandit and save the hostage 200 XP for the bandit, 500 for the hostage saved.
- kill the bandit but hostage is killed during the fight 200 XP for the bandit
- talk to the bandit to let the hostage go 500 XP for the hostage saved and bandit flees.
- talk to the bandit and learn that someone did him injustice. You investigate the injustice and obtain a way to repear the injustice 500 XP for the hostage and 200 XP for taking care of the bandit.
As you can see, two kinds of XP are awarded, the quest XP, the bonus XP. The bonus XP for 'taking care of the bandit" is awarded either by killing him or by solving the problem at the root of the action of the bandit.
It's the same in AP if you stealth pass enemies, you get awarded XP for enemies stealthed (more than killing the enemies in AP, but it's a spy game, not a fantasy game).

[Kenrae]

tmp7704 wrote...
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')

Yes, Alpha Protocol is a good example, you're right. It doesn't have XP for kills neither:whistle:.

[Tirigon]

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.

And funnily, it´s never a post coming from you:police:


Anyways, if a game shouldn´t be realistic than why do we need good graphics and voice-acting? Or all the other stuff that is constantly being demanded, like practical armor?
And why do many games advertise by saying how realistic they seem?

[Collider]

Either:

a)Make exp on quests only.

b)Say you elect not to save lothering. After you leave, you get ambushed by those corpses, the same # you would fight if you defended the village. After, you get a bit of party banter.

In other words: different choices, equal content/fighting.

[Tirigon]

slimgrin wrote...

Jesus folks, Its a video game. Maybe you guys need to go play chess, drink some Cabernet, and listen to Brahms - you know, something appropriately high-brow.

Brahms isn´t appropriate for intelligent, educated people.

METAAAAAL!!!!!!!! is. Everyone should listen to Metal and the world would be a better place (by the way, I´m just doing this. Listen: Blind Guardian - Fly)

[iTomes]

Tirigon wrote...

Brahms isn´t appropriate for intelligent, educated people.

METAAAAAL!!!!!!!! is. Everyone should listen to Metal and the world would be a better place (by the way, I´m just doing this. Listen: Blind Guardian - Fly)

this. every single word of it. 

[shadohuntr1]

Slidell505 wrote...

Get. The. **** out.

I agree completely.

[tmp7704]

Kenrae wrote...

Yes, Alpha Protocol is a good example, you're right. It doesn't have XP for kills neither:whistle:.

Sorry, but it does. At the end of each mission take a look at summary screen. You will see entry for "enemies defeated" there. Although worth to note, it also has xp reward for "enemies avoided", to make the stealth path just as viable in this regard.

[tmp7704]

Dick Delaware wrote...

So, having incremental XP for killing things instead of a solution-based XP system that allows for role-playing is better because... our brains are wired for it. C'mon why not just shoot up heroin then? That creates much more intense pleasure, no?

Look, your article is fine, but the link here is tenuous and not a good reason to put incremental additions of "4XP!!" pop up on-screen so ADD gamers get a big woody. That is not a valid reason.

I think that's a poor argument. Yes if you want to expand the options then the heroin does provide more intense fun (if you're willing to take the associated risks of addiction, health problems etc) but as long as you're just trying to make enjoyable game, it does make sense to arrange its mechanics in ways which the player is likely to find fun, doesn't it?

I'll also have to disagree with that tenuous link assessment (what is it based on?)  You say it is not a good reason, but consider another aspect of it -- by moving the rewards to be dispensed only for the act of completing the quest, you are in fact creating different association in the player's brain. The act of completing the quests becomes more important to them (because that's when they get their reward) and it can be to the point where the player focuses on going through the quests as fast as possible -- taking the fastest paths, seeking shortcuts, skipping quest descriptions and most importantly, finding the actual tasks involved in completion annoyance rather than fun, because suddenly these tasks are perceived as obstacles from getting that next xp pellet. This has much more negative impact on the game, imo. It also extends far beyond the "ADD gamers" as you condescendingly put it, and you only need to look at MMOs to verify that -- WoW in particular can be useful here because they both experimented with their quest styles, and there's been some studies done using it as source.

And note, it also reduces that oh-so-desired "viability of alternative paths". Or rather, it simply replaces one most popular path with another -- one which provides the fastest way to complete the quests. And that's not exactly much of a progress, is it?

[In Exile]

Just for the record, if we are talking about the rat pulling a level analogy, then it is not XP but loot that is the greater heroin; XP is more the first order conditioning set to get you to the loot. If we are talking about effective conditioning schedules, then a variable interval schedule is better than a fixed interval. You do not always get 'rewarding' loot every time you search for loot; you always get XP when you fight.

If you want to avoid issues related to conditioning, then you have to create a very different reward schedule that among other things does not reward you for every quest, and is not easily predictable. But there's no way to effectively implement this.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

If we wanted to be realistic, we could have different types of experience for each attribute the character posesses. Run alot, your constitution increases. Dodge alot of attacks, pick alot of locks or play an instrument, your dexterity increases. Carry heavy stuff with your character, strength slowly goes up. The trouble with that is it can be exploited and a pain to impliment. I would rather not see Dragon Age switched to a ME 2 format of only getting experience by turning in quests and leveling up once the mission is over. Sometimes, you need a skill (lockpicking) or spell (healing) halfway through a mission in DA:O and it helps to earn it, plus leveling up breaks drag of longer dungeon crawls. Fewer level ups also meant less class customization in ME 2, which I missed from the first one. DA:O already had limitations on the classes so I wouldn't enjoy seeing them streamlined much more than they are. I'm not sure we'll see anyone impliment a realistic system that can't be exploited by gamers.

[Haexpane]

If there was no XP for killing, it would be boring.



We already have 10,000 games that are not RPGs and don't give XP for killing, do we really need another NON RPG?

[wood123]

just another troll thread

[AlanC9]

wood123 wrote...

just another troll thread

Meaning your own post?

[AlanC9]

tmp7704 wrote...
 The act of completing the quests becomes more important to them (because that's when they get their reward) and it can be to the point where the player focuses on going through the quests as fast as possible -- taking the fastest paths, seeking shortcuts, skipping quest descriptions and most importantly, finding the actual tasks involved in completion annoyance rather than fun, because suddenly these tasks are perceived as obstacles from getting that next xp pellet. This has much more negative impact on the game, imo. It also extends far beyond the "ADD gamers" as you condescendingly put it, and you only need to look at MMOs to verify that -- WoW in particular can be useful here because they both experimented with their quest styles, and there's been some studies done using it as source.

That's the first interesting argument I've seen in several pages.

One of the problems with this sort of issue is that it's difficult to separate out personal responses. I've played RPGs without kill XP and I simply haven't experienced the effect above, and I'm often annoyed by combat in BG2, which does award combat XP. For me, I think it's because the XP awards really aren't all that important, but a developer who is using combat XP is more likely to include tons of trash fights.

But that's just me. If people really do need the rat chow immediately rather than at the end of the mission, it might be something I'll just have to suck up.

Well, at least I get to feel superior to them for it. 

[Aratham Darksight]

Haexpane wrote...

If there was no XP for killing, it would be boring.

We already have 10,000 games that are not RPGs and don't give XP for killing, do we really need another NON RPG?

So, if a game that doesn't award XP for killing is not an RPG, would you argue that all the White Wolf pen&paper RPGs are in fact NON-RPGs? What would you call them instead, then?

Modifié par Aratham Darksight, 23 juillet 2010 - 08:41 .

[triggerhappy456]

oblivions way of levelling was very good, but couldnt work in dragon age origins

and the idea of this is that talking to people should grant as much experience as killing people?

experience which is then used to make your character a better and stronger fighter?