302 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

D&D approaches this method much better with it's difficulty class analysis. Basing the XP award on damage sustained is going to rob the highly tactical and perfectionist players of all XP awards.

There is that.  Unless a game forces tanking (which I dislike, so I hope no game ever does that again), my goal in every encounter is usually to avoid ever getting hit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

This is actually meta and doesn't require in game xp to be reflected.  You cannot ignore the player and the player will learn how to play the game better through particularly challenging combats just the same as you learned through your schooling.  You wouldn't have learned as much if you intentionally made errors just so that your professor could bleed all over your paper, which an in game system that rewards experience for struggling through combats can do.

You're forgetting that Jimmy posited costs for getting hit more.  He proposed scrapping regenerating health, so getting hit more intentionally would only work for one fight, unless that player decided to retreat out of the dungeon after every encounter.

[Xewaka]

I have an alternate suggestion to the progressive XP based on difficulty: Stop marrying character progress to murder. The only PnP RPG that still does that is D&D; the rest of the market uses the much more sensible approach of objective based XP. Your character would progress by accomplishing tasks, be they explore a cave, deliver a package, find out who murdered the butler, etcetera.
cRPGs need to do away with the murder XP, it creates a toxic environment for character development.
Well, unless the character was hired as an assassin, and the murder is the objective. But we're still going for an objective based model, not a wanton slaughter one.

Modifié par Xewaka, 30 avril 2012 - 08:33 .

[Kidd]

Xewaka wrote...

I have an alternate suggestion to the progressive XP based on difficulty: Stop marrying character progress to murder. The only PnP RPG that still does that is D&D; the rest of the market uses the much more sensible approach of objective based XP. Your character would progress by accomplishing tasks, be they explore a cave, deliver a package, find out who murdered the butler, etcetera.
cRPGs need to do away with the murder XP, it creates a toxic environment for character development.

While I agree with this and run D&D games without "murder XP" myself, I have a feeling people not used to PnP but only cRPGs will react badly and consider this to be dumbing down. Look at when ME2 removed XP-per-kill for instance, there was a large outcry. And frankly, we want BioWare not to receive that kind of flak, no?

I don't mean to talk down on people who mostly play cRPGs btw, but the two have evolved into pretty different beasts.

[AkiKishi]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

I have an alternate suggestion to the progressive XP based on difficulty: Stop marrying character progress to murder. The only PnP RPG that still does that is D&D; the rest of the market uses the much more sensible approach of objective based XP. Your character would progress by accomplishing tasks, be they explore a cave, deliver a package, find out who murdered the butler, etcetera.
cRPGs need to do away with the murder XP, it creates a toxic environment for character development.

While I agree with this and run D&D games without "murder XP" myself, I have a feeling people not used to PnP but only cRPGs will react badly and consider this to be dumbing down. Look at when ME2 removed XP-per-kill for instance, there was a large outcry. And frankly, we want BioWare not to receive that kind of flak, no?

I don't mean to talk down on people who mostly play cRPGs btw, but the two have evolved into pretty different beasts.

Murder XP is an odd word since 99% of the time your the one getting attacked. Removing combat XP changes how the game plays. If the goal is to get to the end of the level, then running through everything is much quicker than hacking through everything.
Catering to a small group you know, and able to adjust in real time is a very different prospect to writing a CRPG.

The purpose of Xp and gear is to allow you to progress. The method has been accomplised any number of different ways.
One of the common flaws is that come the middle to end game, I have all the skill I really want and then I end up just buying skills for the sake of it. In DX:HR after Shanghai I never bought an upgrade and ended up with a ton of left over Praxis, for example. It was not a huge deal since there were plenty of other ways to "improve" but it's still a lot of wasted points. Because of that I resolved most of the end game by cloaking. Something I would definately not have done had I been hurting for points.

[Xewaka]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Murder XP is an odd word since 99% of the time your the one getting attacked. Removing combat XP changes how the game plays. If the goal is to get to the end of the level, then running through everything is much quicker than hacking through everything.
Catering to a small group you know, and able to adjust in real time is a very different prospect to writing a CRPG. 

Murder is shorter than "Self-defense homicide". And even then, the party might be the one being attacked, but they're usually the ones in enemy territory, so they brought it on themselves.
Writing a cRPG would, ideally, consist of a setting and a framework for the character to interact. Instead of reacting realtime, you have a set of tools available for the characters, and levels designed with those tools in mind. The story would be narrated by the characters' approach to each situation presented in the setting and framework. The writing only does half of the narrative effort, the other half is in the player's hand.
And before you tell me that a "sandbox" RPG cannot have a high quality, engaging main storyline, I will direct you to Fallout: New Vegas.

BobSmith101 wrote... 
The purpose of Xp and gear is to allow you to progress. The method has been accomplised any number of different ways.
One of the common flaws is that come the middle to end game, I have all the skill I really want and then I end up just buying skills for the sake of it. In DX:HR after Shanghai I never bought an upgrade and ended up with a ton of left over Praxis, for example. It was not a huge deal since there were plenty of other ways to "improve" but it's still a lot of wasted points. Because of that I resolved most of the end game by cloaking. Something I would definately not have done had I been hurting for points.

So your character decided that engagement was slowing him down and avoided it where able. Where's the problem? It is a valid, and smart, approach. 
By your own words, you'd have altered your gameplay to "grind" for XP in case you needed it. That points to me that you didn't find such approach fun and thus eluded it unless neccesary; yet you seem to indicate that avoiding the combat is inherently less good of an approach than murderizing all the opposition. I find that not to be the case.
See, the main problem is that people've come to expect combat as the default form of conflict in gaming. It is the easier to implement in most cases, that is true, but it is far from the only way to have conflict in game. Following on your example, Deus Ex dialogue boss battles were an excellent example of this: there was still conflict, two opposing parties, but there was no violence in solving this conflict. I enjoyed those inmensely. Stealth is another form of conflict resolution, attaining your objectives while avoiding unneccesary engagements. Again, that was a part I enjoyed a lot.
Then again, I might be biased, because I landed on cRPGs not from action titles, but from graphic adventures, which had zero combat, and a much more engaging conflict resolution method - puzzle solving and character interaction. I tend to value those more because they challenge me in different ways than "Point crosshair at target, squeeze mouse" or "Hack until either part falls to bits."

Modifié par Xewaka, 30 avril 2012 - 11:15 .

[AkiKishi]

Xewaka wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Murder XP is an odd word since 99% of the time your the one getting attacked. Removing combat XP changes how the game plays. If the goal is to get to the end of the level, then running through everything is much quicker than hacking through everything.
Catering to a small group you know, and able to adjust in real time is a very different prospect to writing a CRPG. 

Murder is shorter than "Self-defense homicide". And even then, the party might be the one being attacked, but they're usually the ones in enemy territory, so they brought it on themselves.
Writing a cRPG would, ideally, consist of a setting and a framework for the character to interact. Instead of reacting realtime, you have a set of tools available for the characters, and levels designed with those tools in mind. The story would be narrated by the characters' approach to each situation presented in the setting and framework. The writing only does half of the narrative effort, the other half is in the player's hand.
And before you tell me that a "sandbox" RPG cannot have a high quality, engaging main storyline, I will direct you to Fallout: New Vegas.

BobSmith101 wrote... 
The purpose of Xp and gear is to allow you to progress. The method has been accomplised any number of different ways.
One of the common flaws is that come the middle to end game, I have all the skill I really want and then I end up just buying skills for the sake of it. In DX:HR after Shanghai I never bought an upgrade and ended up with a ton of left over Praxis, for example. It was not a huge deal since there were plenty of other ways to "improve" but it's still a lot of wasted points. Because of that I resolved most of the end game by cloaking. Something I would definately not have done had I been hurting for points.

So your character decided that engagement was slowing him down and avoided it where able. Where's the problem? It is a valid, and smart, approach. 
By your own words, you'd have altered your gameplay to "grind" for XP in case you needed it. That points to me that you didn't find such approach fun and thus eluded it unless neccesary; yet you seem to indicate that avoiding the combat is inherently less good of an approach than murderizing all the opposition. I find that not to be the case.
See, the main problem is that people've come to expect combat as the default form of conflict in gaming. It is the easier to implement in most cases, that is true, but it is far from the only way to have conflict in game. Following on your example, Deus Ex dialogue boss battles were an excellent example of this: there was still conflict, two opposing parties, but there was no violence in solving this conflict. I enjoyed those inmensely. Stealth is another form of conflict resolution, attaining your objectives while avoiding unneccesary engagements. Again, that was a part I enjoyed a lot.
Then again, I might be biased, because I landed on cRPGs not from action titles, but from graphic adventures, which had zero combat, and a much more engaging conflict resolution method - puzzle solving and character interaction. I tend to value those more because they challenge me in different ways than "Point crosshair at target, squeeze mouse" or "Hack until either part falls to bits."

The difference is ,and it's a big one. It was my choice to do that. It never changed how anyone else played the game. By removing the combat reward you change everyones game.

I prefer games that let me play how I want to play , not games that force you to play a particular way. Kingdoms of Amalur for example, by mid game I  became picky about side quests, the game is big enough and easy enough anyway, don't want the rewards, had more more money than god. They are still there for people who for whatever reason feel the need to do them.

Games like Final Fantasy have the right idea, the challenge content is there if you want it. But it's in no way a requirements to enjoy the story of the game. While you can gring your way to 99 or the equivelent, it's very much optional. There is also enough leeway to allow players who need an extra 10 levels to beat the final boss to get them, while having no impact what so ever on anyone elses way of playing. I can still try to finish the game in single digits if the mood takes me.

Although I'm not against Jimmys idea. It will change how everyone plays.

[Fast Jimmy]

As a total aside, the hero IS the one walking into the enemy's home/location. According to various Stand Your Ground laws in the U.S., the enemies you are fighting are within their legal rights to kill or even attack you first if you infringe on their territory or home and if they killed you, would be an open-and-shut self defense case. If the hero killed the enemies, it would be viewed as homicide, even if the enemy attacked first, because the hero instigated the interaction by going into an area or cave (which is, in the the truest form, that enemy's home). Again, total aside and not to be taken seriously.

I would not be against objective XP or XP that is awarded not for how many enemies you take down, but rather if you accomplish an end goal.

However, we are still left with the same problem that Allen brought up about five pages ago - what about players who do all the side quests, versus players that do none of them? Completionist players still get the advantage of doing tons more quests (and, hence, tons more objectives that give XP) than someone just playing the main quest.

His question is do we nerf the main quest, to be easier so it is a challenge for those who don't do any side quests, but a cake walk for those who did all the side quests? Do they apply level scaling, so that a hermit crab in the main quest can be just as strong as a dragon in a side quest? Do they create a rather elaborate and possibly ridiculous means of awarding XP based on how much damage a character takes? Or do they just say "tough cookies, if you don't do side quests, then that's your fault. Drop the difficulty down to Casual and pray you are strong enough to beat a pair of Archdemons who are tag teaming you!"?

Its not an easy question to answer.

P.S. murderizing is an awesome fake word.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 avril 2012 - 11:51 .

[AkiKishi]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I would not be against objective XP or XP that is awarded not for how many enemies you take down, but rather if you accomplish an end goal.

However, we are still left with the same problem that Allen brought up about five pages ago - what about players who do all the side quests, versus players that do none of them? Completionist players still get the advantage of doing tons more quests (and, hence, tons more objectives that give XP) than someone just playing the main quest.

His question is do we nerf the main quest, to be easier so it is a challenge for those who don't do any side quests, but a cake walk for those who did all the side quests? Do they apply level scaling, so that a hermit crab in the main quest can be just as strong as a dragon in a side quest? Do they create a rather elaborate and possibly ridiculous means of awarding XP based on how much damage a character takes? Or do they just say "tough cookies, if you don't do side quests, then that's your fault. Drop the difficulty down to Casual and pray you are strong enough to beat a pair of Archdemons who are tag teaming you!"?

Its not an easy question to answer.

There are two elements to combat , one is experence and the other stuff. If you don't need either of those things, combat is a chore. Some combat systems are entertaining in their own right, but those are rare. It's mostly about experience and stuff.

Do enough side quests and it can throw the balance way off. If not with XP then with stuff or the money to buy stuff.
It then depends on what sort of content you have and whether you are ahead of the curve for the rest of the game, or just for that part of the game.

One very unrealistic but viable solution is this. If by the end of chapter 1 doing side quests gives you 5000 xp and 40,000 gold,also includes unique items. The final quest in that chapter will reward with whatever you missed. For example if you only got 1000xp in side quests, the final quest will be worth 4000 more , than to someone who did everything.
The person who did all the side quests got the short term reward of an easier passage through the chapter, but everyone is on the same page in the next chapter.

Missing side quests is no longer a punishment. And they are still there for people who feel they need an edge over the curve.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

As a total aside, the hero IS the one walking into the enemy's home/location. According to various Stand Your Ground laws in the U.S., the enemies you are fighting are within their legal rights to kill or even attack you first if you infringe on their territory or home and if they killed you, would be an open-and-shut self defense case. If the hero killed the enemies, it would be viewed as homicide, even if the enemy attacked first, because the hero instigated the interaction by going into an area or cave (which is, in the the truest form, that enemy's home). Again, total aside and not to be taken seriously.

I would not be against objective XP or XP that is awarded not for how many enemies you take down, but rather if you accomplish an end goal.

However, we are still left with the same problem that Allen brought up about five pages ago - what about players who do all the side quests, versus players that do none of them? Completionist players still get the advantage of doing tons more quests (and, hence, tons more objectives that give XP) than someone just playing the main quest.

His question is do we nerf the main quest, to be easier so it is a challenge for those who don't do any side quests, but a cake walk for those who did all the side quests? Do they apply level scaling, so that a hermit crab in the main quest can be just as strong as a dragon in a side quest? Do they create a rather elaborate and possibly ridiculous means of awarding XP based on how much damage a character takes? Or do they just say "tough cookies, if you don't do side quests, then that's your fault. Drop the difficulty down to Casual and pray you are strong enough to beat a pair of Archdemons who are tag teaming you!"?

Its not an easy question to answer.

P.S. murderizing is an awesome fake word.

To be quite honest, I don't see the problem with that. It's apart of a mentality we commonly see in "ye olde RPGs" which is "you get out what you put in" - people who devoted more time to learning, understanding and exploring the game were given more than people who didn't invest as much into it. Nowadays, games go out of their way to ensure that this is no longer the case. Everything has to be in balance and that "no one gets left behind" through mechanics like scaling quest compasses.

If it really is necessary to "fix" this issue, then don't attempt to tie XP to side non-plot critical side quests. Ensure that the overwhelming majority of XP is gained through main quests and not Side Quests, which is much easier if XP is given primarily through Quest Progress.

Use the Side Quests as means to further a player's exploration of the world, items and/or interactions that could possibly affect the Main Story, or vice versa.

The prisoners of Landsmeet are a relatively good, recent example that can be used as a blueprint.

[sideswipe79]

CrustyBot wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

As a total aside, the hero IS the one walking into the enemy's home/location. According to various Stand Your Ground laws in the U.S., the enemies you are fighting are within their legal rights to kill or even attack you first if you infringe on their territory or home and if they killed you, would be an open-and-shut self defense case. If the hero killed the enemies, it would be viewed as homicide, even if the enemy attacked first, because the hero instigated the interaction by going into an area or cave (which is, in the the truest form, that enemy's home). Again, total aside and not to be taken seriously.

I would not be against objective XP or XP that is awarded not for how many enemies you take down, but rather if you accomplish an end goal.

However, we are still left with the same problem that Allen brought up about five pages ago - what about players who do all the side quests, versus players that do none of them? Completionist players still get the advantage of doing tons more quests (and, hence, tons more objectives that give XP) than someone just playing the main quest.

His question is do we nerf the main quest, to be easier so it is a challenge for those who don't do any side quests, but a cake walk for those who did all the side quests? Do they apply level scaling, so that a hermit crab in the main quest can be just as strong as a dragon in a side quest? Do they create a rather elaborate and possibly ridiculous means of awarding XP based on how much damage a character takes? Or do they just say "tough cookies, if you don't do side quests, then that's your fault. Drop the difficulty down to Casual and pray you are strong enough to beat a pair of Archdemons who are tag teaming you!"?

Its not an easy question to answer.

P.S. murderizing is an awesome fake word.

To be quite honest, I don't see the problem with that. It's apart of a mentality we commonly see in "ye olde RPGs" which is "you get out what you put in" - people who devoted more time to learning, understanding and exploring the game were given more than people who didn't invest as much into it. Nowadays, games go out of their way to ensure that this is no longer the case. Everything has to be in balance and that "no one gets left behind" through mechanics like scaling quest compasses.

If it really is necessary to "fix" this issue, then don't attempt to tie XP to side non-plot critical side quests. Ensure that the overwhelming majority of XP is gained through main quests and not Side Quests, which is much easier if XP is given primarily through Quest Progress.

Use the Side Quests as means to further a player's exploration of the world, items and/or interactions that could possibly affect the Main Story, or vice versa.

The prisoners of Landsmeet are a relatively good, recent example that can be used as a blueprint.

Seconded.
On a side note, I played through DAO on normal, dying on many an occasion due to my idiocy. I rushed through DA2 on easy.  Didn't have anything to do with the difficulty of DA2, just one game was far more enjoyable and I didn't mind the time spent in longer, more satisfying fights. 
People will play easy games and they will play hard games, either way you'll get people whining one way or the other.  Just make sure the game is GOOD.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Murder XP is an odd word since 99% of the time your the one getting attacked.

Not the way I play it.  I prefer to ambush my opponents.

[Sidney]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The difference is ,and it's a big one. It was my choice to do that. It never changed how anyone else played the game. By removing the combat reward you change everyones game.

I prefer games that let me play how I want to play , not games that force you to play a particular way.

All rules create incentives and change game play assuming players are rational. XP per kill is far more distorting than most.

In a murder XP scenario my incentive is to slaughter all meaningless and stupid trash mobs monsters. Le'ts say Jarvia hideoout awards 50xp per dead hooligan and 100xp for Jarvia. There are 50 hooligans to kill en route to her. If you go Conan and full frontal assault you get....2600xp. If I go all snealth assasin and kill 2 guards and Jarvia I get 200 XP. There is no rational way most people will trade off a massive reward for a lesser one. The XP creates an incentive to play a very specific way.

In a kill the leader I don't care how and it is done and you get 2600xp you have freedom. if you want to wade in blood and hear the cries and lamentation of your foes as they fall before you - great, 2600xp. If I want to sneak by great, 2600xp for me.

You are dead wrong, the XP per kill creates a strong incentive for a specific style of gameplay you might want to play but not everyone does.

[Sidney]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

However, we are still left with the same problem that Allen brought up about five pages ago - what about players who do all the side quests, versus players that do none of them? Completionist players still get the advantage of doing tons more quests (and, hence, tons more objectives that give XP) than someone just playing the main quest.

Well you could run the balance this way: in DAO you are in a "hurry" to stop the blight. if you play the game the way a sane person would and actually, you know, hurry to gather allies then the Blight is less strong and there are fewer foes to fell in your way - fewer darkspawn created, the main horde hasn't moved on to location X whatever. If you are a RPG type who has been taught to dig into every corner and do everything possible before taking on the "move the story forward question" you've taken more time and thus the foes are correspodningly more numerous/stronger. Both sets of people can finish but the type of obstacles they face change. It is a form of level scaling but without the silliness of having a bandit in the backstreets of Denerim be tougher than an Ogre at Ostagar.

Really, the time "problem" is worse than almost anything else in RPG's because rather it is DAO with the blight, ME1 with Saren, FNV with the Legion or TESV with the dragons most RPG's have some sort of urgnecy in the game that is clearly not reflected in the actual game play. That story/play disconnect is awful.

[AkiKishi]

Sidney wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

The difference is ,and it's a big one. It was my choice to do that. It never changed how anyone else played the game. By removing the combat reward you change everyones game.

I prefer games that let me play how I want to play , not games that force you to play a particular way.

All rules create incentives and change game play assuming players are rational. XP per kill is far more distorting than most.

In a murder XP scenario my incentive is to slaughter all meaningless and stupid trash mobs monsters. Le'ts say Jarvia hideoout awards 50xp per dead hooligan and 100xp for Jarvia. There are 50 hooligans to kill en route to her. If you go Conan and full frontal assault you get....2600xp. If I go all snealth assasin and kill 2 guards and Jarvia I get 200 XP. There is no rational way most people will trade off a massive reward for a lesser one. The XP creates an incentive to play a very specific way.

In a kill the leader I don't care how and it is done and you get 2600xp you have freedom. if you want to wade in blood and hear the cries and lamentation of your foes as they fall before you - great, 2600xp. If I want to sneak by great, 2600xp for me.

You are dead wrong, the XP per kill creates a strong incentive for a specific style of gameplay you might want to play but not everyone does.

If by passing those 50 mobs is simply a click into a stealth , of course you should not get 2600 xp for that. No more than you should get 2600 xp for a single click in a persuasion check.
As I pointed out earlier DX:HR was fine with rewarding stealth because stealth was not easy. In DA stealth was a complete cake walk, in DA2 it was rather useless and could not be used in the same way.

XP should reflect effort, if sneaking takes more effort it should carry more XP. Of course you could sneak to point B get your bonus, then double back and remove all the threats.

Dragon Age is a tactical combat game, why would you play it if not for tactical combat?

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

If by passing those 50 mobs is simply a click into a stealth , of course you should not get 2600 xp for that. No more than you should get 2600 xp for a single click in a persuasion check.

Then you shouldn't get 2600 xp for killing them, either.  Choosing the more labour-intensive path shouldn't net you rewards just because it took more work from the player.

As I pointed out earlier DX:HR was fine with rewarding stealth because stealth was not easy. In DA stealth was a complete cake walk,

That you couldn't fail to sneak was a problem.  There should have been a chance of being detected, I'll agree.

But XP should be awarded for overcoming obstacles.  And the size of that reward should be based on the size of the obstacle, not on how you overcame it.  If there's a room with 50 mobs, and I need to get through that room, then me getting through that room (by any means) is success.  I should get the same XP reward either way.

If you want an extra reward for killing them, you can still have that.  It's called loot.

XP should reflect effort

No, it should reflect accomplishment.  How hard you try should never matter in any aspect of life.

[Maria Caliban]

And let's not forget that if you get a large amount of XP from combat, BioWare will put in more mandatory combat and fewer ways to avoid combat. They don't want there to be large gaps between different PCs at the same spot in the story.

[AkiKishi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No, it should reflect accomplishment.  How hard you try should never matter in any aspect of life.

There is a reason it's called experience and not accomplishment. You learn more from things that require effort than things you coast.

As much as I loathe learn by doing can't really argue against it,except to say it's a chore,grind,not at all fun etc.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 01 mai 2012 - 05:24 .

[Maria Caliban]

It takes just as much effort for a PC to sneak through a dungeon as it does for a PC to fight through one. That one is easier for the player doesn't matter.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

There is a reason it's called experience and not accomplishment. You learn more from things that require effort than things you coast.

That's a good reason for an exponential XP curve, but I don't see the relevance here.

And here's why:

Maria Caliban wrote...

It takes just as much effort for a PC to sneak through a dungeon as it does for a PC to fight through one. That one is easier for the player doesn't matter.

That the player just clicks one button is immaterial.  As long as there is both effort and risk on the part of the character, then sneaking is relevantly similar to combat.

[AkiKishi]

Maria Caliban wrote...

It takes just as much effort for a PC to sneak through a dungeon as it does for a PC to fight through one. That one is easier for the player doesn't matter.

Can you prove that ? Or just something you feel is right ? Because it takes next to no effort in DA.

Oh it matters. Arrive at dungeon - click stealth - walk to exit , wow that was involving. DX:HR on the other hand makes a game of it not a click, which makes it worthwhile.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 01 mai 2012 - 06:07 .

[Realmzmaster]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

It takes just as much effort for a PC to sneak through a dungeon as it does for a PC to fight through one. That one is easier for the player doesn't matter.

Can you prove that ? Or just something you feel is right ? Because it takes next to no effort in DA.

Oh it matters. Arrive at dungeon - click stealth - walk to exit , wow that was involving. DX:HR on the other hand makes a game of it not a click, which makes it worthwhile.

Which is why the stealth mechanic was worked on in Mask of the Assassin. In MoTA it is no longer easy to just click a button and stealth your way to point B. Stealth in MoTA actually takes as much work as figting your way through. Since MoTA's stealth was an experiment if you were detected you went back to point A. I doubt that will be the case if they implement the mechanic in a new game. If you get detected then the fight is on.

So the stealth mechanic in future games will probably be equal to combat so no need to change the experience for the quest. If you go the combat route you get experience for the guards killed and loot. If you choose the stealth route you get experience for each guard avoided but no loot. The choice will belong to the gamer.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

It takes just as much effort for a PC to sneak through a dungeon as it does for a PC to fight through one. That one is easier for the player doesn't matter.

Can you prove that ? Or just something you feel is right ? Because it takes next to no effort in DA.

Oh it matters. Arrive at dungeon - click stealth - walk to exit , wow that was involving. DX:HR on the other hand makes a game of it not a click, which makes it worthwhile.

You're not listening.  What you're describing is the player's effort, not the character's effort.

The character isn't clicking a button.  The character is sneaking.

Yes, there's no evidence that a DAO character works terribly hard while sneaking, but nor is there evidence that he does not.  Some characters can't do it.  That suggests it's at least somewhat difficult.

Making a game of sneaking has nothing at all to do with how much work it is for the character.

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

It takes just as much effort for a PC to sneak through a dungeon as it does for a PC to fight through one. That one is easier for the player doesn't matter.

Can you prove that ? Or just something you feel is right ? Because it takes next to no effort in DA.

Oh it matters. Arrive at dungeon - click stealth - walk to exit , wow that was involving. DX:HR on the other hand makes a game of it not a click, which makes it worthwhile.

You're not listening.  What you're describing is the player's effort, not the character's effort.

The character isn't clicking a button.  The character is sneaking.

Perfect answer to this. The game is about what the player character does not the player.

Plus, in reality combat is nothing but clikcing a button to hit something so I'm not sure where, other than the pure # of clicks, it is harder than stealth. Using the "effort" argument it means killoing with a dagger should net more XP than killing with a firestorm because one butyton clikc with firestorm might kill 4 hooligans while it takes 4 clicks with a dagger to kill 4. The arument he's making makes no sense.

I'm not even sure why he cares. It is like in some single person game he's concerned some other person who has no effect on his game is "getting awa" with something.