Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Oct 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2016
Originally Posted by Stabbey

This is a roleplaying game, not a number maximizing game. If you have the choice between resolving a situation peacefully or violently, those each have consequences.


I reject the claim that DoS2 is only about the one thing. The game is not just about roleplaying. The game has a fun roleplaying component, but it also has loot, stats, combat, mechanics, etc. too. If players enjoy other aspects of the game (such as trying to maximize their performance and playing on harder difficulties) why is their experience any less valid? I'd say the game is big enough for both interests. In practice, very few people care only about the roleplaying or only about numbers. The reality is that both aspects combine to make the experience.

Originally Posted by Stabbey

I vote in favor of setting NPC XP to zero if you make the choice to resolve a situation through peaceful methods and succeed. That is the consequence you get for making a choice to be peaceful. You should not be rewarded for then doing the opposite.


No complaints here. You'd probably also have to remove any items they drop too, or in many cases there is still reward present.

Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by error3

This sounds good to me.

Giving exponentially more XP for higher level enemies and requiring exponentially more XP for each additional level would accomplish the same thing.



-_- Really people? Really?
This is already a thing: just look at game one

And here's the complaints:
"Evil" = more exp = one/two extra levels for hours more work and multiple playthroughs and guides

You have unsuccessfully validated why that extra work shouldnt be rewarded and why the, frankly, small difference is notable.

Joined: Oct 2016
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2016
Originally Posted by Stabbey

I don't remember what reasons those are, but they're probably bad and should not be encouraged. This is a roleplaying game, not a number maximizing game. If you have the choice between resolving a situation peacefully or violently, those each have consequences.

I vote in favor of setting NPC XP to zero if you make the choice to resolve a situation through peaceful methods and succeed. That is the consequence you get for making a choice to be peaceful. You should not be rewarded for then doing the opposite.


Right there with ya, it just doesn't bother me at all if it is possible because I wouldn't do it anyways, at least not intentionally. I think your solution is the best and probably really easy to implement too.


Chaotic neutral, not chaotic stupid.
Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by Kilroy512512
Generally speaking once you have resolved situation, either through violence or other means, you expect the player to move on. This creates two or more "core" methods of resolving each circumstance. For an extreme example, it would be unusual for a person to talk someone down from committing suicide only to follow that action by killing them. The idea of "double dipping" as you have mentioned is a real thing and currently very possible, but you can't balance exp around that possibility because most players are not going to do it.

We actually discussed this idea earlier where I suggested removing exp from killing enemies after you resolved a situation peacefully and other people don't like that solution for their own reasons. I don't really care whether it gives exp or not because I will choose not to do it. If other people do, for whatever reason, good for them.


I don't remember what reasons those are, but they're probably bad and should not be encouraged. This is a roleplaying game, not a number maximizing game. If you have the choice between resolving a situation peacefully or violently, those each have consequences.

I vote in favor of setting NPC XP to zero if you make the choice to resolve a situation through peaceful methods and succeed. That is the consequence you get for making a choice to be peaceful. You should not be rewarded for then doing the opposite.


Just....no.

Removing the option of player choice by changing a core mechanics because you don't like how someone creatively plays the game advantageously isn't a good idea

I've said this numerous times:
Figure out a way to reward to "good" players, rather than break mechanics, in some really heavy handed and bias formats, to punish "evil" ones.

The loss of the rewards "good" players get should be cost enough.

There're more ways than xp to define reward in a role playing game

EDIT:
The only people this method appeals to are those who wouldn't really enjoy being "evil" and going on genocidal killing spree

Last edited by aj0413; 18/10/16 07:57 AM.
Joined: Feb 2014
mfr Offline
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2014
Originally Posted by aj0413
Originally Posted by error3

This sounds good to me.

Giving exponentially more XP for higher level enemies and requiring exponentially more XP for each additional level would accomplish the same thing.



<snip>

And here's the complaints:
"Evil" = more exp = one/two extra levels for hours more work and multiple playthroughs and guides

You have unsuccessfully validated why that extra work shouldnt be rewarded and why the, frankly, small difference is notable.


I don't follow your argument here. The npcs we are discussing are in the main low level with the combat ability of a dead rat. If you get into a fight with them, it typically lasts a few minutes at most.

What relevance do multiple playthroughs and guides have? These are used (or not used) by players adopting all play styles.

The "work" is minimal and the rewards are disproportionate. In the early stages of Fort Joy, a difference of a single level can changes battles from difficult to routine, so it is not a matter of a "small difference".


Someone must have spiked her senna pod drink!
Joined: Oct 2016
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2016
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by error3

If you have a Yarrow Flower when you approach the madman on the beach you can give it to him to avoid combat. This then gives you the option of turning in the quest to Magister Yarrow. If he hasn't been killed you will be rewarded with more XP when you do this. When you speak to her on the beach you will also be rewarded with knowledge of the secret entrance to the Fire Slug Cave. I'm actually not 100% sure this is more XP, than the 2 kills, but it gives XP and the option of the location, and requires 0 fighting. I'm not sure if Magister Yarrow's kill XP should be counted against the "good" option anyway, as the attack against her would be unprompted.


No, she doesn't know the entrance to the fire slugs, Amyro or how he is named, the guy in the cage knows that entrance. Yarrow will give you a key to room of the high judge, but she will keep the ring with restoration. But like all Magisters she will turn unfriendly after your successfull escape, so you will probably have to fight them anyhow except if you avoid going there again.


Another:

Just past the Blue Ambush boss there is a weakened guard that will attempt to arrest the player. If you opt not to kill him it will prompt several skeletons to spawn and attack. The XP for killing them is more than what you'd get from the weakened guard, and he lets you go free after. I don't think they spawn if you just kill him.


Yes, they do not spawn otherwise.


That XP don't feel given according to difficulty of the fight is at the moment one of the core flaws in the game in my opinion. 600 XP for a silent monk or 1000 XP for Voidling at the ruins feels far to overpaying while more difficult fights seem to yield less. But I can't recall all the numbers.

Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by mfr
Originally Posted by aj0413
Originally Posted by error3

This sounds good to me.

Giving exponentially more XP for higher level enemies and requiring exponentially more XP for each additional level would accomplish the same thing.



<snip>

And here's the complaints:
"Evil" = more exp = one/two extra levels for hours more work and multiple playthroughs and guides

You have unsuccessfully validated why that extra work shouldnt be rewarded and why the, frankly, small difference is notable.


I don't follow your argument here. The npcs we are discussing are in the main low level with the combat ability of a dead rat. If you get into a fight with them, it typically lasts a few minutes at most.

What relevance do multiple playthroughs and guides have? These are used (or not used) by players adopting all play styles.

The "work" is minimal and the rewards are disproportionate. In the early stages of Fort Joy, a difference of a single level can changes battles from difficult to routine, so it is not a matter of a "small difference".


My complaints about your hamfisting attempt to solve something that's only a possible issue cause of the limited content available has far reaching impact.

So, yes, the fact that levels don't/won't differ much in the end cause of exponential req to level up is important to note.

Those fights you say last a couple minutes will be adding up if someone really wants that extra level at the end cause he'll be having to repeat that for a good long time during the final release.

In fact, anyone who's saying that those couple minutes adding up isn't important should aslo not be complaining about the time wasted repairing items...it's only a couple seconds, eh?? -_- And yet they feel it's important. That's the definition of being a hypocrite.

Then we move onto the fact that you apparently want meta gaming to be a developer concern in an rpg....that's asking for the world on a silver platter. It's infeasible, impractical, and everyone here seems to be targeting a specific playstle cause its in direct contrast to their own and these solutions hold little impact on them overall.

The only point anyone here has been able to reasonably make is that the NPCs are too weak for the xp value they give. Either their combat ability should match their level and exp value or the other two should be lowered to match their combat ability. That's it.

Aside from that, making it so the NPCs have some kind of fallback to actually defend themselves well so that murdering an entire town isn't super simple would be nice as well. Whether in the form of more monsters from divine intervention or the guards being alerted and doing their jobs would be nice.

The note that one level can have major impact in the beginning is barely of note. Fact is: the entire game as a whole has to be taken into consideration. Not some high and low points. This means future content and exponential cost of levels.

2 milliion and 2.5 million xp -> That's hardly a difference if it costs 3 million to hit level 21 and 2 for 20 in the end. This is the big picture we're talking about.

Now let me go back to my original points on this silly thread for maybe solving this in a way that actually makes sense and isn't extremely biased in moral views and playstyles:

1. Don't change core mechanics to fill meta game exploits

2. Use the goddamn setting to creatively make fun plugs for said holes

3. Discouraging an action and making one impossible are different concepts.

4. Player choice should never be infringed upon and all choices should feel rewarding in some manner

5. Making being an evil power hungry hobo barbarian killing everyone for extra power you can't get from being good impossible removes player choice -> this is bad

6. Having NPC exp value, combat ability, and level all be out of alignment is bad

7. Give non-combat NPCs recourse to defend themselves

8. Give good players a reward that has nothing to do with leveling up: items, gear, special optional quests, ect... If a player is being 'good' chances are that he's less focused on combat and 'powah' then he is other things. You can give him some buffs in the form of divine blessings and loot, but the rewards should be tailored to the more pacifist mindset

9. Differentiate play styles with more than exp so that 'good' players feel rewarded for their efforts in a different manner -> this is a restatement of the obvious, but apparently needs saying

10. While evil players should have more combat power in the end, give some notable story differences to make their actions have impact on the world

11. Actually make us give a damn about Reputation by turning it into an ad how karma system: Goo action = +reputation, evil action =-reputation. Let it span into negative values to show 'karma'

12. If the goddamn difficulty is balanced around a particular level (cause we all know level scaling would be horrendous) and a player wants/desires to break that by leveling up elseswhere and coming back to kill everyone or double dipping cause they know which quests/rewards they want need for ultimate power and who/when to kill or cause being evil in a specific area has gains that reach across a few fights...that's called meta exploits. WHICH SHOULDNT EXPLICITLY BE A DEV CONCERN.




Last edited by aj0413; 18/10/16 12:59 PM.
Joined: Sep 2016
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Sep 2016
Excellent post Aj. I agree 90%. The other 10%, as has already been mentioned. There are several occasions where the 'pacifist option' generates more XP and the being good option generates even more XP, those are already in game. Being 'good' doesn't need any more rewards than it already has. Like WTF does everyone think Altruism actually means? I'm good to you so you owe me something? Like really? Please people, 'goodness is it's own reward', is not just some pretty words. If killing makes you feel bad, don't do it. If it's hard for you to miss 600xp for not killing someone, this really isn't the game having a problem.

I take satisfaction in the knowledge that when my character is the new Divine, the world of Rivellon will be a genuinely better place. I don't need bonus xp or evil people to be forced into being less evil for that to happen.

Now if people want to discuss lack of non-combat solutions to certain situations that's fine, but D:OS and D:OS 2 gives you lots of ways to win without murdering everything in sight. D:OS has never made me feel like I'm erasing entire species of critters like many other RPGs and ARPGs does. How many people complain about that?

Joined: Oct 2016
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2016
Location: Germany
Honestly D:OS games feel pretty deserted in many regions after you went there and had to kill everything like in 1 the goblin town or the raided city after you got rid of the raiders. There aren't many games were you can see you doings take effect, deserted places getting new inhabitants and such things. It really felt like you erased goblins out of existence.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by aj0413

My complaints about your hamfisting attempt to solve something that's only a possible issue cause of the limited content available has far reaching impact.

So, yes, the fact that levels don't/won't differ much in the end cause of exponential req to level up is important to note.

Those fights you say last a couple minutes will be adding up if someone really wants that extra level at the end cause he'll be having to repeat that for a good long time during the final release.


Seriously? That's pretty a ridiculous complaint. People aren't likely to be fighting everyone all in a row, but if they do, that is their own choice.

I could gather every crate and vase and sell them for the 1 gold each, but complaining that it takes time and isn't very profitable would just be silly because it would be my own choice.


Quote
In fact, anyone who's saying that those couple minutes adding up isn't important should aslo not be complaining about the time wasted repairing items...it's only a couple seconds, eh?? -_- And yet they feel it's important. That's the definition of being a hypocrite.


Wrong. The complaints about repairing are less about the time it takes and more that it is a pointless mechanic which adds nothing interesting to the game.



Quote
Then we move onto the fact that you apparently want meta gaming to be a developer concern in an rpg....that's asking for the world on a silver platter. It's infeasible, impractical, and everyone here seems to be targeting a specific playstle cause its in direct contrast to their own and these solutions hold little impact on them overall.


Game balance is, in fact, a developer concern. In a game with no respawns, if a developer allows players to kill everyone on the map including those who would not normally die, that does have to be looked at, even if they decide "nah that's maybe one or two extra levels by the end and doesn't need changing".


Quote
The only point anyone here has been able to reasonably make is that the NPCs are too weak for the xp value they give. Either their combat ability should match their level and exp value or the other two should be lowered to match their combat ability. That's it.

Aside from that, making it so the NPCs have some kind of fallback to actually defend themselves well so that murdering an entire town isn't super simple would be nice as well. Whether in the form of more monsters from divine intervention or the guards being alerted and doing their jobs would be nice.


This is a reasonable position.

Quote
1. Don't change core mechanics to fill meta game exploits


That depends a lot on what specific mechanics and exploits are being discussed.

It was possible to save-scum for loot in D:OS 1, but Larian decided that was not good for a few reasons (I think largely because it made balancing the loot tables harder), so in the EE, they made it so that loot was generated on first level load and fixed.

I could make the argument that using charisma to convince guards to return to the fort to get the peaceful resolution XP and then before they can leave, triggering combat and murdering them for the combat XP is an unfair exploit.


Quote
4. Player choice should never be infringed upon and all choices should feel rewarding in some manner


This depends completely on what you mean by choice. Choices have consequences, and the consequences will inevitably infringe on the player in some manner.

Quote
12. If the goddamn difficulty is balanced around a particular level (cause we all know level scaling would be horrendous) and a player wants/desires to break that by leveling up elseswhere and coming back to kill everyone or double dipping cause they know which quests/rewards they want need for ultimate power and who/when to kill or cause being evil in a specific area has gains that reach across a few fights...that's called meta exploits. WHICH SHOULDNT EXPLICITLY BE A DEV CONCERN.


Completely. False. (See above about balance being a valid issue.)


Last edited by Stabbey; 18/10/16 04:35 PM. Reason: see above
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by Kalrakh
Honestly D:OS games feel pretty deserted in many regions after you went there and had to kill everything like in 1 the goblin town or the raided city after you got rid of the raiders. There aren't many games were you can see you doings take effect, deserted places getting new inhabitants and such things. It really felt like you erased goblins out of existence.

That did bother me a bit. I loved Cyseal, Silverglen was kinda okay, the goblin village and so on were just about there, but I would've preferred more and bigger in terms of settlements. Most Divinity games are like that and I'm an admitted Elder Scrolls fangirl, but I'd like to see more in the way of real life and economies and what-not going on in all regions, and one that's a bit less transient.

Okay, I'm probably still just pining for Broken Valley Village.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by aj0413

My complaints about your hamfisting attempt to solve something that's only a possible issue cause of the limited content available has far reaching impact.

So, yes, the fact that levels don't/won't differ much in the end cause of exponential req to level up is important to note.

Those fights you say last a couple minutes will be adding up if someone really wants that extra level at the end cause he'll be having to repeat that for a good long time during the final release.


Seriously? That's pretty a ridiculous complaint.


Not really a complaint. More a statement of fact on the effort the individual puts in. You could equate it to the same effort as picking up every stone, plate, sea shell, ect .. in game for that extra 200 gold from all the junk value.

I find it silly people are complaining that someone has the choice to do such. Would an extra 200 gold make that big a difference? Should someone not be rewarded for the tedious task upon completion? Should they not even have the option?
Quote

Quote
In fact, anyone who's saying that those couple minutes adding up isn't important should aslo not be complaining about the time wasted repairing items...it's only a couple seconds, eh?? -_- And yet they feel it's important. That's the definition of being a hypocrite.


Wrong. The complaints about repairing are less about the time it takes and more that it is a pointless mechanic which adds nothing interesting to the game.



In point of fact, it was part of the complaints concerning repairing and why the 'repair all' button was swung about a bit before discussion of just removing it or changing it came about.

I could dig up the posts mentioning such if you'd like. Hell, when I pointed out it was only a second of work and a repair all would shrink that further. The accumulated wasted time was the counter thrown at me.
Quote

Quote
Then we move onto the fact that you apparently want meta gaming to be a developer concern in an rpg....that's asking for the world on a silver platter. It's infeasible, impractical, and everyone here seems to be targeting a specific playstle cause its in direct contrast to their own and these solutions hold little impact on them overall.


Game balance is, in fact, a developer concern. In a game with no respawns, if a developer allows players to kill everyone on the map including those who would not normally die, that does have to be looked at, even if they decide "nah that's maybe one or two extra levels by the end and doesn't need changing".


That's my point: the game is balanced and that balance can be broken, but that's not necessarily a bad thing (1) since its a legit play style and (2) the difference hardly matters much in the grand scheme (refering to my 200 gold comparison).
Quote

Quote
The only point anyone here has been able to reasonably make is that the NPCs are too weak for the xp value they give. Either their combat ability should match their level and exp value or the other two should be lowered to match their combat ability. That's it.

Aside from that, making it so the NPCs have some kind of fallback to actually defend themselves well so that murdering an entire town isn't super simple would be nice as well. Whether in the form of more monsters from divine intervention or the guards being alerted and doing their jobs would be nice.


This is a reasonable position.


I'm glad you can see that.
Quote

Quote
1. Don't change core mechanics to fill meta game exploits


That depends a lot on what specific mechanics and exploits are being discussed.

It was possible to save-scum for loot in D:OS 1, but Larian decided that was not good for a few reasons (I think largely because it made balancing the loot tables harder), so in the EE, they made it so that loot was generated on first level load and fixed.

I could make the argument that using charisma to convince guards to return to the fort to get the peaceful resolution XP and then before they can leave, triggering combat and murdering them for the combat XP is an unfair exploit.


I actually saw nothing wrong with save-scumming loot. *shrug* Larian can choose what they care about or not. But I feel that had more to do with discouraging it since you can still save scum the loot seed if you know how.

Which goes back to my point of 'discourage, but not impossible.'

I also see nothing wrong with the exploit you mentioned. You worked out how to successfully do the charisma trigger and then actually had combat where they could defend themselves.
Quote

Quote
4. Player choice should never be infringed upon and all choices should feel rewarding in some manner


This depends completely on what you mean by choice. Choices have consequences, and the consequences will inevitably infringe on the player in some manner.


Yes: choice -> reward and consequence should be given in equal measure.

Evil -> reward: combat ability improved, consequence: lose out on whatever 'good' players get

I've been pointing out that simple factoid all this time.

You're arguing to unilaterally punish one play style instead of rewarding the other.

The rewards of each should be the cost that goes into each choice to decide one or the other. Invariably, double dipping is possible but thats meta and any ad hoc karma system would solve that candidly.
Quote

Quote
12. If the goddamn difficulty is balanced around a particular level (cause we all know level scaling would be horrendous) and a player wants/desires to break that by leveling up elseswhere and coming back to kill everyone or double dipping cause they know which quests/rewards they want need for ultimate power and who/when to kill or cause being evil in a specific area has gains that reach across a few fights...that's called meta exploits. WHICH SHOULDNT EXPLICITLY BE A DEV CONCERN.


Completely. False.



Now, I would refute this point. But you're not really saying anything. So refer you to my earlier point on exploits.

Now, let me draw attention to the fact that, while you seem to have had a thing for discussing meta gameplay and dev concerns over such....you didn't touch anything to do with my actual proposals to fix what ya'll seem to see as a problem

Fixes that I can't actually see anyone disagreeing with unless they just want to be anal about their moral story.

EDIT:
About game balance -> If you're just pointing out that devs have to, well, 'balance' a game....well, yeah. That's kind of implicit in game design. Whether that balance seems lopsided or even or whatever; in this context, I'm discussing the 'breaking' or 'slight tiliting' of said balance through player actions that are allowed b the mechanics given not being a dev concern

Last edited by aj0413; 18/10/16 04:53 PM.
Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by Kalrakh
Honestly D:OS games feel pretty deserted in many regions after you went there and had to kill everything like in 1 the goblin town or the raided city after you got rid of the raiders. There aren't many games were you can see you doings take effect, deserted places getting new inhabitants and such things. It really felt like you erased goblins out of existence.


I know! And it is glorious!

....Though it's a bit silly to think wiping out a town is equivalent to ending humanity whole lol

Last edited by aj0413; 18/10/16 04:56 PM.
Joined: Oct 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2016
Originally Posted by aj0413
Originally Posted by error3

This sounds good to me.

Giving exponentially more XP for higher level enemies and requiring exponentially more XP for each additional level would accomplish the same thing.



-_- Really people? Really?
This is already a thing: just look at game one

And here's the complaints:
"Evil" = more exp = one/two extra levels for hours more work and multiple playthroughs and guides


You are right. I guess the system doesn't really need a change. wink

Neither peaceful nor killing are always better than the other option.
Picking the optimal reward every time still doesn't result in a significant level difference, after any amount of time.
Developers should probably leave as-is and focus on more important things.

Joined: Oct 2016
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2016
I think there has been a bit of a misconception as to what I am arguing for. My goal is not to make it so that the "good guys" get more exp than the "bad guys." I don't believe that such a dichotomy even exists. My argument is that, in most cases, how you choose to solve a problem should not dictate how much exp you get from solving the problem.

My current preferred method for dealing with the two people at the entrance harassing the elf is to try to talk them down (sometimes depending on spec/race that isn't an option) and then if I succeed I wait until the civilian is safe and kill them. This is a very specific case where my primary concern is the safety of the innocent and my secondary concern is dispensing justice which creates a circumstance in which I am power gaming despite not even wanting to. The added experience doesn't bother me that much and I no longer feel terribly strongly that it needs to be managed, but the difference between the core solutions is still there and is a problem.

If a character decided to rampage through the game leaving none alive in their wake, I would expect that characters level to be similar to someone who did a more traditional playthrough. (perhaps a bit lower since they likely killed a lot of people who granted quests without completing them) Conversely if I decided to go through the game harming as few people as possible (within reason) my player experience shouldn't be impeded either.

So it begs the question, how significant is the impact on play if people playing through the game get significantly different exp values based on how they decide to handle the situation? I would say pretty significant since it has already caused a big enough difference to where people playing through casually, including myself, noticed without provocation. The difference is within manageable levels currently, only causing certain encounters at certain times to feel more challenging, but this is a problem that need not exist and would be easily solved.

So forget about meta gaming, forget about good, and forget about bad. I think we can all agree that we don't want to feel punished for playing the game the way we want to play it and the current system does that for pretty much everyone right now at some point.


Chaotic neutral, not chaotic stupid.
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by aj0413

Not really a complaint. More a statement of fact on the effort the individual puts in. You could equate it to the same effort as picking up every stone, plate, sea shell, ect .. in game for that extra 200 gold from all the junk value.

I find it silly people are complaining that someone has the choice to do such. Would an extra 200 gold make that big a difference? Should someone not be rewarded for the tedious task upon completion? Should they not even have the option?


You can certainly go ahead and gather all those 1 gold items... but you can't reasonably then go and complain that it takes too long and isn't very profitable.


Quote
In point of fact, it was part of the complaints concerning repairing and why the 'repair all' button was swung about a bit before discussion of just removing it or changing it came about.

I could dig up the posts mentioning such if you'd like. Hell, when I pointed out it was only a second of work and a repair all would shrink that further. The accumulated wasted time was the counter thrown at me.


That is less relevant than the fact that if repair was more meaningful, people would be less inclined to complain about it.

To pretend that the complaints are only about the time it takes, and ignoring the larger issue is being disingenuous.


Quote
Then we move onto the fact that you apparently want meta gaming to be a developer concern in an rpg....that's asking for the world on a silver platter. It's infeasible, impractical, and everyone here seems to be targeting a specific playstle cause its in direct contrast to their own and these solutions hold little impact on them overall.

<snip>

That's my point: the game is balanced and that balance can be broken, but that's not necessarily a bad thing (1) since its a legit play style and (2) the difference hardly matters much in the grand scheme (refering to my 200 gold comparison).


More ridiculousness. You personally like the exploit and see no problems, so of course in your mind any time spent looking at them is to you wasted time.


Quote
I actually saw nothing wrong with save-scumming loot. *shrug* Larian can choose what they care about or not. But I feel that had more to do with discouraging it since you can still save scum the loot seed if you know how.

Which goes back to my point of 'discourage, but not impossible.'

I also see nothing wrong with the exploit you mentioned. You worked out how to successfully do the charisma trigger and then actually had combat where they could defend themselves.


I didn't have much of an issue with save-scumming loot either, although I only did it in a few specific places where a chest always dropped a spellbook, and I tried to get ones which fit characters in my party and which I did not have.

I disagree with you that there is nothing wrong with the exploit. The players have a choice to make: whether to fight or to talk. The choice should matter.

What if, for example, there was an easy exploit which allows players to say duplicate items, so they can buy everything with tens of thousands to spare.

Do you believe that the devs would have no business fixing that item-duping exploit?


Quote

You're arguing to unilaterally punish one play style instead of rewarding the other.


I wouldn't say that. I am arguing against giving undeserved rewards, such as 700 XP for the easy-to-overwhelm-with-4:1- turn-ratio Silent Monks, and deliberately exploiting the game to try get double rewards by talking an enemy out of combat (gaining XP) and then fighting them (gaining XP)

Joined: Sep 2016
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by Kalrakh
Honestly D:OS games feel pretty deserted in many regions after you went there and had to kill everything like in 1 the goblin town or the raided city after you got rid of the raiders. There aren't many games were you can see you doings take effect, deserted places getting new inhabitants and such things. It really felt like you erased goblins out of existence.


PS, you don't need to kill the goblins in the goblin village. You can get through with 1 death or none at all.
so, if you really wanted to save the goblins.. it was possible.

Originally Posted by Stabbey
I could make the argument that using charisma to convince guards to return to the fort to get the peaceful resolution XP and then before they can leave, triggering combat and murdering them for the combat XP is an unfair exploit.


And I will make the argument that such a tactic is legitimate and even has tactical articles on its proper use. It also has a term: 'deception'!
Pretty fancy right there, not abnormal for you not to have heard of it, but it is used regularly in combat and war. See history for any number of examples.
tl:dr. best time to kill a guard is when you've successfully convinced him you're not going to.

Joined: Sep 2016
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Sep 2016
This thread is a non issue people. There is no reason to buff experience for not killing people; those buffs are already in the game and good players don't need to do bad things to win; Everyone has also agreed that some enemies are far too weak and present too easy an opportunity for the experience they give. Double dipping, meta-gaming, bad, good, all the arguments to change the current way of doing things are fairy tale 'make good guys win more' and 'fix the way the world works in your fictional game' or worse, 'I'm too stubborn to stop arguing about it'.

Also, I find it funny that several people who are arguing for less killing experience killed everyone in the village of peaceful goblins in D:OS.

Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by aj0413

Not really a complaint. More a statement of fact on the effort the individual puts in. You could equate it to the same effort as picking up every stone, plate, sea shell, ect .. in game for that extra 200 gold from all the junk value.

I find it silly people are complaining that someone has the choice to do such. Would an extra 200 gold make that big a difference? Should someone not be rewarded for the tedious task upon completion? Should they not even have the option?


You can certainly go ahead and gather all those 1 gold items... but you can't reasonably then go and complain that it takes too long and isn't very profitable.


I didn't complain at all. I fail to see why you seem to think I am. I'm pointing out the amount of tedious work put in for small/negligible long term gains being a legitimate player choice and that these situations are comparable, yet no one here has complained about the 'unfair' advantage the example I provide gives over players unwilling to do the same for whatever reasons they want to give.
Quote

Quote
In point of fact, it was part of the complaints concerning repairing and why the 'repair all' button was swung about a bit before discussion of just removing it or changing it came about.

I could dig up the posts mentioning such if you'd like. Hell, when I pointed out it was only a second of work and a repair all would shrink that further. The accumulated wasted time was the counter thrown at me.


That is less relevant than the fact that if repair was more meaningful, people would be less inclined to complain about it.

To pretend that the complaints are only about the time it takes, and ignoring the larger issue is being disingenuous.


I didn't pretend nothing nor did I ignore anything. I merely pointed to the hypocrisy of those in this thread who didn't want to give value to the time a player spends killing NPCs because it 'takes only a few minutes per battle.'
Quote

Quote
Then we move onto the fact that you apparently want meta gaming to be a developer concern in an rpg....that's asking for the world on a silver platter. It's infeasible, impractical, and everyone here seems to be targeting a specific playstle cause its in direct contrast to their own and these solutions hold little impact on them overall.

<snip>

That's my point: the game is balanced and that balance can be broken, but that's not necessarily a bad thing (1) since its a legit play style and (2) the difference hardly matters much in the grand scheme (refering to my 200 gold comparison).


More ridiculousness. You personally like the exploit and see no problems, so of course in your mind any time spent looking at them is to you wasted time.


You've yet to convince me the exploit is wrong. Remember that it's your side trying to validate your reasons and that a problem exists. So, convince me that the exploit is wrong.

Also, it's less an exploit and more actual role playing: it's called deception. Wringing out things to get as many gains as possible from NPC interactions is within the realms of an RPG.
Quote

Quote
I actually saw nothing wrong with save-scumming loot. *shrug* Larian can choose what they care about or not. But I feel that had more to do with discouraging it since you can still save scum the loot seed if you know how.

Which goes back to my point of 'discourage, but not impossible.'

I also see nothing wrong with the exploit you mentioned. You worked out how to successfully do the charisma trigger and then actually had combat where they could defend themselves.


I didn't have much of an issue with save-scumming loot either, although I only did it in a few specific places where a chest always dropped a spellbook, and I tried to get ones which fit characters in my party and which I did not have.

I disagree with you that there is nothing wrong with the exploit. The players have a choice to make: whether to fight or to talk. The choice should matter.

What if, for example, there was an easy exploit which allows players to say duplicate items, so they can buy everything with tens of thousands to spare.

Do you believe that the devs would have no business fixing that item-duping exploit?


The choice should matter. You seem to be willfully ignoring my suggested fix to this: Reputation = karma, one, and, two, more rewards in the realm of being good, such that there are actual losses to simply killing someone. This can come in the form of many things other than exp.

The choice and consequences shouldn't be to fight or talk, but seen in the light of: to help them or help myself? to kill them or help them?

Making these choices more long term impactful beyond the immediate exp (ie Reputation) is an elegant solution to giving greater weight to choice and consequence.

Edit:
Also, the problem with your example is that it has no conceivable upper limit and can therefor just keep widening the gap between players.

The current system has a defined upper limit and the gap between that hard cap and the soft cap most players will reach is small.

Quote

Quote

You're arguing to unilaterally punish one play style instead of rewarding the other.


I wouldn't say that. I am arguing against giving undeserved rewards, such as 700 XP for the easy-to-overwhelm-with-4:1- turn-ratio Silent Monks, and deliberately exploiting the game to try get double rewards by talking an enemy out of combat (gaining XP) and then fighting them (gaining XP)


1) You've yet to convince me double rewards are a dev concern explicitly
2) I've given a handy-dandy point of agreement on raising combat level, to match exp value and level, in some form
3) You shouldn't be thinking on how to make double dipping impossible but on how to make it discouraged so that long term costs outweigh immediate gains (ie karma system)


Changing exp for kill is bad, there are better ways to solve this perceived problem without infringing on such a basic and intuitive mechanic. I've given some points on how to resolve this situation(s); review them, think on them, and then try and come back to me and explain how you dislike them.

Debating with me on the fact that I find the existence of this thread sill, instead of the input I gave in response to said thread, isn't really accomplishing much.

Last edited by aj0413; 19/10/16 12:31 AM.
Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by Kilroy512512

So it begs the question, how significant is the impact on play if people playing through the game get significantly different exp values based on how they decide to handle the situation? I would say pretty significant since it has already caused a big enough difference to where people playing through casually, including myself, noticed without provocation.


The only reason for this is the lack of content at the moment. I refer you back to D:OS. The system on exp was essentially the same.

>'Good' solutions to quests gave more exp, on average, than any other solution other than double dipping

>Long term impact a certain play style gave was ultimately negligible cause of the amount of bonus exp for being good

>Even double dipping had little impact in the end

>The only reason this issue has jumped out to anyone is cause the limited content and exp sources at the current moment combined with the low level area of the EA mean each point of exp has more weight than normal. This weight value depreciates over time in D:OS as you level up and interact with more quests due to the variety of exp rewards given based on playstyle and the exponential cost of leveling req.

Which is why i find this silly: The only reason this is so obvious at the moment is cause of the limited content. Full release will functionally void all complaints cause ultimately the level differences in the end, no matter player action, will not be significantly different and the functional combat ability will neither.

The reason why the differences between level 20-23 don't really matter much is because the characters will functionally work the same with larger numbers. There are no appreciable differences and the combat will largely play out the same given how strong builds always get by end game anyway. It's essentially nitpicking in doing 90% damage to final boss health per turn and 110% damage

Edit:
In D:OS, the difference between being level 12 and level 11 could be very significant due to skill req and stuff. Each step to finishing a player 'build' was important.

This difference between individual levels shrinks as time goes on as builds get finished and fleshed out, such that the difference between levels 15-16 is much more marginal as people are just tacking things on that they like to a certain combat style rather than feeling any significant gains.

Last edited by aj0413; 19/10/16 12:35 AM.
Page 7 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5