No xp for killing things - but xp rewards for quests?

[mondblut]

Hold it right there.

I have never implied single specific way or even set of specific way predefined by the dev. I implied that any right solution should involve knowing what the fuck are you doing. Getting TPK'd till you blunder into right tactics is definitely not knowing what the fuck are you doing, which means it's not a proper solution.

Well, if an encounter X can be killed with any of the 50 weapons and 200 offensive spells available, it hardly needs handholding and tutorials and questing for clues to defeat. Spoonfeeding all this information naturally presumes the options that work at all are extremely limited and anything not expressly provided in exchange for Rainbow Assplug will flat out fail. Otherwise, why bother?

Except without this dying and reloading thing.

WHICH IS MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT!

Real squad in a heat of frontline combat has an average lifespan of 3 minutes. Not interested, sorry.

 

[tiagocc0]

Are we talking about developing Adventure, RPG or Simulation here?

 

[DraQ]

Well, if an encounter X can be killed with any of the 50 weapons and 200 offensive spells available, it hardly needs handholding and tutorials and questing for clues to defeat. Spoonfeeding all this information naturally presumes the options that work at all are extremely limited and anything not expressly provided in exchange for Rainbow Assplug will flat out fail. Otherwise, why bother?

First, we're speaking of tactics, not individual spells or weapons. Single press, I-Win button combat is shit.

Second, if all tactics are equally effective, the combat is even more shit.

Third, if you've somehow implemented 50 types of weapons and 200 offensive spells that are equally useful in all situations, then you've completely wasted a fuckload of time, because one weapon and one spell would suffice. Of course it would be shit of epic proportions but it's not like it isn't now.

Real squad in a heat of frontline combat has an average lifespan of 3 minutes. Not interested, sorry.

Fine by me, I don't even recall last cRPG putting party on the frontline.

Are we talking about developing Adventure, RPG or Simulation here?

We are talking about whether XPs should be given only for quests or also for enemies killed in an XP-based cRPG, and why it is the former.

We just got sidetracked a little bit.

 

[hiver]

XP should be given for every ability or skill your character can have and that the game provides gameplay for.

further:
XP gained by using specific ability should only be usable to raise that ability/skill and few related ones instead of every one.
Smaller amounts of XP should be gained just "by use" too in addition to ordinary XP points.


there you go...

you can pay me through paypal.

 

[DraQ]

XP should be given for every ability or skill your character can have and that the game provides gameplay for.

further:
XP gained by using specific ability should only be usable to raise that ability/skill and few related ones instead of every one.
Smaller amounts of XP should be gained just "by use" too in addition to ordinary XP points.

You have just described a use based, rather than XP based system.

I prefer use based to XP based as it deals better with details and I prefer detailed to abstract, but the sole reason to use XP, rather than use based is simplicity, and in that case going full abstract is the way to reach that goal, so no XP rewards other than scripted ones.

Both systems can be 'balanced', except use based needs to be balanced on basic mechanical level without having to consider wider context, while XP based with only scripted rewards can be balanced based on this context alone (quest goals only), without ever having to consider mechanics.

Anything between those systems will generally work worse.
XP based is generally less interesting and limited in the sense that it has to be balanced and rebalanced manually every time game content changes, but is much simpler to implement and can be therefore attractive for smaller projects.
Good use based can be ass to make and balance, but once done it's for keeps unless you drastically alter mechanics.

 

[hiver]

You have just described a use based, rather than XP based system.

No i didnt.

 

[DraQ]

You have just described a use based, rather than XP based system.

No i didnt.

If you gain XP for using stuff and track which XP came from what, effectively having separate XP pools that increase by use, and allow them to be used only to increase related stuff you have a use based system.

 

[hiver]

No you bloody dont.
You have a freaking hybrid system using both. With "by use" system being just an addition because it gives a significantly smaller numbers of XP.
The usual XP would be given for completing the whole quests, as usual, not each action.
Although i dont see anything bad with modification of that, like for example AoD does, where you get skill points you can allocate immediately after every "event" instead of collecting XP untill you level up.

The addition of keeping track from which skills it comes and separating skills in closely related groups just removes a detail i dont like where you can influence science by fighting, just for example.
Or any other nonsensical combination.
But if you want, you can still have the usual system... although i dont see a point in that really.

This simply makes more sense. If youre a fighter, you get to increase only fighting skills. If you want a more diverse character then you choose more skills as primary at the beginning or make a game that allows learning additional skills through gameplay.

 

[Shadenuat]

In my DreamRPG, there are no random mobs but only meaningful encounters, which player have to solve by means most logical for his character, including basic things like, say, retreating. With a reward for most ways of solving them.
However, I think that would only work if each and every encounter would be hand placed and carefully written and scripted. I don't think a system akin to Lionheart or TES where you have to crawl near mobs just to get your skill up or get some "stealth" XP would work.

 

[SCO]

I'd like to see some encounters where retreating is the better "solution", not because winning the battle is impossible (old hat in many games), but because "winning"; ie: killing the opponents, affects your reputation/possibilities of the game world negatively down the stream of quests.

 

[DraQ]

You have a freaking hybrid system using both.

Not really, you just have two systems running concurrently. Might work perfectly well, but it's twice as much effort to get the same result except you never know if you're trying to go for detail or abstraction if you have both.

With "by use" system being just an addition because it gives a significantly smaller numbers of XP.

And different kinds of XP too.

The addition of keeping track from which skills it comes and separating skills in closely related groups just removes a detail i dont like where you can influence science by fighting, just for example.

Indeed, and that's the rationale behind use based systems.

I'd like to see some encounters where retreating is the better "solution", not because winning the battle is impossible (old hat in many games), but because "winning"; ie: killing the opponents, affects your reputation/possibilities of the game world negatively down the stream of quests.

 

[hiver]

oh, you turned into a dumbfuck, eh draq?
:does locker door smacking on draq:


god damn it, how many reasonable, inteligent people are left here? three? ffs...

 

[DraQ]

Butthurt detected.

So, what's the advantage to making an XP and use based systems for a single game?

 

[hiver]

Nothing... nothing at all. its all for lulz.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Worked well is Prelude to Darkness.

Why use both in a single-game? The main problem with use-based systems is not all skills are used frequently. You get a lot of opportunities to swing a sword, but not as many opportunities to craft weapons, for example. So, the solutions are either weighted increase rate, mass production a-la Skyrim, or some skill points on the side.

So, basically, you increase combat-related skills mostly by using skills, use the mix of both increase-by-use and skill points for skills like lockpicking and trading, and use mostly skill points to increase rarely used skills (in most games) like lore, persuasion, crafting/science.

 

[DraQ]

Worked well is Prelude to Darkness.

Why use both in a single-game? The main problem with use-based systems is not all skills are used frequently. You get a lot of opportunities to swing a sword, but not as many opportunities to craft weapons, for example. So, the solutions are either weighted increase rate, mass production a-la Skyrim, or some skill points on the side.

So, basically, you increase combat-related skills mostly by using skills, use the mix of both increase-by-use and skill points for skills like lockpicking and trading, and use mostly skill points to increase rarely used skills (in most games) like lore, persuasion, crafting/science.

Weighted increase rate is obviously the right solution. Mass production is merely a player side workaround and if it's feasible it means that the system hasn't been sufficiently grind-proofed.

There is little point in implementing detailed system (use based) if you have to override/assist it with a less detailed, more abstract one (XP based point buy) anyway.

 

[tiagocc0]

Weighted increase rate is obviously the right solution. Mass production is merely a player side workaround and if it's feasible it means that the system hasn't been sufficiently grind-proofed.

I don't like weighted increase rate on a use based system.
Just because you use it less doesn't mean it should be easier to improve.
It's the easiest solution and the more likely to be exploited.
If you have a pure use based system and you have to increase the rate of a skill because it is less used then you are using abstract means to achieve the desired result.

 

[DraQ]

Weighted increase rate is obviously the right solution. Mass production is merely a player side workaround and if it's feasible it means that the system hasn't been sufficiently grind-proofed.

I don't like weighted increase rate on a use based system.
Just because you use it less doesn't mean it should be easier to improve.
It's the easiest solution and the more likely to be exploited.
If you have a pure use based system and you have to increase the rate of a skill because it is less used then you are using abstract means to achieve the desired result.

Are you fucking retarded?

No, seriously, are you?

What you're saying is that stabbing someone with a dagger once should increase stabbing-stuff-with-daggers skill just as much as creating a single suit of enchanted plate increases its respective crafting skill. Nevermind that single stab with a dagger is a single move and takes a split second, while creating an item is a complex and time consuming activity, no - ALL SKILLS MUST INCREASE AT THE SAME RATE HUEHUEHUEHUAHUE!!!1

 

[tiagocc0]

Weighted increase rate is obviously the right solution. Mass production is merely a player side workaround and if it's feasible it means that the system hasn't been sufficiently grind-proofed.

I don't like weighted increase rate on a use based system.
Just because you use it less doesn't mean it should be easier to improve.
It's the easiest solution and the more likely to be exploited.
If you have a pure use based system and you have to increase the rate of a skill because it is less used then you are using abstract means to achieve the desired result.

Are you fucking retarded?

No, seriously, are you?

What you're saying is that stabbing someone with a dagger once should increase stabbing-stuff-with-daggers skill just as much as creating a single suit of enchanted plate increases its respective crafting skill. Nevermind that single stab with a dagger is a single move and takes a split second, while creating an item is a complex and time consuming activity, no - ALL SKILLS MUST INCREASE AT THE SAME RATE HUEHUEHUEHUAHUE!!!1

That's why creating an item is so unreal on a game, because you just press one button and it's created. And then you just need to do a few items to increase the skill like in Skyrim.
The problem here is that the game made creating an item as easy as hell, so you must give lots more skill to the player because not only you will use it less than fighting but because the game doesn't focus you on creating items, but on combat instead.

It could increase on the same rate if creating an item would be a much more complex process. You would have to spend game hours to create, you would have to check your skills to do each piece of the item or check at every amount of time.
Each check that you can fail or have success could be an opportunity to reward the player giving the same rate as stabbing something.
Item creation would be much more interesting, you could stop the process in the middle and continue later, dispose a piece of the item that you didn't like or who knows buy that piece that is too complex for you to make while the rest of the item was hand made by you.
If the game can make you feel like you're really creating an item, make you feel that it's something that takes time, then the rate could be the same.

You talk about XP being bad because it's too abstract, but using a user based system that only cares for combat is abstract as hell too.

 

[DraQ]

It could increase on the same rate if creating an item would be a much more complex process. You would have to spend game hours to create, you would have to check your skills to do each piece of the item or check at every amount of time.
Each check that you can fail or have success could be an opportunity to reward the player giving the same rate as stabbing something.
Item creation would be much more interesting, you could stop the process in the middle and continue later, dispose a piece of the item that you didn't like or who knows buy that piece that is too complex for you to make while the rest of the item was hand made by you.
If the game can make you feel like you're really creating an item, make you feel that it's something that takes time, then the rate could be the same.

First and foremost, even if more involved creation would be cool, the game isn't a smithy simulator.

Grinding is largely the result of lack of failure mechanics - with failure that actually stings, resources that are actually valuable and decent mechanics you'd be less likely to spend time crafting daggers.

With failure mechanics tied to XP gain, to prevent benefiting from obvious success or obvious failure the game would be much less grindy.

Besides, crafting skills aren't the only ones that aren't used often even by characters strongly relying on them - how about summoning? Usually your summon will last at least for good part of the combat, as opposed to straight up damage spell or melee attacks.

How to play summoner if your other skills will advance much faster even if you do rely mostly on your summons?

 

[tiagocc0]

First and foremost, even if more involved creation would be cool, the game isn't a smithy simulator.

No, it's a combat simulator.

Grinding is largely the result of lack of failure mechanics - with failure that actually stings, resources that are actually valuable and decent mechanics you'd be less likely to spend time crafting daggers.

Time is valuable resource. If it takes time, several checks, and as you say valuable resources then people won't grind. But a player that wants to be a smithy will use most of it's time and resources doing this.

With failure mechanics tied to XP gain, to prevent benefiting from obvious success or obvious failure the game would be much less grindy.

How would failure mechanics be tied to XP gain?

Besides, crafting skills aren't the only ones that aren't used often even by characters strongly relying on them - how about summoning? Usually your summon will last at least for good part of the combat, as opposed to straight up damage spell or melee attacks.

How to play summoner if your other skills will advance much faster even if you do rely mostly on your summons?

Summoning is a great example, if you really want to put summon on the game let's then divide it in two types.
Most games use the summoned creatures as ubber fucker that last 60 seconds.
Good games use the summoned creatures as not so powerful creatures but that should be used wisely and they remain with you.

If you want to put those two into the game then the first could be used like a damage spell you would be able to summon a creature as fast as casting a fireball, but please don't make it ubber fucker.
And the second could be used outside of combat where you would actually make a summoning ritual and everything and the summoned creature would be part of your group. Then you could make the same rules of the smithy apply to this kind of summoning.


The question here is not to make a smithy or summoning simulator but to give emphasis to other skills that are not combat related. Or in the case of summoning giving it two options or sticking with just one of the two.
If you can make a game that combat truly shines, why not make a game where every skill was given the same development process?

 

[DraQ]

No, it's a combat simulator.

Much closer to that than to smithy simulator in any case. Ideally, it's adventurer simulator consisting of interweaving combat, stealth, and many other mechanics, but smithing is inherently fairly isolated mechanics so there is little harm in having the atomic 'uses' as fairly large, abstracted chunks of complex activity. Breaking it down is beneficial only if you can make involved smithing interesting as gameplay, or if you can tie the extra complexity to making items and the process more customizable. Other than that it's best to gloss over it, just like you gloss over all the other unexciting activities, like sleeping for 8h or character implicitly having to take a dump once in a while.

Time is valuable resource. If it takes time, several checks, and as you say valuable resources then people won't grind. But a player that wants to be a smithy will use most of it's time and resources doing this.

But he will try to put this time and resources to best possible use, rather than spamming "create lesser turdlet" over and over.

How would failure mechanics be tied to XP gain?

Clicky:
Desining a flawless use-based system
Oiling the cogs of use-based systems

Summoning is a great example, if you really want to put summon on the game let's then divide it in two types.
Most games use the summoned creatures as ubber fucker that last 60 seconds.
Good games use the summoned creatures as not so powerful creatures but that should be used wisely and they remain with you.

That exacerbates the problem, since if summons remain for indefinite amount of time you'll cast the summoning spells even less.

The problem here is not it wouldn't be cool to make magic or smithing more involved, but that different activities can be broken into non-interactive chunks of different sizes which makes use not equal to use. Making skill gain per single use different for different skills is a method of reflecting that.

 

[tiagocc0]

Much closer to that than to smithy simulator in any case. Ideally, it's adventurer simulator consisting of interweaving combat, stealth, and many other mechanics, but smithing is inherently fairly isolated mechanics so there is little harm in having the atomic 'uses' as fairly large, abstracted chunks of complex activity. Breaking it down is beneficial only if you can make involved smithing interesting as gameplay, or if you can tie the extra complexity to making items and the process more customizable. Other than that it's best to gloss over it, just like you gloss over all the other unexciting activities, like sleeping for 8h or character implicitly having to take a dump once in a while.

Well, my opinion is that I find almost all attempts boring, so if I were to do a fantasy game with smithy skill I would go to the direction I pointed.

But he will try to put this time and resources to best possible use, rather than spamming "create lesser turdlet" over and over.

If you put interesting bits all over then the user will want to spend time on it.
Like you would have several checks made until you have a sword forged, each check could fail, have success or have an great success where the player gets a bonus.
Be it a bonus about improving it's skill, a bonus to the item or maybe an idea for a new item.

Clicky:
Desining a flawless use-based system
Oiling the cogs of use-based systems

Thanks!

That exacerbates the problem, since if summons remain for indefinite amount of time you'll cast the summoning spells even less.

Only if you summon creatures that are more powerful than they should be, creatures you summon should die frequently, the player would use them as initial fodder and then summon more at the middle of the battle.
The idea is that summoning at battle would give you little skill improvement, while making a ritual outside the battle would give you more because of several checks and the time consumed doing so.
You could even make checks from time to time to verify if you could maintain control of the creature and each successful check would also improve your skill.
There's plenty of room to improve a skill.

The problem here is not it wouldn't be cool to make magic or smithing more involved, but that different activities can be broken into non-interactive chunks of different sizes which makes use not equal to use. Making skill gain per single use different for different skills is a method of reflecting that.

I just think that simplifying it too much can make the game boring, it would reflect in a overuse of the 'weighted increase rate' system.

 

[DraQ]

If you put interesting bits all over then the user will want to spend time on it.
Like you would have several checks made until you have a sword forged, each check could fail, have success or have an great success where the player gets a bonus.
Be it a bonus about improving it's skill, a bonus to the item or maybe an idea for a new item.

Having multiple checks is neat... as long as they do something a single check can't. So what would be the point of those extra checks? What would happen if I failed the first, but succeeded at the second and how would it be different than the other way around or failing both?

That exacerbates the problem, since if summons remain for indefinite amount of time you'll cast the summoning spells even less.

Only if you summon creatures that are more powerful than they should be, creatures you summon should die frequently, the player would use them as initial fodder and then summon more at the middle of the battle.

If your summon dies immediately in combat, there is too little difference between projectiles and summons to warrant having the latter.

Besides, it would be cool to have summons use some extra mechanics - like having the fate of your summons affect some sort of reputation you have with whatever otherworld you're bringing them from. In such case it would be beneficial to keep your summons alive and maybe use them in particular way - oops, we are again summoning infrequently.

You could even make checks from time to time to verify if you could maintain control of the creature and each successful check would also improve your skill.
There's plenty of room to improve a skill.

That's a decent idea, but not because "OMG EQUAL SKILL PROGRESSION RAET!1". It's neat because it adds *something* to the gameplay.

I just think that simplifying it too much can make the game boring

Indeed, but simplifying it too little (by adding complexity that doesn't reflect in the gameplay) doesn't make it interesting.

 

[tiagocc0]

Having multiple checks is neat... as long as they do something a single check can't. So what would be the point of those extra checks? What would happen if I failed the first, but succeeded at the second and how would it be different than the other way around or failing both?

Each skill could be different, in smithy for example you could divide the making process into several parts, making a simple knife could require three steps, one to make the blade, then the handle and then the third step would be to assembly those two.
If you fail at the first you get nothing, if you succeed then you get the blade, failing at the second won't make you lose the blade, you just don't get the handle, you get the handle with a success.
Failing the third part of the process could do nothing or could break one of the two pieces, or break both.
If you know that something is very complex or time consuming you could break it into several other parts, like if you want to make that 2 meters sword, to make the blade would require 3 checks and each one would require you to spend 3 hours trying.

If your summon dies immediately in combat, there is too little difference between projectiles and summons to warrant having the latter.

Besides, it would be cool to have summons use some extra mechanics - like having the fate of your summons affect some sort of reputation you have with whatever otherworld you're bringing them from. In such case it would be beneficial to keep your summons alive and maybe use them in particular way - oops, we are again summoning infrequently.

If you want to make the summon remain indefinitely and survive the battle then you could put checks to use your summoning spell to actually regenerate the summon after battle.
Or if your summon gets ready to level up or something you would have to use your summon spell again to make it better. Just throwing some random ideas here.

You could even make checks from time to time to verify if you could maintain control of the creature and each successful check would also improve your skill.
There's plenty of room to improve a skill.

That's a decent idea, but not because "OMG EQUAL SKILL PROGRESSION RAET!1". It's neat because it adds *something* to the gameplay.

If the progression rate can't be equal to all skills at least improving the gameplay like this will make the developer use a not so obvious 'weighted increase rate' system.

Indeed, but simplifying it too little (by adding complexity that doesn't reflect in the gameplay) doesn't make it interesting.

That's right.