In the case of The Witcher, there comes a time not too far along when most of the local monsters drop to 1xp per kill, but the player needs about 30000 xp to level up. Most people finish the game around character level 38-39, because the bulk of xp comes from the quests. Skipping side quests nets and end-character around level 32-35.

One interesting effect is that the monster drops are monster-specific. You can actively hunt for Beast Fangs, Ghoul Blood, Wyvern Wings -- magic components used to mix potions. The thing is that it is possible to satiate yourself with loot. The player can stash thousands of componants -- more than could ever be used in the game. I like this, because it allows a player to eventually come to the conclusion that they can judge how much they are gonna need, and go shopping for just the right amount.

Something that might be cool is if the player has about 38 level-ups, when does each point get applied to each skill? So for instance, one strategy might develop early speed and later strength, but another character develops early strength and later magic. So even though a character can get maybe 80% of all possible skills, the character build is more than a final destination. It would have mini-goals along the way.

[Edited by - AngleWyrm on June 4, 2008 5:45:29 PM]

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker And, my answer is still that I disagree, because I still don't think the system mentioned changes anything from how the grind works in practice. I don't think that requiring players to do what they choose to do when not required will make it more enjoyable.

If you want to discuss grinding in the sense that it can be good or bad, then my stance is that meaningful character leveling will always create a grinding environment. If you want purposeful (goal oriented) leveling gameplay, it will be grinding gameplay. There's no way (of which I know) to be rid of it. There's also no way to thin it out or background it without thining out or backgrounding the leveling along with it. The only way to fix grinding in this sense is to make it more fun. If you do that well enough, most players won't even acknowledge it as grinding anymore.

Quote:

I would never have called playing Half-life for the story (and seeing any gameplay as merely a nuisance) grinding.

What makes puting up with Half Life 2 gameplay for the story different than puting up with RPG gameplay for the story? The only difference is that the gameplay is leveling, which has a tradition of being less than exciting.

Quote:

It's hardly rigorous, but I think of grinding as a repetitive action improving my character without progress toward a greater goal.

I would have thought that all grinding is progressing toward a greater goal. That's why players are actually playing the repetitive gameplay. Because it leads somewhere.

There's also a problem with "repetitive", in the fact that repetitive is extremely relative in gaming. 99% of all gameplay is repetitive in some sense. Half Life 2 had a lot of shooting, for example. It also had a lot of combat with Combine soldiers, and a lot of scenes with explosive barrels and headcrabs. Thinking back, the biggest changing element was the location. I think it's entirely possible to grind without a lot of repetition, as long as it isn't very fun, and as long as it's working toward another goal (power to fight a boss, or earning gold to buy an item). If it's gameplay, and you're only in it for the end result, you're grinding. RPG is the genre best known for rewarding gameplay, as well as less interactive gameplay, so it makes sense that the problem is bad there.

Just some suggestions:

Forget the single exp bar approach, form behavioural experience bars, take the sum times a modifier, say 10% and have an emulated main experience bar. Then you get a very effective way of experience gain for any type of character, since they get experience based on what they actually do.

Use the main experience bar then to allow trainable areas, for anything, and allow the behavioural only to enhance ability within the behaviours context.

Do about the same with stat points.

Allow for about 25-50% of the stat points to be automatically allocated, meaning no direct player control at all, the stat points are distributed in the areas used most by the character in recent time. The statpoints migrate slowly but surely towards to what you are actually doing primarily, also you gain new stat points which are allocated directly depending on exp, level , or what the system is based on.

The rest about 50-75% are player set stat points, possible to migrate after they have been allocated, however those may be aimed migrations. Retraining all stats and experience instantly by some magic one button click is cheating IMO, but thats an opinion ^^

As I see it this way allows for even exp gain for any class and whatnot, and actually reflects the way a player infact plays the game. Also helps out the unskilled players to allocate more into health and defence, and skilled would gain in their primary attributes.

Allow experience from many sources, and IMO it should be almost always a specified type of experience, be it highly specific(maximum attack speed) or more general(dexterity). The one bar system is just so flawed it's not even funny, and still today it's used as "the" solution for many.

I am a big fan of somewhat complicated games, such systems would probably be for adults(NOTE: which is all I aim for in games), and I would add alot more complexity than this. I dont like fancy graphics games with he complexity of pong underneath ^^

Hope this helps.

/Rab

I was conjuring more "ways" to level up. And I thought about using titles. For instance, "Ogre Slayer", "Beast Master", "Demon Destroying Dominator", etc. These can have varying effects. Like ogres running away at first sight because you are the "Ogre Slayer" or you getting more missions because of tales of your heroics as a "Beast Master", or even more challenging enemies appear because of the rumor of you being a "Demon Destroying Dominator". So not only do you gain experience at fighting in general, but you gain experience in killing types of enemies. Also it opens the world to branching out and being a little more dynamic as well.

This would be more of a complement than a necessity (to my original idea anyway).

Quote:

Original post by ColeFreeman Allow experience from many sources, and IMO it should be almost always a specified type of experience, be it highly specific(maximum attack speed) or more general(dexterity). The one bar system is just so flawed it's not even funny, and still today it's used as "the" solution for many.

Before diving head first in that direction while cursing everything behind you, there's one thing you should acknowledge.

Rewarding experience based on action encourages players to perform those actions, which can be bad when players don't want anything to do with some of those actions. Generic experience allows players to become good at whatever they want while doing whatever they find the most fun. That seriously reduces negative grinding.

You're also effectively encouraging the repetition of generic actions. There are few things less engaging than having to search out and pick useless door locks to practice your lockpicking, for example.

It can become worse when it applies to stats, which cross over to other skills or actions. If you don't find many locks to pick, you may find yourself having to sling arrows to increase your dexterity to prepare for them, even if you don't want to use a bow in combat.

Most of these problems were what dragged Oblivion's leveling into the mud.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by Way Walker And, my answer is still that I disagree, because I still don't think the system mentioned changes anything from how the grind works in practice. I don't think that requiring players to do what they choose to do when not required will make it more enjoyable. If you want to discuss grinding in the sense that it can be good or bad, then my stance is that meaningful character leveling will always create a grinding environment. If you want purposeful (goal oriented) leveling gameplay, it will be grinding gameplay. There's no way (of which I know) to be rid of it. There's also no way to thin it out or background it without thining out or backgrounding the leveling along with it. The only way to fix grinding in this sense is to make it more fun. If you do that well enough, most players won't even acknowledge it as grinding anymore.

I believe the system I attempted to describe would not have what I consider grinding while still maintaining what I consider leveling. On the other hand, you may consider it to have grinding and not have leveling. Are we simply discussing definitions at this point?

I'm not really interested in discussing definitions of grinding and leveling up. If there's something in particular you'd like me to clear up, I'll try to do so, but I'd much rather discuss alternative ways to implement leveling.

I've both offered my own suggestion (acheivement based leveling) and my comments on the original suggestion (a new system isn't needed if the goal is to get players to do what they did in the old system). And here's something I don't think has been considered yet (if it has, my apologies): the system could encourage players to not push the limits. If a long, drawn-out battle nets me 1/10 the XP of a quicker kill, then you're providing less incentive for the player to see how far they can push their character. If, on top of this, you decrease the XP after a certain point to eliminate massive gains from killing 100's of enemies with a single blow, then you've created a sweet spot of mediocrity where the best gains come from being good, but not too good. Also, there's the matter of implementation. In Final Fantasy X, I remember players making sure each character got in, did something, and then overkilled the enemy while grinding. Things like "blind then kill" could lead to the same sort of tedium it's trying to avoid.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Quote: Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by Way Walker And, my answer is still that I disagree, because I still don't think the system mentioned changes anything from how the grind works in practice. I don't think that requiring players to do what they choose to do when not required will make it more enjoyable. If you want to discuss grinding in the sense that it can be good or bad, then my stance is that meaningful character leveling will always create a grinding environment. If you want purposeful (goal oriented) leveling gameplay, it will be grinding gameplay. There's no way (of which I know) to be rid of it. There's also no way to thin it out or background it without thining out or backgrounding the leveling along with it. The only way to fix grinding in this sense is to make it more fun. If you do that well enough, most players won't even acknowledge it as grinding anymore. I believe the system I attempted to describe would not have what I consider grinding while still maintaining what I consider leveling. On the other hand, you may consider it to have grinding and not have leveling. Are we simply discussing definitions at this point? I'm not really interested in discussing definitions of grinding and leveling up. If there's something in particular you'd like me to clear up, I'll try to do so, but I'd much rather discuss alternative ways to implement leveling.

I was just trying to help establish a common origin to base our discussion, not form the discussion itself. If we're looking for ways to stop grinding, we need to agree on what we're trying to stop. Right?

In regard to your proposed leveling concept, it would be similar to games that dramatically reduce experience for enemies after they've been destroyed enough times. However, I would like your achievement concept much better than those games, as it would at least encourage skillful play instead of unquestioned destruction.

On the other hand, I believe some (possibly many) players would hang around the first area where the achievement can be earned, fighting the enemies until they earn it. I doubt many would be willing to continue the normal game without knowing for sure that they would have a chance to obtain the same achievement elsewhere.

There's also a problem for unskilled players, or players who have trouble accomplishing the goal. They could be grounded in these places for a long time, fighting the same general enemies, not making any progress because they're unable to pull off the achievement feat and unwilling to proceed without it. Experience actually helps in this case, as even the bad players would eventually reach the same end result through the grind (which hasn't gone away for them).

My biggest problem with the concept is that you're converting your gameplay to non-leveling gameplay after the achievements. Leveling gameplay that is fun is usually more fun than normal gameplay that is fun (IMO). There's always something riding on it. Sort of like a bet in a card game.

Quote:

And here's something I don't think has been considered yet (if it has, my apologies): the system could encourage players to not push the limits. If a long, drawn-out battle nets me 1/10 the XP of a quicker kill, then you're providing less incentive for the player to see how far they can push their character.

The quicker kill was just an example. There are many types of skillful gameplay that you could reward through this concept in place of quick death. If you want to avoid discouraging drawn out battle, you could reward effective tactics instead of kills, such as rewarding feats like "evasion, quick strike" counters. The biggest point is that you're rewarding player skill instead of mindless repetition.

Quote:

If, on top of this, you decrease the XP after a certain point to eliminate massive gains from killing 100's of enemies with a single blow, then you've created a sweet spot of mediocrity where the best gains come from being good, but not too good.

I'm not sure I follow. How would being too good be a problem?

I may be mistaken, but I think the point is that players can earn the same amount of experience by killing a few enemies skillfully as killing many enemies with mindless slashing. These players could still go on to fight 100's of enemies, making more experience by playing skillfully. They just wouldn't have to fight as many times to reach a specific level, as long as they play well.

EDIT: Typos

[Edited by - Kest on June 5, 2008 12:22:30 PM]

I think that this would be a cool idea. Instead of having an "experience points" bar, you have a skill bar instead. They would function the same, except that it would explain some of the reasons behind it. So when you engage an enemy, a bar appears over the monsters head (Under HP or something). Everytime you dodge, do a flip, flashy hit, etc. the bar gets higher. Getting hit or screwing things up moves it down. At the end you get (Monster XP)*(100%+(percent of bar filled)). So filling up the bar would give you 200% of the exp you would get.

Those are just some random numbers. Please don't argue "I think that 200% is too much", or other things like that.

But you can only fill the bar so much on an enemy, which would prevent me from hopping around the entire time getting exp just by sitting in front of an enemy.

There would still be decay when you level up, so you couldn't get lots of exp from fighting far weaker monsters.

When you level up, you get more style moves. Perhaps leveling up gives you the ability to run up walls and flip around, or dash past a monster while stabbing outwards, or anything like that. These abilities would fill the bar up faster or serve better combative purposes.

The size of bars would have to depend on each kind of enemy. You wouldn't boss battles to be filled up in 1/10 of the time you actually fight it. I also think that if you start a "combo" or set of moves fluidly, but biff one, like wall jumping and missing the wall, you should also lose from your bar. This would prevent people from mashing buttons.

Thoughts?

Quote:

Original post by Kest If we're looking for ways to stop grinding, we need to agree on what we're trying to stop.

Rereading the original post, maybe a good operative definition of grinding is "repeatedly killing the same enemies over and over [to level up]".

Quote:

In regard to your proposed leveling concept, it would be similar to games that dramatically reduce experience for enemies after they've been destroyed enough times. However, I would like your achievement concept much better than those games, as it would at least encourage skillful play instead of unquestioned destruction. On the other hand, I believe some (possibly many) players would hang around the first area where the achievement can be earned, fighting the enemies until they earn it. I doubt many would be willing to continue the normal game without knowing for sure that they would have a chance to obtain the same achievement elsewhere.

Well, we really need to know why we're trying to change the system. From the original post, it seems that we're trying to find a system for those who are disatisfied with the traditional leveling by repeatedly killing the same monster.

I'm not sure that we would necessarily have a problem with players hanging around the first area an achievement can be earned. Partly because players already do this under the usual XP system so, unless that's one of the aspects we don't like about the old system, we're ok. But I'm also not sure it would lend itself toward that, especially if higher achievements trumped lesser achievements. Maybe
(minotaur in 1 hit) > (orc in 1 hit) > (minotaur in 3 hits)
so, if you've killed an orc in 1 hit but can't manage to take a minotaur down in less than 7, then there's little use trying to trump that achievement even though it's technically possible.

Quote:

There's also a problem for unskilled players, or players who have trouble accomplishing the goal. They could be grounded in these places for a long time, fighting the same general enemies, not making any progress because they're unable to pull off the achievement feat and unwilling to proceed without it. Experience actually helps in this case, as even the bad players would eventually reach the same end result through the grind (which hasn't gone away for them).

Right, it places the balance between character and player skill a bit more toward player skill. However, how much should we cater to the "gotta catch 'em all" players? I mean, there are players who restart because they missed a materia in FFVII, but I think the majority don't bother about it.

But this is also partly a balance issue. Do we want the grind as a safety net? Also, the grind doesn't necessarily guarantee anything. You could level up in FFVIII, but the regular enemies became tougher at a faster rate than your characters making the game harder as you leveled up (except bosses which were capped).

Quote:

My biggest problem with the concept is that you're converting your gameplay to non-leveling gameplay after the achievements. Leveling gameplay that is fun is usually more fun than normal gameplay that is fun (IMO). There's always something riding on it. Sort of like a bet in a card game.

Well, it's not exactly like a bet since the XP gain is a sure thing (I think in my head, "Even if I lose money healing after battle, the XP gain will mean I'll need less healing in the future, making it overall profitable"). I'd more say that there's no idle gameplay. However, sometimes I want idle gameplay. I liked that the Veldt in FFVI didn't give XP since you could just fight there without worrying about over leveling. If the combat is fun, sometimes I want to just take part in the combat without it becoming easier from a player skill perspective.

Also, there is a glass ceiling of sorts on character skill, but that doesn't mean it's reachable through normal gameplay (maybe even at the end of the game it's nigh impossible to kill a minotaur in 1 hit), and there's no such ceiling on the player's skill.

Quote:

Quote: And here's something I don't think has been considered yet (if it has, my apologies): the system could encourage players to not push the limits. If a long, drawn-out battle nets me 1/10 the XP of a quicker kill, then you're providing less incentive for the player to see how far they can push their character. If, on top of this, you decrease the XP after a certain point to eliminate massive gains from killing 100's of enemies with a single blow, then you've created a sweet spot of mediocrity where the best gains come from being good, but not too good. I'm not sure I follow. How would being too good be a problem?

killing minotaur slowly < killing minotaur quickly
killing minotaur very quickly < killing minotaur quickly

Thus, we get the most benefit per minotaur killing it like baby bear.

Quote:

I may be mistaken, but I think the point is that players can earn the same amount of experience by killing a few enemies skillfully as killing many enemies with mindless slashing. These players could still go on to fight 100's of enemies, making more experience by playing skillfully. They just wouldn't have to fight as many times to reach a specific level, as long as they play well.

Which feels like a patch on a broken system to me. To me, this doesn't remove what was boring and mindless about the system since being more skillful already allowed a similar effect by being able to kill faster and I already did the more skillful stuff to change things up to make it more enjoyable.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker I'm not sure that we would necessarily have a problem with players hanging around the first area an achievement can be earned. Partly because players already do this under the usual XP system so, unless that's one of the aspects we don't like about the old system, we're ok. But I'm also not sure it would lend itself toward that, especially if higher achievements trumped lesser achievements. Maybe (minotaur in 1 hit) > (orc in 1 hit) > (minotaur in 3 hits) so, if you've killed an orc in 1 hit but can't manage to take a minotaur down in less than 7, then there's little use trying to trump that achievement even though it's technically possible.

It still requires a decent amount of information to be given to players before they can happily enjoy the game in the desired way. For instance, they may have no idea how long they'll be playing the game before they encounter the secondary enemy. They have no way of knowing how long they'll be without the special achievement, so it still makes more sense to do whatever they can to obtain it now.

Quote:

However, how much should we cater to the "gotta catch 'em all" players? I mean, there are players who restart because they missed a materia in FFVII, but I think the majority don't bother about it.

You can't blame them. They have no way of knowing how important it might be to have whatever this achievement will grant them. It could be the decisive component in a critical situation. Or even if not, over time, the absence of many achievements will likely have a profound negative effect.

Quote:

Also, the grind doesn't necessarily guarantee anything. You could level up in FFVIII, but the regular enemies became tougher at a faster rate than your characters making the game harder as you leveled up (except bosses which were capped).

Linear games with leveling need to deal with experience differently. If the player can't choose to face certain challenges in the game, it's almost pointless to leave the earning of varying amounts of experience up to them. The game is deciding what challenges the player must face, so the game needs to decide how much experience the player should have when they face them. Letting the player decide what to do with the experience still provides some decent leveling gameplay, and there's no grinding whatsoever. It doesn't reward gameplay in the same way as open-ended RPGs, but in my opinion, it's about as good as leveling can get with a linear setup.

Quote:

If the combat is fun, sometimes I want to just take part in the combat without it becoming easier from a player skill perspective.

As do I. But again, if the player can choose their challenges, they can still have incredible difficulty by facing things above their expected capacity. I think a really good open ended game would provide some gameplay that even a maxed character would find challenging. Just like in the real world, there's always someone better, but you're not always aware of it.

Quote:

Quote: I'm not sure I follow. How would being too good be a problem? killing minotaur slowly < killing minotaur quickly killing minotaur very quickly < killing minotaur quickly Thus, we get the most benefit per minotaur killing it like baby bear.

I thought the bonus was granted by killing the minotaur quickly. Why would killing it very quickly be less rewarding? If I understand the proposed original post concept correctly, killing the minotaur quickly or very quickly would render the same result.

Quote:

Quote: I may be mistaken, but I think the point is that players can earn the same amount of experience by killing a few enemies skillfully as killing many enemies with mindless slashing. These players could still go on to fight 100's of enemies, making more experience by playing skillfully. They just wouldn't have to fight as many times to reach a specific level, as long as they play well. Which feels like a patch on a broken system to me. To me, this doesn't remove what was boring and mindless about the system since being more skillful already allowed a similar effect by being able to kill faster and I already did the more skillful stuff to change things up to make it more enjoyable.

This I don't agree with. Killing faster doesn't remove the need to kill more of them, where the introduction of this concept does make that true. You play better, you grind less.