Would removing levels be an improvement?

[ThatZenoGuy]

I think it makes sense to get extra XP if you do stuff in certain ways.

If a town is under attack, and you persuade the bandits to leave, you should get less, why? Because you didn't solve the issue of 'stop the bandits', you just delayed them from attacking, they'll be back someday.

If little Jimmy says 'please stop miss grouchy from hurting me', and you kill the lass, you should get less too, he didn't want you to KILL her! Just to get her to stop, he's a kid.

Etc.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Yeah, extra XP should be awarded for working harder for it. After all, it's one of the cons of genocide runs, not much XP to go around, and a pro of pacifist runs.

You can always go berserk and kill everyone, but can you make long-term solutions with your honed skills? Even the classics did this, albeit more focused in doing so many small things and getting lil' bundles of XP that pile up.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Yeah, extra XP should be awarded for working harder for it. After all, it's one of the cons of genocide runs, not much XP to go around, and a pro of pacifist runs.

You can always go berserk and kill everyone, but can you make long-term solutions with your honed skills? Even the classics did this, albeit more focused in doing so many small things and getting lil' bundles of XP that pile up.

IMO its a mixed bag.

Killing everything you see isn't always the best way to do things.

But neither is trying to talk your way out of it.

Sure, you can probably persuade hitler to stop killing jews for a month, but is that as effective at stopping jew killings than just shooting him in the face?

 

[Risewild]

I have no idea how I missed this thread. It must have been made when I wasn't around because of personal issues.

One thing I don't like about Fallout's levelling up system, is that it follows the classic RPG formula of having you level up by killing enough things. This kind of level up system doesn't really work IMO, as it heavily favours combat type-characters, in that stealth and science characters will have less chances to progress AND that it makes little sense for you to become better at speech/science as a result of shooting your gun.

Actually In classic Fallout games you can get the same experience as killing a enemy if you stay sneaking and not found by the enemy if you're at a minimum distance. You will gain exp every second or so until you stop gaining exp after a while or you get seen. If you then kill the enemy you only gain the remaining exp that you didn't gain from sneaking (if you sneak until you get no more experience you get 1 exp when you kill the enemy IIRC, if you sneak and gain half or the total exp the enemy would give you if you killed it, you will only gain the other half of the exp when you actually kill it, etc).

So the classic games even thought of a way to make the player get the same exp just by successfully sneak for long enough near those enemies you would have to kill otherwise to get the exp.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Well, Sneak is other way to face situations. It's "harder" to pull off, and has a build investment.

Sure, you can probably persuade hitler to stop killing jews for a month, but is that as effective at stopping jew killings than just shooting him in the face?

But if we convince Hitler to go back to Art College and become a world-known artist? Should we get the same reward if we went and shot him in the face?

 

[Walpknut]

Hitler's motivations went beyond getting rejected by an art school, so that would be a stupid way to try to solve it...

 

[Risewild]

Hmm I was just thinking and I now am not sure if Fallout games gave exp for sneaking... My brain is not working very well today and I keep getting confused about stuff, so I am not sure if Fallout games do that or if only the Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader does it...

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Hmm I was just thinking and I now am not sure if Fallout games gave exp for sneaking... My brain is not working very well today and I keep getting confused about stuff, so I am not sure if Fallout games do that or if only the Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader does it...

I don't think Fallout 1-2 does at all.

None of the Fallout's do to my knowledge.

 

[Risewild]

I don't think Fallout 1-2 does at all.

None of the Fallout's do to my knowledge.

Well, I guess they fixed that for the last game using the SPECIAL system before Bethesda bought Fallout then (although made by Reflexive Entertainment and published by Black Isle). Because I do remember clearly Lionheart using that (IIRC it allows to get 75% of total exp by sneaking or something).

I don't usually play sneaky in classic Fallout.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Well, I guess they fixed that for the last game using the SPECIAL system before Bethesda bought Fallout then (although made by Reflexive Entertainment and published by Black Isle). Because I do remember clearly Lionheart using that (IIRC it allows to get 75% of total exp by sneaking or something).

I don't usually play sneaky in classic Fallout.

I never found sneaking too great in Fallout 1-2, only used it to become made man of all 4 gangs. XD

 

[0wing]

I never found sneaking too great in Fallout 1-2, only used it to become made man of all 4 gangs. XD

Jack of all trades, leader of all factions. Found ya.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Jack of all trades, leader of all factions. Found ya.

More like 'cheeky exploiting asshole'. XD

Only did it for the lulz.

I'd normally join the dudes who get you into the sierra base.

 

[Jogre]

IMO its a mixed bag.

Killing everything you see isn't always the best way to do things.

But neither is trying to talk your way out of it.

Sure, you can probably persuade hitler to stop killing jews for a month, but is that as effective at stopping jew killings than just shooting him in the face?

How much EXP you earn shouldn't directly correlate with the consequences of your actions, otherwise people would try and get the best outcomes purely for the sake of reward, rather than because they match with the character's ideals.

I'd say EXP should be granted for quest completion(So it doesn't matter how you beat the quest, so long as you do so), or for passing the encounter, regardless of how.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

How much EXP you earn shouldn't directly correlate with the consequences of your actions, otherwise people would try and get the best outcomes purely for the sake of reward, rather than because they match with the character's ideals.

I'd say EXP should be granted for quest completion(So it doesn't matter how you beat the quest, so long as you do so), or for passing the encounter, regardless of how.

A socially awkward dude specced for smashing enemies won't have the skills to talk their way out of a bandit encounter, so they can't get the 'peaceful' solution anyway.

If you make all rewards equal, it simply means that your choices have no consequences, which is stupid.

Look at Jacobstown, if you do it peacefully, you get a better reward, because it MAKES SENSE, and that is what Marcus ASKED of.

 

[Jogre]

Look at Jacobstown, if you do it peacefully, you get a better reward, because it MAKES SENSE, and that is what Marcus ASKED of.

Reward, as in the questgiver gives you a better item, response or payment if you do it how you were asked to do it, yes definitely.

EXP Reward, perhaps not. EXP should be an issue of helping you advance in the game after you've passed a certain set of goal posts, as opposed to being a motivating factor.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Reward, as in the questgiver gives you a better item, response or payment if you do it how you were asked to do it, yes definitely.

EXP Reward, perhaps not. EXP should be an issue of helping you advance in the game after you've passed a certain set of goal posts, as opposed to being a motivating factor.

XP is how much you 'learn' from stuff.

How is 'talking raiders to walk away' a learning experience, when a bunch of fucked up town people ask you to kill them because they keep raping people?

Equally how is mashing small children to death a learning experience, when little sally asks you to return a doll some kid stole? Etc?

 

[Jogre]

XP is how much you 'learn' from stuff.

How is 'talking raiders to walk away' a learning experience, when a bunch of fucked up town people ask you to kill them because they keep raping people?

Equally how is mashing small children to death a learning experience, when little sally asks you to return a doll some kid stole? Etc?

Technically speaking you are probably not going to learn any new valuable information from killing raiders or returning a doll.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Technically speaking you are probably not going to learn any new valuable information from killing raiders or returning a doll.

Sure you learn stuff, you're likely to get better reputation with the people you help, and thus they'll teach you, reward you, they'll acknowledge you did what they want.

Doing something which is detrimental as a whole is likely to not make you learn as much.

Too many games promote 'do anything', which means that your choices don't matter.

In Fallout 2, I can tell the Wrights that 'someone' killed their son, or I can tell them that the REAL people did it, which rewards me with more stuff.

 

[CaptJ]

More like 'cheeky exploiting asshole'. XD

Only did it for the lulz.

I'd normally join the dudes who get you into the sierra base.

I exploited the turn based combat to sneak pass enemies especially in the Toxic Caves because I wasn't going to put points in melee weapon.

Well, I guess they fixed that for the last game using the SPECIAL system before Bethesda bought Fallout then (although made by Reflexive Entertainment and published by Black Isle). Because I do remember clearly Lionheart using that (IIRC it allows to get 75% of total exp by sneaking or something).

I don't usually play sneaky in classic Fallout.

Sneak isn't fun in FO1/2. Sneak was definitely improved in the later titles.

Hitler's motivations went beyond getting rejected by an art school, so that would be a stupid way to try to solve it...

You really don't have enough time to genocide if you have animate cartoons.

But if we convince Hitler to go back to Art College and become a world-known artist? Should we get the same reward if we went and shot him in the face?

That sounds like a joke solution like turning a robot to a sheriff so how amusing it is should be its own reward.

Sure, you can probably persuade hitler to stop killing jews for a month, but is that as effective at stopping jew killings than just shooting him in the face?

I think that I found out the real problem. Exp rewards immediately after skill checks. It was interesting that Dean was so easily butthurt that a skill check lock out a non-violent solution. It makes assumption that the solution requiring the skill check is the better solution. I decided to solve the last part of OWB without lying to the Think Tank (partly because I already reached the level cap).

While I like the idea of being able to finish a game without killing anyone, I don't think it should be the best solution. You could rescue someone from slavery by buying him from some slavers but it probably more moral to kill the slavers. I think George Orwell made a case against pacifism in WW2.

Technically speaking you are probably not going to learn any new valuable information from killing raiders or returning a doll.

You learn how to kill them better like aiming better. Maybe have it stop giving exp after a while and the raiders start avoiding fighting the player or give exp for watching creatures act from a distance like a nature documentary when you see how they eat, hunt, or interact.

 

[AbullSinCara]

In RL you don't level up and gain health, you get hit by a single bullet in RL you DIE, you get hit by a single bullet in your thin jumpsuit in FO3 you miraculously live(if you have level over 30)