Spoon's thoughts on Death Penalty & Skill Progression.

Spoon's thoughts on Death Penalty & Skill Progression.

So the good sire @Moiseyev Trueden prodded me for links etc to my opinions, but my former comments was in various topics all over the place so I thought I would consolidate.

Yes I know this is an excercise in futility, but it might be fun regardless.



This will be a wall of text - so if you don't like then here is the TL;DR:

Spoiler: Summary of post below

How would Spoon have designed things?


Death Penalty

-Remove skill progression penalties from death.
-Death Penalty should be limited to gear damage and loot
(where loot collected in the scene ends up in a DeathBundle to be rescued by player or party lest it be lost)


Skill Progression

-No cap
-Hamper OP skill progression by the more top level skills you have the harder it becomes to raise top level skills (adding an on-use XP multiplier for "expert/GM skills" based on the number of "expert/GM" skills the player already have)
-Don't apply the multiplier on "apprentice" skills
-Allow the player to 'specialize' in ~3 skill trees which doesn't use/count vs the skill multiplier (after doing a Skill Trainer quest etc)

Here starts the Wall-of-Text-of-DOOOOOoooooommm...


Regarding Decay

First a full disclosure: I personally don't mind skill decay on death. It is not that punative compared to other death penalty systems in games I've played. Plus since I'm one of those few who will find out the details so that I know exactly how it works, I can mitigate or minimize its effect on my game play.

However I think it is a very bad fit for this title and I don't think it fills the requirements the devs mention, nor that it has the effects that the devs mention that they aim for. I also think that it is detrimental to "fun", that it is bad for player retention and worse for the longevity of playing the product.

The short version of why:
IF Decay as a feature was necessary and a great design/fit for the game then why not let it hit us at the end of every play session?
IF that sounds like a bad idea then most likely Decay as a feature isn't necessary nor a great design/fit for the game.



The long version of why in my opinion Decay isn't an adequate/fitting feature/solution


-Too complex
If this was an AAA title then they could have afforded to put resources to make Decay work. But...
This is a small team trying to take on a massive project. What they don't need are complex systems which takes up a lot of resources.

-Too many exceptions
There is no simple rule which is easy to implement and follow. Instead this system design and all the balance fixes to make it more pallatable for the players all require programming, bug fixes and maintenance. The further we go the more exceptions are added on top. With many many more to come.
I'd prefer a KISS solution.

-Hard to explain
Try to understand Decay through reading the Player Instructions. You will most likely fail. This because it is really really hard explaining a very complex system with lots of exceptions. And if players have a hard time understanding how things work, especially with punative systems, then they will get upset and assume the worst. 'Hard to explain' then becomes an additional cost for the team through Manuals, Tutorials and of course Support.

-Doesn't solve the problem
Decay doesn't prevent dedicated players from having OP amounts of high skills. All it does is prevent players who "just want to have fun" from having the same opportunity.
Since death can be avoided/minimized then Decay does not mitigate the effects of XP exploits nor does it balance out the player base over time.
The only way for it to work as per the requirement was if the player couldn't avoid it.

-Decay rewards gaming the system
Those who don't understand it will be hurt most by it. While those who do understand it can minimize its effect. Since this is an ongoing process it becomes a multiplier between the minmaxers and the rest. Which is contrary to the stated goals of "20 normal boxers should be able to take down one olympian". (Which is why we have all the diminishing returns everywhere.) This is then compounded by the complexity.

-Progression loss feels like time lost
Since most of the character progression in this game is built around XP pools and skills then the connection between progression and time becomes clear to the player. When you then hit progression it will make the players feel like they have lost time. When they do it is very easy that the feeling becomes "this is a waste of time". That is really really really BAD for a game. When players feel that a gaming session was a waste of time then that is a reason to stop playing. Contrast this to the "just a little more" feeling which keeps players emotionally invested.

-Will never be perfect
Since it is too complex and regularly gets a negative player response. Then it is easy to look through the history of this feature's development and its progression and see that it will never be perfect. When you see that in a project it is time to say how much does this feature cost and can we get similar results from a cheaper simpler solution?
If you can chose between Option-A that solves 95% of your problem for a high resource cost, then you regularly will be better off with Option-B which solves 80% of your problem at a fraction of the resource cost. This since the resources can be used to create core value instead - in a game that would be "entertainment".

-Hurts progression if you play less than before
In gaming players will usually go through more active and less active phases. For games you want to make those less active phases still be rewarding so that when you again have more time/money you would be encouraged to use that on the game. But if you are high level and have been more active and had a high skill progression rate, but then become less active - decay will take you down to a lesser progression level.
This then again enforce that if you can't keep up that high progression rate you might as well stop playing until you can again. Plus it also discourages increasing your progression rate if you think you can't keep it up.

If you don't follow that reasoning then there is the example of old XP super gains. Chris has repeatedly told us that they don't worry much about the old XP super gains, since with the decay system such players will be brought down over time to levels which match their current gain. Now think about what that means if it wasn't a XP super gain like pets in control points, but rather a player spending their vacation in game having a much much higher progression rate than normal. They won't be able to keep that up so most of that extra progression will be lost over time - like tears in rain.

-Not Fun
Decay as a feature is not intended to add fun. Instead it is intended to prevent power-creep which could be a bane vs player balance. Which indirectly could affect fun.
However, there are several games in the genre which have power-creep prevention which does add some sense of fun.
As such I'd prefer either a system which is resource intensive but which adds fun, or one which is dirt cheap. Decay is neither.



I could easily do another 20 bullets here but I think that is enough to get the basics across.




Death Penalty should not hurt the feeling of progression

Yes, we need a death penalty that makes death meaningful and something that the player should seek to avoid. We do not want Death to be trivial.


But, we don't want such a penalty to make the player feel that progression is lost or that a session was a waste.
We can easily demonstrate that with an extreme example: If all quest progression would be lost upon avatar death and you'd have to restart them, do you think it would help or hurt player retention?


In this title lots of players equate skill gains through XP with progression. This since the UI and system clearly 'dings' us with all of our skill progression.


Meaningful but not hurtful Death Penalty

In my opinion there should be no XP nor skill loss upon death as long as they keep the XP pool and the use-based skill progression system.

Instead I think that the Death Penalty should be all material. Damage to gear and loss of loot.
This makes sense from inside the world and it would still feel OK from the player perspective. It gives that feeling of "Yes I died and lost something, but at least I got better at the same time".

As such I think that all loot gained in a scene should end up in one of those OracleStone-DeathContainer when you die. Which would be recoverable either by the player or by party members to the player. This would create that 'revenge' feeling where you instantly want to play more after death to recover your loot, instead of ending the play session. Even if it is just to run by everything and 'tap' the DeathContainer and then run all the way out.
(Of course there would be items marked as non-loot like quest items etc which you wouldn't lose in the scene-loot).



Diminishing Skill Progression

So if we don't have Decay as Death Penalty, then how do we prevent power-creep? ie that all players will eventually become best at everything?

Since this is not a key-feature then I would want something cheap. As in something which is relatively easy to code, easy to explain, as few bug vectors as possible and which sorta/kinda solves most of the requirement without a lot of maintenance.

My old proposal is to have an XP use multiplier, which is clearly visible in the skill UI, that is based on the number of high skills you have. If you hover on the multiplier it lists the skills that make up the multiplier so that you clearly see where the number comes from.

Thus the more top level skills you have the harder it becomes to raise top level skills.
>> Which is really easy concept, which makes it easier to program and easier to explain which means lower costs <<

Yes that means that there is no cap and that there is endless progression without regression - so yes that could potentially lead to OP players.
BUT my thought here is that IF we need to balance OP skills through diminishing returns anyway then we shouldn't have to have another system outside of that which needs ballancing as well.

This also means that players would always have a feeling of each session adding to their progression and that they are not stopped by the system arbitrarily.
Like if you have a grand big vacation and spend lots and lots of time on skill progression you'd get to keep that indefinately.

It would also make specialization much more desirable. You would not want to spread out into all trees too high.
(Yes I am aware that this means everyone should be offered those skill-to-xp resets if they so wanted).
This could also lead to a more "fun" feeling of min-maxing the build.

I'm thinking seperate multipliers for Adventure and Crafting.

Skill progression fake math and example
Lets assume apprentice <60, expert >60, master > 80, grandmaster > 100.

In my mind there are two exceptions
1) While the skill is "apprentice" the multiplier is not applied. So you can raise all skills to 59 without added cost.
2) Through Skill Trainer quests you can get ~3 Specialization skill trees which are excempt. They do not count vs the multiplier and the multiplier is not applied to them. (This is for both Adventuring and Crafting so you have to choose carefully for each character and thus crafting GM actually means something).

When you reach "expert" the multiplier is applied.

The multiplier should be a simple formula like
5% per expert
20% per master
50% per grandmaster


Example:
So if you have 10 expert, 5 masters and 2 grandmasters the multiplier would be 10*5+5*20+2*50= +250%.

Note that; Yes I think the lines should be that arbitrary so that the player can feel like they are cheating the system by stopping at 59 or 79 or 99. But I would want that offset by benefits gained precisely at those next levels.




Just my 2c.

 

+1 for your poll options being on point lol

 

I don't fully understand the problem that decay is suppose to be the answer to or decay itself. I've only really noticed it when pooling for skill again run.

I can see how confusing it would be for a new play to see skill levels or pool drop with no in game explanation. Once they reach out to the community for info, they get the simple explanation, start watching their pool more closely, and start getting scared to challenge themselves to more difficult areas.

Personally, I'd much rather see something that would decrease skill gain rather than removal of earned skill. Each death will cost %5 of your skill points earned over the next XX hours or it will extend a %20 reduction to skill gain by X hours. Maybe make the hours and %s take skill points into account. Something like that.

Again, I don't really understand the problem that decay is trying to solve. But, if it exists to deal with 1% of the players, 99% of players shouldn't even be able to notice.

 

Like many discussions and alternatives, this proposal mixes two concepts together, skill progression speed and death. They aren't' the same thing. Skill progression speed was put in to slow people from advancing to higher, god-like levels. That is the design goal, not to make death meaningful. Skill decay could can many game delivery system that it uses. It just so happens that it is delivered when you die. It could just as easily be delivered during continuous game play, when you log out, when you log in, when you visit the oracle, when you get the free xp that is meant to offset the feeling of xp decay, or any other time or way. It doesn't need to be tied to someone dieting.

So the real questions that should be debated are:

1) is it beneficial to allow the acquisition of skills to be unchecked, that people can have as many skills as they wish at whatever level they wish. That people who have more time to play or prefer to spend more time in combat should be more powerful than others?

2) if there is a desire to restrict how fast someone can progress and how many skills someone can have then how should they be restricted.

The devs have answered the first question as yes there should be restrictions. They have found hard caps wanting so they went looking for a different system. Decay was their answer.

So a deliver system was sought and after talking about it and weighing the pros and cons of different deliver systems, thought that death was a good balance for everyone's concerns; the people who preferred combat, those who prefer to explore, those who prefer social activities, and others. Does removing decay from death make it a better system? Not if you don't like decay. DDelivering it another way, make it a better system? Not if you don't like decay.

So the real questions is not death, the real questions are should skills be restricted and is decay a good way to restrict them.

Playing devils advovate for a bit here,.

How is the xp multiplier any easier to understand than the decay system? You still need to understand that not all your skills contribute to the multiplier, some do and some don!t but which one do and which ones don't. There are still levels of multipliers that someone needs to understand. I still need to understand that not all skill trees are equal, that only some trees count to the multiplier. thus adding two levels of consideration that the player needs to understand how the system works. And they need to understand that they can cheat the system by stopping at certain key points.

 

@that_shawn_guy, xp loss vey decay doesn't play into the decay dilemma. When someone is playing the game, skill advancement comes from the xp pool. The pool goes up and down based on the level of skills being trained and used. If you have to many skills being trained and those skills are being used a lot, lots of xp can be drained from the pool. If you are draining xp faster than you are gaining xp, the pool goes down. That just skill progression.

Decay was designed to solve,a different problem, how to prevent people from getting to to the top level skills, ie. slow down their skill progression rate, and how to restrict how many top level skills they can accumulate at one time. Decay was meant to prevent people from gathering an overwhelming number of top level skills by using xp loss and recovery. If the xp loss is high enough that people are spending to much time recovering that loss then they can balance their skill levels to make the loss less painful. This should lead to people deciding how many skills they want to gm, master, etc (whhennshouldntheynstop levelingnskills). At the same time it would allow those people with lots of play time to keep advancing skills by accepting higher xp loss but because of their extra playtime they are able to spend more time recovering their xp losses.

 

I agree in the sense that your logic for decay design is spot on. I however don't think its working in practice, nor do I personally think this is a fun way of doing it.

 

Thanks Spoon. Like always, you rock and provide more than expected!

I think this has been an underlying issue with decay, and why there isn't a quick solution to it.

Agreed, but that's been pitched by Chris in explaining why decay is done the way it is and what it is supposed to fix. In that context we are stuck trying to propose solutions that reflect those intentions.

THAT'S MY JOB!!! 8^p

One way is designing in game systems to tell the user this. You can have skill level (the proposed break down of apprentice, master, GM, or whatever etc.) reflected by different colors or show the titles that say their effect on experience gained and reductions (by hovering mouse over it or clearly saying it somewhere else). It would also be a static message. Still doesn't address the concern about skill trees not being equal, other than the direct aspect that skill trees don't matter at all and only total skills matter. But, its also a base system that would need to be fleshed out to see if it can be implemented better than what we currently have.

This can also be done with a message when getting ready to step up to the next level (though that's harder to implement than our current design, so not necessarily ideal either) by getting a popup or needing to go to a skill trainer to advance to the next tier and that explains the benefit and negative of attaining that tier.

 

@jiirc

I'm confused. Your reply either sounds like you didn't read through my post or as if it is an old response to a different discussion.

The proposal in the op specifically seperated the things you claim it conflates. Then it provides a proposed solution to them seperately.
Which was the whole point of the thing-power creep prevention shouldn't be tied to the a Death Penalty system since it hurts the feeling of progression.

Plus that the very thing you say we should discuss instead was covered in that wall of text.

 

Ah fun and working.

This statement, for me, brings things around to other fundamental question; how should the restriction be implemented. Is it more desirable to be punished in using a punch to the gut, as in the current decay mechanic that emphasizes loss? Or does it make more sense to make it appear that you are being rewarded by making it take longer for you to progressively advance? Where in this case you are taking longer to reach the goal, as opposed to getting there faster but taking a loss awhen you die (which gives you more control over when that loss is likely to happen).

On the other hand is decay preventing people from accumulating to many skills at the top end? That I'd have to answer with probably not. But I would guess that they'd have a lot more skills at gm or have a lot higher levels in skills than if this system wasn't in place. So, asssuming that restriction in levels and numbers is desirable, they have moved to try and balance that system by increasing higher end penalties for decay loss and flattening the curve for higher levels of skills. How successful they've been can only be speculated about as only the numbers will show success or failure, and a only they have the numbers.

 

I voted to remove Decay but, at the same time not use the proposed solution either. The reasoning behind it is that the proposed solution (unless I missed something) doesn't account for players who would "mold" their characters over time. I like the flexibility of gaining and losing skills to better match my play style without having the need to reset anything.

As someone who plays a lot of Roguelikes where permanent death (not that cheap "you died but you still keep some progress" crap) is a real threat, the biggest factor to what makes one Roguelike better than another is not what you lost upon death but the circumstances of the death itself.

If I clear a path to get to a dungeon and the stuff I cleared suddenly appears behind me while I'm still in combat, I'm going to feel cheated. It doesn't matter if you were to reward me for dying, it's a death that doesn't make sense and that I couldn't have accounted for. Spawn points should verify if players have cleared the area or not. It forces grinders to move to different areas in the scene, allows others the breathing room they need including role-players that may want to RP after killing a group of bandits (by the campfire)... it allows the death penalty to be as harsh as it needs to be without ruining the fun.

That is just one of many examples of how dying in a game like SotA can ruin an experience.

 

Still being the devil's surrogate here, those same principles can be applied to communicating the decay system to players. Better communication doesn't get to what I think is the bigger issue here, whether the system should outright punish you so that you know you are being punished, or whether the punishment is hidden behind a system that looks to be non-punishing, but is really punishing you in a different way, slowing down how fast you are progressing. The later doesn't appear as a punishment but as normal game play.

I'm not sure which style is more correct than the other, but they are different. And I'm sure players, and designers, have a preference for their one or the other. Or they just don't care.

 

That's because I believe it's the wrong discussion to be having. Your proposal makes an incorrect assumption, that decay is a death penalty and your proposal seems to extend from that extension. My post was intended to illustrate that as being an incorrect assumption and that decay has nothing to do with death, so the parts of the proposal that tie death to decay are meaningless.

Instead the proposal needs to be about decay and not the delivery mechanism; in the case of decay, death.

 

Very thoughtful OP

 

[QUOTE="Decay was designed to solve,a different problem, how to prevent people from getting to to the top level skills, ie. slow down their skill progression rate, and how to restrict how many top level skills they can accumulate at one time. Decay was meant to prevent people from gathering an overwhelming number of top level skills by using xp loss and recovery. [/QUOTE]

Is it doing that?

Does whatever positives it has balance with whatever negatives it creates?

BTW, Thanks for this conversation. Thought provoking comments all around.

 

Love the skill progression ideas! Very well thought out and informative!