Skill leveling concern in Tyranny

[Archaven]

I read that Tyranny will be using a classless system. I can understand the reason for this as the main protagonist is some sort of executioner/inquisitor. So it doesn't fit to have a specific class.

However, i also read that it will also have a simplified skill leveling in Tyranny. This system is the same as Skyrim where you level your skill by performing/usage. Please hear me out, this is a bad system in my opinion. I would rather have the system where you have skill points gained during leveling and you can spend it on available skills.

In Skyrim, you can basically keep running or sprinting to increase your athleticism, keep blocking using your shield to increase your shield defense. this is the worst and most dumb down system ever if implemented incorrectly. have you heard that you sneak behind a horse, leave the game on and then go watch a movie, read the newspaper, have a cup of coffee and when you back voila!. sneak max level 100.

I'd like Obsidian to explain why they are going with this approach.

 

[trashmyego]

There's a vast difference between reading an article based on an early preview of a developer playing a crafted demo, and everything you described 'hearing' in your post. You didn't hear any of what you brought up as an issue. You defined a worst case scenario based on a mention of Elder Scroll's open class, skill gain based on use, progression system - something they mention in passing as an example of freedom vs. the typical level based, table top inspired leveling they used in Pillars of Eternity.

They also go into detail that you'll gain experience outside of combat, that it'll be tied to decisions and dialogue as much as it is to the blatant use of skills. Which makes it sound like there are overarching constraints placed on skill gain purely from use, that progression through quests and content will be required.

But I'm honestly just confused. Why would you assume Obsidian would release a game with systems easily abused like that? That's a hallmark example of Bethesda laziness. The continued support and tooling of Pillars of Eternity should tell you enough - they're not going to let anything undermine the game system they're crafting.

 

[Sacamano]

I read that Tyranny will be using a classless system. I can understand the reason for this as the main protagonist is some sort of executioner/inquisitor. So it doesn't fit to have a specific class.

However, i also read that it will also have a simplified skill leveling in Tyranny. This system is the same as Skyrim where you level your skill by performing/usage. Please hear me out, this is a bad system in my opinion. I would rather have the system where you have skill points gained during leveling and you can spend it on available skills.

In Skyrim, you can basically keep running or sprinting to increase your athleticism, keep blocking using your shield to increase your shield defense. this is the worst and most dumb down system ever if implemented incorrectly. have you heard that you sneak behind a horse, leave the game on and then go watch a movie, read the newspaper, have a cup of coffee and when you back voila!. sneak max level 100.

I'd like Obsidian to explain why they are going with this approach.

I like this type of leveling progression. I find it much more immersive. You know how when you do something you get better at it? I love that in an RPG. Its the players choice to exploit the system (if its exploitable). But when I play a game I want to be immersed and have fun, not spend my time cheesing the system. Even if that cheesing occurs while I'm AFK, I can't imagine a scenario where I'd do that.

 

[Silfae]

The dinamic progression has its advantages, but I don't like the fact that it allows players to eventually be proficient in everything, as it happens in Skyrim. Or that, not having checks on classes, the NPCs can hardly react differently whether they're talking to a mage or a barbarian.

 

[Sacamano]

The dinamic progression has its advantages, but I don't like the fact that it allows players to eventually be proficient in everything, as it happens in Skyrim. Or that, not having checks on classes, the NPCs can hardly react differently whether they're talking to a mage or a barbarian.

I agree with you there. There might be a cap on certain skills or a rate of deterioration. Say I have a Sword rating of 100 and now I want to learn Fire magic (making shit up here), if I don't keep up with my Swording practice my proficiency will go down.

Class checks can be done with this more open system too. Certain skills will make it obvious to others what you are like. Do a lot of manual labor, it shows. Stay inside and read all day, that shows too. Those 'skills' can and should influence NPC interaction too.

There can be mechanisms to prevent cheesing the system and making the system more immersive and impactful.

 

[illathid]

The dinamic progression has its advantages, but I don't like the fact that it allows players to eventually be proficient in everything, as it happens in Skyrim. Or that, not having checks on classes, the NPCs can hardly react differently whether they're talking to a mage or a barbarian.

There's different ways to keep that from being an issue. You could make skills deteriorate over time, or make it a zero-sum system (Going up in one skill decreases you abilities in other skills).

Obsidian is pretty good at skill/attribute checks too, so I'm not worried about that.

 

[KorTeX]

Got me worried too.
Though the game's bound to have good c&c it seems, so I'm still pumped.
Although read somewhere the playthrough would be around 20hrs long (which is fine if the game delivers in the c&c department), which means that the system can't really work like Skyrim, which revolves around long playtime to become really silly.

 

[Nyrael]

The dinamic progression has its advantages, but I don't like the fact that it allows players to eventually be proficient in everything, as it happens in Skyrim.

Skyrim's leveling drastically slows down as you gain higher levels. Even if you powerplay and abuse the system, you eventually become unable to get more perks. So you won't be proficient in everything ("Legendary Skills" changed some stuff, but if you use that subsystem then you are not the type of player who cares about immersion in the first place).

What I want to say is: Obsidian can easily make restrictions if they want to. You can harshen up the restrictions that were like in Skyrim, but you can also add brand new ones. Additionally, Obsidian's playthroughs don't last nearly as long as Bethesda games' do so that is another problem in getting high amounts of proficiency without power-playing.

Or that, not having checks on classes, the NPCs can hardly react differently whether they're talking to a mage or a barbarian.

Other checks can be used to have NPCs react differently, like checking your skills, your allegiances, your past actions, etc.

 

[Silfae]

I know that other checks can be made, both to avoid reaching the status of universal super-class and to make NPCs treat different proficiencies differently, but that is usually not the case in practice.
Sure, if Obsidian did it so, it would probably be the ideal solution, but, by empirical data, when a game has "build your own class", it usually means no recognition of preferred skillset by the roleplayed part of the game.

 

[trashmyego]

I know that other checks can be made, both to avoid reaching the status of universal super-class and to make NPCs treat different proficiencies differently, but that is usually not the case in practice.
Sure, if Obsidian did it so, it would probably be the ideal solution, but, by empirical data, when a game has "build your own class", it usually means no recognition of preferred skillset by the roleplayed part of the game.

You can bring up 'empirical data,' but you're also ignoring the mention that skills will also be improved outside of combat and use through dialogue and completion of content. That'd point to recognition and integration of said skills throughout the role playing parts of the game, actually pointing to them being pretty damn integral to the whole operation.

 

[Silfae]

That's promising, but not necessarely the case. Having a special ability being unlocked after a specific quest is one thing, have it brought up that you are a "mage" as a consequence of having spent more effort on magic abilities than on any other thing by NPCs, and, as a result, having a specific plot proceed in a different way, is a completely different thing.

 

[Archaven]

I agree with you there. There might be a cap on certain skills or a rate of deterioration. Say I have a Sword rating of 100 and now I want to learn Fire magic (making shit up here), if I don't keep up with my Swording practice my proficiency will go down.

Class checks can be done with this more open system too. Certain skills will make it obvious to others what you are like. Do a lot of manual labor, it shows. Stay inside and read all day, that shows too. Those 'skills' can and should influence NPC interaction too.

There can be mechanisms to prevent cheesing the system and making the system more immersive and impactful.

If that's the case, why go with this rubbish progression system? This is really a dumbed down mechanics. Sooner they will follow path like what Bioware is heading? Where attributes is no longer to be "concerned" by players and it just happened automatically? It seems i'm seeing Obsidian heading that direction. And what's worst, the game became non tactical and an action game at best with 8 ability limit. Which i really hope not.

 

[Silfae]

I don't know if we can go that far, considering the little information we have now.
Besides, it is an isometric game, it's unlikely to turn into an action game, at worst it'd devolve into a hack&slash.

 

[Archaven]

I don't know if we can go that far, considering the little information we have now.
Besides, it is an isometric game, it's unlikely to turn into an action game, at worst it'd devolve into a hack&slash.

You are right. I can't wait to have more information about it. But if they have mentioned about this progression, you don't need a genius to tell you how it will flop. If they meant to control the progression by content where you can't simply achieve max skill level by abusing the system, might as well just go the conventional way where you can allocate the skillpoints yourself? This way it will be more clear and you can actually see those stats yourself in the character stats page? Are they going hide that stats now where you have no way to tell your skill progression level?

Anyway i love what they revealed that you gained equal rewards for either options you choose. That is you can resolve a situation by the dialogue options and still gained equal experience or reward. Rather than the "combat" way. However, i'd much prefer combat personally because that's one reason i played a tactical RPG. Not only for the xp but also the loot.

 

[Silfae]

Anyway i love what they revealed that you gained equal rewards for either options you choose. That is you can resolve a situation by the dialogue options and still gained equal experience or reward.

Yes, this is a good thing; it is something Obsidian does, already in New Vegas there were a lot of situations that could be solved through persuasion, intimidation and the like. In most RPGs the diplomatic aspect only works to gain advantage before a fight or to obtain a greater reward for a mission, but rarely to actually influence the resolution of a quest.

 

[Archaven]

Yes, this is a good thing; it is something Obsidian does, already in New Vegas there were a lot of situations that could be solved through persuasion, intimidation and the like. In most RPGs the diplomatic aspect only works to gain advantage before a fight or to obtain a greater reward for a mission, but rarely to actually influence the resolution of a quest.

Most of the time this is also boils down to the skillpoints and to roll chance of success. Which i don't think that's really a good options in resolving the matter. The smart way would be the players will have an early chance to get to know this character (his/her behavior) and they with higher stats like Intimidation/Persuasion, player can be given more dialogue choices. However, only the right choices of the dialogue can only resolve the issue. I'm not sure of what other better options if you asked me.

If you still have to roll a chance with higher persuasion/intimidation skill on a dialogue i think that's not a very good sytem. It basically depends on luck or chance to persuade/intimidate. Which is not really by the dialogue you choose. What do you think?

 

[Silfae]

I agree. Besides, in an RPG you could easily savescum, so a bad dice can just translate into a temporary nuisance.
There is also to be said that in New Vegas there was no saving throw, it was a fixed cap, so a particular alternative option could require, say, 50 Speech, it would become accessible if the player had increased his Speech skill to 50 or above, otherwise it could not be taken.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

In Skyrim, you can basically keep running or sprinting to increase your athleticism, keep blocking using your shield to increase your shield defense. this is the worst and most dumb down system ever if implemented incorrectly. have you heard that you sneak behind a horse, leave the game on and then go watch a movie, read the newspaper, have a cup of coffee and when you back voila!. sneak max level 100.

That's an exploit, so not really a legitimate concern. I think it is fair to assume that the devs should focus on those who play by the game's rules rather than those who actively choose not to.

Plus tying skills to levels can just as easily be gamed inappropriately. Going back to your example, I can grind something easy to level up and then use those points to level something unrelated.

What I like about the Elder Scrolls system is that if I want to be a good sword fighter I need to, and hold onto your hat for this, fight... with swords. So in your scenario yes, the game breaker would have an amazing sneak skill, but so what? It will actually make the game harder for them. They've gained ten levels on their character without once increasing a skill beside sneak. They still can't fight, they still can't defend, their magic is still weak; but the enemies in Skrim level with your over-all level, so they've gotten much, much stronger over-all. It's not like draugr level up their crafting or diplomacy skills.

 

[Archaven]

That's an exploit, so not really a legitimate concern. I think it is fair to assume that the devs should focus on those who play by the game's rules rather than those who actively choose not to.

Plus tying skills to levels can just as easily be gamed inappropriately. Going back to your example, I can grind something easy to level up and then use those points to level something unrelated.

What I like about the Elder Scrolls system is that if I want to be a good sword fighter I need to, and hold onto your hat for this, fight... with swords. So in your scenario yes, the game breaker would have an amazing sneak skill, but so what? It will actually make the game harder for them. They've gained ten levels on their character without once increasing a skill beside sneak. They still can't fight, they still can't defend, their magic is still weak; but the enemies in Skrim level with your over-all level, so they've gotten much, much stronger over-all. It's not like draugr level up their crafting or diplomacy skills.

You gained mostly x skill points per level up. Tell me how you going to grind infinitely when most game has a level cap and you can only gain x amount of skill points and capped level? Also, most games worked that each level the xp points required for next level increased exponentially. Plus most smart devs will reduce xp gained from overleveled foes to 1xp. Please at least provide some supporting facts in your discussion.

The problem with ES system already well explained. Maybe you need to re-read and understand the issue there. Plus the system you mentioned can already be done similarly with skillpoints. You want to be good at swords, upon levelling you assign a skill points to it. It's very clear cut. Compared to you need to grind more if in performance/usage system. As i see how it would be control would be making it as an XP requirement to level the "bar". For example you are now at Level 10 at Sword skill. You can only see the bar and waiting it to fill up to Level 11. But you may not know it probably requires triple the requirement from Level 10. But this can be bypassed if there's by abusing the system if there's a mechanic that you are able to abuse.

 

[illathid]

You gained mostly x skill points per level up. Tell me how you going to grind infinitely when most game has a level cap and you can only gain x amount of skill points and capped level? Also, most games worked that each level the xp points required for next level increased exponentially. Plus most smart devs will reduce xp gained from overleveled foes to 1xp. Please at least provide some supporting facts in your discussion.

The problem with ES system already well explained. Maybe you need to re-read and understand the issue there. Plus the system you mentioned can already be done similarly with skillpoints. You want to be good at swords, upon levelling you assign a skill points to it. It's very clear cut. Compared to you need to grind more if in performance/usage system. As i see how it would be control would be making it as an XP requirement to level the "bar". For example you are now at Level 10 at Sword skill. You can only see the bar and waiting it to fill up to Level 11. But you may not know it probably requires triple the requirement from Level 10. But this can be bypassed if there's by abusing the system if there's a mechanic that you are able to abuse.

Just because some have done the mechanics poorly doesn't mean they will always be bad. For instance, every time you level up one skill it could decrease some or all of the other skills.

Really until we know more, there's no use in complaining about how it works.