Chade on 23/6/2013 at 12:12
Immersion and player agency are different things, and we shouldn't get them mixed up.
Regarding immersion, as I said originally, I am sympathetic to the argument that we shouldn't have these external motivators in thief. Well, not ones that are so far removed from the game's fiction anyway.
Regarding player agency, to say that headshots are guiding players down a specific path similar to chandeliers or rope arrow points ... that's not right. The headshot mechanic is one of many reproducible mechanics with consistent behaviour everywhere they occur. The player will be dealing with different combinations of these mechanics in many different situations. The player agency here is the way the player can stand back and consider all the different mechanics in one situation and consider the tools at his/her disposal, and how these can interact to get the outcome he/she wants.
It's very different to some ad-hoc trap designed to be used in one specific way at one specific place.
EDIT:
Replying to the second part of your post that you edited while I was writing this post ...
That's right, that all makes sense. The part of your suggestion that I objected to is the suggestion that the player can't rely on sniping behaving in a particular way. They should be able to make a plan and know more or less what the consequences will be. Less so in actual combat, which is meant to be a bit chaotic.
Starker on 23/6/2013 at 12:39
Quote Posted by Chade
Regarding player agency, to say that headshots are guiding players down a specific path similar to chandeliers or rope arrow points ... that's not right. The headshot mechanic is one of many reproducible mechanics with consistent behaviour everywhere they occur. The player will be dealing with different combinations of these mechanics in many different situations. The player agency here is the way the player can stand back and consider all the different mechanics in one situation and consider the tools at his/her disposal, and how these can interact to get the outcome he/she wants.
In my experience, players will go the optimal route. When headhots give XP, players will try to get a headshot each time they shoot a guard.
Chade on 23/6/2013 at 13:27
When you say headshotting is the optimal route, you mean optimal compared to shooting the guard in the body, I assume.
In general, headshotting is a risk/reward tradeoff. You are less likely to hit the guard at all, but if you do hit him you are oing to do more damage. Let's also assume for the sake of argument that you are right: the extra rewards for headshotting are powerfull enough that no-one in their right mind would aim at a guard's body.
Firstly, this still ties into player agency. The player has to consider the chance of failing to get a headshot when choosing what to do.
Secondly, I played thief for a long time believing that headshots existed, always trying to go for a headshot whenever I chose to snipe a guard. IMO it doesn't spoil the game in any way.
Technically it's also possible that some vantage points could allow headshots while others wouldn't, but in practice I suppose it's pretty unusual to see a guard's body and/or legs but not his face.
heywood on 23/6/2013 at 14:32
I'm more worried that the game is going to give maximum XP for doing non-lethal takedowns, so people will abuse the hell out of them and then complain about how they didn't like the 3rd person takedown animations.
Also, giving XP for killing and/or knocking out guards will discourage people from trying to ghost.
When the XP system rewards players for using certain abilities & tools, they will tend to overuse them rather than learning the best ability or tool for each situation or doing whatever feels most immersive.
SubJeff on 23/6/2013 at 14:36
I agree on spamming the takedowns for XP. But then you could spam anything for XP I suppose, depending on whether doing that thing was useful to you or not.
I wonder how they are going to balance things like XP for 3rd person takedowns vs other non-lethal takedowns, arrow vs slingshot or thrown item takedowns/headshots/hits and so on.
heywood on 23/6/2013 at 14:43
The game shouldn't award XP for using any of the above. First, it's not an RPG. But even in an RPG, XP should only be awarded for completing quests, accomplishing objectives, discovering areas, etc. If you start awarding XP based on the how (kills, takedowns, hacks, etc.) then players will spam for it.
In a Thief game, players shouldn't feel they need to take out every guard (lethal or not). These XP bonuses discourage sneaking.
Starker on 23/6/2013 at 16:26
Quote Posted by Chade
Firstly, this still ties into player agency. The player has to consider the chance of failing to get a headshot when choosing what to do.
No, the player can't fail. At least not easily. When the reticle turns red you get a headshot.
None of this justifies giving XP for this very specific action, though. Like it has been pointed out in this thread, killing is already rewarded in Thief, so why should there be further incentives for it?
My position on this is that it hurts immersion by taking away from the simulation aspect of the game, it dehumanises guards by making them into XP dispensers, and it is thematically inappropriate for a Thief game where violence <s>is</s> used to be the mark of amateurs and murderers.
Chade on 23/6/2013 at 21:27
Quote Posted by heywood
I'm more worried that the game is going to give maximum XP for doing non-lethal takedowns, so people will abuse the hell out of them and then complain about how they didn't like the 3rd person takedown animations.
Also, giving XP for killing and/or knocking out guards will discourage people from trying to ghost.
It's not like DX:HR though, you don't have to do a 3rd person takedown to blackjack people.
I was worried about ghosting, but apparently you get XP bonuses at the end of each mission depending on how stealthy and/or non-lethal you were, so while I can't say that ghosting is definitely encouraged, I can say that they have all the elements required to easily reward ghosting if they want to.
Quote Posted by heywood
When the XP system rewards players for using certain abilities & tools, they will tend to overuse them rather than learning the best ability or tool for each situation or doing whatever feels most immersive.
True to an extent, although at the end of the day, immersion is a state of mind, not a particular set of features in the game. For instance, I've been dreadfully immersed in Morrowind (I remember one instance many years ago when I stopped playing and went outside and was genuinely surprised to see that it wasn't raining), even while doing all sorts of horrible things to maximize my xp.
Quote Posted by Starker
No, the player can't fail. At least not easily. When the reticle turns red you get a headshot.
Eh? Source?
And I expect the incentive to work in the opposite direction ...
Starker on 23/6/2013 at 22:19
Quote Posted by Chade
Eh? Source?
It's one of those focus thingies. You can see it in gameplay videos. When the reticle hovers over the guard's head it turns red. The player won't have to worry about things like distance and flight arc. Just point and fire.
Quote Posted by Chade
And I expect the incentive to work in the opposite direction ...
Why offer an extra incentive in the first place?
Chade on 23/6/2013 at 22:29
I thought the focus assist might be what you were referring to. You might also notice that it burned through >= 10% of his focus resource.
As to why offer xp at all, well, firstly I'm not claiming that the "feel good" part of it is completely irrelevant or just some accident. Of course they want that, as well as similar feel good moments for other actions. Secondly, there is an important balancing act to get right. The "minimum amount of xp per guard" is an important part of the ratio between "min amount of xp" and "max amount of xp" per level. Of course we don't know that ratio is yet, but whatever it is, that's the maximum amount you can get punished for playing "wrong".
