Current Events > Problem: How do you stop a player from re-loading when stealing from an NPC?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Pancake posted...

with the moogle charm, i'd put it in a spot where the player would have proven that nothing in the game is going to kill them. the ideal spot (i think) is on top of the fanatics' tower. rewards like this are better if you can get to them early if you're really good; otherwise it's like the wyrmhero blade in ffxii.

That's akin to invincibility being unlocked by doing a no-damage run.

DevsBro posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

Your thoughts? Yes you could just go by the honour system, but remember if the game allows you to do it, the mass percentage of the population will do it if it makes it easier.

If thats how people want to play Id let them

Yeah but you also want to encourage players to play the fun way do they will enjoy your game instead of doing it the stupid repetetive way that makes sure they get every possible potion in the game.

It's up to the player to decide what they find fun.
---

That's akin to invincibility being unlocked by doing a no-damage run.

imagine that in a souls game. that'd be kinda awesome actually.

like it gives you a ring that makes you invincible so long as you're not involved in anything online. maybe it's even offline-mode-only or something like that, so you don't suddenly lose your invincibility in a pack of enemies that you're letting bat you around.

It's up to the player to decide what they find fun.

true, but it's up to the creator to make arguments for different playstyles.
---

Nah, we're looking at the whole thing backwards.

If the player is allowed to save anywhere (which not every game needs to allow, but that's a whole nother topic), the player should totally be allowed to save scum without punishment.

The right way to look at the question is how do you design a game where save scumming isn't an appealing option.

If a RNG causes you to permanently miss/lose stuff, you really can't blame players for wanting to save and reload. If you try to take that capability away or punish it, you're channeling them into the headache they were trying to avoid.

How about you just don't make a game where players feel screwed over all the time, and maybe they'll have fun playing it instead of trying to find a workaround for the BS.
---

Pancake posted...

It's up to the player to decide what they find fun.

true, but it's up to the creator to make arguments for different playstyles.

The player tells them to fuck off and let them play the game in the way they want [single player games] - if the devs then tries to patch things in to restrict that then the dev should prepare to run the risk of loosing out on future patronage.

They can certainly make design arguments and decisions prior to release. Once it's out there though, [and in relation to single player games] they ought to fuck off and let the player enjoy it how they want to without interference or clamping down on the player's enjoyment.
---

They can certainly make design arguments and decisions prior to release. Once it's out there though, [and in relation to single player games] they ought to fuck off and let the player enjoy it how they want to without interference or clamping down on the player's enjoyment.

i'm not arguing for that. what i mean, is: they need to make different choices in-game visibly viable. if you want players running around with a certain weapon type, give them a nice example somewhere. stuff like that.

a big part is a player's first brush with combat. if you give them a shield, they'll think they're expected to sit behind it.
---

Hicks233 posted...

Once it's out there though, [and in relation to single player games] they ought to fuck off and let the player enjoy it how they want to without interference or clamping down on the player's enjoyment.

games are fun because they exist within a certain set of rules

a dev deciding to prohibit savescumming in some manner does not seem any more invasive to me than a dev deciding not to include invicibility or flight or etc codes in their game
---

kirbymuncher posted...

Hicks233 posted...

Once it's out there though, [and in relation to single player games] they ought to fuck off and let the player enjoy it how they want to without interference or clamping down on the player's enjoyment.

games are fun because they exist within a certain set of rules

a dev deciding to prohibit savescumming in some manner does not seem any more invasive to me than a dev deciding not to include invicibility or flight or etc codes in their game

I wouldn't say it's directly on topic, but yeah, I'm fine with exploit/bug fixes, and buffs and nerfs even on single player games.
---