XP Sharing

[MinotaurWarrior]

Option 1 is like Neverwinter Nights 2

Option 2 is like Dragon Age: Origins

Option 3 is like Baldur's Gate. In this system, the fewer characters are in the party, the more XP each of them gets.

 

Options 5 & 6 are like some PnP RPGs I've played. I don't think any CRPG has implemented them before, but I could be wrong.

 

I think this is one of the big issues that I've seen divide the old-school RPG crowd from newer games. Certainly it's not the biggest, but it's something I think a lot of us care about and would like to have our voices heard about.

 

Personally, I prefer option 3. It, together with the quirky 2nd Ed rules, created a more organic feeling, as different characters leveled up at different times. It also created a sort of seperation between my eternal companions, and the couple of slots I might switch NPCs in and out of. On a few play-throughs of the saga, I did fun quirky things like doing all the sidequests with a smaller party (My Cleric / Mage + Dyanheir and Minsc in BG 1, Me + Aerie and Minsc in BG 2), only using the fully party for the big story missions. When that happened, there was a clear gulf between my true companions, and my hirelings. Most importantly for some, this system allows for a greater balance between solo-play and party play, since the solo PC will reach higher levels faster.

 

 

IMPORTANT RELEVANT INFO: This game is only going to have, at maximum, three more copmanions than companion slots.

Edited September 19, 2012 by MinotaurWarrior

[Sensuki]

Baldur's Gate style, but with some kind of catch up mechanism for unused party members, at least like, within a certain level range.

 

(I think when you recruited some party members in BG1 they were level 5 rather than level 2, I think it was chapter based).

 

That way if you use less people, at least you get more experience.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Sensuki

[l3loodangel]

edit. misread the post sry.

Edited September 19, 2012 by l3loodangel

[Entropious]

A given character should only partake in Experience Points earned while he was actually a part of the effort. Let's not turn to some obscure notion of "being X levels behind just for the sake of convenienve".

[Gibbscape_Torment]

Option 1 or 2. Dear lord, having to grind up all my companions would be a complete nightmare.

[Lysen]

Voted for the first option. Baldur's Gate style sounds hardcore, but in fact it was more like a chore.

 

 

edit. misread the post sry.

 

I think it was the system used in all IE games, no? Don't remember, to be honest.

[Thraxen]

I'd like the characters to level up so that they're not too far behind whoever actually comes with you, but I'd like there to be a reason for it. Maybe seeing your companions training with each other, or maybe even training them yourself?

[HansKrSG]

I like how they did it in the IE games, so option 3 for me.

[Jarmo]

Voted for 1, assuming this will be a pretty much standard rpg.

But if you, say, have no XP points and improve your hit chance by hitting lots of enemies, then it's all for themselves.

 

It's not a major point anyway, probably.

In Bioware games, you'll only have a few people of a big party alongside for any given mission.

But here, you'll probably have everybody all the time ie, no "active party". So option 4 would be fine as well, or anything in between.

[Pangur]

I prefer option 1 or 2. Wouldn't want non-active companions to lag behind and become useless in the end.

[Jozape]

I prefer shared XP for the party, and no XP or leveling for unused companions. But I don't mind unused companions leveling all that much, as long as I get to choose their abilities when I first acquire them(assuming we can choose their upgrade path when leveling up, if not then doesn't matter).

 

Option 1 or 2. Dear lord, having to grind up all my companions would be a complete nightmare.

 

I've never done any grinding in any Black Isle or Obsidian title before. Is there a reason you feel compelled to grind levels for unused companions?

Edited September 19, 2012 by Jozape

[Infinitron]

The fun thing about option 3 is that you get the opportunity to "power level" low-level companions by taking them on a hunt for monsters that would normally be far too difficult for them.

[evdk]

The fun thing about option 3 is that you get the opportunity to "power level" low-level companions by taking them on a hunt for monsters that would normally be far too difficult for them.

If they survive.

[novander]

Option 1. With such a limited number of companions, I'd want them to provide a lot of world lore and plot hooks, so I'd want to be able to bring any of them with me at any point without feeling like they were dragging the party down.

[Gelp]

My main concern is that if unused characters stay at level 1, you'll have no incentive to EVER use them.

 

I don't want to necessarily be able to switch toons at the drop of a hat ala KOTOR, but I would like the ability to switch to a new character if I just ran across them. And if I try out that new character for a dungeon and see that they really don't mix well with my team, I want the chance to swap them out after that dungeon. I'd like it if I wasn't punished too horribly much for doing this.

[Jozape]

The fun thing about option 3 is that you get the opportunity to "power level" low-level companions by taking them on a hunt for monsters that would normally be far too difficult for them.

If they survive.

 

That's what makes it exciting!

 

Option 1. With such a limited number of companions, I'd want them to provide a lot of world lore and plot hooks, so I'd want to be able to bring any of them with me at any point without feeling like they were dragging the party down.

 

That's a fair point. On the other hand, the power curve of the game can be shallower than modern RPGs, and make additional levels exponentially harder to obtain, ensuring that nobody is too far behind the others. Especially if you're using everybody on a regular basis.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Jozape

[Blablachar]

3rd option naturally.

 

We decide on someone so we stick with the person. He dies or leaves- tough luck, we need to take care of some rookie and be extra carefull not to get him killed in further areas.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

In my opinion we should never have idle companions sitting in camp cooking food or something. As the game progresses, though, the paths to the same companion may cross a few times and he'll be the appropriate level for the area.

[Troller]

In my opinion we should never have idle companions sitting in camp cooking food or something. As the game progresses, though, the paths to the same companion may cross a few times and he'll be the appropriate level for the area.

Yeah man, they must have something else to do, not just wait to serve you

[dan107]

I say option one. I want to be able to switch companions in and out of my active party whenever I feel like it.

[dan107]

The fun thing about option 3 is that you get the opportunity to "power level" low-level companions by taking them on a hunt for monsters that would normally be far too difficult for them.

 

In other words meaningless grinding, killing random mobs for XP. Yep, fun, fun, fun.

[Darkpriest]

3rd option naturally.

 

We decide on someone so we stick with the person. He dies or leaves- tough luck, we need to take care of some rookie and be extra carefull not to get him killed in further areas.

 

It's not X-COM :D

 

TBH I think option 2 would be ok.

[Ulicus]

As long as I get to build my companions how I want and there's never any auto-levelling going on (including when they first join), I'm not really too bothered how EXP is distributed. Any of the first three options would suit me fine.

[Wintersong]

I prefer 3). Depending on how the game is done, the impact of possible housing and other details, being able to have the unused companions to do stuff that gives them some XP could be nice. Be it crafting, missions a la SWTOR or just paying them some training, those would be nice ways of having them to keep it up a bit. But having unused characters to be at the same level of used ones (or a minimum of X levels) just because is not what I would want. I know that there aren't that many companions but I want party composition decissions to matter.

[MReed]

I strongly prefer option #1. While it creates some serious consisistency problems (which should be completely ignore, IMO), it allows you to choose what companions are in the party based on story-based reasons, rather than simply "Chosing anyone else gimps my party". It would really suck to have a companion that you don't like (for whatever reason -- personality, class, skills, etc.) and discover in the late game that you vist that character's homeland and it is obvious there is loads of content for that character that you'd like to see. Anything that involves grinding is a terrible option for me.

 

On the other hand, this is may be a moot point: The # of companions and the maximum party size are close enough that most potential companions will be with you at all time. In fact, if the companions are introduced over the course of the game (vs. all at once, near the start), then by the first time that this issue could arise would be 2/3rds of the way through the game. If you choose to adventure with a 3 person party (when you have a total 5 companions avilable to choose from), then that's your choice, and it is completely reasonable to "punish" (by making the non-active companions lower level) that kind of behavior. But if you are in a situation where the party size cap is preventing you from bringing along everyone that you would like to bring along...