FO:NV

[Spider]

If a pure action RPG like Space Siege can get away with quest only XP, I don't see how a game like FO:NV can't.

 

(although Space Siege was an awful game, it's awfullness had nothing to do with how XP was handed out. Just everything else)

[HoonDing]

No more XP for killing is alright, as long as the "ka-ching!" sound that accompanies it is not removed.

[213374U]

But some creatures are so impressive than gaining nothing from beating them would feel really disappointing! No XP for beating Firkraag or Gaax? You've got to be kidding!

The question is why are you fighting those bosses in the first place? In Kangaxx's case, you get his ring. That should be reward enough. But you have also completed the quest that involves restoring him. You aren't being awarded XP just for finishing him off. It's the same with Firkraag.

 

If you just attack everything in sight, I don't see why you should be rewarded, as that promotes metagaming instead of roleplaying.

 

 

Again in FO3, there no other options other than killing

That is simply not true. It's just that it's usually more rewarding (in both XP and loot) to murder everything and everyone. Edited September 7, 2009 by 213374U

[J.E. Sawyer]

If developer doesn

[Bos_hybrid]

It's intolerable in "non-RPGs" but somehow accepted in RPGs because RPG gamers have an amazing tolerance for terrible mechanics.

 

 

I don't think I've ever heard a dev use 'RPG gamers and tolerance' in the same sentence.

[Aristes]

I think folks who play RPGs are used to scanning their character in order to maximize their build. It's not like an FPS where you get what weapons you find wherever the design team decided to dole them out in the game. The variables involved in maxing exp gain are not all that different than decisions regarding stat attribution, skill points, and perks. In other words, min/maxers are naturally inclined to treat combat exp the same way they do other things in the game. That's the real problem. It's become a minigame. In games like WoW, I used to level up to the final level or two by kill exp only because I knew that they'd changed it soon after Burning Crusade so that you received gold rewards in lieu of experience once you'd maxed out your level. I'm simply trying to take full advantage of the game mechanics. That's how we're conditioned to treat games.

 

Most of us here probably do play other types of games. I don't fret over as many trivial things in an FPS because, frankly, there isn't much point. I guess you could either scour every inch or use a walkthrough to find weapons at the earliest possible opportunity, but it's not as important because, unless the design team put a super uber weapon waaaay ahead of where you'd normally find it, it doesn't make much difference. I think players hate the idea of not getting kill exp, but many of them would actually learn the new quirks of the game and adapt very easily. They'd still try to exploit things as best they could, but it would have to be easier on the design team at least.

 

Of course, I've already shamed myself by admitting that I enjoyed Fallout 3 quite a bit. Even so, I still prefer quest only experience. The kill exp isn't what made Fallout 3 fun for me. Exploring did, and I could wander the waste with or without getting kill exp. I might have to do more quests, but I think the nature of the wasteland allows for 'quests' of some sort to fall in the areas that the PC wanders and be a perfectly legitimate excuse to dole out a bit of exp. The player might not even realize the experience he gets for accomplishing something in an outlying area is 'quest experience.'

[bhlaab]

If developer doesn

[Kjarista]

Player attachment to XP for kills is one of the most baffling phenomena of RPG traditions. It makes me wonder how people are able to play "non RPGs" where you don't get XP for killing things.

 

EXP for killing mobs is part of the explore dynamic. If I am exploring, I'm going to come across (random or otherwise) mobs that need to either be bypassed or killed. I'd like to get EXP for killing these mobs. It doesn't need to be huge amounts of EXP, but there should be some. If there is no exploring, then perhaps I can see limiting the impact of grinding.

 

As far as breaking the game by providing too much potential for EXP, I would submit that some percentage of players will find a way to break the game by abusing systems and min/maxing. It would be difficult and probably counterproductive to cater to these outliers, especially if the cure is worse than the symptom. FO3 is, in large part an exploration game. I've level capped solely on explore EXP and killing mobs, with absolutely no quests completed, and it turned out to be a highly enjoyable play-through. Killing mobs in FO3 does dramatically increase the velocity of leveling, but it's not like leveling on huge quest rewards is any slower.

 

Remove mob-kill EXP and you shut down explore based gameplay. But then again, I've not played any Obsidian games. How much exploring opportunities are there in Obsidian games?

[entrerix]

I like this: by following slowtrains suggestion of just rewarding the ends rather than the means, it opens up stealth and persuasion as equally viable methods for resolving conflicts. killing enemies should not be a faster way to improve your character than choosing a stealth route. big amounts xp for killing enemies is punishment to the non combat character. I am ok, as I said before, with token amounts of xp for kills, just so that if you're forced to kill, you feel some form of reward for it. then again, in a proper game there wouldnt be so much freely available ammo, so kills would be rewarded with gear, which ought to be plenty enough incentive to go the combat route even if there was no good xp reward for it

Edited September 7, 2009 by entrerix

[Spider]

Remove mob-kill EXP and you shut down explore based gameplay. But then again, I've not played any Obsidian games. How much exploring opportunities are there in Obsidian games?

 

So I take it you don't like exploring in Bethesda games then (other thanFO3).

 

I couldn't disagree more, by the way. There is nothing in quest only xp that hampers exploring based gameplay. Quite the opposite. If you only award XP for accomplishments, I'll be much more inspired to run around and find every quest I can.

 

you could also award XP for finding places and similar. I just don't think one type of character build should get a premium on XP. If I like to play a stealth based character, why should I be punished with fewer XP just because I chose to avoid monsters rather than fight them? If I can talk enemies into not killing me, should I be less rewarded than someone who just kills them? I don't see why combat focused characters should get more XP compared to builds that try to avoid fighting.

[Malcador]

Could always grant XP for exploring, like Deus Ex I guess. Would be interesting to balance gains from sneaking with killing and talking.

[213374U]

Remove mob-kill EXP and you shut down explore based gameplay.

What? No.

 

Remove mob-kill EXP and you shut down grinding. Exploring is about finding new places, not new mobs to kill (and benefit from the XP that nets you). You still get loot, too.

 

It's been explained before. Combat XP punishes players that do not wish to play combat-focused characters, in a genre that does not necessarily revolve around combat. It's unfair to non-grinders.

 

edit: posted before reading Spider's post. He beat me to the punch.

Edited September 7, 2009 by 213374U

[bhlaab]

Would be interesting to balance gains from sneaking with killing and talking.

 

You could get more xp for a stealth kill than a regular kill.

 

For pacifist thief characters, it's a bit trickier since you can't reward xp for not doing anything. Vampire Bloodlines had the right idea, where you'd be rewarded with a bonus by the Prince if you didn't turn the mission into a bloodbath.

Also things like, if you're in a dungeon and the alarms start going off some paths are blocked so you have more opportunities for loot and xp if you stay unseen.

[jero cvmi]

damn, i read this discussion and now i'm hooked on Bloodlines again

 

I think not rewarding non-boss kills with XP in Bloodlines also has to do with VtM progression system. There is no levelling and the XP points you get can be attributed directly as skill points. Since you can have at most 5 points per skill, XP points throughout the game have to be scarce.

It would be a huge change to the SPECIAL system, but I think it would be interesting to play a Fallout game without levelling, where all progression, perks skills and all, is tied directly to quests you've done and locations you've visited.

 

In most RPGs i've played (well pretty much all of them apart from Bloodlines), the inbalance between XPs from killing and other kind of XPs comes from the fact that enemies are SO DAMN MANY. And sometimes they RESPAWN. Fallout 3 is the extreme example of this: While there is a certain, finite number of quests to do, locks and pockets to pick, terminals to hack, things to fix etc. tied to every location, on the other hand you can just run around in circles in the wastes and kill rats FOREVER. The result is that even if you try to do everything in the game that doesn't require killing, the vast majority of your XPs still comes from killing the hords of random creatures you meet on your way.

 

The classic Fallouts also had this problem, where you had to face countless enemies in random encounters. That was somewhat balanced by the scarcity of ammo and supplies, which made you think twice before leaving town. On a sidenote, scarcity is an important thing for a wasteland setting.

 

I'd rather have XP reward for everything you do that involves using a skill -including fighting, and more scarce ammo and supplies, and just a fixed number of non respawning enemies in and around every location. Different gameplay styles would be rewarded more fairly that way.

[Tagaziel]

There was a small discussion about this on NMA some time ago.

 

Fallout 2 did a pretty good job at reducing grinding, as you could get somewhere around 12-15 levels of experience on quests and minor killing.

 

I think that completely removing mob kill experience is a bit too much. I'd rather see the concept of "improvement through practice" from Wasteland return (NOT Morrowind or Oblivion, just so we're clear). For those who do not remember, apart from increasing your skill level in libraries, you could also increase your skill level by practicing, like shooting Brother Goliath with various guns or repeating skill checks (the skylights in Quartz).

 

It would need a fair bit of balancing, but in the end, a player who likes fighting is still getting rewarded (his fighting skills gradually improve) while non-combat characters aren't penalized with reduced experience gain (and can also raise their skills gradually by exercising their talents: barter, speech, outdoorsman etc.).

 

Last, Mr Sawyer, Obsidian is not on our "People To Terrorize" list.

[bhlaab]

Would be interesting to balance gains from sneaking with killing and talking.

 

You could get more xp for a stealth kill than a regular kill.

 

For pacifist thief characters, it's a bit trickier since you can't reward xp for not doing anything. Vampire Bloodlines had the right idea, where you'd be rewarded with a bonus by the Prince if you didn't turn the mission into a bloodbath.

Also things like, if you're in a dungeon and the alarms start going off some paths are blocked so you have more opportunities for loot and xp if you stay unseen.

 

Actually, now that I recall, Vampire Bloodlines had the wrong idea about it sometimes.

 

I played a firearms/stealth character and it quickly became apparent that there was no reason to ever use my firearms skill aside from forced boss encounters. The ammo costs money, the game becomes more difficult if you alert everyone, and you don't get an xp reward for those tradeoffs.

[Slowtrain]

The classic Fallouts also had this problem, where you had to face countless enemies in random encounters.

 

Fallout 1 isn't even in the same league with Fallout 3 as far as quantity of combat goes. Yes, Fallout 1 had a few major all-out fights if the palyer wanted them (Set in NEcropolis and the Khans for example) and some smaller setpiece battles (Mutants at the watershed, Brotherhood rescue in the Hub) but they were ALL optional. The amount of combat that turned up in random encounters while wandering the wastes was nothing even close to Fallout 3.

 

 

Fallout 3 plays like a shooter, not an rpg.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Slowtrain

[Oner]

The amount of combat that turned up in random encounters while wandering the wastes was nothing even close to Fallout 3.

 

 

Fallout 3 plays like a shooter, not an rpg.

Interesting, I barely met enemies. I mean there were relatively many encounters, but mostly it was 1-1 robot or scorpion, sometimes 3 scorps or a few raiders.

[Slowtrain]

The amount of combat that turned up in random encounters while wandering the wastes was nothing even close to Fallout 3.

 

 

Fallout 3 plays like a shooter, not an rpg.

Interesting, I barely met enemies. I mean there were relatively many encounters, but mostly it was 1-1 robot or scorpion, sometimes 3 scorps or a few raiders.

 

 

Doing what, playing FO3?

 

I dunno. I suppose if you spend all you time fast traveling you won't meet as many since fast travel is basically a freebie ride to anywhere.

 

But once you get somewhere? Every location is jam packed with more enemies then you can shake a stick at.

[Aristes]

Sometimes reading the die hards makes me chuckle. If FO:NV comes out and is just a copy of FO3, I'd enjoy it. Yeah, I would like to see some changes. I'd like some big changes. ...But the FO 1/2 mantra is just plain funny.

 

BTW: I played FO1 about a month ago and I've been playing FO2 again over the past couple of weeks. "hur hur hur. At least FO 1(2) manages resources more and ammo is super scarce." Maybe for the early levels. I'll agree with that. ...But by the time you get to the mid game in either game you're full of ammo and stimpacks.

 

I remember the good ol' days when FO2 was the red haired step child. Nothing makes some of these guys love FO2 more than to see something truly different in the series.

[Oner]

Doing what, playing FO3?

 

I dunno. I suppose if you spend all you time fast traveling you won't meet as many since fast travel is basically a freebie ride to anywhere.

 

But once you get somewhere? Every location is jam packed with more enemies then you can shake a stick at.

I thought we're talking random encounters. Fixed locations were jammed, yes.

[Slowtrain]

In Fallout 3 though, there are no random encounters, period. Not in the fast travel sense. WHich is very different from Fallout.

 

If random encounters were removed from FO fast travel, the weight of combat in FO vs FO3 would be even more heavily unbalanced.

[Slowtrain]

edit: Double post. sry.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Slowtrain

[Slowtrain]

Sometimes reading the die hards makes me chuckle. If FO:NV comes out and is just a copy of FO3, I'd enjoy it. Yeah, I would like to see some changes. I'd like some big changes. ...But the FO 1/2 mantra is just plain funny.

 

BTW: I played FO1 about a month ago and I've been playing FO2 again over the past couple of weeks. "hur hur hur. At least FO 1(2) manages resources more and ammo is super scarce." Maybe for the early levels. I'll agree with that. ...But by the time you get to the mid game in either game you're full of ammo and stimpacks.

 

I remember the good ol' days when FO2 was the red haired step child. Nothing makes some of these guys love FO2 more than to see something truly different in the series.

 

I don't know if this was directed at me, but just to make it clear I'm not sayign Fallout 3 needs to be like Fallout. Really I don't care if it is "like" Fallout or not.

 

 

I'm using Fallout as an example becasue it's an example of a well designed crpg. Which is something that FO3 is not.

[Aristes]

Wow, that looks meaner in the quote box.

 

Yeah, you were one of the folks I meant, but I didn't mean to look like I was jonesin' for a fight. It was meant to be somewhat funny, but it fell flat and a little mean.

 

Nevertheless, my point is genuine. Fallout 1 and 2 are great games. Yeah, even I prefer them to 3. The thing is, 3 is still good. You might not like it, but I did. Fallout 1 and 2 are not perfect. In fact, all three games have a point, and it's relatively early even in 1, where the player achieves critical mass. There is enough loot by mid game to retire and buy one of the cities. Fallout 2 is probably the worst by end game in terms of firepower. If it weren't for crits, I don't think I'd really give a damn about anyone else in the game.