Experience for Killing Enemies

[KhaineGB]

Yes.

 

And use a sliding XP scale... so low level monsters when you are only level 1 or 2 are reasonable XP. Those same monsters when you are maybe 5 or higher? Nothing.

 

No levelling off squirrels.

[Humanoid]

(Apologies for the generalisation but I'm noting some sentiments in this direction)

 

 

The main argument I tend to take issue with is the sentiment of "if I'm not rewarded for fighting these guys then why should I bother?" There's something wrong with that picture. Contrast to a sentiment more typical to the alternate sneaky playstyle: "I play the sneaky type because I like sneaking". If the all-action combat approach isn't its own reward - that of a fun combat mechanic - then the solution isn't to tack experience points on to cover up that flaw, but to redesign the combat experience in the first place.

 

Spot the odd one out:

- Sneak around in Thief because it's fun

- Kill stuff in Quake because it's fun

- Sneak around in Eternity because it's fun

- Kill stuff in Eternity because....?

 

 

(Again, to close, this is only addressed regarding one specific argument for combat XP, that of it being a payment for work.)

Edited September 25, 2012 by Humanoid

[Kissamies]

How about awarding XP only for the first kill of an opponent type? Kill your first goblin - 100 xp, all other goblins after that - 0 XP and keep the big rewards for quests etc.

If murder XP has to be done, this is probably the most tolerable way of doing it. Very small amounts would be the next.

 

But generally, I don't like murder XP. It encourages killing things too much and sometimes even makes it feel like that you have to kill things. For example, there was this one NWN1 module for rangers I once played. The plot was that some ritual or poison (I don't remember which) made animals go bersek and attack anything. They went back to normal once the problem was dealt with. Now your average ranger would probably try to avoid harming the animals, but the game granting XP for killing them encouraged the opposite.

[Amentep]

I think kill XP is fine in some games. I also feel that making the XP based on completing a quest rather than on how many things you kill to complete the quest is fine as well.

 

Ideally as long as I feel my character is progressing in the world, I'm not sure I terribly care how much how I actually get the XP as long as its consistant and logically implemented and not doled out in a fashion that I feel like I played 20 hours as a kid with a wooden sword and then suddenly became a knight with a vorpal blade...

[Luckmann]

"ts so sad to see people considering rpgs by the stats and how these stats work. rpgs are much more that numbers in a character sheet"

 

Stats and character sheets is what makes RPGs RPGs. Otherwise you just have adventure games.

No. There are many RPGs that doesn't use stats at all. It's called Free-form.

[Providence]

• Yes (97 votes [33.45%])
  Percentage of vote: 33.45%
  
• Yes, but only a small amount to favour other aspects of the game than combat (88 votes [30.34%])
  Percentage of vote: 30.34%
  
• Yes, but only for big fights like boss battles (25 votes [8.62%])
  Percentage of vote: 8.62%
  
• Yes, so long as the number of enemies in the game is fixed thereby fixing total combat experience (12 votes [4.14%])
  Percentage of vote: 4.14%
  
• No (68 votes [23.45%])
  

 

 

Oh, look what I found. Something that is very actual right now. Results as of 16. 10. 2012. are presented above.

[Kai]

I really like the concept of NOT getting xp for killing enemies, but actually getting it for finishing quests instead. I mean, in most games even if you're a good guy, you're still kind of a good guy with a severe homocidial streak. Although it made sense in BG as you were the son of the god of murder...

[Monte Carlo]

"ts so sad to see people considering rpgs by the stats and how these stats work. rpgs are much more that numbers in a character sheet"

 

Stats and character sheets is what makes RPGs RPGs. Otherwise you just have adventure games.

No. There are many RPGs that doesn't use stats at all. It's called Free-form.

 

And they are basically a form of story-telling. Like FUDGE.

[Detrimental2]

I voted yes. I thought about voting yes, but only a small amount, until I thought that it depends on how you play the game. You may have created a character who only likes to fight and who directs their party in the same way. Which I feel you should be equally rewarded for.

[EventHorizon]

no xp for killing things works well in games where you can solve most/all encounters differently (sneaking, talking etc), not in games like this where the best loot come from bosses (that you have to kill) and that tank character in your party probably isn't going to be able to sneak past those ogres standing in your way.

 

That said I do not want the mandatory grinds som IE games had, "and so the great hero went out into the wilds to kill twenty kobolds so he could reach the appropriate level to save the world", thats boring and immersion breaking imo

[Jaesun]

Don't we already have this thread in the Gameplay & Mechanics forum?

[wickermoon]

How about awarding XP only for the first kill of an opponent type? Kill your first goblin - 100 xp, all other goblins after that - 0 XP and keep the big rewards for quests etc.

If murder XP has to be done, this is probably the most tolerable way of doing it. Very small amounts would be the next.

 

But generally, I don't like murder XP. It encourages killing things too much and sometimes even makes it feel like that you have to kill things. For example, there was this one NWN1 module for rangers I once played. The plot was that some ritual or poison (I don't remember which) made animals go bersek and attack anything. They went back to normal once the problem was dealt with. Now your average ranger would probably try to avoid harming the animals, but the game granting XP for killing them encouraged the opposite.

 

Really people, can't you think further than to the next street lamp? How about quest XP rewards being higher the more NPCs live so that those quest XP culmulate to the same amount as another player who killed all NPCs and finished the quest? Or to keep it simple:

 

30 kills + quest = 30x50XP + 0500XP

00 kills + quest = 00x50XP + 2000XP

 

Oh look, no matter which way you go, you get rewarded the same. \o/

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Oh, there's a quest giver who'd rather not want you to kill anyone? Make the quest reward/xp reward substantially higher because you met an optional quest goal.

 

A quest where you're encouraged to kill people? Make the quest reward stay the same.

 

Both examples seem unfair and railroading? No they're not, because you're supposed to do something and if you didn't do it, you screwed up. And if it's your decision to go all munchkin on this game and trying to get the maximum amount of XP in the shortest of time and this is killing your enjoyment of the game than this is entirely your fault and you should think about your RPG play-style.

 

But hey, let's castrate players by trying to "enforce" a certain play-style, which isn't better than "enforcing" the other one, because f*ck you diversity, that's why.

Edited October 16, 2012 by wickermoon

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I thought this was already discussed.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Nebuchadnezzar

[Ieo]

Don't we already have this thread in the Gameplay & Mechanics forum?

 

Yes, this stuff gets spread out; I don't think polls can be combined, though, I dunno. I'll repeat just repeat my points from that thread and the update thread, though. Gameplay/Mechanics discussion thread.

 

For the world monsters per exploration--

 

There could be different enemy types granting different xp as well. "Epic" class enemy wouldn't be linked to any quest, for example, but give good xp for the challenge. "Common" enemies could give minimal world-kill xp. "Trivial" creatures, even NPCs, would give no xp and must be linked to quests. Not sure how that would work out in the UI, though, in terms of identification--or perhaps it's something discovered only after the fact.

Well, I like the general idea but I would like to see some rare world monsters like Firkraag that a player could optionally challenge... although now that I think about it, the reward needn't be xp either, but rather loot. Hmmm.

....

And then some people insist that the removal of xp doesn't make sense from a single-player standpoint, like "who cares if someone gets a lot more mob kill xp to level?" which could be a valid argument. But here's another problem---balancing difficulty levels.

 

Tuning the difficulty levels requires more control over in-game balance with respect to a bell curve of playstyles. If, say, on default mode, killing all the enemies for a given quest nets 25% more than using noncombat options for objective completion, eventually the game difficulty by level will drop to 'easy'. Same applies upwards. Does the designer opt to balance against a 50% required mob kill for xp, or what? Would the split xp gain between combat/noncombat eventually defeat some of the purpose of difficulty levels?

 

Now, what I'm seeing in this thread is very similar to the whole cooldown hysteria--I highly doubt this would be implemented in base form as it is, in a vacuum. Obsidian knows that people like the rare big monster threat in classic RPGs, for example; even if xp isn't rewarded, there are other ways to make the difficult combat more "worthwhile" as well (especially considering we're going to have how many epic backer-created things in the game). Overall, there's definitely room for additional mechanisms and tuning.

[Haerski]

OP forgot one important option, which is "I don't care", because I really don't care as long as it fits in overall gameplay mechanics. There are hundreds of different and equally fun ways to do this and I'm not the one to tell Obsidian which is best for a game that currently only exists in brilliant minds of their designers.

[almondblight]

Deus Ex had experience given for quests and exploration. This made the game interesting, and kept the player from killing all of the enemies just for the XP. Of course, you could kill everyone if you wanted. But you could also avoid combat, and the rewards weren't any different. I don't think the game would have been better if some "+150xp!" sign shot up every time you shot someone.

[wickermoon]

Deus Ex had experience given for quests and exploration. This made the game interesting, and kept the player from killing all of the enemies just for the XP. Of course, you could kill everyone if you wanted. But you could also avoid combat, and the rewards weren't any different. I don't think the game would have been better if some "+150xp!" sign shot up every time you shot someone.

Wrong. The game rewarded you substantially more if you didn't kill any person in sight. It's the other extreme, which isn't any better, at all.

 

Edit: Oh wait...are you talking about the original or Human Revolution? Because the original was okay, but was AN ENTIRE DIFFERENT STYLE THAN THIS GAME!

Edited October 16, 2012 by wickermoon

[Loranc]

• 
   
  

  [*]Talk about people really being on opposite sides on this topic..

• Yes (106 votes [32.02%])
   
   
  
• Yes, but only a small amount to favour other aspects of the game than combat (97 votes [29.31%])
   
  
  
• Yes, but only for big fights like boss battles (28 votes [8.46%])
   
  
  
• Yes, so long as the number of enemies in the game is fixed thereby fixing total combat experience (13 votes [3.93%])
  
   
  
• No (87 votes [26.28%])
   
  

[Providence]

Yes, it is divisive because a lot of people like the feeling of getting rewarded after a kill/battle. Among other things with XP points, which is a crucial element of a character's progression.

Other people would like to take that away.

[Azzy]

Actually I want to see the game that Josh and the rest of Obsidian wants to make thats my primary interest in backing this game

[Amentep]

Talk about people really being on opposite sides on this topic..

 

The problem with the poll is that there are four "yes" votes and one "no" with no neutral option. The large total will appear to skew towards no; however 73.72% actually voted some form of "Yes", even if they disagree to how much the unscientific forum poll favors experience for killing enemies.

[Providence]

however 73.72% actually voted some form of "Yes"

 

Indeed. I hope that's clear for everyone who's reading the results.

[Hassat Hunter]

Yes, but only for big fights like boss battles

Can't get more NO than that. Even you can't ignore that... :/

[Utukka]

Just scale the exp gain based on creature/dialouge/trap level compared to character level. When does killing an inferior combatant, outwitting a dumbass, or picking the lock on my bathroom door no longer provide an advantage against Sarevok, a bank vault, or a genius?

 

Example

Kobold killing

Level 1 Char gets 10 exp

Level 5 Char gets 1 exp

Level 7 Char gets .01 exp

Level 10 Char gets 0 exp

 

Also for those "fearful of multiclassing", just do as BG did, EXP cap, bam, multis can't become as proficient as regular class. Problem solved.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Utukka

[motorizer]

You could always take away the xp a player gets for solving a problem peacefully if he then starts killing everyone....since he has now failed the peaceful solution

 

that would really upset people