Update #24: Less than 30 Hours to go! Life and Death, and Audio CD Soundtrack!

[rjshae]

But why would designers in their right mind design a role-playing story-driven game with respawning monsters.. and then go "ah, wow, this is grindable, let's remove kill xp".

It's dumb.

I wouldn't say it's dumb; it's just a different design approach with different player incentives. But I'm not sure why you wouldn't get at least some combat experience from a battle, at least for the first few times you fight a particular beastie. Shrug.

[Bloody Hypocrite]

Rabain,

In a battle the whole point is to eliminate the threat. Once someone is out of action, they are no longer an active threat. After the battle, the victors have plenty of time to go around and finish off their opponents.

[Monte Carlo]

It's still re-inventing the wheel from where I'm sitting. Getting a reward in terms of experience and treasure for the risk of expending energy, time and resources to fight it is a no-brainer for me. If people are exploiting XP loopholes then close them.

 

Don't care how - divine intervention, the cavalry, giant Monty Python foot crashing down from the clouds. It's redolent of being in school - one kid didn;t do his homework so we all get detention.

[Valorian]

If I might be so bold as to offer an idea, rather than tying every cool monster kill to a quest have the monsters just be there. The player wanders upon them and decides to kill them, maybe it doesn't give XP explicitly (since that seems what you are trying to avoid), but instead you take the monster's head or whatever and THAT starts a quest to take the head to an NPC for a reward of exp and whatever else.

 

Go even further, have the NPC offering the quest, but if the player isn't on the quest because they hadn't met the quest giver yet THEN the monster drops the item to start the quest.

 

Also needs to be some sort of punishment for killing innocent people, especially after completing a quest for them, without ruining the possibility of playing an evil character.

 

We call that a self-licking lollipop. Why over-complicate it? NWN2 was great. Kill an orc at level 1 and get 50 XP. Kill one at level 10 and get none. It's simple.

 

It is. But they're shooting for 'extravagant and elitist' rather than 'practical and logical'. Oh noes xp for kills, what a degeneration..

 

This objective-only xp system is so abhorrent that I'd rather have even the horrible learn-by-doing TES xp abomination than this.

[Vox Draco]

We'll see how it plays. Nothing's set in stone. I've just observed too much post-quest Black Ops slaughter to believe that players are going to behave differently when they can squeeze 1xp out of a peasant's head.

 

Hmm...I remember many years ago how a lot of players of Morrowind proudly claimed to have eradicated all life on Vardenfell just for fun. And I am sure they did the same in Cyrodill and Skyrim. Killing doesn't net you any XP in the Elder Scrolls series...

 

So, I guess whether or not Kill-XP is in: "Some men just want to watch the world burn..." Peasant-Heads will roll for sure...

[Cantousent]

The objective oriented approach is far more practical from a design standpoint than kill xp that then gets kvetched into every action-xp.

[jarpie]

I just love the exp and stamina & health systems. It's about time someone makes something different than "your garden variety" exp system where you can just go out and grind the exp, also this actually can make all possible solutions equal in terms of getting exp...no more sneaking around completing the goal and then killing everyone.

[Monte Carlo]

I love how folks who, by implication, can't help meta-gaming and exploiting systems are advocating a restriction of those of us who can.

[Tale]

I love how folks who, by implication, can't help meta-gaming and exploiting systems are advocating a restriction of those of us who can.

What restriction?

 

You said earlier that you want to take your group into a dungeon to get XP and loot. That still happens. The only change is when the XP is parcelled out. At milestones instead of every time a kobold hits the floor.

 

You've also gained more options in that you can reach those milestones in different ways.

[Monte Carlo]

* sigh * the XP model. I view it as very restrictive.

[SqueakyCat]

I just don't get the point. It's a single player game. If someone wants to run around killing everything, become overpowered, and essentially ruin their game (from my perspective), what difference does it make? Who is it hurting if that's how they like to play?

 

I prefer to explore everywhere and get experience as I make my way through the story and quests.

 

To each his own. Why is this so terrible? Why do we need to be forced to only have one option?

 

I dislike becoming overpowered too early on, but how is that hurting anyone else's gaming experience?

[Monte Carlo]

I just don't get the point. It's a single player game. If someone wants to run around killing everything, become overpowered, and essentially ruin their game (from my perspective), what difference does it make? Who is it hurting if that's how they like to play?

 

I prefer to explore everywhere and get experience as I make my way through the story and quests.

 

To each his own. Why is this so terrible? Why do we need to be forced to only have one option?

 

I dislike becoming overpowered too early on, but how is that hurting anyone else's gaming experience?

 

Srsly, why is this so difficult to understand?

[kahoshi]

Say what you will about the TES leveling system, it does exactly what it should in terms of roleplaying. I go around in my character doing quests, killing everything that might try and kill me and getting loot. Then I go into town and don't kill the people there because A) no exp and B) loot isn't worth it. I don't want to be a mass murderer this character only kills those who need to die. There is no reward for killing people I wouldn't want to kill anyway, but I still benefit from killing while questing.

[Rabain]

Rabain,

In a battle the whole point is to eliminate the threat. Once someone is out of action, they are no longer an active threat. After the battle, the victors have plenty of time to go around and finish off their opponents.

 

To simplistic in reality. Most fights are a loud, clashing whirlwind of various combat actions. The best way to eliminate a threat is to stick a sword in its head. Always leaving your opponent unconscious to seek out his friends in every circumstance is unbelievable at best, ridiculous at worst. To me that is too obviously a game mechanic and much less a realistic representation of combat.

 

For example if you know resurrection exists in the world, then killing an opponent and immediately moving to the next target makes sense, because you need to win the combat as a whole to prevent resurrection of your enemy occurring and be able to ressurect your own allies. If you know revival exists (enemies can return unconscious allies to the battle), why would you run to the next opponent and leave a possible enemy behind you ripe to be revived? Stand on his head, stick a sword in it and then he is out of commission permanently.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Rabain

[Cantousent]

How's this for a solution? They shouldn't tell you each time you gain experience and only use an experience bar (with no attending numbers) to show how far you've progressed to the next level. If folks just forgot about the experience and just experienced the game, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. For my part, I hate the slippery slope of xp for anything and every action.

[norolim]

Actually a battle/skirmish is more likely to result in someone getting a sword in the head than a duel would. In a duel everyone is looking at the combat, so if someone is going to die, they could intervene by distracting the person about to perform the killing blow.

 

In a battle with multiple enemies it is easier for individual combats being overlooked for several seconds. Of course in a game that doesn't happen because we watch health bars and press pause to issue orders and respond to every circumstance.

 

But consider the logic of a priest being attacked by an enemy archer, the rest of the party are engaged with multiple foes. Meanwhile the rogue just lost all his stamina and is down. The rogues opponent then ignores the rogue and runs towards the priest or any other party member? And this always happens, in every fight? Much more likely the enemy stands on the rogues head, squishes his brains and then runs towards any other party member.

 

I guess once we see it in action we will get a feel for it, but on the face of it, it seems to me to be a much less realistic system than just having someone die and be resurrected. It depends in every instance on the enemy being stupid and ignoring the unconscious, every single time.

You didn't seem to have read my explanation. On a battlefield it is a bad idea to take your time with a fallen enemy. It takes time and effort to make sure an unconious person is killed. And it also makes you vulnerable. Battles and skirmishes are usually crowded affairs. There is always someone next to you. And that person may at any moment attack you. So think about it. Your life is at stake. What do you do: start stomping the head of an unconcious enemy or engage the foe next to you, that might at any moment end your life with a single blow?

[J.E. Sawyer]

It's still re-inventing the wheel from where I'm sitting. Getting a reward in terms of experience and treasure for the risk of expending energy, time and resources to fight it is a no-brainer for me.

From my perspective, it's more like severing a Gordian Knot. In the places where I've seen it employed (e.g. the NWN module Witch's Wake), it worked very well. I attacked/fought with creatures I couldn't avoid or who had things I actually wanted (or if I just hated their guts), but when I came across creatures that had nothing worth taking/weren't worth the hassle, I just avoided them.

 

It think it's weird to see people describe this approach as "elitist" when it's actually a response to extremely popular behavior I've seen player after player after player engage in. Complete quest via stealth, double back and kill everyone. Complete quest via conversation, double back and kill everyone. Complete quest via environment interaction/skill use, double back and kill everyone.

[Valorian]

But why would designers in their right mind design a role-playing story-driven game with respawning monsters.. and then go "ah, wow, this is grindable, let's remove kill xp".

It's dumb.

I wouldn't say it's dumb; it's just a different design approach with different player incentives. But I'm not sure why you wouldn't get at least some combat experience from a battle, at least for the first few times you fight a particular beastie. Shrug.

 

Yes, it's dumb to completely eliminate combat xp because people hone their combat skills by.. shockingly, engaging in combat and defeating opponents.

At least half of the stats/abilities and whatnot will be combat oriented. When you get enough xp you level up and advance your combat abilities. Why isn't at least part of the gained xp directly derived from defeating opponents in combat?

[Tale]

I just don't get the point. It's a single player game. If someone wants to run around killing everything, become overpowered, and essentially ruin their game (from my perspective), what difference does it make?

Yes, what difference does it make? Why do you assume that's impossible?

 

The objective system allows for more options than just killing to reach that goal.

[Monte Carlo]

Some people view these games as very story-driven / experiential and some people view them on a far more granular level.

 

Most people are somewhere in the middle.

 

I tend towards the second category, although clearly I enjoy the plot / objective / NPC aspects too. I see no problem, whatsoever, in a hybrid of those two extremes.

[Lysen]

No XP for killing is a bold move. Even Arcanum and Fallout rewarded you for killing enemies. I agree with Sawyer, of course, but it seems some people are not ready for something like this

[kenup]

I just don't get the point. It's a single player game. If someone wants to run around killing everything, become overpowered, and essentially ruin their game (from my perspective), what difference does it make? Who is it hurting if that's how they like to play?

 

I prefer to explore everywhere and get experience as I make my way through the story and quests.

 

To each his own. Why is this so terrible? Why do we need to be forced to only have one option?

 

I dislike becoming overpowered too early on, but how is that hurting anyone else's gaming experience?

 

Srsly, why is this so difficult to understand?

The point is to not encourage a "kill everything" approach. XP given for every kill, on top of the zone/quest reward, does exactly that.

Edited October 15, 2012 by kenup

[Jasede]

Bloodlines-style XP system confirmed. I'm very happy.

 

Also everyone complaining about it is giving me succulent sustenance with their tears of anguish. Guess it must be odd to be faced with an actual RPG for a change and not that hideous monstrosity that the genre has become in the last decade. Oh what fun, let me grind encounters until I'm the max level! Oh, I get more XP if I kill the questgiver after turning the quest in? DIE!!!

[kahoshi]

I like completing a mission through stealth kills. Get in, leave behind a dungeon devoid of life, and not one enemy knew they were about to die.

[Monte Carlo]

BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO YOU? It's a single player game for chrissakes.