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

[Monte Carlo]

If you love grinding so much why don't you play WoW and leave this game to us, the RPG fans?

 

D minus kiddo. Back to troll skool for you.

[Monte Carlo]

Point not Found

 

the point is that you can still kill everything on sight. or do you just kill for the xp as josh described?

 

The point is that I choose not to abuse the system, unless in another play-through I feel like it.

 

This thread is an existential struggle between gaming libertarians and Utopianistic-gaming Maoists.

[Cantousent]

Feargus answered a question regarding xp a while back by saying that kill (and everything else) experience was in the mix. Like Sawyer says, they're still arguing about this stuff in some smoke filled back room over boiler makers and snifters of brandy.

 

EDIT: Dude, Jasade, have a glass of wine a deep breath, man.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Cantousent

[Valorian]

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.

 

So you want to completely eliminate this popular behavior that is popular precisely because many people enjoy it for whatever reason.

 

How is that not elitist?

 

And your examples are faults of DESIGNERS, not players. If it bothers you so much that some would get bonus kill xp AFTER finishing a specific quest, why not script it so that these enemies don't give any xp after quest completion? Instead of clipping off the tip of the nail you've torn off the entire arm.

[SqueakyCat]

"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment."

 

What they are proposing does not feel reminescent of the classics -- more of a modern iteration.

 

To some that it what they are looking for -- for others (including myself) not so much.

[Ieo]

The point is to balance xp reward for players who don't necessarily want to slaughter everything in sight towards a quest goal in order to level. Traditionally, due to xp value per mobs, that also meant that those who did kill got significantly more xp than someone who used stealth or even dialogue options. Now, with the back-loaded xp upon quest completion, that means more options for completion (even more replayability, more RP possibility).

 

The baby does not need to be thrown out with that bathwater. It's perfectly possible to set the XP reward for solving a problem non-violently to a value which makes up for the difference.

 

The complaints that some players will then do both seems bizarre - you don't have to give them that XP twice.

 

While that'd be a fine implementation too, I wonder just how "possible" that can be programmed in relation to the questing process. Body counter up to the point of completion? But many quests tend to overlap, so that wouldn't work. Force flagged enemy types for each quest? No, definitely not...

[Infinitron]

Squeaky, Monte, WayWocket:

 

Why can't you have fun in combat without earning experience points for each kill? Your reward should be the thrill of combat and the satisfaction of victory, not some meaningless number popping up on your screen.

 

Do you have some kind of experience points addiction? I find your reactions to this extremely disturbing. I mean that.

 

Would it help if you got 1 single xp point for every kill? Would that satisfy your bizarre obsessive condition?

Edited October 15, 2012 by Infinitron

[Merin]

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.

 

Moreover - if you read any walkthroughs, strategy guides (profressional or amateur), you will notice one common thread - maximum XP and loot being the goal. And they all tell you to do what you are decrying here. My "favorite" is the Fallout 3 kind of example - get the password from dialog, pick the lock, then hack the password - do all three to open the safe door as it gets you the most XP!

 

It's silly. People CAN avoid doing it, yes. Some players aren't out the max their XP, yes. But from a game design point - don't make this possible. You should get the XP when the safe opens, not when you hack the computer or pick the lock. Hence - goal / object XP as opposed to what I'll call "action" XP.

 

Don't get it per orc killed - get it for dealing wih the orcs! Don't get it for picking the lock - get it for opening the chest that was once locked!

[Starwars]

How is including *anything* hurting other people's experiences? God mode toggles, XP x 1000 options, fast-travel or not... I also choose not to "abuse systems". This does not mean that I want the games I buy to have options that are easily abused. Why not? Well, because it feels goddamn dumb to ignore very simple ways to increase your power of course. I can do it personally but it still feels like I'm artificially limiting myself because if it's in the game... Then it's in the game. Just like EA Sports.

 

Even though PE is community-funded, there is still a point where the designers say "yes, this is the type of game we want to design". Maybe they don't want to necessarily reward slaughtering everything. Maybe they want to encourage the player to not kill everything. Or rather, maybe they don't want to encourage a player who kills everything vs a player who doesn't. Of course, this might also mean that we won't see XP rewards for completing skill checks, picking locks or that they need to be examined in some ways at least.

Which is completely fine by me. I much prefer systems that by and large based on completing an objetive. So yes, tear off that entire arm. No mercy!

 

Anyways, it's been said before but... I really hope someone can record the D&D session for us in the EU and other places.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Starwars

[Semper]

The point is that I choose not to abuse the system, unless in another play-through I feel like it.

 

the question still stands: why do you kill? guess the answer is simple, else you wouldn't complain about the mentioned system.

[Waywocket]

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.

 

Try turning this around. If you, as a player, have been whaling on some target with the intention of killing them, then they fall unconscious, would you then leave them and focus on the next target? I sure as hell wouldn't - I'd make damn sure they're not getting back up again.

 

This feels quite a lot like a LARP system - 'hit points' are typically low in number, so a few proper hits that land will put the target on the deck, where it's relatively easy to finish them off. What you end up seeing is that players will systematically execute everything they kill unless there's literally someone hitting them with an axe right now; it's the only sensible option. Monsters on the other hand will have all been briefed never to execute a player while they're down, unless there's some plot-specific reason, on extremely rare occasions, because that makes for better gameplay given the system - but it does feel quite silly quite often.

[SqueakyCat]

@Infinitron

 

 

I find that fact you read so much into a civilized discussion disturbing.

 

It's called a difference of opinion.

Edited October 15, 2012 by SqueakyCat

[USER47]

Sorry to duck out, but I need to prep for our D&D game tonight. Objections to the proposed XP system are noted. We're not finalized on any of this stuff; quest-based XP is just an idea that Tim and I are interested in pursuing.

Please, stick with it:).

[Monte Carlo]

Squeaky, Monte, WayWocket:

 

Why can't you have fun in combat without earning experience points for each kill? Your reward should be the thrill of combat and the satisfaction of victory, not some meaningless number popping up on your screen.

 

Do you have some kind of experience points addiction? I find your reactions to this extremely disturbing. I mean that.

 

Would it help if you got 1 single xp point for every kill? Would that satisfy your bizarre obsessive condition?

 

It's about design and reward. I like random stuff. Exploring. Wandering monsters. I like to wander on and off the critical path. I like gaining power at different rates of progression (you call it grinding, I call it enjoying the game's combat mechanics).

 

Some players want perma-story tyme, but I don't. It's an XP system I think works and I'm comfortable with, it's simple and fairly elegant and i'm a small 'c' conservative when it comes to these things.

 

I am also a passionate advocate of how I choose to play a game I paid for is nobody else's concern.

[Rabain]

An Option to switch between Encounter based XP and Combat XP might be possible. Just add up how much XP is being rewarded in total for the Objective system, remove it and spread it at different values over various mob types throughout the game. XP rewarded for quest completion could remain in both systems.

 

Obviously a bit more complicated factoring in XP for skills but you get the idea.

 

Can anyone highlight anywhere in the IE games where you could grind XP that wasn't due to some bug with either respawns or quest hand ins? I really didn't think combat XP worked badly in any IE game.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Rabain

[rjshae]

As we argue this, the project has amassed $3,277,993 on Kickstarter.

 

I know a surge was expected toward the end, but the rate of increase over the past couple of days has been tremendously impressive.

[Merin]

I didn't misunderstand, read every line in ths thread and the AMA. I simply disagree and would like to see a compromise, if possible.

 

Compromise for how many, though? I think there are like, what, four of you in this thread disliking this? Why should the devs compromise with such a tiny group? I'm not saying your tastes and opinions aren't important - just that the developers have a vision, first off, that they should stick to despite what the community wants, and that, secondly, if they tried to compromise with each and every small group advocating for something you get a monstrosity like Dragon Age 2.

[Semper]

I call it enjoying the game's combat mechanics.

 

there's still the loot to gain as a reward. why do you exactly need xp to enjoy combat?

[MaximKat]

The complaints that some players will then do both seems bizarre - you don't have to give them that XP twice.

How does this work? Suppose there is XP for killing. You're given a quest: protect the village from the bandits. You go to the bandits and convince them not to attack the village anymore (100 XP gained for completing the quest). Then you kill all the bandits (10 bandits * 5 XP = 50 XP). Afterwards, you return to the village and, hey, free XP: you kill everyone there as well, gaining additional 25 XP.

 

The "accomplishment XP only" is designed to not reward this kind of behavior. You can still do it if you're roleplaying a psychopath, but you're not rewarded for this.

 

Anyway, like I said, maybe this system will turn out to be different enough to be interesting but the current logic of it just doesn't seem...logical to me.

Imagine yourself in a fight. You've just knocked an opponent out. Would you waste time finishing him off, or rather concentrate on the enemies that are still around you? Remember, no matter what, this guy will not be able to harm you: if you win, you'll kill him later, if you lose, you'll be dead long before he comes to his senses.

Edited October 15, 2012 by MaximKat

[Monte Carlo]

I didn't misunderstand, read every line in ths thread and the AMA. I simply disagree and would like to see a compromise, if possible.

 

Compromise for how many, though? I think there are like, what, four of you in this thread disliking this? Why should the devs compromise with such a tiny group? I'm not saying your tastes and opinions aren't important - just that the developers have a vision, first off, that they should stick to despite what the community wants, and that, secondly, if they tried to compromise with each and every small group advocating for something you get a monstrosity like Dragon Age 2.

 

Says the guy who likes romances.

[Ieo]

I didn't misunderstand, read every line in ths thread and the AMA. I simply disagree and would like to see a compromise, if possible.

 

Compromise for how many, though? I think there are like, what, four of you in this thread disliking this? Why should the devs compromise with such a tiny group? I'm not saying your tastes and opinions aren't important - just that the developers have a vision, first off, that they should stick to despite what the community wants, and that, secondly, if they tried to compromise with each and every small group advocating for something you get a monstrosity like Dragon Age 2.

 

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.

[Kaldurenik]

Please dont change the quest system.

You know there is nothing stopping you from talking your way past a encounter and then going back and killing everyone including the guy you talked to and the guy that gave the quest. You simply wont be rewarded x2-3 the exp for doing it. You will gain loot so its still "ok" to do it. But it gives everyone a equal option if you want to sneak, cast spells, talk, fight your way to a encounter.

 

Also love the combat system

 

Also we can assume that it will be worth exploring... Not only will you find more quests... But hidden items, lore, artefacts and other large monster encounters (that will most likely give exp).

[SgtGriff]

Sorry to duck out, but I need to prep for our D&D game tonight. Objections to the proposed XP system are noted. We're not finalized on any of this stuff; quest-based XP is just an idea that Tim and I are interested in pursuing.

 

Don't give up on your ideas, Sawyer! This could really add something unique to the game even if everyone isn't 100% pleased. It's impossible to please everyone. I for one would love to see some new ideas like this. PE is the perfect venue for it.

[Infinitron]

It's about design and reward. I like random stuff. Exploring. Wandering monsters. I like to wander on and off the critical path. I like gaining power at different rates of progression (you call it grinding, I call it enjoying the game's combat mechanics).

 

Some players want perma-story tyme, but I don't. It's an XP system I think works and I'm comfortable with, it's simple and fairly elegant and i'm a small 'c' conservative when it comes to these things.

 

I am also a passionate advocate of how I choose to play a game I paid for is nobody else's concern.

 

Well then, I'm pleased to inform you that there's a very successful developer named Bethesda that caters to tastes precisely such as yours.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Infinitron

[jvempire]

Point not Found

 

the point is that you can still kill everything on sight. or do you just kill for the xp as josh described?

 

The point is that I choose not to abuse the system, unless in another play-through I feel like it.

 

This thread is an existential struggle between gaming libertarians and Utopianistic-gaming Maoists.

I want an explanation as to why grind is more simple and better for designing an RPG game than having xp granted by objectives. Saying you enjoy grind is not an argument, that's just a statement with out anything backing it up.

 

Like I said before, basing the xp around quests/(or the term they are using is objectives) is easier for the designers to balance the game since they can estimate where players will be xp wise. With grind, this can end up making the game un fun for people that didn't grind the random magic number they need, or super easy and boring for others that grinded all the way up and remove all the challenge out of the game. Now you can try to fix this, but then you end up with Oblivion, FO3, New Vegas, Skyrim's convoluted leveling systems.