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

[Waywocket]

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.

 

In this example, it would be trivial to flag those bandits as no longer worth XP once you've persuaded them not to attack. Sure you can come up with examples that aren't so trivial, but in most cases there'll be a solution which goes 90% of the way to solving the problem. It's not going to be perfect, at least not without adding a heap of unnecessary complexity, but it doesn't really need to be.

 

Fundamentally, getting XP for defeating monsters is one of the most core mechanics in RPG systems since forever. Making games that use radically different systems certainly isn't inherently bad, but doesn't seem appropriate for a project which is specifically aiming for a traditional feel.

[Tamerlane]

The faintly patronising tone of the hipsters on this thread amuses me.

You are the hipster.

It's all of us.

 

We are the hipster.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Tamerlane

[coffeetable]

The faintly patronising tone of the hipsters on this thread amuses me.

 

Lord almighty you are insufferable.

[SqueakyCat]

the thread indicates that the majority of customers like an objective based xp system. perhaps you should get over it? btw you never answered why you need exp to enjoy the combat while there's still loot to gain as a reward.

 

This thread has 177 members currently viewing out of 64,623 pledging.

 

Hardly an adequate sampling.

[aVENGER]

One thing to note, even with an goal-based XP system, you could still get XP for exploring and dealing with powerful creatures, without it being necessarily tied to a quest.

 

For example, you are exploring a forest and encounter a pack of ogres by a campfire on the side of the road. The ogres not a part of any quest, they are simply loitering there, possibly intimidating travelers into paying them for "safe passage". You can sneak past them, talk your way out or kill them. In either case, a notice would pop up saying something like "Dealt with the ogres. +250 XP". In short, exploration isn't necessarily penalized by a goal-based XP system.

[volrath]

Quest based XP is the greatest bit of incline I have heard about this project so far this month. It's what made Bloodlines so amazingly awesome. Don't change it Sawyer, stick to your guns.

 

Hello? This is a dungeoneering IE game romp, not emo vampire story-tyme.

I'm talking about the underlying mechanics of WoD. I'm playing an actual cRPG not grinding away like a monkey on an MMO.

[RushAndAPush]

Sawyer, please stick to your guns.

[Monte Carlo]

The faintly patronising tone of the hipsters on this thread amuses me.

 

Lord almighty you are insufferable.

 

I try my best, although you rather prove my point.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Monte Carlo

[Flying dutchman]

Just wanted to say that at least I love the idea of objective based exp. Why couldn't a monster be part of a quest? or you could get a miniquest to kill a monster when you encounter one in the countryside.

 

I don't see the problem at all with objective based exp..

[HeedlessHorseman]

I can't let you get away with that one ... how can anybody enjoy a Bethseda games combat mechanics?

 

You basically described a typical sandbox RPG, then proceeded to claim that you "hate sandboxes".

 

I...don't know what to say to that. I'd better get out of this thread before I get warned by one of the mods.

 

He actually said he hates "sanboxes like Skyrim." People don't call that game a "hiking simulator" for nothing.

[sesobebo]

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.

 

but, as far as i know, nobody said that You won't be able to explore (and be rewarded for it). that there won't be wandering monsters. that You won't be able to wander off... You just won't be getting xp for every individual kill, but for reaching a certain - however arbitrary - goal. and also, can't the game's combat mechanics be enjoyed without the xp reward?

 

i really don't see what the fuss is about \:

[oldmanpaco]

Quest based XP is the greatest bit of incline I have heard about this project so far this month. It's what made Bloodlines so amazingly awesome. Don't change it Sawyer, stick to your guns.

 

Hello? This is a dungeoneering IE game romp, not emo vampire story-tyme.

 

Someone needs to take away your Obsidian Order membership for that comment. I mean really? Really?

Anyway the XP system that rewards for progress and not grinding is the way to go. The rest of you are wrong and should feel ashamed to be posting here. I hear they are looking for design decisions over at the DA3 forums though.

[Infinitron]

 

He actually said he hates "sanboxes like Skyrim." People don't call that game a "hiking simulator" for nothing.

 

Ah, I see. So, Monte Carlo, what you want is an isometric sandbox, basically?

[MaximKat]

In this example, it would be trivial to flag those bandits as no longer worth XP once you've persuaded them not to attack. Sure you can come up with examples that aren't so trivial, but in most cases there'll be a solution which goes 90% of the way to solving the problem. It's not going to be perfect, at least not without adding a heap of unnecessary complexity, but it doesn't really need to be.

Doesn't this strike you as very counter-intuitive and arbitrary? So I get XP for killing stuff, but only if I haven't spoken to said stuff beforehand? How does this make any sense?

 

 

And I still fail to see the point. What difference does it make: you kill 10 bandits and get 5 XP from each, or you kill 10 bandits and get 50XP for "making the roads safe"?

[Ansia]

I think the main point that's being missed is that if xp isn't rewarded per kill it doesn't affect anything in terms of habits. If you want to go out and explore and kill everything to death you still can. There's still even an incentive to do so with the loot and money that comes from it. Nothing in your gameplay changes. You will simply be doing it because you want to. Meanwhile, if you add it in, players who had no desire to do that now feel pressured to. Your "Just don't do it" doesn't qualify here because it has been shown over and over again that if there is a way to gain xp people will feel at a disadvantage if they do not take advantage of it. Personally, I like the 'grind', and probably will puts around random encounters for a while should there be ones. But I'll be able to stop when I want to, not because I didn't hit some level goal and now it's all lost it's fun. It doesn't change your game at all. Just take a deep breath and stop panicing. Your game is still there, you'll just be able to do so how and how often you want to without other people feeling pressured to do the same when they have no interest in doing so.

[Piccolo]

People moaning about not being able to grind mob kills for exp should go play Diablo or Wow. good god. I sincerely hope the devs stick to their guns on this, its intelligent design.

I hope they stick to their guns too... but welcome to the downside of kickstarters - a very vocal minority can have a huge negative impact on the game because the devs feel overly obliged to listen to the fans.

[jvempire]

Saying you enjoy grind, saying you dislike grind. These are opinions, yes, great. Without evidence to back up your claim though, it's an unhelpful statement. For people who like grind I suggest referring to a specific system that uses grinding in a good way and making an argument as to why it's better than this new system. Or maybe explaining how grind mechanics can help improve the game.

 

But if you say "i like x" this isn't helpful for the developers, or anyone for that matter.

[Monte Carlo]

Codex echo chamber. I'm hitting the sack i'm sure we can all resume this tete a tete tomorrow.

[Arkeus]

Yeah, i am loving the talk of Goal-oriented exp. It sounds like a great way to encourage players to look at alternative ways of finishing quests without doing a meta-gaming "what gives the most exp" solution.

 

There is in fact nothing that says you cannot grind while explorating and killing monsters, just that you are also "doing something" when killing the monsters. E.G: "killed a great many kobolds" and woohoo you get a "kobold hunter" feat as well as some exp, etc.

 

It's just that goal-oriented is much, much better if you want to make actual role-play.

[Cantousent]

I don't see why the experience system draws such toxic feelings from folks. I mean, I say I really hate the xp for everything scheme, I guess I don't really *hate* it.

 

However, to reiterate, I want to make sure I can play a good guy who doesn't sound like Dudley Do-rRight of the mounties. ...And I want folks who want to play a good guy who *does* sound like dudley to have that chance. I want folks who want to play a bad-ass who doesn't twirl his moustache like Snidely Whiplash to be able. I want folks who want to play Snidley Whiplash to have a moustache and twirl it.

[aVENGER]

In this example, it would be trivial to flag those bandits as no longer worth XP once you've persuaded them not to attack.

 

Even if there is an easy way to set XP/noXP flags in the engine (note: there wasn't in the IE games) it would still mean that the developers would have to do this for every single quest that has multiple solutions. In short, that would increase the development time by a significant margin.

 

Besides, a goal-based XP system already does the same thing in a simpler and much more elegant manner.

[RosesandAshes]

What's with all the arguing?

 

I'd love an objective-based XP system, personally, but I have nothing against an XP-per-kill system (other than I'd prefer to minimize grinding in my game, grinding is boring) and I find that looting a tough enemy and being like: "Ooh, look at this neat sword they dropped!" is its own reward. Killing the drakes in DA was satisfying because not only did I take out a tough foe, I get all these cool treasure piles to loot (which only contained like, two items, but I digress).

 

I think an objective-based system gives the player more freedom to consider other options besides "let's just smash their skulls in and be done with it!"

[coffeetable]

the thread indicates that the majority of customers like an objective based xp system. perhaps you should get over it? btw you never answered why you need exp to enjoy the combat while there's still loot to gain as a reward.

 

This thread has 177 members currently viewing out of 64,623 pledging.

 

Hardly an adequate sampling.

 

For a Bernoulli variable? Were the viewing members a uniform sample of the people pledging, 177 data points certainly would be adequate.

 

Now while it's almost certainly non-uniform, it'll be skewed in favour of people unhappy with the proposed mechanics, as happy people don't make noise. Under that reasonable assumption, I feel comfortable saying that the fraction of backers dissatisfied is negligible.

Edited October 15, 2012 by coffeetable

[LadyCrimson]

This thread has 177 members currently viewing out of 64,623 pledging.

 

Hardly an adequate sampling.

Which is why I also hope they stick mostly to their own vision and not be too influenced by what goes on in the forums.

Don't get me wrong, I can completely understand not being happy with something in a proposed game, but why not give them a chance instead of assuming the worst?

 

I'm very used to the xp-per-kill type of system (or whatever) but I'm open to other options and directions. Sometimes things that initially sound unappealing to me because it's not what I'm used to ends up becoming my favorite new thing. eg, I love chocolate, but it doesn't mean I want to eat it all the time.

[crazyrabbits]

Tying in with my earlier post, I'm not too big on the stamina meter either. Dragon Age II used a system that seems quite similar to this - people who were stamina-drained were running around like headless chickens just before they got maimed. Players who were health-drained were maimed until the end of the battle.

 

In theory, it should have been great. In practice, it was an awful mess - you'd constantly have to jump into your quickbar to tell party members to drink health potions. Certain squadmates (Merrill, I'm looking at you) got "killed" almost immediately, and in situations where you had few potions, you often ended up with all of your party members maimed and you running around trying to get hits in while a horde of enemies chased you around the map, and/or you were sniping giant bosses from a distance by yourself for what could be 10 or 20 minutes just to finish a fight. That's why the IE games worked so well - you could immediately cast restorative magic on your party, grab/equip their weapons and jump back in the fight without too much of a problem.