Are you for or against gaining experience points only for completing objectives?

[Infinitron]

Josh Sawyer recently said:

 

Tim and I would rather not give XP for general killin' because it leads to a lot of weird/degenerate scenarios, but I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal.

 

Gameplay degeneration occurs when a player engages in gameplay not because they enjoy that gameplay but because the game's mechanics put the player at a disadvantage for not taking advantage of it. Rest spamming is one example. Wholesale slaughter/genocide is another. Quests that involve a peaceful option to resolve that get turned around after completion when the player murders the saved parties is a familiar expression of this sort of degeneration. If XP is linked to quests and objectives within quests, the player has much more freedom to resolve those quests in whatever way he or she wants, whether that means talking through it, fighting, sneaking around, or using some mixture of skills/scripted environment objects to reach the goal.

 

Which caused a bit of an uproar among certain folks on the forum.

 

I'm not sure if there's been a poll about this already, but in any case, the issue has now become much more salient. What do you think? Let's find out what the majority wants.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Infinitron

[Jasede]

I thought you meant we'd go outside in front of the bar and duke it out.

[Maf]

I say whatever Obsidz chooses!

Which apparently is most likely to be: FOR!

[Hypevosa]

I think it subverts the impetus to explore maps and clear dungeons if you don't gain experience for killing the enemies you find there.

 

If a group of guys is part of a quest? No experience for killing them. But if I go to the furthest corner of the map and end up fighting off a random troop of hob goblins attacks me, I want experience for killing them, ya know?

[Hormalakh]

I chose for. I think this will be the first time I've ever played a game as a fighter just so I could kill enemies for XP.

[Hormalakh]

I think it subverts the impetus to explore maps and clear dungeons if you don't gain experience for killing the enemies you find there.

 

If a group of guys is part of a quest? No experience for killing them. But if I go to the furthest corner of the map and end up fighting off a random troop of hob goblins attacks me, I want experience for killing them, ya know?

 

What if you got experience for going to said dungeon level and reaching the point right past the hobgoblins. What difference should it make how you got to that point as long as you got it. Fighters will kill to get there, wizards might shove enemies out of the way to get there, diplomats will talk their way there, etc. They all had to struggle to get there.

[oldmanpaco]

Voted For.

[quechn1tlan]

I say whatever Obsidz chooses!

Which apparently is most likely to be: FOR!

 

Huh? What're you smoking?

Name one IE, Black Isle, Troika or Obsidian game where it was true?

[Valorian]

I chose for. I think this will be the first time I've ever played a game as a fighter just so I could kill enemies for XP.

 

Then you should've chosen "against".

[Jasede]

I say whatever Obsidz chooses!

Which apparently is most likely to be: FOR!

 

Huh? What're you smoking?

Name one IE, Black Isle, Troika or Obsidian game where it was true?

 

You should have phrased that better.

Bloodlines. And it worked out great, may I add.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Jasede

[C2B]

I say whatever Obsidz chooses!

Which apparently is most likely to be: FOR!

 

Huh? What're you smoking?

Name one IE, Black Isle, Troika or Obsidian game where it was true?

 

Bloodlines

[Maf]

I say whatever Obsidz chooses!

Which apparently is most likely to be: FOR!

 

Huh? What're you smoking?

Name one IE, Black Isle, Troika or Obsidian game where it was true?

They've hinted considering objective based.

If Obsidz thinks it's a good idea, I'm all for it!

[Zed]

I say whatever Obsidz chooses!

Which apparently is most likely to be: FOR!

Yeah, this.

[Kaldurenik]

For.

 

This system dont stop exploring as by exploring you find quests, items, lore, dungeons, rare strong monsters. The monsters will most likely give experience and loot when you kill them. Dungeons will most likely give experience once you complete them. I dont see the problem.

 

Also this dont stop you from killing everyone once you have completed the quest. You can still talk your way past the encounter and then kill that person and his friends and then kill the quest giver. The only difference is that you wont be rewarded with x2-3 the experience.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Kaldurenik

[Ignatius]

My donation is based on trust that they'll do the right thing, not on becoming back-seat producer for their game.

 

I voted for.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Ignatius

[Karranthain]

I'm strongly in favour of this solution - because it makes all playstyles equally viable.

[evdk]

Strongly FOR. I've been advocating this approach from the very beginning and these news have made my day.

[quechn1tlan]

I say whatever Obsidz chooses!

Which apparently is most likely to be: FOR!

 

Huh? What're you smoking?

Name one IE, Black Isle, Troika or Obsidian game where it was true?

 

Bloodlines

 

So you're telling me that all these years I was punching evil doods while wearing my pimp trenchcoat for nothing? I am dissapoint.

 

Anyways, being serious I can't say that i might enjoy killing monsters just because they are in my way. And I like combat. But if it is pointless - then I'd rather be running with 6 rogues or invisible mages from one objective to another. So no, I'm against experience not being given for killing stuff.

Edited October 15, 2012 by quechn1tlan

[Jarmo]

Against really. Oh it'll be fine the way it's done no doubt.

 

I'd just feel if you meet a random encounter of 17 brigands and whack them all with your rapied,

and then repeat that 48 times... well you really should be learning something right there.

 

Getting better at that piercing business or somethign, much more than if you'd have run away every time.

[RushAndAPush]

I am strongly FOR.

[evdk]

 

 

I'd just feel if you meet a random encounter of 17 brigands and whack them all with your rapied,

and then repeat that 48 times... well you really should be learning something right there.

 

Yeah and that thing is not to do it again.

[coffeetable]

I'd just feel if you meet a random encounter of 17 brigands and whack them all with your rapied,

and then repeat that 48 times... well you really should be learning something right there.

 

What, like bad game design?

[Huinehtar]

As I said in the other post, XPs only for completing objectives don't count for any skill (fighting or non fighting).

 

It's more accurate, because in other games (which have non-fighting skills), a thief (a crook, not a thug) can only gain XP with thief skills, not with combat skills. So designers added XP for non fighting classes to equal fighting classes.

 

But with a system where any skill can be used and only completing objectives gives XP, it's equal for everyone and every gameplay style. Everyone can have the choice to do what he/she want or he/she can.

 

That's a really improvement I think

[jvempire]

While both systems, grind vs objective, can work, I think making the xp objective based is much more managable. Since the developers control the xp flow, it's much easier to balance things out.

 

If this means enemies outside of objectives are more obstacles than something you are required to kill random x amount to keep up with the pace of the game, than I'm fine with that.

Edited October 15, 2012 by jvempire

[Aidoneus]

Fought the good fight with my vote.

FOR.