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

[ReyVagabond]

Still as you all can see, XP for Objectives is a lot more clean and easy to balance.

 

Even if you want to be above levels of the main quest, you just have to clear more content to have your so wanted handicap.

 

Give a Level cap to the game, and presto, clearing 60%+ content and you are at the level cap, then the hardship of the game is all about dificlty seting and options.

 

Personaly i dont mind not leveling up in a game, for example i dont know how many of you played Guild Wars 1, but that game you reached level cap fast, and most of the game content was designed for a max leveled character, how hard or easy it was depended on the content and balance, and strategy. For me that was fun enogh, a grate player with a thought strategy could crear stuff much quicker that some averege player that new what to do.

 

Still the fun came from something diferent that leveling.

 

But thats just me, i dont find "leveling" fun per se. I play for the story first and the Gameplay second, leveling as griding doing something more that once of its reward istead of the enjoiment i get for that action i dont like it.

[Director]

All this talk about balance sadly reminds me of MMOs. True RPGs are about making choices and dealing with the results, simulating mechanics of real life through lenses of fantasy. Life is not balanced, if you do certain things you'll be more prepared for what comes ahead. The amount of XP the game expects the character to have should be a very flexible thing and not a hard mechanic. If you fought more, then you'll be more prepared to the fights to come and not: "you should be exactly level 8 or 9 by the time you face this enemy". Making this would make a game that feels artificial, "unRPGlike" and, as I said early, very much like a poor MMO.

 

Except that in an MMO - you kill every creature you can for the extra experience, and in a TRUE RPG - It's the DECISIONS you make that progress you, not the number of things you kill.

 

So no, your just just trying to twist the examples to your opinion.

[-Zin-]

For.

 

Sometimes it's hard to judge an experience until it's over.

 

You might hate school as a kid, but in hindsight, having learned your history, how to read, and somewhat how the world works is probably a good thing.

[Borna]

Just out of curiosity, did the Baldurs Gate series use any kind of level scaling? If memory serves me right, that system worked just fine, I don´t see why the need to change it.

 

For example,I remember how good it felt when I FINALY beat those lyches in Athakla. It was a sure sign my party grew. I missed that in the last two Elder Scrolls. I had almost no sense of how more powerful my character is becoming, apart from getting better equipment. Even that was mostly dissapointing, since most opponents constantly had only slightly worse type of armour and weaponry than myself, and I could craft items 10 to the nth times more powerful than those I found. The adventuring felt totaly lacking of adequate rewards.

 

I love the feeling of stumbling upon an enemy (or a group of), getting my as$ kicked, shouting "ooooh, just you wait, you enemy, you..." at the monitor, and then returning to that area after a few levels and administering some serious arse whooping to the aforementioned foe.

 

Even if the BG and ID series did use some sort of level scaling, imo it was superbly used, as it allowed the player to have that all important feeling of acomplishment and achievement and balancing the game at the same time.

[Hassat Hunter]

BG2 had some scaling yes. About the same they want in PE.

So the feeling of progression will be there. As does the experience of meeting a powerful foe early and dying merciless.

 

Also, it does surprise me so many people state "but if XP is fixed by objectives, you get stuck! You can't grind to unstuck" like PE will be some railroaded Diablo II or something. If you are "stuck" just do more sidequests. Explore more. Complete those objectives. And you get all the XP you need. If not, you probably should look at improving your strategy or turning down the difficulty slider.

Like some people honestly believe that if you're so called "stuck" the only way is back and grind, and you can't sidestep on another adventure. So many people just unfamiliar with the BG/PS:T serious, or am I missing some fear or something? Or do people get here expecting Diablo IV?

 

EDIT:

For the record I dislike crafting. The best "crafting" would be Cespenar (BG2:ToB), but of course, that's not crafting at all as we know it in modern games.

All the pro's of crafting (good items, hunting for upgrades) without all the cons (carrying 50 wood and 50 iron to craft, overpowering too fast, mundane stuff creating, becoming a moneyincreasement exploit etc. etc. etc.).

*sigh*

Edited November 7, 2012 by Hassat Hunter

[Gatt9]

Solutions have been presented numerous times that cleanly handles that issue. Those solutions are completely ignored, and "Objective based xp is the best" continues to be asserted. Which means the issue cannot be what was originally stated, since a number of strictly better solutions have been proposed.

 

 

I disagree.

I haven't seen "better" solutions.

 

And while you are so keen to lump every proponent of objective-based-XP into the "want to sour my fun" category, allow me then to lump you into "I-want-it-all ego gamer" category.

Balance must be mantained after all.

 

It's what people are posting. All of these defenses of Objective based xp are trying to manage some subset of Player's behavior. "Someone might go back and kill the guards and get extra XP after finishing the quest", "Metagaming", etc, how is this relevant to the topic of the best way to handle xp such that all solutions are viable?

 

They're not. They're trying to force people whom the poster will never ever see to play the game their way. It's completely irrelevant to the topic, and is not a valid reason.

 

You're also welcome to lump me in that catagory if you like, but you *might* want to go back and read my posts first, you'll find I've been arguing for a solution that doesn't "Give me it all".

 

Uumu..how is that a bad thing?

Knowing with more accuracy player XP is good for balancing encounters and quests.

 

And how is that less organic?

 

Because that makes it linear. Since there's no way to gain Xp except by doing quests, you can *never* do a level 10 quest without first having done the level 5 quests. You're forced to walk the straight predetermined path without deviation.

 

Plus, it's trivial to predict with high accuracy the Player's level at any given point in each other system. Your low value is the Player who just followed the main quest path, your high value is the Player who followed Main + Sidequests, and anyone who opted to grind outside of that is on their own (If it's even possible to grind).

 

I don't think you noticed Eleronds post?

Objectives != Quests

 

So even the XP between ones that do all side-quests various, depending how thorough they are in their exploration.

 

You're implementing a convoluted system now. You've just increased the complexity and potential for defects by an order of magnitude, and quite possible introduced crippling performance issues.

 

Now you have to continuously check the world state to see if some conditions were met, with a number of different conditions that could each be in a different state, each condition tied to an entity, all in the background. Meaning...if you encounter a mercenary group in the field...

 

-You have to check if a diplomacy condition was met

-You have to check if a stealth condition was met foreach entity (Your alternative being a highly exploitable hotspot you must reach)

-You have to check if a combat condition was met foreach entity

-You have to make sure that if 1 entity has a stealth solution and the rest a combat solution the reward isn't triggered until it's unanimous.

-Same thing in reverse.

 

This is not at all easy to do, and exceptionally easy to have defects abound.

 

This is *not* that difficult. There are far, far, less complex and defect prone ways to solve the issue of "Non-combat solutions aren't viable" than hacking in all of these exceptions just to get back to what I proposed pages and pages ago with a simple bool and a modifier table in each entities base class.

[Hassat Hunter]

Aye aye aye

*sigh*

It's what people are posting. All of these defenses of Objective based xp are trying to manage some subset of Player's behavior. "Someone might go back and kill the guards and get extra XP after finishing the quest", "Metagaming", etc, how is this relevant to the topic of the best way to handle xp such that all solutions are viable?

 

They're not. They're trying to force people whom the poster will never ever see to play the game their way. It's completely irrelevant to the topic, and is not a valid reason.

 

You're also welcome to lump me in that catagory if you like, but you *might* want to go back and read my posts first, you'll find I've been arguing for a solution that doesn't "Give me it all".

*sigh*

Ask his post to be read, doesn't read other posts well.

*sigh*

Because that makes it linear. Since there's no way to gain Xp except by doing quests, you can *never* do a level 10 quest without first having done the level 5 quests. You're forced to walk the straight predetermined path without deviation.

QUESTS != OBJECTIVE.

Goddammit man.

Let's see you have objectives A to Z. All around your level.

One may do ABC... the other ZYX... another KTAM... the other ZALRP... etc. etc.

And the fun thing is... you aren't forced to do all of them. You aren't forced to do any of them. They are all side-objectives, completely seperate of the main plot.

Tell me where there is linearity in that. Also expecting people to do so called 'lvl 10' while they're level 5 obviously shouldn't happen under any situation... :/

Plus, it's trivial to predict with high accuracy the Player's level at any given point in each other system.

Very well. Predict me what point the player is when it's done Z. I dare you. Keep in mind what I said before...

Not so predicatable now, is it?

Your low value is the Player who just followed the main quest path

So far so good.

your high value is the Player who followed Main + Sidequests

**** **** **** ****.

QUESTS != OBJECTIVE

GODDAMMIT...

Also are you posting under multiple accounts. It's suspicious multiple people post this exact faulty deduction.

and anyone who opted to grind outside of that is on their own (If it's even possible to grind).

It's called exploring, not grinding. Well in your system it's called grinding, true enough.

You're implementing a convoluted system now. You've just increased the complexity and potential for defects by an order of magnitude, and quite possible introduced crippling performance issues.

Do objective, get XP.

No ups or downs to compensate for level, no checks if sneaking, no having to take into account whats done to complete the objective, no killcounters. Nothing, just 1 XP point.

 

I am pretty sure it can't get any less convoluted than that... I guarantee.

Also it will be have zero effects on the system, easy to implent and adapt for developers, easy to debug. Yeah... it's so horrible. Kill it with fire.

Now you have to continuously check the world state to see if some conditions were met, with a number of different conditions that could each be in a different state, each condition tied to an entity, all in the background. Meaning...if you encounter a mercenary group in the field...

I am not sure what exactly you think I wrote, but if "click altar = XP" (to really simplify an exploration objective) requires constant world checking, multiple conditions, entities, background running stuff and god knows what else, you're doing something wrong.

 

I am pretty sure it was your system with the "sneak past" that added such complexities just because the game can't possible know what the hell 'sneak past' means without adding a serious margin for error, which isn't good.

This is *not* that difficult. There are far, far, less complex and defect prone ways to solve the issue of "Non-combat solutions aren't viable" than hacking in all of these exceptions just to get back to what I proposed pages and pages ago with a simple bool and a modifier table in each entities base class.

Again, not sure what the hell you think I suggested other than "objective solved? XP!"

Just a bool, nothing less, nothing more. No "modifier table", no "entity base class", nothing.

 

And if one issue must prevail XP-wise (say, killing the dragon) just add that XP on top? Solved the dragon issue? 5XP. Kill the dragon? 2XP. Immediately solve the dragon problem with violence instead of another way 5XP+2XP (=7XP).

Yup... that simple. It really is... that simple.

 

EDIT: If still too hard to grasp... while this could work, making it slighly more 'advanced' can add a lot to easier modification in the future and for modmakers. Both for their mods, as well as modding the base game... read all about it in my thread here;

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61612-most-developermodderfriendly-xp-system/

Edited November 7, 2012 by Hassat Hunter

[steelshark]

I am strongly FOR Objective-based XP.

Reason:

Quests and/or Objectives can be built in a way that multiple paths lead to solving them, which likely leads to players using the XP to buy skills/abilities they want, not those that are "needed" (mostly combat). Combat is fine. I like combat. But alternatives to combat can greatly enhance the gameplay.

Please just don't force players down a single path.

Deus Ex Human revolution was a bad example in 2 ways:

1.) Boss Fights. I was just massively disappointed about this. Whole game being stealthy... and then forced open fights = no-go.

2.) XP for doing things one way (non-lethal / up-close). Combined with the 1-key-takedown it just screamed "look at the cool animations" to me.

 

Bloodlines was a very nice example of how XP can be done. Although i would also leave out "extra"-XP for doing things one way.

ie:

Goal is to find documents > 5xp

Quest-giver also wants you to kill all guards.

Don't give xp for killing all guards. Give an "in-game" bonus (money/items).

[TrashMan]

Uumu..how is that a bad thing?

Knowing with more accuracy player XP is good for balancing encounters and quests.

 

And how is that less organic?

 

Because that makes it linear. Since there's no way to gain Xp except by doing quests, you can *never* do a level 10 quest without first having done the level 5 quests. You're forced to walk the straight predetermined path without deviation.

 

Plus, it's trivial to predict with high accuracy the Player's level at any given point in each other system. Your low value is the Player who just followed the main quest path, your high value is the Player who followed Main + Sidequests, and anyone who opted to grind outside of that is on their own (If it's even possible to grind).

 

Incorrect.

That depends on the way leveling and power scales.

You can do a quest that's several levels above or beneath you in a well-made system.

 

And what you describe in neither exact nor trivial.

 

 

 

 

You're implementing a convoluted system now. You've just increased the complexity and potential for defects by an order of magnitude, and quite possible introduced crippling performance issues.

 

Now you have to continuously check the world state to see if some conditions were met, with a number of different conditions that could each be in a different state, each condition tied to an entity, all in the background. Meaning...if you encounter a mercenary group in the field...

 

-You have to check if a diplomacy condition was met

-You have to check if a stealth condition was met foreach entity (Your alternative being a highly exploitable hotspot you must reach)

-You have to check if a combat condition was met foreach entity

-You have to make sure that if 1 entity has a stealth solution and the rest a combat solution the reward isn't triggered until it's unanimous.

-Same thing in reverse.

 

This is not at all easy to do, and exceptionally easy to have defects abound.

 

What? No you don't.

What kind of overy-complex system do you have in mind here?

 

Your solutions are about as elegant as a monkey in a fine restoraunt.

[Juneau]

I like XP per kills - I also like XP per quest

 

I also like XP per enemy avoided via stealth per quest? Dunno if it's even plausible BUT perhaps include some of area lvl xp amount that you get a % of based on if your lower lvl then you should be etc.

[hairyscotsman2]

I'm against getting absolutely zero experience for fighting.

 

However, I'd be happy to get an amount that made any grinding of random encounters or whatever, to level ahead of the quests impractical.

 

I'd just like to get a token something for killing stuff. Is there a kill-o-meter? ? A Kill-o-meter would do.

 

P.S By objectives do you mean anything not fighting? PS:T gave xp for dialogue options.

[Karkarov]

Because that makes it linear. Since there's no way to gain Xp except by doing quests, you can *never* do a level 10 quest without first having done the level 5 quests. You're forced to walk the straight predetermined path without deviation.

 

Plus, it's trivial to predict with high accuracy the Player's level at any given point in each other system. Your low value is the Player who just followed the main quest path, your high value is the Player who followed Main + Sidequests, and anyone who opted to grind outside of that is on their own (If it's even possible to grind).

Wow, someone knows absolutely nothing about game design. I don't care what the exp model is, if the game is built correctly the devs WILL be able to predict your level and general party "strength" at any given point in it. It is in fact REQUiRED they be able to do this to make a balanced fun game. Even most "grind games" eventually simply give you little to no exp for your grinding and force you to move on with the story where, low and behold, you are really only slightly stronger than someone who just did the quests was. In the end your grinding availed you basically nothing.

 

In games where you are required to grind the encounters became too hard too fast and forced the player to repeat content to compensate. That isn't a exp model, that is incompetent and lazy game design based around the idea of padding the players playtime to keep them in game. Only games that basically suck need to do this, or ones where the devs are just incapable of doing their job effectively. Looking at Diablo and Blizzard here. Or well a game made by an Asian company, Asians seem to think grinding is fun for some reason. You don't happen to be Asian do you?

 

What? No you don't.

What kind of overy-complex system do you have in mind here?

 

Your solutions are about as elegant as a monkey in a fine restoraunt.

I think he believes Obsidian is making this game on RPG Maker.

[Hassat Hunter]

Objective is pretty wide.

 

It can be finding something, completing a quest, getting somewhere, pretty much anything.

[Elerond]

In objective based system you only need codition that checks when objective is completed

 

Addition to this you need of course need flags for world reactions, but you need these in every system.

 

This flags are things like

Did not kill any one when carrying out objective (T/F)

Did kill all enemies included objective (T/F)

Bargained free pass through area (T/F)

Killed people after bargaing (T/F)

etc.

 

Every flag is easy to check and then after objective is completed designer can give more or less experience depending what flags are up and what are down. So there is no need for any active tracking scripts to make difference between different approaches to object and to check how world will react to these approaches.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Elerond

[wanderon]

I'm against getting absolutely zero experience for fighting.

 

However, I'd be happy to get an amount that made any grinding of random encounters or whatever, to level ahead of the quests impractical.

 

I'd just like to get a token something for killing stuff. Is there a kill-o-meter? ? A Kill-o-meter would do.

 

P.S By objectives do you mean anything not fighting? PS:T gave xp for dialogue options.

 

Objectives mean anything you do to move through the game INCLUDING fighting - there will be fighting - there will be lots of fighting - the amount of fighting there will be will absolutely astound you and I have no doubt you will get experience for all of it.

 

It just will not be calculated by the number of bodies that fall - it will be calculated based on the objectives you complete by fighting or any other option they give you to complete them.

 

Just becuase people are used to getting experience creature by creature as they cut a swath of destruction across the realm doesn't mean it's the only way or even the best way to design a game especially when one of the prime directives they wish to follow is to include other methods of completing objectives than fighting.

[jethro]

In objective based system you only need codition that checks when objective is completed

 

Addition to this you need of course need flags for world reactions, but you need these in every system.

 

This flags are things like

Did not kill any one when carrying out objective (T/F)

Did kill all enemies included objective (T/F)

Bargained free pass through area (T/F)

Killed people after bargaing (T/F)

etc.

 

Every flag is easy to check and then after objective is completed designer can give more or less experience depending what flags are up and what are down. So there is no need for any active tracking scripts to make difference between different approaches to object and to check how world will react to these approaches.

 

I don't think these flags are necessary. They would be if you want to give different xp for different solutions, but only then. Normally the solution to a quest is your personal decision. No single solution should be the "right" one. An exception might be to giv more xp for a solution that is very difficult, but apart from that the game shouldn't judge you. That was one of the principles Avellone (I think) mentioned they want to adhere to.

 

You also don't need the flags to implement world reactions. If you kill a member of a faction you can decrement the faction stat immediately. If you negotiate something with him you can increment immediately. There is the case that you got better with them through bargaining and then killing them afterward. But the penalty for killing them should realistically be much higher than the gain of one bargain success. If you make a bussiness deal with a yakuza and then kill one member of his organisation, guess which action he will value more.

Edited November 7, 2012 by jethro

[Elerond]

In objective based system you only need codition that checks when objective is completed

 

Addition to this you need of course need flags for world reactions, but you need these in every system.

 

This flags are things like

Did not kill any one when carrying out objective (T/F)

Did kill all enemies included objective (T/F)

Bargained free pass through area (T/F)

Killed people after bargaing (T/F)

etc.

 

Every flag is easy to check and then after objective is completed designer can give more or less experience depending what flags are up and what are down. So there is no need for any active tracking scripts to make difference between different approaches to object and to check how world will react to these approaches.

 

I don't think these flags are necessary. They would be if you want to give different xp for different solutions, but only then. Normally the solution to a quest is your personal decision. No single solution should be the "right" one. An exception might be to giv more xp for a solution that is very difficult, but apart from that the game shouldn't judge you. That was one of the principles Avellone (I think) mentioned they want to adhere to.

 

You also don't need the flags to implement world reactions. If you kill a member of a faction you can decrement the faction stat immediately. If you negotiate something with him you can increment immediately. There is the case that you got better with them through bargaining and then killing them afterward. But the penalty for killing them should realistically be much higher than the gain of one bargain success. If you make a bussiness deal with a yakuza and then kill one member of his organisation, guess which action he will value more.

 

Faction meters and etc. world reaction meters are just more complex flags (meaning that they have more than one state). But sometimes you need add objective specific flag variables, for example if faction 1 would like you to do objective without killing anyone and faction 2 would like to you finish objective killing every one, and this kind checks are usually easiest to do with objective specific flags. But of course need of objective specific flags depend on what global flags you have in game and what kind options you want to give player

[freche]

I voted Against.

 

Personally I think majority of the XP should come from objectives regardless of outcome.

However a decent amount should be rewarded for killing things. Otherwise combat will just become tedious since most battles don't reward usable loot.

 

If they want to avoid genocide and unnecessary slaughter then there could be wanted/unwanted events tied to doing such things.

 

Killing every wolf you see could bring a grudge against Druids while at the same time give lots of reputation with the local farmers.

Doing a lot of "unnecessary" killing could make people weary/uneasy around you.

etc.

[Alexjh]

I'd add that for my personal preference I'd not only grant XP per kill but per successfully doing (almost) anything at which there is a chance of failure. Successfully undo a lock? XP. Successfully disarm a trap? XP. Successfully use a tracking skill to detect monsters are ahead? XP. Successfully bluff a guard into letting you through? XP.

 

There are plenty of compromises possible (I've pitched 3 or 4) and no one is saying no to objective XP (only they want "real time" XP too) in my mind two of the most important factors here are a) people don't learn when they completely finish a task, they learn as they are doing a task and b) the "real time XP" worked in the Infinity Engine games which worked perfectly fine there.

 

In some ways pure objective XP is harder to balance, particularly if you load a character through into a second playthrough or are playing it with a less than full party - if XP is constant from quests you either end up with the character getting = XP every time regardless of whether your character is high enough level to clear a dungeon blindfolded or you do scale it and proportionatly end up with said characters getting so little XP they take forever to level up. If you however have "live" XP as scaling to next to nothing but have objective based XP at a fixed level you then get a suitable trickle enough to keep that character growing.

 

Yes there are reasons to limit or tweak kill XP (negate grinding) but there are ways around that which have already been discussed.

[PieSnatcher]

 

It's what people are posting. All of these defenses of Objective based xp are trying to manage some subset of Player's behavior. "Someone might go back and kill the guards and get extra XP after finishing the quest", "Metagaming", etc, how is this relevant to the topic of the best way to handle xp such that all solutions are viable?

 

They're not. They're trying to force people whom the poster will never ever see to play the game their way. It's completely irrelevant to the topic, and is not a valid reason.

 

 

You really haven't been paying attention (or don't care). Has anyone said they wanted to force people to play the game their way? Once? I think the closest anyone has ever come to saying that (directly or in between the lines) is when HHunter said:

 

 

Allowing to farm and/or grind are repetitive and boring occassions. Making the game heavily rely on it may be good for Diablo, but not for a game like PE. Hence, the less we need to resort to grind and thrashmobs, the better the game for everyone. Also, from a developers point of view grinding would be bad since it makes the expected power level of the player vary much more. Making balancing of encounters and the game more difficult. You should be able to deduct an avarage power-level of all gamers depending on wheter they just went the main quest, did several sidethings, or went full-out exploring every nook and cranny. Without having to take into account overpowering those players with re-appearing bunches of experience.

 

 

Which isn't at all the impression I got when I read his post.

 

You are constantly ignoring the real reason why we want to see this game mechanic. A result of objective xp does limit everyone's ability to farm xp- but that is not the goal. The goal is to make the game easier to design and balance. Feel free to disagree and to attack the position- it is debatable how effective it is at accomplishing this goal. But the more I read your arguments, the less convincing you are because you aren't very good at acknowledging what HHunter/jethro/anyone actually say.

 

 

 

You're implementing a convoluted system now. You've just increased the complexity and potential for defects by an order of magnitude, and quite possible introduced crippling performance issues.

 

Now you have to continuously check the world state to see if some conditions were met, with a number of different conditions that could each be in a different state, each condition tied to an entity, all in the background. Meaning...if you encounter a mercenary group in the field...

 

-You have to check if a diplomacy condition was met

-You have to check if a stealth condition was met foreach entity (Your alternative being a highly exploitable hotspot you must reach)

-You have to check if a combat condition was met foreach entity

-You have to make sure that if 1 entity has a stealth solution and the rest a combat solution the reward isn't triggered until it's unanimous.

-Same thing in reverse.

 

 

It's pretty easy to label something convoluted when you make up the example yourself. Sure, objective-xp can be convoluted- but it can be simple. Just like some of the compromise solutions that have been suggested.

 

Objective based xp doesn't need to be any more intricate than kill based- but it can be, depending on how deep the devs feel they can go. If they could design each mission/side-quest/errand with a gazillion booleans without bugs great (I guess). But I think it will be much simpler than that (how 'bout just finishing the objective- and you can do it in whatever way suits you?).

 

In fact, it can be less complicated. We already have both kill and objective based xp in the IE games to some extent. Some missions are more complicated than others and have their fair share of globals. By limiting xp to mostly objectives (again, they can make killing certain things an objective), they are actually removing some variables they have to account for in game design- again, this is an argument for streamlined game design and balance. Most of us don't get our jollies from "controlling" other players (who, as you mentioned, we'll never see).

 

 

QUESTS != OBJECTIVE.

Goddammit man.

 

I laughed when I read this.

Edited November 7, 2012 by PieSnatcher

[PieSnatcher]

I'd add that for my personal preference I'd not only grant XP per kill but per successfully doing (almost) anything at which there is a chance of failure. Successfully undo a lock? XP. Successfully disarm a trap? XP. Successfully use a tracking skill to detect monsters are ahead? XP. Successfully bluff a guard into letting you through? XP.

 

There are plenty of compromises possible (I've pitched 3 or 4) and no one is saying no to objective XP (only they want "real time" XP too) in my mind two of the most important factors here are a) people don't learn when they completely finish a task, they learn as they are doing a task and b) the "real time XP" worked in the Infinity Engine games which worked perfectly fine there.

 

In some ways pure objective XP is harder to balance, particularly if you load a character through into a second playthrough or are playing it with a less than full party - if XP is constant from quests you either end up with the character getting = XP every time regardless of whether your character is high enough level to clear a dungeon blindfolded or you do scale it and proportionatly end up with said characters getting so little XP they take forever to level up. If you however have "live" XP as scaling to next to nothing but have objective based XP at a fixed level you then get a suitable trickle enough to keep that character growing.

 

Yes there are reasons to limit or tweak kill XP (negate grinding) but there are ways around that which have already been discussed.

 

Sorry for the double post, but I like your argument. I'm still for, but I like that you are actually addressing what people are actually saying. I still think that it is easier to balance objective xp though- I imagine the biggest xp earners are going to be the main ones, and I don't think it would be too hard to design a bottom line there with (very) limited scaling for side stuff. Much of which could be made semi-mandatory (a la chapter 2 of BGII- you had a main goal and to accomplish it you chose from many, many, smaller goals). And it wouldn't encourage repeating a ton of small mundane tasks.

 

I do see your point with the balancing though- for a big BGII-esque game, even with objective xp it can be hard to account for a huge range of objectives.

[jethro]

There are plenty of compromises possible (I've pitched 3 or 4) and no one is saying no to objective XP (only they want "real time" XP too) in my mind two of the most important factors here are a) people don't learn when they completely finish a task, they learn as they are doing a task and b) the "real time XP" worked in the Infinity Engine games which worked perfectly fine there.

 

Is a) the reality argument again? No, in reality people don't learn alchemy when they kill an orc. And 30 more xp in the game makes you not fight a little better as you seem to imagine, your fighting changes only when you hit the next level, even in a kill-xp setting.

 

And b) yes, it worked in the Infinity Engine because there were very few stealth or other solutions present. Note that PS:T had mostly objective based xp because there were more diplomatic solutions implemented.

 

Now, it is true that very little kill-xp in a mostly objective-based system won't harm the balancing too much, the question is: Will for example 5 xp for an orc be enough for you when the gap to the next level is 100,000xp?

 

In some ways pure objective XP is harder to balance, particularly if you load a character through into a second playthrough or are playing it with a less than full party - if XP is constant from quests you either end up with the character getting = XP every time regardless of whether your character is high enough level to clear a dungeon blindfolded or you do scale it and proportionatly end up with said characters getting so little XP they take forever to level up. If you however have "live" XP as scaling to next to nothing but have objective based XP at a fixed level you then get a suitable trickle enough to keep that character growing.

 

This is not Diablo, there will be no balancing for high-level characters you reload into the game.

 

The less than full party has no problem because it will level at the same speed than a full party (as each character gets the same xp, whether alone or with companions). In a well-balanced game a less than full party will have the same problems with mobs in the early game than in the late game.

 

If someone still hits an unsurmountable obstacle in the main game he might look for side-jobs like side-quests or the mega-dungeon. But there again, whether you get the xp for some objective (like clearing level 2) or for the monsters in level 2 does not really matter.

[Alexjh]

Is a) the reality argument again? No, in reality people don't learn alchemy when they kill an orc. And 30 more xp in the game makes you not fight a little better as you seem to imagine, your fighting changes only when you hit the next level, even in a kill-xp setting.

 

And b) yes, it worked in the Infinity Engine because there were very few stealth or other solutions present. Note that PS:T had mostly objective based xp because there were more diplomatic solutions implemented.

 

Now, it is true that very little kill-xp in a mostly objective-based system won't harm the balancing too much, the question is: Will for example 5 xp for an orc be enough for you when the gap to the next level is 100,000xp?

 

This is not Diablo, there will be no balancing for high-level characters you reload into the game.

 

I'm not claiming that it's realistic about learning alchemy from orc slaying (tho you probably get a good idea of the properties of various orc internal fluids from them sprayign everywhere) but the point being that gameplay and the levelling process becomes more organic when you have a smooth XP progression of constantly gaining XP in small increments rather than in chunks which would mean you only ever level up upon completing an objective. As I said, mixing both objective and active XP gathering is the ideal because then you can literally level up at any point. From a gameplay perspective you want to feel like levelling is a constant process because otherwise you are giving the players an excuse to stop, levelling up is a "buzz moment" in an RPG, and if it only happens at specific points on objective completion you are saying "well, that buzz wont come until you get to the bottom of the dungeon, even though you are practically leveled now" which means you are giving the player a point at which to stop, whereas if they know that they just need to get past the first few skeletons in the foyer to "ding" that keeps them doing.

 

This is not Diablo, but what it is is a game with not 1 but 3 hard settings, including an equivalent to Icewind Dales Heart of Fury which basically required you to reload a preexisting game completing party/character in because it was leveled that way.

 

Has the XP thing been actually stated by Obsidian, because if so I'm not a particular fan of that choice, if the assumption is you are doing something with a party of six and you pull it off with a party of three, by definition each of those characters is doing twice the work and therefore should be getting twice the XP. Part of the playstyle options of the Infinity Engine games was letting you make your own decisions about party size, balancing greater power but fewer characters against more characters (and thus more tactical options) but individual lower power. As Obsidian has said they intend it to be soloable (can't remember where off the top of my head) that would seem strange as then your one character would be doing the work of six without any tradeoffs for doing so.

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, no-one said solo play should be easy. It will be a challenge. Not much challenge if you super-level past all encounters.

 

Also remember there will be about 12(!) levels, not 50 of Diablo. So thinking of leveling as "buzz moment", "just a few skeletons away" etc. isn't the right way to go. With the amount of content in PE leveling will take time and be far away, so these qualifications wont run here. You only get it about 11 times in the entire game.

And removing kill-XP is another step in just making it that little easier to manage, so not everyone is lvl 12 at 40% of the content, that's just bad design.

 

It was pretty much stated. However after some fuzz, Fergus said it wasn't set in stone after all. Personally I hope they don't turn back from this because of some fans not understanding objectives (as this thread clearly proves) or being stuck to the old ways. My opinion anyway.

[Gatt9]

Because that makes it linear. Since there's no way to gain Xp except by doing quests, you can *never* do a level 10 quest without first having done the level 5 quests. You're forced to walk the straight predetermined path without deviation.

 

Plus, it's trivial to predict with high accuracy the Player's level at any given point in each other system. Your low value is the Player who just followed the main quest path, your high value is the Player who followed Main + Sidequests, and anyone who opted to grind outside of that is on their own (If it's even possible to grind).

Wow, someone knows absolutely nothing about game design. I don't care what the exp model is, if the game is built correctly the devs WILL be able to predict your level and general party "strength" at any given point in it. It is in fact REQUiRED they be able to do this to make a balanced fun game. Even most "grind games" eventually simply give you little to no exp for your grinding and force you to move on with the story where, low and behold, you are really only slightly stronger than someone who just did the quests was. In the end your grinding availed you basically nothing.

 

In games where you are required to grind the encounters became too hard too fast and forced the player to repeat content to compensate. That isn't a exp model, that is incompetent and lazy game design based around the idea of padding the players playtime to keep them in game. Only games that basically suck need to do this, or ones where the devs are just incapable of doing their job effectively. Looking at Diablo and Blizzard here. Or well a game made by an Asian company, Asians seem to think grinding is fun for some reason. You don't happen to be Asian do you?

 

Wow, someone knows absolutely nothing about reading. Try reading what I posted, you just reiterated what I already said, while insulting me for saying it.

 

What? No you don't.

What kind of overy-complex system do you have in mind here?

 

Your solutions are about as elegant as a monkey in a fine restoraunt.

I think he believes Obsidian is making this game on RPG Maker.

 

You both should probably learn something about programming. It's not complicated...

 

If you're going to turn every encounter into an "Objective" that you solve by both combat and non-combat methods, then you have to check game state for the progress of those methods. Stealth and combat are great examples. how do you determine when the solution is reached? By creating a hotspot on the map? Just stealth your way to the hotspot and you win? That doesn't work, what if the player misses stepping on the hotspot?

 

Your only option is to assign the creatures themselves a variable that states whether or not you successfully passed them, and each one will require their own check, and you'll have to continuously check to see if all of them have been passed in order to reward the player. Which becomes *extremely* problematic if 3 passed stealth, 1 fails, and you kill that 1 that failed. Now you have major potential for a defect, because you cannot reward the stealth "Objective" since all 4 didn't pass. Now you also have to track the combat solution, and you must do it in real time. For every single entity involved in one of these convoluted "Objectives" you're asking to be implemented.

 

It's pretty easy to label something convoluted when you make up the example yourself. Sure, objective-xp can be convoluted- but it can be simple. Just like some of the compromise solutions that have been suggested.

 

Objective based xp doesn't need to be any more intricate than kill based- but it can be, depending on how deep the devs feel they can go. If they could design each mission/side-quest/errand with a gazillion booleans without bugs great (I guess). But I think it will be much simpler than that (how 'bout just finishing the objective- and you can do it in whatever way suits you?).

 

In fact, it can be less complicated. We already have both kill and objective based xp in the IE games to some extent. Some missions are more complicated than others and have their fair share of globals. By limiting xp to mostly objectives (again, they can make killing certain things an objective), they are actually removing some variables they have to account for in game design- again, this is an argument for streamlined game design and balance. Most of us don't get our jollies from "controlling" other players (who, as you mentioned, we'll never see).

 

It's convoluted because that's what Hassat Hunter is proposing, he's trying to morph "Objectives" to be Solution based rewards without actually implementing solution based rewards.

 

It could be less complicated, sure. It's utterly simple at it's lowest level of implementation, but it's drawback is it's inherent linearity. Objective based xp is inherently ultra-linear, as there's no way to ever progress except with the exact path the Dev's have planned with you.

 

Contrast that to the IE games, especailly Baldur's Gate, where there's nothing that forces you to go from A to B, you can progress asynchronously from the expectations of the developers by crawling your way through a higher difficulty area becoming increasingly adept as you progress. Something an Objective based system precludes, because as the difficulty of the area ramps up closer to the goal, you remain static in power.

 

Which isn't at all the impression I got when I read his post.

 

You are constantly ignoring the real reason why we want to see this game mechanic. A result of objective xp does limit everyone's ability to farm xp- but that is not the goal. The goal is to make the game easier to design and balance. Feel free to disagree and to attack the position- it is debatable how effective it is at accomplishing this goal. But the more I read your arguments, the less convincing you are because you aren't very good at acknowledging what HHunter/jethro/anyone actually say.

 

I'm not ignoring the reason why you might want to see this mechanic. I am ignoring Hassat Hunter and Jethro's responses for the most part. There's a reason for that, go back to the pages in the mid-20's and watch as they twist my arguements in an attempt to avoid dealing with the subject at hand, primarily because both of their posts make it apparent their motivation is to manage player behavior, because they consistently fall back to behavior management arguements when their posts are debated. I have neither the time nor inclination to let either of them drag me off topic as they strawman and twist to try and avoid dealing with the actual subject.

 

As far as making it easier to design and balance, I still maintain it does not. Or more accurately, that compeiting systems are just as easily designed and balanced. As I've said, just add up all of the xp for the mainline, that gives you your min. Add the xp for the mainline + sidequests, that gives you your high end. No need to design or balance for those who choose to play by grinding or exploiting, that's their problem, not the designers.

 

From that point, you just look at your min and your high end, tweak the values of critters/quests/xp of your stuff once, and you're done. You can do all of this in the design phase easily, it's the same thing you have to do with Objective based xp.