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

[STiAT]

Definitely for that system. I prefer solving quests and subtasks having a stable and controlable progress throughout the game instead of slaying monsters.

 

Didn't like the monster-exp thing in any game.

[True_Spike]

Recieving absolutely NO experience points for killing opponents is something I wouldn't want to see. If most of the XP came from completing quests and only a bit from the monster slaying that would be ok.

 

XP for killing monsters is an integral part of any infinity engine game and I would feel slightly cheated if that mechanics was completely removed from P:E.

Edited October 16, 2012 by True_Spike

[evdk]

 

And associating all "epic monsters" with quest doesn't solve the problem, either. What if I don't want to do the quest related to a dragon I'm about to kill? What if the quest is given by a faction I don't want to help, e.g. Evil mage: "bring me th head of that dragon and I'll make a artifact, thaht will destroy this town"? In that case I get no XP for killing the dragon. My party learns nothing in the process. It's a bit of a problem.

 

Not really. You would still get plenty of loot from killing him. There's also the possibility of tying more then one quest to an encounter (in your example you could kill the dragon for a necromancer to reanimate or defeat him to ease he suffering of neighbouring villages.

And the supposition that since you killed stuff you must have learn something is IMHO a slight misunderstanding what experience gain means - it's an abstraction to chart your character's growth which is not necessarily tied to killing stuff. I mean I see where you are coming from (and that you have written that in the end you don't really care if the objective oriented xp makes it into the game or not) but I think I prefer the system where you are not made by mechanics to commit random genocide campaigns against local wildlife.

[Infinitron]

You wouldn't need to get a quest to kill the dragon from somebody else. Presumably upon meeting the dragon you would get a bit of dialog with him, challenge him to a fight, and defeating the dragon would turn out to be an objective in and of itself.

[teknoman2]

I don't want to discover that after an epic battle with a red dragon my party learns nothing.

 

Well, if there were be a red dragon in the game (let's hope not, I'm sick of them already) it would probably be tied to a quest. This is also why I believe that the distinction of regular and epic monsters is useless when the quests and encounters are properly designed.

Well, there were a few dragons in BGII, that weren't tied to any quests. You could kill them but you didn't have to.

 

And associating all "epic monsters" with quest doesn't solve the problem, either. What if I don't want to do the quest related to a dragon I'm about to kill? What if the quest is given by a faction I don't want to help, e.g. Evil mage: "bring me th head of that dragon and I'll make a artifact, thaht will destroy this town"? In that case I get no XP for killing the dragon. My party learns nothing in the process. It's a bit of a problem.

wrong. the evil mage asks you to kill the silver dragon and bring the blood.

1. you accept, kill the dragon, return to mage, get xp

2. you accept, go to dragon, convince him to give you some blood without a fight, go to mage, get xp

3. you accept, go to dragon, betray the mage, get xp

4. you say no, go to dragon, get a quest from the dragon, do it in one of 4 different ways, get xp

5. you kill the mage, get his formula, get the blood with the 1 or 2 method, make the item your self. no xp but a legendary item.

pretty easy isnt it? if they implement an alternative for any decision you make that denies you a reward, in the end you will still get the xp, without having to change the way you play

[Osvir]

Serious question, how many of you grinded experience in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale etc. etc? (The majority of this poll says "No", just by looking at the poll and comments. So was the system in the IE games really bad?). I'm enjoying myself quite a lot down in Dragon's Eye currently Icewind Dale, level 7~ I've got a couple of mods that may or may not be affected (I'm not getting experience for lockpicking or removing traps).

 

There is nothing wrong with how experience is handled in the IE games (in all seriousness).

[elminster]

Maybe its not a problem to gain no experience points from figthing if we have a countless number of quests. You should also think of an evil character who doesnt want to do all "noble" quests. I dont expect that there will be so many evil quests, so what if you murder all god powerful characters and dont get a reward (since much of them tend to have no loot).

 

And what about random enemies encountering when resting outside or traveling? Come on, that was quiet nice and should be an option. I cant see a possible quest in this direction. I also think figthing is at least sometimes much more difficult (against a dragon such as mentioned above) and should give you more experience than the peaceful option (think of BG 2: not a single dragon you had to figth, but nice experience (22k) for killing one).

[Cassius]

Strongly for it. It means no particular playstyle is penalised which is both good in terms of player choice but also means we will likely get a better more finely turned game as the developers dont have to balance around killy mcsmashface arriving at the end of the game at level 20 but bob the pacifist thief arriving at level 16

[Theobeau]

For.

 

However the suggestions listed in the previous pages of of a variant system that has the majority of XP given for goals/objectives; reduced but tiered to player and enemy level XP for defeating enemies and importantly XP gain for the use of non-combat skills sounds like a fair compromise.

[Gatt9]

What it comes down to for me is:

 

Kill based XP = You need to kill everything

Objective based XP = You can play how you want

 

I prefer to avoid combat in RPGs because its mostly boring and I'd rather get on with the story or quests, so Objective based fits my playstyle better.

 

In other words, For.

 

You've made the false assumption that you have to kill everything if you receive xp/kill, this is not true, xp/kill doesn't mean there isn't other ways to get xp in a well designed system. I'm really not sure why people keep jumping to this conclusion.

[Juneau]

I'm all for it - To use Skyrim as an example - My super ninja play through (Stealth+illusion) resulted in me killing as little as possible - The problem ended up being I got far through the game and some fights were just annoying because I had almost no offensive capability and due to bugs/tight areas stealth wasn't fully an affordable option. So I had to go on a few massacres to get my dagger skill up.

 

XP For achieving targets/goals/quests/achievements is the way it should be done. XP for killing.... urghhh I suppose I can understand if it were weapon skills or something but I'm all for on completion's of tasks.

[sollus]

What it comes down to for me is:

 

Kill based XP = You need to kill everything

Objective based XP = You can play how you want

 

I prefer to avoid combat in RPGs because its mostly boring and I'd rather get on with the story or quests, so Objective based fits my playstyle better.

 

In other words, For.

 

You've made the false assumption that you have to kill everything if you receive xp/kill, this is not true, xp/kill doesn't mean there isn't other ways to get xp in a well designed system. I'm really not sure why people keep jumping to this conclusion.

 

Something we also need to recognize is that a lot of players will only play the game once, typically (well I am willing to bet) that the majority play with the objective in mind in order to beat the game, they need to have the best most skilled and most powerful team/character that is possible. Towards that end, if enemies are XP to kill, it is not a choice to not kill them, unless you are roleplaying or limiting your characters actions according to some set of ethics or play style in order to achieve a good or evil outcome.

[harhar!]

Why not just have no prepetual respawn? Then nobody could grind but it wouldn't be a pain in the ass to fight monsters and waste your time on them.

[norolim]

Not really. You would still get plenty of loot from killing him. There's also the possibility of tying more then one quest to an encounter (in your example you could kill the dragon for a necromancer to reanimate or defeat him to ease he suffering of neighbouring villages.

And the supposition that since you killed stuff you must have learn something is IMHO a slight misunderstanding what experience gain means - it's an abstraction to chart your character's growth which is not necessarily tied to killing stuff. I mean I see where you are coming from (and that you have written that in the end you don't really care if the objective oriented xp makes it into the game or not) but I think I prefer the system where you are not made by mechanics to commit random genocide campaigns against local wildlife.

XP is not tied to killing stuff but fighting it. You learn new things, you get more experienced when you overcome significant challenges. That's why, I think there should be next to no or no XP for enemies that don't constitute a challenge. But the fact that the party learned new tactics and gained valuable combat expereince while fighting the dragon should be represented in some way by the game's mechanics. Also, I said I don't mind the idea of objective oriented XP, not that I don't care about it. I just added I think there is a better solution.

 

You wouldn't need to get a quest to kill the dragon from somebody else. Presumably upon meeting the dragon you would get a bit of dialog with him, challenge him to a fight, and defeating the dragon would turn out to be an objective in and of itself.

This could work, but then isn't the result the same as if the game just awarded reasonable amont of XP for epic enemies? The only substantial difference would be that what you suggest would require much more work from the devs. As I said: reasonable XP only for epic enemies, very little for standard, e.g 5 XP, when you need 5000 to level up, for an Orc of the same or higher level than the party average and no XP for insignificant foes.

 

wrong. the evil mage asks you to kill the silver dragon and bring the blood.

1. you accept, kill the dragon, return to mage, get xp

2. you accept, go to dragon, convince him to give you some blood without a fight, go to mage, get xp

3. you accept, go to dragon, betray the mage, get xp

4. you say no, go to dragon, get a quest from the dragon, do it in one of 4 different ways, get xp

5. you kill the mage, get his formula, get the blood with the 1 or 2 method, make the item your self. no xp but a legendary item.

pretty easy isnt it? if they implement an alternative for any decision you make that denies you a reward, in the end you will still get the xp, without having to change the way you play

No, you are wrong. The situation here is that I don't want to do all those quests. I just want to kill the dragon to practice my skills and gain valuable combat experience...or because I'm just an evil motherf***er.

Edited October 16, 2012 by norolim

[Living One]

You wouldn't need to get a quest to kill the dragon from somebody else. Presumably upon meeting the dragon you would get a bit of dialog with him, challenge him to a fight, and defeating the dragon would turn out to be an objective in and of itself.

Pretty much this.Dragon's Dogma does that,for example:you encounter a boss in the wilderness and a 'kill the monster' quest pops up.

[Apatia]

I'm not bringing anything new to the table but at first I was going to go with 'Don't care' since I usually play characters who talk their way out of everything if possible so I don't give a rat's *** if I get xp from killing or not but decided to go with 'for' because

 

1. I want to see it first hand how it works in PE before I start raging (and I do find it intriguing). And this objective based xp worked on Bloodlines and I see no reason why it wouldn't work in PE too.

 

2. As I was reading the official update thread (I think I destroyed some of my brain cells reading that), I thought that those who are in favor overall had better arguments.

 

3. And this is the most important one: Obsidian thinks this is the way to go. The idiot that I am, I actually trust Obsidian 100%. If after the game is released and the objective based xp turns out to be a failure, I'm sure I will be one of the many saying in the end it was a bad idea, better luck next time and moving on..

[Captain Shrek]

I voted for. It'll give me more of a reason to explore the world better.

 

I agree bro, there's no better incentive to explore areas full of monsters that want to kill you than awarding no xp for killing them.

 

On the contrary, since monsters are monsters are monsters, what is your incentive to explore any particular area if you can get the same amount of XP from grinding monsters in an area you've already explored?

 

Objective-based XP incentivizes you to go to new places and do new things.

 

This is completely wrong.

 

It depends on what kind of game you are playing. Most hack and slash games are directed towards.. guess what.. hack and slash.

[Infinitron]

It depends on what kind of game you are playing. Most hack and slash games are directed towards.. guess what.. hack and slash.

 

Indeed, and PE is no hack and slash. So how am I completely wrong?

[Infinitron]

[evdk]

 

Because you don't know if it is hack and slash or not.

 

Especially with regenerating spammable (low level?) spells and regenerating stamina and no rest - "spamming" to boot, it has all the features of a hack and slash like DA2.

 

Jesus Christ Shrek, give your crusade a rest for a day, you are becoming worse then VotS, because in his case I am at least reasonably sure that he is trolling.

[Captain Shrek]

Because you don't know if it is hack and slash or not.

 

Especially with regenerating spammable (low level?) spells and regenerating stamina and no rest - "spamming" to boot, it has all the features of a hack and slash like DA2.

 

Jesus Christ Shrek, give your crusade a rest for a day, you are becoming worse then VotS, because in his case I am at least reasonably sure that he is trolling.

 

You are deluded. I have no crusade only very valid points. Appealing to emotions or trying to humiliate others indirectly by such stupid accusations is riddiculous internet tactics. Stop being immature.

[curryinahurry]

Because you don't know if it is hack and slash or not.

 

Especially with regenerating spammable (low level?) spells and regenerating stamina and no rest - "spamming" to boot, it has all the features of a hack and slash like DA2.

 

Jesus Christ Shrek, give your crusade a rest for a day, you are becoming worse then VotS, because in his case I am at least reasonably sure that he is trolling.

 

You are deluded. I have no crusade only very valid points. Appealing to emotions or trying to humiliate others indirectly by such stupid accusations is riddiculous internet tactics. Stop being immature.

 

Actually your points are far from valid. They are based on assumptions and jumping to the worst possible conclusions (too your mind). I can't speak to spells because I have no ideas how the system will actually work, but I can say that the stamina/health system Josh Sawyer mentioned can be absolutely brutal if they follow fairly closely to how Darklands did it. Tougher by far than any of the IE games, and only Shattered Lands was as tough among the SSI games in my opinion.

[Captain Shrek]

Because you don't know if it is hack and slash or not.

 

Especially with regenerating spammable (low level?) spells and regenerating stamina and no rest - "spamming" to boot, it has all the features of a hack and slash like DA2.

 

Jesus Christ Shrek, give your crusade a rest for a day, you are becoming worse then VotS, because in his case I am at least reasonably sure that he is trolling.

 

You are deluded. I have no crusade only very valid points. Appealing to emotions or trying to humiliate others indirectly by such stupid accusations is riddiculous internet tactics. Stop being immature.

While your constant demands that everyone who argues with you should read all your various posts on this topic and treating every one of your claim as inrefutable objective truth LS style is mature. OK, why not.

 

Dude you are really deluded. Do you even realize which board you are on?

[Amentep]

Fallout: New Vegas has a set of challenges that are mostly combat oriented (but also include non-combat activities) that reward the player XP (and sometimes Perks) when they carry out an activity a certain amount of times.

 

i.e Kill 100 Super Mutants.

 

Why not have a variant of that to supplement the goal-oriented XP system (which I support)?

 

So you get better at killing certain monsters because you've killed a lot of monsters?

 

Then I suppose the successful pickpocket could get perks to be a better pickpocket, or the wizard a better spell caster or something. Could work, I suppose.

 

Ultimately on this issue I really don't feel strongly about there is wonkyness inherent in most systems, whether it be jumping off buildings to improve your jump skill in Morrowind, learning how to better disarm a trap by stabbing a kobold or unlocking level 5 spells because you negotiated a compromise in a family feud. Seems a bit strange to argue about the abstraction to make the game work and be "unreal".

[simsum]

I'd be very happy to see XP de-coupled from killing stuff... But I'm a bit worried about the implications for combat. What's the benefit of gibbercide? Why should I want to stick around a farm full of critters that can 2-hit-kill most of my party members? And why even do RTwP if not specifically for having heaps of mindless trash combat that nobody sane would bother with if it wasn't in effect an XP-dispenser?

 

Indeed, and PE is no hack and slash. So how am I completely wrong?

 

Well... In most of the IE games, XP was an incentive to go exploring. De-fog every zone 100% to make sure you hadn't missed anything killable, to make sure you'd gotten all the XP.