Jump to content

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


Experience Points Brouhaha Poll  

776 members have voted

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

    • For
      452
    • Against
      217
    • Don't care
      105


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've generally been for objective-based XP since playing Bloodlines. If I remember correctly, that game also gave you kill-XP if the monster you fought was something unique - but even in that situation, say if you met a coven of witches summoning a demon in the woods, or a dragon counting the coins in its hoard, I don't see why sneaking away undetected needs to be a less thrilling situation than slaying them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

 

No, there isn't. But to me BG and IWD pretty much assume the game to be solvable by group combat. You couldn't just have a group of rogues sneak past a bunch of monsters, lock pick their vault and get the quest item and sneak out. Because the minute you triggered a quest plot point you were railroaded into a fight.

 

Lionheart did this as well. It was an action game built with the SPECIAL system. And pretty much there was no reason to not concentrate everything you had in combat because the non-combat skills were worthless (since, really, they only mattered in a few situations).

 

That said, designing a game around combat as the primary conflict resolution is okay, not saying it isn't. But I think that Obsidian has looked at wanting to make class skills more...vital to a player so they're not wanting to railroad the player into having to fight in to resolve all quests.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

For. Or an insignificant amount of battle XP, maybe even class dependent.

 

The problem with XP for killing in a game where you can reload any time, is that you will try battles just for the sake of it. There is no incentive for stealth or guile, when you get the guys to fight among themselves (by speech check or confusion spell) and then finish off the survivers you miss out lots of XP, when you talk your way out of a fight you loose a lot of XP, when you avoid the fight altogether, you loose a lot of XP.

 

Most characters need to be roleplayed badly to get max XP. Only borderline-insane utterly reckless characters like Qara or the stereotype Orc barbarian will get max XP and be roleplayed properly.

"You are going to have to learn to think before you act, but never to regret your decisions, right or wrong. Otherwise, you will slowly begin to not make decisions at all."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick to the subject, guys. Not each other.

  • Like 2
"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fine with objective-based experience as long as ...

  • They pay EXTREME DETAIL to the area and quest design
    They need to in order to make sure that everything in the level has a purpose. For instance, let's use the Beregost Temple Area in Baldur's Gate 1 for an example. This area contained some random encounters with War Dogs at certain points on the map. A wandering band of Hobgoblins to the Southeast and a Wolf Pack to the Northeast that contained some Vampiric Wolves.
    If you run into a hostile bunch of enemies and they try to kill you, you should be rewarded for killing them (or defending yourself rather). The War Dogs either needs to be turned into a quest or a one-time encounter for which you are rewarded experience for defeating them. Having them just as a random encounter for which you are not rewarded will just make you avoid that spot on the map when travelling through it (annoyance). The Hobgoblins were already not hostile when you encountered them, there was a few dialogue options with their leader, he wants to rob you. In Project Eternity, experience would need to be rewarded for convincing the Hobgoblins to leave you alone provided you passed the social skills check, and their kill experience needs to be turned into an objective (Insert ripple actions here).
    The Wolf Pack in the north east needs to be turned into an objective as well, there are two ways of doing this - making it a quest which you get from the Temple or Beregost, where someone asks you to rid them of the Wolf Pack, or make it a hidden objective as a bonus for exploring the map, where you simply just get objective experience for killing the wolf pack once you've found them. They may not have been a problem for the town of Beregost but nonetheless you should be rewarded for taking them out (Insert ripple actions here).
    What I do not want to see is every encounter like this being linked to a quest where someone asks you to go and kill a bunch of monsters in the forest. Or simply not mattering at all.
     
    I sincerely hope this is what Josh Sawyer means when he's talking about Objective-based experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

 

Lets be realistic here. What is more likely , obsidian focusing on its goal to deliver a spiritual successor of the IE games.

-Strategic challenging combat from IWD2, depth of story and characterization from PS:T + other elements from BG2.

 

Or them creating a hack and slash and failing to deliver what they have promised on kickstarter to try and obtain some sort of mass market appeal, which would likely result in poor sales, a serious hit to their reputation and compromise the spirit of kick starter?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My reading of the update was that the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I can see situations where it could be quite useful to be able to knobble a kobbold or two but there won't be too many of them. It would be strange to get absolutely nothing for killing anything, ever, were it the case that a fight that would be terminal is deemed necessary as opposed to one where I could just sneak around and disable the enemy. That's unlikely because this is a group-centred game, however.

 

I can understand the argument that mulching a goblin for 1 xp and needing a milliion xp for my next level isn't likely to be detrimental to how the game is played, albeit the game is unlikely to be finished if that's your 'style' and never actually ever did know that you could get xp in multiple ways by completing tasks in multiple fashions.

 

Which leads me to concur with those who say that if xp is to be obtained for getting through a door then you should be able to either bash it, or pick the lock (but you can't pick if it's been broken by a previous bashing by you) or hack the computer to open it which will then tell you you're a fool if the lock is either picked or broken. Which seems to be the obvious way to obviate farming for xp in the examples given about utilising multiple paths.

 

If you want the vote it's 'don't care' because I don't see it as particularly troublesome. Much better to have good gameplay, characterisation, openness, longevity, modding, replayability and being able to create a nuanced pc etc which I do expect this game to have (hence funding) - i.e. delay it rather than KOTOR II it.

 

Edit. Also, there's a level cap (I believe) so that makes the question of 'extra' xp moot, provided you can hit the maximum level.

Edited by Dangermouth

"People dislike the popular because it's crap"

 

"HTH. Because it means I can talk down to you some more."

 

"I can do you a quote a day, but you'll have to pay. Preferably with suicide."

 

"You want original? Why? It's not as though that's ever touched your life before."

 

"A woman scorned is a fun thing. Let's boogie."

Link to post
Share on other sites

For. Or an insignificant amount of battle XP, maybe even class dependent.

 

The problem with XP for killing in a game where you can reload any time, is that you will try battles just for the sake of it. There is no incentive for stealth or guile, when you get the guys to fight among themselves (by speech check or confusion spell) and then finish off the survivers you miss out lots of XP, when you talk your way out of a fight you loose a lot of XP, when you avoid the fight altogether, you loose a lot of XP.

 

Most characters need to be roleplayed badly to get max XP. Only borderline-insane utterly reckless characters like Qara or the stereotype Orc barbarian will get max XP and be roleplayed properly.

 

Probably the best way to solve this would be to simply give xp for successful skill usage (whatever you want to call non-combat solutions), so convincing them to fight each other or running away or similar would give xp (maybe depending upon your skill etc) and just killing them would give roughly the same (again depending on skill/level or whatever would be appropriate).

The same method could be applied to things like a rogue style character lockpicking, sneaking or disabling traps, again assuming that the challenge is not trivial.

 

 

Really the main problem with xp for killing the aforementioned group of monsters would be if it was the only way to get xp other than questing, which I would say is fairly valid as it, as mentioned, turns being the kill-crazy psychopath into the "best" way to play the game. If there is an alternative it should help somewhat. Making both options perfectly even would probably not be possible, but atleast they could get close for most situations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fine with objective-based experience as long as ...

  • They pay EXTREME DETAIL to the area and quest design
    They need to in order to make sure that everything in the level has a purpose. For instance, let's use the Beregost Temple Area in Baldur's Gate 1 for an example. This area contained some random encounters with War Dogs at certain points on the map. A wandering band of Hobgoblins to the Southeast and a Wolf Pack to the Northeast that contained some Vampiric Wolves.
    If you run into a hostile bunch of enemies and they try to kill you, you should be rewarded for killing them (or defending yourself rather). The War Dogs either needs to be turned into a quest or a one-time encounter for which you are rewarded experience for defeating them. Having them just as a random encounter for which you are not rewarded will just make you avoid that spot on the map when travelling through it (annoyance). The Hobgoblins were already not hostile when you encountered them, there was a few dialogue options with their leader, he wants to rob you. In Project Eternity, experience would need to be rewarded for convincing the Hobgoblins to leave you alone provided you passed the social skills check, and their kill experience needs to be turned into an objective (Insert ripple actions here).
    The Wolf Pack in the north east needs to be turned into an objective as well, there are two ways of doing this - making it a quest which you get from the Temple or Beregost, where someone asks you to rid them of the Wolf Pack, or make it a hidden objective as a bonus for exploring the map, where you simply just get objective experience for killing the wolf pack once you've found them. They may not have been a problem for the town of Beregost but nonetheless you should be rewarded for taking them out (Insert ripple actions here).
    What I do not want to see is every encounter like this being linked to a quest where someone asks you to go and kill a bunch of monsters in the forest. Or simply not mattering at all.
     
    I sincerely hope this is what Josh Sawyer means when he's talking about Objective-based experience.

 

That is exact;y how I read it. I also think that quests will be set up as a series of interrelated objectives, and as you progress along the quest path, you will be handling objectives that will reward you experience. If you do something off the main quest path, it will like be treated as an encounter based objective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you rather address my questions?

 

Because this thread isn't about whether or not Project Eternity will be a hack and slash game or about health regen or anything else. It's a poll about the experience mechanic.

Edited by Infinitron
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you rather address my questions?

 

Because this thread isn't about whether or not Project Eternity will be a hack and slash game or about health regen or anything else. It's a poll about the experience mechanic.

 

Which should be dependent on whether the game is hack and slash or not.

"The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which should be dependent on whether the game is hack and slash or not.

Which is something we don't know yet, because there have been absolutely no word on encounter design.

Say no to popamole!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you rather address my questions?

 

Because this thread isn't about whether or not Project Eternity will be a hack and slash game or about health regen or anything else. It's a poll about the experience mechanic.

 

Sorry about that...I'm done with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ, guys, I am getting a notification every time you quote me in that unreadable pyramid. I think it's time for an edit, don't you?

Say no to popamole!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Because this thread isn't about whether or not Project Eternity will be a hack and slash game or about health regen or anything else. It's a poll about the experience mechanic.

 

Which should be dependent on whether the game is hack and slash or not.

 

What would be the point of creating a hack & slash game where the primary resolution for quests isn't combat? In other words, why would you have an experience system generated on quests so that players are rewarded however they play but make the game only resolvable through combat? Or am I missing something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is already a thread for discussing the health mechanic. Please move that discussion over there.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61264-automatic-regeneration-of-hit-points-during-combat/

"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because this thread isn't about whether or not Project Eternity will be a hack and slash game or about health regen or anything else. It's a poll about the experience mechanic.

 

Which should be dependent on whether the game is hack and slash or not.

 

What would be the point of creating a hack & slash game where the primary resolution for quests isn't combat? In other words, why would you have an experience system generated on quests so that players are rewarded however they play but make the game only resolvable through combat? Or am I missing something?

 

That is a good question to ask the devs.

"The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was a lot more "for" when I went to sleep, now it leveld. Is this an Euro vs. American thing? Where as usualy I generally agree with the Euro crowd?

 

PRO all the way. A LOT of people here haven't played Bloodlines (DO IT NOW), and it shows.

Many more go "objective based" and "quest based" and totally lock up on that. Again, play bloodlines.

A few examples of people who take 'objective based' completely the wrong way;

"But I wont get XP for completing dungeon level if goal is on other level" - You most likely get many XP points for progressing through a dungeon level, even if the goal is "get through dungeon". To use Bloodlines (play it!) as example, the infinite sewers (which sucked). However you didn't need to fight anything. Killing all or just running/sneaking through? They all gained the same XP when you reached the objective where you were travelling towards. The way it's supposed to be.

"I kill [Dragon, Boss] and it's worthless due to no XP" - Killing bosses or giant monsters are objectives too, granting XP. Each bossfight in Bloodlines granted XP for completing them. However, you wouldn't get XP for any spawns killed in the meantime (which would be the case in an XP-based system). So you don't have to worry here. It just means your generic combatant wont give XP.

"Exploring sucks without combat XP" - Yeah, cause there are no quests in the new area? Items? Possible dungeons? Don't think of it as BG exploring where it was find map, clear map, find map, clear map. Such kind of sucky development of exploration will be gone without combat XP. NO-ONE profits from an area that's just worth exploring to kill everything, nothing more. I seriously hope you're kidding if you wanted that.

"Why not just set to 0XP for killing after done [else]" - Cause there are more than 1XP types besides combat and sneaking. While your solution may provide a good solution for such a 2-way, it doesn't for a 3-way, or 4-way. And is probably more coding work. With the solution chosen there is just 1 reward. It's either given or not. Even if there are 4-ways to gain that XP and you do them all 4 it's given once. Without having to code specific situations to make the others solutions not viable or worthless. 1 system that works wherever in the game, instead of a system that requires to code you a lot of if's and end's PER XP situation. What do you think gives the developers an easier time?

 

Systems like XP per enemy lead to stupid stuff. KOTOR2 was very evident of this, and I noticed no clear way to fix this working on it for TSLRCM. Making a game from the start with balance in mind would be the best thing to solve them, and OE is doing that. I can only apploud them.

Scorchy's walkthrough also touched several points where otherwise good solutions where ruined by combat XP;

* On Telos you could disable turrets. In a non-combat XP way this would be best, no combat, just passing through. The reward is less combat. However in KOTOR2 you got 175XP per turret. So why would you disable them instead of bashing them?

* Solving the refugee's issues on Nar Shaddaa achieved about 2000XP. Quite good you say. Until you notice the alternative is killing 40 or so mooks for 350XP each. Suddenly it's not that good anymore. In PE's system it doesn't matter if peaceful or violent, if the refugees issues are resolved, your reward is always the same.

 

A great way to balance quests and content, so you can balance a dungeon's reward just by one XP value, instead of XP-combat values, quest values, bonusses from spells and items and tasks.

In a PE system if a developer wants a dungeon to give a bit more XP for the effort, they crank up the XP. In the other system it becomes A LOT harder. Raise XP for monsters? But they might exist outside the dungeon too, so then you would raise it there too, while you only want the dungeon better. More mines to give mine dismantling XP? You only make it harder for those without unmantling skills, getting killed harder than the dungeon master intended. More crates to unlock? Might unfavorable raise the loot amount to unwanted levels, etc. etc.

 

So, on to 'side-stuff based XP' like picking locks, disarming mines, crits. As I stated elsewhere (and quoted here) crit would still allow combat based XP. Bad idea. The others? I rather get rid of them too. BG1/KOTOR1 no trap XP was given. The reward was not getting blown up/poisoned. Why need there be XP too (BG2/KOTOR2). And it adds more bad stuff like the "leave area, re-enter area" infinite XP glitch of KOTOR2.

Same with locks. In KOTOR1 the reward was the content. In KOTOR2 the reward was content without damaging an item. Why did it need XP added too? I don't know.

In both mines and locks case it just double-hits characters without those skills. Blown up and less XP, damaged items and less XP. Yes, other builds should have penalties, but I don't see adding double-penalties and giving less XP just because you build your character for a different purpose.

 

I too changed my vote to "Don't care." I loved in BG2 that I could write spells into my spellbook and gain some experience doing that. I'd try not to save-scumm because then it made spellwriting a tactical option for me.

*Remove spell* *Relearn spell* *Remove spell* *Relearn spell*

One of the greatest examples of exploitable XP right here. And you think that's a good idea. I wouldn't mind some XP for good persuasion, but that can backfire too. The very first conversation in the original Drakensang gave a few XP for a "persuasion" line. Again and again and again and again. You could easily get level 3 right there in the first conversation.

So yeah, small XP rewards for those extra tasks might give far more troubles than it's worth it having in the game...

XP only for completing objectives - and regernerating health?!

 

Well, Project Eternity is now turning into an action RPG. lol Might as well name it "Call of Eternity"!

 

Yup, old school RPGs are truly dead, you heard it from Obsidian - the guys that wanted to revive that genre. ^^

Cause Diablo and Torchlight only give quest XP. Nothing at all for killing foes, right?

Give me a single action XP who doesn't thrive on the XP for killing foes principle... thought so.

YES, xp kills are for MMOs and Mass Effect and evil stuff that no self-respecting role-player should cherish!!

Objective XP was in for ME2 and ME3. It's one of the things those ME's did better than ME1.

While ME2 just gives it after a quest, ME3 is much more the way PE will be, so definitely check that out. XP for surving is in, killing bosses is in, some enemies who are only temporary onscreen give XP if killed fast enough. If Bloodlines wasn't a better game I might suggest people it to see a bit how it works instead.

Since you're probably not competent enough to find it on your own and would rather sneak past it, here it is:

 

http://forums.obsidi...illing-enemies/

 

"Would you like experience to be rewarded for killing enemies?"

 

 

(285 member(s) have cast votes)

 

Yes (96 votes [33.68%])

Yes, but only a small amount to favour other aspects of the game than combat (86 votes [30.18%])

Yes, but only for big fights like boss battles (25 votes [8.77%])

Yes, so long as the number of enemies in the game is fixed thereby fixing total combat experience (12 votes [4.21%])

.

.

.

No = (66 votes [23.16%])

Looks like 33% yes to me. So, where's the major difference.

Oh, you mean the things that start with "Yes" but in the end curtail to limiting XP to say, bosses only, and those other variations which aren't XP for every kill and entice "For" in the current poll?

Great show on showing unable to impretate poll results, and trying to bend the results in your favor, horribly failing as a result I might add.

Maybe they want you at BioWare though, I am sure they can use your skills with interpretation of player feedback to make DA3 even worse than DA2, where they did a same horrible job as you're doing here now with data analysis.

If this isn't handled correctly it could introduce a lot of problems in the game. Now every single encounter in the game has to be involved in a quest or some sort. I think that takes a little bit away from the immersion of the world.

You do realise "quest XP" isn't taken literateral? See my giant wall of text above the quotes. Hopefully you and others will see that you're thinking about it too narrow, and not at all like it will be in the game. I am wondering how many are "against" just because they can't see what quest XP is and they literally think it's that you only get XP for finishing quests in this game. Also, GO PLAY BLOODLINES. Now!

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).

Evil = Murdering everyone. Killing all questgivers.

I seriously hope the OE crew doesn't think so about evil as you do. Less petty DS and more actual mastermind evil please.

 

So no, I don't think adding combat XP just to favor an obsolete, outdated and very bad interpretation of evil would be good. Making proper evil would be much MUCH better.

And what about random enemies encountering when resting outside or traveling? Come on, that was quiet nice and should be an option.

I fail to see why no combat XP prevents rest interruptions, travel interruptions and anything of that kind. Do you think people start mugging just because they are "worthless" to kill? that would be funny :D.

But yeah, interrupted when sleeping would be less "yay, XP" and more "damn it, I am interuppted in my sleep to fight. Dammit" like it's supposed to be.

I cant see a possible quest in this direction.

Again, "quest XP" doesn't mean "you can't gain XP unless it's a quest. Come on, why are so many people unable to grasp that. I am autistic (so take stuff literally) AND get that. So a "normal" person should find it no problem. This thread proves me wrong though :/.

 

EDIT:

Damn, this post turned out to be way longer than I assumed.

Also, congrats to troller for being the second on my ignore list, next to volourn. I wasn't actually expecting anyone to be so annoying as to expand my list ever, but apparently that was too positive a prospect...

EDIT2:

And... Captain Shrek too. Getting busy there. Above post made me do, reinforcing that he is infact 1) idiot, 2) troll...

Edited by Hassat Hunter
  • Like 5

^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally voted that I do not really care that much. I kind of see both systems as being fine... It is a good thing that a player who does not want to battle foes to get to the certain point does not need to gain less experience in my opinion, but in a way I still kind of would miss getting experience from just simply killing some enemies...

 

There definitely should be some experience in my opinion in some way for some roaming enemies that you encounter, maybe killing the whole group of enemies, or getting the treasure behind them for example no matter if you killed them or not might be the way to give experience from some random encounters for example... I am not sure, but at least some higher tier enemies should give experience, but it is definitely only a good thing if everyone will gain the same amount of experience from getting to the goal no matter what way they decide to accomplish it.

 

So... As said I think it is awesome to have system that can reward different approaches just the same... But still in a way it was fun to see you got some experience points immediately after clearing some enemies and such in older games (immediate reward/even if you could argue you can still get loot...)... So I don't know, I will be fine no matter which system is implemented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all those crying about this making combat worthless, I just wonder how a little number at the end changes the entire experience. How does not giving xp suddenly make the same combat so radically different? If taking away the xp makes you suddenly hate combat doesn't that make you wonder why you were doing it in the first place? If that's all that matters the devs could easily make a game where pressing any button yields xp, because if the combat doesn't matter at all you can easily boil it down to that. If something isn't worth doing without that reward, why do you want to be encouraged to do it? You're asking to do something you don't enjoy doing... which absolutely boggles my mind. This is a game, not work. You shouldn't do things you don't enjoy just to be rewarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For.

 

In theory I'd be in favor of minor XP for kills, but making that exploit-proof seems daunting. Conversely, players shouldn't be punished with less XP for not going the stealth route à la DE:HR, either.

 

That said, a quest shouldn't always be a single objective, i.e. "get inside the bandits' stronghold and defeat their leader" should hand out XP twice.

 

And of course defeating optional bosses (through brawn or (as often as possible) brain) would in this case count as quests without even necessarily being labeled as such, which would in effect be XP for beating a tough fight.

Proud Probatanthrope @D:OS

Tor.com: Boob Plate Armor Would Kill You (cf. "ball plate armor" - Just think about it.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.kickstart...sidian/comments

 

Feargus says:

 

@Adric The XP for kills thing is still an ongoing discussion here. Our goal is to make this a game that is reminiscent of the IE games and in my mind that does mean XP for kills. We just need to balance with other systems.
Edited by Infinitron
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obsidian now has the chance to deconstruct the tropes and conventions of CRPGs and do something new which is rooted into the traditional rpgs (IE in this case). I would applaud the goal oriented XP and it would actually make all the possible ways to solve quests and goals equal instead of "I'm gonna just kill 'em all because I get the most exp out of that".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...