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

[Amentep]

I'm not sure how not giving XP for killing the townspeople is saying its proper / degenerate gameplay. Or putting a value judgement on it at all.

 

I was responding to Sawyer and Cain's quotes from the first page.

 

Ooookay, I remembered the gist of what they said but not the use of the term degredation, so I had a COMPLETELY different context for what you were saying.

 

That said I think that the issue that they're addressing is whether its right for a game whether to encourage metagaming (you can't stop it, but I suppose you could create systems that didn't actively encourage the player to get every 1xp they can).

 

Cyric - who killed Myrkul - was a mortal, as was Kelemvor who took over Myrkul's worship. Not sure how a storyline involving Kelemvor could ever imply its futile to subvert the gods since pretty much Kelemvor existing as a god is a sign you can do just that (even if it isn't easy).

 

Yes, well, unfortunately, the Forgotten Realms is not a very well articulated world in terms of its thematic drives, so at times you get contradicting signals from the designers who created it. Generally, the idea is that subvering the gods is bad / futile. But because of the need to publish new material, FR designers have a habit of having these 'times of trouble' in which all the laws go kablunk. This is not solid world design. It is, however, necessitated by D&D commercialism.

 

Mask of the Betrayer, however, is fairly well articulated in terms of its themes, and in the context of the D&D world presented in MOTB, what I said stands.

 

I'd agree with you on MotB at least as far as I got into it (someday I'll finish it).

 

But the god thing in D&D never really seemed to be against humanity usurping godhood (hence why the Lady of Pain in Planescape isn't stated, so players can never take her on).

[Maf]

I am fine with having the majority of XP deriving from objectives, but why not also have a little xp for kills? It seems like a removal that changes little except removing one possibility of choice for leveling. It may be a small and lagely ignored choice, but it is still a choice.

Then you are probably in luck.

The developers wont be deaf to all these complaints.

Hopefully they'll use the matrix solution.

Where "giving people the illusion of choice" transfers to "giving people the illusion of xp".

Giving trivial mobs trivial xp and giving bosses (which would've had their own objective) not objective xp but rather "xp" (for either of these: kill/intimidate/enslave/etc).

Results being exactly the same, but giving the illusion of a more direct "reward".

Edited October 16, 2012 by Maf

[almondblight]

I was responding to Sawyer and Cain's quotes from the first page.

 

I think they're talking about people doing it not because they want to, but because they feel they should get the XP. As it is now, games often encourage you to do these things, like going back to kill monsters you've sneaked past for XP, or killing someone after you've solved the situation diplomatically. We're not talking about discouraging you from doing these things - if you want to, fine. We're talking about keeping the game from actively encouraging you to do this, even if you wouldn't on your own - that's the degenerative behavior that's being talked about.

[Azarkon]

I was responding to Sawyer and Cain's quotes from the first page.

 

I think they're talking about people doing it not because they want to, but because they feel they should get the XP. As it is now, games often encourage you to do these things, like going back to kill monsters you've sneaked past for XP, or killing someone after you've solved the situation diplomatically. We're not talking about discouraging you from doing these things - if you want to, fine. We're talking about keeping the game from actively encouraging you to do this, even if you wouldn't on your own - that's the degenerative behavior that's being talked about.

 

The game only encourages those scenarios insofar as it encourages gaining exp for killing monsters in general. Provided the game is balanced for parties that haven't 'maximized' their exp gain, the option remains just that - an option for min/maxers who care about that sort of thing. Leaving the option open to munchkin players does not make it necessary for other players. For that matter, just by engaging in it you are basically saying that you're a greater munchkin than you are a 'roleplayer' - in which case, isn't it just a case of not understanding who you are?

 

Players ought to be allowed to police themselves. Care about the story / characters / roleplaying? Then don't slaughter townsfolk for exp. Care about building the biggest badass conceivable? Then do it and don't complain about being forced to do it.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Azarkon

[Providence]

I was responding to Sawyer and Cain's quotes from the first page.

 

I think they're talking about people doing it not because they want to, but because they feel they should get the XP. As it is now, games often encourage you to do these things, like going back to kill monsters you've sneaked past for XP, or killing someone after you've solved the situation diplomatically. We're not talking about discouraging you from doing these things - if you want to, fine. We're talking about keeping the game from actively encouraging you to do this, even if you wouldn't on your own - that's the degenerative behavior that's being talked about.

 

One word: scripting.

It's not beyond their ability to prevent that from happening, if they don't want killing quest givers or whatever to give xp after the quest is done.

 

Although, I believe xp is not the only incentive to kill them after the quest is finished, loot is too. Should they have all items removed from them after the quest is over, as well?

 

From an XP and level progression balance perspective this is a nonissue. Kill XP is also a nonissue if there is a limited amount of enemies in the game.

The real problem are respawns and random encounters on the world map. Both are usually endless and can really inflate xp, even if that wasn't the player's intention.

[almondblight]

The game only encourages those scenarios insofar as it encourages gaining exp for killing monsters in general.

 

Right. Which is why people favor removing xp from killing monsters - to stop encouraging such a thing.

 

Provided the game is balanced for parties that haven't 'maximized' their exp gain, the option remains just that - an option for min/maxers who care about that sort of thing. Leaving the option open to munchkin players does not make it necessary for other players.

 

Games encourage you to gain XP. In fact, reason people like you are upset is because the game won't give you xp for this. To then say that only matters for munchkin players - are you lumping yourself into this category? Now, just because the game encourages you to do something doesn't mean you have to. I don't farm herbs in ADOM because I find it tedious, even though the game encourages it. But just because you don't have to do it doesn't make it good design.

 

For that matter, just by engaging in it you are basically saying that you're a greater munchkin than you are a 'roleplayer' - in which case, isn't it just a case of not understanding who you are?

 

I don't need XP as a reward for killing monsters. You're saying you do.

 

Players ought to be allowed to police themselves. Care about the story / characters / roleplaying? Then don't slaughter townsfolk for exp. Care about building the biggest badass conceivable? Then do it and don't complain about being forced to do it.

 

There are plenty of games where you can grind as much as you want. Not every RPG has to allow unlimited grinding to be good. In fact, I'd say that in a story focused game like this, they're better off removing grinding.

[ReyVagabond]

Yeah, most games, give you XP fixed for the Quest, and Xp for the kills, non killing everthing in your path will make you gain at the end of the dungeon less XP. That creates the need to kill everithing in your path with out searching for other options.

Xp should be for completing objectives. that way you limit the amount of XP in the GAME to the number of Quest in the Game.

 

Personaly i want a STORY driven expirience with Tactical combat that is Fast (slow with all the pauses we will have to make) short and sweet. (fighting a dragon for 1 hour where you see animations and it feels like wack a mole, its not tactical)

if some one wants to explore with no motivation then the game is doing something wrong, the game needs to place you in a spot where you need to try to do stuff to help, to find the thing you are looking for, exploring because i want to should not be that good idea.

Real motivation should declare the Actions, not what the PLAYER fells like doing. I know its not something that most of you will agree but thats how I feel.

[Azarkon]

The game only encourages those scenarios insofar as it encourages gaining exp for killing monsters in general.

 

Right. Which is why people favor removing xp from killing monsters - to stop encouraging such a thing.

 

Provided the game is balanced for parties that haven't 'maximized' their exp gain, the option remains just that - an option for min/maxers who care about that sort of thing. Leaving the option open to munchkin players does not make it necessary for other players.

 

Games encourage you to gain XP. In fact, reason people like you are upset is because the game won't give you xp for this. To then say that only matters for munchkin players - are you lumping yourself into this category? Now, just because the game encourages you to do something doesn't mean you have to. I don't farm herbs in ADOM because I find it tedious, even though the game encourages it. But just because you don't have to do it doesn't make it good design.

 

For that matter, just by engaging in it you are basically saying that you're a greater munchkin than you are a 'roleplayer' - in which case, isn't it just a case of not understanding who you are?

 

I don't need XP as a reward for killing monsters. You're saying you do.

 

Players ought to be allowed to police themselves. Care about the story / characters / roleplaying? Then don't slaughter townsfolk for exp. Care about building the biggest badass conceivable? Then do it and don't complain about being forced to do it.

 

There are plenty of games where you can grind as much as you want. Not every RPG has to allow unlimited grinding to be good. In fact, I'd say that in a story focused game like this, they're better off removing grinding.

 

A RPG based around combat and progression through combat - which describes all the Infinity games except for PST - ought to reward people for combat. Removing exp gain from combat, except when that combat serves a specific objective, contradicts this principle. Removing exp gain from combat does not just affect 'exploitative' situations, it affects every combat encounter, every dungeon crawl, and the very mindset you bring to the game.

 

In a game that does not reward combat, but in which combat still carries risk, I am encouraged to avoid combat except when necessary. In that case, the game has better have the bulk of its gameplay in out of combat situations. Provided that's the game PE wants to be, I'm fine with removing exp from combat. But a game that wants to capture the experience of the Infinity Engine games and classic RPGs has to have combat as its primary gameplay. In that case, this design only serves to weaken the overall game and I won't support that.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Azarkon

[teknoman2]

 

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.

when you kill the dragon he will drop the blood anyway. so even if you dont have the related quest, you will eventually meet the mage and get your xp. now if it is a random dragon in a dungeon you explore and is unrelated to any quest, then you get xp for killing it because its a goal set for this dungeon or he is just the boss and by his death you get the "dungeon exploration complete" xp reward. killing is a means to reach a goal not a goal in itself, so i dont see why the xp for killing a dragon or any other enemy should be separate. now if your goal is to kill everything that moves and can't climb a tree, they could just add the genocide goal, given to you if you clear the entire population of a town, and equal to the xp of the quests in the town. however you only get it after you killed all guards, civilians, animals, and reinforcements sent to the town and only if you have not done any quest in the town. obviously, since you take the xp at the end of it all, if you start the fight at lv1, you will have to finish it at lv1... no level increases during the process to make it easier.

[Providence]

In a game that does not reward combat, but in which combat still carries risk, I am encouraged to avoid combat except when necessary.

 

Indeed.

Will this be a sneaking/diplomacy simulator or a game that's advertised to have tactical combat as one of its main strengths?

[ReyVagabond]

And whats wrong with that, not rewarding combat is the first step to make you think outside the box, giving you penalties to fight, killing stuff will make you earn more loot, that you can sell gaining more money , but it has its cost.

 

Fighting is not the way to solve things its a way, and even it can be fun!! an planed encounter can be fun, not for the reward of XP but for the reward of solving the puzzle of beating that encounter.

[teknoman2]

In a game that does not reward combat, but in which combat still carries risk, I am encouraged to avoid combat except when necessary.

 

Indeed.

Will this be a sneaking/diplomacy simulator or a game that's advertised to have tactical combat as one of its main strengths?

why no xp for killing has to mean no reward for combat? if you kill Drizzt in BG and get his super gear but no xp, will you feel like you gained nothing out of it, even if you have taken items that are as rare as they can be?

the same goes for PE. you may not get xp, but you get loot for combat. and loot means items you may not be able to get in any other way or extra money to buy that nice armor that the pacifist cant afford

[Azarkon]

And whats wrong with that, not rewarding combat is the first step to make you think outside the box, giving you penalties to fight, killing stuff will make you earn more loot, that you can sell gaining more money , but it has its cost.

 

Fighting is not the way to solve things its a way, and even it can be fun!! an planed encounter can be fun, not for the reward of XP but for the reward of solving the puzzle of beating that encounter.

 

Again, it comes down to what the game wants itself to be. Classic RPGs are games in which you build a character by simulating tactical combat. All the Infinity Engine games that people remember fondly are games of this sort, though I accept a case against PST.

 

Is Project Eternity the next Infinity Engine game? Is it the next Alpha Protocol? Is it a hearken to the days of classic RPGs? Is it an attempt to experiment with a different type of game?

 

This question has to be answered before a satisfactory decision is able to be made.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Azarkon

[Providence]

And whats wrong with that, not rewarding combat is the first step to make you think outside the box, giving you penalties to fight, killing stuff will make you earn more loot, that you can sell gaining more money , but it has its cost.

 

Fighting is not the way to solve things its a way, and even it can be fun!! an planed encounter can be fun, not for the reward of XP but for the reward of solving the puzzle of beating that encounter.

 

Then don't fight if that's not your cup of tea. Use other ways. But I don't want your hate to take out the enjoyment that other people get from being rewarded when they defeat an opponent - in the form of XP. I don't have to explain why XP is important, I hope.

 

 

It's probable that I'd find useful loot only in a small portion of encounters and money was never an issue in any Obsidian/Troika/etc. game.

[Azarkon]

In a game that does not reward combat, but in which combat still carries risk, I am encouraged to avoid combat except when necessary.

 

Indeed.

Will this be a sneaking/diplomacy simulator or a game that's advertised to have tactical combat as one of its main strengths?

why no xp for killing has to mean no reward for combat? if you kill Drizzt in BG and get his super gear but no xp, will you feel like you gained nothing out of it, even if you have taken items that are as rare as they can be?

the same goes for PE. you may not get xp, but you get loot for combat. and loot means items you may not be able to get in any other way or extra money to buy that nice armor that the pacifist cant afford

 

All combat encounters have exp rewards.

 

Not all combat encounters have loot rewards.

 

The principle behind granting exp for combat is to ensure that there is an incentive for tackling every combat encounter, thus obviating the need for a 'loot pinata' design to encounters.

 

In effect, it is to prevent requiring every wyvern you slay to drop +1000 coins' worth of loot just so players feel rewarded for fighting wyverns.

 

The basic principle applies whether the rewards are exp / loot.

[Providence]

In a game that does not reward combat, but in which combat still carries risk, I am encouraged to avoid combat except when necessary.

 

Indeed.

Will this be a sneaking/diplomacy simulator or a game that's advertised to have tactical combat as one of its main strengths?

why no xp for killing has to mean no reward for combat? if you kill Drizzt in BG and get his super gear but no xp, will you feel like you gained nothing out of it, even if you have taken items that are as rare as they can be?

the same goes for PE. you may not get xp, but you get loot for combat. and loot means items you may not be able to get in any other way or extra money to buy that nice armor that the pacifist cant afford

 

I want XP as well because it represents, among other things, getting better at combat/getting more abilities/improving skills. Loot doesn't do that.

[teknoman2]

icewind dale 1 and 2 were 100% dungeon crawlers with the bare minimum of role play and npc interaction outside of combat. you didn't get to choose who or what you wanted to be, you were an adventurer in shearch for monsters and loot

baldur's gate 1 and 2 were more than just combat, had a fair (but limited) amount of role play but were still more combat oriented than not. you could choose to be a hero or a vilain but it was all fairly black and white and 90% of the time there was no option to avoid combat

planescape torment was more rpg than the rest, because it was more about the characters and the the role you chose for them, than the body count. you could be the "hulk smash" warrior or the politician who could walk away from anything with just words, and you could stick to your choice of play style for the whole game without getting penalized.

the point of PE is to be an RPG, so role play is the first thing to consider. and if to keep role play from being abused they have to remove parts that may bring meta gaming into the equation so be it. and combat xp is one of these things

Edited October 16, 2012 by teknoman2

[Hassat Hunter]

Oh, so you're saying that Baldur's Gate, Fallout and Icewind Dale are bad games? I can tell you right now that those games use the system they are hinting that they will use for Project Eternity. Or maybe you haven't played any of those... The main factor in having such a XP mechanic in place is, like they said in that post, balance.

Are you sure you were supposed to quote me?

I say Dragon Age 2 is a pretty damn bad game. Why? Because of instead of making a good RPG the developeres listened to all the players complaints they heard. And the result? A piss poor game.

A lot of gamers are REALLY bad in what should make a game good. Nostalgia and keeping to bad ideas isn't going to help make a game better. Nor does changing for the sake of change.

 

Also, all games listed aren't using objective based XP. Games like Bloodlines or Deus Ex (original) do. And if you play them, you surely can agree they would be better than their "kill everything for XP" counterparts.

 

Personally I am kinda suprised how many people can apparently no longer enjoy combat just because they can't get XP per kill. Does it change anything about the combat itself? Nope. So why do some people think it's the mysterious link between awesome and horrible. If you think giving a rat 1XP makes great tactical combat, you're too easy to please.

I mean, what exactly makes using skills to make a certain group walk away without combat or fighting them for no XP but loot makes the game the worst ever. Instead it makes both choices good. It would add use to non-combat skills. That's good!

Why does killing 100 kobolds in a dungeon, gaining 10XP per kobold make a great game, but getting through that dungeon whatever way give 1000XP make the combat useless and worthless and totally change the basis of the game. Anyone?

[Larkaloke]

After some thought and realising that I likely misunderstood the intention to begin with -- thinking of "objective" and "quest" as the same thing -- I think I fall more into the "don't care" camp, at least until we get more information on it (at which point I could see myself going either way). It really doesn't effect how enjoyable combat is, and I can certainly see how it makes it easier to reward alternate methods of solving a problem such as stealth or diplomacy.

[Azarkon]

Why does killing 100 kobolds in a dungeon, gaining 10XP per kobold make a great game, but getting through that dungeon whatever way give 1000XP make the combat useless and worthless and totally change the basis of the game. Anyone?

 

You spend thousands of hours designing a fun, interactive, and in-depth tactical combat system involving dozens of classes, hundreds of abilities, attribute interactions, perks, equipment & status effects, etc.

 

Your basic game design discourages the player from ever using them because it's faster / safer to get through the game without ever fighting.

 

...Fail?

Edited October 16, 2012 by Azarkon

[Hassat Hunter]

Who says stealth is faster or safer?

 

Presumptions

[Providence]

Why does killing 100 kobolds in a dungeon, gaining 10XP per kobold make a great game, but getting through that dungeon whatever way give 1000XP make the combat useless and worthless and totally change the basis of the game. Anyone?

 

What if you stop half through the dungeon and go somewhere else? Should you get no xp or would you just hand out xp for every step the player takes in the dungeon?

[Azarkon]

Who says stealth is faster or safer?

 

Presumptions

 

That depends on the design of the stealth system, obviously, but every stealth system I've ever seen designed has been faster and shallower than an equivalently well designed combat system. Mechanics wise, stealth systems that are 'difficult' lead to a lot of reload spamming because in stealth games, detection ~ failure and there is little room for error, and I find that design principle distasteful. Engine wise, isometric games are worse vessels for stealth games because of the overhead tactical view. I'm not saying that OE is incapable of designing a better stealth system. But I don't have faith in them doing so, while I do have faith in them designing a decent combat system because all they need to do is take what existed in the Infinity Engine games and port them.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Azarkon

[Hassat Hunter]

What if you stop half through the dungeon and go somewhere else? Should you get no xp or would you just hand out xp for every step the player takes in the dungeon?

Then no XP for you...

Which is another pro for goal based XP. No just doing half the stuff and tear on the reward, you need to get through the end.

[Gatt9]

Why does killing 100 kobolds in a dungeon, gaining 10XP per kobold make a great game, but getting through that dungeon whatever way give 1000XP make the combat useless and worthless and totally change the basis of the game. Anyone?

 

You spend thousands of hours designing a fun, interactive, and in-depth tactical combat system involving dozens of classes, hundreds of abilities, attribute interactions, perks, equipment & status effects, etc.

 

Your basic game design discourages the player from ever using them because it's faster / safer to get through the game without ever fighting.

 

...Fail?

 

Yup, exactly.

 

If there's no point to combat, then the best path through the game is to never bother entering combat, since combat risks losing progress which equates to losing your personal time. Since spending your time, risking loss of time, and managing to direct your party to succeed in combat is now unrewarded, and has only negative consequences, it's strictly better to avoid combat and just run your party to the end of the dungeon as fast as possible.