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

[Arkeus]

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. Stealth systems that are 'difficult' also generally involve reload spamming because in stealth games, detection ~ failure, 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.

 

You are making the point for 'For' here- a lot of people won't do the stealth thing, and will just kill the enemies- and will get the exp regardless as they do the objective by killing the enemies.

 

They'll still get the exp regardless, as killing the enemies will give it to them.

 

Moreoever, the choices aren't 'stealth/diplomacy/combat', as the Devs were quite clear that diplomacy will almost never replace combat. The choices are going to be "help the peasants or help the kobolds" and so on.

 

Having the exp for "objective" just means that stealth is no nerfed, not that combat is nerfed. Most players are going to enjoy the combat, so they won't see a need to "rush" by reloading dozens of times and ending up taking more time.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Arkeus

[Hassat Hunter]

If there's no point to combat

How does giving 10XP make combat "pointful" and 0XP combat "pointless".

Have you played Deus Ex or Bloodlines? Did you NOT fight? There's plenty of combat...

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.

No loot? No gold? No personal forfilment? Seriously?

 

And I am pretty sure "running to the end of the dungeon" is probably going to kill you, especially if enemies have spells like stun or hold etc.

[Providence]

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.

 

That's terrible and arbitrary.

You suddenly become "enlightened" when you reach the last dungeon wall.. but before that - nada.

[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. Stealth systems that are 'difficult' also generally involve reload spamming because in stealth games, detection ~ failure, 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.

 

You are making the point for 'For' here- a lot of people won't do the stealth thing, and will just kill the enemies- and will get the exp regardless as they do the objective by killing the enemies.

 

Having the exp for "objective" just means that stealth is no nerfed, not that combat is nerfed. Most players are going to enjoy the combat, so they won't see a need to "rush" by reloading dozens of times and ending up taking more time.

 

I'm not against having additional options in a game, but it has to be understood that classic RPGs are, first and foremost, combat simulators. Their basic character, attribute, and gameplay design are all based on combat. This is the area in which the bulk of these games' designers and players spent their time, and which defined the normative experience of these games.

 

Tactical combat is the heart and soul of a classic RPG. All other options are side effects. Stealth, diplomacy, puzzle solving, etc. - these are secondary to the genre we're talking about. They are not there to replace combat. They are there to give options for people who simply are not able to stand RPG combat, which has to be a small segment of the player base because otherwise why are you building a combat simulator?

 

I'm open to other game genres, but when it comes to classic RPGs you are talking about a combat simulator, in which case the option is simple - is Project Eternity a classic RPG ala Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Wizardry, etc.?

 

Yes: then make tactical combat rewarding and the best of available options for going through the game.

 

No: then find a different mode of gameplay that is equally engaging and design your game around that.

 

There is no gain in trying to fit a circle to a square. There is no gain in designing a complex and detailed combat system and then not rewarding people for using it.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Azarkon

[Tusck]

I'm completely for this. I play RPGs for the story not for grinding exp. If I wanted to do that, I'd start playing mmos again.

[Hassat Hunter]

That's terrible and arbitrary.

You suddenly become "enlightened" when you reach the last dungeon wall.. but before that - nada.

Go give your boss 50% of your work. See how "enlightened" you became doing just half.

Also, feel free to tell 'That's terrible and arbitrary. I should be rewarded doing not everything'...

 

@ Azarkon; Is providing alternate options also a wasted effort then? Why make a branching story like The Witcher II if only half the people experience it? Why create something and people are not only not rewarded, but may actually not see it in their game...

So yeah, point seems weak. The combat is there to provide a challenge. It's part of the game. How can one complain one is not "using" the game?

Edited October 16, 2012 by Hassat Hunter

[Zoraptor]

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.

Or you could try to not reduce everything in the game to a cost/benefit analysis and just play the game. In any well designed system there will be bad consequences for failing in non-combat situations as well as failing in combat ones. Hitting the trap that takes out half your party, walking up to a group of people and finding that actually you've failed to convince them to leave and now your talky man is standing right next to Thog the Impaler, that sort of thing. Again, you just won't necessarily get a special reward for- effectively- playing as a sociopath and slaughtering every virtual being that crosses your path. I have no doubt that will still be a valid approach and that there will be a fair bit of compulsory bloodshed, but if you like the combat would you really avoid it solely because you aren't getting a (small) thumbs up at every death?

 

And yeah, it really should be 'best' to avoid unnecessary combat because it is 'best' to avoid unnecessary combat.

[Azarkon]

That's terrible and arbitrary.

You suddenly become "enlightened" when you reach the last dungeon wall.. but before that - nada.

Go give your boss 50% of your work. See how "enlightened" you became doing just half.

Also, feel free to tell 'That's terrible and arbitrary. I should be rewarded doing not everything'...

 

@ Azarkon; Is providing alternate options also a wasted effort then? Why make a branching story like The Witcher II if only half the people experience it? Why create something and people are not only not rewarded, but may actually not see it in their game...

So yeah, point seems weak. The combat is there to provide a challenge. It's part of the game. How can one complain one is not "using" the game?

 

Alternate options are never a wasted effort because they increase the game's replayability and audience.

 

The correct balance of 'alternate options' is, however, up to discretion. With limited time and resources, not every option is going to be fleshed out. Tactical combat happens to be one of those options that is fleshed out in classic RPGs. It is a tried-and-tested design, and remains the option with the greatest amount of success.

 

To sacrifice such an important feature of tactical combat in RPGs - exp gain via monster killing, you better have an excellent argument. Exp gain via monster killing is critical to a lot of people's enjoyment of a tactical combat system because it rewards them for every combat they win. Whether you think that's logical, it's the way human psychology works.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Azarkon

[almondblight]

To sacrifice such an important feature of tactical combat in RPGs - exp gain via monster killing, you better have an excellent argument. Exp gain via monster killing is critical to a lot of people's enjoyment of a tactical combat system because it rewards them for every combat they win. Whether you think that's logical, it's the way human psychology works.

 

Hmm...

 

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?

[Azarkon]

To sacrifice such an important feature of tactical combat in RPGs - exp gain via monster killing, you better have an excellent argument. Exp gain via monster killing is critical to a lot of people's enjoyment of a tactical combat system because it rewards them for every combat they win. Whether you think that's logical, it's the way human psychology works.

 

Hmm...

 

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?

 

Need to read carefully. In the latter quote, I'm talking about a very specific case of choosing exp gain over 'roleplaying' - slaughtering townsfolk after helping them to get what little exp / coin they have. In the former, I'm talking about the feature of exp gain via monster killing in its totality. Personally, I don't do the former. However, I do enjoy getting rewarded for monster kills and exploring the entirety of a dungeon / combat area rather than just those areas that have to do with my objective. When I put in the effort to kill a monster, I want that to count.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Azarkon

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think that XP should be awarded for doing anything successfully, including slaying a monster, disarming a trap, talking down an angry mob, etc. I dislike the idea of XP gain being tied to completion of objectives only, which while it should provide plenty of XP, shouldn't be the only source.

[Lilarcor]

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?

 

Yes, you. You say that Dragon Age 2 is a bad game and i completely agree with that. You also say that the XP mechanic is bad. If you say that the XP mechanic is bad, then you pretty much say that all of the old good rpg's are bad since they all use it.

 

Bloodlines and Deus Ex are a completely different category of games and are not that much comparable to BG, ID or Fallout. While their mechanic is also good, it doesn't belong to the IE games from 15ish years ago. The whole point Obsidian is trying to make is to stay true to the old good mechanics as much as possible, upgrade them, and add a new world, story, lore, graphics to the mix.

[anubite]

I think that XP should be awarded for doing anything successfully, including slaying a monster, disarming a trap, talking down an angry mob, etc. I dislike the idea of XP gain being tied to completion of objectives only, which while it should provide plenty of XP, shouldn't be the only source.

 

No, it should be the only source. Otherwise, we encourage pointless slaughter.

 

VTMB did this right. You got a decent amount of XP per quest and by no other means could you acquire XP. This meant, doing a quest quickly and efficiently was rewarded most. Sometimes missions rewarded you for not killing anybody, meaning, there was even an incentive not to kill anyone and to take the mission very slowly and carefully. Excellent game design - it means you can approach a problem from many angles and have fun your own way, being rewarded as a result.

 

By tying XP rewards to quests, it also means we won't get any "Slay 11 rats" quests - because that would be antithetical to such design.

[almondblight]

Need to read carefully. In the latter quote, I'm talking about a very specific case of choosing exp gain over 'roleplaying' - slaughtering townsfolk after helping them to get what little exp / coin they have. In the former, I'm talking about the feature of exp gain via monster killing in its totality. Personally, I don't do the former. However, I do enjoy getting rewarded for monster kills and exploring the entirety of a dungeon / combat area rather than just those areas that have to do with my objective. When I put in the effort to kill a monster, I want that to count.

 

What I'm trying to point out is that you're talking about how important the XP is to people, that the reward is critical, that it's how human psychology works. And I agree. But if this thing is so important to people, do we think that it suddenly becomes unimportant to them when they're wondering whether they should go back and kill the guards after sneaking into a castle for the extra XP. If it's so important to players, if it's an inherent part of human psychology, then it's going to affect how people play.

 

Now I agree with you that if the game is about killing monsters, then it makes sense to get XP from killing. It makes sense in Diablo. It makes sense in ADOM. But the developers here have said they want to make a story focused RPG with strong noncombat abilities. That doesn't mean that combat isn't important - it's very important. But it's not a game where the player is encouraged to slaughter everything they see, like those games are. They can still do that - but it's not elevated above other options.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

No, it should be the only source. Otherwise, we encourage pointless slaughter.

 

I don't advocate for turning PE into some grindtastic crap heap or anything, but I don't think you need to tie XP rewards solely to quests to do that. You could always have low XP gain for success for "menial" skill success or killing farmers or have some penalties for going random killings(like bounties, not being able to complete or start a quest, merchants refusing to deal with the PC, etc.). Also, I think that most playing PE will be roleplaying their PC, and will not go on a killing spree grind unless they feel it suits their character.

 

VTMB did this right. You got a decent amount of XP per quest and by no other means could you acquire XP. This meant, doing a quest quickly and efficiently was rewarded most. Sometimes missions rewarded you for not killing anybody, meaning, there was even an incentive not to kill anyone and to take the mission very slowly and carefully. Excellent game design - it means you can approach a problem from many angles and have fun your own way, being rewarded as a result.

 

I don't see how having certain quests that reward nonviolence or encourage people not to go on killing sprees is exclusive to having XP tied to quests only. I also think that quest design should provide many solutions, but again I don't see how that is exclusive to quest only XP.

[Gatt9]

Need to read carefully. In the latter quote, I'm talking about a very specific case of choosing exp gain over 'roleplaying' - slaughtering townsfolk after helping them to get what little exp / coin they have. In the former, I'm talking about the feature of exp gain via monster killing in its totality. Personally, I don't do the former. However, I do enjoy getting rewarded for monster kills and exploring the entirety of a dungeon / combat area rather than just those areas that have to do with my objective. When I put in the effort to kill a monster, I want that to count.

 

What I'm trying to point out is that you're talking about how important the XP is to people, that the reward is critical, that it's how human psychology works. And I agree. But if this thing is so important to people, do we think that it suddenly becomes unimportant to them when they're wondering whether they should go back and kill the guards after sneaking into a castle for the extra XP. If it's so important to players, if it's an inherent part of human psychology, then it's going to affect how people play.

 

Now I agree with you that if the game is about killing monsters, then it makes sense to get XP from killing. It makes sense in Diablo. It makes sense in ADOM. But the developers here have said they want to make a story focused RPG with strong noncombat abilities. That doesn't mean that combat isn't important - it's very important. But it's not a game where the player is encouraged to slaughter everything they see, like those games are. They can still do that - but it's not elevated above other options.

 

We arrive right back at the original point here.

 

Why should we be policing how Player's play the game? What right does anyone have to declare that "You're doing it wrong and we're going to stop you!"? How does it affect anyone but that Player if he/she decides to go and do that?

 

As I said before, a Player might decide to Save/Load to get the optimal results from a random roll, should we remove saving and loading from every game from now on? A player might consult a guide on Gamefaq's before playing, should we decide to install a virus and kill his copy of the game if he consults an online guide?

 

That's where this slippery slope leads. This is an effort to force Players to play in the way that some subset has determined is "Right", and to make sure they cannot do it "Wrong", even though it not only doesn't affect anyone else, but no one else will ever know if they did.

 

This is hands down the worst rationale I've ever seen for a design decision in 30 years of gaming. Removing a mechanic and replacing it with nonsense simply because someone might choose to exploit his personal copy of the game.

 

And the worst part of it is...

 

boolean completedGuardQuest;

 

if( completedGuardQuest && guard.isKilled )

guard.xp = 0;

 

There. It's that easy to prevent someone from going back and killing the guards for xp after the quest is completed. That's why this is purely "Play it my way!" and there's no rationale justification for it. Because if the issue really is that "People shouldn't be rewarded for going back and killing the guards", it's far less lines of code to address that use case than I have put in this entire post.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Gatt9

[nikolokolus]

There's two prongs to getting objective based experience to work:

 

1. The game has to be story oriented and have enough "openness" that you can approach a challenge from enough angles.

2. The developers have to implement enough mechanics in the framework of the game to allow creative and varied problem solving by the player.

 

Assuming those elements are in place, then removing mob killing experience is definitely the way to go, because it implies that the developers don't much care how you "win" and are telling the player that it's up to them to be a little bit clever and to think ... if that means carving a swath across the map because you're character is the reincarnated spirit of Ghengis Khan then so be it. Conversely if you want to be the second coming of Ghandi, then that play style should be equally viable and get you to the end game with roughly the same level as the aforementioned mass murderer.

[light487]

While I acknowledge the need to not have "Kill XP" and Quest XP as the entire mechanic for level gain, I think that XP gained through combat is still a correct and proper reward for the player's efforts. The final kill blow itself is not as important as how you got there.

 

Maybe there won't be levels at all.. maybe it will be just about increasing your individual skills to this epic levels by end-game.. either way though, calling it XP or not, there is still gains through combat.. and if you were to NOT gain XP from combat whatsoever, I think it would be a mistake. Parrying, slicing, dicing, pounding, bashing etc.. each successful use of a skill or action should be rewarded in someway. So as I use my sword more, I should get progressively better at using it as I succeed in using it.. each time I use a skill, I should get pogressively better at doing that skill as I succeed in doing it and so on.

 

I definitely don't want it to be ONLY Kill XP.. but what I would like to have is a "General XP" pool that you do get from things like "final blows" (kills) in a combat.. This type of XP is used to enhance other skills etc.. but the amount you get would be very minimal compared to the amount of Skill/Action XP you'd get from the actual combat part.. Take training dumbies for example.. you can never kill them, so there's no "Kill XP" to be gained there.. but the point is to refine your Skills and Techniques, so you would get "Skills XP" for the combat but no actual 'Kill XP"

 

Try to remember, when discussing XP, that is an abstract term.. Experience Points.. they're just a way of representing progression or experience to arbitrary "levels" or milestones. There' no such tangible thing as an experience "point"..

[nikolokolus]

*snip*

 

Why should we be policing how Player's play the game? What right does anyone have to declare that "You're doing it wrong and we're going to stop you!"? How does it affect anyone but that Player if he/she decides to go and do that?

 

As I said before, a Player might decide to Save/Load to get the optimal results from a random roll, should we remove saving and loading from every game from now on? A player might consult a guide on Gamefaq's before playing, should we decide to install a virus and kill his copy of the game if he consults an online guide?

 

That's where this slippery slope leads. This is an effort to force Players to play in the way that some subset has determined is "Right", and to make sure they cannot do it "Wrong", even though it not only doesn't affect anyone else, but no one else will ever know if they did.

 

This is hands down the worst rationale I've ever seen for a design decision in 30 years of gaming. Removing a mechanic and replacing it with nonsense simply because someone might choose to exploit his personal copy of the game.

 

And the worst part of it is...

 

boolean completedGuardQuest;

 

if( completedGuardQuest && guard.isKilled )

guard.xp = 0;

 

There. It's that easy to prevent someone from going back and killing the guards for xp after the quest is completed. That's why this is purely "Play it my way!" and there's no rationale justification for it. Because if the issue really is that "People shouldn't be rewarded for going back and killing the guards", it's far less lines of code to address that use case than I have put in this entire post.

 

By making a guard or NPC immortal after a quest objective is completed, you've suddenly introduced an artificial constraint into gameplay. Why can't I kill the guard? Maybe he looked at me funny?

 

With your "simple" solution, you've created a mechanic many times more intrusive and heavy handed than removing kill experience ever did.

 

Besides, in the objective based system there's nothing preventing you from killing everything in sight if that's what you want to do, it's just that you won't get any in-game, mechanical reward for doing so.

[Zoraptor]

Why should we be policing how Player's play the game? What right does anyone have to declare that "You're doing it wrong and we're going to stop you!"? How does it affect anyone but that Player if he/she decides to go and do that?

I'm not particularly invested in the debate at all since I don't mind either per kill or objective based, or a mix of both, but I really don't see how this particular objection works.

 

Nothing inherent to objective based rewards stops you playing any way you want- there's nothing specific to it which says that you cannot receive a quest reward then go back and kill everyone involved, should you want to. You just wouldn't be habitually rewarded for that approach. That is not restricting how you play nor penalising for playing a certain way, it's just making sure you do something because you like it or want to rather than because you feel compelled to in order to maximise benefits/xp.

[Karkarov]

Personally I am voting don't care because I will play the same way regardless of model but.... The idea of making EXP objective or .... "accomplishment" based is a far more forward thinking model than just giving exp for every time you kill a dude or pick a lock. It would be nice if there could be some exp options other than questing though, such as EXP bonuses based on playstyle or character personality.

 

Such as a mission that has you rescuing a hostage from bandits in a forest camp. There could be a bonus for making the bandits leave the forest entirely which could be done by one of a ways each giving differing rewards or "faction" effects. One may simply be to kill enough bandits they just leave for greener pastures. Not very original but it is effective. Another may be to steal their primary loot stash and either return it to town or maybe keep it...? They just disperse now that the loot is missing. Perhaps even give the option to fast talk or bribe the bandit leader into leaving which could have different effects depending on how you did it. If you wanted to really get creative you could even say poison the local river they use for water. That won't have repercussions will it?

 

All of those actions cause the bandits to leave (or be dead) so you effectively get the bonus exp but only once since the bonus was for running the bandits off, not doing all the actions in and of themselves.

[light487]

*snip*

boolean completedGuardQuest;

 

if( completedGuardQuest && guard.isKilled )

guard.xp = 0;

 

There. It's that easy to prevent someone from going back and killing the guards for xp after the quest is completed. That's why this is purely "Play it my way!" and there's no rationale justification for it. Because if the issue really is that "People shouldn't be rewarded for going back and killing the guards", it's far less lines of code to address that use case than I have put in this entire post.

 

By making a guard or NPC immortal after a quest objective is completed, you've suddenly introduced an artificial constraint into gameplay. Why can't I kill the guard? Maybe he looked at me funny?

 

With your "simple" solution, you've created a mechanic many times more intrusive and heavy handed than removing kill experience ever did.

 

Besides, in the objective based system there's nothing preventing you from killing everything in sight if that's what you want to do, it's just that you won't get any in-game, mechanical reward for doing so.

 

He didn't make the guard immortal.. he put in a simple IF statement that checks if the quest has been completed before and if it has been then no XP would be awarded for killing that guard. You could still kill the guard a hundred times just that you will only get the XP for the kill on the first playthrough that quest.

 

Either way.. kill xp for quest-based mobs aren't really the concern here.. it's more to do with random mobs and mobs that can be recycled and grinded upon.

Edited October 17, 2012 by light487

[light487]

If I use a skill, whether it is a combat skill or a stealth skill or avoidance skill etc.. then I should be rewarded for that in seeing my ability to use that skill increase.. whether it is a matter of being able to use that skill better or a matter of being able to use that skill more often is not the concern.. but having absolutely no rewards for combat (which involves using skills and using items that requrie skill) then this is going to be a very weird and potentially boring game for a lot of people.

 

So you just spent 2 hours going from one side of the map to the other, during that 2 hours you get absolutely ZERO rewards because you have yet to reach the objective yet.. yer.. that's going to work.

[Arkeus]

 

So you just spent 2 hours going from one side of the map to the other, during that 2 hours you get absolutely ZERO rewards because you have yet to reach the objective yet.. yer.. that's going to work.

 

You'll have rewards in terms of loot, story, and other stuff, and that's discounting actual exp rewards for sub-objectives. Not only that, but you shouldn't get a reward for a partly done thing. That's how life works, after all.

 

There is a reason that objective-based is important, and that's pretty much the "we need the exp" attitude we have here: it means an enormous quantity of players won't even consider not doing the meta-game "let's have maximum exp" solution.

[teknoman2]

i have an idea that will satisfy everyone... you get no xp for anything you do. you get 1xp for every second you play regardless of what you do. so you can just let your character sitting on a bench for a whole day (real time) and he gets 86400xp. then, when you are lv10 after 3 or 4 days, you can start playing the game

Edited October 17, 2012 by teknoman2