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

[Volourn]

"And if you play them, you surely can agree they would be better than their "kill everything for XP" counterparts."

 

Nope. BL is not better than FO or BG2. Good game but not that good.

 

And, its xp scheme made its subpar combat even worse. Any system that has you literally avoiding things by just running past them and ignoring them is the epitome of poor deisgn. There was no real motivation to fight anything because of poor design and lack of xp was a part of it.

 

"ersonally 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. "

 

I agree with your logic. Why bother with giving xop for quest competion? It doesn't make you enjoy doing quests more right? It doesn't change anything about the quest itself right? So why do some people think its the mysterious link between awesome and horrible?

 

 

I did a project in school. I had fun with it and did a great job. I also got rewarded an A+ for it. I guess my teacher shouldn't have given me an A+ because I didn't need an A+ to enjoy doing the project. rewards for doing stuff is always a good thing. period.

 

You should get xp for what you do - be it fighting, talking, role-playing, quest compeltion, skill useage, whatever.

 

PE is supposded to eb an old skool game but you new age ME2 fanboyz want to ruin old skool RPIng by taking out one of the oldest coolest rpging thing ever. Why do you hate old skoolm, rpgs but like new skool stuff like ME2? WHY? And, BL isn't even a real old skool rpg either. It's an action rpg just like ME2.

[Jarmo]

Nope. BL is not better than FO or BG2. Good game but not that good.

 

And, its xp scheme made its subpar combat even worse. Any system that has you literally avoiding things by just running past them and ignoring them is the epitome of poor deisgn. There was no real motivation to fight anything because of poor design and lack of xp was a part of it.

 

While I'm with the "XP for things you do, not for goals" crowd, running past and avoiding opponents does fit my image of things a vampire would do, rather than going all combat with everybody. Never played BL though, so can't say if I'd have hated the system or not.

 

Anyway, I'm happy the devs are discussing this and hope they come up with a working system, whatever kind it happens to be.

I'm sure I'll enjoy the game anyway, whether the system is all this or that or a combination.

[SKahn]

Personally, I have a difficult time resisting the urge to "min/max" my character. So I am strongly in favor of linking xp to accomplishments, rather than simply killing or similar actions. I should never feel tempted to kill an NPC that my character is friendly with just for the xp. I should never feel temped to pick the lock on a door to which I already have the key.

 

This can be taken too far though. If you make xp so scarce that it basically only comes from story progression, that's no good either. Then it starts to feel like character growth is scripted and feels much less rewarding. You want to make sure that a completionist play through grants significantly greater xp than a quick play through. The way to do so that is to give small/moderate xp rewards for tons of optional actions. I bluff my way into a tavern kitchen?... 5xp. I listen my companion tell the story of her childhood and gained her trust?... 8xp

 

The gameplay degeneration mentioned in the opening post is real.

Edited October 17, 2012 by SKahn

[Exile2k4]

I'm generally "for" objective based exp Although how well it would work would depend on how well the system was designed, I have a lot of faith in Obsidian to come up with a strong, well implemented system, particularly if the "objectives" extend far beyond completion of main quest line's major elements to minor objectives/side quests.

 

Kill/crafting/lock picking etc. based exp isn't the worst thing in the world, but personally I don't like it because the first playthrough of a game can feel like the developer asking me to guess how much I need to grind to make my numbers the right level to match the enemies'/challenge's numbers, which can feel very arbitrary. People often say it's about personal choice and self restraint, but to me that's only true once you've already played through the game once.

[Paul D]

I voted for mainly because I am in the "10,000 hours to skill mastery" camp.

 

I prefer a system that rewards XP for completing the objective, and skill points for the skills you use along the way. Yes I am inferring that XP doesn't have to be the only means to improve ones skills.

 

This allows the PC to develop as skills that are practiced.

 

XP then becomes a mechanism to improve your non-skill stats.

 

Food for thought.

[Nomine Vacans]

1. What if (hypothetically) I don't want to going through objectives? What if I want to improve myself (my character) by overcoming challenges of combat, getting harder from fight to fight, grow over myself in mastery and prowes? Shall I be forced to do "quests" and "objectives"? Isn't it a needless limitation of gameplay possibilities?

2. It's much harder to disigning and balancing a game around "objective only" character advancement, since it's not an Action/RPG like a Deus Ex or VtM: Bloodlines (last one is more of RPG of course, but poorly designed one). Having a lot of successfull RPGs based on "experience for kill" concept and few very arguably fine games based on "objective only", bringing up a question: is it worth a risk of basing entire gameplay on doubtful idea instead of a concept well proven by time? If we talking about an old school hardcore RPG why don't make it old school indeed?

P.S. sorry for my english, obviously not my native language

Edited October 17, 2012 by Comedian

[Oerwinde]

I think something important needs to be said for this discussion:

 

Objectives =/= Quests.

[teknoman2]

the point is that no system is better than the other if seen in perspective. its how you implement the system that defines if you did a good job of masking the negative aspects of it

1 you can kill the dragon and get 50k xp for the kill,

2 you can convince the dragon to let you pass and get 50k xp for it,

3 you can sneak past the dragon and get 50k xp for getting through unharmed

the diference in "combat xp on" system, is that unless in options 2 and 3 they make the dragon's room inaccessible when you get through the exit or remove the dragon the moment you get the xp reward, you will simply choose one of the 2 and after you get the 50k for passing without a fight, you will also kill the dragon for another 50k... who can resit the call of xp after all.

so, since you get 50k xp anyway, why make it specifically combat xp for killing the dragon and not make it objective xp for passing through the door the dragon guards? obviously you cant just make a run for the door since it's locked. you have to kill the dragon to get the key, make him open it for you or steal the key unnoticed. and if you choose options 2 or 3 and come back to kill the dragon anyway, you get no xp for the kill, or just as you said before

if( completedGuardQuest && guard.isKilled )

dragon.xp = 0;

and just as oerwinde said, objective is not a quest or steam achievement or anything like that.

you travel from town a to town b and meet 10 bandits on the way.

objective: survive the encounter! reward 1000xp

you can kill the bandits, pay them or just run for it. the moment you leave the area alive you get 1000xp

that's what objective xp is about. instead of giving you 100xp for each bandit you kill, you get 1000xp when they are all dead. and if you choose not to fight you still get 1000xp.

Edited October 17, 2012 by teknoman2

[Jarmo]

My take is, you should get 50K XP for talking the dragon into letting you pass,

and then another 50K XP if you decide you'll need the practice and decide to kill it anyway.

If you do both, give XP for both.

 

 

And this leads to different XP rewards for different playstyles, which leads to balance issues.

And I just dont care a bit about that.

[evdk]

My take is, you should get 50K XP for talking the dragon into letting you pass,

and then another 50K XP if you decide you'll need the practice and decide to kill it anyway.

If you do both, give XP for both.

 

 

Yeah, this is exactly what the proposed system should prevent and good riddance. Minmaxing exp gains is not fun.

[PsychoBlonde]

I'm strongly in favour of this solution - because it makes all playstyles equally viable.

 

Not *quite*--people who just want to wander around and maul random encounters won't level. And, yes, these people do exist. But it does make all playstyles that involve completing objectives equally viable.

[evdk]

Not *quite*--people who just want to wander around and maul random encounters won't level. And, yes, these people do exist. But it does make all playstyles that involve completing objectives equally viable.

Sadly, story driven games are not usually made for these people. It's like buying PS:T and spending all playtime grinding Undersigil.

[Landuin]

I prefer a balance between the two - some xp for killing enemies, and bulk xp for completing objectives. If you remove all xp from combat you create almost a mirror imagine of existing problems. In current xp-for-fighting models the pacifist or stealthy player is penalised for not murdering things left and right. In an xp-for-objectives-only model you penalise the players that engage in combat by forcing them to expend resources like potions and scrolls.

I suppose it could be balanced with a certain amount of loot, but I'd still be happier if combat granted some small but non-trivial amount of xp.

[Jarmo]

Not *quite*--people who just want to wander around and maul random encounters won't level. And, yes, these people do exist. But it does make all playstyles that involve completing objectives equally viable.

Sadly, story driven games are not usually made for these people. It's like buying PS:T and spending all playtime grinding Undersigil.

 

So why was it there to begin with, if not as a place where you can go and grind your character?

I assume (and only that since I just peeked down there and then came straight back and continued with the story) it's exactly a place where

you can go and grind XP. Did it unbalance the game if combat oriented players had a place to earn more XP?

Did you feel compelled to kill everything down there for extra XP?

 

 

If not, then why would you feel compelled to kill everything in Eternity, if minmaxing is possible.

No hair off my back if the game is full of extra XP to be had and minmax possibilities aplenty, if it's not assumed I have to take them all.

[evdk]

Sadly, story driven games are not usually made for these people. It's like buying PS:T and spending all playtime grinding Undersigil.

 

So why was it there to begin with, if not as a place where you can go and grind your character?

I assume (and only that since I just peeked down there and then came straight back and continued with the story) it's exactly a place where

you can go and grind XP. Did it unbalance the game if combat oriented players had a place to earn more XP?

Did you feel compelled to kill everything down there for extra XP?

 

 

If not, then why would you feel compelled to kill everything in Eternity, if minmaxing is possible.

No hair off my back if the game is full of extra XP to be had and minmax possibilities aplenty, if it's not assumed I have to take them all.

Reading comprehension fail? I merely stated that a storyfag game may not be the best fit for hack'n'slash genocide simulator lovers. I wasn't compaining that the Undersigil was included in Torment, I just wondered why you would buy the game and then only grinded there, disregarding the rest.

[Captain Shrek]

 

Reading comprehension fail? I merely stated that a storyfag game may not be the best fit for hack'n'slash genocide simulator lovers. I wasn't compaining that the Undersigil was included in Torment, I just wondered why you would buy the game and then only grinded there, disregarding the rest.

 

There is no reason a game with good story can't have excellent combat. e.g. Betrayal IN krondor.

[Jarmo]

My take is, you should get 50K XP for talking the dragon into letting you pass,

and then another 50K XP if you decide you'll need the practice and decide to kill it anyway.

If you do both, give XP for both.

 

 

Yeah, this is exactly what the proposed system should prevent and good riddance. Minmaxing exp gains is not fun.

Reading comprehension fail? I merely stated that a storyfag game may not be the best fit for hack'n'slash genocide simulator lovers. I wasn't compaining that the Undersigil was included in Torment, I just wondered why you would buy the game and then only grinded there, disregarding the rest.

 

No, I'm just wondering and was maybe misleading by not quoting your earlier post (and quoting PsychoBlonde's post I wasn't intending to refer to)

 

If you feel the first example forces or compels players to minmax experience, so much you'd feel it's good to block the possibility through game design. The why wouldn't you feel the inclusion of Undersigil (being a voluntary non-plot side area) to similarly force or compel you to plow through it to gain the extra XP you wouldn't get through other means?

 

Or did you? Feel the Undersigil was compelling and wiped out everything there before continuing with the plot.

 

Or is it because the area works as the developers intended, while they probably wouldn't have intended you to both talk to, and then kill the dragon?

If so, I can understand your point of view, but I'd still advocate player choice to override writers intentions. Do stuff, get XP for stuff done.

 

--

Edit. I'm really not trying to argue over this or change your mind. Just interested.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Jarmo

[Mrakvampire]

I just don't understand when game creators try to force some kind of play style. Look. If player want to be munchkin - he will be. If he wants to roleplay - he will roleplay.

To limit something is bad game design. Provide more choices - good one. Period.

[wanderon]

I voted "for" altho technically I don't care.

 

I voted that way becuase I think it supports the devs apparent decision about how they would like to do this and I trust them to make a good decision about something this important to the way the game plays.

 

I technically don't care because the manner in which experience is awarded just doesn't matter to me as long as it accomplishes it's goals of allowing my character and companions to grow in some manner as we move through the game.

 

If going with a system where most experience is awarded by objectives rather than body counts can indeed limit or remove the issues related to systems that rely more on body counts then I have no issue with that.

 

I don't get more or less satisfaction from defeating an enemy in combat based on how many experience points might or might not be awarded to me. Each victory is a step on the path I am following and as long as the game is going to reward me with growth of some sort along the way I am happy to let them decide how and when to do so.

 

What I am looking for in this game is getting the RP back in RPG and I can see where taking this sort of direction (exp per goal only vs goal + body count) might assist in that process.

[anubite]

Removing XP does not constrain player choice. If you want to kill all the guards, just to be safe, then go right ahead. I'm sure many players will do this anyway, even if they don't get XP from this. Enemies DO drop their items upon death - or at least, they should sometimes. That's more than a sufficient reward to promote mass murder.

 

The point is, I should not be encouraged to kill people in order to level up.

[teknoman2]

I just don't understand when game creators try to force some kind of play style. Look. If player want to be munchkin - he will be. If he wants to roleplay - he will roleplay.

To limit something is bad game design. Provide more choices - good one. Period.

nobody prevents you from role playing the munchkin. you just dont get double xp for it

[evdk]

My take is, you should get 50K XP for talking the dragon into letting you pass,

and then another 50K XP if you decide you'll need the practice and decide to kill it anyway.

If you do both, give XP for both.

 

 

Yeah, this is exactly what the proposed system should prevent and good riddance. Minmaxing exp gains is not fun.

Reading comprehension fail? I merely stated that a storyfag game may not be the best fit for hack'n'slash genocide simulator lovers. I wasn't compaining that the Undersigil was included in Torment, I just wondered why you would buy the game and then only grinded there, disregarding the rest.

 

No, I'm just wondering and was maybe misleading by not quoting your earlier post (and quoting PsychoBlonde's post I wasn't intending to refer to)

 

If you feel the first example forces or compels players to minmax experience, so much you'd feel it's good to block the possibility through game design. The why wouldn't you feel the inclusion of Undersigil (being a voluntary non-plot side area) to similarly force or compel you to plow through it to gain the extra XP you wouldn't get through other means?

 

Or did you? Feel the Undersigil was compelling and wiped out everything there before continuing with the plot.

 

Or is it because the area works as the developers intended, while they probably wouldn't have intended you to both talk to, and then kill the dragon?

If so, I can understand your point of view, but I'd still advocate player choice to override writers intentions. Do stuff, get XP for stuff done.

 

--

Edit. I'm really not trying to argue over this or change your mind. Just interested.

Combat in Torment was terrible, I went to Undersigil exactly once, wept for a few minutes and decided never to talk about it again. But combat in PS:T in general was just a speed bump on the way to the much more interesting parts and I am not opposed to hack'n'slash games in general, it's just if the combat is really good I do not need the XP rewards to engage in it

 

 

Reading comprehension fail? I merely stated that a storyfag game may not be the best fit for hack'n'slash genocide simulator lovers. I wasn't compaining that the Undersigil was included in Torment, I just wondered why you would buy the game and then only grinded there, disregarding the rest.

 

There is no reason a game with good story can't have excellent combat. e.g. Betrayal IN krondor.

In that case combat is it's own reward and no direct xp rewards are necessary.

Edited October 17, 2012 by evdk

[Mrakvampire]

nobody prevents you from role playing the munchkin. you just dont get double xp for it

 

So basically you prevent people being munchkins. Getting double XP, extra loot, using bugs and glitches to win combat - it's all part of the fun for these people.

[teknoman2]

nobody prevents you from role playing the munchkin. you just dont get double xp for it

 

So basically you prevent people being munchkins. Getting double XP, extra loot, using bugs and glitches to win combat - it's all part of the fun for these people.

you can still exploit glitches, you get all the loot you can carry but you dont get extra xp. besides if you wanna be a munchkin you dont play an old school rpg... there are many modern rpg that cater to your needs

[Tusck]

Removing XP does not constrain player choice. If you want to kill all the guards, just to be safe, then go right ahead. I'm sure many players will do this anyway, even if they don't get XP from this. Enemies DO drop their items upon death - or at least, they should sometimes. That's more than a sufficient reward to promote mass murder.

 

The point is, I should not be encouraged to kill people in order to level up.

 

I agree with this. You should get exp for doing something that changes the game world, not for grinding on guards. I would say killing some mobs, like named mobs or legondary creatures should also give you exp, because that changes the world.