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

[Sensuki]

Just made this thread on the focus of powergaming shifting to non-combat in this game and the potential issues with that.

[AgentOrange]

I support this. As someone who almost always plays stealthy/diplomatic characters, it is always a source of distress that I feel like I'm being under-leved because I'm not killing every little trash mob that comes into sight.

[Hassat Hunter]

Hmmm intriguing idea: When did a rouge sneaking around a boss and stealing the objective ever get the same exp as a warrior simply slaying the boss?! Most people would slay the boss anyway - rouge or not - just for the XP.

Extremely wrong example. The boss by itself would be an objective (hence XP), and thus your "example" of why the system sucks excludes using the system.

 

A better example would be instead of a boss it was 20 gnolls.

Why is taking the straight-road and killing them much better than spending time getting around them and quietly steal the objective?

Answer; It shouldn't be. Using the system they plan for PE it wont either.

Doesn't mean killing the 20 gnolls is useless, you still get to the objective after all after doing it. I seriously doubt running to the objective and away is going to be an issue. And heck if it is, it's ON a gnoll. Stealth players could pickpocket, however a non-rogue party? You have to kill them to acquire the item...

But I like it better to use abilities like diplomacy (intelligence / wisdom), intimidation (strength / constitution) or reflexes (dexterity) to evade confrontation. Such ways should be available for almost any encounter in the game and XP and loot should be even higher in case of success!

You should be rewarded for being an idiot and drawn into a fight? Tell me more about how it makes sense to get rewarded for seeking trouble where there is none.

Giving XP only for objectives might make the player run waypoints and make exploring less attractive.

Cause exploring is all about killing stuff. There wont be no NPCs along the way. There wont be items to find. There wont be quests to complete. Nope, exploration is only... MURDER DEATH KILL.

This isn't Diablo. This is Project Eternity. Spritial sequal to Baldur's Gate and Planescape:Torment.

If you can let people walk waypoints and complete quests, as some MMO's allow, you seriously need to judge your way of making a proper game... As well as if you can't create areas that are nothing but killfodder.

results in a de facto level cap (which I disdain) based on maximum possible xp.

They already said there's a hardcap. Even if you kill 1 billion dragons, you will not reach level [max+1]. And the max is rather low...

some folks might need to be able to grind a few levels in order to deal with a particularly troublesome boss fight, for example.

A FEW LEVELS? Seriously. In a 12 (give or take) level system XP system they need to gain "a few levels"...

Maybe this is the root of all problems. People don't seem to realise there aren't that much levels, and that this game is about the size of Baldur's Gate II by the looks of it. There aren't 100 levels to gain!

If enemies give XP they either need to give ridicilous low, or XP per level needs to be amazing high not to make combat XP max you out by the time you reach, say, 30% of the game.

 

And if the solution is combat XP and "just allowing about 30 extra levels" I am personally going to slap you...

you're essentially making all combat in the game a punishment.

Because all the combat in the game can be avoided. Because all the combat in the game is pointless.

Seriously, people, if encounters which CAN be avoided aren't avoided aren't "punished"... I have no hope. Of course it should be better to avoid combat and conflict WHERE POSSIBLE. That doesn't mean the entire dungeon can be passed through at a leisure with skill speech checks.

So, yes, going into avoidable combat fight is punishment. This however doesn't constiture "all combat". Result; Statement is false.

You have to fight because you didn't get this skill, or chose the wrong dialogue option and you lose some of your actual, real life time without any in game benefit because of it. Combat shouldn't be a punishment, it should be fun, and the only way to ensure that it stays that way is to include rewards for combat (most notably xp).

You have to fight because, well, the game is meant that way. There's no avoiding it here and you lose some of your actual, real life time without any in game benefit because of it. Cause well, heck, why are you even playing this game if it doesn't give you GOOD JOB, KITTY , HAVE AN ACHIEVEMENT, DAVE or YOU ARE AWESOME FOR KILLING PIXELS, HAVE XP!

I mean it can't be part of the game, right? It can't actually be fun to play on itself without reward on the end, can it? I can't well have a conversation with a NPC without getting XP afterwards, right. I mean, I am wasting time here I could spend on REAL stuff chatting. I should be rewarded. You mean you aren't? What a stupid game. TALKING IS A PUNISMENT.

Would the scene at the Jedi Enclave in KOTOR2 be better if you got XP at the end? Because as you guys state it, the entire scene was a waste of time. Less talking, more killing.

 

Is there anyone in this thread who honestly believes every time you chat with a NPC you need to get XP to make it worthwhile. Anyone?

Talking shouldn't be a punishment, it should be fun, and the only way to ensure that it stays that way is to include rewards for talking with NPC's who have no connection with anything at all (most notably xp)

Oddly enough not a SINGLE RPG I have ever seen uses above system though. And oddly enough, I have never seen anyone complain they desperately needed to get XP everytime they chat up a NPC because "it's wasting their time". Why, if talking and combat is part of the game, is one good enough to not have a constent ego-stroking, but the other does. It both takes your "precious time"... heck, a NPC probably takes more than any combat.

 

So, until anyone comes up and tells me why this makes combat a waste of time ("Gaming is a waste of time! Then why the heck are you gaming. Do something you apparently like instead") while the conversations which take more time of the gamer aren't rewarded and crucified as waste of time or something you quickly go through, I have no intention of believing XP per foe is the better system.

 

PS. If you really do skip all conversations and that's your argument, this game is NOT for you, just saying.

PS2. Sorry for all the capslock, but I just get frustrated why combat is apparently a waste of time if not rewarded and anything else in the game isn't apparently as boring as to need rewards constantly. If combat is so hated, why play RPG's in the first place. Go to adventure games instead. Yay, no more waste of time... it will make you happier.

[ComMcNeil]

Because all the combat in the game can be avoided. Because all the combat in the game is pointless.

Seriously, people, if encounters which CAN be avoided aren't avoided aren't "punished"... I have no hope. Of course it should be better to avoid combat and conflict WHERE POSSIBLE. That doesn't mean the entire dungeon can be passed through at a leisure with skill speech checks.

So, yes, going into avoidable combat fight is punishment. This however doesn't constiture "all combat". Result; Statement is false.

 

Thats debateable. Maybe someone LIKES to play a character that does not go the diplomatic route - should he be constantly punished? I mean it also depends on how you define punishment. If you only mean he spends more time in combat than anyone else, therefore "losing" playtime, that would be somewhat ok.

 

On the other hand, I get where the people are coming from that direction, that combat will become a waste of time.

If you are constantly jumped by random encounters, or random wild beasts combat can get tedious. But having a small reward (i.e. EXP) offsets this tedious task a little. I guarantee that the combat in the IE games would be less enjoyable if you did not get any XP for it.

Edited October 18, 2012 by ComMcNeil

[Qaladan]

I'm for it, but I totally understand the people who are against it. The majority of people have grown up playing jRPGs and MMOs where you grind to get by. Hell, I'd be lying if I said it was therapeutic sometimes to just walk around, murdering and growing stronger.

 

If you've ever played Dungeons and Dragons and the like, while you do get exp from murders, the majority of exp rewards are for completing objectives with bonuses given based on HOW you complete said objective.

[teknoman2]

Because all the combat in the game can be avoided. Because all the combat in the game is pointless.

Seriously, people, if encounters which CAN be avoided aren't avoided aren't "punished"... I have no hope. Of course it should be better to avoid combat and conflict WHERE POSSIBLE. That doesn't mean the entire dungeon can be passed through at a leisure with skill speech checks.

So, yes, going into avoidable combat fight is punishment. This however doesn't constiture "all combat". Result; Statement is false.

 

Thats debateable. Maybe someone LIKES to play a character that does not go the diplomatic route - should he be constantly punished? I mean it also depends on how you define punishment. If you only mean he spends more time in combat than anyone else, therefore "losing" playtime, that would be somewhat ok.

 

On the other hand, I get where the people are coming from that direction, that combat will become a waste of time.

If you are constantly jumped by random encounters, or random wild beasts combat can get tedious. But having a small reward (i.e. EXP) offsets this tedious task a little. I guarantee that the combat in the IE games would be less enjoyable if you did not get any XP for it.

if you like to play a character that speaks with his sword, you have to accept that you are going to have to fight every single enemy in the game. and if that is the way you want to play, it means you dont find the battles boring and need an incentive to fight.

if you need an extra reward for fighting when there are other options, and not do it because thats the way you enjoy playing, then you are not looking for an rpg.

[Adhin]

The thing computer games have always seem kind of poor at is dishing out XP. And before I continue this little bit of rambling non-sense im for it. Basically DnD gives stuff based off encounters. Weather that's quest updating or whatever, the way you do things in PnP which cRPG's originally tried to mimic... it was just easier to do it on a kill by kill basis. Generally speaking I don't think XP per kill is a good way to handle it in any game for a few specific reasons, but ultimately it becomes a metagame against good roleplaying.

 

I think Mass Effect 2, as an example, I was happy they made the switch but how they handled it 'all at the end' was poor design, which they agreed with and changed in ME3, which, all that games faults aside that was a great change to its character progression pacing. So I don't think XP should be just for completing a quest or task, but should be dulled out in bits at certain progress mild stones, and that includes finding new areas.

 

Lets say you have a quest that leads you into a 3 level dungeon to kill some mad necromancer who's plaguing a town by zombies. Super basic stuff there, say start of the quest is you learning about something going on, you have to do some investigating to figure out, beyond that, whats going on and what to do about it. I'd say a small amount of XP for picking up the quest, XP once you've gathered the information that updates your journal saying to explore the nearby ruins. Xp for each level of the ruins you go go down, and XP for killing the guy as that's another major quest milestone as to quest progression. Then finally the larger XP chunk for turning it in back at town letting everyone know the issues been delt with.

 

If they can keep the XP stream coming in via progress points in each quest, and for finding new locations but not much else it'l be a bit more fair in how it dishes out the XP so its not promoting a 'do everything possibly can' issue you get with most other RPG's. As per XP on kill, trying to do a tense moment of what should be near overwhelming odds and you needing to run? If that's not scripted, a lot of folks will sit around and XP farm as long as they can. Those kind of moments get ruined with a per-kill basis. And if they just don't do XP for those specific spawns folks still try it till they realize a good 5-10 minutes later they haven't gained anything, which leads to some frustration or disappointment.. all of which is due to a metagame of xp grinding in a manner which made no real sense.

 

I'd rather see something and decide if its worth my resources to go and attack said threat or if id be better off trying to avoid it, I don't want some imaginary number pushing me to just stab everythings face. What it comes down to, in PnP you'd get the same XP for dealing with 'encounters' via whatever to keep things even ended... yeah you have individual XP per rating (shown per enemy) but that kinda thing tends to be delt with in larger chunks, not on the individual level. It's smoother and promotes actual roleplaying, it's what would your character do, not what gives me more magical, imaginary numbers.

 

So yeah, i'm pro-XP chunks not per kill.

 

-edit-

Oh and as per the combats boring with out XP, I call bull****. If the combat isn't fun, they've failed. Period. If you need XP to make it 'fun' then you need to sit back and look at why you play games in the first place, it sure as **** shouldn't just be to raise up an imaginary number. Actually engaging in combat 'should' be a reward in its self, the challenge of that 'should' be a reward.

 

I don't play chess because I get imaginary numbers I play it because its fun to 'play' the game.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Adhin

[Hassat Hunter]

^ (not above but the one on top that. Damn thread moving fast) Yup. It doesn't make sense to WANT to fight everyone in the game, and ending pretty much everything in a fight you can, then complain fighting would be punishment...

 

I would be "What... that doesn't even... wtf?"

Also, it's not really my definition of 'punishment', it was you guys who stated you get punished from failing and getting into "reward-less combat"

 

Another good example;

In KOTOR2 there is a dungeon where you fight visions. Defeating the visions doesn't give XP. At the end you gain a bunch, variable if you succeed the quest or not. So far pretty much everyone unanimously agrees it's the best part of the game, no one said "fighting the visions is pointless since I get no XP"...

[Malkin]

I voted FOR quest related. I enjoyed the Bloodlines style, but felt that this limits developing a character. I felt I had to do all the quests I possibly could, not just those I wanted too complete because of the desire to level a character. Reward questing/events to give a great deal of exp while fighting and killing should still give minimal exp.

 

Edit: Also why not assign a negative value to NPCs. Or some sort of negative soul value that would limit your options on available quests/factions.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Malkin

[Fimbul]

Hmmm intriguing idea: When did a rouge sneaking around a boss and stealing the objective ever get the same exp as a warrior simply slaying the boss?! Most people would slay the boss anyway - rouge or not - just for the XP.

Extremely wrong example. The boss by itself would be an objective (hence XP), and thus your "example" of why the system sucks excludes using the system.

A better example would be instead of a boss it was 20 gnolls.

Why is taking the straight-road and killing them much better than spending time getting around them and quietly steal the objective?

Answer; It shouldn't be. Using the system they plan for PE it wont either.

Doesn't mean killing the 20 gnolls is useless, you still get to the objective after all after doing it. I seriously doubt running to the objective and away is going to be an issue. And heck if it is, it's ON a gnoll. Stealth players could pickpocket, however a non-rogue party? You have to kill them to acquire the item...

I don't know why you are so concerned with my comment but you've got me entirely wrong on several instances!

First of all: You pretty much said what I was saying. I think getting XP only for objectives is good in respective to the player not being tempted to kill the enemy guarding the objective, just for the extra amount of XP! Furthermore the example is not wrong because I made it clear that the objective is IN the treasury, would the boss be the objective I would have said so, but it is not! I call it boss because it's a strong enemy that yields (edit: or would yield) lots of XP. Of course it could also be several enemies, but it doesn't matter! Please leave my examples alone, they're fine!

 

But I like it better to use abilities like diplomacy (intelligence / wisdom), intimidation (strength / constitution) or reflexes (dexterity) to evade confrontation. Such ways should be available for almost any encounter in the game and XP and loot should be even higher in case of success!

You should be rewarded for being an idiot and drawn into a fight? Tell me more about how it makes sense to get rewarded for seeking trouble where there is none.

I marked the spot. Please take your time to read comments thoroughly before criticizing every sentence.

 

Giving XP only for objectives might make the player run waypoints and make exploring less attractive.

Cause exploring is all about killing stuff. There wont be no NPCs along the way. There wont be items to find. There wont be quests to complete. Nope, exploration is only... MURDER DEATH KILL.

This isn't Diablo. This is Project Eternity. Spritial sequal to Baldur's Gate and Planescape:Torment.

If you can let people walk waypoints and complete quests, as some MMO's allow, you seriously need to judge your way of making a proper game... As well as if you can't create areas that are nothing but killfodder.

You know I try to be objective, but that one is very rude! I played Infinity games my whole life and Diablo is nothing to me besides them!

What I mean with "walking waypoints" is that the player hurries from one objective to the next and doesn't mind enemys at all. In MMORPGs it's called "rushing" - sounds familiar? I think this behavior is not what you want to see in this game.

By the way I use subjunctive mood on purpose, you don't have to take everything I write as if I was 100% sure of what outcome a given scenario will have in the game.

 

Look, I don't take it personally, but I think you've read and commented in a hurry. You are doing people wrong if you do that.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Fimbul

[john_boy]

Voted against - but I've been reading some of the replies here and I'm starting to reconsider.

 

Depends on how it's done, I suppose. Hacking through several mobs and getting nothing back (XP wise) in return doesn't appeal, since there's no immediate reward for the encounter, especially when taking on stronger enemies.

[Hassat Hunter]

I marked the spot. Please take your time to read comments thoroughly before criticizing every sentence.

Maybe. I read it as you could use various skills to succeed and then if you still fight the XP is higher. Maybe "loot" distracted me, as you can't really have loot if you don't have a fight.

What I mean with "walking waypoints" is that the player hurries from one objective to the next and doesn't mind enemys at all. In MMORPGs it's called "rushing" - sounds familiar? I think this behavior is not what you want to see in this game.

It would be pretty hard to do this without MMO- quest arrow/markers. How do you know exactly *where* on the map the next objective is. Also archers and mages don't let you go that easy. And how to avoid a chokepoint filled with suicide kobolds?

 

I do see it happening in TOR. But then again, there is not much point in MMO's fighting enemies with their respawns and annoying the hell out of you being back 20 sec later. You wont have that problem in a single-player RPG.

I would be uncompelled to kill something that's just popping back 30 seconds later (damn TOR ) too, however, unless OE loses their collective minds I don't expect that fear to be reasonable for PE, and encounters are logically placed, one-shot and not annoying or pointless as grindy ARPG/MMORPG encounters.

 

Some more examples I thought up while away;

* A druid is attacking you. He summons a group of wolves and other animals to attack you. If you have a ranger in your party or your wilderness lore is high it allows you to charm (not with spell, in convo) half his animals to turn against him...

Now in a XP-per-kill situation this would harm you considerably, since there are fewer enemies to fight. In a objective-XP based game however the druid will give 100XP regardless and his companions nothing. Result; actually having the lore or ranger (which certainly NOT all parties will have) is an actual gain, not a burden.

 

Another;

* A group of thugs ambush you. You need to dispatch them. Having good intimidation allows you to scare of a few, leaving fewer remaining to fight.

Again, with XP-per-kill that's not making it better for yourself as reward. With objective it doesn't matter if you use intimidation or not, same experience. However actually using your skill doesn't negatively affect your XP-reward.

 

Small story short; It wouldn't punish you for strategies Sun Tzu would be proud of. Being a good strategist doesn't punish you, but awards you. And I think that would be a big step up in making RPG combat not as stale as previous generation IE-games have got it to be, and continuing on with it will not resolve. Bad combat will be bad, no matter how much XP you give for it...

[Gizmo]

It really doesn't matter to me, since I trust them as game designers.

I'm the same way ~except for Josh.

(But don't take that the wrong way, Josh is a great designer; he designs elegant systems that work well, but that I quite often just don't like. )

Edited October 18, 2012 by Gizmo

[Volourn]

It's one thing to trust. It's another to trust blindly.

[Gatt9]

 

Some more examples I thought up while away;

* A druid is attacking you. He summons a group of wolves and other animals to attack you. If you have a ranger in your party or your wilderness lore is high it allows you to charm (not with spell, in convo) half his animals to turn against him...

Now in a XP-per-kill situation this would harm you considerably, since there are fewer enemies to fight. In a objective-XP based game however the druid will give 100XP regardless and his companions nothing. Result; actually having the lore or ranger (which certainly NOT all parties will have) is an actual gain, not a burden.

 

Your conclusion doesn't match your premise. You failed to identify how much experience the Druid would have yielded in the xp/kill system, and you're just stacking the deck by using arbitrary values designed to fullfill your premise in vacuum.

 

Plus, also came up with a really unbelievable scenario, knowledge of the woodlands lets you talk to animals?

 

Another;

* A group of thugs ambush you. You need to dispatch them. Having good intimidation allows you to scare of a few, leaving fewer remaining to fight.

Again, with XP-per-kill that's not making it better for yourself as reward. With objective it doesn't matter if you use intimidation or not, same experience. However actually using your skill doesn't negatively affect your XP-reward.

 

Small story short; It wouldn't punish you for strategies Sun Tzu would be proud of. Being a good strategist doesn't punish you, but awards you. And I think that would be a big step up in making RPG combat not as stale as previous generation IE-games have got it to be, and continuing on with it will not resolve. Bad combat will be bad, no matter how much XP you give for it...

 

Again, premise doesn't match the conclusion. First, you fail to acknowledge that in a well designed system, you would be awarded xp relative to the difficulty of intimidating the thugs, if not being outright awarded the same xp value as if you had killed the thugs.

 

Second, you seem to be operating under the idea that xp/kill being present precludes the ability to award experience for anything else, which is a logical fallacy.

 

or you set the XP to 0 after the kill (kinda pointless)

Oh, and if it's in a script that keeps loaded, it would create an infinite loop (resource heavy, potential crashes, bad!). If the guard is in another area and in a 'load area' script still need to make it a one-shot to save resources.

Yeah, so easy... imagine doing that for all NPC's. I mean, that PC's have large amounts of RAM doesn't mean it should be wasted on having a bunch of "if" conditions checked all the damn time.

 

First, it's object oriented, if written in anything other than C, so you don't load a script. You call a check on the event.

 

Second, you're not seriously trying to suggest that executing an if statement on a modern processor consumes any significant amount of resources are you? Especially since combat is a pretty large series of if statements.

 

Third, the objects are already in memory and the if statement doesn't introduce any new variables, as the quest-completed flag is already present as well. So it won't use any more RAM than is already being used. You're checking the state of the flag, the state of the guard object, and then setting the guard object's xp int value to a new one.

[Hassat Hunter]

Your conclusion doesn't match your premise. You failed to identify how much experience the Druid would have yielded in the xp/kill system, and you're just stacking the deck by using arbitrary values designed to fullfill your premise in vacuum.

It doesn't matter what the druid gives, although if it does for you, exactly the same. It matters what the wolves and other spawn give. If they give XP it makes a difference wheter you fight all or half.

And I think using your skills proper to turn the tide of battle being punished is a bad system.

Plus, also came up with a really unbelievable scenario, knowledge of the woodlands lets you talk to animals?

Not talking no, understand and turning yes. I believe that was the skills function in IWD2. If I confused it with another skill, my mistake, hereby.

Again, premise doesn't match the conclusion. First, you fail to acknowledge that in a well designed system, you would be awarded xp relative to the difficulty of intimidating the thugs, if not being outright awarded the same xp value as if you had killed the thugs.

I don't recall *not* fighting through intimidation or persuasion ever giving XP. Not in BG, not in PS:T, not in KOTOR. I suppose it could, though I personally would be fonder of letting the result of the check (in this case less peeps to fight) be enough of a reward. Not every little thing the player does needs to be instantly awarded. Picking a lock? Loot it's own reward. Trap? You're not triggering it. I fail to see why you need a XP-bonus on top of that.

Especially keeping in mind the leveling system of PE and the sheer size of the game.

Second, you seem to be operating under the idea that xp/kill being present precludes the ability to award experience for anything else, which is a logical fallacy.

It doesn't indeed. However, as mentioned, I have never seen combat-evasive persuasion or intimidation giving XP, and in the rare cases it did, usually far less than using the violent alternative.

While giving a lot of quest XP like Baldur's Gate II did for finishing quests is somewhat "objective based" taking XP completely away from monsters is a sure-fire way to make absolutely certain to all your gamers what your game's about. It's story, it's lore, it's quest, it's exploration. It's no monster-basher.

Considering OE's obvious strength and weaknesses making the story stand out more than ever makes the most sense in giving PE it's unique identity, and moving forward past IE's games.

 

I am pretty sure the only reason IE games kept to combat XP anyway was due to publishers being afraid of something different. Something without emphasis on killing. And a RPG where the main focus wasn't killing, could you see it? Heck, most publishers are pro-murdering everything still. It were the smaller developers who went away from kill-based to story based. The result? Deus Ex and Vampire: Bloodlines, some of the best RPG's EVER.

 

Does it has some correlation with that it doesn't promote murdering everything as the best way to proceed. Focusses on it's story? You may disagree, but I think it does. And making a PS:T game that will become even more legendary story and gameplay wise. I won't give up on trying to make that a reality... with all the knowledge and changing perspective on gaming gained since 1999 it's so close in reach.

First, it's object oriented, if written in anything other than C, so you don't load a script. You call a check on the event.

Hmmm... the scripts I have used changing XP on death is too late (since the value is already substracted and given to the player). If however this would allow to prevent instantly to drop XP and not give it to the PC I suppose it could work. However it's a script to change one variable why I think combat XP is worse than objective-based XP. If you want to script modify the other stuff (like balancing dungeons based on XP, and not foes, so you don't have to account foes in your XP calculations, nor need to adjust the monster grid if monster balance and XP value is modified). Keeping a tight reign on XP is good if the alternative is the horrible invention known as level scaling...

Second, you're not seriously trying to suggest that executing an if statement on a modern processor consumes any significant amount of resources are you? Especially since combat is a pretty large series of if statements.

Third, the objects are already in memory and the if statement doesn't introduce any new variables, as the quest-completed flag is already present as well. So it won't use any more RAM than is already being used. You're checking the state of the flag, the state of the guard object, and then setting the guard object's xp int value to a new one.

If the if gets called again and again and again and again as a area-wide "onevent" thing without one-shot check, then yes, it could.

[ComMcNeil]

I don't recall *not* fighting through intimidation or persuasion ever giving XP. Not in BG, not in PS:T, not in KOTOR. I suppose it could, though I personally would be fonder of letting the result of the check (in this case less peeps to fight) be enough of a reward. Not every little thing the player does needs to be instantly awarded. Picking a lock? Loot it's own reward. Trap? You're not triggering it. I fail to see why you need a XP-bonus on top of that.

Especially keeping in mind the leveling system of PE and the sheer size of the game.

 

 

that is a good point actually - I always found the XP rewards in BG2 for specific tasks a little...unbalancing so to speak. Why does a rogue get XP for every damn lock or trap, why does a mage get XP for every spell he puts in his spellbook...it may be realistic in case of the rogue, but its just not "fair" for the other classes. I guess it derives from the PnP roots.

 

Also, I also do not know any game that (consistently) rewarded actions that made your combat easier in some way by using your chars skills.

 

I guess it all comes down to, each encounter should challange multiple attributes of your character/party, so either the normal combat should match up against your combat stats of course, the diplomatic action should only be available if your social stats are high enough, same goes for intimidation (if available), and so on.

In an optimal world, each encounter has some form of at least 1 alternative way of overcoming it, that makes sense for this specific encounter and avoids fighting, but yields pretty much the same reward.

 

 

-edit-

Oh and as per the combats boring with out XP, I call bull****. If the combat isn't fun, they've failed. Period. If you need XP to make it 'fun' then you need to sit back and look at why you play games in the first place, it sure as **** shouldn't just be to raise up an imaginary number. Actually engaging in combat 'should' be a reward in its self, the challenge of that 'should' be a reward.

 

I don't play chess because I get imaginary numbers I play it because its fun to 'play' the game.

 

oh, combat can be generally fun in a game, but specific fights may be tedious and boring, it all comes down to design and how this is executed.

I would say, the combat in BG2 was very good most of the time, no doubt. But there were still encounters that were boring, mainly the random encounters on the overland map during travel. They did (at the later stages of the game) not yield a big challange, the rewards were absolutely pointless at that time and they were not even avoidable. Combat needs at least one of this points to be true...

[SeekDWay]

I am totally against it, but don't get me wrong I want the major part of the EXP to come from objectives. Going back to disarm all traps jsut to get more EXP was never fun. The problem with RPGs is that they are a mixture of events with little or huge consequences in uneven intervals of time.

 

To me a solely objective based EXP gain is one of those dev traps that look good on paper but are horrible in actual play. Once an option is established as the fastest option people tend to stick with it rather than take their time, it's just the way most of us work. I'm not going to delude myself that most of us aren't Min-Maxers and will not optimize their playstyle, this simply isn't the case. RPGs by nature are a mixture of events with varying reward rates, if a player doesn't feel rewarded for doing something chances are said played will try to avoid that option as much as possible. To make that option more viable devs will try to balance it out with other existing options. When a game provides a lot of option variety as PE probably will it is extremely hard to space out and balance all options, without making them feel forced or artificial. I want to be able to anjoy the game to its fullest and to my own liking and given all previous experiences in RPGs and PnP I played, I don't trust that Obsidian will be able to provide balanced playstyles without them feeling artificially so, it's simply too much to do for the design team and 1.5 years is too little developement time for a story driven RPG that strives to provide a quality experience for the mature audience.

 

Solely objective based experience gain is a very good idea but a horrible design choice. Rather than a focused experience gain system I'd preffer a mixture of both with very frequent small objectives rather than spaced out big ones. If objectives are the way Obsidian desides to go with, it's OK with me but I hope those objectives will be a sequence of small rewards rather than spaced out huge bursts of EXP gain.

Edited October 19, 2012 by SeekDWay

[metacontent]

Hello, my first post, yay!

 

I marked down "don't care" but I would also like to add an explanation.

 

 

I haven't read through the thread so if this has been mentioned already to death then please excuse me.

 

 

The problem with gaining "quest only xp" verses "quest+killing xp" is that it is really reaaaaally hard to balance "quest only xp" with enough quests that are unique and engaging and not just a dozen iterations of "gather 20 coconuts".

 

Questing for XP can become just as much of a grind as Killing for XP.

 

A dozen iterations of "Kill 20 pigs" vs a dozen iterations of "Gather 20 coconuts" can both amount to the same poor player experience.

 

Ideally I would like to see something where only a certain percentage of each levels XP can be gained through killing, maybe 20% and the rest has to be gained through questing. Basically, in my ideal world, the player would have two options (a) Get 100% of their XP through quests, or, (b) Get a maximum of 20% of their XP through killing, and the rest through quests.

 

This is an action game, there needs to be fighting, but it is my opinion that a person who just grinds a single fight over and over to fill up an XP bar is probably missing the point of the game, but then again ...hey, its only a game, if that is the behavior they paid to play then that is their loss. I just don't want to be forced to follow their example, or else feel that I am somehow lagging behind the optimized way to play.

 

Cheers,

A.C.

Edited October 19, 2012 by metacontent

[TrashMan]

I don't recall *not* fighting through intimidation or persuasion ever giving XP. Not in BG, not in PS:T, not in KOTOR. I suppose it could, though I personally would be fonder of letting the result of the check (in this case less peeps to fight) be enough of a reward. Not every little thing the player does needs to be instantly awarded. Picking a lock? Loot it's own reward. Trap? You're not triggering it. I fail to see why you need a XP-bonus on top of that.

 

Never have truer words be spoken!

[TrashMan]

I am totally against it, but don't get me wrong I want the major part of the EXP to come from objectives. Going back to disarm all traps jsut to get more EXP was never fun. The problem with RPGs is that they are a mixture of events with little or huge consequences in uneven intervals of time.

 

To me a solely objective based EXP gain is one of those dev traps that look good on paper but are horrible in actual play. Once an option is established as the fastest option people tend to stick with it rather than take their time, it's just the way most of us work. I'm not going to delude myself that most of us aren't Min-Maxers and will not optimize their playstyle, this simply isn't the case. RPGs by nature are a mixture of events with varying reward rates, if a player doesn't feel rewarded for doing something chances are said played will try to avoid that option as much as possible. To make that option more viable devs will try to balance it out with other existing options. When a game provides a lot of option variety as PE probably will it is extremely hard to space out and balance all options, without making them feel forced or artificial. I want to be able to anjoy the game to its fullest and to my own liking and given all previous experiences in RPGs and PnP I played, I don't trust that Obsidian will be able to provide balanced playstyles without them feeling artificially so, it's simply too much to do for the design team and 1.5 years is too little developement time for a story driven RPG that strives to provide a quality experience for the mature audience.

 

Solely objective based experience gain is a very good idea but a horrible design choice. Rather than a focused experience gain system I'd preffer a mixture of both with very frequent small objectives rather than spaced out big ones. If objectives are the way Obsidian desides to go with, it's OK with me but I hope those objectives will be a sequence of small rewards rather than spaced out huge bursts of EXP gain.

 

 

Bollocks.

 

By your own logic, slaughtering everything in odler IE games was the fastest option.

 

So how is replaceing fastest option 1 with fastest option 2 any WORSE?

It's technicly the same thing. That's assuming your theory was correct, which it isn't.

 

 

I think you really don't understand what goal/objective based XP really is if you equate it only to quests.

Also, killing opponets has a reward of it's own - LOOT.

And assurance they won't bug you in the future.

 

 

****

 

Repeat after me people:

 

OBJECTIVE/GOAL-BASED XP

 

Not Quest-based.

Edited October 19, 2012 by TrashMan

[Vandoon]

If you wish to stop people working the mechanics the mechanics should be more robust However you should consider a few things.

People will find a loophole.

Is stopping them do it spoiling their fun.

If the system is fun for you does it matter if they wrought the system (I would point out I don’t do what they do so I couldn’t care less if it is stopped).

 

Anyway one possibility for stopping people achieve objective and the double back and kill monsters or quest giver is to make the xp mutually exclusive. Slaughtering the people voids the sneaking or killing the quest giver the same.

 

If the xp points are not visible and handed out as a straight level increase with no feedback to the PC it would be less tempting to players to try. The lack of feedback about progression is probably a really bad idea but it is a suggestion

Another alternative could be the skills are what progresses with use and not have levels at all. This could make it worse however.

 

I need to think more none really feel complete.

[SeekDWay]

........

 

 

Bollocks.

 

By your own logic, slaughtering everything in odler IE games was the fastest option.

 

So how is replaceing fastest option 1 with fastest option 2 any WORSE?

It's technicly the same thing. That's assuming your theory was correct, which it isn't.

 

 

I think you really don't understand what goal/objective based XP really is if you equate it only to quests.

Also, killing opponets has a reward of it's own - LOOT.

And assurance they won't bug you in the future.

 

 

****

 

Repeat after me people:

 

OBJECTIVE/GOAL-BASED XP

 

Not Quest-based.

 

Unable or unwilling to understand opinions very different from his own. Being narrow-minded is one thing, but this is totally ... (Checks post history... sigh)

 

You know I don't support exp from fighting, I didn't mention experience gain from fighting even one time. The only flaw I mentioned was experience from traps, which is my main concern. I'm usually roleplaying with a lot of conversation based skills, I like feeling games like books rather than Cadillacs and Dinosaurs. My title Derpdragon is a joke based on repeatidly casting Feeblemind on dragons in Baldur's Gate because I didn't enjoy the dragon fights at all. Hell, my main concern is that usually dialog is far easier and arguably faster way to progress a quest than fighting. My main point was that it is too hard to balance experience gain and rewards/events/goals/you-name-it should be small and well-paced.

 

A major example of flawed experience gain is the oh-so-hyped Guild Wars 2, a game where everyone levels through crafting and just jumps into end game content.

Edited October 19, 2012 by SeekDWay

[Skirge01]

Admittedly, I have not read through all 24 pages of this thread, but I get the idea and did read some from the first page and nearly this entire last page.

 

My take is that this is a good idea, but it needs to be well thought out. I like the idea of minimizing the benefit of going on killing sprees. My suggestion would be to have the XP gain be miniscule for killing and let the reward be the loot. To avoid people double-dipping (which I had never thought/heard of before), your reputation should cover that. Unlike Fallout's single reputation, you could have an unknown-to-you and separate good and bad reputation ranking. This prevents people from "gaming" the system. If you become known to "good guys" as someone who finishes a quest and then goes back and kills everyone, word should get out and people should be less interested in trusting you in the first place, thereby limiting the quests you can be sent on, due to your own actions. The same would work for turning in the "bad guys" or killing them after completing their quest. Instead of being offered quests, they try to kill you on sight or put a bounty on your head and send people after you in droves. Since you don't know what your reputation is to each faction, you may wind up wondering why you aren't being offered any quests or no one is willing to talk to you. Conversely, you might be wondering why there's an army of bandits waiting for you every time you step outside a town.

[Cultist]

Planesacape was unique because you could gain more experience from conversations, than battles. I prefer to repeat the experience.