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

[Infinitron]

Against really. Oh it'll be fine the way it's done no doubt.

 

I'd just feel if you meet a random encounter of 17 brigands and whack them all with your rapied,

and then repeat that 48 times... well you really should be learning something right there.

 

Getting better at that piercing business or somethign, much more than if you'd have run away every time.

 

Like I said, this is really a larger question about the gameplay structure the game will provide.

 

Paraphrasing some previous posts of mine:

 

This is so much more complex than simply saying "I want to get xp for killing monsters". That in itself is meaningless unless the game itself is structured in such a way that it really rewards that kind of exploration and grinding experience.

 

The game that Obsidian want to make doesn't sound like it will provide that kind of structure, even if it DOES end up handing out experience points for monster-slaying. So what would be the point of it?

 

Objective-based systems have been proven to work great for RPGs based more on quests with choices and consequences and reactivity than on sandboxy romping, and that particular subgenre of RPG seems to be Obsidian's core competency.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Infinitron

[Hobz]

Voted For ! Here is why :

 

Glad to see they're heading toward objective based xp, granted objective is different from quest. You might wander around, stumble on a cultist ritual performed in a well hidden cave and be inventive : sneak in to swap their magic crystal with a regular stone to screw everything up, or talk the leader into chanting in reverse with a similar result ; without feeling compelled to just kill them all for additional xp.

 

In the end you loose nothing since everyone will be rewarded, but you gain in immersion and you make approaches other than brute force just a "viable", and it seams pretty significant in a game with both expert and iron-man mode.

[Ignatius]

Against really. Oh it'll be fine the way it's done no doubt.

 

I'd just feel if you meet a random encounter of 17 brigands and whack them all with your rapied,

and then repeat that 48 times... well you really should be learning something right there.

 

Getting better at that piercing business or somethign, much more than if you'd have run away every time.

 

Yeah, but that example isn't really typical for their design style. In the IE games, a large majority of the fights have some purpose behind them. Or at least, you aren't going to be wading through piles of enemies to get to your objective. I mean, there will be a few random-non-objective based encounters, but I doubt their will be so many that you'll feel you're getting short-changed by not being awarded experience for massacring your 20th pack of wolves.

[Zoraptor]

My personal preference is I don't really care how it's done so long as it is done well, but I do think some sort of XP reward for killing stuff may be sensible on top of rewards for finishing objectives. Some people do need a sense of being rewarded for their gameplay choices, and as long as it is balanced so that there's no specific and intrinsic benefit to that approach it's fine.

 

Small experience point rewards for killing stuff vs convince someone not to fight you and they give a quest later or help you out with something, don't genocide those poor innocent kobolds going about their business in their own part of the forest and maybe they prevent other nasties wandering through an area; that sort of thing.

[aVENGER]

For of course.

 

Also, some clarification for people who might not be familiar with goal-based XP systems:

• "goal" does not necessarily equal "quest"; you can have goal-based XP awards such as "Surviving an encounter with ogres" without it being tied to any particular quest; exploring an unknown cave might also count as a goal etc.
  
• you always get the same amount of XP for completing a goal; how you do it (stealth, diplomacy, combat, environment...) is entirely up to you
  
• one quest can consist of several smaller goals or "progress points"; that way, XP can be awarded during the entire duration of the quest, not just after it's completed
  
• a goal-based XP system prevents abuses such as completing one quest in all three possible ways (stealth, diplomacy, combat) and racking up a triple XP award
  

[The Mist Devil]

Lets show some trust here.

 

For.

[GarfunkeL]

I think it subverts the impetus to explore maps and clear dungeons if you don't gain experience for killing the enemies you find there.

 

If a group of guys is part of a quest? No experience for killing them. But if I go to the furthest corner of the map and end up fighting off a random troop of hob goblins attacks me, I want experience for killing them, ya know?

 

What if you got experience for going to said dungeon level and reaching the point right past the hobgoblins. What difference should it make how you got to that point as long as you got it. Fighters will kill to get there, wizards might shove enemies out of the way to get there, diplomats will talk their way there, etc. They all had to struggle to get there.

 

Exactly. It worked really well in Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. It can work in PE. Big and loud FOR.

[aVENGER]

I'd just feel if you meet a random encounter of 17 brigands and whack them all with your rapied,

and then repeat that 48 times... well you really should be learning something right there.

 

In a goal-based XP system, you could still get experience for "Surviving an encounter with brigands". On the other hand, you'd get the same amount of XP if you intimidated them into leaving you alone or simply snuck past them.

 

A goal-based XP system doesn't penalize you, it just opens up more choices.

[quechn1tlan]

Ok. It seems that I'm in a minority here and it, actually, boggles my mind to see people want this. I won't say something like: I want Obsidian to answer me this here and now definitively and if they actually go with the system which gives XP only for completing objectives, I recall my pledge. I'm not that petty. But, if they actually stated this from day one, I must tell you - I never would've pledged at all.

[Ignatius]

Anyways, being serious I can't say that i might enjoy killing monsters just because they are in my way. And I like combat. But if it is pointless - then I'd rather be running with 6 rogues or invisible mages from one objective to another. So no, I'm against experience not being given for killing stuff.

 

Well, that's with the assumption you can sneak by EVERYTHING in the game.

 

At some point some bad ass wizard will use some detect-invisible spell and then wipe the floor with your badly composed party. However, it's interesting you bring this up, because this experience system is obviously working, since you are already thinking about other ways the game might be approached (regardless of how risky) than just the simple tactic of killing whatever is in your way.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Ignatius

[Jarmo]

I'd just feel if you meet a random encounter of 17 brigands and whack them all with your rapied,

and then repeat that 48 times... well you really should be learning something right there.

 

What, like bad game design?

 

So now Fallout 1 and 2 are badly designed games? Ok, each to his own.

 

I can see how the game is easier to balance, when there's a fixed amount of XP available, and the developers know pretty much to a point how much you have in the end.

I've played really darn good NWN and NWN2 modules where the XP for quests only was implemented, and it worked out just fine. So I really do think it can and will work.

 

It's only I prefer you get XP for doing stuff, not from meeting the artificial objective.

And yeah, I never really liked the quest completed XP boost in the old IE games either.

[C2B]

Ok. It seems that I'm in a minority here and it, actually, boggles my mind to see people want this. I won't say something like: I want Obsidian to answer me this here and now definitively and if they actually go with the system which gives XP only for completing objectives, I recall my pledge. I'm not that petty. But, if they actually stated this from day one, I must tell you - I never would've pledged at all.

 

Dude, it's fine to dislike this.

 

It's not cool though to try to use your pledge as a threat. That wording is actually pretty horrible.

Edited October 15, 2012 by C2B

[evdk]

So you're telling me that all these years I was punching evil doods while wearing my pimp trenchcoat for nothing? I am dissapoint.

 

Anyways, being serious I can't say that i might enjoy killing monsters just because they are in my way. And I like combat. But if it is pointless - then I'd rather be running with 6 rogues or invisible mages from one objective to another. So no, I'm against experience not being given for killing stuff.

 

Well, that's with the assumption you can sneak by EVERYTHING in the game.

 

Stop pulling the straw out of his "argument", it's not worth it.

[mstark]

I'm all for it, but my hope is that they'll introduce a system that allows keeping some of the excitement of certain encounters: this was suggested by Ieo in the Update 24 thread:

 

Introduce 3 different enemy types:

 

"Common" enemies that would give minimal XP on kill, think random monster/bandit encounters & roaming, hostile, animals. Can potentially be quest related.

"Trivial" enemies that give no XP, would include NPCs, and are generally always linked to quests.

"Epic" enemies, they give XP comparable to completing a quest when killed (think Firkraag), and are never quest related, but found through exploration (a rewardable achievement in itself).

 

This would (in a truer sense?) accommodate for all play styles, while hindering abusing the system by doubling back and killing the NPCs of a quest you just finished, simply because that's the most "rewarding" way to play.

Edited October 15, 2012 by mstark

[Valorian]

For of course.

 

Also, some clarification for people who might not be familiar with goal-based XP systems:

• "goal" does not necessarily equal "quest"; you can have goal-based XP awards such as "Surviving an encounter with ogres" without it being tied to any particular quest; exploring an unknown cave might also count as a goal etc.
  
• you always get the same amount of XP for completing a goal; how you do it (stealth, diplomacy, combat, environment...) is entirely up to you
  
• one quest can consist of several smaller goals or "progress points"; that way, XP can be awarded during the entire duration of the quest, not just after it's completed
  
• a goal-based XP system prevents abuses such as completing one quest in all three possible ways (stealth, diplomacy, combat) and racking up a triple XP award
  

 

So it's actually more practical and intuitive to assign xp to each instance of these "objectives" than having enemies hand out xp based on their challenge rating?

That will be a lot of work.. taking into account every possible encounter.

[evdk]

[

So now Fallout 1 and 2 are badly designed games?

 

No, but neither are Bloodlines. No approach is inherently worse then the other.

[Jaesun]

XP when finishing objective like Bloodlines was PURE AWESOME. <3 And it is a far better cRPG mechanic.

[quechn1tlan]

Ok. It seems that I'm in a minority here and it, actually, boggles my mind to see people want this. I won't say something like: I want Obsidian to answer me this here and now definitively and if they actually go with the system which gives XP only for completing objectives, I recall my pledge. I'm not that petty. But, if they actually stated this from day one, I must tell you - I never would've pledged at all.

 

Dude, it's fine to dislike this.

 

It's not cool though to try to use your pledge as a threat.

 

There's absolutely nothing that can make me do this. I made a decission to support them - I stick with it no matter what. The post was just meant to show how strongly I dislike the idea of objective-only xp and my frustration to actually see people like this idea. I, personally, know lots of RPG gamers, most of them old school and not one of them thinks this is a good thing.

[Piccolo]

For, however I do like this idea for a slight compromise:

 

For the world monsters per exploration--

 

There could be different enemy types granting different xp as well. "Epic" class enemy wouldn't be linked to any quest, for example, but give good xp for the challenge. "Common" enemies could give minimal world-kill xp. "Trivial" creatures, even NPCs, would give no xp and must be linked to quests. Not sure how that would work out in the UI, though, in terms of identification--or perhaps it's something discovered only after the fact.

[Infinitron]

Ok. It seems that I'm in a minority here and it, actually, boggles my mind to see people want this. I won't say something like: I want Obsidian to answer me this here and now definitively and if they actually go with the system which gives XP only for completing objectives, I recall my pledge. I'm not that petty. But, if they actually stated this from day one, I must tell you - I never would've pledged at all.

 

Dude, it's fine to dislike this.

 

It's not cool though to try to use your pledge as a threat. That wording is actually pretty horrible.

 

I disagree. Let the man do what he wants with his money. Not all games are for everybody. None of would be here supporting this game if we didn't agree with that.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Infinitron

[aVENGER]

So it's actually more practical and intuitive to assign xp to each instance of these "objectives" than having enemies hand out xp based on their challenge rating?

That will be a lot of work.. taking into account every possible encounter.

 

Not necessarily.

 

It doesn't mean that every single enemy group will count as a "progress point". For example, let's say that you need to get an item from a guarded building. The item is located inside a safe on the third floor. The first step would be to get inside the building. You can distract the guards at the entrance and sneak past them, disguise your group and talk your way in or simply kill the guards. Either way, you get the same XP amount for passing the first progress point.

Edited October 15, 2012 by aVENGER

[ArchBeast]

Im 100% FOR !!

 

Several days ago i posted in some topic that i whant his kind of EXP gainin in P:E. Haha mayby... just mayby they read my post and jump to same conslusions hahaha (Very happy)

 

Vampire Masquarade Bloodlines is my favorite game, i allways enyoi this exp gaining system it's such more realistic then kill 100 rats system.

[evdk]

I, personally, know lots of RPG gamers, most of them old school and not one of them thinks this is a good thing.

 

While we are in the business of exchanging personal anecdotes, I would like to mention that I know people who can drink a whole bottle of vodka and still be articulate. Just putting it out there.

[Jarmo]

Well young whippersnapper, so you want to know how I became the finest swordsman in the country? Well let me tell you.

 

I've run away from orcs, and goblins and kobolds, I've begged for my life having been caught by bugbears,

I've negotiated my own ransom when I surrendered to the brigands. I jumped off to a thorn bush to escape the ice trolls

and when the dragon attacked I dug myself into a dung heap.

 

And if you don't see how that taught me to fence like a god, you just don't understand how goal based XP works.

 

And before anyone points it out, no I can't explain how you learn to pickpocket or open locks by hacking monsters with a scythe either.

Actually I could really go for a runequest style crpg...

[Valorian]

For, however I do like this idea for a slight compromise:

 

For the world monsters per exploration--

 

There could be different enemy types granting different xp as well. "Epic" class enemy wouldn't be linked to any quest, for example, but give good xp for the challenge. "Common" enemies could give minimal world-kill xp. "Trivial" creatures, even NPCs, would give no xp and must be linked to quests. Not sure how that would work out in the UI, though, in terms of identification--or perhaps it's something discovered only after the fact.

 

"Trivial" is relative. For a level 10 party fighting a zombie would be trivial. For a level 1 character this encounter wouldn't be trash or trivial.

 

 

So it's actually more practical and intuitive to assign xp to each instance of these "objectives" than having enemies hand out xp based on their challenge rating?

That will be a lot of work.. taking into account every possible encounter.

 

Not necessarily.

 

It doesn't mean that every single enemy group will count as a "progress point". Instead, getting inside a guarded area might count as a progress point. You can sneak in, disguise/talk your way in or simply kill the guards. You get the same XP amount in either case.

 

This is just one example. There are many examples where "same xp for every solution" wouldn't be logical.