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

[Huinehtar]

Why not implement some kind of "successes" like FONV rewarding some XP for "overkilling"? (But not too many)

[Hormalakh]

Nah. I'm For because I never ever play fighters in games. I figured if my players need to get XP they can all kill enemies regardless if they're fighters or thieves. But this time, if the mechanic is done right, then I'd actually have to play a fighter and gain XP through killing with a sword and shield. I wouldn't be able to use a wizard to do the same thing to get that XP.

[evdk]

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.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth, which begs the question what point did you try to convey there?

[diablo169]

I'm strongly for the devs doing what they want to do, this was Joshs idea so i'm for it. They are crowd sourcing funding to make their game, not ours.

[Arkeus]

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...

 

Funnily enough, a great many classic heroes in books are totally like that.

There is something to be said about levelling up like a true rogue, and it should definitely be viable. Honestly, it should give a lot of exp to do all that stuff

[Hormalakh]

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...

 

I think if the mechanic takes into account what class you are and actually awards you based on that class, then its quite robust. Fighters do get XP for killing, wizards for spells, etc. It's difficult to do right, but if done right, it would make a lot of sense. Perhaps an amalgamation of goal-based XP and much lesser amounts of XP for class-defined skills (fighting, spellery, thievery, monkery, priestery, etc-ery)

[Crusty]

Fallout: New Vegas has a set of challenges that are mostly combat oriented (but also include non-combat activities) that reward the player XP (and sometimes Perks) when they carry out an activity a certain amount of times.

 

i.e Kill 100 Super Mutants.

 

Why not have a variant of that to supplement the goal-oriented XP system (which I support)?

[Hormalakh]

I'm strongly for the devs doing what they want to do, this was Joshs idea so i'm for it. They are crowd sourcing funding to make their game, not ours.

 

We can always throw out our ideas and see if any of them stick with the devs? When brainstorming ideas, 2 heads are always better than 1.

[Hobz]

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.

 

You're saying that like there is nothing but "encounters" in the game. Since it's a crpg, you'll have to set a reward for sneaky or diplomatic ways (or any other ones) every time those ways will be available. You might as well set the same reward for the fighting way an remove xp from kills.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I signed up just to say how much I support gaining XP for quest only.

[harhar!]

Meh. Then I will feel like I'm wasting my time even fighting the monsters. Also I want to have the ability to at least level up a bit if I can't do all the quests. Why not "low" amounts of exp for monsters?

[Jarmo]

 

You took the words right out of my mouth, which begs the question what point did you try to convey there?

 

Trying to point out I think I can see both sides of the argument, I just prefer one way over the other.

No matter how you dole out XP it's a completely artificial thing, no getting away from that.

[mstark]

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.

The word "Trivial" here isn't used in relation to the player character, but simply as a classification for some types of monsters. Better explanation: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61543-are-you-for-or-against-gaining-experience-points-only-for-completing-objectives/page__st__20?do=findComment&comment=1242531

[rjshae]

I'm strongly for the devs doing what they want to do, this was Joshs idea so i'm for it. They are crowd sourcing funding to make their game, not ours.

It was mentioned that nothing is set in stone yet, so we'll see. Definitely a good idea for the developers to create and maintain a consistent philosophy to the game though.

[Hormalakh]

Hey OP, can you change the poll a little. Add this option in, I'm interested in knowing what people think.

 

1FOR

2AGAINST

3. DEPENDS. Majority of XP quest-based. Minimal XP for using skills against enemies (killing, thievery, using spells, etc)

[evdk]

You took the words right out of my mouth, which begs the question what point did you try to convey there?

 

Trying to point out I think I can see both sides of the argument, I just prefer one way over the other.

No matter how you dole out XP it's a completely artificial thing, no getting away from that.

Yes, it's down to personal preference and I am personally sick of XP per kill systems.

[Infinitron]

Hey OP, can you change the poll a little. Add this option in, I'm interested in knowing what people think.

 

1FOR

2AGAINST

3. DEPENDS. Majority of XP quest-based. Minimal XP for using skills against enemies (killing, thievery, using spells, etc)

 

Nah, that's not what the poll is about. I'm trying to measure support for Josh Sawyer's design philosophy specifically. I'm sure everybody here has his own set of compromises he's willing to make but that's not what I'm interested in.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Infinitron

[Gatt9]

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

 

It's completely nonsensical. I can kill 100,000,000 goblins and not get better with my sword. Hand a guy a magic marble and suddenly I'm better with my sword.

 

It's terrible design.

 

The correct solution is to give experience for any action where it makes sense to gain experience doing something, this is just designing around the possibility that someone somewhere might choose to grind and someone else doesn't like it. It's a very bad decision.

[Hormalakh]

Hey OP, can you change the poll a little. Add this option in, I'm interested in knowing what people think.

 

1FOR

2AGAINST

3. DEPENDS. Majority of XP quest-based. Minimal XP for using skills against enemies (killing, thievery, using spells, etc)

 

Nah, that's not what the poll is about. I'm trying to measure support for Josh Sawyer's design philosophy specifically. I'm sure everybody here has his own set of compromises he's willing to make but that's not what I'm interested in.

 

Sounds good. Carry on

Edited October 15, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Osvir]

I'm split to be honest, voted "Don't care". I also felt the poll option "Don't care" was pretty bad, which makes me hope that Obsidian really reads the threads and doesn't just look at the "score".

 

Leaning more towards "For" but I don't want to disregard "Against" entirely, as it could benefit the game and playerbase. I'm sure a hybrid can be implemented, where you only get experience from certain mobs, that are driven by the story somehow meant to make your character grow (The Tutorial is an "experience" in itself for both you and your character).

 

Revelations = Experience. In this case you could get experience from certain mobs once or twice, as you unlock their "codex" learning what they are. But as you fully know what they are, there is nothing more to gain.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Osvir

[Hormalakh]

I'm split to be honest, voted "Don't care".

 

Leaning more towards "For" but I don't want to disregard "Against" entirely, as it could benefit the game and playerbase. I'm sure a hybrid can be implemented, where you only get experience from certain mobs, that are driven by the story somehow meant to make your character grow (The Tutorial is an "experience" in itself for both you and your character).

 

Revelations = Experience. In this case you could get experience from certain mobs once or twice, as you unlock their "codex" learning what they are. But as you fully know what they are, there is nothing more to gain.

 

I too changed my vote to "Don't care." I loved in BG2 that I could write spells into my spellbook and gain some experience doing that. I'd try not to save-scumm because then it made spellwriting a tactical option for me.

[evdk]

 

It's completely nonsensical. I can kill 100,000,000 goblins and not get better with my sword. Hand a guy a magic marble and suddenly I'm better with my sword.

 

It's terrible design.

 

 

This should help not putting 100.000.000 of bloody trash mobs in the game. And, as has been previously pointed out, murdering umptillion of gobbos helping you become more persuasive is equally retarded, because the system is only a abstraction of reality.

[Troller]

It`s a load of crap IMO, if you fight someone and kill it, you deserve a reward, if you don`t want players to kill your precious NPCS, make them immortal or super strong.

[Minttunator]

I absolutely support this - it's a great idea because a well-done objective-based XP system would make playstyles other than "kill everything" viable. Although I must say I'm surprised they're seriously considering something like that in this day and age - hope they go through with it.

[Infinitron]

It`s a load of crap IMO, if you fight someone and kill it, you deserve a reward, if you don`t want players to kill your precious NPCS, make them immortal or super strong.

 

It's called 'loot'.