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

[Troller]

I'm for.

 

While I could generally go both ways, and handing out xp "the old way" wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, I like the idea of having alternative ways of completing objectives, and making it less about murdering the countryside. That, and it's usually a pain to balance "murder everyone" against some sort of "killed nobody" xp bonus achievement at the end of a quest (not to mention the motivation of sneaking through a quest to get the "killed nobody" xp bonus, and THEN murder everyone on your way out, to get both. ).

 

I'll be interested in seeing how they pull it off.

hahaha hell yeah man, I do that in all games

[teknoman2]

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.

you will probably get xp in that situation, but not because you killed them but because you passed the encounter alive.

[Maf]

Yeah lets stop discussions, I mean why would you want discussions in a forum??

The update #24 thread is there for update #24.

the XP discussion inside of it is totally offtopic and looking more akin to a flame war.

It's fine doing it in it's own thread (aka here).

But I would have stopped it in #24 yeah, I was looking forward to seeing people's reaction on the update #24 stuff and all I can see is children bickering over numbers and when they get to see them.

And.. oh wait I only just now noticed your name... DANG IT!

[dlux]

If we don't get kill XP, then we will avoid combat as much as possible, which is only a good mechanic for a game like Deus Ex or a game with rather linear levels imo. This is the kind of thing that makes your eyes roll in disgust whenever you have to kill trash mobs - because the reward is practically non-existant.

 

Annoying and worthless combat.... Check!

[Maf]

If we don't get kill XP, then we will avoid combat as much as possible, which is only a good mechanic for a game like Deus Ex or a game with rather linear levels imo. This is the kind of thing that makes your eyes roll in disgust whenever you have to kill trash mobs - because the reward is practically non-existant.

 

Annoying and worthless combat.... Check!

Do you currently look at mobs in an IE game going, oh wait those only give 2xp instead of 50, let's just skip those...

To me it actually looks like another reason to remove kill xp all together.

But seeing all these reactions I'd personally do the following:

Take the highest level (or 2 levels) and divide all the experience required for those 2 levels over all mobs in the game (rated by difficulty perhaps) and leave it at that.

And make those XP "extra" (leaving the non violent solutions at LEAST as viable for getting max level on all characters).

So in the end you've gone out of your way to slaughter all the mobs for gaining max level approximately 30 minutes earlier than your nonviolent counterparts.

Hurah!

 

*puke*

[evdk]

If we don't get kill XP, then we will avoid combat as much as possible, which is only a good mechanic for a game like Deus Ex or a game with rather linear levels imo. This is the kind of thing that makes your eyes roll in disgust whenever you have to kill trash mobs - because the reward is practically non-existant.

 

Annoying and worthless combat.... Check!

Seems like a good reason not to artificially prolong the game by putting said trash mobs in it.

[Crusty]

If we don't get kill XP, then we will avoid combat as much as possible, which is only a good mechanic for a game like Deus Ex or a game with rather linear levels imo. This is the kind of thing that makes your eyes roll in disgust whenever you have to kill trash mobs - because the reward is practically non-existant.

 

Annoying and worthless combat.... Check!

 

That's only if a) combat and gameplay has no bearing on narrative and the general experience (i.e has no worth outside of XP) and b) combat is not fun/engaging.

 

Also, minimising trash mobs is rarely a bad idea.

 

I'm still thinking there will be (or should be) a variety of "challenges" similar to New Vegas which are mostly combat oriented that serve as milestones which will grant players XP and Perks or bonuses outside of quests and task.

 

i.e: Killing a Dragon, clearing out a deadly non-plot related mine, slaughtering an indiscrimate number of wolves, drenching your sword arm with the blood of X enemies, etc.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Crusty

[Arkeus]

If we don't get kill XP, then we will avoid combat as much as possible, which is only a good mechanic for a game like Deus Ex or a game with rather linear levels imo. This is the kind of thing that makes your eyes roll in disgust whenever you have to kill trash mobs - because the reward is practically non-existant.

 

Annoying and worthless combat.... Check!

If the combat is annoying and worthless, then yes it's good that you skip it.

[Nerei]

Considering there is no "partly" option or similar I will have to go with against.

I honestly believe that if I was to run into a random group of orcs, ogres or whatever somewhere far from anywhere killing them would net some xp.

Also as has already been pointed out making killing monsters not net anything in terms of xp, will make combat alot less attractive and much more of a pain, especially if all I can get in terms of drops from said orcs is 5 coppers and a rusty sword. "damn now I have to waste time killing these guys" is not really something you want players to say in your game unless you're making something like a stealth game.

 

I can fully accept having commoners found in cities and npc's tied to a quest not net anything for killing. Things like killing guards related to a quest being worth very little compared to the quest xp is also okay, them not being worth anything though again means that unless their drops are good it again turns into a "combat is a nuisance" scenario which is just about the worst you can do if you want combat to have value.

 

I absolutely prefer mechanics where butchering a village is not something that will net you a ton of xp and make you the best swordsman in the world, having quests where you get a bonus for not killing anyone but you can would also be a great mechanic to have.

However if we go with the extremes I prefer that to quest xp only as that makes combat nothing but a dodge the trash pack game or gold farming and I really hope combat will have some importance in this game.

[norolim]

I'm not voting, 'cause it's a bad poll. Too little options. Instead, I'll just explain my position on this.

 

I think objective based XP is a good idea, but not the best. I would prefer to get some experience points for strong monsters that are not tied to any quest. I don't want to discover that after an epic battle with a red dragon my party learns nothing. Someone suggested in the update thread that they could separated enemies into cathegories: Epic, Standard, Insignificant and give reasonable XP for the Epic ones, very little XP for the standard ones and no XP for the insignificant enemies. That, I thing, would be a perfect system.

 

But anyway, I don't mind no XP for kills too much. I can see obvious advantages and I can live with the drawbacks.

Edited October 16, 2012 by norolim

[Sensuki]

If this isn't handled correctly it could introduce a lot of problems in the game. Now every single encounter in the game has to be involved in a quest or some sort. I think that takes a little bit away from the immersion of the world.

 

I do understand the reasoning for the decision but I do agree that it's not the exact best way to handle it.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Sensuki

[Gecimen]

While I like non-combat resolves A LOT, I think combats must have a small bonus, such as a 10%.

[Jarmo]

I'm not voting

If this isn't handled correctly

 

Whoa, I just realized you two are not the same guy.

[Sensuki]

There was another user vhattgern who had the same avatar as me but more zoomed in

[Xahell]

Hello,

 

Giving experience based on objectives' results is indeed a good idea.

 

I think we can easily pull out a few different situations:

• The player is freely exploring and facing non quest-related foes ;
  
• The player is facing quest-related foes during its quest ;
  
• The player is facing quest-related foes after the quest or at the point from which the foes are considered as "passed through", i.e the player as gained its experience for passing them somehow.
  

In all three possibilities, the player can kill the mobs.

 

In the first case, removing the experience gain seems irrelevant. If a weak and peaceful character can't kill an ogre, surely will he be able to get some experience thank to bargaining or by some other ways which will be closed to a full warrior.

 

In the second case, killing the foe is taking a solution to a problem. It should gives the same experience to slaughter everyone and to sneak through them.

 

However, the problems come here. What if he kills half the mob of a pack, backs in safety and then sneak through same? Or if he convinces them to let him through, kill half the mobs for some reasons and then sneak through the now hostile foes? Same experience in both ways?

 

Should a "perfect" solution gives more experience than a flawed one?

 

I think yes, it should all give the same experience, just so you can focus on the results and struggle your way as you wish.

 

In the third case, to me, its just a mechanic abuse if you can get some experience for killing NPCs you choose to spare a few seconds ago.

 

Now, here is an idea I wish to submit:

 

What if you determine some "quests' areas", closed and independent sub-areas inside a quest. Note that those specials areas are NOT meant to cover the world, as it would enclose it. But, inside these areas, which can be fairly large, the experience is smartly capped. In this way, taking a specific solution and executing it smoothly or failing and struggling through the different possibilities are both possible without penalty, as the one struggling will eventually hit the experience cap and won't be able to abuse game mechanics.

 

Now, imaging that there are links between those areas. If you fail to sneak past some mobs and to kill them quickly, some alarm is given. If it happens, the next area will be harder, but will not give more experience than its easier counterpart.

Wouldn't that be immersive and still fair?

[Althernai]

If we don't get kill XP, then we will avoid combat as much as possible, which is only a good mechanic for a game like Deus Ex or a game with rather linear levels imo. This is the kind of thing that makes your eyes roll in disgust whenever you have to kill trash mobs - because the reward is practically non-existant.

 

Annoying and worthless combat.... Check!

Oh, come on. Do you really think they'd be spending all of this time on the combat rules and making separate game modes if the combat was annoying and worthless? These guys made Icewind Dale as well as Planescape: Torment. There will be a ton of combat in this game and I fully expect it to be fun.

 

More generally, there are a lot of strawman arguments here. Objective-based XP does not mean that every single hostile creature has to be part of a grand quest in order for you to get XP for killing it. If the only purpose of putting an enemy in the game is for the player to fight it, then it will almost certainly give you XP (although too many such enemies generally mean a pretty lousy game). An objective is not a quest; it can be as simple as "Defended yourself from the wolves."

[norolim]

I'm not voting

If this isn't handled correctly

 

Whoa, I just realized you two are not the same guy.

But we are the same guy. We just have many and multiple forms. And using our combined power we will obliterate all life! Buahahahaha!

Edited October 16, 2012 by norolim

[Infinitron]

I'm not voting, 'cause it's a bad poll. Too little options. Instead, I'll just explain my position on this.

 

I think objective based XP is a good idea, but not the best. I would prefer to get some experience points for strong monsters that are not tied to any quest. I don't want to discover that after an epic battle with a red dragon my party learns nothing. Someone suggested in the update thread that they could separated enemies into cathegories: Epic, Standard, Insignificant and give reasonable XP for the Epic ones, very little XP for the standard ones and no XP for the insignificant enemies. That, I thing, would be a perfect system.

 

But anyway, I don't mind no XP for kills too much. I can see obvious advantages and I can live with the drawbacks.

 

Repeating myself:

 

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 with this poll.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Infinitron

[teknoman2]

indeed. most people here just misinterpret it. not getting xp from a fight does not mean that fighting is useless. i may not get xp for killing that loaded merchant and his guards, but i do get to loot them and get me all the valuable gear they have. see? combat reward... it doesnt have to be xp

[Infinitron]

I voted for. It'll give me more of a reason to explore the world better.

 

I agree bro, there's no better incentive to explore areas full of monsters that want to kill you than awarding no xp for killing them.

 

On the contrary, since monsters are monsters are monsters, what is your incentive to explore any particular area if you can get the same amount of XP from grinding monsters in an area you've already explored?

 

Objective-based XP incentivizes you to go to new places and do new things.

[sollus]

I think what a lot of people here are missing or pointedly ignoring, is that the objective of implementing the system as described by Josh is to prevent players who choose non-combat based solutions from feeling like they are at a disadvantage for not going back and killing enemies for More XP.

 

Giving multiple options for players to meet an objective is in my opinion critical to RPG experience, both in terms of how the decision is representative of your character and also how it affects the game world and its story. If you allow a player to meet an objective and get twice as much experience by going back and killing all the enemies or performing another alternate solution you are undermining the quality of that decision, and you are also ending up offering an inferior experience to those who get double xp as they end up out-leveling the content and it potentially breaks immersion.

 

If you are against the system as it has been proposed, please keep in mind what they are trying to achieve and propose a better solution if you can think of it.

 

There are other ways , I saw mentioned earlier such as if you complete a question via alternate method then go back and kill the enemies then your previously awarded experience becomes invalidated or the enemies do not give experience. This is pretty much the same as granting experience based off objectives, how you get the experience has just been re-ordered.

 

 

Also important to keep in mind, it has not been confirmed that everything will be achievable outside of combat yet. Also that they want to product a spiritual successor to all the IE games. In my opinion the end result will be that the games critical path will likely have more alternative options or objective based experience reward scenarios. There likely will also be objectives which would be combat oriented.

 

Also there is likely to be non-objective related NPCS / enemies in the game, it would make sense that fighting them would render xp rewards.

 

One of the focus points OE has repeated is that they want to create challenging and fulfilling combat. Based on their experience and track record I am confident they will deliver, the spiritual successor to BG1/2,IWD1/2,PS:T, If you are backing this project that is what I would hope appeals to you the most and that the details do not undermine your enthusiasm for this game.

 

Thats my 2cents.

[sollus]

I voted for. It'll give me more of a reason to explore the world better.

 

I agree bro, there's no better incentive to explore areas full of monsters that want to kill you than awarding no xp for killing them.

 

On the contrary, since monsters are monsters are monsters, what is your incentive to explore any particular area if you can get the same amount of XP from grinding monsters in an area you've already explored?

 

Objective-based XP incentivizes you to go to new places and do new things.

 

I know you are likely talking about grinding monsters in same area (implication of respawning monsters mmo style) as an example, but please... Just NO. Unless it is related to some change or event in the game world.

[evdk]

I don't want to discover that after an epic battle with a red dragon my party learns nothing.

 

Well, if there were be a red dragon in the game (let's hope not, I'm sick of them already) it would probably be tied to a quest. This is also why I believe that the distinction of regular and epic monsters is useless when the quests and encounters are properly designed.

[Oerwinde]

What it comes down to for me is:

 

Kill based XP = You need to kill everything

Objective based XP = You can play how you want

 

I prefer to avoid combat in RPGs because its mostly boring and I'd rather get on with the story or quests, so Objective based fits my playstyle better.

 

In other words, For.

[norolim]

I don't want to discover that after an epic battle with a red dragon my party learns nothing.

 

Well, if there were be a red dragon in the game (let's hope not, I'm sick of them already) it would probably be tied to a quest. This is also why I believe that the distinction of regular and epic monsters is useless when the quests and encounters are properly designed.

Well, there were a few dragons in BGII, that weren't tied to any quests. You could kill them but you didn't have to.

 

And associating all "epic monsters" with quest doesn't solve the problem, either. What if I don't want to do the quest related to a dragon I'm about to kill? What if the quest is given by a faction I don't want to help, e.g. Evil mage: "bring me th head of that dragon and I'll make a artifact, thaht will destroy this town"? In that case I get no XP for killing the dragon. My party learns nothing in the process. It's a bit of a problem.

Edited October 16, 2012 by norolim