About exp gain and different playstyles

[Orogun01]

During his interview Josh mentioned that PE will allow for different ways of circumventing combat, but that begs the question of exp rewards and how they're distributed. Are exp points rewarded as quest completion, through repetitive use of skills or on kills? Because the latter has always been a bit of a game breaker when trying to balance classes. One could end up with an underleveled character  because they've avoided too many conflicts and on the reverse what's the point of avoiding combat if there is less of a reward.

Has anyone heard/seen anything about how they're planning exp distribution?

[Tamerlane]

Quest completion.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

and on the reverse what's the point of avoiding combat if there is less of a reward.

 

 

Yeah, let's not have that. I distinctly remember BG 2 and the poisoning Jaheira quest, where there were these mercenaries helping out the guy. They had a wizard slinging spells all over the place without impunity, so I've decided to pay a visit to the government building where you can buy your permit, to find out stuff about them. They didn't have any info, but the mercenary leader came to me after I walked out of the building, offering me to double-cross the poisoner guy for a modest sum of gold. I've paid up, got a sizeable amount of xp, and felt very clever. It lasted until a second walkthrough, where I had no money at the time, and decided to just kill them instead, and not only got some semi-useful loot out of the deal, but also way more xp.

Including clever options with less reward usually ends up with the clever players feeling incredibly dumb and frustrated for jumping through hoops to achieve their aim, just to find out that it wasn't only a lot more of a hassle than smashing faces without thinking about the situation, but they are actually being punished for doing so.

[teknoman2]

 

and on the reverse what's the point of avoiding combat if there is less of a reward.

 

 

Yeah, let's not have that. I distinctly remember BG 2 and the poisoning Jaheira quest, where there were these mercenaries helping out the guy. They had a wizard slinging spells all over the place without impunity, so I've decided to pay a visit to the government building where you can buy your permit, to find out stuff about them. They didn't have any info, but the mercenary leader came to me after I walked out of the building, offering me to double-cross the poisoner guy for a modest sum of gold. I've paid up, got a sizeable amount of xp, and felt very clever. It lasted until a second walkthrough, where I had no money at the time, and decided to just kill them instead, and not only got some semi-useful loot out of the deal, but also way more xp.

Including clever options with less reward usually ends up with the clever players feeling incredibly dumb and frustrated for jumping through hoops to achieve their aim, just to find out that it wasn't only a lot more of a hassle than smashing faces without thinking about the situation, but they are actually being punished for doing so.

 

and this is why the objective based xp is the best. in the quest you mentioned, you get 100k xp when it is all over. you may pay or you may kill, but the xp will be the same and will be given at the moment the curse is lifted becasue that is the objective to achieve

[CommentTater]

I'll join the circle jerk and agree. Combat based exp doesn't work in this kind of game. It should be objective based. The only problem with that system is that completionists will be playing a relatively more boring, easier game by the end anyway, because they've been grinding through side-quests

[Hassat Hunter]

Except while all quests are objectives, not all objectives are per definition quests.

Also, the XP-limit will probably result that if you do all quests you are 'wasting' some at the end being capped. Personally I don't mind, playing them just for their own resolution.

 

And this isn't even taking into account mutily exclusive quest(line)s (I think it's going a bit too far to say areas seeing the current size and OE's intention, although that would be cool, just no idea if it's in the design documentation...).

[Orogun01]

I'll join the circle jerk and agree. Combat based exp doesn't work in this kind of game. It should be objective based. The only problem with that system is that completionists will be playing a relatively more boring, easier game by the end anyway, because they've been grinding through side-quests

Effort should be rewarded.

[malolis]

The problem is that the loot from combat related solutions almost always give better loot than any other. People will always want to just fight for the chance of getting some nice drops.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

The problem is that the loot from combat related solutions almost always give better loot than any other. People will always want to just fight for the chance of getting some nice drops.

 

Which is a problem how?

[malolis]

 

The problem is that the loot from combat related solutions almost always give better loot than any other. People will always want to just fight for the chance of getting some nice drops.

 

Which is a problem how?

 

It punishes more intelligent solutions to quests by not giving the player nice items, so players won't tend to want to go for the non-combative option. 

[Tamerlane]

Because they have a specific stated goal of trying not to incentivise one way over another. Think Alpha Protocol's "different, not better", albeit likely to a less extreme degree.

 

Which... basically means malolis probably shouldn't worry about that, I guess?

[Caerdon]

The problem is not that there aren't incentives to find peaceful solutions. The problems is that there aren't incentives to avoid non-peaceful solutions. There's a difference.

 

For example, the local law enforcement shouldn't turn a blind eye to you massacring a group of thugs just because it was all part of a quest. Even if the thugs attacked first.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

The problem is that the loot from combat related solutions almost always give better loot than any other. People will always want to just fight for the chance of getting some nice drops.

 

Which is a problem how?

 

It punishes more intelligent solutions to quests by not giving the player nice items, so players won't tend to want to go for the non-combative option. 

 

 

It's arguable whether the more intelligent player is the one who avoids combat, or the one who succeeds in a tactically difficult combat. But that's largely irrelevant.

- Firstly, because it's been stated that there will be enough stuff which can be obtained by nonviolent means. (Think of a large area littered with enemies, with the quest object in a locked chest, along with some cool items. You can kill them all, or you can sneak around and steal all the things from the chest - there will be loot on the enemies you'll miss, but you'll complete the objective, and probably gain sneaky reputation for doing it that specific way, which might later enable quests where you can obtain gear better suited for your playstyle, or access special merchants who offer that kind of stuff, etc.)

- Secondly, because the sort of player who enjoys finding nonviolent solutions to problems will usually not get into fights that often, so he won't need combat gear and consumables that much.

[Orogun01]

Because they have a specific stated goal of trying not to incentivise one way over another. Think Alpha Protocol's "different, not better", albeit likely to a less extreme degree.

 

Which... basically means malolis probably shouldn't worry about that, I guess?

I remember AP; everybody maxed sneak and kept shooting people from the shadows.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I remember AP; everybody maxed sneak and kept shooting people from the shadows.

 

 

On first playthrough, yes. But it's perfectly playable and fun with an asshat lone wolf Thorton who dumped all points into combat skills, too.

[Caerdon]

- Secondly, because the sort of player who enjoys finding nonviolent solutions to problems will usually not get into fights that often, so he won't need combat gear and consumables that much.

 

Well, the sort of player who enjoys finding nonviolent solutions is probably going to need that gear more when he actually does get into a fight, because his character is likely to be built with less focus in combat skills. And there will be unavoidable combat in this game.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

- Secondly, because the sort of player who enjoys finding nonviolent solutions to problems will usually not get into fights that often, so he won't need combat gear and consumables that much.

 

Well, the sort of player who enjoys finding nonviolent solutions is probably going to need that gear more when he actually does get into a fight, because his character is likely to be built with less focus in combat skills. And there will be unavoidable combat in this game.

 

 

You get the same amount of combat-oriented talents, regardless of what you spend your skills. There are no characters with an increased utility function at the expense of combat abilities.

[teknoman2]

it's something like DnD v3.0 where you have skills that are mostly for non combat stuff and feats that are for combat impovement. 

[Orogun01]

 

 

- Secondly, because the sort of player who enjoys finding nonviolent solutions to problems will usually not get into fights that often, so he won't need combat gear and consumables that much.

 

Well, the sort of player who enjoys finding nonviolent solutions is probably going to need that gear more when he actually does get into a fight, because his character is likely to be built with less focus in combat skills. And there will be unavoidable combat in this game.

 

 

You get the same amount of combat-oriented talents, regardless of what you spend your skills. There are no characters with an increased utility function at the expense of combat abilities.

 

Technically you could create said character but that means it was your fault.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

You get the same amount of combat-oriented talents, regardless of what you spend your skills. There are no characters with an increased utility function at the expense of combat abilities.

 

Technically you could create said character but that means it was your fault.

 

 

Nah, he'd just be crap in combat, with no extra utility to show for

[Hassat Hunter]

 

Because they have a specific stated goal of trying not to incentivise one way over another. Think Alpha Protocol's "different, not better", albeit likely to a less extreme degree.

 

Which... basically means malolis probably shouldn't worry about that, I guess?

I remember AP; everybody maxed sneak and kept shooting people from the shadows.

 

I've played AP around 5 times, and none of them had that build...

[Caerdon]

 

 

- Secondly, because the sort of player who enjoys finding nonviolent solutions to problems will usually not get into fights that often, so he won't need combat gear and consumables that much.

 

 

Well, the sort of player who enjoys finding nonviolent solutions is probably going to need that gear more when he actually does get into a fight, because his character is likely to be built with less focus in combat skills. And there will be unavoidable combat in this game.

 

You get the same amount of combat-oriented talents, regardless of what you spend your skills. There are no characters with an increased utility function at the expense of combat abilities.

Good point, thanks for reminding me. I had totally forgotten about that.

 

Although I suspect that many combat skills can still be utilized for avoiding combat, and if specced that way, may not be ideal for fighting. But that's not a major issue, and would definitely be your own fault.

[Wolfenbarg]

I'm pretty sure they said they weren't going to do anything really arbitrary with enemies needing a very specific weapon type to beat them. Nothing was more frustrating than specializing in katanas and being a complete badass only to run into something which required +4 weapons to beat, and realizing there were no +4 katanas in the game. There isn't going to be any of that sort of crap, so even missing out on good drops from certain mobs isn't going to end your chances at finishing certain tasks. I also think that getting rewards based on your methods is just a smart way to go about it. I shouldn't be rewarded with a sword for talking my way out of a nasty situation. It wouldn't really make sense. It will also make a playthrough feel more unique. Someone who carves their way through will have a very different experience than someone who tries to stealth their way through encounters as much as possible.

[Hassat Hunter]

The only failure with your above post was there not being +4 katana's then.

For the rest, I think that was an excellent system. Much better than modern systems where combat you mostly can not care, since everything dies anyway, and resistances only add 0.2 seconds to the combat. Wow, I really need to get me a second gear-out for that... wait... not.

[Tamerlane]

 

 

 

The problem is that the loot from combat related solutions almost always give better loot than any other. People will always want to just fight for the chance of getting some nice drops.

 

Which is a problem how?

 

It punishes more intelligent solutions to quests by not giving the player nice items, so players won't tend to want to go for the non-combative option. 

 

 

- Secondly, because the sort of player who enjoys finding nonviolent solutions to problems will usually not get into fights that often, so he won't need combat gear and consumables that much.

 

You have to be careful not to pigeonhole. The sort of player who enjoys finding nonviolent solutions to some problems and violent solutions to other problems shouldn't end up crappy at both for having the audacity of mixing up their approach based on the situation.

 

Because they have a specific stated goal of trying not to incentivise one way over another. Think Alpha Protocol's "different, not better", albeit likely to a less extreme degree.

 

Which... basically means malolis probably shouldn't worry about that, I guess?

I remember AP; everybody maxed sneak and kept shooting people from the shadows.

 

I don't think I ever maxed out sneak in Alpha Protocol. Regardless, I was referring to how it handled overall style and choice, not specific builds (which were undoubtedly unbalanced as hell - hello, chain shot).