On PE difficulty mechanics, objective xp and combat, stealth, sweet-talking

[Yonjuro]

 

 

And that's great. But, it simply doesn't need these loopholes. "Loopholes" are, by definition, unintended allowances by a given set of rules and/or restrictions. Sure, they can be enjoyable. I'm just being objective here. It's fun to elaborately slay a dragon in a couple of hits, but if it's just from a bunch of real-world rule-shaping technicalities, it's not really serving much more of a purpose than a cheat code.

 

 Lephys I find myself agreeing with you more often than not, but I have to vehemently disagree with you about this. That was a skillful combination of what the game gives you to work with.

 

 It's exactly the opposite of a cheat code. It's why these games are still interesting to play after you know the story.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

And that's great. But, it simply doesn't need these loopholes. "Loopholes" are, by definition, unintended allowances by a given set of rules and/or restrictions. Sure, they can be enjoyable. I'm just being objective here. It's fun to elaborately slay a dragon in a couple of hits, but if it's just from a bunch of real-world rule-shaping technicalities, it's not really serving much more of a purpose than a cheat code.

 

 Lephys I find myself agreeing with you more often than not, but I have to vehemently disagree with you about this. That was a skillful combination of what the game gives you to work with.

 

 It's exactly the opposite of a cheat code. It's why these games are still interesting to play after you know the story.

 

But Lephys is correct in this. That scenario is exploiting a loophole, as a Shadow Dragon is not only a powerful boss creature, but is also supposed to be immune to negative energy attacks(like Harm and Level Drain) as it is semi-undead*, as it is native to the Plane of Shadow. Just like a Monk being able to equip Keldorn's armor is a loophole, and wasn't intended as Monks are clearly prevented from wearing armor.

 

I find that Baldur's Gate Trilogy is replayable not because there are loopholes that can be exploited, but because combat is fun and I can role-play a character I create.

 

*Granted, this is from my experience with the superior 3 edition ruleset, but it makes sense as the species is tied to the Negative Energy Plane and the Plane of Shadow.

[Sir Chaox]

 

 

As for unbalancing the game.... HA! and you guys accuse me of subject changing. This issue has absolutely jack to do with game balance. Especially in POE, which will have a level cap.

 

I disagree. It is the balance between the various ways of playing the game that is key to this discussion.

 

 

 Hang on, let's underline 'level cap' here.

 

 In BG1+TotSC, you would hit the XP cap (and similar arguments apply to a level cap) by doing the main quest, Durlag's Tower and little else. In addition, at every point in the game, there was enough XP to strategically level your party if that's what you wanted to do (e.g. the basilisk map with Korax the dire charmed ghoul that we discussed earlier in this thread).

 

 So, in the end (or, really, at any point in the middle), it really doesn't matter whether you chose option a or option b (or both) to solve a side quest. There is far more XP to go around than you can actually gain in a single play through.

 

 So, if someone chooses to be a 'degenerate' gamer they would only be making the game tedious for themselves, not unbalancing the game.

 

 

OK, but the purpose is to avoid creating these scenarios because it is not good design. The scenario I mentioned in my previous post (the one referring to a non-objective system where the player chooses both the diplomatic and combat solutions) really does not make sense to do; you would be meta gaming in order to maximize your experience gains.

 

Also, saying that there is enough XP through a single playthrough does not warrant awarding more experience to one option over another; this would mean that some paths would reach level cap earlier than others, and therefore be stronger earlier on. Is that fair to you? No matter how you are playing the game, you need experience to level your characters and improve your skills to match more difficult challenges later on. Saying one path gives more experience than another makes it more difficult for players pursuing a certain branch in the game, and it may make certain branches more attractive than others; we want players to have full freedom to do what they want without thinking about "what path will give me the most?" Also, it does make sense to give similar experience levels no matter what option was chosen; you will have a significant learning experience regardless of whether you fight, talk, stealth, or whatever else.

 

But there can be exceptions to this. Some branches may be more difficult to pursue than others and require more effort to complete; this can be in the form of additional sub-objectives needed to be completed to accomplish the main objective. This can add a bit of variety to any situations that warrant it. Depending on the kind of quest, certain branches could have appropriate sub-objectives that may be difficult to pursue without the right skill sets.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Sir Chaox

[Yonjuro]

 

 

And that's great. But, it simply doesn't need these loopholes. "Loopholes" are, by definition, unintended allowances by a given set of rules and/or restrictions. Sure, they can be enjoyable. I'm just being objective here. It's fun to elaborately slay a dragon in a couple of hits, but if it's just from a bunch of real-world rule-shaping technicalities, it's not really serving much more of a purpose than a cheat code.

 

 Lephys I find myself agreeing with you more often than not, but I have to vehemently disagree with you about this. That was a skillful combination of what the game gives you to work with.

 

 It's exactly the opposite of a cheat code. It's why these games are still interesting to play after you know the story.

 

But Lephys is correct in this. That scenario is exploiting a loophole, as a Shadow Dragon is not only a powerful boss creature, but is also supposed to be immune to negative energy attacks(like Harm and Level Drain) as it is semi-undead*, as it is native to the Plane of Shadow. Just like a Monk being able to equip Keldorn's armor is a loophole, and wasn't intended as Monks are clearly prevented from wearing armor.

 

 

 Stun's post didn't say Shadow Dragon just 'a dragon'. Are you ok with his tactic if it one of the other dragons in BG2?

 

 Let's not confuse two different things. If it was the Shadow Dragon, and it was supposed to be immune to 'Harm' that's not a loophole, that's a bug just like the armor example you mentioned (which was fixed in the fix pack along with a bunch of other things that a monk wasn't supposed to use).

 

 Combining spells into useful stacks in accordance with the rules is skillful play - it is not exploiting anything unless there's a bug.

 

...

I find that Baldur's Gate Trilogy is replayable not because there are loopholes that can be exploited, but because combat is fun and I can role-play a character I create.

 

 

 

 If you are roleplaying a Cleric/Mage, then using the abilities you have is part of roleplaying that character.

 

 Bashing a dragon with a hammer until one of you is dead because you think the designer intended it that way is not role play (unless you're role playing a less intelligent cleric/mage, which is fine). Do you agree ?

 

 I know it might be painful for you to agree with Stun, but let's not get ridiculous.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Yonjuro

[Yonjuro]

 

 

 

As for unbalancing the game.... HA! and you guys accuse me of subject changing. This issue has absolutely jack to do with game balance. Especially in POE, which will have a level cap.

 

I disagree. It is the balance between the various ways of playing the game that is key to this discussion.

 

 

 Hang on, let's underline 'level cap' here.

 

 In BG1+TotSC, you would hit the XP cap (and similar arguments apply to a level cap) by doing the main quest, Durlag's Tower and little else. In addition, at every point in the game, there was enough XP to strategically level your party if that's what you wanted to do (e.g. the basilisk map with Korax the dire charmed ghoul that we discussed earlier in this thread).

 

 So, in the end (or, really, at any point in the middle), it really doesn't matter whether you chose option a or option b (or both) to solve a side quest. There is far more XP to go around than you can actually gain in a single play through.

 

 So, if someone chooses to be a 'degenerate' gamer they would only be making the game tedious for themselves, not unbalancing the game.

 

 

OK, but the purpose is to avoid creating these scenarios because it is not good design. The scenario I mentioned in my previous post (the one referring to a non-objective system where the player chooses both the diplomatic and combat solutions) really does not make sense to do; you would be meta gaming in order to maximize your experience gains.

 

 

 I agree in principle that designing out some of these things could be a good idea.

 

 My real point here is: when something is just not interesting to do (like wandering around the wilderness throwing fireballs off screen to kill things for XP as someone mentioned earlier), why on earth would someone do that when they could get all of the XP they need doing something interesting? (That's why it matters whether there is a level or XP cap.)

 

 

 

 

Also, saying that there is enough XP through a single playthrough does not warrant awarding more experience to one option over another; this would mean that some paths would reach level cap earlier than others, and therefore be stronger earlier on. Is that fair to you? 

 

 Yes it is fair to me (and I think you will agree). Let's use BG1 for an example again. You can choose where you will go and when and you can choose to leave some parts of the map completely unexplored. Of course, you will get more XP earlier by doing some of the harder maps first.

 

 If I wanted to powergame BG1 (which I usually don't) I would buy a protection from acid scroll and lot of healing potions and go kill all of the ankhegs with Imoen before picking up anyone else in the party. It's not the easiest way to play, but if I want XP early, it's doable. If I wanted an easier play through I would pick up Xzar and Monteron on the first map and then go to the FA inn to pick up Khalid and Jaheira. Doing things the second way, it will take a lot longer to level up than doing it the first way. How could it be otherwise when you have that much flexibility in a game?

 

 

But there can be exceptions to this. Some branches may be more difficult to pursue than others and require more effort to complete; this can be in the form of additional sub-objectives needed to be completed to accomplish the main objective. This can add a bit of variety to any situations that warrant it. Depending on the kind of quest, certain branches could have appropriate sub-objectives that may be difficult to pursue without the right skill sets.

 

Exactly. I think we agree about this.

[Lephys]

Lephys I find myself agreeing with you more often than not, but I have to vehemently disagree with you about this. That was a skillful combination of what the game gives you to work with.

 

 It's exactly the opposite of a cheat code. It's why these games are still interesting to play after you know the story.

I think I get you, here. But, I fear that's a grazing hit on my point.

 

Ehh, how to put it simply...

 

All loopholes (particularly these specific allowances, in RPGs) are skillful combinations of what the game provides, but not all skillful combinations of what the game provides are loopholes. Does that make sense?

 

I'm ALL for making a "this is intentionally designed to be a big, difficult fight" dragon fight (just sticking to a dragon as an example) easier due to cleverness and "skill," but there's no reason it needs to become simple.

 

If there was a spell that just definitely killed stuff, no matter what, that would be stupid, right? So, why is "I can totally kill a dragon in one hit, but only if I'm lucky" perfectly fine? Or, to put it another way, if that's mechanically sound, then why don't we just let critical hits have a tiny chance of instantly killing things? Why is it okay to let chance override challenge?

Edited January 27, 2014 by Lephys

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Stun's post didn't say Shadow Dragon just 'a dragon'. Are you ok with his tactic if it one of the other dragons in BG2?

Yes.

 

Combining spells into useful stacks in accordance with the rules is skillful play - it is not exploiting anything unless there's a bug.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

If you are roleplaying a Cleric/Mage, then using the abilities you have is part of roleplaying that character.

Yes.

 

Bashing a dragon with a hammer until one of you is dead because you think the designer intended it that way is not role play (unless you're role playing a less intelligent cleric/mage, which is fine). Do you agree ?

I agree that a character should be played in combat in a way consistent with their personality design. However, using a spell that a creature is immune to(or healed by, depending on which manual the stats were derived from) would be the action of an incredibly stupid character. Sort of like killing a fire elemental by using flame spells.

[Sir Chaox]

OK, but the purpose is to avoid creating these scenarios because it is not good design. The scenario I mentioned in my previous post (the one referring to a non-objective system where the player chooses both the diplomatic and combat solutions) really does not make sense to do; you would be meta gaming in order to maximize your experience gains.

 

 I agree in principle that designing out some of these things could be a good idea.

 

 My real point here is: when something is just not interesting to do (like wandering around the wilderness throwing fireballs off screen to kill things for XP as someone mentioned earlier), why on earth would someone do that when they could get all of the XP they need doing something interesting? (That's why it matters whether there is a level or XP cap.)

 

Ah, I think I understand what you mean here. So you are saying that instead of determining the fastest route to the level cap, the player should just play the game normally and they will eventually reach the cap, regardless of how they play. I will respond to this below.

 

Also, saying that there is enough XP through a single playthrough does not warrant awarding more experience to one option over another; this would mean that some paths would reach level cap earlier than others, and therefore be stronger earlier on. Is that fair to you? 

 

 Yes it is fair to me (and I think you will agree). Let's use BG1 for an example again. You can choose where you will go and when and you can choose to leave some parts of the map completely unexplored. Of course, you will get more XP earlier by doing some of the harder maps first.

 

 If I wanted to powergame BG1 (which I usually don't) I would buy a protection from acid scroll and lot of healing potions and go kill all of the ankhegs with Imoen before picking up anyone else in the party. It's not the easiest way to play, but if I want XP early, it's doable. If I wanted an easier play through I would pick up Xzar and Monteron on the first map and then go to the FA inn to pick up Khalid and Jaheira. Doing things the second way, it will take a lot longer to level up than doing it the first way. How could it be otherwise when you have that much flexibility in a game?

 

I think I am using the term "path" a different way from what you are thinking, and I will take fault for that; I was clearly not specific enough.

 

I am only talking about the different branching paths in a single specific encounter or quest; there are multiple branching paths for any one encounter or quest (or at least there should be). I can choose to handle a situation in a number of ways, some common ones being diplomacy, fighting, or stealth. No matter which path I choose to take to solve this single specific encounter, I should receive a relatively similar amount of experience (with perhaps some deviation if sub-objectives are utilized).

 

I am NOT referring to a path through the entire game; obviously if one player explored more areas and encountered more quests than another, they should be getting more experience than someone who is following a linear path through the whole game. Same applies if you choose to go to harder locations and tough it out; you'd get more experience for it earlier on. So I do agree with what you said above, but I was not arguing against that.

 

So here is my response.

 

Let's say that you and another player go to all the same places in the same exact order throughout the entire game. You both find all the same quests and encounters. However, you are playing a combat playthrough that focuses mostly on fighting enemies to accomplish goals while the other player wants to avoid combat as much as possible, either through diplomacy or stealth. You both are able to still accomplish all of your quests and encounters, following your desired preference whenever possible. Now in the real game, perhaps following different play styles will result in a very different playthrough (you get different quests and areas opened up to you), but for the sake of my example, let us say this does not happen. You still have different outcomes based on your option choices, but you still encounter the same number of quests and areas. In this scenario, I believe both players should have a very similar amount of experience received; your playthroughs will be very different, but both player's parties should be pretty much the same level by the end of the game.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Sir Chaox

[Stun]

 

 

BG1 has infinite respawns in wilderness locations. So yes. I am using the word appropriately.

No it doesn't.

 

 

Yes it does, Stun. Monsters respawn in BG1 wilderness areas.

 

They respawn. But they do not do so endlessly. And no enemy worth more than 650xp ever respawns. You cannot *grind* in BG1.

 

And re: everything else - if an encounter is set in such a way where the player has to do something different, then its an objective/accomplishment/whatever yada yada ... revisiting examples / comments made 3-4 pages back.

So?

 

 

 

Tim Cain said accomplishments, not body count:

 

- Killing random enemies will not give XP, in line with Tim's strategy, BUT will increment a counter

Yes, I believe we established the fact that we will not be getting XP for kills, Like, back on page 1 or 2. Thanks for the refresher, though.

 

- So everyone's favourite nameless bandits, wolves, bugbears, trolls, ogres etc., once dead, and having dropped some creature-appropriate lewtz (definitely not vorpal holy avengers),

You know, I didn't want to bring this up, because it seemed like a worthless tangent to the discussion, but since you've decided to hinge your entire argument on it, repeatedly, I think I'm going to need to. Can you show me where any Dev has described, explained, shown or even suggested that loot is going to replace XP as the reward for creature kills?

 

Seems to me that you're making a rather large and baseless assumption. I don't know about you, but I've never in my life played a game where generic Wolves, Bears etc. have ever dropped anything other than pelts... or teeth. And that's not loot. That's crafting ingredients... the overly common variety, at that. Not worth fighting for on its own.

 

But enemy loot is an interesting subject here. It doesn't fit that well in a system designed to reward you for your NON-combat skills. Imagine encountering a powerful enemy Party. And they're all Decked out with really fancy looking gear. What do you do? Do you negotiate a peaceful solution? Or do you kill them and take their stuff? 90% of all gamers will do the latter and we all know it. So what's the point? Oh wait, I'll tell you what the point is: You can't cure degenerate gameplay. So you might as well roll with it. Give us XP for kills.

 

 

 

"Hail, mighty Stun Trollkiller, Wolfsbane, Ogre-obliterator, Beheader of Bugbears and Executioner of thieves! Do you want to look at my store inventory?"

ooh! comedy.

 

The rest of your post is, again, a bunch of assumptions motivated by wishful thinking. Obsidian has not discussed any of it.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Stun

[Sir Chaox]

But enemy loot is an interesting subject here. It doesn't fit that well in a system designed to reward you for your NON-combat skills. Imagine encountering a powerful enemy Party. And they're all Decked out with really fancy looking gear. What do you do? Do you negotiate a peaceful solution? Or do you kill them and take their stuff? 90% of all gamers will do the latter and we all know it. So what's the point? Oh wait, I'll tell you what the point is: You can't cure degenerate gameplay. So you might as well roll with it. Give us XP for kills.

 

Why can't fighting this enemy party be considered a potential accomplishment, where XP is rewarded for killing them?

[Stun]

 

It's hard because there are many variables to pull it off and it takes a lot of skill to get all those variables working together. One small mistake by the player and it won't work.

One small mistake... like... not knowing the rules and abilities? Do all other builds in the entire game, and all other strategies that involve a 15-minute dragon fight, require significantly less "skill" (just... thought and planning, really, but, we'll just ignore what words mean, for now, I suppose) than a build that could feasibly allow you to hit a dragon with Harm, then strike it once more before it heals itself for a large sum of hitpoints?

 

Because, if beating the dragon at all requires a lot of "skill," then the difference is still that you can either use that lot of skill to potentially end the fight in 2 turns, or fight the thing the "normal" way by actually having to use spells that don't take it down to 1 hit point from however many the dev team decided to give it.

 

In other words... what's more difficult? Actually fighting the dragon until it's dead? Or having a couple of lucky dice rolls be in your favor until the dragon is dead? I'm guessing the former, which involves a lot more time, resource-use, and strategic healing and tactics until the dragon's actually dead, requires more skill and effort. Unless you're somehow saying that successfully using Harm on a dragon, then killing it in one hit after that is the only thing in the game that requires you to pay attention to how you build your party and allocate all your level-ups and gear and whatnot, and that any other method of defeating the dragon can be much more easily achieved by just blindly using whatever party build you happen to make with hardly any planning or thinking or effort involved at all.

 

ROFL what in the world are you babbling about? Dragon fights in BG2 are not like track meets, or marathons to be measured by time. Nor are they like the lottery, or the blackjack tables in Vegas, fueled by luck.

 

They're more like a Boxing match. Sometimes if you make a mistake, you'll be in for a long tough fight. But usually, if you mess something up, you're gonna get yourself knocked out, and then its time to plan the rematch.

 

Conversely, sometimes you step into the ring with the perfect fight plan, and you successfully carry it out, and you win easy, after a long fight. Other times, you score an early knockout yourself. Of course, you'll call that "luck", but just like boxing, you need Power to score an early KO against a tough opponent. And Power is a SKILL.

 

 

Why can't fighting this enemy party be considered a potential accomplishment, where XP is rewarded for killing them?

That's a question I'd like to ask Josh and Tim. Edited January 27, 2014 by Stun

[Yonjuro]

 

All loopholes (particularly these specific allowances, in RPGs) are skillful combinations of what the game provides, but not all skillful combinations of what the game provides are loopholes. Does that make sense?

 

 

 Yes.

 

 

 

I'm ALL for making a "this is intentionally designed to be a big, difficult fight" dragon fight (just sticking to a dragon as an example) easier due to cleverness and "skill," but there's no reason it needs to become simple.

 

 

 Sure. (Although, repeating the fight with a similar party will cause it to be relatively simple the second time. The challenge is in figuring out new ways to do it when the party has different capabilities.)

 

 

If there was a spell that just definitely killed stuff, no matter what, that would be stupid, right? So, why is "I can totally kill a dragon in one hit, but only if I'm lucky" perfectly fine? Or, to put it another way, if that's mechanically sound, then why don't we just let critical hits have a tiny chance of instantly killing things? Why is it okay to let chance override challenge?

 

 

 Sure, but this was not a case of chance overriding challenge. It was taking a very low probability spell and turning it into a sure thing (no dice roll) by stacking it in just the right way with other spells (and also making good use of the capabilities of the cleric/mage multi-class). 

 

 If the argument is: Some idiot can cast harm and then repeatedly reload and cast it again until the dragon dies - well so what? The idiot still proclaims himself a hero after an hour or so of doing this so no harm done (err, by the harm spell ... yes) and the rest of us are free to try more interesting things with it.

[Sir Chaox]

That's a question I'd like to ask Josh and Tim.

 

Fair enough!

 

My thoughts are that they have thought about this already, because enemy adventurer parties were a pledge reward during the Kickstarter; it's not something they will be forgetting about. But I don't want to assume anything; hopefully we will hear more about the accomplishment system soon.

[Yonjuro]

 

Ah, I think I understand what you mean here. So you are saying that instead of determining the fastest route to the level cap, the player should just play the game normally and they will eventually reach the cap, regardless of how they play. I will respond to this below.

 

 Yes. I think I would rather say that there is more than one good way to get the XP that you need (as well as play throughs that will succeed whether you hit the level cap or not), but I don't think we disagree on this.

 

 

 

Let's say that you and another player go to all the same places in the same exact order throughout the entire game. You both find all the same quests and encounters. However, you are playing a combat playthrough that focuses mostly on fighting enemies to accomplish goals while the other player wants to avoid combat as much as possible, either through diplomacy or stealth. You both are able to still accomplish all of your quests and encounters, following your desired preference whenever possible. Now in the real game, perhaps following different play styles will result in a very different playthrough (you get different quests and areas opened up to you), but for the sake of my example, let us say this does not happen. You still have different outcomes based on your option choices, but you still encounter the same number of quests and areas. In this scenario, I believe both players should have a very similar amount of experience received; your playthroughs will be very different, but both player's parties should be pretty much the same level by the end of the game.

 

 

 Sure, assuming two players accomplish the same set of quests, I would be fine with them having the same XP.  I think there is a legitimate reason why several people in this thread disagree with me though (and why I might have a few concerns).

 

 Let's take BG2 as an example, specifically the stronghold quests you can get in chapter 2. Large parts of them could be skipped if you had enough invisibility potions (or spells) with you and didn't care about the XP or loot.

 

 So, if all you did was remove kill XP and replace it with objective XP, a player could, say, stroll through the Windspear Hills dungeon and only kill the orcs in the prison room, have a conversation with Firkraag and then go back upstairs and kill the mage in the prison room and they would be done.

 

 Of course, nobody will design exactly the same encounters and just swap out kill XP for objective XP - they will design encounters with objective XP in mind. However, that may give the encounters a very different feel than the encounters in the IE games. That is how I interpret these concerns.

 

 PoE will almost certainly be a well designed, well written game, but will it be similar to the IE games in the ways that matter to people?  I think that is the concern with objective XP and all of the other differences that people have been concerned about.

 

 The differences may not matter or they may even make the game better than the IE games in every respect. That remains to be seen.  

[Yonjuro]

 

Stun's post didn't say Shadow Dragon just 'a dragon'. Are you ok with his tactic if it one of the other dragons in BG2?

Yes.

 

Combining spells into useful stacks in accordance with the rules is skillful play - it is not exploiting anything unless there's a bug.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

If you are roleplaying a Cleric/Mage, then using the abilities you have is part of roleplaying that character.

Yes.

 

Bashing a dragon with a hammer until one of you is dead because you think the designer intended it that way is not role play (unless you're role playing a less intelligent cleric/mage, which is fine). Do you agree ?

I agree that a character should be played in combat in a way consistent with their personality design. However, using a spell that a creature is immune to(or healed by, depending on which manual the stats were derived from) would be the action of an incredibly stupid character. Sort of like killing a fire elemental by using flame spells.

 

 

 It sounds like we are in vehement agreement about all of these points.

[Sir Chaox]

PoE will almost certainly be a well designed, well written game, but will it be similar to the IE games in the ways that matter to people?  I think that is the concern with objective XP and all of the other differences that people have been concerned about.

 

The differences may not matter or they may even make the game better than the IE games in every respect. That remains to be seen.

 

I think that they will be designing more refined encounters with less loopholes in this game, regardless of the experience system adopted, but ultimately it should still feel like an IE game for all the other attributes it holds: 6 man party, exploration, a variety of classes and skills similar to D&D, RTwP combat, expert mode options to make it more like an IE playthrough (journal without hand holding, perma-death),... just off the top of my head.

 

Does this new experience system change things? Absolutely. It is yet to be seen if it is for better or worse, like you said, but I don't think it will be enough to make this no longer feel like an IE game. I think there is a lot of potential to make things better with this system, but it may require a lot of hand placement of accomplishments for both major and minor encounters to make certain all scenarios (including stumbling upon an ogre camp in the wilderness) be rewarding for the player in terms of experience specifically (which it should).

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

Ah, I think I understand what you mean here. So you are saying that instead of determining the fastest route to the level cap, the player should just play the game normally and they will eventually reach the cap, regardless of how they play. I will respond to this below.

 

 Yes. I think I would rather say that there is more than one good way to get the XP that you need (as well as play throughs that will succeed whether you hit the level cap or not), but I don't think we disagree on this.

 

 

 

Let's say that you and another player go to all the same places in the same exact order throughout the entire game. You both find all the same quests and encounters. However, you are playing a combat playthrough that focuses mostly on fighting enemies to accomplish goals while the other player wants to avoid combat as much as possible, either through diplomacy or stealth. You both are able to still accomplish all of your quests and encounters, following your desired preference whenever possible. Now in the real game, perhaps following different play styles will result in a very different playthrough (you get different quests and areas opened up to you), but for the sake of my example, let us say this does not happen. You still have different outcomes based on your option choices, but you still encounter the same number of quests and areas. In this scenario, I believe both players should have a very similar amount of experience received; your playthroughs will be very different, but both player's parties should be pretty much the same level by the end of the game.

 

 

 Sure, assuming two players accomplish the same set of quests, I would be fine with them having the same XP.  I think there is a legitimate reason why several people in this thread disagree with me though (and why I might have a few concerns).

 

 Let's take BG2 as an example, specifically the stronghold quests you can get in chapter 2. Large parts of them could be skipped if you had enough invisibility potions (or spells) with you and didn't care about the XP or loot.

 

 So, if all you did was remove kill XP and replace it with objective XP, a player could, say, stroll through the Windspear Hills dungeon and only kill the orcs in the prison room, have a conversation with Firkraag and then go back upstairs and kill the mage in the prison room and they would be done.

 

 Of course, nobody will design exactly the same encounters and just swap out kill XP for objective XP - they will design encounters with objective XP in mind. However, that may give the encounters a very different feel than the encounters in the IE games. That is how I interpret these concerns.

 

 PoE will almost certainly be a well designed, well written game, but will it be similar to the IE games in the ways that matter to people?  I think that is the concern with objective XP and all of the other differences that people have been concerned about.

 

 The differences may not matter or they may even make the game better than the IE games in every respect. That remains to be seen.  

 

This is a great post, Yonjuro!

I think you capture the concerns of many people here quite nicely. Also, may I add, I'd much prefer the devs to leave it up to us as to when and how we reach the level cap (within reasons and without extreme cheese - like parking on some stupid spawn zone).

 

One concern that I've seen already, although sometimes not expressed outright, is that the game will end up being over-designed, that it's far too well balanced and designed that its level of enjoyment is slowly farting out like a deflated balloon.

Another concern is very much that it has lost stuff that were very important to all of those who love the IE-games, and for some this includes the classic xp system, including kill xp, skill check xp, and quest xp. And the most vehement opposition in this thread and the other before it seems to revolve around that example of yours, where the player can breeze through important scenarios via some kind of surgical CRPG-bombing, as it were, just selectively ticking off what's needed to get the accomplishment xp. This last concern worries me too, and regardless of how frantic the tone has been in some of our discussions here, I've slowly come to see what these proponents are on about. I really do think this needs to be addressed by the devs, and personally, I'm leaning towards an xp reward system with quite small increments of xp awards not all tied up to quests or even "larger" objectives.

Edited January 27, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Silent Winter]

First up, I'm on the side of applauding Stun for using the timestop+lowerMR+harm+hit combination and agree that that is a skillful use of the spells available.

Doesn't mean I like all-or-nothing spells or overpowered spells, just that in that case, it was well played according to the rules.

[side-note: I tend not to choose any spells for my spellbook that  have 'save for no effect' - I find the only creatures I want to use them on (powerful ones) make their saves anyway.  Maybe that's why I prefer the design goal of having more spells with a crit/hit/graze application]

 

Adding numbers to these quotes and trimming for ease of replying:

1) Right. I agree. But that just brings us right back to the beginning of this discussion. If you stumble upon a group of monsters in the forest, and you get XP for dealing with them non-lethally, but no XP for wiping them out, then we haven't fixed the problem in the system. We've just shifted it somewhere else.
 

2) Wanting XP for killing things does not mean that the gamer is some simple-minded neanderthol who wants to solve every problem by smashing it with his big hammer. And no good RPG should ever corral the player in any specific direction like that. A good RPG should reward all play styles if they succeed. And it should offer up scenarios that play into all styles. That includes killing things for XP, and outwitting things for XP

1) But who said that non-lethal results are the only ones that give you xp?  I think this discussion could easily be resolved by a few examples from devs about how to get xp.
I think that, if there's an encounter that rewards xp, there'll be multiple ways to get that xp (including combat) - that's the design goal, not to remove combat as a viable path. (I'm pretty sure Josh likes combat).  Some encounters may have no xp to them - perhaps of the random wolf variety (but then, the combat resolution is 'select all, attack, wait' and no resources (perhaps arrows) are wasted -  only 'fun' is had).

2) I agree and...Wait, this is the same reply as 1).  (But again, getting XP as a result of a combat resolution to an objective does not mean per-kill xp.

 

3) Lastly, stop tossing around the term "grinding". Your posts on this thread suggest you don't have the faintest clue what that term even means. Grinding can only occur if the system has infinite respawning, and then only if players abuse that infinite respawing by revisiting the same areas they've already cleared, over and over, in order to engage in additional combat and get XP for it. And if that's happening, then the solution is to eliminate infinite respawning, isn't it. Not XP for kills. DUH.
 

Approach 1:
You meet 3 trolls, ponies and shorties. You lay waste to the whole lot with fireballs. You should still get XP for completing the encounter (the XP is for killing the trolls only).

4) ...What happens if the game doesn't reward you for racking up your body count by 3 for killing those trolls? Will you be OK with that? Will you be ok with spending your time, energy, limited use spells and possibly some valuable limited consumables killing those trolls and then NOT getting Experience points for it?

3) your use of the word 'DUH' is unfounded.

Your desire to keep kill-xp makes you think that the solution of removing infinite respawning is the 'DUH' obvious solution.

Look at it from the other side: If the grinding problem is due to per-kill xp - remove per-kill XP 'DUH'.

If they redesign the game by removing challenges, it's not the best solution (for me).  If they redesign it by changing the xp-system, it's better (IMO).

Infinite respawns can make an area dangerous to linger in or make a boss-battle tougher, as boss keeps summoning more minions until you defeat him (and said minions interfere with your ability to do so if the encounter is well designed).

 

4) There's a lot of "what ifs" in this thread but let me say that 'yes' I would be perfectly happy if I didn't get xp for killing those trolls provided that the system I was playing in wasn't a per-kill xp one.  If killing the trolls or not was just a challenge, I'd decide for myself based on my party and my character's philosophy.  Of course, you don't know beforehand if you're going to get xp or not - leaving you free to choose the most fun/roleplaying-appropriate route through the game, not the one that nets you necessary xp.  (and thus further enhancing a 2nd/3rd/ playthrough

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Holy moly 10 pages.

 

Can't say I read all.

 

In all this talk have people already considered PoE's difficulty mechanics? As in, enemies are actually replaced by a stronger versions of themselves on higher tiers. On kill XP this would be hell to balance, since tougher enemies give more XP (and if not have to be toned in all the game for all difficulties) making hard less hard. Giving a fixed XP amount? It actually allows such a perfect difficulty setting.

 

Probably not, right? Anyway, continue on...

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Must... resist... immense... irony! *struggle struggle*

 

No irony there. More than once you said you could kill a dragon with one hit with Harm. And also highlighting the fact that you're all over place with your posts. You say one thing and a few sentences later in the same quote you say something else. It's what happens when you over exaggerate questions, examples and arguing from a point which you have no experience from.

 

 

One of the most effective things is not to use this tactic, because you'll no doubt get your arse handed to you.

Wait, so... there's no doubt that it simply won't work, but at the same time:

 

On one of my very first play throughs of BG2 (possibly my first play through), I used Jaheira to use the spell Harm on the Shadow Dragon and reduce him to 1 hp. An incredibly low chance of success and it worked.

??? I'm confused.

 

Another straw man argument. tsk tsk Lephys. I never said "there's no doubt that it simply won't work". Always changing the context of what I say.

 

Having gone against Firkraag before hand and having experienced a dragon encounter, I changed my tactics and so I was able to prepare better for the next fight. Things like Wing buffet from the dragon, distracting the dragon, timed response with Jaheira casting the spell and running in, and a few other things mixed in as well. For example, if your cleric happens to get a wing buffet before they pull it off, then the spell is wasted, if the cleric takes too long to get to the dragon (only two rounds) then the spell is wasted and many other things if you don't plan it. Yes, it takes thought and planning which you don't think it does. If players think like you and all you need to do is have your cleric run in and touch the Dragon, then yes, no doubt they'll get their arse handed to them. There's also spells from your mages that coincide with it.

 

It's not random chance or RNG as you want to believe. Some people might be able to pull it off on the first go. A lot of people may not, especially if they think there's no need for any thought and planning which you seem to think - which is entirely wrong.

 

 

 

It's hard because there are many variables to pull it off and it takes a lot of skill to get all those variables working together. One small mistake by the player and it won't work.

One small mistake... like... not knowing the rules and abilities? Do all other builds in the entire game, and all other strategies that involve a 15-minute dragon fight, require significantly less "skill" (just... thought and planning, really, but, we'll just ignore what words mean, for now, I suppose) than a build that could feasibly allow you to hit a dragon with Harm, then strike it once more before it heals itself for a large sum of hitpoints?

 

Because, if beating the dragon at all requires a lot of "skill," then the difference is still that you can either use that lot of skill to potentially end the fight in 2 turns, or fight the thing the "normal" way by actually having to use spells that don't take it down to 1 hit point from however many the dev team decided to give it.

 

In other words... what's more difficult? Actually fighting the dragon until it's dead? Or having a couple of lucky dice rolls be in your favor until the dragon is dead? I'm guessing the former, which involves a lot more time, resource-use, and strategic healing and tactics until the dragon's actually dead, requires more skill and effort. Unless you're somehow saying that successfully using Harm on a dragon, then killing it in one hit after that is the only thing in the game that requires you to pay attention to how you build your party and allocate all your level-ups and gear and whatnot, and that any other method of defeating the dragon can be much more easily achieved by just blindly using whatever party build you happen to make with hardly any planning or thinking or effort involved at all. 

 

One small mistake? Player ignorance on purpose because they couldn't be bothered to RTFM? No that would be too hard to read the manual. Also why wouldn't you know the abilities of your spells? Again, RTFM.

 

Also 15 minute dragon fight? LOL. What the hell are you doing for a fight to last that long? Maybe you haven't read the manual and don't know the abilities of your characters.   And it does take thought and planning to pull this off as I said before. But you can ignore all the thought and planning that this requires because didn't you say all it takes is Boom, click, click and done?

 

And your 'guess' would be wrong. And that's what it's been these last few pages - 'guesses'. And your ignorance is really showing because it can be more difficult to pull off a Harm on a Dragon than it is to kill a dragon is less than a few minutes. Because the cleric needs help from other party members to pull it off. And without using Harm, that's pretty much all it takes to kill a dragon - a few minutes. Not 15 minutes. A quick check on Youtube even shows solo players beating Firkraag in a few minutes. Perhaps my search abilities are flawed because what I don't see is a Cleric using Harm on Youtube. You would think so if it's so easy. But you do see other classes.

 

Here's a youtube video of Firkraag being killed in less than 5 minutes by a normal party and not the 15 minutes you seem to think. This party gets wing buffeted in the first minute. If you already had Harm casted by your Cleric, he would've been at the other end of the dungeon on his arse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xv2jVv2SL8

 

So yes, Harm is more difficult to pull off because you have to have all the variables in place (such as party members helping your Cleric) and nothing to do with lucky dice rolls. Also, there are other builds (not clerics) that can kill a dragon far easier than a cleric with Harm and with a lot more certainty. I'd have to question if you've really played BG2, because a lot of what you say is completely wrong.

 

 

 

And if it doesn't work which it probably won't, you have no Heal spells for the rest of the encounter. Yeah, good gameplay tactics... not.

So you die. And then the apocalypse occurs and the world ends... Oh wait, no, you continue, just like you'd do if you died while using any other strategy in any other encounter in the whole game, and you try again, with completely new dice rolls this time. And it eventually works. The 1st time, or the 100th time. You don't decide which time it works. The dice do. Welcome to luck-based challenge elimination. 

 

ah no. It has nothing to do with RNG. You really want to believe that even when it's not true.

 

 

Yes Lephys, this quote is for you: "You keep saying that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."

Wait... I could've sworn I just saw that same line in this thread somewhere recently... *ponder*

 

 

This can all be summed up with you having no idea what you're talking about. Even other people in this thread disagree with you. And I have to question if you've ever played BG2, or even gone up against a dragon, because everything you've said on this matter is completely wrong.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Yonjuro]

I think that they will be designing more refined encounters with less loopholes in this game, regardless of the experience system adopted, but ultimately it should still feel like an IE game for all the other attributes it holds: 6 man party, exploration, a variety of classes and skills similar to D&D, RTwP combat, expert mode options to make it more like an IE playthrough (journal without hand holding, perma-death),... just off the top of my head.

 

 Sure, They will come up with something IE-like and I'm hopeful that it will be a great game with a lot pf replay value (and sequels that are equally good).

 

 For me, when I talk about the IE games, I really mean BG 1&2. I've played both of those games enough times that I can't remember the exact number. I've started both of the IWD games (more than once), but didn't find either of them compelling enough to finish even though they are similar on a lot of ways to BG and the individual encounters seemed to be well done. However, the stories were weak and the sense of exploration wasn't there. I think I enjoyed the humor of the BG games too.

 

 I'm really not sure why I like the BG games as much as I do, so I could see PoE being very much like the IE games but being different enough that they are missing an essential (for me) element. However, as much as I like BG, there is certainly room for improvement so, PoE might fix the shortcomings and keep most of the elements I like. 

 

 Obsidian has the right people, will do a lot of play testing of their own and, I assume, will listen to feedback from beta testers, so there is reason to be optimistic about PoE.

 

 In any case, I'm very glad they're trying. 

[Yonjuro]

 

One concern that I've seen already, although sometimes not expressed outright, is that the game will end up being over-designed, that it's far too well balanced and designed that its level of enjoyment is slowly farting out like a deflated balloon.

 

 Yes, I know exactly what you mean. That can be a hazard whenever art meets analysis. At a friend's house, I was offered an 'interesting single malt' (whisky, normally Scotch whisky). It had the flavors I would expect in a good Scotch whisky and no off flavors, but it tasted strange.

 

 It was made in Japan - and very well made. Whatever was wrong with it was very subtle. Somehow, though, it tasted like somebody designed the flavor to taste like Scotch whisky more than it tasted like actual Scotch whisky. As an analytically minded person (perhaps overly analytical at times), I took that as a cautionary tale in trying to design the perfect anything.

 

 So, here's hoping that PoE will capture the essence of my favorite IE games, only better - and - not feel like it was designed to approximate the feel of the IE games, sort of.

[SqueakyCat]

 

This is a great post, Yonjuro!

 

I think you capture the concerns of many people here quite nicely. Also, may I add, I'd much prefer the devs to leave it up to us as to when and how we reach the level cap (within reasons and without extreme cheese - like parking on some stupid spawn zone).

 

One concern that I've seen already, although sometimes not expressed outright, is that the game will end up being over-designed, that it's far too well balanced and designed that its level of enjoyment is slowly farting out like a deflated balloon.

 

Another concern is very much that it has lost stuff that were very important to all of those who love the IE-games, and for some this includes the classic xp system, including kill xp, skill check xp, and quest xp. And the most vehement opposition in this thread and the other before it seems to revolve around that example of yours, where the player can breeze through important scenarios via some kind of surgical CRPG-bombing, as it were, just selectively ticking off what's needed to get the accomplishment xp. This last concern worries me too, and regardless of how frantic the tone has been in some of our discussions here, I've slowly come to see what these proponents are on about. I really do think this needs to be addressed by the devs, and personally, I'm leaning towards an xp reward system with quite small increments of xp awards not all tied up to quests or even "larger" objectives.

 

 

Labadal gave a pretty good example of small incremental XP awards in this thread (from 2012):

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63001-thoughts-on-experience/?p=1291304

 

My preference is combat XP and quest XP like BG, but something like this might make it a less drastic approach for some of us.   A lot of my reservations stem from the fact I've never played a quest XP game that didn't feel quite linear.   I'm sure they are out there, but I haven't played any.

 

PoE is shaping up to look and sound like the IE games (BG in particular), but if the gameplay doesn't follow suit and feel like an IE experience, I will be disappointed.  I'm sure I'll be able to pick up the pieces of my life and move forward, but it would be a disappointment nonetheless. 

 

On a more positive note, at least they didn't implement a checkpoint system. 

[Lephys]

 

I'm ALL for making a "this is intentionally designed to be a big, difficult fight" dragon fight (just sticking to a dragon as an example) easier due to cleverness and "skill," but there's no reason it needs to become simple.

 

 Sure. (Although, repeating the fight with a similar party will cause it to be relatively simple the second time. The challenge is in figuring out new ways to do it when the party has different capabilities.)

 

The key word there being "relatively."

 

Sure, but this was not a case of chance overriding challenge.

If it isn't, then could you provide me with an example of chance overriding challenge, and explain how the two scenarios are different? Also, the issue already exists when there's a chance to do it. Being able to make it a sure thing is compounding the issue, if that's possible to do. The issue is with the extent of the effect of the spell/ability on your offensive capabilities, relative to the thing that's supposed to be difficult. And, the argument could be made, "what if the devs WANT you to be able to turn any difficult fight into an easy one?" To which I call bad design. Pointlessly bad design. It just plain doesn't make any sense. That's basically putting in fights that are only difficult if you do it wrong.

 

It's simple: Imagine you're going to set up an obstacle course for people to run. The whole point of the obstacle course is to be a challenge, right? "You have to get from here, to here, but there are things impeding your path." Okay, so, NOW give them an ability that has a 1% chance to let them just leap over the entire course and land on the finish line. In what way is that at ALL meeting the entire purpose of the obstacle course? That is, by definition, overriding the entire design of the obstacle course. You wouldn't build a ground-based obstacle course and challenge someone who could fly with it, would you? No. It would immediately be no challenge. So why toss in a "you MIGHT be able to fly, if you'd like to roll some dice and see" ability? It's functionally a chance-based cheat code.

 

No amount of chance reduction justifies the functional design of such a thing giving you a stupidly immense amount of power.

 

Look, I'm actually all for insta-death spells and such, with the proper design. You should never be anywhere even close to capable of taking a creature with hundreds of HP and oodles of ways of making it very difficult to hit and/or damage, and very difficult to survive fighting against, and turn it into pudding, chance or no chance. That's ridiculous. This is a video game, intentionally designed for a reason. Not a lottery. You know how in MMOs you get those .001% ultra-rare loot drops from bosses and stuff? That's what this is. If you can touch a ridiculously powerful, scary, tough dragon down to 1HP, that's the game just going "Yayyy! Look what you won! You won an easy fight! Congratulations! ^_^"

 

That power makes no sense. Why can't you make a fireball that has a chance of covering the entire screen and dealing 8,000 damage? You can't. You can do like 100 damage with a fireball, or as much damage as an enemy has hitpoints, -1, with another spell. Or, with Finger of Death, you just scratch off that 1.

 

You're no more skillfully making the spell actually work than you are making that ultra-rare loot drop when you beef up all your loot-drop-percentages in an MMO, then fight the boss. You're just investing in better luck, then getting slightly less lucky than you would have when you DO get lucky.

 

I really don't know how else to say it. I get that they're in games, and I get that they're fun. But they objectively make no sense. What does it say about the design of these things when, in designing the rules, you're forced to figure out some way to make sure it almost never works, just to justify even putting it in the game at all?

 

Show me a tactical/objective role that's being filled by these abilities, that the game would severely lack without them. And show me a game that simply has all the magical effects scale. Like... The foe's too strong for that insta-death spell to kill, but it didn't miss or get fully resisted, so it hits, but it takes it a minute to kill that thing. If you can survive that long, go you. You STILL have to actually fight it for that length of time. Or, you have to hit it multiple times with that spell. Or, it merely does 10% of the thing's health or something (whatever percentage would still result in a relatively large amount of damage, because the bosses HP would be higher than "regular"/weaker foes' HP, in proportion with its resistances/defenses that prevent the spell from killing it, etc." But, in this system, you wouldn't need miniscule chances of success on the spell, because its effect isn't infinitely powerful. Thus, they'd actually be USEFUL in more situations, without being stupid.

 

Play a game like that, then tell me you'd rather go back to the other system, where it was pretty much a dumb idea to even try to use any of those really potent/cool-functioning spells against a big boss, but you could try it anyway and pretty much just bypass the fight if you were lucky. And, if you weren't lucky, you just completely wasted your time.

 

It's like the design is saying "we want you to be ABLE to make this an easy fight, but we want to discourage trying it as hard as we possibly can." The ONLY good thing that comes out of that is the occasional "Yay, hehe, I won that fight really easily. That was spiffy."

 

If the argument is: Some idiot can cast harm and then repeatedly reload and cast it again until the dragon dies - well so what?

Nope. The argument is, some even-non-idiot can cast harm and have it work, not have to reload, and kill the dragon the following turn. Even if they didn't have any elaborate, scheming plan to make the dragon easy. They simply were offered the ability to take Harm, and invest in it, and they did. And then, luck happened. You might as well just put a button at the entrance to the cave, that, when pressed, MIGHT kill the dragon (or, in this case, reduce it to 1HP), and have it take 1-turn to press. That would be ridiculous, right? But, it's okay as long as it's an optional ability, for some reason.

 

EDIT: I just realized something; this is exactly what's being brought up in an issue with the "why should you get the same amount of XP for sneaking to do something or talking to do something instead of fighting to do something?" question. Why should you get dragon-killing XP for a spell and a slap, when you otherwise have to actually battle the whole dragon and utilize a bunch of combat expertise and such to slay it for the exact same amount of XP?

Edited January 27, 2014 by Lephys

[Lephys]

Another straw man argument. tsk tsk Lephys. I never said "there's no doubt that it simply won't work". Always changing the context of what I say.

You're so caught up in irrelevant technicalities, semantics, and misconceptions/misinterpretations-turned-perceived-strawmen that you're completely blind to the simple fact you can EITHER:

 

A) Harm the dragon down to 1HP with a couple of successful dice rolls, then hit it for more-than-0 damage with just ONE more successful attack roll (this from a party of 6) and the dragon is dead. OR

B) Not do option A, and you actually have to fight the dragon for significantly longer than 2 turns.

 

The EXTREME effect of the Harm spell's successful use upon the dragon is ridiculously encouraging, while the extreme unlikelihood that you'll pull it off without trying a whole bunch of times is incredibly DIScouraging. It's a lottery. Sure, you can buy more tickets, or fewer tickets, but it's a "kill this big bad thing easily" lottery, is what it is.

 

Also, for what it's worth, I have no need for you to believe anything, quite frankly. If it makes you feel better to pretend I'm lying and arguing a bunch of stuff you decided I was arguing, then turn around and accuse me of using strawmen every time that happens, be my guest. Doesn't hurt me any, so I sure hope it helps you sleep at night.