Level of epicness

[Lephys]

Not always, since the only point I was presenting would exist whether or nor BG1 ever did.

 

For what it's worth, it's always best to evaluate an example based on the context in which the example is made, rather than attributing your own to it. "10,000XP" is only relevant in the context of the example, which is simply it's comparison to the lesser value in the example, and the effective difference between the two.

 

If my example fails to deliver my point, then please, by all means, tell me so, and I'll gladly clarify what the point is. Otherwise, maybe just PM me your tips and tricks guide on how to craft more popular examples, so we can keep this on-topic.

 

I think I've finally learned my lesson, and I'm not about to spend several posts defending an example just because it doesn't suit the tastes of one individual (who still comprehends what the example was meant to convey, which was the only thing relevant to the actual thread topic).

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Lephys, I already explained my example and gave reasons.

 

Sensuki likes how you level in BG1. I like how you level in BG1. Maybe not everyone likes how you level in BG1, but for me personally I think it was good. PoE is a low level game (levels 1-12) and BG1 is a low level game (levels 1-10). The comparison to BG1 is justified, considering PoE is modelled after the IE games. And you do have people like Sensuki and myself who do like BG1's levelling throughout the game. You haven't explained why BG1 isn't a good model. Saying 'Not always' doesn't mean anything. And giving extreme examples like 10,000xp doesn't help your case.

 

I know you want to talk in the abstract and go off on tangents and thus we are at an impasse. I talk about real life examples, you talk about hypotheticals. I can't really do more than what I've explained. So there's no point discussing it further.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Silent Winter]

I And how will this affect the end battle? Even with TotSC installed, and hitting the level cap of 161K, the fight was still challenging.

I thought they tweaked the difficulty of the end-game when TOTSC was installed - can't remember where I read that though

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I thought they tweaked the difficulty of the end-game when TOTSC was installed - can't remember where I read that though

 

I think they did too. Not 100% sure. It's something I'm curious about with PoE. Will they tweak the end fight because you could potentially be one or two levels higher with the expansion installed? Will it be levelled scaled? Or will they keep the end fight static? Even with the expansion installed, not doing the expansion content and being at the same level as you would be with the base game, will the end fight be the same as one who has done all the expansion content? eg.BG1 with TotSC installed. The end fight with Sarevok with TotSC installed was the same even if you didn't do the TotSC content. AFAIK, with TotSC installed, the Sarevok fight didn't scale to your level. It remained static throughout the game.

[Silent Winter]

^I guess it'll depend on how they do the expansion (TOTSC-style or TOB or some mix of the 2)

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'd rather see a TotSC style expansion than say Heart of Winter. I prefer to be able to go back and forth from the main storyline to the expansion and back with TotSC. I like being able to go back and forth between the two. Durlag's Tower too hard? Go back to the main game and level up. Then go back to Durlag's Tower. AFAIK, you couldn't do that with HoW and you were locked in once you went there during an IWD play through and couldn't get back until you finished it.

 

If you choose the option to do HoW during IWD which is usually what I did, I would go just before going back to Easthaven. Once I finished the expansion with TotLM, I would go back to Easthaven and finish off the end boss from the main game. I know you can finish IWD first and then do the expansion, but always liked to do both at the same time, similar to BG and TotSC.

[Silent Winter]

^Me too - I prefer that the expansion adds variety and replayability to the main game.

[Sensuki]

I'd rather see a TotSC style expansion than say Heart of Winter. I prefer to be able to go back and forth from the main storyline to the expansion and back with TotSC.

 

I asked this question in an interview I sent off last week, but I don't know when I'll be getting it back. Next week maybe.

[Fearabbit]

Sensuki likes how you level in BG1. I like how you level in BG1. Maybe not everyone likes how you level in BG1, but for me personally I think it was good. PoE is a low level game (levels 1-12) and BG1 is a low level game (levels 1-10). The comparison to BG1 is justified, considering PoE is modelled after the IE games. And you do have people like Sensuki and myself who do like BG1's levelling throughout the game. You haven't explained why BG1 isn't a good model. Saying 'Not always' doesn't mean anything. And giving extreme examples like 10,000xp doesn't help your case.

 

Your original statement wasn't about BG1, it was the abstract statement that a high xp table feels better than a low xp table.

Lephys replied, and only afterwards you started talking about BG1. Maybe you were thinking of BG1 all the time, but we can't know that, right? So Lephys' example of 10,000 XP wasn't "extreme" because we didn't have anything to compare it to.

 

Anyway. I like Fallout's XP system very much, which has rather low values. I don't like useless zeroes at the end of my XP values just for the sake of it, and I think the illusion you're talking about fades as soon as you see the XP you have to reach to gain a level.

 

(That said I think BG1's system is fine. I think there's no illusion that makes it better than other systems, but if they do it exactly as BG1 did it, I'm fine with it.)

Edited June 25, 2014 by Fearabbit

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Your original statement wasn't about BG1, it was the abstract statement that a high xp table feels better than a low xp table.

Lephys replied, and only afterwards you started talking about BG1. Maybe you were thinking of BG1 all the time, but we can't know that, right? So Lephys' example of 10,000 XP wasn't "extreme" because we didn't have anything to compare it to.

 

Actually it was and my entire post was about BG1. My second paragraph had more to do with Sensuki's post on the previous page and how xp is doubled in 2nd edition and it's lower in 4th ed (which PoE is taking a lot from 4th ed, maybe not the xp but a lot of other things). I just forgot to quote his post which is why I think having a higher xp table for a large game like PoE, similar to BG1, would be a good idea. But I can understand how people can come to that conclusion I was talking in abstraction. 

 

But my continual posts about BG1 confirming my intent shows I was talking about BG1. And we do have something to compare it to. eg. BG1 from my original post. One of the IE games that PoE is a spiritual successor to. So yes, we do have something to compare it to. As I said, giving extreme xp examples doesn't help anyone's argument which is Lephys's usual way of presenting his arguments. eg. Hyperbole, exaggeration and extremes. Lephys' continual abstraction and gobbledygook wasn't needed when I confirmed my intent.

 

Anyway. I like Fallout's XP system very much, which has rather low values. I don't like useless zeroes at the end of my XP values just for the sake of it, and I think the illusion you're talking about fades as soon as you see the XP you have to reach to gain a level.

 

(That said I think BG1's system is fine. I think there's no illusion that makes it better than other systems, but if they do it exactly as BG1 did it, I'm fine with it.)

 

Which Fallout? Fallout 1 was a very small game. So getting small amounts of xp was on par for a small game, compared to a big game like BG1. I'd prefer to stick with a system that PoE is a spiritual successor to (eg. the IE games and D&D in general) than a completely different system that PoE isn't a spiritual successor to. If PoE was a spiritual successor to Fallout and no classes, then I would be looking at the Fallout tables. As I said, we do have something to compare it to. And as you've said, BG1's system was fine. So that's three people who are okay with BG1's levelling, based on the higher 2nd ed experience table, not the lower 4th ed experience table.

[Fearabbit]

Well I'm glad you agree that what you wrote was a general statement - "high xp numbers are better than low xp numbers".

I just think it's sad that you have to get so defensive and bad-mouth Lephys all the time, when he's just having a normal discussion with you. Look at your posts. The first one looks like a general statement (whatever your intention really was), and Lephys replied in a general way. Then you keep on talking in general terms about the advantage of high XP values, only now you use BG1 as an example. Doesn't change the fact that your argument still is of a general nature (again, whatever your actual intention may have been).

 

Then Lephys correctly argues that his point is actually not based on BG1, and suddenly you talk about how abstract he always is with his hyperboles and all that. Do you realize how strange and unnecessary that looks?

And why is 10,000 XP an extreme example anyway? Because you already consider 1000 XP to be a high value? What do you base that on? Why is that "high", compared to what, and when does "extreme" begin? You see what I'm getting at? To me, 1000 XP for a quest is a completely normal reward. So a high XP reward (like you said you'd prefer) would actually be in the range of 10,000 XP.

 

By the way. Lephys' 10,000 XP are "extreme", but when you talk about how 10 XP is too low for completing a quest, that isn't extreme? Why? Because, you know, Lephys' example number differs from your "gold standard" of BG1 by only a factor of 10, while your example differs by a factor of 100.

 

The truth behind all this is this: You communicated your thoughts badly (which is not a problem) and then got defensive when people didn't get what you're talking about (which is a problem). You could have de-escalated the discussion right after Lephys' first post with the following words:

"Sorry, let me clarify: I think BG1's quest rewards of 1000 XP were what I consider 'high' compared to other games. And I, personally, liked that because it gave the illusion of progression. A quest reward of 10,000 XP is already too high for my taste - I guess that BG1 really hit the sweet spot there."

 

Which Fallout? Fallout 1 was a very small game. So getting small amounts of xp was on par for a small game, compared to a big game like BG1.

 

1) Why does it matter which one? They all had lower XP values in general. (At least, that's what it felt like to me - but then again I wasn't thinking of quest rewards, I was thinking of the repetitive tasks like killing monsters etc.)

2) How is the size of a game connected to the magnitude of its XP rewards? I can make a small game where solving a quest gives you 10,000 XP, no problem. What is your point here, what do you mean when you say it's "on par"? Because that sounds really subjective right now. "Big games need big XP numbers, small games need small XP numbers" - what? I mean if that's what you personally think, it's fine, but it's not exactly a general rule on which to base an argument.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

<Accusatory finger pointing and defensive wall of text post>

 

And yet, your main contribution to this thread is to jump in and bad mouth me. Perhaps that's even sadder when people's main contribution is to do just that. And then you go on some wall of text defensive stance with another poster. Perhaps looking at yourself first before finger pointing others. Because you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of. Maybe you should look up the word hypocrite.

 

And you'll notice with all my posts with Lephys, I was addressing the points in the argument, Not the person, until the very end when I said to Lephys we are at an impasse and not continue. But all you've done is gone on the attack. Attack the person. Tsk tsk. Try and stay on topic and debate the points, not the person. Okay.

 

And I did clarify with my second post about BG1 and continued to try and keep it in context with BG1. Oh dear, what does one need to do when they clarify and try to keep things in context.

 

1) Why does it matter which one? They all had lower XP values in general. (At least, that's what it felt like to me - but then again I wasn't thinking of quest rewards, I was thinking of the repetitive tasks like killing monsters etc.)

2) How is the size of a game connected to the magnitude of its XP rewards? I can make a small game where solving a quest gives you 10,000 XP, no problem. What is your point here, what do you mean when you say it's "on par"? Because that sounds really subjective right now. "Big games need big XP numbers, small games need small XP numbers" - what? I mean if that's what you personally think, it's fine, but it's not exactly a general rule on which to base an argument.

 

1) Context. And what does PoE have to do with Fallout? Wouldn't it be better to compare PoE to its spiritual successors like the IE games? If you're going to use games like Fallout, why not Diablo? Why not other games that have nothing to do with being a spiritual successor to PoE? Considering I did mention BG1 in my post but you want to ignore that.

2) So you think giving 1 million xp rewards for killing a single rat is a good thing? Because you know, extremes are good and we have no idea what a poster is talking about even though said poster did mention BG1 in their post. Also I didn't say "Big games need big XP numbers, small games need small XP numbers". But nice strawman there. Not only did you quote me out of context, you actually made up stuff, and put it in quotes. Nice one.

 

And for someone who agrees and likes the higher levelling xp table in BG1 which I was talking about in my first post, it's quite odd that you would go on some rant about posters on this forum and ignore this very point. I think we can all agree that it's better to debate the points, if two posters can't agree to go their separate ways (which is what happened), and not have some random poster jumping in, frothing at the mouth attacking others and not contribute anything worthwhile to the thread. So lets get back on topic.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Karkarov]

no? It's 12

Fair enough.  I swear I read one of the e3 articles that said 8.  Maybe I remembered it incorrectly, or they were just wrong.  Wouldn't be the first time for either or the last I imagine.

 

In Lephys exp argument I will at least throw him a bone and say many RPG's these days are going down that over the top road.  Even South Park Stick of Truth started with pretty small numbers for everything where doing like 20 damage was a lot... and by end game you were hitting for like 1k+ a round.  So it isn't really unusual anymore to see an RPG award 100 xp for a quest at level 5 but at level 20 give 10-15k or even more.  Numbers have just inflated a ton in gaming.

[Lephys]

I appreciate the effort, Fearrabbit. I mean, I know you're just saying what you feel you should, and not solely posting on my behalf. But, I appreciate it nonetheless. However, I've discovered that Hiro's never going to think anything but what Hiro already thinks, so the merits of any particular discussion with him are out the window once there's a dispute.

 

So, that's fine. That's his prerogative, I suppose. It's just not really conducive to productive debates.

 

Anywho, yeah, the inflation has gotten a bit out of hand, Karkarov. And I know there are some numbers that just work better than others (usually it's simply intuitiveness, like... 1/2 an XP out of 2.7 to gain a level is obviously going to be a bit less intuitive than 10 out of 100, etc.), but, beyond that, I just think that any illusion from a relatively inflated number is pretty much counter-acted by the sort of "It seems like I'm gaining an awful lot of XP before actually gaining a level" that comes with it. It's just short-term versus long term.

 

Interestingly enough, talking about examples of games that use varying numbers, Paper Mario (the original on N64, I believe) started you at 10XP to gain a level, and you got 1XP from battles (you were slaying like... a single Goomba at a time, for what it's worth).

 

The other advantage I can see of using something like 1,000 instead of something so small as 1 or 10 is that it's a lot easier to have various different accomplishments offer a greater variety of XP-value rewards. You can have something give you 1300, while something else gives you 75, or 350, etc. But then, at a certain point, it's just sort of arbitrary extra zeroes, as Fearrabbit pointed out.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I appreciate the effort, Fearrabbit. I mean, I know you're just saying what you feel you should, and not solely posting on my behalf. But, I appreciate it nonetheless. However, I've discovered that Hiro's never going to think anything but what Hiro already thinks, so the merits of any particular discussion with him are out the window once there's a dispute.

 

So, that's fine. That's his prerogative, I suppose. It's just not really conducive to productive debates.

 

LMAO. You keep believing that.

 

Anywho, yeah, the inflation has gotten a bit out of hand, Karkarov. And I know there are some numbers that just work better than others (usually it's simply intuitiveness, like... 1/2 an XP out of 2.7 to gain a level is obviously going to be a bit less intuitive than 10 out of 100, etc.), but, beyond that, I just think that any illusion from a relatively inflated number is pretty much counter-acted by the sort of "It seems like I'm gaining an awful lot of XP before actually gaining a level" that comes with it. It's just short-term versus long term.

 

Interestingly enough, talking about examples of games that use varying numbers, Paper Mario (the original on N64, I believe) started you at 10XP to gain a level, and you got 1XP from battles (you were slaying like... a single Goomba at a time, for what it's worth).

 

The other advantage I can see of using something like 1,000 instead of something so small as 1 or 10 is that it's a lot easier to have various different accomplishments offer a greater variety of XP-value rewards. You can have something give you 1300, while something else gives you 75, or 350, etc. But then, at a certain point, it's just sort of arbitrary extra zeroes, as Fearrabbit pointed out.

 

And you still haven't said anything about BG1. You know the game where everyone in this thread is happy with the levelling table, with the exception of your silence on it. You haven't said you're happy with the levelling and xp rewards in BG1? Why is that? You know the 2nd edition xp table that is more than 4th edition xp table or Fallout (which has nothing to do with PoE) xp table. But lets talk about Paper Mario.

 

Here's a questions for you. It's quite simple and don't need 7 paragraphs to answer. 

 

Were you happy with the levelling in BG1?

[Randomthom]

I don't really care if they use small or inflated numbers.

PoE marks a shift in the way XP is awarded, particularly regarding no XP per kill for monsters. This should have a profound effect on the way we play but also on the control the developers have on levelling speed. There will be no way to farm XP as far as I can tell which effectively makes being able to see how much XP you have/need to level irrelevant. That being said, I'd still like to know.

 

It does lead me to think though that levels are meant to represent an abstraction of 'power' and the meta-game thinking of "I need to kill twelve more goblins to level up" is very-much immersion-breaking. That doesn't necessarily mean that it breaks the fun but it breaks the player out of thinking about the tactics of combat or the story and into "where can I most effectively allocate these points".

[Karkarov]

Were you happy with the levelling in BG1?

Personally I felt the leveling in Baldur's Gate stank.  Why?  Because it was based on D&D which already had a pretty borked leveling system.

 

For example.  Did you know in second edition D&D the Dungeon Masters Guide game rules for creating your own classes and assigning them an exp table?  Did you know if you remade an exact replica of say the fighter class.... his EXP requirement per level was actually higher than the Fighter class per the Players Handbook?  Their rules for why one class leveled slower or faster than another were just completely out of whack and were not balanced well. 

 

Some classes leveled wayyyyy too fast but most of their levels were of mediocre gain at best.  Others leveled slow as molasses but seemed to get noticeably better each level.  A good leveling system is somewhere in the middle.

[Sensuki]

The leveling rate in BG1 was fine for all classes except the Ranger and Paladin. The Mage started speeding up towards the end.

 

A level for the Thief was less of a big deal than it was for other classes. Yeah, weird system but it worked for the post part.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Sensuki