I saw an interview where Tim Cain was talking about quest balance and that non-combat routes would be just as viable as combat routes in quests. The way they were going to attain this was that enemies do not provided experience pounts, only quest resolution and that experience will be the same regardless how the quest is resolved.

 

So can someone confirm this is the case? No enemies will provide any reason to kill them other then they are in the way and potentially drop items?

 

This is horrible if it's true. I know I am not a backer but I can't be the only one who feels this is a horrible solution just so stealth characters can feel their decisions matter in quests where they have an option avoid combat.

 

Please don't do this.

 

Thanks.

Edited July 26, 201411 yr by Infinitron

It's an objective-based xp system. Presumably there will be objectives along the lines of 'clear the basement of rats', which means it ends up functioning similar to kill xp. The obvious goal is to not punish people who want to solve a quest a different way by depriving them of experience.

 

 

No enemies will provide any reason to kill them other then they are in the way and potentially drop items?

Being able to progress and getting items aren't reason enough?

Edited July 26, 201411 yr by Quetzalcoatl

It's true, but sometimes defeating enemies may be posed as a task, to the distinction somehow becomes blurred. This is still a combat heavy game, you won't be able to avoid most encounters like in Torment.

 

 

This is horrible if it's true. I know I am not a backer but I can't be the only one who feels this is a horrible solution just so stealth characters can feel their decisions matter in quests where they have an option avoid combat.

 

 

IMHO, the best argument for doing it this way is that you should want to fight because its fun, not because of some ulterior motive. Put differently, to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women should be its own reward.

 

Besides, as infinitron already said, there is no way to change this now anyway.

Edited July 26, 201411 yr by Doppelschwert

Everyone in QA and among the OEI devs fights most of the time in PoE.  They love blasting critters in red circles with spells and bashing them with morning stars.  They also use stealth quite a bit, but often to scout, less often to avoid fights (some more than others).  So while the concern is a rational one, people are not entirely rational.

It makes sense to not give xp for killing. They don't want you to feel punished for resolving a situation peacefully, or encourage you to fight just for xp.

Any mechanic that doesn't actively encourage/reward players to become homicidal maniacs are aces in my book.

Everyone in QA and among the OEI devs fights most of the time in PoE.  They love blasting critters in red circles with spells and bashing them with morning stars.  They also use stealth quite a bit, but often to scout, less often to avoid fights (some more than others).  So while the concern is a rational one, people are not entirely rational.

If people™ were rational, they wouldn't spend their time or money on something like games.  So, it's good for you.

 

The XP system didn't bother me in the slightest since I know I'll spend my time on what I find fun to me.  Heck, it's a single player game.

Experience acts as an incentive for fighting enemies who are maybe otherwise difficult or annoying. I generally like that I can go to some open wilderness area off the beaten path and kill things to gain a level advantage over whatever was on the main quest. I am thinking mostly Baldurs Gate TotSC as I explain this..

 

I understand you don't want to punish stealth characters who avoid combat.. but in essence they are still punished if they avoid a fight with an NPC that maybe had a unique sword or item. I mean the Stealth vs Kill Everything scenarios are always gonna have slightly different reward outcomes. Why not just provide a boost in EXP for the stealth option? Are you worried they would stealth by, get the experience then double back and kill everything for a min max meta game fest?

 

Sometimes killing a tribe of goblins in tents isn't always the most fun thing on it's own. What makes it fun is that I know I am becoming more powerful before I fight those zhent mages in the potion shop and I know I will be able to eclipse them because I was a level or two higher then what the designers were expecting. It's why I love games that don't generate loot or creatures that scale with your level, you can get your ass kicked and then come back later.

I understand I don't have the most rock hard logic here but I am trying to explain what makes monster hunting fun for me.. and I would bet many other people.. Killing just for the sake of killing with no progression isn't really as fun.

Am I really crazy for thinking this way?

We had several long and sometimes acrimonious discussions about this when the decision was announced, which was quite early on. You're not the only one who feels that way, but you by no means represent a clear consensus among backers.

 

I get the feeling that by now those of us who disagreed with the decision have by and large come to terms with it. You, fortunately, aren't a backer, so if it's a deal breaker for you then just don't play the game. In any case by now it's baked into the system and there's nothing you can do to change it.

As PrimeJunta has said, this has been argued for over a year and I think most people can't be bothered arguing anymore on either side of the argument. You're not saying anything that hasn't been argued for and nothing is going to change so close to the game being released.

It will be fine.

I remember playing NWN2 with thief, trying thief-like stuff. Stealthed through dull encounters, tried to only kill bosses.

 

With that tactic, somewhere around midgame I was already ~5 levels behind my enemies.

is gauche to quote our self, but this is such a tired issue.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60641-xp-only-for-questing-some-observations/?p=1207218

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60641-xp-only-for-questing-some-observations/?p=1207720

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60641-xp-only-for-questing-some-observations/?p=1209376

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60641-xp-only-for-questing-some-observations/?p=1211354

 

am realizing some folks don't care 'bout balance, but the obsidian developers do. they has stressed that they want no bad PoE builds. xp awards for individual actions is making far more difficult to balance level progression o' different character builds. and again, individual awards for every actions is stoopid.

 

HA! Good Fun!

I'm not going to get into an argument by trying to convince others, but personally non-combat exp was one of the many things that made VtM: Bloodlines such a great game. Exp is rewarded for clever and well-thought through play, rather than reaching every situation with a blunt tool.

 

I couldn't be happier that PoE is doing this.

I'm not going to get into an argument by trying to convince others, but personally non-combat exp was one of the many things that made VtM: Bloodlines such a great game. Exp is rewarded for clever and well-thought through play, rather than reaching every situation with a blunt tool.

 

I couldn't be happier that PoE is doing this.

 

Couldn't agree more, it was handled perfectly in Bloodlines. Made sneaking that much more rewarding (especially since you were often given addtional experience for achieving your objectives stealthily).

Talking of balancing, my current impression is the contrary:  Since the system is well designed, the players don’t need to think about how they should play.  It's not balance for balance's shake but, a decision which tries to make different choices by the players valid without making things too complex.  A certain people seem to be enthusiastically attached to some specific rule sets but there have been being tons of them around under different design philosophies.  In fact, the concept of quest-based XP is quite old now.  I tend to like rule sets with unified vision and I think PoE is doing well in this respect-well, while not going far from IE format, at least.

I guess my biggest question is.. Why was this mechanic implemented over the existing games that this game was looking to emulate. What problem was it trying to solve other then "Stealth is Viable in Quests"

 

I read the other forum posts that also talk about this issue and I see the same complaint coming up.. (Many of these people were decent level backers)

 

People want incentives to kill something beyond just killing it. Running into 2 bears in the wild is not exactly a jaw dropping experience. Every little fight builds up to a Crescendo of a large more epic battle. It feels good to be rewarded for exploring and killing things. That is what makes the battle fun beyond throwing fireballs at things. That's what makes an RPG fun for a lot of people.

 

One backer complained that in bloodlines the game was very combat heavy but they felt no reason to want to kill enemies. I don't think the argument "if combat is boring don't buy the game" is a valid one. The experience gain and progression is the fun part of combat for a lot of people in addition to the challenge or mechanics required to win.

 

I don't expect the game to be changed overnight because of my feedback / (complaining?).. I just wanted some information about why this change was so important. You will still miss out on potential rewards by stealthing past enemies.

 

I don't think this change is as good as a lot of people envision it in their minds using bloodlines as their only frame of reference.

I'm happy that there's no XP reward for merely killing enemies. When a developer provides a mechanical reward for a behaviour they are explicitly encouraging that behaviour and encouraging purposeless violence has always seemed a bit morally dubious.

I guess my biggest question is.. Why was this mechanic implemented over the existing games that this game was looking to emulate. What problem was it trying to solve other then "Stealth is Viable in Quests"

 

Not only stealth, but also other non-violent methods, like diplomacy, or finding a clever solution to a given problem. In my book, this is a question important enough to warrant an equally important change.

I don't want pillars to turn into ice wind dale where i would farm yeti's for their EXP.

Edited July 27, 201411 yr by gamerdude130

I guess my biggest question is.. Why was this mechanic implemented over the existing games that this game was looking to emulate. What problem was it trying to solve other then "Stealth is Viable in Quests"

 

 

our links addressed your question. that being said, the question itself is moot: quest based xp rewards will be utilized in PoE.

 

...

 

am not honest curious enough to debate this point seeing as how it has already been settled, but am admitting that we find the ad hoc xp award argument to be wholly without merit. am getting the ADD impulse wherein some folks says they Need instant gratification. am also recognizing the somewhat weak appeal of the mirroring the broken ad hoc system that were used in the ie games... 'cause if it is broken, why fix it, yes? regardless, we don't understand how otherwise reasonable and rational can weigh costs v. benefits and come away believing ad hoc is superior to what will be in PoE.

 

read links if you want an answer to your question, but this issue is, thankfully, pointless.

 

HA! Good Fun!

I hope that we'll get some extra loot from chosing to kill our enemies at least, didn't see any looting in the gameplay demo though.

I hope that we'll get some extra loot from chosing to kill our enemies at least, didn't see any looting in the gameplay demo though.

They didn't stop to loot enemies (presumably for time reasons) but you can see bodies turning into loot icons in the various demo videos.

 

I don't know. A game like PS:T would have been fine with no kill xp.

 

But a game with a 15 level mega-dungeon?