Experience Point Mechanics - Fighting Enemies

[Zansatsu]

I agree completely. I can accept this game won't have xp for combat but the argument against it isn't sound. I honestly think it comes down to difficulty to balance and since there is limited time and money I can uunderstand that.

[Silent Winter]

 

Besides, everyone knows that chunking monsters is a reward in and to itself.  Hence Gauntlet's popularity.

 

A perfect example why Sacred is probably a dead franchise as of Sacred 3. A RPG game that is combat focused with almost no progression is about as boring as watching paint dry. We are now comparing apples to oranges again.. but so is Gauntlet..

 

By Josh's logic.. Combat in Sacred 3 should be fun enough on it's own.. No need to bribe players with silly things like Item drops.. They should just enjoy stomping the **** out of stuff and call it a day. Don't like my decision? Don't buy the game.

 

^^But they'd have to make the combat fun first.

Boring combat with no xp is still boring,

Fun combat with no xp is still fun

[Lephys]

Seems like a perfectly relevant point to me. If you don't enjoy combat, why demand that something coax you into combat? And if you DO enjoy combat, then you're already happy with your choice to partake in it, before XP even factors into the equation. At that point, the only reason you'd be upset is if your choice to partake in as much combat as possible yielded an XP detriment as compared to other lines of choosing. Which won't be the case here, so what's the issue?

 

Also, the reason for not always getting XP for the act of killing is the same as the reason for not always getting XP for the act of disarming traps. "I get 20XP every time I disarm a trap! 8D! Oh look! A field of bear traps! Time out, party! I don't enjoy disarming dozens of bear traps, but we're gonna scour EVERY ounce of this forest for them, and disarm every single one! THANKS, developers! Without that XP incentive, I wouldn't have had this great reason to make choices I don't enjoy in the least! ^___^"

[Volourn]

"Seems like a perfectly relevant point to me. If you don't enjoy combat, why demand that something coax you into combat? And if you DO enjoy combat, then you're already happy with your choice to partake in it, before XP even factors into the equation. At that point, the only reason you'd be upset is if your choice to partake in as much combat as possible yielded an XP detriment as compared to other lines of choosing. Which won't be the case here, so what's the issue?

Also, the reason for not always getting XP for the act of killing is the same as the reason for not always getting XP for the act of disarming traps. "I get 20XP every time I disarm a trap! 8D! Oh look! A field of bear traps! Time out, party! I don't enjoy disarming dozens of bear traps, but we're gonna scour EVERY ounce of this forest for them, and disarm every single one! THANKS, developers! Without that XP incentive, I wouldn't have had this great reason to make choices I don't enjoy in the least! ^___^""
 

You shoudln't get xp for anything then. Why? You should have fun no matter what right? You shoudlw ant to complete quests because they're good quests not because of xp, gold, or other rewards right? The experience itself should be enough.

[Silent Winter]

^indeed - but this way the developers can still stagger levelling and party-power increases according to a total of how much 'stuff' you do and you can do it in different ways.

Killing? -> XP

Talking? -> XP

etc

So your characters can increase in power over the course of the game and be prepared for greater challenges - we're not saying 'XP is bad' (or even that 'kill-XP games' are bad) - just that this way of awarding xp is more flexible and allows for a greater range of solutions while still having xp-reward

[Lephys]

You shoudln't get xp for anything then. Why? You should have fun no matter what right? You shoudlw ant to complete quests because they're good quests not because of xp, gold, or other rewards right? The experience itself should be enough.

Wrong. You shouldn't need XP just to enjoy your choices. In the presence of an XP-based leveling/progression system, however, you should get XP for doing things. But it's not to justify the doing of those things.

 

It's not as if starting the game with a level 12 party and never getting any XP for anything would result in a pointless game. It would simply lack what an advancement system brings to the table, but there's still plenty of game there, without XP entirely.

 

None of that means "you should never get XP."

[Grand_Commander13]

I don't see what's wrong with not getting experience for fighting enemies. This way we're thinking like an adventurer would: how can I get what I want while risking my neck the least? If you want to know why you'd fight anything but those on the critical path, I'd strongly suspect that there are things to find if you explore the maps, so doing the extra fights will still be pointful.

[5anitybane]

Forgive any ignorance following, as I am avoiding knowing much about the game before release.

 

If the game is going for a more story-focussed angle, then keeping XP to quests and such makes a bit of sense, but removing it entirely from killing creatures is a bit illogical. I think it should still be there, but if story is to be the focus, then to have the XP from kills minimal and give an additional perk to killing; perhaps there could be certain items only found from monster drops? That way one game-play method - included in the game to begin with - isn't entirely hung out to dry and discouraged.

 

As for the current debate, I guess preference of XP relates to how you play as a gamer, rather than any 'yes there should be' vs. 'no there shouldn't' debate. Traditional RPGs had general XP and levels to raise attributes, but then in the late 90's and onwards things started leaning towards XP for whatever weapon you're using. Logically, both make sense, as general level XP could be viewed as the character itself becoming stronger (Str), agile (Agi) and robust from taking damage (Vit), or XP per weapon style and/or the type of monster engaged, such as using a sword to kill a Fiend would add XP to your one-handed or swordsmanship as well as proficiency XP for killing a Demonic-class monster.

[Silent Winter]

^this is why any xp award is abstract.

 

I'm not against kill-xp in every game, it worked ok in BG,IWD etc.

I just think this system being employed in PoE is a good step for diverse gameplay and replayability as we find different ways through encounters and quests.

When the game is designed around quest-xp, the per-kill-xp isn't needed.

[Stun]

When the game is designed around quest-xp, the per-kill-xp isn't needed.

Not sure how you can conclude that the game is designed around Quest XP when all the game play footage videos we've seen have been ALL about, frequent, and numerous, *forced* enemy encounters that are based on exploration, rather than quests. If you're *forcing* people to engage in combat, then why aren't you rewarding them for it?

 

And we're going to find out whether or not unrewarded combat in this game quickly makes combat feel like an unnecessary chore. And no, arguing that combat is still rewarded because it constitutes "a step" in some far away greater objective that you'll be rewarded for later, will NOT make that feeling disappear, no matter how "logical" the notion sounds on paper.

 

 

Obsidian is banking that we won't miss its absence. But only we can be the judges of that. We'll see.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Stun

[Grand_Commander13]

Of course the player is being rewarded for their kills. They talk constantly about all of the cool stuff they've put on the map for people who want to explore it. Well, those monsters are what's in between you and the loot you can find by exploring the map.

[Volourn]

"I just think this system being employed in PoE is a good step for diverse gameplay and replayability as we find different ways through encounters and quests."
 

Quest xp vs combat xp has NOTHINg to do with diverse game play or replayability. None.

[Stun]

Of course the player is being rewarded for their kills. They talk constantly about all of the cool stuff they've put on the map for people who want to explore it. Well, those monsters are what's in between you and the loot you can find by exploring the map.

All this tells me is that I should make a party of Stealth-based rogues so I can sneak in, grab all the cool loot, then get the hell out of there.

 

No point in engaging in combat when the system is designed to not actually reward you for it. And definitely no point in Engaging in any trash mob encounters that might be tough enough to require me to use up valuable consumables and/or my per day abilities, when I could just save all my spells, talents, and resources for the Big Boss encounter at the end of that dungeon that I'm exploring.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Stun

[Zansatsu]

Well it's a mute point. All I can say is I enjoy kill xp. I'm not blood thirsty, i don't kill every NPC or enemy, I don't always choose combat options, I freaking RP. Some how I've managed to complete every IE game and countless others that do provide kill xp without ever, ever, feeling I could not progress or gain enough lvls unless I went on a slaughter fest. I don't know how it was possible before but now is so burdensome.

[Volourn]

I just enjoy logic. I want someone to logically why killing the ogre is worth xp but killing the beetles is not worth xp simply because an npc told you to kill the ogre?

 

DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.

[Silent Winter]

"I just think this system being employed in PoE is a good step for diverse gameplay and replayability as we find different ways through encounters and quests."

 

Quest xp vs combat xp has NOTHINg to do with diverse game play or replayability. None.

That's a statement but not backed up by any reasoning.

Quest XP makes all solutions equally viable and therefore different solutions can be used in different playthroughs without worrying about XP gain.

If my characters are more stealthy this time, I'm not going to miss crushing those beetles.

 

 

When the game is designed around quest-xp, the per-kill-xp isn't needed.

Not sure how you can conclude that the game is designed around Quest XP

I can conclude it because the game is being designed around quest XP - that's what the designers have said.

 

when all the game play footage videos we've seen have been ALL about, frequent, and numerous, *forced* enemy encounters

Yes but they've only been showing off the combat - they didn't try talking the ogre down or avoiding the beetles - and nobody's saying combat won't be great and fun to engage in - I'm looking forward to fighting those beetles, ogre, and all the rest.  This isn't about not liking combat.

 

 And we're going to find out whether or not unrewarded combat in this game quickly makes combat feel like an unnecessary chore.

Yes - and it may turn out that I'm completely mistaken and it's been a horrible decision .... so lets wait and see how much fun the game is

 

And no, arguing that combat is still rewarded because it constitutes "a step" in some far away greater objective that you'll be rewarded for later, will NOT make that feeling disappear, no matter how "logical" the notion sounds on paper.

Ok, that's subjective anyway but as you say, we'll have to wait and see.

(though again 'xp-reward' is only part of the reward - finding stuff through the exploration is also a reward)

[Silent Winter]

I just enjoy logic. I want someone to logically why killing the ogre is worth xp but killing the beetles is not worth xp simply because an npc told you to kill the ogre?

 

DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.

Dealing with the ogre, not killing the ogre, is worth xp

You're not being given xp for killing things as it's not an xp-per-kill system.

You're being given xp for getting to and resolving other issues.

It's not because the NPC told you to - as pointed out before, you can stumble upon the cave through exploration and deal with the ogre without ever meeting the NPC in question.

 

(I'm hoping there'll be more examples in the game of XP-rewards for doing stuff that isn't tied to a quest from an NPC - Objective-XP rather than Given-a-Quest-XP)

(If there aren't, then it'll be a missed opportunity to make the objective-XP system mean something).

[Volourn]

Why isn't 'dealing' with the beetles awarded but 'dealing' with the ogre is awarded? Oh yeah, because a PC tell you to. Come on.

 

 

"That's a statement but not backed up by any reasoning."

 

It's backed by 30 years of role-playing and DMing experience of both pnp and CRPGs.

 

 

"Quest XP makes all solutions equally viable and therefore different solutions can be used in different playthroughs without worrying about XP gain."

 

All solutions are always viable (if the devs put them in the game).

[PrimeJunta]

And we're going to find out whether or not unrewarded combat in this game quickly makes combat feel like an unnecessary chore. And no, arguing that combat is still rewarded because it constitutes "a step" in some far away greater objective that you'll be rewarded for later, will NOT make that feeling disappear, no matter how "logical" the notion sounds on paper.

 

I recently played Shadowrun Returns: Dragonfall. I enjoyed it a lot. It forces you into combat all the time, and does not have combat XP. I did not miss it. Getting XP rewards when progressing in the quests felt entirely adequate.

 

Just my experience, of course.

[Silent Winter]

"That's a statement but not backed up by any reasoning."

 

It's backed by 30 years of role-playing and DMing experience of both pnp and CRPGs.

in a per-kill xp system, yes.  How many years of role-playing and DM-ing in an objective xp system to compare?

And did you really award kill-xp after each dead enemy in the p'n'p games?  Middle of fight?

 

All solutions are always viable (if the devs put them in the game).

Yes, but 'viable' needn't mean 'equally viable' and so most people hunt down every last beetle on the map because they need the xp to advance.

Remove that need and they're free to play the way they want - 'kill-em-all' or 'discretion is the better part of valour' or whatever.

[Volourn]

"in a per-kill xp system, yes.  How many years of role-playing and DM-ing in an objective xp system to compare?

And did you really award kill-xp after each dead enemy in the p'n'p games?  Middle of fight?"
 

Depends on the campaign but I amde sure to reward players for their actions and didn't belittle action a compared to action bx.

 

I always made sure to reward for tough battles, completing a mission (be it player opted mission or npc thrown mission - which they always had the option to refuse), clever use of skills, role-playing their character, etc., etc.

 

Like any good DM.

 

 

Which is why I can't logicallty figure out why the ogre is worth xp  but the beetles aren't since they are a challenge to be overcome (deadly according to the video lol).  The players should be reward for using their character skills and smart play for over coming them (be it by battle or other method).

 

 

"Remove that need and they're free to play the way they want - 'kill-em-all' or 'discretion is the better part of valour' or whatever."

 

But, that's always an option.  That was an option in BG. i certainly didn't hunt down every single pixel monster in the game espicially repawning ones. Also, the ogre can't be avoided. You have to contront him and kill him or presumably talk him down. Running away/sneaking past him will not, I assume, reward you. In fact, they should give you another method - poison his water/food supplyu. ie. the pigs . that would amke the ogre easy defeta but might anger the druids or other animal lovers in the area opening enw potential quests... and give you the label of PIGKILLER.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Volourn

[Zansatsu]

but 'viable' needn't mean 'equally viable' and so most people hunt down every last beetle on the map because they need the xp to advance.

Remove that need and they're free to play the way they want - 'kill-em-all' or 'discretion is the better part of valour' or whatever.

 

That's a wild generalization. I've never felt that need and i would bet there are many who feel the same. How could you possibly know how most people approach RPG. Not only that, but the games aren't designed in a way where killing every last creature is even necessary. I have played a lot of RPGs, if you do the quests laid before you, you will reach the appropriate lvl without having to kill every creature. Otherwise the game is a design disaster. Some people like padding stats and some people who aren't very good, need the ability to out lvl some content they aren't able to beat. My father is a miserable gamer. He can't beat anything unless he has out lvled it significantly.

[Stun]

 

Not sure how you can conclude that the game is designed around Quest XP

I can conclude it because the game is being designed around quest XP - that's what the designers have said.

 

Balanced around quest xp, maybe. But the developers have also said that they're trying their hardest to make the game feel IE'ish. Wellllll? The IE games had *both* quest XP and Kill XP. Having to engage in No-XP combat in those games would have been an absolutely insufferable chore after the 10th encounter...let alone the 10th playthrough. So how exactly is PoE designed to address this while still maintaining the stated objective of feeling "like you're coming home again"....as Josh so succinctly put it in the demo yesterday morning?

 

 

Well lets see... we got exactly Zero answers to that question in any of the recent gameplay footage. Instead, we saw Forced combat (rather than any choice...until the Ogre confrontation). We saw Adam having to use up valuable consumables and per day abilities on non-objective based encounters (read: trash mobs), and receiving nothing to show for it, except for a TPK. And, most importantly, we saw pacing that was very similar to the Baldurs Gate games.

 

When this game is still fresh and new, the above can Easily be overlooked. But when it's playthrough #5 do you really think trash mob encounters that net you NOTHING will feel like anything but pointless?

 

 

 

when all the game play footage videos we've seen have been ALL about, frequent, and numerous, *forced* enemy encounters

Yes but they've only been showing off the combat - they didn't try talking the ogre down or avoiding the beetles - and nobody's saying combat won't be great and fun to engage in - I'm looking forward to fighting those beetles, ogre, and all the rest.  This isn't about not liking combat.

 

Really, So what? Avoiding the Beetles is literally no different from fighting them....except maybe doing the former will be cheaper. As for the Ogre... again, so what? The IE games also had Bosses you could talk down. Giving players non-combat Options is great. Who ever argued otherwise? But if Developers are trying to get us to explore non-combat, Role-playing solutions more often, then I can't think of anything more ham-fistedly overzealous than eliminating kill XP outright in order to force such a playstyle. They should have just boosted the rewards for the non-violent solutions to everything, and then let the player decide how he wants to handle the hostiles on the map. That way all ALL playstyles are rewarded. Not just the Goal-oriented Questing playstyle. Edited August 15, 2014 by Stun

[Namutree]

Objective xp could still reward you for killing beetles and other petty monsters. They may not give you xp, but if you kill enough monsters you might get some kinda title like, "Beetle killer" or something. For example:

 

In a town a npc with beetles infesting her house asks if you have experience killing giant beetles. Here would be your options if you don't.

 

A) Nope.

 

B) [Lie] Sure do. (Whether she believes you is based on RES and reputation)

 

c) Go away.

 

If you have the "Beetle Killer" title or whatever than you don't need to lie.

 

Assuming you have said title or successfully lied than she asks you to clear out her house and offers gold for doing so. Would that make most people happy?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Not sure how you can conclude that the game is designed around Quest XP when all the game play footage videos we've seen have been ALL about, frequent, and numerous, *forced* enemy encounters that are based on exploration, rather than quests. If you're *forcing* people to engage in combat, then why aren't you rewarding them for it?

 

And we're going to find out whether or not unrewarded combat in this game quickly makes combat feel like an unnecessary chore. 

 

 

Yes, this is what worries me after the latest gameplay video. Not only is what we've seen full of filler combat, it's hard filler combat. I do not appreciate being forced into a pointless exercise that takes up quite a lot of time (you'll either play optimally and use lots of spells, forcing you to backtrack to the nearest rest spot or play suboptimally and die a lot/take lots of health damage, forcing you to backtrack again). Guess I can level Stealth, though.