Experience Point Mechanics - Fighting Enemies

[Sarex]

There aren't any professions. Certainly not "pest control". It's an RPG, and characters are defined by the players. That's the point.

 

Wrong, what your are talking about is table top rpg, what we are talking about is a game where fighting is unavoidable.

[Ganrich]

Keep in mind that Obsidian has said that there will be other solutions to situations than just combat.  If I keep doing the math equation 5-5=0 I won't be a mathmatical genius next week.  If you kill 30 beetles, of a similar variety, you will not be the No. 1 Exterminator of North America next week.  Xp is an abstract system, but many have trouble abstracting it because of years of it being conditioned that there is only one way to handle it.  It is there to allow the DM, developer, what-have-you the ability to control power creep within a campaign. 

 

Obsdian is also a story based company.  That is there strength.  They are rewarding players for participating in their stories instead of mowing down their monsters.  Seems sensible to me.

 

All I know is, that I have had many a game in the past where combat XP has caused me frustration because I didn't play my character in a way that killed everything in my way and everyone that didn't agree with me.  I innevitably had to grind to get back up to level with content because the quest XP wasn't enough without the Combat XP.  I can't think of a single instance that Objective XP could have a similar effect on a person's game outside of them skipping all of the quests.  I just don't know why anyone would skip an large abundance of quests in an Obsidian title. 

 

Oh, and Obsidian is rewarding you for combat.  You get Cyclopedia updates (based on Lore skill) and loot.  Heck, Cyclopedia updates make more sense than divvying out xp for kills.  Since killing a few beatles will basically show you their strengths and weaknesses.  This means that someone becomes more versed in fighting that particular creature, and can use that knowledge to make combat with them easier.  Where killing 3,000 gibberlings somehow (in a game with combat XP) makes it so my warrior is also versed in fighting Ogres, Drakes, Bassilisks, etc.  That makes 0 sense to me.  In PoE though... That fighter might still be level 1, but I would know the ins and outs of gibberlings and their fighting strengths and weaknesses.  That makes total sense, and... I am back to the point I was making at the beginning... I will stop now. 

[Amentep]

It's not necessary to reward combat to make a game combat-focused.

 

I'm not sure I can agree with this.  There has to be some incentive for doing anything in a game (otherwise its an option that will never be used and its inclusion is pointless).

 

The real issue (as I see it) is between those who feel like Kill XP is a superior incentive for combat and not having it is a disincentive (or at least at risk of being such if the design is poor) vs those who feel that not having Kill XP can be managed by other rewards (loot drops, engaging combat and tactics that are enjoyable, combat based lore, etc).

Edited August 15, 2014 by Amentep

[Immortalis]

I have to agree with almost every comment Stun has made thus far.. There were just a few gems that stuck out while I got caught up in this thread.

 

 

 

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.
 

 

Wrong. You can't possibly make this blanket statement as fact. I want progression for everything I do in the game.. Except maybe traps / lockpicking because that gameplay is limited to only one role or archetype, that is where it becomes a more grey area where you are rewarding a rogue exclusively but I am getting off point. Killing creatures is a pillar (haha get it?) of this game and something every role or player will be doing no matter what. It should reward you. Combat is tedious if its just a pointless barrier to your real goal. Again, why wouldn't I just roll a party of mages and invis past every encounter if thats a viable way to play the game.. Killing beetles is not going to give me an erection after beating this game 3 times unless I am progessing by doing it.. in which case it becomes a viable way to finish the game instead of a chore to get to the ogre.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Thank you for adding that last part. I have to argue that shadowrun is apples to oranges comparison because of its episodic content and pacing.

For the record though.. No xp for kills was one of the most annoying things about Shadowrun along with the episodic content and lack of saving. Yes Shadowrun had it's faults and I think the way they paced the game was one of the reasons it annoyed me.. I don't want my game to be played in chapters where previous areas become inaccessible or irrelevant after I kill all the baddies.

 

For that reason maybe the lack of kill xp didn't bother people because you really had only one way to play shadowrun and you could never back track or go off the beaten path with some exceptions.. That doesn't sound like the kind of game PoE should be at all..

 

Again these are now my opinions.. The Shadow run for Sega was far superior then the one that got kickstarted.. and I am having dejavu about why that is..

 

 

 

I want that awesome feeling that the IE games captured so well: where you see some dangerous and really *tough* looking creature(s) in front of you and the first thing that goes through your mind is....awesome, I bet this guy's worth a ton of XP.

 

They might still have that; it would just be tied to an objective system. See some hulking monster in the woods, lets call it, "Durga" or something. After you kill it the game shows a list: Durga killed 1/3. Kill three more and you get 300 xp. Now they got you running around looking for more Durga's to kill. It would be exploration, but with a lot of suspense. After all; that corner you haven't checked out might have another Durga to kill.

 

They might have something like that.

 

 

Like this just adds more redundency and layers of complexity that aren't needed to solve the original issue that was supposed to be.. stealthers didn't feel rewarded during quests when they could avoid combat but didn't for fear of missing out on xp.. I already listed 3 plausible solutions all simpler then this..

 

 

Mass Effects are action rpgs where you don't get xp from combat

Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines is very combat oriented rpg, which don't have xp from combat.

 

Wrong.. Mass Effect rewards XP for combat..

See: http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Experience_Guide

 

Also, Vampire: The Masquerade combat gets extremely tedious near the end of the game.. most people run past those final creatures in that sewer because theres no reason to fight them.. It's a perfect example of why combat SHOULD reward you..

Edited August 15, 2014 by Immortalis

[Amentep]

Like this just adds more redundency and layers of complexity that aren't needed to solve the original issue that was supposed to be.. stealthers didn't feel rewarded during quests when they could avoid combat but didn't for fear of missing out on xp.. I already listed 3 plausible solutions all simpler then this..

The problem wasn't just that "stealthers" had a fear of missing out on XP, the problem was that "stealthers" had no way to earn XP to continue being Stealthy as the game progressed. At which point they had to resort to combat for which they didn't have the experience (because it was almost exclusively tied to killing things) to progress.

 

Now a valid argument is that's the way the IE games worked, there was never an expectation that you could stealth (or diplomat) your way through it.

 

But it also made the thief kind of pointless as they really only served to scout, disarm traps and open locks (which could be done by a mage, if you want to spend their talents that way, but the mage could still have combat versitality). Sure, they could backstab, but (IMO) their utility in combat was relatively limited - the bulk of it was made up in the fighter and magic user classes.

 

It made the Bard even more pointless - what's the good of being a gimped mage/thief if you can't be diplomatic like your class is intended?

[Tartantyco]

Also, Vampire: The Masquerade combat gets extremely tedious near the end of the game.. most people run past those final creatures in that sewer because theres no reason to fight them.. It's a perfect example of why combat SHOULD reward you..

 

 

Sounds more like the perfect example of why combat shouldn't reward you. If you can avoid a battle you probably should, and not do it just for the XP.

[Stun]

Oh, and Obsidian is rewarding you for combat.  You get Cyclopedia updates (based on Lore skill) and loot.  Heck, Cyclopedia updates make more sense than divvying out xp for kills.  Since killing a few beatles will basically show you their strengths and weaknesses.  This means that someone becomes more versed in fighting that particular creature, and can use that knowledge to make combat with them easier.  Where killing 3,000 gibberlings somehow (in a game with combat XP) makes it so my warrior is also versed in fighting Ogres, Drakes, Bassilisks, etc.  That makes 0 sense to me.  In PoE though... That fighter might still be level 1, but I would know the ins and outs of gibberlings and their fighting strengths and weaknesses.  That makes total sense, and... I am back to the point I was making at the beginning... I will stop now.

The Cyclopedia is absolutely, mind-blowingly awesome, and the moment I saw it in yesterday's demo the very first thing that popped into my head was: Finally, the trump card against every Combat XP concern I ever had for this game.

 

But then I started thinking things through. And Uh...actually, it's not. Because You're NOT rewarded for combat with it. You're rewarded for having a high Lore skill with it. Makes total sense the way it's set up. Until you roll up a party of Athletic barbarians and try to learn by fighting, instead of lore-keeping, and end up watching as your Cyclopedia doesn't update, because you didn't put points into lore.

 

 

If I keep doing the math equation 5-5=0 I won't be a mathmatical genius next week. If you kill 30 beetles, of a similar variety, you will not be the No. 1 Exterminator of North America next week.

Considering the fact that we ARE dealing with a system that will see you becoming better at combat by repeated TALKING, this example of yours just means that Obsidian has replaced one illogical concept with another.

[Sarex]

The problem wasn't just that "stealthers" had a fear of missing out on XP, the problem was that "stealthers" had no way to earn XP to continue being Stealthy as the game progressed. At which point they had to resort to combat for which they didn't have the experience (because it was almost exclusively tied to killing things) to progress.

Now a valid argument is that's the way the IE games worked, there was never an expectation that you could stealth (or diplomat) your way through it.

 

But it also made the thief kind of pointless as they really only served to scout, disarm traps and open locks (which could be done by a mage, if you want to spend their talents that way, but the mage could still have combat versitality). Sure, they could backstab, but (IMO) their utility in combat was relatively limited - the bulk of it was made up in the fighter and magic user classes.

 

It made the Bard even more pointless - what's the good of being a gimped mage/thief if you can't be diplomatic like your class is intended?

 

But this is such an overkill solution to the problem. Wouldn't it have been better to change content for those who stealth, for an example, trying to get in to a castle while sneaking gets you xp and changes the dynamic of the fight, you fight in the castle and once you finish the enemies outside are gone (ran away or some such thing) vs. just brute forcing your way in and alerting everyone inside.

 

I always took a thief in any IE game as having no lock-pick skill would severely gimp you. Besides late game thiefs had broken skills.

 

Same with the bard.

[Immortalis]

 

Like this just adds more redundency and layers of complexity that aren't needed to solve the original issue that was supposed to be.. stealthers didn't feel rewarded during quests when they could avoid combat but didn't for fear of missing out on xp.. I already listed 3 plausible solutions all simpler then this..

The problem wasn't just that "stealthers" had a fear of missing out on XP, the problem was that "stealthers" had no way to earn XP to continue being Stealthy as the game progressed. At which point they had to resort to combat for which they didn't have the experience (because it was almost exclusively tied to killing things) to progress.

 

Now a valid argument is that's the way the IE games worked, there was never an expectation that you could stealth (or diplomat) your way through it.

 

But it also made the thief kind of pointless as they really only served to scout, disarm traps and open locks (which could be done by a mage, if you want to spend their talents that way, but the mage could still have combat versitality). Sure, they could backstab, but (IMO) their utility in combat was relatively limited - the bulk of it was made up in the fighter and magic user classes.

 

It made the Bard even more pointless - what's the good of being a gimped mage/thief if you can't be diplomatic like your class is intended?

 

 

A thief had so much more viability in non-combat roles then any class. Don't short change them please. You say that thieves could only: Pickpocket, Disarm Traps, Open Locks and scout ahead as if it's a bad thing? A mage would blow an entire tier of spells to keep knocking chests and fighters are supposed to eat the traps?

 

For what the IE engines had as far as non-combat skills.. Rogue was king.. Those games weren't THAT complex.. Also you are making the assumption that I am playing this game solo with a single rogue as my PC.. Like you really wanna have a completely stealth viable game where your rogue just keeps leveling up by skipping combat and then kills the boss? This isn't what kind of game that was being kickstarted. It was a spiritual successor to BG and IWD.. Not isometric alpha protocol..

 

This thread isn't called "Drop Ciphers and bring back Bards" Although again I disagree.. Bards were insanely powerful and one of the most viable solo builds for BG 2..

 

I don't follow the logic of your arguments at all.. and I definately don't agree that Sacred 3 has any form of real progression other then the day one DLC you can buy. It is without a doubt the worst game of this year.. I haven't checked it's meta critic score lately but it didn't look good.

 

In fairness the last point is my opinion.. but I know a lot of people share it..

 

 

 

Also, Vampire: The Masquerade combat gets extremely tedious near the end of the game.. most people run past those final creatures in that sewer because theres no reason to fight them.. It's a perfect example of why combat SHOULD reward you..

 

 

Sounds more like the perfect example of why combat shouldn't reward you. If you can avoid a battle you probably should, and not do it just for the XP.

 

 

Have you played that sewer and avoided the fights? Its retarded.. The end game of Vampires is running around in a sewer like a chicken with it's head cut off being chased by like 15 weird alien looking things because they are boring to fight.. not challenging.. not interesting.. BORING..

 

This is not how to make a game. I think many fans of Vampires rarely actually beat the game because combat slowly becomes mandatory and the game didn't really prepare you for that properly.. Once again.. a successor to BG was kickstarted.. not an isometric vampires game. It's fun for what it is but I don't like it nearly as much as IE games.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Immortalis

[Stun]

But this is such an overkill solution to the problem. Wouldn't it have been better to change content for those who stealth, for an example, trying to get in to a castle while sneaking gets you xp and changes the dynamic of the fight, you fight in the castle and once you finish the enemies outside are gone (ran away or some such thing) vs. just brute forcing your way in and alerting everyone inside.

 

I always took a thief in any IE game as having no lock-pick skill would severely gimp you. Besides late game thiefs had broken skills.

 

Same with the bard.

Not to mention the fact that Bioware spotted the thief problem in Bg1 and addressed it right away in BG2...where suddenly Thieves became XP generating machines with their non combat skills. Disarming a traps nets you 2780xp (and later 3550) and opening locks nets you 750xp (and later 1550). Thieves also got trap setting abilities that were over powered right out of the box and only got MORE powerful with every level up. And Nevermind the free, unlimited True Sight ability they got with their detect illusions skill. And....UAI. which, alone, ends the discussion outright.

 

The result of this design is that, in one of the Great Ironies in all of gaming, Thieves in 2nd edition-based BG2 ended up being one of the easiest classes to Solo the game with. Go figure.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Stun

[Ganrich]

The Cyclopedia is absolutely, mind-blowingly awesome, and the moment I saw it in yesterday's demo the very first thing that popped into my head was: Finally, the trump card against every Combat XP concern I ever had for this game.

 

But then I started thinking things through. And Uh...actually, it's not. Because You're NOT rewarded for combat with it. You're rewarded for having a high Lore skill with it. Makes total sense the way it's set up. Until you roll up a party of Athletic barbarians and try to learn by fighting, instead of lore-keeping, and end up watching as your Cyclopedia doesn't update, because you didn't put points into lore.

 

You get better rewards in the Cyclopedia for Lore, yes.  However, IIRC Josh said in a stream that it updates faster with Lore.  He didn't say that it only updates if you have Lore skill maxed.  It isn't a pass or fail scenario.  I would also expect that one of your 5 companions could have lore for those updates, but it may be the defacto "only the PC can have this skill or benefit from it in this way" skill.  I am not sure.  Still don't see the problem.  As, if a companion has the lore skill... the Cyclopedia will update.  I may have missed a statement on this, but it won't change my view on it.  Particularly because a barbarian (intelligent or not) with the inability to apply the knowledge wouldn't necessarily gain those insights. 

 

 

Considering the fact that we ARE dealing with a system that will see you becoming better at combat by repeated TALKING, this example of yours just means that Obsidian has replaced one illogical concept with another.

No, you aren't rewarded for talking.  You are rewarded for completing objectives.  Some objectives may be completely combat oriented, others a mix, and some completely non-combat.  Some ojectives may force you through non-objective areas with non-objective combat.  Of course there could be another Quest in town that will reward you for beetle killing, or not.  We don't know.  There could also be objectives that present themselves without a quest giver or interaction. 

 

Objective XP is the equivalent of the DM just waiting till you are at a solid stopping point for the evening session before totaling XP.  I have done it many a time in games like D&D.  It is just in Video Game form here. 

[Immortalis]

 

But this is such an overkill solution to the problem. Wouldn't it have been better to change content for those who stealth, for an example, trying to get in to a castle while sneaking gets you xp and changes the dynamic of the fight, you fight in the castle and once you finish the enemies outside are gone (ran away or some such thing) vs. just brute forcing your way in and alerting everyone inside.

 

I always took a thief in any IE game as having no lock-pick skill would severely gimp you. Besides late game thiefs had broken skills.

 

Same with the bard.

Not to mention the fact that Bioware spotted the thief problem in Bg1 and addressed it right away in BG2...where suddenly Thieves became XP generating machines with their non combat skills. Disarming a traps nets you 2780xp (and later 3550) and opening locks nets you 750xp (and later 1550). Thieves also got trap setting abilities that were over powered right out of the box and only got MORE powerful with every level up. Nevermind the free, unlimited True Sight ability they got with their detect illusions skill.

 

The result of this design is that, in one of the Great Ironies in all of gaming, Thieves in 2nd edition-based BG2 ended up being one of the easiest classes to Solo the game with. Go figure

 

 

Until Throne of Bhaal.. unless you know something I don't.. I think most people multi classed at that point

[Amentep]

But this is such an overkill solution to the problem. Wouldn't it have been better to change content for those who stealth, for an example, trying to get in to a castle while sneaking gets you xp and changes the dynamic of the fight, you fight in the castle and once you finish the enemies outside are gone (ran away or some such thing) vs. just brute forcing your way in and alerting everyone inside.

 

I always took a thief in any IE game as having no lock-pick skill would severely gimp you. Besides late game thiefs had broken skills.

 

Same with the bard.

I'm not disagreeing that there were other ways to "solve" the problem (assuming you accept there was a problem). I was merely trying to clarify what the problem was as stated by the devlopers.

 

 

 

The problem wasn't just that "stealthers" had a fear of missing out on XP, the problem was that "stealthers" had no way to earn XP to continue being Stealthy as the game progressed. At which point they had to resort to combat for which they didn't have the experience (because it was almost exclusively tied to killing things) to progress.

 

Now a valid argument is that's the way the IE games worked, there was never an expectation that you could stealth (or diplomat) your way through it.

 

But it also made the thief kind of pointless as they really only served to scout, disarm traps and open locks (which could be done by a mage, if you want to spend their talents that way, but the mage could still have combat versitality). Sure, they could backstab, but (IMO) their utility in combat was relatively limited - the bulk of it was made up in the fighter and magic user classes.

 

It made the Bard even more pointless - what's the good of being a gimped mage/thief if you can't be diplomatic like your class is intended?

 

A thief had so much more viability in non-combat roles then any class. Don't short change them please. You say that thieves could only: Pickpocket, Disarm Traps, Open Locks and scout ahead as if it's a bad thing? A mage would blow an entire tier of spells to keep knocking chests and fighters are supposed to eat the traps?

 

Sure you could play it that way. I did play through BG2 with a cleric casting Find Trap, a Mage Knocking and a fighter absorbing traps.

 

But, at the end of day, ultimately the player of a thief character - despite the utility there was in their skills (again not as much as P&P) they were ultimately forced into a combat role (which I think was better served by fighters and mages).

 

For what the IE engines had as far as non-combat skills.. Rogue was king.. Those games weren't THAT complex.. Also you are making the assumption that I am playing this game solo with a single rogue as my PC.. Like you really wanna have a completely stealth viable game where your rogue just keeps leveling up by skipping combat and then kills the boss? This isn't what kind of game that was being kickstarted. It was a spiritual successor to BG and IWD.. Not isometric alpha protocol..

Actually I'm not making the assumption that you're playing solo. Given that we know PoE is using skills and that anyone can buy the stealth skill (like in 3.5 D&D rules used in IWD2), it could in theory be possible to have a group entirely adequate at stealthing past enemies.

 

 

This thread isn't called "Drop Ciphers and bring back Bards" Although again I disagree.. Bards were insanely powerful and one of the most viable solo builds for BG 2..

BUT they couldn't talk their way out of situations like they can in P&P.

 

I don't follow the logic of your arguments at all.. and I definately don't agree that Sacred 3 has any form of real progression other then the day one DLC you can buy. It is without a doubt the worst game of this year.. I haven't checked it's meta critic score lately but it didn't look good.

 

In fairness the last point is my opinion.. but I know a lot of people share it..

 

I'm not surprised people don't like Sacred 3, not surprised at all. I admit to a high level of tolerance for action RPGs (or even just isometric or top down action games).  That said you can spend money to buy segments on a progression trees for every talent and item you equip, so it has a progression system (even if a weird one).

 

I have no clue what the DLC is other than two areas and the "free" DLC of the 5th character (a stupid decision, IMO).

[Stun]

 

Considering the fact that we ARE dealing with a system that will see you becoming better at combat by repeated TALKING, this example of yours just means that Obsidian has replaced one illogical concept with another.

No, you aren't rewarded for talking.  You are rewarded for completing objectives.

 

Which can often be done by Talking. Which means the illogical notion of diplomaticking your way to better sword-fighting is still an option. Stop splitting hairs.

 

 

 

Objective XP is the equivalent of the DM just waiting till you are at a solid stopping point for the evening session before totaling XP. I have done it many a time in games like D&D. It is just in Video Game form here.

Most. Overused. Misconception. Ever.

 

Not sure how lazy your DM was, but ours was a tediously methodical book-keeping nerd. We most Definitely got precisely the XP rewards for every individual creature we killed, calculated and adjusted according to every hitpoint bonus of each creature. And while we did indeed get the XP as a lump sum at the end of each gaming session, we DID NOT get XP for stuff we didn't kill. Nor were we ever short changed for any monster that we did kill (for example, if we managed an entire dungeon level in one session, and it had, say, 23 orcs on it, and we managed to kill 16 of them while skipping the last 3 rooms which had 7 orcs, We got precisely the XP rewards for killing 16. The lump sum did not include some arbitrary total based on some arbitrary "objective" like: "Find the stairs and decend to level 2", Or "liberate level 1" or whatever PoE is going to be doing.)

 

The only deviation to this is in the rare times when we came up with a particularly clever way to solve a combat/noncombat problem. In those cases we got a Bonus that was above and beyond the kill XP and it was rewarded to us immediately, instead of being part of the lump sum at the end of the session.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Stun

[Immortalis]

 

But this is such an overkill solution to the problem. Wouldn't it have been better to change content for those who stealth, for an example, trying to get in to a castle while sneaking gets you xp and changes the dynamic of the fight, you fight in the castle and once you finish the enemies outside are gone (ran away or some such thing) vs. just brute forcing your way in and alerting everyone inside.

 

I always took a thief in any IE game as having no lock-pick skill would severely gimp you. Besides late game thiefs had broken skills.

 

Same with the bard.

I'm not disagreeing that there were other ways to "solve" the problem (assuming you accept there was a problem). I was merely trying to clarify what the problem was as stated by the devlopers.

 

 

 

The problem wasn't just that "stealthers" had a fear of missing out on XP, the problem was that "stealthers" had no way to earn XP to continue being Stealthy as the game progressed. At which point they had to resort to combat for which they didn't have the experience (because it was almost exclusively tied to killing things) to progress.

 

Now a valid argument is that's the way the IE games worked, there was never an expectation that you could stealth (or diplomat) your way through it.

 

But it also made the thief kind of pointless as they really only served to scout, disarm traps and open locks (which could be done by a mage, if you want to spend their talents that way, but the mage could still have combat versitality). Sure, they could backstab, but (IMO) their utility in combat was relatively limited - the bulk of it was made up in the fighter and magic user classes.

 

It made the Bard even more pointless - what's the good of being a gimped mage/thief if you can't be diplomatic like your class is intended?

 

A thief had so much more viability in non-combat roles then any class. Don't short change them please. You say that thieves could only: Pickpocket, Disarm Traps, Open Locks and scout ahead as if it's a bad thing? A mage would blow an entire tier of spells to keep knocking chests and fighters are supposed to eat the traps?

 

Sure you could play it that way. I did play through BG2 with a cleric casting Find Trap, a Mage Knocking and a fighter absorbing traps.

 

But, at the end of day, ultimately the player of a thief character - despite the utility there was in their skills (again not as much as P&P) they were ultimately forced into a combat role (which I think was better served by fighters and mages).

 

For what the IE engines had as far as non-combat skills.. Rogue was king.. Those games weren't THAT complex.. Also you are making the assumption that I am playing this game solo with a single rogue as my PC.. Like you really wanna have a completely stealth viable game where your rogue just keeps leveling up by skipping combat and then kills the boss? This isn't what kind of game that was being kickstarted. It was a spiritual successor to BG and IWD.. Not isometric alpha protocol..

Actually I'm not making the assumption that you're playing solo. Given that we know PoE is using skills and that anyone can buy the stealth skill (like in 3.5 D&D rules used in IWD2), it could in theory be possible to have a group entirely adequate at stealthing past enemies.

 

 

This thread isn't called "Drop Ciphers and bring back Bards" Although again I disagree.. Bards were insanely powerful and one of the most viable solo builds for BG 2..

BUT they couldn't talk their way out of situations like they can in P&P.

 

I don't follow the logic of your arguments at all.. and I definately don't agree that Sacred 3 has any form of real progression other then the day one DLC you can buy. It is without a doubt the worst game of this year.. I haven't checked it's meta critic score lately but it didn't look good.

 

In fairness the last point is my opinion.. but I know a lot of people share it..

 

I'm not surprised people don't like Sacred 3, not surprised at all. I admit to a high level of tolerance for action RPGs (or even just isometric or top down action games).  That said you can spend money to buy segments on a progression trees for every talent and item you equip, so it has a progression system (even if a weird one).

 

I have no clue what the DLC is other than two areas and the "free" DLC of the 5th character (a stupid decision, IMO).

 

 

Your just giving IE **** for not being closer to P&P at this point.. which I would agree.. but dropping Combat XP wouldn't fix any of those problems. Do i want bards and thieves to talk their way out of a mess with high diplomacy checks? YOU BET!

 

I love those archetypes and being a quick talker who avoids combat.. I would never argue to abandon that.. NWN 2 strikes the common ground I feel.. You can avoid combat in lots of situations putting those extra PnP skills to use and usually got a bonus experience pool for it too.. It was great..

 

What was wrong with that? Why can't we have both.. I know NWN 2 OC wasn't the most popular game.. but MOTB was regarded as a very high quality plot in writing, skill usage and setting.. It gave XP for combat.. bonus xp for solving quests intelligently.. was fairly challenging..

 

Am I missing something?

Edited August 15, 2014 by Immortalis

[Silent Winter]

 

No backtracking at least, as you can now rest anywhere (provided no enemies around) as in BG - just need the camping supplies.

Camping supplies, Yes. I guess those don't count. I guess it doesn't really matter that they're a limited resource either, and that you most certainly CAN use them all up... fighting trash mobs for no in game reason. And then lets not forget the real kick in the balls: The "objective's" Boss is in the next room. You look at your party and realize that everyone's used up their powerful per day talents and spells. Everyone's Hurt. Hey no problem, just rest. No wait, you can't. You've used up your camping supplies in your previous struggles-for-no-reason.

 

Oops, looks like your options are limited now:

 

1) Backtrack to the nearest inn to get some rest (hey! didn't you say No Backtracking?)

2) Take on the Boss at half strength and without all your big guns and hope he doesn't rip your now-impotent party to shreds.

3) Pray that you can talk your way to a resolution against the boss, even though that is neither what you wanted to do, nor does it jive with your own personal roleplaying.

 

At least if they had given you XP for your efforts against the trash mobs, the blow here wouldn't feel so....pointless.

 

I brought them up because they do count.  I was only addressing the backtracking to camp point.

I agree with your concerns here and hope that Obsidian balance the availability of camping supplies to the level of difficulty.

(But getting a few xp for killing the beetles would in no way appease the tedium of backtracking to the town because of it)

Looking at the gameplay video of the early game (Giantbomb/IGN) it looks like camping supplies are around enough.  Perhaps that's something the beta backers can have input into "It was too hard to beat with per-encounter skills / I needed to rest too often"

 

I just hope they won't be stubborn and are willing to change it for the expansion or the next game, if it really does turn out to be a bad decision.

Agreed - if it turns out to have been a bad decision, they should just hold their hands up and say "sorry, thought it'd work - fixing it in the expansion"

No grudges, just make the best decision for the franchise.

 

 

I'm not quite sure how you come to this conclusion. If there are enemies between you and the objective, then they are part of the challenge, filler or not.

My apologies if I'm getting the 2 threads where we are discussing this mixed up but I thought I already addressed this point like 3 times.

 

What happens if I'm NOT ON AN OBJECTIVE? Josh said this game will focus heavily on exploration. That means that we should be able to enter a map, and start exploring it. So NO, I'm NOT ok with losing out on XP simply because I decided to clear out that map before getting some "objective" to "go-there-and-do-this". In *my* situation, the enemies I encounter are not "in between me and any objective"....except for maybe my objective to gain combat experience by combatting them.

Even if you're not on the quest given by the NPC, you get the objective rewards for dealing with it - in one of the gamescon streams, Adam went straight for the Ogre and got the XP, then backtracked to the farmer and learned about the quest and turned it in (and got a piglet )

I don't remember if he got more xp when he turned it in - anyone? (though that could be under 'exploration of the town' - if you're not talking to people, you're not adventuring right)

 

Facepalm! What would you say are the possible professions in PoE?

Dairy farmer!  ("How appropriate, you fight like a cow")

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Also, Vampire: The Masquerade combat gets extremely tedious near the end of the game.. most people run past those final creatures in that sewer because theres no reason to fight them.. It's a perfect example of why combat SHOULD reward you..

 

 

Strangely enough, I see it more as an example of why combat should be engaging and interesting in its own right, but YMMV.

[Immortalis]

 

 

Also, Vampire: The Masquerade combat gets extremely tedious near the end of the game.. most people run past those final creatures in that sewer because theres no reason to fight them.. It's a perfect example of why combat SHOULD reward you..

 

 

Strangely enough, I see it more as an example of why combat should be engaging and interesting in its own right, but YMMV.

 

 

Yes of course your right.. I wasn't saying that Vampires is empirical evidence that combat should always give XP.. It had alot of combat issues beyond xp rewards.

 

I just don't like it being used as a poster child for why no xp for combat works.. it didn't work in that game..

[sibakruom]

 

It's not necessary to reward combat to make a game combat-focused.

 

I'm not sure I can agree with this.  There has to be some incentive for doing anything in a game (otherwise its an option that will never be used and its inclusion is pointless).

 

As I've been trying to say, this is only true if there is another option. This is why I half expect most of the combats in PoE to be a mix of:

- unavoidable (most of the filler encounters).

- avoidable, but there is a tangible reward for fighting (during exploration of wilderness segments - yes, the reward can include XP, and no, it's not contradictory in my mind).

- avoidable, but it's during a specific segment (like infiltrating a building).

- avoidable, but it's (one of) the decisive encounter of the quest-line.

 

The question then becomes what I've already asked: does it really matter if you get XP for each little steps, or in bigger chunks once you reach a milestone? Personally, I answer no, but others have clearly answered yes. Whch is why, as Zansatsu pointed out, we aren't going to convince each others.

[Silent Winter]

 

Which can often be done by Talking. Which means the illogical notion of diplomaticking your way to better sword-fighting is still an option. Stop splitting hairs.

 

Yeah - xp is abstract - you can't go arguing that getting xp for quest-objectives is somehow more logical than getting it for kills in terms of better representing the learning process - they're both non-simulationist.

 

 

Your just giving IE **** for not being closer to P&P at this point.. which I would agree.. but dropping Combat XP wouldn't fix any of those problems. Do i want bards and thieves to talk their way out of a mess with high diplomacy checks? YOU BET!

 

I love those archetypes and being a quick talker who avoids combat.. I would never argue to abandon that.. NWN 2 strikes the common ground I feel.. You can avoid combat in lots of situations putting those extra PnP skills to use and usually got a bonus experience pool for it too.. It was great..

 

What was wrong with that? Why can't we have both.. I know NWN 2 OC wasn't the most popular game.. but MOTB was regarded as a very high quality plot in writing, skill usage and setting.. It gave XP for combat.. bonus xp for solving quests intelligently.. was fairly challenging..

 

Am I missing something?

 

no, you're not wrong - there's nothing wrong with the way it was done there - I'm just on board with the way things are being done here as I think it'll work out fine

[Ganrich]

 

Which can often be done by Talking. Which means the illogical notion of diplomaticking your way to better sword-fighting is still an option. Stop splitting hairs.

 

Touche, but since we have seen that getting from point A to Z puts you through some combat, and Obsidian has said many encounters are unavoidable... I don't see it as splitting hairs.  Also, as you said "Which can often be done by Talking", but it doesn't always have to be.  It more often than not will be though.  That example is a double edged sword though... as I don't think beating up Ogre's with a sword should make my Lore skill or Mechanic skill go up, but with combat XP it would.  In the NWN games my Diplomacy, intimidate, and Bluff skills went up because I killed Orcs.  That makes sense.  Stop splitting hairs.

 

A skill based character should still see power growth by using skills.  A Combat based character for combat.  We could do that, and have the balancing nightmare from BG 1 and 2 that you pointed out earlier.  Or, we could realize that Class based systems have inadaquecies, no matter how XP is given out, and learn to live with it. 

[Amentep]

Yeah I agree there's nothing wrong with the approach the IE or NWN took.

 

I understand why Obs is doing PoE with Quest XP (because, I think, its an easier to implement high-level solution than micromanaging each Kill/Stealth/Diplomatic XP reward). Whether Quest XP as Obsidian designs it turns out to be equivalent or not (from a player's perspective) to how Kill XP would be done (for the fighting player) is the big question.

 

I think, if a fighter approach can still get XP for a fighter approach and get fighter specific rewards (ie unique rewards off of enemy equipment not available to stealth or diplomatic solutions) I think it might be okay. Dunno.

[Sarex]

Yeah I agree there's nothing wrong with the approach the IE or NWN took.

 

I understand why Obs is doing PoE with Quest XP (because, I think, its an easier to implement high-level solution than micromanaging each Kill/Stealth/Diplomatic XP reward). Whether Quest XP as Obsidian designs it turns out to be equivalent or not (from a player's perspective) to how Kill XP would be done (for the fighting player) is the big question.

 

I think, if a fighter approach can still get XP for a fighter approach and get fighter specific rewards (ie unique rewards off of enemy equipment not available to stealth or diplomatic solutions) I think it might be okay. Dunno.

 

As we all know the easy way is not always the best way. I sympathize with Obs because I know they are on a limited budget, ie. time schedule, but if anything needed to be complex in this game it was the xp system and the way quests are solved. In my opinion it would have been worth doing the separate xp reward system and investing time in making it work. I know people here are of the opinion that story trumps all other aspects of the game, but that simply isn't true and wasn't the case with the games they are trying to succeed.

[Immortalis]

 

Yeah I agree there's nothing wrong with the approach the IE or NWN took.

 

I understand why Obs is doing PoE with Quest XP (because, I think, its an easier to implement high-level solution than micromanaging each Kill/Stealth/Diplomatic XP reward). Whether Quest XP as Obsidian designs it turns out to be equivalent or not (from a player's perspective) to how Kill XP would be done (for the fighting player) is the big question.

 

I think, if a fighter approach can still get XP for a fighter approach and get fighter specific rewards (ie unique rewards off of enemy equipment not available to stealth or diplomatic solutions) I think it might be okay. Dunno.

 

As we all know the easy way is not always the best way. I sympathize with Obs because I know they are on a limited budget, ie. time schedule, but if anything needed to be complex in this game it was the xp system and the way quests are solved. In my opinion it would have been worth doing the separate xp reward system and investing time in making it work. I know people here are of the opinion that story trumps all other aspects of the game, but that simply isn't true and wasn't the case with the games they are trying to succeed.

 

 

I have to say.. the game looks near flawless besides this hiccup.. the aesthetics, artwork, combat mechanics, stats.. I can't find anything wrong with this game. I even like that combat skills and non-combat skills have been split into different pools so they don't conflict.

 

Obsidian knows what they are doing.. but this XP system feels like the lazy way out.. Sorry just my opinion

[Sarex]

I agree, I really like what I see to, except for the combat xp and nothing I have seen in the backer beta has helped alleviate that.