Jump to content

Experience Point Mechanics - Fighting Enemies


Recommended Posts

Stun's ability to lighten up: no check

 

You're making his statement more specific than it really is. The XP-for-kills crowd is not a hivemind.

 

... Or is it?! o_O!!!

 

"People piss me off sometimes." Am I talking about EVERY SINGLE HUMAN IN THE UNIVERSE? No. It's a generalization. I'm fairly confident you've encountered those in your life by now, unless you're 5. In which case... wicked typing skills, man! You'll go far in life, ^_^

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you're only exploring and fighting for XP, then you're not really exploring or fighting, are you? You are just performing actions necessary for the acquisition of XP. If you like the fighting, you'll continue to like fighting, XP has no impact on that."
 

No xp or level up for anything. Get nuttin for the ogre either. Right? Your logic is foolish.

 

Again, why is the ogre worthy of xp but not the beetles? They are both 'objectives' and 'challenges' to overcome so they both should give you xp. Oh yeah, I forgot. Some npc tells you to deal with ogre so  in order to get xp one must be a slave and work for npcs only because. L A M E

 

Player should get xp for over coming challenges/objectives no matter how they do it.

 

 

PERIOD.

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Player should get xp for over coming challenges/objectives no matter how they do it.

 

 

PERIOD.

Then players should get XP for jumping over streams, or landing hits on training dummies, or hitting a bunny from 100 yards with a bow. Congrats, you've got Adventurer Simulator 2K14.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

A) spaghetti is delicious. Are you saying my argument is delicious?

 

B) How? You yourself just said that challenges should result in XP. Beetles aren't the only thing that presents a challenge. Nor are living things, for that matter.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one answered this question before when I asked it. So I am going to ask because no one in the last 14 pages has directly or indirectly answered it. Why is exp for killing monsters the only motive for doing it. Is it because no game has given you meaning ful rewards otherwise.

 

Example lets say your adventuring and you find a cave. Going through the cave you fight a bunch of monsters a big bad voodoo daddy and find a chest. Inside the chest are lute strings, and a note saying dear big bad voodoo daddy here are your magic strings. You turn to your useless bard and say hey you have a pretty high lore skill identify these and put these on you lute. boom 10k exp and now your bard isn't useless he's playing songs that fear enemies charm pretty ladies at the inn even getting sirens to fight with you.

 

Now knowing about this cave not giving you exp to fight the monsters would you roll a complete part of stealth just to get threw this one part even if you arnt a sneaky kind of player.

 

Sorry for punctuation doing this on my phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you are trolling for fun. Spaghetti is fun. So, it fits.

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

 

I'm just asking a question you're refusing to answer. This is the very heart of the issue. You obviously think it's ridiculous to get XP for pegging distant bunnies, or fighting training dummies all day. Why? What makes that ridiculous, and getting XP for fighting beetles-that-will-attack-you-if-you-screw-with-them non-ridiculous?

 

Another thing to look at, in relation to your "WHY OGRE XP BUT NO BEETLE XP?!" question is this:

 

Why were quests ever invented in the first place? Why do you get 1,000 XP for killing that dude that just so happens to be holding the princess hostage, but only 300 XP for killing his twin brother who happens to not be holding any princesses hostage and is just chilling in his hut, having tea? What is generating that 700 XP? The act of saving the princess? But, you saved her by killing the dude. But killing the dude is only worth 300! The act of combat with him, it warrants 300 XP! WTF?!

 

So, you see? I'm with you, I'm just wondering how what you're getting at has any more consistency than anything else. Or... are you just saying nothing but acts that would actually bestow experience upon someone in real life should produce XP in the game? Because then, it would just be a grind-fest. I see no alternative, based on your line of reasoning.

Edited by Lephys

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why is exp for killing monsters the only motive for doing it."

 

I certainly didn't claim it was the 'only' motive. In fact, it's probably relatively low on my list of 'motives'. It's not even about 'killing'.It's just silly to me that the ogre is worth xp but not the beetles.

 

IT. IS. ILLOGICAL.

 

Is ph@t lewt like your example the only reason why you explore?

Edited by Volourn

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one answered this question before when I asked it. So I am going to ask because no one in the last 14 pages has directly or indirectly answered it. Why is exp for killing monsters the only motive for doing it. Is it because no game has given you meaning ful rewards otherwise.

 

1. Xp for killing monsters isn't the only reason for doing it.

2. Probably.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No one answered this question before when I asked it. So I am going to ask because no one in the last 14 pages has directly or indirectly answered it. Why is exp for killing monsters the only motive for doing it. Is it because no game has given you meaning ful rewards otherwise.

Example lets say your adventuring and you find a cave. Going through the cave you fight a bunch of monsters a big bad voodoo daddy and find a chest. Inside the chest are lute strings, and a note saying dear big bad voodoo daddy here are your magic strings. You turn to your useless bard and say hey you have a pretty high lore skill identify these and put these on you lute. boom 10k exp and now your bard isn't useless he's playing songs that fear enemies charm pretty ladies at the inn even getting sirens to fight with you.

Now knowing about this cave not giving you exp to fight the monsters would you roll a complete part of stealth just to get threw this one part even if you arnt a sneaky kind of player.

Sorry for punctuation doing this on my phone.

Well I feel it has but OK here let's go. Basically what if I don't have a bard, now the strings are only really useful to sell so that trip was a bust because meh usually money is trivial. Now i did get some xp for exploration, but it would have been nice to add in some experience for all the effort to loot a cave where i came up bust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I was as outraged by this dicision as alot of you guys obviously are. How dare they take away my combat xp! It's like they found the one thing that they could do that would crush my soul, and then gleefully set about it. But the more I thought about it the more I realized that this is actually a good thing.

 

In the IE games I would always just murder everything for its delicious, delicious xp. Why would I sneak past something or talk my way out of something when there is MURDER. Murder solves everything.

 

I think that objective based xp will encourage me to play in ways that I haven't in the past. It encourages people to play how they want to play and not worry about missing out on kill xp.

 

This is a very "gamey" way of doing it, but any system that has xp as a reward is going to be nonsensical and "gamey" at times.

 

Because they went with an objective based xp system the developers didn't have to waste time on any of the kill xp balance, pacing, or anything. That means that they put that time=money into other (and in my opinion more important) aspects of the game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No one answered this question before when I asked it. So I am going to ask because no one in the last 14 pages has directly or indirectly answered it. Why is exp for killing monsters the only motive for doing it. Is it because no game has given you meaning ful rewards otherwise.

 

Example lets say your adventuring and you find a cave. Going through the cave you fight a bunch of monsters a big bad voodoo daddy and find a chest. Inside the chest are lute strings, and a note saying dear big bad voodoo daddy here are your magic strings. You turn to your useless bard and say hey you have a pretty high lore skill identify these and put these on you lute. boom 10k exp and now your bard isn't useless he's playing songs that fear enemies charm pretty ladies at the inn even getting sirens to fight with you.

 

Now knowing about this cave not giving you exp to fight the monsters would you roll a complete part of stealth just to get threw this one part even if you arnt a sneaky kind of player.

 

Sorry for punctuation doing this on my phone.

You're asking if I'd bypass the completely rewardless combat in order to grab the magic lute strings? Yes. I would. (although the notion of treasure that grants you XP rewards is amusing. And unique to say the least.)

 

On the other hand, if the game gave us XP for kills, And the Big Voodoo daddy was a really tough opponent who's worth a great deal of EXP, then I'd take my time and relish every moment of the combat, and then, after killing him and getting a giant XP boost, I'd grab the loot strings as the icing on the case.

 

 

Not really a tough decision here, although I'd like to caution again against a system that uses loot as a crutch. If you condition the gamer on the expectation that he will always be rewarded with ph@t loot, then you are setting your game up for tragic failure. Because such systems inevitably spiral out of control as the gamer loses appreciation for the current level of the treasure he finds due to its sheer abundance and so to keep him interested, you must constantly increase the power level of this loot. And the next thing you know, your game world is littered with +10 Vorpal Swords of Godslaying, and enemies no longer pose a challenge because you've turned the player's party into an invincible band of overpowered artifact hoarders.

 

The best way to handle rewards is to vary them. Have XP for kills. Have quest XP for non-kills, have some battles that net minimal XP but great loot. Have some battles that net enormous XP but no loot....etc.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I was as outraged by this dicision as alot of you guys obviously are. How dare they take away my combat xp! It's like they found the one thing that they could do that would crush my soul, and then gleefully set about it. But the more I thought about it the more I realized that this is actually a good thing.

 

In the IE games I would always just murder everything for its delicious, delicious xp. Why would I sneak past something or talk my way out of something when there is MURDER. Murder solves everything.

 

I think that objective based xp will encourage me to play in ways that I haven't in the past. It encourages people to play how they want to play and not worry about missing out on kill xp.

 

This is a very "gamey" way of doing it, but any system that has xp as a reward is going to be nonsensical and "gamey" at times.

 

Because they went with an objective based xp system the developers didn't have to waste time on any of the kill xp balance, pacing, or anything. That means that they put that time=money into other (and in my opinion more important) aspects of the game.

Again that's a personal tail you weave about how you became a murderous mad man. However I played those games, love kill xp, and actually RP'd my way through the game. I fought when it felt appropriate for the situation or my character. This argument that kill xp turns everything into a slaughter fest is stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that wasn't my argument. At least it wasn't intended to be. I wasn't being sarcastic.. I would seriously pretty much just murder everyhing. My main arguments are (which I'm sure have been stated many times over by others):

 

It encourages people to play how they want to play and not worry about missing out on kill xp.

 

Because they went with an objective based xp system the developers didn't have to spend time on any of the kill xp balance, pacing, or anything. That means that they put that time=money into other aspects of the game. <~~ I'm not a game developer but it seems to me that this is something that takes alot of time, time they didn't have perhaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya I was being a bit snarky. It's just a difference of opinion. We all admit objective xp feels different than the original way where you got xp for everything, quests, kills, exploration. Some view it very positively where others feel it turned them into "must find and kill everything for xp". We are just different. I like it better. It is going to affect how a lot of people end up enjoying the game. I may be converted but I've played objective based RPGs before. Some good some meh. I can tell you all my absolute favorites though impliment the xp style of combat xp combined with other forms. Fallout 1 2, BG 1 2, Wow, Dragon Age, knights of the old republic i could go on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my absolute favorite games was Oblivion, and that gave you xp for everything even just jumping around. It never even acured to me until years later when i learned people would just ran around jumping for hours doing nothing else to exploit the system. Is that a flaw in game design or are people just weird for doing that instead of playing the game normal? I don't know. I still loved that game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, why is the ogre worthy of xp but not the beetles? They are both 'objectives' and 'challenges' to overcome so they both should give you xp. Oh yeah, I forgot. Some npc tells you to deal with ogre so  in order to get xp one must be a slave and work for npcs only because. L A M E

Other than this point, which you still fail to acknowledge, -> It's not because the NPC said so, it's because the devs decided so ->you get the xp irrespective of talking to the NPC

 

I'm starting to agree with you on this point:

Player should get xp for over coming challenges/objectives no matter how they do it.

Since this was the stated goal of the objective-xp, it makes sense.

If you're rp-ing a pc with a fear of caves (well, you may not get far in the game but bear with me) you should still be rewarded for overcoming a challenge.

I'd split the xp-reward in this case betweem 'finding the cave' (which necessitates overcoming the beetles) and 'the ogre'.

It'd be nice if simply 'overcome the beetles' could be handled as an objective but as others pointed out in another thread - how would you measure sneaking past the beetles? - how close would you need to get? How far beyond them? etc).  (I realise this is an argument for kill-xp in regards to overcoming them through violence but it doesn't apply to other methods of dealing with them.)(Though I'll probably just fight them for what they did to Adam that time)

  • Like 1

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could give an Objective based XP reward for clearing an area of mobs. So clearing an outdoor environment or cave/dungeon could yield xp. Just saying.

Sure - but 'clearing' means killing?  In which case why not just have kill-xp?

It would still encourage kill-em-all for those susceptible to grinding and doesn't comply with the stated objectives of allowing different playstyles to be equally viable.

I'm not saying that "Clear the area of dangerous creatures" can't be a quest in game - just that if you're going to do it for all areas, you're just back to kill-xp but delayed.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stun Your saying you would play the whole game with characters you didn't like to avoid 1.5 hrs worth of combat.

 

And as to the person saying what if I didn't have a bard. It is an example the strings could be anything it's just an example to show something very useful because bards kinda sucked in bgs

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They could give an Objective based XP reward for clearing an area of mobs. So clearing an outdoor environment or cave/dungeon could yield xp. Just saying.

Sure - but 'clearing' means killing? In which case why not just have kill-xp?

It would still encourage kill-em-all for those susceptible to grinding and doesn't comply with the stated objectives of allowing different playstyles to be equally viable.

I'm not saying that "Clear the area of dangerous creatures" can't be a quest in game - just that if you're going to do it for all areas, you're just back to kill-xp but delayed.

Time constraints. Balancing out xp on a per creature basis is different than a per area basis. 3500 mobs vs 125 maps. I am, admittedly, drunk and on my phone. I apologize for any lack of clarity.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...