Experience Point Mechanics - Fighting Enemies

[Zansatsu]

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

Either way there is no guarantee whatever is in the chest will be useful. If it is OK but not....bust, waist of time. If there is a guarantee the chest will always be great then you trivialize loot and run into other problems much of which Stun described.

[Silent Winter]

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.

Sure - it'd save time vs. individual enemy kill-xp - but it's still kill-xp vs. nothing for sneaking/other solutions.

Again, I'd be happy for that to apply to a quest of ridding the area of a certain creature type (Like the zombie-farmland quest in BG) but if it's for every area then you're removing the design goal that was the reason for objective xp in the first place.

 

Also, the game's been designed without kill-xp.  Adding it back in would probably take too long (you'd have to le

[Silent Winter]

Edit: first it didn't post, then it posted twice

Edited August 16, 2014 by Silent Winter

[aluminiumtrioxid]

the notion of treasure that grants you XP rewards is amusing. And unique to say the least.

 

Entertainingly enough, that's how OD&D did it.

[sibakruom]

 

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.

Sure - it'd save time vs. individual enemy kill-xp - but it's still kill-xp vs. nothing for sneaking/other solutions.

Again, I'd be happy for that to apply to a quest of ridding the area of a certain creature type (Like the zombie-farmland quest in BG) but if it's for every area then you're removing the design goal that was the reason for objective xp in the first place.

 

Not really.

The reasoning behind objective-XP is that if an objective has several different appoaches, then they'll all award the same XP. It does not imply that all objectives will have several approaches.

 

As someone on the "ojective-XP only" side, I'd be perfectly fine if every wilderness area had an implicit objective "clear the map of aggressive wildlife." In fact, based on previous comments by Obsidian that PoE is combat-focused and that we're not expected to be able to sneak/talk our way through all of it, I'd say something along this line is likely.

[Silent Winter]

Not really.

The reasoning behind objective-XP is that if an objective has several different appoaches, then they'll all award the same XP. It does not imply that all objectives will have several approaches.

 

As someone on the "ojective-XP only" side, I'd be perfectly fine if every wilderness area had an implicit objective "clear the map of aggressive wildlife." In fact, based on previous comments by Obsidian that PoE is combat-focused and that we're not expected to be able to sneak/talk our way through all of it, I'd say something along this line is likely.

I don't think that's the reason.  I think it's to allow more than one approach.  Getting past those beetles is only a step towards where the objective is.  If killing the beetles is also an objective, then we're encouraged to kill them vs. handling it our own way (sneaking for example).

One of the reasons Josh stated was that kill-xp encourages grinding - having every area give xp for killing every creature would simply bring that back.

Sneaking past the enemy to get to the goal, and then going back and killing them all for the xp would make the sneak part redundant.

Even if you make it just the wilderness areas (not caves/dungeons) then you're still encouraging one play-style as above.

As I said, it's fine to have this as a goal if it makes sense in-world (lots of Creature-A near a settlement causing problems) but if it's everywhere then they should just have gone with kill-xp.

 

I'm fine with unavoidable combat (and will probably engage in the avoidable combat in first playthrough too) - but mopping up every last xaurip to get the xp (which would be significant in the case of 'cleared area' xp - 11 xaurips = no xp, 12 xaurips = 200 xp) on every playthrough isn't something that should be designed into the game.

Don't think it's worth chasing down the xaurips? Great, leave the poor blighters alone with their dragon ... nice dragon

[Tartantyco]

To quote myself from another thread:

 

I think the main point of objective-XP is that you should never decide to do something a certain way just because you get the XP. If killing all the beetles gives the most XP, then people will kill all the beetles. It's as simple as that. The optimal solution is immediately apparent and no more thought has to be given to the possible ways to solve the problem.

 

There simply isn't any good way of implementing XP rewards for stealthing around enemies and stuff like that, so any system where you get XP for "playing your class" will necessarily be lopsided in its rewards. This means that difficulty settings become extremely unbalanced, and the amount of viable party compositions are narrowed. Further, the XP gain will have to be balanced with the "kill everything" approach as the base point, so you'll either end up with a game where anyone who does kill everything has a really easy game, or everybody has to play the game the same way.

 

Killing for XP simply makes the game less varied because of the design decisions that have to be made as a consequence.

 

 

A "clear the area of aggressive wildlife" objective would do the same thing. The optimal solution becomes obvious - kill everything.

[Immortalis]

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

 

He would like the characters he's playing with because the game encouraged him to like them. The first time I play this game I will play the party I get and whatever looks neat and play almost 80% for story and Stronghold construction..

 

The fifth time I play this game.. I will want to play it optimally and if that means a group of Mages with invisibility because the designers made their game in a way that favors that kind of party.. so be it.

 

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.

 

No Xp for Combat isn't the only solution to let people play how they want to play. I have listed several other solutions that attain the same goal. Namely give players a boosted xp pool for solving the quest without combat, make quest NPC's not reward xp.

 

Your second point is actually quite valid. For most game companies I would argue your right.

 

For Obsidian though, the veterans of this style of game.. I am sure they have a way to evaluate how many creatures are in a given area and how much total net worth XP they are worth so they can devise a general pacing for the game.

 

I don't expect most creatures to give large amounts of XP.. quests should trump kill xp.. I just want a small reward for wading through goblin camps.. I don't expect to be Bhaal God of Murder after slaying 500 goblins.

 

 

JDizzle: I took your post a little out of context here.. you also mentioned XP is what encouraged you to kill more stuff.. Granted that was your experience.. for me.. with level caps getting so exponentially high.. I knew usually one or two battles would never lead to immediate power increase.

 

My largest incentive for exploring was generally to find cool quests or find unique powerful monsters that may have items. Items were always my first priority to chase because magic items were generally quite rare and much sought after.

 

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.

 

Oh we have answered this question.. so many times. Nobody on this thread so far has argued that xp for killing monsters is the only reason to fight things. I want the sweet combination of progression (xp/items/lore sheet thingies) and combat to interweave together, like jam and peanut butter. One of those things on it's own is boring, plain.. together though....! an infusion of sweet Ecstasy..

 

Seriously though, if you didn't take the time to read our opinions, don't be surprised when nobody replies to you. You are asking things that have been asked before. No offense intended.

 

 

 

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.

 

You Nailed it in this paragraph Stun. I wanna like this 1000 times. This is what Baldurs Gate is in a nutshell..

 

 

 

It's going to be fun watching the XP-for-kills crowd not explore anything when the backer beta starts because "it's not worth it anymore".

Straw man.

 

I've already stated that when the game is fresh and new, XP (for anything) won't matter, to me at least, because it will still invoke wanderlust and pure excitement. MY concern is the game's long term appeal. 1 year from now, when I'm on my 5th playthrough, will I still enjoy engaging in combat (like I STILL do with games like BG2 and IWD)?

 

 

Starting to think our side might be a hive mind after all..

Edited August 16, 2014 by Immortalis

[JDizzle420]

 

"For Obsidian though, the veterans of this style of game.. I am sure they have a way to evaluate how many creatures are in a given area and how much total net worth XP they are worth so they can devise a general pacing for the game."

 

You may very well be correct that the devs at Obsidian could have tricks for getting this kind of work done alot faster than other companies. But what about the different difficulty settings? They've said that changing the difficulty doesn't just increase the health and damage of existing monsters, but that it also changes what monsters you'll encounter and how many of them there will be. This makes it even more time consuming to devise a general pacing for the game.

 

 

 

 

[sibakruom]

I don't think that's the reason.  I think it's to allow more than one approach.  Getting past those beetles is only a step towards where the objective is.  If killing the beetles is also an objective, then we're encouraged to kill them vs. handling it our own way (sneaking for example).

One of the reasons Josh stated was that kill-xp encourages grinding - having every area give xp for killing every creature would simply bring that back.

Sneaking past the enemy to get to the goal, and then going back and killing them all for the xp would make the sneak part redundant.

Even if you make it just the wilderness areas (not caves/dungeons) then you're still encouraging one play-style as above.

As I said, it's fine to have this as a goal if it makes sense in-world (lots of Creature-A near a settlement causing problems) but if it's everywhere then they should just have gone with kill-xp.

 

I'm fine with unavoidable combat (and will probably engage in the avoidable combat in first playthrough too) - but mopping up every last xaurip to get the xp (which would be significant in the case of 'cleared area' xp - 11 xaurips = no xp, 12 xaurips = 200 xp) on every playthrough isn't something that should be designed into the game.

Don't think it's worth chasing down the xaurips? Great, leave the poor blighters alone with their dragon ... nice dragon

 

 

 

A "clear the area of aggressive wildlife" objective would do the same thing. The optimal solution becomes obvious - kill everything.

 

 

It bears repeating: Obsidian stated PoE would be combat-focused.

 

With that in mind, it wouldn't surprise me if Obsidian decided to encourage fighting over sneaking during the exploration segments of the game. After all, they never said sneaking would be a viable way to play the whole game, quite the contrary. I expect sneaking to offer alternate (and viable) solutions during specific parts of the game, same as every other skills, but nothing more. And even by fighting every encounter in the wilderness, we would still be "playing as our class", since in PoE that mainly means different flavour of fighting (all classes are combat-focused).

I still expect lots of situations/quests/segments of the game/etc where we'll have several solutions with equivalent rewards, but exploring the wilderness isn't one of these.

 

That being said, the problem of "hunt down every single enemy to get the XP" in my example is a real one. But I believe this problem can be reduced by tweaking the objective a bit, instead of just throwing it away.

 

As for the question: why not just use kill-XP if you want the players to engage in combat?

Personally, I believe an "ojective-XP only" system and a "kill-XP + objective-XP" system can be made to work in exactly the same way, encouraging or discouraging the same approaches, and that there's no mechanical reason to choose one over the other. The only reason I prefer "ojective-XP only" is that I feel it's cleaner, in particular for all these situations where you do want the players to try something else.

[Immortalis]

 

"For Obsidian though, the veterans of this style of game.. I am sure they have a way to evaluate how many creatures are in a given area and how much total net worth XP they are worth so they can devise a general pacing for the game."

 

You may very well be correct that the devs at Obsidian could have tricks for getting this kind of work done alot faster than other companies. But what about the different difficulty settings? They've said that changing the difficulty doesn't just increase the health and damage of existing monsters, but that it also changes what monsters you'll encounter and how many of them there will be. This makes it even more time consuming to devise a general pacing for the game.

 

 

Can you be more specific why? The game will be more difficult.. Doesn't mean you need to gain power any faster or slower.. Just means you will need to rely more on tactics / pre-planning / consumable items or whatever.. Not sure how smarter more efficient AI and more difficult creatures hurts the pacing..

 

I wouldn't say the XP scaling or pacing needs to change at all on harder difficulties..

 

Even if it did.. there is still a max level you can reach.. so eventually you will be screwed on hard difficulty if that was the logic your going for.. but I wasn't sure what you meant..

Edited August 16, 2014 by Immortalis

[Silent Winter]

 

I don't think that's the reason.  I think it's to allow more than one approach.  Getting past those beetles is only a step towards where the objective is.  If killing the beetles is also an objective, then we're encouraged to kill them vs. handling it our own way (sneaking for example).

One of the reasons Josh stated was that kill-xp encourages grinding - having every area give xp for killing every creature would simply bring that back.

Sneaking past the enemy to get to the goal, and then going back and killing them all for the xp would make the sneak part redundant.

Even if you make it just the wilderness areas (not caves/dungeons) then you're still encouraging one play-style as above.

As I said, it's fine to have this as a goal if it makes sense in-world (lots of Creature-A near a settlement causing problems) but if it's everywhere then they should just have gone with kill-xp.

 

I'm fine with unavoidable combat (and will probably engage in the avoidable combat in first playthrough too) - but mopping up every last xaurip to get the xp (which would be significant in the case of 'cleared area' xp - 11 xaurips = no xp, 12 xaurips = 200 xp) on every playthrough isn't something that should be designed into the game.

Don't think it's worth chasing down the xaurips? Great, leave the poor blighters alone with their dragon ... nice dragon

 

 

 

A "clear the area of aggressive wildlife" objective would do the same thing. The optimal solution becomes obvious - kill everything.

 

 

It bears repeating: Obsidian stated PoE would be combat-focused.

 

With that in mind, it wouldn't surprise me if Obsidian decided to encourage fighting over sneaking during the exploration segments of the game. After all, they never said sneaking would be a viable way to play the whole game, quite the contrary. I expect sneaking to offer alternate (and viable) solutions during specific parts of the game, same as every other skills, but nothing more.

 

Yes, they said it'd be combat focused.  I'm not arguing that - my point remains that they've also said they're not giving xp for kills to avoid the need to kill-grind.  Therefore it would make little sense for them to turn around and say 'wilderness areas require you to kill all the monsters'

Many of the monsters may be unavoidable - but not every single xaurip/beetle/spider/whatever.

To me, saying it's combat focused just means there's a lot of unavoidable combat - which I'm fine with, I enjoy the combat - but it doesn't mean they're going to actively encourage you to kill every monster.  They don't need to do that when the majority are in your way anyway.

[Immortalis]

 

 

I don't think that's the reason.  I think it's to allow more than one approach.  Getting past those beetles is only a step towards where the objective is.  If killing the beetles is also an objective, then we're encouraged to kill them vs. handling it our own way (sneaking for example).

One of the reasons Josh stated was that kill-xp encourages grinding - having every area give xp for killing every creature would simply bring that back.

Sneaking past the enemy to get to the goal, and then going back and killing them all for the xp would make the sneak part redundant.

Even if you make it just the wilderness areas (not caves/dungeons) then you're still encouraging one play-style as above.

As I said, it's fine to have this as a goal if it makes sense in-world (lots of Creature-A near a settlement causing problems) but if it's everywhere then they should just have gone with kill-xp.

 

I'm fine with unavoidable combat (and will probably engage in the avoidable combat in first playthrough too) - but mopping up every last xaurip to get the xp (which would be significant in the case of 'cleared area' xp - 11 xaurips = no xp, 12 xaurips = 200 xp) on every playthrough isn't something that should be designed into the game.

Don't think it's worth chasing down the xaurips? Great, leave the poor blighters alone with their dragon ... nice dragon

 

 

 

A "clear the area of aggressive wildlife" objective would do the same thing. The optimal solution becomes obvious - kill everything.

 

 

It bears repeating: Obsidian stated PoE would be combat-focused.

 

With that in mind, it wouldn't surprise me if Obsidian decided to encourage fighting over sneaking during the exploration segments of the game. After all, they never said sneaking would be a viable way to play the whole game, quite the contrary. I expect sneaking to offer alternate (and viable) solutions during specific parts of the game, same as every other skills, but nothing more.

 

Yes, they said it'd be combat focused.  I'm not arguing that - my point remains that they've also said they're not giving xp for kills to avoid the need to kill-grind.  Therefore it would make little sense for them to turn around and say 'wilderness areas require you to kill all the monsters'

 

 

There's a difference between.. Killing stuff allows you to level a little sooner then intended as a reward for exploring off the beaten track and.. YOU MUST KILL EVERYTHING OR YOU CANT FINISH THE GAME..

 

Just clarifying.. You are going slightly overboard here.

[DrBrian]

This thread is like a textbook case for change aversion. Let me grab my crystal ball and predict after a full playthrough the overwhelming majority of the "no combat xp" complainers will completely forget their grievance.

 

Also Lephys, I should point you answered emotional arguments with long analytical ones, hence some of the negative reaction you got from the "opposite" camp. Your argumented posts were interesting enough, but opposing rationality to gut reaction is quite unlikely to get positive feedback. Unfortunately there is a rarely room for informed debate in your typical forum exchange.

 

Myself have no worry about that experience system, I'm confident it will change very little while it has provided a significant gain of time in development.

[Zansatsu]

This thread is like a textbook case for change aversion. Let me grab my crystal ball and predict after a full playthrough the overwhelming majority of the "no combat xp" complainers will completely forget their grievance.

 

Also Lephys, I should point you answered emotional arguments with long analytical ones, hence some of the negative reaction you got from the "opposite" camp. Your argumented posts were interesting enough, but opposing rationality to gut reaction is quite unlikely to get positive feedback. Unfortunately there is a rarely room for informed debate in your typical forum exchange.

 

Myself have no worry about that experience system, I'm confident it will change very little while it has provided a significant gain of time in development.

Hear that guys? We don't think like the professor so we are all emotional morons. Our points are invalid, we are basically wrong. 

Edited August 16, 2014 by Zansatsu

[Zansatsu]

This thread is like a textbook case for change aversion. Let me grab my crystal ball and predict after a full playthrough the overwhelming majority of the "no combat xp" complainers will completely forget their grievance.

 

Also Lephys, I should point you answered emotional arguments with long analytical ones, hence some of the negative reaction you got from the "opposite" camp. Your argumented posts were interesting enough, but opposing rationality to gut reaction is quite unlikely to get positive feedback. Unfortunately there is a rarely room for informed debate in your typical forum exchange.

 

Myself have no worry about that experience system, I'm confident it will change very little while it has provided a significant gain of time in development.

What a dismissive thing to say. 

[Volourn]

":This thread is like a textbook case for change aversion. Let me grab my crystal ball and predict after a full playthrough the overwhelming majority of the "no combat xp" complainers will completely forget their grievance."

 

L0L I'm often a huge advocate for change when the change is logical.

 

Anyways, watching the video again and watching closely. I saw: a) 1500xp for enterting ogre cave b) 3000xp for killing ogre (I presume you get this whether you kill him or deal with him some other way) and c) concluding the quest at the quest giver - couldn't see how much though.  So you get 1500xp for entering a cave but nothing for beetles. I don't mind the cave xp because that's a good nod for the spider battle outside.

 

Again, I'll make this clear.  It's not about combat xp. It's about the arbitrary chocies for what's worth xp and what's not. I also don't beleiev this is a 'game ruiner'. In the end, no matter how much xp you get or how you get it, the game will (if developed right) will be balanced for whatever.

 

I just want LOGIC. And, there is no logic on why ogre is worth xp but beetles aren't other than he's part of some silly quest so the PC is a slave.

[Tartantyco]

The current XP system is perfectly logical. You get XP for completing objectives. The problem here is that you're looking for realistic logic in an abstracted system.

 

How does it make sense that you can allocate leveling points wherever you want them, regardless of how you obtained that XP? Why can you get better at thieving skills by killing beetles?

 

If you want "logical" then you'd better argue for logical. You sure as hell aren't now.

[Caerdon]

Anyways, watching the video again and watching closely. I saw: a) 1500xp for enterting ogre cave b) 3000xp for killing ogre (I presume you get this whether you kill him or deal with him some other way) and c) concluding the quest at the quest giver - couldn't see how much though.  So you get 1500xp for entering a cave but nothing for beetles. I don't mind the cave xp because that's a good nod for the spider battle outside.

 

No. You got 1500xp for getting through the beetles and spiders.

[Volourn]

"How does it make sense that you can allocate leveling points wherever you want them, regardless of how you obtained that XP? Why can you get better at thieving skills by killing beetles?"
 

Who says I think that makes sense? Who says my ideal game would do that? You are using the wrong argument, DUDE.

 

 

"No. You got 1500xp for getting through the beetles and spiders."

 

No. You got 1500xp for entering a cave. You MIGHT make a case for the spiders because they are blocking the cave entrance. But, the beetles don't block the cave entrance.

[Tartantyco]

Who says I think that makes sense? Who says my ideal game would do that? You are using the wrong argument, DUDE.

 

 

You did, when you said you wanted XP rewards to be "logical". In some way, you have managed to convince yourself that getting XP for killing the ogre, but not getting XP for killing beetles is "illogical", but you don't find a Rogue being able to improve his lockpicking abilities by stabbing beetles to be "illogical". You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. Either you want the XP reward system to be "logical" or you don't.

[Ganrich]

The current XP system is perfectly logical. You get XP for completing objectives. The problem here is that you're looking for realistic logic in an abstracted system.

 

How does it make sense that you can allocate leveling points wherever you want them, regardless of how you obtained that XP? Why can you get better at thieving skills by killing beetles?

 

If you want "logical" then you'd better argue for logical. You sure as hell aren't now.

This. It keeps being said every other page, or so. It mostly gets ignored. I have said it before in this thread. XP is an abstract system, and as such shouldn't be completely governed by logic. However, if you are going to try to use logic to govern XP you need to use a skill system like the TES games... Not a class system. Because you will always have monster kills increasing your lock pick skills, and/or skill successes giving increase to your archery when in a class system. In a skill system using a skill increases that skill, period. No, illogical overflow of XP.

 

On the note of the beetles being the "only" thing not giving XP in the the demo... I have a few questions. Did we see every quest available in the demo? Nope. Did we see every beetle killed? Doubtful, but we can't be 100% as Adam killed all of the ones we could see on one play through. Were both the town map, and the beetle map completely explored? Nope. I can't say whether or not the beetles do give XP. I will let anyone who would like an answer to that know come Monday or Tuesday. It depends on if I have time to really play it

[Caerdon]

"No. You got 1500xp for getting through the beetles and spiders."

 

No. You got 1500xp for entering a cave. You MIGHT make a case for the spiders because they are blocking the cave entrance. But, the beetles don't block the cave entrance.

 

You can't be this thick. In order to get to the cave, you have to get through the area where the beetles roam. Whether you kill them, sneak past them, lure them away or find a way around them, you have to get through that obstacle somehow.

 

Let's put it this way: if there were no beetles at all, it would be easier to get to the cave - because you'd only have to deal with the spiders - and you would get less XP.

[Volourn]

"you don't find a Rogue being able to improve his lockpicking abilities by stabbing beetles to be "illogical"."

 

WUT!?! Where did I say this?

 

 

"On the note of the beetles being the "only" thing not giving XP in the the demo... I have a few questions. Did we see every quest available in the demo? Nope. Did we see every beetle killed? Doubtful, but we can't be 100% as Adam killed all of the ones we could see on one play through. Were both the town map, and the beetle map completely explored? Nope. I can't say whether or not the beetles do give XP. I will let anyone who would like an answer to that know come Monday or Tuesday. It depends on if I have time to really play it"

\

Which is why i originally asked the question about the video in the video thread before all the butthurt started because some of us aren't part of a silly new age hivemind. LMAO

[Ganrich]

 

No. You got 1500xp for entering a cave. You MIGHT make a case for the spiders because they are blocking the cave entrance. But, the beetles don't block the cave entrance.

So, the beetles don't count because they weren't right outside the cave? The objective was to get to the cave and enter it, and the XP was given by succeeding in that goal. In order to do so you had to make it past a small group of beetles and some spiders. Thus, bypassing those creatures with combat or other tactics are most definitely being rewarded. If your objective is to "bury a fallen comrade" and you dig him a 6 foot deep hole, cover his body with a shawl of some kind, place the body into said hole, cover him with dirt, and place a headstone... You get the XP reward for "Burying your comrade". The XP reward includes the entirety of what you did to accomplish that task. You could have just tossed large rocks over him to accomplish the same task for the same reward. One takes more effort than the other, but they may be rewarded the same. However, how you handle that defines your character. Also, we cannot say that your comrades brother doesn't show up in the near future and reward you, or spit on you, depending on how you buried him.

 

We still don't know if there is a quest that includes the beetles specifically or not. Could be a dude in town who needs Wood Beetle poison glands to make an anti-venom for his poisoned son. Thus, a direct reward for the beetles, or at least some of the beetles. Perhaps the farmers use the pincers of stone beetles to till their lands, and their supply of pincers are short. There are the remaining beetles.

 

Also, killing them is the easier thing to do anyway as they will not be there when you return. Where if you sneak by them they will definitely be there. If you use some form of animal charm on them... The will still be there. Thus, if you don't kill them subsequent trips through the map area are requiring more work.