Experience Point Mechanics - Fighting Enemies

[Tartantyco]

WUT!?! Where did I say this?

 

 

How are you guys not able to even follow your own arguments? I'm not saying that you made that statement, I'm saying that your argument necessitates that you believe that. It's quite simple:

 

Is it or is it not logical for a Rogue to improve his lockpicking ability by stabbing beetles? It is not logical.

 

Did you or did you not say that you wanted the XP system to be logical? You did.

 

Does or does not having a kill-for-XP system let your Rogue improve his lockpicking skill by stabbing beetles? It does.

 

As a consequence of your own reasoning, a kill-for-XP system is not logical and you should not, by your own admission, support it. You do however support it. As a consequence you must necessarily not believe that a Rogue improving his lockpicking ability by stabbing beetles is illogical.

[Ganrich]

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

I didn't see that particular post.

 

Also, how about not feeding into the hivemind bull from a few pages back. I haven't said anything about it myself because it is BS and useless to the conversation at hand.

[Volourn]

You are making stuff up. It is rude to lie. I never said any such thing. And, you even admit I didn't yet you cotninue to spam like I did so why use such a spaghetti argument? LMAO

[Ganrich]

 

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

 

While true... and I should have thought those posts through more carefully.  Don't drink and post guys.

 

You could give the XP for clearing a certain percentage of the Fog of War.  It would be a little different from map to map, and would mostly only apply to outdoor exploration type areas, but... You could reward seeing the map in its entirety (some maps may not allow you to see the whole map because of obstructions like cliffs or bodies of water).  This would most likely increase a necessity to kill some mobs (if not all) while keeping the XP reward away from the kills perse, but killing them will likely make the task easier. 

 

Also, just because the game doesn't reward kills doesn't mean that such objectives aren't in place for exploration purposes.  They could be there already in some capacity as rewards for exploring everything.

[Zansatsu]

 

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

I didn't see that particular post.

 

Also, how about not feeding into the hivemind bull from a few pages back. I haven't said anything about it myself because it is BS and useless to the conversation at hand.

 

 

Look all you objective XP fanboys come off just as hive minded.  I'm light hearted enough about it I made a joke on myself if you look back.

 

 bodysnatchers1.jpg

 

Kill XP!!!!!!!

 

 

 There is a lot of smugness going around it's rather irritating. Oh well I guess I'm a casebook example of change aversion.  I've also said this before, "YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT!" There is nothing wrong with your Opinion. BMW is a wonderful car but I like Mercedes better, also a great car.  This argument comes down to that. Lets be honest this is about balancing, time, money, and Josh doesn't like it.  Most RPG, Yes Yes I know you can all rattle off about 5 that don't, give xp in multiple forms, exploration, combat, quests, and so on. We like that system. It isn't a bad system. I'm not going to hate this game, we've all said that before. I'm absolutely excited about it, we've all said that before. I don't think this is the best decision. People do play games with their feelings. If they aren't fans, ILLOGICAL OR NOT, they will have problems with it.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Zansatsu

[Ganrich]

Eh, I can be light hearted.  However, I have refrained from making similar comments because it does nothing to further the discussion.  Mostly because I think it is too easy to lump everyone in the opposition in the same category.  I try not to be so binary, and not look at posters in a particular thread as people I agree with or disagree with.  I look at everyone having similar, yet distinct, opinions. 

 

I agree with Combat XP people to an extent but believe that the issue has less to do with how XP is handed out, and more an issue of verisimilitude that breaks down because we are using a class based system.  If we were talking a skill system like Elder Scrolls (Not ESO), Ultima Online, or SWG then performing actions would increase that ability and the issue goes away.  However, in a class based system like this, or D&D, or whatever that have non-combat and combat abilities within each class you run the risk of losing plausibility when a rogue's lockpicking goes up because he leveled up after killing a drake.  Or, a warrior's ability to hit a target goes up because he sweet talked some poliical figure into sneaking you into the castle and leveled.

 

However, you could say, "Well between the beginning of level 5 and obtaining level 6 you had to kill some things.  So, a warrior getting more accurate on level up after talking to that political figure is grounded in realism because he probably was in combat at many points in that time."  Well, with Objective XP the same can be said if you get XP for entering the cave.  You aren't getting XP because you entered the cave, but because you overcame obstacles to get there.  Those obstacles vary from non-combat(sneaking by enemies, or finding an alternate route) to combat (killing the monsters in the way). 

 

I like Class based systems, but I am fine pointing out that they are the crux of the issue here.  Not how XP is handled.  Whether this is the best way or not for a game like this isn't for me to judge without playing, but I have had (as others have had) issues with Combat XP in a class based game before.  I would like to see if this holds water as it may alleviate those issues.  It could also create other issues as you Combat XP folks have pointed out, and has in games like Bloodlines.  However, was that Objective XP being a problem or further design issues?  I tend to think the latter is the culprit in this case.  Every system has warts on it, and it comes down which warts you find more tolerable. 

 

I guess I think we are two sides of the same coin.  We are really kind of arguing almost identical points from different perspectives.  Claiming one side has "hivemind" tendencies does nothing because the two sides are indeed arguing the same points from different perspectives.  It is as the old adage says, "Point one finger at me and there are three more pointing back at you."  It does nothing but make people defensive and derail the purpose of the thread. 

 

I agree that I am also very excited, and i think all of us on these forums are.  We all have our issues with the game and the things we love.  In the end we are all here because we want the game on our hard drives so we can play the heck out of it. 

[Stun]

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.

That's an unfounded assumption. And it would mean that playing on Path of the Damned will net you more than the 1500xp for entering the cave, since there would be more than just beetles and spiders outside.

 

Yet, Obsidian has said exactly nothing about increased XP rewards for people who play on higher difficulties.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Stun

[Silent Winter]

 

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.

Perhaps - I was merely pointing out that 'kill some' as necessary isn't the same as 'kill all' as an objective. [stated design goal of Obsidian, not my original idea]

If we're rewarding killing of enemies directly then I'd rather have the kill xp (as stated before, there's nothing inherently wrong with kill-xp) - but having an objective to kill every last one for 200xp v kill almost all of them for zero xp seems a poor design choice to me.  (Again, it'd be fine for a single quest or 2 to involve removing a threat for the locals / faction who hates them, but if it's going to be for every area then just give us kill-xp.

 

 

You could give the XP for clearing a certain percentage of the Fog of War.  It would be a little different from map to map, and would mostly only apply to outdoor exploration type areas, but... You could reward seeing the map in its entirety (some maps may not allow you to see the whole map because of obstructions like cliffs or bodies of water).  This would most likely increase a necessity to kill some mobs (if not all) while keeping the XP reward away from the kills perse, but killing them will likely make the task easier. 

 

Also, just because the game doesn't reward kills doesn't mean that such objectives aren't in place for exploration purposes.  They could be there already in some capacity as rewards for exploring everything.

 

This is an idea that I fully support - partly because I have OCD about clearing the fog of war but also because it solves the problems stated.  You'd either have to kill the hostiles or sneak really close to clear the fog and then be rewarded for doing so.  As you said, the percentage would need to take into account unclearable areas like those over a  large body of water or something.

 

 

That's an unfounded assumption. And it would mean that playing on Path of the Damned will net you more than the 1500xp for entering the cave, since there would be more than just beetles and spiders outside.

 

Yet, Obsidian has said exactly nothing about increased XP rewards for people who play on higher difficulties.

 

Perhaps to make it more difficult?

I don't believe the point was that sneaking past / fighting a different enemy there would give you more xp, but rather having no enemies there would give you less.

I don't think levelling the characters sooner and then giving them harder enemies amounts to a greater challenge - personally, I think 'hard' difficulty should be harder because you're facing harder enemies at the same level as you would face lesser enemies on 'easy'.  Having said that - we don't know how Obsidian has designed it - so if xp rewards are greater in 'hard' then they'll be greater for that too.

[Silent Winter]

In a vain attempt to merge the 2 threads, I'm posting my reply here from the other thread:

 

There is no reason why solving a puzzle should grant xp and killing an enemy shouldn't.

'dealing with an enemy' yes.  I like Ganrich's 'fog of war clearing' goal for this.

 

In reference to geting the ogre-xp without needing to talk to the NPC first (and it being noticed that 'finding cave' is a rewarded objective as I was advocating earlier:

Will you also get the 1500XP for entering the Ogre cave itself?

Yes - watch the 2nd playthrough vid where Adam goes straight for the ogre without asking the farmer first.

[Stun]

 

That's an unfounded assumption. And it would mean that playing on Path of the Damned will net you more than the 1500xp for entering the cave, since there would be more than just beetles and spiders outside.

 

Yet, Obsidian has said exactly nothing about increased XP rewards for people who play on higher difficulties.

Perhaps to make it more difficult?

I don't believe the point was that sneaking past / fighting a different enemy there would give you more xp, but rather having no enemies there would give you less.

 

That would still be an unfounded assumption.

 

Edit: make that a FALSE assumption. I just watched the first gameplay video we got (the one that showed the beginning of the game)

 

Zero XP was rewarded for entering the Glenfathan ruins. And this is despite the fact that:

 

1)there were plenty of enemies outside (in fact, a whole group of Glenfathans)

2)Entering the ruins was actually a plot based objective discussed at camp.

 

Explain that.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Stun

[BrokenMask]

<_< Why are people being so.. Annoying about this? Its like if you guys are trying to write a rulebook or something. And you are having same conversation in two different threads!

Okay, let's assume that 1500 exp for entering the cave isn't balanced to take account of what obstacles you possibly encounter on the way to cave and its just reward for going to the cave. So what?

What does it matter? Why does it matter? Don't tell me this is about logic, exp never makes sense.

 

And on case of the intro gameplay video, well, to be honest, we would need to get the full game to know how it works. Do you only get rewarded for finding optional locations? Is the intro section the only section where you don't get exp for progressing since its completely linear? Was the video that was shown to us from earlier build or something? Etc.

 

Only thing that matters is whether exp is balanced so that player who does everything doesn't remain too weak or become too strong. We already know that main game will be less hard than optional areas, which make sense since if people ignore everything optional, they would have less exp and thus have harder time with main game. Let's just hope that won't mean that player who does everything can just steamroll through the main game. I assume doing the opposite and completing only main storyline quest isn't impossible since otherwise optional areas wouldn't be "optional"

 

In otherwords, what really matters is how the system affects gameplay, not whether those beetles were accounted for 1500 exp...

Edited August 17, 2014 by BrokenMask

[Silent Winter]

 

 

That's an unfounded assumption. And it would mean that playing on Path of the Damned will net you more than the 1500xp for entering the cave, since there would be more than just beetles and spiders outside.

 

Yet, Obsidian has said exactly nothing about increased XP rewards for people who play on higher difficulties.

Perhaps to make it more difficult?

I don't believe the point was that sneaking past / fighting a different enemy there would give you more xp, but rather having no enemies there would give you less.

 

That would still be an unfounded assumption.

 

Edit: make that a FALSE assumption. I just watched the first gameplay video we got (the one that showed the beginning of the game)

 

Zero XP was rewarded for entering the Glenfathan ruins. And this is despite the fact that:

 

1)there were plenty of enemies outside (in fact, a whole group of Glenfathans)

2)Entering the ruins was actually a plot based objective discussed at camp.

 

Explain that.

 

Because not entering those ruins is impossible - it's not an objective, it's a scripted interaction.

I didn't say that entering all caves/ruins would grant xp.  We were discussing xp awarded for exploration / objectives vs, kills.  In the beetles example, you get xp for reaching the cave - having to go through the beetles.  In the beginning game example, you're on rails - you can't 'find' the cave through exploration - you're sent through it by the game.  Why should that award you xp?

[BrokenMask]

 

 

 

That's an unfounded assumption. And it would mean that playing on Path of the Damned will net you more than the 1500xp for entering the cave, since there would be more than just beetles and spiders outside.

 

Yet, Obsidian has said exactly nothing about increased XP rewards for people who play on higher difficulties.

Perhaps to make it more difficult?

I don't believe the point was that sneaking past / fighting a different enemy there would give you more xp, but rather having no enemies there would give you less.

 

That would still be an unfounded assumption.

 

Edit: make that a FALSE assumption. I just watched the first gameplay video we got (the one that showed the beginning of the game)

 

Zero XP was rewarded for entering the Glenfathan ruins. And this is despite the fact that:

 

1)there were plenty of enemies outside (in fact, a whole group of Glenfathans)

2)Entering the ruins was actually a plot based objective discussed at camp.

 

Explain that.

 

Because not entering those ruins is impossible - it's not an objective, it's a scripted interaction.

I didn't say that entering all caves/ruins would grant xp.  We were discussing xp awarded for exploration / objectives vs, kills.  In the beetles example, you get xp for reaching the cave - having to go through the beetles.  In the beginning game example, you're on rails - you can't 'find' the cave through exploration - you're sent through it by the game.  Why should that award you xp?

 

Umm, not that I agree with him, but Stun is arguing that game should give you exp for either killing beetles or sneaking past them and doing it visibly <_< So basically, by his "logic" he could argue that you should get exp for killing Glanfathans

 

Honestly, I don't care whether beetles are accounted for or not. Giving exp for sneaking past enemies as alternative for killing them has that thing that you might as well go to every spot of map with enemies and "sneak" past them to get exp which means that even if you are playing pacifist playthrough, you are compelled to do ridiculous things like "sneaking" past enemies in dead end or whatever.

 

I mean, even the games that award exp for sneaking past places have usually group of enemies in locations where you can't sneak past them so if you want exp for them you have to kill them.

[Stun]

<_< Why are people being so.. Annoying about this? Its like if you guys are trying to write a rulebook or something

 

Okay, let's assume that 1500 exp for entering the cave isn't balanced to take account of what obstacles you possibly encounter on the way to cave and its just reward for going to the cave. So what?

 

What does it matter? Why does it matter? Don't tell me this is about logic, exp never makes sense.

When someone comes on here calling other people *thick* or *dense* or *stupid* and then immediately turns around and offers his own blind, unfounded theory of how something supposedly works and makes sense, then yes, I'm going to respond. And sometimes I might even choose to respond 'annoyingly'. Even if doing so doesn't "matter".

 

Hope that answers your question. I am, of course, only speaking for myself.

 

And on case of the intro gameplay video, well, to be honest, we would need to get the full game to know how it works. Do you only get rewarded for finding optional locations? Is the intro section the only section where you don't get exp for progressing since its completely linear? Was the video that was shown to us from earlier build or something? Etc.

In a game where exploration is a stated design focus, rewarding XP for discovering caves, ruins and such would make sense. Yes. But it would be about THAT....the *discovery*, not "what you had to fight to get there"

 

As for earlier builds, stuff we don't know, etc. That is probably the best answer any of us can give to *any* of the claims being made on this thread. But good luck getting any mileage with such an answer.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

 

That would still be an unfounded assumption.

 

Edit: make that a FALSE assumption. I just watched the first gameplay video we got (the one that showed the beginning of the game)

 

Zero XP was rewarded for entering the Glenfathan ruins. And this is despite the fact that:

 

1)there were plenty of enemies outside (in fact, a whole group of Glenfathans)

2)Entering the ruins was actually a plot based objective discussed at camp.

 

Explain that.

Because not entering those ruins is impossible - it's not an objective, it's a scripted interaction.

 

The scripted interaction had NOTHING to do with the Ruins. It was completely about 1) the purple wind, and 2) freeing the Rogue that the Glenfathan was grabbing on to. So yes, Entering the ruin was an objective. Edited August 17, 2014 by Stun

[Silent Winter]

 

Umm, not that I agree with him, but Stun is arguing that game should give you exp for either killing beetles or sneaking past them and doing it visibly <_< So basically, by his "logic" he could argue that you should get exp for killing Glanfathans

 

Honestly, I don't care whether beetles are accounted for or not. Giving exp for sneaking past enemies as alternative for killing them has that thing that you might as well go to every spot of map with enemies and "sneak" past them to get exp which means that even if you are playing pacifist playthrough, you are compelled to do ridiculous things like "sneaking" past enemies in dead end or whatever.

 

I mean, even the games that award exp for sneaking past places have usually group of enemies in locations where you can't sneak past them so if you want exp for them you have to kill them.

The argument isn't that the actual mechanical act of sneaking gets you the xp - the argument is that dealing with the problem gets you the xp - hence you don't have to go and sneak past each group - only the ones in your way.  If you're getting xp for exploring you can sneak past some, fight others, do whatever you want

I actually agree that overcoming the glanfathan threat (through talking/fighting) should get you xp - but not entering that cave in the scripted interaction which is on rails and unavoidable - maybe get xp for saving Heodan?

[Silent Winter]

 

The scripted interaction had NOTHING to do with the Ruins. It was completely about 1) the purple wind, and 2) freeing the Rogue that the Glenfathan was grabbing on to. So yes, Entering the ruin was an objective.

 

It had everything to do with the ruins - you're told where the ruins are and the scripted interaction takes you into them  It's not something you achieve through gameplay (either through exploration, puzzle-solving or fighting) - it's unavoidable.  Saving heodan, I agree, could have some xp reward under this system - as could dealing with the glanfathan threat beforehand.

[Zansatsu]

<_< Why are people being so.. Annoying about this? Its like if you guys are trying to write a rulebook or something. And you are having same conversation in two different threads!

Okay, let's assume that 1500 exp for entering the cave isn't balanced to take account of what obstacles you possibly encounter on the way to cave and its just reward for going to the cave. So what?

What does it matter? Why does it matter? Don't tell me this is about logic, exp never makes sense.

 

And on case of the intro gameplay video, well, to be honest, we would need to get the full game to know how it works. Do you only get rewarded for finding optional locations? Is the intro section the only section where you don't get exp for progressing since its completely linear? Was the video that was shown to us from earlier build or something? Etc.

 

Only thing that matters is whether exp is balanced so that player who does everything doesn't remain too weak or become too strong. We already know that main game will be less hard than optional areas, which make sense since if people ignore everything optional, they would have less exp and thus have harder time with main game. Let's just hope that won't mean that player who does everything can just steamroll through the main game. I assume doing the opposite and completing only main storyline quest isn't impossible since otherwise optional areas wouldn't be "optional"

 

In otherwords, what really matters is how the system affects gameplay, not whether those beetles were accounted for 1500 exp...

Just out of curiosity and I'm not trying to argue I'm simply curious why this matters in a single player game and it comes up a lot. Why does it matter in the slightest if a player desides to go around and gain a bunch of xp and lvls from doing side objectives thus making him very powerful and allowing him to complete the story with greater ease? I don't understand why people care about that. What am I missing?

[BrokenMask]

 

<_< Why are people being so.. Annoying about this? Its like if you guys are trying to write a rulebook or something. And you are having same conversation in two different threads!

Okay, let's assume that 1500 exp for entering the cave isn't balanced to take account of what obstacles you possibly encounter on the way to cave and its just reward for going to the cave. So what?

What does it matter? Why does it matter? Don't tell me this is about logic, exp never makes sense.

 

And on case of the intro gameplay video, well, to be honest, we would need to get the full game to know how it works. Do you only get rewarded for finding optional locations? Is the intro section the only section where you don't get exp for progressing since its completely linear? Was the video that was shown to us from earlier build or something? Etc.

 

Only thing that matters is whether exp is balanced so that player who does everything doesn't remain too weak or become too strong. We already know that main game will be less hard than optional areas, which make sense since if people ignore everything optional, they would have less exp and thus have harder time with main game. Let's just hope that won't mean that player who does everything can just steamroll through the main game. I assume doing the opposite and completing only main storyline quest isn't impossible since otherwise optional areas wouldn't be "optional"

 

In otherwords, what really matters is how the system affects gameplay, not whether those beetles were accounted for 1500 exp...

Just out of curiosity and I'm not trying to argue I'm simply curious why this matters in a single player game and it comes up a lot. Why does it matter in the slightest if a player desides to go around and gain a bunch of xp and lvls from doing side objectives thus making him very powerful and allowing him to complete the story with greater ease? I don't understand why people care about that. What am I missing?

 

Well, it just feels disappointing when the story that is supposed to be more... Well, I know its bad word to use, but let's just say "epic" is anticlimactic.

 

Like, its always disappointing when final boss is easiest boss in the game.

[Zansatsu]

Alright fair enough. I see why that could bother you. Doesn't bother me but OK.

[Elerond]

In objective based experience systems player/s get xp when player/s do something that makes gamemaster or developers in case of crpgs feel that player/s should be awarded xp. Which often means that there isn't necessary any locked logic behind xp gain, but instead xp is awarded usually more to support gamemaster's/developers' story telling and intended game flow. 

[Ganrich]

Just out of curiosity and I'm not trying to argue I'm simply curious why this matters in a single player game and it comes up a lot. Why does it matter in the slightest if a player desides to go around and gain a bunch of xp and lvls from doing side objectives thus making him very powerful and allowing him to complete the story with greater ease? I don't understand why people care about that. What am I missing?

Just to clarify. My issue isn't that someone else has an easier time of completing the game. It is the other way around. A player that doesn't play into that paradigm has in past games run into an issue of hitting a wall. They hit a boss fight and are completely under leveled. The fight is quite impossible as a repercussion. So, the game in that situation incentivizes players to grind, and more so even requires it. And the player that doesn't do that has to reload an earlier save and repeat a lot of content. It isn't as fun the second go around with the same character.

 

This is partly a design issue and an issue of how XP is handled. The developers in those cases expect at least a semi-completionist run. However, they do it with XP for kills more often than not. Monsters are more random than quests, and when they are used in that regard they inhibit (to an extent) pacifist play styles. (I know Obsidian isn't pushing pacifist playstyle with this game. I am just using it as an example).

 

In PoE, Obsidian can ensure the XP amounts along the critical path is sufficient to complete the game. This would be much more difficult than someone that does most of the side content. It also doesn't matter if the player avoids certain fights. It can be handled in a game with combat XP, but it is both more time consuming for the developer and precarious.

[Zansatsu]

Well see there you go. I've always been a completionist by nature, so have never run into this. I've always enjoyed doing as much as possible in a game and going everywhere. I like clearing sections as I explore. I've never really had the thought, why can't I beat this but instead guess I'm not ready yet. Given those circumstances I get the complaint. OK objective xp I'm fine with it you've changed my mind. I still like the other way better though damn you!!!! Lol.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Just to clarify. My issue isn't that someone else has an easier time of completing the game. It is the other way around. A player that doesn't play into that paradigm has in past games run into an issue of hitting a wall. They hit a boss fight and are completely under leveled. The fight is quite impossible as a repercussion. So, the game in that situation incentivizes players to grind, and more so even requires it. And the player that doesn't do that has to reload an earlier save and repeat a lot of content. It isn't as fun the second go around with the same character.

 

 

Didn't they say there will be some amount of crit-path level scaling that takes care of this problem?

[Ganrich]

 

Just to clarify. My issue isn't that someone else has an easier time of completing the game. It is the other way around. A player that doesn't play into that paradigm has in past games run into an issue of hitting a wall. They hit a boss fight and are completely under leveled. The fight is quite impossible as a repercussion. So, the game in that situation incentivizes players to grind, and more so even requires it. And the player that doesn't do that has to reload an earlier save and repeat a lot of content. It isn't as fun the second go around with the same character.

 

 

Didn't they say there will be some amount of crit-path level scaling that takes care of this problem?

Not sure, but it is possible I missed it.