Experience Point Mechanics - Fighting Enemies

[PrimeJunta]

the system we want, where kills/stealth/talking/etc grant xp, wouldn't take away anything from them as this system does for us.

Ah, but it would. I and several others have explained exactly what and how in great detail in this very thread.

 

(Hint: it's about incentives.)

[Tartantyco]

I wrote that is unlogical if a killing a beetle cannot be an objective. I never wrote that objective xp in general is illogical, because it isn't.

 

You may think that you didn't, but you did. Objective-based XP is XP rewarded for accomplishing a set objective. If killing the beetles isn't an objective, then you don't get XP. Not getting XP for killing the beetles while getting XP for dealing with the ogre is perfectly logical in the objective-based XP system because the developers set dealing with the ogre to be an objective, and they didn't set dealing with the beetles as an objective.

[Immortalis]

 

the system we want, where kills/stealth/talking/etc grant xp, wouldn't take away anything from them as this system does for us.

Ah, but it would. I and several others have explained exactly what and how in great detail in this very thread.

 

(Hint: it's about incentives.)

 

 

Hint: This can be balanced around..

 

Whats wrong with what I proposed 2 pages ago?

[Fatback]

While reading this I am still confused as to why combat will now be pointless and unrewarding because each mob you kill worth 36 exp split 6 ways so 6 xp per person per kill is that deciding factor.

[Tartantyco]

While reading this I am still confused as to why combat will now be pointless and unrewarding because each mob you kill worth 36 exp split 6 ways so 6 xp per person per kill is that deciding factor.

 

We're not dealing with the most rational people in this thread.

[PrimeJunta]

@Immortalis I have explained what's wrong with it several times already. Not going to do it again, sorry.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Hint: This can be balanced around..

 

Whats wrong with what I proposed 2 pages ago?

 

 

Isn't necessarily wrong, but eats up dev time and resources to implement well, and you can achieve essentially the same effect with a lot less fiddling around by simply assigning xp for the completion of objectives.

[Volourn]

"While reading this I am still confused as to why combat will now be pointless and unrewarding because each mob you kill worth 36 exp split 6 ways so 6 xp per person per kill is that deciding factor."

 

I certainly never claimed this.

[Sarex]

Ah, but it would. I and several others have explained exactly what and how in great detail in this very thread.

 

(Hint: it's about incentives.)

 

You have incentive to do both (all) and if properly implemented I don't see the problem.

[Tartantyco]

 

Ah, but it would. I and several others have explained exactly what and how in great detail in this very thread.

 

(Hint: it's about incentives.)

 

You have incentive to do both (all) and if properly implemented I don't see the problem.

 

 

You say "properly implemented", but you don't actually provide a functional system(No Stun, saying "Planescape: Torment" is not a proper answer. It has exactly the same problems). This is the issue. You simply cannot create a system that fairly rewards you for every approach, because not every approach is something that you can mechanically apply a reward to, or that isn't horribly abusable. We've already explained this. You need to provide specific solutions to these issues, you can't just say "properly implemented".

[Fatback]

@volourn yes you have not said that your part was the first 15 pages the second 15 is for other people don't be greedy with the arguing please.

 

Meant as a fun little non serious jest.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Another thing maybe worth considering: noncombat conflict resolution, if well done, is usually heavily dependent on player skill and ingenuity*. This makes noncombat difficulty fairly static. Combat, on the other hand, is just as dependent on your characters' skills and talents as it is on your tactical acumen. If you get your ass whopped, you can always go away, do something else, then return when you're better equipped to deal with the problem, making the difficulty extremely variable. This disparity means there is no way to assign an xp value to combat and noncombat resolutions that accurately represents their relative difficulty for every player. The easiest way to make rewards even remotely fair then is to give out the same amount of experience for every possible resolution, which is the easiest to accomplish by only giving out xp for the completion of objectives.

 

*E.g. in PST you are tasked to make a guy forget, which you can accomplish by visiting a museum, inspecting every item, talking with the curator about these items, discovering that one of them are levitating bird-shaped shards from the river Styx whose water washes away memories, talking to a girl at an entirely different location, discovering that she eats desires, talking to an alcoholist at a third location. noticing that his enchanted tankard keeps stuff in it frozen, convincing him to talk to the girl who eats his desire for alcohol, getting said tankard, then going back to the museum and trapping one of the flying shards with it. Meanwhile there's a lot of other stuff screaming for your attention, so it's not as easy to figure out as it sounds.

[Immortalis]

@Immortalis I have explained what's wrong with it several times already. Not going to do it again, sorry.

 

I haven't seen you reply to my suggestion.. Can you quote yourself for me?

[Stun]

 

 

We were talking about where the fun comes from in combat, and you(Among others) have consistently argued that combat will be extremely boring Pointless, Unrewarding without being rewarded with XP.

Fixed.

 

Go burn your straw man in someone else's face.

 

 

Oh, I'm sorry. Was it not you who made this post? Or this post? Or this post? Do we have another member on this forum called Stun, using your avatar?

 

Show me the word "boring" in any of those posts. Go ahead. Find that word (or a description of it) in any of them.

 

 

(Also, if combat is fun, then it does have a point, and it is rewarding)

Not necessarily. For example, I find it Fun to respond to your silly posts. But it's still pointless... Edited August 17, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

You say "properly implemented", but you don't actually provide a functional system(No Stun, saying "Planescape: Torment" is not a proper answer. It has exactly the same problems). This is the issue. You simply cannot create a system that fairly rewards you for every approach, because not every approach is something that you can mechanically apply a reward to, or that isn't horribly abusable. We've already explained this. You need to provide specific solutions to these issues, you can't just say "properly implemented".

Ok, We could suggest that perhaps you're 1/2 right - that it's practically impossible, given the talent level of Obsidian, to implement a system where you're rewarded XP, systemically, for every skill that the game lets you have and still expect that game to be reasonably playable.

 

But I'm not stupid enough to concede even that much. The topic here is XP for kills. THAT is what we've been asking for since Page 1. And XP for Kills is not EVERYTHING. It's only ONE skill set (actually it is several lumped into one...even better!) So no.

 

And again, the IE games had an XP system that rewarded you XP for kills, as well as quest/objective/skill check XP. And they weren't Broken. Instead, they were all time classics that many of us still play to this very day.

[Volourn]

"(Also, if combat is fun, then it does have a point, and it is rewarding)"

 

Also, if completing missions is fun, then it does have a point, and it is rewarding. Why give xp for it? Your logic is flawed.

[Tartantyco]

But I'm not stupid enough to concede even that much. The topic here is XP for kills. THAT is what we've been asking for since Page 1. And XP for Kills is not EVERYTHING. It's only ONE skill set (actually it is several lumped into one...even better!) So no.

 

 

But that is exactly the issue, isn't it? That giving XP for kill makes killing everything the primary way of doing everything. Leveling now has to be balanced by that playstyle, or that playstyle will be extremely overpowered.

 

And again, the IE games had an XP system that rewarded you XP for kills, as well as quest/objective/skill check XP. And they weren't Broken. Instead, they were all time classics that many of us still play to this very day. 

 

 

The games aren't broken, but individual systems within the games are either broken or severely underperforming. Take the spells, for instance. How many of them are completely useless in the game? The same goes for weapons, some weapon types are far superior than others. Once more, the point of Pillars of Eternity is not to make an identical copy of the old IE games. The point is to create a game in the spirit of the old IE games, something that feels like the old IE games. That does not imply that poorly made game mechanics are going to be implemented.

 

You keep making ten completely opposed arguments at once, Stun. Do you want XP-for-kills because otherwise it'd be boring? Because it's "logical"? Because "that's how the old games did it"? The extent of you inconsistency is mind-boggling.

 

Also, if completing missions is fun, then it does have a point, and it is rewarding. Why give xp for it? Your logic is flawed.

 

 

Uh, no. The reason why you get XP for completing objectives is because that provides the best gameplay experience. It has nothing to do with "making sense" or being "logical", or any of the other nonsense you guys keep espousing. It i implemented this way because the developers feel that it is the best way of allowing players to progress through the game as many ways as possible, with as many character and party compositions as possible, in the most balanced and well-paced manner.

 

And Stun, the word is "chore".

[Volourn]

"Uh, no. The reason why you get XP for completing objectives is because that provides the best gameplay experience."
 

Does it? Does it really? Still doesn't expalin why the beetles are worth squat for overocmbing them but the silly ogre iis when the beetles are trougher and more dangerous and you can't really avoid them and they are threat to all civilized people who want to travel on a civilized build road?

 

 

"It i implemented this way because the developers feel that it is the best way"

 

If they do it the right way. The fatc ogre = xp and beetles = no xp makes me have doubts they'll implement it properly.

 

 

"in the most balanced and well-paced manner."

 

All good games are balanced and well-paced manner. The IE games certainly were despite xp for battles. SRR was despite mission complete only xp .  The system has no effect on this at all.

[Stun]

 

But I'm not stupid enough to concede even that much. The topic here is XP for kills. THAT is what we've been asking for since Page 1. And XP for Kills is not EVERYTHING. It's only ONE skill set (actually it is several lumped into one...even better!) So no.

 

But that is exactly the issue, isn't it? That giving XP for kill makes killing everything the primary way of doing everything. Leveling now has to be balanced by that playstyle, or that playstyle will be extremely overpowered.

 

Only if the developers designing the game are talentless hacks. And players don't bother role-playing.

 

Combat XP can be mixed with hand-placed non-combat XP to give the player options, so that he/she does not feel that the best way to solve every problem is by engaging it in combat. Additionally, XP values can be reduced across the board to keep out-of-control leveling from occurring, and finally, a game can have a level cap to appease people like you who worry about balance in a SINGLE PLAYER GAME.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Stun

[Tartantyco]

Does it? Does it really? Still doesn't expalin why the beetles are worth squat for overocmbing them but the silly ogre iis when the beetles are trougher and more dangerous and you can't really avoid them and they are threat to all civilized people who want to travel on a civilized build road?

 

 

Wow, how many times do we have to repeat this? The reason why you get XP for dealing with the ogre, but not the beetles, is because it's a quest the developers put in. It's as simple as that.

 

Stun, you are either an idiot or a troll.

[Stun]

 

Does it? Does it really? Still doesn't expalin why the beetles are worth squat for overocmbing them but the silly ogre iis when the beetles are trougher and more dangerous and you can't really avoid them and they are threat to all civilized people who want to travel on a civilized build road?

 

Wow, how many times do we have to repeat this? The reason why you get XP for dealing with the ogre, but not the beetles, is because it's a quest the developers put in. It's as simple as that.

 

Stun, you are either an idiot or a troll.

 

^Your blindness. Exhibit A.

 

That is not my post that you're quoting.

[Tartantyco]

I don't have waste space quoting you to respond to you, Stun. See?

[Volourn]

"Wow, how many times do we have to repeat this? The reason why you get XP for dealing with the ogre, but not the beetles, is because it's a quest the developers put in. It's as simple as that.

 

Stun, you are either an idiot or a troll."
 

So, you personally attack Stun because you dislike my post? Wow. Perhaps, you shoudln't be playing RPGs at all.

 

 Your logic still sucks btw.

 

By your logic, if it was a dragon on the road and not beetles  you shouldn't get xp for dealing with it either because no quests or no obective. Just there. L0L

Edited August 17, 2014 by Volourn

[Stun]

I don't have waste space quoting you to respond to you, Stun. See?

But you quoted someone else, responded to them, then attributed their words to me. Because you're blind.

[Tartantyco]

Do tell me how my logic sucks, Volourn.

 

And I dismiss  Stun because of posts like this, which is what I was referring to.