Experience Point Mechanics - Fighting Enemies

[Doppelschwert]

I'd guess you most probably get exp for unlocking the next level of the mega dungeon, as well as for solving puzzles on the individual floors.

 

Where do you see a problem stun?

[Immortalis]

You know they could get around this with an implementation of a bounty system of some kind to encourage general fapping about in the wilderness or maybe just remove XP for kills on certain quest related NPC / Hostiles.

I am going to buy this game either way when it hits steam and knowing Obsidian I am sure it will be great.. but out of all the features and design decisions announced.. this one was the least thrilling.

 

A lot of people in this thread are saying that my opinion on this matter is stupid or a waste of time but it is obviously a large debated topic meaning a lot of backers had the expectation that Obsidian would go in a different direction.. or the same direction as the IE games went.. It sounds great on paper - never again worry how you resolve quests! no more inbalanced rewards! no more killing anything if you don't want to! but I think constant incremental progression is a staple of this genre and maybe it's a little more annoying to balance around but it can be done.. Baldurs Gate and Ice Wind Dale 2 weren't TOO broken..

If this is the route they go it's fine.. but we don't have to be **** to eachother.. Just discuss it with open minds. Maybe we can try to go back to the original way things were in future expansions or game releases.. or maybe someone will release a mod or patch to get closer to baldurs gate.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Immortalis

[Gromnir]

getting closer to bg should not be a goal. baldur's gate xp were broken which is one reason PoE ain't gonna use same horrible system. obsidian is taking the good from bg, and not the bad. basilisk map could get you almost a full level? silly. encourage folks to mow every map to squeeze out every last bit o' xp? moronic.  and bg didn't offer quite the same range o' skills and abilities that PoE will, so you probable didn't even notice how skewed towards combat rewards it were. bg and the ie game approach were flawed. let that aspect o' bg stay buried.

 

and debating does serve a purpose if somebody says something new. nothing new is being said. honestly, check the old threads.  heck, when bg3 and fo3 were being developed by black isle, these same threads were très chic. the black isle folks who were a bit less diplomatic in those days, roughed up the ad hoc proponents for their ignorance. is many o' the same developers on PoE... and clearly if there is any ad hoc proponents on staff at obsidian, they were won over or overwhelmed by the quest/objective based xp proponents. 

 

bah. finished. give it a shot when the next game is being developed.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[DCParry]

I hope that we'll get some extra loot from chosing to kill our enemies at least, didn't see any looting in the gameplay demo though.

 

 LUTE? Did someone say LUTE?!

 

Me thinks no lutes is oppression of the emerging Orlan chanter demographic. 

Edited July 28, 2014 by DCParry

[Stun]

A lot of people in this thread are saying that my opinion on this matter is stupid or a waste of time but it is obviously a large debated topic meaning a lot of backers had the expectation that Obsidian would go in a different direction.. or the same direction as the IE games went.. It sounds great on paper - never again worry how you resolve quests! no more inbalanced rewards! no more killing anything if you don't want to! but I think constant incremental progression is a staple of this genre and maybe it's a little more annoying to balance around but it can be done.. Baldurs Gate and Ice Wind Dale 2 weren't TOO broken..

 

If this is the route they go it's fine.. but we don't have to be **** to eachother.. Just discuss it with open minds. Maybe we can try to go back to the original way things were in future expansions or game releases.. or maybe someone will release a mod or patch to get closer to baldurs gate.

After countless threads on this topic, I see the merits of both sides. I'm still on the "please give us XP for kills" side though. The solution to murder-grinding is, obviously, to give the player a reason not to murder grind. And that, obviously, means rewarding (even heavily rewarding) non violent approaches to problems in the game. Great. Who would ever oppose something like that in an RPG?

 

But, taking it a step further, and forcing the issue, by saying "OK, you will get heavily rewarded for talking or stealthing your way past this encounter and only slightly rewarded NOT REWARDED AT ALL for fighting your way past it.... Is that really a good way of handling things? The Best RPGs make *both* options (violence and non violence) attractive.

 

I'd guess you most probably get exp for unlocking the next level of the mega dungeon, as well as for solving puzzles on the individual floors.

 

Where do you see a problem stun?

Well, I wouldn't flat out call it a problem, so much as something I'm uneasy about. If the bulk of XP rewards you get in the Mega dungeon is from 1) finding the stairs down and 2) solving that puzzle, then I can see the experience going from "explore and take in all the sights" to..... "Run! find the puzzle, then find the stairs down....15 times!"

 

 

But... after watching the demo over the weekend, I'm no longer worried about anything in this game. My trust in Obsidian is nearly absolute.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Stun

[Silent Winter]

... or maybe just remove XP for kills on certain quest related NPC / Hostiles.

But how would you know there's no xp for killing them until after the axe was buried in their head?

 

 

But, taking it a step further, and forcing the issue, by saying "OK, you will get heavily rewarded for talking or stealthing your way past this encounter and only slightly rewarded NOT REWARDED AT ALL for fighting your way past it.... Is that really a good way of handling things? The Best RPGs make *both* options (violence and non violence) attractive.

 

The way it looks currently - you'll be rewarded equally for fighting your way through (plus loot).  So yeah, I think Obsidian have made a good choice.

 

But yeah, it's all been said, the deal's done, and the opening looked great (and will involve plenty of fighting).

Final analysis awaits a full playthrough...

Edited July 28, 2014 by Silent Winter

[Infinitron]

Immortalis: What happens when you've reached the end of a dungeon and then realize you left one single monster alive in the corner of some cave way back at the beginning?

 

No XP for kills: Act like a real adventurer would and move on.

XP for kills: MUST KILL EVERYTHING MUST EXTRACT ALL XP FUUUU

 

For further reading, see "degenerate gameplay".

[Stun]

No XP for kills: Act like a real adventurer would and move on.

 

XP for kills: MUST KILL EVERYTHING MUST EXTRACT ALL XP FUUUU

Is this moronic hyperbole really necessary? Who the hell would ever back track to the very beginning just to kill that 1 remaining mook? In a role playing game, what you're describing is easily solved by intelligently doling out the XP rewards, instead of flat out removing them for the segment of players who might not be roleplaying a party of clever Mcguyvers. Here's an example:

 

You see a pack of Ogres guarding a treasure chest

 

Kill them.... and receive 300 xp.

 

Or:

 

Trick them into leaving the chest unattended.... and receive 600 xp.

 

 

^Degenerate gameplay removed. Since we've just been given a real incentive to not kill grind for XP (the rewards are bigger if you use trickery), while still leaving the option open for those who wish to advance in levels by, heaven forbid, using their fighting skills.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

IMO the best argument for no kill XP is that it makes the developers' lives easier. With kill XP (or picklock XP, untrap XP etc), every time they place enemies, traps, or locks, they'll have to take into account the resulting XP bump. Adjusting XP for each type of beastie in the balancing phase will have global effects, which may throw parts of the game out of whack. If additionally you want to offer roughly equal rewards for nonviolent solutions, you'll have to somehow scale the placed XP to account for that (like in Stun's example). It most certainly can be done, but it's a quite a lot of work.

 

If all XP is hand-placed, it becomes much easier to fine-tune rewards and character development. Combine that with a somewhat open game structure with areas of varying challenge, and gamers who want to push into a tough area early will still get their challenge and correspondingly larger rewards (in terms of loot and, presumably, XP, if XP rewards are scaled to match the challenge). That's a big labor-saver, and given the limited time and budget with P:E, it will result in a more polished game.

 

The second-best argument IMO is related to player behavior. Every game sets up reward systems to steer players to behave in ways the game's makers think will be fun. If the game's makers think that it's fun for players to focus on objectives rather than, say, backtrack to untrap any traps they missed, unlock any locks they missed, and kill any beasties they missed, then it makes sense for them to set up a reward system that encourages that. If they feel that it's fun for players to go around killing things with everything else secondary, then of course kill XP makes sense.

 

Put another way, kill XP makes perfect sense for the IWD's and TOEE, but a lot less for PS:T, with the BG's somewhere in between. I think BG1 would have been just as fun if XP was awarded for exploration rather than combat, and BG2 would've been just as fun if XP was only awarded for meeting quest objectives.

 

While I know the rush of seeing the character go up a level after a tough fight, and that rush is arguably pretty central to the IE games, this trade-off is still worth making IMO, especially if the gameplay is story- and quest-driven. There are minuses, but the pluses outweigh them.

[sibakruom]

You see a pack of Ogres guarding a treasure chest

 

Kill them.... and receive 300 xp.

 

Or:

 

Trick them into leaving the chest unattended.... and receive 600 xp.

 

This example is opposite of Obsidian's stated goal with objective-based XP: no method is more efficient than the others. This isn't about giving incentives for non-fighting methods, it's about not penalising them.

 

However, as arlready pointed out, that still leaves the fact that fighting will have inherently better rewards with the loot drops of defeated enemies, and I'm not sure how Obsidian will get around that one. One solution would be to reward the player with the interesting loot regardless of how the objective is achieved, and what they'll miss will just be regular equipment, or consummables that they may have used during the fight.

 

That being said, I'm not really clear on what defines an "objective." Will XP be granted for exploration? Or, as in your example, accessing a guarded chest (with no quest associated)? Personally, I think it would be a mistake to limit XP gain to explicit quests.

[Gorbag]

I have no problem with no XP for killing enemies myself, grinding was never my thing, and nether is powergaming (although exploring and resolving everything is).

What I'm wondering about is the following scenario:

Imagine if you will that enemies in PoE are, among everything else, loot pinatas. You get experience for not killing them, but you get their loot for spilling their guts.

Imagine that the "How to be an adventurer" manual from IWD2 is right and a major part of players do tend to be "Neutral evil".

Now, facing an enemy, would the actually-neutral-evil player take the XP or the loot? He/she would take both, of course, if such option exists - he/she will go the diplomatic/trickery/etc. way to take the XP along with anything that comes with it, and then turn around and blast the enemy to bits in order to get whatever they drop.

What if the option for taking both is unavailable (how does the player know? - save-scumming!), which whould the player choose? He/she would start pondering on stuff like "Which is the more lucrative action to take? What would I miss out on if I take the XP? The Holy avenger? A token for the item-dispensing machine located on the next dungeon level? A side quest related thing?" Well, the only way to know is to save-scum more and find out.

Outcome A: "I'm glad I didn't take the XP, imagine how screwed I'd be if I missed this"

Outcome B: "Well, this was a waste of time *reloads and takes the XP*

 

My point is, players who act like this are hardly a minority, so how long do you think it would take before the above procedure wears them down to the point where they stop playing? 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

What if the option for taking both is unavailable (how does the player know? - save-scumming!), which whould the player choose? He/she would start pondering on stuff like "Which is the more lucrative action to take? What would I miss out on if I take the XP? The Holy avenger? A token for the item-dispensing machine located on the next dungeon level? A side quest related thing?" Well, the only way to know is to save-scum more and find out.

Outcome A: "I'm glad I didn't take the XP, imagine how screwed I'd be if I missed this"

Outcome B: "Well, this was a waste of time *reloads and takes the XP*

 

My point is, players who act like this are hardly a minority, so how long do you think it would take before the above procedure wears them down to the point where they stop playing? 

 

Sounds tedious and time consuming. Would be easier to read a walkthrough than what you're suggesting. With a walkthrough, you can work out the most optimal path with the best rewards. I'd be very surprised if players are save scumming so much and going back to check what the other decision would give. If they are, I'd expect them to be in the minority. Walkthroughs come out the same time as the game and have done so for years. Even back in the 90s there were walkthroughs you could download. I know when I finished BG1 for the first time and then checked a walkthrough, it blew my mind on how much stuff I missed. The same will happen with PoE with players checking the walkthrough for the most optimal playthrough No need for save scumming regardless of what reward system has been implemented in the game.

[Gorbag]

^ Of course you are right, but detailed walkthroughs usually take some time. What I'm worried about is the game's initial reception as games rarely get second chances these days. The game is not powergamer-friendly, which may drive off some people, even some of those who like the IE games.

[Karkarov]

Dishonored doesn't have kill EXP either and even seems to be a game that wants you to stealth everything and I left a helacious pile of corpses behind me in that game.  It will be fine for Eternity.  The no kill exp is honestly a good thing because it doesn't force you to go murder munchkin just to max your exp or to choose a violent solution over a non violent one simply for fear of lost reward.

[Stun]

I have no problem with no XP for killing enemies myself, grinding was never my thing, and nether is powergaming (although exploring and resolving everything is).

What I'm wondering about is the following scenario:

Imagine if you will that enemies in PoE are, among everything else, loot pinatas. You get experience for not killing them, but you get their loot for spilling their guts.

Imagine that the "How to be an adventurer" manual from IWD2 is right and a major part of players do tend to be "Neutral evil".

Now, facing an enemy, would the actually-neutral-evil player take the XP or the loot? He/she would take both, of course, if such option exists - he/she will go the diplomatic/trickery/etc. way to take the XP along with anything that comes with it, and then turn around and blast the enemy to bits in order to get whatever they drop.

What if the option for taking both is unavailable (how does the player know? - save-scumming!), which whould the player choose? He/she would start pondering on stuff like "Which is the more lucrative action to take? What would I miss out on if I take the XP? The Holy avenger? A token for the item-dispensing machine located on the next dungeon level? A side quest related thing?" Well, the only way to know is to save-scum more and find out.

Outcome A: "I'm glad I didn't take the XP, imagine how screwed I'd be if I missed this"

Outcome B: "Well, this was a waste of time *reloads and takes the XP*

 

My point is, players who act like this are hardly a minority, so how long do you think it would take before the above procedure wears them down to the point where they stop playing?

Hopefully, the best loot will be in containers in optional encounters, and off the bodies of enemies in the required encounters.

 

But whenever we have one of these threads everyone always cites Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. I've never played it, but maybe someone who has can tell us how it handled the loot issue.

[Enoch]

But whenever we have one of these threads everyone always cites Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. I've never played it, but maybe someone who has can tell us how it handled the loot issue.

 

 

It's been a while, but as I recall, Bloodlines was not an especially loot-heavy game.  With only 1 character and with limited equipable slots, your progression was much more ability-dependant than it was equipment-dependant.  I remember the best stuff being mostly available from merchants. 

[Immortalis]

I don't want pillars to turn into ice wind dale where i would farm yeti's for their EXP.

 

This is a huge exageration.. Not even applicable to the argument at all because the basis of your statement isn't even scratching the surface of reality.

 

Dishonored doesn't have kill EXP either and even seems to be a game that wants you to stealth everything and I left a helacious pile of corpses behind me in that game.  It will be fine for Eternity.  The no kill exp is honestly a good thing because it doesn't force you to go murder munchkin just to max your exp or to choose a violent solution over a non violent one simply for fear of lost reward.

 

Comparing Dishonored to an isometric RPG. They aren't even close to the same thing. This isn't even comparing apples and oranges.. This is like comparing apples and forks.

 

Your last statement though is flawed. You still have a loss of reward. Unless Hostiles in PoE don't drop any items at all.. you will miss out on rewards by avoiding fights. So that problem is still in PoE.. we are just talking about experience rewards which can easily be increased for going a stealth route, nobody is arguing the rewards should be equal.. My only argument is that I think hostiles should award experience points for outside of quest combat. I want to progress my characters and be rewarded for exploring a cave that has no quest tied to it.

 

Immortalis: What happens when you've reached the end of a dungeon and then realize you left one single monster alive in the corner of some cave way back at the beginning?

 

No XP for kills: Act like a real adventurer would and move on.

XP for kills: MUST KILL EVERYTHING MUST EXTRACT ALL XP FUUUU

 

For further reading, see "degenerate gameplay".

 

If I reach the end of the dungeon and I missed a monster then I missed a monster and I go to the next area. I didn't say that you need to kill every thing in the game without flaw in order to actually be able to win the game. I said creatures give experience. Your taking one thing to the extreme to prove your point.. thats a great basis for debate.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Immortalis

[Gfted1]

Wait, how would you even know that you left one single monster alive in the corner of some cave way back at the beginning?
 

[Amentep]

Wait, how would you even know that you left one single monster alive in the corner of some cave way back at the beginning?

Well if it was Fallout it'd be because you couldn't leave the ****ing turn-based combat, hitting "end combat" just opened the damn ****ing combat **** up again.

 

If it was the IE games, I really dunno.

[Immortalis]

Wait, how would you even know that you left one single monster alive in the corner of some cave way back at the beginning?

 

 

[sarcasm]

Well because I am obviously a min maxing scum bag who knows where every creature is and how much xp they offer for the sole reason that I want to break the game. This is secretly why I want monsters to give xp..  Hehehe

[/sarcasm]

Edited July 28, 2014 by Immortalis

[Gfted1]

Why does killing every creature break the game? Aren't they all hand placed and finite? If you know EXACTLY the number of mooks and EXACTLY the XP rewards for each, how do you fail to balance the game appropriately? Are we pretending the developers forgot to do the math?

 

Also, why doesn't stealthing or diplomating just flag them as unkillable? Thus removing the scourge to all gaming that are the 0.5% of single player gamers that that will stealth/diplomat and then go back and kill everything.

[Immortalis]

Why does killing every creature break the game? Aren't they all hand placed and finite? If you know EXACTLY the number of mooks and EXACTLY the XP rewards for each, how do you fail to balance the game appropriately? Are we pretending the developers forgot to do the math?

 

Also, why doesn't stealthing or diplomating just flag them as unkillable? Thus removing the scourge to all gaming that are the 0.5% of single player gamers that that will stealth/diplomat and then go back and kill everything.

 

I agree with your statement 100%.. if it was the case that mobs did give xp when they died.. it could be balanced around..

 

But then.. That is what this entire thread is about.. debating the decision to remove XP from hostiles, why it was done and what alternatives could have been used that weren't such a 180 degree change from the original IE games. 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2014 by Immortalis

[Amentep]

Why does killing every creature break the game? Aren't they all hand placed and finite? If you know EXACTLY the number of mooks and EXACTLY the XP rewards for each, how do you fail to balance the game appropriately? Are we pretending the developers forgot to do the math?

 

Also, why doesn't stealthing or diplomating just flag them as unkillable? Thus removing the scourge to all gaming that are the 0.5% of single player gamers that that will stealth/diplomat and then go back and kill everything.

 

IIRC BG1 & 2 had random monster spawns (the skeletons over by that wizard hut in BG1 kept respawning, IIRC, and in BG2 you had the random traveling encounters). 

 

RE: Flagging something as unkillible - I'm under the impression this would cause all of Europe to go into outrage, like they did when kids weren't killable in Fallout.  Or so I hear.

 

I'd also imagine - but could be wrong - that setting quest XP is an easier solution than trying to toggle a on/off boolean for a lot of individual creatures during each instance.  Also I suppose it raises the question of what to do if you stealth past Group 1 but fail to steatlh past group 2 and the two groups are in close proximity.  Should only Group 2 attack (which is unrealistic) or should Group 1 & 2 attack (which is realistic, but causes the player to expend resources on killing creatures they can't benefit from by killing).

[Immortalis]

You don't award the "Stealthed by everything" Bonus experience until you reach the end of the segment at which point it becomes a point of no return. Either the previous area where you were stealthing becomes in accessable OR the units are removed.. or possibly they are just no longer worth EXP for being killed or a multitude of other things to remove the meta gaming aspect of supporting multiple completion options.

You can do a lot of things that don't involve changing the entire games pacing and reward mechanics.

 

EDIT

The more I think of potential work arounds to attain this goal.. I start remembering these fixes or work arounds being done in NWN 2 and Ice wind dale.. I think I am starting to realize that Obsidian has seen this issue before and worked around it.. and maybe this time around they wanted the easy way out..

 

Like this exp for kills removal feels very gamey.. I understand the problem they set out to solve but I think they didn't want the extra headaches to balance or work around it. That makes me very sad if it's true..

Edited July 28, 2014 by Immortalis

[Gfted1]

IIRC BG1 & 2 had random monster spawns (the skeletons over by that wizard hut in BG1 kept respawning, IIRC, and in BG2 you had the random traveling encounters).

But these are exceptions that are easily remedied. 

 

RE: Flagging something as unkillible - I'm under the impression this would cause all of Europe to go into outrage, like they did when kids weren't killable in Fallout.  Or so I hear.

 

I'd also imagine - but could be wrong - that setting quest XP is an easier solution than trying to toggle a on/off boolean for a lot of individual creatures during each instance.  Also I suppose it raises the question of what to do if you stealth past Group 1 but fail to steatlh past group 2 and the two groups are in close proximity.  Should only Group 2 attack (which is unrealistic) or should Group 1 & 2 attack (which is realistic, but causes the player to expend resources on killing creatures they can't benefit from by killing).

No doubt its the easier approach. Imo, developers shouldn't waste time programming around a very small percentage of gamers that "cants helps themselves" from breaking the game...for themselves. That's why we wind up with things like restricted resting, no kill xp, unlimited inventory, etc...