Experience Point Mechanics - Fighting Enemies

[Stun]

Nope. Not going to get dragged into another one of your word-wars.

[Lephys]

Well, seeing as how they're apparently my word wars (I'm glad no one else gets credit for them, at all), I guess I'll just be sitting around, warring against a bot until I see "Here comes a NEW CHALLENGER!" at the top of my screen.

 

Seriously though, if you do not wish to discuss it further, that's fine. Doesn't mean "HA-HAH, I WIN!" or anything. This isn't a game of chicken.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

Er...ok?

[Lephys]

Er... splendid?

[Pray]

Just my two cents.

 

At first I was a little put off by this because I'm one of those players that really likes to focus on the tactical combat. There will be little stealth in my group, and fighting will be our bread and butter. I'm one of those min-maxers that really enjoys slaughtering hordes and getting exp for it. Puzzles and stealth do not allure to me.

 

But how the dialogue system works, and how there are no "bad" fighting builds, I'm actually excited to play the game this way. I can't just grind mobs, but will have to focus on optimizing equipment, handling quests proficiently, having to manage money (hopefully), and optimize my party in a way that works for me. As I plan to play on the hardest difficulty I can tolerate, I'm actually excited to try out the no exp for kills method.

[Immortalis]

Er... splendid?

I don't blame Stun.. You have very selective reading skills. The arguements you are making are already addressed.. Several times.. You also misinterpret almost everything you quote. You also tend to go on tangents completely unrelated to the things your quoting..

 

Like I am reading your posts but you aren't really making sense.. We just have to agree to disagree at this point. There is no winning or losing.. I don't see this as a debate.. just a discussion and I still don't understand what you want.. Maybe you could type it more concisely? I think it would help.

 

[Amentep]

 

1) First, you're rewarded every time you complete one of the quest's objectives.

2) Then you're rewarded when you finish the quest itself.

 

To eliminate the redundancy that you're describing, we would have to either scrap #1, or scrap #2.

True, but that's not inherent to an objective-based system. There is no inherent "quest" to complete. There's a situation, and then there are goals. They're either collaborative toward a greater/overarching goal (i.e. "Find all the pieces of the Elmrynthine Amulet"), or they're standalone, optional things upon which the resolution of the situation doesn't necessarily depend (i.e. "Handle the Bandit Threat, Locate info on the Bandits' other operations in the area."). Etc.

 

There's absolutely no reason for you to get XP for each piece of the Elmrynthine Amulet (example above) you find, THEN just suddenly receive a big blob of XP for finding the final piece. Finding the last piece is the completion of the quest.

 

I mean, could it be (and has it been, in existing games) done like that? Yes. Should it be? No. But, that's all that tells us. It's not a matter of whether or not to use an objective-oriented system, but rather, a simple matter of how to use it (or how not to, in this case).

 

My 2¢

 

I think what you are describing as redundancy isn't really redundant. It might be sloppy implementation, but its not redundant. The same XP could be broken up in multiple ways, that some of those ways might be artificial with regards to the narrative is irrelevant.  The importance of the XP is that in its abstract way matches how the game designer wants the character progression to go and the value for the complete piece matches the experience the designer (acting, ultimately, as DM) wants the player to have.

 

That's going to go for Quest XP or Kill XP.

 

The benefit of Quest XP over Kill XP is to increase the viability of other solutions to problems in the game with respect to combat based solutions (without, I add, decreasing the viability of combat, or else you're doing it wrong). Any other quibble about Quest XP or Kill XP is going to be based on the implementation of same, not an inherent "flaw" that must be addressed (as there is no flaw in granting Kill XP if you want the game designed to have combat as the sole viable mean of progression through the game anymore than there is a flaw in Quest XP for allowing alternate solutions to receive equivalent rewards).

 

Edited July 31, 2014 by Amentep

[Lephys]

The benefit of Quest XP over Kill XP is to increase the viability of other solutions to problems in the game with respect to combat based solutions (without, I add, decreasing the viability of combat, or else you're doing it wrong). Any other quibble about Quest XP or Kill XP is going to be based on the implementation of same, not an inherent "flaw" that must be addressed (as there is no flaw in granting Kill XP if you want the game designed to have combat as the sole viable mean of progression through the game anymore than there is a flaw in Quest XP for allowing alternate solutions to receive equivalent rewards).

The only flaw I've pointed out in regard to per-kill XP is in believing that it somehow accurately represents the gain of actual combat experience (the first-hand knowledge and skill, not the abstract RPG points) than objective-based XP can. They're both the same thing, with the exception that in a per-kill XP system, achieving the death of things is always an objective, while performing other tasks isn't.

 

 

Like I am reading your posts but you aren't really making sense.. We just have to agree to disagree at this point. There is no winning or losing.. I don't see this as a debate.. just a discussion and I still don't understand what you want.. Maybe you could type it more concisely? I think it would help.

If you could actually provide me with some nugget of reference for how, exactly, you feel I'm not making any sense, maybe I could be of some help. Typing it concisely isn't going to do the trick. Watch:

 

"Per-kill XP doesn't really represent combat experience as accurately as you might think, and objective-based XP doesn't inherently blacklist kills or combat from being an XP source."

 

There. $20 says I get a "but why?". Then, I elaborate, and suddenly, I've just typed so many words that they magically stop making sense. Because the amount of sense something makes is directly proportionate to its word count, it would seem.

 

It really saddens me that people feel like they can't just ask me what they think I mean. this is like some kind of test. "Oh, the naturally-analytical guy doesn't automagically think just like I do. Either he types something in such a way that I'm perfectly familiar with his entire thought process, or we shoot down his entire argument as irrelevant or invalid or nonsensical. 8D!"

 

I'm just here to discuss, and if you don't tell me where my points are unclear to your brain, I'm going to try to just shine the whole thing up myself, not just the few spots you didn't get. That's just how I am. My interest is in people who want to know what I mean, knowing what I mean. If you don't care to know what I mean, then more power to you. And, if you don't understand something I say, I'm well aware that it may be because of the way I said it. Doesn't mean either of us is lacking in mental capacity. It merely means we think differently. I know I think differently, and I don't expect to somehow say everything in such a way that everyone has absolutely no questions or uncertainty about it. I try, but I don't expect to succeed without a little clarification or questioning. For what it's worth.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

The only flaw I've pointed out in regard to per-kill XP is in believing that it somehow more accurately represents the gain of actual combat experience (the first-hand knowledge and skill, not the abstract RPG points) than objective-based XP can.

You're right, Lephys. Getting XP from not engaging in combat is a far more accurate way to represent combat experience gain.

 

lol

[Lephys]

Sorry, I shouldn't have had the "more" in there. Fixed. Thanks,

 

Also...

 

Right, Stun, because never before has someone leveled up and gained combat prowess from XP gained by non-combat actions.

 

lol

Edited August 1, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

Right, Stun, because never before has someone leveled up and gained combat prowess from XP gained by non-combat actions.

Sure, that happens all the time in RPGs. It's a hilariously illogical flaw in the system. In BG2, for example, a Rogue can become a better archer by.... disarming traps. Is that your idea of an accurate representation.... of anything? Edited August 1, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Nope. But slapping per-kill XP back into the system doesn't repair that flaw, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

 

How you structure XP and advancement is a completely separate matter. If you wanted to have combat experience, and non-combat experience, independent of one another, that would be a big step in the right direction. An objective XP system would simply offer the appropriate type of XP for any given completed objective, whether it be killing something, or convincing someone of something, escaping a place, procuring an item, etc.

 

P.S., it's not really a "flaw," anyway (the improving A from doing B), since the system is intentionally abstracted like that. It's a flaw in terms of realistic representation, but not a flaw in terms of a system that's just trying to represent adventuring progress in general.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Lephys

[Silent Winter]

 

Right, Stun, because never before has someone leveled up and gained combat prowess from XP gained by non-combat actions.

Sure, that happens all the time in RPGs. It's a hilariously illogical flaw in the system. In BG2, for example, a Rogue can become a better archer by.... disarming traps. Is that your idea of an accurate representation.... of anything?

 

Thing is - with per-kill XP - killing things also makes your rogue better at disarming traps,

and killing things with a sword can also make any character better at archery.

 

So in the end, it's all abstraction / gamey.

I'm fine with this.

And whilst I didn't mind the per-kill xp in BG, I'm looking forward to this objective system because it handles different playstyles at the same time.

Want to fight through? -> XP

Want to sneak through? -> XP

 

I'll probably try a combination approach.

Only time will tell if this actually works out, but I'm confident it'll provide me with more replay value as I try different ways to resolve things  without worrying about xp gain.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Silent Winter

[anameforobsidian]

 

Right, Stun, because never before has someone leveled up and gained combat prowess from XP gained by non-combat actions.

Sure, that happens all the time in RPGs. It's a hilariously illogical flaw in the system. In BG2, for example, a Rogue can become a better archer by.... disarming traps. Is that your idea of an accurate representation.... of anything?

 

 

The reverse is also true.  In Baldur's Gate 2, your rogue becomes better at picking locks by killing ogres.  How does that make sense?  Either you show overriding concern for the simulationist aspects, and let each skill level up per use, like in a Bethesda game, or you accept that the process of accomplishing a major objective furthered your character's ability to function as their role.  

 

I.E.  A famous (high-level) rogue could break out of a maximum security prison in a bunch of ways.  In a classless system it would matter how they did it.  In a class-based system the important thing is that they could do it, not how they did it.

 

Furthermore, in party based games it's even worse.  Your rogue gets better at picking locks by your mage casting a magic missile at a goblin the rogue wasn't even looking at.

[Stun]

Thing is - with per-kill XP - killing things also makes your rogue better at disarming traps,

The reverse is also true.  In Baldur's Gate 2, your rogue becomes better at picking locks by killing ogres.

Right. We've been through this already. This is why I support kill XP and non-kill XP.

 

And why I OPPOSE the totally arbitrary elimination of one or the other.

[Silent Winter]

^sure, and I understand.  I'm not saying kill-xp is bad.

I just don't think it's arbitrary in this case - they've made a design decision that each creature's death individually isn't an xp gain.  Only more complex objectives that may or may not involve those same deaths.

(Or if they just arbitrarily assign random xp gain here and there and the 'objectives' are inconsistent or don't make sense, it will turn out to have been a mistake)

[neo6874]

thing is, they might just be hiding the "per kill" XP.

 

Think about it this way -- you run in a D&D Campaign.

 

Tonight, this is what you did:

 

1. Fought some Stirges and a Chimera

2. Got stuck by a door with stupid levers / buttons / etc.

3. Found a room with Tapestries depicting four (4) symbols in a specific order.

4. Went back, and realized the door had those symbols too ... pressed in the order in the tapestries (dor opened!)

5. Came across a Hydra (killed it)

6. Found a map written in [dead language], that someone figured out ("Told you jerks that lugging the Rosetta Stone around was a good idea!")

 

(end)

 

Party gets ... I dunno 3,000 XP total at the end of the night, and the Tapestry person and the Rosetta Stone person got an extra hundred.

[Immortalis]

There was an excellent interview posted on RPG Codex where Josh Sawyer stated:

 

 

Number of overall areas is getting close to BG2. I think we now have over 150 maps with a healthy split between cities, dungeons, towns, and wilderness maps. I'm happy with the number of wilderness areas we have. I think there will be good content density in them and there are enough of them off the critical path that players will feel rewarded for exploring.

 

Original Interview: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=9547

 

When I first started this thread I was very worried about the choices being made to drop Combat XP. I still am not 100% sold but my fears have been slightly allayed after seeing the game mechanics they are shooting for and speaking to some members of this community in this thread.

 

I may change my mind after playing PoE and demand xp for kills make a return but I am definately willing to give them a chance. It seems they do plan on having content dense areas that will award XP much in the same way exploring a large forest with no quests would also give Xp in a game like Baldurs Gate 1..

I Hope they can deliver on this promise but it seems that was at least their goal to make exploration fun and rewarding.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Immortalis

[Karkarov]

How can this still be going on?  We have objective based EXP in Eternity people, debating it any further at this point is the quintessential beating of a dead horse.  It is literally too late to change the system in any meaningful way and this has already been debated into the ground more than once.

 

Lephys, I think you are an okay dude, I like most of your posts and think you have a lot of good points most of the time.  However, you do have a penchant for making really really long complex responses when you could have stated them in a much more straight forward and simple way.  It is hard to keep up a conversation with someone if you write one sentence and they reply with three paragraphs.  Also you do have a habit of belaboring the point maybe more than you need to.

 

All that aside who is right and who is wrong is meaningless, Obsidian is too far into developing the game to change how EXP works.  Once the beta hits we need to be ready to move our feedback away from these broad sweeping categories we have been hammering for over a year and scope in on specifics.  Like "I feel the Dire Fireball spell AOE is a little too small compared to the normal fireball, since it has fewer uses it need a little more bang for your buck to really be worth the trade off of fewer casts."  Stuff like that.  The days of large changes that effected the core mechanics themselves are gone.

[Sarex]

@Karakarov Consider this as compilation of information for the next game when/if the objective xp system fails/turns out to be bad. They can come back to the forums and see what people were talking about. Although I guess there will be plenty of that after the game comes out, though I can't imagine that it will be anywhere near as constructive as what you can find now.

[Immortalis]

@Karakarov Consider this as compilation of information for the next game when/if the objective xp system fails/turns out to be bad. They can come back to the forums and see what people were talking about. Although I guess there will be plenty of that after the game comes out, though I can't imagine that it will be anywhere near as constructive as what you can find now.

 

This post sums it up.. This thread has stayed relatively civil.. Good arguments and feedback for many different systems.. I think the thread will begin to die down slowly but I don't think this thread is useless.. It didn't degenerate into a flame war and I am sure Obsidian has given it a read even if they haven't totally agreed with everything said.

 

PoE isn't going to change as a result but I hope that if the system doesn't work out as people had hoped then maybe some suggestions in this thread might spark new ideas or mechanics they can try, that is.. If the old IE system isn't appealing or hasn't aged well as many people seem to feel.

 

There are less extreme middle grounds that can accomplish whatever everyone wants more or less but we will see what happens when PoE releases. It is definately possible that Obsidian has covered their ground and developed around that missing kill xp and we will hardly notice it's gone.. in which case RIP.. nobody will miss it.. as long as the feeling and goals behind that mechanic can still be gained I don't think it's super important that we have it.. after reading through this thread.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Immortalis

[Stun]

It is definately possible that Obsidian has covered their ground and developed around that missing kill xp

Or, maybe it simply won't be as jarring as our side envisions it.

 

On the "No XP for kills" discussion, I've been approaching it from the perspective of the infinity engine games, which, except for PS:T, were all extremely combat centric. Encounters occurred in rapid fire fashion from start to finish, and enemies were very numerous. In light of that kind of pacing/design, a "No-xp-for-kills" rule seems absolutely retarded.

 

But if PoE is set up in a way where those scripted events things replace a sizable portion of the combat frequency, then I think that'll make things feel more natural.

 

 

But even so, I still worry about those long, drawn out situations.... like the 15 level mega dungeon. When I'm halfway down it, I do NOT want to dread the thought of having to do the next 5 or 6 encounters...and getting NOTHING as an XP reward. Nor do I wish the thing to be a 15 level pacifist's playground.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Stun

[Karkarov]

Or, maybe it simply won't be as jarring as our side envisions it.

Exactly.  I have played plenty of "objective" exp games.  It definitely works.  It all depends on the design philosophy of the game and how well implemented it is.  I have no doubt Obsidian can make it work.

[PrimeJunta]

@Stun I agree about the megadungeon. Swatting beasties for XP is kind of the thing in dungeoneering. I'm pretty sure they're aware of this, though, and am interested to see how they addressed it. Lots of phat lewt, maybe?

 

I'm also interested to see how the megadungeon's power curve plays, if it's designed to get harder faster than you level up. That could turn out to be fun or frustrating, depending.

[Suburban-Fox]

I saw an interview where Tim Cain was talking about quest balance and that non-combat routes would be just as viable as combat routes in quests. The way they were going to attain this was that enemies do not provided experience pounts, only quest resolution and that experience will be the same regardless how the quest is resolved.

 

So can someone confirm this is the case? No enemies will provide any reason to kill them other then they are in the way and potentially drop items?

 

Personally, I think that's a good thing. Why would you kill an enemy if you don't have to? There's a technical term for somebody who kills things just to satisfy their own desire for killing: homicidial maniac. :D

 

Think about it: you fight a party of orcs. You defeat them, and they scatter and run. What are you going to do: abandon your quest to chase each orc to the end of the Earth, or let them go because they're no longer an obstacle? XP for kills encourages the former, even for morally good characters who are supposed to be merciful.

 

Tabletop games usually grant the players XP for overcoming the obstacle using whatever method they feel necessary, not just for killing it. Sneak past it, talk your way past, put poison in its food, drop the ceiling on its head, turn it into a toad, convince it to turn on its enemies and help you instead, trap it for eternity within a giant Rubik's Cube hidden in the astral plane...all are viable tactics in tabletop RPGs, but in a CRPG where you get XP only for kills, only one option is really open to you. The rest result in you foregoing the XP.