Experience Point Mechanics - Fighting Enemies

[Endrosz]

In a sense, we've been already playing objective XP RPGs in the last decade, thanks to the rising dominance of quest XP. In DnD 3 games, this is enhanced by the challenge rating (CR) kill XP modification.

 

In BG1, looking for high level mobs and managing to kill them would net you early level gains, like killing the sylph-whatevers on the coast for 2000 XP apiece.

 

However, PS:T started a trend where kill XP, while nice, was secondary to engaging what Sigil's residents had to offer.

 

In NWN 2 (both the OC and MotB), I made a comparison between a "kill all" playthrough and a "conservative" (crit path only) playthrough. The difference was about a level. It's not something that really matters. The CR mechanic means that a "conservative" player, being lower level, gains more XP from crit path kills than a "kill all" player, which evens out kill XP gains, and quest XP is the major factor anyway.

 

The Witcher games are also built around quest XP. Yes, you can grind ****atrices in TW1 Chapter 3 to reach level 50, but it's rather pointless: the game is very much finishable without grinding even of Hard difficulty with the ~36-37 levels you get from a straight playthrough. In TW2, for example, the nekker tunnels quest gives you unlimited nekkers to fight, but it's not really worth it: kill XP is so low that you just better blow those tunnels for a large quest XP gain and move on.

 

And so on and so on, I could elaborate on more examples.

 

So the people who argue for kill XP make it like there are two separate worlds, which is not the case. You might not have noticed it, because the change has been gradual, but objective XP already dominates RPGs*, kill XP is mostly there to fulfill the psychological effect which was discussed in this topic  ("I want fighting rewarded!"). I understand that taking away this reward feels like a punishment without good reason for such players, but number-wise, the difference is already diminished compared to the early days.

 

* Obviously, I do not include action RPGs, hack-and-slash games in this, or any other game where RPG only means there is a level-up mechanic.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Endrosz

[Hassat Hunter]

This again?

 

Fortunately, I got fresh blood to add to the conversation, namely... Divinity: Original Sin. I'm really wondering how much better it could be with Objective XP compared to what we get now.

It has quest XP, fairly little though (despite having like 100 quests in the game), exploration XP, a lot of talking with bosses and inbetween combat encounters. It would be perfect for this. Instead they went with kill XP, it being the major source even.

And look what that gives; you indeed are somewhat forced into useless combat encounters, the endgame devolved into combat upon combat and medicrity, and there are legions of people commiting genocide on friendly cities to get that additional XP.

 

An especially excruciating part is when you enter an area and are faced with 3 choices; Combat, Stealth, or using your skills and gear to get around that on path #3. And Path 2 and 3 offer around 20% of the experience of the combat-path due to the system, and is arguable the easiest of the 3. There goes choice, there goes giving the player good paths... there goes a whole bunch of area and encounter-design wrecked it's neck by the XP-system. I couldn't help but sigh when I encountered it. It would have been great as PoE will do it. Now; it's just a total waste of developer's time.

 

So yes, yes, I do totally want this in. Even if I wont stealth... and running past everyone definitely ain't possible (especially seeing Sawyer's "sticky" melee combat)... I just kill things I need to kill, and be fine with it. But not be forced to whipe an entire map of boredom just to get the XP needed to move on. Because that's... boring. And I like my games to be fun. Don't you?

[Immortalis]

This again?

 

Fortunately, I got fresh blood to add to the conversation, namely... Divinity: Original Sin. I'm really wondering how much better it could be with Objective XP compared to what we get now.

It has quest XP, fairly little though (despite having like 100 quests in the game), exploration XP, a lot of talking with bosses and inbetween combat encounters. It would be perfect for this. Instead they went with kill XP, it being the major source even.

And look what that gives; you indeed are somewhat forced into useless combat encounters, the endgame devolved into combat upon combat and medicrity, and there are legions of people commiting genocide on friendly cities to get that additional XP.

 

An especially excruciating part is when you enter an area and are faced with 3 choices; Combat, Stealth, or using your skills and gear to get around that on path #3. And Path 2 and 3 offer around 20% of the experience of the combat-path due to the system, and is arguable the easiest of the 3. There goes choice, there goes giving the player good paths... there goes a whole bunch of area and encounter-design wrecked it's neck by the XP-system. I couldn't help but sigh when I encountered it. It would have been great as PoE will do it. Now; it's just a total waste of developer's time.

 

So yes, yes, I do totally want this in. Even if I wont stealth... and running past everyone definitely ain't possible (especially seeing Sawyer's "sticky" melee combat)... I just kill things I need to kill, and be fine with it. But not be forced to whipe an entire map of boredom just to get the XP needed to move on. Because that's... boring. And I like my games to be fun. Don't you?

 

With Divinity Original Sin.. wether they did Combat XP or Objective XP wouldn't matter.. The fact that enemies never respawn and there is no concept of random encounter means that every fight only happens once and there no way to "Farm" xp or go off the rails of what the developers expect you will do..

 

So again Divinity is apples to oranges to the IE games. They have similar mechanics and gameplay but the pacing of those types of game is completely different.

 

In Divinity it doesn't matter if you got xp for each enemy or if you got a big chunk of xp at the end of battle.. it's a moot point because of how that game was designed..

[Karkarov]

@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.

Except they said Objective EXP, not kill EXP.  In the Mega Dungeon your objective could be reaching the next floor, which on some levels may be doable via stealthing but on many may not be possible without combat.  It could be reaching a "checkpoint" on that level.... which just so happens to have an enemy group sitting on you have to fight to reach.  I doubt you will need to clear 10 or more encounters in the megadungeon without getting some kind of exp reward.

 

There are lots of ways to reward EXP for combat accomplishments without actually giving you exp per kill.  Also people keep ignoring the fact that you still get rewards for combat.  You get money, items, whatever.  Just not EXP for your kills.  Unless killing someone was a quest objective...

[Ark Evensong]

With Divinity Original Sin.. wether they did Combat XP or Objective XP wouldn't matter.. The fact that enemies never respawn and there is no concept of random encounter means that every fight only happens once and there no way to "Farm" xp or go off the rails of what the developers expect you will do..

So again Divinity is apples to oranges to the IE games. They have similar mechanics and gameplay but the pacing of those types of game is completely different.

 

In Divinity it doesn't matter if you got xp for each enemy or if you got a big chunk of xp at the end of battle.. it's a moot point because of how that game was designed..

 

No, the point is that if they'd gone with an Objective XP system, rewards for the non-combat solutions would most likely have been better balanced against the combat rewards. (As such, you wouldn't get 5 times the XP if you choose to fight over other options.)

 

No respawning/No random encounters only makes this worse, as you'll have no way to catch up with that XP gap. Unless you go back after collecting the "no-combat" XP rewards, and then kill everything anyway. That's no fun, and reeks of exploiting game mechanics.

 

(I don't know if the situation with D:OS is that bad, haven't played it yet.)

[Falkon Swiftblade]

Any mechanic that doesn't actively encourage/reward players to become homicidal maniacs are aces in my book.

 

This is actually my biggest pet peeve with FPS games. I understand the game mechanic, but I believe it's the wrong way to reward someone. Just because it's been done for so long doesn't mean it's the best way to do something. Plus, that adds to replayability, or for new game + stuff you can do and not feel bored killing the same thing over and over.

[Fatback]

Why do you need the exp to kill something arnt you getting this game to enjoy combat story and rp. Maybe you want only 1 of those things and maybe you want all. But why is exp the ulimate reward for killing something and the only reason why you do it.

 

This is a legitiment question for I am confused as to how people can say now there's no point in killing things.

[Immortalis]

 

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.

 

 

This I definitely agree with.. and this has been your concern from the start of this thread. Objective XP could be used in this situation.. but if we are gonna get 20 000 experience at the exit door to each level I am gonna be pretty disillusioned..

[Hassat Hunter]

No, the point is that if they'd gone with an Objective XP system, rewards for the non-combat solutions would most likely have been better balanced against the combat rewards. (As such, you wouldn't get 5 times the XP if you choose to fight over other options.)

 

No respawning/No random encounters only makes this worse, as you'll have no way to catch up with that XP gap. Unless you go back after collecting the "no-combat" XP rewards, and then kill everything anyway. That's no fun, and reeks of exploiting game mechanics.

 

(I don't know if the situation with D:OS is that bad, haven't played it yet.)

Pretty much nailed it.

Another good example would be KOTOR2 Nar Shaddaa, Regufee Sector... who really has resolved it peacefully between the Refugees and Exchange when it gives approximately 1% (not exagerating) XP compared to killing everything?

With Divinity Original Sin.. wether they did Combat XP or Objective XP wouldn't matter.. The fact that enemies never respawn and there is no concept of random encounter means that every fight only happens once and there no way to "Farm" xp or go off the rails of what the developers expect you will do..

 

So again Divinity is apples to oranges to the IE games. They have similar mechanics and gameplay but the pacing of those types of game is completely different.

 

In Divinity it doesn't matter if you got xp for each enemy or if you got a big chunk of xp at the end of battle.. it's a moot point because of how that game was designed..

You mean, pretty much like the Baldur's Gate's? Or any of the other IE-games... No respawns, and random events weren't exactly very random.

They broke the game in beta since they wanted some challenging events with respawns, and those gave XP... you can guess what happens... instead they needed to 0XP several foes and such... still not all work as intended ingame. Great joy...

Rails? What rails? Did you play the game?

 

You mean that one is RtwP and the other TB? Cause aside from that I can't see much difference in the pacing. Oh, it's slightly shorter than Baldur's Gate II... but really, what game isn't. PoE will be aswell.

 

Did you like... read my example? It's all right there how they DESIGNED AREAS, and then had their XP-system wreck the idea to kingdom come...

Doesn't seem like a moot point... or the game's design and XP-design really mix nicely...

[AGX-17]

I've thought since the start that it was a good alternative to things like The Elder Scrolls, in which the vast majority of quests were worthless; most were just simple excuses to get you to go to those 12 cave entrances that you passed on your way to the next main quest objective. The rewards were rarely even worth mentioning; usually just a pittance of money or a random piece of enchanted equipment (which you could savescum to re-roll and try to get a better enchantment/more expensive item to sell.)

Edited August 3, 2014 by AGX-17

[Immortalis]

 

No, the point is that if they'd gone with an Objective XP system, rewards for the non-combat solutions would most likely have been better balanced against the combat rewards. (As such, you wouldn't get 5 times the XP if you choose to fight over other options.)

 

No respawning/No random encounters only makes this worse, as you'll have no way to catch up with that XP gap. Unless you go back after collecting the "no-combat" XP rewards, and then kill everything anyway. That's no fun, and reeks of exploiting game mechanics.

 

(I don't know if the situation with D:OS is that bad, haven't played it yet.)

Pretty much nailed it.

Another good example would be KOTOR2 Nar Shaddaa, Regufee Sector... who really has resolved it peacefully between the Refugees and Exchange when it gives approximately 1% (not exagerating) XP compared to killing everything?

With Divinity Original Sin.. wether they did Combat XP or Objective XP wouldn't matter.. The fact that enemies never respawn and there is no concept of random encounter means that every fight only happens once and there no way to "Farm" xp or go off the rails of what the developers expect you will do..

 

So again Divinity is apples to oranges to the IE games. They have similar mechanics and gameplay but the pacing of those types of game is completely different.

 

In Divinity it doesn't matter if you got xp for each enemy or if you got a big chunk of xp at the end of battle.. it's a moot point because of how that game was designed..

You mean, pretty much like the Baldur's Gate's? Or any of the other IE-games... No respawns, and random events weren't exactly very random.

They broke the game in beta since they wanted some challenging events with respawns, and those gave XP... you can guess what happens... instead they needed to 0XP several foes and such... still not all work as intended ingame. Great joy...

Rails? What rails? Did you play the game?

 

You mean that one is RtwP and the other TB? Cause aside from that I can't see much difference in the pacing. Oh, it's slightly shorter than Baldur's Gate II... but really, what game isn't. PoE will be aswell.

 

Did you like... read my example? It's all right there how they DESIGNED AREAS, and then had their XP-system wreck the idea to kingdom come...

Doesn't seem like a moot point... or the game's design and XP-design really mix nicely...

 

 

 

Although I understand (sorta) what you are saying, I don't agree with any of it. I don't think you have actually hit the mark on any of those three games mechanic wise.

Divinity Original Sin designers know exactly how much xp you are getting per encounter. It is very unlikely for you to miss an encounter unless you try to skip it.. they are almost all in your way or tied to a quest and the occasional encounters you can skip are almost negligible.

 

I missed a few fights and did fine throughout the whole game and really enjoyed it.. If they had removed combat XP then quest XP would have been boosted and the overall out come would have been the same because that game is on a tight rails system..

 

Baldurs Gate 2 is much more open.. the game has no idea what level you are exactly for much of the combat. You are difficulty gated to a lot of quests which encourages you to explore and beef up then come back later (unless you are extremely good at the game and speed running it). The games are completely different in pacing and flow.

 

I don't see how Divinity Original Sin would have been improved by removing kill xp.. I think it would have been the same game more or less.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Immortalis

[Hassat Hunter]

So... why then complain when PoE does the same... if it's the same game more or less? (but with less need to do the boring filler combat... that by itself increasing enjoyment a dozen-fold, especially in the apparently compulsory to RPG's bad endgame)

 

Also, I'm still wondering where the tight on rails idea comes from when it's the same as BG2. "Here are a bunch of quests, finish them..."

Edited August 3, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[sibakruom]

An especially excruciating part is when you enter an area and are faced with 3 choices; Combat, Stealth, or using your skills and gear to get around that on path #3. And Path 2 and 3 offer around 20% of the experience of the combat-path due to the system, and is arguable the easiest of the 3. There goes choice, there goes giving the player good paths... there goes a whole bunch of area and encounter-design wrecked it's neck by the XP-system. I couldn't help but sigh when I encountered it. It would have been great as PoE will do it. Now; it's just a total waste of developer's time.

 

To add insult to injury, you could also choose the combat path, talk your way out of actual combat (at least some of it), and be rewarded with less experience than if you chose to fight.

 

Honestly, that particular area felt like a textbook example of what not to do. One problem, four different approaches: fight, diplomacy, sneaking, clever use of skills (which could be tackled in different ways as well). None of these solutions is presented as being better in-universe than the others. Yet the rewards are heavily stacked in favor of one particular solution, which happened to be killing people.

[Immortalis]

So... why then complain when PoE does the same... if it's the same game more or less? (but with less need to do the boring filler combat... that by itself increasing enjoyment a dozen-fold, especially in the apparently compulsory to RPG's bad endgame)

 

Also, I'm still wondering where the tight on rails idea comes from when it's the same as BG2. "Here are a bunch of quests, finish them..."

 

PoE will likely not be like Divinity Online in this regard.. When I say tight rail system I mean that you are progressing through the game in a specific order that the designer intended. You really have no choice how you progress through Divinity (with some exceptions of course). You generally Finish one area, then the next, then the next.. Unless you try really hard to skip things.. your guided through a designated path.

 

Side quests give the illusion of open world and the game is great.. but its not an IE game mechanically.

 

In Baldurs Gate 2.. you are basically thrown into a sand box of quests.. and yes.. some are blocked off until you get 15 000 gold or whatever.. but generally speaking the only thing stopping you from rushing out of the city to fight a red dragon is the difficulty gating.. there is nothing else stopping you from hopping around doing quests in any order you want.

 

I don't see what this has to do with kill xp or how any of this proves that kill xp doesn't work.. this is just an off topic discussion about pacing of games and the order you can do things.. and how I disagree with your premise that Divinity shows us anything related to the BG series..

[Doppelschwert]

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.

 

Josh already confirmed that somewhere, although I don't have a link for you. It's getting harder faster than you level up, which is good in my book, because that means it won't play like a game in game.

 

 

Regarding D:OS, a lot of stuff is difficulty gated as well, especially once you hit the second map, so it's really not that different from BG2 in this regard. I didn't figure out some of the puzzles so I often skipped some areas where I was supposed to go in order to cheese my way through higher level territories. The game would be railroading you if it actually had any decent quest design rather then 'sometimes you only can progress if your perception is high enough while at other times you have to go somewhere completely unrelated first, but figure yourself out which one it is this time'.

 

I also felt like the exp system was way off in Original Sin. All the senseless fighting at the end left me with such a bitter taste in my mouth that I immediately uninstalled the game after finishing it. There was more to it, but I don't feel like ranting off topic.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Doppelschwert

[Hassat Hunter]

@ sibakruom; Actually, I would say it's a textbook case of HOW to create a good area. How to properly add different paths and choices. Something Obsidian should look at and try to incorperate into PoE at times. The only thing "how not to do" was the XP-system. Which is the current discussion. If it worked with PoE's system it would have been amazing. Sadly, it stuck to combat XP systemwise, and well... it totally shat all over the encounter.

Which is why I look forward so much to PoE implementing this, people seeing it's totally the best thing ever, and RPG's evaluating to something better, rather than getting stuck into being poor action-game knockoffs.

As much as some people on this boards would not want that, and I don't understand why. Maybe they don't understand. Maybe they're afraid of progress. Maybe they need their fix and a reward each kill, maybe they're homicidial... but I very much look forward to "real" RPG's taking a proper step towards Role Playing Games rather than Murder Simulator Games.

 

@ Immorales; Except nobody does... I see plenty of people who don't... including myself. Yes, there's a path... nothing prevents you from going way out of order on all of it though. So if it's rails, the rails are made of air or something...

Again; it's no different.

(You're fooling yourself if you don't think PoE will be build up like that... and are in for a cold shower... it's not TES:Obsidian)

 

Which makes me all the more 'wtf?' when you say it would be fine in D:OS, but then the sky will fall and frogs will rain and it will be the worst thing ever in PoE... despite both games following the same philosophy actually.

Explain it to me...

 

@ All; Yeah, the dungeon worries me too. Not because of XP-reasons, but because I can't see a 15-level dungeon work properly in a Baldur Gate way. Especially a 15-level optional dungeon.

Larian wisely decided instead of doing one mega-dungeon to spread them around the game, and although it got them some flak, I definitely think it would have been better to do so here too than hold on to the 15-layered optional dungeon. But we'll see if they can actually make it work proper.

[sibakruom]

The only thing "how not to do" was the XP-system.

 

That's what I meant.

Still, regarding the general design of this particular area: while multiple paths and solutions in a dungeon are always welcome, it felt a bit blunt in its execution. I'd like something more subtle than "if you want to fight, choose path A; if you want to sneak, choose path B; if you want to try something else, choose path C."

 

Concerning the mega-dungeon, I think it's only partially optional. The critical path will require to visit some of it.

That being said, Obsidian should really give incentives to clear one or two levels at a time, in-between doing something else. And it should be incentives in both directions: incentives to leave (maybe it's locked and you'll find a way to unlock it later in the storyline), and incentives to come back (maybe you've been given a new and important sidequest that requires going further in the dungeon).

[Didier2]

I think the big plus of this system is that it will be easier to balance the experience gains, leaving more time to spend on other features.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Didier2

[Volourn]

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

Um. IWD is a combat focused game. if you aren't fighting you aren't playing the game.

 

As for Bloodlines. Good game, and for the most aprt its no xp for fighting worked until later in the game where I just found myself running from enemies not out of fear but boredome. part of the issue is that BL combat was not good so that should be different in POE.

 

Still, ideally for me,  xp would be given out for everything. Combat, using skills, completing quests, and role-playing. Quest xp, at its heart, is fake and illogical.

 

That said, having quest xp only  is not the worst thing a game can have and won't ruin the game. But, for me, it is a point against it. Of coruse, PE having dwarves is about 100 points in favor of it so the positives still outweighs the negatives.

[Immortalis]

Still, ideally for me,  xp would be given out for everything. Combat, using skills, completing quests, and role-playing. Quest xp, at its heart, is fake and illogical.

 

That said, having quest xp only  is not the worst thing a game can have and won't ruin the game. But, for me, it is a point against it. Of coruse, PE having dwarves is about 100 points in favor of it so the positives still outweighs the negatives.

 

I avoid the "realism" argument for this very reason.. Xp As an abstraction is stupid and makes no sense but as a gameplay mechanic it works very well. The skills by using mechanic is much more abusable and is almost as silly..  Arguing that shooting a bunny with a bow should give or shouldn't give xp isn't really important, it's a video game at the end of the day - progression makes it fun.|

 

As for your dwarfs comment.. 100% agree and it made me laugh a little. I am sure Obsidian will do a good job they seem to have their heart in the right place with the objective xp and loaded side quest content.

 

I just hope the issue you describe with Bloodlines doesn't happen here.. where I am hasting past bears and wolves and goblins because they are getting annoying, aren't a challenge or fun to kill and don't give me anything but broken arrows and goblin ears.

 

 

@ Immorales; Except nobody does... I see plenty of people who don't... including myself. Yes, there's a path... nothing prevents you from going way out of order on all of it though. So if it's rails, the rails are made of air or something...

Again; it's no different.

(You're fooling yourself if you don't think PoE will be build up like that... and are in for a cold shower... it's not TES:Obsidian)

 

Which makes me all the more 'wtf?' when you say it would be fine in D:OS, but then the sky will fall and frogs will rain and it will be the worst thing ever in PoE... despite both games following the same philosophy actually.

Explain it to me...

 

@ All; Yeah, the dungeon worries me too. Not because of XP-reasons, but because I can't see a 15-level dungeon work properly in a Baldur Gate way. Especially a 15-level optional dungeon.

Larian wisely decided instead of doing one mega-dungeon to spread them around the game, and although it got them some flak, I definitely think it would have been better to do so here too than hold on to the 15-layered optional dungeon. But we'll see if they can actually make it work proper.

 

@Hassat Hunter

I continue to disagree with almost everything your saying and wonder if you actually played any of the IE games at all.. You seem to dislike almost all the mechanics or functionality they had that everyone else enjoyed.. I mean you have the Rakshasa portrait.. but you seem to poo-poo IE at every turn.

 

Baldurs gate 1 and 2 both had mega dungeons.. how is that "not baldurs gatesque"..

 

Also in response to your D:OS comments you are still not reading my posts. If this is still the conclusion your coming to. My response to you is just going to be quoting my last post..

Edited August 4, 2014 by Immortalis

[Lephys]

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.

I mean this very matter of factly, and not in some hostile fashion (pretend C3PO is saying it), but, I've exhausted the various manners in which to present my points, and someone isn't happy no matter what. If I'm concise, there's an outcry of "you're just making a claim and not proving anything with an explanation!" If I explain things, there's outcry "Oh man, you just type so much word on the screen that I can't handle the amount of word! But, I think I'll just not-read it all and still continue arguing with you! 8D!"

 

So... my options are basically to never post, or to post and watch people complain about it. 8P

 

Such is life. My brain apparently annoys people, and I hate that it does. But, I'm hardly going to refrain from being an active part of a discussion community just because some people are a little more argumentative than they are patient.

 

 

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..

That's one of the things I was trying to tell you. The current precedents for what's a quest and what isn't are not restrictions upon PoE's "objective" system. An objective could be anything. Or, to keep it in quest terminology, you could "get a quest" simply by stumbling upon a situation and/or there could be exploration-based quests.

 

"Figure out what's up with these crazy ruins." Well, if they're surrounded by disgruntled wombat people, you can't really figure much out about them. Thus, you go slaughter them all, and figure out stuff. Boom. XP.

 

Objectives could be anything at all, and I trust Obsidian not to make them stupid ("Travel 50 feet, 8D!", or "Find a random group of hostile things, and arbitrarily sneak past them instead of fighting them, accomplishing nothing by the stealth! 8D!", etc.)

[PrimeJunta]

Er, @Lephys. You are verbose and often redundant. You write a page when a line would do.

 

These are no great sins, but they do have a side effect -- I, for example, usually simply don't read your posts, because extracting your point from that mass of words takes too much time and effort for the payoff.

 

A forum is a scannable medium, to be read fast. It's not a blog, news outlet, or novel. I believe you would communicate much more effectively if you found a way to reduce the wordiness.

[Leferd]

George Orwell's 6 rules for writing:

 

1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, scientific word or jargon if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Leferd

[PrimeJunta]

Mark Twain: “Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.”

[Immortalis]

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..

That's one of the things I was trying to tell you. The current precedents for what's a quest and what isn't are not restrictions upon PoE's "objective" system. An objective could be anything. Or, to keep it in quest terminology, you could "get a quest" simply by stumbling upon a situation and/or there could be exploration-based quests.

 

"Figure out what's up with these crazy ruins." Well, if they're surrounded by disgruntled wombat people, you can't really figure much out about them. Thus, you go slaughter them all, and figure out stuff. Boom. XP.

 

Objectives could be anything at all, and I trust Obsidian not to make them stupid ("Travel 50 feet, 8D!", or "Find a random group of hostile things, and arbitrarily sneak past them instead of fighting them, accomplishing nothing by the stealth! 8D!", etc.)

 

 

See but Lepys.. I had already made that point several times before you even came in this thread.. This is my biggest complaint about your logic and premise for trying to "win the debate"

 

You weren't reading my posts if your only realizing this was my opinion now..