[Possible Spoilers] Pillars of Eternity will be livestreamed at Gamescom

[BrokenMask]

 

There's always loot the player can get. The player will not get said loot by avoiding the beetles.

I don't see myself being all that motivated to acquire the loot that a friggin beetle might or might not drop.

 

Thats really your problem if you don't like combat enough

[Leferd]

I sure am glad I posted that link to the Objective XP thread, like 8 pages ago, so that this thread didn't get derailed... Oh, wait.

 

Oh well... some good (albeit stubborn) discussion in here, nonetheless. ^_^

 

I'm never one to stop a discussion, or be a forum cop -but we are getting significantly off topic. Kindly directing the Combat XP mechanic discussion to the appropriate  thread:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66528-experience-point-mechanics-fighting-enemies/

[Stun]

 

I don't see myself being all that motivated to acquire the loot that a friggin beetle might or might not drop.

Thats really your problem if you don't like combat enough

 

What an interesting backwards mindset you have.

 

The reason (stated reason, in fact. Please see Update #7) that Obsidian has decided to eliminate kill XP is because they wish to reward players who prefer non-combat solutions to the problems presented to them. In other words, they wish to fully reward players who view combat as not as important to good roleplaying.

 

If I "didn't like combat enough", wouldn't it follow that I'd fully welcome this no-XP-for-Kills system that PoE is going to have?

[Tartantyco]

Well, nobody's accused your argument of being sensible, Stun.

[BrokenMask]

 

 

I don't see myself being all that motivated to acquire the loot that a friggin beetle might or might not drop.

Thats really your problem if you don't like combat enough

 

What an interesting backwards mindset you have.

 

The reason (stated reason, in fact. Please see Update #7) that Obsidian has decided to eliminate kill XP is because they wish to reward players who prefer non-combat solutions to the problems presented to them. In other words, they wish to fully reward players who view combat as not as important to good roleplaying.

 

If I "didn't like combat enough", wouldn't it follow that I'd fully welcome this no-XP-for-Kills system that PoE is going to have?

 

Well, you just said that if you don't get exp for killing beetles, you don't see why you should kill them just for loot drops <_< So apparently only reason to kill beetles is exp aka grinding, otherwise its "too much work" which sounds like you don't like combat enough if combat itself doesn't motivate you to battle them.

 

And for people who say "What about those enemies who are really annoying? If I don't get exp with them, I don't want to deal with them", how is that a bad thing? If I'd have a reason to avoid combat with really annoying enemies, I'd definitely do that.

 

Also, you are rewarded with bestiary entries for fighting enemies, but I might be only one who would fight monster just to get bestiary entry. I blame being one of kids who got introduced to pokemon in young age

Edited August 16, 2014 by BrokenMask

[Karkarov]

Again Volourn you guys act like the beetles are just going to sit there and do nothing if you walk past.  They will attack you.  If you don't kill them you will have to stealth by them every single time you pass into their vicinity.  Assuming it is even possible to stealth your whole team past them I imagine that is going to take a lot longer than just killing them once.  Lastly, again, you get some kind of loot for killing them and here is the cold hard reality.  Some loot is always better than zero loot regardless of what the loot is.

 

So you can either spend lots and lots of time avoiding a set of fights over and over.  Or you can win them once, get a little loot, and move on.

 

You tell me which choice seems more rewarding.  Stealth gameplay should always be an option I guess, but it shouldn't always be more rewarding.  There is no good reason to just not kill the damn man eating beetles that will attack you on sight and that has nothing to do with whether or not they give EXP.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Karkarov

[Sarex]

Again Volourn you guys act like the beetles are just going to sit there and do nothing if you walk past.  They will attack you.  If you don't kill them you will have to stealth by them every single time you pass into their vicinity.  Assuming it is even possible to stealth your whole team past them I imagine that is going to take a lot longer than just killing them once.  Lastly, again, you get some kind of loot for killing them and here is the cold hard reality.  Some loot is always better than zero loot regardless of what the loot is.

 

So you can either spend lots and lots of time avoiding a set of fights over and over.  Or you can win them once, get a little loot, and move on.

 

You tell me which choice seems more rewarding.  Stealth gameplay should always be an option I guess, but it shouldn't always be more rewarding.  There is no good reason to just not kill the damn man eating beetles that will attack you on sight and that has nothing to do with whether or not they give EXP.

 

That is just bad gameplay then. When none of the choices seem fun or rewarding, the game designer failed.

 

The funniest thing is when this discussion started, it went along the lines you don't need rewards for combat because combat is fun, but now after the demo it did a 180 and all of sudden the argument is that getting rewarded with loot is enough. Funny how that goes.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Sarex

[BrokenMask]

 

Again Volourn you guys act like the beetles are just going to sit there and do nothing if you walk past.  They will attack you.  If you don't kill them you will have to stealth by them every single time you pass into their vicinity.  Assuming it is even possible to stealth your whole team past them I imagine that is going to take a lot longer than just killing them once.  Lastly, again, you get some kind of loot for killing them and here is the cold hard reality.  Some loot is always better than zero loot regardless of what the loot is.

 

So you can either spend lots and lots of time avoiding a set of fights over and over.  Or you can win them once, get a little loot, and move on.

 

You tell me which choice seems more rewarding.  Stealth gameplay should always be an option I guess, but it shouldn't always be more rewarding.  There is no good reason to just not kill the damn man eating beetles that will attack you on sight and that has nothing to do with whether or not they give EXP.

 

That is just bad gameplay then. When none of the choices seem fun or rewarding, the game designer failed.

 

The funniest thing is when this discussion started, it went along the lines you don't need rewards for combat because combat is fun, but now after the demo it did a 180 and all of sudden the argument is that getting rewarded with loot is enough. Funny how that goes.

 

This debate is starting to become boring and annoying. And everyone in this thread loves to put words into other people's mouths.

 

I'll just say few things that is bothering me in this conversation before I lose completely the interest in this...

 

First, nobody here has even played the game so everyone is complaining about nothing. Yes you can complain about lack of exp reward, but so far its hypothetical "Why would I do this if I don't get exp". For all I know, you could complain about it for hours and when you finally get the game you are suddenly happy with killing beetles or happy with how you don't have to kill beetles to keep up with intended level.

 

Second, YOU guys are the ones who say its not rewarding unless we get exp. The people who are like "Objective based exp sounds awesome" seem to think otherwise, yet you are now claiming that we agree with you guys about it?

 

Third, let's say some people do just want to stealth(or run away assuming hostile enemies don't follow you forever) always past the beetles and never get rid of them. Why should they not be allowed to do that?

 

Fourth, how many rpgs lack exp for killing enemies anyway? Has anyone here played one?

Edited August 16, 2014 by BrokenMask

[PrimeJunta]

Fourth, how many rpgs lack exp for killing enemies anyway? Has anyone here played one?

 

Off the top of my head, Vampire: the Masquerade (PnP) and VtM: Bloodlines (cRPG), Shadowrun Returns (cRPG), Numenera (PnP and certainly the upcoming cRPG), Call of Cthulhu (PnP). I don't remember if original DnD had kill XP or it was awarded only for treasure.

 

And yes, I've played all of those.

[Quetzalcoatl]

There's also Deus Ex, which might be the first cRPG to have done it.

[PrimeJunta]

Darklands didn't have kill XP either, I believe.

[BrokenMask]

 

Fourth, how many rpgs lack exp for killing enemies anyway? Has anyone here played one?

 

Off the top of my head, Vampire: the Masquerade (PnP) and VtM: Bloodlines (cRPG), Shadowrun Returns (cRPG), Numenera (PnP and certainly the upcoming cRPG), Call of Cthulhu (PnP). I don't remember if original DnD had kill XP or it was awarded only for treasure.

 

And yes, I've played all of those.

 

Me too. Sort of, I haven't played PnP since I don't have a group, but I own both of those books, well besides Vampire PnP. Shadowrun Returns is technically more of a tactical game though by its gameplay. I mean, yeah, its rpg, but gameplay wise its combat is like even simpler version of XCOM 2012 remake's tactical combat. But yeah, forgot that neither it nor Bloodlines had exp for killing.

 

Shadowrun Returns is pretty good, not greatest or "deepest"(I hate that word, but its easy buzzword to use) rpg, but VtM: Bloodlines is considered to be one of best(its awesome. And definitely buggiest rpg I have ever played. Considering you can't play it on modern computers without fan patch) rpgs from what I've have heard. Unless I've heard wrong and classic cRPG fans hate it for some reason?.. I can't see why anybody would dislike it though, unless they hate vampires on principle or first person rpgs.

 

So yeah, thats at least two cases were exp for quests completed only works well and nobody complains about it. Riiiiight? <_< I haven't actually visited forums to those games

 

Oh and yeah, Deus Ex was awesome too. Though I guess someone here might nitpick it since its fps rpg Haven't played darklands yet, I'm planning to get it soon

Edited August 16, 2014 by BrokenMask

[PrimeJunta]

More: all the Elder Scrolls games. No kill XP, you improve your skills by practice and level up by practicing your primary skills. 

 

(Which, incidentally, incentivizes really boring behavior. I spent what felt like hours repeatedly blocking an attack by a rat to level up my block skill. I was younger then.)

Edited August 16, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Karkarov]

That is just bad gameplay then. When none of the choices seem fun or rewarding, the game designer failed.

Allow me to rephrase.

 

Let's assume they drop no loot at all.  Yes these beetles drop nothing, ever.  It takes me 5 minutes to stealth them and 5 minutes to kill them.  I have to come here 4 times for quests.  20 minutes of my life spent stealthing versus 5 spent in combat.  15 minutes of my life is worth more to me than any imaginary video game reward will ever be.  Get it now?  I can understand if you are some die hard RPer who wants to play a nature lover, I guess it makes sense to stealth then.  Personally though I consider man eating beetles the size of horses to be monsters, not natural bits of the ecosystem.

 

I also appreciate the insinuation that I am saying combat is unfun and you should do it for the loot.  No.  I am implying that when you are faced with multiple choices and one of them is clearly better you should choose the best choice.  Combat in my opinion is vastly more fun than stealth in team based tactical RPG's, at least in all the team based RPG's I have played.  So when combat is not only the most fun option, but also the most logical one, I am going to go with combat as my resolution choice.  Also i have yet to see any evidence that combat in Eternity is in fact not fun, so I am going to assume it actually is fun.

 

@ BrokenMask, great post.  I have played an Objective Based EXP only RPG before, it worked perfectly fine.

 

More: all the Elder Scrolls games. No kill XP, you improve your skills by practice and level up by practicing your primary skills. 

 

(Which, incidentally, incentivizes really boring behavior. I spent what felt like hours repeatedly blocking an attack by a rat to level up my block skill. I was younger then.)

Yo Junta you did it wrong.  You are supposed to bind your block to like spacebar then save the game, go start a fight with the rat, tape spacebar down, then go watch a movie and come back in two hours.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Karkarov

[BrokenMask]

More: all the Elder Scrolls games. No kill XP, you improve your skills by practice and level up by practicing your primary skills. 

 

(Which, incidentally, incentivizes really boring behavior. I spent what felt like hours repeatedly blocking an attack by a rat to level up my block skill. I was younger then.)

Yeaaaaaaah, in case of ES, its done in the way that allows for really easy (and boring) grinding, but that game doesn't even have exp at all so I guess it doesn't count for sake of this conversation?

 

Granted, you don't HAVE to do grind and you probably level up too fast anyway just by playing game normally. And in case of the most horrible game in series*coughOblivioncough* leveling up is really bad idea since level scaling is stupid in that game.

[PrimeJunta]

I did bind jump to something or other and taped it down while hopping around Tamriel. To level up Athletics. Boing boing boing.

 

@BrokenMask IIRC Morrowind didn't have level scaling. Never finished Oblivion because it had it to such an absurd degree, and never bothered with Skyrim.

Edited August 16, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Stun]

Well, you just said that if you don't get exp for killing beetles, you don't see why you should kill them just for loot drops <_< So apparently only reason to kill beetles is exp aka grinding, otherwise its "too much work" which sounds like you don't like combat enough if combat itself doesn't motivate you to battle them.

It'd be more accurate to say that I dislike doing things that are a waste of my time. Engaging in combat for combat's sake, knowing full well that it's 'just for fun', and that it won't really mean anything in-game is no different than Larping. It's just like Skyrim Players who make sure their characters eat 3 times a day, get 8 hours of sleep every night, and drink Ale at the mead hall with the companions.

 

My turn. Lets say you Love talking your way out of situations. And suppose a game has a Diplomacy skill that you can put points in---so you do. Now lets say the game never actually rewards you for successfully talking your way out of situations. Would you conclude that Diplomacy is a waste of time in that game?

[PrimeJunta]

I'm with Stun. I don't like doing pointless things in games.

 

Where I differ with Stun—I think?—is that I don't think lack of combat XP necessarily makes combat pointless. It's quite easy to set up maps so that combat is either inevitable, or you have to work equally hard to avoid it as you would to engage in it, or to have a nice mix of both. Successfully sneaking past or otherwise avoiding a group of enemies can be very satisfying too.

 

What would not be good is if one or the other was consistently the only way or best way to resolve a situation. It would not be fun if the most efficient way to play P:E would be to always run away from enemies. I would like it, however, if for example you could pump wilderness skills in your scout so she could suss out the enemy patrols, so you could then avoid them with careful timing and choice of path... and then got to a dungeon where you had enemies actively guarding chokepoints with no way past except through them.

 

And I believe that no kill XP makes the above kinds of situations better. If you did have kill XP, then scouting and avoiding contact in the wilderness would cause you to lose out on XP, which would make it an objectively weaker strategy, which would make for less variety.

[BrokenMask]

I did bind jump to something or other and taped it down while hopping around Tamriel. To level up Athletics. Boing boing boing.

 

@BrokenMask IIRC Morrowind didn't have level scaling. Never finished Oblivion because it had it to such an absurd degree, and never bothered with Skyrim.

Oh yeah, right, Morrowind didn't have that...

 

Skyrim does have level scaling, but its never to same insane degree as Oblivion. Heck Skyrim is pretty easy game, level scaling mostly means that stronger enemy type start spawning and that bandits have better armor. Like, reach certain level and after that level game allows stronger dragon type spawn, but weaker dragon types are as weak as they were before. Unlike the Oblivion were level scaling means that enemies get exponentially stronger so eventually a single bandit will take hours to fight... Yeah, I think you got the point, Skyrim enemies aren't as insane. It makes for good power fantasy to go through bandit camp and kill them all in few hits, unless you ask from person who actually likes Olblivion I suppose.

[Stun]

First, nobody here has even played the game so everyone is complaining about nothing.

I'm pretty sure people here are debating the concept, rather than actually complaining about a game that they haven't yet played.

 

Edit:

And I believe that no kill XP makes the above kinds of situations better. If you did have kill XP, then scouting and avoiding contact in the wilderness would cause you to lose out on XP, which would make it an objectively weaker strategy, which would make for less variety.

Wouldn't the solution, then, be to reward players with an equal amount of XP for engaging in combat or avoiding it? Why totally eliminate the rewards for one of the options? Edited August 16, 2014 by Stun

[Tartantyco]

My turn. Lets say you Love talking your way out of situations. And suppose a game has a Diplomacy skill that you can put points in---so you do. Now lets say the game never actually rewards you for successfully talking your way out of situations. Would you conclude that Diplomacy is a waste of time in that game?

 

What a waste of a turn, dude. You keep using examples that exist in a vacuum, and that are not part of a larger narrative. The question isn't whether you're getting rewarded for doing X or Y, it's whether doing X or Y allows you to accomplish your goal(Not in-game objective). If you want to go to point B, but there's a mob of X in the way, you have to deal with them somehow. If you get XP for kills, then the obvious answer is to kill them. It is always the answer. As has been pointed out many times previously, creating a system that fairly rewards people for individual solutions to a problem is both cost-ineffective and a practical impossibility. Hence, you will end up rewarding certain behaviors more than others, thereby making certain playstyles more viable than others. This will lead to an unbalanced game. As such, the only way to let players decide for themselves how they want to approach a problem, without artificially influencing them with XP rewards, is to not give rewards for any of that stuff.

[BrokenMask]

My turn. Lets say you Love talking your way out of situations. And suppose a game has a Diplomacy skill that you can put points in---so you do. Now lets say the game never actually rewards you for successfully talking your way out of situations. Would you conclude that Diplomacy is a waste of time in that game?

Nope.

 

Seriously. I'm not kidding.

 

My first character in both fallout games sucked in combat because I made sure I had high int and high charisma and that my science and speech and such skills were high. Meaning that I had to save scum through forced combat segments until I got power armor and implants and had spare skill points to put into weapons and etc. Was really frustrating to make sure my character doesn't get killed in the early parts(like ants and scorpions in darn tutorial level), but totally worth it.

 

I DO actually love talking my way out of situations, I kinda prefer to play rpgs in pacifistic way when I can. I prefer doing quests that are like "Have enough skill to repair the toaster" rather than "Go there and kill all the evil bunnies", but I do complete both since I'm kinda obsessed with 100% completion as well.

 

That said, I do still like combat when I create characters that aren't diplomacy based, but my first run is always the uber nice guy run. I've noticed the tendency for best rewards to be for the "goody goody fantasy/space/whatever Messiah" characters, but I've never have chosen to play in that way because I know that refusing reward for altruistic reasons results in you getting even better reward anyway.

 

After all, why would I be playing diplomacy for rewards if I'm willing to create a character that makes early game combat really painful when I know that game has forced combat segments and that there are quests that will be about combat that I'm compelled to complete due to my obsessions?...

 

...Granted, it'd would make my life much easier if I learned how to bette build a balanced character who is good enough in combat to survive early game and still good in diplomacy In case of fallout though, my achilles' heel is that there are multiple skills that allow me to get extra non combat stuff, so I feel compelled to increase my speech, science, mechanics, etc since I know they unlock dialog options and alternate ways of completing quests...

 

And granted, gore in Fallout is pretty awesome and since I like combat, I fight all hostile enemies that can't be avoided or there is no reason to avoid them and after I'm far enough in game I don't need to reload constantly anymore, except to make sure my darn companions don't die... Stupid dog, why do you keep dying? D:

 

THANKFULLY, not every game is like fallout and have multiple skills for multiple different types of non violent solution <_< Vampire the masquarade bloodlines allows me to be as violent I want without having 3 different skills to invest points in just so that I can have extra dialog with super computer, convince everyone they are wrong AND repair that toaster

Edited August 16, 2014 by BrokenMask

[Sonntam]

 

Well, you just said that if you don't get exp for killing beetles, you don't see why you should kill them just for loot drops <_< So apparently only reason to kill beetles is exp aka grinding, otherwise its "too much work" which sounds like you don't like combat enough if combat itself doesn't motivate you to battle them.

It'd be more accurate to say that I dislike doing things that are a waste of my time. Engaging in combat for combat's sake, knowing full well that it's 'just for fun', and that it won't really mean anything in-game is no different than Larping. It's just like Skyrim Players who make sure their characters eat 3 times a day, get 8 hours of sleep every night, and drink Ale at the mead hall with the companions.

 

My turn. Lets say you Love talking your way out of situations. And suppose a game has a Diplomacy skill that you can put points in---so you do. Now lets say the game never actually rewards you for successfully talking your way out of situations. Would you conclude that Diplomacy is a waste of time in that game?

 

These days I consider being able to talk my way out of situations a rewards by itself. I absolutely hate fighting, especially when it can be easily avoided. As long as it doesn't gimp me, I am absolutely alright to lose out on experience, loot or whatever there is for talking instead of fighting.

 

Same goes for sneaking past enemies or avoiding combat in any other ways.

 

So for me lack of experience for killing mobs is actually pretty great. But if I still end up in a fight, it won't be much of a problem either. After all, you get loot for fighting mobs and won't have sneak your way back when you return. 

 

Actually, getting loot is maybe even more important than getting experience. After all, good armor and weapons usually increase your power much more than levelling ever could.

[Stun]

 

My turn. Lets say you Love talking your way out of situations. And suppose a game has a Diplomacy skill that you can put points in---so you do. Now lets say the game never actually rewards you for successfully talking your way out of situations. Would you conclude that Diplomacy is a waste of time in that game?

 

What a waste of a turn, dude. You keep using examples that exist in a vacuum, and that are not part of a larger narrative. The question isn't whether you're getting rewarded for doing X or Y, it's whether doing X or Y allows you to accomplish your goal(Not in-game objective). If you want to go to point B, but there's a mob of X in the way, you have to deal with them somehow. If you get XP for kills, then the obvious answer is to kill them. It is always the answer.

 

Again, then the solution is to reward players equally for violently dealing with X, or non-violently dealing with X. It is NOT to eliminate all rewards for engaging in the violent option, because that just shifts the problem to the other side... it makes the non-violent option the "always/obvious" solution.

 

And lets keep in mind that (in PoE at least) Even granting the same XP rewards for both the violent and non-violent solutions STILL doesn't succeed in making both options equally appealing, since UNLIKE stealth, or "running away" or "talking", Combat incurs inherent costs on people who choose it as an option (use of limited consumables; use of limited per day abilities; the chance of permanently losing companions, etc)

Edited August 16, 2014 by Stun

[Quetzalcoatl]

Yeah, but you also get loot from combat.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl