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

[Pray]

The player builds the experience to better fight beetles, in both lore and in player experience - even if he doesn't get numerical experience towards a level.

[Karkarov]

You just stated what I said. You get xp for killing ogre because you are told by a NPC to do kill him. You don't get xp for killing beetles because no NPC tells you to kill them. What's the point of exploration then? I'll just let the npcs tell me where I should go. L0L

You missed his point.  You do not get EXP for killing the Ogre.  You get EXP for stopping the Ogre from stealing the guys pigs.  You could have done that without killing the Ogre and Josh very deliberately pointed that out.  You are rewarded EXP for completing objectives, the objective in this case was "stop the Ogre" not "kill the Ogre".

 

Also again I love how people ignored my post before.  All evidence indicated the Beetles are aggressive.  That means they will attack you on sight.  There is no evidence to indicate you can be seen by an enemy, get attacked, then just run away to an area transition while the beetles or whatever else is hot on your tail.  Every time there is an area transition, yes there are mobs "around", but the party is not actually active in combat.

 

So that means there are only two ways of "dealing with" the Beetles when you are in that area.  Your whole party either uses stealth to evade them while never initiating combat every time you go there (many of the beetles/spiders clearly could not be avoided to get to the ogre), or you just kill the things so next time you are in the area you don't have to worry about them.

 

Considering they are aggressive and I imagine I will  need to come to these areas more than once I know which one I will be doing and it doesn't involve hiding in the bushes.

[I Roll 20]

 

 

News at 5: Druid most OP class in the game atm.

Druid? Where? What'd I miss?

 

 

That's what Josh wrote on twitter. He will be playing as druid later today.

 

He is? What time is this? Note I am +8 UTC.

[Karkarov]

He is? What time is this? Note I am +8 UTC.

His tweet doesn't say what time.  I am assuming it is going to be during the Paradox Stream.

[salo]

There doesn't seem to be any Paradox on today's twitch schedule. Perhaps streaming through some other channel? Not sure how valid that schedule is though. 

[Night Stalker]

The Paradox stream was yesterday, and I have no clue which stream Josh might be reffering to. Perhaps he is doing a demo for a game website?

[Lephys]

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. ^_^

[Utukka]

^

I'll go ahead and add a tidbit as well.

 

I understand the arguments to each side, killing vs objective.

 

I think what it really comes down to is that objective based leads to the least amount of "degenerate" game play. What do I mean by this?

 

If you give kill xp on everything...then 99% of players turn into killers. Much harder to balance the other ways of play with this not to mention you have to program in a way to keep people from doing "diplomacy" first and then going back and killing to get the kill xp.

 

If you do objective based...they figure they can satisfy killers with 1) additional loot and 2) the fun of killing stuff

-There will be a much smaller % of players that will just run by/avoid fights despite having wanted to kill the group.

 

Of course..I've always advocated self control but it seems that most players can't help themselves from power gaming hence developer intervention.

[Lephys]

Self-control is great, but you really shouldn't be forced to exercise it, by a game that's all "this game is designed to support however you feel like playing your character! Look at all those equally viable choices!".

 

It's very similar to the whole "good character vs. bad character" thing in all the simple alignment/morality-based RPGs. 90% of the time, being good through the whole game objectively nets you oodles more benefits than being bad. So, the option to be bad is kind of a slap in the face. Might as well put in the option to wield a GIANT sword, but it takes 73 seconds to swing it. But, if you swing it, it does 9,000 damage to everything within 30 yards. That's silly. It's so lop-sided, it's not even practical. Why even put that choice on the table?

 

With kill-XP and the like, it's more minor. But, as I've pointed out, it's not exclusive to killing. Trap-disarming, using dialogue options, etc. The game's supposed to promote the handling of situations, and progress. Not just sandbox simulation for its own sake. Besides... if I were really gonna make a game with per-action XP in, performing the SAME action would produce less and less XP over time. What I mean is, that first goblin you kill? It would give you 50XP, let's say. The second one? 40. The third? 30. Same with traps. That 10th bear trap you disarm's going to net you like 1XP. Until finally it just won't give you any.

 

The whole point in all this is that it's not at all feasible for the system to simulate you getting XP for EVERY single instance of some action performed. Objective XP is one way to handle that. It's not the only way, but it is a way. It still has to be done right. That's another thing I think some folks don't get. You don't just take Baldur's Gate, strip out the kill-XP, and call it a day. "YAY! SOLVED!" No. You build the game around the idea that all your possible actions will be abstractly represented only by certain objectives that are marked as significant. Between that, and how many other rewards there are available for per-kill rewards, it's perfectly feasible to design the game not to screw over people who like to fight everything with a pulse.

 

The other thing is... it's perfectly okay for everything in the game world to not be extinct by the end of the game. If you play a PnP campaign, there are essentially infinite wolves and the like. Why? Because you're not just killing all living things in the entire area. You just happen to encounter, at that point in time, some wolves. The mechanics don't need to encourage your party to slay all the things. There's just no reason for it. It's not that you can't be encouraged to slay things. Just not all the things.

 

Not-slaying some things should be a perfectly valid choice. In a lot of games, if you don't do that, you're missing out. And that's what objective XP is all about. It's just a different way of representing the same thing. It's not about making sure people who like combat don't ever get anything. The XP's abstractly handled, either way, and Objective XP just tries to handle it a little better, is all.

[Bryy]

I loved how you could defeat the super secret hard optional boss in Original Sin through dialogue if your Charisma was high enough.

[Tartantyco]

I think the main point of objective-XP is that you should never decide to do something a certain way just because you get the XP. If killing all the beetles gives the most XP, then people will kill all the beetles. It's as simple as that. The optimal solution is immediately apparent and no more thought has to be given to the possible ways to solve the problem.

 

There simply isn't any good way of implementing XP rewards for stealthing around enemies and stuff like that, so any system where you get XP for "playing your class" will necessarily be lopsided in its rewards. This means that difficulty settings become extremely unbalanced, and the amount of viable party compositions are narrowed. Further, the XP gain will have to be balanced with the "kill everything" approach as the base point, so you'll either end up with a game where anyone who does kill everything has a really easy game, or everybody has to play the game the same way.

 

Killing for XP simply makes the game less varied because of the design decisions that have to be made as a consequence.

[Volourn]

"You missed his point"

 

No. You missed my points. It' not literlaly just about killing beetles vs killing ogre. It's about  dealing with the beetles vs dealing with the ogre whether that's through violence or some other method. I've given examples.

 

Again, why is the ogre challenge worthy of xp but not the beetles? They are a challenge to be overcome in some way just like the ogre.  The player should be rewarded for that in the same manner. Period.

[Labadal]

"You missed his point"

 

No. You missed my points. It' not literlaly just about killing beetles vs killing ogre. It's about  dealing with the beetles vs dealing with the ogre whether that's through violence or some other method. I've given examples.

 

Again, why is the ogre challenge worthy of xp but not the beetles? They are a challenge to be overcome in some way just like the ogre.  The player should be rewarded for that in the same manner. Period.

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

[Stun]

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.

[Volourn]

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

 

The ogre likely has more loot than the beetles. And, I did sayn';y reward for  'killing' the beetles but 'beating the challenge' of the beetles. So, answer still not found.

[Labadal]

 

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

 

A fair point. 

 

I personally don't mind if the XP gains are objective based. Have it in PoE. If players don't like it, change that for the next game. Some of my favorite games have objective based exp. But I also wouldn't have minded a system with exp per kill. It's all about implementation.

[Volourn]

For me, this entire debate hasn't even been about 'xp per kill'. It's about why aren't the beetles worthy of being 'objective based'. The objective of  defeating their challenge in some way (doesn't ahve to be by killing!). It's not about getting 25 xp per beetle (or whatever). But, being rewarded for overcoming the challenge.

[Labadal]

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

 

The ogre likely has more loot than the beetles. And, I did sayn';y reward for  'killing' the beetles but 'beating the challenge' of the beetles. So, answer still not found.

The satisfaction of pummeling them to death? Some people will have issues with objective based exp and some will not.

 

Also, the Ogre is the objective of the quest. Of course you will get better loot from it.

[Volourn]

'the quest'? The beetles aren't part of the ogre quest...

[Labadal]

For me, this entire debate hasn't even been about 'xp per kill'. It's about why aren't the beetles worthy of being 'objective based'. The objective of  defeating their challenge in some way (doesn't ahve to be by killing!). It's not about getting 25 xp per beetle (or whatever). But, being rewarded for overcoming the challenge.

As far as I understand it's a design decision. If we agree with it or not, is of little importance now that the system is already in place.

 

Also, I am not saying that I do not understand your point of view.

[Labadal]

'the quest'? The beetles aren't part of the ogre quest...

Sure, they aren't. Avoid them if you like, it seems like it is possible. They are, however a hurdle to reach your quest goal, in this case a big bad Ogre.

 

I shall stop with the derailment of this thread. This discussion can be had in the proper thread.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Labadal

[Lephys]

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

 

The ogre likely has more loot than the beetles. And, I did sayn';y reward for  'killing' the beetles but 'beating the challenge' of the beetles. So, answer still not found.

Where's our XP for "beating the challenge" of chopping all the trees in the forest down? Those trees aren't going to chop themselves down, and your character would certainly gain a lot of experience from swinging an axe so much.

 

Arbitrary challenge is arbitrary. There are plenty of games in which enemies are merely obstacles. Just because it's an RPG doesn't magically make every entity in the game NEED to have a reason to be destroyed.

[Endrosz]

And why should you be motivated to kill all beetles you encounter? Is it written somewhere in the RPG Bible that you need to kill all beetles you encounter? Think of the ecosystem, man! You kill all the wolves (apex predators), and the rivers will suffer!

My prediction: The combination of tough combat (with some guaranteed long-term damage) and no kill XP will mean that a lot of players will actively avoid unnecessary combat (we've already seen this in the latest demos, straight walk to the ogre). FINALLY, we're going to see some reason in the so-called adventurers' behavior, because nobody in her right mind would want to risk her life constantly without a good reason. And "those beetles were standing there in the woods, so let's kill them" is not a good reason.

In pen-and-paper gaming, adventurers avoid unnecessary combat because:
1. There is no "Load game" option, the risks are unavoidable.
2. The GM can throw all kinds of **** at the party at any time, in any encounter, you don't have the meta knowledge of "there are only 3 beetles here, nothing more".

So if you have the option to engage or not, you gauge the perceived risks versus the possible rewards. These changes will force a similar risk-reward assessing attitude in Eternity, which is, again, very welcome by me.
  Edited August 16, 2014 by Endrosz

[Volourn]

"Where's our XP for "beating the challenge" of chopping all the trees in the forest down? Those trees aren't going to chop themselves down, and your character would certainly gain a lot of experience from swinging an axe so much."

 

L0L  Spaghetti argument is spaghetti argument. try again, little fishy.

 

 

"My prediction: The combination of tough combat (with some guaranteed long-term damage) and no kill XP will mean that a lot of players will actively avoid unnecessary combat (we've already seen this in the latest demos, straight walk to the ogre). FINALLY, we're going to see some reason in the so-called adventurers' behavior, because nobody in her right mind would want to risk her life constantly without a good reason. And "those beetles were standing there in the woods, so let's kill them" is not a good reason.

In pen-and-paper gaming, adventurers avoid unnecessary combat because:
1. There is no "Load game" option, the risks are unavoidable.
2. The GM can throw all kinds of **** at the party at any time, in any encounter, you don't have the meta knowledge of "there are only 3 beetles here, nothing more".

So if you have the option to engage or not, you gauge the perceived risks versus the possible rewards. These changes will force a similar risk-reward assessing attitude in Eternity, which is, again, very welcome by me."

 

Wrong in so many ways but right maybe once or twice.

[Lephys]

"Where's our XP for "beating the challenge" of chopping all the trees in the forest down? Those trees aren't going to chop themselves down, and your character would certainly gain a lot of experience from swinging an axe so much."

 

L0L  Spaghetti argument is spaghetti argument. try again, little fishy.

You wish, . The trees are there, they're not immediately in your way, but you COULD spend time and effort chopping them down. WHY NO XP?!

 

Also, shouldn't you get XP for stupidly activating inactive traps, just so you can beat the challenge of the traps? I mean, if they're not active, there's no challenge.

 

Step 1: Arbitrarily endanger self and/or expend effort.

Step 2:...

Step 3: PROFIT!