It's penalising the roleplayer to make it mandatory to wander around killing things without an in-game reason if you want your character to be at the expected level for combat encounters later on down the line.

That's not true afaik. Staying on the critical path only will still provide you the XP needed to complete the game. XP gained on exploration / non crit path is just extra. You should hit the level cap either way but the latter method may get you there faster.

 

Are you talking about the old IE games?  Because I was.

 

No sorry, I thought you ware talking about PoE.

 

No need to apologize. The context of this discussion is most definitely about PoE. Thus your point is a totally valid refutation of sparklecat's entire argument.

Edited August 20, 201411 yr by Stun

"To be fair, the game forcing combat with hostiles that spot you is a separate issue to whether the experience point system encourages killing as the optimality solution path. One is a result of the world and narrative, and one is a result of the game system."

 

Yeha, but one of the major complaints from the anti combat xp brigade is that it forces one to choose combat over dialogue because it is mroe rewarding. However, in a combat heavy game like PE(or the IE) you don't actually get the option. It's not a matter of combat or dialogue. It's you must fight. There is no optimal solution just one solution.

I don't think a game should protect a particular play style. If you're playing a stealth person and flub a stealth check and beetles attack then its a valid consequence of trying to sneak around steely eyed beetles.

 

If you're playing a diplomat and you're straying off the paths to explore - or even to do a quest yourself - then you're taking on that risk. I don't see that being a negative thing; being able to play the character of your choices shouldn't (IMO) be a free license to succeed at that style of play.

Edited August 20, 201411 yr by Amentep

If a game requires kill grinding in order to progress to the proper lvl to complete Main quest objectives in a game where side questing is optional and story driven, that is bad game design. That is a separate issue than whether gaining experience through combat is good or bad.  One does not force the other. If you cannot stop yourself from doing unnecessary combat you don't enjoy because you're getting xp for it you have a personality disorder.

 

You are the one who made it personal. You attacked everyone who liked Diablo or was pro xp rewards. btw, I'm no Diablo fan. I played Diablo1 and somewhat enjoyed and I did even't bother with 2 or 3 but hey if you are gonna flame people expected to be flamed back.

If you say so, buddy.

If a game requires kill grinding in order to progress to the proper lvl to complete Main quest objectives in a game where side questing is optional and story driven, that is bad game design. That is a separate issue than whether gaining experience through combat is good or bad.  One does not force the other. If you cannot stop yourself from doing unnecessary combat you don't enjoy because you're getting xp for it you have a personality disorder.

If you reward combat with XP, then some people think they have to kill everything in order to win the game. Some also apparently think that they have to kill every friendly NPC too.

 

I have read this argument countless times in the past 2 years from the anti-combat-xp crowd. These people simply refuse to understand that rewarding combat with XP does not mean that you must "roleplay a sociopath and kill everything". This can't be said enough.

Edited August 20, 201411 yr by Helm

I will say so, bro. Oh yeah, I did so.

 

 

The items and money (to buy items) gained for some combats make up for the lack of xp. Both serve to increase the character power and durability.

You gain resources from combat, but combat also costs resources.

 

The items that you receive from combat are mostly only for crafting. The item drops are usually not high quality, so that people who dislike combat (which I believe are the target audience of this game) don't whine about being deprived of good loot. If you don't like crafting (a substantial amount of players don't) then combat is completely pointless.

 

And see for me that's just...well not a good approach to take. If I'm going with a stealthy or diplomatic path, I would want/expect the rewards I receive to make it so that I'm better at stealth or diplomacy.

 

For me as a player, if the fighter path gets better armor/weapon drops that provide combat related bonuses - why would I care? I'm not completing it as a combatant so that loot is irrelevant to my experience. It'd be a problem (IMO) if the only way to get leather armor that provides a super stealth bonus is to kill a character the same way it'd be a problem if the only way to get my fighter's best in-game weapon is to get past a series of locked doors, traps and sticky diplomatic situations where combat would always lead to TPK.

 

Yeah, the game doesn't reward the player for his prefered style of gameplay.

Another point is the spider queen. It serves absolutely no purpose. Not part of a story, not part of  quest, no nothing. Why does it even exist? Except to be filler that adds nothing except another few minutes? LOL

 

If a player decides to tackle such optional content they should be rewarded for accomplishing it but NADDA. no game eevr - not even games with only quest/obecjtive xp - have been so set agaisnt awarding players for overcoming challenges. WTF!?! 

 

In terms of xp SRR  + DOS + BG > PE

 

 

EPIC FAIL.

Edited August 21, 201411 yr by Volourn

Volourn, have you ever considered that maybe the fact that there are only 4 quests present in the mod might hint towards not everything being implemented in these maps yet? Maybe they want to leave some of the area quests out of the Beta so as not to entirely spoil these areas when they release the full game?

Here's the way I look at it. I should get rewarded for doing stuff, enough that it justifies the time, effort, and most importantly resources spent. If the loot is good enough, that's probably okay, but I do think that if my party spends its time wiping a map completely clean, over time that party should have a level advantage over a party that skips all the encounters.

 

A lot of issues stated in this thread can be solved with variable quest rewards, though. Use social skills or investigation to solve a quest non-violently? Get a larger quest reward bonus for the effort and brain power spent. Or get a special reward you wouldn't have gotten just killing everything.

 

Note that I think quest reward should be the majority of your experience, but there should be a difference exp wise and eventually level wise between someone that does the quest to kill the ogre and skips everything up to the ogre, and someone that does the same quest and kills everything on the way to the ogre. You've got to manage consumables, camp supplies, stamina, spell slots, etc to do all the extra fighting, I think that should be rewarded with more than an extra beetle shell or whatever.

"Volourn, have you ever considered that maybe the fact that there are only 4 quests present in the mod might hint towards not everything being implemented in these maps yet? Maybe they want to leave some of the area quests out of the Beta so as not to entirely spoil these areas when they release the full game?"

 

Not my problem.

 

 They want us to comment on stuff. Right now the spiders are meaningless junk and I am saying so. If there's already a quest not implemented there thatr ewards you for it so be it. If not, then I'm letting them know it's unacceptable.

 

btw, This isn't this is some bug like vanishing items.

 

But, I guess one is allowed to praise what they see in the beta but not criticize it. L0L

Volourn, you should be able to have the common sense to understand what is valid criticism. It's once thing to say "combat is too fast" or "I don't like the XP system". It's something completely different to attack your own speculations about content. It is quite obvious that a lot of the content isn't in place yet.

 

Also, have you read this forum? There' plenty of criticism going around. Maybe step out of the XP-for-kills circlejerk for a while?

Edited August 21, 201411 yr by Tartantyco

No. Because the other stuff is garbage until the bugs are fixed. But, xp for 'quest only' does not work for this game. It's not SRR. And, 4 months is not gonna change it into SRR.

 

 

"Volourn, you should be able to have the common sense to understand what is valid criticism. It's once thing to say "combat is too fast" or "I don't like the XP system". It's something completely different to attack your own speculations about content. It is quite obvious that a lot of the content isn't in place yet."

 

wut u talkin' about willis? I AM commenting on the content we have. You are the one speculating.   You get nothing for overcoming the spider queen challenge. NOTHING. That's fact. Not speculation. YOU are the one speculating on the future. If the next version of beta comes and you DO get rewarded for overcoming the spdier queen challenge THEN i will comment on THAT.

 

Don't make stuff up.

Volourn, you should be able to have the common sense to understand what is valid criticism. It's once thing to say "combat is too fast" or "I don't like the XP system". It's something completely different to attack your own speculations about content. It is quite obvious that a lot of the content isn't in place yet.

 

Also, have you read this forum? There' plenty of criticism going around. Maybe step out of the XP-for-kills circlejerk for a while?

 

We're not beta testing the future. We're beta testing what the devs gave us to beta test.

I actually agree with Volourn about the giant by giant spider standard spider not giving any reward being kinda pointless. I don't want kill exp, but I don't see problem with giving exp for vanquishing unique foes that you have no reason to do anything else with. I mean, the spider is in dead end, unless there was some type of special loot or exp for it, no real point in getting rid of it

 

..Hmm, the idea of getting kill exp only for vanquishing impressive foes sounds actually pretty good to me <_< Would make moping up thrash mobs pointless, but not make killing impressive "boss" or such enemies pointless

Edited August 21, 201411 yr by BrokenMask

^

When it comes to the point that people don't even want to do the optional content because it is unrewarding, then there is a problem.
 
If the game is designed well, then there is no need to grind and kill every last single spider for 10 XP each. Grinding in the IE games was not necessary at all, they just made the games challenging by not letting you skip every combat situation, which makes sense in a combat based game. I think the real problem is that many people just don't really like the combat, they just want to play the game for the story and skip as much combat as possible.

^

When it comes to the point that people don't even want to do the optional content because it is unrewarding, then there is a problem.

 

If the game is designed well, then there is no need to grind and kill every last single spider for 10 XP each. Grinding in the IE games was not necessary at all, they just made the games challenging by not letting you skip every combat situation, which makes sense in a combat based game. I think the real problem is that many people just don't really like the combat, they just want to play the game for the story and skip as much combat as possible.

yes, unrewarding IS the right definition. Not only I've found the combat mechanics too confusing and labor intensive but on top of that, many times I'm forced to enter combat with a variety of generic, filler foes for no reason other than to artificially prolong the time spent on a map and for what? some crafting ingredients, little to no money, no XP, no purpose.

Alright, here comes a slightly lengthy and personal reflection on this issue, and no, you won't even get a TLDR at the end of it:

 

I've been doing some soul-searching, more specifically, RPG-soul-searching, and after having dug through all the PnP RPG sediments, it can be summarized as follows:

-I've been loving PnP D&D for a long time - decades.

-I've been playing D&D, and DM:ed it as well, in two fashions:

1) Combat-heavy and story-heavy. It's like a very fun and rewarding combat simulator on the one hand, put a slow burner, it's almost like the gourmet slow food of hack-n-slash, and on the other hand, the story, the characters and the deep history of all the cultures and societies visited were just as important. It was indeed immersive and exciting. 

2)Combat-light and super-heavy RPG-ing. You go full-on, in character, and everybody around the table (this was no larping) did their best to verbally roleplay their character. It's very intense and sometimes emotional, even a little draining. The combat is also a matter of roleplaying first and foremost. The occasional dice rolls are nothing but subtle pointers. 

-90% of my PnP RPG sessions have been like #1, and 10% like #2

 

Enter the computer RPGs. My first was a D&D adventure on Intellivision in like 1981 or something, with gaming paddles. It was a dungeon crawler, and hack-n-slash.

Not until Pool of Radiance came out in 1988 - I played it on my beloved Amiga - did I get to experience a computer game that reflected much more my PnP experience of D&D. However, it was not #2, but #1, which got slightly emulated in that SSI game. Even if it never could live up to the story-heavy depth of my #1 version of PnP roleplaying, it was still a decent effort, and more excitingly, the combat simulator aspect of it - all the systems, with skills, experience points, weapon types, die rolls - actually worked quite well. It wasn't all great, though, since those systems were made for PnP, not a computer game and its need for smooth and fun gameplay. I really liked the game.

 

Later, when that Dragonlance trilogy came along, I was hooked. This gourmet slow food D&D combat simulator worked very well on computers, and somehow I managed to sneak in some immersion there as well, perhaps because when I didn't PnP with friends, I used to draw maps and use die rolls, and roll up entire parties, all on my own, which I then got to take on all sorts of weird adventures - this was before I had a personal computer, so the concept of controlling an entire party on my own, while still doing some light roleplaying in my head, as it were, was not a new concept to me. The Dark Sun: Shattered Lands PC game convinced me even more that this formula really worked. I got hours and days and weeks entertainment from them!

 

So, much later, when Baldur's Gate came out, I was ripe for the taking - and I was sold. To me, it was a masterpiece. So much love and PnP depth had been poured into it by the devs. I could really tell that. Also, it was pretty much an open world. I still remember the joy like it was yesterday. BG1 and BG2 also meant something else for me: I begun to replay CRPGs heavily - rolling up several characters and entire parties and enjoying them over and over, all because the brilliant and varied gameplay offered by the gourmet slowfood D&D combat simulator that the computers did really well. I went on, had loads of fun with NWN1, which also had persistent worlds, where I actually did roleplay on with other people for years (that's another story). Planescape: Torment also surprised me RP-wise. It showed me that you can make a game first and foremost story-heavy, and still have it work as a great game. In fact, and this is important, it would have worked fine with no combat, and no xp. I would have played it regardless - it was that good, the same goes for NWN2 Mask of the Betrayer. I really hope that T:ToN will deliver that kind of quality too in a year or three.

 

However, those story-heavy-only games are in the clear minority. They are exceptions to the rule, you can say. Most CRPG fun I 've had, well, that equals gourmet slow food D&D combat simulators with a great story, deep cultural settings, and fun and reactive player companions in the party (or not, I've actually played much more with no such companions in my party. Normally, the entire party has been created by me.

 

Forward to PoE, promised to be a "spiritual successor" of the IE-games, and the xp system and its present state (basically, quest xp only). Let's just say that it doesn't sit well with me.

Why?

I expect PoE to be story-heavy, with a rich background, lots of variety, epxloring, freedom, having cool companions and quests.

Oh, it is! Check!!

I expect Poe to be a gourmet slow food combat simulator that I can have fun with in months and years to come, replaying it until it breaks from wear and tear.

Nope! I have to take specific quest routes in order to even earn a single xp, and all the sense of the constant trickle of rewarding poured into the combat machine I love to drag around is simply not there. It has vanished. Poof! 

Yes! I admit. I am addicted to xp. I am addicted to killing sprees, and I reserve the right, from my years of experience of RPGs, PnP and CRPGs, to call this deep roleplaying.

The biggest question now, as I already said in the original thread, is what will take more time, figuring out how to do objective xp right or going back to the tried and tested system of the IE games.

The biggest question now, as I already said in the original thread, is what will take more time, figuring out how to do objective xp right or going back to the tried and tested system of the IE games.

Fine tuning the xp will mean doing stuff like toning down wilderness combat (Not all animals must be insanely homicidal!) such as their placement, density and spawning. Which is stuff they will/should do anyways no matter what xp system they go with.

So it is obviously less work because it is work they must do anyways in beta. You do not seriously think tweaking their current system will take more time than a whole new one?

 

IE games xp system is a tried and tested failure.

IE games xp system is a tried and tested failure.

 

You may think that other systems could be better, and you may be right - it's certainly a valid opinion anyway. But that statement is completely, objectively, laughably, indefensibly ridiculous.

@IndiraLightfoot I had to like your post even though I disagree. It was just so beautifully written -- and I can hardly argue with "but I LIKE my rewards for killing sprees!"

IE games xp system is a tried and tested failure.

 

You may think that other systems could be better, and you may be right - it's certainly a valid opinion anyway. But that statement is completely, objectively, laughably, indefensibly ridiculous.

 

Great. I cannot wait for you to effortlessly (because it is indefensible) prove me completely and laughably wrong. Objectively.

Edited August 21, 201411 yr by Shdy314

Thanks, PrimeJunta!

 

It's taken quite some time for me to come out of the closet as a D&D combat simulator addict, but I feel free now.

I really love that connoisseur/gourmet slow food analogy. I also play ARPGs from time to time. Titan Quest perhaps being my all time favourite, but to me they pale in comparison. They are the fast food, so to speak. If one's lucky, they have at least some decent story to them, but there's nothing that can beat having a slow food super-varied, super-fun combat simulator and fantastic story, historical and cultural depth, as well as great companions on top. It truly is the best of both worlds.

 

IE games xp system is a tried and tested failure.

 

You may think that other systems could be better, and you may be right - it's certainly a valid opinion anyway. But that statement is completely, objectively, laughably, indefensibly ridiculous.

 

Great. I cannot wait for you to effortlessly (because it is indefensible) prove me completely and laughably wrong. Objectively.

 

Sure, I can do it. BG2 was incredibly successful and was very well-received.