No experience from combat

[Waywocket]

 this beta is the first time I've played an RPG and thought about NOT killing all the things at the end of the quest. 

 

Seriously? This is a thing that people actually did?

[Stun]

Stun, LARP stands for Live Action Role Playing. That's people who play a roleplaying game in person. It has absolutely no relevance to the discussion here, so just stop abusing terms you don't even understand.

In cRPG larping is pointless stuff you do for RP purposes that the game mechanics don't recognize. Like making sure your character eats 3 meals a day when you're playing skyrim. or dropping gold and weapons in front of a Talos shrine.

 

It's meaningless "pretend" crap.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Stun

[Forlorn Hope]

Yes... I kind of miss combat XP... But in all fairness, I sometimes forget that I am not being rewarded for the combat and still enjoy fighting monsters etc. However, maybe I'd prefer combat XP.

[bob54386]

 

 this beta is the first time I've played an RPG and thought about NOT killing all the things at the end of the quest. 

 

Seriously? This is a thing that people actually did?

 

I mean, I never thought twice about jumping on top of a Koopa.  Heck, I'll probably just kill all the things in this game as well -- I guess I'm usually looking for the tactical challenge and phat loots.  But at the very least I need to figure out who to kill in some situations -- can't kill both medred and Nyfre to get XP.  choices.

[Wintersong]

As I understand they've said they just want combat to be for the fun of it. Taking away experience rewards from enemies just seems like it will leave the combat a bit unrewarding. I feel like I will skip even trying to get in fights because there's not much benefit and mostly detriment. You risk your characters getting hurt/knocked out/killed for what, beating enemies juts for the fun of it? There's always a balance of risk vs. reward in these kinds of games and it seems that balance has been upset.

 

Sure some enemies may drop items, but that'll be the only reward of combat? I think it's a mistake for them not to give any exp. Perhaps cutting the exp gains from enemies down so that you don't gain a ton, but none? That means the only point of the game is to just grind through quests as fast as you can with no reason to kill enemies and skip all unnecessary stuff.

 

It pigeon holes players into playing one specific way. What if players don't want to do many quests? The only way to play if you want to get anywhere is by questing now. There's no just going out and adventuring around killing things as a form of progression.

 

Let's face it, players want to be rewarded and they want to get that reward via the fastest means possible. That means is going to be skipping unnecessary combat and leaves combat in general feeling like a chore that you must do along the path to grinding out these quests.

 

I haven't played the beta myself so this is just as I understand it from what I've heard and read. Just wanted to get my thoughts out about this.

To a point it sounds like playing a MMORPG, where instead of doing the quests, you just grind your way up. Which considering how many quests are done in MMORPGs, I cannot blame players for it (I do like grinding too sometimes).

 

If the game is well designed, you should get enough exp to complete the game just by doing the main line of quests. And I guess that those are mandatory to trigger different areas/stuff/final_dudeboss.

 

It disincentivizes exploration and combat for me. I know I'm better off waiting until I have a quest for tackling an area before actually going out and tackling it. 

I also know that with the exception of named NPC's there isn't any reason not to bypass random encounters with beatles/animals/etc because I'm not going to be rewarded even slightly for it. 

 

With no exp rewarded for encounters it's less rewarding to stray from the critical/quest path and do your own thing.

I doesn't have to be a lot either.  Even minimal exp can make a big difference.

Is "your own thing" just level-ups? Because if you don't go to an area just to explore it or to do a quest in it, why else go there? It's true that you may want to explore an area searching for "treasure", "epic shoopeker" or who knows what. Then, dealing with "wildlife" is the previous step to enjoying such reward. If the area has no quests in it (rare), in any case it should contain "valuables" worth the effort of going there and dealing with whatever is there (exp or not). Our main reason to explore should be tangible stuff and not exp.

 

I think that it's ok that "random" encounters not offer nothing but loot. That should be their only reason of existence. Optionals, more of the same. Unless you are collecting wolf pelts or roleplay a wolf hater, willingly jumping into a random wolf encounter doesn't make much sense. Unless you just do it for the fun of playing a combat!!! Or maybe failed to sneak...

 

Don't get me wrong. I like leveling up. It sucks when an RPG system puts the nice goodies up in the high levels and one cannot wait to reach them to finally have a functional character as one wants it to be. And leveling up also gives a sense of progression (which games like Oblivion send to hell by scaling up stuff).

 

If you hit max level in a game and there are still areas to explore, do you stop exploring because you gain no exp from the monsters? Or stop doing quests?

 

------

 

Even D&D says how exp can be given in different ways and killing stuff is just one... which can be optional. Beating an encounter is the basic way. A trap? You can get exp by disarming it... or by finding a way to bypass it. Sleeping ogre at the door? Exp for killing it or just by sneaking without waking him up. Even it's mentioned as an alternative to only give exp for quest completed (taking into account all the encounters in it, of course).

 

Makes sense? Yes, it does. Allocating exps in the monsters, only incentivates unnecesary violence. As much as special treasure tables for them. So if you just want loot, it'll be always be there is some form. And focusing the exp in the quests, makes you focus on which should be really important. Killing stuff is important in games like Torchlight or Diablo (and the LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!11!1!!!1) and while games like this or BG are combat centric, they are not ARPGs and don't need to emulate them. No one forbids you to have fun killing non quest monsters, it only encourages you to do it just for fun.

 

-----

 

My first character talks with dude outside village. Talks with woman inside village. Kills woman to save time. Talks with man outside village. Kills man because of stuff said. Gets loot from both but no exp.

 

My next character talks with dude outside the village. Talks with woman inside the village. Cooperates with her. Talks with man outside village. Kills man. Gets loot only from the dude and also get almost enough exp to go from level 5 to 6.

 

Fair? I see no problem there.

[Kinthalis]

My own take on this is that I'm ok with it, but that I think a better solution would be to simply award a higher amount of XP for non-combat solutions to a problem, and have the quest line be smart enough to know that you went and killed the Ogre anyway, so now the XP bonus for talking our way out is removed.

 

I don't know how feasable that would be though. Sounds like an extra layer of complexity on an already complex system.

[fruiteater]

So i actually didnt thin this would be such a hot topic, but after reading through this thread (and some of the other threads) i have to ask: is the sole purpose of playing an RPG the accumulation of experince points? because the more that i read this less i see interesting disscussion of pro´s and con´s of both systems and more "if i dont get xp for it, it invalidates me doing it so i should not even bother with it". I dont really get it.

[Qiushui]

I'm not entirely decided on which way is best though I am leaning toward the system as it currently stands, possibly with a few other small ways to gain exp such as exploration (which will encourage you to get through trash mobs even with no kill exp because you will have to pass by them / kill them etc. to explore everything)

 

Hell, even with the current system there IS incentive to get by / kill trash mobs, how do you know that there isn't a quest giver, or any other number of good things,  waiting on the other side??

 

The idea that every little thing you do in the game should give you exp, just because this is an RPG, is silly. Do you get exp for saving the princess in Super Mario World? No, you do it because it's fun. This isn't some MMO / Competitive online game, you don't need a reward for every little thing you do. You can actually just enjoy playing the game.

 

Do you do combat because you get exp or because it's fun? In a game that is actually good, it would be because of the latter. The former is called grinding, nobody wants that, I hope.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Qiushui

[Volourn]

XP is about rewading the player for overcoming challenges, role-playing, quest compeltion, and C&C.

 

And, claiming that giving combat xp is rewarding 'deriative behaviour' insults PE since PE wants you to fight. It's largely focused on combat. All characters are based on combat. Not getting xp for combat (not neccessarily xp per kill or non hostile characters) is silly.

 

This isn't SRR where it works.

 

Again, XP is about rewarding the player. That's where it fails in this game (beta). Period.

 

 

 

"- go kill the ogre and see."

 

I did. No xp.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Volourn

[Stun]

The idea that every little thing you do in the game should give you exp, just because this is an RPG, is silly.

I don't think too many people here are advocating that we should get rewarded for every little thing we do. They're merely asking to be rewarded for engaging in combat, which in a combat centric RPG, cannot be considered a "little thing".

 

Do you get exp for saving the princess in Super Mario World? No

If PoE was being advertised as the spiritual successor to Super Mario World, that would be an impregnable argument. It's not though. This game was *created* to be all about the IE game Nostalgia. To quote Josh Sawyer, it's supposed to make you feel like you are "coming home again". Bottom line: The IE games rewarded XP for killing and questing. Quest XP and Kill XP was *fundamental* in those games. It should have been in PoE as well. Edited August 19, 2014 by Stun

[sanian]

I don't agree with the 'it makes combat less rewarding' thinking.

 

Loot. That's the reason I go into every nook and cranny in rpg's, the xp is just a necessary 'drop' because the game is stratified by levels.

 

I actually didn't even notice that the combat didn't give xp, I was too absorbed in the looting and killing.

Edited August 19, 2014 by sanian

[war:head]

 

 if you got XP from kills you would allways have an insentive to kill for no other reason then to get XP. '

 

not really, you will still get crafting materials/items/money.

 

So killing someone to get loot is ok while killing someone for XP should be disincentivized? Yeah, right.

 

I agree with the pro-XP faction here and we don't even need to use 'reward' as the major argument because, especially in an RPG, there's a way more direct one - immersion and consistency of the world. 

It's really that simple - why does "get me that pretty stone over there" provide experience for a character while defeating a truly challenging opponent does not? Doesn't make any sense.

[Infinitron]

Infinity Engine-style RPGs have been described (often derisively) as "fog of war uncovering simulators". But it's true - to a significant portion of players, just revealing the entire map is its own reward.

 

And to uncover all the fog of war, you need to fight all the monsters you find in it...XP or no XP. I play like this, and I'm sure most people in this thread do the same.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Infinitron

[Nomadmerc]

There should be more then a loot reward for combat. 

 

Some suggestions follows.

 

Ranger style bonuses to certain mob types for defeating a certain amount of them (i.e, bonus damage, defense, receive more diverse loot pool).

 

Minor experience for combat.

 

 

[Qiushui]

 

I don't think too many people here are advocating that we should get rewarded for every little thing we do. They're merely asking to be rewarded for engaging in combat, which in a combat centric RPG, cannot be considered a "little thing".

 

 

You are rewarded for engaging in combat. It's one of the ways that you solve quests, discover new areas, discover loot, discover new characters and quest givers. And combat is actually fun, because you get to play with your characters' abilities, which is a reward in itself. 

 

Just because you get exp from quests doesn't mean you don't need to know how to play the combat portions of the game and use your party and their abilities effectively. Do people actually have incentive to beat the game? Are they going to flip-out if after the end game credits screen a little message doesn't pop out saying "Here is 50K exp for beating the game!!"

 

It's mind boggling to me that people suddenly lose all incentive and enjoyment for combat or even playing the game just because there is no exp. It seems like a mental disorder.

[Waywocket]

So i actually didnt thin this would be such a hot topic, but after reading through this thread (and some of the other threads) i have to ask: is the sole purpose of playing an RPG the accumulation of experince points? because the more that i read this less i see interesting disscussion of pro´s and con´s of both systems and more "if i dont get xp for it, it invalidates me doing it so i should not even bother with it". I dont really get it.

I think that the elephant in the room is that for many people - myself included, to be honest - random meaningless fights aren't actually fun. Getting ambushed by beetles and having to spend ages dealing with that feels like an easy way to pad a game out, not actually an enjoyable encounter in its own right - like it was literally put there for no other reason than to inflate the length of the game.

 

Pointless fights that affect nothing and occur for no reason are kind of like a tax you have to pay in most RPGs in order to get the reward of the fun parts of the game. At least if you get some XP, then it doesn't feel like it was a complete waste of time.

[sanian]

 

It's really that simple - why does "get me that pretty stone over there" provide experience for a character while defeating a truly challenging opponent does not? Doesn't make any sense.

 

Because levels are not a reflection of your combat skill, they are a reflection of the characters 'life-experience' or 'maturity' or whatever. So what you should be asking for is 'x number of kills - gives this or that attribute'; e.g. killing a hundred wolves gives you an attribute that gives you bonus aim and crit chance or something, against wolves.

 

Reading this thread makes me wonder if character levels ought to be scrapped along with combat xp and instead only have talent trees.

 

I think that the elephant in the room is that for many people - myself included, to be honest - random meaningless fights aren't actually fun. Getting ambushed by beetles and having to spend ages dealing with that feels like an easy way to pad a game out, not actually an enjoyable encounter in its own right - like it was literally put there for no other reason than to inflate the length of the game.

 

Pointless fights that affect nothing and occur for no reason are kind of like a tax you have to pay in most RPGs in order to get the reward of the fun parts of the game. At least if you get some XP, then it doesn't feel like it was a complete waste of time.

 

From what I've seen of the beta, you can avoid most of the fights by sneaking. Not all granted but then I want you to consider how fun it would be to get all the fun parts without any struggle. Instant repeated gratification with no effort. That kind of game-play turns me into a zombie.

Edited August 19, 2014 by sanian

[Luridis]

I think the devs are just lazy and don't wan't to balance XP tables for mobs, which is a pain. Having to figure out XP values just for quests is much easier.

 

Is that what you really think?

 

You do realize that they've been doing this sort of thing for years... yes? There are tools, mathematical formula, and spreadsheets that make this sort of thing not such a big deal. Add up all the mobs in a zone multiplied by a chosen time factor. Then decide how much XP you want the player to receive in that time factor and divide by the number of mobs found in the aforementioned product. Make some adjustments for tougher and weaker mobs. Note: This is just off the top of my head and I don't think it's possible for it to be much more complicated. "Why," you ask? Because it doesn't need to be... With a guaranteed upper limit to the number of mobs that can spawn in X time, how much should come from each one is simple math.

 

How much XP is in each level, how much you get from doing X, blah and blah, blah is simple numbers and it's the least of what they need to think about in the realm of game mechanics. No XP from from monsters was a design decision, not one made out of just being lazy.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Luridis

[Panteleimon]

 

Well, no.  This isn't Diablo.  If you don't want to do quests, this is probably not the right game for you.

 

Oh I could have sworn that this was a game for anyone who liked all the IE games (IWD included), must have misunderstood them...

 

This is still primarily a combat game. There are other games being made for those who want to do pacifist runs and similar.

 

 

 

Given that this game doesn't have kill XP and isn't getting it, I'd say that there are other games being made for those who want to roll around blowing everything away.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Panteleimon

[Sarex]

Given that this game doesn't have kill XP and isn't getting it, I'd that there are other games being made for those who want to roll around blowing everything away.

 

What does kill xp have to do with what you said?

[Panteleimon]

 

Given that this game doesn't have kill XP and isn't getting it, I'd that there are other games being made for those who want to roll around blowing everything away.

 

What does kill xp have to do with what you said?

 

 

 

I'm saying that you basically told that guy to go play other games if he doesn't like your view of what PoE is. The funny thing is that you're the one getting the short end of the stick, so at the end of the day you can take your own advice.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Panteleimon

[Sarex]

I'm saying that you basically told that guy to go play other games if he doesn't like your view of what PoE is. The funny thing is that you're the one getting the short end of the stick, so you can take your own advice.

 

No, the person I was talking to equated per kill xp with Diablo, then proceeded to tell OP that this is not a game for him if he is primarily interested in combat. I then showed that person that he is wrong, and told him the same thing he said to op.

 

Did you understand now, or do you need more help? Feel free to ask.

[Amentep]

There should be more then a loot reward for combat. 

 

Some suggestions follows.

 

Ranger style bonuses to certain mob types for defeating a certain amount of them (i.e, bonus damage, defense, receive more diverse loot pool).

 

Minor experience for combat.

I thought at one point these kind of perks were on the table (but I may be misremembering).

 

To me for an XP system to work, people should be rewarded for their play style, so in essence someone whose good at killing things should become better at killing things (whether it be XP, loot, perks, a combination of them)

[Volourn]

The thing is all PE classes are designed to kill things. That's what they are made for.

[Utukka]

Something I posted in another thread on this topic....

 

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.