No experience from combat

[Amentep]

I think what it really comes down to is that objective based leads to the least amount of "degenerate" game play.

While I understand the intention of trying not to introduce systems that actively encourage abuse, to be honest I don't think Objective XP naturally creates the least amount of degenerate game play. As Stun, Helm and others have pointed out, poorly executed Objective XP will unnaturally encourage players away from combat in the same way that poorly executed Kill Xp encourages sociopathy.

 

The obvious hope is that whatever way XP is implemented that the game is still fun and rewarding, which seems a bit of a toss up still.

[Infinitron]

What sort of combat will it encourage players away from?

 

"Random encounters" and wilderness "trash mobs"? You can't uncover all of the fog of war and explore the entire map unless you've defeated all of those. This isn't a first person game, you can't "go around" if you really want to see everything. As I stated earlier, for many players, probably the majority of them, this alone will provide sufficient reason not to avoid that variety of combat.

 

Quest-related encounters? You will typically get XP for defeating those, if not immediately then at the end of your quest chain. You might say that this system incentivizes pacifist solutions to quests, but my impression is that in quests players usually role play, especially since this is an Obsidian game where some degree of long-term choice & consequence may be involved. Also, quest-related encounters usually come with interesting loot, providing another reason to choose the violent solution.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Infinitron

[Amentep]

Poorly executed Objective XP could so greatly unbalance the risk/reward in combat that the player only risks combat because there's no other way (which was, I believe, one of the complaints of the anti-Objective XP side, that if you can stealth by most enemies and still get enough experience to level up and beat the fights you have to do, then there's no real incentive to fight given the risks undertaken).

 

My hope, of course, would be that kind of implementation of Objective XP wouldn't pan out, but I can't say that it couldn't happen anymore than killXP certainly encourages combat as the superior option (particularly in the IE games where stealth and diplomatic XP were relatively sparse).

[Infinitron]

Poorly executed Objective XP could so greatly unbalance the risk/reward in combat that the player only risks combat because there's no other way (which was, I believe, one of the complaints of the anti-Objective XP side, that if you can stealth by most enemies and still get enough experience to level up and beat the fights you have to do, then there's no real incentive to fight given the risks undertaken).

 

Well, with regard to stealth, I think people are overestimating the applicability of that. First of all, it's unlikely that your entire party will be stealth masters. Typically you're going to use stealth to bring one or two of your characters into a position before springing an ambush, or something like that.

 

More importantly, however, stealth is unreliable. What happens when one of your six stealthed party members fails a roll and suddenly that enemy you were stealthing by sees you and all hell breaks loose? It's not really safe to leave a living enemy behind, especially in a non-linear area where you're likely to pass by him several times as you wander about. I believe most players will dispatch all enemies and that bypassing all encounters using stealth will be reserved for so-called "gimmick playthroughs".

Edited August 19, 2014 by Infinitron

[Lephys]

It seems as though the current system isn't working as intended, what with all the comments about weird no-XP technicalities with the Ogre.

 

I mean, this IS a beta build. That, and, even if it is working as intended, they're gathering feedback for a reason. Just make sure it's useful.

 

"Give me my kill XP because I want an oompa loompa and a golden goose egg, and I want one NOW!" is not useful. Objective descriptions of how you played through the same content with two different mindsets, and even completed qualifying/significant objectives, but were not rewarded any XP for taking the "I just kinda like combat" route, on the other hand... that is useful.

 

If you hate what's going on in the game, now's the time to help change it, constructively, and not just demand that the game match your preferences for no other reason than that you have preferences.

[termokanden]

I think it's fine that killing gives no XP as long as the reward system is well-balanced.

 

It really makes sense from a roleplaying perspective. My character would very likely want to focus on the goal rather than starting as many fights as possible. Well, depending on my character's personality at least

[Volourn]

The pro xp camp have given constructive feedback. I know I have inbetween the sniping between me and the 'other side'. But, it doesn't matter. It's not being changed. Our opinions have been thrown in the trash and ridiculed by Obsidian. These xp threads are mostly for us posters. There's a reason why no dev is active in these threads despite how 'busy' they are, and it's because this issue is not an issue for them.  It is what it is.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Volourn

[Utukka]

 

I think what it really comes down to is that objective based leads to the least amount of "degenerate" game play.

While I understand the intention of trying not to introduce systems that actively encourage abuse, to be honest I don't think Objective XP naturally creates the least amount of degenerate game play. As Stun, Helm and others have pointed out, poorly executed Objective XP will unnaturally encourage players away from combat in the same way that poorly executed Kill Xp encourages sociopathy.

 

The obvious hope is that whatever way XP is implemented that the game is still fun and rewarding, which seems a bit of a toss up still.

 

It certainly could unnaturally encourage players away from combat but I do think that far less players would be affected by this. This is certainly opinion but I feel that most players are going to play this game for combat and atleast on the first playthrough(s)...they will roll with the combat first. Players skipping combat due to "feeling unrewarded" in my opinion is more of a power gamer mentality or someone who has already played through the game or perhaps bought a guide for their first playthrough. I'd be suprised if a larger group of brand new players ran past the beetles because they knew they weren't going to get kill xp. This can certainly be applied to stealth/diplomacy players(which again is why we are getting objective based to begin with) but I feel that there would be more players who couldn't control themselves and would kill everything for the XP.

[Havelok]

There are two distinct reward paths in the game.

 

The first is experience points.

 

The second is loot, which includes wealth, equipment and crafting materials.

 

Combat rewards the player with the second reward path, and sometimes the first (if it is an important battle).

 

Quests reward the player with the first reward path, and sometimes the second (If there is a physical quest reward from an NPC).

 

It's pretty cut and dry, and it's clear to me that Obsidian has made the right call.

[Monocled Gamer]

If you're playing the game on a hard difficulty you're going to be avoiding combat wherever possible, it'll be the smart move. Rather strange in a successor to BG if you ask me. Risking your party and using up resources on some monster that attacks but which is worth no xp? After a while people will get into the habit of stealthing or running away. Unless it is a quest-specific foe which drops something useful.

 

And lol at the idea that failing a stealth roll will disincentivise this. Fight every battle or only those that your stealth roll fails on? Er, which option is incentivised? I also like the way players are trusted not to save-scum though the stealth rolls in this system (some will though) but with a killxp system we aren't trusted not to do stupid stuff like kill every quest-giver. The reality is that there are degenerate gamers with any system, the same people will just find different ways to abuse it. So changing the system away from BG for the purposes of avoiding degerate gaming is futile.

 

And I'm not talking about the first time one plays the game, when taking on every new monster is interesting and you're just messing around trying a party out. I'm talking more about when the initial novelty has worn off, when you've settled into a playstyle and are trying to make the most of your resources. The best approach will be to avoid combat unless it is critical, which is a very different feel to the IE games. Well done everyone.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Monocled Gamer

[Helm]

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.

Ok. Since people who like progression mechanics obviously have mental disorders, let's just remove all loot drops and XP rewards from sidequests too.

 

Best game ever for the mentally sane.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Helm

[Helm]

The pro xp camp have given constructive feedback. I know I have inbetween the sniping between me and the 'other side'. But, it doesn't matter. It's not being changed. Our opinions have been thrown in the trash and ridiculed by Obsidian. These xp threads are mostly for us posters. There's a reason why no dev is active in these threads despite how 'busy' they are, and it's because this issue is not an issue for them.  It is what it is.

Sad, but true.

 

 

 

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

That must hurt.

[Infinitron]

If you're playing the game on a hard difficulty you're going to be avoiding combat wherever possible, it'll be the smart move. Rather strange in a successor to BG if you ask me. Risking your party and using up resources on some monster that attacks but which is worth no xp? After a while people will get into the habit of stealthing or running away. Unless it is a quest-specific foe which drops something useful.

 

And lol at the idea that failing a stealth roll will disincentivise this. Fight every battle or only those that your stealth roll fails on? Er, which option is incentivised? I also like the way players are trusted not to save-scum though the stealth rolls in this system (some will though) but with a killxp system we aren't trusted not to do stupid stuff like kill every quest-giver. The reality is that there are degenerate gamers with any system, the same people will just find different ways to abuse it. So changing the system away from BG for the purposes of avoiding degerate gaming is futile.

 

And I'm not talking about the first time one plays the game, when taking on every new monster is interesting and you're just messing around trying a party out. I'm talking more about when the initial novelty has worn off, when you've settled into a playstyle and are trying to make the most of your resources. The best approach will be to avoid combat unless it is critical, which is a very different feel to the IE games. Well done everyone.

 

This an Infinity Engine-style CRPG, not Thief: The Dark Project. Nobody's going to savescum to preserve stealth, unless they're in some sort of gimmick playthrough. Your characters are equipped and built to engage in combat. You're going to use them, because it's the more straightforward option.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Infinitron

[Enoch]

If you're playing the game on a hard difficulty you're going to be avoiding combat wherever possible, it'll be the smart move. Rather strange in a successor to BG if you ask me. Risking your party and using up resources on some monster that attacks but which is worth no xp? After a while people will get into the habit of stealthing or running away. Unless it is a quest-specific foe which drops something useful.

 

Fun Fact:  This is pretty much how the characters you're supposedly role-playing (and who can't Save & Reload) would think.  They'll risk their neck to accomplish goals, not to earn imaginary points on a character sheet. 

[Helm]

 

If you're playing the game on a hard difficulty you're going to be avoiding combat wherever possible, it'll be the smart move. Rather strange in a successor to BG if you ask me. Risking your party and using up resources on some monster that attacks but which is worth no xp? After a while people will get into the habit of stealthing or running away. Unless it is a quest-specific foe which drops something useful.

 

Fun Fact:  This is pretty much how the characters you're supposedly role-playing (and who can't Save & Reload) would think.  They'll risk their neck to accomplish goals, not to earn imaginary points on a character sheet. 

 

Fun Fact 2: This will never be a true statement as long as XP is rewarded for sidequests.

[Qiushui]

 

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.

Ok. Since people who like progression mechanics obviously have mental disorders, let's just remove all loot drops and XP rewards from sidequests too.

 

Best game ever for the mentally sane.

 

You know I'm talking about combat exp only right? I guess for some people combat exp is = 'all progression mechanics' ,must be years of MMO grinding getting to people or something.  

[Stun]

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.

So your stance is that the developers should discourage "kill grinding for XP", but promote "kill grinding for loot".

 

Ok. I disagree by the way. From what I've played of the beta, The loot drops did not inspire me.

[Shevek]

I think combat heavy games should reward combat. This is a dungeon crawler at its heart, after all. Still, I can live with it.

[Tartantyco]

This is a dungeon crawler at its heart, after all.

 

 

Uhhh, no.

[Stun]

 

This is a dungeon crawler at its heart, after all.

 

Uhhh, no.

 

Sure felt like it

[Volourn]

"Uhhh, no."

 

Uhhh... Yes..

 

I wouldn't say it's  Diablo like but it is heavily focused on combat. The stats prove it. Nothing wrong with that either.

 

And, yeah, it will have dialogue and non combat solutions, and all that other stuff but even Obsidian has stated quite clearly that the game is highly focused on combat and majority of combat won't be avoidable.

 

Yeah, you can avoid combat with ogre but not with the beetles, lions, or even the presumably intelligent cultists. Nothing wrong with that but don't pretend this is some anti fighting game when it isn't.

 

XP should be about rewarding players for overcoming challenges, complting quests, role-playing, and encouraging them to partake in what the game has to offer.

 

There is no reason why  completing the challenge of beating the beetles shouldn't be worth the same as defeating the ogre. NONE.

[Tartantyco]

Combat focus does not mean dungeon crawler. Dungeon crawler means a very restricted world to move through, generally linear in progression, often with a combat focus. Pillars of Eternity does not qualify as a dungeon crawler.

[Silent Winter]

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.

It's not that it invalidates doing things - I'll happily go through mobs and explore areas with no-xp ... for a while.  But if it gets to the stage where you're playing for 5 hours and actually accomplishing things and still receiving zero-xp since you didn't ask permission from a villager first ... then it becomes a problem with the progression system.

Obs said the demo would be 3-6 hours with the ability to go from level 5-8 (with exaggerated xp-rewards to test the level-up stuff) - but it sounds like you have to play in a certain way to get that - against the stated design goal.

 

"- go kill the ogre and see."

 

I did. No xp.

Really?  I was sure that Adam got it in the 2nd gamescon vid without talking to the farmer first - was it the same ogre?  (Just checking that this mightn't all be an xp-bug)

[Nomadmerc]

The current experience system has similarity in point to another game i like 'deus ex human revolution.' The experience in that game was not based on killing mobs but quest completion though there were caveats (i.e., kill all the mobs in the area you got bonus exp, kill no mobs you got bonus exp, etc). Right now the system in POE does not seem to reward that kind of divergent gameplay.  

 

Finally from my own playthrough the current system's experience 'flaws' are expounded on the two hardest difficulties. 

[Volourn]

"Really?  I was sure that Adam got it in the 2nd gamescon vid without talking to the farmer first - was it the same ogre?  (Just checking that this mightn't all be an xp-bug)"
 

It is likely a bug in this instance. I'm just having fun over it.   The anti xp people got their wish. There's no xp at all. Not from combat, not from exploring, not from quests. Heh.

 

 

Still, bugs aside, I don't see why one can't earn experience by overcoming the challenge of the beatles...