No experience from combat

[Wintersong]

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

First: combat focused/heavy game means that there is lots of combat. You may be able to solve some by peaceful means and such, but combat is the main way to solve stuff in general. It doesn't mean that you should be given exp as reward. It's an option that developers can give you if they design the game in that way. They could just lock levels and only give you new ones as you complete milestones in the main quest. Or have no levels for classes and have the skills to improve by use. Possible systems are many.

 

Second: combat fun should be its own reward (if you play a combat heavy game whith a combat system you hate... uff) but there is also the associated loot. Sometimes it may be worthless, other times it will be jackpot. You are getting a reward from combat. That it's not enough in your eyes, a whole different story.

 

For the record, if it really matters, I love combat. My prefered classes in any D&D edition that I have played are figthers and rogues (not pickpocketing ones but locksmith with some scout/swashbuckling).

 

The developers could decide to grant exp for completely exploring a map. Does it mean that they should? Or for speaking with every NPC in each map? For clearing a whole map of monsters?

 

The game is designed around doing quests. Go from A to Z. Along the way do quests to unlock stuff and you can even do side trips to B, K and U. If it's well designed in its encounters/quests, every area should give you enough material rewards for your efforts while feeding you enough xps through quests. And still have wiggle room to go wild an explore just because. To murder just because. It doesn't have the flexibility of a tabletop game, so hard limits must be set but still...

 

If it's well done, the only real difference you should notice between getting xps on the spot of murdering some life and having to wait for quest completion, would be timing. Nothing else. Instead of "Ding!" on the bloody spot where you gutted the Ogre, you are getting it on the village. Loot should be about the same, time invested similar too.

 

If a quest requires you to go to a beetle infested forest, a cave full of spiders and then an ogre, the experience from completing that quest should account for all the challenges that you can expect from it. It doesn't matter if you explore the whole map or not. It doesn't matter if you carved a bloody way to the ogre or if you just sneaked your way to him. What matters is that you get to the ogre, solve the situation somehow and them go back to tell the tale. The experience you receive should be approximate to that of getting xps for killing stuff. Except that a "xp for target" system would have that quest give less xps to balance the fact that you are getting xps in the field.

 

For the very few that expect to be able to grind random monsters to reach max level and then face the final dude... yeah, system sucks. Wrong game too.

 

For the camp of every challehenge should give me some kind of reward and loot is not enough*, I think that the only real issue are optional monsters. This is a combat heavy game. So its a quest heavy game. But even if you decide to explore without quests (nothing wrong with that), areas should be rewarding in any case. That Random Wolf #3748 that is hanging out with Random Wolf #2789 and Random Great Wolf #895, is just one of the challenges on getting to whatever rewards may be in the area (secret stash, new NPC... or just getting fame as "Wolf Killer"). Direct rewards are not the ultimate rewards. The game should reward you to conver for your expenses while adventuring and still getting some extra (unless you do stupid stuff). Basic DMing. So if your concern is that of resources wasted on random stuff, the system should account for them somehow. If it doesn't then yeah, there is a problem.

 

I do believe that special situations/encounters could call for xp. If you find a map with a dragon that has no relation whatsoever to any quest, defeating it may justify some xps on the basis of it being a rare powerful being (unless they are cannon fodder in PoE). That in addition to possible treasure they may have. But those would be exceptions. Random Wolf #957890 and Random Wolf #283930? Nope. Just wolf pelts.

 

But hey, if they add xp on killing, just make sure that xp of the critters drops slowly towards 0 the more of them you kill and/or you level up. Experience is about learning new stuff. Getting new insight about things. Killing Random Wolf #84029234 surely doesn't provide as much insight as the first random wolf (you may also be overflowing the market with wolf pelts).

 

For extrapolating the current, limited and buggy beta system experience to the whole game... Really? We got a fragment (not near the beginning!) of the whole game. A fragment that bugs out and may lead to lose stuff, like quests. We may be able to judge somehow the combat. Not so much, yet, the exp system.

 

For the record too: I don't hate wolves. I do hate when they drop stuff like money, weapons, armors...

* because some monsters may not have it or it may be crappy

[Osvir]

I said it a long time ago and I still stand by that opinion and suggestion:

Separate Level Systems, Out of Combat Levels and In-Combat Levels. Two experience pools.

But I'm perfectly fine with how the system is handled at the moment. I can understand how no experience from combat can feel less "impactful" for many reasons. It's the cookie clicker mentality. "Everything I do should be rewarded". It is an "Achievement's Everywhere"-Symptom.

Achievement:
- "You moved the mouse!!!"
- "You clicked once!"
- "You clicked twice!"

^Those types of Achievements has to stop. What does it matter if I get 10 experience for defeating each foe, total of 10 foes (netting 100 experience points) or getting 100 experience for turning in the Quest.

[sparklecat]

No, no Stun, you see he was trying to helpful there, it wasn't meant to be a snarky reply. /s

Actually, yes.  This is the case. 

[Infinitron]

Yesterday I played the game for around 5 hours, exploring all of the town and finished the task regarding the two groups of people, clearing the bandits and climbing after the egg, killing the ogre, exploring the area to the west and most of the dungeon below it... and ended up with a whopping +0 XP for my party. 

 

People act like this is self-evidently a bad thing, but I'm actually not sure why. Why is gaining 0 XP a bad thing? What exactly are you being deprived of here?

 

Personally, I think it's cool when you can't count on the inevitable level-up to rescue you from a tough encounter. You have to make due with what you have. No level-up for you until the quest is over.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Infinitron

[Sarex]

People act like this is self-evidently a bad thing, but I'm actually not sure why. Why is gaining 0 XP a bad thing? What exactly are you being deprived of here?

 

Personally, I think it's cool when you can't count on the inevitable level-up to rescue you from a tough encounter. You have to make due with what you have. No level-up for you until the quest is over.

 

You are being deprived of any character progression for a days worth of playing a game, as to why that is bad, well it railroads you in to doing quest to have character progression at all, ie. it removes choice from you.

 

Everything is pretty much explained and discussed in this thread already:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67140-experience-point-system-in-the-beta-and-onwards/

[DeHavilan]

I mean ultimately, even in a game that is 'combat heavy', I would say even 2 or 3 quality combat sequences per rest is more than your average DnD tabletop campaign, unless you're just running something really kill heavy.  Additionally, from a role playing perspective, I think it would make sense that the large majority of characters would want to engage in life or death situations as little as possible, and especially when it isn't necessary for some tangible objective.  For those that truly feel that murder is an important part of progression, then the value provided in the loot, or in not having to parlay with those you encounter seems sufficient enough.

[adhuin]

 

People act like this is self-evidently a bad thing, but I'm actually not sure why. Why is gaining 0 XP a bad thing? What exactly are you being deprived of here?

 

Personally, I think it's cool when you can't count on the inevitable level-up to rescue you from a tough encounter. You have to make due with what you have. No level-up for you until the quest is over.

 

You are being deprived of any character progression for a days worth of playing a game, as to why that is bad, well it railroads you in to doing quest to have character progression at all, ie. it removes choice from you.

 

Everything is pretty much explained and discussed in this thread already:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67140-experience-point-system-in-the-beta-and-onwards/

 

 

How on earth is kill-XP any different from your complain.

You have to slaughter anything that moves, otherwise you are denied character progression.

It forces you to be murderhobo, instead of playing quests and adventures.

[Shevek]

 

Yesterday I played the game for around 5 hours, exploring all of the town and finished the task regarding the two groups of people, clearing the bandits and climbing after the egg, killing the ogre, exploring the area to the west and most of the dungeon below it... and ended up with a whopping +0 XP for my party. 

 

People act like this is self-evidently a bad thing, but I'm actually not sure why. Why is gaining 0 XP a bad thing? What exactly are you being deprived of here?

 

Personally, I think it's cool when you can't count on the inevitable level-up to rescue you from a tough encounter. You have to make due with what you have. No level-up for you until the quest is over.

 

 

In an rpg (crpg, pen and paper, whatever...), you want to reward the player for adventuring not simply for "completing objectives" determined by some uptight GM. If a player goes out, explores, has a bunch of close calls, and successfully delves into a dungeon, then that player has had quite an "experience" and should be rewarded with "experience points." In a combat heavy game like this, the most efficient way to do this is clear.

 

The notion of only awarding xp if some nebulous objective has been met just does not sit well with me. If the player plays and conquers obstacles/challenges, he is experiencing content and his character should advance with experience points. To give ZERO experience points is to assign ZERO value to the player's actions. This is ludicrous.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Shevek

[Wombat]

Actually, I like dev's approach of "just be you" or "pretend to be a different personality" or role-playing.  If you are interested in EXP, there are many other CRPGs, which allow you grind to your heart's content.  For a story-focused role-playing game, the implementation makes sense.

[Orphansmith]

Kratok's example is pointless. I could play any other game and purposefully avoid ways to get XP and claim it's bad game design. Unless you're playing GW2 then you have no case to stand on.

[Sarex]

Actually, I like dev's approach of "just be you" or "pretend to be a different personality" or role-playing.  If you are interested in EXP, there are many other CRPGs, which allow you grind to your heart's content.  For a story-focused role-playing game, the implementation makes sense.

 

But this is false, the Kickstarter was started on the premise of "By the Infinity Engine gamers, for the Infinity Engine gamers", so I don't really know where you are coming from with that statement.

[Mrakvampire]

Kills should award XP. Period.

[Wombat]

 

Actually, I like dev's approach of "just be you" or "pretend to be a different personality" or role-playing.  If you are interested in EXP, there are many other CRPGs, which allow you grind to your heart's content.  For a story-focused role-playing game, the implementation makes sense.

 

But this is false, the Kickstarter was started on the premise of "By the Infinity Engine gamers, for the Infinity Engine gamers", so I don't really know where you are coming from with that statement.

 

My personal experience of playing some PnP RPGs and the way some of Obsidian devs kept the tradition of introducing PnP essences into CRPGs.  In fact, while being counted as Infinity Engine games, Planescape:  Torment was totally of it's own.  However, while it was counted as one of memorable CRPGs.  Keeping the tradition is not frigidly keeping a certain format without any critical thinking or trying possible new approaches to enhance a certain existing factors, IMHO.

 

Of course, you could argue whatever at your end but my opinion is mine.

[Shevek]

 

Actually, I like dev's approach of "just be you" or "pretend to be a different personality" or role-playing.  If you are interested in EXP, there are many other CRPGs, which allow you grind to your heart's content.  For a story-focused role-playing game, the implementation makes sense.

 

 

But, the dev's approach isnt "just be you." That would mean rewarding the player for just meandering about and doing whatever they like. The dev's actual approach is "we will reward you for doing what we think is important (our scripted objectives)." While I concur that this is not a "sandbox title," it is a dungeon crawler. It was certainly inspired by (mostly) dungeon crawlers (I would not consider BG1/2 or, especially, IWD 1/2 anything else). Dungeon crawlers should reward players with combat xp. If this were a sequel to Thief, I would not argue but this is not meant to be a stealth sim.

 

Also the issue here is not simply the ability to grind xp. It is the ability to get exp for immersing your self in the world and wandering about. I got quite a bit of xp in BG1 just roaming from map to map checking crap out. There were no objectives tied to many of those maps. It was just wilderness. But the player was spurred to clear that fog of war to discover content and for combat xp. 

 

As I have mentioned, I can live with the current system but it does not sit well with me and seems too much of a departure for the classic games of the 90s. Some change is good (like making combat more active or making strongholds more interesting) but this change seems both unneccessary and unpopular.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Shevek

[Namutree]

 

Actually, I like dev's approach of "just be you" or "pretend to be a different personality" or role-playing.  If you are interested in EXP, there are many other CRPGs, which allow you grind to your heart's content.  For a story-focused role-playing game, the implementation makes sense.

 

The approach isn't "just be you" at all. If I want to explore for it's own sake, even if I kill enemies and find dungeons; I get no xp. If I do a quest; I get xp. There is railroading going on here. Want to progress in the game? Do a bunch of quest. No other play style allowed.

[Shevek]

 

 

Actually, I like dev's approach of "just be you" or "pretend to be a different personality" or role-playing.  If you are interested in EXP, there are many other CRPGs, which allow you grind to your heart's content.  For a story-focused role-playing game, the implementation makes sense.

 

The approach isn't "just be you" at all. If I want to explore for it's own sake, even if I kill enemies and find dungeons; I get no xp. If I do a quest; I get xp. There is railroading going on here. Want to progress in the game? Do a bunch of quest. No other play style allowed.

 

 

Exactly. This is the worst kind of GMing. "Oh, I don't think the combat you just went through is meaningful even though you risked a party wipe and used rest resources, so you get ZERO xp." Bad design for a dungeon crawler.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Actually, I like dev's approach of "just be you" or "pretend to be a different personality" or role-playing.  If you are interested in EXP, there are many other CRPGs, which allow you grind to your heart's content.  For a story-focused role-playing game, the implementation makes sense.

 

Unfortunately, it's detrimental to roleplaying, especially in party-based CRPG - you won't get any character development (unless you conjure up your own fantasies of it in your mind) unless you follow a few "by-the-designers-approved" quest lines. That's just one step away from sightseeing games like Bioshock: Infinite. They are hardly games anymore - the mechanics are rarely used and usually just gimmick-y and for show. You never get to develop your character, do stuff the way you really want to roleplay, since nothing game-y really happens. Is it even a game if it's taken to the extremes, I wonder? I want oodles of choices, plenty of replayability and creativity, and freedom to explore in all kinds of orders. I'd think most people would expect that from a spiritual successor of IE games like BG1, BG2, IWD1+2, ToEE (Troika) - and also of games like NWN1 and NWN2. Sure, they weren't sandboxes like Skyrim, but they were open enough - especially when it comes to party creation and development, which solely is built, game-mechanic-wise, upon xp points and xp progression.

 

EDIT: I have decades of PnP experience, a mix of RPG-heavy to almost hack-slash power gamers and grognards. I love that, but I reckon a computer game needs regular xp progression and it needs to regularly be rewarding player actions.

Edited August 20, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Tartantyco]

dungeon crawlers (I would not consider BG1/2 or, especially, IWD 1/2 anything else)

 

 

Do you know what the hell a dungeon crawler means?

[Shevek]

 

 

dungeon crawlers (I would not consider BG1/2 or, especially, IWD 1/2 anything else)

 

 

Do you know what the hell a dungeon crawler means?

 

 

Dungeon crawlers are games with stuff like this in them...

 

 

I could go on...

 

Dungeon crawlers should reward combat with xp.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Shevek

[Wombat]

Partially, it's also depending on how the quest system will be implemented.  In quite many of Obsidian games, even if you haven't made a contact with some quest givers, sometimes, notifications pop up telling the players that quests are solved-this can be anything...maybe, you've gotten a certain item or just cleared a certain areas.  These are abrupt indeed but it can be just clearing a certain area or even just passed an area.  Basically, their games tend to be story-focused game with clear design goals rather than loot'n EXP CRPGs but let's see how the quests are designed.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Wombat

[Tartantyco]

Great job selectively picking areas there, Shevek.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Wombat: That's true. They are far, far away from ARPGs, but that OE has made CRPGs that have rewarded me actively playing one of their CRPGs with zero xp after 7h is a first, I can tell you that much.

Edited August 20, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[fruiteater]

There is a poll, in the Gameplay & mechanics forum, that clearly shows only a small minority of the people (9%) is satisfied by how XP is now rewarded.

 

One of the reasons to hold a more or less open beta is to receive feedback about mechanics. I would be surprised -and disappointed- if Obsidian doesn't reconsider the way XP is handled. 

 

Not to be "that" guy, but a poll with around 100 votes dosnt really mean anything....

[Shevek]

BG2:

 

You start in a dungeon. You get out. You go into a tent and there is another dungeon. You go to a bar. There is dwarf. He joins you if you go to a dungeon with him. You go back to the bar. There is a dragon, disguised as a man, he leads you to a dungeon. You go back to the bar, there is a whiny rich girl. She asks you to kill trolls in what is effectively a dungeon. You go back to the city and go the where the temples are. A priest asks you to kill beholders in a dungeon. You do to see a play in another bar, they ask you to find a bard and when you come back, you end up going to another dungeon... It goes on and on...

 

The IE games were combat focused dungeon crawlers based on a system known as dungeons and dragons (created by a guy who loved dungeons called Gary Gygax). 

 

Throwing in a bunch of dialogue doesn't change this.

 

The IE games were EXTREMELY combat heavy dungeon crawlers and, correctly, rewarded the player for succeeding at combat by giving the player experience.

[Tartantyco]

Here's what I'm hearing in this thread:

 

"This bugged experience system isn't fit for final release! Giving XP for kills will fix the bugs."

 

"This combat, which is artificially more difficult because of bugs, is too hard for me. The solution is obviously isn't to fix the bugs and make combat easier, but to give XP for kills."

 

"I don't know what a dungeon crawler is. Obviously, the solution is to give XP for kills."