Experience point system in the beta and onwards

[Sarex]

Also, you forgot to say anything that refuted what I said.

 

You did too Lephys...

[Lephys]

There is no way to say definitively "This thing is degenerate gamplay" You can't prove that.. Degenerate to who? by what standard? Cause Josh Sawyer says so?

To who doesn't matter. Randomly murdering people in real life isn't problematic at all, to serial killers. But, I think we can agree that it's still an issue, can we not?

 

Josh explained exactly what he meant by that, and he's even corrected those fanboys tossing the term around on several occasions. Which, by the way, is an excellent illustration of how what people decide to do with the things he says has absolutely nothing to do with him or what he said. People act like he specifically tasked people with going around using the terminology, when it was just him answering a question at some point in time. He didn't go call a press conference to convert everyone to using that term. He was just talking about things he saw as inadvertent design side-effects that we've seen for a long time now, but no one really loves them.

 

It's not the game's job to make sure certain things can occur, because they make absolutely no sense. I don't mean "They're not realistic." I mean, even from a game design or gameplaystandpoint, there are certain thinks a game's design results in that aren't intended in any way, shape, or fashion.

 

Ideally, you don't have those. That's just simple design efficiency fundamentals. When you write a program, you want it to accomplish your goal, and nothing more, if you can help it. The more extraneous stuff it does, the more chances you run into unintended consequences.

 

To answer the second part of your statement. You are essentially stating that killing everything in the game because it gives xp ruins the Roleplay potential of a character. I agree.. and if that is important to you.. don't do it? You don't need to kill everything in an IE game to complete the game.. not even close.. so it's a extreme over exaggeration to make your bogus point.

That's not it at all. I'm saying that the whole idea behind these games has nothing to do with making sure that there are just living things around to be killed for rewards, 24/7. If you want to be able to do that, and couldn't even care less about the roleplay potential of your character, that's fantastic. But it is not a "role-playing" game's job to make you happy, in that instance.

 

What's a huge exaggeration is to take that point, and spin it into "Oh, so we should just remove killing, and it shouldn't ever get you anything?". No, combat is part of the game. That doesn't mean that combat, in isolation, just because things are alive that could be dead, is something the design needs to account for.

[Lephys]

 

Also, you forgot to say anything that refuted what I said.

 

You did too Lephys...

 

The difference being that I wasn't attempting to refute anything.

 

He said I didn't label my statement as my opinion. I pointed out that, while true, that is moot.

[Iucounu]

I'm reading a lot about stealth and generally circumventing encounters as an alternative to combat, especially in exploration. I find using stealth as a game-element rather lacklustre so far tough. It would probably have helped if for example in wilderness areas, some creatures would actually move around, new creatures entering the map etc. to make the whole thing more dynamic, and perhaps giving survival skills additional uses for detecting and avoiding such dangers, as another possible approach. I think that would have been a fitting evolution from the IE games (especially BG1) in 2014, and give the omission of kill-xp more meaning. 

It might nevertheless be rewarding if you can avoid some encounters and save ressources in choking points, when for example all your party members have an above average stealth skill. From what I've seen so far however it might too often be too easy and thus rather boring to avoid filler combat in open areas, and just rush through to do more questing

[Zansatsu]

 

Ya it keeps coming back to this. Gaining xp through combat in a properly designed game that implements all forms of xp gain, does not slip you into I must kill everything in order to win mode. I just don't believe that.

 

You can choose to reject reality and replace it with your own all you want. Doesn't change reality.

Boy your a pill. I'm not even talking to you. Your statement goes both ways. What evidence do you have to prove it? I've played all the IE games, old republic games, fallout games and on and on. I almost exclusively play through as lawful good. They all provided xp for kills. Now is this proof of anything no, but somehow I restrained myself, or in reality I felt no pressure to become a savage murderer. I'm assuming you couldn't or you wouldn't be so hopped up over it.

[Sarex]

To who doesn't matter. Randomly murdering people in real life isn't problematic at all, to serial killers. But, I think we can agree that it's still an issue, can we not?-Rubbish analogy as usual, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Josh explained exactly what he meant by that, and he's even corrected those fanboys tossing the term around on several occasions. Which, by the way, is an excellent illustration of how what people decide to do with the things he says has absolutely nothing to do with him or what he said. People act like he specifically tasked people with going around using the terminology, when it was just him answering a question at some point in time. He didn't go call a press conference to convert everyone to using that term. He was just talking about things he saw as inadvertent design side-effects that we've seen for a long time now, but no one really loves them.- We are also talking about things that this design has caused, I don't see a problem with that.

 

It's not the game's job to make sure certain things can occur, because they make absolutely no sense. I don't mean "They're not realistic." I mean, even from a game design or gameplaystandpoint, there are certain thinks a game's design results in that aren't intended in any way, shape, or fashion. -OK?

 

Ideally, you don't have those. That's just simple design efficiency fundamentals. When you write a program, you want it to accomplish your goal, and nothing more, if you can help it. The more extraneous stuff it does, the more chances you run into unintended consequences. -You are talking about an unexploitable system, that will simply never happen.

That's not it at all. I'm saying that the whole idea behind these games has nothing to do with making sure that there are just living things around to be killed for rewards, 24/7. If you want to be able to do that, and couldn't even care less about the roleplay potential of your character, that's fantastic. But it is not a "role-playing" game's job to make you happy, in that instance. -Yes it is, if you want to roleplay a sociopath then the game should let you, because that is just another role to play. You don't get to decided what goes and what doesn't. The system is build, how you chose to use it is up to you. To use an analogy, because you seem to like those, a calculator can be used to scratch your ass. It wasn't built for that, and it can do much better things, but it will still scratch that itch if you want it. The IE games could do that and my god so should PoE. Next time they should watch what they say in the KS.

 

What's a huge exaggeration is to take that point, and spin it into "Oh, so we should just remove killing, and it shouldn't ever get you anything?". No, combat is part of the game. That doesn't mean that combat, in isolation, just because things are alive that could be dead, is something the design needs to account for.- Well a bad game doesn't need to account for that, but we don't want a bad game now do we?

 

[Immortalis]

 

To who doesn't matter. Randomly murdering people in real life isn't problematic at all, to serial killers. But, I think we can agree that it's still an issue, can we not?-Rubbish analogy as usual, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Josh explained exactly what he meant by that, and he's even corrected those fanboys tossing the term around on several occasions. Which, by the way, is an excellent illustration of how what people decide to do with the things he says has absolutely nothing to do with him or what he said. People act like he specifically tasked people with going around using the terminology, when it was just him answering a question at some point in time. He didn't go call a press conference to convert everyone to using that term. He was just talking about things he saw as inadvertent design side-effects that we've seen for a long time now, but no one really loves them.- We are also talking about things that this design has caused, I don't see a problem with that.

 

It's not the game's job to make sure certain things can occur, because they make absolutely no sense. I don't mean "They're not realistic." I mean, even from a game design or gameplaystandpoint, there are certain thinks a game's design results in that aren't intended in any way, shape, or fashion. -OK?

 

Ideally, you don't have those. That's just simple design efficiency fundamentals. When you write a program, you want it to accomplish your goal, and nothing more, if you can help it. The more extraneous stuff it does, the more chances you run into unintended consequences. -You are talking about an unexploitable system, that will simply never happen.

That's not it at all. I'm saying that the whole idea behind these games has nothing to do with making sure that there are just living things around to be killed for rewards, 24/7. If you want to be able to do that, and couldn't even care less about the roleplay potential of your character, that's fantastic. But it is not a "role-playing" game's job to make you happy, in that instance. -Yes it is, if you want to roleplay a sociopath then the game should let you, because that is just another role to play. You don't get to decided what goes and what doesn't. The system is build, how you chose to use it is up to you. To use an analogy, because you seem to like those, a calculator can be used to scratch your ass. It wasn't built for that, and it can do much better things, but it will still scratch that itch if you want it. The IE games could do that and my god so should PoE. Next time they should watch what they say in the KS.

 

What's a huge exaggeration is to take that point, and spin it into "Oh, so we should just remove killing, and it shouldn't ever get you anything?". No, combat is part of the game. That doesn't mean that combat, in isolation, just because things are alive that could be dead, is something the design needs to account for.- Well a bad game doesn't need to account for that, but we don't want a bad game now do we?

 

 

 

I always know when Lephys posts an essay.. He A) didn't read my post and B) won't actually be talking about the same thing as me.. Thanks Sarex

[Lephys]

@Sarex:

 

How does it have nothing to do with the discussion? He contends that I'm wrong because it's just my opinion. So, that means we're wrong when we stop murderers, because we can't definitively say that murderous rampages are bad.

 

Seems to be perfectly relevant. It seems to me like you don't comprehend the function of analogies.

 

@Immortalis:

 

How am I not talking about what you are? I responded directly to exact quotes of your post. If you don't explain, and you're right, then I'm just going to keep doing it, because I won't know any better. Please, inform me.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

 

Ya it keeps coming back to this. Gaining xp through combat in a properly designed game that implements all forms of xp gain, does not slip you into I must kill everything in order to win mode. I just don't believe that.

You can choose to reject reality and replace it with your own all you want. Doesn't change reality.

 

It IS reality that granting XP for kills will not automatically cause players to suddenly kill everything in order to win. You're doing nothing here but insulting the genre itself by claiming otherwise.

 

PS:T has Kill XP. But I never kill TTO when I play Planescape: Torment, for example. Because engaging him in combat leads to the most unsatisfying ending of the game. I also never kill Trias unless I'm playing Evil, even though he's worth a crap ton of XP if you kill him, and nothing if you don't.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Stun

[Immortalis]

 

 

Ya it keeps coming back to this. Gaining xp through combat in a properly designed game that implements all forms of xp gain, does not slip you into I must kill everything in order to win mode. I just don't believe that.

You can choose to reject reality and replace it with your own all you want. Doesn't change reality.

 

It IS reality that granting XP for kills will not automatically cause players to suddenly kill everything in order to win. You're doing nothing here but insulting the genre itself by claiming otherwise.

 

PS:T has Kill XP. But I never kill TTO when I play Planescape: Torment, for example. Because engaging him in combat leads to the most unsatisfying ending of the game. I also never kill Trias unless I'm playing Evil, even though he's worth a crap ton of XP if you kill him, and nothing if you don't.

 

 

 

This is the guy who said baldurs gate is a JRPG.. don't feed the trolls..

[Immortalis]

Grant a set amount of combat xp per area?

Give exploration xp for exploring the area and no combat xp?

Give an option to turn combat xp on or off before starting the game?

Restrict player's ability to attack NPCs after they interacted with those NPCs and brought the situation to a non-violent solution?

 

It'll be fine so long as they add several quests, big and small, with xp granted in steps so that if you don't finish the quest, you still get some xp.

That said, I would like exploration xp. In a way, it's like combat xp since you'll probably have to fight through foes to see everything. Except with exploration xp, you can't go back to get more xp from seeing/doing the same thing.

 

All these options have been captured in our poll.. cast your vote bro!

[Volourn]

"This ain't no Icewind Dale, son."

 

It's just as combat heavy as IWD so yeah it is.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

"This ain't no Icewind Dale, son."

 

It's just as combat heavy as IWD so yeah it is.

 

[Zombra]

We've been having a big ugly talk about this on RPGCodex, and I just thought I'd come and weigh in here on the official forum as well.

 

I am fine with the removal of combat xp.

 

I am fine with xp coming strictly from questing.

 

Removing the abstract incentive to kill for no other reason is a good step in my opinion (although I certainly understand why kill xp is fun and often enjoy games that use it).

 

I am much happier with a game that says: here is your objective, achieve it however you want, there is no special incentive to do it one way or another.

 

I am also much happier with a game where I see a squirrel and don't immediately think, "Kill it!  That's worth 2 xp."

[BrokenMask]

Hi Zombra, I guess you are also on Wasteland 2 forum with same username?

[Sarex]

We've been having a big ugly talk about this on RPGCodex, and I just thought I'd come and weigh in here on the official forum as well.

 

I am fine with the removal of combat xp.

 

I am fine with xp coming strictly from questing.

 

Removing the abstract incentive to kill for no other reason is a good step in my opinion (although I certainly understand why kill xp is fun and often enjoy games that use it).

 

I am much happier with a game that says: here is your objective, achieve it however you want, there is no special incentive to do it one way or another.

 

I am also much happier with a game where I see a squirrel and don't immediately think, "Kill it!  That's worth 2 xp."

 

The problem with that line of thinking is that there are trash mobs and they are unavoidable. You are going to fight, a lot. Also the kill xp doesn't make you do those things, that's a false assumption. No one is making you go and kill everyone for every scrap of xp.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Sarex

[Immortalis]

Removing the abstract incentive to kill for no other reason is a good step in my opinion (although I certainly understand why kill xp is fun and often enjoy games that use it).

 

I am much happier with a game that says: here is your objective, achieve it however you want, there is no special incentive to do it one way or another.

 

I am also much happier with a game where I see a squirrel and don't immediately think, "Kill it!  That's worth 2 xp."

 

If you personally feel the need to kill things just for xp.. that is your thing. I find more enjoyment looking for items and side quests and want to be rewarded for my time when I don't find those things after slaying 100 beetles to explore the corner of a map.

 

I also feel choices made during an objective should impact the reward. It should be MOSTLY the same and unbiased.. I think the xp pools should be the same but wouldn't mind different item rewards for solving things a different way. (I wouldn't want a difference in xp for combat solution or stealth solution.. but if I am in a forest killing bears and lions.. I want to be rewarded with progression for doing that)

 

If you killed squirrels in baldurs gate for 2xp.. when you know you will hit level cap long before the final encounter.. well I dunno man.. I sure as hell didn't. I think you are being pedantic about this kill-xp = kill everything rule.

 

Most people supporting kill -xp don't do this.. and even if we did.. so what? How does that ruin your experience?

 

EDIT:

I actually think it is funny that all the people saying "I need to kill every last bear for every last drop of xp" are the supporters of removal of kill-xp.. It's almost like these people have some kind of fixation on squeezing xp out of every last thing and need the developers to cut them off. They aren't strong enough on their own to stop slaughtering towns folk and squirrels.. the developers need to take all meaning away from those actions so our no-kill xp crowd can sleep at night without setting fire to Beregost.

 

There is a level cap and most veteran players and munchkins alike understand this. Killing creatures is generally your slowest means of leveling unless your fighting liches and dragons.. it's not worth it.. Its a cup of water in the bucket at best. Stop over exaggerating how much kill -xp ruins the pacing and thought process behind a game.. you can speak for yourselves but not for the psychology of every player in the world.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Immortalis

[Helm]

 

 

  

[Namutree]

OBSIDIAN!!! Fix this and fix it soon! I need xp without doing quests!!! This is no way to do this. The IE fans deserve better.

[BrokenMask]

 

We've been having a big ugly talk about this on RPGCodex, and I just thought I'd come and weigh in here on the official forum as well.

 

I am fine with the removal of combat xp.

 

I am fine with xp coming strictly from questing.

 

Removing the abstract incentive to kill for no other reason is a good step in my opinion (although I certainly understand why kill xp is fun and often enjoy games that use it).

 

I am much happier with a game that says: here is your objective, achieve it however you want, there is no special incentive to do it one way or another.

 

I am also much happier with a game where I see a squirrel and don't immediately think, "Kill it!  That's worth 2 xp."

 

The problem with that line of thinking is that there are trash mobs and they are unavoidable. You are going to fight, a lot. Also the kill xp doesn't make you do those things, that's a false assumption. No one is making you go and kill everyone for every scrap of xp.

 

If you are talking about lions, they are perfectly avoidable even without stealth. Beetles not so much. Cultists are for most parts.

 

But yeah, you are probably right about lot of mob fighting <_<

Edited August 22, 2014 by BrokenMask

[Zansatsu]

 

EDIT:

I actually think it is funny that all the people saying "I need to kill every last bear for every last drop of xp" are the supporters of removal of kill-xp.. It's almost like these people have some kind of fixation on squeezing xp out of every last thing and need the developers to cut them off. They aren't strong enough on their own to stop slaughtering towns folk and squirrels.. the developers need to take all meaning away from those actions so our no-kill xp crowd can sleep at night without setting fire to Beregost.

 

There is a level cap and most veteran players and munchkins alike understand this. Killing creatures is generally your slowest means of leveling unless your fighting liches and dragons.. it's not worth it.. Its a cup of water in the bucket at best. Stop over exaggerating how much kill -xp ruins the pacing and thought process behind a game.. you can speak for yourselves but not for the psychology of every player in the world.

 

I wish I could triple thumbs up this.

[IndiraLightfoot]

   

 

Here ya go!

[Namutree]

At this point I'm starting to think Obsidian associated poe with the IE games just to troll us. 

[Immortalis]

At this point I'm starting to think Obsidian associated poe with the IE games just to troll us. 

 

I don't think so.. I just think that there is a bit of arrogancy going on in the design team.. aka our opinions are dumb and their opinions are right.

 

When the kickstart began they sold the dream about how they love working with their fans and talking to us directly instead of going through a publisher.. they then proceed to ignore us when we don't like something.

 

Which again bugs me when they do interviews.. they keep saying they love having open dialogue with their fans on the forum.. but the only communication I see is Josh stroking himself when someone likes a feature.. or the QA saying "thanks keep it coming" when we are reporting bugs..

 

If however people are complaining or upset about something.. it's dead silence.. except to call us irrational morons.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Immortalis

[Azrael Ultima]

That's still a lot compared to the many dev studios that flat out don't talk to their "customers". And i can't say that they do it without reason.

 

 

More on topic, since this intended to be a fairly combat centric game, i think there should be XP for every defeated enemy. Though i don't think defeated should necessarily mean killed. I'd also like to see appreciable rewards for exploration and special feats(winning "impossible" fights, solving soup cans without help, unlocking an open chest etc.)