Jump to content

Experience point system in the beta and onwards


Your thoughts on the xp system in the beta  

217 members have voted

  1. 1. What kind of xp system to do you want to see after having played the beta?

    • Quest xp only
      30
    • Quest xp and objectives that are large in scope
      52
    • Objective xp that are per dungeon or per map (minus bosses), including exploration and quest xp
      78
    • Objective xp per encounter (including "trash mobs"), per picked lock, per sneak, etc., plus quest xp
      53
    • Kill xp plus quest xp
      76


Recommended Posts

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.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with that line of thinking is that there are trash mobs and they are unavoidable. You are going to fight, a lot.

 

Well ... walking is also unavoidable, yet the game doesn't give you xp for it constantly.  If it did, you'd sure as hell be inclined to take the scenic route, wouldn't you?

 

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.

 

Of course it doesn't.  But it sure encouarages it.

 

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.

 

No, I don't actually kill everything in sight, but having the abstract incentive there does make me consider the violent solution "superior" to other solutions.  The game is basically telling me that killing is good even when there is no other reason for it.  In PoE, killing isn't particularly good.  The game only gives you an incentive to solve problems.

 

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.

 

So kill XP is essentially worthless?  Why waste time arguing for its inclusion then?  Serious question.

 

And I'm not interested in psychologically profiling every individual player in the world.  Don't be ridiculous.  However, I am quite comfortable stating categorically that incentives influence behavior.

Edited by Zombra
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So kill XP is essentially worthless?  Why waste time arguing for its inclusion then?  Serious question.

 

 

Some people want to play an adventurer/explorer and not a servant. Want to advance in level? Here are your options:

 

A) Do quests for npcs like a good serf.

 

B) Do quests for npcs like a good serf.

 

C) Do quests for npcs like a good serf.

 

D) Do quests for npcs like a good serf.

  • Like 2

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem with that line of thinking is that there are trash mobs and they are unavoidable. You are going to fight, a lot.

 

Well ... walking is also unavoidable, yet the game doesn't give you xp for it constantly.  If it did, you'd sure as hell be inclined to take the scenic route, wouldn't you?

 

Walking does not require tactical thinking or role playing in PoE (well, barring any shi*t pathfinding you have to deal with lol), nor does it cause your party to expend rare consumables and limited per-day abilities. The threat of Death also is not attached to walking in PoE. So I wouldn't support an XP for walking system. Edited by Stun
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

"So kill XP is essentially worthless? Why waste time arguing for its inclusion then? Serious question." (Zombra)

 

Kill XP or a better objective based system then the current system is important because you can arise at situations where you spent hours in the current build with zero experience gained. More so for those of us who play on expert difficulty or path of the damned and because of the current design there is too large a incentive influencing our behavior to avoid combat altogether.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ... walking is also unavoidable, yet the game doesn't give you xp for it constantly.  If it did, you'd sure as hell be inclined to take the scenic route, wouldn't you?

 

There is a difference between the 2 wouldn't you agree? Walking doesn't cost you anything, while combat can kill you and will spend your resources, not to mention that it's harder then the former.

 

 

Of course it doesn't.  But it sure encouarages it.

 

How does it encourage it? Only if you have some type of OCD and need to get all the possible xp in the game. It will at best get you 1 levels worth of xp.

 

 

No, I don't actually kill everything in sight, but having the abstract incentive there does make me consider the violent solution "superior" to other solutions.  The game is basically telling me that killing is good even when there is no other reason for it.  In PoE, killing isn't particularly good.  The game only gives you an incentive to solve problems.

 

Again you are confusing things, we are not talking about quest here, we are talking about trash mobs. Quests and their xp can always be tweaked so that all solutions are viable.

 

 

So kill XP is essentially worthless?  Why waste time arguing for its inclusion then?  Serious question.

 

And I'm not interested in psychologically profiling every individual player in the world.  Don't be ridiculous.  However, I am quite comfortable stating categorically that incentives influence behavior.

 

I don't get how you jumped to it being useless. It's a reward, it encourages exploration and alternate ways of playing the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

Of course it doesn't.  But it sure encouarages it.

 

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.

 

No, I don't actually kill everything in sight, but having the abstract incentive there does make me consider the violent solution "superior" to other solutions.  The game is basically telling me that killing is good even when there is no other reason for it.  In PoE, killing isn't particularly good.  The game only gives you an incentive to solve problems.

 

What will you use the xp for though?  As far as I'm aware, the only thing leveling up does is make you better at killing things and not being killed.  All of the speech options and such are based on your background, previous speech interactions, and stats.  If you play in a style that avoids this it shouldn't affect you.  If you play in a style that encourages this you should be rewarded for it, even if it's small compared to quests and progressing the story.  The current path very strongly encourages avoiding combat which some people don't prefer.  Adding in xp for battles shouldn't affect the story if it is properly balanced.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

Of course it doesn't.  But it sure encouarages it.

 

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.

 

No, I don't actually kill everything in sight, but having the abstract incentive there does make me consider the violent solution "superior" to other solutions.  The game is basically telling me that killing is good even when there is no other reason for it.  In PoE, killing isn't particularly good.  The game only gives you an incentive to solve problems.

 

What will you use the xp for though?  As far as I'm aware, the only thing leveling up does is make you better at killing things and not being killed.  All of the speech options and such are based on your background, previous speech interactions, and stats.  If you play in a style that avoids this it shouldn't affect you.  If you play in a style that encourages this you should be rewarded for it, even if it's small compared to quests and progressing the story.  The current path very strongly encourages avoiding combat which some people don't prefer.  Adding in xp for battles shouldn't affect the story if it is properly balanced.

 

Josh has said many times that there will be a lot of MANDATORY combat.

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So kill XP is essentially worthless?  Why waste time arguing for its inclusion then?  Serious question.

Some people want to play an adventurer/explorer and not a servant. Want to advance in level? Here are your options:

A) Do quests for npcs like a good serf.

B) Do quests for npcs like a good serf.

C) Do quests for npcs like a good serf.

D) Do quests for npcs like a good serf.

 

That's a valid complaint.  You don't like a game in which you're encouraged to participate in the story.  Can't argue with that.  Guess this just isn't the game for you then.  (And yes, before you say it, it's also valid to complain that this isn't the IE successor you were sold.)

 

"So kill XP is essentially worthless? Why waste time arguing for its inclusion then? Serious question." (Zombra)

Kill XP or a better objective based system then the current system is important because you can arise at situations where you spent hours in the current build with zero experience gained. More so for those of us who play on expert difficulty or path of the damned and because of the current design there is too large a incentive influencing our behavior to avoid combat altogether.  

 

I can see that.  I guess it's a question of scale.  I don't see it as a problem that the game discourages unnecessary violence; even if there is a lot of necessary violence (for which you are indirectly given xp anyway), it doesn't follow that unnecessary violence should be given a cookie.  Anyway, you shouldn't be playing Path of the Damned because you want sweet xp; you should be playing it because you are a ****ing badass who wants a ridiculous challenge.  My opinion.

 

Well ... walking is also unavoidable, yet the game doesn't give you xp for it constantly.  If it did, you'd sure as hell be inclined to take the scenic route, wouldn't you?

There is a difference between the 2 wouldn't you agree? Walking doesn't cost you anything, while combat can kill you and will spend your resources, not to mention that it's harder then the former.

 

Eh.  You're missing the point.  If combat needs to be rewarded because it is ubiquitous, then so does walking.  If walking doesn't need to be rewarded, then the ubiquity argument doesn't hold up.

 

How does it encourage it? Only if you have some type of OCD and need to get all the possible xp in the game. It will at best get you 1 levels worth of xp.

 

No.  Stop implying that incentives are all-or-nothing.  You wouldn't walk across the country for 25 cents, but you would walk across the room for $100.  When you attach a cookie to killing anything, it influences player behavior so that they want to kill stuff beyond reasonable motivation.  They kill things when they have to, and whenever it is convenient, just to get the XP.  Why wouldn't they?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh.  You're missing the point.  If combat needs to be rewarded because it is ubiquitous, then so does walking.  If walking doesn't need to be rewarded, then the ubiquity argument doesn't hold up.

 

Ok let's try this again. Combat =/= walking. I mean quests are also unavoidable and I didn't see you compare them to walking.

 

 

No.  Stop implying that incentives are all-or-nothing.  You wouldn't walk across the country for 25 cents, but you would walk across the room for $100.  When you attach a cookie to killing anything, it influences player behavior so that they want to kill stuff beyond reasonable motivation.  They kill things when they have to, and whenever it is convenient, just to get the XP.  Why wouldn't they?

 

Ok so what is the problem there? You kill monsters whenever you come across them, you are rewarded with xp, they are monsters they will attack you anyways. Not really following what you are trying to say here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

No, I don't actually kill everything in sight, but having the abstract incentive there does make me consider the violent solution "superior" to other solutions. 

 

 

That's personal bias. If the game gives out the same amout of xp for the violent solution in small chunks of kill xp as it does for the nonviolent ones, the violent solution isn't systemically held up as superior.

 

 

That's a valid complaint.  You don't like a game in which you're encouraged to participate in the story.  Can't argue with that.  Guess this just isn't the game for you then.  (And yes, before you say it, it's also valid to complain that this isn't the IE successor you were sold.)

 

 

But... doing not story-related sidequests for quest xp isn't related to the story either. The current system doesn't encourage you to participate in the story more than the one in the IE games.

  • Like 4

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

So kill XP is essentially worthless?  Why waste time arguing for its inclusion then?  Serious question.

 

And I'm not interested in psychologically profiling every individual player in the world.  Don't be ridiculous.  However, I am quite comfortable stating categorically that incentives influence behavior.

 

 

Sorry who said it was essentially useless?

Can you get 1 or 2 levels out of.. 12 through kill -xp? Yes. Can you offset quest XP and get that level sooner in a system where you gain no power until the DING of a level up. Yes. Kill -xp is not the driving force of that xp.. but it can tip the scale a bit sooner in your favor.. which is a fair reward for exploring for a few hours and not finding anything but a few bear assses and goblin ears.

 

Only replying to your post because you said "serious question".. Was gonna write this off as troll response because you obviously went to the extreme.. again.. in reading my post.

From George Ziets @ http://new.spring.me/#!/user/GZiets/timeline/responses

Didn’t like the fact that I don’t get XP for combat. While this does put more emphasis on solving quests, the lack of rewards for killing creatures makes me want to avoid combat (the core activity of the game) as much as I can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want some form of exploration xp, but I think I'm done dwelling on this issue. Obsidian fix it please, but I'm ALMOST done asking.

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Eh.  You're missing the point.  If combat needs to be rewarded because it is ubiquitous, then so does walking.  If walking doesn't need to be rewarded, then the ubiquity argument doesn't hold up.

 

Ok let's try this again. Combat =/= walking. I mean quests are also unavoidable and I didn't see you compare them to walking.

apparently quests are avoidable in the beta - hence some serious lack of xp :lol:  This is why they need to fix it with something (like spreading it around with more objective xp)

 

 

 

No.  Stop implying that incentives are all-or-nothing.  You wouldn't walk across the country for 25 cents, but you would walk across the room for $100.  When you attach a cookie to killing anything, it influences player behavior so that they want to kill stuff beyond reasonable motivation.  They kill things when they have to, and whenever it is convenient, just to get the XP.  Why wouldn't they?

 

Ok so what is the problem there? You kill monsters whenever you come across them, you are rewarded with xp, they are monsters they will attack you anyways. Not really following what you are trying to say here.

I think he's trying to say that if you have a choice between 'kill the creatures' or 'find another way' , you won't think twice if there's kill-xp involved - just kill them since 'why not?'- Whereas if there's no kill-xp, you kill them if there is no choice but consider other options if they're available:

a) kill-em anyway because fun / drops

b) sneak because I invested points in sneak

c) talk because fun

d) rage-quit because I'm in a bad mood

e) get some coffee and stay up til 4am thinking of how to optimally bash the beetles.

f) ?????

 

Personally, I'd take each situation on its merits and decide for RP reasons.

 

So long as I can get enough xp to hit the level-cap by doing only mandatory combat (including mandatory combat in optional sidequests), then I don't really mind if it's combat-xp + quest-xp or a more overreaching objective-xp system (I just prefer the idea of the latter for reasons stated many times).

  • Like 2

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

They did it because they wanted our money to make something that is almost completely different from the IE games, and is not any good either.

Pillars of Eternity Josh Sawyer's Quest: The Quest for Quests - an isometric fantasy stealth RPG with optional combat and no pesky XP rewards for combat, skill usage or exploration.


PoE is supposed to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's GateJosh Sawyer doesn't like the Baldur's Gate series (more) - PoE is supposed to reward us for our achievements


~~~~~~~~~~~


"Josh Sawyer created an RPG where always avoiding combat and never picking locks makes you a powerful warrior and a master lockpicker." -Helm, very critcal and super awesome RPG fan


"I like XP for things other than just objectives. When there is no rewards for combat or other activities, I think it lessens the reward for being successful at them." -Feargus Urquhart, OE CEO


"Didn’t like the fact that I don’t get XP for combat [...] the lack of rewards for killing creatures [in PoE] makes me want to avoid combat (the core activity of the game)" -George Ziets, Game Dev.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think he's trying to say that if you have a choice between 'kill the creatures' or 'find another way' , you won't think twice if there's kill-xp involved - just kill them since 'why not?'- Whereas if there's no kill-xp, you kill them if there is no choice but consider other options if they're available:"

 

Which most players don't do, of course. How many people actually killed every living in any IE game just ebcause they gave xp. I surely didn't and I doubt anyone did except for gigles when bored after playing it multiple times.

 

I sure didn't wipe out entire villages and towns just to get the single digit xp that villagers gave me nor did I spam hunt kobold commandos in Firewine Bridge or hunt down every siingle last xfart in their village or  purposefully hunt down neutral bears .

 

It's called role-playing for a reason.

  • Like 3

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think he's trying to say that if you have a choice between 'kill the creatures' or 'find another way' , you won't think twice if there's kill-xp involved - just kill them since 'why not?'- Whereas if there's no kill-xp, you kill them if there is no choice but consider other options if they're available:"

 

Which most players don't do, of course. How many people actually killed every living in any IE game just ebcause they gave xp. I surely didn't and I doubt anyone did except for gigles when bored after playing it multiple times.

 

I sure didn't wipe out entire villages and towns just to get the single digit xp that villagers gave me nor did I spam hunt kobold commandos in Firewine Bridge or hunt down every siingle last xfart in their village or  purposefully hunt down neutral bears .

 

It's called role-playing for a reason.

Sure, most players don't go on a squirrel-hunting spree just because they technically give a few xp.  I was talking more about (and assumed he was talking more about) the actual enemy encounters.

For me the argument is less about hunting down every last xvart and more about 'as you come across a threat - what to do?'

Is combat the no-brainer choice or is there a more significant consideration of resources+threat+time+fun/whatever?

  • Like 2

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh.  You're missing the point.  If combat needs to be rewarded because it is ubiquitous, then so does walking.  If walking doesn't need to be rewarded, then the ubiquity argument doesn't hold up.

Ok let's try this again. Combat =/= walking. I mean quests are also unavoidable and I didn't see you compare them to walking.

If someone said, quests are everywhere in this game, therefore quests must have XP, I would draw the same comparison.  It's just not a valid reason.

 

No.  Stop implying that incentives are all-or-nothing.  You wouldn't walk across the country for 25 cents, but you would walk across the room for $100.  When you attach a cookie to killing anything, it influences player behavior so that they want to kill stuff beyond reasonable motivation.  They kill things when they have to, and whenever it is convenient, just to get the XP.  Why wouldn't they?

Ok so what is the problem there? You kill monsters whenever you come across them, you are rewarded with xp, they are monsters they will attack you anyways. Not really following what you are trying to say here.

Right there you're kind of proving my point.  Your assumption is "If it's there, I'm supposed to kill it."  This is an assumption that has been reinforced for about 40 years by an outdated reward system.

 

No, I don't actually kill everything in sight, but having the abstract incentive there does make me consider the violent solution "superior" to other solutions. 

That's personal bias. If the game gives out the same amout of xp for the violent solution in small chunks of kill xp as it does for the nonviolent ones, the violent solution isn't systemically held up as superior.

I agree that if violent and nonviolent solutions net the same amount of XP, and it's blatantly obvious that this is the case, then power balance is OK and incentive balance is OK.  I have never seen this be the case that I'm aware of where kill XP is present.  Even in a magical world where XP is equal no matter the approach despite the existence of kill XP, which I doubt has ever happened, kill XP promotes the perception that violence is the more profitable solution, which means that it still has a stronger incentive, even if the numbers are actually the same.  Getting a cookie for every kill conditions you pretty fast to believe that killing is good.

 

That's a valid complaint.  You don't like a game in which you're encouraged to participate in the story.  Can't argue with that.  Guess this just isn't the game for you then.  (And yes, before you say it, it's also valid to complain that this isn't the IE successor you were sold.)

But... doing not story-related sidequests for quest xp isn't related to the story either. The current system doesn't encourage you to participate in the story more than the one in the IE games.

Sorry, you're right.  I should have said "stories", meaning all quest lines including non-critical-path ones.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

So kill XP is essentially worthless?

Sorry who said it was essentially useless?

Can you get 1 or 2 levels out of.. 12 through kill -xp? Yes. Can you offset quest XP and get that level sooner in a system where you gain no power until the DING of a level up. Yes. Kill -xp is not the driving force of that xp.. but it can tip the scale a bit sooner in your favor.. which is a fair reward for exploring for a few hours and not finding anything but a few bear assses and goblin ears.

Only replying to your post because you said "serious question".. Was gonna write this off as troll response because you obviously went to the extreme.. again.. in reading my post.

And I thank you for the reply.  I was indeed serious.

 

Something interesting has come up in this reply ... the assumption that exploration deserves a reward.  Hear me out.  As another poster on the Codex observed, the major difference in POV here is that one side basically wants to be rewarded for doing whatever they feel like (such as wandering around killing stuff for no reason).  The other side wants to be rewarded for doing things that are useful and relevant.  This is actually a pretty major difference.

 

To me, 'exploration' is kind of lame if I can expect to find a cookie behind every tree ... in fact, at that point it becomes something I'm "supposed" to do.  I can't tell you in how many games I've searched every corner of every building and cut down every shrub, for fear of missing something that would power me up.  Not necessarily because I like exploring, but because I feel that if I don't collect all the cookies, I'm doing it wrong.  I'm definitely doing it wrong if explorer players are level 5 by Act II and my guys are only level 3½.  Finally, we have an RPG where you can explore if you actually care about what's there, but you don't lose cookies if you choose to be more direct in your problem solving.

 

 

Obsidian fix it please, but I'm ALMOST done asking.

Yeah.  I've sunk a lot of hours already into this argument.  I don't ever expect all the forum goers to come to an agreement.  I mostly wanted to post to reinforce the idea to anyone reading that there are definitely two sides to this debate, and to anyone reading from Obsidian, some of us think you made a great decision.  I don't want an impression out there that the fans unanimously hate the new system.

 

I think he's trying to say that if you have a choice between 'kill the creatures' or 'find another way' , you won't think twice if there's kill-xp involved - just kill them since 'why not?'- Whereas if there's no kill-xp, you kill them if there is no choice but consider other options if they're available.

Nice one, Silent Winter.  You nailed it.

 

Which most players don't do, of course. How many people actually killed every living in any IE game just ebcause they gave xp. I surely didn't and I doubt anyone did except for gigles when bored after playing it multiple times.

 

I sure didn't wipe out entire villages and towns just to get the single digit xp that villagers gave me nor did I spam hunt kobold commandos in Firewine Bridge or hunt down every siingle last xfart in their village or  purposefully hunt down neutral bears .

Sorry, I think you want to be talking to this guy.

 

No one is talking about prohibiting total genocide of everything in the game world.  That would indeed be an unrealistic concern.

We are talking about removing the incentive to meaningless violence.

Edited by Zombra
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obsidian fix it please, but I'm ALMOST done asking.

Yeah.  I've sunk a lot of hours already into this argument.  I don't ever expect all the forum goers to come to an agreement.  I mostly wanted to post to reinforce the idea to anyone reading that there are definitely two sides to this debate, and to anyone reading from Obsidian, some of us think you made a great decision.  I don't want an impression out there that the fans unanimously hate the new system.

 

 

 

Your side has more than represented itself. I don't think there is any shortage of posts that are positive for the current system. Three or Four of these topics, up in different places all over the forums, don't all get to be close to 20 pages long because we all agree.

 

 

Right there you're kind of proving my point.  Your assumption is "If it's there, I'm supposed to kill it."  This is an assumption that has been reinforced for about 40 years by an outdated reward system.

Ok so what is the problem there? You kill monsters whenever you come across them, you are rewarded with xp, they are monsters they will attack you anyways. Not really following what you are trying to say here.

No.  Stop implying that incentives are all-or-nothing.  You wouldn't walk across the country for 25 cents, but you would walk across the room for $100.  When you attach a cookie to killing anything, it influences player behavior so that they want to kill stuff beyond reasonable motivation.  They kill things when they have to, and whenever it is convenient, just to get the XP.  Why wouldn't they?

 

Your assumption that because the reward system is 40 years old makes it outdated isn't true. Coke has been around for what, over a hundred years now, anybody think it's outdated? Your totally entitled to your opinion about liking one over the other, but this is a non fact put forward like it is a fact the same way people say kill xp is forcing people to kill everything.(I'm not saying you said that but it has been put forward as a truth numerous times) Yes it is an incentive, and it may be one in a game you don't find necessary in order to hold your interest, but to others it does. They aren't wrong, people should stop saying they are wrong, they just prefer a different system. 

 

This comes down to preference and whether or not enough people will find this system rewarding enough to continue playing, or even buy.  There are games out there that I can look at, Final Fantasy for example, those are perfectly legitimate, beloved games that do not interest me simply because of the art style. Time will tell. I for one do not believe the system in place now will appeal to as many people as the more "traditional" (not outdated) way of gaining xp.  And the traditional way does not just mean being rewarded for killing. It is gaining experience through all different aspect of an RPG, from exploration, puzzle solving, Questing, Objectives, and yes even fighting. People are fooling themselves if they don't think this stuff comes down to taste. Good for you if you don't need any of that to keep you interested.

 

Bioware, and RPG giant, currently uses the "traditional" system when making RPGs (I'm aware not every title they make uses this system you don't need to point that out too me) and there games are hugely successful. So does Bethesda, another Giant. So does Blizzard, another Giant. A lot of very smart, savvy developers still find this very relevant. And there games sell by the millions mind you.

 

Please understand I'm not saying you're wrong about your "opinion", and this game may very well succeed. I hope it does! I'm very excited for it.  I'm going to play it.  I do think it would appeal to more people however, if done in the "traditional" way.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't actually kill everything in sight, but having the abstract incentive there does make me consider the violent solution "superior" to other solutions. 

That's personal bias. If the game gives out the same amout of xp for the violent solution in small chunks of kill xp as it does for the nonviolent ones, the violent solution isn't systemically held up as superior.

 

I agree that if violent and nonviolent solutions net the same amount of XP, and it's blatantly obvious that this is the case, then power balance is OK and incentive balance is OK.  I have never seen this be the case that I'm aware of where kill XP is present.

 

 

Alpha Protocol has kill xp. It also has avoidance xp, and they're equal. (Also, it lists hospital bills and orphans created, because it's an awesome game.)

 

Deus Ex HR also gives xp both for killing and nonlethally neutralizing opponents, where the lethal option is not only messier (you have to hold down the button, instead of just tapping it, and they make more noise), but also worth far less xp. (Which is arguably bad design, but you need to unlock a lot less augmentations to be viable as a combat monster than an infiltrator needs to be good at what he does.)

 

Something interesting has come up in this reply ... the assumption that exploration deserves a reward.  Hear me out.  As another poster on the Codex observed, the major difference in POV here is that one side basically wants to be rewarded for doing whatever they feel like (such as wandering around killing stuff for no reason).  The other side wants to be rewarded for doing things that are useful and relevant.  

 

I'm somewhat iffy on the idea of categorizing "screwing around in an imaginary world" as useful and relevant, whether one has a pre-set goal or just does it for kicks. I mean, it's a game, which you're playing to have fun, therefore achieving fun is the only metric by which it can be useful and relevant. I don't think there's a need to punish people whose idea of fun is different from yours.

Edited by aluminiumtrioxid
  • Like 4

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
If someone said, quests are everywhere in this game, therefore quests must have XP, I would draw the same comparison.  It's just not a valid reason.

 

It would have been equally as stupid. There is no point in comparing walking and combat because there is no comparison.

 

Right there you're kind of proving my point.  Your assumption is "If it's there, I'm supposed to kill it."  This is an assumption that has been reinforced for about 40 years by an outdated reward system.

 

No my assumption is "if it attacks me, I'm suppose to kill it". "If it's there, I'm supposed to kill it.", is your assumption which no one shares.

 

I think he's trying to say that if you have a choice between 'kill the creatures' or 'find another way' , you won't think twice if there's kill-xp involved - just kill them since 'why not?'- Whereas if there's no kill-xp, you kill them if there is no choice but consider other options if they're available:

a) kill-em anyway because fun / drops

b) sneak because I invested points in sneak

c) talk because fun

d) rage-quit because I'm in a bad mood

e) get some coffee and stay up til 4am thinking of how to optimally bash the beetles.

f) ?????

 

Personally, I'd take each situation on its merits and decide for RP reasons.

 

So long as I can get enough xp to hit the level-cap by doing only mandatory combat (including mandatory combat in optional sidequests), then I don't really mind if it's combat-xp + quest-xp or a more overreaching objective-xp system (I just prefer the idea of the latter for reasons stated many times).

 

What he/she is trying to say is not true. Per kill xp will not effect the outcome of quest solution, because the quest xp will be balanced to give equal rewards. As for exploration encounters, so far all we have seen is unavoidable combat, which is what I was talking about, so there is really no choice there.

Edited by Sarex
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news everyone! My experience with the beta has led me to the conclusion that the game does award xp for every major-ish milestone of a quest, but the bugs tend to eat it. It's still not encounter xp, but it's definitely better than "you only get xp when you complete the quest".

  • Like 3

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...