Experience point system in the beta and onwards

[PrimeJunta]

Some fights are definitely avoidable. Some quests have peaceful resolutions, and some trash mobs can be avoided simply by not walking into them.

 

Incidentally, in the case of at least one of the quests, the loot drops are so nice that it's definitely more attractive to fight than not, even if the XP reward is the same. That one at least gives the biggest (immediate) reward for "murder everybody now." There were hints that the peaceful solutions would have repercussions down the road, but it's impossible to say from just the beta.

[Msxyz]

 

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.

The same can be said for companion quests. No matter if the NPCs offered as companions are liked, people starved for XP will be pushed towards completing their side quests.

 

I've nothing against rewarding player for quests but it cannot be the only way.

 

Atm, however, my worries are shifting more towards the general mechanics. I'll take a break for the beta, uninstall it and hope that, in two three months, it will have progressed to the point of solving many of the issues and make this game enjoyable and really close to the experience the IE games provided.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Msxyz

[Immortalis]

 

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.

 

Something interesting has come in this reply as well. While your opinion is very logical and I understand it (Minus the blatant over exaggerations).. This is not what the IE games were and this is not what was kick started. If Josh wants to beef up the new engine to overcome IE limitations.. we all agree that is the right course of action.

 

Now you are obviously being extremist again saying that EVERY tree or EVERY building will have goodies and xp.. which is obviously not what anyone wants so again your over exaggerating to make my position look broken and less appealing.

 

However, if we can land this bad boy back into reality for a second, exploration should be rewarded with progression. If you hate being rewarded for exploration, why did you kickstart a spiritual successor to baldurs gate and IWD?

 

Making a different game however should have been stated in the kickstarter. Josh should have told us that they are making a game like the IE games except that hes gonna change everything as he see's fit and ignore half the customer base on his forum when people don't like it.

 

So we all knew going in that we were getting Baldurs Gate: Throne of Sawyer.

 

Incidentally, in the case of at least one of the quests, the loot drops are so nice that it's definitely more attractive to fight than not, even if the XP reward is the same.

 

I mentioned this exact problem and people told me to shut up. I said that even if kill-xp was removed combat will still be enticing to power gamers because the reward scale is still not equal. AKA the original problem is still not solved so why even bother doing it this way. If it's just an xp problem there were 100 other ways to solve it.

 

I know you don't agree with me PrimeJunta but I still might make this quote my signature.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Immortalis

[Namutree]

 

However, if we can land this bad boy back into reality for a second, exploration should be rewarded with progression. If you hate being rewarded for exploration, why did you kickstart a spiritual successor to baldurs gate and IWD?

 

I'm pretty sure he really likes IWD and Planescape Torment. I actually don't think he likes BG that much. That's my theory.

[PrimeJunta]

I think he likes BG1 better than BG2. He did want to make BG3 after all, and a lot of the ideas from that are here.

 

I'd be disappointed if there aren't creative ways to reward exploration, including ones that involve XP. Again, to compare with BG1, I wouldn't have liked it any less if I'd have gotten an XP reward for finding the xvart village rather than murdering them. Still feel a little bad for the puir wee critters.

[Namutree]

I think he likes BG1 better than BG2. He did want to make BG3 after all, and a lot of the ideas from that are here.

 

I'd be disappointed if there aren't creative ways to reward exploration, including ones that involve XP. Again, to compare with BG1, I wouldn't have liked it any less if I'd have gotten an XP reward for finding the xvart village rather than murdering them. Still feel a little bad for the puir wee critters.

[Lie] I never killed the little guys; they had a bear. I just sneaked in and took a look around...

[Orphansmith]

This is directed at Obsidian, but it's so obvious that it probably doesn't need to be said. On the other hand, maybe other people can get the gist of why the game is the way it is?

 

I'm just popping in to say I support the current approach. The only problem you guys at Obsidian have right now is balance. If the system isn't perfectly balanced or put together then folks are going to assume that the whole system is whack (duh!)

 

Some of you worked on VtMB. That was a great game that didn't give you XP for kills or exploration, but quests. It was balanced because it was easy for the designers to project where the player would be at any point level and skill-wise. The only problem you face is that PoE is more open than VtMB or Shadowrun: Returns. So it's harder for players to feel fulfilled if the XP metrics are off.

 

Consider TES:Oblivion. That game had level-scaling, so that as you leveled the monsters would as well. It was panned because the players felt that progression was meaningless. I happen to agree with that crowd. Getting stronger and feeling like your achievements matter really matters.

 

This coupled with the common concept that combat is the focus and completely necessary for advancement is why players want to get XP for killing.

 

On the other hand some players just want XP for exploring.

 

And some want XP for hitting story beats.

 

This leads me to believe that really, at the heart of this, players feel they aren't getting rewarded for doing whatever it is they want to be doing in the game. Which also suggests that each player has projected their own assumptions onto how the game would feel (also very obvious). Personally I like quest based XP only systems because it naturally causes the developers to not make combat and fighting and exploration overbearing, and that allows me to trust in the design of the game, which causes me to make choices I feel my character would make, and do things while being focused on the game, instead of invisible meta-gaming ruling most of what I do.

 

Ok, having established that let's look at the problem areas again. I'll use an example.

 

Consider the beetles just outside of town. They present an obstacle that's obvious, has little purpose, and feels like a chore to deal with because they take a good while to kill and really drain resources. Compare that to systems that use quest XP only. In Shadowrun: Returns every encounter is meant to justify itself just through its existence and they all logically fit in the world. You wouldn't fight random beetles on the side of the road in Shadowrun because that'd not really make much sense. And they wouldn't be staggered about either. Instead you might have a floor filled with fire beetles that only travel in small packs, but you can clearly see them and they all make for an engaging fight. This group of beetles is around a central pillar, this group is hiding in a dark room around a corner. Each is seen as a puzzle or problem to solve, not thrown out there because this is like D&D and a lot of terrible DMs roll random encounters for no reason.

 

In Vampire you similarly had groups of enemies that logically existed in the locations that they're supposed to inhabit. Ghoul guards are patrolling the area, some are playing cards in a train car, some enemies might be shambling zombies hiding behind a flimsy door, some are huge werewolves you can't even kill, some are hunters that are easier to sneak around.

 

By marrying yourself to PoE's aesthetic you're marrying yourself to requiring a lot of those bad design choices like beetles on the side of the road that serve no purpose (and I fully admit that that statement is 100% my opinion and that plenty of folks dig that sort of thing. But it's just, ugh... When I run a D&D or Pathfinder campaign I don't throw out random encounters because at that point I have to ask myself why we all don't just play Castle Crashers or Diablo?) As this is the demo perhaps a lot of thought wasn't put into enemy placement. Maybe the encounters are there as a weak simulacrum.

 

If not though, then you probably need to include objective/exploration/kill-XP. On the other hand I have faith that you guys and gals can set out to do what you wanted to do. If you can make me trust in you, that I won't need to power-level to accomplish tasks, and that even without XP I'll feel like I'm gaining traction then keep going.

 

If not, I dunno, make a mode where every encounter gives you an amount of XP equal to abs.floor(mean party level)/X where X is an array of numbers from 10 at level 1 to maybe 20 at level cap. Extend this to exploration, where when all the black has been removed from the map FOW the player is rewarded with a similar XP value but that array starts at 2 at level 1 and extends to 5 at level cap. Basically every encounter gives you 1/10th decreasing in XP and every map explored is 1/2 XP decreasing, where 1/1 is the value required to level up.

[Immortalis]

Orphan your post makes a lot of sense.. Again I pull my one trick pony though.. This was kickstarted as an IE successor..

 

If it wasn't broke.. don't fix it. XP functioned fine in IWD and BG.. Not so much in planescape.. If this was the InXile kickstart of planescape I wouldn't be in this thread arguing with people about the current system.. it works perfectly

 

Fact is.. BG and IWD are combat centric games with tons of mobs and it works.. it just plain works. If it didn't they wouldn't have gotten 4 million dollars. We loved those games but now we all wanna play designer and make up our own systems for this and that.

 

Why? The IE games were great.. I still play them today way more then I play Mass Effect or Alpha Protocol.

 

 

 

I think he likes BG1 better than BG2. He did want to make BG3 after all, and a lot of the ideas from that are here.

 

I'd be disappointed if there aren't creative ways to reward exploration, including ones that involve XP. Again, to compare with BG1, I wouldn't have liked it any less if I'd have gotten an XP reward for finding the xvart village rather than murdering them. Still feel a little bad for the puir wee critters.

 

I prefer BG1 over BG2 purely for the pacing and atmosphere.. Mechanically BG2 is the better game although I hate that they removed Dimensional Door way..

Anyways.. I totally disagree FINDING the village should have awarded XP and then all the little ****s would give nothing.. That would encourage people to show up at the village.. say "okay im good now" and leave. Your encouraging people to not engage in combat.. unless they wanna load up their inventory with daggers and broken arrows.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Immortalis

[BrokenMask]

Eh, I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to improve old good formula as long they do listen criticism. If they don't succeed to make things better during beta, thats problematic, but I don't think they shouldn't try just because people are anxious or they don't get it right off the bat.

[Immortalis]

Eh, I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to improve old good formula as long they do listen criticism. If they don't succeed to make things better during beta, thats problematic, but I don't think they shouldn't try just because people are anxious or they don't get it right off the bat.

 

So we have a system works.. then we break it and try something different with other peoples money.. while telling them before they give us their money that we were gonna do the system that works.

 

Do you see an issue here? I feel bad for the gold backers on this forum who wanted kill -xp (who wanted an IE game) and are in this thread confused after beta wtf happened.. Don't you have to give like 500ish for gold backing?

[BrokenMask]

I doubt anybody literally gave them that much money because they thought you'd get exp for killing enemies and I doubt anybody thought that IE games were defined by getting exp from enemies <_< Nor does anyone think that game is ruined by it and even if it were ruined by it, it can still be fixed considering that beta only started.

 

And honestly, there is no innovation without hiccups in the journey.

Edited August 23, 2014 by BrokenMask

[Immortalis]

I doubt anybody literally gave them that much money because they thought you'd get exp for killing enemies and I doubt anybody thought that IE games were defined by getting exp from enemies <_< Nor does anyone think that game is ruined by it and even if it were ruined by it, it can still be fixed considering that beta only started.

 

And honestly, there is no innovation without hiccups in the journey.

 

You would be wrong.. two examples below of gold backers who showed up in this thread right after beta.. I am sure there are more that I missed.

 

Hiccups should be done with their money.. not the backers money who wanted something else.. We didn't pay them to experiment with trying to make a new kind of game.. they were paid to make an IE successor.

 

Do your research Broken before you tell me I'm wrong

 

I am quite dismayed that when I kill something there is no exp gain. I mean how could I not learn something from fighting it? Possibly becoming more effective at killing it. This does bother me.

 

 

 

I am quite dismayed that when I kill something there is no exp gain. I mean how could I not learn something from fighting it? Possibly becoming more effective at killing it. This does bother me.

And that's really all that needs to be said about this. You get better at something by doing it, so doing something should provide XP. Doesn't matter if it's combat, picking a lock, sneaking, crafting, whatever.

 

Edited August 23, 2014 by Immortalis

[BrokenMask]

Read what I exactly said. "I doubt anybody literally gave them money BECAUSE of". Sure, they could still be disappointed by the change, but I don't think that was the main reason they gave the money.

If the new system is fixed so that it works great, then they probably won't mind it. They will mind it as long it works as bad as it does now.

[Immortalis]

Read what I exactly said. "I doubt anybody literally gave them money BECAUSE of". Sure, they could still be disappointed by the change, but I don't think that was the main reason they gave the money.

If the new system is fixed so that it works great, then they probably won't mind it. They will mind it as long it works as bad as it does now.

 

... Are you trolling now?

 

To be more clear.. your saying because they backed an IE game instead of saying I backed a kill -xp game.. it doesn't matter?

 

Nobody would assume that the experience system is being changed until the check was cashed.. Don't be ridiculous.

 

EDIT:

"If the new system is fixed then they probably won't mind it?"

 

Are you speaking on behalf of the entire player base now?

 

I think this is my last reply to you.. what fantasy world are you living in? They do mind it.. read the quotes...

Edited August 23, 2014 by Immortalis

[Namutree]

 As this is the demo perhaps a lot of thought wasn't put into enemy placement. Maybe the encounters are there as a weak simulacrum.

 

There was no mistake with enemy placement. Poe is just as combat focused as BG; if not more so. Only now there is no kill-xp. Yes, it was a mistake to break what was working, and a bad one too.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Namutree

[Namutree]

 

And honestly, there is no innovation without hiccups in the journey.

Very true, but so far it seems that they don't intend to fix the hiccup. They've made a game where you will almost certainly be spending at least 50% more time fighting; while at the same time not providing any kill-xp to prevent you from getting bored. I hope the stealth mechanics are good; because I suspect most players will be using them a lot.

[Namutree]

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".

Doesn't really make much difference.

[Namutree]

 

Read what I exactly said. "I doubt anybody literally gave them money BECAUSE of". Sure, they could still be disappointed by the change, but I don't think that was the main reason they gave the money.

If the new system is fixed so that it works great, then they probably won't mind it. They will mind it as long it works as bad as it does now.

 

... Are you trolling now?

 

To be more clear.. your saying because they backed an IE game instead of saying I backed a kill -xp game.. it doesn't matter?

 

Nobody would assume that the experience system is being changed until the check was cashed.. Don't be ridiculous.

 

EDIT:

"If the new system is fixed then they probably won't mind it?"

 

Are you speaking on behalf of the entire player base now?

 

I think this is my last reply to you.. what fantasy world are you living in? They do mind it.. read the quotes...

 

THIS! A shift in how you get xp (A core mechanic) is a radical change. Making that change so that ONLY quests give you xp is an extremely radical deviation from the IE formula. At the very least this decision should have been made known on the first day Project Eternity began. 

[Namutree]

Eh, I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to improve old good formula as long they do listen criticism. If they don't succeed to make things better during beta, thats problematic, but I don't think they shouldn't try just because people are anxious or they don't get it right off the bat.

Actually there is; they spend development time making it. They spend time balancing around it. Then if they decide this new "improvement" was a mistake; they have spend time fixing it. Better off just not braking what was working.

 

"Improve" is a poor description of what they did anyways; removal is a better word since nothing was altered or changed. A feature was arbitrarily cut from a VERY successful formula; nothing evolved or got better.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Namutree

[Namutree]

Geez; I said I'd stop dwelling on this, but my nerd rage won't let me!

 

HELP!!! I can't stop complaining!!!

[BrokenMask]

 

 

And honestly, there is no innovation without hiccups in the journey.

Very true, but so far it seems that they don't intend to fix the hiccup. They've made a game where you will almost certainly be spending at least 50% more time fighting; while at the same time not providing any kill-xp to prevent you from getting bored. I hope the stealth mechanics are good; because I suspect most players will be using them a lot.

 

What. They haven't even had first patch after beta release and you are already saying that?

 

Also, wow, 6 posts in row. That has to be against rules ._.;

 

And to Immortal, I backed the game because I wanted to get great CRPG, I think everyone backed it for similar type of reasons and not for "I back this game because it has enemies in it that I can kill for exp" <_< Thats like saying "I bought a fighting game so I can play as shotoclone" or "I play MMOs so that I can pay lot of money for pointless things!"

 

And I said that they probably won't mind the new system if its works great unless they just like kill exp system that much better. Currently the system is flawed so it needs fixing. I think there is change that some people will accept the system after flaws are fixed, but not everyone will.

 

Please Immortal, practice reading comprehension, its annoying having to say same things again because you don't understand what I'm saying, plus you are quite eager to insult others.

 

And no, I'm not speaking for entire playerbase, I'm speculating about their possible future reactions if they improve exp system without changing back to old one

Edited August 23, 2014 by BrokenMask

[Shadenuat]

I'll be short since I already said too much on other forum about the issue, and other people said even more about nature of xp mechanics. I'd make a post from a non-mechanical perspective since talking about that as well as nature of roleplaying would take just too much effort and time again.

 

Me and my buddy talked about the aforementioned Ogre issue. In his DM opinion, narrative is most important, and he would never give xp to players if they would just decide to randomly go and kill an ogre for XP. He had same issue with Act 2 of Baldur's Gate 2 when CHARNAME was searching for his sister and could collect required 20k gold in an hour, yet CHARNAME could travel to some forest and kill random orks for XP.

I replied that he is thinking about it from a narrative perspective, and while narrative is important and it's a reason, say, PST gave so much XP for quests, it is not exactly how PoE is designed.

As it seems to me PoE would be designed a bit like Baldur's Gate 1, with plot being open-like during midgame, but final locations probably would move narrative more. But I wouldn't know. Bud replied that BG1 structure was more supportive for doing things out of scope of general narrative.

It is also not the whole of what is expected from and IE successor. He agreed on that part.

 

Some people expect to explore fog of war while listening to a cool music and bathing in visuals. Some are happy for a proper literature dialogue window to return. And some people liked to chunk beholders on thousands of XP and see their characters grow.

 

If I'd design IE successor I would not take away any of these joys, since I like all of them, including the chunking&growing part. So I voted for kill xp+quest xp that I think would allow a more open-like progression through the game, even if at a cost of narrative/balance.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Shadenuat

[Fluffle]

Geez; I said I'd stop dwelling on this, but my nerd rage won't let me!

 

HELP!!! I can't stop complaining!!!

 

Aww Namutree cmon *huggle*

 

Who knows what the final release will be like. And even after the release they may tweak things.

Yes there will be elements you will not enjoy, but some you will.

 

I just hope you do not soley focus on the things you dislike.

Try seeing the things you like so far as well as the ones you dislike.

 

I think there should be some balance there

 

It just seems to me you should focus a little bit on the things you like as well to

counter that amount of rage.

 

So complaining is fine as long as you see the things you like as well once in a while.

My opinion

[BrokenMask]

I'll be short since I already said too much on other forum about the issue, and other people said even more about nature of xp mechanics. I'd make a post from a non-mechanical perspective since talking about that as well as nature of roleplaying would take just too much effort and time again.

 

Me and my buddy talked about the aforementioned Ogre issue. In his DM opinion, narrative is most important, and he would never give xp to players if they would just decide to randomly go and kill an ogre for XP. He had same issue with Act 2 of Baldur's Gate 2 when CHARNAME was searching for his sister and could collect required 20k gold in an hour, yet CHARNAME could travel to some forest and kill random orks for XP.

I replied that he is thinking about it from a narrative perspective, and while narrative is important and it's a reason, say, PST gave so much XP for quests, it is not exactly how PoE is designed.

As it seems to me PoE would be designed a bit like Baldur's Gate 1, with plot being open-like during midgame, but final locations probably would move narrative more. But I wouldn't know.

It is also not the whole of what is expected from and IE successor. He agreed on that part.

 

Some people expect to explore fog of war while listening to a cool music and bathing in visuals. Some are happy for a proper literature dialogue window to return. And some people liked to chunk beholders on thousands of XP and see their characters grow.

 

If I'd design IE successor I would not take away any of these joys, since I like all of them, including the chunking&growing part.

So can I ask something? If the exp part is instrumental part of nature of classic IE games, then how come on D&D style stats and alignments aren't? <_<

[OobatoO]

I'm not fond of the experience point system. It feels so empty.

I agree with the idea of resolving a quest by other way than killing monster(or people) but wihout rewards the end of the fights feels empty. ( I do not include loot in the rewards)

EX: I killed a queen spider, good, where is my rewards (except her skin). What is the point to kill such monsters? (outside the fact the spiders won't do anymore harm).

I don't mind if i do not win exp when i kill some "trash mob". But for a big one it's not fair and not fun at all.

There is an other point. If only relsolving quest give xp.There will be only one way to level up.
I like very much to wander in the wild, resolve some mysteries, killing some dangerous monsters ( it's part of an adventurer life).

IMO the only quest xp take away a lot of fun and a great part of an RPG.