Experience point system in the beta and onwards

[CatatonicMan]

No the problem is people deciding to go grind monsters knowing there is no kill xp. Having fun and getting loot then being shocked they didn't also get xp on top of it for grinding.

 

The thing is, you don't need per-kill XP to make killing random mobs rewarding. Someone could have a need for lion pelts, for example. Returning, say, 10 lion pelts would reward you with credits and XP. That way you are rewarded for killing mobs without the need for each to vomit XP. Plus, if the bounty is a one-shot, there's no need to worry about the player over-leveling through grind.

[aeonsim]

So my hope they leave it as it is, now if they do decide to change it for some silly reason like a vocal minority complaining about it, then they can do the following:

 

Compromise and give you your combat XP, with a levelling system like the one at the bottom, now they'll be really generous and will have 2,000,000 XP (summed) spread across all the creatures in the game. With Quest XP being 4,096,000 so combat XP ~1/3rd of the total xp (6 million) (that's a lot!).

 

So if a levelling system like the one below is used what is the effect of this approximately 0. If you charge around the game killing everything you'll have a total of 6 million XP at the end of the game, but you'll still be at the same level as a person who only did quests (level 13) now maybe if they missed a few quests then you maybe a level or two in front of them, but I'd bet that you didn't actually manage to kill everything so it's unlikely you got the full 2 million. Secondly it's likely that the only effect this will have is through the game you may end up a level ahead of someone only doing quests by 10-15mins of play time, because the game doesn't scale enemies so you are most likely restricted to the same areas as players doing the quests.

 

But this should solve your problems right? You now get a whole pile of XP for killing stuff :-D so the combat is now fun and you'll actually be bothered fighting /-). You've successfully gotten some poor developer to waste a month tracking down every possible enemy in the game and assigning them an XP value. Your game may be a little bit more buggy because hey that developer could have been working on something that ACTUALLY HAS AN IMPACT but not to worry he saved the game for you and made it fun, even though it had NO IMPACT ).

 

Combat should be fun because it's a tactical challenge not because there is a magic number assigned to each enemy!

 

At the end of the day this is a massive fuss over nothing, as long as you have character advancement who cares where it comes from? If combat isn't fun without XP then I think your playing the game in a very odd way (XP addiction ).

 

 

 

1 1,000

2 2,000

3 4,000

4 8,000

5 16,000

6 32,000

7 64,000

8 128,000

9 256,000

10 512,000

11 1,024,000

12 2,048,000

13 4,096,000

14 8,192,000

Edited August 20, 2014 by aeonsim

[Lephys]

Here's what I don't comprehend:

 

Arguing "the act of besting something in combat should yield XP! Because combat yields experience! It was a challenge! Etc.!"

 

Followed by "It's 100% fine if, after I complete a quest that grants me XP, then totally separately decide I want to best those people in combat, the game doesn't give me any XP, even though I've just overcome a combat challenge, u_u."

 

Such selective logic, we have.

 

For the record, only having the kill award XP if whatever it would accomplish wasn't already accomplished is the very definition of objective XP.

 

None of this means that "the current state of the system in the beta's fine! It's objective XP, so it doesn't matter how its done, 8D! There's only ONE objective -- Beat The Game -- and it takes you from level 1 to level 12? That's 100% great, because it's objective XP! 8D!"

 

There's definitely a problem, and it needs to be solved. The actual solution is more important than justifying a system switch. You can slap per-kill XP into the current system all day, and it still has to be tweaked out the wazz to get it to solve the problem.

 

I think an easier solution is simply to incorporate combat into more of the objectives. Whether that's broadening the list of things that count as objectives, or simply having existing objectives represent more existing combat elements, etc.

 

Again, per-kill XP is just objective XP with an objective slapped on every single living organism that can be fought. If we agree that there are times when something dying really shouldn't give you any XP, then why not just tweak the objectives to cover that?

[Volourn]

"a vocal minority complaining about it then they can do the following:"

 

L0LZ

[Immortalis]

Again, per-kill XP is just objective XP with an objective slapped on every single living organism that can be fought. If we agree that there are times when something dying really shouldn't give you any XP, then why not just tweak the objectives to cover that?

 

Wait What?

[Lephys]

Wait What?

I'm unclear on exactly what was confusing about that. Could you specify?

[Zansatsu]

Here's what I don't comprehend:Arguing "the act of besting something in combat should yield XP! Because combat yields experience! It was a challenge! Etc.!"Followed by "It's 100% fine if, after I complete a quest that grants me XP, then totally separately decide I want to best those people in combat, the game doesn't give me any XP, even though I've just overcome a combat challenge, u_u."Such selective logic, we have.For the record, only having the kill award XP if whatever it would accomplish wasn't already accomplished is the very definition of objective XP.None of this means that "the current state of the system in the beta's fine! It's objective XP, so it doesn't matter how its done, 8D! There's only ONE objective -- Beat The Game -- and it takes you from level 1 to level 12? That's 100% great, because it's objective XP! 8D!"There's definitely a problem, and it needs to be solved. The actual solution is more important than justifying a system switch. You can slap per-kill XP into the current system all day, and it still has to be tweaked out the wazz to get it to solve the problem.I think an easier solution is simply to incorporate combat into more of the objectives. Whether that's broadening the list of things that count as objectives, or simply having existing objectives represent more existing combat elements, etc.Again, per-kill XP is just objective XP with an objective slapped on every single living organism that can be fought. If we agree that there are times when something dying really shouldn't give you any XP, then why not just tweak the objectives to cover that?

It's not selective logic. It's called a compromise for those who get wildly upset that people in there own personal game might have separate motivations.

[Zansatsu]

We would like to see all those who don't like killing things and getting rewarded be able to have the experience they want while we have the experience we want. It can be done.

[Tartantyco]

Let's make this simple: You ain't gettin' paid til the job's done, and the job ain't to assault innocent quadrupeds in the woods.

[Volourn]

If I wanted a job I'd work in real lfie. So exploration is out? It's about being slaves to the npcs? So.. If I do battle with the dragon who hunts me in the woods, I get no experience despite the challenge but if the little girl in the village asks me to find her dolly I get xp if I do? WUT KIND OF LOGIC IS THAT!?!

[Tartantyco]

Oh, we're back to "logic" again, are we?

[Lephys]

@Zansatsu,

 

It is selective logic. Was it just arbitrarily determined that that would be an acceptable compromise, as opposed to some other compromise? No. There was a reason. Just like there's a reason for wanting the XP in the first place.

 

Which, on that note, I don't think only one group of people deserves to "get the XP they want." But, there's got to be a better reason than just wanting it to do something a specific way.

 

Here's how I see it:

 

There are 2 options:

 

-Award XP for literally everything you do.

-Award XP for only some things you do.

 

The latter is, essentially, objective XP. So, unless you want the former, I don't see how objective XP is inherently problematic.

 

Basically, I don't see how "let's make sure everything you kill gives you some XP, except for occasionally, when we manually determine whether or not it should give you XP" is somehow better than "Let's represent all your choices and solutions with XP, based on it being deemed a significant choice/action/solution."

 

That, and, based on the entire ideology behind quest XP "you did something significant, and therefore get this XP, which abstractly represents the experience you gained for handling this situation", I don't see why every action you take has some inherent need to be represented with a direct XP reward.

 

I don't think it's a crime that there are some beetles in the woods that you COULD fight, but wouldn't get XP for. I think it's a crime if they're just everywhere in the entire game, and you never, ever get any XP. It's all about the particulars.

 

It could be simple, really. Maybe they could have exploration-based objectives, such that many of the places that would count for this would require combat. You could get to some of them without it, but others, you'd HAVE to fight through this pass, etc. to get to the other side, or to explore the pass. Something like that.

 

Because, honestly, getting 50 XP every single time you kill a beetle just doesn't make any sense. If I make Jello pudding 700 times, do I become a master of the culinary arts? No. In fact, the FIRST time you make Jello pudding is by far the most significant time. After that, you can hone your muscle memory and familiarity with the process, etc., but it's not going to be equivalent to entire level-ups worth of XP, like in typical RPGs. It's just a fun "Yay, I'm progressing!" thing. It was highly adjustable in D&D. Your DM decided whether or not what you did was significant. And, as others pointed out, you often got rewarded for being efficient/clever, rather than just putting yourself through hell.

[Stun]

Let's make this simple: You ain't gettin' paid til the job's done, and the job ain't to assault innocent quadrupeds in the woods.

Faulty analogy. This game is promising Objective XP, not just quest XP. And often times Objectives aren't jobs. They're points of progress within a job. Edited August 21, 2014 by Stun

[Tartantyco]

There you go again Stun, abusing terms. How about you find a dictionary and put it next to your desk? That way you can look this stuff up before posting your silly nonsense.

[Helm]

 

 

 

Because it is completely binary, you already know the outcome of your actions. Avoiding or engaging the trash mobs always yields the same reward.

 

And that is wrong because it discourages experimentation upon replays, am I guessing correctly?

 

 

This only applies to quest objectives, not to trash mobs. Like I wrote, you already know the outcome of (not) engaging trash mobs.

 

 

Ok, I think I might be misunderstanding you.

 

Are you saying solving the kill xp problem by giving out xp for individual kills, but subtracting it from the quest xp total is bad, because then the player will know the outcome of engaging the trash mobs? As in, he'll know that in the end it's more convenient to avoid opponents, therefore noncombat resolution becomes the optimal solution, because it's faster/easier and yields the same reward?

 

Yes.

 

You would receive 2000XP no matter if you chose to avoid or engage in combat with the trash mobs.

 

 

Uh.. Others covered this. D:OS is really generous when it comes to kill xp. It doesn't hurt the game at all like some the anti xp for kill crowd claim.

 

Why? Because, xp is to be sued to reward the layer for upcoming obstacles, missions, and role-playing. When you have a battle with beetles, lions, or ogres and you successfully overcome them you should be rewarded for it. PERIOD.

It absolutely hurts the game. Plenty of people have complained in D:OS that the stealth and few charisma options totally screw those players. You will be a much lower level if you do not kill everything possible. It is awful. Putting points in charisma will make you feel like a fool. You are either wildly mistaken or desperate to prove your point at any cost.

 

I have browsed the forums quite a bit, I think I only saw Sawyer and his grammy complaining about the stealth mechanics.

 

BTW, I have finished the Original Sin. It is a great game. Did I kill everything? NOPE. Why should I?

 

 

No the problem is people deciding to go grind monsters knowing there is no kill xp. Having fun and getting loot then being shocked they didn't also get xp on top of it for grinding.

 

The thing is, you don't need per-kill XP to make killing random mobs rewarding. Someone could have a need for lion pelts, for example. Returning, say, 10 lion pelts would reward you with credits and XP. That way you are rewarded for killing mobs without the need for each to vomit XP. Plus, if the bounty is a one-shot, there's no need to worry about the player over-leveling through grind.

 

It would of course work and has been mentioned here in the thread a few times. But why does the game need MMO style mechanics to reward the player for creatures he has killed? Can't we just do it the less annoying way?

[Helm]

now if they do decide to change it for some silly reason like a vocal minority complaining about it

Dude, do you not understand the poll?

 

90% of the voters want a different XP system than the one that is currently implemented in the game, which is quest only XP (the first option).

[Helm]

- double post -

Edited August 21, 2014 by Helm

[Zansatsu]

@Zansatsu,It is selective logic. Was it just arbitrarily determined that that would be an acceptable compromise, as opposed to some other compromise? No. There was a reason. Just like there's a reason for wanting the XP in the first place.Which, on that note, I don't think only one group of people deserves to "get the XP they want." But, there's got to be a better reason than just wanting it to do something a specific way.Here's how I see it:There are 2 options:-Award XP for literally everything you do.-Award XP for only some things you do.The latter is, essentially, objective XP. So, unless you want the former, I don't see how objective XP is inherently problematic.Basically, I don't see how "let's make sure everything you kill gives you some XP, except for occasionally, when we manually determine whether or not it should give you XP" is somehow better than "Let's represent all your choices and solutions with XP, based on it being deemed a significant choice/action/solution."That, and, based on the entire ideology behind quest XP "you did something significant, and therefore get this XP, which abstractly represents the experience you gained for handling this situation", I don't see why every action you take has some inherent need to be represented with a direct XP reward.I don't think it's a crime that there are some beetles in the woods that you COULD fight, but wouldn't get XP for. I think it's a crime if they're just everywhere in the entire game, and you never, ever get any XP. It's all about the particulars.It could be simple, really. Maybe they could have exploration-based objectives, such that many of the places that would count for this would require combat. You could get to some of them without it, but others, you'd HAVE to fight through this pass, etc. to get to the other side, or to explore the pass. Something like that.Because, honestly, getting 50 XP every single time you kill a beetle just doesn't make any sense. If I make Jello pudding 700 times, do I become a master of the culinary arts? No. In fact, the FIRST time you make Jello pudding is by far the most significant time. After that, you can hone your muscle memory and familiarity with the process, etc., but it's not going to be equivalent to entire level-ups worth of XP, like in typical RPGs. It's just a fun "Yay, I'm progressing!" thing. It was highly adjustable in D&D. Your DM decided whether or not what you did was significant. And, as others pointed out, you often got rewarded for being efficient/clever, rather than just putting yourself through hell.

Valid points all.

 

I'm going to enjoy this game either way. I hope people take that away from me. My criticism is not ment to disparage the game I simply enjoyed the old system and enjoy the discussion. I've played objective xp games. They don't hook me in the same way.

[Lephys]

It would of course work and has been mentioned here in the thread a few times. But why does the game need MMO style mechanics to reward the player for creatures he has killed? Can't we just do it the less annoying way?

I thought that actually delving into reasons for your character's choices and actions within the game world, as opposed to just defaulting to points for action, was one of the things that separated the RPG genre from, say, the action-shooter genre.

 

I don't see why it's annoying that the game utilize motivations other than "They're worth points, man!" for things like killing random "threatening" (if you go screw with them) creatures in the woods.

 

Obviously if everyone in the game wanted 10 (insert animal part here)s, things would get a bit dull. But, I suspect that was just a simple example of the approach, and not a creed by which the game should live its life.

[Stun]

 

There you go again Stun, abusing terms. How about you find a dictionary and put it next to your desk? That way you can look this stuff up before posting your silly nonsense.

It's neither an abuse of terms, nor an erroneous use of any terms. You're Dodging. Address the point now, or stop wasting everyone's time.

[Lephys]

I'm going to enjoy this game either way. I hope people take that away from me. My criticism is not ment to disparage the game I simply enjoyed the old system and enjoy the discussion. I've played objective xp games. They don't hook me in the same way.

No no, it's fine. It's just really easy for us to sort of connect things that don't need connecting, and that's happening a bit throughout the discussion, is all.

 

I mean, clearly, the current, right-this-moment state of the XP system needs improvement. And yes, per-kill XP is fun, and has been fun in many a game. But, first off, I don't think the goal of objective XP is to eliminate any and all combat-related XP. But... I just don't think the approach is the problem, here.

 

I enjoy the discussion, too, and simply wish to see it bear fruit.

[Stun]

Because, honestly, getting 50 XP every single time you kill a beetle just doesn't make any sense. If I make Jello pudding 700 times, do I become a master of the culinary arts? No. In fact, the FIRST time you make Jello pudding is by far the most significant time. After that, you can hone your muscle memory and familiarity with the process, etc., but it's not going to be equivalent to entire level-ups worth of XP, like in typical RPGs. It's just a fun "Yay, I'm progressing!" thing. It was highly adjustable in D&D. Your DM decided whether or not what you did was significant. And, as others pointed out, you often got rewarded for being efficient/clever, rather than just putting yourself through hell.

I find it humorous (and slightly annoying) that whenever my side tries to employ real world logic to justify Kill XP, we're suddenly gang-banged by masses from YOUR side reminding us that XP itself is an abstraction that logic cannot be applied to. But then one minute later the discussion shifts and we see you people are applying this SAME real world logic to justify the omission of Kill XP.

 

Make up your minds, please. Can we use logic or not?

Edited August 21, 2014 by Stun

[Tartantyco]

If you keep on parroting the "logic" of XP-for-kills, don't get upset when point out that it's not logical, Stun...

[Stun]

^I'm not. I'm criticizing someone else for using logic. And You're Dodging.

[Tartantyco]

If you're arguing that something is logical, and somebody points out that it isn't logical, you lose. Do you follow that logic, Stun?

 

And I'm not dodging any of the imaginary arguments you've conjured up in your head while misreading my posts, either.