Combat XP Poll - Let's See What We Think Now

[lolaldanee]

noone has ever complained about no combat xp in games that have it (or at least i didn't ever see anybody complain)

not in alpha protocol, not in bloodlines, and deus ex i think had the same system

bloodlines is in fact widely considered one of the best roleplaying games ever (not by me though, i love the first chapter, but not so much the rest) and the xp system is easily one of the better parts of the game, because it really really really drives home the ROLEPLAYING part of the game

this isn't diablo or icewind dale, this is a roleplaying game god dammit

q.e.d.

Edited August 21, 2014 by lolaldanee

[Elerond]

 

 

 

It is for the better this way. XP on kills encourages player to take optimal paths in rpg games which hurts the whole choose your path portion in the rpg. Dumb making a game that gives the player options and reputations but have everyone follow the same route because "X" route gives more xp gains. I think in witcher 2? People went this one route in the story not because of whats going on in the story and what they prefer but because of xp gain which is really dumb.

So what will powerplayers do? They will complete every possible sidequest, fed'exing stuff around the world and always being a good boyscout, no matter if it goes against their party ethics or such.

That is just bad quest design which has nothing to do with xp system.

it has, since you can't progress otherwise.

 

People will always aim for the highest reward; gimping a game to force one way of playing doesn't solve the proble at the heart.

 

 

But xp system don't cause existence of such quest, if they exist they exist only because quest designers have done bad job.

 

Bad design always lead people to do things that are unroleplay like, as players have meta knowledge that doing things certain way is more effective than doing things as how your character would actually do them.  

 

Josh said that they decided to go with quest/objective based  system to encourage people to roleplay more, but if their quest design has optimal paths that make people meta game instead of roleplay, then they have just failed in design, which means that changing system behind xp don't help as failure is in way quests (at least some) are designed.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Elerond

[Helm]

 

If they don't rework this system or find a solution to make the FORCED, random battles more rewarding or less pointless (right now, it seems they are just there to make the players spend more time on a map) I don't see me buying the expansion or supporting the sequels. TBH, the 'no battle Xp' is just the tip of the iceberg; after playing the beta, i don't feel PoE to be a 'spiritual successor to IE games' more than any other isonometric RPG out there.

 

I don't think I'll be alone in this; in the end the whole community will suffer because if the game faile to raise enough interest, there will be no sequel at all.

The problem is simple: you and your fellow whiners heard that they would be taking some very broad aspects of some old RPGs and in your heads decided that meant that Obsidian was making Baldur's Gate 3.

 

Calling people whiners because they have an opinion that differs from yours is about as productive as if I would call you an ass kisser because you hail every decision that the developer makes as a word of god without fault or error.

 

I think it would make much more sense to change the mechanics so that all of the fans and backers ( =fans of the IE games) are happy. That would make much more sense than this endless conflict about the XP system, etc.

 

If this imagined promise causes you to snap at Obsidian for Pillars of Eternity when it's finally released, you'll be savaging the only company willing to make old-style RPGs; you'll be complaining about the ten or twenty percent of peripheral content that's different when the core stuff – what they were selling the game on and what everyone got so excited – is all right there.

Obsidian has said that the target audience are the fans of the IE games, more specifically Baldur's Gate. This game doesn't feel like a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. It looks like one, but it doesn't feel like one.

 

They have failed to meet their design goal, which means that the project needs to be salvaged. We were promised a spiritual successor to the IE games, not Josh Sawyer's Dream RPG. At the moment even Dragon Age: Origins is more of a spiritual successor to the IE games than Pillars of Eternity is. And that is just really, really sad when I think about how this game was marketed during the Kickstarter.

[Cthulchulain]

1 xp per kill, x2 for each party member who goes down but survives the battle. Combat XP + bonus for those who intentionally take on a bigger challenge.

[Msxyz]

 

If they don't rework this system or find a solution to make the FORCED, random battles more rewarding or less pointless (right now, it seems they are just there to make the players spend more time on a map) I don't see me buying the expansion or supporting the sequels. TBH, the 'no battle Xp' is just the tip of the iceberg; after playing the beta, i don't feel PoE to be a 'spiritual successor to IE games' more than any other isonometric RPG out there.

I don't think I'll be alone in this; in the end the whole community will suffer because if the game faile to raise enough interest, there will be no sequel at all.

 

The problem is simple: you and your fellow whiners heard that they would be taking some very broad aspects of some old RPGs and in your heads decided that meant that Obsidian was making Baldur's Gate 3. If this imagined promise causes you to snap at Obsidian for Pillars of Eternity when it's finally released, you'll be savaging the only company willing to make old-style RPGs; you'll be complaining about the ten or twenty percent of peripheral content that's different when the core stuff – what they were selling the game on and what everyone got so excited – is all right there.

not Baldur's gate but a game with the exploration of BG, the combat and dungeon crawling of IWD and a compelling story like PST.

 

While we don't know yet if the story will deliver, what I've seen so far is a quite different game.

 

As for 'olskool RPGs', with games like Blackguards and Divinity Original Sin published this year alone, I think Obsidian is not the only company catering to the genre. Both these games where big, pleasant surprises.

[Tartantyco]

As for 'olskool RPGs', with games like Blackguards and Divinity Original Sin published this year alone

 

 

Those games aren't even close to old school RPGs. D:OS is a slow aRPG, and Blackguards is... something.

[war:head]

How many of these polls are we going to have, exactly?

As many as it takes to get combat XP into the game.

[Msxyz]

 

As for 'olskool RPGs', with games like Blackguards and Divinity Original Sin published this year alone

 

 

Those games aren't even close to old school RPGs. D:OS is a slow aRPG, and Blackguards is... something.

D:OS contains many key elements of traditional CRPGs although it's certainly built with a modern approach.

 

An RPG can be modern while maintaining the same core values that made great a certain generation of past games.

 

In a sense, I think many people are expecting this also from PoE, having been pitched as a 'spiritual successor' of IE games. evolution while maintaining certain core values and the general feel.

 

The opposite example would be games like TES IV or V which, while being technically sequels of the past Elder Scrolls games, feel quite distant from Daggerfall or even Morrowind despite the obvious similarities.

[Tartantyco]

D:OS contains many key elements of traditional CRPGs although it's certainly built with a modern approach. 

 

 

It has basic RPG elements, but it also has aRPG elements galore on top of that. It plays nothing like the IE games, or older stuff like Daggerfall, Betrayal at Krondor, and the like. It has randomly generated loot, boss fight mobs, level-by-items, linear world progression(Even though it promotes itself as open world, progression is dictated by area enemy levels), combat focused on recharging abilities, ability leveling, loot focused gameplay, non-relevant narrative, etc. 

 

An RPG can be modern while maintaining the same core values that made great a certain generation of past games.

 

 

Which is what all the people arguing for Kill-XP don't seem to get.

[Wintersong]

 

It is for the better this way. XP on kills encourages player to take optimal paths in rpg games which hurts the whole choose your path portion in the rpg. Dumb making a game that gives the player options and reputations but have everyone follow the same route because "X" route gives more xp gains. I think in witcher 2? People went this one route in the story not because of whats going on in the story and what they prefer but because of xp gain which is really dumb.

So what will powerplayers do? They will complete every possible sidequest, fed'exing stuff around the world and always being a good boyscout, no matter if it goes against their party ethics or such.

 

If the scope was to reward questing instead of grinding or powerplaying, it won't prevent people to find ways to maximize the experience gained. Not to mention that combat will become only a mere annoyance. This, coupled with the 'no bad build approach' will make this game very, very tedious.

 

Remember people attacking Bioware for the 'awesome button'? Here we have an entire gameplay designed for the 'something awesome always happens'. Oh, and wave after wave of filler combat too.

 

I fail to see how PoE resembles DA2 in any way like you describe. Not sure how something awesome always happens is related to no xp for combat. Or how dropping enemies on the combat area (and MMORPG like bosses, I guess) is related to regular monster map population like in old IE games.

 

Powerplayers can go play something else. Or play this. Or whatever.

[Shdy314]

Calling people whiners because they have an opinion that differs from yours is about as productive as if I would call you an ass kisser because you hail every decision that the developer makes as a word of god without fault or error.

I think it would make much more sense to change the mechanics so that all of the fans and backers ( =fans of the IE games) are happy. That would make much more sense than this endless conflict about the XP system, etc.

 

If this imagined promise causes you to snap at Obsidian for Pillars of Eternity when it's finally released, you'll be savaging the only company willing to make old-style RPGs; you'll be complaining about the ten or twenty percent of peripheral content that's different when the core stuff – what they were selling the game on and what everyone got so excited – is all right there.

Obsidian has said that the target audience are the fans of the IE games, more specifically Baldur's Gate. This game doesn't feel like a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. It looks like one, but it doesn't feel like one.

 

They have failed to meet their design goal, which means that the project needs to be salvaged. We were promised a spiritual successor to the IE games, not Josh Sawyer's Dream RPG. At the moment even Dragon Age: Origins is more of a spiritual successor to the IE games than Pillars of Eternity is. And that is just really, really sad when I think about how this game was marketed during the Kickstarter.

You aren't called whiners for your differing opinion. You ARE whiners for the way you present your opinions.

 

As for whether PoE counts as a spiritual successor to the IE games is not something you have final say on. No one decides that except for themselves. Get over yourself please. You are not more important than anyone else on the board as much as you like to tell yourself otherwise.

 

Your "solution" proves you aren't worth listening to. Oh they should just find the option that pleases EVERYONE.  It was so easy all this time.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Shdy314

[Grand_Commander13]

The really laughable part is how he says that Dragon Age: Origins deserves the "spiritual successor" mantle more than Pillars of Eternity. Based exclusively on kill XP and the attribute system, I'd imagine, because other than that it's mechanically nothing like Baldur's Gate. Oh, sure, it captures the feeling and fun of the old Infinity Engine games, but since Pillars of Eternity is no spiritual successor I guess that doesn't matter; it's all about the attributes and the experience drops. Never mind that PoE keeps the exploration and the deep dialogue trees, it changed things up on the attributes too much so it's automatically terrible.

[PrimeHydra]

Until discovering this poll I thought we got XP for defeating baddies, but it was hidden. Now I'm just thinking "WTF did they do?"  You kill stuff, you get XP. It's part of the reward system of any role-playing game with combat. And for good reason!

 

Please Obsidian, convince us this is for the best. Anyone have a link to an interview or something where they defend this odd design choice?

 

PS I get it, one could beat the final boss of Planescape: Torment by dialog-treeing him to death. That was cool. But not getting any XP for killing annoying trash mobs is just...unrewarding. Let's all be rogues and go around them! puh-leez.

Edited August 22, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Zansatsu]

 

 

It is for the better this way. XP on kills encourages player to take optimal paths in rpg games which hurts the whole choose your path portion in the rpg. Dumb making a game that gives the player options and reputations but have everyone follow the same route because "X" route gives more xp gains. I think in witcher 2? People went this one route in the story not because of whats going on in the story and what they prefer but because of xp gain which is really dumb.

 

So what will powerplayers do? They will complete every possible sidequest, fed'exing stuff around the world and always being a good boyscout, no matter if it goes against their party ethics or such.

If the scope was to reward questing instead of grinding or powerplaying, it won't prevent people to find ways to maximize the experience gained. Not to mention that combat will become only a mere annoyance. This, coupled with the 'no bad build approach' will make this game very, very tedious.

Remember people attacking Bioware for the 'awesome button'? Here we have an entire gameplay designed for the 'something awesome always happens'. Oh, and wave after wave of filler combat too.

I fail to see how PoE resembles DA2 in any way like you describe. Not sure how something awesome always happens is related to no xp for combat. Or how dropping enemies on the combat area (and MMORPG like bosses, I guess) is related to regular monster map population like in old IE games.

 

Powerplayers can go play something else. Or play this. Or whatever.

Your right, something awesome happening is not always kill xp related, it is a piece of an entire pie where a lot of awesome stuff happens. I do think a game can be made with objective xp that is satisfying. But in order to do that and make the progression feel rewarding, for me at least, they need a heck of a lot more to achieve than what was shown in the beta. This is what they gave us to show off the system. It didn't satisfy me. Maybe it did many of you.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Until discovering this poll I thought we got XP for defeating baddies, but it was hidden. Now I'm just thinking "WTF did they do?"  You kill stuff, you get XP. It's part of the reward system of any role-playing game with combat. And for good reason!

 

Please Obsidian, convince us this is for the best. Anyone have a link to an interview or something where they defend this odd design choice?

 

PS I get it, one could beat the final boss of Planescape: Torment by dialog-treeing him to death. That was cool. But not getting any XP for killing annoying trash mobs is just...unrewarding. Let's all be rogues and go around them! puh-leez.

I'm happy to oblige: A relevant quote from Josh, on where he and Tim stand on this is on the bottom of page 14 in this thread:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67140-experience-point-system-in-the-beta-and-onwards/page-14

 

While you are there, feel free to cast your vote in the poll there as well.

[Shdy314]

Until discovering this poll I thought we got XP for defeating baddies, but it was hidden. Now I'm just thinking "WTF did they do?"  You kill stuff, you get XP. It's part of the reward system of any role-playing game with combat. And for good reason!

 

Please Obsidian, convince us this is for the best. Anyone have a link to an interview or something where they defend this odd design choice?

It is not the reward system of ANY rpg just the worst PnP ones and most CRPGs. Not for a good reason but for tradition and because it creates a real physical reaction in your brain. It is obviously a stronger reaction in certain people.

 

There are MANY times they talk about this including right here on the forums since last year. They talked about it in the Demo at Gamescom most recently.

Nija'd by Indira who did your work for you.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Shdy314

[PrimeHydra]

 

Until discovering this poll I thought we got XP for defeating baddies, but it was hidden. Now I'm just thinking "WTF did they do?"  You kill stuff, you get XP. It's part of the reward system of any role-playing game with combat. And for good reason!

 

Please Obsidian, convince us this is for the best. Anyone have a link to an interview or something where they defend this odd design choice?

 

PS I get it, one could beat the final boss of Planescape: Torment by dialog-treeing him to death. That was cool. But not getting any XP for killing annoying trash mobs is just...unrewarding. Let's all be rogues and go around them! puh-leez.

I'm happy to oblige: A relevant quote from Josh, on where he and Tim stand on this is on the bottom of page 14 in this thread:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67140-experience-point-system-in-the-beta-and-onwards/page-14

 

While you are there, feel free to cast your vote in the poll there as well.

 

Thanks--the quote is here, for folks like me who might not have been following the forums/game conventions/etc. since the game was announced:

 

So when I write that what Tim and I want to do is use quest/objective/challenge XP as the primary (if not only) methods of achieving XP, that means "want" will give way to "reality" if they are in conflict -- conflict in practice, not conflict in a forum discussion. When changing the system requires relatively little effort, there's not a ton of benefit to being absolutist over a year in advance. Moving from a class-based to classless system -- that's a big deal. That's something you decide and pretty much stick with. Deciding whether to give XP for monsters or not give XP for monsters -- that's not a big deal. That's easy to address, even late in development. Deciding whether people can rest at certain locations or they can rest anywhere is also pretty easy to address.

 

These things exist on a sliding scale of difficulty, implementation/adjustment-wise. We plan things so we can make the simple changes easily later on. Generally that means creating simple base layers of mechanics and adding in "adjustment" or tuning mechanics when the metrics/gameplay we see demands it.

 

In other words, they might change this decision if doing so makes the game better. So all you anti-kill-XP fanatics can stop trolling me (you know who you are).

 

Time will tell what the best system is for Pillars of Eternity. But as a game that wants to evoke Icewind Dale? Not rewarding players for killing monsters seems counterproductive.

 

What I will say for this choice, though, is it puts the onus on their storytelling to really compel the player to complete quests. There will need to be a lot of interesting non-combat content.

 

Why can't there be a balance of both worlds? What was wrong with the hybrid system that the IE games used? Quests provided the big reward cakes, while combat/trash mobs were the frosting. I don't know about you but I like my cake with frosting. Nobody would call Planescape: Torment a mindless hack-and-slash-fest. And that game gave you experience for killing demons.

Edited August 22, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Namutree]

 

 IIRC, Obsidian did mention that some enemies would give kill xp and I think some exploration exp will be given at some points too.

 

 

Does anyone know if this is true? If it is; I'm not upset about the lack of kill xp. I just wanted to explore and make progress without being on a quest.

[GrinningReaper659]

Until discovering this poll I thought we got XP for defeating baddies, but it was hidden. Now I'm just thinking "WTF did they do?"  You kill stuff, you get XP. It's part of the reward system of any role-playing game with combat. And for good reason!

 

Please Obsidian, convince us this is for the best. Anyone have a link to an interview or something where they defend this odd design choice?

 

PS I get it, one could beat the final boss of Planescape: Torment by dialog-treeing him to death. That was cool. But not getting any XP for killing annoying trash mobs is just...unrewarding. Let's all be rogues and go around them! puh-leez.

 

Am I to understand that you played the beta and enjoyed the combat just fine until reading on the forum that you weren't receiving XP for each kill? Because, if so, that's absurd. Please tell me that you didn't get retroactively upset about not having received an instant gratification reward that you didn't even miss at the time. I'll just hope that you haven't played the beta and you just meant that you thought per-kill XP was hidden from view in gameplay videos you watched.

 

 

"Let's all be rogues and go around them! puh-leez." = "completing objectives in any way besides my favorite way is wrong and shouldn't be rewarded equally to my favorite way."  Okay, if you say so.

[Grand_Commander13]

The combat should be there for challenge or for pacing, not for dopamine injections. I should be like "yay, a fight; this doesn't feel like walking through a large, empty hall!" There should be something wherever the fights are gating me off from, or I should have been allowed to see that there's nothing there, but the kill XP is just a way to make cheap fights feel good without there having been any thought put into the pacing.

 

I'm not an anti-kill XP fanatic, but it's far simpler to say "you get XP for completing objectives" rather than being forced to balance XP around the possibility that the player might do the peaceful outcome for the increased XP, then kill everyone anyway. And since games have been done just fine without kill XP before, I see no reason why having experience points for each kill is "best for Pillars of Eternity".

[Namutree]

 

Until discovering this poll I thought we got XP for defeating baddies, but it was hidden. Now I'm just thinking "WTF did they do?"  You kill stuff, you get XP. It's part of the reward system of any role-playing game with combat. And for good reason!

 

Please Obsidian, convince us this is for the best. Anyone have a link to an interview or something where they defend this odd design choice?

 

PS I get it, one could beat the final boss of Planescape: Torment by dialog-treeing him to death. That was cool. But not getting any XP for killing annoying trash mobs is just...unrewarding. Let's all be rogues and go around them! puh-leez.

 

Am I to understand that you played the beta and enjoyed the combat just fine until reading on the forum that you weren't receiving XP for each kill? Because, if so, that's absurd. Please tell me that you didn't get retroactively upset about not having received an instant gratification reward that you didn't even miss at the time. I'll just hope that you haven't played the beta and you just meant that you thought per-kill XP was hidden from view in gameplay videos you watched.

 

 

"Let's all be rogues and go around them! puh-leez." = "completing objectives in any way besides my favorite way is wrong and shouldn't be rewarded equally to my favorite way."  Okay, if you say so.

 

It was a placebo effect. He thought he was getting xp; so he felt the xp high.

[Fluffle]

 

 

Until discovering this poll I thought we got XP for defeating baddies, but it was hidden. Now I'm just thinking "WTF did they do?"  You kill stuff, you get XP. It's part of the reward system of any role-playing game with combat. And for good reason!

 

Please Obsidian, convince us this is for the best. Anyone have a link to an interview or something where they defend this odd design choice?

 

PS I get it, one could beat the final boss of Planescape: Torment by dialog-treeing him to death. That was cool. But not getting any XP for killing annoying trash mobs is just...unrewarding. Let's all be rogues and go around them! puh-leez.

 

Am I to understand that you played the beta and enjoyed the combat just fine until reading on the forum that you weren't receiving XP for each kill? Because, if so, that's absurd. Please tell me that you didn't get retroactively upset about not having received an instant gratification reward that you didn't even miss at the time. I'll just hope that you haven't played the beta and you just meant that you thought per-kill XP was hidden from view in gameplay videos you watched.

 

 

"Let's all be rogues and go around them! puh-leez." = "completing objectives in any way besides my favorite way is wrong and shouldn't be rewarded equally to my favorite way."  Okay, if you say so.

 

It was a placebo effect. He thought he was getting xp; so he felt the xp high.

 

 

Interesting. So we actually don't need kill XP.

We just have to let people think they get it when in fact they don't.

[PrimeHydra]

 

Until discovering this poll I thought we got XP for defeating baddies, but it was hidden. Now I'm just thinking "WTF did they do?"  You kill stuff, you get XP. It's part of the reward system of any role-playing game with combat. And for good reason!

 

Please Obsidian, convince us this is for the best. Anyone have a link to an interview or something where they defend this odd design choice?

 

PS I get it, one could beat the final boss of Planescape: Torment by dialog-treeing him to death. That was cool. But not getting any XP for killing annoying trash mobs is just...unrewarding. Let's all be rogues and go around them! puh-leez.

 

Am I to understand that you played the beta and enjoyed the combat just fine until reading on the forum that you weren't receiving XP for each kill? Because, if so, that's absurd. Please tell me that you didn't get retroactively upset about not having received an instant gratification reward that you didn't even miss at the time. I'll just hope that you haven't played the beta and you just meant that you thought per-kill XP was hidden from view in gameplay videos you watched.

 

Actually, I've been playing the beta for a while and noticed that my guys weren't progressing at all after clearing out wilderness areas. This was rather unrewarding, so I thought I'd go on the forums and bait a few flamers with my opinions. Much more fun

 

 

 

"Let's all be rogues and go around them! puh-leez." = "completing objectives in any way besides my favorite way is wrong and shouldn't be rewarded equally to my favorite way."  Okay, if you say so.

 

 

The Infinity Engine games were not stealth games. They weren't even negotiation games (Torment was a hybrid negotiation/combat game). A big part of the fun and excitement of the games was combat. It was unavoidable, and I don't care how diplomatic you were in Torment, fighting was central to the experience. Killing the kill XP will dampen the reward of this key activity.

 

Look at your your stats, your weapons--at the end of the day, all that fiddling you did with your inventory? It was for one purpose: To be more effective in combat.  The IE games were at their heart tactical fantasy role-playing games. Rewarding XP for kills was a big part of the reward mechanic. I backed this game because I wanted a modern successor to said classics. It will feel really odd if winning fights doesn't grant some token experience.

 

 

The combat should be there for challenge or for pacing, not for dopamine injections. 

Give me a break. Video games are all about dopamine injections. Whether it's romancing the elf, solving the trap puzzle or slaying the dragon. Reward is reward.

Edited August 22, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Namutree]

 

It was a placebo effect. He thought he was getting xp; so he felt the xp high.

 

 

 

 

Interesting. So we actually don't need kill XP.

We just have to let people think they get it when in fact they don't.

 

They'll get wise when they don't ever level up.

[Fluffle]

 

They'll get wise when they don't ever level up.

 

Damn, PrimeHydra proves you right ^^

 

 

 

Actually, I've been playing the beta for a while and noticed that my guys weren't progressing at all after clearing out wilderness areas. This was rather unrewarding, so I thought I'd go on the forums and bait a few flamers with my opinions. Much more fun