Sartoris and Immortalis are right about the problems with No XP.

 

Josh is also right about certain circumstances with where an "all creatures/enemies give you XP when you kill them" system leads to unwanted gameplay.

 

 

Why does it have to be one or the other? (I don't think you fairly represented the yellow corner, Mr. Mod!)

• In quest chains, the worry is that if you are asked to side with NPC 'A' or NPC 'B,' siding none and killing all will always be the outcome that nets most profit via XP and loot. While this was true in IE games, this can be balanced by giving no XP is one or the other is killed first, or equal rewards for killing neither or only one, or alternating based on the situation, etc. I hope no one sees this as a problem.
• Trash mobs in IE games gave a negligible amount of XP anyway. So what, 15xp from each Xvart split six ways, whoop-dee-doo! No big loss. But large, powerful creatures, or perhaps enemies above your level or that give some degree of challenge should give you a reward. Do you really want to only be killing things so you can collect the crap they drop and sell it?? It will very rarely be of use to your characters if every encounter works this way.
• Why not give give varying XP, including none, based on the type of encounter? The only reason against doing this that I can think of is that it would require a lot of balancing and effort from devs. Don't get me wrong, this is a valid reason if true, but one that only a dev can comment on.

So... what's wrong with a little of column A and a little of column B? Can't we do a bit of both, specifically to address the problems of either extreme?

 

If you go back and read the 1500 posts on this topic that are all in the threads that got locked.. I mentioned like 5 ways to get around this abuse.. one of them is close to what your saying.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not surprised. I've heard a lot from people who want Kill XP and next to nothing from people who don't. Do these people actually exist?

 

In the end, as Polanski said, the devs likely are already well enough aware of the pros and cons, I suppose all that's left is to show them our preference while there's still (possibly) a window of opportunity for such a big change to gameplay.

 

Actually, I'm not sure that they could even make such a big change at this point without delaying the game...

 

 

There's a sawyer post flying around that said XP could be changed relatively late in the development cycle if it needed to be.. The balancing though.. that's a bigger problem methinks.

 

 

Sartoris and Immortalis are right about the problems with No XP.

 

Josh is also right about certain circumstances with where an "all creatures/enemies give you XP when you kill them" system leads to unwanted gameplay.

 

 

Why does it have to be one or the other? (I don't think you fairly represented the yellow corner, Mr. Mod!)

• In quest chains, the worry is that if you are asked to side with NPC 'A' or NPC 'B,' siding none and killing all will always be the outcome that nets most profit via XP and loot. While this was true in IE games, this can be balanced by giving no XP is one or the other is killed first, or equal rewards for killing neither or only one, or alternating based on the situation, etc. I hope no one sees this as a problem.
• Trash mobs in IE games gave a negligible amount of XP anyway. So what, 15xp from each Xvart split six ways, whoop-dee-doo! No big loss. But large, powerful creatures, or perhaps enemies above your level or that give some degree of challenge should give you a reward. Do you really want to only be killing things so you can collect the crap they drop and sell it?? It will very rarely be of use to your characters if every encounter works this way.
• Why not give give varying XP, including none, based on the type of encounter? The only reason against doing this that I can think of is that it would require a lot of balancing and effort from devs. Don't get me wrong, this is a valid reason if true, but one that only a dev can comment on.

So... what's wrong with a little of column A and a little of column B? Can't we do a bit of both, specifically to address the problems of either extreme?

 

If you go back and read the 1500 posts on this topic that are all in the threads that got locked.. I mentioned like 5 ways to get around this abuse.. one of them is close to what your saying.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not surprised. I've heard a lot from people who want Kill XP and next to nothing from people who don't. Do these people actually exist?

 

In the end, as Polanski said, the devs likely are already well enough aware of the pros and cons, I suppose all that's left is to show them our preference while there's still (possibly) a window of opportunity for such a big change to gameplay.

 

Actually, I'm not sure that they could even make such a big change at this point without delaying the game...

 

I definitely think they could be able to make such a change within a reasonable timeframe. Surely within the time limits of the beta period.

 

The thing with this is that it just ends up being a very fundamental discussion, where it is easy to see and understand each side of the discussion, but alot harder to understand the actual mechanical and gameplay differences there would be to not-having-combat-xp, as none of us have actually played an entire IE game without it.

 

For me there is as well a very philosophical aspect to it, as it is very hard to make up the self-evolving aspect of actually taking a life, and doing so on a regular basis. It makes a lot of sense if something like that would be avoided and not just end up with a 'ding' as you put your sword through the mother-dragon. That same kind of argumentation could still be used on quest-xp of course.

 

XP in general is just an abstract concept and the choice is dependant on what is the most fun, and makes for the best and least degenerate gameplay. Without the combat xp the alternative gameplay routes has to be similarly as fullfilling and fun. 

 

My point being that I think Josh & co. knows of all these options and the feelings of the Beta backers right now. They are probably discussing them, and they will come up with the right choice, or test something else in the next beta version. So people should maybe focus on feedback on talents and the classes and other important things (BUGS!). 

You know what bugs me most?

 

Josh is unlikely to come into this thread and engage with backers who are concerned about this aspect of PoE.

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hubris

I wouldn't either. The fans here fall on the side of passionate that is way past polite discussion. Sawyer shouldn't come anywhere near this thread to "engage" the backers that have forum signatures riddled with criticisms against the choices he's made and naming him personally. I know this is the internet and all and a tame part of it at that, but I mean come on, surely any one of the people here would find such a personal tone of aggressive criticism offensive if applied to your own workplaces. And even if you have an unnaturally thick skin, this type of debate is unlikely to go in a productive direction; the talk has been had, the decision made, and nothing we say here is likely to be even remotely new, it's simply a rehashing of arguments or statement of preferences, therefore an utter waste of his time. 

 

But I still am inclined to disagree with No XP. I'm just open to being proven wrong, or informed once a change is made.

I wouldn't either. The fans here fall on the side of passionate that is way past polite discussion. Sawyer shouldn't come anywhere near this thread to "engage" the backers that have forum signatures riddled with criticisms against the choices he's made and naming him personally. I know this is the internet and all and a tame part of it at that, but I mean come on, surely any one of the people here would find such a personal tone of aggressive criticism offensive if applied to your own workplaces. And even if you have an unnaturally thick skin, this type of debate is unlikely to go in a productive direction; the talk has been had, the decision made, and nothing we say here is likely to be even remotely new, it's simply a rehashing of arguments or statement of preferences, therefore an utter waste of his time. 

 

But I still am inclined to disagree with No XP. I'm just open to being proven wrong, or informed once a change is made.

 

Wowow.. You do know that sawyer can dish it out with the best of us right? Have you actually read some of the stuff he's said? I would never talk about him the same way I would Tim Cain or MCA.. only Sawyer provides the really good gems via quotes.

 

I don't think I have ever called Sawyer a bad designer.. he's not.. he's very intelligent.. But he is very brash, stubborn and can even be sorta hostile sometimes.. The only reason we hold him up as a poster child is because there are just so many good quotes of him trashing other designers, players or ideas.

 

He's no angel on this crazy internet man. Do your homework before you roll a white knight class.

 

I do like to keep my criticism of him not personal. I would never attack him as a person and if anything I ever said seemed too far or too personal I apologize.

 

EDIT:

If you want more of his quotes let me know.. I got a collection going (I just google roguey and pick the best ones that come up)

Edited August 27, 201411 yr by Immortalis

 

I wouldn't either. The fans here fall on the side of passionate that is way past polite discussion. Sawyer shouldn't come anywhere near this thread to "engage" the backers that have forum signatures riddled with criticisms against the choices he's made and naming him personally. I know this is the internet and all and a tame part of it at that, but I mean come on, surely any one of the people here would find such a personal tone of aggressive criticism offensive if applied to your own workplaces. And even if you have an unnaturally thick skin, this type of debate is unlikely to go in a productive direction; the talk has been had, the decision made, and nothing we say here is likely to be even remotely new, it's simply a rehashing of arguments or statement of preferences, therefore an utter waste of his time. 

 

But I still am inclined to disagree with No XP. I'm just open to being proven wrong, or informed once a change is made.

 

Wowow.. You do know that sawyer can dish it out with the best of us right? Have you actually read some of the stuff he's said? I would never talk about him the same way I would Tim Cain or MCA.. only Sawyer provides the really good gems via quotes.

 

I don't think I have ever called Sawyer a bad designer.. he's not.. he's very intelligent.. But he is very brash, stubborn and can even be sorta hostile sometimes.. The only reason we hold him up as a poster child is because there are just so many good quotes of him trashing other designers, players or ideas.

 

He's no angel on this crazy internet man. Do your homework before you roll a white knight class.

 

I do like to keep my criticism of him not personal. I would never attack him as a person and if anything I ever said seemed too far or too personal I apologize.

 

 

I get what you mean but just because Sawyer has no problem "dishing it out," I would think that doesn't entitle people to come back stronger and harder and feel like he's okay with that. But hey, maybe he'd disagree and think it's fine, who knows... we are after all talking about someone neither of us know personally (which I am officially starting to find kind of weird so I'm gonna stop this here!)

 

As for the quotes trashing other players, designers or ideas... well I have a feeling that you're exaggerating a measured argument against something as "trashing it," but hell, I'll bite: care for some examples? That actually sounds like it'd be super entertaining :D

 

 

I wouldn't either. The fans here fall on the side of passionate that is way past polite discussion. Sawyer shouldn't come anywhere near this thread to "engage" the backers that have forum signatures riddled with criticisms against the choices he's made and naming him personally. I know this is the internet and all and a tame part of it at that, but I mean come on, surely any one of the people here would find such a personal tone of aggressive criticism offensive if applied to your own workplaces. And even if you have an unnaturally thick skin, this type of debate is unlikely to go in a productive direction; the talk has been had, the decision made, and nothing we say here is likely to be even remotely new, it's simply a rehashing of arguments or statement of preferences, therefore an utter waste of his time. 

 

But I still am inclined to disagree with No XP. I'm just open to being proven wrong, or informed once a change is made.

 

Wowow.. You do know that sawyer can dish it out with the best of us right? Have you actually read some of the stuff he's said? I would never talk about him the same way I would Tim Cain or MCA.. only Sawyer provides the really good gems via quotes.

 

I don't think I have ever called Sawyer a bad designer.. he's not.. he's very intelligent.. But he is very brash, stubborn and can even be sorta hostile sometimes.. The only reason we hold him up as a poster child is because there are just so many good quotes of him trashing other designers, players or ideas.

 

He's no angel on this crazy internet man. Do your homework before you roll a white knight class.

 

I do like to keep my criticism of him not personal. I would never attack him as a person and if anything I ever said seemed too far or too personal I apologize.

 

 

I get what you mean but just because Sawyer has no problem "dishing it out," I would think that doesn't entitle people to come back stronger and harder and feel like he's okay with that. But hey, maybe he'd disagree and think it's fine, who knows... we are after all talking about someone neither of us know personally (which I am officially starting to find kind of weird so I'm gonna stop this here!)

 

As for the quotes trashing other players, designers or ideas... well I have a feeling that you're exaggerating a measured argument against something as "trashing it," but hell, I'll bite: care for some examples? That actually sounds like it'd be super entertaining :D

 

 

So you didn't google roguey.. made me do it.. When he says most games get it wrong and most designers don't give 2 ****s about their product.. thats not a good old fashion trashing?

 

 

(regarding crpg rulesets) "Pretty much all games get it wrong."

"An awesome game with a crappy ruleset would be a better game if it had a better ruleset. Again, why grit your teeth and accept fundamentally dumb systems and their dumb adaptations into different media when such things clearly could be designed and executed better?"

"'Designer off in the clouds' generally only works out when the designer has a very solid technical understanding and focuses heavily on both gameplay mechanics and player experience. Most designers really couldn't give two ****s about either."

Edited August 27, 201411 yr by Immortalis

Josh Sawyer comes across, to me, as a decent person and a passionate advocate for gaming. For example, IMO Fallout 3 NV is a masterpiece and Sawyer should take not inconsiderable credit for his role in that.

 

That doesn't mean he can't have feet of clay. We all do.

 

He understands the passion here, and as Immortalis says, he is a robust person well-versed in the rough-and-tumble of internet debate. I've had occasional dialogue with the man, like many of us here, for almost fifteen years.

 

So I think it would be great if he checked in.

Ah, your "roguey" comment was updated after I started writing, don't blame me for that   But I see no "trashing" going on here at all, hence I find using it as a reason to talk about a persons professional decisions in a personal manner to still be a bit jarring. But hey, maybe I'm just being nitpicky and overly White Knight-ish, and simply need to "re-desensitize" myself to such things by being on the internet more   This is going nowhere though so while I wouldn't mind continuing this via PM or something I'm finding that this discussion doesn't have much point anymore, and has been talked to death. I'm simply a little late to the party that's all. I get that everyone here has a lot of respect for Josh that is sometimes overshadowed by their passion for these type of games and the changes that people are making to their format.

Josh Sawyer comes across, to me, as a decent person and a passionate advocate for gaming. For example, IMO Fallout 3 NV is a masterpiece and Sawyer should take not inconsiderable credit for his role in that.

 

Totally Agree.. I'm glad he cuts through the **** and says like it is, it's refreshing after all the PR spin you hear everywhere else.. Nobody is saying he doesn't care or isn't a good designer. He is extremely passionate I just wish he cared more about our opinions.

 

 

 

Sartoris and Immortalis are right about the problems with No XP.

 

Josh is also right about certain circumstances with where an "all creatures/enemies give you XP when you kill them" system leads to unwanted gameplay.

 

 

Why does it have to be one or the other? (I don't think you fairly represented the yellow corner, Mr. Mod!)

• In quest chains, the worry is that if you are asked to side with NPC 'A' or NPC 'B,' siding none and killing all will always be the outcome that nets most profit via XP and loot. While this was true in IE games, this can be balanced by giving no XP is one or the other is killed first, or equal rewards for killing neither or only one, or alternating based on the situation, etc. I hope no one sees this as a problem.
• Trash mobs in IE games gave a negligible amount of XP anyway. So what, 15xp from each Xvart split six ways, whoop-dee-doo! No big loss. But large, powerful creatures, or perhaps enemies above your level or that give some degree of challenge should give you a reward. Do you really want to only be killing things so you can collect the crap they drop and sell it?? It will very rarely be of use to your characters if every encounter works this way.
• Why not give give varying XP, including none, based on the type of encounter? The only reason against doing this that I can think of is that it would require a lot of balancing and effort from devs. Don't get me wrong, this is a valid reason if true, but one that only a dev can comment on.

So... what's wrong with a little of column A and a little of column B? Can't we do a bit of both, specifically to address the problems of either extreme?

 

If you go back and read the 1500 posts on this topic that are all in the threads that got locked.. I mentioned like 5 ways to get around this abuse.. one of them is close to what your saying.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not surprised. I've heard a lot from people who want Kill XP and next to nothing from people who don't. Do these people actually exist?

 

In the end, as Polanski said, the devs likely are already well enough aware of the pros and cons, I suppose all that's left is to show them our preference while there's still (possibly) a window of opportunity for such a big change to gameplay.

 

Actually, I'm not sure that they could even make such a big change at this point without delaying the game...

 

 

I've waited 14 years for an actual well done successor to BGII. I'm willing to wait longer if we can make Pillars of Eternity that game.

 

 

Accept this isn't going to be a BGII successor.  It's an infinity engine style game.  And last time I checked, BGII isn't the only infinity engine game.

I never though about xp in infinity engine games besides grinding the fiends in baldurs gate 2 expansion for a few levels and killing those fiends for level ups in planescape torment. It wasn't fun but frustrating at the end of the day I knew nameless one will simply be a fighter with 3 attacks per round. It's nice now that you don't have to grind those yetis icewind dale or kill those city random encounters baldurs gate 2.

The rewards of combat is loot and the ability to go beyond. That is enough. Give me XP for achievements, not rat killing.

 

If you don't think it's worth killing rats for their rat tails, don't bother. If you think killing the wolves for their wolf pelts, kill away. No combat XP prevents "It's there, so I must kill it", while still rewarding you. Some things, like in life, cost more than what you get out of it. That's fine. If you thought wolf pelts were lame and not worth it, you'll dodge the next wolf group. And maybe you'll miss the lair entrance they were guarding, and the XP you'd get for discovering it.

 

Like in real life, you'll need to risk some resources upfront. Sometimes the payoff will be exploration XP and an adventurer's corpse with some fat loot, sometimes the payoff will be wolf pelts and a safe road for travellers and yourself.

 

And that's exactly what I love about no combat XP. No combat XP does not mean no combat reward! And you do away with pacifist-first-then-psycho gameplay, level grinding, etc...

Edited August 28, 201411 yr by Headbomb

 

 

 

 

Sartoris and Immortalis are right about the problems with No XP.

 

Josh is also right about certain circumstances with where an "all creatures/enemies give you XP when you kill them" system leads to unwanted gameplay.

 

 

Why does it have to be one or the other? (I don't think you fairly represented the yellow corner, Mr. Mod!)

• In quest chains, the worry is that if you are asked to side with NPC 'A' or NPC 'B,' siding none and killing all will always be the outcome that nets most profit via XP and loot. While this was true in IE games, this can be balanced by giving no XP is one or the other is killed first, or equal rewards for killing neither or only one, or alternating based on the situation, etc. I hope no one sees this as a problem.
• Trash mobs in IE games gave a negligible amount of XP anyway. So what, 15xp from each Xvart split six ways, whoop-dee-doo! No big loss. But large, powerful creatures, or perhaps enemies above your level or that give some degree of challenge should give you a reward. Do you really want to only be killing things so you can collect the crap they drop and sell it?? It will very rarely be of use to your characters if every encounter works this way.
• Why not give give varying XP, including none, based on the type of encounter? The only reason against doing this that I can think of is that it would require a lot of balancing and effort from devs. Don't get me wrong, this is a valid reason if true, but one that only a dev can comment on.

So... what's wrong with a little of column A and a little of column B? Can't we do a bit of both, specifically to address the problems of either extreme?

 

If you go back and read the 1500 posts on this topic that are all in the threads that got locked.. I mentioned like 5 ways to get around this abuse.. one of them is close to what your saying.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not surprised. I've heard a lot from people who want Kill XP and next to nothing from people who don't. Do these people actually exist?

 

In the end, as Polanski said, the devs likely are already well enough aware of the pros and cons, I suppose all that's left is to show them our preference while there's still (possibly) a window of opportunity for such a big change to gameplay.

 

Actually, I'm not sure that they could even make such a big change at this point without delaying the game...

 

 

I've waited 14 years for an actual well done successor to BGII. I'm willing to wait longer if we can make Pillars of Eternity that game.

 

 

Accept this isn't going to be a BGII successor.  It's an infinity engine style game.  And last time I checked, BGII isn't the only infinity engine game.

 

 

Every single IE game had xp gained by killing monsters (as well and lots of other fun stuff), even Torment for crying out loud.

I wouldn't either. The fans here fall on the side of passionate that is way past polite discussion. Sawyer shouldn't come anywhere near this thread to "engage" the backers that have forum signatures riddled with criticisms against the choices he's made and naming him personally. I know this is the internet and all and a tame part of it at that, but I mean come on, surely any one of the people here would find such a personal tone of aggressive criticism offensive if applied to your own workplaces. And even if you have an unnaturally thick skin, this type of debate is unlikely to go in a productive direction; the talk has been had, the decision made, and nothing we say here is likely to be even remotely new, it's simply a rehashing of arguments or statement of preferences, therefore an utter waste of his time. 

 

But I still am inclined to disagree with No XP. I'm just open to being proven wrong, or informed once a change is made.

I agree it would be unwise to come in here and discuss this with us. It would not go well and there is no upside to it. He would most likely drive more potential customers away and perhaps gain unwanted media attention over this issue.  

The rewards of combat is loot and the ability to go beyond. That is enough. Give me XP for achievements, not rat killing.

 

If you don't think it's worth killing rats for their rat tails, don't bother. If you think killing the wolves for their wolf pelts, kill away. No combat XP prevents "It's there, so I must kill it", while still rewarding you. Some things, like in life, cost more than what you get out of it. That's fine. If you thought wolf pelts were lame and not worth it, you'll dodge the next wolf group. And maybe you'll miss the lair entrance they were guarding, and the XP you'd get for discovering it.

 

Like in real life, you'll need to risk some resources upfront. Sometimes the payoff will be exploration XP and an adventurer's corpse with some fat loot, sometimes the payoff will be wolf pelts and a safe road for travellers and yourself.

 

And that's exactly what I love about no combat XP. No combat XP does not mean no combat reward! And you do away with pacifist-first-then-psycho gameplay, level grinding, etc...

None of those XP rewards you mention are in this game. It's only Quest xp.  I would be happy with exploration and achievements on top of Quests as a compromise but that isn't even on the table.

As far as I know, those are definitely on the table. Just not implemented yet.

As far as I know, those are definitely on the table. Just not implemented yet.

 

I don't recall hearing confirmation for or against this, but it doesn't sound like something that wouldn't have been implemented by this time I would think. Anything they give us other than quest xp is fine with me, though.

 

Also, shout out for Truro folk. Not exactly a big online presence, but I know plenty of people who take game design at the Truro campus.

Accept this isn't going to be a BGII successor.  It's an infinity engine style game.  And last time I checked, BGII isn't the only infinity engine game.

Which Infinity Engine game are you talking about? We were promised a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and this game doesn't resemble it at all.

 

Here is what Chris Avellone had to say about this game at MIGS 2013: 

 

http://youtu.be/DJwti0mHgE0?t=25m19s

 

Baldur's Gate was our target title for what we wanted Project Eternity to be. It felt like Baldur's Gate encapsulated all of the elements we were shooting for. We felt that a number of players out there missed that Baldur's Gate experience and would want to see it again. And when we launched our Kickstarter: Boy, were we right!

The game is so full of Sawyerisms that it has nothing to do with any of the Infinity Engine games anymore. Looks like they failed to meet their design goal if you ask me.

As far as I know, those are definitely on the table. Just not implemented yet.

Nope, quest only XP has been confirmed.

 

Accept this isn't going to be a BGII successor.  It's an infinity engine style game.  And last time I checked, BGII isn't the only infinity engine game.

Which Infinity Engine game are you talking about? We were promised a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and this game doesn't resemble it at all.

 

Here is what Chris Avellone had to say about this game at MIGS 2013: 

 

http://youtu.be/DJwti0mHgE0?t=25m19s

 

Baldur's Gate was our target title for what we wanted Project Eternity to be. It felt like Baldur's Gate encapsulated all of the elements we were shooting for. We felt that a number of players out there missed that Baldur's Gate experience and would want to see it again. And when we launched our Kickstarter: Boy, were we right!

The game is so full of Sawyerisms that it has nothing to do with any of the Infinity Engine games anymore. Looks like they failed to meet their design goal if you ask me.

 

 

And the fact that it takes a lot from 4E makes it 10X worse than it would be otherwise...possibly the worst part of Sawyerism.

 

 

All this talk of Baldur's Gate encouraged me to load up that game again and give it a full play through. What I can comment upon with this experience fresh in mind is how (a) having kill xp part of this game made certain playstyles more enjoyable. The loan wolf thief. The loan wizard. The loan warrior, etc etc. 

 

Doing all of this plus the (b) a strong second reason that there were flat out dozens and dozens of areas that had no direct quest involved yet you could decide to go there and have a tangible reward for the risk. Maybe even a compelling role reason; paladin defeating forces of evil etc.

 

Will POE have places that have zero quests involved as worthy to visit as Baldur's Gate?

 

Or will these experiences be worth nothing--no compelling reason--no real chance at a risk vs reward but instead merely squandered resources. 

Edited August 28, 201411 yr by Nomadmerc

The loan wolf thief. The loan wizard. The loan warrior, etc etc.

 

The Loan wizard is able to re-mortgage your house with a wave of his wand.

I propose a pretty unorthodox way on solving the "XP" issue. Take a look boys.

 

First, let's take that Ogre quest as an example and say it gives 1000 XP upon completion. Now follow me here, carefully.

 

Anything you do towards the goal of the Ogre quest gives XP incrementally and caps at 1000 XP. Let's say you manage to only do conversations to complete the quest. Then all those conversations will give you XP that ultimately add up to 1000 XP.

 

However, let's say someone else decided to fight everything in their path, all those battles they fought would add up to 1000 XP eventually. 

 

Oh, you're that player that fought through to get the Ogre, but was able to convince him of avoiding a fight? Well bravo, you are rewarded with XP too. You get XP from your combat and conversation...still adds up to 1000 XP!

 

So you see, NO ONE LOSES in this system. 

 

Basically, each quest has a "XP Meter" that fills until you max out its meter which essentially means you completed the quest. You can fill that meter with anything that rewards XP, so combat, disarming traps, conversations, etc. are all valid means of obtaining the necessary XP to complete it. However, the ball is in your court of how you decide to complete the quest. Just know that you will get XP from WHATEVER you do.

 

A great thing about this XP system is that you can't "game" it in a sense that you will do EVERYTHING to get as much XP as you can. It's balanced in the sense that the quest can only give a certain amount. 

 

What do you guys think about this system? It doesn't really seem hard to implement!

Edited August 28, 201411 yr by TrueMenace

I propose a pretty unorthodox way on solving the "XP" issue. Take a look boys.

 

First, let's take that Ogre quest as an example and say it gives 1000 XP upon completion. Now follow me here, carefully.

 

Anything you do towards the goal of the Ogre quest gives XP incrementally and caps at 1000 XP. Let's say you manage to only do conversations to complete the quest. Then all those conversations will give you XP that ultimately add up to 1000 XP.

 

However, let's say someone else decided to fight everything in their path, all those battles they fought would add up to 1000 XP eventually. 

 

Oh, you're that player that fought through to get the Ogre, but was able to convince him of avoiding a fight? Well bravo, you are rewarded with XP too. You get XP from your combat and conversation...still adds up to 1000 XP!

 

So you see, NO ONE LOSES in this system. 

 

Basically, each quest has a "XP Meter" that fills until you max out its meter which essentially means you completed the quest. You can fill that meter with anything that rewards XP, so combat, disarming traps, conversations, etc. are all valid means of obtaining the necessary XP to complete it. However, the ball is in your court of how you decide to complete the quest. Just know that you will get XP from WHATEVER you do.

 

A great thing about this XP system is that you can't "game" it in a sense that you will do EVERYTHING to get as much XP as you can. It's balanced in the sense that the quest can only give a certain amount. 

 

What do you guys think about this system? It doesn't really seem hard to implement!

This is almost exactly what I proposed in one of the other threads. There were some dissenting opinions though. Can't recall exactly what the issues were that they pointed out, but I'm sure you'll hear some of them.