Do you want experience from combat?

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Gromnir: Agreed. It's basically what I'm saying: Josh & Co would be more than capable of inserting it (like I just wrote, it's already in, at least rudimentarily). However we do not agree about perfect balance.

 

I say like Sensuki: "balance==banalce", in this case it's true for an xp system in a CRPG. Obviously, it needs quite some tweaking and decent min-max variations over the course of the game, but in essence: I want the game to be slightly imbalanced. This makes each playthrough so much more fun.

 

As for my system (I said that in another thread): I'd keep it pretty close to the BG2 system, so yes, lockpicking and disarming traps, would be in, for instance.

 

So you think that Obsidian should back down from one of their goals and promises that they set in during KS campaign, which was "Avoiding combat does not lead to less experience gain. You shouldn't go up levels any slower by using your non-combat skills rather than your combat skills. We plan to reward you for your accomplishments, not for your body count.". Or do you think that asymmetry should go other way, meaning that non-combat solution should produce more experience than combat solutions?

 

A very good point. Unbalance of this kind should go either way. For instance, set sneak flags on triggers, and with a few successful ones, let the xp stack high for the successful sneaker party. A lovely idea, and it's certainly straightforward to implement as well.

[Stun]

Again, if the player gave up combat prowess to be able to sneak better when developing his character, then you would be right Gromnir. This is not the case in Pillars. Pillars is not Fallout. It does not have a skill system where a player must craft a sneaky, crafty, talky or fighty character. All characters can fight. As such, xp fairness has no bearing. Instead, he gives up the xp if he sneaks past but does not risk death or loss of health. In this game, that is a legitimate threat thanks to rest resources and ironman modes.

Yeah, I think I pointed this out to Gromnir no less than 27 times, but hey, why bother actually addressing someone's formidable point when you can just make up your own flimsy point and then shoot it down with ease at the same time as people watch.

 

 

stun thinks sneaking past monsters is unworthy?

 So does Josh. Stealth is one of those "ways and means" skills that he alludes to in his post. You can use stealth IN combat, so if a system has kill XP, it already takes stealth gameplay into account. Edited August 30, 2014 by Stun

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Gromnir: Agreed. It's basically what I'm saying: Josh & Co would be more than capable of inserting it (like I just wrote, it's already in, at least rudimentarily). However we do not agree about perfect balance.

 

I say like Sensuki: "balance==banalce", in this case it's true for an xp system in a CRPG. Obviously, it needs quite some tweaking and decent min-max variations over the course of the game, but in essence: I want the game to be slightly imbalanced. This makes each playthrough so much more fun.

 

As for my system (I said that in another thread): I'd keep it pretty close to the BG2 system, so yes, lockpicking and disarming traps, would be in, for instance.

excellent. see, we are getting clarification by asking questions.

 

we do not know what other questions you asked of developers. did you ask them what were their impressions o' quest xp mechanic via formal QA and the considerable informal testing o' game so far? did you ask if quest xp were functionally discouraging players from engaging in combat as some folks here fear? were quest xp achieving goals o' more diverse gameplay and builds? were quest xp resulting in players replaying various boss battles to see what xp rewards were best. were obsidians pleased or displeased with quest xp thus far? etc?

 

is always a good thing to ask relevant questions. am curious to see what answers the obsidians provided you... if you asked such questions.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Those are indeed excellent questions, which already had been put forward on these forums before I asked OE about this (just one dev, mind you), so I didn't ask those.

My personal goals for an xp system:

-Encourage and reward as flexible exploration as possible

-Encourage as many routes through the quest matrix of the game as possible

-Encourage and reward as many playthroughs as possible

-Encourage and reward as many playstyles as possible

-Encourage and reward often. It's a game, after all

[Zansatsu]

Just a point I'd like to make about metagaming and the rewards in this game. Loot is hand placed so it never changes and never moves so if you're not into crafting saying loot is an incentive for exploration and combat may hold true to some but I'm confident others will just wait till great people like Sensuki and others find everything and share it with us as they are want to do, then just go to the specific area's and get the specific things they want. The beastiary is a really cool Idea but again all of it will be up on Wiki in about a week or two and then why would I need to fill it out. That being said I am still really excited for this game and want to play it. Just think it could do better but that's my opinion.

[Gromnir]

 

 

Gromnir: Agreed. It's basically what I'm saying: Josh & Co would be more than capable of inserting it (like I just wrote, it's already in, at least rudimentarily). However we do not agree about perfect balance.

 

I say like Sensuki: "balance==banalce", in this case it's true for an xp system in a CRPG. Obviously, it needs quite some tweaking and decent min-max variations over the course of the game, but in essence: I want the game to be slightly imbalanced. This makes each playthrough so much more fun.

 

As for my system (I said that in another thread): I'd keep it pretty close to the BG2 system, so yes, lockpicking and disarming traps, would be in, for instance.

excellent. see, we are getting clarification by asking questions.

 

we do not know what other questions you asked of developers. did you ask them what were their impressions o' quest xp mechanic via formal QA and the considerable informal testing o' game so far? did you ask if quest xp were functionally discouraging players from engaging in combat as some folks here fear? were quest xp achieving goals o' more diverse gameplay and builds? were quest xp resulting in players replaying various boss battles to see what xp rewards were best. were obsidians pleased or displeased with quest xp thus far? etc?

 

is always a good thing to ask relevant questions. am curious to see what answers the obsidians provided you... if you asked such questions.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Those are indeed excellent questions, which already had been put forward on these forums before I asked OE about this (just one dev, mind you), so I didn't ask those.

 

 

perhaps those questions you think is good has already been asked? though am thinking the answers would be more meaningful to you if you got answers for yourself.

 

regardless, as elerond already pointed out, a balanced system that rewards all styles o' play, promotes diversity and doesn't give specific reward for body count were part o' the initial promises and goal o' obsidian for PoE.  implementation o' a per kill exp system is therefore problematic 'cause, "Not only is it extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA staff, but it inevitably leads to nasty metagaming that, in my opinion, runs counter to some of the guiding principles of many RPGs." even you admit that a balanced variety o' a per kill system would be requiring much resources.

 

so, while we does encourage you to ask the excellent questions, the issue is still moot. obsidian did not hide goals o' a balanced xp mechanic, and balancing your mechanic would result in prohibitive resource allocation. your goals for an xp mechanic is not part o' obsidian's equation for achieving goals as promised.

 

and stun is still complete deluded about stealth. stealth in combat should not necessarily grant more xp than stealth to avoid combat. stealth xp rewards only for combat usage discourages a potential valid gameplay style. but again, we couldn't explain to you that no work is requiring less effort than that which would be needed to balance an per kill xp system... effort even indira seems to concede would be considerable.

 

am also still enjoying your laughable ps:t foible. you actual edited your post to achieve worst possible example from an ie game. is classic.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[leninghola]

I don't need combat xp, but questing shouldn't be the only source of it. Learning certain lore points, finding rare drop artifacts (sometimes from looted corpses, post-combat, or in hidden loot caches), and successful skill checks in CYOA and dialogue should grant some amount of xp as well. The bulk of xp gain can still rest upon quest completion.

Edited August 30, 2014 by leninghola

[Stun]

stealth in combat should not necessarily grant more xp than stealth to avoid combat.

Correct. It should not grant XP on its own in either case. It already grants none in either case. You cannot complete any quests in this beta via stealth, for example.

 

stealth xp rewards only for combat usage discourages a potential valid gameplay style.

And what available Gameplay style in PoE would it discourage exactly?

 

but again, we couldn't explain to you that no work is requiring less effort than that which would be needed to balance an per kill xp system... effort even indira seems to concede would be considerable.

I'm a gamer. The amount of developer 'hard work' is not relevant to me. I do not judge how fun a feature is by "how long it took the devs implement it".

 

 

obsidian did not hide goals o' a balanced xp mechanic

OK, I didn't want to bring this up earlier since we already had enough to discuss, but since you insist on parroting the company line without thinking it through...

 

You have NO IDEA whether or not the system currently in place will actually be balanced. As it stands, XP is shared in this game, meaning a party of 6 will advance at a much slower pace than a party of 3...or a soloer. They *admittedly* did not take this into account when they designed the quest system. So you want a *PERFECT* example of quest XP exploitation? There it is. Take a party of 6. Do all your combat from point A to point B in a quest. Then, just before you get your XP reward for completing the quest, Dismiss everyone but your Main character. BOOM You've just gamed the system. Your main toon will reach the level 12 cap halfway through the game (or even sooner). And the end result will be an over-powered main toon. all his non-combat skills will be higher than they should be, causing him to never fail any of the scripted events checks or dialogue options, etc.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Stun

[HoonDing]

I want experience on every single kill + kaching! sound from Failout 3.

[leninghola]

 

stealth in combat should not necessarily grant more xp than stealth to avoid combat.

Correct. It should not grant XP on its own in either case. It already grants none in either case. You cannot complete any quests in this beta via stealth, for example.

 

stealth xp rewards only for combat usage discourages a potential valid gameplay style.

And what available Gameplay style in PoE would it discourage exactly?

 

but again, we couldn't explain to you that no work is requiring less effort than that which would be needed to balance an per kill xp system... effort even indira seems to concede would be considerable.

I'm a gamer. The amount of developer 'hard work' is not relevant to me. I do not judge how fun a feature is by "how long it took the devs implement it into the game".

 

 

obsidian did not hide goals o' a balanced xp mechanic

OK, I didn't want to bring this up earlier since we already had enough to discuss, but since you insist on parroting the company line without thinking it through...

 

You have NO IDEA whether or not the system currently in place will actually be balanced. As it stands, XP is shared in this game, meaning a party of 6 will advance at a much slower pace than a party of 3...or a soloer. They *admittedly* did not take this into account when they designed the quest system. So you want a *PERFECT* example of quest XP exploitation? There it is. Take a party of 6. Do all your combat from point A to point B in a quest. Then, just before you get your XP reward for completing the quest, Dismiss everyone but your Main character. BOOM You've just gamed the system. Your main toon will reach the cap before he was supposed to, and the end result will be an over-powered main toon.

 

Josh said there was something like a 5% xp penalty in groups vs. solo. Not a huge advantage.

[Stun]

Josh said there was something like a 5% xp penalty in groups vs. solo. Not a huge advantage.

Link?

[TheNationer]

Just a point I'd like to make about metagaming and the rewards in this game. Loot is hand placed so it never changes and never moves so if you're not into crafting saying loot is an incentive for exploration and combat may hold true to some but I'm confident others will just wait till great people like Sensuki and others find everything and share it with us as they are want to do, then just go to the specific area's and get the specific things they want. The beastiary is a really cool Idea but again all of it will be up on Wiki in about a week or two and then why would I need to fill it out. That being said I am still really excited for this game and want to play it. Just think it could do better but that's my opinion.

 

The Bestiary part is entirely on you, the fact that if you wish to cheat you can doesn't negate to any extent the usefulness of it. You can find walkthroughs for RPGs that give you information on shortcuts you'd otherwise have to pass speech checks for, it doesn't negate the mechanic for everyone else (those not interested in cheating).

[leninghola]

 

Josh said there was something like a 5% xp penalty in groups vs. solo. Not a huge advantage.

Link?

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67912-does-having-more-characters-in-your-party-reduce-xp-gained/?p=1493247

[Stun]

I stand corrected.

 

Also: Yuck!

[Namutree]

 

 

Josh said there was something like a 5% xp penalty in groups vs. solo. Not a huge advantage.

Link?

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67912-does-having-more-characters-in-your-party-reduce-xp-gained/?p=1493247

 

I was going to stop posting, but for this I can't help myself.

 

I CALLED IT!!! I knew poe was going to be designed with a full party in mind. I knew it! I mentioned it a few times and was dismissed. OE is really screwing over soloing and I knew they would. I'm getting myself a milkshake; I earned it.

 

Nostradamus: 0

Me: 1

[Lord Wafflebum]

 

 

Josh said there was something like a 5% xp penalty in groups vs. solo. Not a huge advantage.

Link?

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67912-does-having-more-characters-in-your-party-reduce-xp-gained/?p=1493247

 

I find myself to be very fond of that system. I know that will make things tough for solo players, but... shouldn't it be harder for people who decide to go it alone?

[Cantousent]

I find myself to be very fond of that system. I know that will make things tough for solo players, but... shouldn't it be harder for people who decide to go it alone?

 

Most of the folks I know who want to solo a game like PoE do so for bragging rights, so if it's harder, they get more satisfaction.  ...But I don't think the game should be equally easy or rewarding for every style or build in every case, although I *do* think the game should try to reward every style at some points in various ways.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

Josh said there was something like a 5% xp penalty in groups vs. solo. Not a huge advantage.

Link?

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67912-does-having-more-characters-in-your-party-reduce-xp-gained/?p=1493247

 

I find myself to be very fond of that system. I know that will make things tough for solo players, but... shouldn't it be harder for people who decide to go it alone?

 

am admitting we currently like it most 'cause stun tried to use as an example o' unavoidable xp exploit, when in fact it revealed that the developers were aware and were countering the obvious issue. is just more classic stun hi-jinks.

 

am still mystified 'by his inability to grasp the concept behind loss o' kill xp for stealthily moving past combat encounters to complete quests when xp is being awarded for kills. 

 

regardless, as noted before, the ultimate issue is moot. the resources to change the current xp mechanic and achieve promised balance/diversity is not possible... and we still ain't seen a superior mechanic that would encourage diversity and balance even if it were more resource intensive, though such a mechanic could conceivably benefit a future game. as we already noted, if some poster creates such a unicorn, we s'pose obsidian would be grateful for that kinda Future benefit.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 30, 2014 by Gromnir

[Lord Wafflebum]

In fairness Stun wan't aware at the time of Josh's statement and corrected himself. I think you guys are far too hard on him in these forums, but that's just me.

 

Overall I still maintain that it's not possible for any of us to be intelligently critical of the xp system because it's going to be tied to story and quests which we know nothing about. It very well may be fair regardless of if you want to fight, sneak, or talk through situations depending on how the quests are set up.

[Gromnir]

In fairness Stun wan't aware at the time of Josh's statement and corrected himself. I think you guys are far too hard on him in these forums, but that's just me.

 

Overall I still maintain that it's not possible for any of us to be intelligently critical of the xp system because it's going to be tied to story and quests which we know nothing about. It very well may be fair regardless of if you want to fight, sneak, or talk through situations depending on how the quests are set up.

he weren't aware that ps:t were the most schadenfreude o' the ie games insofar as xp were concerned. and he weren't aware that zero balancing takes less work than an xp system that requires balancing efforts, and, etc.

 

list gets longer with each post.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68043-do-you-want-experience-from-combat/?p=1497923

 

keep in mind the linked post alone deserves a dead trout smack in the face, seeing as how he edited his post from reference bg2 exp mechanic to ps:t.

 

but yeah, at least when confronted with actual statement from josh, he admitted that it weren't a balance problem... though he still managed to grouse about the fix. HA!

 

is genuine funny for us to see stun posts as they do more for quest xp side o' the argument than does any three quest xp proponents combined. we need simple wait for him to post to be offered new ammunition. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 30, 2014 by Gromnir

[leninghola]

Always the clash of GNS. The venn diagram never intersecting on an area everyone can agree upon. 

 

With PS:T, the focus was clearly on the narrative side. A focus that served it well. It did very little to address the gamist and threw the simulation aspect on its head. It served as a vehicle for narrative, and a clever take on simulationist mechanics. Not for everyone. The narrative was a cut above the rest, however.

 

From what we have seen in PoE, they are trying to deliver equal portions of each. A balance the IE games never had (for better and/or worse). With a few tweaks, and perhaps a little more development time, I feel they can come reasonably close to their goal. There are issues, see feedback from PrimeJunta and Sensuki for well rounded critique, but there are still some strong design elements here.

 

Having played some very promising upcoming RPG betas in the last couple years, I can say that some have a very fresh take on xp, combat and mechanical systems. I don't expect at this point in development for OE to take inspiration from them, but I would recommend a single playthrough of a game like Underrail using the oddity xp system. Very refreshing, but still not perfect.

 

In the end, I'd like the xp system adjusted as I said earler, but in its current state, it will not break the experience for me. I feel like I'll still enjoy the game a great deal.

[Cantousent]

lol Forget the beta, the board is buggy.  Should just learn not to use quick reply.

 

Anyhow, had to take a peek at the oddity system.  http://www.underrail.com/wiki/index.php?title=Oddity_XP_System

 

Very interesting.  Something definitely built with the game in mind, but if you switched out oddity for something else, it would actually work pretty well, I think.  I like the idea of pushing the envelope... as long as you're up front about it to the consumer.

[Mayama]

Just a point I'd like to make about metagaming and the rewards in this game. Loot is hand placed so it never changes and never moves so if you're not into crafting saying loot is an incentive for exploration and combat may hold true to some but I'm confident others will just wait till great people like Sensuki and others find everything and share it with us as they are want to do, then just go to the specific area's and get the specific things they want. The beastiary is a really cool Idea but again all of it will be up on Wiki in about a week or two and then why would I need to fill it out. That being said I am still really excited for this game and want to play it. Just think it could do better but that's my opinion.

Well yeah people will metagame around items, josh stated that their are also special unique skills that you get from questing so thats another thing people will use for meta character builds. Most people replay RPG's to try out different class combinations.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Mayama

[Gromnir]

Always the clash of GNS. The venn diagram never intersecting on an area everyone can agree upon. 

 

With PS:T, the focus was clearly on the narrative side. A focus that served it well. It did very little to address the gamist and threw the simulation aspect on its head. It served as a vehicle for narrative, and a clever take on simulationist mechanics. Not for everyone. The narrative was a cut above the rest, however.

 

 

ps:t were our favorite crpg. being our favorite does not mean that we cannot recognize flaws. one glaring flaw were the xp mechanic. wisdom, a stat which were the prime attribute o' no playable ps:t TNO class, were an xp Multiplier. not only were many quest rewards tied directly to a minimum wisdom score, but having a high wisdom resulted in potential more than 33% improvement in all xp gained in the game. playing as a high strength and low intelligence/wisdom fighter, as were a viable and enjoyable build in all othe ie games, resulted in a player not only missing a significant amount o' wisdom specific content, but it created an xp penalty for those players foolish enough not to boost wisdom. ps:t, as much as we loved the game and still frequent replay it as a high wisdom, high charisma player, were a classic example o' developer schadenfreude.  you wanna play a vanilla fighter in ps:t? HA! joke is on you, 'cause not only does ps:t combat suck, but you is getting a functional xp penalty for playing as a traditional fighter build.

 

great game, but with some bad mechanics. nothing precludes a great game from having some flaws.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[leninghola]

 

Always the clash of GNS. The venn diagram never intersecting on an area everyone can agree upon. 

 

With PS:T, the focus was clearly on the narrative side. A focus that served it well. It did very little to address the gamist and threw the simulation aspect on its head. It served as a vehicle for narrative, and a clever take on simulationist mechanics. Not for everyone. The narrative was a cut above the rest, however.

 

 

ps:t were our favorite crpg. being our favorite does not mean that we cannot recognize flaws. one glaring flaw were the xp mechanic. wisdom, a stat which were the prime attribute o' no playable ps:t TNO class, were an xp Multiplier. not only were many quest rewards tied directly to a minimum wisdom score, but having a high wisdom resulted in potential more than 33% improvement in all xp gained in the game. playing as a high strength and low intelligence/wisdom fighter, as were a viable and enjoyable build in all othe ie games, resulted in a player not only missing a significant amount o' wisdom specific content, but it created an xp penalty for those players foolish enough not to boost wisdom. ps:t, as much as we loved the game and still frequent replay it as a high wisdom, high charisma player, were a classic example o' developer schadenfreude.  you wanna play a vanilla fighter in ps:t? HA! joke is on you, 'cause not only does ps:t combat suck, but you is getting a functional xp penalty for playing as a traditional fighter build.

 

great game, but with some bad mechanics. nothing precludes a great game from having some flaws.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

Indeed. It was mechanically lopsided and the combat was a slog. 

[Mayama]

 

Always the clash of GNS. The venn diagram never intersecting on an area everyone can agree upon. 

 

With PS:T, the focus was clearly on the narrative side. A focus that served it well. It did very little to address the gamist and threw the simulation aspect on its head. It served as a vehicle for narrative, and a clever take on simulationist mechanics. Not for everyone. The narrative was a cut above the rest, however.

 

 

ps:t were our favorite crpg. being our favorite does not mean that we cannot recognize flaws. one glaring flaw were the xp mechanic. wisdom, a stat which were the prime attribute o' no playable ps:t TNO class, were an xp Multiplier. not only were many quest rewards tied directly to a minimum wisdom score, but having a high wisdom resulted in potential more than 33% improvement in all xp gained in the game. playing as a high strength and low intelligence/wisdom fighter, as were a viable and enjoyable build in all othe ie games, resulted in a player not only missing a significant amount o' wisdom specific content, but it created an xp penalty for those players foolish enough not to boost wisdom. ps:t, as much as we loved the game and still frequent replay it as a high wisdom, high charisma player, were a classic example o' developer schadenfreude.  you wanna play a vanilla fighter in ps:t? HA! joke is on you, 'cause not only does ps:t combat suck, but you is getting a functional xp penalty for playing as a traditional fighter build.

 

great game, but with some bad mechanics. nothing precludes a great game from having some flaws.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Honestly I would call Ps:T a adventure game with rpg elements. Most people played with max wis/int/char anyway