Do you want experience from combat?

[IndiraLightfoot]

redneckdevil: That may be true, and it certainly depends on which version of D&D you were using. For instance, oldies like me, recall when D&D was overtly inspired by figurine wargaming, and in that context, giving simple xp per kill or combat made lots of sense. The "deeper" RPG of it all developed out of that strategy game. TSR stood for "Tactical Studies Rules" - No, I am not kidding!   

Still, for a CRPG, and then especially for an IE-game successor, this became something of a canon and a tradition, and breaking it is not only daring, but also painful for many people. Actually, I'd prefer if we kept our discussion about xp in PoE to whether it fits in a combat-heavy computer game.

[redneckdevil]

redneckdevil: That may be true, and it certainly depends on which version of D&D you were using. For instance, oldies like me, recall when D&D was overtly inspired by figurine wargaming, and in that context, giving simple xp per kill or combat made lots of sense. The "deeper" RPG of it all developed out of that strategy game. TSR stood for "Tactical Studies Rules" - No, I am not kidding!   

Still, for a CRPG, and then especially for an IE-game successor, this became something of a canon and a tradition, and breaking it is not only daring, but also painful for many people. Actually, I'd prefer if we kept our discussion about xp in PoE to whether it fits in a combat-heavy computer game.

very true.  and i will be completely honest with ya, atm im on the side of no kill exp but that may change when the full game comes out.  ATM the bet is alot of fun and very playable "to me" without the kill exp.  Now since i do not have "kill exp" i AM expecting that if i go exploring i AM to find some loot, quest trigger, dungeon, etc a good bit of the time and not ALL the time.  Also with wilderness creatures, again i expect to see their crafting resourses also used for a quest maybe later on or in that very area along with what i stated above with exploring.  With dungeons i feel i am rewarded enough with the magic items, currency, mundane items, and events that i am seeing so dungeon crawling already feels rewarding enough.

[Gromnir]

 

 

Question is more should game reward player for grinding not is it necessary to grind to win the game.

Nope. Grinding has become a moot issue after those interesting posts above. The remaining one is this: Should the game reward the player for combat?

 

Wouldn't it be important to define what would be a valid "reward" for combat here as well?

 

Because a reward could be in form of loot, it could be in the form of XP, it could be in the form of satisfaction over you're prowess with the combat system, but not all of those will be seen as rewarding by every group.

 

good questions. oh, and the developers has access to tester behavior including considerable QA, so they can see if folks is finding combat rewarding based on their actual behavior. 

 

"Grinding has become a moot issue after those interesting posts above. "

 

well, is nice that indira believes that to be the case, but we has already seen that mootness is not particular discouraging to indira or many others. like it or not, the developers continue to believe that balance, and an xp system they see as encouraging diversity o' play style, and simplicity is desirable/essential attributes in an xp mechanic. coming up with an alternative mechanic that includes the aforementioned elements in the time remaining... yadda yadda yadda.

 

am thinking moot might not mean what indira is suggesting it means, otherwise we sees some inexplicable behavior.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[No idea]

i wanna qoute soemthing i found on the steam message boards about kill xp and dnd

 

 

While it may have changed since I used to play D&D, "kills" did not give XP.What you had was an encounter rating, which was made up of a modified combination of the challenge rating of the critters, and traps (mundane and magical) in said encounter. The XP payout for a given campaign is based upon the encounter ratings the group came into contact with and overcame.Now, what this actually means if you had a competent GM was that you got your XP for overcoming the challenges placed before you, not slaughtering everything. Sneak through the encounter with the kobold's without killing a single one on your way to accomplishing your goal? Your insanely charismatic party leader talked his way past them? Your warrior charged in screaming like a madman and hacked them all to bits? All of the above is a succesful navigation of the encounter.TL;DR You were never supposed to be paid XP for killing something, you were supposed to be paid XP for completing the campaign, the XP value of which was determined by the encounter ratings of the encounters inside the campaign.Paying out XP for quests and not kills is actually the more faithful representation of "D&D Board Game".

 

i for the life of me cant figure out how to link it from my steam without opening it again but its "no killing for xp"

What you quoted is accurate except for one "little" detail: in d&d ( 3 and 3.5 edition) an encounter is like a quest, so killing a group of monsters,any group of monsters (or a single one), GIVES XP. Edited September 2, 2014 by No idea

[redneckdevil]

 

i wanna qoute soemthing i found on the steam message boards about kill xp and dnd

 

 

While it may have changed since I used to play D&D, "kills" did not give XP.What you had was an encounter rating, which was made up of a modified combination of the challenge rating of the critters, and traps (mundane and magical) in said encounter. The XP payout for a given campaign is based upon the encounter ratings the group came into contact with and overcame.Now, what this actually means if you had a competent GM was that you got your XP for overcoming the challenges placed before you, not slaughtering everything. Sneak through the encounter with the kobold's without killing a single one on your way to accomplishing your goal? Your insanely charismatic party leader talked his way past them? Your warrior charged in screaming like a madman and hacked them all to bits? All of the above is a succesful navigation of the encounter.TL;DR You were never supposed to be paid XP for killing something, you were supposed to be paid XP for completing the campaign, the XP value of which was determined by the encounter ratings of the encounters inside the campaign.Paying out XP for quests and not kills is actually the more faithful representation of "D&D Board Game".

 

i for the life of me cant figure out how to link it from my steam without opening it again but its "no killing for xp"

What you quoted is accurate except for one "little" detail: in d&d ( 3 and 3.5 edition) an encounter is like a quest, so killing a group of monsters,any group of monsters (or a single one), GIVES XP.

Very true but also another thing is that a game is more in tuned with an AP in that APs are designed around having the players certain levels at certain points. In AP u have usually scripted encounters and enemies to keep u inline with the level the AP is designed around with nothing else whereas in a video game u have sooo much more. So to give you an open world but keep the spirit of content being viable, do u give exp for kills for them to bypass the level design u had design for it, give exp numbers that they make no difference at all, or go with the quest exp? Because even with gaining CR exp, with it being scripted there was no way to bypass the level design so the "kill exp" u received wasnt something optional it was already designed into the AP giving the exp the illusion u were advancing on ur own while unaware it was a scripted possibility that was already designed in.

also keep in mind just like pnp, a GM/DM has the right to present the game and have the players play how they envision it to be set up just like game designers have the same right. Double edge sword because that also means players have the right just like pnp to not play if they are not having fun.

with the quest exp and if im not mistaken the "check points in quests" also have exp where u are given exp not just at the end but as u advance thru a quest does play more like a standard AP which to be honest this game and all the others are just video game versions of APs. Also seems to follow the set up of how alot of GMs/DMs i know use and thats u level when the GM/DM deems neccesary which is also a practice of keeping groups in the same level range as the design they had set up.

hopefully this made some sense.

Edited September 3, 2014 by redneckdevil

[FootDive]

Not sure if VtM:Bloodlines has ever been mentioned in this thread but that game is a shining example of quest XP done right and is pretty much agreed upon by many to be one of the kings of the RPG genre. VtM:B featured zero kill XP.

 

In the end, you're still going to get loot for killing which still gives the player an incentive to kill everything in their way whether it be incredible loot or merchant food. You will never have more incentive to go for the kill route for more XP if you traditionally play a diplomatic character for example.

[Immortalis]

Not sure if VtM:Bloodlines has ever been mentioned

 

Oh god not again..

 

Apples and Oranges..

 

Bloodlines suffered from lack of combat xp because the combat gets boring. I basically try to skip past or avoid it as much as possible whenever I play the game.

 

For the most blatant offense See Final Sewer Level where 99% of players either run through it to the endng or quit the game.

 

Apples and Oranges.... Seriously...

Edited September 3, 2014 by Immortalis

[DnaCowboy]

 

Exploration and combat XP: Pavlov;s Bell for rpg gamers?

 

Some folk here keep making the assumption that introducing xp for combat would automatically make the game a grind-fest, trust me when I say it wouldn't.

Will there be the occasional player that wishes to traverse each map killing everything in sight for xp? Yes.

However will that be the majority? No way on Eora!

 

For the most part those that wish combat xp implemented want to make the combat enjoyable not just a boring task to further and complete the current quest.

We all know that exploration is the raison d'etre for many rpg gamer; well, during exploration the player comes across evil creatures and wild animals that need to be confronted and defeated. Post battle the fallen can drop items and in some wonderful rpg's  be skinned for important components; however, most importantly the player garners experience points and a sense of achievement without which they are left feeling a little empty, however, more importantly sentenced to an endless repetition of same. In contrast, rewarding combat with experience immediately fills the player with a sense of motivation, the Pavlo'vs Bell of rpg's perhaps?

Edited September 3, 2014 by DnaCowboy

[Tartantyco]

For the most part those that wish combat xp implemented want to make the combat enjoyable not just a boring task to further and complete the current quest.

 

If XP is what is necessary to make combat enjoyable, then you're the problem in the equation.

[archangel979]

Not sure if VtM:Bloodlines has ever been mentioned in this thread but that game is a shining example of quest XP done right and is pretty much agreed upon by many to be one of the kings of the RPG genre. VtM:B featured zero kill XP.

 

In the end, you're still going to get loot for killing which still gives the player an incentive to kill everything in their way whether it be incredible loot or merchant food. You will never have more incentive to go for the kill route for more XP if you traditionally play a diplomatic character for example.

Games like VtM:B don't work because they don't have character levels. As soon as you get some XP you can spend it to improve your character. While in IE games you have to gather XP one way or another to get a level. Once you get a level only then you improve. One quest or a few kills give you nothing immediately. 

But I agree, VtM:B is an awesome game and shows how to do it right. It is also a game that has very little combat, it can be mostly skipped even when there is combat and there are no trash mobs randomly standing in your way. All killing is done as part of missions. Just like how Shadowrun Returns does it that also only has mission/quest XP. 

Edited September 3, 2014 by archangel979

[Elerond]

VtM:B was in my opinion very combat heavy game, even though it often offered ways to skip combat, usually by sneaking past the enemies, but fast majority of the segments where you could earn XP included combat.

[DigitalCrack]

 

Exploration and combat XP: Pavlov;s Bell for rpg gamers?

 

Some folk here keep making the assumption that introducing xp for combat would automatically make the game a grind-fest, trust me when I say it wouldn't.

Will there be the occasional player that wishes to traverse each map killing everything in sight for xp? Yes.

However will that be the majority? No way on Eora!

 

For the most part those that wish combat xp implemented want to make the combat enjoyable not just a boring task to further and complete the current quest.

We all know that exploration is the raison d'etre for many rpg gamer; well, during exploration the player comes across evil creatures and wild animals that need to be confronted and defeated. Post battle the fallen can drop items and in some wonderful rpg's  be skinned for important components; however, most importantly the player garners experience points and a sense of achievement without which they are left feeling a little empty, however, more importantly sentenced to an endless repetition of same. In contrast, rewarding combat with experience immediately fills the player with a sense of motivation, the Pavlo'vs Bell of rpg's perhaps?

Yup people have been conditioned from the multitude of games that give xp for kills (not just rpg's) that its assumed as being the best/most enjoyable way of doing things.  Its funny cause it really shouldn't make a difference to enjoyment level of combat, if the combat/gameplay is good then its fun regardless of how you earn xp.  Honestly the small number of people who purposely skip quests to roam around how they please are the only ones affected by this, which we are all working under the assumption that they don't have a contingency for players who want to play that way (or that someone wont immediately make a mod for it).  Its just too soon to be arguing with black and white mentalities when so much of this is grey and personal opinion.

Edited September 3, 2014 by DigitalCrack

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 the small number of people who purposely skip quests to roam around how they please are the only ones affected by this, which we are all working under the assumption that they don't have a contingency for players who want to play that way.

DigitalCrack: Good post!

 

I am one of these mavericks you refer to above, heh! One thing to remember, though - the game should be scripted good enough to survive that kind of free-roaming and NPC-ignoring even if it doesn't deal out combat xp. Also, and this is a bit funny, actually, not giving xp per kill is actually making the game more prone to gamebreaking bugs, having people get stuck. Why? Since the xp dish-outs are so rare, any hiccup in triggering quests or in getting the quest flagged as done, will severely gimp the unfortunate player. One or two such incidents, and it will be impossible to proceed or at least beat certain key encounters.

[archangel979]

VtM:B was in my opinion very combat heavy game, even though it often offered ways to skip combat, usually by sneaking past the enemies, but fast majority of the segments where you could earn XP included combat.

Two whole classes of vampires focused on avoiding combat and detection and some others had skill that would pacify enemies so you could just walk past. 

The quest structures also went out of its way to offer non-combat solutions. Just because you CHOSE to play it with lots of combat it does not mean it was combat heavy game. 

[Elerond]

 

VtM:B was in my opinion very combat heavy game, even though it often offered ways to skip combat, usually by sneaking past the enemies, but fast majority of the segments where you could earn XP included combat.

Two whole classes of vampires focused on avoiding combat and detection and some others had skill that would pacify enemies so you could just walk past. 

The quest structures also went out of its way to offer non-combat solutions. Just because you CHOSE to play it with lots of combat it does not mean it was combat heavy game. 

 

If game is full of combat encounters, even though they can be skipped it is combat heavy game. Or do you say that PoE isn't combat heavy game even though you can avoid about all the fights in the beta?

[Helm]

If XP is what is necessary to make combat enjoyable, then you're the problem in the equation.

Oh really?

 

-> "If XP is what is necessary to make quests enjoyable, then you're the problem in the equation."

 

Yeah, I can play that game too.

 

Honestly, the idea of quest xp alone makes me feel a bit sad. I enjoyed exploring the wide open wilderness of BG1. If PE has big wilderness areas and exploration xp, I'll be happy without combat xp.

The lead designer hates the Baldur's Gate series, so what the BG fans enjoy is completely irrelevant.

[Tartantyco]

 

If XP is what is necessary to make combat enjoyable, then you're the problem in the equation.

Oh really?

 

-> "If XP is what is necessary to make quests enjoyable, then you're the problem in the equation."

 

Yeah, I can play that game too.

 

Except I never said anything like that, so you played a completely different game that you just made up.

[Zansatsu]

 

 

If XP is what is necessary to make combat enjoyable, then you're the problem in the equation.

 

Oh really?

 -> "If XP is what is necessary to make quests enjoyable, then you're the problem in the equation."

 

Yeah, I can play that game too.

 

Except I never said anything like that, so you played a completely different game that you just made up.

 

?????????????

[Tartantyco]

Spoon-feeding time for Zansatsu:

 

Helm said no Kill-XP would make combat boring.

 

I didn't say that no XP for quests would make questing boring.

[Zansatsu]

Hah OK hahahah yeah OK. Huh boy.

[DnaCowboy]

 

I received a kind response fro one of the devs regarding Combat XP and this is what he said:

 

 

 

We are aware of the thread internally, but I am not sure how much of it Josh has read. Regardless, I will let Josh make any comments about that system since it is a touchy subject and he is best equipped to answer those questions.

 

[DigitalCrack]

Honestly the stubbornness surrounding this issue is like "green eggs and ham" style.  I do not like quest only xp here or there I will not like it anywhere!  People need to chill out and try it once the beta is actually playable to a degree (hopefully today's patch makes it so).  As it stands it doesn't work through no fault of the idea but as a result of bugs.

[Karkarov]

Honestly the stubbornness surrounding this issue is like "green eggs and ham" style.  I do not like quest only xp here or there I will not like it anywhere!  People need to chill out and try it once the beta is actually playable to a degree (hopefully today's patch makes it so).  As it stands it doesn't work through no fault of the idea but as a result of bugs.

It isn't like this thread is even indicative of any significant portion of backers or that it's responses mean anything.  This is a shades of grey issue but the poll only allows for black and white.  Even then it isn't like "combat XP" is even pulling a convincing win.  Out of 320 votes at the time of this posting combat xp is only winning by 20 votes.  That's a huge 3 whole percent, what a massive margin.

[Gromnir]

 

Honestly the stubbornness surrounding this issue is like "green eggs and ham" style.  I do not like quest only xp here or there I will not like it anywhere!  People need to chill out and try it once the beta is actually playable to a degree (hopefully today's patch makes it so).  As it stands it doesn't work through no fault of the idea but as a result of bugs.

It isn't like this thread is even indicative of any significant portion of backers or that it's responses mean anything.  This is a shades of grey issue but the poll only allows for black and white.  Even then it isn't like "combat XP" is even pulling a convincing win.  Out of 320 votes at the time of this posting combat xp is only winning by 20 votes.  That's a huge 3 whole percent, what a massive margin.

 

and don't forget the previous poll with more respondents.  we have seen some crazy-arsed attempts at distinguishing nomenclature, but previous poll, regardless o' wording, specifically rejected combat/kill xp as part o' "completion of objectives."  more than 70% either were in favor o' objective or didn't care.  less than 30% wanted a mechanic that woulda' envisioned kill/combat xp as described in this poll.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61543-are-you-for-or-against-gaining-experience-points-only-for-completing-objectives/

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sarex]

Objective xp=/=quest xp.