Do you want experience from combat?

[Stun]

 

Uh.. and? I am guessing by your short posts.. that you forgot the point your trying to make.. or you just realized your pretending to know why we want something.. when we supposedly don't know..

 

Isnt it obvious?

 

Yes.

 

There are dozens of reasons why I've replayed BG2 300+ times in the last 14 years. You're off by a billion miles.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Stun

[Immortalis]

 

 

 

 

I think thats the real reason why people want combat xp, its not about combat xp itself. Combat was the easiest and effortless way to progress in BG because combat in general in those games was rather easy.

 

And quests were hard?

 

No but it took more time to complete them.

 

 

Uh.. and? I am guessing by your short posts.. that you forgot the point your trying to make.. or you just realized your pretending to know why we want something.. when we supposedly don't know..

 

 

Isnt it obvious? Read through the pro-kill-xp posts and you will find out that most of them replayed the game multible times. Questing, aka the story does not entertain after your (i guess) second run so they want a way to skip most of it. Which is what kill-xp offers them.

 

 

Just worry about your opinions from now on..

You missed the mark in a big way.

[Mayama]

 

 

Just worry about your opinions from now on..

You missed the mark in a big way.

 

Did you read through the threads? Their are tons of post like quests are boring, i want to level by killing things posts.

[600lbpanther]

 

From what I understand:

 

Quest exp helps balance the game for the designers but now may make some players adjust their playing style.

It seems a lot of people won't be negatively affected by this change but those who like their quests as potentially optional tasks perceive that they could be negatively affected.

 

To be honest, I personally dislike quests that are mandatory.  They're a chore.  Most are very boring.  Pillars of Eternity seems to rely on quests and storylines and by fusing these two together seems to have the potential to be very interesting.  I hope so because it seems like mandatory questing is going to be the case.

 

I think thats the real reason why people want combat xp, its not about combat xp itself. Combat was the easiest and effortless way to progress in BG because combat in general in those games was rather easy.

 

 

Being such a touchy subject I will give my personal opinion and thoughts and not try to speak for anyone else:

 

I agree with your 1st sentence entirely:   "I think thats the real reason why people want combat xp, its not about combat xp itself."

 

To me:  Combat XP is just another avenue used to traverse through the game world.  A lot of people love their quests.  I do not like to be necessarily beholden to quests.  However, I still want to experience the fun factor of adding new abilities & spells (i.e. - leveling).  Whether it be a lot of questing or just, as some say, "mindless" slaughter there typically were multiple ways to enjoy your CRPG game while completing it.

 

I don't agree with your 2nd sentence because (again to me) it's not about easy vs. hard as much as it is fun vs not fun. 

 

A lot of quests I have been forced to do in the past were not fun thus ultimately undermining some of the game for me.  I play games like these for enjoyment, relaxation, and suspension of disbelief.  If I stumble upon an ogre who attacks me and I kill him then I can be rewarded with being a good ranger who did his part in quelling evil without even fanfare or an audience.  In Pillars, I may be able to remove this Ogre without fanfare, an audience, or even an experience reward.  However, I realize other people find killing things just for the sake of combat experience to undermine the point of their game.  I believe there is a truth here.  When it comes to "their" game:  All people have different ways that they like to have it served.  Mandatory questing has been one entrée on the menu, optional questing has been another entrée on the menu, and wandering around slaying (for whatever your reason) was another entrée.  Some games also give experience for exploration and experience for crafting.  Now it seems that you have 1 choice:  Progress through the game by mandatory questing so you can keep gaining new abilities, spells, and talents.

 

Ultimately:  Mandatory questing is here to stay and definitely seems to be a paradigm shift.  I am interested in seeing how Sawyer's vision plays out  He certainly has a lot of industry experience and impressive credentials. 

[Mayama]

 

 

From what I understand:

 

Quest exp helps balance the game for the designers but now may make some players adjust their playing style.

It seems a lot of people won't be negatively affected by this change but those who like their quests as potentially optional tasks perceive that they could be negatively affected.

 

To be honest, I personally dislike quests that are mandatory.  They're a chore.  Most are very boring.  Pillars of Eternity seems to rely on quests and storylines and by fusing these two together seems to have the potential to be very interesting.  I hope so because it seems like mandatory questing is going to be the case.

 

I think thats the real reason why people want combat xp, its not about combat xp itself. Combat was the easiest and effortless way to progress in BG because combat in general in those games was rather easy.

 

 

Being such a touchy subject I will give my personal opinion and thoughts and not try to speak for anyone else:

 

I agree with your 1st sentence entirely:   "I think thats the real reason why people want combat xp, its not about combat xp itself."

 

To me:  Combat XP is just another avenue used to traverse through the game world.  A lot of people love their quests.  I do not like to be necessarily beholden to quests.  However, I still want to experience the fun factor of adding new abilities & spells (i.e. - leveling).  Whether it be a lot of questing or just, as some say, "mindless" slaughter there typically were multiple ways to enjoy your CRPG game while completing it.

 

I don't agree with your 2nd sentence because (again to me) it's not about easy vs. hard as much as it is fun vs not fun. 

 

A lot of quests I have been forced to do in the past were not fun thus ultimately undermining some of the game for me.  I play games like these for enjoyment, relaxation, and suspension of disbelief.  If I stumble upon an ogre who attacks me and I kill him then I can be rewarded with being a good ranger who did his part in quelling evil without even fanfare or an audience.  In Pillars, I may be able to remove this Ogre without fanfare, an audience, or even an experience reward.  However, I realize other people find killing things just for the sake of combat experience to undermine the point of their game.  I believe there is a truth here.  When it comes to "their" game:  All people have different ways that they like to have it served.  Mandatory questing has been one entrée on the menu, optional questing has been another entrée on the menu, and wandering around slaying (for whatever your reason) was another entrée.  Some games also give experience for exploration and experience for crafting.  Now it seems that you have 1 choice:  Progress through the game by mandatory questing so you can keep gaining new abilities, spells, and talents.

 

Ultimately:  Mandatory questing is here to stay and definitely seems to be a paradigm shift.  I am interested in seeing how Sawyer's vision plays out  He certainly has a lot of industry experience and impressive credentials. 

 

Yeah I agree, so the real problem here is that people want a entertaining way to get XP. Quest or killing is not the real problem because both can be boring as hell. You could basicaly say that every time people do something only for the xp it means that its done poorly because the ideal would be people playing the game and having fun without looking at the xp bar. Doing something ONLY for xp means that you are addicted to a skinner box.

[DigitalCrack]

Definately xp and how its implemented should be a sidenote much less a heated argument. Really enjoyment is decided by the gameplay and story. If niether of those are enjoyable on there own for you then changing the xp system won't magically change that.

[Volourn]

"I think thats the real reason why people want combat xp, its not about combat xp itself. Combat was the easiest and effortless way to progress in BG because combat in general in those games was rather easy."
 

Compared to what, exactly? How many times did you die playing BG series? I bet it was more than once.

[Cantousent]

I think some of the discussion is becoming confused.  The first thing I'd say is that quest only is perfectly viable design decision, and so if you advocate that, I'm not putting you down as holding that specific point on the spectrum.  It seems to me that many of the people arguing for a quest based system either have a much looser interpretation of 'quest' or don't really advocate quest only in the first place.  I'm in that number.  Since I think terminology is important, and this thread exemplifies that fact, I don't like the phrase 'quest only.'  I prefer 'results oriented,' but I don't want to dilute my point by getting into the nitty gritty of my position just now.  The point is, there's a lot of overlap in what folks want from the game, and some of the folks seem to be separated less than their arguments would suggest.

 

Second, while I think some of the exchanges are heated, I don't think you're a mindless basher to come in here and offer suggestions.  I don't think backing the game gives you license to make demands and I don't think the devs should be forced to respond to every line of inquiry, but I do think that being a backer (or even a long term fan) should earn you at least some consideration.  Take my ideas or don't, but we should at least try to be charitable on all sides of this.  That doesn't mean I won't end up flaming someone, but I'll try to be considerate about it when I do.  :Cant's wry grin icon:  Vol is pretty good about getting under my skin.  I'll end up flaming him and getting banned or something.  <.<

 

I don't think the combat XP folks will win the day, but keep fighting for what you want.  I would.  Moreover, even if the combat XP crowd *doesn't* win, that doesn't mean the devs might not be swayed into a much more incremental change such as the suggestion regarding encounters with big monsters or unscripted encounters.  I personally don't think every bit of XP should need to be tied to the quest log *beforehand.*  I like the idea of some encounters, of all stripes and varieties, with some that can only be successfully completed in one or two ways and some that have multiple solutions, yielding XP as the party progresses.  It keeps the game fresh and gives it a spontaneous feel without taking away *any* of the control the devs want to have.  I *do* believe anything that yields XP should have a reference in the journal as a significant event, but without being so crass as to actually state XP or the like.  At least the journal proper.  The stats can do whatever the devs want and I'm sure that folks who follow the stats want to know things like the XP allotments and creature power etc.

[Marceror]

 

Did you read through the threads? Their are tons of post like quests are boring, i want to level by killing things posts.

There's been over 500 posts, so a lot of things have been said. For my part, yes, I do prefer having combat xp (and some skill based xp) but it's not because "I want to level by killing things." It has more to do with the fact that in many cases it is highly appropriate to do so.

 

A really mundane quest might be go and pick up a pound of salt from NPC X and deliver it to NPC Y. Yay, you completed the quest and got some experience. No problem; that's how these games work.

 

Earlier in the thread I used an example of  your party being ambushed. The fight is extremely difficult, and any survivors of that ambush have probably learned a thing or two about combat and defending themselves. Arguably, this is a very appropriate time to award experience. And also it is arguably more appropriate than it is for certain quests to award experience. But under the current rules in PoE this life or death encounter does not provide any experience to the characters, if it isn't tied to some larger quest. I firmly believe that it should.

 

Honestly, I could take or leave trash mobs yielding experience. It's really more the difficult fights that I believe should.

[Polanski]

Haven't been following this topic ('cause there is so many similar ones), but looking at the pool, why would implementing combat exp mean the game would be delayed? It doesn't seem like such a big implementation, both from a programming and balancing point of view. It is not because od resources there is no combat xp, it is purely a design choice.

That being said, I was playing the beta and with my almost dead party I was trying to conserve resources and not rest in the cave I was currently exploring. Still my couriousity was running wild and I had my rogue sneak and explore the cave, when all of a sudden this Giant ogre sees her. He demands to know what I am doing there and I hope her 'I'll be leaving now' will be enough to satisfy him, but unfortunately. The ogre attacks and the entire party runs to get out of the cave. Almost out of the cave we hear fighting in the background, sneaking back we notice that the Ogre has caught a fight with some spiders, that the party was too scared/hurt to face. 'no better time than now' the party quickly agrees and starts bombarding the Ogre with mainly AoE's, so the spiders get some pain as well. The ogres kills the spiders, but is put down, before he can reach the party. great gameplay tbh.

 

I just thought about that episode because in the BG days, my thoughts would almost instantly be going to getting the xp for the ogre and spiders, but in this situation I didn't and just focused on the rp and survival of my characters, not that they would be crippled (as they in essence would) if they didn't get the kill xp from that giant ogre and those juicy spiders. 

[Gromnir]

  Since I think terminology is important, and this thread exemplifies that fact, I don't like the phrase 'quest only.'  I prefer 'results oriented,' but I don't want to dilute my point by getting into the nitty gritty of my position just now.  The point is, there's a lot of overlap in what folks want from the game, and some of the folks seem to be separated less than their arguments would suggest.

 

 

don't be that guy. don't perpetuate a mistake we seen floating around and being repeated. quest xp. goal, task, objective xp.  none o' these matter IF the alternative being addressed is kill/combat xp. personally, we see the attempts to distinguish objective xp from quest xp is a matter o' semantics, and ultimately meaningless. however, do not lose sight o' the simple fact that regardless o' how one labels quest/task/objective xp mechanics, they all necessarily preclude kill/combat xp

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1495069

 

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

 

cant wants to be fair. some board yahoo wants to make the issue 'bout the subtle differences 'tween objective, quest and task meanings and cant obliges. cant can't just ignore, can he? 'course not. the thing is, such distinctions in definition is not only largely meaningless, but they is irrelevant in the present context-- quest/objective/task/etc. all preclude combat/kill xp.

 

we applaud your desire to try and be fair, but that quality that makes you see all opposing arguments as having some point o validity ignores the reality that many arguments don't have any relevance. definition o' quest/task has been clarified by the developers and what they mean is important, but none o' that actual matters in the present context, 'cause whatever definition you use, you won't be able to include kill/combat xp.  is a not relevant.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Helm]

Stuff

Gromnir, we have told you numerous times that quest only XP and objective XP are not the same thing at all.

 

Not to mention that that poll was take about two years ago way before anybody even touched the beta (and gave the developer the benefit of the doubt).

Edited September 4, 2014 by Helm

[Gromnir]

you is using a non-issue related to differentiation in denotative definitions of objective v. quest  to fabricate an argument. cant is fair. cant gives you the benefit of the doubt.  

 

*shrug*

 

"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."

 

"Tim and I would rather not give XP for general killin' because it leads to a lot of weird/degenerate scenarios, but I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal."

 

 

"Gameplay degeneration occurs when a player engages in gameplay not because they enjoy that gameplay but because the game's mechanics put the player at a disadvantage for not taking advantage of it. Rest spamming is one example. Wholesale slaughter/genocide is another. Quests that involve a peaceful option to resolve that get turned around after completion when the player murders the saved parties is a familiar expression of this sort of degeneration. If XP is linked to quests and objectives within quests, the player has much more freedom to resolve those quests in whatever way he or she wants, whether that means talking through it, fighting, sneaking around, or using some mixture of skills/scripted environment objects to reach the goal."

 

the poll and the developers  from two years ago were not confused or confusing. regardless o' the silly semantic argument you wanna drag cant into, kill xp were always precluded. sorry, is not the issue  you wish it were.  

 

seeming unnecessary clarification: even if there were a difference between quest and objective xp, it would not matter in the present context because quest/task/objective xp ALL preclude kill xp.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 5, 2014 by Gromnir

[Stun]

 

Since I think terminology is important, and this thread exemplifies that fact, I don't like the phrase 'quest only.' I prefer 'results oriented,' but I don't want to dilute my point by getting into the nitty gritty of my position just now. The point is, there's a lot of overlap in what folks want from the game, and some of the folks seem to be separated less than their arguments would suggest.

don't be that guy. don't perpetuate a mistake we seen floating around and being repeated. quest xp. goal, task, objective xp. none o' these matter IF the alternative being addressed is kill/combat xp. personally, we see the attempts to distinguish objective xp from quest xp is a matter o' semantics, and ultimately meaningless. however, do not lose sight o' the simple fact that regardless o' how one labels quest/task/objective xp mechanics, they all necessarily preclude kill/combat xp

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1495069

 

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

 

cant wants to be fair. some board yahoo wants to make the issue 'bout the subtle differences 'tween objective, quest and task meanings and cant obliges. cant can't just ignore, can he? 'course not. the thing is, such distinctions in definition is not only largely meaningless, but they is irrelevant in the present context-- quest/objective/task/etc. all preclude combat/kill xp.

 

we applaud your desire to try and be fair, but that quality that makes you see all opposing arguments as having some point o validity ignores the reality that many arguments don't have any relevance. definition o' quest/task has been clarified by the developers and what they mean is important, but none o' that actual matters in the present context, 'cause whatever definition you use, you won't be able to include kill/combat xp. is a not relevant.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Uh, no Gromnir, they most certainly are NOT the same thing, ESPECIALLY since one can, in fact, include kill XP while the other cannot. Objective XP encompasses so much more. In an Objective XP system, if you have a multi-faceted/multi-step quest, you are being rewarded according to your progress. For example, lets say you are tasked with solving a murder mystery. You'd be rewarded whenever you do something that furthers your investigation. Like killing someone who's impeding it. Such a system also leaves open the possibility of dynamic rewards, like increased XP for using your head and finding the most important clues... Or increased XP for being more thorough in your investigations. OR.... partial/reduced XP for bringing one of the murderers to justice but killing the others etc.

 

With quest-only XP, none of this happens. You're given the quest, and then you just get paid when you solve it. It's no less primitive, 'mindless' or open to 'grinding' than the Kill XP you've been ranting against.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Stun

[Caladian]

Well, then in that case, PoE is an objective XP game.  Both the Ogre quest and the girl quest gives you XP along the way. 

[Cantousent]

I actually just wish the devs would come out and make a statement.  Even if they come out and say, "we have considered your input but we are happy with the way our current system deals with experience."  Sure, the issue will probably be persistent, but it's clearly a big topic with a lot of traffic.  Just come out every few weeks and reaffirm your position.  I saw that our Saw wielding friend responded to at least one of the threads recently.  Come on in and dole out abuse if it comes to that.  Send in one of the other devs to put down the word.  :Cant's looking around for a member of the design team icon:  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?

[leninghola]

For me, it's more about how often I level up based on story progression, effort expended, and positive feedback than which parts reward specific amounts of xp. I don't really care as much about the mechanics of xp accumulation. Hell, most of these games reward NO xp based on what you learn from books, bestiaries and other lore based paraphernalia you read in game. Was that a problem for us then?

[leninghola]

For me, it's more about how often I level up based on story progression, effort expended, and positive feedback than which parts reward specific amounts of xp. I don't really care as much about the mechanics of xp accumulation. Hell, most of these games reward NO xp based on what you learn from books, bestiaries and other lore based paraphernalia you read in game. Was that a problem for us then?

That is not to say I am against combat xp. Done well, I can dig it.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

We don't know what it will be like in the final game. If there is a quest hub like Athkatla in BG2, there may be a good amount of xp to get by farming quests. As others often say, This is just a Beta^TM. And going by the Beta, Obsidian has changed their design by going with an Objective / Quest based system by spreading out the xp more along the quest route and not the proposed Quest only system with xp at the end of the quest. So it looks like Obsidian did notice problems early on and did change it.

 

I think doing optimal map and quest routes and avoiding things like trash mobs might give you more frequency with xp rewards. I know my current play style is rewarding me more frequently.

[Pendali]

I'd rather have combat xp over a bunch of crappy loot.. Id rather find one good item that I can actually use on my character than 1 million crappy items and one good one.

Even if it took a week of exploring the map to find this legendary item, Id prefer that to traveling back and forth to "the village" just to vendor gear so that I can afford to buy a tent so that I can go and do what I really like which is defeating really hard enemies at impossible odds. (Enemies with harder and harder difficulty)

Without having to ask some peasant at the village for an excuse to do so.

You are supposed to use your best tactics to beat the hardest enemies you can muster. This is why beating the "weapon Bosses" in Final fantasy 7 was such a big fun. (you had something to strive for) and you didn't get a million different items in loot either. This thing about buying tent/ campfire supplies is a big dead end. Why the heck would you force the player to go back to town every half an hour?

Pillars of eternity has forgotten the FIRST RULE OF GAME DESIGN: "Do no annoying".

 

(This is why some games don't implement fall damage, cos that would be annoying for that particular game)

 

In my opinion: "If it´s not a quest item or an item you can use right away, it should not be in the game"

 

Why would you ever need 10 similar knives that all do that same amount of damage as the one you are currently using?

If I wanted or needed a knife Id buy one at a vendor. Just Stop it with all the useless multiple copies of loot items. In my opinion there only needs to be 1 of each item in the game. 

 

And by the by, Just this once I'd really like to see a game where the vendor actually sold something good, something that the player can actually use.

 

No, keep your items, give me some gold and a bit of combat experience instead!

Edited September 6, 2014 by Pendali

[Pendali]

Btw. It´s the same way with no combat experience as it is with campfire supplies, they are both trying to force the player into playing the way that the designers want you to play.

 

For instance:  What if you get to the fabled mega dungeon at say level 12, and the designers think you should be level 20 to go there.

At lvl 12 you might just manage to beat the first group of enemies. but now you have exhausted all your campfire supplies.. so now you have to walk all the way back home to get new ones.. and repeat this action walking back and forth 100 times to get through the first 3 dungeon levels. You would literally spend more time at loading screens than actually playing the game.

 

This would obviously be Mega annoying.

 

Not getting combat experience is the same thing, it´s like trying to make a CRPG into a Rail shooter.

 

Ps: Tents and sleeping bags are not used up after one use. Besides I bet these adventurers know a thing or two about surviving in the wilderness, hunting and so on. And another thing, you don't always need a tent, if the weather is marginally good you can actually sleep just as well or better without a one.  (Personally I go on fishing trips, camping in the mountains every spring and fall before and after the mosquito season, and most often I don't need to put up the tent.)

Edited September 6, 2014 by Pendali

[sorophx]

ps we didn't add a vote

I voted "no" for you. 

[Zulgrib]

Didn't had the courage to read everything, but i think rare monsters should give XP instantly if you make them stop being a nuisance (Making them go away, stop or kill them)

I've seen example with the ogre quest, to make the player feel s/he accomplished something, getting the ogre stop whatever wrong he's doing should grant XP for the action. Once you've made the ogre stop doing whatever was wrong, coming back to kill the ogre won't grant XP as you already got XP for making it stop whatever wrong that ogre was doing (no double XP degenerecence some people talked about). Coming back to say "HEY ! I did whatever you asked me to do !" would grant XP too, as the task was finished. Since the game was already designed for quest XP only, to don't unbalance stuff, XP of this quest could be split 50/50 for doing what's required and reporting back.

 

Discovering a new area should give XP instantly.

 

Why ? Because it gives you the feeling you progressed, by discovering the area, by making that ogre stop annoying people.

 

XP Quest only make you feel you didn't progressed when the ogre died/gone away. There's no positive feedback for the player.

 

I don't see how this solution would break balance as every play styles would get the same amount of XP, only downside would be people not exploring by themselves would get not XP, but are you playing a role playing game to follow the roads ?

[Shevek]

seeming unnecessary clarification: even if there were a difference between quest and objective xp, it would not matter in the present context because quest/task/objective xp ALL preclude kill xp.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Maybe thats what needs to change. How about something as straight forward as a one time objective xp bonus for clearing dungeon and wilderness maps of 80% of all hostiles? That rewards a nice chunk of xp for killing while avoiding degenerative scenarios by setting the bar at 80% rather than 100%.

 

Still crappy but not as 100% crappy as no kill xp at all.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Shevek

[Tartantyco]

 

seeming unnecessary clarification: even if there were a difference between quest and objective xp, it would not matter in the present context because quest/task/objective xp ALL preclude kill xp.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Maybe thats what needs to change. How about something as straight forward as a one time objective xp bonus for clearing dungeon and wilderness maps of 80% of all hostiles? That rewards a nice chunk of xp for killing while avoiding degenerative scenarios by setting the bar at 80% rather than 100%.

 

Still crappy but not as 100% crappy as no kill xp at all.

 

 

No, that would directly reward precisely what they want to avoid incentivizing. They don't want you to get into fights for no other reason than to get XP.