Do you want experience from combat?

[Cantousent]

Something a lot of folks have mentioned is getting XP from steps of a quest line rather than only upon completing the entire line.  Actually, that's how the quests work in the demo right now.  I've got to be getting close to the end, and I've noticed various spots where I get XP.  In a full game, I think we'd be getting XP regularly and quite often with multiple quest lines going concurrently.  I seriously don't think folks will lose all incentive to kill, especially after combat gets tweaked.  I've been smiting baddies all over and I usually clear the map.  I don't kill the deer and random villagers and the like, but I do kill all hostiles in a map and I did that in everywhere I've been in the demo.  I like the combat, but it's weird and still too prone to becoming a orgiastic experience of constant cluster ****ritude.  If they can make it so that positioning is easier, or even possible in the first place, then I'll be a lot happier.

[Ineth]

Your poll is completely invalid... Because there is no option for don't-give-a-flying-F-about how XP is handled option.

 

Yeah that's a general problem with polls on this forum (and online forums in general).

 

If I was a moderator, all polls that fail to include an appropriate "I don't know / don't care / don't feel strongly either way" option would be immediately closed or deleted.

 

PS: As would polls that present a false dichotomy or otherwise try to unfairly railroad poll participants.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Ineth

[Serdan]

I really don't care. What matters is a steady rate of progression.

You could conceivably do a no-xp system where you get levels at set points throughout the game and I'd be fine with that.

[Ineth]

 

A) It's a video game! Whether it makes sense or not doesn't matter. This isn't Sim Adventurer.

 

The arguments over the last 2 years have always had people arguing about whether something in real life is implemented or not in a video game. Similarly, you'll have people justifying why something is in the game due to something comparable in real life. Personally, I'll take fun over realism any day. For some people (not me), this is immersion breaking and they need the realism behind it to justify something.

 

I think RPGs should try to have at least some amount of simulationism.

 

There's a reason they are a separate genre from e.g. puzzle games.

[Pendali]

There is one point about this experience issue and this so called "degenerate game play" issue, where I can draw parallels to other games.

There is a scenario in diablo 3 where you can end up fighting a so called "elite pack of monsters" where you actually get punished for trying to get good at the game.

 

For instance:

If you set the difficulty up to the maximum of what you and your character can handle, (it´s not the most effective way of playing, but hey! It´s great fun!) 

and you grind your way to the end of a level and there you encounter this elite pack of doom. So instead of running away or quitting you decide to beat it to see if you can do it, and after 20 minutes you finally manage to get the elite pack down to under 10% health,

but now the developers have decided that you have used too much time and they give the mob all its health back.

So playing to the best of your abillity is then actually being punished.

 

You should not get punished for playing the game, or trying your best.

 

So in Poe, why should you get punished and told that you are playing degenerate, just because you also happen to enjoy the "tactical fight" part?

I just don't understand why? (The game is literally forcing you to fight everything outside of town anyways) Are they afraid that you are going to scale past the level of the quest mobs?? or what's the deal? Can't they just make the quest mobs scale with your level? or something? or are they afraid that quest combat will become too easy if you get combat experience as well? would it matter? why should they care how I like to play? why should they care to nerf "loner/ exploratory game play"?

 

I guess Its my fault for not using my magnifying glass to read the fine print when backing the kickstarter.

 

Oh well, I'm still going to enjoy this game without combat experience in it.. everything else looks quite excellent. ^^,

Edited September 8, 2014 by Pendali

[IndiraLightfoot]

Pendali: I'm with you 100% on this. Great example, too.

[Tartantyco]

The game does not force you to fight everything outside of town. I also have no idea what relevance that D3 example has.

[Pendali]

The game does not force you to fight everything outside of town. I also have no idea what relevance that D3 example has.

 

When I tried the beta, everything outside of town was hostile, except the ogre.. 

 

And the relevance to my example occurs when you want to go exploring in an area that is above your current level.. cos you now have no way of advancing.

(I'm not saying that I won't ever do quests, It just that sometimes its fun to do other things in between and make your own "adventures")

Removing combat xp is just them trying to railroad the gameplay.

 

Edited September 8, 2014 by Pendali

[Bulkbu]

Where are these arguments that it doesn't make sense coming from?

 

A) It's a video game! Whether it makes sense or not doesn't matter. This isn't Sim Adventurer.

 

B)  Xp never made sense in the first place. Taking what was an unrealistic mechanic and making it unrealistic isn't a change.

 

Let's discuss how the exclusion of kill-xp helps/hurts the game experience rather than discuss the realism of a fantasy video game.

My post might have been a little misleading. When I said "it doesn't make sense" its not only about realism and simulation.

 

Its about the concept of experience in RPGs in general. The exp-system is there to represent that your characters learn from their experiences and adventures.

 

You successfully bluff in a conversation? You learned what might work with what kind of person. You slay a horde of goblins? You mastered your ways of combat. There are games which use the "learning-by-doing"-idea of leveling indiviual abilities by repeatedly using them. With such systems you will only be good at what you decided to do and use. But in a game with an exp-pool which represents the over all development of your characters, only getting experience when handing in quests is just broken.

 

 

You could argue that the quest's exp includes everything you did on your way to completing the task (like fighting monsters, climbing walls, arguing with ogres and so on), but everything outside of the quest's path will reward you nothing. This mechanic not only is quenstionable gameplay-wise but non-sensical on a theoretical level.

 

 

Edit: And to be honest, there are very few games using the "quests-only" exp system for a good reason. What the majority of people does isn't always the right thing, but in this case I feel like PoE is in a bad spot.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Bulkbu

[Cantousent]

I would say there's a difference between using an encounter timer to give all of the mobs health back or give it significant damage increase on one hand and making the design decision not to include kill XP.  It's a false comparison.  While I like Diablo (mostly one and two) it doesn't pretend to have much role in the role playing department.  Kill XP isn't incidental in Diablo, it's the primary way to gain XP... by a huge margin.

 

By your example, Pen, the Diablo designers intentionally introduced something from outside the system to punish players for taking too long to finish off a mob.  Whether that's a good decision or not is a different discussion.  In PoE, the player is not directly granted XP rewards for killing monsters.  The game doesn't introduce anything from outside the system or setting to punish players.  If you take the time to bypass the spiders within the spider cave, you aren't granted less experience for dealing with the ogre.  If you don't clear the wolves and beetles from the overland map, you don't receive less experience.  Conversely, you don't receive less experience for killing all those things.  See, now it really *is* your choice.  You're playing the badass you want to be in the game because that's how you envision your character.  You don't kill everything because you're conditioned to do it for the extra XP rewards.

 

tl;dr You aren't *punished* by lack of kill XP.  You simply aren't rewarded for extra killing.

[Pendali]

tl;dr You aren't *punished* by lack of kill XP.  You simply aren't rewarded for extra killing.

 

Well, yes.. but:

 

Now you have to spam click every single npc in each town.. to make sure that you picked up the most amount of objectives before going out. 

(cos otherwise you won't get the quest xp)

And there is no point of exploring this new fantastic cave you found, because you haven't found all the quest givers yet.

There´s no reward for doing anything independent.

 

What if this was a regular RPG?

The game master says: "oh btw. there are some epic ruins to the south"

Would the players then go: "oh no lets stay away from there, cos we haven't talked to any quest givers yet"

Or would they say: "Dude how interesting, lets go there!"

 

Let´s say that you at level 5 want to go on an epic "quest" to explore the entire world.. so you start from one end and walk around by yourself for 2 hours. you have lots of hostile encounters, you see tons of new interesting things, learn a lot about the world, but when you get back you will still be level 5 and non the wiser.

That is if you managed to do anything by yourself at all? It was probably too hard for you, cos you won't get any xp on your epic travels.. (no progression)

 

It´s not punishing, but it´s a lack of reward.. and imo. game breaking, cos it will take the fun out of doing independent actions.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Pendali

[IndiraLightfoot]

Pendali: That's how I felt after my first RL 5h playing the PoE beta. I didn't realize it, though, until I was about to save and curiously looked at the xp progress of my main. I love that BG 1 has a really slow level progression, so I just presumed it was the same in PoE. I had been exploring almost  all areas, uncovered maps, done remarkable deeds, fought challenging battles, talked brilliantly in convos, found secrets, only to be rewarded by the total sum of zero. Then I looked at the other party members. Zero, zero, zero, zero. I had only five pcs in that playthrough. I was completely taken aback. Two days later, a game dev confirmed that this was the new xp system for PoE. I was like, WTF?

[Gfted1]

With the new beta removing a lot of bugs, has it been proven that there isn't any objective XP? For example, PrimeJunta observed 1500XP for entering the Ogre cave. Is that not the case? Is that only the case because he was on the farmer quest (what happens if you go to the cave before getting the quest?)

 

With the term "objective XP", Im referring to incremental XP rewards doled out over the course of gaming instead of only getting XP when you turn in the quest.

[IndiraLightfoot]

The quest xp I've gotten so far has been from completed quests, but I haven't done the ogre "the correct and approved way" yet.

[Cantousent]

The realism argument is simply completely bunk.  I can see that you want the system to include combat XP and that you think this better reflects reality, but it's simply a matter of where you draw the line.  I'm not trying to personalize this.  I don't think there's anything inherently bad about wanting combat XP.  I also don't say one system is inherently better than the other.  I think, in this situation, objective XP is better and I prefer the design overall, but that's simply my preference.  Combat XP might make XP more granular, but no less unrealistic.  There's a whole line that goes from an attempt to completely simulate the way in which people improve their skills in real life and a completely static character who doesn't improve at all.  If you say that combat XP should be included because it's more realistic, then someone else can say why have character classes at all?  If someone says that Might doesn't make sense for physical *and* magical prowess, then someone else can say why stop at six attributes?  Why not have ten?  Why not have fifty?  I respect that you want to draw the line in a different place, but I disagree that it really has to do with making the game more realistic.  For some folks, that particular spot of realism might be the most important thing.  For others, it's different, which is why the design team has to decide on a line and create the system to reflect their creative choice.  ...And, furthermore, some folks will undoubtedly argue for combat XP based on realism, but realism will be for them merely a back door argument to sneak in what amounts to their real motivation, which is simply wanting XP for killing.  I'm not saying that anyone in this thread has been disingenuous in such a way, just that I've witnessed such behavior from time to time.

 

A bit more of a snag for me, however, is the idea that you don't want to be forced to quest.  I can understand the realism argument, even if I don't agree.  Fair enough.  Questing?  Why on earth would you back or buy a game like PoE (or BG, IWD, or PS:T) and complain about the need to quest?  Even in a strict action CRPG like Diablo, you couldn't advance the game without questing.  I mean, I really have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that you shouldn't be 'forced' to quest in an IE game.  People talk about keeping to the spirit of the IE games?  How about one of the few things *every* IE game had was that questing was expected and necessary?

 

I remember someone mentioning a while back that he didn't want to be forced to kill monsters and that requiring dungeon spelunking was too confining also.  I'm not making this up, if the search function goes back far enough, it was several years ago in the Obsidz forum.  Folks were making fun of the idea by saying that we should have the barmaid class for folks who didn't want to have to quest or engage in combat.  The point is, questing, combat, crafting (which I would be perfectly happy if they left out of the game), soul based magic, strongholds, and a mega dungeon are all what this game will be.  I respect that you want combat XP.  I don't, but that doesn't mean I wish ill on you.  Fine.  ...But the argument in favor of combat XP is that you don't want the *need* to quest?

 

On this issue, Indira and I disagree, but I think, rather than changing the system to satisfy folks who will only be happy with combat XP, the system should be tweaked to grant objective XP more regularly and in a broader set of circumstances.  *That* should not be hard for the design team.  I've even identified ways and advocated them where players get XP for encounters that aren't in the quest log at all before hand.  It gives the player the feel of some random achievement that could honestly be called an objective without taking away from the designer's ability to control the content.  Grant XP for killing the spider queen.  Make a log entry that says something like, "we came across a dreadful arachnid of immense size and power!  Some wanted to leave her in peace, but I feared for the safety of the village and so we engaged her and, through force of sword and fire, destroyed her and her brood of eight legged spiders."  That gives the feel of spontaneity on the part of the player while letting the designers do what they want.  Do I think you should get XP for every spiderling you vanquish in the cave?  No, I don't.

 

Finally, I think the biggest reason for objective only XP is actually exemplified by this discussion.  If you get XP for combat, then why not get XP for crafting?  ...And if you get XP for crafting, why not exploring?  I think XP has become a huge mess because everyone wants to have a little extra reward for doing something they're inclined to do in the first place.  Not rewarding someone with XP for an activity is simply not the same as punishing people for engaging in it.  However, that doesn't mean that I don't think folks should get some sort of XP reward that comes as a direct result of that activity.  Make some objectives require combat.  (That's already true at any rate, but put in that 'random' encounter I cited and give objective XP for killing the critter).  Make some objectives require a glib tongue or street smarts or stealth or whatever.  You still get rewarded for engaging in your brand of fun, but it's still controlled by the design team.  ...And it wouldn't be any more open to abuse than stacking every quest possible.  You could conceivably get experience any way you wanted as long as you invested in the skills and attributes required to do so.

[illathid]

Sure, "game mechanics" are different in real life, but I would argue that as closer a RPGs ruleset comes to what makes sense in the real world, the better.

 

Stay back everyone! It's an RPG simulationist. It won't die unless we cut off the head.

[Pendali]

I see Cantousent making some good points, and I see IndiraLightfoot making some good points.

There is a lot of pros and cons to this.

The thing is I'm willing to forgive them if they don't add combat xp, (even tho I think it´s a bad idea), but they better implement some system that still makes the game as enjoyable as it would have been with the old system.

I´m afraid that they will just slap this new thing on without compensating or inventing something new.

 

I hope they have thought this through, are able to see the new issues, and have time to playtest it thoroughly.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Pendali

[Silverbarr]

Not sure if it's been said yet, but what about a bounty board offering quest experience for creatures slain in the wild, etc. It would be a do-able, and worthwhile resolution to not gaining XP from combat surely?

Edited September 9, 2014 by Silverbarr

[Gromnir]

With the new beta removing a lot of bugs, has it been proven that there isn't any objective XP? For example, PrimeJunta observed 1500XP for entering the Ogre cave. Is that not the case? Is that only the case because he was on the farmer quest (what happens if you go to the cave before getting the quest?)

 

With the term "objective XP", Im referring to incremental XP rewards doled out over the course of gaming instead of only getting XP when you turn in the quest.

1) objective v. quest is complete irrelevant relating to the question of the thread: both/either/whatever exclude kill xp.

 

2) objective v. quest is a semantics issue. honestly. were not an issue two years ago and isn't today.

 

3) yes, you get incremental xp for taking various significant steps in achieving quests-- this is confirmed.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 9, 2014 by Gromnir

[IndiraLightfoot]

The realism argument is simply completely bunk.  I can see that you want the system to include combat XP and that you think this better reflects reality, but it's simply a matter of where you draw the line.  I'm not trying to personalize this.  I don't think there's anything inherently bad about wanting combat XP.  I also don't say one system is inherently better than the other.  I think, in this situation, objective XP is better and I prefer the design overall, but that's simply my preference.  Combat XP might make XP more granular, but no less unrealistic.  There's a whole line that goes from an attempt to completely simulate the way in which people improve their skills in real life and a completely static character who doesn't improve at all.  If you say that combat XP should be included because it's more realistic, then someone else can say why have character classes at all?  If someone says that Might doesn't make sense for physical *and* magical prowess, then someone else can say why stop at six attributes?  Why not have ten?  Why not have fifty?  I respect that you want to draw the line in a different place, but I disagree that it really has to do with making the game more realistic.  For some folks, that particular spot of realism might be the most important thing.  For others, it's different, which is why the design team has to decide on a line and create the system to reflect their creative choice.  ...And, furthermore, some folks will undoubtedly argue for combat XP based on realism, but realism will be for them merely a back door argument to sneak in what amounts to their real motivation, which is simply wanting XP for killing.  I'm not saying that anyone in this thread has been disingenuous in such a way, just that I've witnessed such behavior from time to time.

 

A bit more of a snag for me, however, is the idea that you don't want to be forced to quest.  I can understand the realism argument, even if I don't agree.  Fair enough.  Questing?  Why on earth would you back or buy a game like PoE (or BG, IWD, or PS:T) and complain about the need to quest?  Even in a strict action CRPG like Diablo, you couldn't advance the game without questing.  I mean, I really have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that you shouldn't be 'forced' to quest in an IE game.  People talk about keeping to the spirit of the IE games?  How about one of the few things *every* IE game had was that questing was expected and necessary?

 

I remember someone mentioning a while back that he didn't want to be forced to kill monsters and that requiring dungeon spelunking was too confining also.  I'm not making this up, if the search function goes back far enough, it was several years ago in the Obsidz forum.  Folks were making fun of the idea by saying that we should have the barmaid class for folks who didn't want to have to quest or engage in combat.  The point is, questing, combat, crafting (which I would be perfectly happy if they left out of the game), soul based magic, strongholds, and a mega dungeon are all what this game will be.  I respect that you want combat XP.  I don't, but that doesn't mean I wish ill on you.  Fine.  ...But the argument in favor of combat XP is that you don't want the *need* to quest?

 

On this issue, Indira and I disagree, but I think, rather than changing the system to satisfy folks who will only be happy with combat XP, the system should be tweaked to grant objective XP more regularly and in a broader set of circumstances.  *That* should not be hard for the design team.  I've even identified ways and advocated them where players get XP for encounters that aren't in the quest log at all before hand.  It gives the player the feel of some random achievement that could honestly be called an objective without taking away from the designer's ability to control the content.  Grant XP for killing the spider queen.  Make a log entry that says something like, "we came across a dreadful arachnid of immense size and power!  Some wanted to leave her in peace, but I feared for the safety of the village and so we engaged her and, through force of sword and fire, destroyed her and her brood of eight legged spiders."  That gives the feel of spontaneity on the part of the player while letting the designers do what they want.  Do I think you should get XP for every spiderling you vanquish in the cave?  No, I don't.

 

Finally, I think the biggest reason for objective only XP is actually exemplified by this discussion.  If you get XP for combat, then why not get XP for crafting?  ...And if you get XP for crafting, why not exploring?  I think XP has become a huge mess because everyone wants to have a little extra reward for doing something they're inclined to do in the first place.  Not rewarding someone with XP for an activity is simply not the same as punishing people for engaging in it.  However, that doesn't mean that I don't think folks should get some sort of XP reward that comes as a direct result of that activity.  Make some objectives require combat.  (That's already true at any rate, but put in that 'random' encounter I cited and give objective XP for killing the critter).  Make some objectives require a glib tongue or street smarts or stealth or whatever.  You still get rewarded for engaging in your brand of fun, but it's still controlled by the design team.  ...And it wouldn't be any more open to abuse than stacking every quest possible.  You could conceivably get experience any way you wanted as long as you invested in the skills and attributes required to do so.

In essence, I agree with this, but the rewards need to be occurring pretty often, and they should be quite small. For instance, in BG1, I love that it takes hours upon hours in real-time just to advance one level, and I also adore how fast the party members get out of sync with each other xp-wise. It's great to see six party members having like 1,342, 1,065, 889, 798, 1144, and 976, for instance. To invoke what made the xp system of the IE games great, you should be rewarded in micro-increments, and this regardless of quest givers (well, quest xp can be kept of course, but I'd prefer to have that reduced rather heavily), and xp shouldn't follow quest lines regularly, but rather your experiences during the game. I don't need no "what you do, you will become"-xp like in Skyrim, but the xp system in PoE ought to, at the very least, reward exploration, rare non-combat small tasks, fighting a new type a monster for the first time (and your lore book gets updated), some difficult convo haggling (loved that in BG).   

Edited September 9, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[DnaCowboy]

Where are we at the moment, have the devs responded yet?

[Tartantyco]

You're not going to get your combat XP, Cowboy.

[Gfted1]

3) yes, you get incremental xp for taking various significant steps in achieving quests-- this is confirmed.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Has anyone experimented to see what happens if you go to the cave before you talk to the farmer?

[IndiraLightfoot]

I did that on the first BB, and I got nothing.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

With the new beta removing a lot of bugs, has it been proven that there isn't any objective XP? For example, PrimeJunta observed 1500XP for entering the Ogre cave. Is that not the case? Is that only the case because he was on the farmer quest (what happens if you go to the cave before getting the quest?)

 

With the term "objective XP", Im referring to incremental XP rewards doled out over the course of gaming instead of only getting XP when you turn in the quest.

 

Just checked and without the Quest Giver, you get a whopping 0 xp.

 

I went straight to Dyrford Crossing, battled my way through and entered the cave. 0 xp

Then I went to the Ogre and killed him as there was no dialogue options concerning the Quest. 0 xp

 

I did however take the Ogre's head and blood. But nothing to indicate what this was all about. So all in all. You get nothing from doing this unless you find the Quest Giver. However, I decided to hand in the quest (knowing it was the farmer) and there was a dialogue to finish the quest. I did receive xp but no xp amounts showed up in the combat log to confirm how much I received.

 

Now if anything is like this in the final game, you may be going past 'xp check points' like the Ogre Cave and not knowing there is an 'xp check point' there because you didn't click on the quest giver. Without the quest givers, this has some problems. Two come to mind:

 

1. You will have Quest items not knowing what these quest items are stacking up in your Quest stash. You then have to click on villagers to find out who this quest item belongs to. You may be in the wrong town or map if there are city maps involved.

2. You are missing out on xp along your route and this may have problems with levelling up. You may be just off levelling up and going past an xp check point and not knowing about it, while another player will know about the xp check points and level up accordingly.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II