Jump to content
DnaCowboy

Do you want experience from combat?

Poll: Do You Want Combat Experience Included In The Game?  

377 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you the backer want experience from combat?

    • Yay, how on earth could any game call itself a crpg without combat exp?
      208
    • Nay, questing is king
      169
  2. 2. Would you be happy to wait for combat xp to be implemented in the main game or wait and pledge towards it as an add-on?

    • I'd prefer to have combat XP implemented in the main game although that means the game may be delayed
      109
    • I would far prefer combat XP be added as the first add-on pledge
      6
    • Would you be happy to wait for combat xp to be implemented in the main game or wait and pledge towards it as an add-on?
      1
    • Alternative approach (which the voter will lay out in thread)
      7
    • N/A
      89


Recommended Posts

 

What if I want to role play a badass drifer , that really do not give a rats ass about farmers piglets or missing girls?

Why would my character even bother talking to some lame farmer? or some upstart mayor from broken down mill town.

 

What if it's beneath him to do so?

 

The character will still kill off the aggressive ogre that thinks he can stand in my way tho. And do quests that the character think will benefit him..

 

But what happens to my level progression (xp) If I just want to go exploring for a day or two, and not bother with the boring ppl in the boring towns? what then? with no combat xp it will feel like there is no progression and it will feel like that time spent in the game is wasted.

 

The alternative is that you will have to do every single little side quest that pops up. Making sure that you don´t miss out on any of the precious quest xp.

Combing every town , and all dialog options to make sure you did not miss anything.

That leaves no space left for roleplaying your character. You're just mindlessly doing all quest even the boring stuff you couldn't care less about.

 

Personally the most fun I have when playing these games is when I can survive a fight with the hardest most difficult enemy I can find and the longer this single engagement is lasting the more fun I'm going to have trying to figure out a way to beat that enemy.. if it takes half an hour to beat that single pack then that will be super awesome. But what happens if there is no combat xp at the end of that fight? you will be feeling like you wasted your time. And that the creators want you to wait until you get enough "quest xp" so that all fights are easy? (or in your level range) So now you're only doing simple easy fights? cos you don't get anything at all for trying your best and playing good. So now you will only play mediocre fights or skipp fight as much as possible. And boom! Now fights are boring and there´s no fun left in that particular aspect of the game anymore.

 

:S

 

PS: If they want you to play a game where you do not invoke fights for no good reason.. Then they need to have a world that works the same way and creatures in that world that do not attack you for no good reason either. as it is now a beatle will attack you as soon as they can smell you. and the weird druids in the forest will attack you for no good reason as well. In my mind the enemies (AI) are simply not intelligent enough to pull of what they are trying to do with the game. cos that part will never feel "alive" anyways.

Ok lets go with badass drifter who doesnt want to talk to a pig farmer.

Now imagine urself sitting down at a table with a GM/DM and u are playing pnp. The GM/DM tell you that in town while walking u overhear guards questioning the locals about a missing girl and u walked past a very loud cursing farmer who is visually and vocally upset about losing some pigs.

GM/DM-what do you do?

Player-nothing, im a loner and a drifter and dont want to get involved. I head outside of town to start exploring and killing everything that gets in my way.

GM/DM-soooo u dont wanna participate in the quests i have prepared for ya? You just want to do ur own thing?

Player-Yes, i just want to explore and fight and dont want anything to do with any of the stories u already prepared.

GM/DM-ok, well good luck, im gonna head out then. Heres a link to a pdf with monster stats on it, knotch urself out.

 

Now im not trying to be rude, but it seems alot of people are viewing it a sandboxesq rpg when it highly seems like the devs are being the GM/DMs and presenting u with a campaign for u to interact with, not to totally ignore.

The devs point of view of trying to get rid of "kill exp" could be just like a GM/DM point of view of keeping the players interacting and not ignoring the quests they give you. Basically not participating in what they are offering.

basically i think they see it as not a single player game where only YOU the player is involved, but as a game where you are the only one playing a character but they are the GM/DM presenting you with what they have to offer and keeping the players inline with the challenge they set up.

hopefully im makimg sense and in no way trying to be rude to u or anything. It just seems crpg have more in common with D&D premade campaigns than an actual sandbox game.

 

 

Well I do see both veiws and I get what they are trying to do, but with the way this game is set up , with all the combat spells you have got.. I just don't think this is a good idea at current.

Maybe if they made sleep , "spider web"/hold and poison type spells last much longer and more powerful.. then the setting of it would make more sense.

 

In a world where you are able to kill or make friends with an Ogre, you should be able to just subdue him as well.

 

I believe they are trying a bit too hard to make the wheel all over again and have´nt scheduled for all the butterfly effects.

But by all means if they put the extra effort in and manage to pull it off and the game is still fun to play afterwards. Then it should be worth it right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not in favour of the current xp system in PoE. I much prefer how it was implemented in the IE games.

 

I am VERY unhappy with the current xp system as it is now. I just don't like the, "It's not real" argument in a game that requires more than a few doses of the suspension of disbelief. 

 

I'm not really the biggest fan of kill-xp, but almost anything is better than xp coming from quests exclusively.

  • Like 1

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Ineth
  • Like 1

"Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them." -- attributed to George Orwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.


"Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them." -- attributed to George Orwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Pendali
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

*** "The words of someone who feels ever more the ent among saplings when playing CRPGs" ***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


"You're a fool if you believe I would trust your benevolence. Step aside and you and your lackeys will be unhurt."


 


 


Baldur's Gate portraits for Pillars of Eternity   IXI   Icewind Dale portraits for Pillars of Eternity   IXI   Icewind Dale 2 portraits for Pillars of Eternity


 


[slap Aloth]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Pendali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Bulkbu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Pendali
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1

*** "The words of someone who feels ever more the ent among saplings when playing CRPGs" ***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


*** "The words of someone who feels ever more the ent among saplings when playing CRPGs" ***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ;)


"Wizards do not need to be The Dudes Who Can AoE Nuke You and Gish and Take as Many Hits as a Fighter and Make all Skills Irrelevant Because Magic."

-Josh Sawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Pendali
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Silverbarr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Gromnir
  • Like 2

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by IndiraLightfoot

*** "The words of someone who feels ever more the ent among saplings when playing CRPGs" ***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

No matter how many times cats fight, there's always plenty of kittens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1

image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...