Discussion: the PoE beta xp system

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Sent.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

"But I didn't even dream to complain about it, I even gave him, ah, how did he put it? some "no-doubt well-intentioned advice that I delivered in such a polite and endearing manner that he will take it under advisement"...

 

"If you don't like it; don't read it. Gromnir is awesome and that's a fact. Don't ever change, Gromnir.

+1 for being able to wade through Gromnir's "in character" writing. I gave up a while back. Gromnir, seriously, cut it out--it's not cute, it's just annoying. I know that sounds harsh but somebody needs to let you know. It dilutes your points and makes you sound childish at best and schizophrenic at worst."

 

actually, the parts you quote were directed at ph... no taking credit for the other kid's work. you wanna throw some snark our way, have at it, but don't ride ph coattails. is bad form.

 

as an aside, and has mentioned before (we should link this stuff or create a word doc or something) but Gromnir were 'posed to be included in bg2, but if you recall those inexplicably empty maps that were available after you emerged from the underdark, Gromnir and draconis were gonna have "quests" on those maps. due to time constraints, we got cut. our guess is that we woulda' gotten treatment similar to lanfear, but dave and the biowarians felt guilty about the 11th hour cut. heck, we mighta been meant for inclusion along the lines of del or mencar pebblecrusher. anywho, dave were primary responsible for tob design, so he makes draconis and Gromnir portions more substantial than we likely woulda have seen in bg2. were just an odd juxtaposition o' events that resulted in Gromnir being a tob character. dave did make the character an orc as a joke, but other than that, we were surprised by the lack o' brutality.

 

the biowarians actual regretted almost all their board cameos and attempted character contests as such stuff invariably caused nerd rage for those not chosen. character contests and cameos inspired genuine ugly behavior from the truly worthy who were overlooked.

 

HA! Good Fun!

I see. My apologies for misunderstanding, and for the involuntary overdose of snarks and coattails.

Which means that you probably didn't see my advice on post diversity...

the material you quoted weren't yours. "I even gave him, ah, how did he put it? some "no-doubt well-intentioned advice that I delivered in such a polite and endearing manner that he will take it under advisement"..." bad form mate.

 

and no, we didn't read, but don't feel bad or emasculated or somesuch as we ignore many posts. is so much noise.

 

in any event, to stay on topic, we believe that the reflection that went into development o' kickstarter, and all the QA feedback the developers got, plus the two years o' arguing that were largely ending dismissive of kill xp, should not be ignored because some folks is loud on message boards.

 

"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 cain were going in the right direction. throw a minor bone to the kill xp proponents? sure, why not? even so, we see no reason to give more than a token bestiary quest.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Apologies for the bad form as well, it's just that since you started that post referring to me, I wrongly thought that your following words were referring to this:

 

P.S. Do you ever write anything that is not on the tune of " You think you don't like [current implementation of feature x] , but that's just because you only want a carbon copy of BG1/2/whatever. [Current implementation of feature x] is the best thing since sliced bread. Obsidian are never late, nor are they early. Obsidian arrive precisely when they intend to."?

 

Oh, and apologies for this self-quote as well, it's just that I was feeling soooooooo emasculated, I'm sure you understand...

 

you are not making any sense.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68476-discussion-the-poe-beta-xp-system/?p=1514570

 

unless this is a weird mpd or dopple thing.

 

as for immortalis lunacy... am assuming that the fact that you killed Gromnir in ToB is just you making a funny. is not relevant. however, am glad you brought up the fact that some folks is inspired to nerd rage based on the beta... which is an admittedly insular and scaled-down portion o' the game. so two years o' 70% folks being in favor of quest, or at least not caring either way is, in your mind,  nullified by stripped down beta impressions?

 

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

 

the old polls got significantly more respondents.

 

and keep in mind that the qa folks has been playing more o' the game for much longer, and their behavior did not indicate an issue. 

 

*shrug*

 

is silliness. kill xp folks needed... something. feeling disenfranchised or unappreciated or somesuch? if josh throwing this kinda bone is enough, so be it. bestiary experience for kills is wacky and kinda irrational, but largely harmless.  am wondering what the mechanic gets called. perhaps obsidian should consider Scientific Whaling. japan has a self-imposed limit o' ~1000 whale kills a year, for scientific research. *wink* am believing their actual kill numbers has dropped to 'round 500 whale kills per year, but don't quote us on that. regardless, is the explanation for gaining experience through the bestiary similar? is the beast kills rewarding xp for our advancement o' scientific research?

 

ah well, that would probable work better for the south park game.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 24, 2014 by Gromnir

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I was in the 30% minority that didn't want quest only xp. Oh how things have turned around.

[Lephys]

@Lephys:

 

Agreed, but in order to achieve all this, there's need for a much more sophisticated implementation of the quest xp system than the crude, arbitrary feeling thing I keep reading about and seeing in videos...

(I mean even more arbitrary feeling than the standard levels of RPG arbitrary, which are admittedly pretty low...)

Oh definitely. That was very awesome of Hiro to give you a key. You can totally try it out now and share your thoughts from first-hand experience, .

 

But, purely from a design standpoint, the concept of "objective"-only XP covers all bases consistently. It results in the game not inaccurately simulating in-the-moment character betterment stemming from the act of combat, then switching arbitrarily to abstract world-pertinent accomplishment-based quest rewards for everything else.

 

"Oh, you unlocked a door that happened to have an important prisoner behind it? 1000XP! Oh, you just unlocked a door? 10XP!"

 

The current system isn't really covering all the bases, but it's not simply because we need to reward XP for all kills everywhere. It's because it needs to cover more bases. It can do so by simply expanding upon the same approach it's already using -- designated objectives grant XP. When it works right, there's even already "you didn't get any quest for this yet, but you accomplished it, so you get XP!" in, so it's not as if that function would even be anything new for expanded combat-specific objectives throughout the land.

[Cantousent]

I'm with Lephys 100%.  In 'quest' terms, I don't think they should slavishly make all quests the same.  Some quests might not allow combat.  Some might require it.  Some might have a stealth or diplomacy option, but no combat.  I don't think there should be some way for every playstyle to do every possible thing.  I *do* think there should be parity in how much each can do.

[Lephys]

The more I think on it, the more I really don't think the Bestiary XP thing is a good idea, because it doesn't seem to accomplish much, when you think about it. I mean, technically, it's a combat objective. But, it's so divorced from specifics that it might as well be "if you kill something, you get XP." I mean, which foes you kill and under what circumstances you kill them are not taken into account, really. Which, if you ask me, should be the two most important factors in determining XP rewards for anything, much less a subset of rewards (like combat).

 

Between the combat that's unavoidably part of some other goal (you can't explore that corner without fighting X bandits... you can't rescue the prisoners without fighting X goblins, etc.), and the combat that would feasibly constitute some sort of combat-specific objective, there really wouldn't be much combat left over that was purely optional. And yet, the goal would be accomplished -- the act of killing would not systemically generate XP.

 

Bestiary thresholds are functionally the same thing as "everything you kill gives you XP... until you hit the level cap." Still kind of encourages nondiscriminatory killing and is ultimately finite.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Lephys

[frapillo80]

 

@Lephys:

 

Agreed, but in order to achieve all this, there's need for a much more sophisticated implementation of the quest xp system than the crude, arbitrary feeling thing I keep reading about and seeing in videos...

(I mean even more arbitrary feeling than the standard levels of RPG arbitrary, which are admittedly pretty low...)

Oh definitely. That was very awesome of Hiro to give you a key. You can totally try it out now and share your thoughts from first-hand experience, .

 

But, purely from a design standpoint, the concept of "objective"-only XP covers all bases consistently. It results in the game not inaccurately simulating in-the-moment character betterment stemming from the act of combat, then switching arbitrarily to abstract world-pertinent accomplishment-based quest rewards for everything else.

 

"Oh, you unlocked a door that happened to have an important prisoner behind it? 1000XP! Oh, you just unlocked a door? 10XP!"

 

The current system isn't really covering all the bases, but it's not simply because we need to reward XP for all kills everywhere. It's because it needs to cover more bases. It can do so by simply expanding upon the same approach it's already using -- designated objectives grant XP. When it works right, there's even already "you didn't get any quest for this yet, but you accomplished it, so you get XP!" in, so it's not as if that function would even be anything new for expanded combat-specific objectives throughout the land.

It was very awesome indeed, and I'm sure I won't give in to the temptation to call sick from work one more day!

[frapillo80]

I'm with Lephys 100%. In 'quest' terms, I don't think they should slavishly make all quests the same. Some quests might not allow combat. Some might require it. Some might have a stealth or diplomacy option, but no combat. I don't think there should be some way for every playstyle to do every possible thing. I *do* think there should be parity in how much each can do.

Same here, absolutely. Else it becomes a rehash of the old "you can complete the quest following the good path or the neutral path or the evil path!", and you end up anticipating the general structure of each quest.

 

And I wouldn't be against a quest that you can complete only by stealth either, by the way.

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Hellraiser789]

Agree 100% with you Lephys. I think the bestiary thing might be a cool thing, but I would drop it every time if it meant OBJECTIVE XP. Personally, I think objective xp is 1000 times better than combat xp. I just don't know if it's actually a feasible solution. I mean, if combat is fun and it's explained, then I think it'd be great. Even if it's something like "hey watch out for the roads - there's all kinda of dangerous monsters out there, especially those giant beetles!" Not necessary, but SOME explaination is always better than none IMO.

 

Basically OBJECTIVE XP > Quest-Only OR Combat XP Every Time

Edited September 25, 2014 by Hellraiser789

[DCParry]

 

THEY

NEVER

CLAIMED

THIS.

yes

they

did.

 

Maybe not using the exact phrase "spiritual successor", but they did communicate that idea in many ways.

• In their kickstarter pitch, which plainly and purposefully targeted IE nostalgia.

   

• In interviews with gaming sites during and after the kickstarter - there was probably not a single one that failed to mention the IE games.

   

• By not objecting to interviews/articles on popular gaming sites where the authors actually did use the phrase "spiritual successor" in the introduction/headline/commentary. (At least where I live, it's customary for a journalist to send the interviewee a draft of the edited interview article before release, to get confirmation that the way it was edited/cut/presented still represents their views correctly. And even if they didn't get that chance, they could have complained after the articles were released.)

   

• In presentations at gaming conventions, where they started the presentation with huge slides showing the IE games.

   

• In their two-sentence pitch on the game's official website, where they boil down the essence of what they are selling to this:

  "Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we! Introducing Obsidian's PILLARS OF ETERNITY."

Seriously, the effort by some posters here to shout down arguments that involve comparisons to the IE games, and trying to convince us that the whole IE connection is just in our heads and our own fault, is starting to approach the abusive tactic of gaslighting.

 

 

You can't say they claimed to be a spiritual successor and then go on to say they never said spiritual successor. 

 

You (and a whole crew of individuals) may have inferred this, but Obsidian never used the term spiritual successor, and they are in no way obligated to pander to whatever restrictions you feel are imposed by such a terms. 

 

So stop it already. 

 

EDIT - DAMNIT, the craziness, it drew me in again. I will stop. THIS TIME. I CAN. 

Edited September 25, 2014 by DCParry

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Don't be absurd. The entire point of PoE is to resurrect past glories of the IE games. PoE is a contradiction to the last decade of video game development--deliberately so. To claim otherwise is disingenuous and false. PoEs stated intention is to relive what worked in the past within the context of modern improvements.

 

The reality is that PoE is a self-contradictory mess of identity crisis. it is not D&D. The classes are MMO archetypes with a sort of setting-specific flavor. The whole experience is akin to a gourmet chef emulating a McDonald's hamburger while pretending that the concept is distinct and original. The removal of combat XP from a game where combat is one of the "pillars" is a bizarre choice. Just accept that it's not happening, and move on. There are more important fish to fry with this game, and no amount of XP is going to change that. Ultimately, experience is ancillary to the player experience. Please focus on the root instead.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Josh has mentioned 'spiritual successor' in at least one instance. 

 

Path of the Damned is a spiritual successor to Icewind Dale's Heart of Fury mode - Josh Sawyer.

 

I can't be bothered searching for more quotes.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Fiebras]

Hey guys:

Step 1- Progress through the game content, optional progress or "main story" progress

Step 2- Get rewarded from doing Step 1

 

Simple isnt it?

[Cantousent]

My thoughts are a perhaps a bit diffused at the moment, I will admit, but I don't know why we would even pick a fight over whole 'spiritual successor' idea.  Yeah, I get that the game is not meant as a spiritual successor to each IE game in every aspect, but obs clearly was hearkening back to the IE games.  ...And why not?  I think they've done a pretty good job of it.  I concede that the beta has flaws, but it really nails the feel of the IE games pretty damned well.  Of course, that's subjective.  Then again, what the hell isn't subjective in these discussions in the first place?  I also think that Wasteland 2 nails the feel of the old Fallout games really well.  That doesn't mean that New Vegas isn't one of my favorite all time games.  For folks who foolishly think Gromnir shills for Obsidz, go take a look at his numerous gripes about *that* title.  Most *most* of the people in these threads aren't single issue voters.  We have a variety of things that appeal to/aggravate us.  Don't let the 'spiritual successor' argument get to you is all I'm saying.

 

I have to admit I get a kick out of Parry's desire to stay away from the topic.  Give it up, Perry.  It's like the Mafia.  It's like the Hotel California.  You can check out any time you like, but you can't never leave!  lol  :Cant's slapping Parry on the back icon:

[Monte Carlo]

Don't be absurd. The entire point of PoE is to resurrect past glories of the IE games. PoE is a contradiction to the last decade of video game development--deliberately so. To claim otherwise is disingenuous and false. PoEs stated intention is to relive what worked in the past within the context of modern improvements.

 

The reality is that PoE is a self-contradictory mess of identity crisis. it is not D&D. The classes are MMO archetypes with a sort of setting-specific flavor. The whole experience is akin to a gourmet chef emulating a McDonald's hamburger while pretending that the concept is distinct and original. The removal of combat XP from a game where combat is one of the "pillars" is a bizarre choice. Just accept that it's not happening, and move on. There are more important fish to fry with this game, and no amount of XP is going to change that. Ultimately, experience is ancillary to the player experience. Please focus on the root instead.

 

QFT

[Caladian]

I still don't get it.  How in the heck is grindxp the sole thing that makes something a spiritual successor IE games?

 

Yes, I will always call it grindxp, you kill as many things as possible to get the most benefit, even if you don't need to.  The Beastiary is kinda... meh but I am better with that then the grind.  Yes, you could go all stealth and win at lvl1 or even lvl5, but if you do fight the mobs, you are always better off killing them all.  Josh specifically said that he doesn't want that to become the game.  Where you go do the quest then go kill everything you decided to slip past to get some sort of xp benefit.

[frapillo80]

[i think the current akwardness of the experience system lies, more than in the quest xp, in an implementation of it fueled by Sawyer's philosophy that the player shouldn't be rewarded for straying from the path and taking unnecessary risks (sorry, I really can't seem to find the exact words, correct me if it's the case).

Edit: scrap this, it seems I really got things wrong.]

 

Now, I agree about discouraging players from becoming genocidal xp machines, but if you disconnect a part of the content from any significant reward, even an indirect one (be it xp, loot, story, anything) and make it risk-only, well, you are making that game content pointless or, worse, a straight annoyance (so why put it in at all? That's the worse form of padding).

Besides, it's very tricky to mess with the risk-reward concept that is so crucial to an RPG: supposedly, the adventurer gets better by taking risks, not by playing safe and staying in bed in the inn. If you make, let's say, the spiders I encounter while exploring risk-only, while the same spiders I encounter while stumbling blindly looking for some dead pigs have a big reward attached, the player starts to feel like he is in the hands of an especially moody living DM who, depending on the mood, can either reward or punish the same thing you have done before. So you can't help asking yourself "why am I being punished for exploring and rewarded for wandering aimlessly for some stupid pigs? Is this game a trial to the player's intentions?" It also creates the annoying feeling that more than your actions or choices, what makes the real difference is whether you are currently under the Greater Spell of Quest Giving or not. So not being under the Greater Spell of Quest Giving creates what Lephys called 'uncovered bases', that is, pointless content. Now, the bestiary is a band-aid to try and cover one of those bases, but the risk is that it conveys that same feeling of 'am I under the Greater Spell of Bestiary?', and when the spell runs off, we are back from the start.

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[PrimeJunta]

I think the current akwardness of the experience system lies, more than in the quest xp, in an implementation of it fueled by Sawyer's philosophy that the player shouldn't be rewarded for straying from the path and taking unnecessary risks (sorry, I really can't seem to find the exact words, correct me if it's the case).

 

That's not quite his position I believe. I think it's more like, he doesn't like systemic incentives that favor one playstyle over another, if the game provides the possibility for multiple playstyles.

[frapillo80]

 

 

I think the current akwardness of the experience system lies, more than in the quest xp, in an implementation of it fueled by Sawyer's philosophy that the player shouldn't be rewarded for straying from the path and taking unnecessary risks (sorry, I really can't seem to find the exact words, correct me if it's the case).

That's not quite his position I believe. I think it's more like, he doesn't like systemic incentives that favor one playstyle over another, if the game provides the possibility for multiple playstyles.

Ah, my bad, I stand corrected in that case. I thought I remembered something about "no reward for taking pointless risks" but I guess I was wrong (quite embarassingly, I even have the incorrect memory that I felt it really striking when I read it. Argh...). Still, this kind of implementation gives birth for that kind of feelings I mentioned. Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Namutree]

I still don't get it.  How in the heck is grindxp the sole thing that makes something a spiritual successor IE games?

 

Yes, I will always call it grindxp, you kill as many things as possible to get the most benefit, even if you don't need to.  The Beastiary is kinda... meh but I am better with that then the grind.  Yes, you could go all stealth and win at lvl1 or even lvl5, but if you do fight the mobs, you are always better off killing them all.  Josh specifically said that he doesn't want that to become the game.  Where you go do the quest then go kill everything you decided to slip past to get some sort of xp benefit.

Call it whatever you want, but combat isn't the same as grinding. Quests are just as capable of being grinding as combat is. Also, I haven't seen anyone who's stated that the lack of combat-xp is the one thing that makes something a spiritual successor. 

[Immortalis]

I still don't get it.  How in the heck is grindxp the sole thing that makes something a spiritual successor IE games?

 

Yes, I will always call it grindxp, you kill as many things as possible to get the most benefit, even if you don't need to.

 

 

Oh glad we agree. So why is it GrindXP if the xp you gain from enemies is completely optional to complete the game or progress further?

 

You don't need to grind anything. Thanks for continuing to prove Combat XP isn't as bad as you want it to be.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Immortalis

[Hellraiser789]

Gind XP is completely different than combat xp. In my experience, a lot of JRPGs require grinding in order to progress, but I dont think any of the IE games required that. Although maybe im just terrible at JRPGs....hahaha

[Namutree]

 

I still don't get it.  How in the heck is grindxp the sole thing that makes something a spiritual successor IE games?

 

Yes, I will always call it grindxp, you kill as many things as possible to get the most benefit, even if you don't need to.

 

 

Oh glad we agree. So why is it GrindXP if the xp you gain from enemies is completely optional to complete the game or progress further?

 

You don't need to grind anything. Thanks for continuing to prove Combat XP isn't as bad as you want it to be.

 

I've grinded quests in Shadowrun for the Sega Genesis plenty of times. Caladian's notion that combat-xp = grind-xp is total nonsense. Especially when you consider that BG1 has a level cap that's easy to reach. 

[archangel979]

Gind XP is completely different than combat xp. In my experience, a lot of JRPGs require grinding in order to progress, but I dont think any of the IE games required that. Although maybe im just terrible at JRPGs....hahaha

Only XP I ever grinded in IE games was the Flesh Golem cave in BG1 where resting spawns more Golems which are fairly easy to kill for 2000 xp. But even they stopped spawning after few rests so you could not really grind them. 

[Gromnir]

maybe it is a side-effect o' the rise o' autism or the ADD generation or lord only knows what, but am amazed by how tenaciously folks latch on to irrelevant nomenclature. spiritual successor means nothing in and of itself. there is features that mc or amentep might see as essential in a game being sold to fans of the ie games that Gromnir does not. mc likes fighting in tunnels. Di, who sadly hasn't been around these boards for a very long time, observed that as much as she liked jagged alliance 2, ie game combat were meh, and so she dropped difficulty level and raced through the tedious combats as quick as possible. she were not alone. whatever you think is essential to achieve the silly spiritual successor benchmark that obsidian never claimed were a goal regardless, you is wrong... or right. is a pure subjective bit o' nonsense that bad writers and hack game journalists throw around because they has a surfeit o' imagination and cannot come up with a better way to describe a sequel, expansion of PoE kinda game.

 

grind xp is a similar term... so too is immersion. the objective v. quest nonsense we saw from kill xp proponents were even more amusing. folks is using words that don't have specific qualities beyond what you imagine they have. a couple years ago, the fun way to be dismissive o' a crpg were to call it a console rpg. *shrug* such labels have 0 intrinsic meaning. people is doggedly pursuing nonsensical and pointless attempts to reveal poster A's definition o' immersion or gind xp as false. perhaps they note that poster B's definition is far more reasonable? is meaningless.

 

*snort*

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68476-discussion-the-poe-beta-xp-system/?p=1514480

 

now, perhaps you disagree with the obsidian developer goals and rationale, but use ambiguous and inherently meaningless nonsense such as spiritual successor to refute is revealing that you don't have a real reason or rationale, which is ok. in point o' fact, you don't need to have a reason or rationale to be demanding feature X or Y. some folks like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla, but we don't demand that they explain why they have such a preference, do we? nevertheless, watching some folks try and explain the superiority o' a feature through ambiguous nonsense labels is... amusing. 

 

kill xp is bad 'cause it has negative effects on balance, it fails to promote diversity o' character builds and it is lacking in the simplicity o' quest xp, simplicity which allows the developers to focus their limited resources on far more meaningful features such as pretty much anything else. kill xp is not bad because it is grindy or breaks immersion or other such vague bits. likewise, kill xp is not superior 'cause it is essential to making a spiritual successor to the ie games or because o' the simple fact that such a approach were used in the ie games. 

 

this is a stupid argument. 

 

HA! Good Fun!