Discussion: the PoE beta xp system

[Captain Shrek]

 

 

 

but instead they blame themselves doing bad job with game's design.  

 

 

 

Source?

[frapillo80]

 

 

 

According to Josh (by paraphrasing) degenerative gameplay is gameplay that against designers intent but using it benefits player in such degree that game encourages to use such gameplay is main way to play the game or not using such gameplay puts player unfavorable position compared to those that used such gameplay. And that degenerative is always designers fault and there is nothing wrong in that players play optimally in given ruleset even if it goes against designers intent and seem odd from game world perspective.

 

Rest-spamming, save-scumming etc. behaviors that go against designers' intent and game world logic are symptoms that are caused flaws in game design. Which is why designers try not to create flaws in the rule set they are designing and not demanding players to use such behaviors if they are possible when they are playing games they have designed (at least usually this is the case) .

 

I would guess that problem that some people have with term "degenerative gameplay" rises probably that they have absolute opposite view in game design than designers themselves, which makes them to associate term with themselves instead with designers like they do. Such terminological misassociating seems to happen time to time in projects with multidisciplinary approach, which makes defining terms even more important what they typically are in the projects.

 

I also would guess that they don't use degenerative design instead of degenerative gameplay is that they describe how product works instead of how they work.

 

But it seem somewhat malicious to attack designers time and time again because of this term, even though they have multiple times explained what they mean with it. But who I am to stop good witch burning.

Just to clarify: when I said "I keep finding flaming accusations to degenerative gameplay etc. etc." I meant in the forums, and that they are used by forumists, not by devs, to predictably shoot down any attempt of criticism to game design. But I stand on my position that should a dev complain about degenerative playing, he's shooting himself in the foot since it's exclusively his own resposibility to design/balance the game in order to encourage the kind of gaming he prefers.

I mean, if I complain that people are not using my articles properly because they use them to make roll-ups instead of reading them, it's probably because my articles suck.

But developers (at least PoE's) don't complain that people play their game wrongly, but instead they blame themselves doing bad job with game's design. It is forumists nature to use degenerative gameplay and any other term as they see fit best with their current argument. This goes especially for such terms like "spiritual successor", "combat xp", "objective xp", "quest xp" and "romance" in this forums.

Exactly. The problem is mainly forumists, not devs.

 

P.S. Sorry for the bad form with the previous post, I thought you were replying to me, while it was a reply to Captain.

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Elerond]

 

but instead they blame themselves doing bad job with game's design.

 

 

Source?

 

 

I don't think I've ever used "degenerate" as a description of players, but of gameplay.  I don't believe players are ever at "fault" for using whatever tools designers provide for them, including features like save/reload or rest spamming.  It's the designers' responsibility to design systems and individual sub-systems that work well together and promote enjoyable gameplay.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64042-are-we-getting-the-pe-we-were-led-to-believe-was-on-the-horizon-during-the-ks/?p=1346861 Edited September 25, 2014 by Elerond

[Captain Shrek]

 

 

 

 

 

but instead they blame themselves doing bad job with game's design.  

 

 

 

Source?

 

 

 

I don't think I've ever used "degenerate" as a description of players, but of gameplay.  I don't believe players are ever at "fault" for using whatever tools designers provide for them, including features like save/reload or rest spamming.  It's the designers' responsibility to design systems and individual sub-systems that work well together and promote enjoyable gameplay.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64042-are-we-getting-the-pe-we-were-led-to-believe-was-on-the-horizon-during-the-ks/?p=1346861

 

Nono. I mean where they blame themselves. As is OE for their bad games. You were talking about PoEs devs. 

[Namutree]

This thread seems to have gotten out of hand.

[frapillo80]

Really, it was not meant as an opened can of worms against the devs. And Josh Sawyer in the link says exactly what I did, that is, that the dev, not the player, should be considered responsible of degenerative gameplay.

 

I was referring to those forumists who use poor arguments like accusing players of degenerative gamplay, or like equivalents of the evergreen "it's not a bug it's a feature" in order to shoot any attempted criticism, without even realizing that by accusing the player of degenerative gameplay they are unwittingly and implicity accusing the devs of incompetence, and without realizing that they are doing the devs a bad service, since they create resentment that invariably rebounds onto the devs (unfairly). Which is what I am afraid is what might be happening just here and now.

 

Please, forget the issue and that I ever mentioned it.

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Gromnir]

This thread seems to have gotten out of hand.

is an example of degenerative posting... or degenerative posters.  whatever.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[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.

Gromnir has been doing his charachter for ~15 years now. You aren't the first to complain about it and you aren't going to be the last.

 

Hell, Bioware put a charachter in Throne of Baal (I think?) based on him.

 

 

When ever I read any of Gromnir's posts, they all sound like Jim Cumming's Gromnir in my head.

 

as an aside, we has been told by more than one person that we sound eerily similar to jason bateman. 

 

...

 

am pretty sure that ain't a compliment. regardless, am suspecting that a tob Gromnir that sounded like jason bateman woulda' been wrong, just plain wrong.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

I was referring to those forumists who use poor arguments like accusing players of degenerative gamplay, or like equivalents of the evergreen "it's not a bug it's a feature" in order to shoot any attempted criticism, without even realizing that by accusing the player of degenerative gameplay they are unwittingly and implicity accusing the devs of incompetence, and without realizing that they are doing the devs a bad service, since they create resentment that invariably rebounds onto the devs (unfairly). Which is what I am afraid is what might be happening just here and now.

I agree with this, but it happens the other way too.  I mean, I try to separate irritation with specific arguments from attitudes about specific members of the forum, and in the long run I succeed at that.  ...But some arguments just torque me more than others.  The idea that a player is less free because he doesn't receive a specific type of reward for an activity he's inclined to undertake anyway?

 

Rhetoric comes a Greek word for, basically, speech.  It came to mean more or less a public speech and the idea of rhetoric formed the basis of Roman civil law, especially in the Republic where speech mattered a hell of a lot more.  Under the idea of legal speeches, rhetoric took a situation and boiled it down to two sides.  There might be any number of views, but there is a plaintiff and a defendant and the court can only decide for one or the other.  That's how it is with the XP question, romances, or any other number of issues.  We end up picking sides even if the views on either side are not really uniform in the first place.  I often read a post by someone who is for kill-XP and find that I agree in some part.  I don't have the same conclusion, but it's best to try not to personalize the issue if possible.  After all, I don't think that folks who clamor for kill-xp want it 'just 'cause.'  They think the game would be better with it.  I'd like to think folks who want kill XP would likewise realize that some of us aren't just defending Obsidz for the sake of fanboyism.  I honestly believe that RPGs are generally better without incentivizing incidental XP.  (yeah yeah, what's 'incidental XP?')  There is at least some common ground on the issue, and I believe that Obsidz is trying to find it.  The bestiary might not be the best answer to folks on either side, but it's a compromise that gets approval in broad middle and that should count for something.

[frapillo80]

Agree on everything, and actually not picking a side can even make things worse: in this same thread I was accused both of wanting xp kills at all costs and of b***s****ing my way to defend quest only xp (and I was simply pointing to the problem of stealth being the no-brainer choice to deal with non-quest mobs)..

[Immortalis]

Agree on everything, and actually not picking a side can even make things worse: in this same thread I was accused both of wanting xp kills at all costs and of b***s****ing my way to defend quest only xp (and I was simply pointing to the problem of stealth being the no-brainer choice to deal with non-quest mobs)..

 

Stop defending the middle ground! You are obviously biased towards being unbiased!

[PrimeHydra]

The introduction of a proper stealth system in build 301 may render this argument moot.

 

Obsidian are making good on their promise to provide multiple solutions to problems (i.e., non-engagement/avoidance as a real gameplay choice). Per-enemy combat XP would go against this design. This is commendable--it would have been easier to just cave to expectations. Instead they are going to evolve the IE formula.

 

I didn't feel this way when stealth was just "make sure the circles don't overlap". That wasn't much of a system. It would have been nice to know it was going to be fleshed out. I for one would not have waved the flag for combat XP, had I known there really would be other interesting ways of dealing with enemies.

 

This design should play well with bestiary unlocks; players can now pick and choose which enemies to engage, rather than feeling they have to clear everything off the map or lose out on both progression and gameplay. Avoiding battles now means taking on another, equally valid challenge rather than skipping the game's only meaningful experience.

 

 

Of course, this doesn't mean that combat in and of itself should not be rewarding and fun. That is a separate issue. Per-enemy combat XP, a proposed solution to said issue, no longer makes sense. Obsidian's design is finally clear.

 

Edited September 26, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Actually, I think the stealth is triggering enemies in other rooms. Obviously a bug of some sort where enemies can tell your characters are nearby.

 

Here's a screen shot where I triggered a guy in another room and he went aggro and triggered a trap.

 

Even though it says mechanics required. This was the second time I triggered him. First time I didn't try the door. My rogue just went to the area where my guys are now and triggered him.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[frapillo80]

The introduction of a proper stealth system in build 301 may render this argument moot.

 

Obsidian are making good on their promise to provide multiple solutions to problems (i.e., non-engagement/avoidance as a real gameplay choice). Per-enemy combat XP would go against this design. This is commendable--it would have been easier to just cave to expectations. Instead they are going to evolve the IE formula. I didn't feel this way when stealth was just "make sure the circles don't overlap". That wasn't much of a system.

 

This design should play well with bestiary unlocks because players can now pick and choose which enemies to engage, rather than feeling they have to clear everything off the map or lose out on progression. (This was the case previously, but avoiding battles felt like avoiding gameplay rather than engaging in another, equally valid aspect.)

 

I suppose we got all worked up over nothing--OE just hadn't developed stealth enough to make it a real gameplay choice. (It would have been nice to hear of these plans sooner!)

 

Of course, this doesn't mean that combat in and of itself should not be rewarding and fun. But that is a separate issue. Per-enemy combat XP, the particular argument of this thread, no longer makes sense. You guys can keep arguing--chop up my post all you want, I won't be reading it. For me, it's settled. Their design finally makes sense.

 

Now let's test that build!

 

One of my things was exactly "if at least stealth had compelling, tactical challenging, interesting mechanics, I'd actually be more or less fine with the current setup."

 

P.S. Immortalis, middle grounders like me are invariably just some snide, undercover provokers. In the Blood War, the declaredly neutral faction is actually the worst of all!

Edited September 26, 2014 by frapillo80

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I wonder how many people will go back and disarm traps for extra xp. I noticed on my play through of the beta, I can find traps but my BB Rogue doesn't have enough points in Mechanics to disarm them. Interesting that I have enough points in Mechanics to find them but not disarm them. At least I can walk around them for now.

 

 

 

 

 

[Cantousent]

I've never been able to disarm traps, but I haven't created my own rogue and stacked Mechanics.  Anyhow, I'll stop raging about disarm and lock-picking XP, but only because I was giving myself a headache.  I created a character last night in the new build, but I didn't go out to adventure yet.  It's discouraging that stealth triggers through walls, but that's clearly a bug.  You should write it up, Hiro.

[frapillo80]

Just got accused in the "Fighters are not boring" thread of having being complaining about the lack of combat xp and that it wasn't advertized on kickstarter. I can't believe it keeps happening after having stating ad nauseam that I've never been about kill-xp how many times? 20? 30? Enough to make everybody sick of hearing it?

 

There must be a shadow "PoE beta xp system" thread I'm not aware of, with a shadow Frapillo80 spamming in favour of kill-xp. I'll have to accept my doom, to be remembered and vilified forever as "that bloody combat-xp obsessed guy".

[Gromnir]

am wondering who made such a complaint? not us. we said,

 

"this is guy who is surprised that PoE combat is too similar to iwd in spite o' that being a stated goal on the kickstarter page, while at same time complaining that absence o' a mention o' kill xp on the kickstarter page prevented him from realizing that kill xp would be in the game... even though such info were emailed starting with update #7. you don't read. when you do read, you don't believe or don't comprehend. can't blame on Gromnir persona neither as it is clear that you don't comprehend when obsidian explains either. "

 

we did Not claim you is in favor o' kill xp. you can't be accidental this obtuse. thanks for yet again proving our point. sheesh.

 

HA! Good Fun!