Combat XP - What Just Happened..?

[Lephys]

@CaptainShrek:

 

The only other issue I have with the TES-style system is that you still don't really even have full simulation. You can't pick a lock, then re-lock that lock, and simply practice your lockpicking skill over and over and over on one lock, which, realistically, you would be able to do. Yet, inconsistently, you can just constantly jump around like a maniac, and your Acrobatics will continue to improve, every single time. Which ALSO doesn't really simulate effectively, because no one ever became a member of Cirque de Soleil by jumping 5,000,000 times in the same spot. You don't gain Acrobatic skill from that. You just gain conditioning. Maybe balance.

 

That being said, I have no significant problem with the system itself being implemented in a game. But, if I were going to use it, I would definitely make every particular action produce diminishing XP. Like... jumping. If you're just jumping, you should only improve certain aspects of the entirety of something like Acrobatics. Ideally, it's broken down into those actual aspects, and that's how it works. But, if not (understandably, due to sheer complexity), then, at the very least, jumping/falling should only improve your acrobatics by so much.

 

Annnnnnywho... I don't want to derail this into a giant dissertation on Skill System Design. Heh. But, I could analyze and discuss that for pages and pages and pages, if you'd like (and enjoy the crap out of such a discussion). Maybe in another thread... *shrug*

[Captain Shrek]

I personally feel that the entire SNG argument is pretty terrible. It has led to a lot of bad design decisions in this game in my opinion. A game is an abstraction, after all. The first priority and also the last, is that it be enjoyable. As an abstraction, it has to remove all the cumbersome parts and improve those which enhance the enjoyment. Which is exactly why I am not a proponent of a full simulation. I only want it as long as it allows contextual meaning and so long as it provides entertainment. 

 

A game is an abstraction, after all. The first priority and also the last, is that it be enjoyable. As an abstraction, it has to remove all the cumbersome parts and improve those which enhance the fun. Which is exactly why I am not a proponent of a full simulation. I only want it as long as it allows contextual meaning and so long as it provides entertainment. 

 

So I would take it that opening the same lock again and again, in fact, teaches you nothing more because you already mastered the mechanism. But frankly, no argument would be necessary. This is not a very relevant story altering point anyway that spoils fun. So I would as well not make an argument and accept it en passant. 

Edited October 8, 2014 by Captain Shrek

[Lephys]

To be fair, a game is generally a simulation. It's just not a perfect one. You pretty much can't make a game that's perfect simulation, because there's always going to be some more-nuanced factor that your game isn't actually taking into account/representing. So, yeah, a game's always got lots of abstraction going on in it, but it isn't just 100% abstraction.

 

Anywho, the main issue with something like looking at the general XP system for cRPGs, then going "See, the act of combat should award XP!" is that it isn't consistent. The entire system isn't even remotely claiming to be simulating the application of actual, first-hand experience with something towards the improvement of related things. You earn XP, then you get better at pretty-much-everything. So, the idea that that system must represent XP earned from what amounts to practice or it's doing something wrong is just plain wonky.

 

That's my biggest issue with this whole "should combat XP simply be tossed into this existing system?" debate, and the "OF COURSE!" people.

 

As for fun, yes, a game has to be fun. But, it also has to make sense, first. I would say that fun is actually the second most important thing for a game. Being an actual game is the first. Clicking a button and having your character level up and gain oodles of gold and loot every time you clicked it could be interpreted by human brains as enjoyable. However, that's not even a game, at that point. That button isn't functioning as a game. There's no challenge, no chance to fail, no chance to do better or worse based on your actions, etc.

 

So, "I want to receive some enjoyment" applies to the entire game's design, overall. You can't just pluck random things out of that and say "Well, I think getting XP for every footstep my character takes would be fun, so that should happen." No. The whole game should be fun, together. Dying in combat isn't fun. But being able to die in combat and then avoiding that unfun thing with your skill/effort is quite fun.

 

To be clear, I'm simply commenting on the sub-topics that were brought up. I'm not trying to suggest that I'm arguing the polar opposite of your (CaptainShrek) or anyone else's specific words here. (I know sometimes that's unclear, so I wanted to make sure it was clear, here. I'd quote someone if I were arguing against someone's specific argument/point).

[wanderon]

 

Not seeing what the difference is here whether exploring gets XP or loot of some kind or both the same thing happens doesn't it? Once you know where the good stuff is you are going to create that optimal route anyway and the same goes for the "easy XP" vs the "toughest XP" - or getting this companion vs that companion -

 

Frankly I think the devs have enough on their plate balancing the game for first time players without worrying about what people may decide to do on later run throughs - I'm just hoping there are going to be enough meaningful choices the game reacts to that will fuel the desire to replay again and again.  

 

You don't see the difference between getting paid when you show up at the job instead of getting paid when the job is done? The loot you find won't just be given to you when you walk to a certain spot. You don't get Quest XP just for activating a quest. The issue isn't simply player finding optimal paths, but the nature of Exploration XP in conjunction with it. 

 

I assure you, the devs have been thinking about the replayability of the game since the start. It's not some additional burden on their plate. Adding new XP sources would be an additional burden, though

 

 

You get quest experience for discovering information during a quest how is that different from exploration experience - why is it a bad thing to reward the player as he finds his way through the quest or world gathering information and/or items and/or NPCs etc it's all part of the adventure and doing so makes it possible to level up as you go instead of having to wait for the big payoff after the quest is completed. If you discover a chest or stash the loot is indeed given to you when you get to that spot why isn't finding and recognizing some special area or person or ruin or whatever just as worthy of XP?

 

I'm sure the devs are thinking about replayability but I doubt they are trying to design the game in such a manner that players that have completed it are unable to use the meta game information that they gained by that playthrough.  

[Immortalis]

 

 

 

 

I don't think a voice should be given to people who have no opinion other then a non-opinion.. This thread is about discussing the viability of different xp sources..

 

 

Which is precisely what's wrong with 90% of polls posted on boards like this - they become skewed to the opinions of the person posting the poll - there should always be some form of "other" option - even in the case of a simple yes or no vote there is room for a maybe.

 

 

I voted for 4 out of the 7 or 8 options.. I think many of the stuff up there is stupid (Lock XP?).. but not as stupid as letting people who have no opinion voice an opinion.. it's just white noise..

 

Go make a fanboy thread somewhere else where you and your waifu pillow of J.E. Sawyer sip tea and talk about how Obsidian can do no wrong. This thread is for big boys who have an opinion on the game and want to discuss it.

 

 

Or I can remain here and continue to inject my opinions into the debate whether you agree they are valid or not -

 

 

I'm just messing with you..

I still think a "I Have no Opinion" option on the poll is stupid.. Having an "Other Idea Not Listed" choice has some credibility..

[Ieo]

wanderon, the problem with forum polls isn't the opinion skew for the OP but basic statistical representation. Unless Obsidian blasted a survey about this through Kickstarter and gets at least 2000 cross-sectional player pips, there is never valid representation because we have a triple-sliced bias going on: self-selection bias, minority forum users, and beta testers. Rather than nitpick the quantification structure of this sort of poll, further discussion is best, though.

 

I still want (vast majority) weight on objectives to allow multiple playstyles, but massaging the details, well... trap/lock xp and the others just aren't appealing to me and too much microbalancing just seems like more backend busywork while opening a can of worms for degenerate gameplay. On the other hand, I haven't been able to beta test, so maybe my nebulous opinion would solidify more later once I do get to beta test. There's a lot of "feels" testing that goes into character leveling.

[wanderon]

wanderon, the problem with forum polls isn't the opinion skew for the OP but basic statistical representation. Unless Obsidian blasted a survey about this through Kickstarter and gets at least 2000 cross-sectional player pips, there is never valid representation because we have a triple-sliced bias going on: self-selection bias, minority forum users, and beta testers. Rather than nitpick the quantification structure of this sort of poll, further discussion is best, though.

 

I still want (vast majority) weight on objectives to allow multiple playstyles, but massaging the details, well... trap/lock xp and the others just aren't appealing to me and too much microbalancing just seems like more backend busywork while opening a can of worms for degenerate gameplay. On the other hand, I haven't been able to beta test, so maybe my nebulous opinion would solidify more later once I do get to beta test. There's a lot of "feels" testing that goes into character leveling.

 

Actually the problem with most forum polls IS the skewiness of the OP - have you seen the crap polls that have been posted in the general forums?  

 

this one is actually light years beyond most of the pack it's only real flaw being the lack of an "other" option 

 

As for statistics my old buddy Mark Twain handled that nicely when he said " There's three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" 

[Cantousent]

I've kind of thought for some time that ol' boney is kind of like Grom.  He's got a persona.  He's a belligerent ol' curmudgeon.  ...But either way, I like the affirmative aspect of this poll.  It's not scientific, but at least it gives folks a chance to affirm what they think will be *good* rather than rail about the binary question of kill or quest-only XP.

 

Most *most* of us won't be violently put off by something other than our personally preference, although I'm vehemently opposed to any XP for what I term incidental activities.  This poll gives me the chance to face folks who want kill or lock picking XP by merely affirming what I *do* want without railing *against* what other folks want.

 

For my part, I can now be part of the Molotov ****tail throwing crowd and march out against lock picking XP.  I might not be *violently* opposed to the proposition, but I'm certainly going to keep advocating a different design decision, which I have *always* said folks should do for what they want in the game.  Maybe I'm talking a bit out of the bottom of my cup right now, but I think the debate itself is healthy, even if it does get heated and even if the polls will never be entirely scientifically accurate.

[Matt516]

I mean, numerically the numbers aren't a big deal. You only need ~300ish respondents or so to accurately (from a statistical standpoint) measure the yes/no preferences of a population of 75,000 with 95% confidence. We're not there yet with this poll, but it's not unattainable by any means.

 

The other biases you mentioned are certainly a concern - though I don't think they invalidate this poll. They inform it, sure - but just because this poll is representative of people who self-select, use the forum, and are in the beta (which isn't actually true, many frequenters of this subforum aren't in the Beta so it's really only the first two) doesn't mean that it can't be useful to OE. 

[curryinahurry]

Yes, but 300 active forum posters is a biased sample.   People posting on these forums can't be assumed to be indicative of backers in general.

[Cantousent]

 but just because this poll is representative of people who self-select, use the forum, and are in the beta (which isn't actually true, many frequenters of this subforum aren't in the Beta so it's really only the first two) doesn't mean that it can't be useful to OE. 

I agree, but I think the more important consideration is in the argument itself.  Articulate your thoughts in a manner that is at least thought provoking, if not convincing, and you can have some impact.  I'm not sure that I'm either thought provoking or convincing at this point, but I *want* to be, at least, and I have some hope as longa s I try.

[Sensuki]

doesn't mean that it can't be useful to OE.

Yeah hopefully they'll wake up and remove trap/lock XP

[wickermoon]

 

Yes, but 300 active forum posters is a biased sample.   People posting on these forums can't be assumed to be indicative of backers in general.

 

 

Then again, those 300 active forum posters are actually invested in the game. The rest of the people, simply waiting for the game, not partaking in polls or discussions, are just doing that: simply waiting for the game to come out. They'll be happy with the end results whether it's with or without combat xp.

 

Imho, always pander to the vocal majority, because anybody not voicing their opinion give up on their right to vote / doesn't care enough about that issue to do so. They will (have to) be okay with the results and if not, they can start to voice their opinion. It's almost like elections.

 

Also, I think that Bestiary-XP sucks, sorry to say. It feels a bit like achievements and you HAVE to have all entries or otherwise the game will feel incomplete. It will stimulate unnecessary killing even more than combat xp will.

Edited October 9, 2014 by wickermoon

[Sensuki]

I am not a big fan of it either, personally. Although I'd rather have that than combat and lock/trap XP I think.

[wickermoon]

Combat XP is far less destructive and I really don't get the antipathy for it. It never promoted unnecessary killing. That were just some munchkins who wanted to powerplay the system. I say let them, if they want. It also was the best reward to get for killing trash groups that were unavoidable. No matter how much you tweak the loot table, wolf-/bear-/spider-packs are never going to give you anything satisfying as a reward (on a constant basis). Thus killing becomes a chore and as much as some people might hope otherwise, PoE is going to be combat-heavy. You don't want a big part of the game to feel like a chore. I'm not talking about some random mob groups that are far of the beaten track, I'm talking about going straight the quest-road to victory.

 

 

But this game is about exploration, or otherwise you could go play Drakensang, which had no exploration and just tons and tons of linear tunnel levels. So it will be unavoidable to fight a mob group that is unrelated to any quests - or otherwise the whole world would probably feel lifeless, almost empty - and you can't give each group a unique loot. Combat XP wasn't special loot, but it satisfied the player to the point where he didn't feel like he just wasted 2 minutes of his life to fight a group of goblins, spiders, bears, orcs, etc. And it wasn't as OP as some people like to make it out to be. A pack of Goblins in BG1/2 gave the group about 10xp per Goblin, iirc, which is next to nothing as soon as you hit level 5 (it's 0.1% of your level). Keeping that in mind, anyone who's arguing that a goblin killfest had any significance is making a fool out of himself. You'd have to kill about 10 Goblins to get 1% of your level on level 5 (keep in mind the biggest encounter in BG1 is about 8-9 Goblins in a Goblin village, iirc).

 

 

edit: Just to visualize: On level 6 it's already down to about 0.066%, on level 7 0.047% and so on and so forth.

Edited October 9, 2014 by wickermoon

[curryinahurry]

 

Imho, always pander to the vocal majority, because anybody not voicing their opinion give up on their right to vote / doesn't care enough about that issue to do so. They will (have to) be okay with the results and if not, they can start to voice their opinion. It's almost like elections.

 

 

Or they have lives, circumstances that prevent them from participating.  And 300 people is a very small minority out of 100,000 plus backers.  And no its nothing like elections. And, regardless, trying to design a game (or anything else) following the principles of a representative democracy would yield garbage 10 times out of 10.

 

Not that I have anything against these polls that people do...just as long as people on the forum don't start thinking what they're seeing in posts is representative of the community as a whole, or that they're entitled to special consideration because they are barking the loudest.

Edited October 9, 2014 by curryinahurry

[Gladiuss8@gmail.com]

Only 63 votes for combat xp makes me sad...

[Ineth]

Then again, those 300 active forum posters are actually invested in the game. The rest of the people, simply waiting for the game, not partaking in polls or discussions, are just doing that: simply waiting for the game to come out. They'll be happy with the end results whether it's with or without combat xp.

 

Most likely they have expectations based on what was promised (or, what they think was implied) in the kickstarter though. And don't come her because they have no reason to expect that a forum discussion would be able to overturn those plans.

 

[wickermoon]

 

 

Imho, always pander to the vocal majority, because anybody not voicing their opinion give up on their right to vote / doesn't care enough about that issue to do so. They will (have to) be okay with the results and if not, they can start to voice their opinion. It's almost like elections.

 

 

Or they have lives, circumstances that prevent them from participating.  And 300 people is a very small minority out of 100,000 plus backers.  And no its nothing like elections. And, regardless, trying to design a game (or anything else) following the principles of a representative democracy would yield garbage 10 times out of 10.

 

Not that I have anything against these polls that people do...just as long as people on the forum don't start thinking what they're seeing in posts is representative of the community as a whole, or that they're entitled to special consideration because they are barking the loudest.

 

 

So you are implying people posting on the forums don't have lives?

Circumstances preventing me from participating in this forum for the past few months pretty much sounds like "don't care enough about these issues", so I don't see your point. There isn't such a thing as a circumstance preventing you as a backer - against your will - from participating in this forum unless you're held hostage by someone. Now, I wager that this scenario is a pretty rare one and that most backers indeed would have the time (in abundance!) to voice their opinion.

 

 

I also think you've misunderstood my "vocal majority" expression - as I thought it would be - so let me try to explain what I meant: Out of the number of people which voice their opinion (usually called the vocal minority) the biggest group would be the vocal majority - logically. The other 99.700 don't matter as they have the possiblity to voice their opinion, but choose not to. This is either due to laziness or indifference (to the issue or the forums in general). Whatever the case, it disqualifies them as relevant, as the issue is only important to the few 300 that partook in the vote and thus changing the issue in favour of the vocal majority (or at least going a step into their direction) would only positively affect the game.

 

 

Regarding your last sentence of your first paragraph: Your hypothesis has nothing to do with my statement. I don't try to advertise game-design by following the principles of rep. dem., I'm suggesting that vocal majority criticism should be adhered to. Two different things.

 

 

 

Then again, those 300 active forum posters are actually invested in the game. The rest of the people, simply waiting for the game, not partaking in polls or discussions, are just doing that: simply waiting for the game to come out. They'll be happy with the end results whether it's with or without combat xp.

 

Most likely they have expectations based on what was promised (or, what they think was implied) in the kickstarter though. And don't come her because they have no reason to expect that a forum discussion would be able to overturn those plans.

 

 

 

Again, giving up your vote, just like saying "Voting won't change a thing in our democracy, anyway. So why vote?". I'm sorry, but both attitudes are equally stupid, I think we can agree on that.

[Immortalis]

Only 63 votes for combat xp makes me sad...

 

Why? It matches the previous statistics of roughly half the forum wanting Combat XP.. That hasn't changed.

 

Almost everyone on the forum believes quest XP should exist, about half the people on the forum think Combat XP should exist. This has always been the case.

 

If I made the poll say: Do you want Combat XP or No Combat XP.. It would be a 50 - 50 split.. but many combat Xpers want what IE had so they generally vote in both categories.

 

If this poll hit 300 votes.. I would guess that combat XP would be around 150..

Edited October 9, 2014 by Immortalis

[morhilane]

 

Imho, always pander to the vocal majority, because anybody not voicing their opinion give up on their right to vote / doesn't care enough about that issue to do so. They will (have to) be okay with the results and if not, they can start to voice their opinion. It's almost like elections.

 

There is no vocal majority in a gaming forums, only vocal minorities that can't even agree on anything.

 

Also, the silent majority isn't silent because they don't care how the game turn out. They will still be silent once the game is released regardless if they like it or not. Most people just don't post on official gaming forums or even hang out in them. They hang out in tumblr, facebook, twitter or other online communities.

 

I even know PoE beta testers who never posted here, that don't stop them from making comments about the beta elsewhere.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I don't vote in most polls like this because even when a poll isn't inherently skewed, people use the results to represent whatever they want, regardless of my intentions.

 

*Edited for gross typos.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Mr. Magniloquent

[wanderon]

I don't vote in most polls like this because even when a poll isn't inherently skewed, people use the results to represent whatever they want, regardless of my intentions.

 

*Edited for gross typos.

 

Just like they do with any sort of statistics - they are really meaningless out of context yet people mistakenly consider them as facts in spite of the fact that they can often be used to argue either side of an argument equally well when manipulated.

[curryinahurry]

 

 

 

So you are implying people posting on the forums don't have lives?

Circumstances preventing me from participating in this forum for the past few months pretty much sounds like "don't care enough about these issues", so I don't see your point. There isn't such a thing as a circumstance preventing you as a backer - against your will - from participating in this forum unless you're held hostage by someone. Now, I wager that this scenario is a pretty rare one and that most backers indeed would have the time (in abundance!) to voice their opinion.

 

 

I also think you've misunderstood my "vocal majority" expression - as I thought it would be - so let me try to explain what I meant: Out of the number of people which voice their opinion (usually called the vocal minority) the biggest group would be the vocal majority - logically. The other 99.700 don't matter as they have the possiblity to voice their opinion, but choose not to. This is either due to laziness or indifference (to the issue or the forums in general). Whatever the case, it disqualifies them as relevant, as the issue is only important to the few 300 that partook in the vote and thus changing the issue in favour of the vocal majority (or at least going a step into their direction) would only positively affect the game.

 

 

Regarding your last sentence of your first paragraph: Your hypothesis has nothing to do with my statement. I don't try to advertise game-design by following the principles of rep. dem., I'm suggesting that vocal majority criticism should be adhered to. Two different things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I'm saying is that you can believe whatever you want...it's your own personal narrative; it has no bearing on the reality of others who do or do not participate in these forums.  It has no bearing on what the backers of this game truly want or what people are invested in.  As to the second point; I don't think you understand your initial statement, my retort, or your response.  Too bad for you.  Design of a thing never works via utilitarianism...check the US bill of rights and amendments to the constitution if you need to understand  how to make sure a beautiful idea shouldn't devolve into crap.

[Immortalis]

I don't vote in most polls like this because even when a poll isn't inherently skewed, people use the results to represent whatever they want, regardless of my intentions.

 

*Edited for gross typos.

 

So.. What your saying is that you support combat xp?