Combat XP - What Just Happened..?

[Namutree]

 

Changing to combat xp is a major overhaul NOT a tweak.

A change in design philosophy, in fact. But unlike Namutree, I don't believe Obsidian can take it all the way. Not by release time at least. There's far more involved in making a total switch to combat XP than simply assigning XP values to all the enemies. There's also the matter of balancing the entire game from beginning to end to account for the switch, unless they think it's no big deal if players end up hitting the level cap halfway through the game. due to the thousands upon thousands of additional experience points they gained from every enemy kill.

 

I hope you're wrong Stun...

[wanderon]

 

Changing to combat xp is a major overhaul NOT a tweak.

A change in design philosophy, in fact. But unlike Namutree, I don't believe Obsidian can take it all the way. Not by release time at least. There's far more involved in making a total switch to combat XP than simply assigning XP values to all the enemies. There's also the matter of balancing the entire game from beginning to end to account for the switch, unless they think it's no big deal if players end up hitting the level cap halfway through the game. due to the thousands upon thousands of additional experience points they gained from every enemy kill.

 

 

Not if they limit kill XP to a "graze"....

 

BB fighter kills Ogre

 

Party gains .00034 experience

[Caladian]

I like that!  Let them get their combat xp, at 0.00034.  there you namutree.  Your combat xp.  Thankfully, Joshua doesn't to ever appear to be budging on degenerate gameplay.

[Cantousent]

Hey, Wal-mart shoppers in Alabama are not only people, but even more, they're consumers.  ...But I don't take offense.  I sometimes indulge in other tastes before I post and I deserve whatever comes my way as a result.  :Cant's sheepish grin:

 

On *my* more serious note:  I agree in this.  People are used to something and therefore will agitate for it.  It doesn't matter if it's a better way.  There are people who never even gave the idea of not having per kill XP any chance at all.  They hated the idea sight unseen and railed against it from the very start.  There was no consideration or contemplation on the part of many of the people who desire per kill XP.  That's not reading minds.  That's counting posts and noting the dates on them.

 

Unlike trap XP, which is irritating but at least not truly significant, per kill XP will possibly be the greatest potential XP pool in the aggregate.  It will certainly be quite substantial.  I almost hope, in a somewhat spiteful way, that they include trap XP and leave out per kill XP.  Aside:  I prefer to refer to per kill XP as incidental, but I guess it's kind of down to whole nomenclature thing again.  :invokes the spirit of Gromnir:

 

In reality, I no longer have the time or stamina to lob grenades at folks in an online forum.  It is entirely an empty threat in the first place.  I mean, I was more or less trying to jest, but I might have been willing to carry on with it a bit longer in the past, but now I'll just accept whatever comes.  For one thing, I don't have a choice.  However, for me to feel good about the outcome only requires one thing:  no per kill XP.  I have always *always* expected that combat should result in XP gains.  I just think that killing any random beast shouldn't yield an XP reward.  It maybe shouldn't always yield a gameplay (or story) reward at all.  If you want to hunt down every random creature on a map, you should do it because it warms the depths of your cold murderous heart.  However, killing significant creatures should be an objective in and of itself, and I have never minded the idea of getting XP for doing so.  I think they really screwed up by making it appear that 'objective only' was 'quest only.'  Objective XP should encompass a whole slew of things that wouldn't necessarily fall under the heading of quests.

 

At any rate, we don't have to agree with everyone on these forums.  We don't even have to like each other.  I mean, I'd still probably offer a beer to any of you bastards who came to my door.  Maybe even a finger or two of something better if I really like you.  ...But this place exists to fight about these things and I'll keep posting to advocate my position as often as I get the chance and can arse myself to do it.

[Stun]

I just think that killing any random beast shouldn't yield an XP reward.

Then maybe instead of arguing against the existence of kill XP you should argue against the existence of random beasts.

 

I'm a huge advocate of hand placed encounters. There should be an authentic, specific, in-game reason for the existence and placement of every enemy in this game. Because that would eliminate 90% of the gripes people seem to have against kill XP.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I just think that killing any random beast shouldn't yield an XP reward. 

 

That's exactly what's happening with Bestiary XP. And I can't fathom why people against Combat xp are all for Bestiary XP with killing random beasts all over the maps that can be avoided.

 

The Lions in Stormwall Gorge are a classic example of 'random beasts' that you can avoid. In fact, at the start of the game, you can immediately go to Stormwall Gorge because you start right at the edge of the map next to Stormwall Gorge, kill the 6 lions which make up half of the enemies on that map, get some really easy xp rewards and then go back to Dyrford before you even speak to anyone. It's an easy less than 5 minute kill spree. They're practically begging to be killed for some easy xp rewards.

 

The wolves in the bottom corner of the Dyrford Crossing map is another example. Totally avoidable and you can walk (stealth) right past them. But why not kill them? They're just as easy as the lions. Prior to Bestiary XP, I didn't bother with them. Now, they give XP rewards. Same with the Wurms in Dyrford Crossing. Totally avoidable and now you can kill 6 of them and get rewarded.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Cantousent]

...And folks should get XP no matter how they handle those 'hand picked' encounters.  Some might require combat.  Some might require diplomacy.  Some might be avoidable and yet accomplish the same thing.  That's the definition of objective XP as far as I'm concerned.  The obstacles matter more than the methods.  I just don't want them to get bogged down with the whole "you have to have multiple ways of accomplishing the same goal."  Sometimes, the only way to save the cheerleader is to kill the bad guy.  I have no problem with that.

 

I don't know how feasible it is to do away with random encounters with the current design.  Personally, I think we're going to have a lot of 'random' encounters and wandering fillermonsters, placeholderbeasts, and fodderfiends.  I'm not even sure that's bad as long as we don't end up slogging through such memorable encounters as "English Longswordsman" who a tough, relentless, and boring as hell.

 

Two things about the bestiary:  once you've filled out the bestiary, you have no more incentive to hunt lions.  It is a specific amount of experience for killing a limited population within the entire pool.  In the aggregate, it is not nearly as significant as racking up XP for each individual kill.  Second, I keep hoping they put in other ways to fill the beastiary, from killing to observing, to talking, to who knows what.  Now, when arguing with any of these statements, please at least nod that I'm not a huge fan of the beastiary from a design point of view.  If it means that they confine the XP to a knowable quantity for a specific and defined objective, it's a compromise that suits me fine.  As much as folks use it as a back door argument for per kill XP, it is not the same.

 

EDIT:  Added a few words to clarify.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Cantousent

[Seari]

I don't understand the reason for there not being kill xp, nor do I understand the people that are against kill xp. At first I thought Obsidian didn't implement it due to time constraints.

 

What are the reasons for being against it? No such thing as grinding in an cRPG where your purpose is to explore and kill stuff. Are people actually against it because they're hippies or something?

[Namutree]

I don't understand the reason for there not being kill xp, nor do I understand the people that are against kill xp. At first I thought Obsidian didn't implement it due to time constraints.

 

What are the reasons for being against it? No such thing as grinding in an cRPG where your purpose is to explore and kill stuff. Are people actually against it because they're hippies or something?

They have a very incorrect notion that poe isn't going to be about killing stuff.

 

 

Thoughts of Deus Ex and Vampire Bloodlines delude them. See they don't want poe to be inspired by the IE games; they want it to be inspired by games that were inspired by the IE games.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Namutree

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I keep hoping they put in other ways to fill the beastiary, from killing to observing, to talking, to who knows what.  Now, when arguing with any of these statements, please at least nod that I'm not a huge fan of the beastiary from a design point of view. 

 

Can't see it happening. What are players going to do? Observe the lions, talk to druids, read lore books or kill the lions and get xp? I'll take the easier option and that's likely avoiding the lions. It's free xp without the danger of combat if I can just read a book, observe them, talk to a druid or whatever. I would go back to avoiding a lot of unnecessary combat and maps left half unexplored if I can just read a lore book.

[GrinningReaper659]

Accusations that those against per-kill XP are hippies, are incorrectly thinking that PoE won't be about killing stuff, and of course my favorite: that anyone against per-kill XP didn't play or enjoy the IE games. Give me a break, I see that this argument hasn't evolved much and that you pro per-kill XPers are slandering your opponents by knowingly misrepresenting them. I'm not going to regurgitate all the legitimate reasons for not wanting per-kill XP, but those of you that have been around for all the combat XP threads (you know who you are) know them already, so stop intentionally misrepresenting those who don't support per-kill XP.

 

I imagine that many of those that oppose per-kill XP have quieted down a bit because they're willing to accept the bestiary compromise if necessary. Also, many of the pro kill-XP crowd have seemingly quieted down for this same reason.

[Cantousent]

 

I don't understand the reason for there not being kill xp, nor do I understand the people that are against kill xp. At first I thought Obsidian didn't implement it due to time constraints.

 

What are the reasons for being against it? No such thing as grinding in an cRPG where your purpose is to explore and kill stuff. Are people actually against it because they're hippies or something?

They have a very incorrect notion that poe isn't going to be about killing stuff.

 

 

Thoughts of Deus Ex and Vampire Bloodlines delude them. See they don't want poe to be inspired by the IE games; they want it to be inspired by games that were inspired by the IE games.

 

Don't be a doofus.  Geez.  Now, pretend that I actually responded at length to this nonsense.  ...Unless you're just being snarky, in which case, bite me!  :Cant's huge grin icon:

[Namutree]

 

 

I don't understand the reason for there not being kill xp, nor do I understand the people that are against kill xp. At first I thought Obsidian didn't implement it due to time constraints.

 

What are the reasons for being against it? No such thing as grinding in an cRPG where your purpose is to explore and kill stuff. Are people actually against it because they're hippies or something?

They have a very incorrect notion that poe isn't going to be about killing stuff.

 

 

Thoughts of Deus Ex and Vampire Bloodlines delude them. See they don't want poe to be inspired by the IE games; they want it to be inspired by games that were inspired by the IE games.

 

Don't be a doofus.  Geez.  Now, pretend that I actually responded at length to this nonsense.  ...Unless you're just being snarky, in which case, bite me!  :Cant's huge grin icon:

 

I'm just being snarky. I know better. Although it's kind of true with Hassan Hunter, but just him.

[Gorionsson]

Unless the combat mechanics undergo a serious overhaul until release, I'll probably avoid combat as much as possible, anyway.

Combat xp not so important for now, even though I still haven't seen a single argument against it that makes any sense.

 

A band of adventurers go out into the field, armed to the teeth.

Killing hundreds of enemies in epic encounters.  ------ No xp.

 

Talking three times to a fat man on the corner, spotting a rabbit, walking over new piece of grass. ------- Truckloads of xp.   

[Captain Shrek]

 

I just think that killing any random beast shouldn't yield an XP reward.

Then maybe instead of arguing against the existence of kill XP you should argue against the existence of random beasts.

 

I'm a huge advocate of hand placed encounters. There should be an authentic, specific, in-game reason for the existence and placement of every enemy in this game. Because that would eliminate 90% of the gripes people seem to have against kill XP.

 

 

 

This is the core problem associated with trash mobs. It just needs to go. 

[Cantousent]

Combat xp not so important for now, even though I still haven't seen a single argument against it that makes any sense.

 

A band of adventurers go out into the field, armed to the teeth.

Killing hundreds of enemies in epic encounters.  ------ No xp.

 

Talking three times to a fat man on the corner, spotting a rabbit, walking over new piece of grass. ------- Truckloads of xp.   

Objective only XP is not so important for now, even though I haven't seen a single argument against it that makes sense.

 

A band of adventurers goes out into the field, armed to the teeth.

Killed hundreds of minor enemies in trivial encounters.  ----- tons of xp in the aggregate.

 

Going through multiple steps to secure a rare and powerful item for a merchant.  ------ less XP in the aggregate.

 

Of course, some folks might decide to respond to the post rather than the point at hand.  You can restructure any argument in order to trivialize it, but at the very least, you should properly represent it.  I don't think I have once misrepresented an argument in order to refute it.

 

in per kill XP, you get a whole bunch of incidents where you receive relatively small XP that adds up to a lot, then you also get XP for talking to the fat guy.  Now, I don't think that there are many folks calling for per kill XP who say we shouldn't get quest XP also.  That's going by comments in this thread as well as the poll numbers themselves.  Maybe it's different overall, but we're in a discussion here and in this discussion, I don't see an example of a substantial group calling for the removal of quest XP.  Only about half more or less for inclusion of per kill XP.

 

In objective XP, in this case culminating in dialogue with the quest giver on three occasions(?), the characters not only overcome, kill, confuse, or make peace with tons of monsters, they might also get past or through locked doors, solve riddles, dispatch, spring, or otherwise bypass traps, and other 'epic' things.  The culmination of these experiences is in stages, one of which is to talk to the fat guy three times.

 

As for you, Cap'n, I don't actually mind trash mobs as long as the combat is fun.  I tend not to go out of my way to kill things anyway, but sometimes I do want to kill off monsters or npcs.  A good example is Wasteland 2.  It wouldn't matter which system it used, I would still go after the many raider bands in Canyon of the Titan.  I feel kind of bad killing off the Monks, but they are either retarded or insane in the first place, and I knew that straight away.  I thought they had it all wrong from get-go City.  In the Wasteland universe, if the fear of MAD worked, there wouldn't have been a game in the first place.  Out in the wilderness, I have virtually *always* run from battles with animals and raiders, even though I could pick up XP gear, especially in areas where the raiders are so pathetic I dispatch them with melee or brawling.  Nevertheless, I don't want to take the time.  Trash monsters are only bad when they're completely trashy.  So, in my mind, I think of them as minor enounters random or not.  I don't want to slog though completely forgettable encounters, which is what I think of 'trash encounters.'   ...But that's a whole different discussion.  As far as I'm concerned, the XP gorilla beats down a lot of other discussions.  I think it's actually interesting to debate entirely set encounters vs. random/minor/semi-random etc.  What is a trash mob?  I know there were truly minor encounters in all of the IE games.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I tend not to go out of my way to kill things anyway, but sometimes I do want to kill off monsters or npcs.  A good example is Wasteland 2.  It wouldn't matter which system it used, I would still go after the many raider bands in Canyon of the Titan.  I feel kind of bad killing off the Monks, but they are either retarded or insane in the first place, and I knew that straight away.  I thought they had it all wrong from get-go City.  In the Wasteland universe, if the fear of MAD worked, there wouldn't have been a game in the first place. 

 

Out in the wilderness, I have virtually *always* run from battles with animals and raiders, even though I could pick up XP gear, especially in areas where the raiders are so pathetic I dispatch them with melee or brawling.  Nevertheless, I don't want to take the time.  Trash monsters are only bad when they're completely trashy.  So, in my mind, I think of them as minor enounters random or not.  I don't want to slog though completely forgettable encounters, which is what I think of 'trash encounters.'   ...But that's a whole different discussion.  As far as I'm concerned, the XP gorilla beats down a lot of other discussions.  I think it's actually interesting to debate entirely set encounters vs. random/minor/semi-random etc.  What is a trash mob?  I know there were truly minor encounters in all of the IE games.

 

I was the opposite with Canyon of Titan. Keeping a Monk alive and travelling with you opens up additional dialogue and quest options and I used him to get loot from the raider's lockers and the toaster. He's only with you for a short time and then leaves your party so I utilised him by looting the raiders, not killing them. And you can avoid battles with the DBM with the monk travelling with you. Even meeting up with Sadler while one your characters is with the monk some distance away. You have one character distracting the monk, while the rest of the party meets Sadler. Great roleplaying options there.

 

I only killed raiders later if they attacked me first but I tried to avoid them as much as possible. I find it funny how some people who are against combat xp are the ones who resort to it and people like myself who like how it's been implemented in games like WL2 with combat xp don't go on kill sprees. My roleplaying experience was that the DBM took care of them so I didn't need to.

 

The random world map enemy encounters are easy to overcome. I like that there are enemies out there on the world map and it should be random. I had Rose put 4 points in Outdoorsman. It then gave you a 100% success rate in avoiding them up to Canyon of Titan. Having a trinket to get you to 5 gave you 100% up to Damonta iirc. Although I did avoid the enemy encounters every time and travelled all over the world map and looted every hidden cache and went to every mysterious shrine. And that's a cost with one of your characters having to invest in the skill. It's a choice if you want to avoid them altogether or take the chance of not investing in the skill and being caught in random battles. And what I liked with in investing so much in Outdoorsman is you were rewarded with avoiding fights.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Ashram]

• I voted for them all

[Namutree]

 

 

I just think that killing any random beast shouldn't yield an XP reward.

Then maybe instead of arguing against the existence of kill XP you should argue against the existence of random beasts.

 

I'm a huge advocate of hand placed encounters. There should be an authentic, specific, in-game reason for the existence and placement of every enemy in this game. Because that would eliminate 90% of the gripes people seem to have against kill XP.

 

 

 

This is the core problem associated with trash mobs. It just needs to go. 

 

If kill-xp isn't added; I agree. After you get the beastiary xp they'll just be annoying.

[Cantousent]

I sometimes leave raiders alone, but I virtually always hunt down and kill off slavers completely.  I mean, I might let the underlings go, but the people in charge I will find and I will end.  Sometimes, if I take a real disliking to someone I view as truly evil, I'll kill 'em anyway.  Generally, even if I really don't like someone in a game, I don't go out of my way to fight him.  I didn't want to kill off the monks, but for roleplaying purposes, I decided to remove the order.  That would be true regardless of everything else.  Whether or not the alternative was entirely bad.  There was the 'twist,' but I didn't know that at the time and the other 'twist' convinced me that, as well intentioned as they were, it had to be the way it ended.  Wasteland does a good job of making a harsh world pretty campy and funny.  It's grittyesque in a sort of grin and chuckle sort of way that I enjoy.

 

I to agree, my Hiroic friend.  A lot of the anti-per kill XP crowd does seem to have a bit o' the bloodthirst.  However, I think the point of not having kill XP is that your motives are pure.  You just want to smite the hell out of everything in sight to show off your badassedness.  Hell, leave the gear on the rotting bodies because you. don't. even. care. about. that.  Not my particular play style, but you have to admit there's something almost admirable to the commitment.  :Cant's bemused grin icon:

[Hassat Hunter]

Reminds me a bit of FTL, generally assaulting all pirates, rebel and slavers. Just to keep others from suffering from their traps. No XP was given at all, and sometimes the rewards where worse than if I let them alive... sometimes better. It feels good to make choices since you want to make them, are forced into them due to circumstance (heavily damaged, offered the slaves, which would die if you kept assaulting) rather than for an arbitrary XP hanger to the best option.

 

In before "HASSAN HUNTER WANTS POE TO BE LIKE FTL!" even though I don't know this Hassan fellow myself.

 

Take it or leave it Deus Ex and Bloodlines show you how to do an Objective XP system well. How not to reward one playstyle over the other (okay, Bloodlines gave bonus XP for stealth so it's less appliable there, but overall it did a good job. Deus Ex does it all around). It's very typical of modern developers that they don't get that and try to "improve" the system or think they know how it worked, yet still come up with the XP-system attrocity that was Human Revolution. Game was quite okay, but they totally failed to have the proper XP system for their game, instead resorting, indeed, to XP per "kill" and giant bonusses for one playstyle (if in Vampire bloodlines it was 1 extra point every once in a while, here it would be the V:B equavalant of 5 PER MAP).

I totally understand that they're different games, yet their XP system is not type-bound. It can infact be used pretty much every single game, heck even a RTS, or a racinggame, anything really! So I don't quite seem to see the argument "you want it to be like Deus Ex. It wont be, it will be like IE" not understanding I'm not even talking about Deus Ex, just it's experience granting system... and yes, that it would work perfectly fine on an IE-title.

The concept isn't really hard to understand, why is it still not understood. Or do you understand it just fine, but happilly twist it around to make a point of your own or something?

 

 

sadly there isn't (in PoE) - pickpocketing will be limited to some scripted-interactions (maybe dialogue choices too).

That's a shame... can't say I ever used it, but there were some interesting things that could be achieved by that reading various walkthroughs.

Because unlike some people I can actually support systems to allow for different ways, even if I wont be using those myself.

 

 

All the classes are different on the basis of combat. Most of poe's innovations are about reforming combat. The elements Obsidian cares most about "getting right" are combat. OE's willingness to ignore lore or create an attribute system that makes no RP sense should show that, but you 'combat deniers' just don't seem to get it.

Of course they are. The story doesn't need much testing now does it. It's also written by Chris Avellone. If they are starting to be worried about THAT, we sure as hell all have a reason to get worried.

Their system is totally new, so obviously they want to get it just right before release. Does that mean they care less about getting story "just right"? Probably not, otherwise they would just give you the start to play rather than something else to avoid spoilers. They don't want those for the people who are going to play their game. Does that tell you they do or don't care about that subject of the game?

If the answer is not, it explains a lot.

 

 

Talking to npc's is not diplomacy, and you can't lose based on a conversation. You can totally ignore the text and still win.

I certainly hope for any decent RPG to this not being the case. If you can totally skip every dialogue on your first PoE game and win, I will be sorely dissapointed...

 

 

What a load of BS. No one has suggested that nothing that doesn't give xp isn't worth doing. Also, while you must talk to npc's for the critical path; talking poses NO danger, and can be over in seconds if you don't read it. So why should it give xp?

You seem to have missed every single page of every single thread (around 1 or 2 dozen) on the subject. Your budy Stun has been one of the most loud proprietors of this standpoint from the start. Just look through his post-history for a long summary of posts where "no combat XP = run past all enemies"...

You seriously need to inform yourself of the standpoints of your own party.

As for the second part, see the above quote reply. I could simarly say the same. I find one lone kobold, I smack his puny little face in 2 in seconds... So why should it give XP?

Oh boy, do I look forward to the reply on that one. Sadly I know I will never get it as it would be just another point swept under the rug so you can keep pretending there have not be 1 or 2 dozen full of threads with post explaining just why objective XP (not quest XP) is still good for combat-focused games aswell.

 

 

* Combat does not always triumphed any diplomatic solution. Sometimes the player isn't strong enough to win a battle; in such cases diplomacy is clearly superior.

But, but, that requires reading. Didn't you say just lines before that that's not required, skippable in seconds and something of no importance?

 

 

* Never said the game didn't have bugs, but that's not a testament to the xp system; it's a criticism of the programmers.

Games were released in far better quality back in 1998 than they are now. It's also quite demeaning that the people who worked so hard to give us the games we love where crappy programmers, which is undoubtfully not true. But yes, human error is prone to show up somewhere in one way or the other. So tell me which of the 2 make it more likely? In designing values per enemy, then designing a non-combat workaround bonus of around the same or an alternative dialogue option for that, and then keep that up to date if XP values are adjusted throughout the game or the enemy's encounter is modified with less/more or different foes. Or setting a single value, and just granting said value in all 3 cases (you fought, talked out of it, or stealth, no matter same value), and the combat encounter can be tweaked to hearts content without having to worry about the outlying problem of bringing 2 other values to shape. Or if re-balancing XP is needed, just one value needs adjusting rather than multiple (the monster XP value) throughout multiple maps in the game.

 

Heck, the combat-pro group (of which I am part too, something you guys still don't seem to grasp) also profits from this since unbound to experience encounters allows creators to modify them to their content to the needs of the encounter, without having to worry how this modifaction affects the XP balance.

Encounter feels easy? 2 archers are added to provide ranged support.

* In the kill-xp system this means taking into account the xp of those additional 2 archers. Does that give too much XP in the encounter? Does something else needs to change to offset that? Do we need to raise the conversation XP bonus to measure up. Hey, this gives too much too soon to players, we need to nerf something else elsewhere... etc.

* In the objective XP system these 2 archers are added, the combat designer deems the encounter good, and he can move on without having worried that he changed anything but the balance of a single encounter.

 

But hey... I've been saying this for a dozen or 2 threads, and you probably (again) retort the designer from the objective XP system is a lazy incompetant idiot or something. Since making stuff quicker to work with and less bugprone for designers never lead to more content in the same timespan or something. But hey, who cares about content, right? I mean aside from Hassat Hunter who wants a system that works good for all players, be they heavily stealth or more conversation-orientated, easier on the developer (Obsidian has the reputation to produce buggy games, wouldn't you support a way that seriously lessens this while still benefiting players too?) and allows for rapid rebalancing to the final designer (I assume Sawyer in this case)?

 

But hey, screw that right? I haven't thought about this at all and are just looking for another Deus Ex right. While the kill-XP argument has been build around... eeehm, remind me again?

 

 

* This point is 100% false. Oops!

Go replay, without mods if you have them. It's definitely true. It was also the most ridicilous bad developer decision I have seen till date. I especially recall since when I wasn't aware of D&D at all (first time BG1) I figured I should pick easy to help me go through it better. Oh my, what  mistake that was with the long leveling that gave compared to normal.

 

@ Stun; Well, heavily broken systems still can be successful and produce successful sequals. I think I might have mentioned a game called "Oblivion" before? A fundamental to the leving system being indeed broken, still being produced, heavily sold and producing offspring. And some even dare call it good.

Also if you bothered reading my post (go ahead, I'll wait) you know 'patches' reffered to that they tried to patch up a broken system rather than fixing it entirely. So instead of reworking to an objective-XP system they tried methods as huge bonusses for quests, but that was really only a "patch to the wound." (not a gamepatch... it was pretty clear if you actually read my post)

Now that we're so many years later and have a start at beginning anew, yes, I would like for them to rework the core system rather than taking the same flawed system of old and riggidly trying to make it work properly with adding needless stuff like mine or lockpick XP (sadly, the same suggestions being presented today )

 

 

@ Immortalis;

Of course I never played the Infinity Engine games. Or I would have seen them for what you know they are, perfect games without any flaws what-so-ever. So we should keep everything the same. Except Obsdian already reworks a lot of IE-things people had issues with. Rest-spam, spells-per-rest, D&D combat. Why aren't those kept since they were perfect? Do things just because IE-games did them is no argument. Since many things have changed from there already, mostly due to much complain of the mechanics. Surely you can think of faults of you own (oh no, wait, perfect, nvm)? Things they can now after all this year finally solve starting anew? Rather than working forth on old mistakes? I am sad to inform you however you can't expect your IE-game, because while like it, it will have signifcant changes. This game isn't made for people who think IE were perfect and any change (for the better) is going to become horrible bad and ruin the game.

I am sure everyone who played IE-games played them just like you, thought just like you. Someone like me who thought "okay, it's kinda bad this choice between dialogue and murdering has a 75000XP award difference?"

I ask you... have you ever played Knights of the Old Republic II? If so, tell me... what did you think of the Nar Shaddaa Refugee sector, where the "conversation" sollution wielded 3000XP and murdering the entire sector wielded 80000XP?

Surely anyone who thinks thats utterly ridicilous just doesn't want an IE-game... or played IE-games, right? Can't be we have valid reasons to object...

 

And yes, I am still of the opinion Bestiary XP *can* be good, if there are other sources of information aside from combat. If it's just murdering off until "ding" and there are no alternatives, it's just another patch to lap up an issue rather than fix it.

 

Now don't dissapoint me when you fail to see my point, pick certain parts of my posts to complain rather than taking the whole in mind, or just keep rambling the same boring old line of "you have no argument, I don't understand why you would, you never posted any reasons..."

[Namutree]

 

 

Talking to npc's is not diplomacy, and you can't lose based on a conversation. You can totally ignore the text and still win.

I certainly hope for any decent RPG to this not being the case. If you can totally skip every dialogue on your first PoE game and win, I will be sorely dissapointed...

 

This is the case with most RPG's. Only in rare cases is dialog in an rpg actually important enough that you must read it. 

 

 

 

What a load of BS. No one has suggested that nothing that doesn't give xp isn't worth doing. Also, while you must talk to npc's for the critical path; talking poses NO danger, and can be over in seconds if you don't read it. So why should it give xp?

You seem to have missed every single page of every single thread (around 1 or 2 dozen) on the subject. Your budy Stun has been one of the most loud proprietors of this standpoint from the start. Just look through his post-history for a long summary of posts where "no combat XP = run past all enemies"...

You seriously need to inform yourself of the standpoints of your own party.

As for the second part, see the above quote reply. I could simarly say the same. I find one lone kobold, I smack his puny little face in 2 in seconds... So why should it give XP?

 

 

Nope. They have only suggested that they'll avoid combat if it doesn't give xp. That position is perfectly logical considering the amount of risk, resources, and effort involved with combat. If combat were quick and easy I suspect they'd be willing to engage in it; even with no xp reward. As for the kobald question; the kobald presents a very minor threat, and gives very minor experience. That makes sense. Talking to a random npc presents no risk, and thus gives no xp. That makes sense too.

 

Man your posts are long... I'll respond to more of it later.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

How is this debate still raging? Again, this problem has been solved already. I repeat, this problem has been solved already.

 

Effective Challenge Rating

 

E.C.L.

 

Any activity that yields experience is assigned a Challenge Rating. When experience is earned, this challenge rating is compared to the challenge rating of the character earning said experience. Proportionately less experience is awarded the higher a character's rating is above the challenge. This can sometimes reduce the award to nothing. Conversely, proportionately more experience is awarded the lower the character's rating is below the challenge.

 

It's the best of all approaches. Everyone gets experience for everything. Diminishing returns strongly discourage "degenerative game play". A quasi-equilibrium is enforced through those diminishing returns even on the most ardent completionist. Quest/Objective experience may still be awarded at a specified sum irrespective of ECL if so desired. What more is there left to argue about?

[Namutree]

 

* This point is 100% false. Oops!

Go replay, without mods if you have them. It's definitely true. It was also the most ridicilous bad developer decision I have seen till date.

 

I have done a bit of research, and I'll concede this point. Between Enhanced Edition & mods I got a bit confused. My bad on this one. 

 

 

 

* Combat does not always triumphed any diplomatic solution. Sometimes the player isn't strong enough to win a battle; in such cases diplomacy is clearly superior.

But, but, that requires reading. Didn't you say just lines before that that's not required, skippable in seconds and something of no importance?

 

 

I never said they were of no importance; just not needed. As it stands diplomacy is not needed (unlike combat) in those games. Doesn't mean it wasn't helpful at times.

[Namutree]

How is this debate still raging? Again, this problem has been solved already. I repeat, this problem has been solved already.

 

Effective Challenge Rating

 

E.C.L.

 

Any activity that yields experience is assigned a Challenge Rating. When experience is earned, this challenge rating is compared to the challenge rating of the character earning said experience. Proportionately less experience is awarded the higher a character's rating is above the challenge. This can sometimes reduce the award to nothing. Conversely, proportionately more experience is awarded the lower the character's rating is below the challenge.

 

It's the best of all approaches. Everyone gets experience for everything. Diminishing returns strongly discourage "degenerative game play". A quasi-equilibrium is enforced through those diminishing returns even on the most ardent completionist. Quest/Objective experience may still be awarded at a specified sum irrespective of ECL if so desired. What more is there left to argue about?

That's actually a good idea. I'd be okay with that.