Jump to content
Immortalis

Combat XP - What Just Happened..?

What Just Happened  

280 members have voted

  1. 1. What Sources of Xp Do you think are justified?

    • Combat
      152
    • Quests
      264
    • 'Objectives' (Finishing Part of a Quest)
      233
    • Lock Picking / Trap Disabling
      118
    • Exploration
      207
    • Specific Combat Scenarios - Bosses or Special Encounters
      197
    • Bestiary Unlocking (With Limited XP To Be Gained)
      158


Recommended Posts

I have to wonder why combat is being singled out as being grind-xp? 

 

I suppose completing quests is not quick & repetitive enough to count as "grinding".

 

It's true that trap/lock XP could reasonably be called grind-xp though, if it leads people to picking locks and disarming traps which they didn't have to, just to get more XP.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that is bad how? It is my choice if I do this. How does this affect you if I have a bit easier fights?

 

[...]

 

This just reminds me of people that complained on WL2 forums about how WL2 lets you savescum and wanted the devs to implement strict rules into base game so nobody can save scum skill checks. We sent them away and told them to leave people to play as they want. I can only say the same to you. Leave us to play the game as we want and ask for a game that supports both playstyles instead.

 

I sympathise to some extent, but please note that it is a game devevloper's job to add constraints and rules (if necessary, strict ones) in order to make a game fun even for players who exploit all the game's rules & features in their favour.

 

Players shouldn't have to say "I'm purposefully going to avoid this and that feature, in order to make the game fun". It should be challenging and engaging, with all allowed features.

 

Chess would not become more fun if the movement restrictions were removed and players would be allowed to move any piece in any way the want. It would become a pretty boring and senseless game that way, and players would have to add their own restrictions back in to make it fun again.

 

Please note that I'm not trying to demolish your whole argument by pointing this out; as I said, I partially agree and I've been known to shamelessly powergame myself... :biggrin:

Just trying to remind everyone that things are not as black and white as "allowing multiple play styles vs being a nazi", and that adding artificial restrictions and limitations is, in fact, what game design is all about -- "if in doubt, allow everything and let players choose if they want to exploit it" is not a good design principle.

  • Like 4

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saving and loading is not a feature of gameplay, but a quality of life thing. It is here because PC players don't like to play with Checkpoints or other options.

 

People that exploit features but don't have fun doing it should not do it. It is up to players to control themselves and not to things that are not fun. 

If the developers are forcing players to do unfun things, then it is developers job to not do that. Like lets say PoE is trying to force only one play style.

Edited by archangel979

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose completing quests is not quick & repetitive enough to count as "grinding".

 

It's true that trap/lock XP could reasonably be called grind-xp though, if it leads people to picking locks and disarming traps which they didn't have to, just to get more XP.

 

But that's the point, combat should neither be repetitive or quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then make yourself more clear next time. When talk about the balance but don't continue it is automatically assumed you want balance and anything that breaks that balance is bad. 

 

Don't jump to conclusions next time just so you can jump up and down on your bandwagon 

 

 

I have to wonder why combat is being singled out as being grind-xp? 

 

I suppose completing quests is not quick & repetitive enough to count as "grinding".

 

It's true that trap/lock XP could reasonably be called grind-xp though, if it leads people to picking locks and disarming traps which they didn't have to, just to get more XP.

 

 

I don't get this at all just how many locks and traps do you suppose are going to be placed in the game that don't need picking or disarming - are they just for show? Did the programmers need to practice placing them?  :no:


Nomadic Wayfarer of the Obsidian Order


 

Not all those that wander are lost...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't quite understand why combat xp is so low while exploration xp is so high in this poll ?!

 

I mean, I hope everybody agrees that exploration should be driven by the seek of adventure, greed and bloodlust. I get off the tracks (if there are any), I stumble upon a quest/a band of jerks who refuse to recognize my godliness or a pile of gold resting in a locked chest and I get my XP from that ! THAT'S HOW WINNING IS DONE !

 

Although I think xp rewards for any deed is important, and xp reward for combat should be even more important, especially considering how God Obsidian worked hard on it, and still does.

 

So I don't like exploration xp rewards, I think the reward for exploration should be its result. I'm not sure though, how I would become a master swordsman by discovering new lands. "Hey, look at that fine little village I just arrived to... I feel that... that... THAT I CAN GIVE IT TO A BUNCH OF EVIL JONGLERS RIGHT NOW ! YEAH !" No.


Qu'avez-vous fait de l'honneur de la patrie ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a one off xp reward for killing a certain amount and completing a bestiary page in your cyclopaedia. You don't get any xp rewards until you kill a certain amount. That to me sounds more like grinding. I'm grinding through these enemies to get that bestiary page and one off xp reward.

Not quite. Because,

 

A) you have other reasons to kill those creatures (if you end up killing 5 beetles, for example, while completing some main story/quest/objective, then it's impossible to have "ground" those beetles, unless you consider just playing the game at all to be "grinding" for the game's completion, in which case, you should probably just play games you actually like at that point). and...

 

B) the amount of creatures you need to kill for that one-off XP reward will be SIGNIFICANTLY fewer than all the creatures of that type in the whole game. So, you're not really encourage to just run off and grind through all the creatures you see.

 

That being said, I'm not advocating it as a fantastic idea. Just pointing out that it doesn't really inherently lead to any more grinding than could be had with any other system.

 

I really think objectives should simply be used in conjunction with the placement of both combat encounters and other objectives in order to allow for combat encounters to frequently directly contribute to XP rewards. Bestiary XP is still a little wonky. It at least represents the combat, but still only a really small portion, and still only rather arbitrarily.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make sure people understand my stance. I don't ask that combat XP must be in the game. I would prefer if all combat, no matter how small (expect random encounters during traveling) is part of some story or quest. I don't really enjoy trash combat against meaningless and uninteresting enemies. 10201303030 pack of Hobgoblin Elite in BG was not exciting, but finding a sudden pack of 3 Ogrillion was (especially since someone mentioned them). Enemies with name and story (no matter how small) was fun to find and run into. There should be some XP around this encounter (be it discovery, or some minor quest you can turn into, or as a special challenge).

But if they cannot fill the game with meaningful encounters, I would rather get kill xp from all the boring trash mobs then not.

 

In Pen&Paper you don't go around finding random creatures in small numbers and murdering them all. Even if it looks like that, GM will make a bigger story around it to make it more interesting. As a computer roleplaying game, it should also not have random murdering situations.

All the wolves and beetles standing around waiting to be murdered is not good gameplay.

Yea, I know it is a lot to ask from developers but it is how it should be. Not Dragon Age lets kill 43434343 same packs of enemies or Diablo 34343434 packs of same kind of skeletons.

Edited by archangel979

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have to wonder why combat is being singled out as being grind-xp? 

 

I suppose completing quests is not quick & repetitive enough to count as "grinding".

 

It's true that trap/lock XP could reasonably be called grind-xp though, if it leads people to picking locks and disarming traps which they didn't have to, just to get more XP.

 

 

I don't get this at all just how many locks and traps do you suppose are going to be placed in the game that don't need picking or disarming - are they just for show? Did the programmers need to practice placing them?  :no:

 

Sometimes there are different paths to get into a locked room. e.g. the big room in the Skaen dungeon (I think), and the locked room in the back of the village shop, which you can reach without opening its door, by going through the Skaen dungeon and then up a tunnel into the room.

 

If you already got in somehow but nonetheless choose to pick the lock of an alternative path to get in, that could be called  "lock XP grinding" :) Although you're right that the opportunities for this are limited. But then again, the opportunities for kill XP grinding are also limited, or are there respawning monsters in the game?

 

As for traps, I encountered at least one in the BB which I could not disarm, so I had to go around it. If disarming traps gives XP, that means you have to have a character with maxed Mechanics in order to get all XP. That's not grinding, but probably still "degenerate"...


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CaptainMace, the reason combat XP is so low and exploration XP is so high is that about 75% of voters think that exploration XP is justified while only 50% think that combat XP is justified. That's... pretty much it.

 

The people who want combat XP are pretty loud (not that that's a bad thing), but this poll (and the other two previous polls as well) reinforces the evidence that the community is pretty much evenly divided on combat XP. Half of us want it and half of us don't. Therefore, for either side to claim that their opinion represents what "true" fans of PoE want or some such is completely disingenuous. Just something to keep in mind.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Adding in minor bestiary, exploration, lock, and trap XP rewards to increase the regularity of XP rewards across the game.

 

Josh's solution is rewarding Xp for opening locks and disabling traps.. the one thing from Baldurs Gate 2 nobody wanted to see make a return.

 

What the hell just happened?

 

huh? I want xp for opening locks and traps...i mentioned it in one of those threads too. why is it retarded?

Edited by philby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest update promises "additional character progression options". I'm willing to see whether these go far enough to mitigate the empty feeling of winning tough battles without gaining experience. For me, this would mean:

  • Level design that gives players options in dealing with "trash mobs". At minimum we have two: Fight, or sneak past. The overland areas honor this pretty well, but underground--in the Skaen temple, for instance--there is little option but to engage. When I entered the Skaen temple after moving the stone blocking it, combat mode activated as soon as I entered the room. (Maybe this is by design as moving the stone probably raised a racket.)
  • When you make promises like "experience will not be contingent on body count", you need to have really compelling alternative solutions. This means the ability to talk your way out of encounters, as well as a stealth system that really feels like a first-class citizen. Sneaking past enemies needs to feel like you're getting away with something, not skipping content.
  • An experience system that rewards exploration. Since you now have the option of slipping past (or talking down) the enemies blocking the dungeon entrance, you should get XP for entering the dungeon; it's proof that you solved the problem (getting past the guardians) without caring how you solved it. And to reward exploration, the gain should not be contingent on having spoken with some "quest giver" first.
  • Objective-experience (read: Quest XP on the installment plan). Currently this works well: We get XP for discovering the ogre's cave, another chunk for dealing with the ogre (whether killing him or convincing him to leave), and a final boon when returning victorious to the farmer. This keeps us motivated without longing for the ordeal to be over so we can finally reap a some reward.

There are others (bestiary XP is a nice plus IMO), but these are the major factors. I believe that PoE can be as fun and rewarding as any IE game, without universal kill XP--if they design the levels, non-combat systems, and quests very thoughtfully.

Edited by PrimeHydra
  • Like 5

Ask a fish head

Anything you want to

They won't answer

(They can't talk)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not quite. Because,

 

A) you have other reasons to kill those creatures (if you end up killing 5 beetles, for example, while completing some main story/quest/objective, then it's impossible to have "ground" those beetles, unless you consider just playing the game at all to be "grinding" for the game's completion, in which case, you should probably just play games you actually like at that point). and...

 

B) the amount of creatures you need to kill for that one-off XP reward will be SIGNIFICANTLY fewer than all the creatures of that type in the whole game. So, you're not really encourage to just run off and grind through all the creatures you see.

 

That being said, I'm not advocating it as a fantastic idea. Just pointing out that it doesn't really inherently lead to any more grinding than could be had with any other system.

 

I really think objectives should simply be used in conjunction with the placement of both combat encounters and other objectives in order to allow for combat encounters to frequently directly contribute to XP rewards. Bestiary XP is still a little wonky. It at least represents the combat, but still only a really small portion, and still only rather arbitrarily.

 

 

Yes quite. Because,

 

A) Dyrford crossing and the Gorge map are examples where there are trash mobs you either i) don't have to kill or ii) don't need to kill a lot of. There's no reason to kill the wolves, wyrms or shambling mounds at all. They are totally avoidable. You can also avoid most of the spiders in the ogre cave and only have to kill two to get to the Ogre. There's also no reason to kill so many lions as you can stay near the bottom of the Gorge map and avoid most of them.

 

B) I've already brought this point up before in another thread. At the start of the game, players may feel compelled to go on kill sprees to get bestiary pages because of wanting to level up early in the game. A level 1 mage is going to be just plain bad compared to a level 10 mage, so you will want to kill as much in the early game to get those bestiary pages and xp rewards, to kill all those beetles and level up than killing beetles later in the game when that same xp reward is going to have a lesser value. A beetle bestiary page is worth more for a level 1 character than a level 10 character. So regardless if there's more of that same type of enemy later in the game, if I can get that reward earlier, then I'll try and get that reward earlier for my low level party.

 

And this leads to more inherently grinding, to go on kill sprees early because xp rewards are more sparse than other games. And you have no idea if you will encounter those same enemies anywhere else in the game unless you have meta-knowledge. eg. I've just come across a map with lions and will I see more lions later in the game? I have no idea so I'll just kill all these lions and get the bestiary page and xp reward. And you're saying that's not going out of your way to get an xp reward? That's not grinding for the sake of grinding? Sounds like grinding to me. And if you do come across a map later in the game where you do come across lions but are avoidable, then I'll avoid them because I've already been rewarded with xp in an earlier map. It's encourages grinding and kill sprees if you haven't received that bestiary page because you have no idea if you're going to encounter that same enemy again. 

 

This also leads into how do you balance the game? Do you balance it for the kill spree player who receives all the bestiary pages early in the game and make it hard for those players who don't go on kill sprees? Or do you balance it for the player who doesn't go on kill sprees and receives those bestiary pages earlier which in turn makes it easier for the kill spree player as they are at a higher level now? Even if you take the middle of the road, the kill spree player will have an advantage over the non-kill spree player who has less bestiary pages.

 

WL2 does a good job with individual, combat and quest xp rewards. You can have one character get xp rewards for the medic skill and only that character. Similar with another character getting xp rewards for mechanical repair and only that character. And another character with dialogue choice with getting rewarded for using one of the Kiss/Hard/Smart Ass skills and only that character. Also, WL2 has kill xp and there is no need for 'grinding' even though it's a combat centric game. In fact, I avoid quite a few fights even though I can see critters off in the distance. I never feel compelled to go after every single enemy to get all that xp even though I could, even though I have a tonne of ammo and med packs.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're over >200 votes, so here's another (probably last) result chart:

 

HX8Ndf2.png

 

Immortalis' prediction seems to have come true: Combat XP support increased to roughly 50%...

 

The chart showing how people voted at different stages of the poll: http://i.imgur.com/4fjZwlX.png (Note that those are not cumulative values; each bar only shows how the people voted during that time segment.)

 

  • Like 2

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just have an initial encounter xp for the first time you fight the creature and then progressively less the more you fight that creature?

 

ie first time 60xp

second time 30xp

third time 15xp

 

Or alternatively you could scale the creature xp reward down, depending on the character level your at, to the relative challenge of the creature your fighting

 

ie level 1 character killing beatle worth 300xp

level 5 character killing beatle worth 100xp

level 10 character ~ no xp

 

Excellent idea, similar to the XP system of D&D 3rd ed., which is perfect.

 

But no, what they want to give us(mainly) is quest XP, to keep the game experience balanced around the player's actions. This is a very worthy cause(one which I applaude), but the implimentation is WRONG.

 

You may as well advance the player a lv after certain key points in the game, instead of having this illusion of proggression.

 

Some PCs may hate to delve in the affairs of others(quests) and just want to venture dangerous places and battle monsters to become better at battle. Shouldn't this be an option? Why do the quest hunters have to outlevel those adventurers?

 

Imo the most balanced XP system was that of Fallout 1&2, where one could attain high lvs while doing a minimum of quests. The options. should. be there.

 

My propositions are:

 

-bring back combat XP in the form of encounter XP, which will be balanced around party lv strength(quite similar to D&D 3rd)

 

-keep quest objective XP and when combat is required(or chosen by the player), those can replace encounter XP

 

-modify difficulty of key story encounters based on party strength, up to a level that makes sense


Matilda is a Natlan woman born and raised in Old Vailia. She managed to earn status as a mercenary for being a professional who gets the job done, more so when the job involves putting her excellent fighting abilities to good use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

-modify difficulty of key story encounters based on party strength, up to a level that makes sense

 

  • Like 7

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

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes quite. Because,

 

A) Dyrford crossing and the Gorge map are examples where there are trash mobs you either i) don't have to kill or ii) don't need to kill a lot of. There's no reason to kill the wolves, wyrms or shambling mounds at all. They are totally avoidable. You can also avoid most of the spiders in the ogre cave and only have to kill two to get to the Ogre. There's also no reason to kill so many lions as you can stay near the bottom of the Gorge map and avoid most of them.

The beta's also a very small portion of the whole game. That you can avoid plenty of lions in the beta doesn't mean you'll just get to avoid lions always, in the whole game. Not to mention the fact that it's a beta, and things (including placements of foes) will most likely change in unknown-at-this-time ways.

 

B) I've already brought this point up before in another thread. At the start of the game, players may feel compelled to go on kill sprees to get bestiary pages because of wanting to level up early in the game. A level 1 mage is going to be just plain bad compared to a level 10 mage, so you will want to kill as much in the early game to get those bestiary pages and xp rewards, to kill all those beetles and level up than killing beetles later in the game when that same xp reward is going to have a lesser value. A beetle bestiary page is worth more for a level 1 character than a level 10 character. A beetle bestiary page is worth more to a level 1 mage than it is for a level 10 mage. So regardless if there's more of that same type of enemy later in the game, if I can get that reward earlier, then I'll try and get that reward earlier for my low level party.

 

And this leads to more inherently grinding, to go on kill sprees early because xp rewards are more sparse than other games. And you have no idea if you will encounter those same enemies anywhere else in the game unless you have meta-knowledge. eg. I've just come across a map with lions and will I see more lions later in the game? I have no idea so I'll just kill all these lions and get the bestiary page and xp reward. And you're saying that's not going out of your way to get an xp reward? That's not grinding for the sake of grinding? Sounds like grinding to me. And if you do come across a map later in the game where you do come across lions but are avoidable, then I'll avoid them because I've already been rewarded with xp in an earlier map.

You've got a point, here, about not knowing how many of Foe X you'll encounter in the future, and about XP rewards being more useful the earlier you can get them. Which is one reason why I don't think Bestiary XP is the best way to go. However, that still doesn't mean it's inherently more compelling to grind for that XP versus any other system. In a regular per-kill-XP system, you don't know how many more enemies you'll encounter in the game, without meta-knowledge. Why wouldn't that be encouragement to kill what you can, when you can?

 

WL2 does a good job with individual, combat and quest xp rewards. You can have one character get xp rewards for the medic skill and only that character. Similar with another character getting xp rewards for mechanical repair and only that character. And another character with dialogue choice with getting rewarded for using one of the Kiss/Hard/Smart Ass skills and only that character. Also, WL2 has kill xp and there is no need for 'grinding' even though it's a combat centric game.

There's no "need" for grinding even with the bestiary XP design. There are simply reasons why you could benefit from some "grinding." That's no different in WL2. Arbitrarily stating that you didn't feel like you had to kill everything lends no support to the argument about the effects of an XP system's potential rewards, and the potential behaviors to reap those rewards. WL2 has a much higher level cap than PoE, and even "reswpawning" (unlimited) random encounters, with guaranteed XP for every single enemy death. Somehow, bestiary XP is evil and compels grinding, but WL2 is totally fine and doesn't encourage it at all?

 

That's what you seem to be saying, so correct me if it isn't. (I'm not telling you "YOU'RE SAYING THIS," in other words. So we can avoid taking that turn in the discussion.)

 

Anywho, like I said, I don't think bestiary XP is an exceptionally good idea or anything. I've said some stuff about it already, in here, I believe (hard to keep track, what with so many threads talking about the same things). And I'll gladly go to town with you on breaking down exactly why it's bad, if you'd like.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Level scaling of encounters can be a good thing if it is applied in moderation and done right (by adding more enemies), but horrible if done wrong (like invisibly scaling the HP's or other stats of enemies, as that pretty much negates the hole concept of character progression and gaining power).

  • Like 1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just have an initial encounter xp for the first time you fight the creature and then progressively less the more you fight that creature?

 

ie first time 60xp

    second time 30xp

    third time 15xp

  

Or alternatively you could scale the creature xp reward down, depending on the character level your at, to the relative challenge of the creature your fighting

 

ie level 1 character killing beatle worth 300xp

    level 5 character killing beatle worth 100xp

    level 10 character ~ no xp

Out of those two options, I much prefer the first. Once you've fought so many Foe X's, you just don't really gain anything from fighting more. Of course, that's strictly a simulation (if not a perfect one) of gaining XP through doing. So, the game would still be ridiculously inconsistent if lockpicking and crafting, etc. (all the things the abstract XP and level-ups represent progress in) didn't also produce diminishing XP-per-activity-performed. And, in comparison to that option, I much prefer the objective XP approach, in which XP rewards are given for your choice's/action's relevance to the story/game world, as dictated by the story/game world itself, and not just by some isolated evaluation of whether or not your character "achieved" something related to simulated progress for the sake of progress.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Level scaling of encounters can be a good thing if it is applied in moderation and done right (by adding more enemies), but horrible if done wrong (like invisibly scaling the HP's or other stats of enemies, as that pretty much negates the hole concept of character progression and gaining power).

However, it is something every GM at pen'n'paper games was 'forced' to do from time to time. There's nothing worse than missing on the thrill of an encounter you ve planned way ahead, only b/c the players have become stronger than you expected. I find nothing wrong with that, nor my PCs the times I tell 'em I did it. Actually, they support my doing it.

Edited by constantine
  • Like 2

Matilda is a Natlan woman born and raised in Old Vailia. She managed to earn status as a mercenary for being a professional who gets the job done, more so when the job involves putting her excellent fighting abilities to good use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Level scaling of encounters can be a good thing if it is applied in moderation and done right (by adding more enemies), but horrible if done wrong (like invisibly scaling the HP's or other stats of enemies, as that pretty much negates the hole concept of character progression and gaining power).

However, it is something every GM at pen'n'paper games was 'forced' to do from time to time. There's nothing worse than missing on the thrill of an encounter you ve planned way ahead, only b/c the players have become stronger than you expected. I find nothing wrong with that, nor my PCs the times I tell 'em I did it. Actually, they support my doing it.

 

 

Hm it might not be so bad with unique bosses, I guess.

 

But if you fight a kind of monster at level 2, and then meet the same kind of monster again at level 8 and the fight doesn't feel any different because your improvements to DPS are being cancelled out by HP scaling on the other side, that would suck.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The beta's also a very small portion of the whole game. That you can avoid plenty of lions in the beta doesn't mean you'll just get to avoid lions always, in the whole game. Not to mention the fact that it's a beta, and things (including placements of foes) will most likely change in unknown-at-this-time ways.

 

I never said you could avoid lions always in the whole game. Also, how do you know if you can avoid all lions in the whole game? How do you know if we'll see lions later in the game? You don't unless you have meta-knowledge. So you using conjecture doesn't disprove my point. If you encounter lions in the game for the first time, will you kill them to get the bestiary page and xp reward now or will you avoid half of them and get the bestiary page and xp reward later because you think you'll see more lions later in the game? I know what I will do. I'll get that xp reward now because I have no idea if I will see lions again and due to xp being sparse in the game.

 

 

You've got a point, here, about not knowing how many of Foe X you'll encounter in the future, and about XP rewards being more useful the earlier you can get them. Which is one reason why I don't think Bestiary XP is the best way to go. However, that still doesn't mean it's inherently more compelling to grind for that XP versus any other system. In a regular per-kill-XP system, you don't know how many more enemies you'll encounter in the game, without meta-knowledge. Why wouldn't that be encouragement to kill what you can, when you can? 

 

It is more compelling to grind that xp as I stated above. And it's more compelling than any other system. For the simple fact that players may feel compelled to grind and go on kill sprees because they have no idea if they will encounter that SAME enemy again. It's not a case of meeting 'lions' or 'beetles' or 'spiders'. It's a case of lion, elder lion, wood beetle, stone beetle, spider, crystal spider, and many other types of those critters. It's not a case of will I see a 'lion' but a particular type of lion or other critter later in the game.

 

Also, in a regular per-kill-xp system, it doesn't matter how many enemies there are later in the game. I never once thought to myself in the IE games or WL2 or any other game. Gee, I wonder how many more enemies there will be? I know, I better go on a kill spree now because there won't be any left later in the game! However in PoE, I would be wondering how many type of a particular critter there would be later in the game. Am I going to see another elder lion near the end of the game? I have no idea, so I'll kill them now and get the xp reward.

 

There's no "need" for grinding even with the bestiary XP design. There are simply reasons why you could benefit from some "grinding." That's no different in WL2. Arbitrarily stating that you didn't feel like you had to kill everything lends no support to the argument about the effects of an XP system's potential rewards, and the potential behaviors to reap those rewards. WL2 has a much higher level cap than PoE, and even "reswpawning" (unlimited) random encounters, with guaranteed XP for every single enemy death. Somehow, bestiary XP is evil and compels grinding, but WL2 is totally fine and doesn't encourage it at all?

 

That's what you seem to be saying, so correct me if it isn't. (I'm not telling you "YOU'RE SAYING THIS," in other words. So we can avoid taking that turn in the discussion.)

 

Anywho, like I said, I don't think bestiary XP is an exceptionally good idea or anything. I've said some stuff about it already, in here, I believe (hard to keep track, what with so many threads talking about the same things). And I'll gladly go to town with you on breaking down exactly why it's bad, if you'd like.

 

Obviously someone who's never played WL2. Random encounters on the world map to farm kill xp in WL2? Why would you want to do that? And who does that? More conjecture.

 

And yeah, lets hear your points on why Bestiary xp is bad and no good points please. It'd be good to see you go to town on criticising PoE and its bestiary xp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, level scaling is, in any case, a very bad system. Gameplay is a part of a game background, it's a part of the environment and, in a sense, of the story. Demon's Souls/Dark Souls shows that perfectly.

Why does the universe of Skyrim seem so less brutal and dangerous than the Sword Coast of Baldur's Gate ? It's not just a matter of music, rythm or world design, it's a matter of gameplay. You can very quickly encounter a siren or a basilisk in the latter, which in the first levels ultimately means a horrible death for some if not all party members.

Scaling the level of bosses is the most absurd thing ever. If you're underleveled for the area, you'll come across an important fight that happens to be actually way easier than the direwolves in the backyard.

 

We need the same philosophy that lead to these ennemies north of the starting point of New Vegas, some places, some encounters that aren't just about saying "hey, go grind a little and come back" like everyone seems to think, but also here to say "dude, this world ain't all sunshines and rainbows, there are more things out there that want you laid on the ground in your own blood than hair in your dwarf friend's beard, have a nice trip :)".

  • Like 3

Qu'avez-vous fait de l'honneur de la patrie ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said you could avoid lions always in the whole game. Also, how do you know if you can avoid all lions in the whole game? How do you know if we'll see lions later in the game? You don't unless you have meta-knowledge. So you using conjecture doesn't disprove my point.

I never said you said lions would always be avoidable throughout the whole game. I don't know if I can avoid all lions in the whole game (I was merely pointing out that neither of us knows that we can). And yes, I don't know if we'll see lions later in the game unless I have meta-knowledge. I totally addressed that in the remainder of my response, but you've inadvertently pre-emptively responded before reading that part.

 

Just for the record, not every word of every response is "Yeah, but you're wrong because...". Some things are just supplementary comments, and are not aiming to disprove your point.

 

 

It is more compelling to grind that xp as I stated above. And it's more compelling than any other system. For the simple fact that players may feel compelled to grind and go on kill sprees because they have no idea if they will encounter that SAME enemy again. It's not a case of meeting 'lions' or 'beetles' or 'spiders'. It's a case of lion, elder lion, wood beetle, stone beetle, spider, crystal spider, and many other types of those critters. It's not a case of will I see a 'lion' but a particular type of lion or other critter later in the game.

It's not really more compelling than any other system. It's just also compelling. But, that's not really important, so we'll just call that my opinion, I suppose, and I won't worry with it and waste anyone's time.

 

Also, in a regular per-kill-xp system, it doesn't matter how many enemies there are later in the game. I never once thought to myself in the IE games or WL2 or any other game. Gee, I wonder how many more enemies there will be? I know, I better go on a kill spree now because there won't be any left later in the game! However in PoE, I would be wondering how many type of a particular critter there would be later in the game. Am I going to see another elder lion near the end of the game? I have no idea, so I'll kill them now and get the xp reward.

You're missing the point. How do you even know there's enough XP in the game to reach the level cap without killing everything you see? You don't. If anything drops loot less-than-100% of the time, and/or drops a unique item (like an Elder Lion Pelt, for example), how do you know that won't be useful, and/or you won't need that some other time? You don't.

 

You simply trust that the design of the game makes friggin' sense, and that some of the things in the game are going to be optional, because the developers told you that when they advertised their game design. So, I'm not arguing that there's no reason to desire to "play it safe" and kill all 5 of your beetles up-front to make sure you go ahead and get that XP reward. I'm just saying, unknowns are there and are promoting erring-on-the-side-of-caution, bestiary XP or no. Hell, even without XP... You don't know anything concrete, without meta-knowledge.

 

Obviously someone who's never played WL2. Random encounters on the world map to farm kill xp in WL2? Why would you want to do that? And who does that? More conjecture.

 

And yeah, lets hear your points on why Bestiary xp is bad and no good points please. It'd be good to see you go to town on criticising PoE and its bestiary xp.

I have played WL2, for what it's worth. Why would you want to do that? For loot and XP. Who does that? Some people. I don't think you know what conjecture means. I'm not even arguing how many people are doing it. I'm arguing that it can be done. Versus PoE, in which there will apparently not be any infinite source of combat encounters. How is that conjecture? Infinite things to kill, if you choose, all giving you XP for every kill. But there's just no reason at all to kill any number of infinite things for XP, simply because you don't do it? Also, going back to my point a little higher up in this response, about unknowns... how do you know how much XP you'll get from not-killing a bunch of random encounters in the desert to get you to the level-cap and/or keep up with the progressive difficulty of critical path encounters?

 

You're the one who brought that up, about bestiary XP, but now you're acting like it doesn't exist, or you don't comprehend the workings of unknowns and incentives. This baffles me.

 

And lastly, I think I'm somewhat repeating some of this from either this thread or another, but I'll tell you why, off the top of my head, bestiary XP isn't great:

 

- It doesn't really represent accomplishment via combat in any kind of even fashion.

- It still represents the act of killing something (oftentimes not even something that was in your way at all, and that wouldn't have attacked you unless you decided to go wander into its personal space and/or piss it off), while the acts of doing everything else in the game don't provide you with XP, even though XP covers the advancement of pretty much any skill at which your character can improve in the whole game.

- It's kind of half of one thing, and half of another, without actually being either. It's an objective, but a somewhat arbitrary one (in the sense of what you're representing with XP gains.) For example, you kill X beetles and get a chunk of XP, but you don't get XP for intimidating X people in dialogue. So long as you only get XP for successfully accomplishing something pertinent to the story via intimidation in a given dialogue, you should only get XP for successfully accomplishing something pertinent to the story via combat.

 

There are probably more reasons. I'll think on it some more.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let 'Bestiary XP' burn to ashes.


Matilda is a Natlan woman born and raised in Old Vailia. She managed to earn status as a mercenary for being a professional who gets the job done, more so when the job involves putting her excellent fighting abilities to good use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...