Combat XP - What Just Happened..?

[Captain Shrek]

 

I disagree.

 

XP is hardly the single biggest incentive. Take for example Deus Ex. Let's say that getting Paul killed has a higher XP reward. Do you still feel that this option would be the most favored one?

XP is the single biggest incentive, out of the purely-mechanical incentives offered by the game.

 

That is so specific, that you objection is pointless. A game is not just a bundle fo mechanics.

[archangel979]

I guess what im saying is that to do "all" content in most games you had to "grind exp" and with the ways things are now im happy that i should be able to experience everything and overcome everything without grinding like i have in the past to stay ahead and make sure the future content was insured victory. Hope thats makes sense.

Not true. If you want to experience everything you still need to kill all creatures and take their loot. Only you will not gain Xp for it. 

[Namutree]

 

1) BG1 (and its expansion) - semi open world, but with a constrictingly low level cap that renders grinding moot. And it goes further than that. The game can be beaten - legitimately - with a party of level 6-ish characters. 

 

 

Now Stun, you know that BG1 can be beaten with a lower level party than that.

[archangel979]

It can be beaten with a single lvl something character just by abusing some features of the last map :D

[Stun]

People that do those 'no-xp runs' have beaten BG1 with a single level 1 character, in fact. It can be done. Lets remember that this games gives you the Cloak of Algernon, almost unlimited supplies of invisibility potions and a few other exploits. But that's not really an example of anything.

 

For the purposes of legitimate argumentation, BG1's end-game is balanced to reasonably challenge a party of level 5-6 characters. This means that 'grinding', no matter the definition being used, is not needed to beat the game.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Stun

[wanderon]

People that do those 'no-xp runs' have beaten BG1 with a single level 1 character, in fact. It can be done. Lets remember that this games gives you the Cloak of Algernon, almost unlimited supplies of invisibility potions and a few other exploits. But that's not really an example of anything.

 

For the purposes of legitimate argumentation, BG1's end-game is balanced to reasonably challenge a party of level 5-6 characters. This means that 'grinding', no matter the definition being used, is not needed to beat the game.

 

It may not be needed to beat the game with a single or multi class PC and single or multi class companions but if you choose to dual class instead especially if you have multiple dual class characters in your party it can be very problematic to simply play through normally vs using something like the pirate cave to "quick level" your new class to get your old skills back

 

( also depending on a lot of outside factors like size and makeup of group, general alignment of group, companion availability, and what point in the game you are at when it comes time to dual class.)

 

The same thing can occur in BG2 as well altho since you start at level 8ish it is less problematic as you have a much sturdier PC or companion to keep alive while getting their old skills back.

[archangel979]

 

People that do those 'no-xp runs' have beaten BG1 with a single level 1 character, in fact. It can be done. Lets remember that this games gives you the Cloak of Algernon, almost unlimited supplies of invisibility potions and a few other exploits. But that's not really an example of anything.

 

For the purposes of legitimate argumentation, BG1's end-game is balanced to reasonably challenge a party of level 5-6 characters. This means that 'grinding', no matter the definition being used, is not needed to beat the game.

 

It may not be needed to beat the game with a single or multi class PC and single or multi class companions but if you choose to dual class instead especially if you have multiple dual class characters in your party it can be very problematic to simply play through normally vs using something like the pirate cave to "quick level" your new class to get your old skills back

 

( also depending on a lot of outside factors like size and makeup of group, general alignment of group, companion availability, and what point in the game you are at when it comes time to dual class.)

 

The same thing can occur in BG2 as well altho since you start at level 8ish it is less problematic as you have a much sturdier PC or companion to keep alive while getting their old skills back.

 

Why use golem cave when you can easily go kill basilisks for lots of XP. Even with no magical protections, you can use that Ghoul to mostly kill them for you. Is that also grinding? Edited October 22, 2014 by archangel979

[Immortalis]

I love Lephys, Caradin and Wanderon's logic.

 

They will Concede that, yes... maybe grinding didn't need to be done to complete/ experience IE games.. BUT YOU COULD GRIND IF YOU WANTED TO.. SO IT EXISTS AND RUINED THE GAMES.

 

I have never "Grinded" xp in any of my playthroughs of an IE game.. It's slow and repetitive and offered me nothing and I still reached max level just by fighting things I came up against..

 

This is like saying Spoons could be used as a weapon to kill someone so they are now deadly weapons that should be removed from society, even though spoons are never used as weapons except in the most extreme cases (Prison? I dunno).

 

It's not the developers job to police gamers so that we follow the way Josh thinks we should play a game. The developers job is to create an engaging and challenging game that we can make decisions in how we progress and win. If stealthing past enemies is what gets you off.. You probably shouldn't play an isometric game that focuses on combat..

 

BAWT IMMOTAL!! No Combat XP means we HAV Choice! Everything we do results in the same reward.. DAT CHOICE!

 

No Dumbasses, it means I am going to play the game in the most optimal way because now Stealthing past enemies has provided the best way to resolve encounters. I don't have to waste money or resources or take damage by stealthing past enemies or flexing my arms and scaring the bandits away.. So I am going to do that instead of taking my chances and using a risk / reward model of playing the game.

 

"Can I fight these guys? hmm I dunno but If I succeed I will grow in power.. is it worth it?" These type of scenarios are important.. If a group of bandits gives me nothing but some broken long swords and the guy stealthing saves time and hitpoints .. why the **** would I bother?

 

I wouldn't buy Call of Duty and start expunging my opinions about how gun play is degenerative and it should change it's focus to Real Time Strategy gameplay. Did any of you play any IE game and actually enjoy them or are you just around here to kiss up to OE Devs?

Edited October 22, 2014 by Immortalis

[Gfted1]

If a group of bandits gives me nothing but some broken long swords and the guy stealthing saves time and hitpoints .. why the **** would I bother?

Iirc, this is not necessarily the case. I believe the devs have stated that some good loot is only available by prying it from the mooks cold dead fingers.

[Cantousent]

I've always viewed the grinding argument with dismay.  Yes, it's bad, but it's only one argument.  There are poor arguments folks use in favor of kill XP also.  One in particular really gets under my skin, but I've decided to forswear actually arguing about kill XP.  I can't keep from reading the thread though, so thanks, ya wretch, for providing temptation to waste at least twenty or thirty minutes every day!

 

Anyhow, my point is that it's not a single argument thing.  There are some strong basic arguments in favor of both sides and clever folks who make them and after a while logic starts to get pulled this way and that like salt water taffy.  The argument is fun, although exhausting after a while, but it certainly leads to weird side shows.

 

I don't want to boggart the thread with discussions about rewards generally.  Who the hell am I kidding?  There's no turning away the "XP Bloodwars" even if I did try to boggart the thread.  I just think that another little side issue is the question the Cap'n and I were discussing earlier.  What rewards do people favor the most?  This isn't a kill or object XP question.  It's a question about the types of rewards that people favor most, from the sorts of in-game things like XP, loot, attribute bumps, etc. to outside things like STEAM achievements and story related things.

[CaptainMace]

 

 

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.

 

Sure, but the problem with your arguments ...

 

I wasn't making any arguments about combat XP, just telling you how to interpret the poll lol. I'm pretty much done arguing about XP for the most part, which is why I didn't make any arguments. Not really sure what you were responding to there, but it wasn't what I wrote. 

 

The problem with english is that it's kind of an imprecise language. What I meant with "your" was the arguments of the thread posters. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The only response to the quote was actually "sure" ahah

[Namutree]

I've been thinking about for a while, and I've changed my vote.

 

Now I voted:

 

1,2,3,5, and 6.

 

If we have combat-xp then we don't need beastiary-xp, and I just plain don't like lock/trap-xp.

[Stun]

What rewards do people favor the most?  This isn't a kill or object XP question.  It's a question about the types of rewards that people favor most, from the sorts of in-game things like XP, loot, attribute bumps, etc.

I find it very difficult to separate XP and loot and pick out a favorite between the two, since attempts to eliminate either one typically lessens the experience. Again, take BG1. Do people kill Drizzt for the 12,000 xp? Or for his scimitars? I do it for both.

[Cantousent]

Yeah, but how many people do it just 'cause they hate Drizzt?  And how many refuse to kill him even though they love the loot and the XP, but are Drizzt fans?  I only killed him once, just as a lark, and then reloaded because it seemed like murder to me.  After all, if I remember it right, you had to go out of your way to fight him.  That's the one where he was a random encounter in a wilderness area or something, right?

[Namutree]

 

What rewards do people favor the most?  This isn't a kill or object XP question.  It's a question about the types of rewards that people favor most, from the sorts of in-game things like XP, loot, attribute bumps, etc.

I find it very difficult to separate XP and loot and pick out a favorite between the two, since attempts to eliminate either one typically lessens the experience. Again, take BG1. Do people kill Drizzt for the 12,000 xp? Or for his scimitars? I do it for both.

 

I almost never kill him at all. Even my evil characters rarely have cause to do so.

[Stun]

After all, if I remember it right, you had to go out of your way to fight him.  That's the one where he was a random encounter in a wilderness area or something, right?

No. He's a set encounter, and to a new player, he can be quite the Trap. He is always surrounded by a huge cluster of Gnolls. An unaware player will see this huge gathering of gnolls and immediately think: FIREBALL! Of course, if you do cast fireball and Drizzt gets caught in its AOE, he will turn hostile and then your entire party is in for a world of pain. Edited October 22, 2014 by Stun

[Namutree]

 

After all, if I remember it right, you had to go out of your way to fight him.  That's the one where he was a random encounter in a wilderness area or something, right?

No. He's a set encounter, and to a new player, he can be quite the Trap. He is always surrounded by a huge cluster of Gnolls. An unaware player will see this huge gathering of gnolls and immediately think: FIREBALL! Of course, if you do cast fireball and Drizzt gets caught in its AOE, he will turn hostile and then your entire party is in for a world of pain.

 

I never thought of that. That would be hilarious!

[Lephys]

They will Concede that, yes... maybe grinding didn't need to be done to complete/ experience IE games.. BUT YOU COULD GRIND IF YOU WANTED TO.. SO IT EXISTS AND RUINED THE GAMES.

I actually never said anything specifically about the IE games, Groupy McGrouperpants. If you'd like to raise an issue with something I've said, make sure it's something I've actually said.

 

I have yet to argue that grinding was required in IE games.

[wanderon]

I challenge anyone to point to a post where I said grinding ruined anything - my contributions are simply stating what I have experienced in relation to things others have said because sometimes on the internet people may not paint the entire picture - probably because they ran out of time or just forgot the rest - I'm sure it rarely has anything to do with only saying things that support their argument.....

[Hassat Hunter]

So, I know I haven't replied for a while, and this is already few posts back but...

 

The argument is Vampire is NOT a combatgame (? I would greatly disagree with this). Also the sewers are just fine. Really? REALLY?

Also the funny argument that level vs. points is different since both offer a gradual progression of difficulty... BUT *it gradually levels with levels instead of  your points*.

 

There's no difference between gradually increasing difficulty. Even if you were using levelscaling (how I hate that) it wouldn't make a difference since it really makes no difference if it scales with levels or the XP required to get those levels.

 

*Again*; The entire point is about the attainment of skillpoints/XP. The way it's processed then (be it immediately put in points like Vampire, XP to skills DX or levels like IE) makes no difference. It's entirely irrelevant to anything. Degenerative incentives or behaviors are not in the spending, they are in the acquiring.

 

And yes, I also am highly amused by the so-called "combat lovers" stating that they would ignore combat if it gave no XP... cause they really are making many errors like;

1) They don't really like combat at all if they need an incentive to be forced into this behavior. You can't say you love IE's combat then say if XP was removed you don't. You're only fooling yourself, not me, not the developers.

2) There are more ways to reward combat (or other situations) than *only* XP

3) Stealth is apparently super-easy, since without combat XP everyone will avoid every fight. Try that with Deus Ex. Is it so easy as you make it sound. Probably not. Combat is still easier, even without XP.

4) Combat would still be rewarded.

 

THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BEING DIPLOMACY AND STEALTH ARE TOO

 

So let's get that besides each other...

You can have combat XP and allow players 1 playstyle; combat

You can have objective XP and allow players 3 playstyles (or even combining them); combat, stealth, diplomacy.

 

Now I know I will *never* do a steath walkthrough myself. Does that make me want to punish other players who do? No, I am not that selfish as the Combat XP crowd is. I'm not going to acclaim people need to play 'my way'... but proper objective XP is good for exactly that; making people choose themselves how to play, not being forced into a pre-set role.

How many good RPG's have come lately. Do you want to turn the tide? Then do you want more varied types of players enjoying a quality RPG and then learning how great they can be? Or do you rather want to remain niche, heavily defend your own little corner, oppose all new influence and give us this meagre RPG stock for years to come?

 

And for people saying "but there are no problems like that in BG2 or IWD since they added massive XP to quests to work around the XP-kill problem"... exactly; they already used went in this direction. Having to add such patches, workarounds. Wouldn't it be better than having to patch up a broken system, being bugprone and being overall a stitched together whole to have a system dedicated from the start to allow this gameplay. No more cheesy and half-assed workarounds. No more major (and many minor) bugs do to having to adjust to a system which is stitched together to work with a rotten core? More developer time to actually work on the game, being able to balance on the fly by modifying just a single XP value (rather than having to overlook the entire game if one enemies XP value gets adjusted)?

Developer time isn't infinite. A system that makes it easier to use, less prone to failure, more flexible, allows more different playstyles while taking away from none (you still get your reward from killing stuff, but it's just calculated differently. You can go all "ECL" or whatever, but that's another patch to the bleeding wound rather than fixing the core from the ground up. Why modify the XP of an encounter based on level, apply a different XP value in diplomatic commutities and add checks wheter you reached X without killing a group if you can simply all bound them in 1(!) value for all of them?

 

Why anyone can oppose that, I still cannot phantom. Explain to me. It's really not that hard. And all that saved developer time can be used for brand new encounters and areas from the content creators. And that means we all win. Why oppose that. Why? Anyone tell me, why?

[Namutree]

 

So let's get that besides each other...

You can have combat XP and allow players 1 playstyle; combat

You can have objective XP and allow players 3 playstyles (or even combining them); combat, stealth, diplomacy.

 

Actually no matter what xp system we get poe only allows 1 play style: combat. Combat will be mandatory. In some situations you can avoid combat, but not all of them. It will be MORE combat oriented than BG1.

 

 

 

Now I know I will *never* do a steath walkthrough myself. Does that make me want to punish other players who do? No, I am not that selfish as the Combat XP crowd is. 

Actually you are since combat still yields economic rewards. The question of whether or not stealth players are being punished by avoiding combat doesn't change if you replace the xp with loot. Don't pretend it does. Getting rid of combat xp, but replacing it with loot does nothing for stealth players. 

 

Though I do feel it is important to point out that with how BG1 handled xp; stealth players were NOT punished overall. If anything the stealth play style is easier. Even if that weren't true though; switching xp for loot wouldn't change a thing.

 

 

 No more cheesy and half-assed workarounds. 

You must not have heard of beastiary xp.

 

 

 

Developer time isn't infinite. 

Good point. Which is why OE should have gone with the tried and true xp system of kill-xp and quest-xp. The new system has had to be tweaked and modified since it wasn't very good. It's likely they're going to have to tweak it some more in the future as well. The developers would have saved precious time and resources by not trying to fix a mechanic that was never broken.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Namutree

[Hassat Hunter]

* Except it was broken... very broken... what part of patches to cover up the core issues didn't you get?

Applying more XP-triggers is more work than overhauling numbers in kill and quest-XP to a balanced level? I think not.

 

* Sure, if beastiary can only be filled by combat. But maybe you can get it from a rare book... some wiseman might tell you about this beast.  And there, you got all 3 core ways to get the beastiary information, then it's not a patchlap... If that's the plan is doubtful (since pointed out with lock and mine-XP), but that doesn't mean it can't be an objective of it's own.

 

* Combat costs resources (or it might), it will wield resources. Sometimes you loose more, sometimes less. I don't see the imbalance... unless thrashmobs drop 5 billion gold. But that's stupid regardless of any XP-system (also, there's always pickpocket, but that would require better stealthskills).

 

* True. Doesn't mean all 3 systems are true. Sometimes you might only be able to talk yourself out of something or failure. Sometimes you might just get steaththings. And sometimes combat is the only method (or the failure of another method). Does it make that the 'only' method... Nope. Same like the situation in Planescape: Torment where a certain combat option would lead to insta-death mean in the entire game the only option is diplomacy...

[Seari]

Yeah, but how many people do it just 'cause they hate Drizzt?  And how many refuse to kill him even though they love the loot and the XP, but are Drizzt fans?  I only killed him once, just as a lark, and then reloaded because it seemed like murder to me.  After all, if I remember it right, you had to go out of your way to fight him.  That's the one where he was a random encounter in a wilderness area or something, right?

Embrace your heritage.

[Namutree]

* Except it was broken... very broken... what part of patches to cover up the core issues didn't you get?

 

Please explain how the xp system in BG1 was broken. It worked just fine. It's critical reception and commercial success are evidence of that. It never needed patchwork.

 

 

 

* Sure, if beastiary can only be filled by combat. But maybe you can get it from a rare book... some wiseman might tell you about this beast.  And there, you got all 3 core ways to get the beastiary information, then it's not a patchlap... If that's the plan is doubtful (since pointed out with lock and mine-XP), but that doesn't mean it can't be an objective of it's own.

 

As far as we know beastiary xp can only be obtained by combat. Adding the idea you suggested would be smart (I actually suggested a system like that.), but it would be a lot more work. If Obsidian did go through all that effort it STILL wouldn't be as good as combat xp, but at least it would at least be decent. 

 

As it is  beastiary xp is a cheesy and lame fix for the lack of combat xp. It is also unlikely to ever be anything more than that.

 

 

 

Applying more XP-triggers is more work than overhauling numbers in kill and quest-XP to a balanced level? I think not.

 

To get decent results it is. Right now it seems the xp system of poe isn't going to be very good or intuitive. It's going to take a lot of trial and error to get a decent result.

 

 

 

* Combat costs resources (or it might), it will wield resources. Sometimes you loose more, sometimes less. I don't see the imbalance... unless thrashmobs drop 5 billion gold. But that's stupid regardless of any XP-system (also, there's always pickpocket, but that would require better stealthskills).

 

Because it's a lot more dangerous and time consuming than stealth. In order to be balanced against stealth/diplomacy; combat needs to be profitable. Josh has already stated that he doesn't intend for players to want to avoid combat (If he did then I'd say he's incredibly stupid, but he doesn't so he's not). In order to accomplish that goal you need to either give combat xp, or a lot of loot. In either case it's balanced, but the loot solution is much lamer. That's the point of the beastiary xp, but that's just lamer combat xp.

 

 

 

* True. Doesn't mean all 3 systems are true. Sometimes you might only be able to talk yourself out of something or failure. Sometimes you might just get steaththings. 

Not in anything mandatory. See there are points in the critical path where you MUST fight; from what I've heard there will be more of these situations than BG1. There will be no points where you MUST use stealth/diplomacy. 

 

Whether or not you want to believe it poe is a combat centered game. More so than the BG games. I hope you're not upset when you learn that stealth/diplomacy are LESS important in poe than in either of the BG games.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Namutree

[Gorionsson]

Objective only experience works ideally, but not in a game which emphasizes and often imposes combat. In the end, they should just award experience for everything, but impose an ECL system if they are worried about balance. I cannot understand why this is such a tenacious topic.

 

Absolutely.  Award xp for everything, and balance it out.

Yes, players  will seek out certain encounters and quests in the game because of this. But that will happen anyway, as I'm sure there will be boss drops and items you'd want regardless.

 

And yes,- this is NOT a problem in a single player game, as I see it. 

Combat xp makes perfect sense in a combat heavy game.