Combat XP - What Just Happened..?

[Caladian]

 

What I am saying is that getting xp for every mob is grindxp. 

This is what I was asking about. Why is getting xp for every mob grind-xp exclusively? If I get xp for quests I might be inclined to go and look for every quest in an area just to get xp. Isn't that grinding? If I scour a dungeon looking for every trap to disarm isn't that grinding?

 

 

EDIT: I too feel that since kill-xp is being replaced with something rather than simply being axed that the system is evolving; although there are no assurances it will evolve into something better.

 

You are absolutely correct, there are plenty of games where quest xp is grinding also.  I am not disagreeing with you there.  One of the best RL RPG systems I like is Shadowrun due to how characters advance.  They start off pretty awesome and while they do improve, a starting character can easily be as good as a longly played one.  Now can that easily be translated into a video game?  nah, doubt it.  Not without people whining that their long lived char is getting killed by a weak mob.  I have always been fine, and supported, some xp from kills.  Just not all kills.  With the focus on questing, it is a form of grinding.  Then again, it might not be a grind if there are multiple steps to many of the quests and not all of them are the same cookie cutter process, then I won't feel it is a grind, to me because I am doing something a bit more interactive than repeating the same set of steps to win the battle.

[Captain Shrek]

First of all, I totally do not understand how kill XP is always a Grind XP. That is only true when the map is full of trash mobs. If every encounter is "quest crafted" so to speak, there willbe no grinding. The idea of giving "quest XP" is just a band aid on the trash encounter cancer. We need to cut that out.

[DCParry]

First of all, I totally do not understand how kill XP is always a Grind XP. That is only true when the map is full of trash mobs. If every encounter is "quest crafted" so to speak, there willbe no grinding. The idea of giving "quest XP" is just a band aid on the trash encounter cancer. We need to cut that out.

 

To boil it down, if XP is awarded for the mere act of killing things, then not killing everything you come across is leaving money on the table, and a sub optimal playing style, which leads to greater development difficulties. Do the devs balance for characters who killed every breathing creature in the game, or do they just balance for a lower, arbitrary amount of slaughter? Fpr the former, then it is necessary to seek out all new life, and new civilizations, and spatter their blood/ichor/ooze all over in order to proceed in the game. If they choose the later, then those characters who did in fact depopulate the countryside could very well trivialize the elder game content because they are so far ahead of the learning curve. 

 

It is perfectly fine to prefer to kill XP, but it is disingenuous to act like it is a simple easy thing to balance or fix. The whole trash encounter mentality seems to be a product of cooperative online play where the main goal is to maximize the return on your effort (this is my impression, the first time I heard the term was in 1992 I think while playing Dark Castle MUD; also the first time I heard the term chode, which I think needs to be brought back). 

 

I still think it is a mistake to relay too heavily on the beta encounter design to extrapolate larger design philosophies. The beta is an extremely small sample that is not even part of the main path.

[Captain Shrek]

 

I still think it is a mistake to relay too heavily on the beta encounter design to extrapolate larger design philosophies. The beta is an extremely small sample that is not even part of the main path.

 

 

 

Well, we have nothing else to rely on right now. A rational man makes do with what he has, not with what he wants. He ends up getting what he wants as a result. The irrational man however, does the other way round and loses what he had as well. 

[DCParry]

 

 

I still think it is a mistake to relay too heavily on the beta encounter design to extrapolate larger design philosophies. The beta is an extremely small sample that is not even part of the main path.

 

 

 

Well, we have nothing else to rely on right now. A rational man makes do with what he has, not with what he wants. He ends up getting what he wants as a result. The irrational man however, does the other way round and loses what he had as well. 

 

 

Or, we can understand the context of the backer beta as it was presented to us. 

[Captain Shrek]

You mean to give a feed back? :D

[ffw137]

Hello.

 

For me all are good but not for the group only for the character making the action with a calculation between the class, the action, the possibility to make this action and the result. So a thief must learn form lock and traps, a fighter from a fight and so one but with a the xp downing after a while.

 

Example: I'm a fighter and I kill a wolf, I got some xp, for the first five same xp but after half the xp, quarter and after ten kills, 1 % because you learn very few from repeatly making the same action after a while.

 

For a mage, when using  not learning  a spell, the same system but after nothing except if he make a new sequence, so for me it's will push the player to discover the other spells and don't be stuck on the same spells for all (BURN THEM ALL !!).

 

For a thief,if you disarm or unlonck the same mechanism ten times there is no challenge!

 

I'ts just my opinion and sorry for my english.

 

Edited October 13, 2014 by ffw137

[No idea]

So what about experience grinding?. Let people play the way they like. The contrary is not a good design philosophy, imho.

[morhilane]

So what about experience grinding?. Let people play the way they like. The contrary is not a good design philosophy, imho.

 

Not allowing experience grinding is not a bad design philosophy. Experience grinding is not a way of playing, it's a progression mechanic. If killing everything is what you love to do (this is a way of playing), just kill everything the game allow you to do it, they haven't removed that option.

 

Obsidian decided against experience grinding because that's not the kind of progression mechanic they wanted to have in the game.

[IndiraLightfoot]

morhilane: Not being cheeky on purpose, but I can promise you one thing: Experience grinding will definitely be in PoE.

[adam77]

I do not see why I get experience if I found some dungeon or cave? Can someone explain this to me? I don't see the satisfaction in that. Is it not much more logical, as in real life, if you practice or fight with a sword than you become more experienced fencing and for that you get an experience.

Have you ever unlock or fix a machine. If you did it once, you're a little experienced in this, but if you did it 10 times, then you're pretty experienced with that and you will easily fix the eleventh.

 

See a place I certainly do not experienced in anything. This is stupid.

 

 

P.S.

Perhaps only in sex there is one place that makes you more experienced if you see him more ;)

[Captain Shrek]

I do not see why I get experience if I found some dungeon or cave? Can someone explain this to me? I don't see the satisfaction in that. Is it not much more logical, as in real life, if you practice or fight with a sword than you become more experienced fencing and for that you get an experience.

 

Have you ever unlock or fix a machine. If you did it once, you're a little experienced in this, but if you did it 10 times, then you're pretty experienced with that and you will easily fix the eleventh.

 

See a place I certainly do not experienced in anything. This is stupid.

 

 

P.S.

Perhaps only in sex there is one place that makes you more experienced if you see him more

 

Exploration is an experience grinding mechanism for character progression /Josh. 

 

But honestly, the word experience has little in meaning in RPGs. It makes very little sense that the experience gained from Opening a lock can be used for improving the Lore skill. Right now in this game the word experience is just a place holder for "a number that you can add to skills". 

[IndiraLightfoot]

Indeed. Experience points wouldn't be treated literally in this game. It's a reward mechanic and a regulator of character improvement points, like skills and talents.

If you will, in the BB it has been set on very few clicks per mile, but they plan to increase the number of clicks. The miles will remain the same. Sometimes, I wonder how there can be a divide over something that's basically the same. However, a few people like Captain Shrek have bravely discussed the nature of the encounters themselves, which has a much bigger impact on what's worthwhile and rewarding in a game - including gameplay and progress.

Edited October 13, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Elerond]

Term that we probably should use for experience points is something like "game progression points" when we speak from game design point of view, because that is the actually role for those points in the game. Meaning that XP points don't actually track how experienced players character/s are, but instead they work as way to track how much player has progressed in the game that don't have linear progression path, so that players can give access more and different game mechanics gradually to keep game interesting and it also gives developers/GM ability to adapt gameplay challenges so that those new mechanics don't remove the challenge from the game.

 

Reason why game progression points are called experience points or something similar is because of that those terms are usually used to hide/obscure gamely nature of those points and make them feel more part of the story/aesthetics of the game. 

[adam77]

But then I do not see any reason why there is the experience at all in the game. I get through the game like a point 'n click adventure.

The only difference is that I will at certain points in the game I get a few points that I can use to help improve my character.

[morhilane]

But then I do not see any reason why there is the experience at all in the game. I get through the game like a point 'n click adventure.

The only difference is that I will at certain points in the game I get a few points that I can use to help improve my character.

 

Well, point'n click adventure games don't have character progression, they just have "plot/puzzle" progression.

 

Saying that, nothing require showing the numbers to the player in a game with character progression. A +1 level could be attributed after a specific checkpoint is reached without losing the character progression mechanic.

[No idea]

 

So what about experience grinding?. Let people play the way they like. The contrary is not a good design philosophy, imho.

 

Not allowing experience grinding is not a bad design philosophy. Experience grinding is not a way of playing, it's a progression mechanic. If killing everything is what you love to do (this is a way of playing), just kill everything the game allow you to do it, they haven't removed that option.

 

Obsidian decided against experience grinding because that's not the kind of progression mechanic they wanted to have in the game.

Not letting people play the way they like IS bad design philosophy. If people like experience grinding, let them, unless there is a good reason not to do it. Balance? So what if balance goes out of the window? It is my game and sometimes i dont like it to be balanced, but to become a juggernaut. Come on, i am sure many of you who talk about experience grinding have done the same in many games. It is just another way of playing. Sometimes i feel like roleplaying, and sometimes i simply like metagaming in every possible way. Why giving away one of the options when you can have both is beyind me. Edited October 13, 2014 by No idea

[Elerond]

 

 

So what about experience grinding?. Let people play the way they like. The contrary is not a good design philosophy, imho.

Not allowing experience grinding is not a bad design philosophy. Experience grinding is not a way of playing, it's a progression mechanic. If killing everything is what you love to do (this is a way of playing), just kill everything the game allow you to do it, they haven't removed that option.

 

Obsidian decided against experience grinding because that's not the kind of progression mechanic they wanted to have in the game.

Not letting people play the way they like IS bad design philosophy. If people like experience grinding, let them, unless there is a good reason not to do it. Balance? So what if balance goes out of the window? It is my game and sometimes i dont like it to be balanced, but to become a juggernaut. Come on, i am sure many of you who talk about experience grinding have done the same in many games. It is just another way of playing. Sometimes i feel like roleplaying, and sometimes i simply like metagaming in every possible way. Why giving away one of the options when you can have both is beyind me.

 

 

Limiting player's ability to do things is not bad design, but whole idea behind games, where you take setting which scope is limited and players actions are governed by set of rules and usually players need to over come some challenges which these limitations create. 

 

Balance in game design means that when you give player option to do things in multiple ways they all should be meaningful because otherwise those choices become only decorative things that don't offer player actually meaningful choices for the player. For example if one choice is just much several time more effective than any other choices that game offer, then only reasons why player would not pick much more effective choice is to create more challenge for themselves or they don't yet know that one choice is much more better than others. 

Edited October 13, 2014 by Elerond

[Captain Shrek]

Good luck trying to perfectly balance games. 

[Elerond]

Good luck trying to perfectly balance games. 

 

Some games are easy to balance. Like for example symmetric games like chess, draughts (checkers) and nine men's morris, where biggest problem is to make sure that any players don't get advance because of turn order.

 

But of course balancing becomes more difficult when game is asymmetric and has much more complex set of rules and much larger scope. But even if balancing such games is much more difficult task to do, it don't mean that developers should not be concerned about balance and try achieve it as well as they can.  

[Captain Shrek]

I think you are deviating from your balance argument. Chess is NOT balanced in the sense that all strategies are equally good. Which is what I gathered from your post.

 

 

 

Balance in game design means that when you give player option to do things in multiple ways they all should be meaningful because otherwise those choices become only decorative things that don't offer player actually meaningful choices for the player. For example if one choice is just much several time more effective than any other choices that game offer, then only reasons why player would not pick much more effective choice is to create more challenge for themselves or they don't yet know that one choice is much more better than others. 

 

Chess does not satisfy this for example.  All options (besides black and white) are not equal. Some strategies are inherently better. That is why people have pretty small set of starting moves. Now that is non-trivially analogous to choosing feats/classes/skills. The point is that not all builds in RPGs are going to be equally effective or at least that is going to really really hard to do.

 

Now, it is an entirely different question whether this is a meaningful goal. I personally think it is not.  

 

1) firstly, why the heck does the developer care how I play? He has no business doing that. His job is to make enjoyable, deep and tactically complex combat system. Give me more options! That is what I want from the dev. By trying to "ultra" balance, he is basically ruining the depth as the focus moves from giving me options to making equally effective but restricted builds. Let me choose how I play!

 

2) This is a point I have been trying to make since ages: That builds are not useless. The implementation of the content is. let us say that there is a skill called "Decipher script" in one of the iterations of the game. Let us say that there is a particular game developer that decides that this skill was useless in an older iteration. How do they deal with it? a) They add content to match the skill so that it is useful now. b) They remove the skill.  I think that is the point: If you really feel that certain builds are hampered due to useless stuff they do, then for christ's sake ADD THAT STUFF as a relevant thing in the game instead of removing the skill! 

 

3)  I can't speak for others, but finding out which character builds are OP is something I enjoy, There is actual fun in discovering what you can do better with ever build. Min/Maxing is a game all by itself. 

Edited October 13, 2014 by Captain Shrek

[Elerond]

I think you are deviating from your balance argument. Chess is NOT balanced in the sense that all strategies are equally good. Which is what I gathered from your post.

 

 

 

Balance in game design means that when you give player option to do things in multiple ways they all should be meaningful because otherwise those choices become only decorative things that don't offer player actually meaningful choices for the player. For example if one choice is just much several time more effective than any other choices that game offer, then only reasons why player would not pick much more effective choice is to create more challenge for themselves or they don't yet know that one choice is much more better than others. 

 

Chess does not satisfy this for example.  All options (besides black and white) are not equal. Some strategies are inherently better. That is why people have pretty small set of starting moves. Now that is non-trivially analogous to choosing feats/classes/skills. The point is that not all builds in RPGs are going to be equally effective or at least that is going to really really hard to do.

 

Now, it is an entirely different question whether this is a meaningful goal. I personally think it is not.  

 

1) firstly, why the heck does the developer care how I play? He has no business doing that. His job is to make enjoyable, deep and tactically complex combat system. Give me more options! That is what I want from the dev. By trying to "ultra" balance, he is basically ruining the depth as the focus moves from giving me options to making equally effective but restricted builds. Let me choose how I play!

 

2) This is a point I have been trying to make since ages: That builds are not useless. The implementation of the content is. let us say that there is a skill called "Decipher script" in one of the iterations of the game. Let us say that there is a particular game developer that decides that this skill was useless in an older iteration. How do they deal with it? a) They add content to match the skill so that it is useful now. b) They remove the skill.  I think that is the point: If you really feel that certain builds are hampered due to useless stuff they do, then for christ's sake ADD THAT STUFF as a relevant thing in the game instead of removing the skill! 

 

3)  I can't speak for others, but finding out which character builds are OP is something I enjoy, There is actual fun in discovering what you can do better with ever build. Min/Maxing is a game all by itself. 

 

Chess has depending situation better and poorer choices, but any of those choice aren't less valid by as themselves. Like for example you can't say that moving queen is always better option than moving soldier. Chess' challenge is to make better choices than your opponent. 

 

1) Developer don't give damn how you play but what ways to play they have given you and are some of those ways against of their vision of the game and challenge that they want game to offer for the player. As game rules aren't meant to be comply with players' play styles but set boundaries in which players try to find right way to play withing those rules. I would compare person complaining that game don't accommodate certain play style to that draughts player complains that that they can't use same play style in chess than what they used in draughts.

 

2. I would say add, delete or modify stuff accordingly what you think will result best end result, there is no reason to save old things or way to do things just to save them if you get better results with new thing or way to do things. And some times can make things better just by removing bad apples from the pie.

 

3. It may be fun to find most OP build, but it also may be very frustrating when build that you made don't let you to complete the game. Making sure that every build that you can come up in character creation is viable removes that risk that player finds themselves in situation where they need to rest start the game because choices that they made in character creation prevents them to completing the game or makes playing the game frustrating experience. Making are build viable don't mean that there isn't best build, but that there change that there is multiple as best builds, but that work in different roles or styles of play.

[Captain Shrek]

Chess has depending situation better and poorer choices, but any of those choice aren't less valid by as themselves. Like for example you can't say that moving queen is always better option than moving soldier. Chess' challenge is to make better choices than your opponent. 

 

 

That is trivial. In every game even against the computer, you have to make better choices than your opponent. However, improving build/skill is more analogous to which playstyle is more effective. This is what I think you were referring to earlier when you said: 

 

Balance in game design means that when you give player option to do things in multiple ways they all should be meaningful because otherwise those choices become only decorative things that don't offer player actually meaningful choices for the player. 

 

 

1) Developer don't give damn how you play but what ways to play they have given you and are some of those ways against of their vision of the game and challenge that they want game to offer for the player. As game rules aren't meant to be comply with players' play styles but set boundaries in which players try to find right way to play withing those rules. I would compare person complaining that game don't accommodate certain play style to that draughts player complains that that they can't use same play style in chess than what they used in draughts.

 

 

Well. Let us take some relevant examples here. I apologize that I can't find the exact quotes: There have been some posts by Josh saying that players exploit save/reload for better results on RNG. Now, that is funny, isn't it? I never did. I am sure many did not. The point is that it shouldn't matter what players do. The job for the developer is to only ensure that the RNG is not too skewed.  Same goes for bad class choices. As long as the game carefully explains that a Cleric is a wisdom based class, it does not really have to make "make all stats useful for all classes". Is it too wrong to ask, that no changes in the core mechanics are necessary to just accommodate that? 

2. I would say add, delete or modify stuff accordingly what you think will result best end result, there is no reason to save old things or way to do things just to save them if you get better results with new thing or way to do things. And some times can make things better just by removing bad apples from the pie.

 

3. It may be fun to find most OP build, but it also may be very frustrating when build that you made don't let you to complete the game. Making sure that every build that you can come up in character creation is viable removes that risk that player finds themselves in situation where they need to rest start the game because choices that they made in character creation prevents them to completing the game or makes playing the game frustrating experience. Making are build viable don't mean that there isn't best build, but that there change that there is multiple as best builds, but that work in different roles or styles of play.

 

 

 

Another relevant example: You do know that we can't break down doors/Chests right? Do you know the reason? It is so because that would make the lockpicking skill apparently useless. Now does that even make sense to you? It doesn't to me. 

[Elerond]

 

Chess has depending situation better and poorer choices, but any of those choice aren't less valid by as themselves. Like for example you can't say that moving queen is always better option than moving soldier. Chess' challenge is to make better choices than your opponent. 

 

 

That is trivial. In every game even against the computer, you have to make better choices than your opponent. However, improving build/skill is more analogous to which playstyle is more effective. This is what I think you were referring to earlier when you said: 

 

Balance in game design means that when you give player option to do things in multiple ways they all should be meaningful because otherwise those choices become only decorative things that don't offer player actually meaningful choices for the player. 

 

 

1) Developer don't give damn how you play but what ways to play they have given you and are some of those ways against of their vision of the game and challenge that they want game to offer for the player. As game rules aren't meant to be comply with players' play styles but set boundaries in which players try to find right way to play withing those rules. I would compare person complaining that game don't accommodate certain play style to that draughts player complains that that they can't use same play style in chess than what they used in draughts.

 

 

Well. Let us take some relevant examples here. I apologize that I can't find the exact quotes: There have been some posts by Josh saying that players exploit save/reload for better results on RNG. Now, that is funny, isn't it? I never did. I am sure many did not. The point is that it shouldn't matter what players do. The job for the developer is to only ensure that the RNG is not too skewed.  Same goes for bad class choices. As long as the game carefully explains that a Cleric is a wisdom based class, it does not really have to make "make all stats useful for all classes". Is it too wrong to ask, that no changes in the core mechanics are necessary to just accommodate that? 

2. I would say add, delete or modify stuff accordingly what you think will result best end result, there is no reason to save old things or way to do things just to save them if you get better results with new thing or way to do things. And some times can make things better just by removing bad apples from the pie.

 

3. It may be fun to find most OP build, but it also may be very frustrating when build that you made don't let you to complete the game. Making sure that every build that you can come up in character creation is viable removes that risk that player finds themselves in situation where they need to rest start the game because choices that they made in character creation prevents them to completing the game or makes playing the game frustrating experience. Making are build viable don't mean that there isn't best build, but that there change that there is multiple as best builds, but that work in different roles or styles of play.

 

 

 

Another relevant example: You do know that we can't break down doors/Chests right? Do you know the reason? It is so because that would make the lockpicking skill apparently useless. Now does that even make sense to you? It doesn't to me. 

 

 

Meaningful don't mean equal, but that choice is meaningful.

 

I am not sure if Josh has said something specially about RNG in skill use and using save/load to win always in those situations, but I know that Josh has said that if he gives player ability to do something in game and it negates challenge that he has created to game then it's his mistake and he will try to avoid such situations at best of his abilities, which means for example that he don't use RNG in skill checks in his designs. I don't have any same to confess that I am one of those players that use save/load to win RNG checks when I can do so in the games, because it is just most efficient way to play and I still can find game fun even when I do so, but I don't lament (anymore I have in past) if developers decide to use different solution in their skill checks.

 

Not be able to break doors don't make sense to me in immersion wise, but as way to create challenge, give more meaning for certain skills/builds or because it just causes too much work compared to advances that it would bring in gameplay (reasons in list are hypothetical examples to help me explain my views about subject) I can understand why they didn't include it in the game and even I would miss ability to bash doors, chest  and other things it's not something that breaks or makes game for me. I also miss ability to pick pocket people and non-combat spells, and many other things that game will not have, but even I think that they would make game better to me I accept developers explanation that they didn't fit in scope of the game.

[Captain Shrek]

There are two independent arguments there, really:

 

1) It is too costly (in terms of resources) to include every possible mechanic. 

2) It is "degenerate" to provide alternatives.

 

I can digest the first but not the second.