Experience from combat or not - an immersion perspective

[Gairnulf]

 

If I have been misunderstood the first two times. I'll reiterate - if combat is well designed, in my opinion, it should be a reward in itself.

 

No it shouldn't/isn't. The point you are trying to make has been discussed to hell and back, multiple times. There is no logic in you statement, because it can be extended to the whole game. For an example if quest are well designed they should be a reward in them selves.

 

You would do well to at least skim the previous iterations of this thread.

 

Please learn the difference between an "illogical statement" and "an opinion which is different than my own". Also, I don't make it a goal in my life to read every old thread that has discussed a given question, and not having read every past opinion in hundreds of chronologically ordered posts doesn't make me feel somehow unworthy of giving my own. Any opinion I give, I do so with the words "in my opinion" somewhere in the sentence (just like in the one you've quoted), just to avoid the sort of people who seem to take enjoyment in typing stuff like "there is no logic in your statement". If you feel I'm too far below you in my knowledge of the subject, because I haven't read something you posted in a similar thread last month, please just ignore my ignorant posts, better for all of us.

 

A well designed quest should not be identical to another quest, hence the difference between two filler battles and two quests. I thought that difference was obvious. I'll pass the chance to comment on anyone's logic.

 

 

 

 

If I have been misunderstood the first two times. I'll reiterate - if combat is well designed, in my opinion, it should be a reward in itself.

 

You weren't misunderstood, and I agree that a well-designed, creative, and novel encounter can be enjoyable in and of itself. But that's, what, maybe 10-20% of the total for a typical game? Most of the innovation comes with Boss monster fights.

Would you miss the filler combat if it was gone from the game? Actually, it doesn't even feel like filler combat, at least to me, with the current level of difficulty in the backer beta, although they've achieved that unintentionally.

 

I don't consider it 'filler'. It's a core element of most cRPGs.

 

Under "filler combat" I understand randomly generated groups of skeletons around Thalantyr's tower in High Hedge, or goblins in Irenicus' dungeon. If that kind of respawning groups of enemies was a core element of the IE games, then I think it was a very unsuccessful element which I wouldn't welcome back into PoE. 

 

Ok, whatever we call it, "filler" or "core element" combat, my preference is that if it's a frustrating activity, that brings me nothing new in terms of game experience, besides the experience points themselves, I'd rather not have the combat at all. And if this XP is needed in order for my character to advance enough relative to the expected level envisaged by the game designer, then I can get this amount of XP which I would have gotten from the battle through some quest, by just increasing the quest XP.

 

If on the other hand you enjoy this kind of combat, then the XP you get from it is not a 'compensation' for having grinded through it, and you are not going through combat just for the XP. If the combat event was an unavoidable part of a quest, it's all the same to me whether I'll have some XP from the combat, or all the XP when the quest is finished. If the combat was a random encounter, not a set piece, but just some generated enemies, then I guess it should bring XP (I would prefer not to have such random encounters at all).

Edited November 12, 2014 by Gairnulf

[Tuckey]

My take on this is that if you do away with combat xp you need to replace it with something tangible for the player.

 

The risk otherwise is that combat will become an annoyance to avoid on the way to other more rewarding content.

 

So the real question is how do you make combat worthwhile to engage in for the player? How should the player be rewarded?

===============================================================================================

- Make defeating some enemies necessary for the acquisition of rare items

- Mod components from animals etc would make it worthwhile for some people but others don't want that content/bother of scrounging ingredients.

- Or quite simply make clearing an area of enemies a quest xp reward for some factions.

[rjshae]

 If on the other hand you enjoy this kind of combat, then the XP you get from it is not a 'compensation' for having grinded through it, and you are not going through combat just for the XP. If the combat event was an unavoidable part of a quest, it's all the same to me whether I'll have some XP from the combat, or all the XP when the quest is finished. If the combat was a random encounter, not a set piece, but just some generated enemies, then I guess it should bring XP (I would prefer not to have such random encounters at all).

 

We clearly have different perspectives here so I'm not sure how beneficial this will be to continue. I'll just say that because I enjoy (abstracted) elements A and B of a game, I would not find it as enjoyable if they drop element B and just have A. To me, A plus B provide more satisfaction than just A or B alone. Does that make sense? OTOH, providing an enjoyable element C instead of B could be an acceptable alternative.

[H0RSE]

 

Whether it "breaks immersion" or not, is just part of the argument. PoE is supposed

 

No its not supposed to be anything. At the very least the devs decide what is it "supposed" to be not you. At the most, using the word supposed to makes your whole sentence invalid.

 

It actually is "supposed" to be a certain way... there are features that the game must have in it, since it was promised in the Kickstarter.

 

Details aside, the game is most definitely supposed to feel/play like an old IE game - the devs themselves have stated this numerous times.

[Sheikh]

 

 

Whether it "breaks immersion" or not, is just part of the argument. PoE is supposed

 

No its not supposed to be anything. At the very least the devs decide what is it "supposed" to be not you. At the most, using the word supposed to makes your whole sentence invalid.

 

It actually is "supposed" to be a certain way... there are features that the game must have in it, since it was promised in the Kickstarter.

 

Details aside, the game is most definitely supposed to feel/play like an old IE game - the devs themselves have stated this numerous times.

 

 

Your mishap is using the word supposed, friend. Its the same word as should. This word is fallacious and baseless.

 

Example: 2+2 should be 5. Sounds bs? There is no basis to believing 2+2 should be 5. There never is any basis to saying this or that is supposed to or should be this or that. it is what it is, its not supposed to be anything. It doesnt matter where you use the word should (or supposed or whatever), you are essentially saying the same thing because thats the nature of the word.

 

Obsidian is not supposed to make eternity at all. They can cancel the game and if they did, thats the reality and saying they shouldnt have done it is worthless and just a dysfunctional way of expressing your opinion, at best and simply a lie at worst.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Sheikh

[Lephys]

That's actually a good point. However, I urge you to consider that the usage of "supposed to" or "should" generally implies a specific reason. "You shouldn't stab yourself in the leg." Why? In order to remain wound-free and healthy. That's why.

 

But, yeah, if someone's trying to imply that something should be a certain way, just because the universe deems it so, then it's quite true that that is not the case.

 

In this case, I believe the reason is "if it's to meet the specified plan for the game's design style." However, there are a ton of things that person A is going to insist is necessary to make this game merely "like the IE games," while person B will insist the same things aren't necessary.

 

Honestly, once you say "like" something, without any particular measurement or specifics, I don't think there's really any obligation to put certain qualities in as opposed to changing them. So long as your choices don't blatantly oppose the design you're trying to be similar to. And I don't think just being different is the same as directly opposing. I'm not sure the exact wording to use for this idea. Basically, "like" doesn't mean "identical to." So, having something differ doesn't necessarily make it less "like" something else, it just makes it farther from identical. At a certain point, you start failing to fulfill any similarity at all. But "like" already implies less than 100% similarity (or you would've just said "identical to"). Annnnnywho.

[Sheikh]

That's actually a good point. However, I urge you to consider that the usage of "supposed to" or "should" generally implies a specific reason. "You shouldn't stab yourself in the leg." Why? In order to remain wound-free and healthy. That's why.

 

But, yeah, if someone's trying to imply that something should be a certain way, just because the universe deems it so, then it's quite true that that is not the case.

 

Should is still broken and always will be. Need in that case is better.

 

Obviously.

 

Basically, "like" doesn't mean "identical to.

 

 

Sometimes it does, depends on the context.

[Lephys]

Should is still broken and always will be. Need in that case is better.

So, you're saying that we should use "need," instead?

 

/jest

 

I get ya.

 

Sometimes it does, depends on the context.

Well... yes and no. It can. But the word, itself, doesn't mean it. In context, pretty much anything can mean anything. If I point at your shoes, and say "I like your ziuwthaushet," then context implies I'm referring to your shoes in some regard.

 

But, anywho, my point was just that "like," by itself, does not inherently suggest exact similarity. It only means some degree of similarity. You have to use context, and/or other specifics in order to mean exact similarity.

 

If someone tells you that something is like something else, and you decide that it was too different for your taste, you can't get mad at them or claim that their usage of the word "like" was incorrect. At that point, you should've demanded more information on specifically what will be identical, and what will not.

[Cantousent]

hehehe  I was going to say that you can't be 'exactly similar,' but *ahem* I don't want to muddy the waters.

 

Obviously, I don't want combat XP, but I agree with... rjshae or whoever up above mentioned that these arguments have been rehashed over and over again.  My guess is that they don't have combat XP, but they'll make the XP gains more granular, flesh out a few different ways to gain XP on top of quests, and of course the bestiary compromise.  Fair enough for me.

[Sheikh]

 

Well... yes and no. It can. But the word, itself, doesn't mean it. In context, pretty much anything can mean anything. If I point at your shoes, and say "I like your ziuwthaushet," then context implies I'm referring to your shoes in some regard.

 

But, anywho, my point was just that "like," by itself, does not inherently suggest exact similarity. It only means some degree of similarity. You have to use context, and/or other specifics in order to mean exact similarity.

 

If someone tells you that something is like something else, and you decide that it was too different for your taste, you can't get mad at them or claim that their usage of the word "like" was incorrect. At that point, you should've demanded more information on specifically what will be identical, and what will not.

 

 

True. "Identical" is a better word to use, but it ends up never being used because very few things are identical to one another. So in some contexts like might mean "functionally identical", but not fully identical. In other contexts it might mean "visually identical" or even "seemingly identical". In these cases it would be better to say out "visually identical", for example rather than abstract and generalize it to the word like, whch can be done though.

 

Human language is a fairly limited and clumsy tool in some ways. For functional communication, two things are equally valuable I think:

 

1. Listening to others carefully and interpreting their talk correctly. This helps overcome poor finesse in language use.

2. Having good finesse in language use. This helps overcome poor interpretation of language use.

 

Both of these involve thinking before either expressing yourself or before responding to another expressing themselves. As said, using "visually identical" has much more finesse than simply "like", if thats what happens to be what you mean.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Sheikh

[Lephys]

Yeah, but, like I said, with a video game, it becomes quite difficult to convey everything that entails the similarity in just one or two words.

 

And, of course, it's not very easy to say exactly when something goes from being "like" something to being "unlike" something. I mean, you probably wouldn't say that a gerbil is like a human. It's not that there aren't similarities, but there aren't enough for you to explicitly reference the similarity, whole-to-whole.

 

Annnnnnywho. Much as I enjoy this, we should probably get back on topic,

[Orphidos]

I for one welcome the bestiary XP fullheartedly if that makes it to the finished game.

I had my hopes they would implement experience (xp) for what it is. Something you get the first few times you encounter something with exceptions for quests.

But for crafting, Item lore, magical mysteries of the world, yaddi yada well,.. you get experience for encountering/using/interacting with it.

 

Well met people, well met!

[Lephys]

I would honestly rather just see diminishing XP returns from a given creature's death. You could still have the bestiary in, with some kind of unlocks and/or bonuses, related to Lore, perhaps. But, I don't like the "kill 10 of these, and then gain a batch of XP!" As Hiro and others pointed out, it REALLY causes the interested player to say "What if I don't see another 5 of these?," and kill every single one of them they see until they reach the XP reward. Then, not really worry about them ever again, if possible.

 

If you got 50XP for the first one you kill, then 45, then 40, etc., you could get rewarded for sheer combat (which is going on with bestiary XP anyway), while still not having an incentive to kill every wolf or creature X in the entire game. It's even a direct relationship: The more of something you fight and kill, the less incentive you have to keep on fighting/killing them. It's like the bestiary XP design in that, if there are 100 wolves in the game, you don't have an incentive to kill all 100 of them, but it's different in that you actually get battle experience in-the-moment (when you slay something). And, the further you go, the less worried you are about missing out on XP. Because 10 XP isn't as worthwhile as 50.

[jones092201@gmail.com]

Just give me a xp system that is easily understandable, a combat system that is engaging and understandable, and let me enjoy the story. While these debates are certainly worth having, I just want to see the world and lore they've built. My two cents, not very productive but I think that's what forums are for, right?

[Lephys]

My two cents, not very productive but I think that's what forums are for, right?

I dunno. I like to think they're for productivity,

 

/jest

[Cantousent]

I agree with you Jones, at least about wanting an understandable system.  I would add that the system should provide positive feedback without prejudicing any particular style all the while remaining unobtrusive as possible.  Anyhow, the forums are here to put in your two cents... or fifty.  ...and some people put in several rolls of quarters that add up to two cents all told.  :Cant's polishing his halo with a grin and a wink icon:

 

EDIT:  No excuse.  Just 'cause.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Cantousent

[Lephys]

Anyhow, the forums are here to put in your two cents... or fifty.  ...and some people put in several rolls of quarters that add up to two cents all told.  :Cant's polishing his halo with a grin and a wink icon:

In metaphor-land, I treat forums like an arcade console: I just keep feeding it quarters until I've beaten the game, or I run out of quarters.

[Sheikh]

In metaphor-land, I treat forums like an arcade console: I just keep feeding it quarters until I've beaten the game, or I run out of quarters.

 

 

And how would you complete that analogy?

Edited November 19, 2014 by Sheikh

[GrinningReaper659]

 

In metaphor-land, I treat forums like an arcade console: I just keep feeding it quarters until I've beaten the game, or I run out of quarters.

 

 

And how would you complete that analogy?

 

He either beats the game (wins/defeats the forum, which is impossible), or he runs out of quarters (ideas) while trying; the latter being the only real possibility and the point of the forum.

 

 

EDIT: 'realy' --> 'real'

Edited November 19, 2014 by GrinningReaper659

[Lephys]

Haha. It's not a perfect analogy. I'm not trying to beat the forum. A victory would be having an idea actually pan out fully in a given topic, rather than hitting a dead end and having to switch to another idea.

 

But, you're very correct in that, really, the only possibility is that you "run out" of ideas. Because, even if an idea does pan out well, it's still prudent to explore more ideas to ensure there isn't a better one. Which is kind of the purpose of discussion. To optimize problem-solving.

[Sheikh]

I think the purpose of these discussions is to apply natural selection to ideas - good ideas live on and get discussed and improved and virtually implemented whereas bad ideas tend to get discredited or die out, in a way.

[Marcvs Caesar]

What if all the options in a quest go against your role-playing style and therefore you have to reject said quest? You won't get experience if you reject a quest right?

Edited November 30, 2014 by Marcvs Caesar

[Sheikh]

What if all the options in a quest go against your role-playing style and therefore you have to reject said quest? You won't get experience if you reject a quest right?

Then you dont do the quest. Or you pretend yuor character has some side motive for doing the quest and is really upset that he has to do it, but does it anyway. One of the options of roleplaying in this situation is that if the character does not want to do the quest, he just goes back to menial jobs instead of adventuring, Which means you quit the game and play another character or just do something else and leave the computer.

 

If the game does not give you enough options t realize the roleplaying of your character well, the game is at fault, not you or your characters you made up.

[Marcvs Caesar]

 

What if all the options in a quest go against your role-playing style and therefore you have to reject said quest? You won't get experience if you reject a quest right?

Then you dont do the quest. Or you pretend yuor character has some side motive for doing the quest and is really upset that he has to do it, but does it anyway. One of the options of roleplaying in this situation is that if the character does not want to do the quest, he just goes back to menial jobs instead of adventuring, Which means you quit the game and play another character or just do something else and leave the computer.

 

If the game does not give you enough options t realize the roleplaying of your character well, the game is at fault, not you or your characters you made up.

 

My point was that you will be punished for role-playing in a situation like that when it shouldn't be the case. Realistically speaking you improve your skills through practice not by finishing a quest line. Gaining experience by using your skills makes sense, gaining experience because you "finished a questline" does not make any sense.

[GrinningReaper659]

 

 

What if all the options in a quest go against your role-playing style and therefore you have to reject said quest? You won't get experience if you reject a quest right?

Then you dont do the quest. Or you pretend yuor character has some side motive for doing the quest and is really upset that he has to do it, but does it anyway. One of the options of roleplaying in this situation is that if the character does not want to do the quest, he just goes back to menial jobs instead of adventuring, Which means you quit the game and play another character or just do something else and leave the computer.

 

If the game does not give you enough options t realize the roleplaying of your character well, the game is at fault, not you or your characters you made up.

 

My point was that you will be punished for role-playing in a situation like that when it shouldn't be the case. Realistically speaking you improve your skills through practice not by finishing a quest line. Gaining experience by using your skills makes sense, gaining experience because you "finished a questline" does not make any sense.

 

 

Attempting to apply realism to this process never really makes sense. The idea that "gaining experience by using your skills makes sense" leads to The Elder Scrolls type XP systems where people stand in one place and swing their sword at the air 1,000 times to max out their sword skills. The XP system is an arbitration of your characters' progress.

 

The idea that using skills or killing should give you XP isn't any more realistic than the quest XP system because the XP you gain from killing a goblin with a sword can be applied to making you better at using a bow or summoning spells when you level up, and along the same line the XP gained from unlocking a door can be used to make you better at using a sword. So, how is it realistic that killing goblins with swords makes you better at summoning spells or unlocking doors makes you better at killing goblins with swords?