I learned that fights don't give you experience

[PrimeJunta]

Technically, you do get kill xp, its just been renamed Beastiary xp. And I think it has diminishing returns but Im not 100% on that. Basically it functions as a poor mans ECL.

 

Not diminishing returns; a cap. Once you've killed enough critters of a particular type, you know everything there is to know about killing them and don't get any more XP for them.

 

Also, no XP for killing people (=not beasts or monsters).

[anameforobsidian]

I like what underail a indie rpg has going for its experience system. You get to choices oddity or classic. Classic you gain xp like baldurs gate and those other old school games by killing stuff and completing quests. In oddity mode you get xp not by killing things but by collecting items in game world your guy studies and gains xp from. Gives more flexibility on character builds. Enemies still do though drop items your guys can study and get xp from and crafting materials. You  can still reach level cap going stealthy and not being very combat focused which is great thing about oddity experience system.

 

It seems what Obsidian done is having something similar to oddity to please people that like to kill things. but instead of studying body parts from dead monsters the more u kill them more bestiary you unlocked.

 

http://www.underrail.com/wiki/index.php?title=Oddity_XP_System

Underail keeps sounding better and better.  Also, combat xp is unrealistic after a certain point.  Do you really get better at wolf slaying when you go from 9999 wolves killed to 10000?

[Nakia]

I know a lot of people love combat and focus on it but I like that PoE gives you the option to avoid combat without penalizing you.  Equal Opportunity yes?

[rjshae]

 

Technically, you do get kill xp, its just been renamed Beastiary xp. And I think it has diminishing returns but Im not 100% on that. Basically it functions as a poor mans ECL.

 

Not diminishing returns; a cap. Once you've killed enough critters of a particular type, you know everything there is to know about killing them and don't get any more XP for them.

 

Also, no XP for killing people (=not beasts or monsters).

 

Essentially, this is what happens in D&D; or at least in D&D v3.5. As you go up in level, you get diminishing amounts of XP for slaying lower CR creatures. Eventually it becomes pointless XP-wise to seek out and engage weaker foes.

[PrimeJunta]

AD&D also, except there it's done the other way around (XP rewards are constant, but requirements go up exponentially). Ends up in the same place.

[Pray]

 

Unless a game is specifically written for an individual I think it impossible for a game to be perfect.

 

Eh... I disagree.

 

Chrono Trigger

A Link to the Past

Nethack

Diablo

Warcraft 3

Baldur's Gate

Baldur's Gate 2

Planescape Torment

World of Warcraft in late Vanilla and early BC

Civilization 4: BTS

 

I could name more.

 

All of the above were amazing games, and widely acclaimed. Not for everyone of course, but nothing is, and out of the people who loved those games you won't find many stating that they'd want much changed in them. ie: I doubt too many who backed PoE who did so because the spirit of Baldur's Gate was primarily channeled would want to change much about that game.

 

Yes, there are a couple minor things I'd change with all but the first three (those really are perfect), but they are mostly UI changes. ie: The one thing I'd change in the original BG is the tedium of the inventory system, or remove the XP cap (but a mod can do that), and that's really about it. BG2 I'd remove the 'romances' and revert to the more open world of BG1. Anon.

 

We're talking about a major design decision that is not ignorable, not a minor UI issue or things that are ignorable.

 

Obviously, I'm still going to play the game, and hope it's good. But the decision in regards to Combat XP and a few other biggies give me reservations in regards to the direction the game design was taken in.

 

'If it's not broken don't fix it' comes to mind. I just hope all the fixing of things that weren't broken doesn't diminish the quality of the game experience. Unfortunately I don't know of a single game out there that had a lot of things fixed that weren't broken come out for the better. I most certainly am hoping that PoE is the exception.

 

 

But PoE is not those games.... And those three games you mentioned at the top (all of which I loved) are Japanese RPG's, and not western. These are vastly different games, which vastly diferent goals, often speaking to vastly different audiences.

 

It took me a bit to get used to the idea of no Xp without combat, but when you relax for a second, think about the possibilities, and take a step back, you might see a lot of merit to the idea.

 

Stop being so dogmatic, and give it a chance.

[Vernum]

This game was hyped as a comeback for old school style rpg during kickstarter but with all the "innovation" that they are trying to implement this doesnt look like an old school game like bg at all other than the game viewing angle.

[Rumsteak]

This game was hyped as a comeback for old school style rpg during kickstarter but with all the "innovation" that they are trying to implement this doesnt look like an old school game like bg at all other than the game viewing angle.

 

Yeah, we were better off before the invention of wheel. Hunting mammoths, these were the good old days I'm telling you.

[lostsanityreturned]

As a supported of abstract exp take or leave this as you will.
But pen and paper games have been moving away from the xp for monster kills mechanic for a long while, with pathfinder and d&d 5e putting a focus on milestone leveling with exp per encounter being the optional method. Numenera and the Cypher system would be the best games to point out (yup numenera, the game the new torment is both set in and based around rules wise) they ONLY give exp in rare cases and almost always for exploration or extrodiary feats rather than every other little thing.

I honestly don't get the desire for combat exp that much, if you wish to run through and kill creatures you will still get exp for exploring the areas and finishing the quests regardless of how you do it. The end outcome is exactly the same functionality wise.
People complaining about "stealth simulator" well, okay so you complain about there being "no reason" to go into combat, this I don't get... You want the devs to GIVE you an arbatory reason to go into combat by restricting you?
The combat would be the same, people getting exp from each monster doesn't change anything.

It reminds me of old raids in MMOs where people used to have to repeat a raid again and again until they got a full set of resistance based gear so they could do the next raid without being instantly killed by that raid boss's special effect.
But there is no actual reason for this to exist, if the raid mechanics were just based around existing resitances rather than a new mechanic limited for the new raid boss then people could go into it from the start, have the EXACT same mechanical experience in game... But spend much less time getting there.
Yet people cry fould murder if this sort of gating isn't in MMOs I see this as an extentision of the same mentality shown here where people are crying foul murder over not getting combat exp.

You want combat to award exp, but not for leveling obviously because you get levels anyway, so you want a little number to go up when you kill things because you cannot justify your actions any other way.
If you play games to see numbers go up and not because the game is engaging I suggest finding another hobby like slot machines or pachinko. Heck farmville might satisfy your morbid curiosities more than this game.

 

[Vernum]

 

This game was hyped as a comeback for old school style rpg during kickstarter but with all the "innovation" that they are trying to implement this doesnt look like an old school game like bg at all other than the game viewing angle.

 

Yeah, we were better off before the invention of wheel. Hunting mammoths, these were the good old days I'm telling you.

 

Very funny, if wanted to keep playing modern "innovative" games I would have stuck with dragon ages etc,,,

Anyway my feeling is a bit like ordering a nice fountain pen to take notes and receiving a voice recorder instead because its more modern if I wanted a recorder I would just buy that in the first place.

[Rumsteak]

No worries man, I was just trolling you. I kinda agree with you a bit in that the combat experience is not great right now, but I'll see on release date before making any final judgement. They might very well make everything smooth in 3 months.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Rumsteak

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I still cannot fathom why Obsidian did not choose an ECL system. It takes much of the nightmare out of encounter balancing an entire game. It also then becomes practical to incentive different approaches without a cold-sweat keeping developers up over night gripped with the terror of "degenerate gameplay". It feels like a truly rookie bit of oversight to me.

[teknoman2]

I know a lot of people love combat and focus on it but I like that PoE gives you the option to avoid combat without penalizing you.  Equal Opportunity yes?

exatly what i keep saying. why should the guy going in shooting fireballs and killing everything get 2 or 3 times more xp than the guy who chose to invest in a stealth aproach or negotiation? it beats the point of having the choice in the first place

[anameforobsidian]

I still cannot fathom why Obsidian did not choose an ECL system. It takes much of the nightmare out of encounter balancing an entire game. It also then becomes practical to incentive different approaches without a cold-sweat keeping developers up over night gripped with the terror of "degenerate gameplay". It feels like a truly rookie bit of oversight to me.

 

There actually is a version of ECL in the game.  That's how they do the different difficulty levels.

[Formal Foreign Forum Fool]

This game is being made by professionals who have been doing this for a long time.  They know what's more fun.

[Hassat Hunter]

ECL is a nightmare to balance... I can understand why any dev wouldn't want to work the math of that kind of crap when it's much easier to just award fixed XP at intervenials.

 

Also, with difficulty changing encounters (the first of the kind, possible thanks to objective-XP thank you!) it wouldn't really have worked well or introduced a zillion additional checks the devs needed to add to make it work properly.

 

So, we got more allowed types of roleplaying, we got actual difficulty levels that are not *hurr... hp-bloat*, it saves the devs oodles of work and it's guaranteed to be more bugprone.

So much pro's... what are the cons again? People who are upset their murdering doesn't wield XP? Well, we can't have that can we, let's throw all those pro's off the table!

[Sarex]

exatly what i keep saying. why should the guy going in shooting fireballs and killing everything get 2 or 3 times more xp than the guy who chose to invest in a stealth aproach or negotiation? it beats the point of having the choice in the first place

 

Because this is primarily a combat game and for the n'th time you won't be able to skip combat as much as you guys think. It's probably going to be a few quests, but what about all those creeps in the wilderness and in between those quests?

 

This game is not Torment...

[teknoman2]

 

exatly what i keep saying. why should the guy going in shooting fireballs and killing everything get 2 or 3 times more xp than the guy who chose to invest in a stealth aproach or negotiation? it beats the point of having the choice in the first place

 

Because this is primarily a combat game and for the n'th time you won't be able to skip combat as much as you guys think. It's probably going to be a few quests, but what about all those creeps in the wilderness and in between those quests?

 

This game is not Torment...

 

it's one thing to have a game that has all it's mechanics revolve around combat, and another to have a game with several non combat oriented mechanics that penalize you if you use them

[Yellow Rabbit]

So much pro's... what are the cons again? People who are upset their murdering doesn't wield XP? Well, we can't have that can we, let's throw all those pro's off the table!

Well, if someone would try to summarize debates around quest-only xp system, it all would boil down to number of points around which very easy to run in circles.

Points against quest xp (with "counterarguments"):

1) It wasn't in IE games which PoE supposed to be successor to. - Again "what does 'spiritual successor' actually mean?", eh? Debate's pointless.

 

2) No sense to start a fight without xp reward in the end. Avoiding it becomes really attractive. - What happened to sheer joy of tactical challenge and "loot is my reward"? - Point taken, but not every encounter is actually fun. Trash mobs become utter annoyance without kill xp. - Trash mobs are utter annoyance with kill xp too. Trash is a trash. - But xp rewards makes it at least somewhat bearable. - Right. There's just so much sense in 1 xp point per trash mob when you need like 20000 points to advance your level. - At least it feels like moving forth, not completely wasted time.

 

3) Character growth pacing feels wrong (in BB, that is). Several hours of... err... walking in wilderness with lots of blood spilled doesn't gain you a single level, whereas thirty minutes running around quest hub could gain several. - Looks like balancing issue. Tying bloodspilling in wilderness to some quests (or at least that Bestiary compromise) might fix the problem. BB doesn't do it right, not yet, but who can know about main game for now?

 

4) It forces you to do side quests in order to become strong enough for advancing the main plot. Side quests called "side" because they should be skippable. - Errr... Balance again. Maybe you'll be able to avoid that if you get skilled enough in this game. What kill xp supposed to change about it, anyway? Quest milestones in the main plot could work just as well as xp for going through its encounters.

 

5) Most, if not all, RPG fans accustomed to get xp for killing enemies. They will be displeased. - You're trolling me, aren't you? Don't you dare, I have nothing to eat myself. Here, take this: habit shouldn't have anything to do with fun. If quest xp system will be really fun (and it's going to), people will see that and like it. Or at least won't mind it so much. Screw the habits.

 

tl,dr;

Half of the quest xp complaints I've seen so far can be addressed with right system balancing. Other half can't be addressed at all because it's about feelings and habits. As always.

[Nakia]

1) I think terms like "spiritual successor" and "the feel of IE games" are subjective terms.  Those terms immediately tell me the game will not be identical to the original game;  What an individual liked in the original games may or may not be included.  If someone loved the mechanics, the combat system or the spell system they will be disappointed.   If an in depth story with good dialogue and choices with consequences are important I think we will get that.

 

2) Why start a fight if you do not need to?  If you have a choice and it fits with your role playing it is great IMO to have that choice.  

 

3) From the BB it seems to me that what you meet in wilderness are beasts or monsters for which you get Beastery XP.  So there is equivalent of combat XP IMO.

 

4) At the moment I don't think we know how important side quests are.  Even so if you got XP for fighting the Ogre in the BB and then return to the farmer and get XP for doing the quest this would penalize the person who chose the non-combat option.  To me this is a role playing game and the more options I have the happier I will be.

 

5) There are many games published that fous on combat if that is what is important to players.  

[Hassat Hunter]

Good points.

I doubt it will be that extreme in the full version, I assume they buffed XP for the beta (no access, so can't confirm).

 

But simply running the math (12 levels, 5% of game... multiple levels? Doesn't add up) on that should give a good impression.

 

Another oft-repeated argument is "how does turning in a quest or exploration XP actually train me with the sword? We need combat-XP for that" which kind-of-funilly also seems to think killing stuff and then getting a better lockpicker because of that isn't equally illogical. They are all abstractions, until you start using a TES system, and I hope everyone can see horrible *that* would be in an IE-game.

 

And I'm sure many encounters will be hard to avoid, requiring skill or walking around every time. Then 'why should I fight them' become about the true reason why one should; granting passage, character roleplay. But yeah, walking around a bear in the forest makes sense rather than 'let's kill it for 2000XP!' as in Baldur's Gate. Or charming it and let it fight for you (without "I'm not going to charm it! That cheats me out of 2000XP!) And hey, this time around you may even get a pelt or some crafting ingredients, which I think would be a better carrot than XP in the first place, and definitely a better motivational tool.

So, we got more allowed types of roleplaying, we got actual difficulty levels that are not *hurr... hp-bloat*, it saves the devs oodles of work and it's guaranteed to be more bugprone.

*Less* bugprone.

<Needs proof-reading :/

Edited January 13, 2015 by Hassat Hunter

[Eurhetemec]

They are all abstractions, until you start using a TES system, and I hope everyone can see horrible *that* would be in an IE-game.

 

Even the TES system is an abstraction of a fairly serious kind, because repeatedly doing one activity with one thing will make you better with all things related to the skill equally. Examples:

 

1) Blacksmithing - Repeatedly making iron daggers will take you from new to blacksmithing, to the grandest of grand masteries, even if you never try anything else. Somehow making all these iron daggers will teach about working a half-dozen different materials into all sorts of armour and weapons!

 

Hell, even if you avoid doing that, and "skill up" with a wider variety of materials, it's very likely you'll lean on a few materials and item-types pretty hard, but will still become an expert with all materials and item-types.

 

That is wildly abstract.

 

2) 1H weapons - You can spend the entire time stabbing people in the head with a dagger, never use anything else, but you pick up a axe or mace, and if you've chosen the right perks, you're an instant expert with it.

 

Again, very abstract. I could go on.

 

You could make a much less abstract game, but it'd be pretty fiercely complicated with dozens of sub-specializations potentially at different levels and so on. I notice that even mods for TES tend to avoid that sort of thing. I seem to remember some P&P RPG that tried it, with skills cross-feeding into each other in some complex way (like, raising your 1h sword skill also raised a general 1h skill but by less). It was a horrible disaster which took forever when you created a character or updated them, as a result (like so many P&P RPGs in the '80s and early '90s).

 

Er which is a very long-winded way of saying I agree.

 

ON TOPIC - I'd stopped following Pillars for a while, and actually, both these things make me really happy.

 

No XP for combat means I can roleplay and play smart, rather than having to grind or play dumb to maximize XP. People who say combat has no incentive because of this are forgetting our good friend loot. Loot, however, produces a more naturalistic and less extreme motivator than XP, for combat. After all, bandits might attack you for your cash/goods. They wouldn't attack you primarily for training purposes.

 

It's obviously a big boon for writing, too.

 

Optional non-personality NPCs for the party is also awesome, because it means that if some NPC is a jerk, or I otherwise don't want them, I'm not just screwed if I want someone of that class. It's also great if I want more than one person of a certain class or a party setup that is otherwise not available.

 

This is less obvious, but it too is a big boon for writing, directly contrary to what the OP was suggesting. It means Obsidian can have characters with stronger personalities, values and opinions, and take more risks with character-writing, without winding people up as much. I know in many RPGs I've had to bring such-and-such jerk along because they had abilities I wanted, and it's always irritating (in BGII I ended up going the fake-MP route to avoid having more than two "official" NPCs in the party at once, and to spare myself from various NPCs and their annoying-ness), or even if you aren't irritated by them, you may feel like you have to break RP/RP inappropriately to bring them along.

 

It also helps force the writers to up their game a little, because they can't rely on you having to drag so-and-so along, they need to make you want to bring them along because they're interesting to have around.

 

Finally it makes everyone a little happier by allowing for a more custom experience.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Eurhetemec

[ilhdr]

If obsidian gave 1xp point on the first kills and then nothing more just like Witcher 2 nothing of this would happen

[Sarex]

it's one thing to have a game that has all it's mechanics revolve around combat, and another to have a game with several non combat oriented mechanics that penalize you if you use them

 

I agree, but I don't agree with how they "fixed" it.

 

5) There are many games published that fous on combat if that is what is important to players.  

 

Hate to break it to you but this game pretty much focuses on combat.

[teknoman2]

i fail to see the difference when looking at the big picture. whether you get per kill xp or not, the max level is the same and you will reach it at about the same time. the only difference is that with per kill xp you may get a level in the middle of a dungeon run instead of getting it after you are through