I learned that fights don't give you experience

[Lephys]

Almost any system in any game ever could use improvements. There are games I absolutely adore, but I still say "Hmmm, I would've liked it even more if such-and-such were a bit different."

 

So, that being said, I don't think PoE is perfect in terms of XP design. But, then again, I haven't seen the final version, either. But, the thing about this whole debate is, SURE it's nice to kill a wolf and get a wolf's worth of XP, but, in the end, you can only kill so many wolves without "accomplishing something" (beyond the ending of wolves' lives). Thus, if XP is properly granted for the accomplishment of narratively-relevant things, I really don't mind how XP is granted. Because, there's no possible way in which you can accomplish something that had you kill 15 enemies and somehow not receive XP "for those enemies."

 

Honestly, I think a really awesome system would be one which rewards you much like a DM would: for cleverness in using your classes to overcome challenges. Basically, you'd get XP for winning fights, but pretty low base XP (and probably still diminishing XP for fighting the same thing multiple times). Then, you'd actually get more XP for handling your fights in a highly effective fashion, rather than just hacking away at things until they're dead.

 

That's just an ideal, though, as designing a system that measures how well you're using the tools at your disposal to overcome fights would be pretty nightmarish.

[Azmodiuz]

LoL, imagine a system where the xp is based on how little damage you take and how quickly you over come the obstacles. Without making scripting a nightmare, how else would you get what you are referring to ?

 

I think what you are looking for is Torment: Tides of Numenera. Its all scripted, and you don't even need to fight. Whats the point of asking "what does one life matter" if you kill people for being in your way, rather then finding intelligent ways to overcome obstacles, more efficiently.

[Suhiir]

Yeah this is what i believe, i think it would be ok if you really would use your skills, but no, you are going to click on some beast/monster, then you are going to spam some magic, and if you are stronger you win, if you are not you lose, using skills like HoonDing says for example ninja gaiden where you can jump, hack, slash, run, etc. then would be acceptable, you could kill some strong beast using your skills. i'm not saying that the arguments of any one of here are invalid, just saying when i backed this game there was no info on this no xp for combat thing, being honest, i was looking for an old school rpg, combat xp included, then i surprise myself realizing this, and i feel a little disappointed because i´ve waited so long for a good old school rpg, but any way, i already bought it so, i think ill play it.

Ummmm ... this is a single player party based game.  There's no way one player could control a party if the game mechanics were the same as a single character FPS.

 

Why is XP for fights needed?  XP for quests sure, you're accomplishing something that furthers the games story-line.  How does killing 5,000,000 respawning MOBs for XP further the story-line?

Edited March 19, 2015 by Suhiir

[Lephys]

LoL, imagine a system where the xp is based on how little damage you take and how quickly you over come the obstacles. Without making scripting a nightmare, how else would you get what you are referring to ?

Well, how much damage you take and how quickly you kill the enemy don't necessarily have a direct proportion to how effectively you take them out. You could have everyone in your party take 90% of their Health in damage, then take the enemy out by dropping a cliff onto them, for example.

 

But, yes, as I already mentioned, it would be difficult. You'd have to have measures of the maximum amount of damage/buffing/etc. abilities could produce, then compare to that. Or something along those lines. And/or just have ways to do really cool stuff in combat, beyond straight-up ability damage. For example, I'd love to see stat/skill checks in combat in a game like this, but the combat would almost have to be turn-based.

 

Anywho, it's just an idea. No need to "LOL" at it as if I said it'd be easy.

[Azmodiuz]

I only lol because the work would be insane to set it up if I had to guess. no disrespect intended
we understand eachother here in this topic.

[Namutree]

 

Why is XP for fights needed?  XP for quests sure, you're accomplishing something that furthers the games story-line.  How does killing 5,000,000 respawning MOBs for XP further the story-line?

 

Xp is supposed to be a reward for overcoming a challenge. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the story. As for grinding 5,000,000 respawning mobs; I don't think most people would complain if there was a system where low level enemies don't give high level parties xp.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Namutree

[Lephys]

I only lol because the work would be insane to set it up if I had to guess. no disrespect intended

we understand eachother here in this topic.

Ahh. Wasn't sure before.

 

On the note of efficiency/effectiveness, though, it's been brought up in this thread (and/or others like it before) that "combat XP represents the actual experience your characters earn from fighting!", but then, you can basically just lure a bunch of enemies over a lava geyser that vaporizes them all, and you still get XP for the mere occurrence of their deaths. So really, conceptually, a per-kill XP system already rewards you for goal-accomplishment. And you kind of get more for your dollar based on your efficiency. Of course, you've got systems like The Elder Scrolls games, in which you actually get better at swordsmanship the more you sword things, 8P. SO, if you kill something in one sword swing, you actually improve LESS than if you fight it for an hour.

 

Anywho, if it COULD be done, it would be interesting to see these games more closely mimic DM management of the rewards/happenings.

[Azmodiuz]

insane micromanagement scripting

[LHWong]

I think trash mobs that a mage could outmelee giving no XP is fine. Hopefully the more challenging non-unique monsters still give XP - like the dragons. POE's equivalents of BG2's liches, demiliches, dragons and super mages should really give XP.

[Azmodiuz]

hey in PoE mages can be series Melee'ers! Also, I haven't seena  single enemy I would call trash mob. Maybe if I lower the difficulty setting, idk. But try playing the game on hard.

[Zansatsu]

Hah bugger off for 9 months and we are still talking about this! Brilliant! I see people are still confused by attributes as well.

[Suhiir]

 

 

Why is XP for fights needed?  XP for quests sure, you're accomplishing something that furthers the games story-line.  How does killing 5,000,000 respawning MOBs for XP further the story-line?

 

Xp is supposed to be a reward for overcoming a challenge. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the story. As for grinding 5,000,000 respawning mobs; I don't think most people would complain if there was a system where low level enemies don't give high level parties xp.

 

They just took it to it's logical conclusion.  No enemies give XP, party level irrelevent.  Solves all sorts of game balance issues simply and easily.

[Valmy]

Hah bugger off for 9 months and we are still talking about this! Brilliant! I see people are still confused by attributes as well.

 

Well we haven't played it yet so we have not gotten any evidence to decide the issue.

[Verenti]

I would note what Monte Cooke observed in the creation of Numenera: you reward players for doing what you want them to do. That's why Numenera gives xp for discoveries and not for combat (I wouldn't be surprised that T:ToN also gives no xp for combat.)

 

So, I know we're all used to getting xp for killing baddies, but you shouldn't be rewarded for mindless slaughter. If you apply violence, it should be in service of a goal. If you can't answer "why" you killed every last animal in the forest, then maybe you shouldn't be rewarded for it. If you killed the lion to save that kid? Sure. If you killed the guard to ensure your associates could advance their plans to secretly dominate the city? Have some xp.

 

Rewarding players for killing reduces the game to just a tactics simulator and rewards players for dumbing down the game. You shouldn't be bereft over having lost this.

[Cantousent]

Hah bugger off for 9 months and we are still talking about this! Brilliant! I see people are still confused by attributes as well.

It's own little version of the blood wars down here on the boards.

[Amentep]

 

Hah bugger off for 9 months and we are still talking about this! Brilliant! I see people are still confused by attributes as well.

It's own little version of the blood wars down here on the boards.

 

Fight XP / no Fight XP = Law / Chaos axis ?

 

Edited March 19, 2015 by Amentep

[lordkim]

Out of experience i learned , not to fight on the forum !

Edited March 20, 2015 by lordkim

[Namutree]

 

So, I know we're all used to getting xp for killing baddies, but you shouldn't be rewarded for mindless slaughter. If you apply violence, it should be in service of a goal. If you can't answer "why" you killed every last animal in the forest, then maybe you shouldn't be rewarded for it. If you killed the lion to save that kid? Sure. If you killed the guard to ensure your associates could advance their plans to secretly dominate the city? Have some xp.

The "why" means nothing. XP should be awarded for over-coming a challenge. "mindless slaughter" can still be challenging, and you should be awarded XP to reflect that. 

 

 

 

Rewarding players for killing reduces the game to just a tactics simulator and rewards players for dumbing down the game. You shouldn't be bereft over having lost this.

There is nothing lost by allowing players to be rewarded for being successful in combat. There is no "reduction", the only way things are reduced is if features are taken out or marginalized; which kill XP doesn't do. Solving quests becomes no less meaningful simply because there are other ways of obtaining XP.

[Kal Adan]

 

The "why" means nothing. XP should be awarded for over-coming a challenge. "mindless slaughter" can still be challenging, and you should be awarded XP to reflect that.

Actually the combat should generate no reward on its own. The point is not to attack everything in sight (although it's definitely possible to do so), but engage in combat when it's meaningful for some reason.

[Zansatsu]

People keep making the argument: having kill xp = slaughterfest. Or allowing kill xp = grindfest. People can't control themselves thus it must not be allowed. That's a bs argument. It means you can't control yourself. Honestly everyone against kill xp, can you really not stop yourselves from grinding? I just finished BG 2 playing a lawful good Boyscout Paladin. I didn't steal, I didn't murder needlessly, I talked or payed my way out if possible. I'm sick of that argument its logically unsound and this is a single player game so a players play style or leveling preference has no bearing on anyone but themselves. Just because kill xp is there doesn't make me want to kill things. To be honest the loot does! So no more Mob loots! No more tucked away encounters with challenging bad guys dropping sweet sweet gear because it encourages me to explore unrelated to story, thus encountering beasties, thus taking over my reptilian brain making me kill kill kill kill!!!!!!

Edited March 20, 2015 by Zansatsu

[Namutree]

 

 

The "why" means nothing. XP should be awarded for over-coming a challenge. "mindless slaughter" can still be challenging, and you should be awarded XP to reflect that.

Actually the combat should generate no reward on its own. The point is not to attack everything in sight (although it's definitely possible to do so), but engage in combat when it's meaningful for some reason.

 

XP has no relation to what is "meaningful", XP is an abstraction for growth. Growth comes from over coming challenges; not doing things "meaningful".

 

When I kill the deadly Ogre; my character should grow from rising up to the challenge; whether I did it for some farmer's pigs should have no bearing on that. Every reason for action is valid.

 

If I killed an Ogre for fun cuz my PC is a crazy jerk; that's valid.

 

If I killed an Ogre because my PC want's to sharpen his/her combat skills' that's valid.

 

If I killed an Ogre because my character stumbled upon the Ogre and thinks it might hurt people if I let it live; that's valid.

 

Yet the only way I'll get experience for killing the Ogre (besides some measly beastiary xp) is if I present it to some random farmer? That's dumb. Why does helping the farmer help my PC grow?

Edited March 20, 2015 by Namutree

[Kal Adan]

XP has no relation to what is "meaningful", XP is an abstraction for growth. Growth comes from over coming challenges; not doing things "meaningful".

I am not talking about XP. I am talking about when combat has a meaning behind it. Meaning other than "I need to kill it for XP".

 

Yet the only way I'll get experience for killing the Ogre (besides some measly beastiary xp) is if I present it to some random farmer? That's dumb. Why does helping the farmer help my PC grow?

XP in itself is stupid way to grow a character. Why I learn something after fighting an arbitrary number of Ogres?

[Luckmann]

 

 

 

The "why" means nothing. XP should be awarded for over-coming a challenge. "mindless slaughter" can still be challenging, and you should be awarded XP to reflect that.

Actually the combat should generate no reward on its own. The point is not to attack everything in sight (although it's definitely possible to do so), but engage in combat when it's meaningful for some reason.

 

XP has no relation to what is "meaningful", XP is an abstraction for growth. Growth comes from over coming challenges; not doing things "meaningful".

 

When I kill the deadly Ogre; my character should grow from rising up to the challenge; whether I did it for some farmer's pigs should have no bearing on that. Every reason for action is valid.

 

If I killed an Ogre for fun cuz my PC is a crazy jerk; that's valid.

 

If I killed an Ogre because my PC want's to sharpen his/her combat skills' that's valid.

 

If I killed an Ogre because my character stumbled upon the Ogre and thinks it might hurt people if I let it live; that's valid.

 

Yet the only way I'll get experience for killing the Ogre (besides some measly beastiary xp) is if I present it to some random farmer? That's dumb. Why does helping the farmer help my PC grow?

 

 

I fully support goal-oriented experience, but I will concede the point that it can feel arbitrary in situations like this. I still maintain that it is better than the alternative.

 

This is also why I've always emphasized my position as goal-oriented experience, not quest-related experience. The goal can differ, and need not be directly related to a quest, and equating experience doleout to turning in quests is honestly not the best situation. What if you go through all the parts of the quest, except actually talking to the farmer? And so on, and so forth.

 

So I don't consider your argument a good one in favour of murderhobo-experience, but it is perfectly valid criticism of quest-oriented experience.

 

Every developer of a roleplaying game should be paid and forced to play through Deus Ex two times in total isolation, followed by Fallout 1/2/NV, BG1/2, IWD, PS:T at least twice, Arcanum, and VtM:B. Followed by another two playthroughs of Deus Ex.

[Namutree]

 

So I don't consider your argument a good one in favour of murderhobo-experience, but it is perfectly valid criticism of quest-oriented experience.

 

I've said before that if the opponent is too weak compared to you then you shouldn't receive XP for it.

 

This solves the, "kill everyone for 1 xp a piece" issue, and the "grind endlessly on weak mobs" issue.

 

 

XP has no relation to what is "meaningful", XP is an abstraction for growth. Growth comes from over coming challenges; not doing things "meaningful".

I am not talking about XP. I am talking about when combat has a meaning behind it. Meaning other than "I need to kill it for XP".

 

What is wrong with, "I need to kill it for XP" as a meaning exactly? It's just as meaningful as any motive. The limitation you provide is arbitrary and needlessly restricting of people's enjoyment of the game.

 

 

 

Yet the only way I'll get experience for killing the Ogre (besides some measly beastiary xp) is if I present it to some random farmer? That's dumb. Why does helping the farmer help my PC grow?

XP in itself is stupid way to grow a character. Why I learn something after fighting an arbitrary number of Ogres?

 

XP is a fun abstraction. If you don't like XP; I'd suggest you not play an RPG, but rather something without that stupid XP. 

[Kal Adan]

What is wrong with, "I need to kill it for XP" as a meaning exactly? It's just as meaningful as any motive.

Killing for XP is not a motive in an RPG. That's what's wrong with it. If you kill for XP, then you're not role playing. If that's the case, then how exactly is RPG different from hack'n'slash? Because in hack'n'slash all that matters is loot and XP. And killing stuff.

 

The limitation you provide is arbitrary and needlessly restricting of people's enjoyment of the game.

Not really. You can still kill. I simply wouldn't tie progression of a character in an RPG around killing. Or XP. NEO Scavenger did progression in an interesting way.

 

XP is a fun abstraction. If you don't like XP; I'd suggest you not play an RPG, but rather something without that stupid XP.

 

1. If I will want to know your suggestions what should I play or not, then I will ask you. Not a moment before. So keep your suggestions concerning my person to yourself.

 

2. "XP is a fun abstraction" is just your opinion. For me "that's dumb", to quote you. Especially in the context you provide. Having to kill an arbitrary number of creatures in order to raise my diplomacy skill makes no sense at all. In such light calling XP for quests dumb when you defend no less dumb system is hypocritical.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Kal Adan