Remember "with objective XP no one will do combat anymore, all enemies will be avoided"?

[Mungri]

You still get XP for killing stuff. Its just finite. Plus the enemies drop loot.

[R.Alexander]

Give it a rest already. This entire argument may be the biggest straw man we've ever seen burned down on this forum. You and the OP are operating under an absurd, context-less assumption that in PoE, the choice to kill is as equally valid as the choice to not kill. But this isn't true at all. The game is designed in a way where avoiding combat is not only much much MUCH harder to do mechanically, but FAR FAR less rewarding.

 

TL;DR: A pacifist run would be much more attractive: 1) If stealth was more fun and viable; 2) if half the game's quests and exploration actually supported pacifism. But since neither is the case, this entire thread is a moronic Hassat Hunter Troll attempt.

The thing is all the biggest pro xp arguments were "not killing enemies will be the easier, more efficient way to play" and "their won't be enough incentive/reward in killing over sneaking." Anti-experience people argued "most combat will probably be unavoidable" and "you will get loot/other rewards if you kill." Now you seem to be complaining that combat should be avoidable and you shouldn't get rewards for killing things? This feels completely counter to what was said before.

[Grand_Commander13]

Give it a rest already. This entire argument may be the biggest straw man we've ever seen burned down on this forum. You and the OP are operating under an absurd, context-less assumption that in PoE, the choice to kill is as equally valid as the choice to not kill. But this isn't true at all. The game is designed in a way where avoiding combat is not only much much MUCH harder to do mechanically, but FAR FAR less rewarding.

 

So what you're saying is that people aren't skipping combat in Pillars of Eternity. Thank you very much for agreeing with us. Was that so hard?

[Volourn]

"I didn't even notice there was no XP for killing stuff."

 

You didn't notice that b/c there IS XP for killing stuff. LMAO

 

 

"So what you're saying is that people aren't skipping combat in Pillars of Eternity."

 

That's because you can't really avoid it. However, you don't get rewarded for it properly. Fight enemies that can kill you -  200xp. Accept a quest and enter room = 1000+ xp. LMAO illogical.

[Stun]

 

Give it a rest already. This entire argument may be the biggest straw man we've ever seen burned down on this forum. You and the OP are operating under an absurd, context-less assumption that in PoE, the choice to kill is as equally valid as the choice to not kill. But this isn't true at all. The game is designed in a way where avoiding combat is not only much much MUCH harder to do mechanically, but FAR FAR less rewarding.

 

So what you're saying is that people aren't skipping combat in Pillars of Eternity. Thank you very much for agreeing with us. Was that so hard?

 

You're not this dense. You can't be.

 

Ok, lets take this nice and slow. From the beginning. OK, Hassat Hunter....the OP, cited steam numbers that indicate that everyone is engaging in combat. He then decided to use this to try and shoot down the Pro-kill XP crowd, in effect saying:

 

"Hey Pro-Kill XP crowd! Didn't you guys claim that if they take Combat XP rewards away, then people will just stop engaging in combat?? Well it didn't happen that way!" And "here are the numbers!" And "I told you so!!"

 

 

But what did we actually learn after about 3 minutes of pondering his silly argument? Lets see:

 

1) Um... that there IS XP for killing stuff in this game, so why would the pro-XP crowd avoid killing stuff in this game?

2) The choice to engage in combat or not engage in combat really isn't given to us in about 90% of the friggin game. So what choice did we have BUT to engage in combat 90% of the time?

3) They did not give us mechanics or rewards suitable for alternate playstyles (like this game's pathetic excuse for stealth), so why would we use choose to spam those terrible mechanics when we could just blast enemies away and be done with matters? it's quicker.

4) They tied the vast majority of the plot, the subplots, the exploration and the quests to combat. I suppose we could choose to skip 90% of the game, but that was NOT part of either side's argument back when the XP threads were popping up here. No one said, for example, that they simply won't play the game if there was no combat XP.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Stun

[b0rsuk]

I just wish we had some indication if a creature has loot. Often it's common sense, but sometimes even animals drop surprising stuff. If Stealth allowed to see what loot (roughly) an enemy has, it would make pure stealth play more viable. Past early game I don't pick up weapons for selling unless they're at least Fine. 10 copper is not worth it. If I knew beforehand if the enemies have some Fine equipment - or just a bunch of plain ones - I could make a decision to sneak past them.

[gh0stwizard]

In PoE that rule does not working at all. Like it was for Fallout 1, Fallout 2 [and FNV]. To learn the game you must finished it in all possible variants. Killing or not killing everything on a way is your choice which is have a small impact on a game playthrough. If you feel that you must gain all XP: train char with 12 mechanics, train char with 12 athletics and so on. Also, if try to finished the game this way the game will said you that you did correct and where you did mistakes when choosing "to kill for XP".

 

I am happy that I did not killed Raedrick, meantime many people considered him like a truly bad guy. He is not.

Edited April 7, 2015 by gh0stwizard

[WebShaman]

Let us take into account the Bounties (that one gets from the Stronghold Warden, when it is purchased) :

 

Over 11,000 XP for the Head of X.  Not to mention the items.

 

Let that sink in.

 

And no, you cannot stealth these (try stealing someone's head without them noticing!!!!).

 

That is a LOT of XP for killing.  I've been leveling pretty good with them.  I hope the Bounties keep on going (got 1 more to go before the next bunch...w00t!) - it is addictive!  I have become a Bounty Hunter!

[Ilxuss]

Let us take into account the Bounties (that one gets from the Stronghold Warden, when it is purchased) :

 

Over 11,000 XP for the Head of X.  Not to mention the items.

 

Let that sink in.

 

And no, you cannot stealth these (try stealing someone's head without them noticing!!!!).

 

That is a LOT of XP for killing.  I've been leveling pretty good with them.  I hope the Bounties keep on going (got 1 more to go before the next bunch...w00t!) - it is addictive!  I have become a Bounty Hunter!

You are right for pointing that out; even if we assume that there is no xp for killing something directly (although there is, through lore xp) there are great many quests that award with xp missions that would be impossible (like bounty quests) or nearly impossible (take something from enemy infested place) without using combat.

 

It's time consuming and boring to get to necromancer if we have to sneak past rooms and corridors full of his minions at least two times, because we need to return somehow too.

[Gromnir]

the kill xp proponents got a token concession with the bestiary.  

 

*shrug*

 

the obsidian folks were able to observe tester behavior before release and they will no doubt have considerable feedback post release o' poe regarding how players actual behaved in the game.  is no need to belabour a point that were obvious to the obsidian folks all along.  and yet...

 

the kill-xp proponents were so darn ardent in advocating for per-kill xp grants that there is no way they is now gonna admit that the absence o' poe kill xp (please don't keep saying that the bestiary is what you folks were asking for) has been as significant as a mouse fart in a hurricane.  is funny.  is a dead issue.  it were a dead issue before it became an issue.  make 'em squeal a bit more at this point is gauche.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Verenti]

Regarding steam achievements: 0.0% does not equal none. It means less that 0.1%

 

I have the achievement related to killing less than 175 monsters. If you know the game and know where the monsters are, you can, if you are soloing, easily complete the game without killing so many things. Especially if you play it on easy. You can complete the critical path with only killing about 19 enemies. So you even have a buffer, if you don't want to save scum it. Since you get a lot of xp from quests and many quests have non-violent solutions, you can even level up to a decent level for the last boss.

[Hassat Hunter]

So, anyone else feeling proud the "Combat XP Crowd" decided to joint this argument and threw around arguments like "Of course we fight, it's needed, enemies can't always be avoided, there is loot!"

 

It's sweet sweet irony of them trying to 'Prove me wrong' by using the arguments I tried to drill into their heads for months, but they wouldn't listen. As if you can prove me wrong by using my own arguments.

 

But I guess they really haven't listened and thought they made this observation all of their own, and why the heck would no one tell them it would go like this? It's not like we had several hundred page threads trying or anything.

 

Call it "Troll Thread" if you will but you guess doing a total 180 and then coming around with our arguments we've used for months is pure classic, and hopefully shows something that realise you just did that, as it doesn't seem some people actually know they're using stuff I said for months here as 'counter'...

 

And that's the food for thought this thread was made for.

I have the feeling some people here really don't know what we're talking about.

 

Guys, just to make it clear: This isn't a thread about XP in general. There was a big discussion about whether killing creatures/NPCs should give you XP, instead of only getting XP from quests. There were people who argued thusly:

 

1. There is sneaking, so we can simply avoid combat.

2. If there is no XP for combat and only XP for quests, there is no need to do combat.

3. Which means that nobody will go into combat anymore because avoiding it is the most efficient strategy.

4. And that sucks and Obsidian should burn in hell for even considering such an option.

 

This point of view was extremely short-sighted, as many have tried to explain, but back then it was a lot of what-ifs because the game wasn't out yet.

Hassat Hunter simply pointed out that so far there was nobody who completed the game without killing over 175 enemies. You know, "0%" instead of the "100%" that people claimed it would be.

Basically, the number could be as high as 10% or 20% and it would still mean that a large majority of people actually goes into combat, so the whole argument people used in the discussion way back when has now been debunked. The two big holes in the argument were, of course, that combat will not simply be avoidable, and that XP is not the only incentive people need to engage in it, because "it's fun" secretely enters the equation at some point.

 

Whether there will be pacifist runs or how representative the Steam statistics are has nothing to do with all that in any way. Just saying.

 

Give it a rest already. This entire argument may be the biggest straw man we've ever seen burned down on this forum. You and the OP are operating under an absurd, context-less assumption that in PoE, the choice to kill is as equally valid as the choice to not kill. But this isn't true at all. The game is designed in a way where avoiding combat is not only much much MUCH harder to do mechanically, but FAR FAR less rewarding.

 

TL;DR: A pacifist run would be much more attractive: 1) If stealth was more fun and viable; 2) if half the game's quests and exploration actually supported pacifism. But since neither is the case, this entire thread is a moronic Hassat Hunter Troll attempt.

The thing is all the biggest pro xp arguments were "not killing enemies will be the easier, more efficient way to play" and "their won't be enough incentive/reward in killing over sneaking." Anti-experience people argued "most combat will probably be unavoidable" and "you will get loot/other rewards if you kill." Now you seem to be complaining that combat should be avoidable and you shouldn't get rewards for killing things? This feels completely counter to what was said before.

 

I know right... it's like he doesn't even realise he's now using points I've been telling him for months, but then always got responded that I obviously have no idea what I talked about and I was just talking crazy or something...

Old discussion: "Not all quests will be able to be resolved peacefully" - [total ignore] "People will just run away from everything!"

New discussion: "People are forced to fight stuff. Of course then they fight. Now if only this game would have super-stealth as we all know it wouldn't have since it's a Baldur's Gate spiritual sequel" - "Tell me more about how I told you all about the amazing stealth apparently. Execept, no that wasn't really me, that was you."

And no, you cannot stealth these (try stealing someone's head without them noticing!!!!).

Try Baldur's Gate II. You can actually pickpocket a head (without fanpatch that is). Scalps in Baldur's Gate 1

[Stun]

So, anyone else feeling proud the "Combat XP Crowd" decided to joint this argument and threw around arguments like "Of course we fight, it's needed, enemies can't always be avoided, there is loot!"

 

It's sweet sweet irony of them trying to 'Prove me wrong' by using the arguments I tried to drill into their heads for months, but they wouldn't listen. As if you can prove me wrong by using my own arguments.

 

But I guess they really haven't listened and thought they made this observation all of their own, and why the heck would no one tell them it would go like this? It's not like we had several hundred page threads trying or anything.

 

Call it "Troll Thread" if you will but you guess doing a total 180 and then coming around with our arguments we've used for months is pure classic, and hopefully shows something that realise you just did that, as it doesn't seem some people actually know they're using stuff I said for months here as 'counter'...

There....Is....Combat.....XP....In....This....Game. Edited April 9, 2015 by Stun

[Dee-Jay]

My main reason for killing everything was to explore every nook and cranny. I hate the idea of missing something and stealth just wasn't reliable enough.

[Zwiebelchen]

I don't get this hyperbole about combat XP.

 

I think PoE nailed it with the beastiary XP mechanic:

You have a decent incentive to battle unknown foes. By the time you figure out the strategy to deal with them, the beastiary XP for those is exhausted and you can get creative avoiding those encounters. It's perfect and allows players to not repeat the same stuff over and over.

 

It was cool that I had the possibility to avoid several of the Shadow battles in Caed Nua, as I already had all the beastiary entries from visiting the eothas temple and they mostly didn't drop any loot either.

 

I wished more games would do that. Battling the always same enemies over and over again is just plain boring (Dragon Age).

Edited April 9, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[Luckmann]

 

So, anyone else feeling proud the "Combat XP Crowd" decided to joint this argument and threw around arguments like "Of course we fight, it's needed, enemies can't always be avoided, there is loot!"

 

It's sweet sweet irony of them trying to 'Prove me wrong' by using the arguments I tried to drill into their heads for months, but they wouldn't listen. As if you can prove me wrong by using my own arguments.

 

But I guess they really haven't listened and thought they made this observation all of their own, and why the heck would no one tell them it would go like this? It's not like we had several hundred page threads trying or anything.

 

Call it "Troll Thread" if you will but you guess doing a total 180 and then coming around with our arguments we've used for months is pure classic, and hopefully shows something that realise you just did that, as it doesn't seem some people actually know they're using stuff I said for months here as 'counter'...

There....Is....Combat.....XP....In....This....Game.

 

 

Unfortunately.

[KDubya]

I think it is fine the way it is, after killing enough to fill the bestiary you stop getting experience. This gives you the option to avoid enemies, bypass them via stealth, or find alternate routes to the objective. 

 

I also enjoy the combat and choose the violent approach to all the problems in game. If there is a choice to avoid a fight or start swinging I am going for the combat option.

 

My character is called the November man since after he passes through an area everything is dead. Just like in real life violence solves all problems, if your problems persist just add more violence

Edited April 10, 2015 by KDubya

[Silent Winter]

So far I'm loving the game as-is.

I'm fighting most battles by virtue of exploring the whole map (Fog Of War Begone!), though I did take a mostly stealth/impersonation route through one area, and talk down another.

I'm also enjoying the combat.

I'm also roleplaying (mostly).

Obsidian