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

[Volourn]

"Dear Combat-XP crowd, explain please? "

 

You pretty much can't avoid the vast majority of combat. And, as Stun explains above - the only way you really can do so is if you just don't explore which is dumb when you are role-playing adventurers in a combat hevay game.

 

 

"If you got exp for every kill you could easily be level 12 before act 2."

 

Not if xp rewards were handled better. FFS I got 1200+ xp for accepting a quest and than entering a building before actually doing anything. HAHAHAHA!

[Grand_Commander13]

The achievement is for Completing the game with 1200 + kills. So it's safe to assume that more than 5.3% of people who have played the game have completed the game, period.

Nope, you get the achievement as soon as you get the 1200th kill, while the Relative Pacifist achievement requires a finished game. It's not comparing like to like, but it's obvious that people are not shying away from battle just because they don't get XP for it.

[Volourn]

But you do get xp for it. Why are you lying?

[Gfted1]

How many kills of a particular species does it take to fill up that Beastiary page?

[Volourn]

Depends on the beast but 8-12 I think. But, the species is more subtypes since there are usually different versions of them. Of coruse, you technically don't get xp for named npcs/humanoids (not coutning quest xp) so if you are attacked by assassins no xp. NO LOGIC.

[Stun]

Incidently, if combat can be so easily avoided, then how come No one's been able to get the triple crown achievement?

Edited April 7, 2015 by Stun

[Ink Blot]

Incidently, if combat can be so easily avoided, then how come No one's been able to get the triple crown achievement?

Apparently, they have:  http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76280-finished-triple-crown-solo-as-cipher Solo.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Ink Blot

[MReed]

Yeah, 0% means "< 0.05 %".  Steam, unhappily, doesn't provide a mechanism to actually see the number of people who have gotten a particular achievement, which is significant when talking about achievements that are difficult (perhaps impossible) to achieve.

[Volourn]

Uh Triple Crown isn't about simply avoiding combat right? You can still fight. Combat  is no more avoidable thjan 999% of RPGs. Nothing wrong with that as I quite enjoy the combat overall... *shrug*

[eLeF]

Players do combat because the game spams tedious encounters and not because they want to. Also even with high stealth you often just can't sneak past them because of how they are placed.

[WebShaman]

But you do get xp for it. Why are you lying?

This.

 

One gets massive Quest XP...and it almost always involves combat *sigh*  "Go kill the Xaurips over there before I will help you.  Clear out the Lighthouse.  Go into the Temploe.  Go find the Goods that we need." 

 

Bleh.

 

Even those Quests where one can avoid some combat, you run into red-ringed opponents that attack and you CANNOT GET AWAY FROM THEM!

 

This broken mechanic led to me having to kill more than I ever wished to.

 

To that, the fog on the maps.  I personally like to have clear maps, without dark on them.  Again, often I run into the red/ringed problem...and I can't get away.

 

Add to this the unbelievably easy combat - just auto-attack on the maps.  No spells, etc needed.  The only time I actually need to use resources is when it is some special Quest, normally.

 

When combat does not drain any resources, and provides useful resources (creature parts, herbs, sellable stuff, and hidden treasures), well...that is also incentive enough.  If I was having to battle my behind off to kill Foe X and burn useful resources just to get a mundane part...the effort would not be worth the bother.

 

Because killing tends to not give XP by itself, however...I tend to avoid that combat that I can.

 

For example, in Defiance, I didn't kill a specific person - why should I?  I just didn't see the value in it (I got the same XP either way).

[Trauma_Hound]

 

The achievement is for Completing the game with 1200 + kills. So it's safe to assume that more than 5.3% of people who have played the game have completed the game, period.

Nope, you get the achievement as soon as you get the 1200th kill, while the Relative Pacifist achievement requires a finished game. It's not comparing like to like, but it's obvious that people are not shying away from battle just because they don't get XP for it.

 

 

Well the achievement specifies completing the game. Also that's just steam and that people who didn't use the command console for anything. Which I bet plenty of people used the command console for a number of different reasons. So I still don't see how the achievements are even reliable for tracking any sort of information? Besides killing monsters does net you Loot and XP. Not exactly certain what you attempt to prove. That's not saying that I don't agree with you - that killing monsters is fun even without xp or loot, because overcoming challenges, even minor ones are fun.

[Vadász]

What i actively hate is that we don't a single XP point by wiping out a whole place and yet we level up because our rogues managed to pick a few locks and disarm some traps while we were at it.

[Fearabbit]

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.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Fearabbit

[Volourn]

Uh..  the incentive fo combat is that most of it is forced on you and you DO get xp for it. Why are you lying? The fact that it is fun or not fun is completely and utterly irrelevant. It's also about risk vs reward. It's dumb not to get xp for killing would be assassins but to get 1000+ xp for just accepting a quest. That's pure idiotic. PERIOD.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Volourn

[Schakar]

• 36.5% of owners have completed Act I
• 8.6% of owners have completed Act II
• 6.2% of owners have reached level 10 of the Endless Paths
• 5.3% of owners have killed 1200 or more creatures in their playthrough
• 3.6% of owners have reached level 15 of the Endless Paths
• 2.2% of owners have won the game
• 0.5% of owners have defeated the dragons (and one of 'ems a real doozy)
• 0.1% of owners have won the game solo
• 0.1% of owners have won the game with no party members reaching 0 Endurance
• 0.1% of owners have won the game on Trial of Iron
• 0.1% of owners have won the game on Path of the Damned
• 0% of owners have won the game with 175 or fewer creature kills

Don't forget: this are ONLY Stream owner!

And some Steam owner aren't countet like me . Had to use the console and "fix" my savegame in the Hold while 1.02 .

 

But yea, trying to avoid as much as posible is boring in a RGP . You might miss this super duper hyper item which makes you imortal *g*. And killing is the core of any RPG, isn't it? .

[Fearabbit]

The fact that it is fun or not fun is completely and utterly irrelevant.

 

Yeah but that's because you lack feelings, Volourn!

 

The "forced on you" part is actually what I said as well, and "it's dumb" is a different argument that we're not discussing here.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Fearabbit

[speeder]

I don't know where your figures came from but lets assume they are correct. Is it possible to avoid killing less than 175 over the course of the game? My impression is that most fights are unavoidable. Correct?

Yep

 

I personally will wait until the game is stable to mod it, and I will either put XP rewards on combat or remove lots of combat, right now the game is just annoying, with lots and lots and lots of unavoidable combat that give ****ty rewards (specially when the reward is like 1 ingredient after killing waves and waves of annoying monsters).

[Volourn]

"Yeah but that's because you lack feelings, Volourn!"

 

TRUE.

[Awathorn]

This no xp for killing would make so much sense if Obsidian actually crafted a game with smart and engaging stealth system and complicated quests, choices and puzzles.

 

After completing the game I must say it is very...mundane in that aspect.

 

And with a few exceptions you kill pretty much everything while exploring and doing quests.

 

So, another "briliant" idea failed. Fixing what is not broken.

[Rosveen]

If I could do a wholly (or almost wholly) pacifistic playthrough, I would. But I'd have to skip most quests and that's just no fun.

[Wulfram]

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

[Grand_Commander13]

Don't forget: this are ONLY Stream owner!

And some Steam owner aren't countet like me . Had to use the console and "fix" my savegame in the Hold while 1.02 .

Unless you're arguing that Steam users are more bloodthirsty, or people who use the console in the game are more pacifistic, I fail to see how this changes the ratio of people who beat the game pacifist-style to people who beat the game in any way.

[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.

 

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.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

There is xp for combat. Bestiary xp. Why should players avoid combat and its xp if you will be rewarded with combat (bestiary) xp? That was never an argument from the combat xp crowd. Of course I'm not going to avoid xp if I kill something. However, I have avoided quite a lot of fights where there is no xp (eg.humans). And I wouldn't be surprised if there's 1200 enemies that do reward combat xp in the game.