Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[Bony]

Character levels are an unnecessary layer between actions and rewards.

 

[imweasel]

It wasn't really grindable because of a) the xp cap

This is some twisted logic, bro. You're saying XP isn't grindable because you can grind it until you reach the XP cap?

No, you couldn't really grind, because the monsters did not respawn and it doesn't make sense either (if you could grind respawns), because of the xp cap. That is why I wrote both points in one sentence.

b) creatures did not respawn (not notably at least).

They most certainly did.

Yeah, but not notably. If you cleared out a whole area of orcs then maybe 2 or 3 orcs would respawn a few weeks later. Seeing that by the time they respawned you were a higher level, the xp was useless.

So no, creatures did not respawn (not notably at least) and the xp from the respawns was useless.

 

[imweasel]

If I need xp then I have to find xp, that is what I have to do... right?

Yes, and if you can grind XP from monsters, the game is deincentivizing you from exploring new territory and solving quests. What is so hard to understand?

You couldn't grind respawns in BG. I have already told you why.

Joined: Monday

Oh.

Yup. When you joined you were also always wrong. Is this correct? Well, it must be.

 

[Infinitron]

So no, creatures did not respawn (not notably at least) and the xp from the respawns was useless.

Well, there you go. If it's useless, why have it at all?

Also, OCD idiots will grind it even if it's useless. They'll find a monster with a high XP reward.

it doesn't make sense either (if you could grind respawns), because of the xp cap.

WTF?! The XP cap doesn't make grinding pointless. If you're grinding XP then reaching the XP cap is what you want to achieve. It means "you've won".

Dude, that's like saying running a race is pointless because there's a finish line at the end. "If there's a finish line, why run at all? DERP!"

 

[imweasel]

So no, creatures did not respawn (not notably at least) and the xp from the respawns was useless.

Well, there you go. If it's useless, why have it at all?

Also, OCD idiots will grind it even if it's useless. They'll find a monster with a high XP reward.

Why is it useless to have combat xp, if there are no respawns?

If somebody is a moron and trys to grind anyway, then that is not my problem.

it doesn't make sense either (if you could grind respawns), because of the xp cap.

WTF?! The XP cap doesn't make grinding pointless. If you're grinding XP then reaching the XP cap is what you want to achieve. It means "you've won".

Dude, that's like saying running a race is pointless because there's a finish line at the end. "If there's a finish line, why run at all? DERP!"

You don't understand what I am trying to say. Of course you can reach the xp cap with grinding much faster, but you couldn't grind respawns, so you could not have MORE XP than the level cap, because there is a LEVEL CAP.

Derp.

 

[Infinitron]

Why is it useless to have combat xp, if there are no respawns?

Because then you're incentivizing combat and deincentivizing stealth and other peaceful solutions.

Or worse, you incentivize a peaceful solution by giving XP for it, and then allow the player to massacre the monsters anyway for even more XP.

This isn't rocket science bro.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

You couldn't grind respawns in BG. I have already told you why.

Eh? Sure you could, in that cave along the west coast in which you can find tome of constitution, if you had magical weapons you could grind flesh golems till you reach XP cap if you want, if you tried to rest in the cave there was a high chance of two of them showing up and interrupting your rest.

 

[imweasel]

Why is it useless to have combat xp, if there are no respawns?

Because then you're incentivizing combat and deincentivizing stealth and other peaceful solutions.

The IE games had peaceful solutions. If you get more xp for the peaceful solution, then you don't need the combat xp. Fixed.

Sometimes one solution should be better than the other (and it shouldn't be obvious), we don't need any no brainers.

Or worse, you incentivize a peaceful solution by giving XP for it, and then allow the player to massacre the monsters anyway for even more XP.

Or you kill them in non-combat xp game for loot.

This isn't rocket science bro.

Yeah.... ^^

 

[Infinitron]

The IE games had peaceful solutions. If you get more xp for the peaceful solution, then you don't need the combat xp. Fixed.

Sometimes one solution should be better than the other (and it shouldn't be obvious), we don't need any no brainers.

What you mean "don't need"? It's still there, ready for the taking.

Or you kill them in non-combat xp game for loot.

They don't always have loot. Loot is not an automatic reward for killing things in RPGs. XP in an XP-for-combat game is an automatic, systemic reward for killing things.

Anyway, two wrongs don't make a right. That is not a good argument for combat XP.

 

[imweasel]

Eh? Sure you could, in that cave along the west coast in which you can find tome of constitution, if you had magical weapons you could grind flesh golems till you reach XP cap if you want, if you tried to rest in the cave there was a high chance of two of them showing up and interrupting your rest.

Oh a bug, right? So there should be no combat xp because of bugs?

Why even bother, just open a save game editor and pump up your xp. Same thing, less trouble.

 

[Infinitron]

It wasn't a bug.

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Shannow]

Why is it useless to have combat xp, if there are no respawns?

Because then you're incentivizing combat and deincentivizing stealth and other peaceful solutions.

Or worse, you incentivize a peaceful solution by giving XP for it, and then allow the player to massacre the monsters anyway for even more XP.

This isn't rocket science bro.

And why not simply allow players to break their game if they want to? It's really not like grinding was required in eg. BG... Not to mention that there are many possibilities to deincentivize players from going back on their decisions.
Personally I favour learning-by-doing systems like JA2 or giving most xp for quests and only trifling amounts for combat.

Some noob asked about a a game in which xp only for quests was done well: Bloodlines.

 

[imweasel]

The IE games had peaceful solutions. If you get more xp for the peaceful solution, then you don't need the combat xp. Fixed.

Sometimes one solution should be better than the other (and it shouldn't be obvious), we don't need any no brainers.

What you mean "don't need"? It's still there, ready for the taking.

Sure, if the game designers are morons. Give them 1xp and no loot or something. Fixed.

Or you kill them in non-combat xp game for loot.

They don't always have loot. Loot is not an automatic reward for killing things in RPGs. XP in an XP-for-combat game is an automatic, systemic reward for killing things.

Anyway, two wrongs don't make a right. That is not a good argument for combat XP.

Loot is not a reward for killing, because it is totally worthless? Well, what it is then? Just a way to improve immersion?

Combat loot is a reward for killing (as you like to say). So we can remove combat xp and combat loot and have all loot fall magically from the sky after you have completed an objective or quest. All problems fixed, right?

 

[imweasel]

It wasn't a bug.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Oh right, BioWare wanted you to grind those 2 golems all day. Ok.

I'll "grind" using a save game editor. Thanks. :D

And why not simply allow players to break their game if they want to? It's really not like grinding was required in eg. BG... Not to mention that there are many possibilities to deincentivize players from going back on their decisions.
Personally I favour learning-by-doing systems like JA2 or giving most xp for quests and only trifling amounts for combat.

Some noob asked about a a game in which xp only for quests was done well: Bloodlines.

Yeah, anybody who played the IE games is a noob and the designers were also noobs. Games with combat xp are only for noobs. Makes sense, right?

Well, kill xp would suck for Deus Ex and for Bloodlines... but they are also totally different from the IE games.

Give some examples of great IE style games (tactical and strategical combat based with loads of loot) that only used quest xp (and not quest + combat xp).

 

[Infinitron]

And why not simply allow players to break their game if they want to?

This is a gamist vs simulationist argument. Simulationists argue that CRPGs should simulate a real world, and that real life isn't fair and can have exploits.

However, Project Eternity is clearly going all out gamist so this isn't really relevant. Josh Sawyer doesn't want you to be able to break your game.

 

[Hormalakh]

My only problem with removing combat XP is that it incentivizes pure questing. This gives the developer so much power over your experience. Gone will be the days when it made some sense to just go looking around -- unless they reward for exploration, as well.

Basically, they need to deincentivize grinding without deincentivizing other cool aspects of RPGs like Baldur's Gate.

The point of RPGs is to incentivize questing. It also incentivizes exploration for these quests. You have to look around to find quests: it's not like only one person in the whole world gives quests.

Your point about "developer power" is sort of weird, because it really doesn't mean anything. It's just some sort of appeal to base emotions. The fact that the developers made the game already "gives them power over you" if you want to think about it that way.

Really, the whole point of giving only quest-only XP isn't just "combat grinding." There are multitudes of different ways you could "ruin" a perfectly good IE game. I've named a few below.

1- Combat grinding: killing respawnable enemies over and over.
2- Lockpick grinding: Did you find another way past a door? That isn't the way to do it! You have to pick the lock on every door available to get the highest XP.
3- Spell writing: Were you unable to successfully write the spell into your magebook? Reload and keep trying until you can get all the spells into all of your wizard's spellbooks! The 1000's of experience surely makes a difference.
4- NPC killing: Did you just finish everything you need from this NPC? Well the little drop of XP he gives is surely worth more to you than it is to him. Kill him off!
5- Killing creatures that your character usually wouldn't: Are you a druid? Are you walking through the forest? Hark! A bear and wolves! What do you do? A: Ask them for their XP B: Protect them for XP C: Get quests from them for XP? Trick question: You always kill anything that gives XP
6- Quest choices: Being yourself never pays, even in an RPG. Did you want to finish a quest a certain way? Well that quest completion wouldn't net you the most XP, so you might as well reload and finish the quest that nets you the highest XP because THAT is the right answer.

 

[Infinitron]

6- Quest choices: Being yourself never pays, even in an RPG. Did you want to finish a quest a certain way? Well that quest completion wouldn't net you the most XP, so you might as well reload and finish the quest that nets you the highest XP because THAT is the right answer.

I find that this often happens with dialogue choices that give you influence with companions, as in Dragon Age. Especially when there's more than one dialogue choice that you consider acceptable - you end up "breaking the tie" between the choices by choosing the one that gives you the most influence points.

 

[Hormalakh]

It's sort of an illusion of choice: you think you have a choice between the dialogue options but you either kick yourself for not picking the better option or you try to make up your loss by overcompensating later or you just accept that you're doing a gimmick run.

This idea also goes for XP.

 

[Infinitron]

It's sort of an illusion of choice: you think you have a choice between the dialogue options but you either kick yourself for not picking the better option or you try to make up your loss by overcompensating later or you just accept that you're doing a gimmick run.

This idea also goes for XP.

Well, if you make the options distinct enough, I think most players will bite the bullet and not choose one they strongly disagree with.

When you have several options which, in terms of moral value or whatever, are more or less equivalent, that's when players start metagaming.

(It's disturbing that this could be interpreted as an argument for black and white "save the kitten or eat the kitten" style choices. It doesn't get more distinct than that, after all.)

 

[Lancehead]

It's sort of an illusion of choice: you think you have a choice between the dialogue options but you either kick yourself for not picking the better option or you try to make up your loss by overcompensating later or you just accept that you're doing a gimmick run.

Or buy them gifts.

 

[Grunker]

And why not simply allow players to break their game if they want to?

This is a gamist vs simulationist argument.

No it isn't, you're creating a false dichotomy. There's as much basis in a gamist angle to argue against breaking the game as there is a simulationist. For example, Roguey is quite gamist, and is constantly arguing for a philosophy of the "unbreakable" system.

 

[Grunker]

In fact, 360 degree realism systems broke the immersion of players more than the abstract systems, because players suddenly started noticing the details that were unrealistic because they stuck out.

What you metioned here is critical problem with "suspension of disbelief", which indeed arises when too many real life elements trump over abstract ill-thought one, whereas exactly those abstract bits were the main carriers of gameplay/story.

It's like talling the tale of Hensel and Grettel all the while being preoccupied by implausibility of a house made of candy and trying to come up with possible theories which totaly devastates the point of the story itself.

I agree that mechanics are about abstraction i.e. illusion of the thing they are trying to depict. It is when they fail in this endeavour that we get the result that is very similar to what you described, only from the other side.

Again, I was not strictly talking about realism. Rather, *what* the mechanics is trying to depict. Because at the other hand of the spectrum we have mechanics trumping all - them becoming means to itself rather than achieving "fun" so to speak. Well unless someone enjoys grind, linear dungeon design, and "gameplay" involving nothing but dice rolls. Some people seriously consider it fun, you know (look at MMOs)?

And so we come back to the debate on XP. Kill XP suck, as we both agree. Usage XP - your homeboy - sucks even more, for reasons we've discussed countless times, and unlike you I'm not ready to compromise on the fun just because the abstraction "makes more sense" to you. Quest XP simply has no problems, and it solves all the problems we need solved. There is no reason to start complicated designs and have long discussions on how to "fix" usage XP according to you, because we already have a model that works perfectly.

I can agee with that. I always claimed that KISS is the answer to all our problems...

Spoiler

And by that I mean: Keep It Simple Stupid.

Seriously :no homo:

Although the usage XP idea is still appealing. I loved how it worked in Betrayal at Krondor... until I learned to break the system.

I don't disagree on any particular point, but then again nothing you say here really goes against my arguments.

 

[Infinitron]

No it isn't, you're creating a false dichotomy. There's as much basis in a gamist angle to argue against breaking the game as there is a simulationist. For example, Roguey is quite gamist, and is constantly arguing for a philosophy of the "unbreakable" system.

Uh, that's what I'm saying. Gamists are for the unbreakable systems. Simulationists don't care.

 

[Grunker]

No it isn't, you're creating a false dichotomy. There's as much basis in a gamist angle to argue against breaking the game as there is a simulationist. For example, Roguey is quite gamist, and is constantly arguing for a philosophy of the "unbreakable" system.

Uh, that's what I'm saying. Gamists are for the unbreakable systems. Simulationists don't care.

Did I ever tell you I'm an idiot?

 

[CappenVarra]

at the idea that BG didn't have respawns. Not only does it have a high chance of respawns on rest, it also has the most annoyingly stupid respawn mechanic ever: chance of respawn on quicksave.

1) Kill a random (= not unique and hand placed) mob of 1 gnoll, 1 kobold and 2 wolves. 2) Move away from the encounter location so that it's just beyond the edge of vision / fog of war. 3) Quicksave. 4) Move back towards the encounter location. You might need to repeat steps 3) and 4) a few times, but it's quite possible to get the exact same spawn on the exact same spot (on top of their previous corpses, even) minutes of in-game and non-game time later. Utter idiocy.

Now, respawns after you've left the map and returned some days later I could support. Random spawns (resulting in respawns depending on encounter tables etc.) on rest are needed to make resting outside of inns a risk - even if they are rarely an actual risk and can be used to grind high XP encounters forever (have you never heard of ankhegs?). But respawns on quicksave, in parts of the map you've explored seconds ago? Sheer dumbfuckery.