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

[DraQ]

not your "least abstraction possible" bullshit.

How about you at least read what you respond to?

That abstractions are something we use when it's impossible to implement reality completely

It may also be merely pointless.

If you have a grand strategy with thousands little men killing each other, you don't really care about detailed wound system or detailed depiction of melee/ranged combat. It's out of the scope of your view and out of your hands, so any simple system (like uninflated HPs) will do, provided that it does a decent enough job reflecting statistical outcomes.

players suddenly started noticing the details that were unrealistic because they stuck out.

Consistent level of abstraction is important. Actually that's the problem with kill XP. XPs are high abstraction, mechanically awarding them for the act of killing is low abstraction. Clash occurs along with all kinds of undesirable loopholes appearing.

Essentially, this:

Abstraction is [...] using the least amount of detail

Is a complete fallacy.

Look up the definition of abstraction before you reply again.

Spoiler

It's an act of removing stuff that is unnecessary in order to focus on stuff that is crucial.

In other words abstraction is reduction of unneeded detail, NOT inventing off-the-wall shit.

Usage XP - your homeboy (...) we already have a model that works perfectly.

Usage XP is my homeboy, because I favour open, sprawling worlds with good amount of procedurally generated content, emergent mechanics and generally the kind of stuff that makes manually assigning XP rewards infeasible. We don't have a model that works perfectly in this case, because quest XP model only works for tight, quest driven games with limited and foreknown amount of content and it generally doesn't even attempt to be a system.
It's a cop-out - perfect if you can know exactly what content you'll have, how much and make the quests drive the majority of your game, worthless if you can't.

Use based is completely different approach, from completely different angle and requiring completely different control measures. Yes, it's more complex (being an actual system, for starters), but it can be used where quest XP only cannot.

(Mrowak, the above should also answer your points)[/quote]

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).

So we're only limited to repeating what we already have? It's a wonder we somehow managed to leave the caves then.

 

[suejak]

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.

No thanks. I don't want my entire game to lasso'd on to some pasty guy's story ideas. Rather than just stumbling across something and organically dealing with it, there's got to be a whole Quest for it to provide experience-point reward. Granted, maybe I'm overthinking the word. Suppose you stumble across the Military Base in Fallout. Even if you don't formally have a "quest" for the location, maybe you'll still get experience for doing whatever you happen to do there. If you kill a key person, maybe you'll get experience. If you download the AI into a robot, maybe you'll get experience. In this case, "quest" just means "doing something," in which case I'm more okay with the idea.

Still, I hope they give small experience rewards for discovering new locations, as well.

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.

It's hard to respond to this because it's obvious you don't know what I'm talking about.

Games are not necessarily about simply doing everything a developer puts in front of you. It's not about being fed an experience, like a TV show. It's about playing with a toy that someone else has made. If the whole game is strung along with very intentional quests, then the game can feel linear, or like a series of prefabricated scenarios. This is always sort of the case, but in games like Baldur's Gate there was a lot of variety in the sorts of experiences people had because of the amount of exploration possible. You might come across a pack of giants somewhere, and that's all there is to it. You might find a random cave in Fallout: New Vegas. Even if these things aren't formalized as "quests," they're still unique experiences and ought to be rewarded with experience. However, I think the definition of "quest" here may, as I've said, be very broad, so basically we have to rely on the developer to note every possible significant encounter we may have in the game and associate a reward with it, or risk frustrating players by giving them content (combat, locations) without rewards.

Anyway, probably not a big deal, because they'll probably make the effort to formalize every possible significant encounter with a quest reward.

 

[imweasel]

So we're only limited to repeating what we already have? It's a wonder we somehow managed to leave the caves then.

Oh wow, that is really a good reason. I guess we can remove all xp and loot then and increase the team size to 15. That hasn't been done before either.

I just wanted to see an example where quest only xp in an IE style game is better than combat + quest xp. You can theorize all you want. You can't prove that a done and tried system, which worked extremely well, is worse than quest xp only.

They could have implemented a quest xp only system in IE games, but they decided not to. They probably tried it (seeing that it easier to implement) and probably just came to the conclusion that is sucks balls. No surprise here.

 

[almondblight]

Still, I hope they give small experience rewards for discovering new locations, as well.

Yeah, I think it's been confirmed that there will be exploration xp as well as quest xp.

 

[Grunker]

You're the one theorizing here. You can't present any credible potential problems with quest XP, you just assume they're there.

 

[Infinitron]

They could have implemented a quest xp only system in IE games, but they decided not to. They probably tried it (seeing that it easier to implement) and probably just came to the conclusion that is sucks balls. No surprise here.

No, they didn't try it, because combat XP was a part of the AD&D rules they were implementing.

 

[imweasel]

You're the one theorizing here. You can't present any credible potential problems with quest XP, you just assume they're there.

I don't have to theorize anything, the developers chose combat + quest xp over quest only xp in te IE games. Probably for a reason too.

Quest only xp is not fundametally flawed. It is a good system, but only where it fits.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

So we're only limited to repeating what we already have? It's a wonder we somehow managed to leave the caves then.

Oh wow, that is really a good reason. I guess we can remove all xp and loot then and increase the team size to 15. That hasn't been done before either.

I just wanted to see an example where quest only xp in an IE style game is better than combat + quest xp. You can theorize all you want. You can't prove that a done and tried system, which worked extremely well, is worse than quest xp only.

They could have implemented a quest xp only system in IE games, but they decided not to. They probably tried it (seeing that it easier to implement) and probably just came to the conclusion that is sucks balls. No surprise here.

This is theorizing because there is no evidence they did try to implement quest xp, let alone that they rejected it b/c it sucked.

As for quest + combat xp working "extremely well," I'm not sure about that. It worked well enough, but it was not perfect. There's a reason that quest + combat xp games usually introduce level caps; the infinite level of xp available from respawns meant the player was able to gain enough xp to become overpowered. Personally, I find level caps in a crpg to be extremely annoying. Quest only xp means that xp is a finite resource, so they can fine-tune the amount the player will get. Combine this with the critical path scaling to account for variance in side quest participation and you seriously minimize the need for level caps. Sure they could do it by having a finite amount of combat xp available, but they would have to completely rule out random encounters and it would still open the door to the meta-gaming via post-diplomacy murder Hormalakh flagged.

 

[DraQ]

So we're only limited to repeating what we already have? It's a wonder we somehow managed to leave the caves then.

Oh wow, that is really a good reason. I guess we can remove all xp and loot then and increase the team size to 15. That hasn't been done before either.

You're a moron.

That's not a good reason to do it, but a good enough one for your attempt at shooting it down to fail.
You need to do better than this.

I just wanted to see an example where quest only xp in an IE style game is better than combat + quest xp. You can theorize all you want. You can't prove that a done and tried system, which worked extremely well, is worse than quest xp only.

How about you:

1. Find a situation in IE game in which those two would behave differently.

2. Make sure it's a situation in which combat XP works better.

For example:
Party is expected to be around lvl3.
Let's say entrance to villain's lair is guarded by 100 kobolds (respawning) worth 7xp each, 2 separate trapped routes, 11xp for disarming each, the villain himself is worth 800xp, managing to reason with him also 800xp and quest completion additional 2000xp.

Let's remove all XP gains from enemies and disarming traps, but make the quest completion be worth 3511xp.

What has changed?
If you run through the dungeon, murdering shit and disarming traps in the way, like a good little adventurer you are - nothing.

However:
-you can't farm the respawning kobolds for additional XPs, you're encouraged to do the quest quickly and efficiently instead of engaging in repetitive shit - a definite improvement.
-you can't get extra 800XP for killing the villain after talking him down - even more of an improvement.
-you aren't encouraged to backtrack and disarm the trap in the other passage for extra 11xp, but can use this time to engage in actual gameplay instead - woohoo!
-you aren't penalized for using alternative approaches - sneaking through, driving kobolds away with fear spell or distraction, etc.

So, what are the cons?

They could have implemented a quest xp only system in IE games, but they decided not to. They probably tried it (seeing that it easier to implement) and probably just came to the conclusion that is sucks balls. No surprise here.

So you say that there are no games with hilariously broken or misapplied mechanics and that devs always do everything perfectly.

I see.

You're the one theorizing here. You can't present any credible potential problems with quest XP, you just assume they're there.

This.

 

[Grunker]

Oh, you're confused about what 'theorizing' means. This:

Probably for a reason too..

is theorizing.

Developers put in combat XP because they were implementing AD&D rules, which give XP for monsters slain.

 

[Hormalakh]

I just wanted to see an example where quest only xp in an IE style game is better than combat + quest xp. You can theorize all you want. You can't prove that a done and tried system, which worked extremely well, is worse than quest xp only.

I already gave you one. Druids killing animals for the XP.

Here's another one: druid characters killing animals in the BG2 tavern (can't remember the name) with the Beastmaster that have been caged. Most people would kill those animals instead of using Minsc or Jaheira to "control beast." It doesn't make sense to calm them because you lose out on XP.

Do you want more? Players killing people left and right even if they wanted to play fairly "pacifist" roles because the loss of XP from randoms was fairly good.

People going back and killing NPCs after the quest is done to get XP.

Getting kill XP and quest XP for killing certain bosses. You basically could never have a quest where you talk the bosses down and complete the quest that way because the XP isn't good. Or if you do talk them down and win the quest, you'll go back and kill them for the kill XP.

Are you not reading the posts?

 

[DraQ]

I already gave you one. Druids killing animals for the XP.

Uh, that one was mine.

Other than that:

 

[Hormalakh]

Oh must have missed that, sorry. I mean the fact that we both came up with the same answer sort of has to prove that this guy is being purposely blind to the examples given.

 

[DraQ]

Oh must have missed that, sorry. I mean the fact that we both came up with the same answer sort of has to prove that this guy is being purposely blind to the examples given.

Oh, it seems I've actually missed a page or two.

 

[GordonHalfman]

People find xp for kills more satisfying. And none of the problems suggested here are particularly compelling, expect in pathological cases which should be easy to avoid.

 

[Infinitron]

BTW, for the record, if you want to try some (somewhat) IE-like games with quest-only XP, there are some Neverwinter Nights modules that work that way. Among them Adam Miller's later modules, IIRC: http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Modules.Detail&id=7780&id=4273

 

[Hormalakh]

People find xp for kills more satisfying. And none of the problems suggested here are particularly compelling, expect in pathological cases which should be easy to avoid.

People find XP for kills satisfying because the combat isn't anything to write home about. The RP-reasons suggested here aren't compelling? Really? Why don't you explain that point instead of hand-waving it away.

 

[imweasel]

You're a moron.

Thats uncalled for. You really don't need to throw a hissy fit just because I have an opinion that differs from yours.

 

[DraQ]

People find xp for kills more satisfying. And none of the problems suggested here are particularly compelling, expect in pathological cases which should be easy to avoid.

Pathological cases such as:

-having diplomatic solutions
-having non-combat solutions at all
-having both playable druids and wildlife in one game.
-having respawn to limit player's capability of depopulating supposedly huge world all alone or with up to seven other people.



imweasel
Quit writing moronic things and you won't be called a moron.
Funny how it works.

 

[Grunker]

People find xp for kills more satisfying.

They do? You have some kind of survey that says that, or are you just talking about yourself?

 

[GordonHalfman]

People find xp for kills more satisfying. And none of the problems suggested here are particularly compelling, expect in pathological cases which should be easy to avoid.

People find XP for kills satisfying because the combat isn't anything to write home about. The RP-reasons suggested here aren't compelling? Really? Why don't you explain that point instead of hand-waving it away.

I just don't see who is supposed to care about this stuff. All this talk of "the game wants me to do this, the game wants me to do that" is not how everyone thinks about things, for people who actually care about RP stuff it's more about having a system of rules that should be applied consistently, and they roleplay their characters within those rules so far as the can. That means for the "killing the quest giver problem", they just won't do it, and unless the game is really daft they won't have to.

On the other hand you have the mondblut faction, who reject the tyranny of designer imposed designations like "quest giver", and see only a matrix of 1s and 0s which they can leverage to their advantage. They take the xp and have fun doing it. They don't care, and neither does their computer, so there's no problem here either.

 

[imweasel]

I already gave you one. Druids killing animals for the XP.

Here's another one: druid characters killing animals in the BG2 tavern (can't remember the name) with the Beastmaster that have been caged. Most people would kill those animals instead of using Minsc or Jaheira to "control beast." It doesn't make sense to calm them because you lose out on XP.

Do you want more? Players killing people left and right even if they wanted to play fairly "pacifist" roles because the loss of XP from randoms was fairly good.

People going back and killing NPCs after the quest is done to get XP.

Getting kill XP and quest XP for killing certain bosses. You basically could never have a quest where you talk the bosses down and complete the quest that way because the XP isn't good. Or if you do talk them down and win the quest, you'll go back and kill them for the kill XP.

Are you not reading the posts?

And how does removing the combat xp prevent you from not killing those animals or those bosses/NPCs?

You can kill them for their pelts/loot and sell it for cash even in a quest xp only game.

Loot is also a reward, not just xp. You are not removing the reward for killing by removing combat xp from a game.

 

[Roguey]

People do love operant conditioning chambers. Kill thing, get pellet. Kill thing... no pellet? What's this? Where'd the pellet go, damnit?

 

[Hormalakh]

XP is a very rare and highly valuable commodity in RPGs. It doesn't matter how you get it. Loot, especially things like pelts and low amount of gold are much less valuable.

Let's say you have a quest where you have to save a guy from some orcs. You save the dude and he offers you some trifling amount of money (like 100 gold). Or you can kill the man and get 200 gold from the orcs. Based on the character you are trying to role-play, as long as the experience gained is the same, your decision might change.

This is the difference.

Your other comments about loot have already been discussed earlier. I'm not going to repeat myself.

E: Looking at the theoretical quest mentioned above, the designer might have only intended two options. However killing both parties might also be a third option that is not intended. If the experience stays the same, your decision to follow through on the third option becomes much more "your own decision" than the fact that you really wanted to get the 4000 experience from killing the orcs.

 

[DraQ]

People do love operant conditioning chambers. Kill thing, get pellet. Kill thing... no pellet? What's this? Where'd the pellet go, damnit?

About time someone threw some deratization joke.