The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[Gnidrologist]

Doesn't matter where the XP comes from as long as there's plenty of it. Latest shadowrun games i'm playing now seem to deal with this issue quite well.

 

[DraQ]

I like things to be systemic rather than scripted for reasons totally unrelated to simulationism/verisimilitude. If anything, it's a question of gamist (player driven reward structure) vs narrativist (rewards based on progression along the designated path) philosophies, albeit the difference in this case is pretty subtle.

Anyway, to answer your question, yeah, why not? I certainly would have preferred Josh to make the XP system more interesting instead of less interesting. I guess he was probably afraid of trying anything very different from the IE games because of backerlash.

Fine, I'm NS myself, so pretty much as un-gamist as it can get,but I can frame it in a gamist manner as well.

It all boils down to not shifting the weight from playing the game to gaming the system - the system I highly doubt can be made interesting because it's literally a single variable optimization problem.
Avoiding getting player to play the wrong game within your game already makes the *game* better.

XP optimization is this wrong game.

No, you power gaming faggot. J. Sawyer knows better. You will get xp the way he wants or you will get no xp at all.

Yes, ensuring that you get the XP for solving the problem regardless of how you solve it as long as you solve it is forcing you to play it the JS' way.

Yes, DraQ is trying to drag an entirely different point into this discussion whenever it comes up. And no, that doesn't invalidate all his other points which are directly related to it.

Nah, I'm trying to show my appreciation towards this kind of chardev system in spite of my general dislike for XP based and highly abstract systems in general.
It know what it tries to do and doesn't get sidetracked by (from its perspective) bullshit.

 

[Mangoose]

Gamers enjoy good combat. XP should not be the priority of enjoyment of gameplay.

Gamers also enjoy well designed quests but you'll still get XP for those (heck they're your only source of XP/character growth) to sweeten the experience.

I said prioritize.

 

[Shadenuat]

Firstly, your thief example makes no sense. How does kill XP provide XP for the thief?

KillXP doesn't, but say, StealXP does - see Alpha Protocol or new Deus Ex, where for getting maximum level, you are inclined to finish every enemy you can (combat xp) while breaking every lock and computer (stealth xp and other xp). Or even Fallout, where locks, traps and Doctor skill were a viable way of getting xp for, say, a pacifist run. Some players would go all degenerate probably and heal NPCs or whatever, while others would use it for their intended playstyle.

1) This was never possible in the IE-games.

What exactly wasn't possible in IE games? Roaming around killing random shit and getting levels? If anything it was the core of those games, while objective-based XP was just a supportive measure to get party through plot somehow.

Obvious fallacy. Pillars of Eternity already rewards the players for solving the problem, just as I would in your example.

Er, how? PoE will reward you for problems set by it's designer... but we're really going circles here.
If anything, it takes away one of the choices player could make that were always popular in these sort of games - a trade off between power or something else, which sometimes in an interesting choice to make, be it XP or piece of shiny loot you want. In that way incentive to do something (grow in power) can lead to choices and testing game limits beyond what was given to you on a silver platter.

By the way, my players generally don't decide they want to play another campaign in the middle of a current campaign

Sure, a compromise between DM and players being most important thing, but you can't deny that sometimes players want to take things in their own hands and don't want to support your efforts. I find it's in a nature of a playing person to rebel against game and test it's limits so it's actually not that far away from world of computer games, but I am really getting carried away here.

I could have bundled up those arguments with another word than 'crowd', but I'm sure you would get offended by that as well.

I am just butthurt I did not select 135$ backer option

 

[Gozma]

If they drop loots I will still go back and kill them after I get the diplomacy XP unless someone has balanced combat to cost as much loot as you get. Which they will certainly not

 

[DraQ]

Degenerate gameplay arguing aside, removing XP for kills invalidates at least one playstyle, which is a big no-no in JES book as far as I can tell.

In BG1 I could ignore quest givers, just head into wilderness and fight animals/monsters/bandits to improve my party's battle prowess, which also made sense, because if someone went on to kill bears for a year, he/she would die improve his/her combat skills.

In before dirty simulationist.

Haha, you wish.

You may argue that your fighter should be getting better at fighting by derping around in the wilderness and murderizing bears.
The problem is that your thief will get better at thieving by derping around in the wilderness and murderizing bears.
Your wizard will get better at manipulating arcane fabric of reality by derping around in the wilderness and murderizing bears.
Your (rat) diplomat will get better at (rat) diplomacy by derping around in the wilderness and murderizing bears.
Your fucking druid (D&D "ecoogist" variety) will get better at fucking druiding, oneness with nature and general hippy shit by derping around in the wilderness and murderizing bears.

It just makes no fucking sense. It's hard to make an XP based system make fucking sense maybe short of having strictly class-specific XP sources (and even then your thief will mysteriously become better pickpocket by picking sufficient number of locks).

OTOH quest only XP rewards seemingly unrelated shit with character progression, but it can be expected that this seemingly unrelated shit will allow completion via actually doing what your characters should be doing so it all works out in the end.
Moreso, it doesn't punish out-of-the-box solutions by doesn't accounting for them in its scripting or mechanics because it has neither - as long as the goal is met it showers you with pre-defined amount of XP.

But I do think that outright removing XP for kills for the cheapest way to achieve certain goals, and by far not the best.

Sometimes the best way to remove the problem is removing the problem.

The funny thing about simulationists is that they don't even realize when people are helping them.

Hey, I'm as simulationist as they get and I recognize no kill XP as good thing.

Simply put no simulationist worth their salt will recognize an XP-based system as simulationist.
When picking from a number of mechanically off the wall systems, I'm going to pick one that can at least produce sensible results.

Just don't award XP for killing friendly NPCs. Problem solved. The game has faction mechanics so there is presumably already a disincentive for making enemies with quest-giver NPCs.

Once you attack them or otherwise piss them off they are no longer friendly.



P.S.
Apologies for chunked replies, but you faggots produced a deluge of post when I was at work and I'm trying to keep up.

 

[Roguey]

Nice 12 page thread you have here.

Reminder that if you don't think there's any incentive to killing those beetles, or anything else, then don't.

If they drop loots I will still go back and kill them after I get the diplomacy XP unless someone has balanced combat to cost as much loot as you get. Which they will certainly not

The "diplomacy xp" and the "kill xp" are exactly the same. You're just wasting your time by doing the former.

 

[Gozma]

Why would anyone ever do diplomacy then if it's kill xp - loot

 

[Infinitron]

Why would anyone ever do diplomacy then if it's kill xp - loot

Loot is perishable; XP is always useful.

Not all enemies carry loot; in XP-for-combat games, all enemies grant an XP reward.

Loot requires some effort from the player to manage - picking it up, sorting it, storing it, selling it later; XP just flows right in and has nothing but benefits.

The idea has always been to eliminate the notion of XP for killing things as a rule, something that players are trained to do automatically. I don't think that same relationship exists with regard to loot - not in IE-style games. I don't give a fuck about the kobolds' short swords, but the XP from killing them all adds up.

 

[Shadenuat]

Your fucking druid (D&D "ecoogist" variety) will get better at fucking druiding, oneness with nature and general hippy shit by derping around in the wilderness and murderizing bears.

Survival of the fittest lah.

 

[Gozma]

Perishable? Huh? Also doesn't this game also have an infinite loot inventory?

I think the argument for taking XP away from trash fights is the same as taking loot out of them. I'm down with all the trash fights being against giant spiders and shit and they never drop anything and I can avoid them. Also the game will be 1/10th as long.

 

[Roguey]

If you want to kill people for their loot feel free.

If you want to roleplay someone who doesn't do that that's fine too.

No longer can you "roleplay" a sociopath who kills people after helping them or sparing them because doing so makes you stronger.

I mean if you wanna kill someone because "That's one fine coat you're wearing" at least there's an in-world explanation.

 

[DraQ]

How have they failed to address it?

1. Only reward with XP for defeating particular type of enemy for the first time.
2. Divide enemies into 'challenge' ranks and only reward with XP for defeating enemies with higher rank than the highest you have defeated previously (and base the XP gained on the difference).
3. Only reward for defeating enemies as strong as you (or stronger).
4. Hand-craft the game that it gives you XP for defeating certain enemies, both those who need to be defeated because of quest content (i.e. you cannot avoid the fights) and those who you would want to defeat because of the challenge (like dragons / famous fighters, etc.), but not the random wolves in the wild.

1. Doesn't address coming back to slay the enemy after reaching peaceful resolution or killing the quest giver, if you meet their kind for the first time (also how does it work with playable race/intelligent enemies? killing 1 human = kiling any human?)
2&3. Doesn't address coming back to slay the enemy after reaching peaceful resolution or killing the quest giver, if they are of high challenge rank.
4. Doesn't preclude coming back to slay the enemy after reaching peaceful resolution or killing the quest giver, if they can be assumed "challenging", but add fuckload of pointless busywork to game's design.

Here are two:

P1: RPG players enjoy developing their characters.
P2: Character development in PoE is centered around XP gains.
P3: Most of PoE's gameplay consists of combat.
C: Removing XP gains from PoE's combat reduces players' enjoyment of PoE.

RPG players also enjoy fapping. Game must therefore feature gratuitous pornmance. Enjoyment must flow!

P1: Having multiple gameplay options in an RPG is good.
P2: Being able to kill things for XP is a gameplay option.
C: Being able to kill things for XP is good.

IWIN button is also an option. Game must have an IWIN button.

 

[Gozma]

No longer can you "roleplay" a sociopath who kills people after helping them or sparing them because doing so makes you stronger.

The game argument for going back and killing after a diplomatic solution is exactly the same when doing it for the benefit of loot as it is for doing it for the benefit of kill xp + loot though? There's no difference in the incentives, just the degree.

 

[Infinitron]

Perishable? Huh?

Ie, increasingly worthless. There's only so much you can do with another one of those mundane short swords you've seen a million times, and in a typical RPG economy there's also only so much you can do with the money you'd gain from selling them.

Also doesn't this game also have an infinite loot inventory?

But you still have to make the effort of picking all that shit up. Most enemies in IE-style CRPGs tend to come in types that you eventually learn to recognize. You learn, for example, that this type of enemy comes with a loot set that is worthless to you, and after that you don't even bother to click their corpses to loot it.

Of course, some people do, which brings me to the final point.

I think the argument for taking XP away from trash fights is the same as taking loot out of them.

The difference is that loot and gold just aren't as universally useful as experience is. So, the people who hoard it in the way you describe are, well, responding to an incentive that's not really there, or an incentive that's really weak, I guess. People gonna people.

 

[Gozma]

God does this not have autoloot? When you have an infinite inventory? At least like mouse lasso looting?

 

[Roguey]

The game argument for going back and killing after a diplomatic solution is exactly the same when doing it for the benefit of loot as it is for doing it for the benefit of kill xp + loot though? There's no difference in the incentives, just the degree.

In one you're role playing a person who kills someone for their stuff, and in the other you're metagaming experience points. I'd say that's enough of a difference.

With PoE's reputation mechanics you might even become known for doing this.

 

[Gozma]

No, I'm gaming to get more powar either way.

 

[DraQ]

While unkillable NPCs are more often used to save the time on writing plot or even not allow modern gamer miss important content, both of these design tricks are also used to prevent a particular player behaviour.

False.

It's used to remove retarded motivation for this particular kind of behaviour. The behaviour itself is still possible and can carry appropriate consequences.

The difference is that loot and gold just aren't as universally useful as experience is. So, the people who hoard it in the way you describe are, well, responding to an incentive that's not really there, or an incentive that's really weak, I guess. People gonna people.

Most importantly loot is in-universe incentive, just like loss of reputation and all sort of content gating can be in universe disincentives.
They make sense to be there and removal of them would hurt the game.

Kill XP, OTOH, is metagame reward that only encourages out of character dumbfuck behaviour.

 

[Roguey]

No, I'm gaming to get more powar either way.

Assuming Obsidian isn't dumb, it's going to notice if the things you do contradict the things you say and thus you'll be role playing.

Now you could say "they could do that with kill xp too" but you see, then you have the matter of killing guys who have no loot at all to get those numbers.

 

[Gozma]

^But you could have the exact same consequences for Kill XP + loot backtracking

What the heck is a metagame reward? If it facilitates winning, that's not a metagame reward, it's a game reward. Kill XP and loot both contribute to power base and are game rewards. You might say loot has fewer narrative complications but XP in general makes no sense in narrative in a hundred ways.

 

[imweasel]

No longer can you "roleplay" a sociopath who kills people after helping them or sparing them because doing so makes you stronger.

I've read a lot of legit arguments in favor of dropping combat xp. This is not one of them.

-> Quest givers are only worth 1 XP after you you help or spare them.

Problem solved.

 

[tuluse]

I've read a lot of legit arguments in favor of dropping combat xp. This is not one of them.

-> Quest givers are only worth 1 XP after you you help or spare them.

Problem solved.

So your solution is that instead of 0 XP, it should be such a low amount that it's essentially 0.

This is somehow totally different.

 

[imweasel]

I've read a lot of legit arguments in favor of dropping combat xp. This is not one of them.

-> Quest givers are only worth 1 XP after you you help or spare them.

Problem solved.

So your solution is that instead of 0 XP, it should be such a low amount that it's essentially 0.

This is somehow totally different.

It is different, because it only applies to quest givers and only after you help or spare them.

 

[MicoSelva]

How have they failed to address it?

1. Only reward with XP for defeating particular type of enemy for the first time.
2. Divide enemies into 'challenge' ranks and only reward with XP for defeating enemies with higher rank than the highest you have defeated previously (and base the XP gained on the difference).
3. Only reward for defeating enemies as strong as you (or stronger).
4. Hand-craft the game that it gives you XP for defeating certain enemies, both those who need to be defeated because of quest content (i.e. you cannot avoid the fights) and those who you would want to defeat because of the challenge (like dragons / famous fighters, etc.), but not the random wolves in the wild.

1. Doesn't address coming back to slay the enemy after reaching peaceful resolution or killing the quest giver, if you meet their kind for the first time (also how does it work with playable race/intelligent enemies? killing 1 human = kiling any human?)
2&3. Doesn't address coming back to slay the enemy after reaching peaceful resolution or killing the quest giver, if they are of high challenge rank.
4. Doesn't preclude coming back to slay the enemy after reaching peaceful resolution or killing the quest giver, if they can be assumed "challenging", but add fuckload of pointless busywork to game's design.

1. As I said, this is a simplification. Since XP numbers in this system are set by hand (like in a P&P system), you could easily give no XP for killing friendlies.
2-3. In these cases, you should get XP for defeating these NPCs should be rewarded with XP.
4. You failed reading comprehension on this one. As in 1. combat XP here is set by hand for individual fights, so the solution is not giving XP for these NPCs - or do give XP for them, if they are challenging to defeat and the player should be rewarded for that.