The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[Grunker]

Removing combat XP = leaving the choice up to the player, because kill XP incentivises one playstyle over all others. In other words, roshan is contradicting himself. That's how I understood it anyway.

WRONG! Combat XP provides an alternative means of developing your character aside from doing tasks that Sawyer wants you to be doing. It is not about incentives, it is about actually having the choice to PLAY not DO.

1) This was never possible in the IE-games. Your point is moot insofar as removing kill XP from the IE games (which is what PoE wants to be like) doesn't remove your ability to do this in them, since you couldn't in the first place.

2) I am quite satisfied that the developers of PoE opt to fix a major issue plaguing core gameplay-styles over catering to a small subset of players who are interested in playing with the game rather than playing the game. The developer doesn't go out of his way to support people who want to speedrun it either. Those things arise organically and aren't the focus of development.

[...]

What we're left with is two "decent" arguments for kill XP:

1) "I want combat to be surperior to all other gameplay elements" <--- Fair enough. PoE isn't for you. My guess is you are part of a very small minority, but you are correct that in PoE, combat will rank alongside other tools at the player's disposal. (disclaimer: "you" is not a referral to Shadenuat but to the hypothetical example-person that Bubbles discussed, see above)

2) "I want to ignore game content and instead roam around randomly interacting with the game world" <--- Fair enough. This is your garden variety "I wish Pillars of Eternity was another game" argument. I can't argue against it, of course, but then neither can I argue against "I wish Pillars of Eternity was made from a first person perspective." It just isn't that kind of game, and adding KillXP wouldn't make it one.

 

[Lhynn]

Yeah, I thought it looked like a joke too, but I couldn't actually spot it. Explain?

Combat XP incentivises combat over stealth or dialogue.

Thats a problem that comes with finite exp. Also have stealth have a possitive impact on encounters and dialogue open up more xp opportunities.

 

[roshan]

1) This was never possible in the IE-games. Your point is moot insofar as removing kill XP from the IE games (which is what PoE wants to be like) doesn't remove your ability to do this in them, since you couldn't in the first place.

2) I am quite satisfied that the developers of PoE opt to fix a major issue plaguing core gameplay-styles over catering to a small subset of players who are interested in playing with the game rather than playing the game. The developer doesn't go out of his way to support people who want to speedrun it either. Those things arise organically and aren't the focus of development.

You are still completely missing the point. It isn't about being able to kill or not. It is about being able to progress by doing what you enjoy doing as opposed to what the designer would like to force you to do.

) "I want combat to be surperior to all other gameplay elements" <--- Fair enough. PoE isn't for you. My guess is you are part of a very small minority, but you are correct that in PoE, combat will rank alongside other tools at the player's disposal. (disclaimer: "you" is not a referral to Shadenuat but to the hypothetical example-person that Bubbles discussed, see above)

Strawman.

2) "I want to ignore game content and instead roam around randomly interacting with the game world" <--- Fair enough. This is your garden variety "I wish Pillars of Eternity was another game" argument. I can't argue against it, of course, but then neither can I argue against "I wish Pillars of Eternity was made from a first person perspective." It just isn't that kind of game, and adding KillXP wouldn't make it one.

No it isn't about being "another game", it is about being similar to the INFINITY ENGINE games which was the original premise of the project, instead we are getting one designer's ridiculous ego trip. By making character progression exclusively linked to achievement of predetermined objectives, Eternity isn't even really an RPG anymore but an adventure game.

 

[Grunker]

You couldn't progress in BG2 simply by killing. Quest XP makes up the vast majority of the XP you gain in BG2 and the content is gated so you have to go through the biggest XP grants to progress. In BG1, you obviously can, but most of the signifcant XP gains are gained through killing stuff on the critical path on at the end of side quests. IWDs are obviously even less an example of what you say, because they are much more linear.

The only thing combat XP does in the IE games is give incentive to sweet maps for opponents.

 

[Infinitron]

If roshan was smart, he'd point out that since PoE seems to be modelled around BG1's variety of low-level adventuring, and not on BG2, combat XP makes sense for it.

However, I don't think it will have enough empty wilderness areas for that sort of "hunting and gathering, derping around in the wilderness and grinding XP" style of gameplay to be a truly viable playstyle. Seriously, that's more of a Bethesda sandbox thing, why is it so popular all of a sudden

Another argument the proponents of combat XP bring up is this kind of hypothetical scenario. Imagine you're in a quest hub with lots of quests in it. You play all of the quests simultaneously, for each of them reaching right up to before the conclusion of the quest. At this point, you've done lots of "work" without receiving any XP. I'm not convinced this is actually a bad thing (just finish one of the quests, you faggot! earn your pay!) but adding some more granularity to the objectives and sub-objectives could help with this.

 

[tuluse]

Imagine you're in a quest hub with lots of quests in it. You play all of the quests simultaneously, for each of them reaching right up to before the conclusion of the quest. At this point, you've done lots of "work" without receiving any XP. I'm not convinced this is actually a bad thing (just finish one of the quests, you faggot! earn your pay!) but adding some more granularity to the objectives and sub-objectives could help with this.

I'm pretty sure poe already does this.

ITT: people using objective and quest as synonyms when they're not.

 

[Lhynn]

You couldn't progress in BG2 simply by killing. Quest XP makes up the vast majority of the XP you gain in BG2. In BG1, you obviously can, but most of the signifcant XP gains are gained through killing stuff on the critical path on at the end of side quests.

Bullshit.
Progressing the story didnt take many npc interactions in BG1. everything else you could kill, plus both BG games had infinite source of XP, consequently no one gave a shit about xp there, time was the resource to manage, not xp, and you were having fun, so you didnt give 2 shits about time.

RPG players are like that, if you tell them theres so much of one thing they can have they will hoard it, they will manage it carefully and they will maximize it, leading to degeneracy. If you want them avoiding that behaviour just tell them they can have as much as they want, that it just takes time, and problem solved. Do not force them to play the way you think they will have fun playing.

 

[Harold]

Do not force them to play the way you think they will have fun playing.

Do not force them to fight dudes to earn xp.

I think we're making some progress here. Only took 16 pages.

 

[Lhynn]

Do not force them to play the way you think they will have fun playing.

Do not force them to fight dudes to earn xp.

I think we're making some progress here. Only took 16 pages.

What is it with you and not wanting to murder tons of dudes?

 

[Zombra]

You are still completely missing the point. It isn't about being able to kill or not. It is about being able to progress by doing what you enjoy doing as opposed to what the designer would like to force you to do.

Listen. What you are missing is that in any system with rewards for some things but not others, the design "wants" you to do some things but not others.

PoE "wants" you to do quests. You're correct that this isn't exactly "freedom", except in the sense that you can do quests however you want.
IE games "want" you to kill everything in sight. This is not "freedom" either.

The D&D reward structure isn't some magical utopian perfect system of wondrous freedom, freedom, freedom. It's just the first one you played, so you're used to it.

Stop trying to frame the lack of combat XP as being any more oppressive or controlling than combat XP. Either way, the design is "telling" you what to do.

The only question is whether we as players prefer to be guided towards slaughtering things for no reason, or towards engaging in meaningful problems with some kind of story. I know which I prefer (and apparently, which Obsidian prefers).

 

[Bubbles]

Do not force them to play the way you think they will have fun playing.

Do not force them to fight dudes to earn xp.

My apologies, it was under the apparently mistaken impression that this was a combat focused game that was not built for nonviolent playthroughs.

 

[tuluse]

My apologies, it was under the apparently mistaken impression that this was a combat focused game that was not built for nonviolent playthroughs.

This is actually an rpg, not a tactical combat simulator.

If you want one of those, I suggest xcom or jagged alliance.

 

[Harold]

What is it with you and not wanting to murder tons of dudes?

Excellent rebuttal. Sig-worthy even.

 

[Bubbles]

My apologies, it was under the apparently mistaken impression that this was a combat focused game that was not built for nonviolent playthroughs.

This is actually an rpg, not a tactical combat simulator.

If you want one of those, I suggest xcom or jagged alliance.

Jagged Alliance 2 is at place 13 of the Codex Top 50 RPGs.

 

[tuluse]

Jagged Alliance 2 is at place 13 of the Codex Top 50 RPGs.

Good point, it also does not feature kill xp.

 

[Bubbles]

Jagged Alliance 2 is at place 13 of the Codex Top 50 RPGs.

Good point, it also does not feature kill xp.

And yet it forces players to constantly engage in combat; negotiating with hostiles is almost unheard of in the game. Doesn't seem to have been such a huge issue for most of the Codex.

edit: Since the anti-kill xp brigade seem to be rallying around that example, a quick reminder of how improving skills worked in JA:

Marksmanship
The fastest way to raise this crucial stat is to throw knives at crows,
gradually increasing the distance. I strongly suggest this for all marksmen. You
also gain DEX in this way.

Explosives
To raise explosives like fire lay and disarm a mine over and over again. If the
merc's EXP is too low to disarm it, use your explosives specialist and continue
as before. And did I mention "save"?

Health
To exercise HEA, travel (on foot) carrying heavy equipment (weight over 100%)
This can be also done in real-time: put a great load on your merc and have
him/her run around. When s/he falls, wait until his/her energy ("breath")
regenerates and... move it soldier!

Agility
AGI is raised by getting interrupts, crawling with stealth on during combat and
dodging bloodcats' blows.

Dexterity
To raise DEX really quick, find some throwing knives and crows (after some time
they appear on rotting bodies) This shouldn't be a problem in towns Use crows
as targets. Blades are not consumed and new hungry birds always appear, so pick
the knives up and repeat until satisfied with the result. If you throw a knife
at a crow which is taking off, you lose the blade (wow, it's spinning!) DEX goes
up also by punching enemies, animals or vehicles and repairing stuff.

Strength
STR can be raised by punching, opening crates and carrying heavy stuff (same way
as HEA)

Leadership
Training militia increases this stat notably, especially when you put a skilled
trainer with a less experienced one in the same sector (see: SECTION 5)

Wisdom
This stat is the one most difficult to raise. During normal gameplay it hardly
ever changes. Still, wisdom can be trained by attaching a detonator to
explosives, setting it and then disarming. Of course, there is a great chance
you will detonate yourself in the process. Therefore this task should not be
attempted by mercs with low EXP, and even with high EXP it's best to save
frequently. Fortunately, EXP can be easily increased.

I sure am glad this game did not encourage degenerate gameplay through kill xp. Otherwise people would have hated it.

 

[Lhynn]

God, this is so shit. If you want to accommodate different playstyles like dialogue or stealth reward them accordingly. Same exp for just walking with style than for fighting for your life and conquering your foes should be rewarded in different ways.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

If you need to do A, but B stands in your way, doing A implies that you must have overcome B in some way, therefore rewarding A also rewards B. Simple.

Wouldn't have a problem with that (group B being positioned in such a way that you have to go through it to reach your goal) but what if say you achieve pyrric victory over group B, don't get reward for it( whether in loot or XP), reload and find out you can just circle around group B to your actual goal (group A). In that case what would be the purpose of group B? To showcase how dangerous wilderness is (immersion)?

Switching from killing everything you can for the XP to only killing what you have reason to (story-wise - via XP, or another - via loot or more desirable world state) is already a massive incline.

Depends on loot system, enemy positioning, how fun combat is etc. but yeah potentially. Would be fun to roll a group of sneaky rogues that only assassinate specific targets.

I think it is. If it was more of a TES style game, I would disagree.

I've been meaning to ask you, how would you go about designing TES style system (improve skills by use) without it being open to exploits (hopping all the time, letting rat hit you for an hour to build up your block/armor skill etc.)?

 

[Bubbles]

Switching from killing everything you can for the XP to only killing what you have reason to (story-wise - via XP, or another - via loot or more desirable world state) is already a massive incline.

Depends on loot system, enemy positioning, how fun combat is etc. but yeah potentially. Would be fun to roll a group of sneaky rogues that only assassinate specific targets.

The designers don't actually want you to do that though, except for "gimmick playthroughs". Why people still pretend that this is anything more than a combatfag game with a couple of choices and consequences is beyond me.

 

[tuluse]

edit: Since the anti-kill xp brigade seem to be rallying around that example, a quick reminder of how improving skills worked in JA:



I sure am glad this game did not encourage degenerate gameplay through kill xp. Otherwise people would have hated it.

Congratulations, you have discovered there can be multiple bad advancement systems. Want a cookie?

 

[Infinitron]

Switching from killing everything you can for the XP to only killing what you have reason to (story-wise - via XP, or another - via loot or more desirable world state) is already a massive incline.

Depends on loot system, enemy positioning, how fun combat is etc. but yeah potentially. Would be fun to roll a group of sneaky rogues that only assassinate specific targets.

The designers don't actually want you to do that though, except for "gimmick playthroughs". Why people still pretend that this is anything more than a combatfag game with a couple of choices and consequences is beyond me.

So? Being a "combatfag game" does not automatically mean the game should have combat XP.

It has more to do with how the game is structured. Are you expected to go on "hunting and gathering" sessions, just wandering around interacting with the hostile wildlife? Is the game built to support such playstyles? A game can be a "combatfag game" without being structured in this way.

------

Let's look at this from another perspective. Let's say you're playing an RPG with quests, and as a reward for completing said quests, you receive gold.

Taking your logic to its fullest extent, that's a bad thing. Instead of receiving the gold in one lump sum at the end of the quest, you should be getting it in bits and pieces from the corpse of every single enemy you encounter over the course of the quest.

 

[Bubbles]

edit: Since the anti-kill xp brigade seem to be rallying around that example, a quick reminder of how improving skills worked in JA:

I sure am glad this game did not encourage degenerate gameplay through kill xp. Otherwise people would have hated it.

Congratulations, you have discovered there can be multiple bad advancement systems. Want a cookie?

I do, but I also wonder how often the people who enjoy playing JA, JA2, Morrowind, Baldur's Gate 2, Dark Souls, etc. ever think "Boy this game would be much more fun if I didn't get any xp or skill advancement from combat. This is way too degenerate for my tastes."

Removing kill xp doesn't mean shit if you can't commit to the kind of radical gameplay changes it takes to make a game in which combat is not the paramount mode of gameplay. In my opinion you need the kind of gameplay structure that AoD has to pull this off (and even AoD does not actually do this). Sawyer seems to be using a slightly more complex version of the quest mechanics of Baldur's Gate II (70% combat, 20% exploration, 10% chit chat) and assuming that this gameplay will be instantly elevated by removing kill xp.

 

[Raghar]

Folks, do you remember what's difference between RPG and action adventure?

 

[Bubbles]

Let's look at this from another perspective. Let's say you're playing an RPG with quests, and as a reward for completing said quests, you receive gold.

Taking your logic to its fullest extent, that's a bad thing. Instead of receiving the gold in one lump sum at the end of the quest, you should be getting it in bits and pieces from the corpse of every single enemy you encounter over the course of the quest.

I'm assuming you're making an argument about realism and immersion. If the gold you get at the end is supposed to come from the pockets of slain enemies, then damn straight I want to loot it myself. If there's a quest giver rewarding you with their own gold at the end, then that's not analogous to how you gain experience in the world. It's really daft that you can get a "kill all 15 Ogres" objective, spend a hour in a dungeon killing 14 ogres, then fail to find the final ogre/run out of rations/get bored out of your skull killing ogres over and over and have to walk away with zero xp.

In P&P a DM can still recognize incremental or completely unexpected achievements after a session, but trying to emulate that in a computer game is folly. Just give us the damn incremental xp.

Folks, do you remember what's difference between RPG and action adventure?

Action adventures have an over-the-shoulder camera and resemble Tomb Raider to a certain extent.

 

[Infinitron]

Let's look at this from another perspective. Let's say you're playing an RPG with quests, and as a reward for completing said quests, you receive gold.

Taking your logic to its fullest extent, that's a bad thing. Instead of receiving the gold in one lump sum at the end of the quest, you should be getting it in bits and pieces from the corpse of every single enemy you encounter over the course of the quest.

I'm assuming you're making an argument about realism and immersion. If the gold you get at the end is supposed to come from the pockets of slain enemies, then damn straight I want to loot it myself. If there's a quest giver rewarding you with their own gold at the end, then that's not analogous to how you gain experience in the world. It's really daft that you can get a "kill all 15 Ogres" objective, spend a hour in a dungeon killing 14 ogres, then fail to find the final ogre/run out of rations/get bored out of your skull killing ogres over and over and have to walk away with zero xp.

In P&P a DM can still recognize incremental or completely unexpected achievements after a session, but trying to emulate that in a computer game is folly. Just give us the damn incremental xp.

Folks, do you remember what's difference between RPG and action adventure?

Action adventures have an over-the-shoulder camera and resemble Tomb Raider to a certain extent.

Then don't walk away. If that was a quest somebody in town was going to reward you for, you wouldn't get the reward until the job was done, and that'd be fine.