The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[Infinitron]

Isn't the story fun enough by itself, without bribing the player with XP?
You already get loot for completing quests, do you really need that extra dopamine boost of seeing a number go up?

Funny guy. If the devs don't want to put mechanical incentives on quests and scripted objectives, it's fine with me. The choice of the behaviors they want to encourage and what they don't want to encourage is up to them. I've already gone on record stating that I will do quests even if there is no XP for them, because I like participating in stories and conflicts. However, if the devs choose to systemically incentivize that behavior (and they do!), it means that the game I want to play and the game they want me to play are very similar ... honestly, that makes me way more excited about this game.

Honestly though, I suspect Sawyer just included quest XP because people would have rioted if he cut it out completely. So he got as close as he could while still giving people their regular Pavlovian rewards

Yeah. Well, there is still levelling to be considered, and I think in an RPG, especially of this type, there does need to be character progression. Aaaaand as I try to compose this paragraph I see Infinitron has already beaten me to it. So .... what he said.

It's funny to me that I even had to explain that. They're so fixated on experience points as their own reward that they've forgotten that they're just a means to that end.

Eh, I'll probably just be accused of being a "storyfag".

 

[Bubbles]

You need experience to level up. You're supposed to level up as you progress through the game's story, to introduce new mechanics and abilities for the player to use. Quests are the building blocks of the game's story, and their moment of resolution is a convenient place to hand out those chunks of experience.

Isn't PoE's xp system objective based rather than quest based? I'm not sure if "pick 10 locks" or "find all the pieces of King Fuckoff's mask in the sewers of Tsogereb" are the building blocks of anything in particular.

You need experience to level up. You're supposed to level up as you progress through the game's story, to introduce new mechanics and abilities for the player to use.

You could also get new abilities as quest rewards, cut out the middle man. Where does this obsession with big shiny numbers come from anyway?

 

[Lhynn]

Actually thats one of the best parts of the game, it rewarding stealth on a situation that calls for it instead of giving you the same exp for any aproach that gets the job done (which is lame, lazy and retarded). It is fitting in that setting because its not combat focused, there are way more skills and even powers to interact with the world and NPCs than there are to use exclusively in combat.

In that game experience doesnt necessarily make you stronger, just more capable, unlike PoE. So non combat related rewards over combat related rewards do make a fuckton of sense.

In those particular quests, stealth is pure benefit. It's both the past of least resistance and the one that gets you the most reward. Not compelling.

You showing that shit again and again doesnt make it true roguey. They were p. fun sections of the game regardless of what sawyer says.

Optimal choices or paths arent bad, hitman blood money has one of those for every level, and its a fantastic game.

Edit: wait, that shitty drawing doesnt make any reference to what we are talking about.

 

[AN4RCHID]

You need experience to level up. You're supposed to level up as you progress through the game's story, to introduce new mechanics and abilities for the player to use. Quests are the building blocks of the game's story, and their moment of resolution is a convenient place to hand out those chunks of experience.

You don't need it, you could just as easily (actually more easily) just schedule level-ups at predetermined points along the main path. There was an old RPG called Silver that did it this way.

 

[Infinitron]

You could also get new abilities as quest rewards, cut out the middle man. Where does this obsession with big shiny numbers come from anyway?

You could, but the "middle man" does allow you to customize your character as you see fit from a level-up screen, rather than have to take what the game designer decided you should have.

It's kind of an RPG thing.

If you're saying that you could receive level-ups directly as quest rewards without the experience points, then yes, that's true, but experience points allow granularity - quests that are worth more than other quests.

You need experience to level up. You're supposed to level up as you progress through the game's story, to introduce new mechanics and abilities for the player to use. Quests are the building blocks of the game's story, and their moment of resolution is a convenient place to hand out those chunks of experience.

You don't need it, you could just as easily (actually more easily) just schedule level-ups at predetermined points along the main path. There was an old RPG called Silver that did it this way.

You could - I mentioned that option earlier ITT myself - but it is nice to reward people for doing optional quests.

 

[Roguey]

You showing that shit again and again doesnt make it true roguey. They were p. fun sections of the game regardless of what sawyer says.

It was garbage imho.

Optimal choices or paths arent bad, hitman blood money has one of those for every level, and its a fantastic game.

Agreed, but it's not a role playing game.

Edit: wait, that shitty drawing doesnt make any reference to what we are talking about.

Stealth is pure win, combat is pure loss. There should be an advantage and a disadvantage for choosing to go stealthy and the same for going full-combat.

 

[Bubbles]

You could - I mentioned that option earlier ITT myself - but it is nice to reward people for doing optional quests.

It's also nice to reward people for killing optional enemies.

 

[Roguey]

What in god's name have you done? Kill some foes for some real fun. So your sickness weighs a ton, and god's name is xp for some.

 

[Zombra]

You could - I mentioned that option earlier ITT myself - but it is nice to reward people for doing optional quests.

It's also nice to reward people for killing optional enemies.

The parallel has been drawn time and again; it hasn't been lost on anyone. The devs decide what they want to reward and give rewards for those things. They could give xp for kills, xp for picking locks, xp for walking across the screen, xp for eating mushrooms, xp for quests, xp for talking to children, xp for sleeping, xp for taking a dump. In this case, they have chosen to give xp for quests but not for those other things. This isn't right or wrong, it's just what they chose to reward and encourage.

We get it that some people want to be rewarded for each and every kill. We've also shown that this isn't necessary for every game. Why is it necessary for PoE?

 

[Bubbles]

We get it that some people want to be rewarded for each and every kill. We've also shown that this isn't necessary for every game. Why is it necessary for PoE?

Nothing is "necessary". Remove all the classes except fighter, remove the skills, remove the attributes, remove all the side quests, make the game first person, convert the art to 8-bit, it would still be A Game. But it would be less fun for me.

Kill xp makes things more fun for me.

 

[Lhynn]

You could - I mentioned that option earlier ITT myself - but it is nice to reward people for doing optional quests.

It's also nice to reward people for killing optional enemies.

The parallel has been drawn time and again; it hasn't been lost on anyone. The devs decide what they want to reward and give rewards for those things. They could give xp for kills, xp for picking locks, xp for walking across the screen, xp for eating mushrooms, xp for quests, xp for talking to children, xp for sleeping, xp for taking a dump. In this case, they have chosen to give xp for quests but not for those other things. This isn't right or wrong, it's just what they chose to reward and encourage.

We get it that some people want to be rewarded for each and every kill. We've also shown that this isn't necessary for every game. Why is it necessary for PoE?

Dont ask such a retarded question, to keep pacing, structure, players mindset and motivations similar to the one you had when playing BG1-2.

We may be getting a decent game (i doubt it tho), but not what they promised (why am i feeling like a gnome illusionist right about now?)

 

[AN4RCHID]

Why is it necessary for PoE?

Does it need to be necessary for Obsidian to include it? People like it. That's the way it was in the IE games. There are tons of comments in the Obsidian forums complaining about the new system in the Beta. My personal reasons are that it gives the player more agency in character progressions and I like the feeling of that +100 popping up after killing a tough enemy.

It's not a big deal, but the 'problems' objective based XP is supposedly going to fix are also not a big deal.

 

[Volourn]

"We get it that some people want to be rewarded for each and every kill. We've also shown that this isn't necessary for every game. Why is it necessary for PoE?"

It's also been shown xp for quest only isn't neccessarily for every game. People got kill xp in DOS and ahrdly anyone bitched about it. So, why isn't enccessary for PE?

PE is NOT SRR. XP for quest only WORKED in SRR. It does NOT work in PE. Period.

 

[Lhynn]

You showing that shit again and again doesnt make it true roguey. They were p. fun sections of the game regardless of what sawyer says.

It was garbage imho.

Optimal choices or paths arent bad, hitman blood money has one of those for every level, and its a fantastic game.

Agreed, but it's not a role playing game.

Edit: wait, that shitty drawing doesnt make any reference to what we are talking about.

Stealth is pure win, combat is pure loss. There should be an advantage and a disadvantage for choosing to go stealthy and the same for going full-combat.

1- Its a good game, if you didnt enjoy it for what it was it only tells me what you want from a game. Granted, its flawed, but i found the stealth sections pretty satisfying to play tru, "the silly mortals are so pathetic that it takes about as much effort to kill them than to go unnoticed, and i dont want to get my clothes dirty" felt pretty empowering, i was almost grinning as they were completely oblivious to me.

2- True, but that doesnt discredit my claim in any way. If it can be good in one genre it can be good on the next, it comes down to execution.

3- Why? that conditions storytelling a fucking lot, and you may think it gives the player choice, but it doesnt, it makes the player go with the one their characters are more versed at. I mean i can see the merits of having bits where both/all aproaches are equally valid, but not every fucking time.

 

[Raghar]

So when you have skill based RPG, where skills will not increase on levels, what's difference between a normal soldier and a hero?


Of course when you talk ONLY about PoE, the necessity of XP can be explained by simple thought: It tries to make game similar to previous game and hurts itself by doing so. The previous game had XP for monsters as completely inseparable feature. Thus PoE should have XP for monsters as well.

 

[Zombra]

Nothing is "necessary". Remove all the classes except fighter, remove the skills, remove the attributes, remove all the side quests, make the game first person, convert the art to 8-bit, it would still be A Game.

It's also been shown xp for quest only isn't neccessarily for every game. People got kill xp in DOS and ahrdly anyone bitched about it. So, why isn't enccessary for PE?

Yes. Again. For about the fifth time. Some things can be included and other things not included. The logic that applies to one system may apply to another system. Whatever the devs want to do, they can do and make it work.

The difference: this is what the devs have chosen to do.

The burden of proof is not on us to show that the system they have chosen is the One and Only True Way to Make a Game. The burden of proof is on you to show that Kill XP is Mandatory For Every Game. Otherwise your preference is just pixie dust.

We are getting down to the only valid argument for kill XP:

People like it. That's the way it was in the IE games.

Kill xp makes things more fun for me.

THE FEELS

The feels are fine, and I can respect them ... but 1) your point of view's feels are not the only feels in the world and 2) feels alone, particularly nostalgia feels, are insufficient reason for archaic, garbage Skinnerian design.

It's not a big deal, but the 'problems' objective based XP is supposedly going to fix are also not a big deal.

I don't disagree, and this isn't a hill I'd care to die on, but as I said before, I think that the removal of the murder cookie is a step forward for real freedom in RPGs.

 

[Volourn]

"The burden of proof is on you to show that Kill XP is Mandatory For Every Game."

I never claimed that. Don't be an idiot.

However, it seems to be mandatory for PE because Sawyer isn't clever enough to do it another way. He done fucked up. Even his boss knew this 2 years agon and Sawyer simply told him to fuck off.

This is so not SRR.

 

[Zombra]

"The burden of proof is on you to show that Kill XP is Mandatory For Every Game."
I never claimed that. Don't be an idiot.

If you don't want me to put stupid conclusions in your mouth, stop saying stupid shit to start with. It doesn't matter if kill XP works for some games. Your example of D:OS was irrelevant, unless you intended to show that what works in one game must be included in every game. So if you're not claiming that what works in one game must be included in every game, don't cite worthless examples.

However, [kill XP] seems to be mandatory for PE because Sawyer isn't clever enough to do it another way. He done fucked up. Even his boss knew this 2 years agon and Sawyer simply told him to fuck off.

So it doesn't work in the beta? Why?

 

[Volourn]

This has been explained a million times. Don't be a dumbfuck.

 

[Zombra]

This has been explained a million times.

You should have it down by now then. Let's make it 1,000,001 and see if you can make it stick this time.

 

[Zetor]

Underrail's "oddity" XP system is pretty good, I think. Basically you can find certain kinds of "oddities" spread across the world (as quest rewards, treasure in locked rooms, and enemy drops) and you use them up to gain xp. You can only gain xp from a certain type of oddity X times (far less than you can find if you collect every single one), so this way you'll end up with the same xp in the end no matter your playstyle. If you're killing dudes, you get your xp as drops; if you sneak and explore, you find them in dangerous out-of-the-way places; if you do quests, you get them as rewards.

Of course the flavor behind the system only works for certain settings; it's good for post-apoc, since each of those oddities represents a kind of ancient/lost technology that your character will understand after using it.

edit: description of the oddity system

 

[Invictus]

simple grinding for xp and money is one of the hallmarks of RPGs (especialy JRPGs) and to be honest it was a perfectly relaxing activity to take a break from questing and just focus on getting some gold for that sweet armor or getting enough xp to get a couple of levels before going to bed or whatever.

All this "Darklands 2" bullshit is retarded; if you go full Darklands there are NO levelups; only your skills raise and the most of the time attribute changes are for the worse (but for the green fruit) but the whole "IE succesor" is thrown out the window the minute you change the basic premise of a combat based engine to be have only quest related xp.

For a guy sooo worried about balancing classes and whatsnot the fact that giving xp only for questing is NOT balanced at all; what happens if I don't care for doing a whole lot of fedex or "kill 10 spiders" or if I miss a quest giver which would give me the neccesary XP to raise to the next level and use the uber spell for beating that Act's boss?

Systems like the Goldbox games or even more recent offerings like The Witcher give you big XP rewards for quests but also decent amount for combat and let you decide how to proceed;
want to do ONLY the main story quest? Then perhaps you will have a tougher battle with the area boss.
Want to grind a bit an get to see what those damn wyverns were guarding in the swamp? Go ahead
If you only get xp for questing and you only give a limited amount of quests per act the you are dictating HOW you want your game played and most of the characters will be ata similar level in similar circumstances

 

[Infinitron]

The key part of the above post is "especially JRPGs"

 

[34scell]

You could have a percentage of the XP from skipped or failed side quests transferred into the main questline.

 

[Jools]

I'm for "limited" XP, or "diminishing return", to use a buzzword. So, decent XP only for the first few encounters of the same type, then tapering down to very few and insignificant XP, to none. It kinda makes sense, and makes grinding useless. Unless you're Asian, in which case you can totally levelup to infinity by grinding mobs that give you 1xp.