The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[Volourn]

Why have a game at all? Just make a movie.

 

[DraQ]

I don't get Josh's 'every quest solution should reward equal XP' thing. If people are going to fight enemies regardless of not getting any XP, that goes both ways: people who want to play stealthy/diplomatic won't be put off by not getting as much XP. Combat will be the more challenging solution, consume tactical/strategic resources, risk companion maims/death, and probably more demanding of a high experience party.

Conversely it also yields loot and gets rid of the issue permanently, unlike avoidance, stealth or disabling magic not followed with combat to finish it up.

It makes sense to hand out more XP for those solutions.

The problem is that XP are the most long term reward conceivable, unlike loot XPs don't devalue with gameplay progression, what you got once, stays with you.
Therefore playstyle yielding most XP is clearly the optimal one.

Besides, combat XP leads to degenerate gameplay, like using diplomacy to avoid combat and get XP reward, then defaulting to combat against the same NPC to get another XP reward - especially given that an NPC yielding a lot of XP when talked down will probably be worth a lot of XP in combat.

It's better to have XP reward for goal completion alone, as it ensures that whatever action you took to tackle the obstacle before is rewarded.

Why? If anything, combat should give less XP, since combat is the dumbest, harder solution, for parties unable to finish the quest in a more elegant way. The more efficient way should be rewarded more, and more efficient is most of the time the quicker, easiest, spend less resources way.

The cost of combat could be balanced with delayed consequences of all sorts, and cost/benefit calculus.

The problem with any sort of selective rewards system is that it can leave out clever solutions not predicted by the devs, while goal only XP accounts for them automatically.

That way lies DX:HR which was terribad because it encourages certain playstyles/activities.

If something's fun, do it. If it's not fun, don't do it. XP bribery is a failure.

Fuck you, DX:HR was gud.

Spoiler

Its XP system was indeed terrible, for the reasons you mentioned, though.

Then why bribe players with XP to complete sidequests?

Indeed, why?

IMO, sidequests should rely entirely on more 'worldly' rewards. XPs are way too abstract to effectively support anything but main "hero's journey".

 

[ZagorTeNej]

That way lies DX:HR which was terribad because it encourages certain playstyles/activities.

If something's fun, do it. If it's not fun, don't do it. XP bribery is a failure.

Still, even if you find combat fun why waste resources on fights that don't yield rewards (whether in XP or loot) instead of saving them for those that do?

 

[DraQ]

That way lies DX:HR which was terribad because it encourages certain playstyles/activities.

If something's fun, do it. If it's not fun, don't do it. XP bribery is a failure.

Still, even if you find combat fun why waste resources on fights that don't yield rewards (whether in XP or loot) instead of saving them for those that do?

Some combat rewards are circumstantial - getting rid of an obstacle blocking off the actual reward.

Combat that yields no tangible reward whatsoever is combat that is simply pointless and stupid, and stupid actions should be systemically penalized, not rewarded with abstract, yet valuable rewards, such as XP.

 

[Delterius]

Still, even if you find combat fun why waste resources on fights that don't yield rewards (whether in XP or loot) instead of saving them for those that do?

Apparently you quoted Roguey. Well, I wouldn't know. Still, people, relax and 'waste' yer resources already. Its fun.

 

[DraQ]

Apparently you quoted Roguey. Well, I wouldn't know.

The feminazi was actually right in that post, though.

 

[Hormalakh]

fuck, you nerds are at it with the kill xp again? Not killing the Ogre wouldn't net you ogre's blood. That might be pretty important in enchantments. Choosing different solutions without worrying about whether they would net me different XP makes all solutions more equal. Don't kill the ogre? You don't net ogre blood. Your choice isn't adulterated by the ultimate gamechanger: that of XP.

 

[AN4RCHID]

Why? If anything, combat should give less XP, since combat is the dumbest, harder solution, for parties unable to finish the quest in a more elegant way. The more efficient way should be rewarded more, and more efficient is most of the time the quicker, easiest, spend less resources way.

If the quests are anything like New Vegas, the diplomatic options will be a lot 'dumber' than combat, since they often didn't require any particular problem solving or mental activity at all provided you had the right stats. Besides, that would make sense in a game like F:NV or Tides of Numenera where non-combatant characters are a viable player choice, but Josh has said Poe is not like that.

I don't get Josh's 'every quest solution should reward equal XP' thing. If people are going to fight enemies regardless of not getting any XP, that goes both ways: people who want to play stealthy/diplomatic won't be put off by not getting as much XP. Combat will be the more challenging solution, consume tactical/strategic resources, risk companion maims/death, and probably more demanding of a high experience party.

Conversely it also yields loot and gets rid of the issue permanently, unlike avoidance, stealth or disabling magic not followed with combat to finish it up.

Fair point.

It makes sense to hand out more XP for those solutions.

The problem is that XP are the most long term reward conceivable, unlike loot XPs don't devalue with gameplay progression, what you got once, stays with you.
Therefore playstyle yielding most XP is clearly the optimal one.

XP does devalue over time because each level costs more. In F:NV it won't take non-combatant player long to catch up with a player that kills every gecko around Goodsprings, because those early XP gains become insignificant pretty fast.

Besides, combat XP leads to degenerate gameplay, like using diplomacy to avoid combat and get XP reward, then defaulting to combat against the same NPC to get another XP reward - especially given that an NPC yielding a lot of XP when talked down will probably be worth a lot of XP in combat.

I'm not convinced people actually do this outside of Josh Sawyer's nightmares. Anyway, like Volourn said, the game shouldn't be balanced around those people. Let them have their degenerate fun. Who gives a fuck (besides Sawyer)?

That way lies DX:HR which was terribad because it encourages certain playstyles/activities.

Yeah, because DX:HR encourages shitty boring playstyles like hacking into every fucking email account in an office building and exploring every inch of airduct/sewer. That's hardly comparable to rewarding a player for engaging with the central gameplay system of a game. Like I stated above, Poe doesn't have the burden that some other RPGs have of ensuring that non-violent playstyles are viable. Kill-XP didn't break New Vegas, I don't see why it would break an ostensibly more combat-focused game.

 

[Lhynn]

I like to get rewards in xp for my kills, it makes sense too, your characters battle prowess grows by doing battle. Also people wishing for less trash mobs disgust me, they should ask for a better combat system that wont get old, that will evolve as the players grow in power, that will be a joy to play.

Also, it makes sense that if they avoid conflict they should end up about as physically and mentally strong as people that avoid conflict.

 

[MicoSelva]

I like to get rewards in xp for my kills, it makes sense too, your characters battle prowess grows by doing battle. Also people wishing for less trash mobs disgust me, they should ask for a better combat system that wont get old, that will evolve as the players grow in power, that will be a joy to play.

Also, it makes sense that if they avoid conflict they should end up about as physically and mentally strong as people that avoid conflict.

It made little sense for thieves in BG to improve their lockpicking after killing enough kobolds.

There is no perfect solution to this in current RPG paradigm. It would need a new system, made on dfferent foundations to create a solution that 'makes sense', and it would also be very 'simulationist', which is not ideal for most people (learn by use is one such system, and many people hate it with a passion, myself included). I do not think PoE is the right game to deal with this, after all it is supposed to evoke olschool IE feel.

And yes, I know it is pretty ironic, considering all IE games had XP for kills.

 

[Grunker]

If something's fun, do it. If it's not fun, don't do it. XP bribery is a failure.

Then why bribe players with XP to complete sidequests?

How is that bribing?

You get rewards for completing things, that's a pretty fucking standard game mechanic.

"Bribing" only enters the picture when you reward completing the same thing differently depending on how you completed it, not because you completed it more/less successfully, but because the developer wants to encourage you to take a path he knows to be more shitty than another path.

The question here isn't "why not reward differently" but "why would you ever reward one path to the same objective differently than another path unless there were clear states of success/partial failure involved?"

 

[tuluse]

If the quests are anything like New Vegas, the diplomatic options will be a lot 'dumber' than combat, since they often didn't require any particular problem solving or mental activity at all provided you had the right stats. Besides, that would make sense in a game like F:NV or Tides of Numenera where non-combatant characters are a viable player choice, but Josh has said Poe is not like that.

There are no social skills in PoE.

Yeah, because DX:HR encourages shitty boring playstyles like hacking into every fucking email account in an office building and exploring every inch of airduct/sewer. That's hardly comparable to rewarding a player for engaging with the central gameplay system of a game. Like I stated above, Poe doesn't have the burden that some other RPGs have of ensuring that non-violent playstyles are viable. Kill-XP didn't break New Vegas, I don't see why it would break an ostensibly more combat-focused game.

This is just a matter of degrees then. If something is bad on a small scale, it's usually bad on a big scale, just less noticeable.

I like to get rewards in xp for my kills, it makes sense too, your characters battle prowess grows by doing battle. Also people wishing for less trash mobs disgust me, they should ask for a better combat system that wont get old, that will evolve as the players grow in power, that will be a joy to play.

Also, it makes sense that if they avoid conflict they should end up about as physically and mentally strong as people that avoid conflict.

Most things about XP don't make any sense. In lots of PNP RPGs they tell you to give players XP for successfully roleplaying these days, not for passing skill checks.

 

[tuluse]

Still, even if you find combat fun why waste resources on fights that don't yield rewards (whether in XP or loot) instead of saving them for those that do?

Why do you kill Imps in Doom?

 

[Mangoose]

I like to get rewards in xp for my kills, it makes sense too, your characters battle prowess grows by doing battle. Also people wishing for less trash mobs disgust me, they should ask for a better combat system that wont get old, that will evolve as the players grow in power, that will be a joy to play.

Also, it makes sense that if they avoid conflict they should end up about as physically and mentally strong as people that avoid conflict.

If so then avoiding conflict should give your characters better prowess in sneaking, diplomacy, etc.

 

[Lhynn]

I like to get rewards in xp for my kills, it makes sense too, your characters battle prowess grows by doing battle. Also people wishing for less trash mobs disgust me, they should ask for a better combat system that wont get old, that will evolve as the players grow in power, that will be a joy to play.

Also, it makes sense that if they avoid conflict they should end up about as physically and mentally strong as people that avoid conflict.

It made little sense for thieves in BG to improve their lockpicking after killing enough kobolds.

There is no perfect solution to this in current RPG paradigm. It would need a new system, made on dfferent foundations to create a solution that 'makes sense', and it would also be very 'simulationist', which is not ideal for most people (learn by use is one such system, and many people hate it with a passion, myself included). I do not think PoE is the right game to deal with this, after all it is supposed to evoke olschool IE feel.

And yes, I know it is pretty ironic, considering all IE games had XP for kills.

Well, pnp solved this by giving bonus exp to characters for doing stuff they should be doing, 10 xp to thieves for each gp worth of stolen property, 10xp per hit dice of enemy beaten in battle by the team, mages got exp for creating magical items and new spells, etc.

Its not quite the same as being diplomatic and stopping a war, but never met a diplomat that could go toe to toe with a boxer, no matter how good said diplomat was.

Anyway, roleplaying should be a reward in itself, you shouldnt give them exp on top of that, after they are happy with their characters they will naturally lean towards that. Also roleplaying is a tool for adventure hooks, and players should want to look for that too.

 

[Grunker]

these days

They always did. Can't remember playing anything except maybe OD&D that didn't encourage XP rewards for stuff beyond killing or whatever. In P&P, XP for killing is pretty firmly the exception, not the norm.

 

[Grotesque]

There should be a probability that every monster/npc to drop something at least.
Otherwise spending 5 minutes to kill 3 bugs for nothing is fuckin stupid.

 

[Grunker]

Otherwise spending 5 minutes to kill 3 bugs for nothing is fuckin stupid.

Nothing? They are an obstacle in the way of your objective. The objective rewards you for completion. You cannot complete the objective without passing the obstacle. That's certainly not "nothing." Killing the three bugs are as directly associated with the reward as they would be if you received instant gratification XP. No bug-kills, no reward. In either scenario. Why does it matter if you get instant gratification the moment the beetle drops or if you get it at completion?

There is a problem associated with instant gratification, namely that it makes comparable rewards impossible to engineer. There are literally zero problems associated with giving rewards for the completion itself.

 

[AW8]

Pillars of Eternity is going to change how we look at video games.

 

[Bubbles]

It already has.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Why do you kill Imps in Doom?

Because they're in my way, they die in a flash and waste very little of my resources (one shot from a shotgun). In PoE on the other hand I could just sneak past the mighty beetles and go after that juicy XP-heavy Ogre or I could duke it out with said beetles and almost certainly arrive in less than optimal condition to fight the Ogre with nothing to show for it (presuming beetles don't drop useful loot, we don't know yet).

 

[imweasel]

If something's fun, do it. If it's not fun, don't do it. XP bribery is a failure.

Then why bribe players with XP to complete sidequests?

How is that bribing?

Because sidequests are completly optional. Sure, they are fun to do, but would people do them solely for fun without getting any xp (or special items) as a reward? Probably not.

Just sayin'

You get rewards for completing things, that's a pretty fucking standard game mechanic.

Yep. You get XP for overcoming challenges.

 

[Grunker]

You get XP for overcoming challenges.

You. Still. Do. Nothing has changed, except instead of instant gratification you get the reward a little later, and the game let's you decide how to tackle those challenges. It doesn't artificially encourage one playstyle over another.

You are (presumably) the one arguing that this method is bad. I'm not really seeing what your argument is. Not sure you've presented one yet (not being sarcastic, I don't know what your point is).

 

[Grotesque]

Otherwise spending 5 minutes to kill 3 bugs for nothing is fuckin stupid.

Nothing? They are an obstacle in the way of your objective. .

No they were not. I bet you can march past them and enter in the cave.
I also bet that you can avoid them entirely by keeping a not so great distance.

Boots of speed anyone?
Confirmed to be in the game

 

[RK47]

Pillars of Eternity is going to change how we look.