The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[Lhynn]

Being combat centric doesn't imply that all combat should be mandatory or highly encouraged.
There have been countless even more combat centric games (not cRPGs, obviously) where thinking how, when and IF to engage in combat paid off more than just screaming "FOR THE EXPS!" and jumping into the fray. Most didn't have out of universe combat incentive either.

I'm not saying that every combat encounter should be mandatory, or that it should be the only solution to every quest. We do already know that combat in general will be mandatory to finish the game, though. Designing an RPG where combat is only one of many play-styles is a huge additional undertaking that is outside of the scope of PoE. A combat-ready party is the way you're going to play this game, and this idea is reinforced by Josh's "no useless builds" philosophy. It's not an RPG where you have the option to kill lots of thing; it's an RPG where you do kill lots of things.

Now, that being the case, should it be highly encouraged? My answer is, absolutely yes. I'm going to replace 'should combat always be highly encouraged' with 'should there be an inherent reward for combat' since we're talking about XP. And to head off the inevitable: no, "fun" doesn't count. "Fun" is the result of good game design, it is not an ingredient in and of itself. I mean strictly a gameplay mechanics reward.

If the fundamental challenge of the game is combat encounters, I believe the reward structure should be integrated into that. Otherwise you have a broken gameplay loop, where completing the most basic gameplay segment (a combat encounter) has no purpose by itself, other than progressing to the next bit of content. It divorces the meta-game of character development and narrative progression from the minute-to-minute gameplay. A lot of games are like that, but it's not good game design imho.

This is where the 'feels', or lack thereof, come in. Even if you get the same reward after killing a mob under both systems, what you're being rewarded for is important. Mechanically, is the game congratulating you for killing a horde of orcs, or are the orcs an arbitrary chore to complete before the game rewards you for completing the real challenge, which is... walking through a door, or picking up an item, or whatever the arbitrary objective is? Sure, the combat is probably almost the same amount of fun in either case, but in the second case there's a dissonance in the game design because on the one hand you're being forced to fight horde after horde of enemy, and on the other hand the mechanics are telling you that this is a waste of time and resources. It turns what should be the heart of the game into a nuisance - at least mechanically.

In a game that gives the player more freedom in how to approach problems - ie, where playstyles other than full combat party exist - figuring out how to get past an obstacle with a given character/party build might be an interesting challenge. In PoE, there's is never a question of whether lethal force can be used for your build. It is the solution, and the only question might be whether it should be used per your role-playing choices and meta rewards like faction membership and loot. These exceptions can still exist and still be valid gameplay choices even with kill-XP, the content just has to support them.

Bringing up other genres just muddies the waters. Other games have other designs. In most action games there are no progression mechanics. Usually there aren't even long-term resources or a persistent economy that spans the entire game (as opposed to being contained to one level or section). Reward structures are different. A lot of games, including a lot of RPGs, don't have combat as their core gameplay like PoE does. Stealth games, tactical shooters, platformers, adventure games, etc... are all good for different reasons and require totally different priorities.

I'm kind of exaggerating; obviously, PoE is not just a combat-fest where the story doesn't matter at all. But as long as the gameplay is fundamentally based around tactical battles, I think the point stands.

I'd also like to note that I'm only comparing objective-only-XP and kill-XP. Not saying kill-XP is the best ever, or that a better system couldn't be devised. I'm sure it could.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Kill XP could be used for increasing stuff that increases in combat veterans.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

IMHO let quests give substantial XP and kills a radically smaller amount by comparison. Still a reward for clearing maps.

In other words make the kill XP so negligible that it doesn't make a difference whether or not kill XP exists.

If the small amounts add up to give you a level up a bit sooner - it's still a reward. I am sure 80% of "pro kill XP" people would be satisfied.

 

[Mangoose]

IMHO let quests give substantial XP and kills a radically smaller amount by comparison. Still a reward for clearing maps.

In other words make the kill XP so negligible that it doesn't make a difference whether or not kill XP exists.

If the small amounts add up to give you a level up a bit sooner - it's still a reward. I am sure 80% of "pro kill XP" people would be satisfied.

Or.. you can just get a reward at the end for fully exploring every nook and cranny of the map, whether you sneak around or kill everything? That rewards every type of gameplay.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

IMHO let quests give substantial XP and kills a radically smaller amount by comparison. Still a reward for clearing maps.

In other words make the kill XP so negligible that it doesn't make a difference whether or not kill XP exists.

If the small amounts add up to give you a level up a bit sooner - it's still a reward. I am sure 80% of "pro kill XP" people would be satisfied.

Or.. you can just get a reward at the end for fully exploring every nook and cranny of the map, whether you sneak around or kill everything? That rewards every type of gameplay.

Yea but when? Did encounter - reward. Run around dungeon killing stuff, but felt it was a waste and left without discovering the magic "get here to get XP" spot - feels shitty. It's just a mechanical problem. There has to be some reward, maybe retrieving souls from dead foes to.. do something.

 

[sser]

If the fundamental challenge of the game is combat encounters, I believe the reward structure should be integrated into that. Otherwise you have a broken gameplay loop, where completing the most basic gameplay segment (a combat encounter) has no purpose by itself, other than progressing to the next bit of content. It divorces the meta-game of character development and narrative progression from the minute-to-minute gameplay. A lot of games are like that, but it's not good game design imho.

I'm pretty much on the fence with the issue, but this post is pretty hard to argue against. There's a narrative dissonance when you realize that your characters are learning from story progression and not combat, but their experiences go into combat training nonetheless, as if discovering who murdered a dwarf somehow made them better swordfighters. It's also odd because there are many non-RPG games that do not need to numerically reward the player for 'quest' related objectives -- the completion of a story arc tends to be a reward in and of itself for the players themselves (not the avatars on screen). Which makes you think that the entire concept is just an effort to be "different."

That said, I think you could still do a no-combat-XP game centered around combat if there were other - consistent - rewards coming from combat. New armor, new spells, weapons, etc. It's just generally weaker since you won't always be getting better things, whereas XP is pretty binary in either you get it and progress, or you don't and simply don't. It also drives into the narrative path that your avatars are already badasses, they just new sharper, sturdier things to be better badasses. The only thing between them and defeating the great evil isn't a natural progression in their skills, but a progression in their equipment and knowledge of the setting's peoples and the things they needed doing. They were born badasses, they just needed a way to show it. Kinda fucking silly, obviously, and the more I think about it the sillier it gets.

 

[Mangoose]

IMHO let quests give substantial XP and kills a radically smaller amount by comparison. Still a reward for clearing maps.

In other words make the kill XP so negligible that it doesn't make a difference whether or not kill XP exists.

If the small amounts add up to give you a level up a bit sooner - it's still a reward. I am sure 80% of "pro kill XP" people would be satisfied.

Or.. you can just get a reward at the end for fully exploring every nook and cranny of the map, whether you sneak around or kill everything? That rewards every type of gameplay.

Yea but when? Did encounter - reward. Run around dungeon killing stuff, but felt it was a waste and left without discovering the magic "get here to get XP" spot - feels shitty. It's just a mechanical problem. There has to be some reward, maybe retrieving souls from dead foes to.. do something.

Why does there have to be a small "get here to get XP" spot? Why can't the spot be big? Why can't it be a more intelligent system that detects, say, if you've seen X% of the map, or seen Y% of the monsters on the map, or stuff like that? Or if you're in a dungeon, you could get XP for getting from one room to the next. You're being too narrow minded in what is possible.

The problem with your example of kill XP is that it doesn't reward players that explore the map without using combat. And stealth, diplomacy, etc. in order to do so is a skill in itself that should be rewarded.

However, it does seem like PoE is very very combat centric and in that case I do agree that you might as well have kill xp. If it weren't so combat-centric then the case would be different.

 

[Bubbles]

Why does there have to be a small "get here to get XP" spot? Why can't the spot be big? Why can't it be a more intelligent system that detects, say, if you've seen X% of the map, or seen Y% of the monsters on the map, or stuff like that? Or if you're in a dungeon, you could get XP for getting from one room to the next.

That would be much harder to code than "advance quest stage from 5 to 6, get y xp"

 

[Mangoose]

Why does there have to be a small "get here to get XP" spot? Why can't the spot be big? Why can't it be a more intelligent system that detects, say, if you've seen X% of the map, or seen Y% of the monsters on the map, or stuff like that? Or if you're in a dungeon, you could get XP for getting from one room to the next.

That would be much harder to code than "advance quest stage from 5 to 6, get y xp"

Well, yes, but if you want to do it right then do it right.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

Why does there have to be a small "get here to get XP" spot? Why can't the spot be big? Why can't it be a more intelligent system that detects, say, if you've seen X% of the map, or seen Y% of the monsters on the map, or stuff like that? Or if you're in a dungeon, you could get XP for getting from one room to the next. You're being too narrow minded in what is possible.

The problem with your example of kill XP is that it doesn't reward players that explore the map without using combat. And stealth, diplomacy, etc. in order to do so is a skill in itself that should be rewarded.

However, it does seem like PoE is very very combat centric and in that case I do agree that you might as well have kill xp. If it weren't so combat-centric then the case would be different.

Well, i agree for RPGs in general, not for dungeon crawling centric, like PoE (most probably). Also, like Bubbles said, your idea might be to "organic" to code. Sure it can be done, but nobody gonna bother. Because why? Quest is XP is fine in a RPG, quest/kill is fine in every other RPG. Anyway that is a different discussion.

 

[Infinitron]

That said, I think you could still do a no-combat-XP game centered around combat if there were other - consistent - rewards coming from combat. New armor, new spells, weapons, etc. It's just generally weaker since you won't always be getting better things, whereas XP is pretty binary in either you get it and progress, or you don't and simply don't. It also drives into the narrative path that your avatars are already badasses, they just new sharper, sturdier things to be better badasses. The only thing between them and defeating the great evil isn't a natural progression in their skills, but a progression in their equipment and knowledge of the setting's peoples and the things they needed doing. They were born badasses, they just needed a way to show it. Kinda fucking silly, obviously, and the more I think about it the sillier it gets.

Ah, but the reason why combat XP is good but "combat loot" is acceptable is precisely because it's not consistent.

I think everybody was awed by ANARCHID's big wall of text, but he didn't really say anything objectively profound. Would not brofist.

 

[Bubbles]

It's not a wall of text if it has regular paragraph breaks.

 

[DraQ]

Still a reward for clearing maps.

*WHY* should there be a reward for clearing maps in the first place?

The player is free to flee or simply stop and still keep what they have already earned, thats already more freedom than current PoE system allows.

That's the price of abstraction. In a kill XP system you still don't get to keep "what you have already earned", if you're fighting one or few powerful enemies and are forced to flee despite doing considerable damage, even though it should be a learning experience.

If you want simulationism, take use-based system - you fight with sword, you get better at sword fighting, you cast illusion spells, you get better at illusion magic. It allows you to truly keep "what you have already earned" too, even if you failed to kill an enemy, before being forced to flee.

If you take an abstract XP system where your gains allow you to increase character's overall performance at everything or freely pick the abilities to improve, its only fitting that the "advancement currency" is also gained in a similarly abstract manner.

It's clear that PoE advancement system isn't particularly simulationist, so trying to maintain reward structure that would nevertheless motivate realistic behaviour (AKA not stabbing shit for absolutely no reason) is the next best thing.

oh noes he killed the imaginary creatures made up of pixels on the screen!11 Doing it wrong! etc etc etc

Do you have some sort of mental impairment?

The idea is that in the final version you can only enter a dungeon if you have the quest, or if the quest giver is right next to the door.

No! No! No! No!
Are you actively trying to misunderstand things or does it just happen to you?
Of course you should be able to enter in any case and do whatever you desire. You'd still get the XP for reaching the loot room (assuming that is the overall goal of the dungeon). You would just not get any additional reward from the mayor or whoever has an interest in you clearing the dungeon.

I think that playing (for example) Morrowind and taking notes on how doing quests out of order is handled there would clear up a lot of confusion and mental confusion in kill XP junkies.

Long story short there is no reason, technical or otherwise, why you shouldn't get your goal XP reward either when you achieve the given goal (regardless of whether you have started the quest) or the moment you start the quest/turn it in if you had some of the goals completed (unknowingly) beforehand.

For extra flexibility you could have critical path "winding" - the moment you accomplish a goal on quest's critical path, the game checks if you have been rewarded for all the presumed prerequisite goals and applies the rewards, while disabling those goals if you haven't - this way game could accommodate even solutions that are more out of the box than presumed possible.

I'm not saying that every combat encounter should be mandatory, or that it should be the only solution to every quest. We do already know that combat in general will be mandatory to finish the game, though. Designing an RPG where combat is only one of many play-styles is a huge additional undertaking that is outside of the scope of PoE. A combat-ready party is the way you're going to play this game, and this idea is reinforced by Josh's "no useless builds" philosophy. It's not an RPG where you have the option to kill lots of thing; it's an RPG where you do kill lots of things.

Now, that being the case, should it be highly encouraged? My answer is, absolutely yes. I'm going to replace 'should combat always be highly encouraged' with 'should there be an inherent reward for combat' since we're talking about XP. And to head off the inevitable: no, "fun" doesn't count. "Fun" is the result of good game design, it is not an ingredient in and of itself. I mean strictly a gameplay mechanics reward.

Fully disagreed.

1. Designed playstyles are only a subset of all viable playstyles. Even if you design how players may play your game you don't know how they will play your game.

2. No other genre regardless of its focus on combat needs this kind of systemic reward drip.

3. Systemically rewarding combat lessens the depth of tactical/strategic calculus involved in game. "should I kill X assuming that I can handle it?" stops being a decision and becomes a mechanical imperative, at least for a player wanting to play the *game* part of your game effectively.

If the fundamental challenge of the game is combat encounters, I believe the reward structure should be integrated into that. Otherwise you have a broken gameplay loop, where completing the most basic gameplay segment (a combat encounter) has no purpose by itself, other than progressing to the next bit of content. It divorces the meta-game of character development and narrative progression from the minute-to-minute gameplay.

Not any more than it is already divorced in kill XP systems where development only occurs once you have amassed sizable chunk of XP.
As for the narrative, not only is it mainly determined by the content itself, but goal XP only handles it better because:

1. It's usually natural to tie character growth to narrative tension which is better accomplished by tying it to quests (should Bilbo get XP for his brush with Smaug?).

2. Kill XP can often break the narrative-mechanical connection, for example if the player character that is supposed to be captured by bunch of lowly ruffians spent his sweet time popping bears in the wilderness and is now level 24. Goal only XP allows for finer control over character progression which inherently narrative friendly.

Bringing up other genres just muddies the waters. Other games have other designs. In most action games there are no progression mechanics. Usually there aren't even long-term resources or a persistent economy that spans the entire game (as opposed to being contained to one level or section). Reward structures are different.

That doesn't change that action games somehow don't need to resort to artificial dopamine IV to keep player interested.
If your combat can't keep player interested (even with sweet loot or chunk of content just around the corner as motivator), then you simply have shitty combat and probably shouldn't be making games.

A lot of games, including a lot of RPGs, don't have combat as their core gameplay like PoE does. Stealth games, tactical shooters, platformers, adventure games, etc... are all good for different reasons and require totally different priorities.

So what you say is that tactical shooters are already too monocled by cRPG standards and cRPGs should strive to be more like Doom instead?

Kill XP could be used for increasing stuff that increases in combat veterans.

Not even that, just being in combat, or even situation where there is high risk of combat if you screw up should increase that stuff, so kill XP doesn't work even as that.
(You could argue for some sort of kill XP specifically removing maluses against killing shit, and especially other people, though).

Why does there have to be a small "get here to get XP" spot? Why can't the spot be big? Why can't it be a more intelligent system that detects, say, if you've seen X% of the map, or seen Y% of the monsters on the map, or stuff like that? Or if you're in a dungeon, you could get XP for getting from one room to the next. You're being too narrow minded in what is possible.

Food for your thoughts:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...fic-knowledge-based-system.35973/#post-886816

However, it does seem like PoE is very very combat centric and in that case I do agree that you might as well have kill xp. If it weren't so combat-centric then the case would be different.

Even in a combat centric game with a combat centric system deciding whether or not engaging in combat with something is worth it or just stupid risk and waste of time and resources can be relevant gameplay aspects.

Kill XP breaks it with metagame incentive.

 

[sser]

The mega-party getting captured by ruffians is a writing flaw, a suspension of the suspension of disbelief, if you will.


I don't see why the systems have to be one or the other, particularly when you have a party-based game.

If you'd like to match narratives to both learning from solving quests and actually fighting, why not develop something that rewards both? Just a thought: what about a system that had fighters learning more from combat, thus leveling up faster "in the field", but taking less XP from quest solutions. The corollary would be that intelligence-based characters would earn less in the field, but take in more XP when turning in quests, reflecting the fact that they have to 'dwell' on what they've learned to truly gain use out of it. This would also introduce a dynamic where some types of characters level in a slow-burn sort of way, while others are an a-ha! lightbulb type. I mean, if we're talking narrative dissonance, the swordfighter finding out who stole someone's pig isn't going to make him handier with the blade, and an aged greybeard wizard blasting a goblin with a magic missile isn't exactly going to teach the old dog new tricks.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

There's a dungeon with 5 monsters guarding an objective. Killing the monsters nets 20xp each, entering and exiting the monsters field of view in sneak nets 20xp each (no repeats), and convincing someone to show you a secret passage past the monsters gives you 100xp.

I convince the person to show me the passage for 100, then sneak past the monsters for another 100, then I kill them all for another 100.

Whose business is it that I do shit like that?

Why does this feel like roleplayers trying to force me to roleplay?


Edit: I read that again and realised it was a little confusing. In that dungeon, sticking to your role would get you 100xp, people like me would net 300xp.

It feels like it's forcing me to play like the roleplayers to have the xp limited and doled out.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

And fuck off telling me I should be roleplaying in an RPG.

I do roleplay, but in my head, when I'm going to sleep or alone. I use the material from games in my fantasies, but I don't roleplay in the game itself.

 

[Infinitron]

Are you drunkposting

 

[Lhynn]

stuff

Your thoughts are both reasonable and interesting. But the problem is, they simply fail to connect to reality, the whole system feels off, it makes combat pointless, it systemically rewards players for doing as they are told. You say exp-per kill removes the choice to spare the enemy, but this is a fucking lie, it just tempts you not to do it, but i spared mulahey and i wasnt even thinking about the exp or the loot.

Fact is the old system gave us a choice, this one removes any meaning to it. The old system trusted the player, this one doesnt.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

Are you drunkposting

I read a comment somewhere that said that there were two types of CRPG fans, roleplayers and rollplayers. Which means some people like getting into character and shit, some treat it more a like game. Roleplayers accuse rollplayers of being part of the reason why they can't get a good CRPG.

Some games seem to satisfy both groups, but from what I understand about the direction Sawyer wants to take PoE, Sawyer has decided that rollplayers are the enemy. I think that's very unfair.

 

[Nihiliste]

To me in an ideal world there wouldn't be generic kill XP, but you shouldn't be forced to grind fedex sidequests either to reach max level, because lets be fair, that sucks too.

I think in my ideal version of a game like this you would
a) get xp for completing quests as opposed to generic combat
b) make sure quests are not restricted to the banal variety; for example entering the windspear hills and being forced to kill Ajantis' party triggers the Firkraag quest, you didn't have to get sent from town if I recall. Exploration should trigger the quest systemically in the game when you initiate activities in a certain area, you shouldn't always have to have a guy telling you go do x and y.
c) for extremely long areas or multipart quests (e.g. the Cult of the Unseeing Eye), perhaps XP rewards can come in stages - small percentages could be offered as certain quest goals are reached, with the lion's share coming at the end. This can give people a sense of progression on a more micro scale since people seem to desire it
d) there should be many more quests available than are needed to reach max level, and to me, there should be many more quests than one would realistically complete in one playthrough
e) certain quests could be gated based on past actions, race, class, attributes, party composition, etc

I've only given this about 5 minutes of though and I know this would require an immense amount of time to create enough content density while developers work with a limited schedule and budget. But that's kind of along the lines of the direction I would have gone with a BG2-esque game with that type of immense quest density. This would also require designing of high level gameplay that doesn't completely trivialize the later stages of the game since players could decide to grind quests and reach high levels earlier, but personally I think that needs to be a goal anyways, to preserve the fun of the endgame.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

stuff

Your thoughts ... simply fail to connect to reality.

Exactly. We are talking about games here . DraQ, what do you mean "Why should there be a reward?". Also name one RPG, where it is a tough choice whether to engage in combat or not. Are we discussing some kind of pefect RPG in theory?

 

[mastroego]

There's a dungeon with 5 monsters guarding an objective. Killing the monsters nets 20xp each, entering and exiting the monsters field of view in sneak nets 20xp each (no repeats), and convincing someone to show you a secret passage past the monsters gives you 100xp.

I convince the person to show me the passage for 100, then sneak past the monsters for another 100, then I kill them all for another 100.

Whose business is it that I do shit like that?

Why does this feel like roleplayers trying to force me to roleplay?

Exactly.
If you really want to discourage this kind of behavior, you may try to bring into the game some kind of moral consequences for killing stuff when there's no reason (well, monsters may be dangerous to others).
But removing the XP reward, while arbitrarily selecting other kinds of victories that are "worthy" of XP reward, is a limitation for the player and ultimately makes no sense.
Especially in combat-oriented games...

 

[Raghar]

There's a dungeon with 5 monsters guarding an objective. Killing the monsters nets 20xp each, entering and exiting the monsters field of view in sneak nets 20xp each (no repeats), and convincing someone to show you a secret passage past the monsters gives you 100xp.

I convince the person to show me the passage for 100, then sneak past the monsters for another 100, then I kill them all for another 100.

Whose business is it that I do shit like that?

Why does this feel like roleplayers trying to force me to roleplay?

This is how I played DX:HR. Welcome to the club.

 

[Maiandros]

[ before you continue disassembling the very same engine, as if its bolts might have changed overnight, you might want to consider just why some 40-odd years later (counting PnPs) you are STILL finding it a fucking necessity to use /improve upon it, or not use one at all.

- you tied "progress", as in conceptually, not tangibly, to killing. Not solely, no, but killing. It is a huge part of it.

- you tied said killing to an equasion that a-priori, no critical thinking on this allowed, entails random fucking variables such as a stupid script throwing a fucking RNG to determine whether you are good at it or not
(because randomly generated numbers are too important to be left to chance)

- you tied all outcomes of this non-user intellect based equasion, it being the killing, to looting.
(won't even go at what it implies, finding enjoyment in something that is consciously centered around accumulation)
(and it became a trend. One unimaginative little monkey thought hey, carrot in corridor, it worked, and eeeeveryone and their mommy stuck with it. Because who needs variation, novelty, diversity anyway. The motherfuckers pay to chace the cheese within scroll wheels. If only the hamsters too had moneyz, why we'd all be vacationing in Space. Hello Richard, lol)

aaaaand here you are, discussing what? the appropriate torque with which to tie the bolts down. Because that will solve it. Uh huh, sure;
let us exemplify by quoting someone from this very thread:
"so its true i dont get xp for killing random mobs? if yes than thats fucking retarded and i doubt i will do anything but rush the main quest"

...you get my point?... they took his cheese away, whatever shit substitutes for his grey matter shut down. Switch turned off, good night ]

If Josh thinks (to keep it strictly on the OP topic) that he can handle setting/mechanics/story-player action blending in such a way so as to not need the XP carrot on each and every mob, great to hear. Really. In fact, the less the merrier.
Even if he doesn't pull it off, it still is a sound way to go. You are not fucking morons, you are there because you (supposedly) are having fun, are in a desire to explore, to see how far the AI can be taken prior to it breaking, to test your wacky sub-optimal (there is always one Josh, sorry) build, to do things you can't in RL, to escape..and so on.. what is wrong with that? If it's done right, i don't need an incentive to look under every cranny, i would have been doing this anyway, regardless. In fact, what happened to de-motivating the player from certain actions, or at the least appearing to, leaving that extra little tidbit only for the persistent/dedicated to find? Myself, i like that. We call it earning it.

And although this is a topic far more broad, the above also dictate to me that maybe it is high time to diff-e-fucking-rentiate between a game having killing/slashnhacking and a game having RP ^^

 

[Zombra]

Jesus Christ I am burned out on this thread. I made the mistake of joining the same conversation on the Obsidian board too and my caring center just collapsed. See you guys in a few days. Maybe. Carry on the good fight DraQ.