The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[imweasel]

Sometimes it makes sense to reward the player with XP for combat and sometimes it doesn't, it depends on the game, how it is designed and how the designer wants you to play it.

• Shadowrun Returns doesn't reward you for combat, but it also forces you to kill practically everything on a run. You get XP for exploring and finding stuff too though. Does combat XP make sense in this game? Not really, it would just convolute the design for something that you get no matter what. -Verdict: Not retarded

• In Torment: Tides of Numenera there aren't any trash mobs. You get XP for exploring and completing objectives. Torment is driven by the narrative, so peaceful and violent solutions to completing objectives are rewarded accordingly depending on how you want to roleplay. -Verdict: Not retarded

• In Skyrim (this one is for DraQ) you also get XP for combat (well swinging your sword or casting fireballs, but that is besides the point) and doing stuff. The game isn't good, but at least Todd Howard rewards the player for doing stuff, which is honorable. Verdict: Not retarded

• In Pillars of Eternity the best way to play the game is to just beeline your way to your destination, because doing anything else under any circumstance doesn't make any sense. You do get resources from combat, but combat also costs just as many resources. The game does not force you to kill anything either in practically every single situation, unless you fuck up sneaking. In that case you might as well just hit F9 and reload. I am not sure who thought it would be a great idea to make a tactical combat game where the combat is absolutely pointless, but whoever is responsible for this bullshit design (it might have been forced upon Sawyer) should pack up their shit and leave the gaming industry. It might have been OK if it was pitched as an isometric stealth game or something, but it wasn't, it was pitched as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. -Verdict: Completely and utterly fucking retarded. What makes it even more retarded is that you only get XP for quests and NOTHING else. So it's DOUBLE completely and utterly fucking retarded.

If you think that rewarding combat with XP never or always makes sense in every single RPG, then you are an idiot. Funny thing is I am seeing A LOT more proponents of the former (never reward combat with XP) than the latter. BTW the argument that a player should always be able completely avoid combat in every combat oriented RPG is just as retarded demanding that a player should always be able to skip the racing in a racing game.

Case closed.

 

[Lhynn]

^Couldnt agree more. Current XP mechanics go against everything the game is trying to evoke, it is a retarded design decision and should be fixed.

Other games could use this xp reward structure and make it work, like DX:HR should fucking have done it.

 

[tyrannosaurus rex]

• In Pillars of Eternity the best way to play the game is to just beeline your way to your destination, because doing anything else under any circumstance doesn't make any sense. You do get resources from combat, but combat also costs just as many resources. The game does not force you to kill anything either in practically every single situation, unless you fuck up sneaking. In that case you might as well just hit F9 and reload. I am not sure who thought it would be a great idea to make a tactical combat game where the combat is absolutely pointless, but whoever is responsible for this bullshit design (it might have been forced upon Sawyer) should pack up their shit and leave the gaming industry. It might have been OK if it was pitched as an isometric stealth game or something, but it wasn't, it was pitched as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. -Verdict: Completely and utterly fucking retarded. What makes it even more retarded is that you only get XP for quests and NOTHING else. So it's DOUBLE completely and utterly fucking retarded.

.

No it's just an infinity successor with alternative ways to complete quests and some dose of reactivity + C&C.

The pitch was a game to bring out the best of Icewind Dale, Torment and Baldur's Gate.

Do you just want a Icewind Dale 3 you dense motherfucker?

 

[imweasel]

No it's just an infinity successor with alternative ways to complete quests and some dose of reactivity + C&C.

The pitch was a game to bring out the best of Icewind Dale, Torment and Baldur's Gate.

Do you just want a Icewind Dale 3 you dense motherfucker?

'Sup Josh.

 

[sbb]

Sick rebuttal

 

[Ignatius Reilly]

I just recall that in BG2, you'd get like 22,000 XP for killing a lich (the most you can get for a single enemy) but then a whopping 416,000 XP for completing the entire Cult of the Eyeless quest, so with that in mind, it's not a big deal to me. I mean, with that kind of discrepancy, the lich may as well have been zero. And besides you didn't kill that lich for the XP, but for the bad ass Ring of Gaxx. PE follows the same design principles, they've just decided to go all the way with it.

http://mikesrpgcenter.com/bgate2/bestiary/k-m.html

http://mikesrpgcenter.com/bgate2/subquests.html#eyeless

 

[Mangoose]

• In Pillars of Eternity the best way to play the game is to just beeline your way to your destination, because doing anything else under any circumstance doesn't make any sense. You do get resources from combat, but combat also costs just as many resources. The game does not force you to kill anything either in practically every single situation, unless you fuck up sneaking. In that case you might as well just hit F9 and reload. I am not sure who thought it would be a great idea to make a tactical combat game where the combat is absolutely pointless, but whoever is responsible for this bullshit design (it might have been forced upon Sawyer) should pack up their shit and leave the gaming industry. It might have been OK if it was pitched as an isometric stealth game or something, but it wasn't, it was pitched as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. -Verdict: Completely and utterly fucking retarded. What makes it even more retarded is that you only get XP for quests and NOTHING else. So it's DOUBLE completely and utterly fucking retarded.

.

No it's just an infinity successor with alternative ways to complete quests and some dose of reactivity + C&C.

The pitch was a game to bring out the best of Icewind Dale, Torment and Baldur's Gate.

Do you just want a Icewind Dale 3 you dense motherfucker?

The problem is that it doesn't bring out much from Torment. If it did then the issue would be different.

 

[Zetor]

I just recall that in BG2, you'd get like 22,000 XP for killing a lich (the most you can get for a single enemy) but then a whopping 416,000 XP for completing the entire Cult of the Eyeless quest, so with that in mind, it's not a big deal to me. I mean, with that kind of discrepancy, the lich may as well have been zero. And besides you didn't kill that lich for the XP, but for the bad ass Ring of Gaxx. PE follows the same design principles, they've just decided to go all the way with it.

http://mikesrpgcenter.com/bgate2/bestiary/k-m.html

http://mikesrpgcenter.com/bgate2/subquests.html#eyeless

Kill XP got really out of hand near the end -- I just replayed BG1+BG2+TOB, and kill xp probably outpaced quest xp for me in TOB. Even some random mooks were worth 10k+ xp each, and there were encounters where you were killing huge numbers of them.

e: also, during the cult of the eyeless quest, you were probably clearing out the sewers with that mid-level adventuring party (~50k xp), killing all those wraiths/ghosts (~30k xp), killing about 12 beholders/gauths total (conservative estimate since I killed a lot more in SCS, but let's say ~100k xp), a bunch of yuan-ti and undead in the undercity as well as a lot of undead in the pit (mummies are 3k a pop, skel warriors are 4k apiece, let's say that's about 40k xp), and probably some more stuff I'm forgetting, like the rakshasa in the sewers (8k), random low-xp critters that add up to a few thousand, not to mention the cultists worth thousands of xp each...

 

[mastroego]

I just recall that in BG2, you'd get like 22,000 XP for killing a lich (the most you can get for a single enemy) but then a whopping 416,000 XP for completing the entire Cult of the Eyeless quest, so with that in mind, it's not a big deal to me.

In an average BG2 playthrough you get about HALF of your total XPs directly from monsters kills.

 

[baturinsky]

Combat XP is a cheap, but effective way to make player happy and willing to go on. Constant encouragement is what we miss in real life and what we seek in games. In modern civilised life gap between action and reward is too big - you get paycheck once per month, you get increase in paycheck once in a year or more, etc. But instinct wants fast reward: see elk, kill elk, eat elk. See berry - pick berry - eat berry. See girl - club girl, drag girl to your cave, etc. Now people don't have that simplicity, so they have refugee in games. Or shopping.

 

[Declinator]

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

I haven't read the thread and this has likely already been noted, but Styg has implemented an interesting approach for Underrail with the oddity approach. I dig it.

Oh yes, this. I came here to mention the same thing. It's just brilliant. Why hasn't it been done before? Why aren't more RPGs doing it?

It's so liberating if you're a powergaming junkie. You can stop viewing every encounter as "how will I get the most exp out of this?" You can stop doing unnecessary things like needlessly disarming a roomful of traps because "muh xp". It really rewards the outcome rather than how you got there. Not to mention it makes exploring even more addictive enjoyable and oddities can be a convenient way to flesh out the background lore of a game world.

Underrail is not merely bringing us back to pre-decline times, it's actively improving CRPG gameplay mechanics.

Aren't the oddities essentially the same as Cyber Modules in SS2?

 

[Copper]

Or Crackdown's experience orbs - I had some nice dumb fun exploring for agility orbs there, kicking my way to super strength.

 

[baturinsky]

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.

Oh yes, this. I came here to mention the same thing. It's just brilliant. Why hasn't it been done before? Why aren't more RPGs doing it?

It's essentially a level cap linked to plot advancement. It was done in Chrono Cross, for example.

Other examples: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiGrinding

 

[epeli]

Aren't the oddities essentially the same as Cyber Modules in SS2?

I have no idea what you're talking about

Spoiler

On a more serious note: Not really, as SS2's cybernetic modules are mainly awarded linearly with plot progress. Since SS2 has a fairly linear plot, it's not something I would compare with open world RPG when talking about character advancement. If you could only find cyber modules as loot and also gained them by finding audio logs and researching items, that would be closer to how oddities work. But in the end your character advancement would still be limited by the linear plot progression.

Oddities can be an alternative standalone XP system or a part of a hybrid system where you gain XP from actions including combat. Underrail has both as an option. You have play it to get a feel how well the oddity-only system works. Just like in classic CRPG systems, you get that constant sense of reward from oddities you find plus interesting tidbits of lore or the occasional easter egg. It just gives you the freedom of not metagaming every event for optimal XP without making you feel like you're purposefully playing poorly.

It's essentially a level cap linked to plot advancement. It was done in Chrono Cross, for example.

Other examples: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiGrinding

But it's not a hard cap linked to plot advancement like in Chrono Cross. It's open ended just like "normal" XP systems. Oddities aren't directly tied to plot events, boss fights, quests or anything like that. It's a world full of them. The more of the game world you see, the more different oddities you find. How/when you find them and which ones you find is up to your playstyle and character's skills. Most of the time have the option of saying "fuck the plot" and visiting higher level areas to get ahead of the XP curve.

It's definitely anti-grinding though, since you can study any single type of oddity only a dozen times at most. But most other antigrinding measures are either diminishing combat XP gains or hard caps linked to plot advancement.

 

[AN4RCHID]

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.

Flawed premise. The rest of your post may look elaborated to the clueless morons who brofisted you but that's not getting past me.

-Rewarding combat generates more combat. If combat is the only approach that will consistently get you to the end of the game you want to maximize that.

-Then you can scrap the non combat approaches. Skipping the XP rewards, which boost the only consistent solution to the game, will be frustrating.

-Your game becomes a combat centric game. And then you have a pseudo RPG a la Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate.


It works the opposite way. XP rewards for combat works well in a game where you can completely avoid combat. You don't need the essential boost the XP provides to combat efficiency.

And then you can have a true RPG.

 

[tyrannosaurus rex]

Nice rebuttal faggot

 

[Lhynn]

Nice rebuttal faggot

There is nothing to answer, you are shitposting and hes letting you know.

 

[coldcrow]

I'd suggest something like XP tied to different aspects, e.g. combat, social, tinkering, thievery etc. So XP awarded by killing critters should go only to your spending pool towards combat related aspects. So after alot of grinding vs. random enemies your character will end up as a fighting machine (as it should). To expand this its academic and social abilities should detoriate by spending only combat XP. This would lead to true specialization and still allow for grinding/exploiting the system.
A well designed gameworld would be a necessity though, providing challenges for all character aspects.

 

[tyrannosaurus rex]

Nice rebuttal faggot

There is nothing to answer, you are shitposting and hes letting you know.

No he's disagreeing with me and use a cheap tactic to avoid arguing with that.

''Ololol he's saying Icewind Dale 2 is a pseudo RPG let me post le meme R u serious I will get de brofits''.

Hey do you know how much are assertions and ad hominems worth in a debate moron?

 

[Lhynn]

Nice rebuttal faggot

There is nothing to answer, you are shitposting and hes letting you know.

No he's disagreeing with me and use a cheap tactic to avoid arguing with that.

''Ololol he's saying Icewind Dale 2 is a pseudo RPG let me post le meme R u serious I will get de brofits''.

Hey do you know how much are assertions and ad hominems worth in a debate moron?

Well, a fallacy is better than outright lying, isnt it?

-Rewarding combat generates more combat. If combat is the only approach that will consistently get you to the end of the game you want to maximize that.

Fucking lie. see fallout. Combat rewarded you with a lot more than it does in IE games, and claiming that people only played combat centric characters in fallout is about as fucking retarded as you can get.

-Then you can scrap the non combat approaches. Skipping the XP rewards, which boost the only consistent solution to the game, will be frustrating.

More lying. again, see fallout. You dont need to scrap non combat aproaches, you only need to open new possibilities for those that do take them instead of asigning the exact same xp and the exact same reward (fucking boring and lazy if you ask me). I cant believe you are so fucking close minded ffs.

-Your game becomes a combat centric game. And then you have a pseudo RPG a la Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate.

More bullshit, fucking again, see fallout, a combat centric (Combat was THE solution to most problems) game that allowed for a myriad of aproaches.

It works the opposite way. XP rewards for combat works well in a game where you can completely avoid combat. You don't need the essential boost the XP provides to combat efficiency.

You can avoid combat in PoE, and you should! why wouldnt you, its a fucking waste of time right now, unless someone happens to need something dead, NPCs hold the key to level ups mang, do favors to them and they give you levels in return.
You are fucking yourself for playing anything other than Yes-Man.

And then you can have a true RPG.

I cannot believe you said that

 

[crufty]

I'd suggest something like XP tied to different aspects, e.g. combat, social, tinkering, thievery etc. So XP awarded by killing critters should go only to your spending pool towards combat related aspects. So after alot of grinding vs. random enemies your character will end up as a fighting machine (as it should). To expand this its academic and social abilities should detoriate by spending only combat XP. This would lead to true specialization and still allow for grinding/exploiting the system.
A well designed gameworld would be a necessity though, providing challenges for all character aspects.

ala the bethesda approach; in all honesty i think it works for those kinds of games.

What I like about level based games are the abstractions that are bundled into it, and XP is part and parcel to that. Part of combat XP could be the alignment impacts of combat results.

When a PC completes a task, be it--killing a pillaging orc, murdering the barkeep, or opening a door--does the successful action have any effect on alignment based macro objectives? a net increase in alignment, or a net decrease? I know I fall into the trap of XP=challenge, but really, XP could be nothing more then a character's progress towards alignment goals from the perspective of the player.

Sticking to a simple LG/CE alignment, should a good mage who wanders into a wood get XP for slaughtering wolves? The ancient DM in me says...yes...but...it would be much more devious to hand out 0 XP but shift the alignment down the CE axis. When alignment is in the negative, wandering out and slaughtering packs of wildlife...yeah, I can see XP for that.

The same LG mage kills a goblin--minor impact, small XP. Slays an ancient liche? major impact, great XP reward. Naturally you get to the alignment traps--the rare 'good' goblin is mowed down by a PC. Here, hand out XP as usual, and then when the PC finds out later--XP deduction, alignment hit. heheh.

Obviously this dovetails into "what is alignment/reptuation/fame/honor" etc and the difficulty of constructing a bug-free expert system to measure and award.

 

[Nikaido]

If I wanted a game without combat, I'd play a visual novel. Since RPG inherently feature combat as a part of the game, and since XP is related to your power in combat, it only makes sense that combat should reward you with XP. Why in the hell should you get stronger by being a YesMan to NPCs and not from actual combat experience?

Why would you even bother trying to make a decent combat system if you encourage skipping as much of the combat as possible.
The TES had a decent idea for progression systems (better than XP=levelled=distribute points randomly no matter what was the source of said XP) with a terribly flawed execution (like training non combat skills and ending up with a world scaled to a higher level of combat abilities every time you did). But it was a good start, in the right direction. It's on the deep end of the spectrum, with PoE being on the other end (the retarded part of the spectrum). I find the idea of being nothing more than a quest NPC lapdog who skips all combat that isn't relevant to a quest to be revolting. And counter to the feeling of adventuring through the land and dungeons.

 

[Zombra]

You can avoid combat in PoE, and you should! why wouldnt you, its a fucking waste of time right now, unless someone happens to need something dead, NPCs hold the key to level ups mang, do favors to them and they give you levels in return.
You are fucking yourself for playing anything other than Yes-Man.

Quick question. I don't have beta access. Are ALL quests issued by NPCs on a "do this job for me" type basis? It seems weird that the writing would be that one-note.

It also bears mentioning that the main quest isn't in the beta, and that will probably not be some guy hiring you to fold 10 pairs of underwear for him ... it will probably be a story driven by the needs of the protagonist.

But I do agree that quest xp only does encourage the player to want to do things for people. I don't see it as a bad thing, but I can understand how some might.

OK OK. Going to try not to get deep in this damn thread again. I just thought that was an interesting point.

 

[tyrannosaurus rex]

Well, a fallacy is better than outright lying, isnt it?

That's right you strawnmaning piece of shit.

More lying. again, see fallout. You dont need to scrap non combat aproaches, you only need to open new possibilities for those that do take them instead of asigning the exact same xp and the exact same reward (fucking boring and lazy if you ask me). I cant believe you are so fucking close minded ffs.

But that's what I've been saying you fucking illiterate moron. Except PoE is not one of those games where there is always a non combat solution. It's in between and combat and being combat ready will be necessary in a great deal of the game. With combat XP you just don't want to go for the occasional non combat solution, unless said solution rewards your combat capability just as much.

It works the opposite way. XP rewards for combat works well in a game where you can completely avoid combat. You don't need the essential boost the XP provides to combat efficiency.

Sawyer won't change that. It's already over now and for balance purposes,he must give an incentive NOT to run around exterminating everything that can yield XP.

its a fucking waste of time right now

No kidding it's a closed Beta which is more like a system/engine test than anything.

You can avoid combat in PoE, and you should! why wouldnt you, its a fucking waste of time right now, unless someone happens to need something dead, NPCs hold the key to level ups mang, do favors to them and they give you levels in return.
You are fucking yourself for playing anything other than Yes-Man.

You get the potential loot. Combat may also be the simpler, faster solution in many cases. It all depends on quest designs. It can yield the better results in the end to if it comes to gold and loot. The player can judge and estimate which approach might be more profitable, which is great.

You are fucking yourself for playing anything other than Yes-Man.

You always had to be somewhat of a Yes-man in every RPGs to trigger the quests, which are just necessary to trigger most of the combat encounters and access to areas. Not the mention being forced to be one for the main quest.
If we're speaking about the end of the quest, to trigger the reward, that's just up to the quest design. The game just has to consider several alternative path for the quest and when to reward you for going through one of them. The end doesn't have to be triggered when you go back to the villager after having followed his orders to the letter.



I admit the compromise is shitty. If you allow non combat approaches, make them a full fledged approach to the main game because otherwise, as the game goes on, it will be impossible for the player to progress if he has skipped the violent solutions too often.
That said, players should be kicked in the balls sometimes if they always go for combat regardless of the situation, just as much as if you behave like a sycophant to evade the smallest confrontation. Because that makes sense story wise and forces them to think things through and pay attention to what's happenin..

I cannot believe you said that

The more alternatives the player is presented with, the more he can get through with his intuition instead of following a canned progression, the closer you get to a proper roleplaying experience.

 

[Lhynn]

You are fucking yourself for playing anything other than Yes-Man.

You always had to be somewhat of a Yes-man in every RPGs to trigger the quests, which are just necessary to trigger most of the combat encounters and access to areas. Not the mention being forced to be one for the main quest.
If we're speaking about the end of the quest, to trigger the reward, that's just up to the quest design. The game just has to consider several alternative path for the quest and when to reward you for going through one of them. The end doesn't have to be triggered when you go back to the villager after having followed his orders to the letter.

I admit the compromise is shitty. If you allow non combat approaches, make them a full fledged approach to the main game because otherwise, as the game goes on, it will be impossible for the player to progress if he has skipped the violent solutions too often.
That said, players should be kicked in the balls sometimes if they always go for combat regardless of the situation, just as much as if you behave like a sycophant to evade the smallest confrontation. Because that makes sense story wise and forces them to think things through and pay attention to what's happening.

Listen to me, combat without xp reward in this sort of games doesnt feel like combat, more like a tacked on minigame that is meaningless, and worthless, even if fun. It soon becomes a chore, because it doesnt help your progression, only hinders it. This thing takes away the meaning behind it, and its the main fucking activity in the game. Do you not see what is wrong with that?

Yeah, you can get some materials, and maybe some items to help you along, but im no better for beating the archdemon than i was before beating the archdemon, only difference is that i now have a magical sword with +10% resist to charms on mondays afternoon and +5% bleed damage, woopty fucking doo. Which brings me to itemization, josh killed cool items, he literally turned them into a bunch of stats. Yeah, yeah, ill get xp after telling Sir Richard XP that the dude he wanted dead is dead, but im not growing stronger by the act of slaying the beast, im growing stronger by the act of talking to an npc that tells the game it should reward me because the one that made the game says so.

The difference is that with the old system you earned that xp, with the new one, sir checkpoint gives it to you.

Kinda reminds me of NWN prologue, at one point an NPC literally gave you a level. I thought that moment was so lame...

I cannot believe you said that

The more alternatives the player is presented with, the more he can get through with his intuition instead of following a canned progression, the closer you get to a proper roleplaying experience.

Well, i dont like being presented with alternatives, that in itself feels like canned progression, rather have the alternatives just be there and let me figure out they exist (sadly this is so fucking rare), thus i really dont give a fuck, as long as its an enjoyable ride. What is a proper roleplaying experience? because if you ask gygax youll probably end up dungeon delving and fighting the cast of star wars. If you ask the guys at whitewolf youll probably end up avenging your lovers death at the hand of the vampuletos. If you ask bioware they will put you at the start of a gay romance and they give you 3 options, you either use lube, you tease you wont, or you dont. If you ask beth they will tell you to go take a hike.

Fact is fallout may be the closest to a "proper roleplaying experience" this stupid genre has ever gotten. Arcanum is a close second, but is far less enjoyable. And from what ive heard Underrail could be the next one, i need to make some room and play that game already.