The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[DragoFireheart]

And if I sneak past, then come back to talk, disable and finally kill - QUAD DAMAGE!
I mean XP.

OTOH if I get XP for getting past it, then no matter if I kill, sneak, talk, disable, hire, or pile crates to hop the fence I get muh XP once and exactly once regardless of the solution and whether or not it was predicted by the devs.

Exactly. Otherwise you get a system where a specific course of actions will reward you with the most experience, unbalancing the game and subtly pigeonholing the player into a particular play style.

I think doing things in a sort of mission based style that rates what you did at the end of a quest and then giving you experience based on that would work. Might not be viable for free roaming RPGs though.

 

[AN4RCHID]

People don't love the Fallout games and Baldur's Gate for the degree of freedom they give players? News to me. Not railroading progress != Bethesda style hiking simulator.

Why do you mention BG in one sentence with Fallout?

Black Isle games, and probably the two most relevant series regarding expectations for Eternity, along with Icewind Dale.

 

[DraQ]

People don't love the Fallout games and Baldur's Gate for the degree of freedom they give players? News to me. Not railroading progress != Bethesda style hiking simulator.

Why do you mention BG in one sentence with Fallout?

Black Isle games, and probably the two most relevant series regarding expectations for Eternity, along with Icewind Dale.

Whereas Fallout was properly constructed open world (if hotspot-centric) with no artificial restriction despite fairly structured plot, BG, at least 1, was also a game that failed any free roaming aspirations it might have had and was followed up by tighter and more controlled, but more engaging sequel that turned out more successful.

BG failed at freedom and learned its lesson to not try it again, so why expect PoE to forget that?

 

[AN4RCHID]

Baldur's Gate failed so hard that it spawned a higher budget sequel, multiple spiritual successors and a successful HD remake. Anyway, Sawyer's said that PoE will be somewhere between BG1 and BG2 in terms of openness.

 

[Immortal]

The reality is that a system your describing is very easy to abuse.. aka hard for the developers to stop you from abusing.

Not really. Well, it may be harder with infinitely re-spawning enemies, but that's lazy game design depending on the game.

Yes really.. You aren't thinking about this logically.. You are asking for 5 - 6 different solutions to every encounter in the game and want to remove the chance someone would do more then one for any given encounter at any given time (thus abusing the system). This would increase the amount of work that is needed to finish the game by a factor of 6^2 (bullshit math to prove my point) to account for all the potential state issues and bug fixing and play testing required to make sure this system works.

If it's 'easy' then I would think many developers would do it. Unless you are actually trying to say every game developer is lazy for not implementing this much detail into their encounters.

I think it would be amazing to have this level of C&C in games where every encounter meant something.. it's just not gonna happen for a long time..

With the way most games have been designed, killing is usually easier than sneaking past it.

K so no.. Invisibility is not hard to cast.. and right clicking the ground past a pack of mobs isn't hard to do..

multiple spiritual successors and a successful HD remake

Please tell me you aren't talking about the Enhanced Edition..

 

[mutonizer]

Baldur's Gate failed so hard that it spawned a higher budget sequel, multiple spiritual successors and a successful HD remake. Anyway, Sawyer's said that PoE will be somewhere between BG1 and BG2 in terms of openness.

Sounds about right, though I fear area count might be a bit low compared to even BG1 and the exterior areas we've seen so far are really small overall.

 

[FeelTheRads]

(Guess what amuses me the most here.)

I don't know. You think quotation marks are cute?

Freedom is slavery bro.

Straight line bro, you're in love with it.

Or you could remove the actual problem instead of building a bandaid tower.

There is actually no problem except with your head.

This. Adventuring != seeking random shit to kill for no reason.
The 'R' in 'RPG' stands for 'Role' not 'Retard'.

No, not this. "This" is plain stupid.
Say, in your beloved walking simulators, why do you walk? Or how do you play them? Do you ever stray from the objectives you have? If you do, then why? Isn't that retarded? How do you choose when you get to a fork in the road? Must be hell for you because both options would be equally retarded.

And it's not what we love their games for.

 

[DraQ]

Baldur's Gate failed so hard that it spawned a higher budget sequel

That dropped the pretense of allowing freeform exploration of random wilderness in favor of more tightly controlled, narrative driven gameplay presumably because of 1's overwhelming success in the area of player's freedom.

Yes really.. You aren't thinking about this logically.. You are asking for 5 - 6 different solutions to every encounter in the game and want to remove the chance someone would do more then one for any given encounter at any given time (thus abusing the system). This would increase the amount of work that is needed to finish the game by a factor of 6^2 (bullshit math to prove my point) to account for all the potential state issues and bug fixing and play testing required to make sure this system works.

The cherry on top is that for all the extra work and exploitable loopholes, the system may completely fail to reward players who actually come up with an actual clever solution, just because it's not one of the scripted valid(TM) options.

Freedom is slavery bro.

Straight line bro, you're in love with it.

So let me break it down for you:
Having a bunch of critters placed around and compelling the player to kill them whether it serves their purposes or not and whether they would feel inclined to do so or not, under the rigour of reward deprivation is freedom,
having the exact same creatures placed in the exact same way around and letting the player engage or not depending on the circumstances and their own judgement is taking this freedom away?

There is actually no problem except with your head.

Always classy. How about you address some of the problems I listed multiple times before we decide that?
Or maybe an RPG should be Simon Says where thinking out of the box to solve problems rather than taking options explicitly provided by designers is discouraged (except for illogically "solving" the same problem multiple times using different options to get all the XP, that's peachy).

No, not this. "This" is plain stupid.
Say, in your beloved walking simulators, why do you walk? Or how do you play them? Do you ever stray from the objectives you have? If you do, then why? Isn't that retarded?

No. It pays the bills, gives me useful items (including powerful uniques) or information, sometimes a quest hook and opportunity to get further loot, information, reputation and so on.

Unless you're actually implying that I wander off the beaten path specifically to find more mudcrabs to stab which I don't.

Edit:
fucking antihotlinkers, can't even find good big bro shots these days.

 

[AN4RCHID]

Baldur's Gate failed so hard that it spawned a higher budget sequel

That dropped the pretense of allowing freeform exploration of random wilderness in favor of more tightly controlled, narrative driven gameplay presumably because of 1's overwhelming success in the area of player's freedom.

K. Which game you liked better isn't really relevant to your point re: expectations for Eternity. A lot of people did like the wilderness areas in BG1, which is presumably why Sawyer is putting them in PoE.

 

[Damned Registrations]

There is no 'compulsion' to kill everything in sight unless you either enjoy killing things or are a fucking sperglord that must accrue all the xps (in a game with infinite xps no less, making this all the more retarded an argument.)

Just because something gives xps doesn't mean it's worth doing. It takes time, which could be spent to get xps some other way, ways which also do shit like give you rare loot, move the plot forward, or entertain you. Or did you sit around outside Candlekeep killing Xvarts or whatever the fuck they were called until you hit the level cap? I know I sure as fuck didn't.

 

[Lhynn]

Stop underestimating learning by doing man

Yeah, I'm sure you're a big fan of the awesome non-linearity of true RPGs like The Witcher, but when you say that an adventurer "adventuring" is stupid you pretty much have won the dunce cap.

(Guess what amuses me the most here.)

No idea, i give.

Nope, using them makes them better at using them, more precise incantations, more precise quantities of ingredients, better hand gestures, better entonation, everything tested in stressful situations. Throwing grenades makes you better at throwing grenades, but you also get to exercise your knowledge in explosives, because you can give a more precise purpose to each grenade... put them where you know it will hurt the most, because youve studied this shit. Again, tested in stressful situations.

At best this is grounds for splitting magic skills into independent battlemage skills (practical use of known spells in crisis situations - AKA throwing 'nades) and wizard skills (understanding of spells, their creation and underlying magic as well as ability to learn new ones - AKA explosives design and chemistry).

The thing that differentiates magic and 'nades is that you need the second skill to use magic at all (even if you may also need the first one to use them effectively in stressful situation without fumbling or backfiring) and you can't hone it in battle.
[/quote]
Wrong bro, you dont need to know or understand magic to cast it, you only need to know how to cast it, in what way do you throw the granade as it were ( of course the act of casting magic is incredibly more complex than throwing something, but yeah, no understanding of it is needed, not even a little bit)

Why not? why cant you learn and uncover secrets, take shortcuts and make your way into an amazing archamage in a matter of months?

For the same reason you can't go from high schooler to university professor in the matter of months. Duh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balamurali_Ambati

Goal xp is not exploit proof

It is, demonstrably. It's one of the exactly two things it does well.
Feel free to prove me wrong by showing an example of an exploit that involves neither a strawman or obvious design mistake (like having every fetch quest giev XPs).

True, properly implemented mechanics are rarely prone to exploiting, this also applies to any kind of thing in a game,

it also creates scenarios where players get stronger by running away from shit.

Not if the shit is actually doing the job of being in players' way towards objective.
Then running from shit moves you away from XPs.
Of course figuring out how to move past shit or get shit out of the way does yield XPs because it should, duh.

At this point you are contradicting yourself, either you make the combat mandatory, in which case combat xp is not really needed, or you make it optional, in which case you need a way to make those that seek challenge become stronger that those that dont, combat XP is that way.

What is an "adventurer" ? In game logic pls.
And yes, "adventuring" for no reason is all kinds of stupid.

This. Adventuring != seeking random shit to kill for no reason.
The 'R' in 'RPG' stands for 'Role' not 'Retard'.

This is true, but if you want to take the easy route you get less exp, because your characters are not learning as much about combat as they should. Its like a soccer player getting better at playing soccer by actively avoiding playing soccer. the R in Role may not mean Retard, but im starting to have my doubts about the R in dRaq.

That's akin to saying that if you didn't slaughter absolutely every living thing you came across in IE games (massacring whole towns/villages and such) it means you didn't enjoy/care about combat in those games.

Combat is contextual, XP are all the same.

And XP non olet.

Have the game react to your actions you asshole, thats how you solve the problem of degenarative gameplay, not with arbitrary restrictions and mechanics.

That's what pisses me off in proponents of "traditional" mechanics like XP or HP system - they insist on broken shit then try to clumsily fix problems that wouldn't exist without stupid and clearly broken shit in the first place. Bonus points if their fixes introduce other problems that need to be fixed as well - bandaids all the way down, man.

I dont hate on new systems and way to explore what rgs can be. PoE is simply not the game to try those things tho. D&D plays how it plays, because of its rules and systems. Sure, some tweaks are needed, but make enough changes and its going to feel like another game, and if you ordered a hamburger because you felt like eating a hamburger but you get grilled crab you are going to get mad.

That's why I have no respect for so called professional game designers.

One step forward, double flip over the railing and down the stairwell back.
It's as if they actually wore buckets on their heads.

Well, removing combat XP entirely (in a supposed BG/IWD successor) and tying character advancement solely to sidequests could be considered extreme. A more moderate way would have been say having quest XP dwarf combat XP and have certain type of enemies stop giving XP after you reach high enough of a level, the way it was in Witcher 2 for example.

Or you could remove the actual problem instead of building a bandaid tower.

The actual problem being players or NPCs of course, a game shouldnt have either. Dont be an asshole, just tie consequences to player actions, especially when it comes to notable characters in your game. Let the player decide if they want to do it or not.

What if avoiding the fight is going to be harder or more time consuming than engaging in it? What if there is no quest related to it, but some loot you can't really get while bypassing it? What if your build doesn't give you opportunity to avoid it?
Combat or lack of combat aren't goals in themselves. There are means to an end. Sometimes it's better to kill something than to have to find a detour. Sometimes it's the other way around.

Yeah, and alternatives to combat should be rewarded in different ways, not with combat-to-advance-my-combat-class-XP. Money, reputation, quests, interesting items, etc.

OTOH if I get XP for getting past it, then no matter if I kill, sneak, talk, disable, hire, or pile crates to hop the fence I get muh XP once and exactly once regardless of the solution and whether or not it was predicted by the devs.

Thats shitty, combat growth should only be possible by fighting or training. PoE classes are all combat focused, thus they should only grow by fighting.
Skyrim doesnt give quest xp and i still bother to do many of those, Xp is not candy.

 

[SarcasticUndertones]

Getting rid of combat xp...

PoE is doing this, really? It's not going to have the same feel as the old games then is it? I thought that's what they were supposed to be making.

How can you make something that feels like an old game but in a new way with such a diametrically opposite design ethos? Surely that defeats the enitre point.

Godammit.

 

[Rake]

Getting rid of combat xp...

PoE is doing this, really? It's not going to have the same feel as the old games then is it? I thought that's what they were supposed to be making.

How can you make something that feels like an old game but in a new way with such a diametrically opposite design ethos? Surely that defeats the enitre point.

Godammit.

Well, it makes avoiding combat more rewarding, and with the design PoE combat has, it's for the better.

 

[Athelas]

It allows you to stealth through the shitty combat while not missing out on XP, I don't see the problem.

 

[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.

After some more thinking and more playing games (the former especially), I feel the need to expand a bit, and possibly take back some of what I said before.

Premise 1: XP sucks as a system, but is necessary to simulate the PC's "growing up" in terms of ability and personal skills.

Premise 2: I'm just dropping a few concepts off the top of my head here, or things I've noticed in games that don't make that much sense to me.

XP works better and makes more sense when "skill-specific". Combat shouldn't share XP with Crafting or Social skills, and using a skill should only advance that specific skill rather than give a "xp voucher" to spend randomly on any skill. I will refer to random, "generic" skill in this reply, without any specific system in mind, but rather with the "typical" stats many RPG just use, (STR/STA/CON/AGI/WIS/etc).

From this standpoint, "general" XP systems become fairly pointless. For example, using a 1-handed axe should increase the axe skill and maybe the strength and stamina stats, possibly agi/dex too, to a lesser extent.

Using said axe to chop wood would increase STR/STA/DEX, along with, say, the "woodchopping" skill (or maybe the generic "woodcrafting" or maybe the "foraging" skills, whatever), while using it VS opponents would increase, as well as those stats mentioned, some specific "Axe-combat" skill. This latter skill would influence to-hit chance, crit chance, and weapon damage. Weapon-inherent damage should only have slight variations: an axe to the head is an axe to the head, no matter if it was some 3rd-hand crud or a shiny new supermegaultrapro axe 2.0.

On top of this, I stand by what I said before. Killing the same enemy over and over again should/could increase, for example, damage or crit chance VS that specific mob, and should still increase the "physical" stats at the same rate (50 axe swings are 50 axe swings, no matter what against). No xp is involved. Swinging weapons at thin air should provide no benefit (not very realistic because it should still provide a small skill increase, but necessary to avoid retarded exploiting a-la Ultima VIII, just to name one).

Killing extremely powerful or renown mobs should provide rewards t the specific skills used to kill the mob, and rather than xp, should reward "fame", which could translate into a bonus to diplomacy or discount, or more girlfriend options in town, whatever rocks your socks. Killing 50000 rats should provide leptospirosis and nothing else.

Now, I'm sorta debated about "weapon skills", as in "special moves". Honestly, I'd be happy to dump them all at once, or at least most of them, and rather work with "stances", which better express one's attitude towards combat. Some fighters are more rushy, some are more cautious, some prefer to attack first, some prefer to defend and only counterattack. Specific "moves" are inherent to one's skill with the specific weapon, and should only appear as visual fx, the more skilled with a specific weapon, the more flashy the combat will look when using that weapon.

On the other hand, some "activable" moves would be surely welcome, eg tripping, bashing, pommelling, sand-in-eyes'ing, etc. These could be in fact be part of a generic "combat" skill that would be increased by, obviously, combat, and would be weapon-independent.

Wounds and the such should definitively reflect on combat performance, too: 50% health/condition should definitively have an impact on the PC's fighting ability. Stamina/endurance should also enter the equation.

I know some games took steps in this direction, in the past, but I can't say any managed to satisfy me 100%. Not sure it's even possible.

Apologies for the randomness of the concepts expressed, it was more of a "stream of conscious" post.

 

[SarcasticUndertones]

Getting rid of combat xp...

PoE is doing this, really? It's not going to have the same feel as the old games then is it? I thought that's what they were supposed to be making.

How can you make something that feels like an old game but in a new way with such a diametrically opposite design ethos? Surely that defeats the enitre point.

Godammit.

Well, it makes avoiding combat more rewarding, and with the design PoE combat has, it's for the better.

Yep I know it can be justified dude, but I don't see why xp couldn't be given for both senarios then you could play it either way, but tbh this has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that Obsidian want to guarantee that they know what level we're at as were playing the game, it's because they can't be bothered doing proper balancing so they're going the cheap root, (also reinforced by the fact that the combat is fucking awful)

Sorry, but this is neither what was asked for, or wanted in the first place, it''s such a MASSIVE left turn in terms of design of the old games that it simply won't have the feel of them and that very thing was the whole bloody point, so who the fuck are they making it for?, not the backers that's for godamn tootin' sure, I'm REALLY fucking glad I didn't manage to back this, because it's not what they said they were producing. (Thanks for the reply Rake, comments to you end here.)

I was really looking forwards to this, I knew about the shitty combat but was willing to let it slide because 'old school'... but this isn't fucking old school. So it's all basically been bullshiit and lies ... So HERE's the thing...

OBSIDIAN, I'm sick and godamned tired of Devs getting money for certain promises, then sticking your fingers up at us and breaking your word, or changing the conditions, it's happening too often these day AND FUCKING HELL, IT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING AT ALL. It's a shitty thing to do because at the end of the day you have their money and nothing can be done, I've been burned this way myself and it's a sheer fluke of paydays that you haven't managed to burn me too.

So in the same way you're saying "FUCK YOU" to your fans, the very people who keep you in a fucking job, I'm going to say.."NO, FUCK YOU". This game was day one for me, You got your money at the time, so I saw no need to back later, and certainly saw no need just to boost the pot, you got what you asked for, let's see the game, but I was certainly buying it absolutely...

I'm fucking not now, Fuck you Obsidian I'm going to pirate it, and I'm not someone who does that on a regular basis, I buy my games because I have the money and because I only really want to play 'indie' or older/older design game (very few exceptions to that) and they all usually turn up on GOG wwhere I'm happy to pay for a product that's actually mine as opposed to rented til the servers go down... but this bullshit, I won't support this so I will be taking the game for free.. AND IF.. IF... the game is fucking excellent (your quality is 'spotty' AT BEST and you'd better pull out all the stops considering that it's fan money you're playing with, there will be no coasting with this.) despite the vomitous bullshit you are trying to pull on people who thought were told they were getting something different.. then I'll pay for it, but other that that you can kiss my arse.

I've bought most of your games in the past, I've never really though much of them but it's a small market and you take it where you can get it and my payment justifies my right to my opinion, so it's not as if, in the case, you wouldn't have had a sale anyway, your actions and bullshit have caused you not to get this sale. Think on that.

(To all the fans who are rather vocally putting up with this shit and actively supporting them going back on their word, despite that position being absolutley untenable, guys you are seriously pissing in the drinking water, the more you put up with this bullshit, the more the devs will pull this bullshit, shouldn't we be able to rely on their word at the time that they give it? Shouldn't we be able to rely on a promise full stop? It doesn't matter if you actually like the changes, the fact is they are changes, it should be dealt with on that basis, no other. I'm expecting a lot of backlash for this post and that's unfortunate, but it's more unfortunate that people are so blinded by their short term wants that they can't see the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is that Obsidian have no right to pull this shit when they've said otherwise, they're not making the game for themselves,, they're making for those who backed them, and there were certain expectation which aren't being lived up to. If I were to just walk away and not play it and not buy it, that's not really punishing anyone but myself. Although VERY SMALL, this is the only punishment for this kind of behaviour Obsidian will ever get, and they deserve something.)

 

[Norfleet]

Or did you sit around outside Candlekeep killing Xvarts or whatever the fuck they were called until you hit the level cap? I know I sure as fuck didn't.

I was actually tempted to do a thing like that, but then I realized from my knowledge of 2E, that this served no real purpose, so I bashed a wave or two and then moved on. In 2E, you didn't really radically alter or complete your character by gaining levels, unlike 3E, where your character tends to be crap until you complete his core build. But yeah, anytime I encounter a place where enemies seem to keep coming, I always bash a few waves just to see if it stops, in case I'm supposed to kill them and would otherwise be missing out on something. After about the 10th wave, unless I need to grind to complete a build, I move on, figuring that there will be better, more efficient opporunities to grind if I need it later. High-level grinding tends to pay better than low-level grinding.

 

[Dorateen]

I think the developers have it backwards. It's not combat XP that should be removed, if anything, it is Quest XP as a reward. Allow me to elborate using a very sanitized and generic illustration.

Suppose the party enters a new town and is immediately approached by a little girl asking to save her kitten stuck up a tree. Being heroic-minded and paladin-like, the party accepts the mission. But upon reaching the tree, they discover it is guarded by several tree monsters and a few feral dogs. The player has to fight through the enemies, or even devise other means such as luring them away, in order to attain the stated objective. This is what the characters should be getting experience for. Either fighting off enemies, or otherwise overcoming obstacles. In other words doing the stuff that is the experience of the quest itself.

And then when they return to the girl, perhaps they get the key to a secret treasure trove because she was really the daughter of a high-ranking official. Or the promise of an arranged marriage. It doesn't matter. Those would be material rewards the party receives for completing the quest successfully. There really is no need for additional Quest XP. The characters gained experience by actually performing the actions required for the quest.

Now if the party isn't so heroic-minded, then out of the interests of role-playing, they shouldn't be doing the quest in the first place. To do otherwise, to accept a quest soley as a source of gaining XP, why that would be degenerate gameplay. At least, in the minds of developers overly concerned with such things. I really don't care how players play their own game.

 

[baturinsky]

Giving XP for being in character is actually a very good way to encourage roleplay and tighten bond between player and character.

 

[Dorateen]

But according to the arguments in this thread, giving XP for quest rewards will only create incentives for players to complete those quests, even if it is out of character.

Keep in mind, I don't advocate removing any XP. We should have XP for kills, XP for thieving, for picking locks and scribing scrolls. XP for poisoning a mind flayer's lunch. It's the other side that wants to take one of the most critical aspects of a RPG and decide it should not yield any experience.

 

[Athelas]

You're confusing your terms. Quests aren't an activity like killing or lockpicking, they're what propel you to do that stuff. In these types of games, you're always questing. In fact, you're on a quest as soon as the game starts (the main story quest).

 

[Dorateen]

As a matter of fact, they are one and the same. And for the purposes of this discussion, both "Quests" and "Activities" are things that historically reward XP in role-playing games.

Killing and lockpicking are player actions that most certainly are among options done to accomplish the goal of a quest. And a game could even have specific quests to kill an enemy or sneak in to steal something locked in a chest. These are the things the players should be getting XP for, actually playing the game.

Why give XP for the quest itself? That is what the player should be doing anyway, within their character's motivation.

I'm putting the shoe on the other foot and exposing the double-standard. No XP for combat? It should be the other way around, for those who want to meddle with players behaviour.

 

[baturinsky]

What if kills, picking locks etc is out of character too?

 

[Dorateen]

Then they shouldn't be doing it. And if an RPG happens to be combat heavy, or combat-centric, then perhaps play another game?

 

[Zombra]

In other words doing the stuff that is the experience of the quest itself.

You appear to be more interested in making sure the use of the English word "experience" is accurate than whether or not the game design makes sense.

Change the words "Experience Points" to "Level Up Points" and your whole rationale for insisting on this particular system melts like snow in springtime.

Don't let the label enslave your mind, maaaaan.