The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[aleph]

If it never existed, they'd never miss it.

But they will miss the fun when they get bland Sawyer design instead.

 

[Immortal]

And why should it, who cares if some guy, somewhere plays to get maximum xp? Same as with Bloodlines you can do that, but you don't need to. I played DX:HR almost completely non-stealthy (so reduced xp), hacked only occasionally and still could may out all the skills I cared for.

A lot of them do it even though they don't enjoy it. Game designers who don't want people to engage in degenerate gameplay care.

Players can do something boring and repetitive in any game for small advantage. Are you saying that the game designer needs to disable every repetitive task someone could potentially do to make a good game?

If you are doing shit you don't need to do and don't enjoy.. you should be classified as a retard and not catered to.

Fact of the matter is.. You don't need to grind in any IE game to reach max level or even a high enough level to beat the game. If however you reach an area that is choked full of enemies (Looking at you NWN2) then you should be rewarded for defeating them.

If I could trust Obsidian to be intelligent with Quest Progression rewards then I would be fine with combat xp removal. I can't trust them based on the beta tho. They are just painting triggers at the end of areas and doshing out xp for "Reaching the Checkpoint" Oh brilliant Josh.. much better then Kill Xp.

EDIT:
I would just like to add that when people bring up how they want to be rewarded for killing stuff because it feels repetitive without progression, his solution was adding xp for opening locks and traps and filling out bestiary.

Both those things sound more tedious and lackluster then just naturally killing creatures on your path to exploration or hunting down treasure / quests. It really didn't solve anything and was completely counter to the original reason combat xp was removed.

 

[Ellef]

No XP for combat works fine- in games that support non combat solutions to nearly all quests. Oddity systems work great in Underrail, because you one guy and there's a fully functional stealth system and multiple solutions to problems. POE is IWD/BG1 hybrid with inferior combat, they advertised an endless dungeon ffs, it's a crawler with verbose pricks around every corner.

Not a big deal anyway, I'll kill everyone and talk to everyone no matter what exploitable system they use.

 

[Kem0sabe]

I find it strange that people think that a character shouldn't get xp for killing a giant but are fine for xp to be rewarded for getting the magic potato that the giant was guarding.

 

[Athelas]

No XP for combat works fine- in games that support non combat solutions to nearly all quests. Oddity systems work great in Underrail, because you one guy and there's a fully functional stealth system and multiple solutions to problems. POE is IWD/BG1 hybrid with inferior combat, they advertised an endless dungeon ffs, it's a crawler with verbose pricks around every corner.

There is stealth and pacifist solutions to quests in PoE as well. Interacting with and gaining reputation with different factions is a big part of the game.

I find it strange that people think that a character shouldn't get xp for killing a giant but are fine for xp to be rewarded for getting the magic potato that the giant was guarding.

There is no difference - you can pick up the potato when you kill the giant, after all.

 

[Kem0sabe]

I like a solution where you get more xp for achieving the goal "get the potato" but also get xp for killing the giant.

Human revolution had a nice system that gave you xp for killing, for stealth, for finding alternate routes, for hacking, etc.

Allow xp to be given for any player action that helps achieve the goal and you will have a system that allows for any style of play.

 

[Athelas]

That's an absurd system. A stealthy person should be rewarded for doing their job unnoticed. In that system, they would get rewarded for sabotaging their mission to backtrack for all the remaining XP, and conversely, penalized for being stealthy.

 

[Kem0sabe]

That's an absurd system. A stealthy person should be rewarded for doing their job unnoticed. In that system, they would get rewarded for sabotaging their mission to backtrack for all the remaining XP, and conversely, penalized for being stealthy.

No, a pacifist approach would earn you a completion xp reward big enough to compensate for the missed kill xp, the system would even out and players would be rewarded equally no matter what approach they took.

 

[Athelas]

That doesn't change anything. The pacifist/stealthy person can still go back for the missed kill xp (and other xp rewards related to other activities) and still be rewarded for it. You're also forgetting that doing everything will always yield more loot, which depending on the game, is just as valuable as XP, or even more so.

There's no reason to reward things that are their own reward. Though whether PoE's combat falls in that category remains to be seen.

 

[Kem0sabe]

That doesn't change anything. The pacifist/stealthy person can still go back for the missed kill xp (and other xp rewards related to other activities) and still be rewarded for it. You're also forgetting that doing everything will always yield more loot, which depending on the game, is just as valuable as XP, or even more so.

There's no reason to reward things that are their own reward. Though whether PoE's combat falls in that category remains to be seen.

Thats a valid point, still i dislike not receiving xp for kills.

 

[Immortal]

That doesn't change anything. The pacifist/stealthy person can still go back for the missed kill xp (and other xp rewards related to other activities) and still be rewarded for it.

So why not remove xp for kills once that branch of a quest is completed or make creatures / npcs related to a quest be worth 0 XP and have their XP tied into an objective.

This doesn't have to be so black and white. However that would mean putting time and effort and I am pretty sure the KS money ran out back in December - so they are likely just trying to get it out the door.

If they do not reward combat with anything meaningful then I think most people will try to avoid it at any cost for the simple reason it's really just filler shit to get to the end goal which is either story progression or character progression or whatever. Spending resources and time killing beetles only feels good if I get something after.

 

[Athelas]

So why not remove xp for kills once that branch of a quest is completed or make creatures / npcs related to a quest be worth 0 XP and have their XP tied into an objective.

Sure...if you want a bug-filled scripting nightmare and a ton of effort/resources wasted on something that doesn't meaningfully differ from the much simpler solution.

If they do not reward combat with anything meaningful then I think most people will try to avoid it at any cost for the simple reason it's really just filler shit to get to the end goal which is either story progression or character progression or whatever. Spending resources and time killing beetles only feels good if I get something after.

You get loot. Besides, there are plenty of games (most games, in fact) where core gameplay is its own reward and doesn't need to be incentivized with artificial rewards. Thief is a good example, you didn't gain anything from exploring the entire locale the mission you took place in (you didn't even get to keep the loot/gold between missions), but I was still compelled to explore every nook and cranny.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

There is stealth and pacifist solutions to quests in PoE as well. Interacting with and gaining reputation with different factions is a big part of the game.

Stealth and pacifist solutions for some quests is in no way comparable to being able to dialogue and/or sneak through 90% content of the game which is the case for nearly every one of those RPG hybrids that don't feature kill xp. I sincerely doubt PoE will be even remotely similar in that regard (not saying it should be as an IE spiritual successor).

What may work for one type of game, doesn't neccessarily work as well for the other.

Human revolution had a nice system that gave you xp for killing, for stealth, for finding alternate routes, for hacking, etc.

HR had a terrible XP system for the type of game it was, Deus Ex like games (FPS/RPG/Stealth hybrids) should reward you for reaching the goal not the manner in which you did it. Hacking giving XP made people hack doors/computers even though they knew the code/password and useless stuff like alarm panels (even they knocked out everyone on that floor/level) and knockout/kill XP made them clear levels of enemies even if they had a clear way past them.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

You get loot. Besides, there are plenty of games (most games, in fact) where core gameplay is its own reward and doesn't need to be incentivized with artificial rewards. Thief is a good example, you didn't gain anything from exploring the entire locale the mission you took place in (you didn't even get to keep the loot/gold between missions), but I was still compelled to explore every nook and cranny.

Actually, in Thief on higher difficulty levels you had some additional goals and were required to steal more gold so you were incentivized to explore every nook and cranny in order to progress but again, a different type of game. Doom doesn't feature any XP or leveling whatsoever, doesn't mean we should draw conclusions from it when it comes to designing an isometric party based RPG with RTWP tactical combat.

Besides, following that train of thought, quests shouldn't reward XP either. I mean if they're well written and designed that should be the reward in itself, why bribe the player to complete them?

There's no reason to reward things that are their own reward.

Like quests? Or do you consider OE writing/quest design to be so shitty that they need to dangle the XP carrot in front of you to engage in PoE quests.

 

[Akratus]

How about getting exp for combat only if the enemy a character fights is a higher level?

 

[Athelas]

Actually, in Thief on higher difficulty levels had some additional goals and required you to steal more gold so you were incentivized to explore every nook and cranny in order to progress but again, a different type of game.

Sure, but that was rather artificial and arbitrary. Having to collect x amount of gold (which you couldn't even keep) had nothing to do with the actual goal of the mission. I played on lower difficulty, but I still explored everything because I felt like it.

Doom doesn't feature any XP or leveling whatsoever, doesn't mean we should draw conclusions from it when it comes to designing an isometric party based RPG with RTWP tactical combat.

You can draw conclusions by comparing how much those games succeed at what they set out to do vs. how much that's the case for RPG's.

Besides, following that train of thought, quests shouldn't reward XP either. I mean if they're well written and designed that should be the reward in itself, why bribe the player to do it?

False analogy. Quests aren't the actual gameplay, they're what facilitate the gameplay. In a game like Thief, the mission objectives can be considered quests.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Sure, but that was rather artificial and arbitrary. Having to collect x amount of gold (which you couldn't even keep) had nothing to do with the actual goal of the mission. I played on lower difficulty, but I still explored everything because I felt like it.

Sure, Thief games (1 and 2) are as much about exploring as they are about sneaking and those elements are amazingly well done. However, RPGs usually aren't that narrowly specialized, you can't expect an RPG to have a stealth system as good as a dedicated stealth game for example.

You can draw conclusions by comparing how much those games succeed at what they set out to do vs. how much that's the case for RPG's.

Problem is, RPGs usually set out to do ton of things (unlike Doom), it's nice to imagine a perfect game but eventually priorities are set and not every element of the game gets the same attention/focus/resources.

False analogy. Quests aren't the actual gameplay, they're what facilitate the gameplay. In a game like Thief, the mission objectives can be considered quests.

Fine, they facilitate the gameplay which then gets rewarded in the end by XP which shouldn't be the case if said gameplay should be reward in itself. The mission objectives in Thief are required to progress the game while I'm talking about optional sidequests in an RPG (everybody who wants to finish the games will do the main quest obviously), why should devs have to bribe the player with XP (or loot for that matter) to complete sidequests?

 

[Roguey]

Players can do something boring and repetitive in any game for small advantage. Are you saying that the game designer needs to disable every repetitive task someone could potentially do to make a good game?

They're the ones who make the rules. If the rules encourage a number of people to play a way you don't want them to, they can be changed.

Fact of the matter is.. You don't need to grind in any IE game to reach max level or even a high enough level to beat the game. If however you reach an area that is choked full of enemies (Looking at you NWN2) then you should be rewarded for defeating them.

I never feel this way about any other genre. The reward is in overcoming the obstacle. If you don't like overcoming the obstacles, stop playing.

 

[Athelas]

Sure, Thief games (1 and 2) are as much about exploring as they are about sneaking and those elements are amazingly well done. However, RPGs usually aren't that narrowly specialized, you can't expect an RPG to have a stealth system as good as a dedicated stealth game for example.

I don't see why this can't be applied to RPG's. In BG2, I started using magic in town so that Cowled Wizards would appear just for the fun of laying a bunch of Webs and Cloudkills and other traps beforehand and watching them teleport right into it.

Problem is, RPGs usually set out to do ton of things (unlike Doom), it's nice to imagine a perfect game but eventually priorities are set and not every element of the game gets the same attention/focus/resources.

Sure, and what does this have to do with XP systems again? If anything, an objective-based XP system saves a bunch of time/resources since it's much easier to implement compared to balancing a bunch of specific XP rewards.

Fine, they facilitate the gameplay which then gets rewarded in the end by XP which shouldn't be the case if said gameplay should be reward in itself. The mission objectives in Thief are required to progress the game while I'm talking about optional sidequests in an RPG (everybody who wants to finish the games will do the main quest obviously), why should devs have to bribe the player with XP (or loot for that matter) to complete sidequests?

Side quests facilitate gameplay the same way main quests do. You need something to progress (XP) and you need somewhere to get it from. Making it objective-based has the advantage of not favoring/penalizing different approaches. Side quests can also contribute to an overarching central goal, which is the case in PoE, with the reputation/disposition system even minor decisions end up feeding into something more significant. In the backer beta there's even a side quest where in one of the quest solutions, you can end up unwittingly helping out a faction you might actually dislike.

 

[GrainWetski]

Do people that care about others "going back and getting extra XP after stealthing" get angry when people use Cheat Engine in SP games? It's a pretty weird thing to care so much about.

Why couldn't they just remove XP gain from the enemies someone just stealthed past if it's so bloody important?

 

[Athelas]

Do people that care about others "going back and getting extra XP after stealthing" get angry when people use Cheat Engine in SP games? It's a pretty weird thing to care so much about.

If you didn't care so much about it yourself, you wouldn't be asking this question. I'm not sure how the comparison to a cheat engine is supposed to make sense. Powergaming for maximum XP isn't cheating, it's just playing in a way the game supports. 'Would you like to experience more content in your RPG or not'? isn't a particularly interesting dilemma (hint: the answer will likely be yes).

Why couldn't they just remove XP gain from the enemies someone just stealthed past if it's so bloody important?

Because computer games are complex things and they may not be able to register you stealthing. In Deus Ex, does stacking objects to create a makeshift ladder to get on the roof count as stealth?

 

[sser]

PoE: where you can kill everything in the world and learn nothing.

PoE: where you can complete 99% of a quest and learn nothing.

PoE: where a person kicked out of the party at the last moment of a quest learns nothing, but the guy who just joined to 'turn in' a quest learns everything.

PoE: where side-quests, those loveable shitballs of content-filler, must be done.

PoE: where exploration and discovery is unrewarded.

PoE: where that dark spot on the paper map has no value - unless a quest-giver specifically tells you it does.


I'm baffled as to how anyone defends this shit. It's very obvious that a system utilizing both quest and combat XP not only makes far more sense, but also opens up way more avenues for gameplay.


Also, Shadowrun showed how easy it is to place rewards around stealth, diplomacy, and combat. It's not very difficult to do you bozos.

 

[Arkeus]

I'm baffled as to how anyone defends this shit. It's very obvious that a system utilizing both quest and combat XP not only makes far more sense, but also opens up way more avenues for gameplay.

This is because none of those things are true.

 

[Athelas]

PoE: where you can kill everything in the world and learn nothing.

They actually implemented bestiary XP a while back, so nope.

PoE: where you can complete 99% of a quest and learn nothing.

PoE: where a person kicked out of the party at the last moment of a quest learns nothing, but the guy who just joined to 'turn in' a quest learns everything.

These same problems also exist in a game that utilizes combat XP, so this argument is rather nonsensical. You're wrong, though. XP is handed out for every part of the quest you complete, not just at the end.

PoE: where side-quests, those loveable shitballs of content-filler, must be done.

As opposed to other activities in an RPG?

PoE: where exploration and discovery is unrewarded.

You get XP for entering a new location for the first time.

 

[sser]

PoE: where you can kill everything in the world and learn nothing.

They actually implemented bestiary XP a while back, so nope.

Suggesting that a bestiary is going to learn a party anything. Rich. If I put on some boxing gloves, hit the bag once, have I learned all that there is to learn about boxing?

These same problems also exist in a game that utilizes combat XP, so this argument is rather nonsensical. You're wrong, though. XP is handed out for every part of the quest you complete, not just at the end.

How is it nonsensical when having combat XP is a way around this notoriously shit mechanic in RPGs? Tactical games know it best: your guys only learn if they actually do something. You don't learn anything for just tagging along. I just gave you a middle-ground method to fix this issue and you call it 'nonsensical,' returning to the quest-only XP which is by definition completely nonsensical. I'm not sure how handing XP out for segmented quests changes anything.

As opposed to other activities in an RPG?

Yes. In particular, I quite enjoy RPGs that don't shackle me with quests. Why? Because 90% of quests are shit and completely forgettable. Encounter design is almost always a richer experience, as is the notion that I went into a dungeon of my own choosing and came out with a better party. Not that I went into a dungeon because someone told me to, and then only got better when I went back to the guy who told me to go in there in the first place.

You get XP for entering a new location for the first time.

PoE: where you learn more by spotting a cave than going inside and cleaning it out.