The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[Jagged Appliance]

Thank fuck the Beta is coming out today so this quest XP shit can finally stop. It was beaten into the ground already several hundred pages ago.

And it's not even a remotely new idea.

 

[roshan]

Kill experience wasn't "removed" (it wasn't ever implemented) to prevent anyone from outleveling an area. When XP is rewarded for killing creatures, quests solutions than involve not killing creatures still systemically encourage players to go back and kill those creatures -- or make players feel like they have completed the quest "wrong" because they didn't kill the target.

So basically, it comes down to dumbing down. They don't want players to think they might be doing something wrong so they are giving XP for objectives ("achievements").

The issue isn't necessarily one of balance, because often players will exhibit the same behavior even if the amount of XP gained from creatures is extremely small.

Then what's the problem? If one in fifty players decide to kill those creatures and gets pretty much nothing out of it, then what's the issue? It's trying to solve a problem that doesn't even exist.

The reason I refer to this as "degenerate gameplay" is because the player chose a non-combat solution but ultimately went back to using combat after the solution was selected because the game systemically provides an incentive to do so. When designers create non-combat resolutions and players select non-combat resolutions, I believe it's reasonable to assume they both created and selected those options because that's what they wanted to do. In PE, nothing will necessarily prevent the player from killing characters/creatures they avoided on a quest, but I don't think it's necessary to systematically reward them for doing so.

Then provide an incentive for leaving the creatures alive. Why not come up with story/gameplay related reasons for not killing those creatures? Perhaps they can be bartered with. Perhaps future quests are linked to going back to old areas, and can be completed if the enemies have not been killed. Perhaps you can go back to those areas later on and find new quests and dialogue options, maybe they react to what else you have done in the game. Perhaps they can be allies in the future. Removing combat XP is the silliest solution to a nonexistent problem.

 

[Bubbles]

Turning all the NPCs hostile just means MORE XP. Sawyer realizes this.

 

[Roguey]

"It's a nonexistent problem because I say it is."

*negotiates with ogre for xp, kills him for additional xp*

 

[Infinitron]

Then provide an incentive for leaving the creatures alive. Why not come up with story/gameplay related reasons for not killing those creatures? Perhaps they can be bartered with. Perhaps future quests are linked to going back to old areas, and can be completed if the enemies have not been killed. Perhaps you can go back to those areas later on and find new quests and dialogue options, maybe they react to what else you have done in the game. Perhaps they can be allies in the future.

Ah, the "add MOAR content" solution. Is your system broken, RPG designer? No problem, just add more game content to paper over the problem instead of solving it at the root. You have a limitless budget and development time, after all. Right? Right?

I posted this earlier ITT about dump stats, but it applies equally here:

Sure, this is basically the "add MOAR content" method of fixing dump stats. CHA not worthwhile? Don't change CHA, just add stuff to the game that makes it worthwhile! Same for WIS!

It sounds good, but the downside of it is that, if you're the systems designer, what you're doing now is basically telling your writers and area designers and quest designers that it's their job to fix the system's flaws. "Uh, Avellone, I need more CHA checks here! Add more CHA checks! It's not useful enough yet!" It's a bit artistically bankrupt.

 

[Athelas]

Thank fuck the Beta is coming out today so this quest XP shit can finally stop.

Yeah, now people will be able to complain about quest XP while pointing to its implementation in the beta.

 

[Roguey]

Even though completing all the side-content however I see fit in this game will allow me to hit the level cap, I need to gain miniscule amounts of experience points from killing all the things because I am an addict.

Time for some Josh Sawyer methadone.

 

[MicoSelva]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63017-level-scaling-and-its-misuse/page-11#entry1298328

Kill experience wasn't "removed" (it wasn't ever implemented) to prevent anyone from outleveling an area. When XP is rewarded for killing creatures, quests solutions than involve not killing creatures still systemically encourage players to go back and kill those creatures -- or make players feel like they have completed the quest "wrong" because they didn't kill the target. The issue isn't necessarily one of balance, because often players will exhibit the same behavior even if the amount of XP gained from creatures is extremely small.

The reason I refer to this as "degenerate gameplay" is because the player chose a non-combat solution but ultimately went back to using combat after the solution was selected because the game systemically provides an incentive to do so. When designers create non-combat resolutions and players select non-combat resolutions, I believe it's reasonable to assume they both created and selected those options because that's what they wanted to do. In PE, nothing will necessarily prevent the player from killing characters/creatures they avoided on a quest, but I don't think it's necessary to systematically reward them for doing so.

I have already addressed this in my post.

 

[Bubbles]

Even though completing all the side-content however I see fit in this game will allow me to hit the level cap, I need to gain miniscule amounts of experience points from killing all the things because I am an addict.

Time for some Josh Sawyer methadone.

Level caps are gamist nonsense with no basis in reality.

 

[roshan]

Turning all the NPCs hostile just means MORE XP. Sawyer realizes this.

"It's a nonexistent problem because I say it is."

*negotiates with ogre for xp, kills him for additional xp*

Like I said not all gamers do this. Possibly only a small minority of them. Cutting out RPG mechanics from the game because a minority of players might exploit them is silly. And if they want to exploit such mechanics, what's the bloody problem? It's a fucking GAME for Christ's sake, let them enjoy playing it how they want.

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

Turning all the NPCs hostile just means MORE XP. Sawyer realizes this.

"It's a nonexistent problem because I say it is."

*negotiates with ogre for xp, kills him for additional xp*

Like I said not all gamers do this. Possibly only a small minority of them. Cutting out RPG mechanics from the game because a minority of players might exploit them is silly. And if they want to exploit such mechanics, what's the bloody problem? It's a fucking GAME for Christ's sake, let them enjoy playing it how they want.

No, you power gaming faggot. J. Sawyer knows better. You will get xp the way he wants or you will get no xp at all.

Spoiler

afterall its his game isnt it?

 

[roshan]

Then provide an incentive for leaving the creatures alive. Why not come up with story/gameplay related reasons for not killing those creatures? Perhaps they can be bartered with. Perhaps future quests are linked to going back to old areas, and can be completed if the enemies have not been killed. Perhaps you can go back to those areas later on and find new quests and dialogue options, maybe they react to what else you have done in the game. Perhaps they can be allies in the future.

Ah, the "add MOAR content" solution. Is your system broken, RPG designer? No problem, just add more game content to paper over the problem instead of solving it at the root. You have a limitless budget and development time, after all. Right? Right?

So instead of implementing CnC, you would rather have RPG mechanics removed from the game. Logic of a Sawyer Fan.

I posted this earlier ITT about dump stats, but it applies equally here:

Sure, this is basically the "add MOAR content" method of fixing dump stats. CHA not worthwhile? Don't change CHA, just add stuff to the game that makes it worthwhile! Same for WIS!

It sounds good, but the downside of it is that, if you're the systems designer, what you're doing now is basically telling your writers and area designers and quest designers that it's their job to fix the system's flaws. "Uh, Avellone, I need more CHA checks here! Add more CHA checks! It's not useful enough yet!" It's a bit artistically bankrupt.

Red Herring. We are talking about a specific issue (Combat XP), not about stats.

 

[One-and-a-half-Ivan]

Turning all the NPCs hostile just means MORE XP. Sawyer realizes this.

"It's a nonexistent problem because I say it is."

*negotiates with ogre for xp, kills him for additional xp*

Like I said not all gamers do this. Possibly only a small minority of them. Cutting out RPG mechanics from the game because a minority of players might exploit them is silly. And if they want to exploit such mechanics, what's the bloody problem? It's a fucking GAME for Christ's sake, let them enjoy playing it how they want.

You can still play it the way you want. The difference is that you won't get additional XP, you'll get an important resource - Ogre Blood.

 

[roshan]

No, you power gaming faggot. J. Sawyer knows better. You will get xp the way he wants or you will get no xp at all.

Spoiler

afterall its his game isnt it?

That's exactly my issue with this, it's trying to shepherd players into playing the game in a specific way. Whereas classic RPG's like Fallout 2 put players in a sandbox where they could play the game the way they want. You could do cool and interesting things like assassinate characters by planting dynamite in their inventory. You could dynamite doors to open them. Why didn't the IE games let you open doors by blasting them with a magic missile? Rather than moving towards more open ended, sanboxy mechanics in which players could get creative, they are attempting to restrict play to a few predetermined "either-or" options.

 

[Athelas]

You must be a big fan of Bethesda.

 

[roshan]

You must be a big fan of Bethesda.

No. Never played their games. I only play isometric 2D RPGs. (Although I did dabble in crap like the NWN series at one point)

 

[LarsWestergren]

That's exactly my issue with this, it's trying to shepherd players into playing the game in a specific way.

Rewarding players with XP (a scarce resource, presumably) for killing isn't shepherding them in any special direction then?

 

[Duraframe300]

I wonder how many pages of this thread you could cut and still get the same amount of opinions/arguments/information.

 

[roshan]

That's exactly my issue with this, it's trying to shepherd players into playing the game in a specific way.

Rewarding players with XP (a scarce resource, presumably) for killing isn't shepherding them in any special direction then?

Since when has XP been such a scarce resource in an RPG?

 

[Jagged Appliance]

Someone explain to me why combat XP is a good thing. All I see is "stop removing stuff that isn't broken", "let me grind if I want", "stop forcing me to play the game a specific way"(this one I find really bizarre) and "XP for combat makes sense."

Why is XP for killing stuff a good thing? What does it add to the game?

Edit: Just noticed a new complaint: "This game(IE spiritual successor) should be more like Fallout"

 

[Sensuki]

I honestly don't know why this is being discussed at this stage (in this thread). The decision is not going to be changed.

The funny thing is that when the topic was brought back on the Obsidian forums, the discussion spilled to here, Something Awful and Neogaf

 

[eremita]

The reason I refer to this as "degenerate gameplay" is because the player chose a non-combat solution but ultimately went back to using combat after the solution was selected because the game systemically provides an incentive to do so. When designers create non-combat resolutions and players select non-combat resolutions, I believe it's reasonable to assume they both created and selected those options because that's what they wanted to do. In PE, nothing will necessarily prevent the player from killing characters/creatures they avoided on a quest, but I don't think it's necessary to systematically reward them for doing so.

Then provide an incentive for leaving the creatures alive. Why not come up with story/gameplay related reasons for not killing those creatures? Perhaps they can be bartered with. Perhaps future quests are linked to going back to old areas, and can be completed if the enemies have not been killed. Perhaps you can go back to those areas later on and find new quests and dialogue options, maybe they react to what else you have done in the game. Perhaps they can be allies in the future. Removing combat XP is the silliest solution to a nonexistent problem.

I have a feeling Sawyer would not like that approach because players killing shit, including quest givers (which according to him, is just playing by the rules, so player is ultimately "encouraged" to do so by designers (this conclusion is wrong)), would lock himself out of the content, or even fail in the game and had to reload/start again. And Sawyer doesn't want us to fail. He doesn't want us to feel like the game, while allowing us dosing something, is in the end telling us those choices were wrong. "Oh, maybe I shouldn't create this build because it fucking sucks, maybe I should read the fucking manual and tried to understand the rule set. Maybe then I wouldn't play my character like a fucking retard. Oh yeah, I also probably shouldn't kill every npc around... What was I thinking? Hm, I probably played too much of GTA..."

Spoiler

One of the reason I like "games" in general is actually the "fail" factor. I'm confronted with options/rules and those rules allow me to do a lot of things. But doing some of those things in particular way/situation IS FUCKING RETARDED, so I'm gonna fail. Maybe next time I'll try to think/try harder. Or go back to do some casual shit.

 

[Arulan]

I honestly don't know why this is being discussed at this stage (in this thread). The decision is not going to be changed.

The funny thing is that when the topic was brought back on the Obsidian forums, the discussion spilled to here, Something Awful and Neogaf

I tried to stop it on GAF, I tried...

 

[StaticSpine]

Bros, so if I do not get any XP for mobs thrashing, then I can run from/skip any filler combat/random encounters without being afraid to be underleveled at some point? I like this decision from this point of view.

BUT if I'm always forced into unskippable filler combat and I won't get any rewards out of it, I do not like this much.

 

[roshan]

Someone explain to me why combat XP is a good thing. All I see is "stop removing stuff that isn't broken", "let me grind if I want", "stop forcing me to play the game a specific way"(this one I find really bizarre) and "XP for combat makes sense."

Why is XP for killing stuff a good thing? What does it add to the game?

Because combat without any reward at all becomes a tedious activity. IWD2 had the same problem, with smaller parties, you would eventually stop getting combat XP, and with the way the loot system worked, you would often be playing through one encounter after another getting nothing out of it. But at least that game had semi-decent encounters. Obsidian games have a history of unbelievably shitty and easy combat that is impossible to lose and it seems that POE will continue in this tradition.

Edit: Just noticed a new complaint: "This game(IE spiritual successor) should be more like Fallout"

Versus those who would rather it play more like a choose your own adventure book? The point of bringing up Fallout is to illustrate that the mechanics of the game are moving towards the wrong direction.