The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[imweasel]

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"

Why does a player get XP for dealing with the ogre, but no xp for dealing with the beetles? Both are very challenging (just ask Adam), so why are the beetles unworthy of XP?

Let's say that there is another solution to the beetle problem (similar to what Volourn mentioned a few pages back). The druid in your party has a specific skill which gives him the ability to communicate with the beetles. You find out why they are so aggressive, you help out the beetles, they become friendly, you gain XP and everyone is happy. Right? Ok. Another perfectly viable option would be the violent one, you slaughter the beetles and... gain XP. Right? Right?

But as it stands in PoE, you won't get any XP at all for either violently or peacefully solving the problem with the beetles because Sawyer has simply deemed them unworthy of XP. Imagine if a DM told you in a PnP session that you won't get any XP for dealing with the beetles at the end of the session, simply because he deems them to be unworthy of giving XP to the player for really no reason at all...


Why should the player sould only receive XP for dealing with specific tasks, yet receive absolutely no XP for dealing with other very similar tasks? This of course also makes the latter an extremely unattractive thing to do, especially if it is a high-risk task.

(We probably need a "what is combat XP?" thread so we can fill it with butthurt.)

 

[tuluse]

Degenerate gameplay arguing aside, removing XP for kills invalidates at least one playstyle, which is a big no-no in JES book as far as I can tell.

In BG1 I could ignore quest givers, just head into wilderness and fight animals/monsters/bandits to improve my party's battle prowess, which also made sense, because if someone went on to kill bears for a year, he/she would die improve his/her combat skills.

In before dirty simulationist.

BG2 did not have such wilderness areas, but you could go to the graveyard and fight the undead for a similar result. Also, sewers, etc.

---

To make matters perfectly clear - I am absolutely fine with getting only quest progress XP, just like I was fine with it in Deus Ex, VTMB or Mass Effect 2. I do not agree with it design-wise, but it does not ruin the game for me or anything like that. I am actually looking forward to be able to play through the game killing as little things on the way as possible, because usually that is exactly what I do, if the game supports it. I will leave that ogre alive and feel good inside because of that.

But I do think that outright removing XP for kills for the cheapest way to achieve certain goals, and by far not the best.

PE XP is objective based not quest based (though obviously quests will be made up of objectives).

So your idea of exploring the wilderness and finding things to do will probably be supported and there will be ways to xp that way.

 

[Duraframe300]

Degenerate gameplay arguing aside, removing XP for kills invalidates at least one playstyle, which is a big no-no in JES book as far as I can tell.

In BG1 I could ignore quest givers, just head into wilderness and fight animals/monsters/bandits to improve my party's battle prowess, which also made sense, because if someone went on to kill bears for a year, he/she would die improve his/her combat skills.

In before dirty simulationist.

BG2 did not have such wilderness areas, but you could go to the graveyard and fight the undead for a similar result. Also, sewers, etc.

---

To make matters perfectly clear - I am absolutely fine with getting only quest progress XP, just like I was fine with it in Deus Ex, VTMB or Mass Effect 2. I do not agree with it design-wise, but it does not ruin the game for me or anything like that. I am actually looking forward to be able to play through the game killing as little things on the way as possible, because usually that is exactly what I do, if the game supports it. I will leave that ogre alive and feel good inside because of that.

But I do think that outright removing XP for kills for the cheapest way to achieve certain goals, and by far not the best.

PE XP is objective based not quest based (though obviously quests will be made up of objectives).

So your idea of exploring the wilderness and finding things to do will probably be supported and there will be ways to xp that way.

Just wanted to write that.

 

[Shadenuat]

Roshan is never right. Easily the most willfully ignorant person ITT, and that's quite an achievement.

No systemic XP gain for killing things isn't intended only to stop the killing of quest givers. That's just the most extreme example of its benefits.

Leaving a surviving trash mob alive in the corner of a cave that you accidentally missed? That's okay now, you aren't losing experience. Roleplaying a sneaky party? That's okay now, you aren't losing experience. These are things that a "real life" adventuring party would do, but characters in videogames never do because LEAVE NO MONSTER UNKILLED MUST GRIND ALL XP.

The funny thing about simulationists is that they don't even realize when people are helping them.

Anyway, enough of this. The game is going to come out soon and everybody will realize how silly they were.

I see you switched to Fundamentalist policy recently, how is that +Roguey rating? AKA those people are always wrong, gamers don't know what they actually like, and end of the rhine when I SAY IT IS.

I am not particularly for or againt XP per kill, but it has been stated many times, including devs, that combat is bread and butter of IE games and it's supposed successor, so I don't see why it's wrong to give players some xp for killing the glorious poster beetles, especially if the fight might turn out harder than just gangbanging some quest ogre. They could have adapted scaled XP, when killing low level stuff won't give you much. I actually remember in BG2 amount of xp you got from weak monsters was minimal, only passing hard encounters and killing stuff like Beholders gave you good xp, so hunting down every kobold or bandit wasn't necessary.

As for pseudo simulationists, I think they would just come up with something as elegant as NOT tying ALL character capability to 1 single XP bar.

BTW, leaving one random trash monster in cave corner was always OK. It's only if you're complete psychotic, content hunter or shitty at game and can't beat stuff unless you're very over leveled it's "not ok".

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

That is the nature of roleplay and social play. Anything that can't be measured by ones and zeroes, like player's ability to change plot or interaction with characters, relies on DM, and in CRPG, content is DM. Even things that are at border between combat and roleplay, like Stealth, rely on content. Or will you be satisfied with linear corridor with Thief stealth-system, as long as it counts sound/weight/has shiny stealth-gem?
Say CHA adds #of companions, but then it's useless for solo combat char, what will you do - make it add even moar dmg to solo char?
How far can one go sacrificing everything to the altar of combat until whatever particular parts of system used to represent lose their meaning whatsoever?

Roshan is right, meaningful consequences for actions are a more natural way to make players roleplay and concider their actions. Players murder NPCs either if they are chronical powergamers, or, generally, when they already finished the game and want to test limits of the game. That is why when playing Obsi games in particular I, for example, am always conciderate in my actions in the world and try not to murder everything on sight - I know that there is possibility of losing additional content that way. That and me not being dumbfuck dorito douchebag (CHARISMA LOL USELESS DUMP THAT) and actually caring for characters, their fates and plot and shit.

Roshan is never right. Easily the most willfully ignorant person ITT, and that's quite an achievement.

No systemic XP gain for killing things isn't intended only to stop the killing of quest givers. That's just the most extreme example of its benefits.

Leaving a surviving trash mob alive in the corner of a cave that you accidentally missed? That's okay now, you aren't losing experience. Roleplaying a sneaky party? That's okay now, you aren't losing experience. These are things that a "real life" adventuring party would do, but characters in videogames never do because LEAVE NO MONSTER UNKILLED MUST GRIND ALL XP.

The funny thing about simulationists is that they don't even realize when people are helping them.

Anyway, enough of this. The game is going to come out soon and everybody will realize how silly they were.

yes cause people playing BG used to kill every gibberling they could find

 

[Spockrock]

Why does a player get XP for dealing with the ogre, but no xp for dealing with the beetles? Both are very challenging (just ask Adam), so why are the beetles unworthy of XP?

because the ogre had a bounty on its head, duh and the beetles didn't.

nobody cares about the beetles, so they occupy roads in protest. you want to kill a bunch of peaceful protesters - go ahead, but don't expect any reward for it

 

[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"

Why does a player get XP for dealing with the ogre, but no xp for dealing with the beetles? Both are very challenging (just ask Adam), so why are the beetles unworthy of XP?

Let's say that there is another solution to the beetle problem (similar to what Volourn mentioned a few pages back). The druid in your party has a specific skill which gives him the ability to communicate with the beetles. You find out why they are so aggressive, you help out the beetles, they become friendly, you gain XP and everyone is happy. Right? Ok. Another perfectly viable option would be the violent one, you slaughter the beetles and... gain XP. Right? Right?

But as it stands in PoE, you won't get any XP at all for either violently or peacefully solving the problem with the beetles because Sawyer has simply deemed them unworthy of XP. Imagine if a DM told you in a PnP session that you won't get any XP for dealing with the beetles at the end of the session, simply because he deems them to be unworthy of giving XP to the player for really no reason at all...


Why should the player sould only receive XP for dealing with specific tasks, yet receive absolutely no XP for dealing with other very similar tasks? This of course also makes the latter an extremely unattractive thing to do, especially if it is a high-risk task.

(We probably need a "what is combat XP?" thread so we can fill it with butthurt.)

Why are you answering a question with a question?

Do you have to be rewarded for everything you do? You were asked to deal with the ogre so that becomes a quest and through completing the quest(with or without violence) you were rewarded with XP. You weren't asked to deal with the beetles so you don't get anything for it. That's the shitty answer.

A better answer would be to think of encounters like the beetles as obstacles within quests or within multiple quests. To complete the ogre quest you have to get past the beetles, in any way you choose, and part of the quest XP is for getting past the beetles.

 

[imweasel]

Why are you answering a question with a question?

Do you have to be rewarded for everything you do? You were asked to deal with the ogre so that becomes a quest and through completing the quest(with or without violence) you were rewarded with XP. You weren't asked to deal with the beetles so you don't get anything for it. That's the shitty answer.

A better answer would be to think of encounters like the beetles as obstacles within quests or within multiple quests. To complete the ogre quest you have to get past the beetles, in any way you choose, and part of the quest XP is for getting past the beetles.

because the ogre had a bounty on its head, duh and the beetles didn't.

nobody cares about the beetles, so they occupy roads in protest. you want to kill a bunch of peaceful protesters - go ahead, but don't expect any reward for it

So if the beetles had a bounty on their heads, then it would be fine to kill them for XP, amirite?

Might as well just make the game an MMO.

 

[Shadenuat]

yes cause people playing BG used to kill every gibberling they could find

Well BG1 at least had a graspable level cap so that just did not do much good, unless you had a party of all multi classes maybe. Single char could just max out his level by killing all the basilisks or somethin.
It was mostly about hunting for sweet rare loot that was scattered around the world.

So if the beetles had a bounty on their heads, then it would be fine to kill them for XP, amirite

Well in that system designer decides what is a worthy game style, not the player. Maybe that village should have hired Might and Magic VI's bounty hunter girl.
"This week the bounty is on the bounty hunter, 1000 gp"

 

[Jagged Appliance]

So if the beetles had a bounty on their heads, then it would be fine to kill them for XP, amirite?

Might as well just make the game an MMO.

I should have guessed it would be a waste of time replying to you.

 

[imweasel]

So if the beetles had a bounty on their heads, then it would be fine to kill them for XP, amirite?

Might as well just make the game an MMO.

I should have guessed it would be a waste of time replying to you.

I just think that the beetles are an obstacle worthy of XP. You deal with them, you gain XP. You find the ogre cave, you gain XP. Etc.

I'm not saying you're wrong (it is a very subjective matter after all), but that is just how I see things.

 

[roshan]

Roshan is never right. Easily the most willfully ignorant person ITT, and that's quite an achievement.

No systemic XP gain for killing things isn't intended only to stop the killing of quest givers. That's just the most extreme example of its benefits.

Leaving a surviving trash mob alive in the corner of a cave that you accidentally missed? That's okay now, you aren't losing experience. Roleplaying a sneaky party? That's okay now, you aren't losing experience. These are things that a "real life" adventuring party would do, but characters in videogames never do because LEAVE NO MONSTER UNKILLED MUST GRIND ALL XP.

The funny thing about simulationists is that they don't even realize when people are helping them.

Anyway, enough of this. The game is going to come out soon and everybody will realize how silly they were.

You are assuming everyone does things for the same reason you do. Maybe these players simply enjoy the satisfaction of purging the dungeon. There's pleasure in completing tasks, in a job well done, both in real life and in games. To assume that it is because of grinding XP is idiotic, Sawyer pervs on people while they game but just because he is perving doesn't mean he gets the psychology behind what is occurring.

 

[Jagged Appliance]

So if the beetles had a bounty on their heads, then it would be fine to kill them for XP, amirite?

Might as well just make the game an MMO.

I should have guessed it would be a waste of time replying to you.

I just think that the beetles are an obstacle worthy of XP. You deal with them, you gain XP. You find the ogre cave, you gain XP. Etc.

I'm not saying you're wrong (it is a very subjective matter after all), but that is just how I see things.

And I'm telling you that the XP gain is there but it's delayed and it's not just given for killing them, it's given for getting past them whether you kill them or not.

 

[Arkeus]

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

Ok, i'll give you the example of BG1. In BG1, you get less XP the more people in your party there was. This meant that as a kid i tended to begin my games like this: Kill the guy in the starting inn that asks you for a identification parchment (after doing his quest), gets ~2000 XP, gain level. Leave Candlekeep, kill ogre before friendly arm inn. Go to Beregost, and kill the /same/ man there, as he respawns there with higher level and higher XP gain.

Doing this, i could get to around level 4/5 in the first 2/3hrs of the game. Sure, XP means less later on, but...

 

[felipepepe]

Maybe these players simply enjoy the satisfaction of purging the dungeon. There's pleasure in completing tasks, in a job well done, both in real life and in games.

XP is not a goal per se, but it's a way to reach higher goals. A player can get just satisfaction from clearing a huge dungeon, but he'll need the XP to clear the next one.

 

[roshan]

Maybe these players simply enjoy the satisfaction of purging the dungeon. There's pleasure in completing tasks, in a job well done, both in real life and in games.

XP is not a goal per se, but it's a way to reach higher goals. A player can get just satisfaction from clearing a huge dungeon, but he'll need the XP to clear the next one.

Of course. Which is why players should get at least a minimum amount of XP for killing monsters. I have no issue with XP being largely quest based, but to remove combat XP is absurd. It takes away the flexibility of players to look for alternate means to develop their characters.

 

[Arkeus]

Of course. Which is why players should get at least a minimum amount of XP for killing monsters. I have no issue with XP being largely quest based, but to remove combat XP is absurd. It takes away the flexibility of players to look for alternate means to develop their characters.

XP is not quest-based, it's objective-based.

For example, you probably do get some XP if you kill all the beetles in the map (killed off infestation) even without a quest giver.

 

[Jezal_k23]

Yeah, this is all theoretical and rather pointless until we know what even constitutes an objective other than quests.

 

[Shadenuat]

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

Ok, i'll give you the example of BG1. In BG1, you get less XP the more people in your party there was. This meant that as a kid i tended to begin my games like this: Kill the guy in the starting inn that asks you for a identification parchment (after doing his quest), gets ~2000 XP, gain level. Leave Candlekeep, kill ogre before friendly arm inn. Go to Beregost, and kill the /same/ man there, as he respawns there with higher level and higher XP gain.

Doing this, i could get to around level 4/5 in the first 2/3hrs of the game. Sure, XP means less later on, but...

Uh, that means you leave characters who join you without that starting xp, meaning you'll have to find it elsewhere, so while you char was higher lvl, companions had to wait for opportunities to grow. I guess it has some value if your main is a fighter or mage maybe, more hp, new spells, but... it's like hoarding all xp into 1 char instead of distributing it.
Also if you kill guy who asks for identify you miss additional quest later and might aggro whole Candlekeep on yourself

 

[roshan]

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

Ok, i'll give you the example of BG1. In BG1, you get less XP the more people in your party there was. This meant that as a kid i tended to begin my games like this: Kill the guy in the starting inn that asks you for a identification parchment (after doing his quest), gets ~2000 XP, gain level. Leave Candlekeep, kill ogre before friendly arm inn. Go to Beregost, and kill the /same/ man there, as he respawns there with higher level and higher XP gain.

Doing this, i could get to around level 4/5 in the first 2/3hrs of the game. Sure, XP means less later on, but...

I would never do what you did. I personally don't care much for leveling up quickly. But here's what. Obviously getting to level 4/5 meant something to do and you must have derived some satisfaction from figuring out how to do that and achieving your objectives. Nothing wrong with that. It's a bloody game and you got something out of playing it that way. And I will defend your right to play the game how you want.

The problem here is with "big brother" game design where designers and their hardcore fans think they know what everyone wants from their games, these leftards want to craft "egalitarian" games where everyone gets exactly the same reward as everyone else regardless of what they do and how they play. A player randomly getting an extra 35 XP from finding that hobgoblin hiding in the corner of the dungeon? No way! One player out of a thousand doing quests and then killing the quest givers for additional XP? No way! Everyone must be equal so that no one feels upset, no one gets confused, no one feels like they missed out, no one feels like they made the wrong choice, no one wonders what they should be doing - and most of all, no one feels like they have failed. And to achieve this, make players choose between two or three predetermined options for what to do, remove alternate ways of developing their characters to progress in the game. Everyone must play the Obsidiot way.

 

[Maculo]

I am not certain combat xp is outright removed, so much as it is being reduced to the same level of reward as other options (stealth, diplomacy, trying to screw the farmer instead). A player may approach the Ogre quest by killing the beetles, but all that matters is that the Ogre problem is resolved in some way. The beetles are just extra obstacles or crafting component bags. I realize that is not really a comforting statement, since it likely devalues combat.

 

[LarsWestergren]

I hope you got a lot of xp from slaying that huge strawman roshan.

 

[Bubbles]

XP is not a goal per se, but it's a way to reach higher goals. A player can get just satisfaction from clearing a huge dungeon, but he'll need the XP to clear the next one.

He could just get powerful items. Or an unlock for vendors/companions/quests that do give xp.

 

[roshan]

I hope you got a lot of xp from slaying that huge strawman roshan.

Not a strawman. What is "objective based XP"? It's basically saying that the only way you progress is by doing what the designers have planned for you to do.

 

[Maculo]

I hope you got a lot of xp from slaying that huge strawman roshan.

Not a strawman. What is "objective based XP"? It's basically saying that the only way you progress is by doing what the designers have planned for you to do.

I do not mean to play with semantics, but what is the distinction? Is getting XP via combat and quests also not just what the designer planned for players to do?