The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[Delterius]

Otherwise spending 5 minutes to kill 3 bugs for nothing is fuckin stupid.

Nothing? They are an obstacle in the way of your objective. .

No they were not. I bet you can march past them and enter in the cave.
I also bet that you can avoid them entirely by keeping a not so great distance.
Boots of speed anyone?
Confirmed to be in the game

You mau have to gather your party to ventire forth

 

[Zombra]

People who grind every last monster for every last xp drop is NOT the people you should be balancing your game around. That's fukkin' dumb.

Spoken like someone who really wants to protect their precious grindstone.

Why is the ogre worthy of xp but not the beetles?

You're not getting XP for killing the ogres. You're getting XP for solving the ogre problem. Beetles hanging out in the wilderness is not a problem.

 

[AN4RCHID]

If the quests are anything like New Vegas, the diplomatic options will be a lot 'dumber' than combat, since they often didn't require any particular problem solving or mental activity at all provided you had the right stats. Besides, that would make sense in a game like F:NV or Tides of Numenera where non-combatant characters are a viable player choice, but Josh has said Poe is not like that.

There are no social skills in PoE.

Yes, I know. Science wasn't a social skill in F:NV, but it was the most common stat check in dialogue iirc. No social skills is a good thing, but it doesn't mean the diplomatic victories will be any more challenging. For example, from the Gamescom videos it sounded like you have the choice of fighting the Ogre or simply picking the correct dialogue option.

Yeah, because DX:HR encourages shitty boring playstyles like hacking into every fucking email account in an office building and exploring every inch of airduct/sewer. That's hardly comparable to rewarding a player for engaging with the central gameplay system of a game. Like I stated above, Poe doesn't have the burden that some other RPGs have of ensuring that non-violent playstyles are viable. Kill-XP didn't break New Vegas, I don't see why it would break an ostensibly more combat-focused game.

This is just a matter of degrees then. If something is bad on a small scale, it's usually bad on a big scale, just less noticeable.

It's not a matter of degrees at all. DX:HR was encouraging the player to complete pointless chores that didn't have anything to do with what made the game fun. Tactical party-based combat is one of the 'pillars' of Eternity, so it's theoretically going to be what makes the game fun. In a game about running around with a party and killing monsters, it's not a bad thing if that activity is reinforced through the game mechanics.

Also DX:HR was a linear game, so passing up free XP from hacking meant it was lost forever. You don't have that limitation in open-world / semi-open-world games where there's an infinite source of respawning wilderness monsters, so there isn't the same pressure to hoard every XP point.

Look, I get the "just do what you think is fun" argument. That's how I play games, and that's why I didn't grind vipers or something in F:NV. What I don't get is why people think it's unacceptable to encourage combat solutions through extra XP, but totally fine to encourage non-combat solutions through lower risk/lower effort/same reward. Again, makes sense in games that are committed to supporting non-combat character roles, but I don't see it in a game where every character is a viable fighter.

 

[Lhynn]

The whole idea of getting exp for doing chores is p. fucking retarded. Especially if your occupation is combat related.

 

[set]

Pillars of Eternity is going to change how we look at video games.

VTMB already implemented a "XP only for quests" system. It worked perfectly.

 

[Invictus]

I think the isssue of XP is inherent with the fact that its a numerical value for P&P games and keeping it for computer games is never going to be easy. Let's take 3 examples, one of the P&P XP system, one of a "get better by doing" and one stat based with "get better by doing" too
Goldbox and M&M games
They gave you limited XP for killing random mobs but gave you better XP for quest related rewards; this system encoraged grinding a bit, but encoraged you to go do some quests instead for getting some levels. Since both games use a straight up XP system were your character gets better overall the more XP they get regardless of how they got that XP so your thief gets better picking locks mostly by killing mobs. All D&D 7th level Thieves are generally the same because their development is pretty much set from the start by the rules, while M&M characters vary a lot given the boosts they get to their stats. Goldbox are clearly based on D&D and the M&M games are clearly influenced too, so they are Computer games running the ruleset of a P&P game.
Oblivion, Skyrim and their ilk
The earlier TES games were stat based where your characters stats dictated how effective they would be in any given action but nowadays they use a "get better by doing" leveling system so as you do an action the better your skills in several areas liike lockpicking and casting for example and the more you rise your individual skills the better your character gets. There are no "rewards" per se to quests (other than the actual physical rewards the quest might have like a new weapon or money) so the system allows you to get creative on which skills you raise and this level up. The bad part is that other than gettong acces to a tier based perk there is no upgrade to your character; if you swing and miss it is because direct player imput
And lastly Darklands
This is to me the finest party based explicitly designed for PC system ever; you don't get experience per se but your actions raise your stats for using them or as direct reward for your action. While you can still fight trash mobs, the likelyhood of getting a rise to your stats is much lower because since your skills are better fights don't last very long. Rewards for quests are again in the physical nature, but you can get a stat boost to your DF or other stats at the end of the quest plus any boost from suing your skills in the quest itself; think of the rewards you get from clearing a mine for example.
It is similar to the system of the TES games but since your don't have direct input on the action itself the boost afect directly the ability of your character.
Overall I think for this game they should have tried to go the Darklands route and develop their own computer based system..mbut since this is more of an IE based game they should at least follow the Goldbox idea of little XP from trash mobs and main rewards from questing

 

[imweasel]

You get XP for overcoming challenges.

You. Still. Do. Nothing has changed, except instead of instant gratification you get the reward a little later, and the game let's you decide how to tackle those challenges. It doesn't artificially encourage one playstyle over another.

You are (presumably) the one arguing that this method is bad. I'm not really seeing what your argument is. Not sure you've presented one yet (not being sarcastic, I don't know what your point is).

Avoiding combat as much as possible is encouraged, because it is a low-risk, low-effort way to obtain the same reward, which is that desired quest xp.

I'm just wondering why it is wrong to encourage the player to engage in combat by rewarding it with XP, yet absolutely fine to encourage the player to avoid combat.

VTMB already implemented a "XP only for quests" system. It worked perfectly.

Yes, a "XP only for quests" system did work perfectly for Bloodlines. But that is besides the point because PoE is a very different type of game.

 

[Nihiliste]

Removing the incentive to grind for XP by taking out combat rewards is pure incline. Grinding is of the worst parts of traditional RPG design.

I hear the argument that it makes sense to get better at things by doing them, but that's only true to a point. To give a real life example, it doesn't matter how many mothers bring their children with colds to the clinic - sending them home and reassuring them they'll be fine ad nauseum doesn't make me any better at my job. In contrast, when the occasional really challenging patient comes in, that's when my knowledge and clinical skills are really pushed and I feel like I learn something valuable for the future. Similarly, once you've killed a few mephits or kobolds, is killing 100 more of them really going to prepare your character to better take on a mage like Irenicus?

P&P is different because the DM is controlling the flow of the game and you and your friends aren't going to sit around the table for hours pretending to fight hundreds of xvarts just to level up.

Obviously, theres a limit here, in that noncombat oriented characters shouldn't suddenly be amazing at combat come the endgame after spending the whole game using diplomatic or stealth based solutions, unless the endgame also has a noncombat solution. But I don't think this is going to be an issue in PoE because I'm assuming this is not going to be like PS:T where you can avoid pretty much all conflict.

 

[Lhynn]

Pillars of Eternity is going to change how we look at video games.

VTMB already implemented a "XP only for quests" system. It worked perfectly.

If excidium was here, he would murder you... with his fists.

 

[Ninjerk]

Pillars of Eternity is going to change how we look at video games.

VTMB already implemented a "XP only for quests" system. It worked perfectly.

If excidium was here, he would murder you... with his fists.

 

[King Arthur]

There is a lot of flexibility in what could work in an RPG. The important thing for designers would not be to develop an inflexible design philosophy, one that dictates what XP system they must use, for instance, but to use their intelligence and creativity to improvise as the project takes shape.

 

[Volourn]

". Beetles hanging out in the wilderness is not a problem."

They're fukkin' on/near a road. Roads are made for travelers. They are a fukkin' problem.


BL's XP system was retartet and was a fail. A better example is SRR where it actually fukkin' works.

But, hey, it could be worse: It could be Arcanum where you get xp per hit. Now that was EPICALLY RETARTET.

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

So according to this "design" i would not get xp for killing motherfucking Firkraag in BG2 because fighting him is not an obstacle to finish Windspear Hills quest.

I would get xp only for killing his pet wizard

Yet i cant imagine that actually fighting, killing and surviving in dragon fight does not give my adventurers experience to get better at what they do on daily basis - killing stuff. Yea i wonder what could get fighters out of dragon fight they have just won. Probably just some burnings

so its true i dont get xp for killing random mobs? if yes than thats fucking retarded and i doubt i will do anything but rush the main quest. whats the point of exploration if not additional xp? i still remember killing basilisks/ankhegs/ice wolf in bg1 i randomly encountered. that instant jump from lvl 1 to 3-4


you cant be fucking serious

No kill XP confirmed as good design decision.

whats the point of exploration if not additional xp?

How about lewt and (possibly) information?

Personally I'm tired of supposedly cereberal (spelling intentional) games where you spend most of the time murdering shit for no reason.

selective xp rewards are shit and restrict replayability.

You mean selective xp rewards like getting the XPs for killing shit, but none for sneaking past it even though it also tackles the problem?

i did not notice in Obsidians presentation any xp for sneaking past spiders to get to the ogre in cave

its BG/IWD spiritual succesor ffs i seriously doubt you will be able to sneak past or talk yourself out of more than 20% encounters.

Removing the incentive to grind for XP by taking out combat rewards is pure incline. Grinding is of the worst parts of traditional RPG design.

I hear the argument that it makes sense to get better at things by doing them, but that's only true to a point. To give a real life example, it doesn't matter how many mothers bring their children with colds to the clinic - sending them home and reassuring them they'll be fine ad nauseum doesn't make me any better at my job. In contrast, when the occasional really challenging patient comes in, that's when my knowledge and clinical skills are really pushed and I feel like I learn something valuable for the future. Similarly, once you've killed a few mephits or kobolds, is killing 100 more of them really going to prepare your character to better take on a mage like Irenicus.

grinding is what makes you better at fighting. "embrace the grind" ever heard about that phrase? in martial arts you get better by doing same shit over and over

 

[Zombra]

grinding is what makes you better at fighting. "embrace the grind" ever heard about that phrase? in martial arts you get better by doing same shit over and over

Yes, because there is nothing like a tedious, repetitive task when in comes to entertainment!

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

grinding is what makes you better at fighting. "embrace the grind" ever heard about that phrase? in martial arts you get better by doing same shit over and over

Yes, because there is nothing like a tedious, repetitive task when in comes to entertainment!

wasnt Sawyer supposed to do that tedious task entertainig thanks to his brand new combat system? i wanted to try it but since fighting doesnt give me any xp i will make team of 6 fragile but charismatic diplomats

 

[Athelas]

Instead of using faux-simulationist arguments to defend kill xp ('killing 100 kobolds with a sword makes me more proficient with a bow and increases my diplomacy skill'), people should be more worried about whether the combat will actually be fun. That will ultimately be the only thing that matters. The attachment to kill XP probably comes from the fact that RPG combat tends to be bad, hence requiring the incentive of XP for a lot of people.

 

[Volourn]

" RPG combat tends to be bad, hence requiring the incentive of XP for a lot of people."

No.

 

[coffeetable]

Instead of using faux-simulationist arguments to defend kill xp ('killing 100 kobolds with a sword makes me more proficient with a bow and increases my diplomacy skill'), people should be more worried about whether the combat will actually be fun. That will ultimately be the only thing that matters. The attachment to kill XP probably comes from the fact that RPG combat tends to be bad, hence requiring the incentive of XP for a lot of people.

people play rpgs just to watch a number go up? okay, ill save them some money

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

people should be more worried about whether the combat will actually be fun. That will ultimately be the only thing that matters. The attachment to kill XP probably comes from the fact that RPG combat tends to be bad, hence requiring the incentive of XP for a lot of people.

If I don't enjoy the combat then I don't see much point in playing a combat-focused game, no matter how much xp I am 'bribed' with.

I'm not too bothered either way though, although BG/IWD had kill xp so I understand why its absence in the 'spiritual successor' has raised a few questions. I've never really been one for grinding but I thought the gold box style of a small amount of xp for killing and much more for quests etc seemed to work ok.

Regardless, it's not a big deal really. People will soon get used to it and if there are resources to be gained from the beetles (crafting items or supplies) then it may be worth expending resources taking them on, for those who think in those terms, most will probably just chop them into bits because they are there.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Instead of using faux-simulationist arguments to defend kill xp ('killing 100 kobolds with a sword makes me more proficient with a bow and increases my diplomacy skill'), people should be more worried about whether the combat will actually be fun. That will ultimately be the only thing that matters. The attachment to kill XP probably comes from the fact that RPG combat tends to be bad, hence requiring the incentive of XP for a lot of people.

'Sup Roguey. Do you also have a problem with fauxgressives?

Oh yeah, will the combat which you're better off avoiding be any fun? VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION!

 

[DraQ]

i did not notice in Obsidians presentation any xp for sneaking past spiders to get to the ogre in cave

Did you notice any XP for beating them?

Problem. Solved.

XP does devalue over time because each level costs more. In F:NV it won't take non-combatant player long to catch up with a player that kills every gecko around Goodsprings, because those early XP gains become insignificant pretty fast.

Fair point, but any XP gain remains useful throughout the game, compare with some +1 dagger that was phat lewt at the beginning, but turns into near worthless vendor trash towards the end. Even without excessive loot inflation, you're going to have enough choice towards the end of the game, that part of even the unique/powerful loot will have to be pawned off and will become irrelevant.

I'm not convinced people actually do this outside of Josh Sawyer's nightmares.

Summoned mondblut .

Anyway, like Volourn said, the game shouldn't be balanced around those people. Let them have their degenerate fun.

No, the mechanics should be balanced around working and not having completely cheesy loopholes, otherwise you're essentially larping the rules.
I can and have done this (in TES, for example), but given the choice I'd rather not, and would prefer to have mechanics that works on its own, so let them not.

If your mechanics relies on player enforcing the rules out of their sheer goodwill, then you might as well not feature stuff like HP, but let player decide when they took too many hits and have 'lost'.

How is that bribing?

You get rewards for completing things, that's a pretty fucking standard game mechanic.

You get reward for things that are worth completing you don't for things that are not.

Why skew this with metagame rewards? Let the player decide if a quest or activity is worth their time and resources, let the game respond accordingly to the quest or activity undertaken - with loot, information, reputation or changing the state of the gameworld in a way that player might find rewarding or punishing.

XPs are abstract, metagame reward that feeds into abstract character development system. Unless you give them out for the actions player is meant to take unconditionally - AKA main quest critical path - you're skewing player's cost/benefit calculus.

Don't want an abstract system? Implement good use based system instead - the problem is that it's hard, complex and involves work. If you make a goal-centric experience without nearly as massive and open world as, for example TES, it might turn out to not be worth the effort (and risk of failure - see TES' less than stellar implementations).

Alternatively you might not implement any character progression system at all, and make gear/specific knowledge (like spells or combat techniques learned from particular sources) and reputation the only power multipliers and gating systems available, or make all progression based on NPC trainers.

"Bribing" only enters the picture when you reward completing the same thing differently depending on how you completed it, not because you completed it more/less successfully, but because the developer wants to encourage you to take a path he knows to be more shitty than another path.

For example helping the dirt poor villagers get rid of dangerous band of brigands (which may involve losses in your party or at least wasting critical supplies) in exchange for "thank you" and warm breakfast (and a handjob).

Let the player assess if the gratitude of villagers is worth the risk instead of trying to force action by bribing them with vital irreplaceable currency of XPs.

The question here isn't "why not reward differently" but "why would you ever reward one path to the same objective differently than another path unless there were clear states of success/partial failure involved?"

This extends to determining what is actually, unarguably, an objective.

Well, pnp solved this by giving bonus exp to characters for doing stuff they should be doing, 10 xp to thieves for each gp worth of stolen property, 10xp per hit dice of enemy beaten in battle by the team, mages got exp for creating magical items and new spells, etc.

Well, you could have a system that would give out XP on by-class basis - fighters would get kill XP, thieves would get XP for 'acquiring' loot, wizards for learning new shit and so on.

It would however end up being quite complex and might require as much balancing efforts as use-based would (being effectively a weird, class restricted use based).
Goal based XP has the advantage of being dead simple and trivial to balance.
I'm a use-based person, but I can see the advantages of exclusively goal based XP and since XP is inherently abstract it beats traditional XP based systems at all fronts.

but never met a diplomat that could go toe to toe with a boxer, no matter how good said diplomat was.

Have you ever met a boxer that could beat an experienced diplomat at diplomacy?

Yep. You get XP for overcoming challenges.

Where "overcoming" means "whatever gets the job done".

 

[Infinitron]

In Pillars of Eternity, experience point gains are no longer a "naturally occuring byproduct" of various systemic activities. They're more like a series of pre-designed, scripted "progression points" scattered throughout the game.

Imagine an RPG where, instead of experience points, you just gain a level every time you finish a chapter. That would essentially be a cruder version of this, one that doesn't allow you to gain more levels via sidequests. But the idea is the same - experience as scripted progression, not as mineable resource.

 

[DraQ]

In Pillars of Eternity, experience point gains are no longer a "naturally occuring byproduct" of various systemic activities. They're more like a series of pre-designed, scripted "progression points" scattered throughout the game.

Imagine an RPG where, instead of experience points, you just gain a level every time you finish a chapter. That would essentially be a cruder version of this, one that doesn't allow you to gain more levels via sidequests. But the idea is the same - experience as scripted progression, not as "mineable systemic resource".

And that's good, because XPs have always been an abominable hybrid of systemic resource and metagame reward.

If you want a progression system either go full systemic and design a proper use based system, that rewards all kinds of activity (preferably with tradeoffs involved) and regulates benefits from it, or go full abstract and just give player universal reward they can use freely for performing according to expectations.

Everything else is shit.

 

[Nihiliste]

So according to this "design" i would not get xp for killing motherfucking Firkraag in BG2 because fighting him is not an obstacle to finish Windspear Hills quest.

I would get xp only for killing his pet wizard

Yet i cant imagine that actually fighting, killing and surviving in dragon fight does not give my adventurers experience to get better at what they do on daily basis - killing stuff. Yea i wonder what could get fighters out of dragon fight they have just won. Probably just some burnings

Or you know, the area/quest will just have to be designed slightly differently so you get XP after clearing that dungeon/defeating Firkraag.

 

[Bubbles]

Have you ever met a boxer that could beat an experienced diplomat at diplomacy?

Ask any Ukrainian who voted for УДАР.