702 réponses à ce sujet

[guru7892]

In Exile wrote...

Guard: There is no possible means for you to pass.
Hawke: [Intimidate] I'll stab you?
Guard: No. Sorry. Not scared.
Hawke: [Persuade] Please let me go through?
Guard: No. Tell someone who cares.

Hawke: [murders darkspawn]
Hawke: [level up]
Hawke: [murders more darkspawn]
Hawke: [murders some elves]
Hawke: [level up]
Hawke: [murders some wolves]

Guard: You're back. You still can't pass.
Hawke: [Persuade] I have urgent matters with your superiors. They would be quite wroth with you if you keep me waiting [Succes!].
Hawke: Huh. Apparently killing lots of things made me more persuasive. I also know how to build better traps, seem to have learned alchemy, AND an now an epic-level tracker. Man, is there anything killing can't do?

 well if you are killing wolves, elves, darkspawn and the dreaded 'more darkspawn', I would be much more inclined to let you pass. seeing the disembodied remains of creatures may also allow you a better understanding of the theroy and practice of medicine related to alchemy. tracking creatures probably comes from experience finding creatures (so the more you look for creatures the more you know what to look for on the way). chances are you encountered traps set by your prey and also set a few for them in your hunt of the second most elusive game (elves).

as for what killing can't do... well actually according the lore killing enough people will let you physically enter the fade and corrupt a city made by The Maker. So really it's not a matter of if; but a matter of how much killing you have to do.

IT IS IN THE LORE; THE MORE YOU KILL THE MORE STUFF YOU CAN DO!

Dave of Canada wrote...
Hawke: Sir.. I'm exausted.. I've just slain thousands of darkspawn and dragons to get.. your diary.. is this it?
Old Man: Thank you, good man. Here's your reward.
[You recieve 5 gold, 1100 experience!]
Hawke: Thank god.. wait one stinking minute here.. I don't feel any stronger?
Little kid: Sir, sir! I've lost my kitten!
Hawke: Wait a bloody second, kid. I'm having a mid life crisis.
Little kid: I've lost my kitten!
Hawke: Is that it? 
Little kid: Yes, thank you kind sir! 
[You recieve 5 gold, 2200 experience! You leveled up!]
Hawke: Wait one damn moment.. I'm.. stronger now? Finding that damn kitten made me stronger, yet slaying those darkspawn .. no? What the hell is wrong with this universe!?!

however the more important question is; why do you hate kittens?

Modifié par guru7892, 30 juillet 2010 - 09:07 .

[Haexpane]

Felfenix wrote...
  If I wanna do nothing but "grind mobs" I'll go play some F2P Korean MMO.

IDK about Korean MMOs, but the last MMO I played Quest XP >>>>>> Killing XP.  They had both.

The answer is obviously, not "remove XP per kill" but what people really want, which is "More than just killing and chest opening" gameplay

[Haexpane]

In Exile wrote...
 Apparently killing lots of things made me more persuasive. 

If you want a Skill Based Leveling system, TES awaits

[In Exile]

guru7892 wrote...
 well if you are killing wolves, elves, darkspawn and the dreaded 'more darkspawn', I would be much more inclined to let you pass. seeing the disembodied remains of creatures may also allow you a better understanding of the theroy and practice of medicine related to alchemy. tracking creatures probably comes from experience finding creatures (so the more you look for creatures the more you know what to look for on the way). chances are you encountered traps set by your prey and also set a few for them in your hunt of the second most elusive game (elves).

If we play XP straight, then you don't learn through other means. You learn only via killing. Killing itself increases your knowledge of everything, even things not killing related. In the same way as that example had you randomly learn things as you did other, completely unrelated things.

The whole point being trying to make sense of XP as learning is stupid.

[In Exile]

Haexpane wrote...

In Exile wrote...
 Apparently killing lots of things made me more persuasive. 

If you want a Skill Based Leveling system, TES awaits

Who says I do? We're looking at a game. Accurate rendition of psychology should be low on the priority list.

[Haexpane]

In Exile wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

In Exile wrote...
 Apparently killing lots of things made me more persuasive. 

If you want a Skill Based Leveling system, TES awaits

Who says I do? We're looking at a game. Accurate rendition of psychology should be low on the priority list.

Hmm, so are you Pro or Anti "remove XP from killing" because I'm confused on your stance.

[yoda23]

Vaeliorin wrote...

yoda23 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

angj57 wrote...
But do remember that Baldur's Gate 1 was a pretty radical shift for RPGs in that it scrapped the old turn based system and went with real time gameplay. I'm sure a lot of purists thought that this was blasphemy and was pandering to casual gamers, but looking back it was a logical change which kept the important aspects of RPGs while improving the gameplay experience. Try and keep an open mind.

It made the gameplay experience worse.

Turn-based forever!


:innocent:


Oh, and yeah, xp per kill is kind of traditional, and certainly old school, but I think it's something that would be better done away with, unless it's a game that's largely focused on combat.

Turn based was NOT eliminated in BGII just hidden from the player until the player paused. If you played the vampire sequence in Amn then you know what I am talking about.

Yes it was.  When the game was unpaused, multiple units could move concurrently.  That's not turn-based.  In a turn-based games, units move in sequence, only one at a time.

Oh...and I'm replaying the BG saga at the moment, so...your ad hominem doesn't really apply.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ad_hominem 

And yes when you paused it was YOUR turn.

Modifié par yoda23, 30 juillet 2010 - 09:50 .

[guru7892]

In Exile wrote...

The whole point being trying to make sense of XP as learning is stupid.

True but when I explained it from a game design standpoint and  nobody cared; so I tried to explain it from a lore perspective. But lore can only do so much.

[Haexpane]

yoda23 wrote...

 

And yes when you paused it was YOUR turn.

No it wasnt, do we really want to go here?  The CPU AI is making it's moves, when you pause everything is paused, you can click buttons and Q up actions, but you can't take your turn until you unpause, at which time the CPU takes his turn at the same time

[yoda23]

Haexpane wrote...

yoda23 wrote...

 

And yes when you paused it was YOUR turn.

No it wasnt, do we really want to go here?  The CPU AI is making it's moves, when you pause everything is paused, you can click buttons and Q up actions, but you can't take your turn until you unpause, at which time the CPU takes his turn at the same time

How can two actions happen "at the same time"? Please clarify.

[Haexpane]

yoda23 wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

yoda23 wrote...

 

And yes when you paused it was YOUR turn.

No it wasnt, do we really want to go here?  The CPU AI is making it's moves, when you pause everything is paused, you can click buttons and Q up actions, but you can't take your turn until you unpause, at which time the CPU takes his turn at the same time

How can two actions happen "at the same time"? Please clarify.

The program is multi tasking?  I'm not sure what you mean.  hundreds of billions of actions happen simultaneously every nanosecond in the universe

[In Exile]

Haexpane wrote...

Hmm, so are you Pro or Anti "remove XP from killing" because I'm confused on your stance.

I think it depends on the type of game you're going for. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. I spoke about Bloodlines before. They used Quest XP, and for part of the game, that worked well. But then as you moved along the main quest you were forced into combat, and RP took a backseat and suddenly having to kill endless minions with no reward started to suck hardcore.

My points in this thread were really as follows: Mission based XP can be an RPG implementation other than ME2, XP as a system is stupid and comparing it to RL is nonsensical, and my general position is that your gameplay and game design should determine how you allocate XP.

If you have a combat heavy game, you need combat XP. If you have a combat light or combat optional game, you don't.

[Vaeliorin]

Okay...why does editing keep resulting in double posts?  Wouldn't even have to do it if the site didn't mess up the format of copy-pasted stuff.

Stupid website.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 31 juillet 2010 - 01:46 .

[Vaeliorin]

[quote]Haexpane wrote...
[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
I've played both, and I think that DA is far more balanced than 2E D&D.  Honestly, I can't think of a system that's more imbalanced than 2E D&D (except maybe 3.X D&D.)  Non-caster characters actually have a reason to exist in DA, but they really don't in 2E.  Add in the fact that D&D has never quite gotten over the whole "you're only as good as your items" hurdle (items play a much less important role in DA) and I think it's strange that anyone would suggest that DA isn't more balanced than 2E D&D.[/quote]
I said BG2 and DAO not 2E D&D.   I know BG2 is a modified AD&D ruleset, but it's not D&D .

So you think 1 hit killing 60% of mobs on nightmare in DAO is balanced?  How about soloing the Archdemon?[/quote]
I think you can't 1 hit kill 60% of mobs on nightmare.  But even if you could, it's still more balanced than a system in which warriors and rogues exist solely to carry the clerics and wizards luggage.

[quote][quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
The best way to handle AD&D actions is the same way they're handled at a table.  Turn-based.  It's the way I'd like every RPG to play.[/quote]
 Well BG2 wasn't turn based, what crpgs did you like that were turn based again?[/quote]
Lots of them.  The Realms of Arkania series.  The Wizardry series.  The Might and Magic Series.  Betrayal at Krondor.  Old school stuff.
[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
There shouldn't have been any purist complaints -- RTWP is about the best way to handle the AD&D action system.

Real purists were the ones complaining that the Gold Box games botched AD&D.[/quote]
I was going to say that you were wrong, but Sylvius already kind of did it for me.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]

The best way to handle AD&D actions is the same way they're handled at a table.  Turn-based.  It's the way I'd like every RPG to play.[/quote]
Actually, Sylvius was agreeing with me.[/quote]
I meant that Sylvius told you that I would tell you that you were wrong.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[quote]Maybe you don't remember AD&D right? All moves are called at the beginning of the action round, before
initiative rolls. The Gold Box games trashed this by rolling initiative first and letting characters pick their moves as their turns came.

The IE wasn't perfect by any means. Strictly speaking there should be a single round for everybody, with a plot phase and then an execution phase. But in practice DMs often permitted modification during the round, since the AD&D rules are kind of vague as to what happens when a called move is impossible or insane by the time the character gets his action. Regardless, the end result in the IE is pretty close to what a full implementation would give you.[/quote]
I remember AD&D right. We just never used that particular rule because it was honestly pretty silly.  You'd end up casting fireballs into nowhere or attacking things that were already did if you stuck to that system.  That was our only
major change from RAW.
[quote]yoda23 wrote...
[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
[quote]yoda23 wrote...
[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
[quote]angj57 wrote...
But do remember that Baldur's Gate 1 was a pretty radical shift for RPGs in that it scrapped the old turn based system and went with real time gameplay. I'm sure a lot of purists thought that this was blasphemy and was pandering to casual gamers, but looking back it was a logical change which kept the important aspects of RPGs while improving the gameplay experience. Try and keep an open mind.[/quote]
It made the gameplay experience worse.

Turn-based forever!


:innocent:


Oh, and yeah, xp per kill is kind of traditional, and certainly old school, but I think it's something that would be better done away with, unless it's a game that's largely focused on combat.[/quote]
Turn based was NOT eliminated in BGII just hidden from the player until the player paused. If you played the vampire sequence in Amn then you know what I am talking about.[/quote]
Yes it was.  When the game was unpaused, multiple units could move concurrently.  That's not turn-based.  In a turn-based games, units move in sequence, only one at a time.

Oh...and I'm replaying the BG saga at the moment, so...your ad hominem doesn't really apply.[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ad_hominem  [/quote]
I know what ad hominem means.  I was referring to
[quote]yoda23 wrote...

Oh I forgot Amn was before the CONTROLLER folks came on board... So silly of me.[/quote]
which seemed a continuation of your first, directed at me, and insulting.

[quote]And yes when you paused it was YOUR turn.[/quote]
No, when you paused it wasn't anyone's turn.  It simply stopped the actions already in progress.  If it was actually turn-based, it would look more like this, which is not to say that ToEE was a great (or even good) game, but it did have pretty excellent turn-based combat, which is the best computer emulation of 3.X D&D I ever encountered (yes, I realize BG was 2E.)

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 31 juillet 2010 - 01:45 .

[angj57]

Haexpane wrote...

 Well BG2 wasn't turn based, what crpgs did you like that were turn based again?

The real Fallout games (i.e. Fallout 1 and 2).

[Vaeliorin]

angj57 wrote...

Haexpane wrote...
 Well BG2 wasn't turn based, what crpgs did you like that were turn based again?

The real Fallout games (i.e. Fallout 1 and 2).

Those too.  I can't believe I forgot them.  I think it's because the combat in Fallout 1 & 2 kind of annoyed me because the companions always liked to get in my way or try and shoot through me.  It's why I spent most of those games without a party.  

[TMZuk]

Haexpane wrote...

In Exile wrote...
 Apparently killing lots of things made me more persuasive. 

If you want a Skill Based Leveling system, TES awaits

TES bores me witless, not because the system is bad, but because the stories are uninspiring, the npc's all act and sound the same, and the landscape consists of endless copy and paste.

What I don't understand is this: Those in favour of Xp per Kill rarely gives any reason why it is preferable. They argue as if the suggestion in the original post is to remove combat, rather than presenting several options, where combat is one of them. The ultimate sandbox game in the history of CRPG's, Micropose's old Darklands was able to offer different options each and every time you wished to sneak into a castle, spy on a witch-cult, or whatever else you wished to do, but a modern CRPG is not.

[Mehow_pwn]

Not another mass effect... 2 SERIOUSLY NO Im sick and tired of killing epic things and not get anything... or killing alot of things and not get anything either...

[Ulicus]

If they do keep XP for kills, I hope they just give us XP for every death, whether the PCs inflicted it or not. Like in Jade Empire. It really annoyed me when my party would whittle a dude's health down to zero only for some lameass guard ally to steal the final blow and take the XP.

[BallaZs]

Tirigon wrote...

The best leveling is the way it´s handled in Oblivion.

Totally DISAGREE.
Oblivion had the most terrible leveling system. Anything would be better.

[iTomes]

"What I don't understand is this: Those in favour of Xp per Kill rarely gives any reason why it is preferable. They argue as if the suggestion in the original post is to remove combat, rather than presenting several options, where combat is one of them. The ultimate sandbox game in the history of CRPG's, Micropose's old Darklands was able to offer different options each and every time you wished to sneak into a castle, spy on a witch-cult, or whatever else you wished to do, but a modern CRPG is not."



what, imo, is the problem with removing xp per kill is that it actually isn't necessary. instead of removing the xp per kill the much more easier solution is to give xp for persuation or something. if youre removing the xp per kill youve gotta find a way to reward the players who killed the enemies. same thing on persuation: if i persuade a merchant to sell me something for a lower price, i want xp for it, even if it isn't part of a quest or something. in the end its about: im doing something, and i want to be rewarded for it, whatever i may did.

[AlanC9]

TMZuk wrote...
What I don't understand is this: Those in favour of Xp per Kill rarely gives any reason why it is preferable.

Well, a few folks upthread did kind of endorse the "rat chow" theory -- although people who believe in kill XP obviously don't put it in such a contemptuous fashion.

[Joshd21]

TMZuk wrote...

That's right. Get rid of the killpoints, and let us attempt to create a more "realistic" feel to the game when it comes to killing, instead of the legalized and glorified mass-murderer approach.

XP per kill is a TERRIBLE oldfashioned idea, which most modern PnP RPG's, besides DnD, have long left behind.

It discourages any attempts at finding options other than fighting, and makes people chase around the whole map in order to wipe out every single opponent, and creates these absurd situations there was so many of in DA:O, where a party of four somehow manages to wipe out a forest full of werewolves.

One of the few good things that ME2 implemented was mission xp. A far better system, although it needs a lot of improvement over ME2. What it needs is:

-to actually present other options than fighting.

-hidden bonus xp for discovering stuff, finding solutions, sneaking past the guard etc, etc.

-more roleplay, as the combat in DA:O and even more in ME2 was so much just a filler between the actual RP situations.

-variable xp outcome, instead of the fixed amounts in ME2.

In ME2 the mission-xp system is marred by the fact that you have to fight all the time anyway. Playing a sneaky assasin type is impossile. That was perhaps possible to a degree in DA:O, but in order to get some xp, you had to kill, kill, kill. And truly, when reaching my fourth playthrough, I do wish I could fast-forward the combat.

Another thing I'd like to get rid of, or at least be able to disable is the achievements. Achievements are such a moodbreaker. It feels like some stupid arcade-game, and not as an RPG when those things suddenly flash on the screen. If people like them, then fine, just give those who don't like them the option of disabling them.

I must say I believe this is a troll. Just because Mass Effect and Dragon Age Orgins were made by the same company doesn't mean they have to be equal in all aspects. For example for whatever reason they decided to make the "Mass Effect digloe wheel" and voice our PC. Something I didn't need fixing.

It won game of the year so why change it? personally I didn't like mass effect there were only so many things you could say before you grew bored of hearing your own PC talk and repeat the same phrases. Also in Mass Effect 2 new convos would ONLY happen when you were finished with a personal mission or very briefly during the misson.

While in Dragon Age you could ask the orgins of every companion in depth and even ask Leliana what she thought of every new place you went to. i am disspointed at the ablity to hear Havok voice despite his voice because maybe I like to imagine what my PC sounds like. One voice for me may not be good for everyone else.

However to get to the point, please don't compare mass effect to dragon age. The amount of xp per kill is needed and if something is obviously not broke why would you try to change it. In my personal thought they should kept key formulas in dragon age that made is so good

[Sylvius the Mad]

BallaZs wrote...

Totally DISAGREE.
Oblivion had the most terrible leveling system. Anything would be better.

Really?  What was wrong with the levelling system?

There were other game featuresd that were tied to character level (like the encounter scaling) that were horribly, horribly broken (and completely misguided), but the levelling system itself worked beautifully.

[Aratham Darksight]

People ought to get into the habit of actually reading the thread they reply to. It's just obnoxious when someone simply dismisses a discussion of 20+ pages by stating that they can't see why anyone would want a feature or change... even though said pages were full of people explaining just why they think said feature/change would be desirable.