702 réponses à ce sujet

[ToJKa1]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BallaZs wrote...

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

Really?  What was wrong with the levelling system?

The attribute increasing. You had to carefully plan what skills to increase before leveling up to build optimal chracter. I've since started using a mod that makes attributes grow automatically, and makes leveling up happen completely silently in the background. Only ways to tell you've leveled up are encountering stronger monsters or by checking the character sheet. Oblivion's system + that mod (named nGCD) would be my preferred method.

Modifié par ToJKa1, 03 août 2010 - 05:26 .

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.

But the reason the encounter scaling didn't work is that Oblivion levels doesn't tell you what you need to know about the character. If levels don't organize characters into levels of capability, what are they doing for you?

And there's also the stat issue pointed out above. The LBD skill system and the leveling system are working at cross-purposes.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 août 2010 - 05:42 .

[AlanC9]

Joshd21 wrote...
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.

An actual argument as to why kill XP is needed would be kind of nice here. I assume you've got a reason, but since I'm not telepathic I don't know what it is.

[Tirigon]

BallaZs wrote...

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.

And why? Please tell me what is so bad about Oblivions´s leveling, cause I really can´t imagine anything.

[TMZuk]

Joshd21 wrote...

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.

A troll? Because I dislike the XP per Kill system in PnP rpg's and CRPG's equally, and creates a thread where I argue why I dislike the system, you accuse me of trolling? Rich.

I dislike the Kill-xp system in all games where I meet it, not just DA. It is, IMO, oldfashioned, and has more to do with Diablo than RPG's. Just because DA:O won the Game of the Year award, it doesn't mean it is flawless. It is, again IMO, far to combat heavy, the dialogues are to limited, the game is to linear and with to little actual RP. DA:A is even worse in that regard.

[iTomes]

TMZuk wrote...

Joshd21 wrote...

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.

A troll? Because I dislike the XP per Kill system in PnP rpg's and CRPG's equally, and creates a thread where I argue why I dislike the system, you accuse me of trolling? Rich.

I dislike the Kill-xp system in all games where I meet it, not just DA. It is, IMO, oldfashioned, and has more to do with Diablo than RPG's. Just because DA:O won the Game of the Year award, it doesn't mean it is flawless. It is, again IMO, far to combat heavy, the dialogues are to limited, the game is to linear and with to little actual RP. DA:A is even worse in that regard.

okkkkk lets just do a logical discussion then: what exactly is youre problem with the xp per kill system, why is it "oldfashioned" and why has it more to do with diablo than with rpgs??

[Haexpane]

In Exile wrote...

 ng 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. 

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

Exactly my thoughts

[Haexpane]

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).

Well FO1 has a decent combat system, but the highlight IMO is the PreVats area targetting.  IMO it feels a bit like early RTWP and not a JPN style turn based

[Haexpane]

Mehow_pwn wrote...

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...

Indeed, one of the worst parts of ME2 (besides the endless boring arm folding during way too long dialog) is killing "bosses" and getting NADA for your trouble.

[Haexpane]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

The thought is it's possible to both reward for killing AND make killing fun.

Obviously Kill XP doesnt make sense in The Sims, but how about a game with a GOAL of KILLING 500 darkspawn?  

Again, MAss Effect 2 is the perfect example of what a combat heavy "pseudo RPG" feelsl like when you remove XP and loot.  Combat might be "visceral" but it becomes very annoying and pointless early in the game.

[TMZuk]

iTomes wrote...

okkkkk lets just do a logical discussion then: what exactly is youre
problem with the xp per kill system, why is it "oldfashioned" and why
has it more to do with diablo than with rpgs??

I believe that several people have replied to that already... I'll just once more quote myself. The idea is NOT to remove combat, or make combat worthless. The idea is to present OTHER options as well. Making descisions as how to approach a situation. That is RP! If you are really interested, then please read through my reply below. It should make my viewpoint abundantly clear.

TMZuk wrote...

There's been a lot of interesting pros and cons here, reading through the replies.

However, it strikes me as odd that some people seem to think I want to get rid of combat altogether. What I would like to see is options.

Example: A group of darkspawn commanded by a Hurlock Emissary occupies a village.

---------------------------------------One: The fighter approach --------------------------------------

Attack and Kill all the Darkspawn. You may succeed, kill all the darkspawn, save the villagers, everyone happy. Or you may kill all the darkspawn, but not before they killed some of the villagers. Or you may die against overwhelming odds.

Absolute succes: 1000 xp.

Partial succes: 500 xp.

Failure... well... death.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------Two: The sneak approach --------------------------------------

Sneak in and kill the emmisary. You may succeed. Darkspawn confused without leadership and flee, everyone happy. You may succeed partially, the emmisary manages to kill some villagers before you get to him. Or you are spotted and have to flee.

Succes: 1000 xp

Partial succes: 500 xp
Failure! Whole village dies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you have two different approaches, that gives variable xp, and many different outcomes. Combat is ONE option, instead of the ONLY option. This is a super-simplified example, and if you replace darkspawn with robbers or Lohgain sympathizers, you have more options opening up, such as diplomacy.

Put in bonus xp for discovering a planned raid on the next village, an apostate hiding in the village, or some such thing.

This would make fast and efficient killing worthwhile, but it would leave open other options as well, instead of the system we have now, where the ONLY option is to get the meatgrinder running.

[Haexpane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BallaZs wrote...

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

Really?  What was wrong with the levelling system?
 .

Lets try and stay on topic, but one of the things wrong w/ Oblivion leveling system is this

-if you followed the game's instructions and had major/minor skills set to skills you want to use, you LEVELED TOO FAST and became WEAKER as you leveled.

The best way to level in TES was to set your major/minor skills to things you DONT USE much.  That way you can get the X5 stat modifier.

THe bottom line, the leveling system in Oblivion was not balanced and easily exploited, or worse, if you didn't understand it well and followed the tutorial, you made your character WEAKER

[Haexpane]

AlanC9 wrote...


An actual argument as to why kill XP is needed would be kind of nice here. I assume you've got a reason, but since I'm not telepathic I don't know what it is.

This is flawed logic. Your asking someone to disprove something that has not been proven in the first place.  It's like asking him to prove why Santa Claus doesnt exist.  He doesn't need to  prove it, since no one has established it even exists.

In the case of DAO, XP per kill has *already been established* as something that works.

Now the argument is, lets change something that works, into something we don't know if it will work in DA, and then challenge people who defend the original proven system into proving why it worked?

Thats like people who say we can fix the economy by giving huge tax cuts to corporations.  We already tried that in the 1980s and all the jobs went to 3rd world countries.

[Haexpane]

TMZuk wrote...
  IMO, far to combat heavy, the dialogues are to limited, the game is to linear and with to little actual RP. DA:A is even worse in that regard.

Bioware games have always been linear, combat heavy story driven RPGs.  The things you dislike about DAO are *core features* of the BW developed games.

If you prefer open ended RP heavy games light on combat, I don't think Bioware is going to make one.

[iTomes]

@TMZuk: i do not really understand why combat xp doesn't allow other options?? i mean, you can also give someone xp for a persuation or an assassination of a leader. the reason why those things werent that much in DA are that those features are expensive, not because the xp system didn't allow them.

the system you suggest on the other hand has a much bigger flaw: everything outside of a quest would become mostly worthless. if im running through brecillian forest for example, not because i have a quest but because i want to discover a little, propably finding myself a nice new armour, id get no xp for the wolves and darkspawn and whatever i slay on my way.

[AlanC9]

Haexpane wrote...
This is flawed logic. Your asking someone to disprove something that has not been proven in the first place.  It's like asking him to prove why Santa Claus doesnt exist.  He doesn't need to  prove it, since no one has established it even exists.

In the case of DAO, XP per kill has *already been established* as something that works.

He didn't say "works." He said "needed." Sure, there's flawed logic here. But it's his.

If he wants to just say that he doesn't see any reason to change it, that's fine -- asuming he's actually read the thread, of course. Not saying why he disagrees with the reasons advanced would make the post kind of lame, but that's his business.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 août 2010 - 07:17 .

[AlanC9]

iTomes wrote...

the system you suggest on the other hand has a much bigger flaw: everything outside of a quest would become mostly worthless. if im running through brecillian forest for example, not because i have a quest but because i want to discover a little, propably finding myself a nice new armour, id get no xp for the wolves and darkspawn and whatever i slay on my way.

That's an interesting point. But whether it matters depends on whether you want to reward players for that sort of thing or not -- besides the reward of the loot itself. I'm a big unfan of exploration in RPGs, so I'm happy with no XP for that.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.

The hidden attribute system. You had to effectively level enough times per attribute to maximize the number of attribute points you got, but you were never told this. It's a realistic implementation to a degree (you perhaps improve the attributes which you most exercise) but it can lead to poor builds just out of the player not understanding the mechanics of the game. If you knew it, you can then RP your leveling appropriately. But if you don't know in universe rules like studying literally makes you more intelligent only if you study in this one particular way, that can be game-breaking.

[TMZuk]

iTomes wrote...

@TMZuk: i do not really understand why combat xp doesn't allow other options?? i mean, you can also give someone xp for a persuation or an assassination of a leader. the reason why those things werent that much in DA are that those features are expensive, not because the xp system didn't allow them.
the system you suggest on the other hand has a much bigger flaw: everything outside of a quest would become mostly worthless. if im running through brecillian forest for example, not because i have a quest but because i want to discover a little, propably finding myself a nice new armour, id get no xp for the wolves and darkspawn and whatever i slay on my way.

There, I guess, we will just have to agree on disagreeing. IMO, killing some random wolves or bandits that gets in your way should not reward any xp at all.

Besides that, by far the majority of combat in DA:O is quest-related, one way or another, as there is no true free-roaming like in the TES games. Nor is there much exploration like in the BG series, where there was many maps that was utterly unconnected to the main-quest to explore.

What I like about Bioware-games is their powerful stories, the sense of humour and the interesting, involving NPC's. In TES, on the other hand, you have exploration and options, but boring stories and dreadful npc's. I wish someone would someday combine the best parts of the two. That would be my dream come true as to the ultimate CRPG.

[In Exile]

I favour an XP system that rewards different trees. I think a combat XP pool works for melee classes. Stabbing people with the pointy end should make you better at stabbing them with the pointy end, but it shouldn't teach you herbalism. I think rewarding XP for doing (so making potions gives you herbalism XP) and tying the skills to training (you have to pay to learn the skill) and perhaps anchoring the # of skills you can have to cunning or setting cunning/wisdom etc. baselines to be able to train in a skill works as a good hybrid system (using DA terms).

[iTomes]

TMZuk wrote...

iTomes wrote...

@TMZuk: i do not really understand why combat xp doesn't allow other options?? i mean, you can also give someone xp for a persuation or an assassination of a leader. the reason why those things werent that much in DA are that those features are expensive, not because the xp system didn't allow them.
the system you suggest on the other hand has a much bigger flaw: everything outside of a quest would become mostly worthless. if im running through brecillian forest for example, not because i have a quest but because i want to discover a little, propably finding myself a nice new armour, id get no xp for the wolves and darkspawn and whatever i slay on my way.

There, I guess, we will just have to agree on disagreeing. IMO, killing some random wolves or bandits that gets in your way should not reward any xp at all.

Besides that, by far the majority of combat in DA:O is quest-related, one way or another, as there is no true free-roaming like in the TES games. Nor is there much exploration like in the BG series, where there was many maps that was utterly unconnected to the main-quest to explore.

What I like about Bioware-games is their powerful stories, the sense of humour and the interesting, involving NPC's. In TES, on the other hand, you have exploration and options, but boring stories and dreadful npc's. I wish someone would someday combine the best parts of the two. That would be my dream come true as to the ultimate CRPG.

ahhhh the perfect game..... is never actually going to happen because its too expensive to produce and too many kiddies wont play it because "its nd friggin modearn warfere twoo maaaannn" while the other half of the gamers would just download it......^^

[Haexpane]

In Exile wrote...

I favour an XP system that rewards different trees. I think a combat XP pool works for melee classes. Stabbing people with the pointy end should make you better at stabbing them with the pointy end, but it shouldn't teach you herbalism. I think rewarding XP for doing (so making potions gives you herbalism XP) and tying the skills to training (you have to pay to learn the skill) and perhaps anchoring the # of skills you can have to cunning or setting cunning/wisdom etc. baselines to be able to train in a skill works as a good hybrid system (using DA terms).

A lot of that makes sense, MMOs do it.  The hard part is balance.

The last MMO i played w/ XP per kill AND Skill points was Everquest 1 WAY BACK in 2001 days.

The way it worked was

• quest/kill for XP
• hit new level
• new level allows you to raise skills
• spam skill until maxed for level
•  go back to first step

Skills became meaningless, unless you did not max them out.  The game was meant for you to raise skill as you played normally, but why would you want to XP grind w/o maxed skills?  
'
The problem is always, people will analyze a system, and developers would rather you ignore the system, and just play the game.  But we cant, humans want to learn and understand.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The hidden attribute system. You had to effectively level enough times per attribute to maximize the number of attribute points you got, but you were never told this. It's a realistic implementation to a degree (you perhaps improve the attributes which you most exercise) but it can lead to poor builds just out of the player not understanding the mechanics of the game.

Good point.

I hadn't really noticed that, because my Oblivion character happened not to gain any actual levels (I did not initially intend to break the levelling system).  But I can see why that would be irritating.

They probabaly should have tied the attribute gains to the skill improvements in a transparent way.  Transparency in the ruleset is a tremendous benefit to any game.  I couldn't believe how badly documented DAO was.

[AlanC9]

 Sylvius... you're defending a leveling system that you yourself accidentally broke?

[Sidney]

TMZuk wrote...

There, I guess, we will just have to agree on disagreeing. IMO, killing some random wolves or bandits that gets in your way should not reward any xp at all.

Well and only random killing gets you XP anyways. Making potions and poisons don't even though those are useful things - they're the output of getting XP.  Walking is aerobic why doesn't that get you XP? Walking your way to better fitness has as much relation to persuasion and poison making as stabbing people does.

If you want random killings and other actions to add XP then as bad as the Oblivion system is at least it makes sense - it directly rewards you for what you are doing over and over and over. In the Bioware games, things are tightly tied to the missions and that should be wher the XP comes from.

Someone asked about just randonly wandering into the forest and killing animals. Well bully for them. The "XP" for those kills would get tied up into the "job" of finishing the mission so you'd get the XP from them but it would have to be tied into doing something useful.