174 réponses à ce sujet

[Kusy]

Points for actions, not whole missions. That would include:
-killing enemies
-compleating main objectives
-compleating side objectives if such exist
-hacking/decrypting things

Also, this time around I hope getting to the level cap will actualy be challenging... like not doing all the quests but doing all the quests TO THE MAX BABY! ALPHA STYLE!

[wizardryforever]

Bluko wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Collider wrote...

No.
Unless they make sure that alternate methods (such as persuading people to stand down) gives the same amount of XP as fighting those same people would.

This is my view as well.  Kill Xp precludes the option of diplomacy or stealth.  It essentially rewards the bloodthirsty, making any other approach less effective in the long run.  Giving Xp at the end of missions means that all methods are rewarded equally.  Equality is good.

I also have to laugh at people calling things "shootery" when those things are most definitely not unique to shooters, and in fact occur frequently in RPGs.

Well Mass Effect isn't really a Stealth game. And where there is Stealth (like Cloak) it's basically just to get the drop on the enemy. I dunno if there were actual proper Stealth Segments I'd let the issue go, but there aren't unless you're counting Arrival's poor excuse for a Stealth Mission which still has you killing hordes of enemies anyways hence rendering the idea of being sneaky rather pointless.

As for Diplomacy you have a point. Although in that case they should give you the same or more XP then you would get for killing enemies.

The thing is Mass Effect is largely a combat game, which entails killing lots of things. It seems a bit pointless to me to just kill things and not even gain anything for it. I mean really what's the point of fighting any enemies at all then if you could just run to the end of level? I'm sorry but that don't make a lot of sense. Fighting is inevitable and you can't squirm your way out of everything.

Really what I'm asking for is if I got off the beaten path of the level and run into a group of Mercs robbing someone's house I should get some XP for killing them or talking them down possibly. I believe the game would greatly benefit to include such options. I mean if you aren't actively doing things to gain the XP it seems a bit pointless to me.

The way I see it is if my Shepard stays and hold off all the waves Husks to evacuate some civilians that should net more experience then a Shepard who jumps on the first shuttle off-world.

You're still given xp for kills, it is just on a per mission basis instead of per enemy.  Since virtually every mission is going to have combat in it, getting xp in tiny increments (on a per kill basis) just seems like "I can't wait for my xp, I need it NOW!"  To take the Renegade standpoint, the mission is what matters, not how you complete it.

[RunicDragons]

No...

[Bluko]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Points for actions, not whole missions. That would include:
-killing enemies
-completing main objectives
-completing side objectives if such exist
-hacking/decrypting things

Also, this time around I hope getting to the level cap will actualy be challenging... like not doing all the quests but doing all the quests TO THE MAX BABY! ALPHA STYLE!

Yep, this.

You don't gain experience by not doing things. It makes as much sense saying you can become as good a runner by running only 10m everyday as compared to someone who runs 1000m everyday. If Shepard kills more people/things that should make them a better killer. If Shepard unlocks more doors he should get better at it. That's kind of the point of the whole D&D model which is what all Roleplaying Games are essentially based off.

[mcsupersport]

I liked that I could use skill to skip fights and not be penalized by getting less experience points. The whole point was to complete the mission, not kill everything there. If I can stealth through an area and complete the mission, my skill in stealth should go up not be hurt because I didn't play a warrior and smash everything. I would like to see XP for more things such as finding codex entries, opening locks/hacking, mission objectives but little or almost NO experience for killing enemies, unless you have a way to get some that involves non-combat means.

By putting XP on kills it makes you play a certain style of game, ie kill everything to be comparable in skills/levels even if they offer another way or a class has a skill that offers a different path.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kill XP is a lame concept that should never have been brought into CRPGs -- it was obsolete in PnP games back in the 80s.

Agreed.

Honestly, the idea that levelling up needs to be attached to an XP total is pretty clunky in an RPG.  In fact, the level-scaling of enemies in so many games illustrates how artificial levelling itself can be.

[Bluko]

wizardryforever wrote...

You're still given xp for kills, it is just on a per mission basis instead of per enemy.  Since virtually every mission is going to have combat in it, getting xp in tiny increments (on a per kill basis) just seems like "I can't wait for my xp, I need it NOW!"  To take the Renegade standpoint, the mission is what matters, not how you complete it.

I'm alright with getting XP for completing Quests/Missions. But I don't think it's right to ignore all the smaller actions even killing individual enemies. Shepard should become more efficient at killing things if he kills more things no? I mean if I were designing the game I'd probably give players who get Headshots slightly more XP as well or say you use two Biotic Powers in conjucation to kill an enemy that should net you a little more XP too. It's nice to have that stuff since it rewards the player for actually playing the game.

Also the XP only per mission basis fuels the idea that missions should be strictly linear. I mean really why should I bother to kill some enemies off the main path if I get nothing for it? Why should I explore or do anything but complete the mission?

Say there are two paths in a mission. One has a lot of enemies. The other has none at all. You're basically saying that the person who avoids combat should get more combat experience? Umm what? And I will stress all the abilities in Mass Effect 2 are combat abilities. If I kill more enemies I should get more XP. Ideally to me in order to actually level up abilities like Concussive Shot or Adrenaline Rush I should actually have to use them you know.

[SNascimento]

No. ME2 system suits the game better.

[JayhartRIC]

I say XP for missions, loot for enemies. If you go off the beaten path and beat some extra enemies, you should find some credits or upgrades. XP should be for completing objectives.

[PARAGON87]

I want to get back to the XP system that was in the first game, and all BioWare games up to ME2, where it is reduced to an aftermission footnote. DA2 had XP, too.

For some reason it grants satisfaction after each and every kill and loot in the game.

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kill XP is a lame concept that should never have been brought into CRPGs -- it was obsolete in PnP games back in the 80s.

I see your point,  and you're not wrong,  but I disagree.

I understand that your point is that kill XP puts the Diplomatic or Stealth paths at a disadvantage if the "DM" (Real or Artificial) fails to acknowledge and reward it.

But I disagree that it's a lame concept,  and that it shouldn't have been continued.  An RPG models the Character's progression in ability,  and ability is gained through use.  Kill XP represents using your abilities to kill a creature,  and that should be rewarded.

I very strongly disagree with flat XP rewards,  like ME2.  It's lazy design.  Whatever you do,  you get the same as the next guy.  No matter how hard the fight,  or creative the avoidance of the fight,  or killing through alternate means is,  everyone gets exactly the same thing.  Might as well make an Adventure Game and give me a skill point at the end of every level.  I can do everything in ME2,  and be right about the same as the guy who did only critical path stuff,  so there's no "Carrot" for doing it.  Especially since ME2 lacks pretty much anything resembling items,  weapons,  or armor.

XP should be on a sliding scale,  with greater rewards for the greater difficulty fight/diplomacy or creative use of alternate paths.

Edit:

A system shouldn't be left behind just because the person designing/running the system failed to use it to it's fullest extent.  In this case,  there's nothing wrong with Kill XP,  just the designers who fail to acknowledge alternate paths.

Modifié par Gatt9, 25 mai 2011 - 02:13 .

[Adhin]

I don't want XP via kills. Doing so tends to kill options for balance reasons. For instance the constant mech assault as you race to get to your ship? When you get XP by kills you tend to obsesse over killing as much as you can just for the numbers. In a situation like that more often then not you'd sit there farming till you got bored. Or make certain choices for non-RP reasons just for 'the xp'.

It's not good design, PnP isn't even based off it - you get XP via encounter, or resolving of a situation one way or another. Its per kill in computer games cause its just an easier method since theres no DM to dish it out.

The only change I would make, personally, to the XP system with ME2 is dish out the XP for progression IN a mission not just at the 'very' end. There's plenty of turning points and resolutions through out (like meeting up with Garrus, or Mordin for instance) that could yeild XP. That's really the only issue I had. Waiting to the end when there was plenty of places to spread it out.

[Bogsnot1]

No.
Problem witn ME1 levelling was how in between, or during, battles, you could suddenly learn a new skill. Vanguards could finally put that one more point into pistols, and hey presto, they suddenly could use a shotgun efficiently. Same with Infiltrators with decrytpion and electronics.

If they do go for the "phat xp fer killz", make it so you cant level up or learn new skills until you are back on board the Normandy.

[Gabey5]

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[InvincibleHero]

I vote for NO. I liked the structure of set rewards. It made every outcome of the same validity. Do you learn any more gunning down your thousandth geth or Loki. Nope you learned everything effective within the first dozen or so you killed or you didn't make it.

[theelementslayer]

nah. I would make choices like kill the krogan for extra xp cause well i got to shoot him and his cronies. Or I would get out of the mako (not what normal people do) just to get xp. Nah made it tedious

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Yes. I have never seen really much point in why they went with that "mission structure" and "mission complete screen". It didn't bother me, but I don't see any other reason than streamlining. I got the game design behind this, I understand there isn't a reason for "why not change", but I have never found much strength in the point of "why change" either.

[Xeranx]

I kind of like how Alpha Protocol does it. It's kind of funny and maybe I missed it, but it seems like you're not necessarily rewarded xp for kills as much as you're rewarded xp for not killing enemies and completing your objective(s). This wouldn't work in Mass Effect however as there's usually an enemy lurking around a corner.

It's funny, I remember reading something on gamasutra that spoke about how every hero in a videogame is a mass murderer and Alpha Protocol encourages you not to be. Now I'm remembering my dislike of Samara yet over the course of two games my kill count must be in the thousands now.

[wizardryforever]

Bluko wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

You're still given xp for kills, it is just on a per mission basis instead of per enemy.  Since virtually every mission is going to have combat in it, getting xp in tiny increments (on a per kill basis) just seems like "I can't wait for my xp, I need it NOW!"  To take the Renegade standpoint, the mission is what matters, not how you complete it.

I'm alright with getting XP for completing Quests/Missions. But I don't think it's right to ignore all the smaller actions even killing individual enemies. Shepard should become more efficient at killing things if he kills more things no? I mean if I were designing the game I'd probably give players who get Headshots slightly more XP as well or say you use two Biotic Powers in conjucation to kill an enemy that should net you a little more XP too. It's nice to have that stuff since it rewards the player for actually playing the game.

Also the XP only per mission basis fuels the idea that missions should be strictly linear. I mean really why should I bother to kill some enemies off the main path if I get nothing for it? Why should I explore or do anything but complete the mission?

Say there are two paths in a mission. One has a lot of enemies. The other has none at all. You're basically saying that the person who avoids combat should get more combat experience? Umm what? And I will stress all the abilities in Mass Effect 2 are combat abilities. If I kill more enemies I should get more XP. Ideally to me in order to actually level up abilities like Concussive Shot or Adrenaline Rush I should actually have to use them you know.

Xp for missions does not mean linearity in the mission itself, only that the mission always rewards the player with the same xp.  In the example you provided, you opt to take on the extra enemies either for a role-playing reason (Shepard leaves no one behind him), or to get some material reward, like credits, resources, or upgrades.  Knowing when to avoid combat is just as important as skill in combat.  Xp is an abstract concept, and it isn't really fair to take the "sensible" route here.  The fact that the game only gives us combat skills (at least in ME2, ME1 had unlocking skills too) just makes it seem stupid to apply xp gained from non-combat.  That doesn't mean that sneaky, diplomatic, or other non-combat oriented options have no worth.  Pretty much every RPG in existence gives xp for mundane things and little sidequests, combat or no.  This is regardless of the presence of combat xp. 

Some systems, like the Elder Scrolls, advance your skills by using them.  Others, like Fable, give you specialized xp tha can be spent only on specific things.  Mass Effect does neither of those; xp, from any source, can be applied to anything.  Does it make sense?  Not really, but the idea of "leveling up" doesn't really make sense in a real world way either.  I'm not averse to xp for kills, but I'd like something that balances that out if I decide to take a different approach.

[wepeel_]

Nashiktal wrote...

Removing the exp tether to enemies allows the developers to develop missions without the headache of calculating what enemies should be where, and how much they are worth. Now they can just create the situation, and the amount of enemies however they wish.

Now if they would only get rid of the corny *mission complete* screen....

The thing is that the developers should be calculating which enemies should be where. When designing an area, they should actively think about "where are they, how many of them are there, where do they move to, where do they come from, how many move together, what kind of attention range do they have" and so on, instead of just going "well, put up some cover objects in this room and have 5 waves of enemies spawn as the player approaches" or "just have enemies spawn indefinitely at this point two at a time until the player fights his way to that position". It's a cheap, arcade-style way of introducing enemies and starting encounters, that doesn't really belong in an RPG in my opinion.

Sure, some special situations like being ambushed by husks or sneaking into a rachni nest can warrant enemies suddenly appearing from every possible opening in the environment, but apart from things like that, every opponent placed in the game should be premeditated by the developers.

[Gatt9]

Adhin wrote...

I don't want XP via kills. Doing so tends to kill options for balance reasons. For instance the constant mech assault as you race to get to your ship? When you get XP by kills you tend to obsesse over killing as much as you can just for the numbers. In a situation like that more often then not you'd sit there farming till you got bored. Or make certain choices for non-RP reasons just for 'the xp'.

It's not good design, PnP isn't even based off it - you get XP via encounter, or resolving of a situation one way or another. Its per kill in computer games cause its just an easier method since theres no DM to dish it out.

The only change I would make, personally, to the XP system with ME2 is dish out the XP for progression IN a mission not just at the 'very' end. There's plenty of turning points and resolutions through out (like meeting up with Garrus, or Mordin for instance) that could yeild XP. That's really the only issue I had. Waiting to the end when there was plenty of places to spread it out.

I disagree.

I stopped being interested in combat,  because the combat itself was boring and uninspired.  Without some reason to kill those things,  as often as not I'd shield boost and go loot while my team finished off the enemy.

Honestly,  there's something like what?  7 or 8 enemy types for the whole game?  And you've seen them all by the halfway point.  You're killing the same thing at the end of the game as you were on the first mission.  At least XP would've made it tolerable.  Seriously,  near the end of the game,  you're killing the exact same mech you were killing on the first mission,  except now sometimes there's two of them.

I vote for NO. I liked the structure of set rewards. It made every outcome of the same validity. Do you learn any more gunning down your thousandth geth or Loki. Nope you learned everything effective within the first dozen or so you killed or you didn't make it.

People study martial arts for their whole lives for a reason.

I'm also guessing you've never tried to shoot a gun while moving,  much less while someone's shooting at you.  It's not something you master in 10 minutes.

Modifié par Gatt9, 25 mai 2011 - 04:08 .

[tonnactus]

Gatt9 wrote...

Honestly,  there's something like what?  7 or 8 enemy types for the whole game? 

Far less im afraid.And even the so called "biotics" are nothing more then shotgunners that spam warp and the "engineers" smg/pistol user that spam incinerate.Mass Effect 2 enemy variety is a joke.
At least the engineers in the first game use every ability shepardt himself used.

Modifié par tonnactus, 25 mai 2011 - 09:28 .

[efrgfhnm_]

Mass Effect 2s system was much better. ME2 levelled better, had more reachable targets, and gave you proper incentive to do side missions. In ME, from what I remember you had to do pretty much everything twice to reach the highest level, and it got to the point that I wouldn't choose to engage or not based on morality, but so I could get XP

[Cancer Puppet]

Well, I find that I get xp when I kill people...