174 réponses à ce sujet

[Alienmorph]

Will ever be enough Rpgesque ME for you, dudes? I can undertand some of the previous concerns, but the XP system works already well. More missions=more XP mean having an extra motivationn for performing the sidequests too, gaining the same amount of XP killing a certain amount of enemies how is better? Consider also that ME is not World of Warcraft... there won't be free roaming areas always fullfilled of enemies that you can use for reach highter levels in less time.

Modifié par Alienmorph, 25 mai 2011 - 12:32 .

[Tasker]

I'd go with a small but resonable amount of xp per kill and then a large amount at the end of a quest.

That way it would add a bit more of a feeling of randomness and wouldn't feel quite as crap as the current "Do a mission = Level up" bollocks.

I'd also get rid of the stupid mission over screens or at least move them onto their own email tab so I could just ignore them.

the way it is in ME2 just feels like a cop out.  Is there actually an xp system in it?  It just feels like a case of - "if mission is over add x number of skill points."

Modifié par Orkboy, 25 mai 2011 - 01:26 .

[woods26]

For me, there isn't enough exploration to justify xp per kill. I did find the mission over thing kind of silly in ME2. definitely needs some kind of tweaking.

[Jebel Krong]

xp per kill is for the ADD crowd that need to be rewarded for everything they do in-game, every few minutes.

[Fear_me_leader]

Yes the system in Me 2 was to slow in my opinion

[Mathy16]

I want this, with the ME2 way you will almost always get the same amount of XP for the same mission, while if you get XP per kill + bonus for awesome kills (headshot, combining powers, ...) you will get a different amount of points everytime.

[JayhartRIC]

In ME2 you couldn't really avoid killing enemies anyway. You're just getting 100 at the end instead of 2xp everytime you kill somebody.  The only time you would get something different is if you rushed through the respawn areas or hung back and killed them all.  If anything I think you should be rewarded for getting through the objective with minimal fighting.

Modifié par JayhartRIC, 25 mai 2011 - 02:23 .

[Geth_Prime]

I think you should earn XP both ways - for completing objectives and for killing enemies or doing other small things.

[Trinity66]

Yes, I would like xp reward for each kill.

[The Gutted Gnome]

The leveling thing doesn't really bother me, but XP is a way to mould your character so I wouldn't like to see that go.....
XP for kills not fussed either if they want to calulate it towards your progression there is no real reason to show it on the screen. I much prefer to progress the story rather than hang back waiting for respawning enemy just to clock up XP

[xentar]

Definitely not. Deus Ex/Bloodlines styled rewards for questing and exploration are much more preferable. After all, killing shouldn't be the only option.

[Ghost Warrior]

To thread title:Yes

Modifié par Ghost Warrior, 25 mai 2011 - 04:03 .

[Someone With Mass]

They should remove the infinite spawn thing and just have a set number of enemies in one area. Not all at once, of course. I understand that they're trying to make it so that I can't just sit in one corner and pick everyone off with my rifle, but infinite spawn that stops once I've past a certain point isn't the answer. Make the enemies fewer, but smarter instead.

As for the XP per kill: No.

[Bluefuse]

No, then we would want to go and hunt down every single enemy. That shouldn't be necessary.

[Trinity66]

Bluefuse wrote...

No, then we would want to go and hunt down every single enemy. That shouldn't be necessary.

Why wouldn't you want hunt down every single enemy?

[AlanC9]

Fear_me_leader wrote...

Yes the system in Me 2 was to slow in my opinion

Of course, even an instant's thought would reveal that how XP is awarded has absolutely nothing to do with how much XP you get.

[Nashiktal]

wepeel_ wrote...

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.

What? I think you need to re-read what I wrote my friend. The waves thing you are brining up isn't a problem with removing exp from enemies, but from choices in level design. 

[Chromie]

adam1923 wrote...

I think there should be a small amount of XP for killing enemies and a large amount for quests.

Yea Witcher 2 you kill enemies and you get maybe 5-10 experience at most but doing quests from something like 50-3000 at most. By the time you reach half way in Act III your max level leaving the rest of the game at max level so you can enjoy all your talents.

[Vena_86]

There should be rewards for everything you do. Someone who takes the time and look arround a bit should be rewarded for doing so. Like hacking into secret rooms and finding pieces of lore etc.

[Adhin]

@Gatt9: I think your missing the point I was trying to make, I don't really agree with you on the combat, I enjoyed it. It was simple, to simple with HP bars and enemies could be more varried for sure. But thats not the point I was trying to make. Regardless of the combat, xp per kill generally limits what kind of encounters you get and they tend to be more static situations just because of that.

Then you also run into issues about how much XP to give for non-combat situations (which ME1-2 both have had a few of). Giving XP via 'progression', and I'd rather it be dished out through plot points in a mission instead of all at the end, ultimately smooths it out ENTIRELY regardless of how the player plays. That's the point I was trying to make. Don't like the combat? Thats fine you'll level up just as fast as someone who loves it.

And really, if you don't like the combat like you've stated, do you WANT to have to grind up your XP from monsters instead of have the option to 'shield up and run past'? Fact is it frees them up to make any situation they can think up and they are 100% assured everyone will get the same amount of XP. And that's a good thing, that's how PnP has always handled it for that same reason - pure variation and flexibility.

[baryonic member]

Yes, if only so we can level up in-levels and mix things up a little.

[Murmillos]

For every kill, NO
For major/mini-boss kills, YES

[Chuvvy]

As long as I don't have to wait four levels to level up I'm fine.

[lolwut666]

No.

[Merchant2006]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

I would like a system where, instead of lumping all the XP for a mission at the end, you get chunks of XP for completing sub-goals at various points in the mission. This would also do away with the Mission Complete screen, and all the silliness that entails.