174 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

Nyoka wrote...

Overall I believe xp per mission and items/upgrades/credits/a few xp (like when Aria thanks you for giving her the datapad) as an extra for exploration is fair. It's not an A+, it's a Mission Complete. You got it done either way. It's fair to give players the same xp if they complete the mission the way they want. For example, if you are playing a no nonsense renegade who doesn't have time for petty clerk grudges, you get the pass to the garage as soon as possible, because that's what matters to your mission. If you implement different ways to complete a mission, but you favor one particular way of doing it more than the others, you are actually limiting roleplaying possibilities, because although you still can choose to do things in the "less xp" way (if you reeeally like it), the game would be discouraging you from doing so. On the other hand, if what the game rewards is success (the action of actually getting the job done), then the game doesn't favor any particular way of doing things and you can play the way you want without feeling a bit silly whenever you deliberately choose the "less xp" way because that's the way your character would do it.

Now, if you clutter the mission's locations with stuff the player can get, then it's fair that she won't get stuff if she doesn't bother going where those items are. I think this is a fair way of rewarding exploration. The difference is these items are physical objects the character have to pick up (If there's a pistol in a locker, then you have to go there to pick it up), it doesn't make sense to get them magically at the end of the mission. Experience on the other hand is an abstract thing which values what you got out of it in terms of personal (character) growth.

Honestly, I wouldn't touch the ME2 system.

Gotta agree with this.  Going the extra mile and exploring should be rewarded, but not with xp.  Xp is too important of a resource to reward something like that.  Stick with in-game loot, like credits, resources, upgrades, and weapons.  Maybe these things are guarded, maybe they aren't.  The mission is the most important thing, not how many enemies you can mow down or how many things you find.  Rewarding experience for completing missions makes much more sense, and it allows you to complete the mission how you want to without worrying about missing out on xp. 

Let's say that there's a situation in which there's a room full of enemies ahead.  They don't yet know you're there.  You notice that there is a side corridor that lets you bypass them, but only if you hack the door.  You now have three options: stride in and kill the enemies, try to talk your way past them, or try to sneak around them via the side corridor.  Any of these options are viable (though they could all fail as well), and rewarding them all equally makes more sense than simply rewarding those who choose to kill the enemies.

[Terror_K]

Gatt9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The thing is, this is when metagaming comes into play. Whether one does it or not is really up to the player, but if somebody is just constantly trying to get the best result or the most XP, they aren't really roleplaying at all. With any RPG if you are truly roleplaying you should be making the dialogue choices and taking the paths that the Shepard you are playing would realistically take according to how you've designed them.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here a little,  you're not wrong,  but I'm seeing it a little differently.

Defintions:

RPg player = RolePlaying gamers,  whose primary focus is Roleplaying.
rpG player = roleplaying Gamers,  whose primary focus is on Gaming and roleplaying isn't as critical.

There are RPg players (Roleplayers, LARPsers) and there are rpG players (Munchkins, Monty-Hauls, Min-Maxers),  all of the playstyles are technically valid according to pretty much every rule set.

The Rules require you to Roleplay your Character,  this is true.  But the rules also establish another framework which is metagaming related.  Some people get their thrills from the Roleplaying of the Character,  others get their thrills from the metagaming of the Character.

One of the bigger problems is that you cannot put certain groups together in the same room without some kind of nerdmaggedon.  Roleplayers cannot mix with any rpGers,  I've seen truely titanic fits over someone not speaking Olde English and "Breaking my immersion!".  Munchkins are generally not appriciated by any group.  LARPsers and Min-Maxers do not do well together.

So to be honest,  I don't see a reason to tank the Xp per kill system for the preferences of the RPg players,  the system does not interfere with their gameplay at all,  and facilitates the rpG players quite well.  It's a good comprimise that is flexible enough to meet both groups needs.

rpG players are a perfectly valid playstyle,  it doesn't conflict with any of the rules,  it just conflicts heavily with the RPg player's playstyle in that you cannot mix the two groups without a major conflict arising.

Well, the thing is, I personally do a bit of both. I try to maximise my efforts, get the best stuff and earn the most XP that I can, and most times tend to be a completionist. But I do so within the boundaries of my character as I roleplay them. My main Paragon for instance has done every mission they can in both games, and largely tried to get the best items and XP, but only in the manner they realistically could from a roleplaying standpoint. My main Renegade actually has far less because he did things such as just giving Anoleis Opold's package to get to Peak 15 faster and just mowing down the guards once there to just get straight to Benezia because he was all about doing things the fast, efficient way, but he still tried to get the best gear when he could. As a result I don't think that any of my characters are going to get the "ultimate best ending" in ME3 because they've all been designed and made decisions in keeping with their personalities as I've established them.

To me, this is largely the point of an RPG like Mass Effect and one of the main reasons for doing different playthroughs. With games I can just get the best, ultimate playthrough in one go I usually find myself not going back to them. I've chalked up hundreds upon hundreds of hours in Oblivion, but it's pretty much all with one character. Part of ME's charm --especially with the trilogy nature of it-- is to have many different playthroughs with many different outcomes and rewards, none of which are ultimately better or worse than the others. My "canon" Shepard just happens to be the one I like the personality of and enjoy playing the most, but that doesn't mean I feel her decisions and choices are more right or wrong than the others. I play her like I think I should, not just to get the best rewards. Yes, I try to play her as best I can and get the most out of her, but I don't deviate from her personality and style to do it.

[Nashiktal]

Just tossing an idea here, but what if XP is awarded not per enemy, but per encounter?

[Xerxes52]

Personally I prefer getting XP based on mission completion instead of kills.

I suppose I'm in the minority here, but I liked the "mission complete" screen; I liked getting that breakdown of how much XP, cash, resources, upgrades, weapons, etc I collected.

[Terror_K]

Xerxes52 wrote...

Personally I prefer getting XP based on mission completion instead of kills.

I suppose I'm in the minority here, but I liked the "mission complete" screen; I liked getting that breakdown of how much XP, cash, resources, upgrades, weapons, etc I collected.

Bleh!

Though to be honest, I'm not against the concept, just the execution of it. I mean, most of it is redundant given you get giant in-your-face pop-ups about most of the stuff anyway as you collect them (though I'd personally prefer they go too, or at least get reduced in size more akin to their more subtle ME1 form) and the rest is next to meaningless and without context. Mission Complete screens as they are are jarring as hell, but also just throw a number at you without context. There's no explanation at all why and how the XP was earned specifically, while at least in ME1 --XP for kills or not aside-- you saw the XP you earned as you earned it.

That's why I thought the concept of going back to mission briefings on The Normandy again would be a way of replacing it, where Shepard could go through the mission with his/her crew afterwards and the XP would be shown related to each part of the mission as it was reflected upon, thus giving the player context of where the XP came from and why. It also would integrate the mission summary into a more immersive manner by having it part of the universe and overall process, rather than just a gamey screen thrown up at you. One could even make it option, in similar vein to how reporting back to The Council was, in which case perhaps Joker or Kelly could say, "there's a brief summary of your last mission at your terminal, Commander" and then you could access a "Mission Complete"-esque report of your own volition rather than having it jarringly forced upon you. Even just having it in that form and not having a team briefing at all would be better than how it is in ME2.

Modifié par Terror_K, 27 mai 2011 - 07:16 .

[lolwut666]

I dislike the idea of evolving in the middle of a mission, specially because, realistically, I don't think the time spent in a mission is enough for anyone to improve at anything.

Training is an arduous process in real life. It takes hundreds of hours of dedicated practice to notice even a small difference.

I like to imagine that it's the training that Shepard and co. do off-screen that makes them better, not the few minutes/hours they spend on each mission.

[Chaos Gate]

Definitely for me. It just made me feel like I was constantly achieving something. This was in contrast to Mass Effect 2, where I was awarded the same pre-ordained amount of XP in a mission summary screen at quest's end, regardless of how many enemies I had overcome, or indeed, what choices I had made. That made my efforts, as well as the way I had gone about things, all feel close to worthless.

Modifié par Chaos Gate, 27 mai 2011 - 02:11 .

[xentar]

jwalker wrote...

On the other hand, if you care about your character and the story, you choose the path that makes the most sense. What do you care if you miss some experience ?

I think rewarding for killing enemies doesn't discourage anything. It just depends on how do you like to play the game. Rewarding exploration and such, gives more options to the player. 

In ME1, you were rewarded for killing everything on foot. That was cool.
If you cared about that and  you took the time and effort, you got more experience. Fair reward. If you didn't care and didn't bother, why should you get it anyway ?

Well, it encourages murder. I don't think any serious game in which you don't play a psycho should do that.

[jwalker]

xentar wrote...

jwalker wrote...

On the other hand, if you care about your character and the story, you choose the path that makes the most sense. What do you care if you miss some experience ?

I think rewarding for killing enemies doesn't discourage anything. It just depends on how do you like to play the game. Rewarding exploration and such, gives more options to the player. 

In ME1, you were rewarded for killing everything on foot. That was cool.
If you cared about that and  you took the time and effort, you got more experience. Fair reward. If you didn't care and didn't bother, why should you get it anyway ?

Well, it encourages murder. I don't think any serious game in which you don't play a psycho should do that.

What the hell are you talking about ?
We're discussing a gameplay mechanic in a game. If you wanna talk about real life, or how a game is able to transform the minds of their players, this is hardly the place to do it.

[xentar]

jwalker wrote...

What the hell are you talking about ?
We're discussing a gameplay mechanic in a game. If you wanna talk about real life, or how a game is able to transform the minds of their players, this is hardly the place to do it.

This mechanic introduces a new artificial reason to kill and not to avoid it. Your character may kill for survival, sport or resources. With this mechanic you just kill for XP. If there ever is a reson to avoid killing enemies anywhere other than specific plot points in a game, it's gone with this mechanic introduced. And thus, it makes it more artificial than it already is.

[HTTP 404]

I don't want to be rewarded for "cleaning house." Its fine the way it is. XP for completing missions and tasks are good. What I want to see is more tasks available...like seeing if there are fish on the presidum

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

I prefer the idea of awarding XP per mission, since it doesn't penalize the player for finding ways to resolve conflict without absolutely, positively, killing every *********** in the room.

/Samuel L. Jackson

Of course, I also think that incremental XP awards are one of those ugly carry-overs from primordial D&D that could easily be jettisoned for the betterment of most games. Applying that whole bildungsroman thing to a game like Mass Effect is particularly goofy, since Shepard is already supposed to be a fire-breathing badass when we meet him. Levelling itself doesn't make much sense in a game with an established character.

[wizardryforever]

Well it seems like there are really two questions here.  Do you want incremental Xp (rewarded for individual actions) or not?  And do you want xp for killing people?

I'm fine with incremental Xp (I don't really have a preference) as long as you are rewarded equal xp regardless of how you resolve the situation.  You should get the same amount of xp if you talk or sneak past some enemies as if you killed them.  If you reward just the "kill everything" playstyle, it seriously hampers the roleplaying possibilities, since there are other viable ways to resolve conflict and complete missions.

[The Gutted Gnome]

Can I change my mind and go for yes to XP for killing --

Because playing as female paragon at moment - Charm wasn't quite up to where I needed it to convince Lorik to hand over evidence against Anoleis -- needed 3000pts to next level -- nipped off and killed some Rachni - got XP - uncreased Charm - went back to Noveria everyone happy.

[Homey C-Dawg]

The Gutted Gnome wrote...

Can I change my mind and go for yes to XP for killing --

Because playing as female paragon at moment - Charm wasn't quite up to where I needed it to convince Lorik to hand over evidence against Anoleis -- needed 3000pts to next level -- nipped off and killed some Rachni - got XP - uncreased Charm - went back to Noveria everyone happy.

Agreed. You miss out on that feeling when the XP gain is too controlled like in ME2.

[AlexRmF]

I'd say yes... because I hate the mission type of XP, and you're supposed to gain experience from anything you interact with (killing is an interaction in my book), combine that with the latest news about the absence of loading screens and you'll get a proper RPG advancement model.

[Someone With Mass]

I'm for a system with multiple and optional objectives I can complete to gain more XP, so I don't have to hunt down every last puny little out post and kill everything in sight so I won't miss out on XP.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

The Gutted Gnome wrote...

Can I change my mind and go for yes to XP for killing --

Because playing as female paragon at moment - Charm wasn't quite up to where I needed it to convince Lorik to hand over evidence against Anoleis -- needed 3000pts to next level -- nipped off and killed some Rachni - got XP - uncreased Charm - went back to Noveria everyone happy.

In that case XP per kill doesn't go far enough.  We must also have the ability to kill everyone everywhere in order to suck all those experience points from their still-warm corpses.  I demand XP-soaked mass-murder for ME3!

[AlexRmF]

wizardryforever wrote...

Let's say that there's a situation in which there's a room full of enemies ahead.  They don't yet know you're there.  You notice that there is a side corridor that lets you bypass them, but only if you hack the door.  You now have three options: stride in and kill the enemies, try to talk your way past them, or try to sneak around them via the side corridor.  Any of these options are viable (though they could all fail as well), and rewarding them all equally makes more sense than simply rewarding those who choose to kill the enemies.

I think that's exactly the way Bioware does it in all of their modern games, a clear example of it is from DAO where you had to enter the temple of the sacred ashes either by answering some questions, or by fighting some spectres turned demons, and the bigger XP reward was the one for the non-violent way
I like the XP/kill (action) system because it adds a deeper sense to exploration (this should include hacking and bypassing... I don't want only credits from cracking a safe.. I also want XP)

[Insom]

I'd like XP from enemies and a higher level cap like ME1.

[Bluko]

Nyoka wrote...

@Bluko, I'll comment each paragraph.

If you want to kill the thresher maw, good for you, but that's not what's required of you.

Yeah but this is a problematic. Technically you aren't required to do side-missions either, but you still get some XP for them. I'm not asking for a ton of XP or so much XP that I can gain a whole other level, but I'd at least like something tangible for my efforts.

If you're not required to kill the enemies, then why are you killing them? Why doesn't Shepard just get some sort of super shield so they don't have to kill anybody? Why doesn't Shepard just travel everywhere in unarmed rover?

See that's the thing no matter what there is a number of enemies you're suppose to kill.

The point of avoiding fights is to avoid them because they might be difficult and you might die or have to reload, etc. If there's a bunch of enemies you don't want to fight and you avoid them for that purpose, that is the benefit to the player. But if I choose to engage them what is the purpose. Why should I take the more difficult path if there's nothing to be gained? I'll grant that maybe having credits or extra resources is a fair trade off for XP.

Although to be honest it would help ME3 a lot if the level cap was more difficult to reach or couldn't even be reached in one playthrough. It encourages you to play more rather then race through the entire game in 20 hours and then go to Gamestop and sell it because there's nothing left to do. I mean sure the folks who like seeing all the different conversations and outcomes have reasons to replay, but what about those more interested in the gameplay itself? ME1 was great that way in that you couldn't max everything out in a single playthrough. The more options you give the player, the more goals you give the player, the more reason they will have to play it. Which is absolutely crucial to Mass Effect as it is entirely a singleplayer game. If the level system can be maxed by doing the bare minimum you're only encouraging people to replay the game to do things dfferently as Paragon/Renegade.

I do not see how more XP, more Levels, more Ability options makes the game worse off.

Nyoka wrote...

Thank you very much for calling me lazy or inept. Really appreciate that kind of comments.

Don't know why you come up with stealth now, saying "sorry but that ain't stealth", as if I had said otherwise. I didn't. I gave my examples in my posts. Anyway, thanks for calling me a coward to some degree.

Sorry not trying to insult you directly. I was trying to respond to a number of people's posts (a few posters have mentoned stealth, taking alternate routes, etc.)

Nyoka wrote...

I don't want to "get through the game faster", I want for every way to succeed to be considered equally valid by the game. What do you get if you spend time killing people? "Nothing"? That's not true: you get credits, upgrades, resources, sometimes even new heavy weapons!

No you don't though. You get the same amount of credits in every mission regardless of who or what you kill. Everything is pretty much linear. There are a few instances where you can off the main path of a mission and find some resources or credits, but pretty much everything is laid directly in front of you. And in those few instances where you do go off the main path there are no enemies.

Nyoka wrote...

If your mission is to save the city from the husks, then you should spend time killing them. If the mission is to get something and get the hell out of there, like in the collector ship, then stopping here and there to kill every single husk before leaving would be pretty much a pointless waste of time, since you have a mission to do, and that's not part of it.

If the objective is to "get the hell out of there" they should have a time limit. Excluding XP from killing enemies is a poor means of encouraging the player to evacuate. All it does is encourage you not kill anything at all. I'd say the player who kills the most enemies and gets out the fastest should get the most reward. Reward people's skill, encourage people to replay the game and "do better". Sure you can get out of the Collector Ship fast by simply booking it, but if you can get out and kill the Scion near the end that should be worth something too.

I'm not saying that if you choose the Diplomatic route of talking down enemies that you should get less XP. And I'm not saying if you choose to the option of Stealth you should get less XP. But I'm also not saying if you choose the option of combat you should get less XP either. This the problem with lumping all the XP at the end. It encourages you to skip things it encourages you to do none of those things. If I can get the same amount of XP by slowly sneaking through the level as I would running through it in front of all the enemies shooting at me, why should I sneak my way through it eh?

The Devs need to give proper compensation for completing specific actions. Killing enemies is one of those actions. Why shouldn't I just run away from a Geth Colossus and pass it in 20 seconds rather then spend 2-3 minutes killing it? XP gives you a reason to engage the Colossus without imposing upon you that you must destroy it as a mission objective. You can do it the easy way, and as result lose a bit ox XP. Or you can do things the hard way and gain an XP.

It's exactly the same in principle as choosing all neutral dialogue options through-out the game, and getting the same reward as some who puts effort to get the Paragon/Renegade dialogue options. Really? I suppose you should be able to keep all your Squadmates alive without doing any Loyalty Missions too right?

There has to be rewards/benefits for the time you spend doing things. Within reason of course, but there has to be something. (Not asking for infinite waves of enemies to farm for XP, but if I kill two extra Mercs on my way to the shuttle that should be worth something.)

Modifié par Bluko, 28 mai 2011 - 02:15 .

[Chaos Gate]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

I prefer the idea of awarding XP per mission, since it doesn't penalize the player for finding ways to resolve conflict without absolutely, positively, killing every *********** in the room.

/Samuel L. Jackson

Of course, I also think that incremental XP awards are one of those ugly carry-overs from primordial D&D that could easily be jettisoned for the betterment of most games. Applying that whole bildungsroman thing to a game like Mass Effect is particularly goofy, since Shepard is already supposed to be a fire-breathing badass when we meet him. Levelling itself doesn't make much sense in a game with an established character.

But, if I recall correctly, you are awarded XP for resolving situations in non-violent ways, too, which I think invalidates your point. I also don't see how incremental XP, a staple for RPGs, is in any way primordial and holds the genre back. Rather, it contributes to it and sets it apart from the rest of the flock.

[tjzsf]

Yes. Just a smaller amount, and remove the endlessly spawning enemies sections because I never know until a decent amount of my ammo is gone whether the enemies actually respawn or if they just come in a finite number of waves.