171 réponses à ce sujet

[WizenSlinky0]

The only thing I really dislike about the experience at the end of the mission is the flat rate in which you receive it per playthrough. If you play through getting destroyed on your first playthrough, but still stumble your way through missions, you get the same experience as a brutally efficient player popping off three into every enemies head.

I believe the system would benefit from optional objectives during missions that may ask you to go somewhat out of your way, and face stronger enemies, to complete these objectives.

Overall the XP per kill is an inferior system from a story perspective. It does not work within the Paragon/Renegade system.

But they really need to overhaul the XP per mission system and flush it out more.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 09 juin 2011 - 03:12 .

[Terror_K]

XP doesn't need to be "per kill" ala ME1, but it does need some context and meaning and overall needs to be less arbitrary and pointless as it was in ME2, where it just seemed like a random number thrown at you all at once without context that conveniently was just the right amount to level you up perfectly 90% of the time, and was the same no matter how you did things.

[Omega-202]

Banzboy wrote...

Don't misunderstand, i don't mean only exp is from killing enemies, it should also be from missions and side missions. I like to feel more in control of how i grow as a character. If i want to be all powerful? Then i seek as much enemies to kill and do as much side missions. That sense of accomplishment is a rewarding feeling.

I don't feel rewarded for killing each random dude, i feel rewarded because i know that each of those random dudes will contribute to my level as a whole. 

I guess it's just the difference between people who grew up playing RPG/MMORPG and modern RPG's?

You're arguing with someone who has been playing RPG's all the way back to the text based era, so pulling that card out is just as much of a pathetic cop-out as it always has been.

It takes a bigger person to admit when logic must overcome nostalgia.  

If you're honestly feeling rewarded by some arbitrary measure of your character's strength gained by "killing rats" then I feel bad for you.  You're not enjoying a BioWare game in the way it was designed to be enjoyed.  If you're only looking for the "thrill of the *DING*" that comes with leveling up, there is an entire market of grindy RPG's out there.  

Senses of accomplishment shouldn't come from a number.  You're objectively wrong if thats the case.  

[Bogsnot1]

baryonic member wrote...

I want xp per kill, if only so that I can level up and add points to skills ingame, yes.

OMG!! I had no idea how to use this weapon/skill when I got off the Normandy, but all of a sudden I do!!!!

*insert Sten No pic here*

[Wildfire Darkstar]

DropTech wrote...

I like the hybrid system that Fallout uses. Small amounts of XP per kill scaled to the game setting dificulty and the enemy level and bigger ammounts of XP per mission completed also scaled. You can still level up at a decent pace sneaking everywhere and not killing a lot of enemies but if you want to be a homicidal maniac and shoot everything in sight you get extra XP.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. I don't think the Fallout system would transplant to Mass Effect well without some significant modifications, but it does seem to get at the best-of-all-worlds that I'd like to see in the series. My biggest complaint with the XP system in ME2 was that it was a bit pointless. Then again, I don't hate the concept of grinding as much as some people seem to. My attitude is that it should never be a requirement, but that it should (to a reasonable level) be an option. Awarding XP solely on a per-mission basis essentially linearizes the entire game: your character gets more powerful at set intervals throughout the game, and there's relatively little variety in when this occurs.

[Sidney]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

. Awarding XP solely on a per-mission basis essentially linearizes the entire game: your character gets more powerful at set intervals throughout the game, and there's relatively little variety in when this occurs.

...but in a grindable game like DAO you are gonna level up at the same rate as well. At the end of the Urn of Sacred Ashes since we all know to kill anything that moves and several things that don't we will all finish with the same set of XP and the same relative level gain. In DAO the UoSA mission is worth (example) 15xp*100 dead bodies. In ME2, it'd be worth 1500 XP. Same outcome, different methods of getting there but in ME2 I don't have to make the side trip to go butcher random baby dragons for no good reaosn other than to get XP to get my 1500.

[Terror_K]

Difference is the DAO example rewards exploration and doing more work, while the ME2 method rewards you the same no matter how you did it.

[casedawgz]

Yeah, I enjoyed ME2 more without having to constantly hop out of the Mako to maximize my xp. Basically, if you give me the option to powergame, I'm going to do it, even though I know it will make the game less fun for me. It's just how I'm hardwired. So don't give me the option, and I will love you for it.

[Omega-202]

Terror_K wrote...

Difference is the DAO example rewards exploration and doing more work, while the ME2 method rewards you the same no matter how you did it.

If you care enough about the mindless corner checks and endless spelunking, shouldn't the act (in and of itself) be enough of a reward?  

Why should you be rewarded on top of satisfying your OCD?  

We're playing as a person who's responsible for saving the ENTIRE galaxy.  He/She should not be wasting time checking dark alley ways for random people to murder.  Shepard should not be choosing his dialogue options in order to maximize the amount of blood on his hands for the shear sake of being stronger.  

If you want to kill more things, then kill more things.  You shouldn't get rewarded for doing a pointless activity that you enjoy doing in the first place.  

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Sidney wrote...
...but in a grindable game like DAO you are gonna level up at the same rate as well. At the end of the Urn of Sacred Ashes since we all know to kill anything that moves and several things that don't we will all finish with the same set of XP and the same relative level gain. In DAO the UoSA mission is worth (example) 15xp*100 dead bodies. In ME2, it'd be worth 1500 XP. Same outcome, different methods of getting there but in ME2 I don't have to make the side trip to go butcher random baby dragons for no good reaosn other than to get XP to get my 1500.

DA:O isn't the world's greatest example of what I'm talking about, though. It's not really grinding if you don't have to go out of your way to do it: it's just going through the normal quantity of battles, even if they may be tedious (not speaking of DA:O here, necessarily). The point is that there should be some variability in XP rewards: if the end result is the same, it doesn't particularly matter whether the XP is packaged piecemeal throughout a quest or awarded as a lump sum at the end. The goal should be to reward performance in some capacity: if you perform well on the mission, the reward should be greater than if you perform poorly. There are ways to meter out XP so that it doesn't have to correspond exclusively to body count, and that's what I'd like to see, frankly. If a particular mission is time-critical, award more XP based on how quickly it's resolved, that sort of thing. And then, ideally, provide a way to seek out and build up your character (grind, if you will) that isn't critical to completing the game, but is available for those proudly OCD gamers like myself who are into that sort of thing.

Modifié par Wildfire Darkstar, 09 juin 2011 - 04:14 .

[Occulo]

Omega-202 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Difference is the DAO example rewards exploration and doing more work, while the ME2 method rewards you the same no matter how you did it.

If you care enough about the mindless corner checks and endless spelunking, shouldn't the act (in and of itself) be enough of a reward?  

I think what Terror's getting at is that there should be some extra XP conditions for the missions. Like say, extra XP for your shield's never going down, or for killing the least number of enemies, et cetera.

[Terror_K]

Omega-202 wrote...

If you care enough about the mindless corner checks and endless spelunking, shouldn't the act (in and of itself) be enough of a reward?  

Why should you be rewarded on top of satisfying your OCD?  

We're playing as a person who's responsible for saving the ENTIRE galaxy.  He/She should not be wasting time checking dark alley ways for random people to murder.  Shepard should not be choosing his dialogue options in order to maximize the amount of blood on his hands for the shear sake of being stronger.  

If you want to kill more things, then kill more things.  You shouldn't get rewarded for doing a pointless activity that you enjoy doing in the first place.  

I just don't see why the player who blazes through the middle as fast as possible should get the same as those who take their time and explore more. Everybody getting the exact same amount of XP for merely doing the mission is the equivalent of every student getting an A+ on their test just because they finished it, regardless of how well they did. XP is supposed to be "experience points" and based on your actions and accomplishments. If those who do half as much work get the same as the others, then that's not exactly an accurate reflection of your experience. What is this... communism? Seriously, the way it is in ME2 you may as well quit the farce that you're getting XP at all and just call them "Power Points" or something.

[casedawgz]

Terror_K wrote...

Omega-202 wrote...

If you care enough about the mindless corner checks and endless spelunking, shouldn't the act (in and of itself) be enough of a reward?  

Why should you be rewarded on top of satisfying your OCD?  

We're playing as a person who's responsible for saving the ENTIRE galaxy.  He/She should not be wasting time checking dark alley ways for random people to murder.  Shepard should not be choosing his dialogue options in order to maximize the amount of blood on his hands for the shear sake of being stronger.  

If you want to kill more things, then kill more things.  You shouldn't get rewarded for doing a pointless activity that you enjoy doing in the first place.  

I just don't see why the player who blazes through the middle as fast as possible should get the same as those who take their time and explore more. Everybody getting the exact same amount of XP for merely doing the mission is the equivalent of every student getting an A+ on their test just because they finished it, regardless of how well they did. XP is supposed to be "experience points" and based on your actions and accomplishments. If those who do half as much work get the same as the others, then that's not exactly an accurate reflection of your experience. What is this... communism? Seriously, the way it is in ME2 you may as well quit the farce that you're getting XP at all and just call them "Power Points" or something.

There ARE penalties for blowing through a level, they're just not XP penalties. You're missing out on credits, which are critical for buying necessary upgrades, and upgrade schematics themselves. If you blaze through the level, you'll still get full XP, but eventually missing all of the upgrades is going to catch up to you.

[javierabegazo]

Can't agree more TerrorK. Someone who skips 1/4 of the game content should not be allowed all the goodies that someone who does everything gets, i.e. higher level, special equipment, more story, etc.

[Ahglock]

Sidney wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

I want xp per kill back. It gives incentive to explore, kill more and play the game more.

Again, grinding. The only incentive to kill more is to get more XP. Your character has no motive for doing it.

If the game wants me to explore more, give me a reason to go to location X other than there are targets to kill there. It remains one of my biggest gripes with something like Oblivion. There's a ton of stuff in the world to kill but not a really good reason to be out there killing it.

That happens more so in a ME2 style system.  You take the mission, side quest whatever sure for the XP.  But you do your best to skip the content so you can get your reward with the least ammount of effort.  

[Omega-202]

Terror_K wrote...

I just don't see why the player who blazes through the middle as fast as possible should get the same as those who take their time and explore more. Everybody getting the exact same amount of XP for merely doing the mission is the equivalent of every student getting an A+ on their test just because they finished it, regardless of how well they did. XP is supposed to be "experience points" and based on your actions and accomplishments. If those who do half as much work get the same as the others, then that's not exactly an accurate reflection of your experience. What is this... communism? Seriously, the way it is in ME2 you may as well quit the farce that you're getting XP at all and just call them "Power Points" or something.

Those people that are just running through ARE missing things though.  You're getting more enjoyment out of your play experience and you are seeing more.  Why do you care about those other players?  

Anyone who played the first two games knows how important it is to do some extra looking.  Whether it be the small audio clips (loved the stuff in Mordin's recruitment) or Codex entries or extra credits or upgrades or any number of other things.  Why do YOU feel its necessary to be extra rewarded for doing some extra exploring?  

Were those extras in ME2 not enough for you?  The fact that you learned more about the story wasn't rewarding enough?  The fact that you got all of the upgrades (which ended up being more effective than extra XP anyway) wasn't enough?  The extra vistas and art design that you got to see wasn't enough?  

No, for you its only about the number on your XP meter.  That's a psychosis.  

If you're not feeling rewarded by the game for doing the exploration, that's YOUR deficiency, not the developer's.  

[Omega-202]

javierabegazo wrote...

Can't agree more TerrorK. Someone who skips 1/4 of the game content should not be allowed all the goodies that someone who does everything gets, i.e. higher level, special equipment, more story, etc.

And they won't be.  If you skipped all of the N7 missions or the UNC missions you weren't rewarded for them, both numerically and in terms of overall content enjoyment.  

But skipping a few pointless enemies or negotiating your way through a situation instead of shooting your way through it shouldn't matter for XP.  

I didn't skip Helena Blake's arc in ME1, but under your mentality, I'd have lost out on THOUSANDS of XP.  I decided to play along with Lord Darius, but you would prefer that my choice be tainted by the idea that I "skipped" content and therefore lose out on the XP I could have gotten.  

No.  I'm sorry but that's just bad game design.  

[theelementslayer]

Heres my take, I feel that per kill based XP made me not roleplay my character sometimes, or made me make "stupid" choices. Or just add annoying factors. Like I would always get out of my mako to fight the baddies, or get them down to lowish health then hop out and shoot. I would also choose killing over diplomacy alot because well it gave me more xp.

No I think that ME2 had it right, per mission based XP. It was awesome.

[Terror_K]

Omega-202 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I just don't see why the player who blazes through the middle as fast as possible should get the same as those who take their time and explore more. Everybody getting the exact same amount of XP for merely doing the mission is the equivalent of every student getting an A+ on their test just because they finished it, regardless of how well they did. XP is supposed to be "experience points" and based on your actions and accomplishments. If those who do half as much work get the same as the others, then that's not exactly an accurate reflection of your experience. What is this... communism? Seriously, the way it is in ME2 you may as well quit the farce that you're getting XP at all and just call them "Power Points" or something.

Those people that are just running through ARE missing things though.  You're getting more enjoyment out of your play experience and you are seeing more.  Why do you care about those other players?  

Anyone who played the first two games knows how important it is to do some extra looking.  Whether it be the small audio clips (loved the stuff in Mordin's recruitment) or Codex entries or extra credits or upgrades or any number of other things.  Why do YOU feel its necessary to be extra rewarded for doing some extra exploring?  

Were those extras in ME2 not enough for you?  The fact that you learned more about the story wasn't rewarding enough?  The fact that you got all of the upgrades (which ended up being more effective than extra XP anyway) wasn't enough?  The extra vistas and art design that you got to see wasn't enough?  

No, for you its only about the number on your XP meter.  That's a psychosis.  

If you're not feeling rewarded by the game for doing the exploration, that's YOUR deficiency, not the developer's.  

No, because --again-- it cheapens and makes the very concept of XP meaningless. To make it as simple as possible: XP isn't XP if it isn't a reflection of your actions and deeds. It's just a meanginless, arbritrary number thrown at you that's completely meaningless, especially when there's absolutely no context given whatsoever.

When you're playing a P&P RPG and you not only succeed a mission but are given lots of XP for doing it in a really clever way, that makes sense: it's a reflection of your accomplishments and deeds. If you do it a half-assed way and bumble your way through to only just succeed, then you get less. That's the whole point of XP in the first place. If you get the same for tremendous success as you do for bumbling through then it renders the whole concept completely meaningless.

[Ahglock]

Terror_K wrote...

No, because --again-- it cheapens and makes the very concept of XP meaningless. To make it as simple as possible: XP isn't XP if it isn't a reflection of your actions and deeds. It's just a meanginless, arbritrary number thrown at you that's completely meaningless, especially when there's absolutely no context given whatsoever.

When you're playing a P&P RPG and you not only succeed a mission but are given lots of XP for doing it in a really clever way, that makes sense: it's a reflection of your accomplishments and deeds. If you do it a half-assed way and bumble your way through to only just succeed, then you get less. That's the whole point of XP in the first place. If you get the same for tremendous success as you do for bumbling through then it renders the whole concept completely meaningless.

You have indoctrination powers don't you?  I am agreeing with you far too often recently  

[Walker White]

Terror_K wrote...

I just don't see why the player who blazes through the middle as fast as possible should get the same as those who take their time and explore more. 

You are rewarded for achieving the mission.  How you achieve it does not matter so long as you achieve it.  This is exactly how many classic RPGs, such as Call of Cthulhu, work.

Now, some RPGs will award more XP for achieving a more clever solution, or one that minimizes collatoral damage, or whatever.  And that is fine if BioWare goes that route.  But I see no reason why they should be rewarding exploration by itself with XP.  In fact, if you are taking too long, often you should be penalized.  

[Omega-202]

Terror_K wrote...

No, because --again-- it cheapens and makes the very concept of XP meaningless. To make it as simple as possible: XP isn't XP if it isn't a reflection of your actions and deeds. It's just a meanginless, arbritrary number thrown at you that's completely meaningless, especially when there's absolutely no context given whatsoever.

But that's all they are.  XP is a completely meaningless, arbitrary game function that represents currency which can be cashed in for upgrades.  You can name it whatever you'd like, that's all it is.  

Your character isn't becoming any more "experienced" by shooting at his 10,000th "Soldier Goon".  He/She isn't gaining any more experience in using his or her biotic abilities when they kill a Klixen using a shotgun.  He/She isn't improving their charismatic qualities by bludgeoning a Krogan to death with an elbow.  And yet that's how XP functions.  Doing each of those actions can yield those absurd results.  

IT IS AN ARBITRARY MECHANIC!!!  XP IS NOT A REFLECTION OF YOUR ACTIONS OR DEEDS.

If it was, your actions and deeds would be directly effected in what these "XP" actually did for you.  But they're not.  

Are you really that lost in your nostalgia and set in your ways that you can't see that it was and always has been an arbitrary system?  

[Walker White]

Terror_K wrote...

It's just a meanginless, arbritrary number thrown at you that's completely meaningless, especially when there's absolutely no context given whatsoever. 

You keep using that word...

All RPG design is fashioned to use XP to control progression in very mechanical ways.  For example, XP in D&D 3x was explicitly designed so that you would level up every 14 encounters of EC equal to the party level.  No more, no less.  This was to keep level progression moving at a steady, consistent pace instead of hitting a wall 3/4 of the way to name level like happens in 1.0.

In ME2, it is designed for the character to go up a level roughly every mission.  This explicit design of XP to control pace and character progression is no less arbitrary than the 14 encounter rule of D&D 3.x.

[AngryFrozenWater]

javierabegazo wrote...

Can't agree more TerrorK. Someone who skips 1/4 of the game content should not be allowed all the goodies that someone who does everything gets, i.e. higher level, special equipment, more story, etc.

Agreed. It was also too easy to reach the maximum level in ME2. I wish it would be set in such a way that players who kill everything out there barely reach that maximum. I wouldn't even mind if the level cap is set much higher, so that NG+ finally starts making sense again. And of course keep all the stuff you got from a previous run. NG+ was not intended to grind for that all over again.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 juin 2011 - 05:21 .

[Omega-202]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Agreed. It was also too easy to reach the maximum level in ME2. I wish it would be set in such a way that players who kill everything out there barely reach that maximum. I wouldn't even mind if the level cap is set much higher, so that NG+ finally starts making sense again. And of course keep all the stuff you got from a previous run. NG+ was not intended to grind for that all over again.

But that then distracts from the main focus of the game: accomplishing the mission.  

You turn leveling up into a goal in and of itself.  Leveling shouldn't be an end.  It should be a means.  If you consider it to be an end, then you are a shallow gamer.  

The developers specifically stated that they realized that ME1's level cap design was poorly implemented and the fact that you HAD to grind multiple playthroughs just to reach it was in poor taste.  How are you not seeing this to be a negative?