171 réponses à ce sujet

[Admoniter]

Sidney wrote...
It isn't everyone is a winner (well it is since you can't fail missions but that is true in all Bioware games) but you did what was asked of you?

No the exp system in ME2 is one that rewards everyone the same no matter what. You and I could play the same level with you doing everything possible whereas I just rush through sometimes even running around combat to get to check points. Does it make sense that I get the exact same exp as you? Terror K is correct exp without context is meaningless and irrelevet, which is why the lump sum style in ME2 if flawed. Because if that is the sytem you are using you mine as well just say screw exp all together and just go with a you level up after every "X' mission.

Modifié par Admoniter, 09 juin 2011 - 05:34 .

[Ahglock]

Omega-202 wrote...

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?

This is why we can;t have nice things.  This idea that its only the mission is why they kill things like exploration.  And I don't care what they said, because in this case they are wrong.  All they did by having a low level cap is kill NG+. 

If you don't think stopping to smell the roses(explore etc) should be rewarded you are a shallow gamer.  

[Bluefuse]

The focus should be the story and trying to get to the next part, not running around making sure you killed everyone you can find...

[Omega-202]

Ahglock wrote...

This is why we can;t have nice things.  This idea that its only the mission is why they kill things like exploration.  And I don't care what they said, because in this case they are wrong.  All they did by having a low level cap is kill NG+. 

If you don't think stopping to smell the roses(explore etc) should be rewarded you are a shallow gamer.  

"Stopping to smell the roses" IS REWARDED in the ME series.  More so than in any other series to date.

If you don't take time to stop and smell the roses you miss out of Codex entries, credits, upgrades, plot points, side missions, future encounters and so much more.  MOST importantly, if you don't take the time to do every side mission the game has to offer squadmates can mutiny against you (Wrex), you can lose their loyalty or they can actually die.  What other game puts that kind of reward in for doing optional content?  

What's more important?  What's the bigger reward?  Some measly XP for killing some extra goons or the threat that entire characters can up and die on you if you don't go the extra mile?  

The arrangement of your priorities is quite disturbing.  

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that we don't know how far all of those "extra miles" will go in ME3.  The entire fate of the galaxy could end up hinging on some minor extras that you needed to seek out.  

But no, by all means, XP is definitely the more important reward for "stopping to smell the roses".  

Modifié par Omega-202, 09 juin 2011 - 05:49 .

[FluffyScarf]

There wasn't much exploration to be done in ME1 when you realised every planet either had metal or the occasional pointless weapon. Think I explored 3 planets before deciding to just drive to the base/cave. Funnily enough, I didn't miss anything worthwhile since the best gear could be bought. Unless that fetch quest was considered important. Wait, it wasn't.

[AlanC9]

Ahglock wrote...

This is why we can;t have nice things.  This idea that its only the mission is why they kill things like exploration.  And I don't care what they said, because in this case they are wrong.  All they did by having a low level cap is kill NG+. 

Yep. Good riddance to both

If you don't think stopping to smell the roses(explore etc) should be rewarded you are a shallow gamer.  

I guess I'm supposed to feel insulted by that, right?

[Massadonious1]

I would be fine if it were truly about "exploration" instead of the desire to kill random unrelated mobs so you can be better than other people in a single player game.

[AlanC9]

Walker White wrote...

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.

Does anyone else have the feeling that most of these debates are epiphenomena?

I didn't even have to look at the post quoted above to know which one of the posters I was going to agree with. I suppose it's not too surprising that I'm able to predict that I won't agree with Terror_K, since XP awards have come up before in Terror_K's threads -- hell, I suppose by now I've read Terror_K's position on most anything game-related. But how did I know that I was going to agree with Walker White? While we've agreed on other topics, I don't remember XP awards coming up.

Preferences seem to cluster somehow. Anyone have a guess why?

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

Preferences seem to cluster somehow. Anyone have a guess why?

Fools seldom differ?

[fyckeg]

I agree with the OP. I loved how you got XP through dialog in ME1.

[T764]

When i played ME2 it seemed that no matter what level i was or abilities i used it would take the same number of attacks to kill enemies, it also seemed that my increasing health simply negated the increased damage that enemies inflicted.

I don't like that system, it would have been better to remove the leveling and just supply you with skill points at mission complete.

The problem with xp per kill is that you are penalised for being diplomatic. Which doesn't actually matter in the ME games because the story missions don't really give you the choice to not fight.

I can't see a different way of doing xp in Bioware games because combat is at the forefront, they are not games where avoiding combat gives you a similar level of reward.

[Bluko]

I dunno the lack of XP gained for performing actions (doesn't have to be just killing) kind of promotes speed runs, which I would argue is even more counter-productive to a story based game. Now some here are saying if you kill additional enemies and that it grants XP that makes it grinding. I don't quite buy that. Grinding is really only when you purposefully go out of your way to kill more enemies for XP. If you're the type of person that camps some sort of spawn for XP that is your own problem. No one is forcing you to max level everything. And it's not like Mass Effect is exactly the type of game where you need to be Level 55 in order to kill a certain Boss.

I like that if take the extra time to do stuff I either A) Reach a higher level or Reach a higher level sooner. In Mass Effect 1 I liked there was an actual noticeable incentive to explore every nook and cranny (how is opening a hidden crate grinding?) In ME2 I felt could haved rushed my way through side missions and be no worse off. Niether the XP gained or resources felt very substantial. At least in ME1 I had the chance to get a better weapon or a newgun mod, something that was you know tangible and actually usable. (What good is a crate of 500 Platinum if I already have 100K of Platinum? I can't even freaking sell any extra resources I have. Hell I may never use it at all. At least I could always use Omnigel.)

I think the issues here is that some think if there is XP for kills then it promotes: Kill everything! Or essentially that solving conflicts more passively means no or little XP. Well the thing about that is if the Devs add such options (like peacful negotiation) it's also up to them to add appropriate rewards. I doubt you'd like it if you completed a mission via ME2's system and got no XP for it. It's the same problem. So saying that more contextual XP is to blame is a bunch of baloney.  Also I have hard time believing most people don't enjoy seeing the Level Up icon flash after you've killed an especially difficult opponent/boss. Or what if say you negotiated your way through a very tense situation? You don't like getting XP for particular conversation either?

The way I see it if while on a mission I run into a lone Merc looting stuff and choose to spare him when he surrenders I should get XP. If I decide I should just relinquish a more bullets until he's dead I should get XP too. But why should the person who totally ignores the Merc's get the same reward for "completing the mission"?

Mass Effect is a Shooter. It's a combat game. You cannot play the game without killing stuff. If this were an in-depth RPG where you could play a Rogue that sneaks all the time, not kills, his way through dungeons I'd agree XP on a Kill basis is bad. (Although it's not an issue if you make both combat and stealth XP. Radical concept to differentiate the experience of doing different stuff, I know.) But seeing as Shepard only really has skills meant  for combat, should Shepard not get XP for engaging enemies in combat?


Maybe there doesn't need to be XP per Kill, but at the very least I would like to see more XP for completing certain actions besides just the missions themselves. And if I open a door on the side to see what's in room, but find it's full of only Husks I'd like it whole lot better if I gained something from that encounter. Otherwise opening that door is a waste of time and I will skip it every playthrough. Which begs the question if it exists for no purpose why did some guy bother putting enemies in there? It seems apparently to make me feel like an imbecile. So Mass Effect punishes more often then it rewards? Sounds pretty lame, like a lot of those Carnival Games that exist more or less to rip people off.

Modifié par Bluko, 09 juin 2011 - 07:08 .

[SupidSeep]

I am perfectly happy with ME2's XP system; keep the XP-per-kill in the freezer.

There are other reasons besides XP to play through non-critical areas. Story, exploration, combat.

I may very well open the door to the room full of husk and turn them into piles of mush simply because I want to, because I enjoy doing it, so I do gain something from it. It's a pity you don't.

[Dem_B]

Xp system needs to be deeper.

I do not like "Mission Complete" because I understand how I play. Why need show me my results? I know it.
As earlier, in time of 8-bit consoles, we complete stage, and we won the super boss, and here are our results, it is ridiculous.
Need to abandon it, I understand how I play, all understand.

I hope that we will not see the screen "Mission completed"
I would like to receive experience points more extended.

 

Modifié par Dem_B, 09 juin 2011 - 09:26 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Bluko wrote...

I dunno the lack of XP gained for performing actions (doesn't have to be just killing) kind of promotes speed runs, which I would argue is even more counter-productive to a story based game. Now some here are saying if you kill additional enemies and that it grants XP that makes it grinding. I don't quite buy that. Grinding is really only when you purposefully go out of your way to kill more enemies for XP. If you're the type of person that camps some sort of spawn for XP that is your own problem. No one is forcing you to max level everything. And it's not like Mass Effect is exactly the type of game where you need to be Level 55 in order to kill a certain Boss.

I like that if take the extra time to do stuff I either A) Reach a higher level or Reach a higher level sooner. In Mass Effect 1 I liked there was an actual noticeable incentive to explore every nook and cranny (how is opening a hidden crate grinding?) In ME2 I felt could haved rushed my way through side missions and be no worse off. Niether the XP gained or resources felt very substantial. At least in ME1 I had the chance to get a better weapon or a newgun mod, something that was you know tangible and actually usable. (What good is a crate of 500 Platinum if I already have 100K of Platinum? I can't even freaking sell any extra resources I have. Hell I may never use it at all. At least I could always use Omnigel.)

I think the issues here is that some think if there is XP for kills then it promotes: Kill everything! Or essentially that solving conflicts more passively means no or little XP. Well the thing about that is if the Devs add such options (like peacful negotiation) it's also up to them to add appropriate rewards. I doubt you'd like it if you completed a mission via ME2's system and got no XP for it. It's the same problem. So saying that more contextual XP is to blame is a bunch of baloney.  Also I have hard time believing most people don't enjoy seeing the Level Up icon flash after you've killed an especially difficult opponent/boss. Or what if say you negotiated your way through a very tense situation? You don't like getting XP for particular conversation either?

The way I see it if while on a mission I run into a lone Merc looting stuff and choose to spare him when he surrenders I should get XP. If I decide I should just relinquish a more bullets until he's dead I should get XP too. But why should the person who totally ignores the Merc's get the same reward for "completing the mission"?

Mass Effect is a Shooter. It's a combat game. You cannot play the game without killing stuff. If this were an in-depth RPG where you could play a Rogue that sneaks all the time, not kills, his way through dungeons I'd agree XP on a Kill basis is bad. (Although it's not an issue if you make both combat and stealth XP. Radical concept to differentiate the experience of doing different stuff, I know.) But seeing as Shepard only really has skills meant  for combat, should Shepard not get XP for engaging enemies in combat?

Maybe there doesn't need to be XP per Kill, but at the very least I would like to see more XP for completing certain actions besides just the missions themselves. And if I open a door on the side to see what's in room, but find it's full of only Husks I'd like it whole lot better if I gained something from that encounter. Otherwise opening that door is a waste of time and I will skip it every playthrough. Which begs the question if it exists for no purpose why did some guy bother putting enemies in there? It seems apparently to make me feel like an imbecile. So Mass Effect punishes more often then it rewards? Sounds pretty lame, like a lot of those Carnival Games that exist more or less to rip people off.

Admittedly, I am not too fond of an XP per Kill system, preferring a mix of XP-for-quest progression + certain milestones (kill x enemies, only lose x health, explore x side locations) type system, but this is one brilliant post.

[solmyr-fr]

Bluko wrote...
 Which begs the question if it exists for no purpose why did some guy bother putting enemies in there? It seems apparently to make me feel like an imbecile. So Mass Effect punishes more often then it rewards?

Good points ! Can't agree more. Why do they put unncessary zones in maps with ennemies that will only :
- make you use thermo clip that you'll need later
- give you the risk to be killed
- give no additionnal items
- not make the story to progress

So in those unnecessary zones, they should either:
- put extra items for weapons/armor upgrades
- giving XP (for exploring, open crates, killing group of ennemies, codex ...)
- do something fun  (I don't know what)

[Bozorgmehr]

Gaining XP should be related to objectives - not single enemies or simple actions like opening a door or by talking to someone. If you accept to help someone, you should be rewarded only if you succeed - say the one you're helping asked to safe his/her loved one(s) from a group of mercs; if you killed the mercs but the loved ones (=objective) didn't make it - you shouldn't be rewarded (or at least a lot less), you failed the mission after all. A "XP per kill" system is of no use here.

Getting stuff done is what should matter - how you do it is irrelevant.

[Varen Spectre]

Off topic (but somehow related and not worth own thread so ) :

konfeta wrote...

XP per kill is a mechanic that should be left to games that make best use of it - roguelikes, hack'n'slash, etc.

Yeah, it really worked very well in recent Witcher 2 IMO (FYI for those who have not played it, there were no visible numbers, just a very, very tiny progress bar, but it was still satisfying to see it slowly grow after every battle). 

Now I am a little bit curious: 
- Why did it work so well there? (And based on critics' and users' reviews and opinions, as well as first sales numbers, it did.) 
- Was that because of game's setting (you are primarily a monster hunter who explores areas and hunts down monsters)? 
- Was that because of hack'n'slash style of combats? Would it work, for example, with a shooter game or any other type of real time (action) game.
- Was that because of all the abovementioned or was that because of something else? 

Like I said it's off topic and a little bit Witcher - centric (I am sorry ). Moreover, I am not implying anything related to Mass Effect games. On the other hand, proper answers for (some of) these questions may bring some light into the relationship between game's setting / playstyle / design and appropriate leveling / reward system,

... so I would welcome your opinions and explanations...

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 09 juin 2011 - 12:12 .

[Sidney]

Admoniter wrote...
No the exp system in ME2 is one that rewards everyone the same no matter what. You and I could play the same level with you doing everything possible whereas I just rush through sometimes even running around combat to get to check points. Does it make sense that I get the exact same exp as you? Terror K is correct exp without context is meaningless and irrelevet, which is why the lump sum style in ME2 if flawed. Because if that is the sytem you are using you mine as well just say screw exp all together and just go with a you level up after every "X' mission.

OK, again you seem to miss the point. You are rewarded for finishing the mission, for reaching a goal. You still want reward for random brutality.

I can reverse your question and ask why 10 more random deads guards should make your mission success more valuable than my mission success? If the mission is kill the Bandit Leader and he's dead at the end of the mission why does it matter if you killed 11 guards and I killed 10?

As for level up after X missions, mission have different values so it isn't after X missions it is still after X points.

[Sidney]

Bluko wrote...

 Grinding is really only when you purposefully go out of your way to kill more enemies for XP.

So what exactly are you running around shooting every bad guy in sight for? Stronger character development and narrative cohesion? No, it isn't as bad/lame as WoW gridning but it is still exactly that killing for the sake of XP.

[Il Divo]

Sidney wrote...

So what exactly are you running around shooting every bad guy in sight for? Stronger character development and narrative cohesion? No, it isn't as bad/lame as WoW gridning but it is still exactly that killing for the sake of XP.

This is ultimately the problem with games like WoW. I would never argue that WoW is not an RPG, however I definitely think the focus is misplaced. The game is entirely centered on level and gear, to the point where everything else is thrown out the window. Reaching level 85 as fast as humanly possible so I can start collecting my Warlock tier 12 armor is not what I look for in an RPG.

[solmyr-fr]

Sidney wrote...
OK, again you seem to miss the point. You are rewarded for finishing the mission, for reaching a goal. You still want reward for random brutality.

I can reverse your question and ask why 10 more random deads guards should make your mission success more valuable than my mission success?

Again I decided one day age to change the topic name because I change my mind : the whole problem (IMO) is the ME2 too slow reward by mision. It's not the loss of the XK per Kill (I'll miss it too but this fight is lost by advance I think :/)

Why only a mission success should give you a reward ? Learning small details on the story and discovering some cultural, race background make you understand the world better !
It's not true that only the current mission completion make you progress. Intermediate objectives in the current quest make you progress in your main goal so why not giving XP more frequently inside a mission instead of at the end of it. It's still story related XP, it allow you to play the way you want (stealth ...) but you can probably miss some XP if you don't go in some areas. I wish they'll do something like that.

[Ahglock]

Sidney wrote...

Admoniter wrote...
No the exp system in ME2 is one that rewards everyone the same no matter what. You and I could play the same level with you doing everything possible whereas I just rush through sometimes even running around combat to get to check points. Does it make sense that I get the exact same exp as you? Terror K is correct exp without context is meaningless and irrelevet, which is why the lump sum style in ME2 if flawed. Because if that is the sytem you are using you mine as well just say screw exp all together and just go with a you level up after every "X' mission.

OK, again you seem to miss the point. You are rewarded for finishing the mission, for reaching a goal. You still want reward for random brutality.

I can reverse your question and ask why 10 more random deads guards should make your mission success more valuable than my mission success? If the mission is kill the Bandit Leader and he's dead at the end of the mission why does it matter if you killed 11 guards and I killed 10?

As for level up after X missions, mission have different values so it isn't after X missions it is still after X points.

No, I think you are the one still missing the point.  In the end you might disagree with it, but it has nothing to do with being rewarded for random brutality.  If while on a mission to kill Bandit Boss you discover a group of slaves, prisoners, whatever being held hostage aboujt to be executed, ignoring them is rewarded the same as freeing them.  Or lets say there is information finding the information is rewarded the same as not finding it.  Just because there is a mission doesn't mean there can't be other issues that would be good to tackle and you should be rewarded for it.  

So XP could be smething like

Primary objective kill bandit boss 500XP
Discovered the weapons cache 200 XP
Freed the prisoners 200 XP
Explored the base 100 xp
Read the codex entries 7 of 10 70XP
Total XP 1,070.

[Silentblaze]

XP grinding and looting sucks. THAT was game immersion breaking: kill, loot, kill, loot, kill, kill, kill, kill, loot, loot, loot, kill, kill, loot, loot... hang on I missed one.

Plus having to grab everything dropped by the bad guys then get the INVENTORY FULL is such a pain cuz then and there you gotta decide what to trash and what to keep instead of selling later. I HATE losing money like that.

Seriously XP and rewards per mission saves time and trouble if you missed anything. Not forcing me to restart is a blessing and keeps the game moving.

[In Exile]

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.

You're thinking about it wrong. DA:O rewards you for doing more quests and killing more toons. ME2 rewards you for doing more quests (especially since aside from 5 missions, the plot is optional). ME2 rewards social exploration, talking, prodding people, etc. DA:O rewards physical exploration, sort-off, because what it really rewards is you just going all hunter-killer.