171 réponses à ce sujet

[Nashiktal]

You know I like the lack of XP for kills because it opens up level design. The problem is Bioware just took that design and made waves of enemies, and turned the levels into hallways.

[In Exile]

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.

Let's say you only did the four main quests, then enough side quests to get the collector ship to show up in ME2 and then gun it to the old reaper and the suicide mission. You'll likely not hit more than lv. 20. As it turns out, skiping the game content doesn't let you get higher levels, more story, etc.

[In Exile]

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?

Well, what did you do in ME2 that I didn't? Scrounge around in countainers for upgrades? You got the upgrades and I didn't. Help homeless people for bonus paragon or renegade points and credits? You got more credits and a better persuasion score.

You do get rewarded. Just not with XP, because XP is your mission complete benchmark. Why should you get rewarded with XP and not some other thing?

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.

That's what XP is. It's an arbitrary and numerical way to improve your abilities to give you a sense of acomplishment across a quest. Doing it this way is the same as XP because that's all it is.

[In Exile]

Ahglock wrote...
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.

While I'd disagree about the codex and exploration (why should you get an XP reward for reading? the reward for the codex entry is a richer understand of the world, and - if the design is good, IMO - the opportunity to bring it up in dialogue for bonus options) I don't think anyone here who is against XP per kill would ever object to a system like this. In fact, we hate XP per kill because of how much it prevents a system like this.

[AlanC9]

[quote]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.[/quote]
[/quote]

Isn't it conceptually impossible for someone who skips content to get as much story as someone who doesn't?

And given the way items are given out in ME2, he can't get the best equipment either. He could do it in ME1 since the best equipment comes from either shops or random drops, but having the best stuff come randomly is part of what made ME1's system bad.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
Well, what did you do in ME2 that I didn't? Scrounge around in countainers for upgrades? You got the upgrades and I didn't. Help homeless people for bonus paragon or renegade points and credits? You got more credits and a better persuasion score.

You do get rewarded. Just not with XP, because XP is your mission complete benchmark. Why should you get rewarded with XP and not some other thing?

Itals mine. Actually, you do get XP for those sidequests.

That's what XP is. It's an arbitrary and numerical way to improve your abilities to give you a sense of acomplishment across a quest. Doing it this way is the same as XP because that's all it is. 

I think this is the root of the disagreement.

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...

That's what XP is. It's an arbitrary and numerical way to improve your abilities to give you a sense of acomplishment across a quest. Doing it this way is the same as XP because that's all it is. 

I think this is the root of the disagreement.

He's also pretty wrong.  In a well designed RPG,  it's a curve with direct relation to the difficulty of the event,  and in most systems today moderated by your level in relation to the difficulty.

OTOH,  in a poorly designed game like ME2 was,  and ME3 looks to be,  it's a completely arbitrary number with no relation to difficulty,  no moderation by your level,  just designed to insure each Mission gives skill points (More or less).  ME2's system could completely excise the experience,  and simply give you skill points at the end of every mission,  and the entire game goes one without change.

Experience in a well designed RPG is a well thought out curve of progression.

That "Numerical" thing exists because your Character is improving in his abilities,  and in an RPG,  that's the only way to model it.

Modifié par Gatt9, 09 juin 2011 - 08:42 .

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
He's also pretty wrong.  In a well designed RPG,  it's a curve with direct relation to the difficulty of the event,  and in most systems today moderated by your level in relation to the difficulty.

This is the part where you use a definition of "well-designed RPG" that I don't share, of course.

Edit: you might want to actually try making a case there. Why is it important that XP awards model the dififculty. How does this make the gameplay better?

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 juin 2011 - 08:53 .

[In Exile]

Gatt9 wrote...
He's also pretty wrong.  In a well designed RPG,  it's a curve with direct relation to the difficulty of the event,  and in most systems today moderated by your level in relation to the difficulty.

What is a curve? XP? I never said that it isn't. In fact, I said the opposite. But in the context of the post I responded to, XP or mission based advances are the same thing.

OTOH,  in a poorly designed game like ME2 was,  and ME3 looks to be,  it's a completely arbitrary number with no relation to difficulty,  no moderation by your level,  just designed to insure each Mission gives skill points (More or less).  ME2's system could completely excise the experience,  and simply give you skill points at the end of every mission,  and the entire game goes one without change.

Actually, you have more skills from start of ME2 to the end of ME2. You could create a power progression simply based on the number of skills the player has available, and make everything else level from start to fonish.

Experience in a well designed RPG is a well thought out curve of progression.

Which still makes it an arbitrary numerical representation of progress. It's arbitrary because you could get 5 XP for a quest or 242,342,132,32,13,123,123,123 Xp and it would amount to the same thing, because XP is relative.

That "Numerical" thing exists because your Character is improving in his abilities,  and in an RPG,  that's the only way to model it.

XP is arbitrary. It doesn't need to exist at all (e.g. in the elder scrolls style system).

[Aurellia]

What I'd like to see rather than a completion screen is have an objectives screen and as you enter an area you can discover optional objectives such some guy who wants you to kill a certain Cerberus squad to avenge his brother. Then as you go through the level as you complete objectives give xp rewards. If you choose the right granularity this will satisfy those of us who feel dislike the mission complete window that basically feels like it is the same for everyone.

By rewarding objectives as you go it feels more organic and less scripted. Hey I discovered this side task and completed it or if i want to hurry through I can ignore it.

[Jonathan Shepard]

There is one thing wrong with this argument.

Mass Effect WAS an XP grinder if you did a level 50-60 NG+.
Did not enjoy it at all. I thought I'd fall short, but I just managed to reach level 60 during the B.o.t.Citadel. Why? Because I DID have to explore every blanking world for those damned minerals, hidden in mountains with 89 degree angles. Not a fun experience. In fact, it's one of the few areas I think Mass Effect performed exceptionally poorly in. Mass Effect 2 is much more enjoyable progression-wise in that sense, because I'm not looking at a number and trying to figure out how many enemies I'll kill. I'm looking at a number and saying: Oh, I need to only do a couple side-quests and a loyalty/recruitment and I'll be able to get this power maxed.
The promise on ME2's system having more influence on combat when you level up was one of the few that were really kept and fulfilled 100%. Me3's system looks like a perfect hybrid, and so I'm glad that there's no more XP per kill. The only thing I'm curious about is the "Mission Complete" screen. I'd rather see that on my personal terminal as my "report" to I suppose the Council again, to be immersive, unlike seeing the debrief's from TIM's point of view.
The way XP is distributed now is fine.

[Ahglock]

In Exile wrote...

Ahglock wrote...
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.

While I'd disagree about the codex and exploration (why should you get an XP reward for reading? the reward for the codex entry is a richer understand of the world, and - if the design is good, IMO - the opportunity to bring it up in dialogue for bonus options) I don't think anyone here who is against XP per kill would ever object to a system like this. In fact, we hate XP per kill because of how much it prevents a system like this.

They were just quick examples but I see no problem with rewarding people for being a completionist.  We reward people for a lot of other things in games.  Still on the repeat playthrough side of things it would probably get tedious so things like that are probably better as achievements.  

[Sidney]

Ahglock wrote...

They were just quick examples but I see no problem with rewarding people for being a completionist.  We reward people for a lot of other things in games.  Still on the repeat playthrough side of things it would probably get tedious so things like that are probably better as achievements.  

There's still a difference between rewarding a killed the slavers "sidemission" and saying I got 15 XP for killing each slaver. I have no issue with rewards for doing something but I do have an issue with rewards just for killing something. In ME2, for example, if you find Mordin's assistant and save him that should (and does) create XP even though you find him "during" the "save the district" mission. What shouldn't matter is how many guys you gun down to accomplish both tasks.

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

That's
what XP is. It's an arbitrary and numerical way to improve your abilities to give you a sense of acomplishment across a quest. Doing it this way is the same as XP because that's all it is.

That's what XP is in Mass Effect 2. That's not what it is in most RPGs, and not what it should be. Especially in most P&P ones where XP really is a reflection of your success (or lack thereof) on a mission/quest and how you achieved it. Not all P&P RPG systems have XP per kill systems, but almost all of them at least have XP based on how you went about things. Unless you have a bad DM/GM it's not just a meaningless, random number with no context that's thrown at you at the end.

AlanC9 wrote...

And given the way items are given out in ME2, he can't get the best equipment either. He could do it in ME1 since the best equipment comes from either shops or random drops, but having the best stuff come randomly is part of what made ME1's system bad.

And what made ME2's system bad was that every item was in the same damn place in every playthrough, and in most cases you literally tripped over them with no real need to go out of your way at all. Aside from the fact that most levels/areas in ME2 were so damn linear that you barely needed to explore anything at all to find everything because it was all on the beaten path, about the only things that may have taken some time or effort to find were credits and resources. You'd certainly never miss a new weapon or upgrade, and they would either be in the same shop as they have been for the last 10,000 playthroughs or sitting in the middle of your main path about as subtle as a mile-high mushroom in a one-acre paddock.

Modifié par Terror_K, 10 juin 2011 - 12:23 .

[Lumikki]

I don't support any XP system. I don't like numbers what has no game world meaning. Basicly XP is dinosaurus from history.

[Sidney]

Terror_K wrote...

That's what XP is in Mass Effect 2. That's not what it is in most RPGs, and not what it should be. Especially in most P&P ones where XP really is a reflection of your success (or lack thereof) on a mission/quest and how you achieved it. Not all P&P RPG systems have XP per kill systems, but almost all of them at least have XP based on how you went about things. Unless you have a bad DM/GM it's not just a meaningless, random number with no context that's thrown at you at the end.

Yes but in a CRPG there is only one measure....success. You did X. You get Y XP for doing Z task. In a PnP your GM might give you style points for an especially clever way to succeed but in a CRPG setting there are often not alternate ways or the system isn't able to judge "style".

Is it arbitrary, yes. Then again why is opening a lock worth 100 XP, Genlocks 15 XP in DAO? Is is 7.5x harder to open a chest than to kill a genlock. Really? The XP awarded per kill is an almost wholly random number unless you were to do some straight 1 HP = 1 XP.  You think XP per kill is less arbitrary because you add up all the kills and get a number you understand how it is dervived but the problem is you are just adding a bunch of arbitrary numbers together and doing that doesn't make the end figure any less arbitrary.

[Terror_K]

Even if that's true, Sidney, at least there's context to the DAO method. Even if you don't know why killing a Genlock is 15XP, you know that it at least is, and you know where the XP derives from. In ME2 you just get a massive number with no context or explanation thrown at you and you have no idea where it comes from or why. And given that it's the same every time no matter how you did things, it's pretty damn clear it's just for completing the mission itself and that's it, which is pretty damn shallow and makes no indication of reflecting why and how that came about. Especially when every time it's a convenient amount that happens to make you level up each time, which strongly suggests it's not really XP at all and just a fake means of pushing you to the next level. That's it.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
That's what XP is in Mass Effect 2. That's not what it is in most RPGs, and not what it should be. Especially in most P&P ones where XP really is a reflection of your success (or lack thereof) on a mission/quest and how you achieved it. Not all P&P RPG systems have XP per kill systems, but almost all of them at least have XP based on how you went about things. Unless you have a bad DM/GM it's not just a meaningless, random number with no context that's thrown at you at the end.

But in ME2, XP is a measure of your success. It just so happens that there's only one way to solve the quest. That's poor quest design, but that has nothing to do with the XP system itself.

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, is a great example of an XP system that has no XP per kill and gives very low (so still arbitrary) but meaningful numbers for solving quests.

XP is just a random number without context. Even in a game like Masquerade, where you get more XP for how you finished the quest ... you have no idea how to judge the XP other than to say it was a lot or not a lot based on your pace % to level-up.

And what made ME2's system bad was that every item was in the same damn place in every playthrough, and in most cases you literally tripped over them with no real need to go out of your way at all. Aside from the fact that most levels/areas in ME2 were so damn linear that you barely needed to explore anything at all to find everything because it was all on the beaten path, about the only things that may have taken some time or effort to find were credits and resources. You'd certainly never miss a new weapon or upgrade, and they would either be in the same shop as they have been for the last 10,000 playthroughs or sitting in the middle of your main path about as subtle as a mile-high mushroom in a one-acre paddock.

This has nothing to do with the XP system. This is just a fundamental objection on your part to a lack of exploration and non-linear design. But if it was XP per kill and the same design, then you'd still wind up with the exact same # of XPs because you had to kill the exact same # of enemies.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...

Even if that's true, Sidney, at least there's context to the DAO method. Even if you don't know why killing a Genlock is 15XP, you know that it at least is, and you know where the XP derives from. In ME2 you just get a massive number with no context or explanation thrown at you and you have no idea where it comes from or why.

Sure you do: you only get XP when you finish quests, and it even shows up on the mission completed screen (with the total # of XP that you get). You'd have to have an actual deficit not to be able to understand that the XP comes solely from completing the mission.

And given that it's the same every time no matter how you did things, it's pretty damn clear it's just for completing the mission itself and that's it, which is pretty damn shallow and makes no indication of reflecting why and how that came about. Especially when every time it's a convenient amount that happens to make you level up each time, which strongly suggests it's not really XP at all and just a fake means of pushing you to the next level. That's it.

Actually, you answered your own question: the XP comes as a result of completing the mission. And what's wrong with a DM, potentially, deciding that each quest has just the right amount of XP (based on the challenge rating to level) to push the party to the next level?

None of this has anything to do with the XP reward system. All of it is a debate over quest design, and I think we can all agree ME2 had bad quest design.

[Skirata129]

[quote]Kabanya101 wrote...

A thousand points in ME1 meant nothing if you need 50,000 points to gain a level. In ME2 you need 1000 XP to gain a level (regardless your current level) - side questing in ME2 is more rewarding than in ME1.[/quote]

You do realize I am way underestimating for ME1 with only a thousand XP. Just from codex entries alone, you could net 800-700 XP. Having certain achievements would make individual kills nearly 700-900, sometimes a 1000 for geth destroyers. But even those seem low, and I'm doing this off of a two-three year absence of playing ME1. Yeah you needed way more experience, but you earned ten times the amount of that in ME2.[/quote]

So... you'd rather have to gain 1,000,000 xp to level and receive 10,000 xp per kill than need 100 xp to level with 1xp per kill? makes perfect sense...

Modifié par Skirata129, 11 juin 2011 - 10:01 .

[x-Legion-x]

this is an important thread - bump

[Sidney]

Terror_K wrote...

Even if that's true, Sidney, at least there's context to the DAO method. Even if you don't know why killing a Genlock is 15XP, you know that it at least is, and you know where the XP derives from. In ME2 you just get a massive number with no context or explanation thrown at you and you have no idea where it comes from or why..

There is no context.  ME2 performing mission X is worth Y XP.  DAO killing A is worth B XP. Why is one less arbitray than another? ME2 just performs it's abstraction at a higher level. Let me give you 2 sets of nmumbers:
120
(20+20+40+10+10+35+5)

Is the latter more meaningful to you than the former? No. They're both just arbitrary sets of numbers I made up.

The XP's per kill in DAO or ME1 are basically random numbers because there is no rhyme or reason why you get the amount you do - there is some rough "difficulty measure. That had more weight with me in BG2 where there wasn't leveling scaling and monster X was more difficult than monster Y. The only leveling system that "makes sense" is a pure useage type scenario where using fire magic = more fire magic. Now as much as that makes sense I actually hate those systems and prefer thye XP method because it doesn't encourage such a mono-mania for a single skill/talent.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
None of this has anything to do with the XP reward system. All of it is a debate over quest design, and I think we can all agree ME2 had bad quest design. 

Without necessarily agreeing on what the specific problems with the quest design were, of course.

[JayhartRIC]

I don't like xp per kill. In some cases I think circumventing opponents should be rewarded. Like when Bin Laden was killed, it wouldn't have made sense for the strike team to go up and down the block looking for a few more terrorists to kill, or disarm some extra IED's.