167 réponses à ce sujet

[marshalleck]

Sidney wrote...

Trinity66 wrote...

So you want to avoid an enemy and at the and of mission still get same xp as people who will kill, hack, loot, find etc - all that there is to kill, hack, loot, find ? lol

Your mission in to take a hill in the Army.

Method #1 is to drop  a massive barrage on the hill, storm up the slope and kill everyything on the hill wearing the other uniform.
Method 2 is to maneuver your force so that the opfor on the hill is forced to withdraw.

Why is #1 (your version) better than the latter? Easy answer it isn't but in your method I am rewarded for a brute force solution. In your solution you are rewarded even if you fail to achieve your mission - look Colonel I killed 100 enemy soliders but failed to take the hill! Can I level up now?

What? Method 1 is better because the enemy unit won't return and engage your team while you're sleeping. Eliminating the opposition permanently would be more desirable than having them come back at you later, perhaps while you're at a disadvantage.

So yes, the guy who obliterated the camp gets the promotion (level up). You remain a grunt. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 20 juillet 2011 - 10:57 .

[Sidney]

marshalleck wrote...
What? Method 1 is better because the enemy unit won't return and engage your team while you're sleeping. Eliminating the opposition permanently would be more desirable than having them come back at you later, perhaps while you're at a disadvantage.

So yes, the guy who obliterated the camp gets the promotion (level up). You remain a grunt. 

No actually it's not because method 1 entails a lot more risk so you are wrong. The defenders of the stupid XP by kill avoidf the issue which is if you kill a ton of guys and don't take the hill do you think you should be rewarded for failure? According to you the Germans would get more XP than the Russians in WW2 because they killed a lot more guys-- oh but they lost.

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

XP per kill please.

[tobynator89]

Ok this is why I never was a fan of xp per kill.

Firstly, soldiers simply do not get better at what they do on the battlefield itself. they do the mission using the skills they have learned to use from training and after the fight they review how effective those skills were and refine their combat techniques and train further accordingly. His skills comes from days of drilling exercises and manouvers learning how to move and when to move, many hours at the shooting range, getting to know his weapons and how they function. His strong physical attributes are earned through countless hours spent hauling equipment and carrying a 50kg backpack around often supplemented by time spent at the gym.

[sympathy4saren]

XP during missions

[AssassinsReign]

Dunstan wrote...

AssassinsReign wrote...

Dunstan wrote...

AssassinsReign wrote...

Maybe they should just show you and your squadmate's xp bar and an animation of it increasing while showing you how much xp you got in the mission (a la Call of Duty games with their xp bars after matches)

What do you guys think?

Sadly by giving Call of Duty games as the example you've lost a lot of respect for that idea.
Because Call of Duty games are a mindless "run and gun" bananza, and loyal Mass Effect fans don't want to attract the typical Call of Duty gamer (Loud mouth immature teenagers with little understanding of basic spelling).

Ok I might have used a bad example (the more I think about it the more true that is- God i hate CoD) but the jist of an xp bar increasing is the point I was trying to make....ummm another example.... Gears of War 3 Beta? Ummm... Lord of the Rings The Return of the King the Videogame??? erm......

You have won my respect back since you reminded me of my earlier gaming days.
I loved that game back in the day, especially when you unlocked Isildur, Faramir and the Hobbits 

YES! I just played it recently. i loved playing the level (gates of pelennor or something) with my friend on the gamecube and we would kill all of the enemies until they stopped respawning Great times!

[Bluko]

Ideally XP should be given on the basis of actions performed.

In a sense a mission can be considered an action, but that's taking a very Meta-Game approach. I do not find this very rewarding however as it essentially removes almost all sense of accomplishment. You can completely bumble your way through a mission and get the same reward as someone else. To me it's akin to simply taking a test and regardless of how well you do you'll get 100% simply for trying.

I find the lack of XP given for just about any sort of action to only encourage the bare minimum of play. A number of folks here seem rather adamantine against being "forced" to kill enemies, explore, etc. (Which is strange as there is no one forcing you do so other then yourself, nor is the game level-based enough that you must be a certain level to take on missions or opponents really.) I'm a bit baffled by this because well XP, Levels, and Skills are all rather core to RPGs and almost all games in general. Rules and limitations are ultimately what make a game, a game afterall. If you do not enjoy these things I'd say you're ultimately more interested in simply roleplaying or stories. In which case you'd probably enjoy simulation games more then anything else.

I dunno the folks saying they can't or don't want to be arsed to do anything but complete the mission remind of the kids who only eat the pizza and won't eat the crust. Seems a bit snobbish and I also get the impression these people are the ones who probably play through the game a few too many times. If you don't want to do something or you feel compelled to skip stuff that means the developers have already failed to make it compelling for you anyways. Don't belittle XP being rewarded for certain activities you don't enjoy, cause there are those of who do enjoy leaving no rock unturned. Just because you don't like a particular mission or objective doesn't mean their should be no reward for doing so.


There's a somewhat valid point in that XP shouldn't be handed out for kills. Although in a game that is purely about killing stuff (you're a Space Marine and you shoot things come on...) it seems a bit of contradiction to imply otherwise. Last I checked Mass Effect was an Action-RPG. To me that implies I'm going to kill stuff and level up. Personally I'd like to see thing such as getting double XP for headshots and combining Biotic Powers as a means to reward more skilled players.

Though I do understand some folks want to play more stealthy like and such. Ideally then taking such stealth actions should net you the same XP as say the more bloodthirsty approach. ME1 goofed in this manner in that it failed to appropriately reward those who could negotiate instead of fight. Although it could be argued not-having to fight is the reward/benefit itself.

Personally were it up to me I would abandon the level system altogether and rely entirely on skills, which frankly makes a lot more sense in context of the game environment. If hate XP and XP Grinding you must by some derivative dislike Levels as well since the two are inextricably tied together. To me it's most enjoyable as the more I use let's say Concussion Shot. the better Shepard gets at using it. Frankly I find levels posterous to begin with because you can never use an ability, but if you kill enough guys with your gun all of sudden at some point you can whip out a new Force Power. How the heck does that work?

Anyways I think a compromise can be reached (or maybe not as this BSN and we have applied the Burger King motto of Have it your way and only your way apparently.)

Could XP instead be given out for completing objectives (maybe even some hidden ones) in the mission? That way players aren't necessarily forced to kill everything, but those who do enjoy seeing some form of progress/some manner of exploration can at least be somewhat satisfied?

Also for the argument leveling up during missions is silly, you can still "level up" during a mission in ME2. And I'm guessing this will still be possible in ME3 regardless of you get XP constantly or not.

Modifié par Bluko, 21 juillet 2011 - 01:47 .

[The Spamming Troll]

bluko, you are awesome.

make me a video game, please.

[Bluko]

tobynator89 wrote...

Ok this is why I never was a fan of xp per kill.

Firstly, soldiers simply do not get better at what they do on the battlefield itself. they do the mission using the skills they have learned to use from training and after the fight they review how effective those skills were and refine their combat techniques and train further accordingly. His skills comes from days of drilling exercises and manouvers learning how to move and when to move, many hours at the shooting range, getting to know his weapons and how they function. His strong physical attributes are earned through countless hours spent hauling equipment and carrying a 50kg backpack around often supplemented by time spent at the gym.

So basically you're not a fan of levels then?

Shepard's basically as well-trained as they come. Shouldn't they be by your argument level-capped to begin with?

Really what is the discrepancy here by saying that you only learn something after you do it? Why don't I simply learn stuff as I do it? Most ingenuity comes from doing some different as you're actually doing it. Rarely does one think of alternatives unless they are pressured to do so. Yes it is possible to come up with new ideas via review, but it is always a result of trial and error or in otherwords practice that such ideas are formed with. And I don't see Shepard reviewing the mission and deciding what ability to speclize, I see T.I.M. smoking a cigarette and giving me an arbitrary amount of XP/Credits.

Unfortunately the player does not have the option of taking Shepard to a shooting range to get more accurare or having Zaeed bark at them for how they could do things better. So your only real option to become a more proficient killer is to kill more and learn new tricks as you do so.

[Bluko]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

bluko, you are awesome.

make me a video game, please.

Well there are games out there that do break away from the restrictive level system. If I rack my brain a little bit I can probably even think of a few. Though if I start suggesting other games do it "better" more folks are bound to start hissing at me, cause we all know ME2 is the most perfectist game ever created in the history of man and will not benefit from any changes or additions to it's gameplay.

[Clonedzero]

xp after missions please.
during missions kills immersion.

"hey garrus, i killed that mech and i leveled up so now i know rank two of singularity! isn't that awesome!"
"totally, i ranked up too, can you train me in cuncussive shot?"
"sure dude!"

*mechs standing there watching them train*


wtf?


do it after missions, at least it'd contextually make sense then.

[Bluko]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

A fairly minor reason I would like XP per kill is because paragon actions would result in less XP--less enemy-killing, after all. I'm a paragon myself, but i think it would give more...meaning to the choice. Admittedly, not much, but some.

I always thought that was the basis for such actions.

Do I kill this person because I don't care about them and or just want their stuff (Loot, XP, Credits, etc.)?

Or do I spare them because I'm nice and value the possible good they may do in the future?

[IrishSpectre257]

Honestly doesn't matter to me at all.

[Bluko]

Clonedzero wrote...

xp after missions please.
during missions kills immersion.

"hey garrus, i killed that mech and i leveled up so now i know rank two of singularity! isn't that awesome!"
"totally, i ranked up too, can you train me in cuncussive shot?"
"sure dude!"

*mechs standing there watching them train*


wtf?


do it after missions, at least it'd contextually make sense then.

Not really.

Shepard:"Hey Garrus remember how I managed to headshot 12 Husks in a row on Planet X?"
Garrus:"Yeah."
Shepard:"Well I can now use Biotic Throw instead."
Garrus:"How'd you figure that out? Actually since when could you use Biotics?"
Shepard:"LOL I dunno."

That's basically what you have now. Personally I prefer...

Garrus:"Shepard! There's too many Husks. I keep killing em, but we can't hold out for long!"
Shepard:"I know! Wait... I feel tingly."
*Shepard unleashes Biotic Throw*
Garrus:"Impressive! You just killed all those Husks!"
Shepard:"I should go..."

[Il Divo]

Bluko wrote...

Not really.

Shepard:"Hey Garrus remember how I managed to headshot 12 Husks in a row on Planet X?"
Garrus:"Yeah."
Shepard:"Well I can now use Biotic Throw instead."
Garrus:"How'd you figure that out? Actually since when could you use Biotics?"
Shepard:"LOL I dunno."

That's basically what you have now. Personally I prefer...

Garrus:"Shepard! There's too many Husks. I keep killing em, but we can't hold out for long!"
Shepard:"I know! Wait... I feel tingly."
*Shepard unleashes Biotic Throw*
Garrus:"Impressive! You just killed all those Husks!"
Shepard:"I should go..."

Your first example was a problem which was also present in Mass Effect 1. That issue hasn't gone away. It's actually one reason why skill based systems make a bit more sense for leveling systems.

With the second example, experience is meant to represent knowledge gained. Shepard using biotic throw has little to do with your group getting overwhelmed in a firefight. It's about nonsensical as the first example.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 juillet 2011 - 02:55 .

[SandTrout]

I prefer XP primarily from quests/mission completion. As others have stated, I don't want to be worrying about finding and killing every little enemy, especially if there is an opotunity to bypass a group of enemies. Sneaking past enemies to complete your objective is a skill that you can get experience from as well.

I'd rather not break immersion for the sake of power-gaming.

[Il Divo]

SandTrout wrote...

I prefer XP primarily from quests/mission completion. As others have stated, I don't want to be worrying about finding and killing every little enemy, especially if there is an opotunity to bypass a group of enemies. Sneaking past enemies to complete your objective is a skill that you can get experience from as well.

I'd rather not break immersion for the sake of power-gaming.

It's actually funny that you mention this. In a recent demo for the new Deus Ex, someone asked the developers about the leveling system and they responded with how players who rely on more 'creative' strategies (stealth, hacking, etc) would actually get a bit more xp than the killing approach.

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

I like mission-based XP. As others said, I don't feel the need to try and kill things on foot for the extra XP/faster leveling, and it rewards creativity instead of shooting.

But mission-based wouldn't have really worked in ME1 since the core missions are very long. Imagine not getting any experience from Feros until you've completed it... that would not work at all.

[Shepard the Leper]

marshalleck wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Your mission in to take a hill in the Army.

Method #1 is to drop  a massive barrage on the hill, storm up the slope and kill everyything on the hill wearing the other uniform.
Method 2 is to maneuver your force so that the opfor on the hill is forced to withdraw.

Why is #1 (your version) better than the latter? Easy answer it isn't but in your method I am rewarded for a brute force solution. In your solution you are rewarded even if you fail to achieve your mission - look Colonel I killed 100 enemy soliders but failed to take the hill! Can I level up now?

What? Method 1 is better because the enemy unit won't return and engage your team while you're sleeping. Eliminating the opposition permanently would be more desirable than having them come back at you later, perhaps while you're at a disadvantage.

So yes, the guy who obliterated the camp gets the promotion (level up). You remain a grunt. 

According to a famous Chinese commander: "to subdue the enemy without a fight is the supreme excellence ... the worst option is to assault cities." Storming the hill (likely a heavily fortified position that gives a huge advantage to the defender - like cities in Sun Tzu's era) will result in massive casualties on the side of the attacker. Maybe you heard of the Greek general Pyrrhus who won a couple of victories against the Romans back in the day, but lost his army and the war.

I LOL ed at your point about "the enemy coming back while you're at a disadvantage" - that's what you're doing right now (attacking the enemy who has the high ground). Taking the high ground through smart maneuvering gives you the advantage if the enemy is stupid enough to counter-attack.

So no, the guy who obliterated the camp will likely be death and lost his army while the guy using his brains has won the day without taking losses. Any commander with more than one braincell will tell you method #2 is a hundred times more desirable than method #1.

[Massadonious1]

There are plenty of other "RPG's" (because we all know how subjective that term is) that do end of mission/campaign XP, PnP included.

They're never mentioned because they're inconvenient.

[Someone With Mass]

I like it after the mission, because when it's during, it feels like I'm a XP hunter, which I don't like.

[who would know]

A compromise for those that want it during the mission, XP awarded in chunks for reaching certain checkpoints. Pass an area, doesn't matter how, and the XP is yours.

[Shepard the Leper]

who would know wrote...

A compromise for those that want it during the mission, XP awarded in chunks for reaching certain checkpoints. Pass an area, doesn't matter how, and the XP is yours.

That's not really a compromise

Granting XP per kill is extremely bad with the ME2 system. Enemies come in waves, killing and moving fast will result in less enemies to fight (up to 5 times less (Husks) on the IFF mission, for example). A XP per kill system would encourage cowardly, cautious and slow paced combat (you want all enemy waves to kick in to get the max XP). Not something I'm looking forward to.

At the end of the day the whole XP system is a nessecary evil. It's not the XP that matters, it's the feeling of progression that's important. XP only allows your character(s) to get more powerful over time (which is good IMO); when and how you gain experience is mostly irrelevant. Furthermore, the mission or objective is key here. Shep doesn't go to the disabled Reaper vessel to hunt Husks, Shep goes there to find the IFF so (s)he can travel through the Omega relay and say hi to the Collectors. XP should be rewarded for completing the objective, not for killing goons. Whether XP is rewarded at the end of a mission only, or multiple times throughout a mission (after completing minor objectives) is not really important - being rewarded for completed objectives is.