428 réponses à ce sujet

[willholt]

JohnEpler wrote...

just_me wrote...

Why should you even gain xp, loot and develop your character if you skip combat anyway? Even almost all the non combat skills from DA:O are pointless without combat...

Well, I'd say because combat (and improving at combat) -shouldn't- be the primary point of these games. I can think of at least a few games I've played where combat seemed almost a distraction from the real -point- of the game. One example that springs to mind, for me, was Vampire : The Masquare : Bloodlines. The best parts of that game were interacting with the characters - the social side of things. Next up, for me at least? Stealth. Being sneaky, and just generally acting as a vampire in that sort of world -should- act. Combat was a distant third, and sections where you were forced to engage in long stretches of combat were perhaps the weakest parts of that game.

Now, combat should be fun and engaging, and it should be a rewarding and viable way to play a game. I don't think you'll see any disagreement from us on that point. But I don't think it needs to be the only way to play a game, and I think the general sentiment is that each fight should be meaningful. While there are going to be fights you can't avoid (for whatever reason, whether circumstantial or otherwise), they shouldn't always be the only solution. And players who choose a different style of progression should be equally rewarded. RPGs should be in line with their name - playing a Role. Not a combat simulator, in other words, but something where options exist. And, certainly, when you travel in certain circles and poke your nose into the business of others, sometimes you are going to have to fight. But a player should never feel like a game has two beats - 'fight, talk'. We hope to move further away from that idea in the future.

You have no idea how happy reading your post makes me, especially the 'bolded' bit.

I really have got so fed up recently seeing how nearly every game released puts so much emphasis on combat. It would be amazing if in DA3 we have several ways of solving/dealing with situations. Yes, by all means, make combat one of the options... but it would really be AWESOME (© 2011 EA INTERNATIONAL:P) if there were diplomacy and stealth options as well... or even other alternatives, if you can think of them.

It might even make me forgive and forget the proposed lack of full visual companion customisation. :innocent:

Please, make it so!

[thats1evildude]

Alternative solutions to encounters are always good. I tend to choose them when there's a considerable reward for doing so, or when I would prefer not to slay my opponents because they're good people forced into a bad situation.

That said, I conform to the Slayer archetype (a term that I'm borrowing from Dungeons and Dragons) where most of my enjoyment of a game is derived from combat. I enjoy testing my skill against big groups of enemies and defeating villains. I tend to play melee characters and I don't go for broken builds that turn all fights in one-sided affairs.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 27 septembre 2011 - 07:21 .

[just_me]

JohnEpler wrote...

Well, I'd say because combat (and improving at combat) -shouldn't- be the primary point of these games. I can think of at least a few games I've played where combat seemed almost a distraction from the real -point- of the game. One example that springs to mind, for me, was Vampire : The Masquare : Bloodlines. The best parts of that game were interacting with the characters - the social side of things. Next up, for me at least? Stealth. Being sneaky, and just generally acting as a vampire in that sort of world -should- act. Combat was a distant third, and sections where you were forced to engage in long stretches of combat were perhaps the weakest parts of that game.

Now, combat should be fun and engaging, and it should be a rewarding and viable way to play a game. I don't think you'll see any disagreement from us on that point. But I don't think it needs to be the only way to play a game, and I think the general sentiment is that each fight should be meaningful. While there are going to be fights you can't avoid (for whatever reason, whether circumstantial or otherwise), they shouldn't always be the only solution. And players who choose a different style of progression should be equally rewarded. RPGs should be in line with their name - playing a Role. Not a combat simulator, in other words, but something where options exist. And, certainly, when you travel in certain circles and poke your nose into the business of others, sometimes you are going to have to fight. But a player should never feel like a game has two beats - 'fight, talk'. We hope to move further away from that idea in the future.

I do not disagree with that, in fact I'd love to have more options to solve a problem than simply using the fists.
I do not need an overwhelming amount of fighting in games (even if I really enjoy Bayonetta, NG etc ... and these games are 99% combat and 1% dumb story  )
I was strictly speaking about "killallhostiles" as a viable option in the game (  Combat Starts ->"Do you want to fight"->"No"-> all enemies are dead, player gains xp, and can loot enemies)
If that option were present in DA2(and even DA:O) it would also influence other gameplay features in a negative way.
Since leveling up and equipping your character is almost only useful to improve your strength in combat (at the moment).
I'd certainly love to see that change (at least a little)
Right now completely skipping combat only leaves the roleplaying aspect and only in dialogue.

[King Minos]

Jennifer Heppler looks like she is a very fun person to hang around with.

[rolson00]

JohnEpler wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Which to me seems a rather more elegant approach to the whole question. I know there's an understanding around the office that we need more ways to approach a situation than 'go in, start hitting people hard in the face, see where it takes us'. Whether it's as simple as stealth or as complicated as some bizarre Rube Goldberg'esque series of plot and world events, something that we definitely lacked in DA2 was a variety of ways to solve problems. So I think it'd be entirely reasonable to see a little less focus on the combat side of things, if that means we can come up with different ways of approaching and solving problems.

I do like hitting people in the face, though. Don't lose that.

Heavens forfend! It's still an important solution to keep in mind - just, maybe, not the -only- solution that we want to have. But things such as talking your way out of a sticky situation, using other characters to your advantage, or simply skirting around a problem area, well, those are all solutions that should appear in at least some situations. Letting you roleplay not just in-dialogue, but in how you approach the world is something that Deus Ex (both the original and HR) does rather well, and it's an important concept to keep in mind when creating RPGs.

i think your a little wrong on vtmb they had different clans to do what you prefered like gangrel and tremer action and the malks and ventrue were fun for sociol what the game lacked was a fair balence between all of the clans.

[Bryy_Miller]

That was five years ago.

We actually do have fast forward in games now.

And you know what? It's pretty awesome. Although, I redo the level even though I've had it done for me by autopilot.

[rolson00]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

That was five years ago.

We actually do have fast forward in games now.

And you know what? It's pretty awesome. Although, I redo the level even though I've had it done for me by autopilot.

lol try 8 yrs was made 2004

[AdmiralCheez]

That woman is making serious over-generalizations about other women.

MY OVARIES DESIRE COMBAT.

[Foolsfolly]

JohnEpler wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I do suspect, though, that if you designed a game such that players could skip the combat, the game would end up having more non-combat content.

I would probably enjoy that development. Alternate ways to approach a problem is something that I appreciate in my rpgs. If I want to just grind out kills for xp, I would be playing an mmo.

Which to me seems a rather more elegant approach to the whole question. I know there's an understanding around the office that we need more ways to approach a situation than 'go in, start hitting people hard in the face, see where it takes us'. Whether it's as simple as stealth or as complicated as some bizarre Rube Goldberg'esque series of plot and world events, something that we definitely lacked in DA2 was a variety of ways to solve problems. So I think it'd be entirely reasonable to see a little less focus on the combat side of things, if that means we can come up with different ways of approaching and solving problems.

Who's against multiple paths to victory? That's at the heart of RPGs--- choices!

Gotta get inside a manor? Beat your way in, sneak your way, fast talk your way in, go around the back, or just drop gold into a guard's pocket and get allowed in. They all equal the same goal being reached but the choices are based on role-playing.

I'd love to see future DA games focus on multiple paths to victory.

...just not insta-win encounters. If I don't like having to buy equipment the solution isn't to make gold an optional feature.

[Foolsfolly]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

That woman is making serious over-generalizations about other women.

MY OVARIES DESIRE COMBAT.

I like this woman's ovaries. They have balls!

[Nashiktal]

I can kind of see where she is going with this, some people just don't like combat in general. Bioware games do pretty well with their story after all.

For example, I wanted a fast forward button while playing DAO. The fade and the deep roads levels were terribly boring. There was nothing but combat there. It was fun at first but damn it got repetitive fast.

[Xewaka]

JohnEpler wrote...

just_me wrote...
Why should you even gain xp, loot and develop your character if you skip combat anyway? Even almost all the non combat skills from DA:O are pointless without combat...

Well, I'd say because combat (and improving at combat) -shouldn't- be the primary point of these games. I can think of at least a few games I've played where combat seemed almost a distraction from the real -point- of the game. One example that springs to mind, for me, was Vampire : The Masquare : Bloodlines. The best parts of that game were interacting with the characters - the social side of things. Next up, for me at least? Stealth. Being sneaky, and just generally acting as a vampire in that sort of world -should- act. Combat was a distant third, and sections where you were forced to engage in long stretches of combat were perhaps the weakest parts of that game.
Now, combat should be fun and engaging, and it should be a rewarding and viable way to play a game. I don't think you'll see any disagreement from us on that point. But I don't think it needs to be the only way to play a game, and I think the general sentiment is that each fight should be meaningful. While there are going to be fights you can't avoid (for whatever reason, whether circumstantial or otherwise), they shouldn't always be the only solution. And players who choose a different style of progression should be equally rewarded. RPGs should be in line with their name - playing a Role. Not a combat simulator, in other words, but something where options exist. And, certainly, when you travel in certain circles and poke your nose into the business of others, sometimes you are going to have to fight. But a player should never feel like a game has two beats - 'fight, talk'. We hope to move further away from that idea in the future.

Another good step to move away from that "Fight, talk" dynamic is to remove kill-based XP, and take a page from how modern PnP RPGs do it: Objective based. Achieving certain objectives, regardless of the method, nets certain amount of XP (granted at the end of session or module, translated in games as quest end). Barring D&D, every PnP RPG I can think of has moved from kill XP to objective XP, thus freeing the game to adapt to any kind of style the players want without said players feeling punished in their progression for not murdering enough. Of course, secondary objectives, exploration, and general creativity would still net extra XP, as these can be done regardless of build. Do not force the player to act certain way to develop his character and you will see how your own design philosophy benefits from being freed of the shackles of murder XP.

Modifié par Xewaka, 27 septembre 2011 - 08:57 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Xewaka wrote...

Another good step to move away from that "Fight, talk" dynamic is to remove kill-based XP, and take a page from how modern PnP RPGs do it: Objective based. Achieving certain objectives, regardless of the method, nets certain amount of XP. Barring D&D, every PnP RPG I can think of has moved from kill XP to objective XP, thus freeing the game to adapt to any kind of style the players want without said players feeling punished in their progression for not murdering enough. Of course, secondary objectives, exploration, and general creativity would still net extra XP, as these can be done regardless of build. Do not force the player to act certain way to develop his character and you will see how your own design philosophy benefits from being freed of the shackles of murder XP.

Most of DAO and DA2's encounters are already built this way. Upon completing an encounter, quest, whatever, you get your exp. You do get incremental exp per monster, but the amount per monster is much smaller compared to the 'completion' exp bonus.

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Most of DAO and DA2's encounters are already built this way. Upon completing an encounter, quest, whatever, you get your exp. You do get incremental exp per monster, but the amount per monster is much smaller compared to the 'completion' exp bonus.

Do DA:O and DA 2 have any approach to encounters other than "kill they ass", though? Enemy murdering in either game nets a nontrivial amount of XP. I'd do away with it completely, and instead look for challenges for the player other than combat. If the player so chooses, he can still approach encounters by murdering everything up, but it'll be his conscious choice, not forced by the level design or character improvement mechanic.
Somewhere along the way, (probably Diablo) cRPG designers decided they no longer needed to look to ithe genre roots to learn. It was a mistake.

Modifié par Xewaka, 27 septembre 2011 - 09:03 .

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

Sowtaaw wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Once again I have to side with the minority. She makes a valid point. If they added such a feature it would be a minor investment in zots that could significantly increase the size of a games audience. It's certainly worth a try.

 its a stupid idea that whats is.she just suggested a press x to win button.  

Only in a linear adventure. I get the impression she's talking about a REAL RPG, not a hack and slash. In which case it's not about "winning" or "losing", it's about exploring the various outcomes of different character choices. You know, it's entirely possible to have a satisfying role playing experience without having ANY combat at all. Some of my best reviewed NWN games were adventures where the players never had to draw a weapon.

Maconbar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I do suspect, though, that if you designed a game such that players could skip the combat, the game would end up having more non-combat content.

I would probably enjoy that development. Alternate ways to approach a problem is something that I appreciate in  my rpgs. If I want to just grind out kills for xp, I would be playing an mmo.

QFT Maconbar.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 27 septembre 2011 - 09:08 .

[Quething]

just_me wrote...

I was strictly speaking about "killallhostiles" as a viable option in the game (  Combat Starts ->"Do you want to fight"->"No"-> all enemies are dead, player gains xp, and can loot enemies)
If that option were present in DA2(and even DA:O) it would also influence other gameplay features in a negative way.
Since leveling up and equipping your character is almost only useful to improve your strength in combat (at the moment).
I'd certainly love to see that change (at least a little)
Right now completely skipping combat only leaves the roleplaying aspect and only in dialogue.

Well, "killallhostiles" is a developer code. It, like every cheat code in the history of gaming before it, is a tool used by the dev team to quickly skip through things and test things out, and probably most of the use it sees by gamers is still that way - modders and vidders using it to skip through content they dont need to address in order to get to the bits they're working with.

And speeding up the Arishok fight. But I don't think anyone disagrees the Arishok duel was badly designed.

If a "skip combat" button were implemented in a DA game, it would look a lot more like what a few people have talked about upthread: an RTS "end round" button that calculates the results of combat for you based on how you've set things up. How would that work in a game so dependent on player action?

Well, let me tell you how I play DA:O sometimes.

I use the Advanced Tactics mod. I set up enormously complex, interactive and responsive tactics for every single party member, including the PC. I activate the "use tactics for controlled character." I sit back and watch the fight. I win.

This is incredibly fun.

It actually does require a lot of skill to do this and win a game on nightmare. It requires understanding the different spells and talents available; it requires knowing when and how to use them; it requires building your stats right, and choosing the right equipment; it requires knowing how each party member best supports and intereacts with each other party member; it requires a vigorous knowledge of the tactics system and how to actually get the computer to put all of that knowledge of yours into action. It requires strategy. It requires planning. It's not an "I win" button. If you do it wrong, you die horribly.

And when you do it right, when you get to combat and watch all that planning and number-crunching unfold, it's a beautiful thing. It's incredibly satisfying to see your plans come to fruition. It's painful to watch someone die because your tactics were poor, and a huge kick to win once you fix them. It's absolutely amazing, that moment when you figure out how to script out Walking Bomb in a way that doesn't kill your team.

Of course, it's always faster and better to play it out yourself. Tactics just can't be smart enough, and will often waste heals and health pots and blow AoEs on two guys when they could hit five, etc etc. If you want to flex your muscles and just burn stuff down (and I often do; like I said, I damn well adore video game violence), that's always an option, and generally a more optimal one. But it's not a necessary one. You can have a lot of fun, and have a balanced gameplay experience, by setting up a set of mechanical parameters and just watching the results.

Now, you can't do this with, say, Cauthrien, or defending Redcliffe, or the Anvil of the Void. I'd say about 30% of Normal fights or 50-70% of Nightmare fights still require manual handling of one or all party members so you can position your team safely and place AoEs right and set up spell combos and use bombs correctly. And you can't do this with the base game, even a little bit; I don't think you could do it in DA2 either, the tactics system is still much too limited. But the fact that it can be done at all is proof that it could be built into a game if BioWare so desired. So there's your "skip combat" option: a way to have the game play out the results of your choices without requiring you to babysit, and provide a win or loss result.

(I have no idea how you'd even begin to include such a thing for a shooter-based game like Mass Effect, but fortunately this is the Dragon Age board, and Dragon Age with its tactics and party-development mechanics is already a half-step away.)

Modifié par Quething, 27 septembre 2011 - 09:13 .

[FedericoV]

JohnEpler wrote...

Which to me seems a rather more elegant approach to the whole question. I know there's an understanding around the office that we need more ways to approach a situation than 'go in, start hitting people hard in the face, see where it takes us'. Whether it's as simple as stealth or as complicated as some bizarre Rube Goldberg'esque series of plot and world events, something that we definitely lacked in DA2 was a variety of ways to solve problems. So I think it'd be entirely reasonable to see a little less focus on the combat side of things, if that means we can come up with different ways of approaching and solving problems.

I appreciate your approach and I do agree that DA2 suffered for an excessive focus on combat (and DA:O too to be honest but problably it worked better with the kind of story you told... and maybe the variety in terms of areas and the scope of the world helped too).

But frankly it's the quality of the gameplay that's really important and that's the point where I completely disagree with the message of the dev in the first porst. Do one thing but do it well, polish it with love, care and attention to details and the gameplay will be fun and rewarding and no one will ever think to skip it. Quite the opposite: the game will gain replay value: just look at how many people are still playing and replaying BG1 and BG2 even if the gameplay focus a lot on the combat side of things.

You want to focus on combat? Great, but do it really well. You want to add other ways to solve problem other than combat? Great, the more the better, but do it well too, allways aim for perfection otherwise is better if you focus on combat and do not stretch too thin.

ME2 is a very good example of that both in good and bad ways. The combat was polished and very fun. I never played a shooter in my life since I do not like the genre but I found that ME2 was a very rewarding experience in term of combat, a seamless experience where all fall in to place nicely. While the "strategic" part with the resource gathering was not so polished and rewarding and 99% of the player base has complained about it.

I allways loved Bioware games. I own each of your games and expansions. Untill I'm a gamer, I'm a bioware fan. But you should really put more focus and effort in the gameplay department. With the exception of combat in ME2, you never do it really right since BG2. Strange enough, your best rated games are BG2 and ME2, the games where you have done gameplay really right and no one wanted to skip it. That's why gamer like me can even get a little bit angry reading of a "skip combat" button.

PS: I think that Bioware is gettin' too much in that "interactive storydriven videogames" and "we are good with writing" thing. There are very few games whose story is really worth the time and money. People do not play games for the narrative itself. The narrative is important and keeps things together but cannot be an adequate subsitute of the gameplay. Because, you know, a game with good gameplay and a bad narrative can be fun and popular (Diablo 2). A game with bad gameplay and great storytelling finishes in the bargain bin in no time (Alpha Protocol).

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 septembre 2011 - 09:51 .

[Maverick827]

What the hell did i just read?

...into something that wasn't really there?

[AngryFrozenWater]

Xewaka wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

just_me wrote...
Why should you even gain xp, loot and develop your character if you skip combat anyway? Even almost all the non combat skills from DA:O are pointless without combat...

Well, I'd say because combat (and improving at combat) -shouldn't- be the primary point of these games. I can think of at least a few games I've played where combat seemed almost a distraction from the real -point- of the game. One example that springs to mind, for me, was Vampire : The Masquare : Bloodlines. The best parts of that game were interacting with the characters - the social side of things. Next up, for me at least? Stealth. Being sneaky, and just generally acting as a vampire in that sort of world -should- act. Combat was a distant third, and sections where you were forced to engage in long stretches of combat were perhaps the weakest parts of that game.
Now, combat should be fun and engaging, and it should be a rewarding and viable way to play a game. I don't think you'll see any disagreement from us on that point. But I don't think it needs to be the only way to play a game, and I think the general sentiment is that each fight should be meaningful. While there are going to be fights you can't avoid (for whatever reason, whether circumstantial or otherwise), they shouldn't always be the only solution. And players who choose a different style of progression should be equally rewarded. RPGs should be in line with their name - playing a Role. Not a combat simulator, in other words, but something where options exist. And, certainly, when you travel in certain circles and poke your nose into the business of others, sometimes you are going to have to fight. But a player should never feel like a game has two beats - 'fight, talk'. We hope to move further away from that idea in the future.

Another good step to move away from that "Fight, talk" dynamic is to remove kill-based XP, and take a page from how modern PnP RPGs do it: Objective based. Achieving certain objectives, regardless of the method, nets certain amount of XP (granted at the end of session or module, translated in games as quest end). Barring D&D, every PnP RPG I can think of has moved from kill XP to objective XP, thus freeing the game to adapt to any kind of style the players want without said players feeling punished in their progression for not murdering enough. Of course, secondary objectives, exploration, and general creativity would still net extra XP, as these can be done regardless of build. Do not force the player to act certain way to develop his character and you will see how your own design philosophy benefits from being freed of the shackles of murder XP.

I agree with this. In games which offer both I often find myself opting for the violent resolutions, because killing stuff often has more experience points.

[mesmerizedish]

Xewaka wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

just_me wrote...
Why should you even gain xp, loot and develop your character if you skip combat anyway? Even almost all the non combat skills from DA:O are pointless without combat...

Well, I'd say because combat (and improving at combat) -shouldn't- be the primary point of these games. I can think of at least a few games I've played where combat seemed almost a distraction from the real -point- of the game. One example that springs to mind, for me, was Vampire : The Masquare : Bloodlines. The best parts of that game were interacting with the characters - the social side of things. Next up, for me at least? Stealth. Being sneaky, and just generally acting as a vampire in that sort of world -should- act. Combat was a distant third, and sections where you were forced to engage in long stretches of combat were perhaps the weakest parts of that game.
Now, combat should be fun and engaging, and it should be a rewarding and viable way to play a game. I don't think you'll see any disagreement from us on that point. But I don't think it needs to be the only way to play a game, and I think the general sentiment is that each fight should be meaningful. While there are going to be fights you can't avoid (for whatever reason, whether circumstantial or otherwise), they shouldn't always be the only solution. And players who choose a different style of progression should be equally rewarded. RPGs should be in line with their name - playing a Role. Not a combat simulator, in other words, but something where options exist. And, certainly, when you travel in certain circles and poke your nose into the business of others, sometimes you are going to have to fight. But a player should never feel like a game has two beats - 'fight, talk'. We hope to move further away from that idea in the future.

Another good step to move away from that "Fight, talk" dynamic is to remove kill-based XP, and take a page from how modern PnP RPGs do it: Objective based. Achieving certain objectives, regardless of the method, nets certain amount of XP (granted at the end of session or module, translated in games as quest end). Barring D&D, every PnP RPG I can think of has moved from kill XP to objective XP, thus freeing the game to adapt to any kind of style the players want without said players feeling punished in their progression for not murdering enough. Of course, secondary objectives, exploration, and general creativity would still net extra XP, as these can be done regardless of build. Do not force the player to act certain way to develop his character and you will see how your own design philosophy benefits from being freed of the shackles of murder XP.

I disagree entirely. Objective-based XP is great, and I want it, but kill-based XP is also important to me.

Removing it entirely only works when there are actually other ways of completing an encounter slash objective than just combat. If combat is unavoidable, I want each kill to get me experience. If combat is avoidable, but I choose to take the combat route (which I, personally, likely wouldn't, but a lot of people likely would, so let's pretend I'm one of them, ew), then I want each kill to get me experience. Experience slash loot are the ways to make combat rewarding (beyond the simple pleasure of fun combat).

The rewards for non-combat solutions have to be balanced accordingly, of course.

[Icinix]

I've been playing games for a long, long time- and I agree with what shes saying.

I would glady skip through combat in BioWare games just to get to the Dialogue, cinematics and Choices.

The combat isn't the whole game, its just one piece.

In fact, I have numerous ME1 completions where I used GethSuperGun just so I could rip through the combat in moments to get to what I class as the best part of the game. Which is dialogue.

[Herr Uhl]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I disagree entirely. Objective-based XP is great, and I want it, but kill-based XP is also important to me.

Removing it entirely only works when there are actually other ways of completing an encounter slash objective than just combat. If combat is unavoidable, I want each kill to get me experience. If combat is avoidable, but I choose to take the combat route (which I, personally, likely wouldn't, but a lot of people likely would, so let's pretend I'm one of them, ew), then I want each kill to get me experience. Experience slash loot are the ways to make combat rewarding (beyond the simple pleasure of fun combat).

The rewards for non-combat solutions have to be balanced accordingly, of course.

But if the XP of the kills in included in the objective XP, (same would go for the balance of non-combat XP's) why would that be bad?

Is it the instant ping of X amount of XP that you want for completing a kill or (for example) a lockpicking?

[Gallimatia]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I agree with this. In games which offer both I often find myself opting for the violent resolutions, because killing stuff often has more experience points.

In Deus Ex HR you get a substancial experience bonus for every enemy you use non leathal violence on. As a power gamer I was compelled to go through that game without killing anyone. And lets not forget all the computers I hacked despite having the code to and all those enemies I took down solely for exp after having already snuck past them in a vent (for traveller bonus).

Deus Ex HR that supposedly encourages different play styles has the worst experience system I know of in this regard. I hate it and would have preferred only objective based exp.

Modifié par Gallimatia, 27 septembre 2011 - 09:59 .

[Xewaka]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
I disagree entirely. Objective-based XP is great, and I want it, but kill-based XP is also important to me.
Removing it entirely only works when there are actually other ways of completing an encounter slash objective than just combat. If combat is unavoidable, I want each kill to get me experience. If combat is avoidable, but I choose to take the combat route (which I, personally, likely wouldn't, but a lot of people likely would, so let's pretend I'm one of them, ew), then I want each kill to get me experience. Experience slash loot are the ways to make combat rewarding (beyond the simple pleasure of fun combat).
The rewards for non-combat solutions have to be balanced accordingly, of course.

So what you're saying is that any possible alternative route should be punitive to the player compared to the murder mode. That is exactly the kind of thing that must be avoided, and that is why removing XP from anything other than objectives (primary or secondary) promote a more varied gameplay. When you remove the mechanical limitation of being forced to have each path offer the same XP, you have the players resolving each situation in the manner that best fit their tastes and the character they're playing.
Must be because I play PnP regularly, but this need of having XP ping on each kill is utterly ridiculous to me.

[mesmerizedish]

Xewaka wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
I disagree entirely. Objective-based XP is great, and I want it, but kill-based XP is also important to me.
Removing it entirely only works when there are actually other ways of completing an encounter slash objective than just combat. If combat is unavoidable, I want each kill to get me experience. If combat is avoidable, but I choose to take the combat route (which I, personally, likely wouldn't, but a lot of people likely would, so let's pretend I'm one of them, ew), then I want each kill to get me experience. Experience slash loot are the ways to make combat rewarding (beyond the simple pleasure of fun combat).

The rewards for non-combat solutions have to be balanced accordingly, of course.

So what you're saying is that any possible alternative route should be punitive to the player compared to the murder mode. That is exactly the kind of thing that must be avoided, and that is why removing XP from anything other than objectives (primary or secondary) promote a more varied gameplay. When you remove the mechanical limitation of being forced to have each path offer the same XP, you have the players resolving each situation in the manner that best fit their tastes and the character they're playing.
Must be because I play PnP regularly, but this need of having XP ping on each kill is utterly ridiculous to me.

I've boldened, underlined, and italicized the sentence that you seem to have missed. The only way to "remove the mechanical limitation of being forced to have each path offer the same XP" is to remove XP entirely (which, and taken note BioWare, is an absolutely godawful idea).

The only difference between having a single XP reward at the "mission accomplished" screen and having multiple separate-but-equal XP rewards along each possible solution path is the timing and pacing. And I want to feel rewarded for doing what I like to do, be it stealth, combat, talking, or whatever. I don't want to be rewarded for some generic "get sh*t done" feat. That's boring. I want XP for disarming a trap. I want XP for successfully convincing the guards I'm supposed to be there. I want XP for shoving my blade through someone's chest.