43 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

(No, not Windows XP)

So, what do you think should get us XP?  I'd prefer to switch to a system that's more focused on achieving objectives, rather than getting it from killing enemies.  Though of course, killing particular enemies might be itself an objective.

Given the exploration stuff, maybe XP for visiting new areas?

XP for unlocking traps, Opening locks?  I'm not personally really keen.  If I don't have someone capable of dealing with the trap then the punishment should be the trap going off, not XP.

Modifié par Wulfram, 09 octobre 2013 - 11:39 .

[Orian Tabris]

Hooray! *claps* An ACTUAL thread about experience.

Buuuut, change it to EXP, so that people won't get confused, and you can delete the sentences explaining that it's not about Microsoft Windows XP.

I think we should get 1 point of XP, per second of game time played on XP. XP

Modifié par Orian Tabris, 09 octobre 2013 - 11:43 .

[Gwydden]

Good post, Wulfram.

Yeah, there should certainly be more ways of gaining experience other than killing enemies. Particularly, I'd like that solving quests through dialogue, that is, persuasion options, would do it too. This was an issue for me in Origins, when quite often I would take almost every possible persuasion/intimidation option, but it came at the cost of losing potential XP.

[Maria Caliban]

I prefer that the vast majority of XP come from completing quests. XP from other activities - killing things of the appropriate level, exploring, finding codex entries, opening locks, etc - are fine but I tend to think that they all provide their own reward. Stuff you kill and chests provide money/loot, exploring an area usually leads to finding the quests, treasures, and 'stories' within that area.

One thing I'd be interested in are bonus quests. If you're given a quest 'break into X's house and steal the Y,' you might get a bonus quest 'and don't kill anyone inside the house' that gives you extra XP for completing it.

[Magdalena11]

I like the idea of earning XP for quest completion or exploration. Not all experience is combat related.

[Volus Warlord]

Maria Caliban wrote...

One thing I'd be interested in are bonus quests. If you're given a quest 'break into X's house and steal the Y,' you might get a bonus quest 'and don't kill anyone inside the house' that gives you extra XP for completing it.

I think you mean "bonus objective"

[Magdalena11]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I prefer that the vast majority of XP come from completing quests. XP from other activities - killing things of the appropriate level, exploring, finding codex entries, opening locks, etc - are fine but I tend to think that they all provide their own reward. Stuff you kill and chests provide money/loot, exploring an area usually leads to finding the quests, treasures, and 'stories' within that area.

One thing I'd be interested in are bonus quests. If you're given a quest 'break into X's house and steal the Y,' you might get a bonus quest 'and don't kill anyone inside the house' that gives you extra XP for completing it.

Like in Rescue the Queen where you get an XP bonus if you don't kill the upstairs guards.

[Maria Caliban]

Yes. Like that.

Volus Warlord wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

One thing I'd be interested in are bonus quests. If you're given a quest 'break into X's house and steal the Y,' you might get a bonus quest 'and don't kill anyone inside the house' that gives you extra XP for completing it.

I think you mean "bonus objective"

Bonus objective works as well. I'm playing TOR at the moment, and they're referred to as 'bonus quests.'

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 09 octobre 2013 - 11:48 .

[Gwydden]

Maria Caliban wrote...
One thing I'd be interested in are bonus quests. If you're given a quest 'break into X's house and steal the Y,' you might get a bonus quest 'and don't kill anyone inside the house' that gives you extra XP for completing it.

I think the problem with that is that it would force a certain way of roleplaying. Combat related bonuses, like completing it without any character dying, are fine though.

[JerZey CJ]

I prefer my exp from killing things, though why not just give it to us for killing things and doing quests?

[Wulfram]

Gwydden wrote...

I think the problem with that is that it would force a certain way of roleplaying. Combat related bonuses, like completing it without any character dying, are fine though.

I think "Don't kill anybody" makes sense in some quests and "Kill everybody!" makes sense in other quests.

If you're supposed to be being covert and not attracting attention, then avoiding combat should be avoided.  But if the people in the house are a threat that needed eliminating, rather than just random guard mooks, then that should be rewarded,.

[Plaintiff]

Wulfram wrote...
If I don't have someone capable of dealing with the trap then the punishment should be the trap going off, not XP.

I can't think of any game where XP was a 'punishment' for failing to unlock a trap. It's always been a reward for succeeding. XP is an abstraction for learning, though, and even when you fail at a task, you still learn.

I think DA:I should award XP the way Deus Ex:HR does. XP for killing, XP for killing quickly or creatively, XP for non-lethal takedowns, XP for making it through an area without being spotted by enemies, XP for finding hidden paths, XP for successful persuades.

XP for everything, basically.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 10 octobre 2013 - 12:10 .

[Wulfram]

Plaintiff wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
If I don't have someone capable of dealing with the trap then the punishment should be the trap going off, not XP.

I can't think of any game where XP was a 'punishment' for failing to unlock a trap. It's always been a reward for succeeding.

I meant not getting XP as the punishment, sorry.  Maybe an overly negative way of looking at it, but I'm a glass half empty sort of guy,

I think DA:I should award XP the way Deus Ex:HR does. XP for killing, XP for killing quickly or creatively, XP for non-lethal takedowns, XP for making it through an area without being spotted by enemies, XP for finding hidden paths, XP for successful persuades.

XP for everything, basically.

I prefer this approach to a purely combat focused system, but I feel like it encourages nonsensical behaviour - the player is rewarded for doing everything possible in the area, rather than focusing on getting past and onwards to completing the objective.

[Plaintiff]

Wulfram wrote...

I think DA:I should award XP the way Deus Ex:HR does. XP for killing, XP for killing quickly or creatively, XP for non-lethal takedowns, XP for making it through an area without being spotted by enemies, XP for finding hidden paths, XP for successful persuades.

XP for everything, basically.

I prefer this approach to a purely combat focused system, but I feel like it encourages nonsensical behaviour - the player is rewarded for doing everything possible in the area, rather than focusing on getting past and onwards to completing the objective.

By that logic, engaging in any sidequests or exploration at all is 'nonsensical behaviour'. Might as well just have the main quest and be done.

[Heimdall]

Something that doesn't penalize you for not taking the path that leaves the most bodies in your wake would be great.

[hexaligned]

I don't really like XP as a mechanic, I much prefer skill based leveling. If you use persuasion or stealth to bypass (or reduce) a lot of encounters, you get progressively better at doing so, but your combat skills suffer because of it. If you primarily use a specific school of magic, you get bonuses and unlock things for that school, but the others remain unstudied. With a system like that you can award skill progression for combat and noncombat abilities separately. It also just feels like a less contrived way of progressing a character, to me.

[Wulfram]

Plaintiff wrote...

By that logic, engaging in any sidequests or exploration at all is 'nonsensical behaviour'. Might as well just have the main quest and be done.

Well, I'm not the biggest fan of exploration at all and that bias is no doubt affecting my comments.

But I think there's a difference between doing sidequests and cleaning out an enemy occupied area for the XP.  Side quests there's usually a motive provided, even if it's debatable it justifies the distraction from the main plot.

Of course I can just pass on the XP and keep moving so long as the game balance is right, so it's not a huge issue.

Modifié par Wulfram, 10 octobre 2013 - 12:26 .

[Plaintiff]

relhart wrote...

I don't really like XP as a mechanic, I much prefer skill based leveling. If you use persuasion or stealth to bypass (or reduce) a lot of encounters, you get progressively better at doing so, but your combat skills suffer because of it. If you primarily use a specific school of magic, you get bonuses and unlock things for that school, but the others remain unstudied. With a system like that you can award skill progression for combat and noncombat abilities separately. It also just feels like a less contrived way of progressing a character, to me.

I think that's a terrible method. You only get XP for a particular ability if you use it successfully, meaning if you wanted to be a silver-tongue but keep failing, the game immediatly ceases to be fun.

Not to mention, if you accidentally wander into a persuasion check that exceeds your skill level, you're locked out of that content and forced into an option you didn't want.

[hexaligned]

Plaintiff wrote...

relhart wrote...

I don't really like XP as a mechanic, I much prefer skill based leveling. If you use persuasion or stealth to bypass (or reduce) a lot of encounters, you get progressively better at doing so, but your combat skills suffer because of it. If you primarily use a specific school of magic, you get bonuses and unlock things for that school, but the others remain unstudied. With a system like that you can award skill progression for combat and noncombat abilities separately. It also just feels like a less contrived way of progressing a character, to me.

I think that's a terrible method. You only get XP for a particular ability if you use it successfully, meaning if you wanted to be a silver-tongue but keep failing, the game immediatly ceases to be fun.

Not to mention, if you accidentally wander into a persuasion check that exceeds your skill level, you're locked out of that content and forced into an option you didn't want.

And why do you think you (your character) should you be rewarded for being a failure at something?  I guess it depends on the freedom you have in character building as well, the more arbritary restrictions the game has the worse that type of system works, yes.  For example restricting some classes from even having access to some mechanics, but I'm not a fan of classes either.

[Heimdall]

relhart wrote...

I don't really like XP as a mechanic, I much prefer skill based leveling. If you use persuasion or stealth to bypass (or reduce) a lot of encounters, you get progressively better at doing so, but your combat skills suffer because of it. If you primarily use a specific school of magic, you get bonuses and unlock things for that school, but the others remain unstudied. With a system like that you can award skill progression for combat and noncombat abilities separately. It also just feels like a less contrived way of progressing a character, to me.

Those systems have some drawbacks. They almost inevitably lead to grinding in order to increase a particular skill you want to develop but may not have had the opportunity to.

I do not look back on all those hours spent smithing random items to increase my skill in Skyrim with fondness.

[Plaintiff]

relhart wrote...
And why do you think you (your character) should you be rewarded for being a failure at something?

Strawman. I didn't say players should be rewarded for failure, and I'm not saying it now. My issue is with how the system might actively and arbitrarily prevent me from playing the way I want to.

But since you asked, XP is an abstraction of learning, and people learn from failure as much as they do from success. Besides which, in your proposed system, a character who can't succeed is a character who can't grow, meaning the game is potentially rendered literally unplayable.

[Hellion Rex]

I concur on the idea of gaining XP through exploration not just just combat. However, I would still like a crap ton of XP for killing the high dragons or some other really big monster.

[hexaligned]

Skyrim is a horrible example of anything mechanics related. Like I said though, it's a personal preference, I didn't intend it as UNIVERSAL TRUTH.

[katerinafm]

I really enjoy leveling up in games, so the more opportunities to gain xp the better. I'd also prefer it if your character leveled up often (with less points available per level-up) as opposed to leveling up slowly and gaining many points to spend when you do level-up.

[Maria Caliban]

I Skyrim, I recall that you gained a small amount of lockpicking still, even if you failed to pick the lock. You can't fail when it comes to alchemy, enchantment, blacksmithing, or any of the combat skills. Stealth is really the only skill with a fail state.

My favorite learn by doing system was the Quest for Glory games, but those games also had classes and time limits so there was a large emphasis on time management. The first game I played - Trial by Fire - also had impressive fail states for the story if you couldn't manage to solve the puzzles or become good enough at a skill in time.