43 réponses à ce sujet

[Jorji Costava]

Plaintiff 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.

I pretty much agree with this. Stealth in particular has tended to suffer in Bioware games, and I think this is largely a function of the fact that if you sneak past enemies, you don't get experience for killing them. That already provides a significant disincentive to pursue stealth or other non-lethal methods of dealing with encounters.

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

One of my favorites as well. Just to add another useless bit of trivia, I believe that the Quest for Glory series was the first to feature a character importation system as well.

[Xerxes52]

Personally I prefer giving out XP after completing objectives rather than through kills, codex entries, or picking locks. How we do those objectives should be somewhat open (i.e. stealth, kill 'em all, diplomacy, etc) when appropriate.

[MakutaDax]

Plaintiff 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 agree with this quite heartily.

[Dabrikishaw]

Killing enemies and quest rewards. Just like the first 2 games.

[Sir JK]

Personally I prefer the objective based XP models coupled with some xp for significant accomplishments (finding a secret path, gathering all pieces of evidence, defeating a particularily difficult foe, thinking outside the box and so forth).

The reason is that I think that XP for killing incentivizes you to kill. Granted, DAI will have an incentive not to. But the game would still reward you for a trail of bodies. I'm not really arguing from the moral point of view (primarily) but from looking at alternates. Why would I sneak past that juicy slice of level progression?
So in that regard I prefer objective based, since it allows you to choose your approach and not lose out on anything. Coupled with the other category, it'd allow you to experiment some and reward you for not choosing the most obvious route.

[sky_captain]

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Killing enemies and quest rewards. Just like the first 2 games.

Wrong DA2 had an encounter xp system that awarded you xp for finishing encounters you didn't get xp for killing individual enemies unless it was a single enemy encounter like the Arishok. You also get xp for disarming traps, picking locks and as quest rewards.

I think that the encounter based xp in DA2 is much better suited to reward the player for using diplomacy as it can provide equal incentive xp wise because if the reward is 300 xp regardless of how you resolve the situation, there is less pressure to meta game, and makes role-playing less restricting. I also say keep ep for picking locks and disarming traps.

Xp for simply exploring strikes me as being dumb. It's use in Skyrim was to get the player to roam around without the dev providing you a rational reason for doing so while the country is torn apart by civil war and threatened with destruction by powerful dragons. 

[Absafraginlootly]

I just finished playing Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines and in that you got skill points to spent based on completing quest/objectives. I really liked that because you could slaughter your way through or obfuscate/sneak past enemies and still get the points to spend however you want. But there were still differences, killing allows you to acquire weapons/ammo but risks having less health and blood points for latter encounters such as unavoidable boss fights, so it was still worth considering each play style.

[Boycott Bioware]

In DA2....

Finding a plant - 200 XP
Fighting waves of enemies - 300 XP

logic?

[sky_captain]

Qistina wrote...

In DA2....

Finding a plant - 200 XP
Fighting waves of enemies - 300 XP

logic?

As much as in the rest of the game at least

[Liamv2]

It is far superior to vista (sorry)

Anyways i agree with Plaintiff. I would quite like the deus ex HR EXP system with a few tweeks.

[MissOuJ]

Magdalena11 wrote...

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

Co-signed.

Also, XP from discovering rare resources would be nice - not every Elfroot needs to have a XP-tag, but finding a rare resource because you actually took time to explore and search should be something you should get a bit XP for, in my opinion.

[JoHnDoE14]

I always had that thought. Yeah, no XP should be appointed for battle. Everything should be for completing quests. It is the only way to erase the equation killing everyone=good. It should not be bad escaping enemies.

[Kidd]

XP should only be gained from completing quests, methinks. That means it doesn't matter if you sneak past the three guards, kill them, or sweet talk them and rob them blindly in the process. No play style is punished that way.

Not all quests need necessarily be given by an NPC, either.

[CaptainBlackGold]

I too prefer EXP be granted for quest completion. One of the problems I've had with prior games is that it seems that other than flavor, there is no real difference between playing a sneaky. charming role over a burly, homicidal warrior. In fact, it is often detrimental sneaking/persuading because you got more EXP killing everything.

Having said that, I really do hope that they think the whole leveling up mechanic from the ground up. In the dark, distant, murky origins of RPG's your character usually started out as something like the classic farmer/newbie adventurer. As the game progressed, your experience made you more capable. EXP was an abstraction of you learning the skills you needed.

Even DAO followed this trope with its origin stories. But in DA:I you are supposedly an "Inquisitor" which on the surface implies that you are already an accomplished warrior/rogue/mage. So if you are not a starting out as a "padawan" what is it that exp is abstracting?

I hope that whatever leveling up mechanic they use, Bioware makes leveling up mean something - that the system itself is more than just an artificial way of rewarding the player but an actual abstraction of something in the game world. Not just flashier moves, but real abilities that make a difference in game play.

For example, what is the point of leveling up, gaining wonderful new skills/abilities, but then the whole world levels up with you so in "real" terms, nothing has actually changed?

[Beerfish]

I prefer XP the way it is in most games. It allows for a more even progress than nothing, nothing, nothing, complete huge quest gain two levels for every group member.

The thing I want to see that a lot of games have failed on is tweaking of quest rewards later in the game. In almost all BioWare games you get 3/4 way through the game the quests are doling out rewards as if you were a low level character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JerZeyCJ2 wrote...

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

That creates some perverse incentives to complete quests without killing anything, and then going back to kill everything.

XP for murder is a very strange reward system.  It encourages players to look around to find more things to kill.

[JerZey CJ]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JerZeyCJ2 wrote...

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

That creates some perverse incentives to complete quests without killing anything, and then going back to kill everything.

XP for murder is a very strange reward system.  It encourages players to look around to find more things to kill.

No more "perverse" than the previous two games. And why wouldn't you just kill the enemies as you went along the quest? It isn't so strange, exp usually refers to combat experience and you can only get that from fighting.

[Jorji Costava]

JerZeyCJ2 wrote...

No more "perverse" than the previous two games. And why wouldn't you just kill the enemies as you went along the quest? It isn't so strange, exp usually refers to combat experience and you can only get that from fighting.

I think Sylvius the Mad is thinking of this in terms of the DX:HR experience system, where you would not only get experience for completing quests but for completing them in a certain way. For instance, you would get bonuses for not being detected, not tripping alarms, not killing anyone, etc. I seem to recall hearing stories about some players completely sneaking their way by all the enemies the first time through a mission to get those bonuses, and then going back and killing them all in order to get the experience bonus for having killed them.