Experience system(s)

[Gatt9]

I agree. Squeezing experience points out of monsters is bad on numerous levels.

It's boring. It doesn't encourage exploration, accomplishment, or following the story. It usually ends up on one of two ends of the spectrum: Either you're stuck grinding levels so you're powerful enough to get past a certain encounter in the plot... or you level up too quickly and the game is too easy.

People like Desert Rangers should advance based on their deeds, not their kills. If I radio back to Ranger HQ and say "Reporting in! I killed nine shopkeepers, twenty-seven children, three hookers, and somebody's dog. Do I get a promotion?" they should respond "You're fired."

I disagree.

The alternative is extremely boring. Combat becomes repetative and pointless, killing things becomes a monotonous exercise with no reason to do it because you've removed the reward from the event.

Worse, you've just implemented a fully level-scaled game. You've put a finite cap on the experience with a obvious path through the game where you know the character's levels at every point. If the player could only do 6 quests before entering an area, you know exactly what level they'll be, and you put very level specific encounters there.

You can't put those one-off ultra-challenging encounters in the game anymore either, because there's now no variation in levels, you can't work to try to be strong enough to defeat that one encounter, because it's just a finite progression.

Only gaining experience for quests is just a euphimism for level-scaling, it removes variability and makes combat largely unrewarding.

[Game_Exile]

The alternative is extremely boring. Combat becomes repetative and pointless, killing things becomes a monotonous exercise with no reason to do it because you've removed the reward from the event.

LOL. Why should you go around killing things if you don't need to? Meaning, if you're characters don't need to.

Worse, you've just implemented a fully level-scaled game. You've put a finite cap on the experience with a obvious path through the game where you know the character's levels at every point. If the player could only do 6 quests before entering an area, you know exactly what level they'll be, and you put very level specific encounters there.

How is this bad?? Why shouldn't the devs know exactly where the players can and cannot go, instead of just throwing things haphazardly into the game? If you hate "obvious" stuff, the answer is more complex game mechanics, not a bunch of random shit that may or may not be too easy, too difficult or impossible.

You can't put those one-off ultra-challenging encounters in the game anymore either, because there's now no variation in levels, you can't work to try to be strong enough to defeat that one encounter, because it's just a finite progression.

Please explain to me why you can't have these "ultra-challenging encounters" with level-scaling. LOL. This is just a poorly disguised way of saying you want to level grind until your character is a god. Come clean, Liar!

Only gaining experience for quests is just a euphimism for level-scaling, it removes variability and makes combat largely unrewarding.

What do you mean by "variability"? LOL.

I think they should get rid of allocating stat points altogether, or at least have a low level cap.* Why should your goal be gaining XP, if your characters' goals are entirely different? Ideally, they would implement a system that is tied to the story in more interesting ways than just gaining XP at the main plot points, which, on the flip side, would tie the character to the main plot points solely through XP gain, if you had no other systems in place. And this is why something like a timer/deadline on the "main quest" is so important in a "non-linear" game that features a lot of side quests. You can have your rewards for doing side quests, but there must be some sacrifice or risk to go along with it. And so-called "risk" can't all be in the player's imagination, LOL.

*That is if you can replace complexity in the character stat sheet with other mechanics. As it is, character stats is the only thing in these 20+ hour long CRPGS that require any long term planning at all.

If anyone wants more explanation, see my post in this thread.

[nathanknaack]

I agree. Squeezing experience points out of monsters is bad on numerous levels.

It's boring. It doesn't encourage exploration, accomplishment, or following the story. It usually ends up on one of two ends of the spectrum: Either you're stuck grinding levels so you're powerful enough to get past a certain encounter in the plot... or you level up too quickly and the game is too easy.

People like Desert Rangers should advance based on their deeds, not their kills. If I radio back to Ranger HQ and say "Reporting in! I killed nine shopkeepers, twenty-seven children, three hookers, and somebody's dog. Do I get a promotion?" they should respond "You're fired."

I disagree.

The alternative is extremely boring. Combat becomes repetative and pointless, killing things becomes a monotonous exercise with no reason to do it because you've removed the reward from the event.

You mean pointless other than loot, skill improvements, and plot advancement, right? Yeah, combat becomes pointless other than that. Basically, all you lose is the number that pops up at the end.

Worse, you've just implemented a fully level-scaled game. You've put a finite cap on the experience with a obvious path through the game where you know the character's levels at every point. If the player could only do 6 quests before entering an area, you know exactly what level they'll be, and you put very level specific encounters there.

Also incorrect, based on wildly inaccurate and unfair assumptions. What level were you when you entered Quartz? I'll bet you weren't the same level as I was, because I skipped the missions a the Agricultural Center, Highpool, and the Rail Nomads' Camp. Guys, you need to stop basing your arguments on inaccurate assumptions about what Wasteland 2 is going to be, especially when your argument is based on inaccurate recollections of what Wasteland 1 was.

You can't put those one-off ultra-challenging encounters in the game anymore either, because there's now no variation in levels, you can't work to try to be strong enough to defeat that one encounter, because it's just a finite progression.

This is still an inaccurate argument.

Only gaining experience for quests is just a euphimism for level-scaling, it removes variability and makes combat largely unrewarding.

All I'll say here is that you probably need to play more games.

[Equidistant]

I think the best experience system is the one games like Vampire Bloodlines, Deus Ex and Dark Messiah of M&Ms have. It encourages all the good stuff like completing quests, finding alternate routes, finding out secrets and so on. There's no reward for killing lots of trashy mobs. Since there's a finite amount of exp to gain, it makes the game easier to balance for developers.

I completely agree. I dislike kill experience because penalizes players who use creative, non-brute-force approaches. At the abstract level, the game should be rewarding you for getting things done, not how you get them done. And by "getting things done" I don't just mean quests; I also mean exploring and discovering stuff; surviving random encounters, and so forth.

It also helps a little with level-gating, without being too strongly preclusive. There's never any "maximum XP" at any stage in the game unless you include all the exploration XP from discovering all open areas, which should be a serious chunk.

[Game_Exile]

What level were you when you entered Quartz? I'll bet you weren't the same level as I was, because I skipped the missions a the Agricultural Center, Highpool, and the Rail Nomads' Camp.

Like I said in my previous post, this is why something like timers/deadlines on "main" quests (or even all quests), is so important. You need some risk to go with the reward of doing all these side quests.

[Drool]

There's no reward for killing lots of trashy mobs. Since there's a finite amount of exp to gain, it makes the game easier to balance for developers.

I far prefer diminishing returns to decreasing XP rewards.

The vermin in the Ag center are worth about 25 XP. When you're level one, it takes 1024 XP to level. So, after killing 41 vermin (or 21 via melee) you've leveled. However, when you're a 1st Class Fargo (level 151), it takes 153,600 XP to level. The vermin still supply 25 XP, but now you need to kill 6144 of them, making them effectively worthless without the kick to the nuts feeling of seeing "You gain 0 XP!"

[Inca]

Just thinking out loud:

What is required to accomplish a task?

Aptitude: (IQ, STR, AGL, DXT, CON, STM...etc.)
Attitude: been there done that
Experience: Traning-exposure
Tools: Rifle, hammer, forcepts
Time: Number of attempts without crytical failure
Luck: Luck

How do we judge if someone is skilled at a task? Time and success

Imbecil: Failure is likely time is long
Novice: Failure is likely time is medium
Exposed: Failure and success are equally likely time is medium
Proficient: Success is likely time is medium
Master: Success is likely time is short
Genious/Trainer: Success is certain/likely time is very short

How does it all factor in? Weighted Average of aptitute, attitude, experience, tools, time, luck per task.

Some tasks are aptitude heavy (lifting a weight, running a distance)
Some tasks are attitude heavy (seduction, disarming mine)
Some tasks are experience heavy (lockpiking, healing a wound)
Some tasks are tool heavy (shooting, crafting)
Some tasks are time heavy (conversation, disarming timed bomb)
Some tasks are luck heavy (gambling, fishing)

How do you increase aptitude? Nature/Conditioning

Majority comes from genes and gender, but you can condition things from doing, every time you "pull" on your attribute it compounds to give you eventually a slight increase. Of course delibarate training in a "facility" with a "trainer" gives largest gain. But certain attributes are harder to train than others:
Strength and Agility and Stamina-highly trainable
IQ and dexterety-very slowly trainable
Charizma-somewhat trainable
luck-untrainable (unless specific events occur)

How do you increase attitude? Simple
Done it once+0.25
Done it twice+0.50
Done it many times+0.75
Do it all the time+1.00

How do you increase experience? Only through trainers and practice.

You will have to pay trainers or delibaratly spend time and money on training devices.
You want to be a better shot: pay a trainer or pay for a range time, but you never get experience for encounters.
You want to be a better hacker-same thing

How do you get better tools? You find thwem or you pay for them or you hire a guy.

How do you get more time to complete a task? Sometimes you don't

How do you get better luck? Simple: Karma Do enough good things for good people an your luck is high, do enough bad things and your karma goes to shit.

[Gatt9]

The alternative is extremely boring. Combat becomes repetative and pointless, killing things becomes a monotonous exercise with no reason to do it because you've removed the reward from the event.

LOL. Why should you go around killing things if you don't need to? Meaning, if you're characters don't need to.

You skipped putting a counter-arguement in there. Or more to the point, you strawmanned. When you handle my arguement, I'll respond to this.

Worse, you've just implemented a fully level-scaled game. You've put a finite cap on the experience with a obvious path through the game where you know the character's levels at every point. If the player could only do 6 quests before entering an area, you know exactly what level they'll be, and you put very level specific encounters there.

How is this bad?? Why shouldn't the devs know exactly where the players can and cannot go, instead of just throwing things haphazardly into the game? If you hate "obvious" stuff, the answer is more complex game mechanics, not a bunch of random shit that may or may not be too easy, too difficult or impossible.

How is it bad? Play Oblivion or Mass Effect. Your level is irrelevant, because you'll always be walking from one safety-scissored encounter to another with no risk at all.

It's also quite trivial to design a game without knowing what level the player will be when he first encounters it. You determine the difficulty of the area/dungeon, and populate it appropriately.

You can't put those one-off ultra-challenging encounters in the game anymore either, because there's now no variation in levels, you can't work to try to be strong enough to defeat that one encounter, because it's just a finite progression.

Please explain to me why you can't have these "ultra-challenging encounters" with level-scaling. LOL. This is just a poorly disguised way of saying you want to level grind until your character is a god. Come clean, Liar!

No. It's not.

Why can't you have them? Because you're fully level scaled. You can never put in a level 50 encounter if the maximum amount of experience in the game is level 10.

I'd also appriciate it if you'd not try calling me a liar, especially while failing to deal with my arguements and strawmanning.

Only gaining experience for quests is just a euphimism for level-scaling, it removes variability and makes combat largely unrewarding.

What do you mean by "variability"? LOL.

I think they should get rid of allocating stat points altogether, or at least have a low level cap.* Why should your goal be gaining XP, if your characters' goals are entirely different? Ideally, they would implement a system that is tied to the story in more interesting ways than just gaining XP at the main plot points, which, on the flip side, would tie the character to the main plot points solely through XP gain, if you had no other systems in place. And this is why something like a timer/deadline on the "main quest" is so important in a "non-linear" game that features a lot of side quests. You can have your rewards for doing side quests, but there must be some sacrifice or risk to go along with it. And so-called "risk" can't all be in the player's imagination, LOL.

*That is if you can replace complexity in the character stat sheet with other mechanics. As it is, character stats is the only thing in these 20+ hour long CRPGS that require any long term planning at all.

If anyone wants more explanation, see my post in this thread.

[/quote]

What you just described is essentially an adventure game. You eliminated all of the character progression in favor of tieing it all into a narrative which gifts you the tools you need to progress to the next narrative point when the narrative needs you to have those skills.

You mean pointless other than loot, skill improvements, and plot advancement, right? Yeah, combat becomes pointless other than that. Basically, all you lose is the number that pops up at the end.

Loot in a level scaled system is level scaled, and unexciting, as Oblivion demonstrated quite readily. You don't get skill improvements if there's no xp for killing. Not every combat is plot based, if it is, the game is highly linear.

Also incorrect, based on wildly inaccurate and unfair assumptions. What level were you when you entered Quartz? I'll bet you weren't the same level as I was, because I skipped the missions a the Agricultural Center, Highpool, and the Rail Nomads' Camp. Guys, you need to stop basing your arguments on inaccurate assumptions about what Wasteland 2 is going to be, especially when your argument is based on inaccurate recollections of what Wasteland 1 was.

No. I'm not incorrect. Doesn't matter if you skipped the missions, those would be areas designed for either to be approached at a given level. You could go here, or you could go there. Just because something isn't a straight path, and has level equivalent branches, doesn't make level-scaling untrue.

You need to stop basing your arguements on false assumptions, and do the math. If there's finite experience, and it's handed out only at specific points, it's level scaled.

You're also wrong about what my arguements are based on. My arguements are based on simple math.

All I'll say here is that you probably need to play more games.

All I can say is I've played an order of magnitude more games than you have, and you need to sit down with a pen and paper, and write out the equations for what happens when you have a system with finite xp and variable xp.

Alternatively, you could just go play Might and Magic 1, and then play Obilivion. The difference is obvious.

[BentSea]

When I think about it, the function of an XP system is the major definition of what keeps it a "game", almost more so than any other feature, because it's the metric by which you progress you ability. I don't think this is a good place for fan input. Part of what makes the system great is learning how to play it. There are just so many systems that though there are "bad" systems, there are too many good systems to say that there is a "right" system. As long as the system allows for people to get xp in a large variety of ways, allowing everyone's play style through the game to be valid and functional.

Lionheart was AWFUL. The first chunk of the game let you get by with a character that was impossible to win with. But, that was also among the least of that game's problems.

[Fuzi0n]

Can we please just have an old school RPG with a normal XP system, please? It worked for Fallout, it worked for Baldurs Gate, it worked for Icewind Dale, Torment, etc. pp. and these are all some of the best RPGs ever made. Why change that??

If I wanted a fucked up XP system with level scaling, basically a broken level system tailored for braindead adults and 6 year old kids, then I would play Skyrim... But that is not what I want. I want a REAL RPG and that is why I am a backer.

I completely agree. I dislike kill experience because penalizes players who use creative, non-brute-force approaches. At the abstract level, the game should be rewarding you for getting things done, not how you get them done. And by "getting things done" I don't just mean quests; I also mean exploring and discovering stuff; surviving random encounters, and so forth..

Wrong, a Player should be penalized for being a pussy and not wanting to kill mobs...

But seriously, you must have hated the RPGs I mentioned above... which would mean that you are in the wrong forum and should be playing Skyrim instead.

I think the best experience system is the one games like Vampire Bloodlines, Deus Ex and Dark Messiah of M&Ms have. It encourages all the good stuff like completing quests, finding alternate routes, finding out secrets and so on. There's no reward for killing lots of trashy mobs. Since there's a finite amount of exp to gain, it makes the game easier to balance for developers.

We can have all of that and XP for killing mobs too.
If you think you have enough XP and don't want a reward for killing an enemy, then don't do it... and don't grind either. There is your solution.

[Lucius]

I think XP should definitely be tied to skill use. Successfully pick a lock? Successfully heal with medic skill? Successfully fire a weapon and hit a target? Get XP. I think there should be a small bonus for the person who kills the enemy if skills have caps so that there is never a time when killing enemies will not yield XP.

[Black]

Can we please just have an old school RPG with a normal XP system, please? It worked for Fallout, it worked for Baldurs Gate, it worked for Icewind Dale, Torment, etc. pp. and these are all some of the best RPGs ever made. Why change that??

Because there's a difference between working and working well.

[Fuzi0n]

Can we please just have an old school RPG with a normal XP system, please? It worked for Fallout, it worked for Baldurs Gate, it worked for Icewind Dale, Torment, etc. pp. and these are all some of the best RPGs ever made. Why change that??

Because there's a difference between working and working well.

Worked well enough (perfectly actually) to make them the some of the greatest RPGs ever made.

The system you suggest works very well for Deus Ex (also one of my favs), but the gameplay is also totally different.

[Shady314]

Can we please just have an old school RPG with a normal XP system, please? It worked for Fallout, it worked for Baldurs Gate, it worked for Icewind Dale, Torment, etc. pp. and these are all some of the best RPGs ever made. Why change that??

Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines was also a great game that utilized this sort of XP mechanic. So just because older RPGs gave kill XP doesn't mean it's the only way to make a good RPG. Your argument is fallacious. Was it the kill XP that made those games great? Of course not. Many of those games you mentioned used AD&D 2nd Edition mechanics. So should Wasteland 2 use AD&D 2nd edition? Why change that? Actually why change Wasteland 2 at all from Wasteland? Top down tile game with static sprites please. It was good enough 20 years ago so it must all be good enough now?!

Baldur's Gate had a level cap of about 7. So we should also have Wasteland do the same? (I liked the low level cap of BG.)

If I wanted a fucked up XP system with level scaling, basically a broken level system tailored for braindead adults and 6 year old kids, then I would play Skyrim... But that is not what I want. I want a REAL RPG and that is why I am a backer.

You don't seem to understand what most people are talking about. Quest based XP has nothing to do with level scaling nor is it broken. Then to bring up Skyrim with it's learn by doing system which is (again) completely different than what most people have brought up shows you misinterpreted the intent. Have you played Bloodlines? If you have not please do some basic google-fu or ask for more info before launching into a rant.

How is it bad? Play Oblivion or Mass Effect. Your level is irrelevant, because you'll always be walking from one safety-scissored encounter to another with no risk at all.

Like Fuzi0n you don't seem to understand what is actually being discussed here. You have leapt to stunningly inaccurate conclusions. This sort of BS has absolutely nothing to do with a quest based XP system. The two are utterly divorced.

I use quest based XP for all my PnP games. It rewards my players for acting like human beings and not killing everything in sight.

[Zigmar]

Actually XP system in VtM:B was a very clever way to shift focus from combat to role-playing. I liked this a lot.

[Fuzi0n]

Can we please just have an old school RPG with a normal XP system, please? It worked for Fallout, it worked for Baldurs Gate, it worked for Icewind Dale, Torment, etc. pp. and these are all some of the best RPGs ever made. Why change that??

Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines was also a great game that utilized this sort of XP mechanic. So just because older RPGs gave kill XP doesn't mean it's the only way to make a good RPG. Your argument is fallacious.

So, Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines is a tactical, group based RPG that has a large focus on combat? Didn't know that... Well then I am sure this system will work for Wasteland 2 also.
Well that proves it, I am of course WRONG for wanting an old school RPG...

If I wanted a fucked up XP system with level scaling, basically a broken level system tailored for braindead adults and 6 year old kids, then I would play Skyrim... But that is not what I want. I want a REAL RPG and that is why I am a backer.

You don't seem to understand what most people are talking about. Quest based XP has nothing to do with level scaling nor is it broken. Then to bring up Skyrim with it's learn by doing system which is (again) completely different than what most people have brought up shows you misinterpreted the intent. Have you played Bloodlines? If you have not please do some basic google-fu or ask for more info before launching into a rant.

Let me reiterate, you apparently did not understand this: That was just an example of a fucked up up XP-System. Some people actually recommend the Full-Retard Skyrim system for Wasteland 2. If you would try not to be so ignorant and actually read my whole post, then you would see that I wrote this about the quest based XP System:

I think the best experience system is the one games like Vampire Bloodlines, Deus Ex and Dark Messiah of M&Ms have. It encourages all the good stuff like completing quests, finding alternate routes, finding out secrets and so on. There's no reward for killing lots of trashy mobs. Since there's a finite amount of exp to gain, it makes the game easier to balance for developers.

We can have all of that and XP for killing mobs too.
If you think you have enough XP and don't want a reward for killing an enemy, then don't do it... and don't grind either. There is your solution.

How is it bad? Play Oblivion or Mass Effect. Your level is irrelevant, because you'll always be walking from one safety-scissored encounter to another with no risk at all.

Like Fuzi0n you don't seem to understand what is actually being discussed here. You have leapt to stunningly inaccurate conclusions. This sort of BS has absolutely nothing to do with a quest based XP system. The two are utterly divorced.

No, we do understand. You would just like to believe that we don't.

Anyway, they were just discussing level scaling here. We do actually know that level scaling has nothing to do with the XP system... But as long as you can repurpose a quote then I guess you really don't care what they were actually talking about. It just fits really good together with your best argument: flaming.

I use quest based XP for all my PnP games. It rewards my players for acting like human beings and not killing everything in sight.

So you are the DM of what game? The Dalai Lama Chronicles?

[Inca]

Calm down, girls.
Learn by doing was a good system in JA2, No reason to knock it just beacause Skyrim F-ed it Up. What's important is to eliminate "Grinding" as a viable option for advance. Using trainers for cash to grind is a good deterrent. Pay money to a teacher and score some increase-not a bad idea. Stand there and set/disarm explosives for experience is a bad idea.

[glorioustheglory]

Honestly, I would tend to think that a level-up to allocate skill-points system would be better. It would help make sure that all party members are in line with their levelling(which seems desirable). It would allow game players to allocate points efficiently to get any feats/perks if the game has those. It would also allow the favored specialization options be taken, so that way the party has an efficient division of labor. I mean, there is some gain in realism in a system of learning by use, but I like the idea of shaping my team exactly how I'd like if I am playing a team-based RPG, y'know, so I can make sure the generalists are general enough and the specialists are special enough.

I don't care one way or another on whether experience required to level is radically scaled up, or if experience per weak kill is scaled down. Both are basically doing very similar things.

[Shady314]

So, Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines is a tactical, group based RPG that has a large focus on combat? Didn't know that... Well then I am sure this system will work for Wasteland 2 also.

So we can only use ideas from games you approve of? Or games from 15 years or more ago? What is the criteria here for where we are allowed to find inspiration and where we are not? In case you didn't know Wasteland had a learn by doing system for skills!

Well that proves it, I am of course WRONG for wanting an old school RPG...

Because that was said by who?

Let me reiterate, you apparently did not understand this: That was just an example of a fucked up up XP-System. Some people actually recommend the Full-Retard Skyrim system for Wasteland 2. If you would try not to be so ignorant and actually read my whole post, then you would see that I wrote this about the quest based XP System:

SOME did. But you responded to the entire idea of learn by doing as if it went hand in hand with quest based xp.
(Note you called me ignorant)
Forgive me if I misunderstood but I did read all you wrote and the thread thus far. You seemed to be lumping everything into one.

We can have all of that and XP for killing mobs too.

Except XP for killing mobs defeats the purpose of XP for doing the other stuff. Killing mobs is easier, repeatable, and can be added on in addition to other forms of XP. Meaning it's a no brainer. No brainers are bad.

If you think you have enough XP and don't want a reward for killing an enemy, then don't do it... and don't grind either. There is your solution.

I believe you are fully aware that is not a solution. Pretend it's not there is not a compelling argument.

No, we do understand. You would just like to believe that we don't.

Why would I want to believe that?
It didn't seem like you did.

Anyway, they were just discussing level scaling here. We do actually know that level scaling has nothing to do with the XP system... But as long as you can repurpose a quote then I guess you really don't care what they were actually talking about. It just fits really good together with your best argument: flaming.

I'm flaming? I never resorted to personal attacks. You called me ignorant and previously had wonderfully constructive posts like

If I wanted a fucked up XP system with level scaling, basically a broken level system tailored for braindead adults and 6 year old kids, then I would play Skyrim... But that is not what I want. I want a REAL RPG and that is why I am a backer.

you want to argue I'm the one flaming? Are you sure? If so then please alert the mods.

Anyways in regards to level scaling you should calm down and first ascertain what kind of level scaling they want because there are multiple methods. Then maybe you could rationally argue against it without ranting.

So you are the DM of what game? The Dalai Lama Chronicles?

? Is this meant to be a strawman ? Like I want a pacifist game where we tend gardens and turn the other cheek the whole game?
1) Since when is the ability to do a pacifist run through of a game seen as a bad sign? FO 1 and 2 are better for having these options.
2) We play DEATHWATCH. (Among others)
When I said it makes people play like human beings I meant "play like human beings instead of psychopaths." Not sure when or where it was decided all CRPGs MUST focus almost exclusively on killing everything (and stripping them to their underwear for money to buy stuff to kill more things) to get more power to kill more stuff. The PnP systems old school CRPGs were modeled on have thankfully moved on from old editions of DnD. Get some friends together and try some new stuff. There are amazing systems out there. I'd be happy to recommend some.

[Drool]

Except XP for killing mobs defeats the purpose of XP for doing the other stuff. Killing mobs is easier, repeatable, and can be added on in addition to other forms of XP. Meaning it's a no brainer. No brainers are bad.

There's no reason you can't have both. Wasteland did. All the Fallouts did.