dorotea said:Frodo didn't go to Mount Doom for experience. He didn't go their to save Middle Earth from Sauron. He went there out of pure undisguised malice. He hated poor Smeagol and went to Mount Doom to give him the finger and then see him flamed.
Lol. Ok. Well except that he did take the ring to Mount Doom to destroy it and by extension he did try to save Middle Earth. In the end he failed as his thoughts were consumed by the evil of the ring. He didnt really have any room to care for Smeagol one way or another at that point. But each to their own interpretation I guess.
chenzeme said:dorotea said:Frodo didn't go to Mount Doom for experience. He didn't go their to save Middle Earth from Sauron. He went there out of pure undisguised malice. He hated poor Smeagol and went to Mount Doom to give him the finger and then see him flamed.
Lol. Ok. Well except that he did take the ring to Mount Doom to destroy it and by extension he did try to save Middle Earth. In the end he failed as his thoughts were consumed by the evil of the ring. He didnt really have any room to care for Smeagol one way or another at that point. But each to their own interpretation I guess.
I think he was being entirely facetious in his post about Frodo and Smeagol. =)
As far as exp is concerned within this topic, I didn't think I would agree with the OP, but I feel he and others make valid points. Honestly all sides provide valid points. I just want quests to mean something. Even tasks one can do daily at villages.
For example, a village is low on food supplies to fill out an adventurers back pack before they set out on an adventure. This is caused by wolves/bears/goblins are scaring away the farmers in the area that produce crops for the village. Dailies or random tasks like these would be fun because it can directly benefit the town and other adventurers through gameplay that actually makes a concrete difference in the region. It allows restockable perishable items to re-appear at the village vendors. I would love to wander back to a town I hadn't seen in many levels, and help the village out and other new players.
Some of my fondest memories in EQ were not just the thousands of different quests (yes some very simple), but the variety of the quests, especially from class to class. Hearing about what enchanters and necros had to go through to get the epic weapons, the dark paths a shadowknight had to take get their epic weapon, or the Life Leech spell.
The paladin had the Armor of Ro quest line (other classes had different armor quests Ranger-Etched Ivy, Shadowknight - Darkforge etc), sending us off to lands all over Norrath to collects molds and items to forge into the holy armor. "The Bones of Darak Lightforge" quest that sent the paladin wandering all over the continents to find the dead cursed paladin's missing bones to free him from his curse to recieve the Divine Might spell. Hunting the froglok Shin Lord for the holy sword Ghoulbane, or better yet, getting the quest (later), "The Sword of Nobility", to gather pieces across the land to craft this holy sword once wielded by the paladin Amstaf Trunolis. What about the Soulfire quest?
These are what made EQ memeroble for me. I want the world to feel alive with the quest lines, but not driven by them and not have them be a means for quick exp gains. I would love the quests to feel unique to each class and to mean something other than experience points. I am not saying they should give absolutely no exp, but not enough to gain a large percentage of a level upon completion. I want the memories of the quests to last, like the ones I mentioned above that have stuck with me for over 20 years.
@GoofyWarriorGuy - Excellent post. I really appreciate those quotes. I didn't realize EQ had all repeatable quests when I made the original post, but your post reinforces the idea that it's feasible and even beneficial for group play.
@Silvermink - I agree that not all quests will be perfect or have useful rewards for everyone. However, I don't think quests will ever be negligible if things like questlines give strong rewards and the stories/lore they tell are interesting and engaging.
@chenzeme - Call me crazy, but I feel your point of view is very aligned with the majority of posters here. If you're mostly questing, those quests will be giving you many reasons to kill mobs that gain you the XP needed to progress. Not only that, but they'll also make sure you're not grinding one type of mob or in one specific location as they usually send you many different places as you complete each one.
I recently started playing Vanguard for the first time on the emulator. There's this one quest that had me kill mobs behind a farm for clues to a disappearance. Then I had to go back to kill other wolves to resolve the situation only to find out there were people behind the attacks, which I had to eliminate as well.
Great twist for me at the end. Got lots of XP from all that killing while being excited to do it simply because I wanted to know what happened next in the story. It was very well done, and I thoroughly enjoyed myself despite the quest not giving me any worthwhile reward.
From the answers to this thread variety is key.
Some quests - like the Tasks VR identify - should be repeatable and have very little XP (else imbalance the progression of that geographical area) but give rewards that serve in a functional way appropriate to the task: An example would be killing bears and taking the meat to a town butcher and the skins to a town tailor. The reward XP would be low as it is a menial task and XP was gained in the killing, but there could also be item rewards of maybe jerky to eat from the butcher and leather armor or cosmetic gear from the tailor.
Note: A thought enters my head that perhaps item quest rewards shouldn't always be on a predictable basis... Maybe you don't always get the same food stuff from the butcher or the same gear from the tailor. Mabe you don't always get anything. Would be interesting for 'quest' rewards - at least the repeatable Tasks - to be somewhat unpredictable like loot drops are? Or would that just be frustrating?
Another example would be non-repeatable Storyline quests. Those should perhaps give more XP and less item rewards. The best ones would be multi-step and might give XP multiple times as you progress but depnding on what you chose to do, because maybe at some point you could 'cash out', as an example, perhaps keeping or selling the ring you retrieved for a quest-giver rather than returning it for an XP reward.
And, yeah, for some quests - I would imagine the Perception ones fall into this more often - the reward is not often XP or loot, but is knowledge and lore for entertainment's sake, but also maybe tangible adventuring *advantage* from the lore and knowledge gained.
I have long wished quests were faction and gold oriented instead of XP. You don't need XP tied to every single thing a player does. I despise the quest loop MMO idea where everyone just follows the quest givers endlessly for efficient leveling. Factions are often just bland side points that have no meaning, but I really wish that would change for Pantheon. By making quests focus on the factions and giving no XP they would feel more real. Giving players items, gold, and faction rating is enough when faction rating actually has a meaning behind it. Players have to think about more than simply how do I level up fastest, but what factions share my PCs goals? Add in if you have access to a faction outpost you are likely to use it rather than traveling back to a city.
Factions should play a huge role. Access to outposts, traders, guards, safe roads, etc. It will be completely lopsided as soon as "x faction is the fastest for leveling." is spoken aloud.
Repeat and turnin quests especially should not have any XP attached to them it just leads to stupid power leveling options. Turning in ore you mined for faster leveling is not engaging.
Quests rewarding the player with lore is also acceptable. Secret texts and the like are great. You did a long quest and gained some rare keeper knowledge you may not even use properly in the future, it is motivating to try and figure out how to use that knowlege. If 80% of the players do the quest for efficient XP then the knowledge is not secret or rare.
Quests that navigate players to ideal prey are their own rewards with the NPC requests and worries being their own reasons. The caves the bears inhabit are on the north facing slope just across the river. You now have a perfect spot to farm bear pelts and got some gold and faction for your trouble. Do you really need a level up too?
Jobeson said:Do you really need a level up too?
I get what you are saying, but "yes" is the answer.
I'm not arguing that faction isn't overlooked in most RPGs. It is. The same as lore is often overlooked and/or without impact. The same as gear is often thrown around like candy. But I will argue that XP reward is correctly placed with quests, just too much of it in most RPGs.
Different people are motivated by different things. Some prefer character development and progression. Some prefer immersion. Some lore. Some prefer thier impact on the politics and alliances of the world. Some want dem phat lootz.
Me, I like a balanced mix. I want it all.
I don't want to be showered with loot such that loot management becomes and overhead and nothing feels special for more than two seconds, but I do want shinies to brighten my day when I've fought hard.
I don't want to feel too limited by doing the 'wrong' or 'right' thing, but I like actions to matter and the option of 'picking a side' (or two), so yeah, faction is good.
I don't want only surface sensory input to be important - I want the game to be 'deeper' than that - but I love to feel I am part of a 'real' world, so immersion please, yes.
I don't want to feel like I must know about every detail and background story of the world in order to get around and enjoy it, but I love to feel like there *is* a world outside of my personal experience, so lore, yes please.
And I don't want to feel rail-roaded through a linear experience or forced to leave an area before I've explored it because XP gain was too fast and I've out-leveled it, but I want to feel everything I do is contributing to my character development and progression, so yeah, move me toward my next progression threshold as I do 'stuff' (XP gain) please.
So, VR have a balancing act to perform, I think. Everything should impact everything and be meaningful in all appropriate ways, but to just the right level.
Yes, games like WoW over-emphasise quest XP. They made it such a focus that even those interested in them just for the lore end up ruining their own game experience by having to follow quite linear paths and out-leveling the challenge if they attempt to do them all.
That doesn't mean quests shouldn't be giving XP, it means the XP given should be more carefully considered and other things - lore, loot and faction - also given so everyone is interested and things are balanced.
If, for example, quests started just giving faction, we could end up with the same problem. Players would quest for the 'optimum' faction hits and end up, because of good faction, being able to walk through regions without challenge that should have been dangerous, much like too much XP making them out-levelled. So faction rewards should be better balanced? Yes. Just like XP awards could be.
Same with loot. If quests just gave loot, we could end up with a lack of challenge due to players being over-geared if they follow they go for the optimum loot quests.
Balance, as it so often is, is the answer.
I think VR are on board, though. They appear to want to make both faction and lore more sophisticated and impactful (though we haven't seen a lot about faction yet). They appear to want quests to be more sophisticated and nuanced, introducing different categories. They appear to be giving the impact of itemisation a good amount of respect.
So, yeah, I'm hoping XP, faction, gear and lore are all quest rewards and are balanced well.
"Behold! I have reached maximum level purely by mining ore or buying it from other players and repeating this level 3 task over and over again! I only took 872 hours to get here!"
"Why?"
"Becaused I wanted to?"
"Oh alright, carry on then."
Player choice is supposed to be important in Pantheon. Taking away the ability to earn XP through questing would reduce player choice.
Byproducts said:Player choice is supposed to be important in Pantheon. Taking away the ability to earn XP through questing would reduce player choice.
The devs still decide the choices. By your logic you could lvl to max level on lvl 1 mobs as well because how dare a dev ever make something not give you xp?
Jobeson said:Byproducts said:Player choice is supposed to be important in Pantheon. Taking away the ability to earn XP through questing would reduce player choice.
The devs still decide the choices. By your logic you could lvl to max level on lvl 1 mobs as well because how dare a dev ever make something not give you xp?
I believe someone talked about XP per kill recently and stated that the way the game grants XP right now, you get the same amount per kill based on the monster's level compared to your level (for example a monster of the same level could grant 100 xp no matter what level you are,) with an ever increasing amount needed per level. I could easily see them granting you 1 xp per kill for trivial monsters when you need a million or more per level. If someone wants to sit there and kill level 1 monsters by the millions well... that's their choice.
Jobeson said: The balancing act just burns content faster and is used to push people to "end game" Is questing special? Do you want harvesting and crafting to also give XP and factions? Many MMOs have done this afterall. If not why not? Why should a quest to chop down a tree give XP but not chopping down a tree for materials?
As I said, XP is just a tool. A measure. And an inexact one, too. Like most game mechanics it is an analog and a simplification, but is useful if used well.
And I also said that care needs to be taken over the *amount* given so as not to progress overly quickly. Surely giving relatively *too much* is the problem not that awarding XP at all is simply wrong.
I would think whether harvesting and crafting could or should award XP depends on what XP is used for and how or whether it relates to crafting.
Usually XP is a measure of 'adventuring' experience and when a threshold is met an adventurer is eligable to train and develop their character to enable further, more challenging, adventuring.
Harvesting and crafting is usually independant from adventuring so XP is not usually awarded and that makes sense because operating a loom wouldn't have any meaningful connection to adventuring.
In some games I've seen XP given for harvesting and crafting because crafting is limited by adventuring level, but that's an odd design choice in my opinion, for the unimmersive incongruity of, as I say above, operating a loom somehow making you eligable for further wizard or warrior training. Better would be to not limit crafting progression by adventuring level *unless* you intend your game design to encourage adventuring. The "get out there and adventure or you can't be a good crafter" makes as little sense as the "crafting makes you a good adventurer" idea, though I can understand the former if the game is primarily intended to focus on adventuring.
So, it makes sense for quests to award XP, faction (if you did it for someone or something), gear, cash or whatever. But, unless crafting has *its own* XP - which some games do - and unless the quests are crafting related, then, no, crafting (and harvesting) shouldn't award XP.
It's possible that character development in games that don't have XP and adventuring levels make *more* sense. Ones that progress skills as you use them. But those can be 'gamed' and made pretty unrealistic too. I progressed my monks 'safe fall' ability in Everquest by running in a circle that took me up a slope and off it's edge and back around while I traded. Also, then the case can be made for 'adventurers' just spending days on and in a training room until they max out their skills and go straight to end game.
Either way, in a game like Pantheon, where there will be XP and levels (and also skills that progress as you use them), XP makes sense being used in certain ways.
I go back to my first thought: XP is just a tool and it's an inexact one. Like all game mechanics, it's an analog and a simplification.
I don't disagree with your concerns, I just disagree that XP should be removed from quest rewards completely. To be honest, it wouldn't upset me, but would it make any more sense than character development being solely related to killing stuff? Even the same stuff, over and over? *shrug*
Disclaimer 1: It doesn't really 'make sense' that a warrior killing 100 orcs with a sword has no progression effect, but killing just 1 more means the warrior is eligable to train to use a spear. XP is an analog of adventuring experience a character has gained and 'adventuring' is a broad term. It doesn't make total logical sense 100% of the time, but it makes an awful lot more sense than operating a loom making you eligable to train with a spear.
Disclaimer 2: It doesn't make sense that catching a farmer's escaped chickens gives you 'adventuring' XP either. That should perhaps just be faction and some eggs. I'm not suggesting *all* quests should give XP, but I am suggesting that to not give XP for *any* quests also doesn't feel right.
Disclaimer 3: It doesn't make sense that 'handing in' a quest gets you an XP award when you already gained XP for killing the things you had to kill to 'complete' the quest. But what if you are playing a rogue and want to use stealth to complete the quest? Does that mean you get no XP, whereas a warrior, that killed all the monsters barring his way, does? Or a cleric that calmed the monsters with a spell deserves no XP? I think the 'handing in' the quest and getting XP awarded then is an encapsulation of the concept of 'a quest' constituting 'the experience' of 'an achievement'.
Jobeson said:Byproducts said:Player choice is supposed to be important in Pantheon. Taking away the ability to earn XP through questing would reduce player choice.
The devs still decide the choices. By your logic you could lvl to max level on lvl 1 mobs as well because how dare a dev ever make something not give you xp?
I agree that *some* player choices - ones that allow the player to play the game in a way that is much less satisfying than intended - the devs are well within their rights to discourage or even disallow.
In the example above, you wouldn't stop players from killing 'grey' monsters, but you would stop them from awarding XP once the level difference makes the challenge trivial.
Related to XP for quests, the devs don't stop giving XP for quests, they just don't give an amount that means players out-level the area the quests are in while still doing them.
It's prompted a good thought, though. In the same way level difference for monster kills might effect the amount of XP given (down to zero) quests should also have an intended level challenge and have the XP reward adjusted accordingly and I believe that is the intention in Pantheon, though maybe not down to zero.
Byproducts said:Jobeson said:Byproducts said:Player choice is supposed to be important in Pantheon. Taking away the ability to earn XP through questing would reduce player choice.
The devs still decide the choices. By your logic you could lvl to max level on lvl 1 mobs as well because how dare a dev ever make something not give you xp?
I believe someone talked about XP per kill recently and stated that the way the game grants XP right now, you get the same amount per kill based on the monster's level compared to your level (for example a monster of the same level could grant 100 xp no matter what level you are,) with an ever increasing amount needed per level. I could easily see them granting you 1 xp per kill for trivial monsters when you need a million or more per level. If someone wants to sit there and kill level 1 monsters by the millions well... that's their choice.
Indeed. No need for an artificial barrier when players can be 'encouraged' to do something more satisfying and fun by diminishing returns.
It makes sense to get very little reward when the level difference is large and the difficulty minimal, but it leaves the option and player agency there.
To relate to the OP I would say again that the problem is not that XP is awarded by questing, it is about *how much* is awarded and how is it balanced with other things and what behaviour that encourages whilst still allowing a 'sandbox' feel.
Byproducts said:I believe someone talked about XP per kill recently and stated that the way the game grants XP right now, you get the same amount per kill based on the monster's level compared to your level (for example a monster of the same level could grant 100 xp no matter what level you are,) with an ever increasing amount needed per level.
LOL this is going to backfire so horribly unless leveling doesn't give you the standard MMO difficulty boost. High levels slaughtering slightly low level content will be huge. It reminds me of New World where people would pull 10 tigers and AOE them in 3 seconds because if you multiply the low xp 10x its faster and safer than killing anything your level.
disposalist said:Usually XP is a measure of 'adventuring' experience
While you say levels are about adventuring I see them as combat strength.
Adventuring is more than just combat which is why I posed my previous question on harvesting and crafting. If you truly see levels as a sign of adventuring then crafting and harvesting is part of the adventure. Climbing a mountain to collect the rare ore is an adventure. Traveling to a magical forge at night to craft a special weapon is an adventure. Simply traveling to new places is an adventure. If the level is supposed to represent adventuring XP then almost everything should fill that bar.
Combat strength on the other hand is how I see levels. A quest to kill 10 goblins for an NPC would give no more xp than killing the 10 goblins. There would still be plenty of reasons to do the quest, but it would not give you combat xp. To be a well rounded adventurer you need to do more than have combat strength. We know there will be crafter xp and endless skills to gain XP in. We know the keepers will have their own system and of course a faction system. There are clearly tons of different systems at play, but leaving combat xp to actually doing combat makes perfect sense to me.
There are a few quests that should have combat XP if they exist, but they are usually pretty rare. If there are class training quests where you are a monk learning from their master to train their body and learn new abilities gaining XP for sparring or what have you. The idea of time spent carrying out their quest would make sense to give you combat XP. If you are a summoner sent out to converse with the flame elementals at the top of the volcano and learn their ways to better understand your own elemental you could get combat strength out of it. I think these sort of quests would be the exception and not the rule. Combat xp for delivering milk doesn't sit well with me.
I'd say the primary reward for most tasks/quests/storylines should be reputation/faction gain and some coin or item reward(s) with minimal exp offered.
Where as killing most things primarily offers (adventuring) experience, coin or item reward(s), with minimal faction gain.
Jobeson said:LOL this is going to backfire so horribly unless leveling doesn't give you the standard MMO difficulty boost. High levels slaughtering slightly low level content will be huge. It reminds me of New World where people would pull 10 tigers and AOE them in 3 seconds because if you multiply the low xp 10x its faster and safer than killing anything your level.
The numbers involved can easily be set to where the harder mobs are most rewarding.
Jobeson said:Byproducts said:I believe someone talked about XP per kill recently and stated that the way the game grants XP right now, you get the same amount per kill based on the monster's level compared to your level (for example a monster of the same level could grant 100 xp no matter what level you are,) with an ever increasing amount needed per level.
LOL this is going to backfire so horribly unless leveling doesn't give you the standard MMO difficulty boost. High levels slaughtering slightly low level content will be huge. It reminds me of New World where people would pull 10 tigers and AOE them in 3 seconds because if you multiply the low xp 10x its faster and safer than killing anything your level.
It has potential issues, but that, again, is a matter of degree not yes or no. If the difference between XP needed from one level to the next is linear than, yes the amount gained from AoE of several low level monsters might be worth it. If it's not, it will not be worth it. Also there is spawn rate and leashing rules to consider.
Lots of things can be tweaked to make it so it is far from an optimal choice without making it impossible.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:Usually XP is a measure of 'adventuring' experience
While you say levels are about adventuring I see them as combat strength.
Adventuring is more than just combat which is why I posed my previous question on harvesting and crafting. If you truly see levels as a sign of adventuring then crafting and harvesting is part of the adventure. Climbing a mountain to collect the rare ore is an adventure. Traveling to a magical forge at night to craft a special weapon is an adventure. Simply traveling to new places is an adventure. If the level is supposed to represent adventuring XP then almost everything should fill that bar.
Adventuring *is* more than just combat, but that doesn't mean it can or should encompass everything.
Yes, discovering and travelling I would think is, which is why I like discovery XP.
Whilst Nephele might not be happy with my comment, crafting does not make a game. It is a worthy type of horizontal progression. An excellent supporting activity. An interesting and useful alternative to the adventuring game loop.
It has a bigger place in survival games, but RPGs are more about fighting monsters and looting treasures. Whilst there are indeed tales of adventure about an adventurer recovering rare components for a special magic item, there are not many adventure stories about the exploits of tailors in general and for good reason, sorry Neph.
If that tailor *is* the one going out and recovering those components, they *are* an adventurer, so XP applies. They aren't using their tailoring skills to do that adventure.
Jobeson said:Combat strength on the other hand is how I see levels. A quest to kill 10 goblins for an NPC would give no more xp than killing the 10 goblins.
Well, this is where we disagree. Meaning and intent is important to adventure and experience.
If you are a slaughterer in an abattoir, you aren't on an adventure getting adventure experience.
Even if you are a hunter, as a job, killing wolves that *might* harm villagers, you aren't on an adventure, you're doing your job.
Yes, defeating monsters is an experience and somewhat 'adventurous' in and of itself - some people play RPGs just for the monster kill gameplay loop - but if you are doing it for a cause that has meaning and purpose I would totally argue that is both more of an adventure and a 'better' experience, for both the character *and* the player, really.
Adventure experience is not just about the acts you perform - adventure is also about the cause and the meaning - the 'quest' if you will! - as much as the physical things you perform in its name.
Some would argue even further; that kills should give you nothing and only the quest award XP. That 'pointless' killing is not 'an adventure' at all. That, without purpose, you are just hunting as a 'job' or murdering for kicks, but XP for kills, in a video game where the challenge is mostly in defeating monsters, is simply a sensible measure of progress.
Jobeson said:There would still be plenty of reasons to do the quest, but it would not give you combat xp. To be a well rounded adventurer you need to do more than have combat strength. We know there will be crafter xp and endless skills to gain XP in. We know the keepers will have their own system and of course a faction system. There are clearly tons of different systems at play, but leaving combat xp to actually doing combat makes perfect sense to me.
There are a few quests that should have combat XP if they exist, but they are usually pretty rare. If there are class training quests where you are a monk learning from their master to train their body and learn new abilities gaining XP for sparring or what have you. The idea of time spent carrying out their quest would make sense to give you combat XP. If you are a summoner sent out to converse with the flame elementals at the top of the volcano and learn their ways to better understand your own elemental you could get combat strength out of it. I think these sort of quests would be the exception and not the rule. Combat xp for delivering milk doesn't sit well with me.
And I wouldn't award much, if any, XP for delivering milk. But I also wouldn't *not* award XP for *any* quest just because of that un-adventurous example. We're not really disagreeing, as you say, some should have XP, I would just expand it more than you as I don't look upon XP as just 'combat' related.
As you said, "adventuring is more than just combat".
For me, questing is so linked to adventuring and combat, so fundamental to MMORPGs that there is no point or need to separating them. Completing a quest *should* be rewarded more than just the sum of its parts and should advance your character more than just the kill XP you got during the quest. Someone doing the same thing but for no reason will not have the same 'experience'. There should be a reward, however small, for finding a meaning to the slaughter, beyond any physical literal reward.
Hehe I do get what you're saying and I realise it's part semantics and pendantics (which I undulge in quite often hehe). I realise it's somewhat subjective too. There is perhaps a case for 'questing' XP - another system separate from combat (and crafting and perception/lore), but what useful purpose would it serve? What progression would be measured by questing XP?
Maybe there is opportunity for another reward system... Hmm... Prestige? Fame? Heroics? Something *like* faction, but not faction, since it is independant of particular 'factions'. Someone could be 'famous' or 'infamous' to everyone. You could be hated by the townsfolk, but still be respected as a legendary adventurer... Hmm. But what in-game effect would it have to give it meaning?
This is why I love these discussions. Even when we disagree, we often discover we don't really fundamentally disagree, and it leads to some very interesting thoughts!
Thunderleg said:
I prefer XP from all sources. Quests, mobs, perception pings, exploration, crafting/gathering, leveling up, collecting a new technique, completing a named armor set, and so on.
Makes for a well-rounded game serving all play styles and those with limited time.
This has my vote, balance and options for the players seems like way to keep everyone happy. Endless killing of the same mobs get's borring to some people. I actaully like having a lot of quests that are not related to any main storyline. Just gives me something to do other then swing my sword to try and level up.