AVWW Pre-Alpha #11 -- Story, Setting, Explorers, Evil Outposts, and Animations

[x4000]

Actually, EXP is something we're going to be talking about next time, but neither fighting nor exploration are going to be directly giving EXP soon.  Instead, it will all be based on helping NPCs with their hopes (the game's equivalent of quests), OR by taking care of "implicit hopes" such as destroying a den of bad guys, or a named bad guy.

Basically, small monsters are not something that are particularly notable; they are rather like Zelda monsters in that respect.  They might be a formidable challenge or not, but you don't need to fight them just because they are there.  I always wanted that to be the case -- and for the freeform exploration to be the case, too -- but as soon as you start attaching EXP rewards to that sort of thing, people start feeling like they have to kill everything and explore every last nook of every map.  It encourages grinding, in other words; and all but eliminates the possibility for stealth of any sort.

It's also one of those things that is near impossible to balance since the civ level and exp is shared between all players; it makes the co-op experience either one of lightning-leveling, or one of each player's contributions being diluted based on the number of players on the map.  Neither of which are fun.  But even in solo adventuring, it screws with the ability to set your own difficulty level by which regions you go into, etc, since just grinding monsters a few levels up would be way too big a payoff, etc, etc.

In short, it's just riddled with issues to give out EXP for small things in this game.  It encourages OCD behavior instead of freeform play, and it messes with the larger subsystems that are unique (or uniquely combined) in this game.

BUT, that's not at all to say that EXP is going away.  We're just shifting it to being doled out in larger doses rather than tiny ones.  As you complete meaningful activities, EXP is gained, and that's it.  That's not to say you have to deal with NPCs now -- you can still murder everyone you meet as soon as you meet them -- but if you do so your EXP gains will have to be based on solo adventuring and handling implicit hopes -- destroying monster dens or killing named monsters are one, possibly finding legendary artifacts or something also might make an appearance, and whatever else we think up.  We definitely want to reward more than just combat, even if you avoid NPCs, so we'll see where that goes.

[chemical_art]

Basically, small monsters are not something that are particularly notable; they are rather like Zelda monsters in that respect.  They might be a formidable challenge or not, but you don't need to fight them just because they are there.  I always wanted that to be the case -- and for the freeform exploration to be the case, too -- but as soon as you start attaching EXP rewards to that sort of thing, people start feeling like they have to kill everything and explore every last nook of every map.  It encourages grinding, in other words; and all but eliminates the possibility for stealth of any sort.

I am really excited about this. One thing that bugged me about some role playing games was that I felt like I was leveling too quickly without a sense of accomplishment. If I wanted to keep things difficult relative to my level I either had to avoid killing monsters to avoid exp or would end overpowered making any challenges not seem rewarding. By making exp happen in big does I feel I have more control in how I do things, rather then being torn doing things the "fun" way or the "efficient" way.

[x4000]

rather then being torn doing things the "fun" way or the "efficient" way.

That sums up my motivations right there.  I'm excited about it, too.

[BobTheJanitor]

If there's no XP for monsters, will there be some sort of reward for fighting them? My concern is that if they don't give XP (even if it's a bare pittance) then they will only be seen as an annoyance. If you feel like killing monsters is advancing you towards something, you'll put up with it for that minor psychological impulse to keep getting better, but if they are just there to get in the way I could see myself simply being aggravated when they show up. I guess they might at least be dropping useful items?

[Professor Paul1290]

If there's no XP for monsters, will there be some sort of reward for fighting them? My concern is that if they don't give XP (even if it's a bare pittance) then they will only be seen as an annoyance. If you feel like killing monsters is advancing you towards something, you'll put up with it for that minor psychological impulse to keep getting better, but if they are just there to get in the way I could see myself simply being aggravated when they show up. I guess they might at least be dropping useful items?

If monsters come up repeatedly and predictably enough to be that annoying I'm not sure that putting in a reward for killing them would make them that much less annoying. Sure there's a bit of instant gratification on the side, but the action itself would be still annoying and you're already getting a reward by working your way to your destination or doing what you set out to do (which I think is a better reward simply because it doesn't encourage specific method of getting there).

The way I usually see it is that they're another obstacle on my way to doing whatever I'm doing, so it doesn't make sense to me that there would have to be a direct compensation for having to deal with them unless there's some other reasoning behind it. In my opinion, it's ok if current task involves killing the monsters or the monsters provide an important resource, but if they start dropping random stuff that doesn't make sense otherwise just to reward you for killing them then it starts to feel a bit awkward to me. They become less of a threat and more like wild cattle (which, again, is ok if the monster/enemy in question supposed to be that way).

[Flatfingers]

Maybe the question here is just: will defeated random monsters occasionally drop useful resources?

"Useful" means that monsters are not just roadblocks in the way of the targeted goal. (Achievers hate those and will insist that the game is "broken" because of them.)

And monsters dropping resources only "occasionally" increases the cost of mindlessly farming mobs for their resources. Some people will still do it, but at least they won't be a majority of the game's players.

That's my guess, at any rate.

[x4000]

Yep, monsters have three kind of drops: health, magic points, and light loot.

The first two are both tactical in nature; if you are hurt or lower on mp, you can kill some monsters in a health/mp conserving fashion in order to skip using a consumable to accomplish the same effect. So, in essence, it makes for an optional way to "live off the land," and thus is rather key for certain hardcore playstyles.

In terms of light loot, that's mostly stuff that would either be a component used with more valuable crafting supplies to make stuff; or it would be useful for crafting simple or low level potions, traps, or similar; or useful for both purposes at the player's option, depending on the drop.

So it's not that there is no reward; it's just not exp. It's lower level tactical or crafting rewards. For small monsters, anyway. For things more like bosses or minibosses, those would be actually completing an explicit or implicit hope, and thus would have exp attached. And in most cases (all that I can think of, frankly), those would also come with more substantial rewards like valuable crafting supplies for making better items, etc.

Beyond that, Paul said it pretty well completely.