So normally I search the entire beach before going to town, in town I kill the two guys trying to steal from the elf. After that I kill the 3 guys playing cards. I always hit lvl 2 after this, always. But today I wanted to be nice, I dint kill the 2 guys by the elf, but I helped her anyway. I did kill the 3 guys playing card but this time I did not hit lvl 2. I am at 90% or so. This really makes me want to kill them anyway just for the xp.

Kill exp und quest exp are different. If you want the most exp just kill everyone.

Yes, but they could give good people more xp to balance it out.

Yea I had the same problem. If I play like I would like to, I would leave with lvl 4 or something... and since the last fight is really hard at lvl 7, it would be undoable at lvl 4...

Last time I killed all the *bad* guys and reached lvl 7... what if I do not want to kill all? it seems as if being *good* makes you loose/ not be able to finish even the first chapter.

Would be nice to have some feedback on this, is there anyone who got through without killing every soldier etc?

They could just give exactly 0xp for killing NPCs, but give the player a specific amount of xp for completing the NPC encounters, no matter how they're completed (killing, talking, bribing).

I'm surprised encounter XP isn't the same as kill XP. That absolutely should be the case, doing anything else discourages problem solving.

Maybe there are other ways in which you can interact with these people to get more xp rather than killing them, that you haven't found yet.. hint hint wink wink nod nod

Like given them the money? Or beating them in the game using the card? It is the same XP for me.

Just like irl eh?

Experience for just killing NPCs should probably be gone completely.

I can understand giving it out for fights that are mandatory or unrelated to quests, but if a quest can be completed without killing anything, doing so should yield the same amount of experience.


A more elaborate alternative would be to have some unique loot attached to the non-violent solutions(or doing the opposite, where it makes sense) and giving out more general loot/xp for the other solution, but the way loot works in Divinity isn't particularly conducive to that approach.

There is just another side to this issue. Say I want to roleplay an ''evil'' character, if a random woman asks me to find her child I will tell her to fck off, because looking for lost children is not something an evil character does, but the good guys will get the XP for that quest. Solution? Just murder the woman and get the XP. If you don't get XP for killing NPC's then you only reward the good characters instead.

Or you could get the same amount of XP for refusing to complete the quest and letting the child die, but you wouldn't get the item reward that the mother would have otherwise given you.

Yes that should be fixed to make them equal. And to prevent double-dipping, if you complete a potential-combat encounter by talking your around it, those NPC's should then be set to give zero experience if you kill them, to prevent "okay we'll go now" -> Player gets quest complete/charisma XP -> player force-attacks retreating people -> they go hostile -> player kills them -> player gets kill XP.

In fact in that situation, it should pop up 0 XP over their heads to make it clear that killing them does nothing helpful anymore.




If you choose to not take a quest, that is a choice, of course you should not get XP for it any more than you should get XP for quests which you never find at all.

Getting the same amount of XP for killing the woman on the spot as you would for following the quest and all the clues seems imbalanced as well because it's a lot less work to murder a weak NPC than it is to do the quest.

you are not the first person to ask this question.

1:02 is what you are looking for.

10/10, fantastic joke

no its a trailer from the movie

What did you learn from refusing that quest? Where's the experience in doing nothing?
Unless there's an actual reason to let the child die, aside from being a cartoon villain, I don't see any reason to get XP from it.

I know!!!

Wait, her child is not dead? She is not crazy? Fuck me.

Now you're just being egotistic. I have no issue with the argument to adjust XP so that you at least have the oportunity to gain the same XP for talking your way out of a situation as for fighting. But arguing to remove the XP for NPCs is to argue to just punish an evil playstyle intead of the good one. You argue for what suits your playstyle ignoring that there are people who think its more fun to kill NPCs.

Why should the game try to pidgeonhole people into any particular playstyle when it can simply be an option open for people how they want to play the game without being punished for it?

More specifically, if you want the game to be that way simply because it suits you, why should anyone be sympathetic to your view intead of just favouring their own?

All I want is something like this: A) Kills 3 NPC's gets 100x3=300xp. B) Don't kill one NPC but talk your way out = 300xp. C) Talk your way out = 300xp, kill the 3 NPC's after = 0xp

I was trying to do a good play through, Solve problems without murder.. but, no way. turns out if I solve problems I get XP and then if I kill them I get more xp... with XP being needed badly...I turned into a murder @_@

Well consider this: if you plan to kill everybody, you need the levels more to be more combat effective. If you're doing the "good" things and solving things without combat, you don't need to be as combat effective. Also, by focusing on the less combat aspects you get to experience things someone killing everyone doesn't.

Pacifists aren't normally as dangerous or strong as evil hobo barbarian killing everyone for power and giggles.

Instead of making do similar for each playstyle. The divergence in quests and how the story plays out should be its own reward for the "good" one. Maybe you'd get a nice family and farm and peaceful days ending vs the evil overlord with his mistress against the united world evil ending. The important thing is that a "good" play through doesn't make you feel like you lack the tools needed to reach the ending you want because of xp

You were never more than anything but a heartless murder machine to begin with; pretending otherwise does not befit your station.

As for the rest of you:

I think the options here are fine; you get xp for killing people and you also get xp for letting them live so the possibility of getting new quests or whatever else exists and, as with one of the quests involving Stingtail, turning your back on them or betraying or killing them might yield even more quests/xp.

So, the first magical playthrough, you'll generally reach the average needed to take on an encounter if they balance it out well enough.

I guess if you really want to find out how fucked up the xp is you would have to do multiple play throughs or mine the files for all the xp points. That's a ton of work.

NO! nonononononononononono no no no no no no no no no! Please no!

You probably even killed the black cat that followed you around... murderer.

isn't the black cat important to the story later?..I have been fortifying and healing them each battle

I tried to talk to the cat many times and to pick up any clues to the progress of the quest but no luck. Now I just kill the damn cat every playthrough straight off the bat, cuz the ''meow'' gets annoying very fast.

I would love Larian studios for ever if they made "hobo barbarian" one of the preset classes and made a telent catering to the flavor of an evil murdering hobo barbarian.

I doubt it, because there is zero requirement to take Pet Pal and Zero requirement to keep the cat alive and following you. I didn't even notice where or when the cat stopped following me, nor did I care.

.....Evil evil man No kittens for you! ><

Exp should not represent if you are a good or evil person, but how much effort you put into doing something. At current state it is hardl given, easy fights often offer more exp than some of the hard ones, for example slaughtering Silent Monks.

Also I guess at current state, being good isn't rewarded enough, because being good is pretty always the harder way. But being good is also hard to repay. For some the challenge of being good is some kind of reward. Hard to say, on the other hand you could always offer the option of refusing a real reward. Perhaps some Karma-Mechanic would be necessary for appropiate treatment of both ways.

If I didn't take that juicy 20 EXP then the Magisters would and I can't let them win!

Also having friendly NPCs be worth zero XP wouldn't stop me from killing them. I'd still kill them but extra slowly to teach them a lesson about wasting my time. >:)

Just had the same thought... wasnt able to finish this quest... never found the child...

In our quest log it was told, that the child was indeed dead and that there was nothing to do about it. But I didn't finish the quest, my friend did it while I was in Bracchus vault. ^^

"evil hobo barbarian"

Wow, lmao. What a mental image that conjured up.

I guess I don't understand the issue here because I did a good play through and was level 8 by the final fight of chapter one. I think the original poster is just missing things to do. I don't consider killing the silent monks to be evil but merciful by the way they are soulless husks just standing around might as well end them so they don't kill others though I do think since they are enemies by default that they should attack you on sight anyway.

Oh and killing magisters is not evil either they are the enemy and its like killing skin heads its good for everyone.

over the long run, killing the three card players hardly matters. Ki... Being mercyful to a silent monk probably gives about double of the xp.

But Silent Monks are mindless, they won't attack anyone without orders.

By the way killing magisters wasn't part of the evil 'plan', killing other inmates was the topic for evil doings.

The good option should always be the toughest one in my opinion.

That makes much better sense, sorry if I misunderstood your intentions.
I would however like there to be some different outcomes both in social effect and in XP. If you get 300XP whatever way you interact with a group of NPCs it suddenly erases part of the meaning in how you chose to interact with them.
300XP should be a reward for the most sucessfull social inteaction with them, and then if you fail you can still get the full amount by killing them but that has both the risk of draging other people into the fight, and the negative effect of losing acess to an NPC that might have some other quest in the future, or who might simlpy be a decent vendor.

Generally speaking, I believe that "Talk your way out" is used much more often for NPC's likely to usually be hostile, not vendors or quest-givers.

You're probably not going to find a lot of those usually-hostile encounters in the middle of a crowd of vendors or quest-givers. You seem to be suggesting that Larian deliberately move some vendors and quest-givers away from their usual spots into range of a potential fight just for the increased chance of punishing the player.

That seems to be a deliberately malicious approach to quest design which I don't think I agree with.

Choosing to fight versus not fight already has some different outcomes. Choosing to fight can grant you additional rewards in the form of items on the bodies, but at the potential risk of losing resources (Potions, arrows, grenades, resurrection scrolls). Winning a challenge saves you the fight, but you lose out on the loot.

And really the biggest concern that Cylion and others have is not "getting equal experience" for both combat and talking, but being able to exploit the system and get DOUBLE experience by talking an encounter out of fighting, then starting a fight deliberately and getting kill experience as well.

Friend kills two NPC's from extreme range using stealth, last NPC questions me about it, then resets. Then, I talk my way out of it. 2x100xp + 1x300xp = 500xp.

I don't think this is a problem.
If Larian made the little quests you can do for people slightly more rewarding in EXP a 'good' helpful character could get enough XP to equal or beat characters who kill people willy nilly. And so both the willy nilly murderer and the quest giver will progress well, more loot for murderer, more quests for the good guy.

If somebody wants to go through the work of re-uniting two people, or completing a jerks quest and then attacks them. They SHOULD get more exp and the rest of us shouldn't care.
In addition, if somebody wants to trade with a guy, then stab him in the stomach and take all of his inventory. He should be able to do that and the rest of us shouldn't care.
It's a single player RPG game, and some roles that people will play should not be punished for being a power hungry loot grabbing maniac.

In short, the ONLY change to experience granted should be a small increase to errands and side quests to allow for a 'good' character to meet a higher xp milestone than someone who ignores quests and kills people.

BUT the guy who does the quests and kills the person afterwards should not be penalized. It's a valid character choice that is not power gaming or system abuse. Villians will often work with someone, maybe even 'help' them in some way to gain trust before taking what they want. Why should our PCs be any different.

This would be perfectly okay if,
Each kill gave 75XP and the talking your way out of it was 300XP.
Guy who gives no shits kills all three. Gets 225 XP
Guy who thinks, maybe there is a way out of this and works for it gets 300XP.
Guy who thinks, I'm suave enough to talk my way out of this, succeeds and gets 300XP, then decides he likes the one of the guys bling and kills them for it. 525XP.

Your solution does not solve the problem at hand. I noticed in your other post that you dismissed it, but I feel that the issue does hurt immersion, as a "right" way of playing is emphasized. After all, if there is literally no downside to killing everyone afterwards, then you are just hurting yourself by not doing it. It's like having a really overpowered thing in the game; sure, you could just not do it, but what of your friends? Especially other players in public groups.

Additionally, what if you want to compare experiences? If you did not perform well because you ignored the optimal route, then it's your fault. The player is directly to blame for not using all the resources available. And if you did perform optimally, despite intentionally hindering yourself, then that's that. But people do struggle with the game, including my friends, and as such are motivated to do the most prudent thing: kill all of the silent monks, slaughter the civilians, and prune the merchants we don't need anymore. Not everyone is a murder hobo, and not everyone wants to play that way. And in a group where everyone has free will, all it takes is one guy to mess it up for everyone.


Tl;dr does not solve the problem, which hurts immersion and detracts from the experience as a whole.

I hope for a mod that goes all meta on the game, adding a "game master" as an NPC in the game. By interacting with him in different ways he could manipulate stuff like what amount of XP stuff is worth.
You could perhaps threaten him to increase certain types of XP, but if you fail at your intimidation he punishes you instead. And if you kill him nothing is worth XP or drops loot anymore (sine you killed the GM).
Then you would haveto go on a long annoying quest to resurect the GM again.

No, it doesn't detract from the experience. There is no plot armor in this game and it's a great thing!
If the player's goal is to 'play optimally' and his assessment of playing optimally is murdering, killing, pillaging and robbing to get more 'stuff' then good on him.
If playing optimally means to ROLE PLAY a character that kills/does not kill/robs/does not rob. Then play that way.
If a group member decides he wants to kill things you don't want to kill. GUESS WHAT!? you get to role play, and maybe you let your friend kill the guy and that's YOUR FAULT. If keeping the guy alive is what your character would do, then kill your friend, in game. Fight each other. That is what makes a REALLY good game.
And if it offends you that people who play this game, can use dirty tricks and back stab digital people to get ahead and 'play optimally'. You need to look for heaven somewhere else. Because that's how life is, it's how it works. If you want to make a 'good guy' play through more rewarding. Ask for stronger village people, more people around and more outrage when people just start dying around you... mysteriously...
Because that's the REAL way to go about preventing the needless slaughter of innocent campers.

I sincerely want to have the option to gain additional experience by taking the time, and often, going out of my way in game, to find ways to get it. Whether that be by selling everything I own to someone for their money and then stealing it all back or by helping reunite a daughter and monster/father and then deciding I would learn more if I dissected the monster/father.

Whoa man, chill. I never said I was offended. I said that it detracts from the experience, and you have yet to form a convincing argument otherwise.

Either way, the caps are not necessary, and neither is the condescending attitude. Your way of playing is not necessarily what other people want. Most people don't want to fight their friend, and combat like that is not supported in the game right now anyways. If I am anywhere nearby when he starts a fight, I get dragged in. There is no way around this.

Sorry man but your life sucks.

@norD hello, we are asking you for a stronger village people! And I want them to be enraged when people just start dying around me...mysteriously.
Can we actually have the skill to make people die around the character mysteriously? And some village people would be nice.
"Village People" concept art.

Yes! I fully support this! An ingame fictional nation named Merr'Ka, where everyone from the natives to the guards knows how to party!

Ahh the sensitivity.
I'm allowed to be scathing if you're allowed to read two well written posts with arguments in the contrary to your opinion and gloss over them and say 'I'm not convinced'
And your justifications are:
-I feel that the issue does hurt immersion, as a "right" way of playing is emphasized.
-It's like having a really overpowered thing in the game; sure, you could just not do it, but what of your friends?--But people do struggle with the game, including my friends, and as such are motivated to do the most prudent thing:

So basically, you're justification for being a criminal is that it's easier. And you can get ahead faster? Hey guys! Welcome to world politics/ global trade/ world history 101. Glad you joined us here for lessons. Remember slavery? Or following fascist orders? Or the TTP? (well, that last one might not be history yet)

But let's rewind from life education here. This is a game, where you can play a villain as easily and convincingly as a hero. If we compare to ANY fictional setting worth it's salt, LOTR, Harry Potter, the Forgotten Realms, Marvel, DC. It's a universal theme, being good is hard, being a hero and defending the weak is REALLY hard. Being a villain? Taking a shortcut to get ahead in the short? Not so hard. Often we identify with antihero's, those trying to do good but flawed, making mistakes, faster to anger (and prudent!).

So please Larian, do not take away the ability to play the game evil and more importantly don't cheapen my choice to be a hero. If being a hero is a choice you made for me, because there was no advantage to being evil, even in the short term, than being a hero in your game doesn't matter, I'm just a cookie cutter delivery mechanism for your story. But if every time I hear "Not in the mood for cheese" I have to make the choice to play a better character, then that choice means something.

Alright. I wouldn't have used the word "Scathing", as it gives a little too much credit to what comes across as garish capslock and vulgar condescension. Allow me to address your argument.



You're wrong.

See? An opinion does not constitute an argument. You literally just said the opposite of what I said, all in opinionated format. Except, you didn't state them as opinions. You stated them as truths. Thus, somehow, you made a post in which I could definitively say that your opinion is "wrong", because it was stated factually.



Hmmm, you're going to have to show me where I said or implied anything like that, because I just don't see it. The citation you allude to clearly states that it creates a power differential in playstyles - not that it's easier. Please read more thoroughly next time.



Hmmm, putting words into my mouth, I see.



Aaaah, skipping the discussion and just talking straight to the developer. I guess this is no longer a discussion thread? Since we're just talking to Larian?



Aaaaaand you're off topic. In a bad way, too! So you've

Taken up part of your post with moral grandstanding

Presented your opinion as fact

Used caps lock as a rhetorical tool

Condescended quite consistently

Misrepresented my stance on the issue

Belittled me for what you believed to be opinion

At this point, it's safe to assume that you're either a really bad forum troll, or too young mentally to play this game. Either way, I'm not going to bother addressing any more of what you say, because you're not worth anyone's time.

Have a great day!

It seems that tagging people doesn't work on the forum.
I almost missed that!
On a side note though, I'm creating levels and environments, I don't place NPCs :P

Thanks for the troll and completely missing the point Slampow - you've done this in multiple threads now, so it's only right I talk down and belittle you. Can't handle it? Get a life.

I'll just put these two side by side for intelligent readers.







Maybe now you can go back to being toxic in the 'elfs in skirts' forum posts again.

Ouch, I almost cut myself on that edge.

Hmm, you should read what you quote, by the way. Might save yourself some embarrassment.

The troll with the marzipan is asking for a stop in personal attacks. I'll just let that sink in.


Way I see the situation is that experience should be given for anything one does, proportional to effort put in. So crafting should give a modicum of exp, and so should murder. So yes, choices one makes about what path they take in the game should result in different rewards, just not wildly different from each other, so that no one choice becomes the one choice that overshadows the others. Unless we're going for real-world realism. But this fantasy game is not, last I checked.
Not saying it must be implemented this way, just saying what currently makes most sense to me.

Now, if we're talking about personal experiences, I do kill the silent monks, but I usually do so to anything hostile that does not want to talk. In games. I also murder the whole Griff kitchen on basis of their being what they are. "Innocents" are left alive.
The result of that is that I do not end up underpowered. In fact, by how much exp it takes to go up in levels, it's hardly much of a difference.

In my limited experience, walking the path of the "good guy" is usually more difficult in some ways and easier in others.

For example, the "good" guy is usually more socially acceptable and therefore tends to interact with NPCs (or PCs in a multiplayer RP setting) easier. He'll often be more welcome in social gatherings and is more likely to have loyal friends who will stand beside him when the going gets tough.

Conversely, the "evil" guy is more likely to have run-ins with the general populace, less likely to have people willing to help when his back is against the wall and generally can't trust his "friends," because they're probably "evil" too and will likely do whatever gives them the greatest edge rather than risk their necks for him.

The "good" guy is usually going to "gear up" slower because he's not going to take the immoral, amoral or simply unscrupulous shortcuts necessary to obtain the gear quicker. Murdering the guy that won't sell him the super-sword isn't an option. Stealing usually isn't an option for the "good" guy because it's generally not considered the moral high ground. Instead, he has to earn his gear through quests, the generosity of others or purchasing it at the listed price (with some haggling, of course!)

The "evil" guy, on the other hand, is generally going to "gear up" quicker. Murder is perfectly acceptable. Stealing? Definitely in this guy's playbook. Backstabbing employees who hold out on you? Just good business.

Taking the moral high ground has its advantages and its disadvantages just as walking the darkened path does. In the end, I've found the game experience is generally equal for both sides.

Is there a lower experience point gain for the "good" path? Maybe a little but not enough that I've ever felt underpowered or incapable of completing the game, there are plenty of alternative ways to earn experience points that don't involve my character compromising his moral compass.

Could I level up faster if I played the quest out and then murdered everyone? Absolutely! Would I enjoy the game as much? Probably not because I enjoy immersion and that would completely shatter it.

Honestly, the complaints here are more than a little silly:

Lets take some basic logic to the problem and break things down: (assuming highest difficulty)
- XP for effort
- As you level, the amount of XP needed to level up grows
- Each encounter/quest is geared for a certain level range in the game as there's no level scaling
- Killing requires effort and, at times, resources
- Two players are allowed to play competitively in the same game (ie report one for killing to the guards)
- Stealing = time & effort = rewards -> money/loot
- Fights = time & effort = rewards -> xp/loot
- Time/exploration = effort = rewards
- Optimal builds will always be op by end game for the most part
- Just as in D:OS there's a specific amount of xp possible in game
- Due to how level up xp scales, average number of players will be at level X by end game
- Due to how level up xp scales, hardcore players will be at X+1/2 by end game
- Due to how level up xp scales, players that know every possible trick for extra xp will be X+3 by end game
- Optimal builds at level X will have mild challenge end game depending on on non-optimal tactics
- Optimal builds at level X+1/2 will have little to no challenge end game depending on non-optimal tactics
- Optimal builds at level X+3 will laugh at end game enemies no matter what
- To reach level X takes average player time Y
- To reach level X+1/2 takes hardcore player time Y * 1.5
- To reach level X+3 takes dedicated perfectionist (ie me) time Y*2

Assuming Y >= 60 hours on tactician, are you really gonna say you begrudge someone who spent 60+ extra more hours, on a single play through, than you, a couple levels and better loot?

Cause that's what you're complaining about here: that someone who knows everything about the game for xp exploit spends many extra hours hunting down all those exploits and that he shouldn't be rewarded for all that work cause it's "evil"

....well, bloody hell, being evil is a crap ton of work, ya know? Gotta know every quest and NPC, gotta work through all the fights, and gotta know everything about everything so you don't accidentally mess up a quest. What are you? Some kind of elitist?

Don't be hatin' the evil hobo barbarian! Do you not see how much he has to work out to keep that body in shape for slaughtering? And, man, cleaning up the blood! It rusts weapons, ya know? And then he has to hunt the runners. And on and on.

Ya'll make it seem easy, but a "good" play through basically just means taking a paved highway to the end with a couple bumps here and there. Going evil is the equivalent of stopping, getting out the car, and slowly walking the whole damn way while taking note of everything. Of course, the ride is damn smoother. We see the bumps a mile ahead of us and can just walk around while we take our time

EDIT:
Does someone being "good" need the validation that they're as strong as the guy swinging the sword all day? Even when they don't need the extra muscle for any task given? Is the fact that they experienced a different play through not enough?

I think the xp system should stay the same. If you want to get the strongest all around you must kill/loot/pillage everything all around but it will also makes you no different from the bad guys you are fighting against.
You will be just another power hungry tyrant. Which is sure thing a possible playtrought in a good rpg game but it should have some drawbacks.
Like you get base negative attitude from npcs, guards attack at sight, some dialogues and quest are not accessable, npcs refuse to talk with you etc.
This could be achieved by a karma system. Basicly if you do something moraly questionable like murder innocents or do a quest the "easy" way you will get negative karma. If you do good thing you get positive karma.
This system should be character specific not party so in multiplayer there will be another reason to do quest differently and to turn agaist each other.

I don't know if the game is too far into development to implement such a system but i played some rpg games where karma system did miracles to replayability.

The core principle of the game is: No matter who you kill, the quest should still work. At least the main quest, side quests not so sure.

Only the main quest (and possibly the origin quests) are going to be guaranteed to work. If Bob gives you a quest to find 15 Bear Arses, and after you take it, instead you kill him and set fire to his shop, you're going to fail that quest, as you should.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that killing defenceless civilians and non-aggressive NPCs has no real consequence and pays too well. The magisters don't act as a police force (arresting you and taking your gear & cash away, or beating seven shades of fewmets out of you if you attack one of their own reducing constitution and number of hands, and then taking your gear & cash away). Loss of reputation does not seem to have any great effect either.

It might help if the tarriff for run of the mill NPCs were reduced to say 5XP, with 10XP for a really tough one. That way the reward for beating a high level, well-equipped enemy compared to a child reflects the amount you learn from each encounter.

Also, if unprovoked kills each affect your reputation with the result that over time you become increasingly hated, resulting in higher prices to buy and lower prices when you sell gear, this provides a non-XP penalty which could make the game increasingly difficult.

NPC's might also be made tougher with no increase in XP for killing them because they have started buying personal armour (valueless to others) or attending kung po classes (kung fu for chickens).

The idea is to level the playing field for different approaches to the game, not to force one style of play on everyone.

Assigning only small amounts of XP and loot to NPCs that aren't intended to be fought is probably the best solution. It still gives players the flexibility to play how they want, but it doesn't reward senseless violence or penalize those who opt not to kill needlessly.

I do feel tougher opponents, such as the guards, should be rewarding to fight, I feel the guards are in a good place of difficulty versus reward.

My party would generally complete all quests associated with an individual and then kill them (at least, we killed all guards). This was for the extra XP and loot, which was sometimes sizeable, such as the case of killing the 1st guards encountered on the beach.

The main exception to our killing was individuals who were shopkeepers, as killing them would prevent us from getting new items offered each level.

I am very pleased that killing shopkeepers no longer rewards ALL items they had been sold, this was very abusable in DoS1.

It should though. Makes no sense why killing someone doesn't give me their stuff (is what they sell and wear).

Also, killing = time = effort = reward....players should be rewarded for killing. And it's not like the game is balanced around it. It's just gonna over level you and then even out at the end for everyone like in D:OS

If people really care. A karma system or greater effects of reputation could be argued for and that'd be nice. Or have guards try to arrest you and so on

[quote=aj0413]
It should though. Makes no sense why killing someone doesn't give me their stuff (is what they sell and wear).
[/quote]

True, it isn't realistic. However, killing a shopkeeper for all of their equipment and skill books trivializes the importance of gold, and even finding items.

Also, should every guard we kill drop a full set of armor and weapons? That would be a lot of equipment we'd be looting after every fight. Should any of it be worth using, should it sell for much if we get so much of it? Pretty soon you'd be looting tons of garbage just so you could run it back to sell to a shopkeeper who you'd just kill to take all of their stuff anyway.

It's a balance decision. Getting a few items that actually have value as drops is far more interesting and engaging than a large amount of items that quickly become meaningless.

Killing normal NPCs is hardly a matter of time or effort, at least if you already gained some levels. They would have to make them much stronger, if every thing they own should drop or they need to lower the sell value much more.

Wait for it wait for it.....the answer to all the problems of killing having too many benefits and little costs.........karma system! Or hell just use the existing reputation system as a ad hoc karma system -_-

Seems like the conversation has changed a little since the last time I posted so I will give my two cents as well on the subject of killing to gain xp after the quest completes.

I am a long time PnP roleplaying game player and the systems for PnP pretty much address and take care of all of these issues. If larian should so choose to keep a player from taking advantage of the game system as it stands now which it seems like people are by killing quest givers after completing the quests (shame on you people for even doing it) Then the devs should set a flag that makes the npc give them 0 experience for assassinating them or if they are lower level than the npc 1/2 experience for killing them in an actual fight. Most PnP games have this sort of methodology. However if someone is evil or kills a vendor for any reason they should get all of the loot including skill books, gold, and items that the vendor had when the player killed them and only give 1/2 experience if they get to fight the character or 0 experience if the character assassinated them.

The main issue seems to be that people are thinking that experience is to be maximized this is in fact what is called meta gaming using the rules of a system to min/max your character is meta gaming. Using your knowledge of a system in order to break it is meta gaming. Forcing a game developer to put rules into a system they should not have to worry about is caused by meta gaming. If you were the character would you really stab the person after completing the quest and having the reward you? After all they might higher you for another job later on.

Met gaming shouldn't be accounted for explicitly. It's silly to expect a dev to in an rpg. They should just be helping guide things so all metas have a place.

I don't really like the ideas you have *shrug* I much prefer the Bovine Defense Initiate solution to things. Or the Balfour Gate solution. Have some really powerful acts of God angels or monsters or NPCs spawn to smack you into place.....and should you some how be high enough level or skilled enough to get through that as well? Well, you rightly deserve to be a badass and tell balance to cry in a corner somewhere as you break the in game universe over you knee for amusement.

The problem is, even if you would use such overpowered beings. If they can't see through things like 'sneaking' you could just exploit them to death.

Exactly lol which is why exploits like sneak are being fixed in AI but hey I like BDI plan for punishing meta gaming .... maybe I'm hard headed and masochistic but I'd be slaughtering cows all day as level one to attempt to get a shot at killing that level 50 monster as soon as I start the game. And then id smash my head against that monster till I beat it 10000 tries later and proceed to curb stomp everything else with level 50 gear and a massive xp gain to level up several times -> reward my stubborn fanatical love of killing all things bovine and their protectors ;p

It isn't? This is news to me. I enjoy having more health, hitting harder, and having more cool abilities. XP maxing allows for more of this. This makes the game fun. Fighting enemies is fun too.



Are you suggesting the game should only be targeting those interested in playing a lawful good archetype and are interested primarily in RP? It seems we'd be excluding a large portion of the people on these forums if we didn't balance the game with the others in mind too.

If a game designer creates a system that is more rewarding to one play style than another, players will notice, and they will gravitate towards greater rewards. Not balancing and blaming players for using the system available to them is just lazy.

Why the opposition to balancing XP rewards?

...Cause then you strip the rewards from being evil in a meaningful way?

I redirect you to the Bovine Initiative plan I proposed above.

So you propose all-powerful beings swoop in to punish players for attempting to get extra XP?
I suppose that would stop all killing in town, but there's plenty of developer intended fights that break out in town. Would the gods just turn a blind eye to these? How would players know which fights were ok, and which they would get punished for?
Seems like a band-aid attempt that falls short and removes player freedom to make choices.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Not all powerful, just powerful enough that you actually have to work for your reward. Wouldn't stop killing but make a player think if it was worth the effort or if they could handle the follow through.

Flags for how and when the BDI would be activated is a simple enough solution.

Many people were receptive to this in Witcher 3 exactly cause it allows for player freedom and rewards you for overcoming challenge if you actually beat back the BDI.

....If you take away xp for killing innocents or make it near non existent....you take away the reward for killing them and doing the fight and the time spent.

A fight and a death should always be meaningfully rewarded. Hell make all NPCs higher level :P so the fights have some difficulty. Whatever. But telling me I cant kill that one woman after completing her quest and expect a reward for that killing is the same as telling me my actions are meaningless unless it agrees with a certain playstyle

EDIT:
As for when the BDI would be activated? That's simple. Just place a symbol or name color to those under GODs watch. When an encounter is meant to take place in town for some reason the symbol can go away.....

...Or better yet, don't let the player know at all ;P Make him second guess his actions before he follows through. Being evil shouldnt be straight forward

Or or better better yet....make it so really high loremaster lets you know who's currently under GODs protection or not at a current moment with examine

Well, the town already has the guards as their attempt to defer unnecessary assaults, and when you get strong enough to kill them, they are the only real big source of XP players may not be inclined to kill anyway. I'm not sure if the extra XP from kills is even a big enough deal to worry about, other than in the case of slaying every neutral guard.
I imagine the XP requirements to level will go up enough each level that having several more low-level kills won't make a big difference to a character after a couple of levels.

This is actually the case. It was the same as this in D:OS

If you exploited absolutely everything in that game, you got maybe am extra level...maybe two if you could eek out over that finish line by the end for that last xp bar before the void dragon.

Which is why I said it was pointless to care about this earlier. Basic logic makes the complaints sound silly, but by all means add in the BDI ;p it'd actually make the level difference bigger and add fun bonus challenge for my evil hobo barbarian runs

Yeah, my wife caught me playing and called me and my brothers 'murder hobos'. XD

See? Murder hobos are awesome! So awesome that we should get the chance to murder some of GODs legion of guardian angles....they look too pretty.

Wait, perfect idea.....persisting in killing after killing the first angels sent to stop you causes increase in Angel numbers and difficulty....all the way up to and including the Arch Angels and GOD himself coming down to tell you to stop clogging up heavens gates XD

It's like a super hard secret bonus achievement/challenge

First part answer: while yes xp rewards are nice you have to play from the position that you don't know what they are unless you are sitting there with a guide telling you everything or save scumming. If you want to play good play good if you want to play evil play evil but being evil should not net you more xp.

Second part answer: No not everyone is lawful good but even and evil character in any PnP game would not stab someone that gave them a quest after earning a reward without a reason and no GM would award XP for doing so they might earn a small xp bonus at the end.

Just killing a quest giver to kill them because you know they now have no further quests for you because its a videogame and you have played it before is meta gaming and deserves punishment by the GMS if someone wants it to be a demon appearing and eating your soul for source that is a little extreme in an open game system but it should not award you with full experience points like if you fought them fair and square and they had the chance to kick your ass.

By the theory which you have just stated there is no cause not to kill everything and everyone in any video game that allows you kill everyone just because it nets you more experience name a game that is like that. Where there is no penalty at all for killing everyone.

Now i'm sorry you think that maximizing xp is the point of a video game an increasing your characters power is the point of a video game but its not the point of a video game especially and rpg game like divinity original sin 2 is to enjoy the storyline and the multitude of different paths it can take.

Just making the most OP character should not be the goal of any roleplaying game.

Devs really shouldnt have to worry about meta gaming in the full version, and the meta game argument really sounds absurd.

I took the easy way several times in my first play through (killed a guy who looked at my funny) and missed out on several quests I found on my next 'good guy' play through. This is what the average player will experience and I feel like this is a positive experience. You should be role playing your character, making choices based on what you feel is right and what your character would do. Like the guy ahead of me said. XP should not be on your mind while you are making choices. For example: I wanted to kill the silent monks because they could be used as weapons against us, my partner disagreed. She felt that they had done us no harm, and may be rehabilitated. So we left them alone. Would killing them have made us a tiny bit stronger? Sure. But who cares? The point was that I had to make a choice. And if a player looks at those npcs like experience pinyatta's then they have successfully role played a character with no moral compass who will do whatever it takes to be the strongest mofo around.

So, I agree with the guy who says work=reward. If it's an easy fight, it shouldn't be worth much XP. But the XP for a fight should be completely separate from the XP for any quests they might offer which require additional work. Doing extra work should net extra reward.
Now, if that work makes you a scum and ruins your karma so the gentle loving deities start cursing you at their shrines instead of offering you blessings than you now have a really cool and meaningful karma system.

I have simple answer.
This is game, game have goal and only actions what brought players closer to goal should be rewarded by xp, no matter what way the chosen to accomplish the goal.

The simplest solution and the best one for balance is to set some checkpoints like: coming to fort joy, finding way in magister's headquarters, getting out of it. etc.

Side quests and killing should only give items and money as reward, because they don't directly help in progress main quest. They will be pure optional choices.

If you want level up you need to actually progress, no backtracking or randomly kill everyone.

That solution doesn't force anything, and is nice gift for people who only want to do main quest only. People who like doing combat, quests and stealing will have extra items, skills and gold.

/// Soft version of that solution would just lesser xp reward for quests and having something like bestiary from Pillars of Eternity.

I'm amazed this isn't self evident to everyone, but the point of a video game is to have fun. What makes a video game fun for you is the point of that game for you, not necesarily for everyone else.

Telling other people how they are supposed to enjoy a game is straight up immature.

It's not that getting the max amount of XP is the most important thing, but increasing levels and getting stronger is an important part of the fun.
With ever increasing amounts of XP being rewarded from quests and new enemies, and larger amounts of XP required for each level up, I just doubt the kind of min-maxing from farming every low-level NPC will ever be too much of an issue.

The reason it is currently an issue in the alpha is because if you kill someone from stealth that has nothing to do with combat normally you gain the same xp as from an actual battle. 450 xp is no small matter at level 2 and can easily make you gain levels if you kill all the npc's in the game which is what people are doing just so they can level saying that they are playing evil characters.

That is not evil that is metagaming because you know as a player they have no quests for you because it is a video game. Evil doesn't want to get caught anymore than good would want to get caught for stealing. Evil characters even in a PnP game don't kill everyone because the GM would do something to kill that character or punish them like having them arrested by high level knights or something because at that point they are just a disorganized serial killer and everyone knows who they are.

Devs aren't responsible for meta gaming - > point 1

If you want punishment system, thats fine; don't make it 'impossible' to beat on purpose though -> point 2

If a player manages to defeat the 'high level knights' called in, they should get properly rewarded -> point 3

Reputation can be evolved into an ad hoc karma system -> point 4

Killing something = XP reward...should never consider changing such a fundamental rule -> point 5

I started a new game any tried the find all of the quests this time and tried to finish them the good guy way. So the thing that i found out you are forced by quest trigger to kill most of the npcs in the fort even if you try to play nice. Basicaly in this game there are lots of non hostile bad guys.

If you want to safe the prisoner without sacrificing the lizard you will have a hell of a fight yes.

I'd be fine with this tbh, as it doesn't remove the reward for doing extra work / doesn't cheapen then decision to spare/kill bad guys.. but would uncouple the level/power imbalance and keep the game challenging even for the evil hobo barbarians everyone keeps mentioning (I imagine they are also cannibals amirite?)

O yeah. Killing and eating one of the elves in the cave with the warfare vendor yields the Frost Armour skill, which is really nice.

I did a full playthrough recently where I killed literally everyone, and I earned lvl 8 with 41% XP towards level 9. So it's a noticeable bonus to get everyone all the time.

I did find one particularly notable spot where being evil was a big bonus.

Point 2 - Are you assuming that the "punishment" involves being attacked by Magisters?criminal elements/some other group or person?

There are other possible ways of dealing with these problems. For example, if you kill a low level trader then the remaining ones reduce the amount of gear and gold they have on their persons. Some might require cash in advance and agree to leave the goods elsewhere to be collected. Of course, some traders might then decide to disappear with your gold.

An attack on a Magister before a certain event might involve a Monopoly response "Go directly to jail, do not collect £200 etc." followed up by the loss of some choice gear.

Point 3 - This defeats the whole purpose of the original suggestion. It is a reward which is not available to "good" players.

Point 4 - This might do the job, but I think any such system might not go down well. I would prefer to approach it by considering the impact of the players actions on NPCs. For example, you are a small trader. You have just heard that another trader has been attacked and murdered and all his gear was taken. You know who carried out the attack. What would you do?

Point 5 - I don't see any reason why this should be the case. If there is no real challenge in the killing the killer will not have improved their skills.

If you are forced into a fight, which happens quite a lot, then self-defence is a reasonable action even when trying to be the "good guy". Being good need not be the same as being a pacifist.* I would not like to try to get through this game as a committed pacifist!

*Yes, you can argue that only a pacifist can be truly good. I would not accept that argument.

True, the evil wins if the good does nothing.

When you start talking about the line between "good" and "evil" in role-play you're potentially opening up a can of worms because people enjoy debating it. Largely because they can come in different varieties.

In my role-play experience and with most of the people I've ever role-played with, the line between "good" and "evil" can be very easily blurred and comes down to two things: intent and perception.

Intent is defined as the purpose and will behind an action from the mind of the actor:

"Evil" often has intentions inconsiderate of the cost or affect on others.
"Good" often has intentions considerate of the cost or affect on others.

Both can be selfish but only one tends to be selfless.

Perception is defined as the purpose and will behind an action from the mind of the audience:

"Evil" is often perceived as malicious, extreme, unnecessary and/or harmful.
"Good" is often perceived as benevolent, compassionate, sacrificial or just.

An act can be "good" to the actor because he understands the full context of the situation but still be perceived as "evil" to the audience who only understands the moment. An individual's 'alignment' is best determined by the sum of both intent and perception.

In terms of this game, the "good" character isn't going to start a fight if it can be avoided unless more "good" can come from the fight than avoiding it. (Such as fighting the establishment that is inherently preying upon others). That same character won't hesitate to defend themselves if attacked because there is nothing inherently evil about defending oneself.

Bovine Defense Initiative in Witcher 3.....check it out. That was dev response for 'punishing' players that wanted to farm weak cows for infinite gold in the game.

A punishment system should be there to discourage certain actions by making a player question if they want to follow through. "Discourage" is not the same as "impossible." By removing the ability to see something through, you remove choice.

If an 'evil' player can legitimately over come a punishment system in the form of higher level opponents trying to stop him using skill and tactics, then obviously he's not being evil cause he needs it to beat the game.

So, why should it matter that he wants to imbalance difficulty more his way?


Furthermore, all efforts deserve a reward, in all context. The idea that any action is unviable or gets one nothing is, frankly, bad game design as it begins making players question "why do it at this point?" if there's nothing tangible to go along with an action.

Instead of arguing that evil players should be stripped of their rewards, I have proposed the alternative idea.

Consider how to make a 'good' player feel more rewarded for his choices.

Evil -> Kill everyone -> More power in leveling and stuff
Good -> Save everyone -> ??????

XP is not the only reward system. Could give them special items or skills, special quest lines and story bits, ect....

The most I'm willing to conceded is that killing everyone shouldn't be so 'easy' as to make it a non thinking choice for power. Some mechanics to balance out the thought going into the action would be nice. Either a karma system or some high level enemies interfering would be nice.

Also, I ,patently, hate this idea. Removes weight of actions beyond simple gear and money.....which one can make or buy easily.

Why would anyone kill anyone if it doesn't get you anything unique? When it ultimately matters nothing? When it hardly changes the experience directly?

No, uncoupling XP from combat and direct actions is never something I could agree with.

XP for killing
XP for significant trigger actions
XP for discovering new locations

I still find this very silly argument when it amounts to little beyond saying: "That guy worked longer, but doesn't deserve more; even when the end difference isn't that big!"

TBH, i'm ok with more XP for evil.

Being good is generally considered to be the harder path.

the dark side. quicker, easier, more seductive.
so being good is the hard path. With lower rewards, just as in real life, often.
Think of it as 'hard mode.'

As long as there's some reasonable XP for an encounter, rather than just kill XP.

I play a lot of DnD and Pathfinder and this is an extremely common issue in those worlds which, in my opinion, is best handled by giving the same amount of experience no matter what happens. It doesn't matter if you decide to take the direct route and mow everyone down, talk everyone down, or talk everyone down and then jump them while their guard is down, at the end of the day you have "conquered a challenge" and should be rewarded depending on the difficulty of the encounter. The one way that exp should be variable is if there are optional side objectives, stated or otherwise, that alter the difficulty of the encounter or create unique ways to handle the problem. In almost all cases creativity in how to handle a situation should at least be attempted to be rewarded but that can be pretty hard to do without making it feel shoehorned or not comprehensive.

So despite the fact the rules for the game system you mentioned say not to give them the same experience you or your GM do anyway?

The rules also state to punish characters and players for trying to break the game system just because it is a game your GM is nicer than mine and also not a very good GM.

If killing everyone gets you 100 xp and doing the quest and turning it in without killing gets you 100 xp and turning in the quest and killing everyone after gets you 100 xp. Why in gods name would anyone go through the extra time and effort to do the fights?

Do you see the issue?

On the other hand, why do you care if some one puts in that extra time and effort and ends up overleveling?

Going the "good" way is only gonna put you at the correct level...probably higher, anyway, if you do the optional stuff.

And at the end of the game the level difference will be....maybe a couple levels. Is two-three levels between a casual player putting in 40 hours in a "good" play through and someone meta power gaming as "evil" to be slightly above you at 60-80 hours at the end worth crying over?

I have yet to see someone actually make a case against that.

Hell, the most I've seen said is that it's too easy to go with the kill option cause it simply requires a little extra time and no real effort.

My response was Bovine Defense Initiative to make killers work for their extra ill gained rewards and karma system attached to reputation (so it actually matters) so one actually thinks before killing. Also, specific quests tied to spruce action sequences/reputation.....


Edit:

I power gamed in D&D all the time or advised other s how.DM response? Ramp up difficulty too match and/or have specific ivy triggered events based off character actions that would legitimately attempt to punish me by making me prove I "deserved" my gains.

This took place in the form of bounties, groups of city guards, pissing off elementals, etc...They didn't have to change game system rules on me; they used creative solutions that actually made sense and added to the fun without making me frustrated by making me feel like an impotent limp rag with only the barest illusion of real choice

Generally, this meant different quests, box interactions, difficult in over alll combat, and different gear and loot. "Good" players would have a much easier time gaining blessings, high level loot rewards, etc...they'd be fewer but more noteworthy for all the work and then there's the inevitable unique story it creates. "Evil" char had higher levels and generally more loot with a better average level, but the difficulty in gaining really high powered stuff was very risky.

Ex. Someone pure calling to angels for help has a much better chance at getting what they want vs someone calling demons who might just kill them for lolz....unless the summoner is just that skilled and well prepared to attempt that fight and even then it was really damn hard

Perhaps I'm in the minority but when I make a "good" character, I do so knowing and accepting that I am foregoing the "quick and easy" route to success. This means I will likely gain experience slower (by virtue of scruples interfering with my mass murdering spree and/or turning down quests that interfere with my character's morals and ethics) and likely gain gear slower because I have to take the long "high" road to get it.

To me, that's part of the fun of playing a "good," character. Overcoming the limitations you've placed on yourself by your moral compass and still managing to accomplish the task is the biggest reward to the play style (in my opinion).

I've never really been bothered by the fact that "evil" characters gain more total experience in a game like this because the challenge of not compromising my character in the process of beating the game has always been more appealing to me than hitting level 21 instead of level 20.

The rules are there to create a system in which the players have fun and are free to be creative. If you don't like the rules you are free to change or even ignore them. I don't play adventure paths most of the time specifically to avoid the murder hoboness of exp min/maxers.

If you kill the people, you have completed the encounter and get rewarded for it. If find a way to pacify them, you have completed the encounter and should be rewarded for it. Finishing an encounter and then redoing the encounter to choke out more exp makes very little sense especially from a storytelling standpoint.



If what gives the most exp is what drives you to make most choices then I honestly feel sorry for you, you've completely missed the most beautiful aspects of DnD.

If you missed my point that you just removed actual reasons why to do something different.

And no, I did those things cause I enjoy chaotic nuetral, chaotic evil, and chaotic good. I very much love taking advantage of how flexible everything is to let me "anything" I can think up on my whims.

The problem here is that each of those decisions felt rewarding and impactful. Removing that is an issue.

Trying to change core mechanics cause you can't handle a gamer exploiting your loop holes means plug the damn things in. It does not mean to change core mechanics; which is the point of my example

Fair enough, the only thing i really care about is that solving problems through conversation should give the same or at the very least similar amounts of exp. Whether or not killing them afterwards gives exp doesn't interest me at all because that's not the way I play in almost every case. (the exception being if I am talking the people down so a hostage can escape and then I deliver justice to the villains :D)

Which has constantly been my point:

If the game is balanced around the level you should be at given the xp through conversation, and the end difference between you and someone killing everyone is maybe two-three levels (ie that's at max, in game one the difference is one or two depending on optional stuff), why do you care about the other guy?

The game is balanced around your method so it's not like your gimped. The other guy is literally doing more work and has to meta game, thus requiring an extensive guide or multiple play through, and the end difference isn't even that notable. There's also the whole reputation/karma thing to consider and the fact that evil = wants power traditional understanding.

Do you see why I call this whole thread silly?

The most in willing to concede is that killing shouldn't be that easy of a decision for non combat NPCs.

More thought should go into it then: MOAR POWAH!

Even yourself, the only reason you seem to show concern is "fairness" because it's not your playstyle so you wouldn't be effected if such a playstyle was gimped.

This whole idea that things are currently "unfair" is what I find truly silly

Edit:
And yes, stabbing stab to the face any who would hide behind another. Blood for the BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

Agree, most games reward being bad way better, like you get twice as much exp and junk. Realy annoying for people like me who are more civil.

That is, beside other things, the reason why i decided to not play bethesda games ever again after fallout 4.

I rather enjoyed FO4, and I do tend to play a bit of a do-gooder sort of character. I'm currently attempting to play through as an evil character, but it's not going well: she's already been downgraded from evil to bad, and further downgraded to unpleasant, then slightly coarse, through rude to occasionally sarcastic. Which is admittedly not very evil.

Sigh. Well I tried, but as hard as I try, all my characters basically end up being the same.

The issue that I still take with the current system is that both of the current paths are not rewarded equally. Being "the bad guy" is rewarded more heavily making being "good" basically punishing people for being good. The thread isn't silly because this problem should be addressed and realistically isn't a hard issue to address.

In all fairness, being the "bad guy" instead of the "good guy" isn't especially rewarding. However, being the guy who resolves the quest without violence for full reward and then kills everyone for more reward is strictly more rewarding.
Although, with ever-increasing amounts of XP required for each level-up and ever-increasing gold costs for better items, the impact is low (or certainly can be) if these extra costs scale up fast enough.

For example, it won't matter how many level 1 peasants you killed, once you're level 10, the gold and XP impacts will be too low to matter.

“Virtue is its own reward. There's a pleasure in doing good which sufficiently pays itself.”
Sir John Vanbrugh


Research suggests that being good is inherently rewarding, neurological evidence proves that generosity activates positive and pleasure centers in the brain.
Besides, bank robbers and bandits always get more money faster until the powers that be shut them down or lock them up.

I am referring specifically to the exp gap between the two primary choices. It's not an opinion, just a fact. You get more experience if you kill everyone than if you don't. My opinion is that both options should give the same exp. If people decide to power game then more power to them.



Saying that if you ignore the problem long enough it will go away =/= there is no problem. You are correct that, in theory, eventually you will not feel the loss of 50 exp when you are dealing with 5000 exp, but if the same design philosophy continues then you WILL feel the thousands of experience you miss out on then which will continue to be a trend throughout the entire game.

Unless you double dip by killing after the quest, it isn't always more XP to kill instead of resolving things peacefully. I can think of a few examples, if you're interested. Perhaps it is more rewarding more often, do you have any examples of your claim?



Players who do more will always have more XP, but it'll mostly just be an extra level at any given time, it likely isn't too impactful. This is the case for people who kill all optionals, do all sidequests, etc. Even if the rewards for good/evil were exactly the same (which would make the choice super meaningless).

I think the problem is more likely to be that Larian does not expect the majority of their players to be genocidal psychopathic min-maxers, and they will aim the difficulty assuming players do NOT murder the entire map, which leads to the min-maxers being overlevelled.

That problem though, can be more easily solved by assigning experience based on the challenge of enemies, so level 1 peasants and rats offer chump change, and the level 4 Silent Monks 700 XP will also likely be toned down a bit because they do not offer much challenge because they're always fought 4 on 1.

This sounds good to me.

Giving exponentially more XP for higher level enemies and requiring exponentially more XP for each additional level would accomplish the same thing.

Another option would be to scale enemies and rewards with player level in the effort that things will continue to be rewarding and challenging regardless of previous choices. But this is a very divisive idea whenever it is used.

Edit: I love exploring everything and doing all the quests, but dislike it when over-leveling encounters makes them too easy. A system allowing me to have both sounds great!

Generally speaking once you have resolved situation, either through violence or other means, you expect the player to move on. This creates two or more "core" methods of resolving each circumstance. For an extreme example, it would be unusual for a person to talk someone down from committing suicide only to follow that action by killing them. The idea of "double dipping" as you have mentioned is a real thing and currently very possible, but you can't balance exp around that possibility because most players are not going to do it.

We actually discussed this idea earlier where I suggested removing exp from killing enemies after you resolved a situation peacefully and other people don't like that solution for their own reasons. I don't really care whether it gives exp or not because I will choose not to do it. If other people do, for whatever reason, good for them.



We are talking about two solutions to the same problem, there is no doing more or doing less in this situation. There have already been a few examples of where you get less experience for choosing the peaceful option. I suggest reading up a ways. I would be curious to hear your examples of when the opposite is true unless of course the only example is taking the peaceful option and then turning around and murdering them. I don't care about that option.

I've got a few I can remember offhand;



Another example:


Another:


An interesting one:


More gold example:


I don't have exact numbers of XP on me, and these are the only cases I remember offhand.

Edit: I guess I have a ton of cases where doing someone's quest instead of killing them (with no apparent provocation) gives more, but this seems like a trivial case that isn't worth specifying.

I don't remember what reasons those are, but they're probably bad and should not be encouraged. This is a roleplaying game, not a number maximizing game. If you have the choice between resolving a situation peacefully or violently, those each have consequences.

I vote in favor of setting NPC XP to zero if you make the choice to resolve a situation through peaceful methods and succeed. That is the consequence you get for making a choice to be peaceful. You should not be rewarded for then doing the opposite.

I reject the claim that DoS2 is only about the one thing. The game is not just about roleplaying. The game has a fun roleplaying component, but it also has loot, stats, combat, mechanics, etc. too. If players enjoy other aspects of the game (such as trying to maximize their performance and playing on harder difficulties) why is their experience any less valid? I'd say the game is big enough for both interests. In practice, very few people care only about the roleplaying or only about numbers. The reality is that both aspects combine to make the experience.



No complaints here. You'd probably also have to remove any items they drop too, or in many cases there is still reward present.

-_- Really people? Really?
This is already a thing: just look at game one

And here's the complaints:
"Evil" = more exp = one/two extra levels for hours more work and multiple playthroughs and guides

You have unsuccessfully validated why that extra work shouldnt be rewarded and why the, frankly, small difference is notable.

Right there with ya, it just doesn't bother me at all if it is possible because I wouldn't do it anyways, at least not intentionally. I think your solution is the best and probably really easy to implement too.

Just....no.

Removing the option of player choice by changing a core mechanics because you don't like how someone creatively plays the game advantageously isn't a good idea

I've said this numerous times:
Figure out a way to reward to "good" players, rather than break mechanics, in some really heavy handed and bias formats, to punish "evil" ones.

The loss of the rewards "good" players get should be cost enough.

There're more ways than xp to define reward in a role playing game

EDIT:
The only people this method appeals to are those who wouldn't really enjoy being "evil" and going on genocidal killing spree

I don't follow your argument here. The npcs we are discussing are in the main low level with the combat ability of a dead rat. If you get into a fight with them, it typically lasts a few minutes at most.

What relevance do multiple playthroughs and guides have? These are used (or not used) by players adopting all play styles.

The "work" is minimal and the rewards are disproportionate. In the early stages of Fort Joy, a difference of a single level can changes battles from difficult to routine, so it is not a matter of a "small difference".

Another:


Yes, they do not spawn otherwise.


That XP don't feel given according to difficulty of the fight is at the moment one of the core flaws in the game in my opinion. 600 XP for a silent monk or 1000 XP for Voidling at the ruins feels far to overpaying while more difficult fights seem to yield less. But I can't recall all the numbers.

My complaints about your hamfisting attempt to solve something that's only a possible issue cause of the limited content available has far reaching impact.

So, yes, the fact that levels don't/won't differ much in the end cause of exponential req to level up is important to note.

Those fights you say last a couple minutes will be adding up if someone really wants that extra level at the end cause he'll be having to repeat that for a good long time during the final release.

In fact, anyone who's saying that those couple minutes adding up isn't important should aslo not be complaining about the time wasted repairing items...it's only a couple seconds, eh?? -_- And yet they feel it's important. That's the definition of being a hypocrite.

Then we move onto the fact that you apparently want meta gaming to be a developer concern in an rpg....that's asking for the world on a silver platter. It's infeasible, impractical, and everyone here seems to be targeting a specific playstle cause its in direct contrast to their own and these solutions hold little impact on them overall.

The only point anyone here has been able to reasonably make is that the NPCs are too weak for the xp value they give. Either their combat ability should match their level and exp value or the other two should be lowered to match their combat ability. That's it.

Aside from that, making it so the NPCs have some kind of fallback to actually defend themselves well so that murdering an entire town isn't super simple would be nice as well. Whether in the form of more monsters from divine intervention or the guards being alerted and doing their jobs would be nice.

The note that one level can have major impact in the beginning is barely of note. Fact is: the entire game as a whole has to be taken into consideration. Not some high and low points. This means future content and exponential cost of levels.

2 milliion and 2.5 million xp -> That's hardly a difference if it costs 3 million to hit level 21 and 2 for 20 in the end. This is the big picture we're talking about.

Now let me go back to my original points on this silly thread for maybe solving this in a way that actually makes sense and isn't extremely biased in moral views and playstyles:

1. Don't change core mechanics to fill meta game exploits

2. Use the goddamn setting to creatively make fun plugs for said holes

3. Discouraging an action and making one impossible are different concepts.

4. Player choice should never be infringed upon and all choices should feel rewarding in some manner

5. Making being an evil power hungry hobo barbarian killing everyone for extra power you can't get from being good impossible removes player choice -> this is bad

6. Having NPC exp value, combat ability, and level all be out of alignment is bad

7. Give non-combat NPCs recourse to defend themselves

8. Give good players a reward that has nothing to do with leveling up: items, gear, special optional quests, ect... If a player is being 'good' chances are that he's less focused on combat and 'powah' then he is other things. You can give him some buffs in the form of divine blessings and loot, but the rewards should be tailored to the more pacifist mindset

9. Differentiate play styles with more than exp so that 'good' players feel rewarded for their efforts in a different manner -> this is a restatement of the obvious, but apparently needs saying

10. While evil players should have more combat power in the end, give some notable story differences to make their actions have impact on the world

11. Actually make us give a damn about Reputation by turning it into an ad how karma system: Goo action = +reputation, evil action =-reputation. Let it span into negative values to show 'karma'

12. If the goddamn difficulty is balanced around a particular level (cause we all know level scaling would be horrendous) and a player wants/desires to break that by leveling up elseswhere and coming back to kill everyone or double dipping cause they know which quests/rewards they want need for ultimate power and who/when to kill or cause being evil in a specific area has gains that reach across a few fights...that's called meta exploits. WHICH SHOULDNT EXPLICITLY BE A DEV CONCERN.

Excellent post Aj. I agree 90%. The other 10%, as has already been mentioned. There are several occasions where the 'pacifist option' generates more XP and the being good option generates even more XP, those are already in game. Being 'good' doesn't need any more rewards than it already has. Like WTF does everyone think Altruism actually means? I'm good to you so you owe me something? Like really? Please people, 'goodness is it's own reward', is not just some pretty words. If killing makes you feel bad, don't do it. If it's hard for you to miss 600xp for not killing someone, this really isn't the game having a problem.

I take satisfaction in the knowledge that when my character is the new Divine, the world of Rivellon will be a genuinely better place. I don't need bonus xp or evil people to be forced into being less evil for that to happen.

Now if people want to discuss lack of non-combat solutions to certain situations that's fine, but D:OS and D:OS 2 gives you lots of ways to win without murdering everything in sight. D:OS has never made me feel like I'm erasing entire species of critters like many other RPGs and ARPGs does. How many people complain about that?

Honestly D:OS games feel pretty deserted in many regions after you went there and had to kill everything like in 1 the goblin town or the raided city after you got rid of the raiders. There aren't many games were you can see you doings take effect, deserted places getting new inhabitants and such things. It really felt like you erased goblins out of existence.

Seriously? That's pretty a ridiculous complaint. People aren't likely to be fighting everyone all in a row, but if they do, that is their own choice.

I could gather every crate and vase and sell them for the 1 gold each, but complaining that it takes time and isn't very profitable would just be silly because it would be my own choice.




Wrong. The complaints about repairing are less about the time it takes and more that it is a pointless mechanic which adds nothing interesting to the game.





Game balance is, in fact, a developer concern. In a game with no respawns, if a developer allows players to kill everyone on the map including those who would not normally die, that does have to be looked at, even if they decide "nah that's maybe one or two extra levels by the end and doesn't need changing".




This is a reasonable position.



That depends a lot on what specific mechanics and exploits are being discussed.

It was possible to save-scum for loot in D:OS 1, but Larian decided that was not good for a few reasons (I think largely because it made balancing the loot tables harder), so in the EE, they made it so that loot was generated on first level load and fixed.

I could make the argument that using charisma to convince guards to return to the fort to get the peaceful resolution XP and then before they can leave, triggering combat and murdering them for the combat XP is an unfair exploit.




This depends completely on what you mean by choice. Choices have consequences, and the consequences will inevitably infringe on the player in some manner.



Completely. False. (See above about balance being a valid issue.)

That did bother me a bit. I loved Cyseal, Silverglen was kinda okay, the goblin village and so on were just about there, but I would've preferred more and bigger in terms of settlements. Most Divinity games are like that and I'm an admitted Elder Scrolls fangirl, but I'd like to see more in the way of real life and economies and what-not going on in all regions, and one that's a bit less transient.

Okay, I'm probably still just pining for Broken Valley Village.

Not really a complaint. More a statement of fact on the effort the individual puts in. You could equate it to the same effort as picking up every stone, plate, sea shell, ect .. in game for that extra 200 gold from all the junk value.

I find it silly people are complaining that someone has the choice to do such. Would an extra 200 gold make that big a difference? Should someone not be rewarded for the tedious task upon completion? Should they not even have the option?


In point of fact, it was part of the complaints concerning repairing and why the 'repair all' button was swung about a bit before discussion of just removing it or changing it came about.

I could dig up the posts mentioning such if you'd like. Hell, when I pointed out it was only a second of work and a repair all would shrink that further. The accumulated wasted time was the counter thrown at me.


That's my point: the game is balanced and that balance can be broken, but that's not necessarily a bad thing (1) since its a legit play style and (2) the difference hardly matters much in the grand scheme (refering to my 200 gold comparison).


I'm glad you can see that.


I actually saw nothing wrong with save-scumming loot. *shrug* Larian can choose what they care about or not. But I feel that had more to do with discouraging it since you can still save scum the loot seed if you know how.

Which goes back to my point of 'discourage, but not impossible.'

I also see nothing wrong with the exploit you mentioned. You worked out how to successfully do the charisma trigger and then actually had combat where they could defend themselves.


Yes: choice -> reward and consequence should be given in equal measure.

Evil -> reward: combat ability improved, consequence: lose out on whatever 'good' players get

I've been pointing out that simple factoid all this time.

You're arguing to unilaterally punish one play style instead of rewarding the other.

The rewards of each should be the cost that goes into each choice to decide one or the other. Invariably, double dipping is possible but thats meta and any ad hoc karma system would solve that candidly.


Now, I would refute this point. But you're not really saying anything. So refer you to my earlier point on exploits.

Now, let me draw attention to the fact that, while you seem to have had a thing for discussing meta gameplay and dev concerns over such....you didn't touch anything to do with my actual proposals to fix what ya'll seem to see as a problem

Fixes that I can't actually see anyone disagreeing with unless they just want to be anal about their moral story.

EDIT:
About game balance -> If you're just pointing out that devs have to, well, 'balance' a game....well, yeah. That's kind of implicit in game design. Whether that balance seems lopsided or even or whatever; in this context, I'm discussing the 'breaking' or 'slight tiliting' of said balance through player actions that are allowed b the mechanics given not being a dev concern

I know! And it is glorious!

....Though it's a bit silly to think wiping out a town is equivalent to ending humanity whole lol

You are right. I guess the system doesn't really need a change.

Neither peaceful nor killing are always better than the other option.
Picking the optimal reward every time still doesn't result in a significant level difference, after any amount of time.
Developers should probably leave as-is and focus on more important things.

I think there has been a bit of a misconception as to what I am arguing for. My goal is not to make it so that the "good guys" get more exp than the "bad guys." I don't believe that such a dichotomy even exists. My argument is that, in most cases, how you choose to solve a problem should not dictate how much exp you get from solving the problem.

My current preferred method for dealing with the two people at the entrance harassing the elf is to try to talk them down (sometimes depending on spec/race that isn't an option) and then if I succeed I wait until the civilian is safe and kill them. This is a very specific case where my primary concern is the safety of the innocent and my secondary concern is dispensing justice which creates a circumstance in which I am power gaming despite not even wanting to. The added experience doesn't bother me that much and I no longer feel terribly strongly that it needs to be managed, but the difference between the core solutions is still there and is a problem.

If a character decided to rampage through the game leaving none alive in their wake, I would expect that characters level to be similar to someone who did a more traditional playthrough. (perhaps a bit lower since they likely killed a lot of people who granted quests without completing them) Conversely if I decided to go through the game harming as few people as possible (within reason) my player experience shouldn't be impeded either.

So it begs the question, how significant is the impact on play if people playing through the game get significantly different exp values based on how they decide to handle the situation? I would say pretty significant since it has already caused a big enough difference to where people playing through casually, including myself, noticed without provocation. The difference is within manageable levels currently, only causing certain encounters at certain times to feel more challenging, but this is a problem that need not exist and would be easily solved.

So forget about meta gaming, forget about good, and forget about bad. I think we can all agree that we don't want to feel punished for playing the game the way we want to play it and the current system does that for pretty much everyone right now at some point.

You can certainly go ahead and gather all those 1 gold items... but you can't reasonably then go and complain that it takes too long and isn't very profitable.




That is less relevant than the fact that if repair was more meaningful, people would be less inclined to complain about it.

To pretend that the complaints are only about the time it takes, and ignoring the larger issue is being disingenuous.




More ridiculousness. You personally like the exploit and see no problems, so of course in your mind any time spent looking at them is to you wasted time.




I didn't have much of an issue with save-scumming loot either, although I only did it in a few specific places where a chest always dropped a spellbook, and I tried to get ones which fit characters in my party and which I did not have.

I disagree with you that there is nothing wrong with the exploit. The players have a choice to make: whether to fight or to talk. The choice should matter.

What if, for example, there was an easy exploit which allows players to say duplicate items, so they can buy everything with tens of thousands to spare.

Do you believe that the devs would have no business fixing that item-duping exploit?




I wouldn't say that. I am arguing against giving undeserved rewards, such as 700 XP for the easy-to-overwhelm-with-4:1- turn-ratio Silent Monks, and deliberately exploiting the game to try get double rewards by talking an enemy out of combat (gaining XP) and then fighting them (gaining XP)

PS, you don't need to kill the goblins in the goblin village. You can get through with 1 death or none at all.
so, if you really wanted to save the goblins.. it was possible.



And I will make the argument that such a tactic is legitimate and even has tactical articles on its proper use. It also has a term: 'deception'!
Pretty fancy right there, not abnormal for you not to have heard of it, but it is used regularly in combat and war. See history for any number of examples.
tl:dr. best time to kill a guard is when you've successfully convinced him you're not going to.

This thread is a non issue people. There is no reason to buff experience for not killing people; those buffs are already in the game and good players don't need to do bad things to win; Everyone has also agreed that some enemies are far too weak and present too easy an opportunity for the experience they give. Double dipping, meta-gaming, bad, good, all the arguments to change the current way of doing things are fairy tale 'make good guys win more' and 'fix the way the world works in your fictional game' or worse, 'I'm too stubborn to stop arguing about it'.

Also, I find it funny that several people who are arguing for less killing experience killed everyone in the village of peaceful goblins in D:OS.

I didn't complain at all. I fail to see why you seem to think I am. I'm pointing out the amount of tedious work put in for small/negligible long term gains being a legitimate player choice and that these situations are comparable, yet no one here has complained about the 'unfair' advantage the example I provide gives over players unwilling to do the same for whatever reasons they want to give.


I didn't pretend nothing nor did I ignore anything. I merely pointed to the hypocrisy of those in this thread who didn't want to give value to the time a player spends killing NPCs because it 'takes only a few minutes per battle.'


You've yet to convince me the exploit is wrong. Remember that it's your side trying to validate your reasons and that a problem exists. So, convince me that the exploit is wrong.

Also, it's less an exploit and more actual role playing: it's called deception. Wringing out things to get as many gains as possible from NPC interactions is within the realms of an RPG.


The choice should matter. You seem to be willfully ignoring my suggested fix to this: Reputation = karma, one, and, two, more rewards in the realm of being good, such that there are actual losses to simply killing someone. This can come in the form of many things other than exp.

The choice and consequences shouldn't be to fight or talk, but seen in the light of: to help them or help myself? to kill them or help them?

Making these choices more long term impactful beyond the immediate exp (ie Reputation) is an elegant solution to giving greater weight to choice and consequence.

Edit:
Also, the problem with your example is that it has no conceivable upper limit and can therefor just keep widening the gap between players.

The current system has a defined upper limit and the gap between that hard cap and the soft cap most players will reach is small.



1) You've yet to convince me double rewards are a dev concern explicitly
2) I've given a handy-dandy point of agreement on raising combat level, to match exp value and level, in some form
3) You shouldn't be thinking on how to make double dipping impossible but on how to make it discouraged so that long term costs outweigh immediate gains (ie karma system)


Changing exp for kill is bad, there are better ways to solve this perceived problem without infringing on such a basic and intuitive mechanic. I've given some points on how to resolve this situation(s); review them, think on them, and then try and come back to me and explain how you dislike them.

Debating with me on the fact that I find the existence of this thread sill, instead of the input I gave in response to said thread, isn't really accomplishing much.

The only reason for this is the lack of content at the moment. I refer you back to D:OS. The system on exp was essentially the same.

>'Good' solutions to quests gave more exp, on average, than any other solution other than double dipping

>Long term impact a certain play style gave was ultimately negligible cause of the amount of bonus exp for being good

>Even double dipping had little impact in the end

>The only reason this issue has jumped out to anyone is cause the limited content and exp sources at the current moment combined with the low level area of the EA mean each point of exp has more weight than normal. This weight value depreciates over time in D:OS as you level up and interact with more quests due to the variety of exp rewards given based on playstyle and the exponential cost of leveling req.

Which is why i find this silly: The only reason this is so obvious at the moment is cause of the limited content. Full release will functionally void all complaints cause ultimately the level differences in the end, no matter player action, will not be significantly different and the functional combat ability will neither.

The reason why the differences between level 20-23 don't really matter much is because the characters will functionally work the same with larger numbers. There are no appreciable differences and the combat will largely play out the same given how strong builds always get by end game anyway. It's essentially nitpicking in doing 90% damage to final boss health per turn and 110% damage

Edit:
In D:OS, the difference between being level 12 and level 11 could be very significant due to skill req and stuff. Each step to finishing a player 'build' was important.

This difference between individual levels shrinks as time goes on as builds get finished and fleshed out, such that the difference between levels 15-16 is much more marginal as people are just tacking things on that they like to a certain combat style rather than feeling any significant gains.

We've both said our peace on the exploit. You and others think double-dipping on both persuasion and combat XP is totally legitimate, and I do not for reasons I've already articulated.

I'm not particularly trying to convince YOU. I'm content to just offer my perspective and let Larian decide what, if anything they wish to do about these situations.


You have some decent ideas even though we disagree on a few points here and there. So you want to know my thoughts about Karma? Well, it's really hard to say without understanding what exactly is the effect it will have.

Is it something which only gives a reward later on for maxing out a meter? (And if you're not either pure evil or pure good, there's no big reward?)

Or is Karma a system to restrict quests and NPC reactions? So do too many evil things and whoops a several quests are locked out? That might be an issue in games with limited quests and opportunities to change your morality. All the games I've seen with such meters have respawns as part of those games, although I might not remember or be aware of some others.

I do not find "Just add Karma, problem solved" to be a convincing solution, at least not without defining what Karma is and what role it plays to solve such problems.




I don't agree with a "shut up, it won't matter in the full game" stance. You don't KNOW that, and it's completely legitimate to bring up concerns now and let Larian decide if they are valid or not.

You're point on just giving feedback to Larian is fair, but I was hoping discussion in this thread would make headway to a unified opinion/feedback that everyone could stand together behind united. This would make it so the feedback had a much higher chance of being listened to and taken into consideration and all parties walk away satisfied.

Which is why most of my responses are targeted to the posters in the thread, instead of just leaving my input and walking away.

And what I want to know is input on:
*karma system
*non-exp reward ideas for 'good' player that are more pacifist
*changing NPC combat level to match level and exp value
*ideas to give non-combat NPCs the ability to defend themselves other than swinging fists ineffectually
*ways to define 'good' vs 'bad' action impact on the world

- 'bad' in this case refers to all decisions to kill any innocent NPC in something other than defense, so double dipping would count

The karma system, as I imagine it:

- Reputation would represent karma level and span both into positive and negative direction

- Reputation would effect NPC interactions and available quests and loot and ect... There would be both a minimum karma level the NPC would require to interact with in certain ways

- Evil would be more about getting direct, selfish power. Most law-abiding NPCs wouldn't give loot, handouts, and free quests to mass murders. This would also help stop double dipping in some instances. Some notable NPCs might appreciate the evil PC and give memorable quests.

- More neutral NPCs might give quests with exp but less loot. Desperate ones, the missing child, would remain unaffected because of setting

- Good would be more about helping others and receiving gratification in happy things in happening and unique loot and interactions

- Karma specific loot and skills

- Maximizing karma (one way or the other) would net unique rewards (ie Talent named Savior/Lucifer, unique loot, and/or unique skills)

- All quests would have both a good, evil, and inbetween options. Thus, if someone got locked into good quests they could tailor there actions to change karma and change sides.

- Limited reputation/karma rewards would direct whether someone went more evil or good or bounced between them for more neutral play-through. Someone shouldn't be able to do all quests after all.

- There could also be actions that always give reputation to a limited degree if it was needed. Giving up exp by praying to god for forgiveness or killing someone/something innocent, for example.


This an understandable stance. I'm mostly basing my reasoning off D:OS. While we can't know for sure that things will work out the same, we can reasonably take an educated guess. There's nothing in 2 that implies they wont follow the same limited exp concepts and many things that support it, so I'm working under the assumption that things will work out the same as game one.

*shrug* I could be wrong, but I don't think it's wrong to use game one as a good example to how some mechanics can/will look in the full picture vs specific situations.

Does bad have to mean more exp and good more loot? It could go in both ways. If you are good enough a quest giver perhaps gives a follow up quest, yielding more XP in total. If you kill him you get perhaps some of his special stuff but less XP.

Or a quest giver could offer you access to his vault, if you are famous enough to have him impressed. If you are infamous he will have his troops enforced, because he is afraid of you. The fight would yield more XP but the vault would be locked behind a magical impenetratebal field. Of course it could aswell go the other way, evil guys are more afraid of you and will gather more troops to keep them safe of you.

Killing someone could offer a body part teaching a rare skill, but perhaps this would be to elf focused.

Being good or evil can influence persuasion. Some people are more open to a good guy or more easily threatened. Other people will immediatly fight you, because you are that evil or that good. Meaning some quest will be only available for either side.

If you stay neutral, you perhaps will earn more money instead of loot or XP like an mercenary.

Honestly I think a simple solution is to just try and give nonviolent solutions an equivalent amount of EXP for killing everyone in the encounter. You should be able to roleplay how you want and think with your head for the smartest/best solution. Sometimes that might involve slaughtering everyone, sometimes it might not be fighting at all. You shouldn't be objectively penalized for not killing everything that moves.

You are not penalized. Several posters have in fact demonstrated (in game) that you get more experience by not killing everything that moves. So this is a non issue.
The current debate revolves around the concept of double dipping. i.e. getting the quest exp (more than you would by just killing) and then killing the guys.

It doesn't matter which side has the advantage, they should both be the same. It's not really a hard sell, but people seem to hate everyone being treated equally in this thread... :-/

I don't think it's that at all.

"They should both be the same" doesn't negate the problem of "double-dipping" as this thread is about, meaning you complete the quest the "right" way and then kill everyone for more experience points.

The counter-argument is that "double-dipping" shouldn't be a concern for the developers because there's more than one way to play a single-player game like this.

I'm a role-player at heart, which means I will generally complete quests the way I picture the character I'm playing would. If I'm playing an upstanding knight-type character, for instance, I'll try to avoid stealing and murdering to get what I need. It also means that I'm not really concerned with obtaining all the possible experience points the game has to offer.

Another person may prefer to play the game more like a testing ground for their builds and pushing every corner of a character's limitations by getting as much experience as possible and pushing themselves to the absolute limit the game will permit.

Neither way is "wrong," and neither way has an "advantage" over the other because they're both simply ways to play the game how you enjoy it.

The arena uses premade characters with predefined abilities and gear sets, so it's not like the number-cruncher is going to have a statistical advantage in arena PvP (at least not by virtue of having a character that "double-dipped" in the campaign). And in multiplayer, assuming you can import characters into other players' games, if you don't like the fact that someone "double-dips" or it impedes your enjoyment of the game because they're so much more powerful than your character at the same point in the game, then simply don't play with that person. Instead, find someone or a group of someones that enjoys the game the same way you do.

It really is a non-issue for a single player game like this.

If it were a real issue, several viable solutions have been proffered and the developers could easily just flag quest-givers and quest-related NPCs as "indestructible" once their related quest is completed so a player has to choose between slaughtering them or completing the quest the non-violent way. The problem here is, however, that you're forcing a player to play a single player game a certain way, which is inherently a bad design philosophy in this day-and-age.

I agree with most of your points. Double dipping is basically a non-issue for most players, but I strongly dislike the idea of making any npcs invincible, outside of plot reasons as to why someone might be invincible. I am not saying because they are needed for the plot, but actual story justification as to why they would be.

This is actually good feedback and I'm honestly not really disagreeing with anything you said.

Traditionally, though, 'evil' characters are the ones that would be power hungry. They would be the ones to double dip in a quest for the sake of power and betraying the quest giver. It makes a sort of intuitive sense that 'evil' would playthroughs would revolve around attaining greater direct personal power for a PC.

'Good' PCs generally care less about personal power, but the trade off is influence that can be used to get things. Of course, infamy does the same to a limited degree, but it makes more intuitive sense that more people would be willing to help a 'saint' and that they would be more giving when they 'help.'

As you said, I imagine neutral PCs as those who make more money and gear and might have slightly more combat power than 'good' PCs. A more mercenary playthrough, as you called it. Intuitively, a mercenary generally stronger than a 'good' guy, weaker than the straight up 'evil' one, but also focuses more on material gain and balancing influence, rather than the more lopsided balances of 'good' vs 'evil.'

As you said, depending on how things work out, XP differences per playthrough can change based on quests in such a way that doing the 'evil' quest line or 'good' one nets similar rewards. In this case, double dipping would be the only thing that unbalances things but I already pointed out why I don't think that should be an explicit concern and it matches the 'evil' archetype.

i don't think he was suggesting the method as something that should be done, but pointing out that it was a developer solution in MP games to stop double dipping cause of balance concerns.

In MMOs this is quite common, actually. It's, obviously, hamfisted, but the problem there lied in that the devs are working with too many things at once, with too many players at once to do anything more elegant with the system.

Your complaint still does not make sense. I assume you mean that you have information of how the parts of the game which we have not played yet are designed and that the XP balance deals with the issues under discussion. Is that so?

Do you know that the XP awards for killing vendors etc. in later zones do not increase exponentially as well? This seems to be a hidden assumption.

If you read my comment on time again, you will see that I gave an UPPER BOUND for the time taken. I would in fact be surprised if many lasted more than a few seconds unless other NPCs join in, but if you intend to kill them all anyway this could make the process even more efficient.

I would also be grateful if you could point out where I have complained about the time spent in repairing gear. You are in fact ascribing views to me which I do not have. Weapon repair can be dealt with efficiently so that it does not take up too much time.

As for the charge of hypocrisy, I will only point out that when you point the finger at someone, three more are pointing at you.

Double-dipping will most likely make you evil anyway over time. So some stuff will get automatically locked away if you try to double-dip. And even if you could manage to stay 'neutral', really good and bad stuff would stay locked away.

Questing for a evil one makes you infamous, killing him afterwards perhaps gives you bit good back, but will it compensate the bad influence from the quest? On the other hand helping someone with something good will give you fame, but killing him afterwards will be most likely worse. Evil acts have always bigger influence than acts of good.

The hipocrasy was a general point made at others in the thread. If it doesn't apply to you, don't worry about it.

Also, on this point, I've never complained about time taken to do a task in game. I like tedious tasks. I spend hours grinding, picking up junk items, messing with the crafting system, ect...80 hours in D:OS on is me basically just doing tedious tasks back and forth. Thus, I can't be a hipocrate.

The exponential gains of killing NPCs isn't a thing. All XP values are based off NPC level and some other factors, but is in fact static.

My basis of reasoning is logical application of looking at game one, looking at game two, and seeing that XP works the same way for all intents and purposes.

While, I could be wrong and a level 1 NPC XP reward on kill might change over the course of the game I find it highly unlikely.

My points on exponential costs for leveling can be seen in the EA and further supports the idea that leveling and xp gains work the same as in game one.

Further, you seem to miss the fact that I readily agree that NPC combat level, actual level, and XP value should all be aligned. It currently isnt.

As for your Upper Bound.....it doesn't really matter. If it takes one second to kill any non combat NPC...and there are 120 in the final game. Then someone who killed them all, spent 2 minutes more than you on combat. Those 2 minutes should feel rewarding for the time spent. Obviously this as an extreme case, but still. Maybe the extra 2 min = 200 gold. Realistically, killing all the NPCs takes a good bit of time and effort. Have you ever attempted it in game one? You'll be there for an hour or two at the extreme lower bound, but a couple hours on average.

**Please read everything I write on th thread before hashing at specific points. It's possible you overlook the fact that I do in fact address them

I agree with just about all of this :P

Maybe you could try and flesh out the karma system idea? You seem to have a much better handle on it then I do and it seems what your saying might actually make everyone happy or at least need very little tweaking for all parties to be satisfied.

I guess the basic concept would be like this:

Good:
- People trust you more easily, opening 'good' quest lines and giving bonus on persuasion in some case I guess.
- Good and neutral vendors will offer better prices, at least if you helped someone they know perhaps.
- Everyone evil will be hostile on sight, some evil will have enforced their groups or locked away their treasures.

Slightly good aka Neutral aka Slightly evil:
- You always get the option to demand rewards.
- Neither side will be automatically hostile just because of your 'fame'. There still can be other reasons like 'Magisters'.
- You have access to all vendors. Being 'slightly' might have positive or negative effect on the prices tough.

Evil:
Same as good, just the other way around. Gives of course other persuasion effects because you are more intimidating and less trust worthy.

Pure evil:
- You are so infamous, even the evils are afraid of you. Both good and evil forces will enforce themselves against you and be hostile on sight.
- Only few vendors will still be available for trade, because they don't bother being undead, demonic or whatever.
- Normal NPCs will flee your presence.
- Perhaps pure evil questline from the chaos god or so?

=> Evil deeds are always of bigger impact, than good ones. Fullfilling a good quest line but later killing the quest giver will mostlikely give you more evil than the quests gave you good for example.

The alignment does not depend on reaching a specific number of good or evil, but on the comparison between 'good' & 'neutral' & 'evil' deeds you did.

But I guess, it will be hardly implementable in the actual game without heavy overhaul.

I noticed 2 specific examples. If you smash the annoying gits jar you get 12500XP (as opposed to zero if you suck it up). The other jars make no odds either way. If you manage to talk your way out of fighting the sulky blinded soldier you get nothing but if you kill him you do.

There is no logic really. Sometimes being nice gets you XP, sometimes not. If you got the same XP whatever choice you made it would make it all rather pointless of course.

There is certainly some accounting of behavior though - the rat by braccus shrine said he wouldn't talk to an evil bastard like me on one playthrough rather than telling me about the levers. Perhaps I killed his mum by mistake - who knows.

Perhaps it is possible to maximize XP on each encounter (I'm trying it now as I want to see if I can get to level 9 - I'm not sure if it is possible but maybe). To do that you have to be inconsistent though - I normally prefer to play nice and forgive people and not kill them etc.

My feeling is it is fairly balanced. If you play normally you'll get to the end of act one at level 6 or 7 and level up in the last fight irrespective of your choices. I don't think you can get to the last fight being level 8 before you start and I've had a fair few goes at it.

None of it makes any odds though as after level 6 or 7 there are lots of items with +7 or more stats so I find balancing the random stuff I get more of a challenge than choosing for a character.

Being a villain is so much fun and pleasure.

I got to level 9 on the playthrough I did with the latest patch, and that's with a bug that prevented the final boss from spawning (and it's worth a lot). I didn't murder any civilian/passive NPCs even, just all the guards.
Getting the extra XP from a couple of companion dialogs helped, and I did explore everywhere and do every quest.

Edit: On second thought, I did kill all of the silent monks.

What do you get if you "absorb" the jars? When I did it, I got nothing...

I think you get a Source Point if you have had your collar removed and aren't already at 3.

Remove XP entirely. You gain levels at thematically appropriate moments as you progress through the main quest. Side quests grant Loot and Lore.