EXP is not divided? What? Why?

[AAKURTZ]

So if you have one character and are rewarded 100 EXP, the character gets 100 EXP. If you have seven characters and are rewarded 100 EXP, each character gets 100 EXP... What!?

So the task is now 7 times more rewarding (700 EXP) because you have more people? Have the developers ever made (or played even) a role playing game? This just seems ludicrous to me. Not only does it remove play choice of having a party of his/her favored size, it rewards you for getting a large party ASAP.

Got a cool gun or a spent time leveling up? Its worthless, just get another party member, increasing inventory size, loads extra AP, and about 30 extra skill points. As someone who really doesn't want to have 7 ♥♥♥♥ing people in my party, this is a huge turn off.

If someone tells you, "its just preference man! Don't use 7 if you don't want to!" That's like saying, "Hey man, if you like the starting gear, just stick with it for the whole game!" Preference doesn't matter when it effects game balance so massively. Honestly... No idea how this got past people with a "long history of RPG knowledge".

[HoverMask]

You need one of your pokemon to hold exp.share item for that.

[jtaylor808]

Use the extra team members as pack mules/ bulllet sponges!

[Sammy]

It's designed as a party-based RPG, so you have up to 7 characters in your party at all times. You can try playing with a small party but the developers aren't obligated to make it easier for you.

[AAKURTZ]

It may have been intended to be a party based RPG, but that's not really accurate if you look at the design. By design, its made to be a seven person party game specifically.

[CrUsHeR]

facepalm

[SevenFiftySix]

If I'm remembering correctly, xp from specialization stuff like disarming mines, medic, and picking locks are not shared, just kills, merit bonuses, and quests. Maybe some special one-time events and such too, but I guess you're not talking about those.

I'll admit I'm not sure what the issue is. Most RPGs where you have more than one character have some form of xp sharing to keep you from ending up with your less combat-oriented people 7 levels lower than your bullet sponge heavy hitters. But seriously, just don't use 7 if you can't manage it. In theory you can beat the game with a single ranger too, though that would admittedly be.... difficult. You can always recruit the npc, take them to the citadel, get the merit boost, then dismiss them. If you REALLY hate them, empty their pockets and put a bullet to their head old yeller style.

[jtaylor808]

I have to agree that it seems like it's designed to be a seven party RPG, specifically. You can run less than that, but from what I have played it seems that less than seven would be very difficult especially in the hardest difficultly. You would have to look at this as the minimum. It just seems to help if you want to max skills, which "I Guess" might be helpful in the full game. We will see soon.

[AlexMBrennan]

Honestly... No idea how this got past people with a "long history of RPG knowledge".

I guess you didn't play Baldur's Gate then - the concept of "shared experience" (i.e. everyone in the party gets 100XP regardless of whether that's one kensage or a full party) is hardly new.

[jtaylor808]

Oh yeah, a lot of JRPGs do this so your less favorite but yet sometimes usefull friends don't become just memories.

[AAKURTZ]

Every JRPG I've ever played divided EXP. All the FFs, Lunar, Chrono Trigger and other Square games. If a fight was worth 1000 EXP and you had 4 party members they each got 250. If you wanted to power level your two favorite characters you could do so and they would each get 500.

To be honest, I'm fairly certain Baldur's Gate did the same and divided it up the way I would want Wastelands 2 to do it. Are you sure we played the same Baldur's Gate?

[jtaylor808]

OK, I see what you are saying, divided and not sperated. But as for the JRPGs, do you have a choice of taking the members? I'm pretty sure you HAVE to recuit them. While this game it is optional. On easy you can probably run just a couple team members.

[Dorok]

It's party RPG, with a variable amount of members, not single character RPG.

The problem of sharing xp is the game will be quickly boring and too easy with a small party. It's that simple. Or eventually the problem will be the reverse ie a party of 7 will be much more hard to manage with shared xp.

I'm bored of party RPG with only 3 or 4 members just because some kids are too lazy to manage more members.

[K. the Land-Surveyor]

I don't understand what XP not being divided has to do with rending a powerful/cool gun worthless.

[AAKURTZ]

Originally posted by Dorok:

It's party RPG, with a variable amount of members, not single character RPG.

The problem of sharing xp is the game will be quickly boring and too easy with a small party. It's that simple. Or eventually the problem will be the reverse ie a party of 7 will be much more hard to manage with shared xp.

I'm bored of party RPG with only 3 or 4 members just because some kids are too lazy to manage more members.

But this game isn't just "not single character" RPG. Its HUGELY slanted toward having the max party size of 7. Why would it be too easy with a small party who just got more EXP? You have way way way less to work with when you have 3 characters verses 7. And I hardly see having to massive party being a weakness on the other end of the situation. The point is, no matter how big your party is, you should be getting the SAME AMOUNT OF EXP and the game should be balanced in a way that allowed that. Especially a game that claims to favor player choice and freedom.

Finally, its not about being "too lazy". Its about a game that that high incentivizes ONE WAY of playing the game. Playing with 7 party members is as important as leveling up and getting better gear.

[Mojo.91]

Originally posted by AA.KURTZ:

So if you have one character and are rewarded 100 EXP, the character gets 100 EXP. If you have seven characters and are rewarded 100 EXP, each character gets 100 EXP... What!?

So the task is now 7 times more rewarding (700 EXP) because you have more people? Have the developers ever made (or played even) a role playing game? This just seems ludicrous to me. Not only does it remove play choice of having a party of his/her favored size, it rewards you for getting a large party ASAP.

Got a cool gun or a spent time leveling up? Its worthless, just get another party member, increasing inventory size, loads extra AP, and about 30 extra skill points. As someone who really doesn't want to have 7 ♥♥♥♥ing people in my party, this is a huge turn off.

If someone tells you, "its just preference man! Don't use 7 if you don't want to!" That's like saying, "Hey man, if you like the starting gear, just stick with it for the whole game!" Preference doesn't matter when it effects game balance so massively. Honestly... No idea how this got past people with a "long history of RPG knowledge".

Well, its more realistic. When you win a soccer game in real life, every member is more experienced afterwards. Experience is not a thing that you can cut in half or accumulate more/less when more/less people are involve. That wouldnt make any sense.