Zansatsu

You are missing recovery time and that the classes aren't fully balanced yet. Casting a spell in light armor has a 4.2 seconds recovery time before you can do something else, in heavy armor that is 6.0 seconds. Medium armor is probably around 5 seconds of recovery time. Two-handed weapon recovery time is between 1.4 seconds (light) and 2.0 seconds (heavy), so medium would be around 1.6 seconds. Your "battlemage" will cast a spell, than he will have to wait 5 seconds before he can swing his sword or cast another spell. In those 5 seconds, the pure melee character (no spell used) will have hit his enemy with his two-handed weapon around 3 times. Sweet thanks I got it now.

How does it not mean physical strength when it is what dictates all damage type strengths? I understand ya you won't have a lot of HP if you don't pick Con that's not what I'm talking about if this was sort of aimed at me. I'm not trying to argue I'm trying to come to a revelation.

This is a good idea. I would prefer the armor bonus be inherent in their class as opposed to tied to weapon specialization. I was looking at the chart again and I like this concept in theory. I like that Spell Casting in Heavy Armor is not optimal, that makes sense to me. hmmm I think just playing with the numbers would make this feel right.

My issue with it is this, take the Cipher for example. His spells hit hard as ****, pump him full of might and his weapon attacks hit hard as ****, put him in Medium armor, give him a big 2 hander, and you basically have a walking spell casting warrior of F*** you and everything else..... I just think there should be a separation of Spell power and Weapon attack power. It seems pretty Lopsided in favor of Spell casters. I don't know maybe I don't grasp it yet.

That's realistic, I like it. My sides hurt!

No argument there. I'm sure the main quest line will be very interesting. But they don't have any non spoiler side quests they could have showcased that actually had an interesting quest mechanic or story line? This was the most basic of basics. This demo I'm assuming was meant to wet our appetite for what was to come. Maybe not. All it showed me was same old same old. odd. we never looked at the beta as a appetite wetting demo. am thinking we were mislead a bit on that point as game is functional at feature lock and developers is gonna need work very hard simply to make 2014 release. nevertheless, the beta were never advertised as a appetite wetting demo-- quite the contrary. HA! Good Fun! Yeah beta's are to test the system and ask for feedback. Well this is my feedback, the side quests are boring hope that isn't all you got. And if they aren't "showing it off" then why are they traveling the world going to Game Shows and demoing it to people? Seems like a wasted opportunity in a long line of things they might have done better. I'm here posting my ideas to better the game with quest Ideas since all my other ideas are off limits.

Any thought on the armor at all?.... Could use a bit of tweaking imo, if nothing more than changing the length of the penalties around.

No argument there. I'm sure the main quest line will be very interesting. But they don't have any non spoiler side quests they could have showcased that actually had an interesting quest mechanic or story line? This was the most basic of basics. This demo I'm assuming was meant to wet our appetite for what was to come. Maybe not. All it showed me was same old same old.

That one is a good Idea. am done with kill xp debate, 'cause more than you realize, it is moot. that being said, your recognition that the aforementioned would make a good quest is part o' the problem for all our ad hoc compromises. as between a well-developed quest that can be designed to provide multiple solutions v. an automatic grant of experience points, the quest/objective will always be having the capacity for greater options. as we noted above, you could design cartographer quest to allow for dialogue shortcuts or swindling, and kgambit gave intriguing reward possibilities HA! Good Fun! Yup it can if these actually become quests. I have a feeling they won't. Also I'm not debating Kill xp anymore, I'm coming up with objectives that I hope to see in the game that will make the play through more fulfilling. You can achieve all these things without quests as well with other forms of XP, but again it's moot. As it stands if the quests available in the game are all in the vein of what we have seen as their showcase demo, then I'm bored already.

I see the logic here. Wizards, Cyphers, Druids, Chanters can all carry 2handed weapons and deal high damage, wear Heavy armor, And blast people with very powerful spells.......Granted there is accuracy differences but your point if valid. Seems very lop sided.

I don't think there should be 0 penalty for wearing armor, simply that those character who are encouraged to fight in melee, like all the characters with the +20 melee accuracy, shouldn't be as penalized. They are designed to be more in harms way and it feels like punishment if ranged character are exactly the same.

And then someone walks by, accidentally bumps into that 10 watermelon head. Balance is pushed off kilter. Next thing you know, he's fallen and he can't get up! How's he even getting inside places to begin with!

His neck muscles must be epic!

I'd still like to see more incentive for more traditional tank characters to wear heavier armors. Fighters and Paladins with the ability to master heavy armor (minimal to no speed reduction). Barbarians and Priests in medium. Rogues Rangers in light. I love those archetypes, and see no reason to totally throw them to the wayside. You can still have the heavily armored wizard character if you desire, but it's going to suffer a large penalty to attack speed. I concur, the homogenization that goes on between no bad build and all that imbalances things in ranged characters favor. Sure wearing heavy armor as a mage is cool but it detracts from your more tank oriented classes if the penalties are exactly the same. Fighter have to be in mele range or they are useless, not so with mages. This is true but still it says to me, ok on lions and beetles and things with no range, I'm going naked for the damage increase. Then if I encounter some Mages or Rangers I will slap on some armor if needed.

They should probably reduce the Attack speed penalties from Heavy Armor and remove them completely from Light and then adjust all the attacks from there.

The reward upon completion of the "cartographer's quest" might be a map that results in some previously hidden area being revealed on the world map with a hidden treasure to be found there, or perhaps a permanent boost to the appropriate stat or an equippable item that grants the same You could also do the same with discovering certain landmarks; a statue here, a ruin there, etc. It's kind of a nice idea - gives out some exploration xp - doesn't have to be a lot for each step - and then add a reward at the end. I also like the Monster Lore proposal from earlier. Small rewards for filling out a bestiary entry completely either xp and/or a combat bonus against that monster type with a larger bonus for compiling the whole bestiary. But I see it has some issues around promoting combat as a preferred play style. *sigh* I agree it isn't perfect especially if you are playing a druid, although there are some creatures druids feel are out of the natural order and must be destroyed. However it could award something other than experience per se making the reward more of a "creature" comfort. A fun reward or bonus that isn't something mandatory for progression. Your Idea about the maps giving locations to secret areas and treasure is more along the lines of what one could get from the Cyclopedia completion. Perhaps the quest is given out by some scholarly Wizard in a university poring over his books of creatures. He asks you if along your journeys you come across any new creatures, please bring him back all you discover. As you bring pages back, he could give you potions or trinkets or equipment that would aid you on your journey. Then at the very end if you Complete EVERY entry perhaps XP or maybe just an EPIC piece of armor. He could let you choose 1 item from the Armory or something. Edit: You could add in a Druid motivation by making the Wizards primary goal be about preserving the species. If they know more about them they can establish proper sanctuaries or more easily capture them and such.

That one is a good Idea.

See we can agree on things! Also giving xp for filling out the Cyclopedia is sort of a nice objective that gives people on both sides a more satisfying reason to engage in combat. For the quest Xp people it is tied to a real ingame reason for doing such things and it would also help satisfy people who feel that they have made combat pointless.

-If the Cyclopedia weren't linked with lore then completely filling out a page on an enemy monster could give XP. However, doing this with Lore governing the speed that the Cyclopedia fills in makes it a required skill. This is less of an issue if NPCs with high Lore help fill the Cyclopedia out. Has anyone tested this? -XP could be granted for crafting items. That is all I have atm. I made similar suggestions here. Especially as it pertains to the Cyclopedia because as I see it Lore is pointless atm. Really all the enemy Information will be posted online not far from launch so by giving some reward for filling it out seems right to me. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68164-a-different-view-on-the-whole-xp-controversy/?p=1500282

I didn't mean it like that. I like the fact that you put forth something instead of just shouting people down.

I simply want more ways to gain experience than flat out questing. I would prefer the old tried and true fun as hell IE way but that is off the table. So where can we go from there?

See now this is an Idea. This thread was about ideas not yelling at each other. We can do that in all the other xp threads. How is that different or easier to implement than combat xp. I mean if you make it a marginal xp gain, might as well not have it, and if you make it substantial, then there might as wel be combat xp. At least that's how I understand it, but I'm half asleep so. edit: Might as well have rare or "elite" enemies give xp or something. But this is pointless, you either have combat xp or you don't, no point in half arsed solutions. It isn't. I didn't highlight it because of that. This thread was, assuming combat xp would never happen, to be about ideas that Obsidian might bend on and get in. So if we had any common ground between the Hard core Quest XP's and Combat XP's to meet in the middle with Objective xp ideas. I think there is some.

Hard to do if you don't believe the PE system is indeed garbage. I am leaning, at present, toward thinking the system could use more Objective XP dumps for exploring the maps, completing major map objectives (killing the spider queen maybe or sub-boss mobs in general), clearing the fog of war, etc. I don't believe that just going back to a more pure kill XP system (I know the IE games had Quest XP too) is the necessary, nor necessarily the right, answer at present. I think adding an XP reward for clearing the FoW (or a percentage depending on the map layout) would really help as players that want to kill everything can do that, but others can scout the area and avoid the little encounters they don't feel they need to engage in can do so. See now this is an Idea. This thread was about ideas not yelling at each other. We can do that in all the other xp threads.

@luridis, ya your right it does limit the rest, it just feels like it does it in a way that punishes the player for using the characters how the seem to have been design specifically to function. Thus there is a disconnect in the way I feel they have set combat up. Perhaps tweeking the ratios will fix it all.

Not having all of your possible abilities at level 1 is frustrating. Losing a fight is frustrating. Having your tank one-shotted by RNG 10 seconds after the fight starts is frustrating. This loot sucks is frustrating. All the fights required to get from here to over there is frustrating. Extreme difficulties are very frustrating. So, let me ask you... What specifically is different about the frustrations of strategic health concerns than everything mentioned above that warrants it being a serious issue, while those other frustrations are more or less expected and accepted?? Is it because it's just a new frustration, or is it something else? I'm speaking for myself here, but it seems like over complicating a system that I personally think could have been fixed more easily and intuitively. Want to prevent rest spamming? Fine limit the number of rests one can perform without going back to town. Want to limit the fighting day, fine add a fatigue mechanic that kicks in and applies debuffs to your party which stack if you choose to go on until you rest. Why this? That's all I'm wondering. Why add another mechanic instead of just polishing combat. Just because I think this was a strange decision doesn't mean I can't hack challenging RPG's. Half these forums are all posts about the mechanics of the old games being poor design choices. Does that mean the old IE games where not challenging and those people aren't ment to play CRPGs. Come on now.