Zansatsu

I'm playing devils advocate here but sandbox style games have very few rules, just some basic stuff, the rest is up to you. Some people like that approach. Minecraft ain't popular for nothing.

Ya I've changed my mind about it. I didn't really like it at first but the more I think about it I realize it isn't a bad system. Just not what I am used too.

I think he was using that as an example of his larger point about developers micromanaging a players experience. im sure we could all use a break from the kill xp discussion pro or con

Flag on the field, unnessissary roughness, post number 11 @primajunta, making wise cracks on American Football for no reason.

No I'm not trying to disagree with you. I wanted you to explain it better which you did. It was unclear to me.

The player has the "freedom" to make the most powerful character they can within the confines of the system. If the designers allow for levitating above your enemies and raining spells down upon them then so be it, but if they don't allow for it then I don't have any right to go, "hey OE, I have a right to fly over my enemies and hit them while they can't hit me because I want things to be easier!!!" The same applies for kiting. Saying that the player has the freedom to make the most powerful character they can on their preferred difficulty setting is fine, so long as we're talking about doing so within the confines of the system created by the designers. Demanding new systems be implemented because you want to be more overpowered than you are on some specific difficulty setting seems ridiculous to me. Fair enough but a lvl cap in and of itself prevents this. At least as it pertains to end game encounters.

It isn't about brushing enemies aside, it about the satisfaction, challenge, and work it takes to be able to achieve making a party strong enough to handle challenging combat in a way where it would seem we could brush them aside.

Hold on now, so you don't think a player should have the freedom on any difficulty to try and make the most powerful character he can and take great pleasure out of the fact he was able to do it?

Give me a break. Video games are all about dopamine injections. Whether it's romancing the elf, solving the trap puzzle or slaying the dragon. Reward is reward. How true.

It depends I suppose on the type of game a developer is making. Zelda for example has a lot of limitations on what can be done in it's world. But when the game design is centered around "freedom" to play how you wish, well then yes play styles should not be preferred.

So what will powerplayers do? They will complete every possible sidequest, fed'exing stuff around the world and always being a good boyscout, no matter if it goes against their party ethics or such.If the scope was to reward questing instead of grinding or powerplaying, it won't prevent people to find ways to maximize the experience gained. Not to mention that combat will become only a mere annoyance. This, coupled with the 'no bad build approach' will make this game very, very tedious. Remember people attacking Bioware for the 'awesome button'? Here we have an entire gameplay designed for the 'something awesome always happens'. Oh, and wave after wave of filler combat too. I fail to see how PoE resembles DA2 in any way like you describe. Not sure how something awesome always happens is related to no xp for combat. Or how dropping enemies on the combat area (and MMORPG like bosses, I guess) is related to regular monster map population like in old IE games. Powerplayers can go play something else. Or play this. Or whatever. Your right, something awesome happening is not always kill xp related, it is a piece of an entire pie where a lot of awesome stuff happens. I do think a game can be made with objective xp that is satisfying. But in order to do that and make the progression feel rewarding, for me at least, they need a heck of a lot more to achieve than what was shown in the beta. This is what they gave us to show off the system. It didn't satisfy me. Maybe it did many of you.

Ya sure why not. I've got two arms, so what if i want to carry 2 shields.

You can choose to reject reality and replace it with your own all you want. Doesn't change reality. Boy your a pill. I'm not even talking to you. Your statement goes both ways. What evidence do you have to prove it? I've played all the IE games, old republic games, fallout games and on and on. I almost exclusively play through as lawful good. They all provided xp for kills. Now is this proof of anything no, but somehow I restrained myself, or in reality I felt no pressure to become a savage murderer. I'm assuming you couldn't or you wouldn't be so hopped up over it.

Ya it keeps coming back to this. Gaining xp through combat in a properly designed game that implements all forms of xp gain, does not slip you into I must kill everything in order to win mode. I just don't believe that.

'No bad builds' has been a design goal of most RPGs, MMOs, and ARPGs for years, and thus far the only times it has been successful has been when the games are simplified to the point that there are no builds, or at least no meaningful differences between them, like the way classes work in WoW now. Diablo 3, in particular, had 'every build should be viable' as one of its principal design goals, and despite a team of hundreds (thousands? the credits went on for about 45 minutes), an unimaginably vast expenditure of money, and several years of playtesting and tweaking, it failed at that goal as completely as it is possible to fail. At this point, whenever a game designer says 'no bad builds', what I actually hear is 'I have unrealistic expectations'. It's always a good idea; it's never a good implementation. I agree it seems impossible not to have builds in different classes preferable to others. Once that happens, that's the build most people will go for. The OP is spot on as well. It seems nice in theory but really we all want the same thing, for our warriors hit hard and be hardy, and our wizards to be affective spell casters. I think it works better having predesigned sub class.

They could work on the character pathing. It isn't great at the moment. They get stuck a lot.

Hah I forgot about crit. I take it all back!

Um the pot shot was at CatatonicMan. I agree it is annoying when people play grammar nazi. I was serious that you should have given him a taste of his own medicine. Sorry mate. Hard to gauge tone sometimes on the forums. Plus it's 455am where I'm at and I've been up all night. My reading comprehension is shot ATM.

I don't disagree, you will need some Dex, the question is how little can you get away with. Through the talents and then weapons themselves how much hit chance do you need to generally land baring a character with very high deflection. Figure that out and people will take the minimum.

Those of you who like the current system rejoice, it isn't changing. let's just hope they work the kinks out of it. Those of you in favor of another system settle in, it isn't changing. Let's just hope they work the kinks out of it.

Ow, that hurt my English. I think the word you're looking for is "albeit", not "all be it" Posting from my phone so thanks for being the grammer Nazi. People asked for the quote, so I found it. No no you are supposed to respond by making fun of him for being a grammar nazi but failing to point out it is "tongue-in-cheek" not tongue and cheek. Are the pot shots at me necessary? I've been even handed and civil. Also haven't made any direct attacks at anybody from out of the blue.

Ow, that hurt my English. I think the word you're looking for is "albeit", not "all be it" Posting from my phone so thanks for being the grammer Nazi. People asked for the quote, so I found it.

"Everyone in QA and among the OEI devs fights most of the time in PoE. They love blasting critters in red circles with spells and bashing them with morning stars. They also use stealth quite a bit, but often to scout, less often to avoid fights (some more than others). So while the concern is a rational one, people are not entirely rational." That's the quote from Sawyer, it's tongue and cheek, and he is calling the people irrational all be it very politely.

Dude, do you not understand the poll? 90% of the voters want a different XP system than the one that is currently implemented in the game, which is quest only XP (the first option). Do you not understand what a vocal minority is? It probably looks something like the 130 or so people that decided to participate in the poll. To be fair we can only go on people who participate. Saying there is a silent majority but showing no .... Well evidence of it isn't fair.

Valid points all. I'm going to enjoy this game either way. I hope people take that away from me. My criticism is not ment to disparage the game I simply enjoyed the old system and enjoy the discussion. I've played objective xp games. They don't hook me in the same way.