PrimeHydra

Since we're likely not going to have per-monster kill XP, it will be important to not throw too much unavoidable combat at the player. Otherwise there will be a point at which the fighting feels redundant and unrewarding (of course even with combat XP, it might, just to a lesser extent). From my experience with the backer beta there is plenty of unavoidable combat. I hope the final game balances the frequency of such battles against proper rewards. Bestiary unlocks will help; I hope there aren't a lot of such fights against kith. At least, given the ixnay on ombat experience-cay.

Thanks for taking a moment to respond. Bestiary-unlock XP sounds like a clever middle ground, provided the complete bestiary is unlocked slowly enough that we don't quickly exhaust this form of reward. That is, have new monsters in each act. Also, it will be important to design encounters and areas such that we aren't constantly in unavoidable combat situations; otherwise, the major reward (monster body parts) will feel too punitive.

It would be nice to hear a "final word" on this from OE (Josh). Before anyone posts "on X date, Josh said this": It doesn't matter--this forum is its own community, and a lot of us (myself included) did not closely follow everything Obsidian did and said around this topic. I wasn't even aware they'd cut combat XP until after I backed the game. Fooled by Icewind Dale nostalgia! So here's a call for Obsidian to please, please tell us why did you choose to do a non-combat-XP system even though BG, Icewind Dale, etc. all used this system? And just as importantly, are you open to changing it if your ideals (role-playing choice) don't mesh with the reality (combat-heavy game needing rewarding combat) of the final product? Seriously, as fun as it is to debate the merits and pitfalls of combat XP, I'd feel a lot better if we knew exactly why Obsidian designed it as such, how it is bearing out in testing, and what might happen between now and release. If there is really no way that this system is changing, ever, regardless of its mixed reception, I'd just shrug and devote my attention to other aspects of the game. Until then, this remains a glaring issue.

Please color the icons for offensive and defensive spells consistently. Currently most defensive spell icons are blue, but a few are red, and most offensive spells are red, but a few are blue. That coloring is huge in terms of what it communicates to the player. I hope you decide to bring them into line with the IE games in terms of consistency. I realize the icons of the backer beta aren't final, but I wasn't sure whether some spell icons were.

I tried with dotpeek, ILSpy, Redgate Reflector as well. The output always had some weird unucompilable stuff in it. Eventually found on their forums that they're not trying to produce compilable code, due to security concerns. Makes sense...but I'm all set with hacking IL, I'll leave that to the hardcore.

No kidding, we would not make this mistake... Grumpiness aside, I'm thrilled they decided to go with 16 slots per toon!

That's not really mangling, it's because decompilers are not that smart about some high-level C# features like iterator blocks and async methods, so they show you the transformed code rather than its original high-level form. The DebuggerHidden attributes already tells you that this is almost certainly compiler generated code. The name of this method suggests that it should be an async method, but it returns IEnumerator so I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps async is implemented using enumerators underneath. On that note, it's pretty nice that they are using such state-of-the-art features, it shows some high level of expertise with the language and hints that the code is probably of good quality. Would be nice if I could get it into a compilable form. I know "mangling" might not be the right word. How about uncompilable output? It's the same to my eyes

Hats off to you then, you're a serious hax0r. I need my Intellisense

So you're editing the IL directly, not the decompiled (erroneous) CSharp code? Ugh...

Hey Sensuki, how'd you get the beta to decompile cleanly? See my post here. Thanks for leading the way on this front!

There are going to be romances, right? I use both hands for my romances.

Did you get a bunch of errors in PE_StreamTile.cs, in the LoadTexturesAsync() method? It's all mangled... Edit: I'm using ILSpy, and saved the code. Example of what I'm talking about: [DebuggerHidden] private IEnumerator LoadTexturesAsync(string levelName, LevelInfo levelInfo) { PE_StreamTile.<LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B <LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B = new PE_StreamTile.<LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B(); <LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B.levelName = levelName; <LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B.<[DebuggerHidden] private IEnumerator LoadTexturesAsync(string levelName, LevelInfo levelInfo) { PE_StreamTile.<LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B <LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B = new PE_StreamTile.<LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B(); <LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B.levelName = levelName; <LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B.<$>levelName = levelName; <LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B.<>f__this = this; return <LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B; }gt;levelName = levelName; <LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B.<>f__this = this; return <LoadTexturesAsync>c__Iterator2B; } Also tried dotpeek, got other (different) manglings... Telerik JustDecompiler, no love either... How'd you guys get this to build?

actually -- do this. it will make the game better, just as this mod does. maybe we'll have a day-0 mod that fixes all the issues BG2 folk have with PoE. except the romance ****, of course. leave that to bodypillow-husbands. I just might!

Damn I gotta decompile this shiz and fix it!

SSSSSsssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Oh who am I kidding? Everyone on this board has played Baldur's Gate II.

I know, right? Such a great party addition that character was, too! Such a memorable twist.

I hope they can optimize the bujeezus out of load times.

Now add combat XP JUST KIDDING

Right, I just wonder what it was based on, since it creates such a claustrophobic inventory feel.

That looks so much better! 16-slot inventory is much more at home in PoE's otherwise very Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale UI aesthetic. I never understood why they cut the inventories down--except maybe to fit all party members on one screen?

I really hope they're willing to push back that release if it means a tons-better game. Maybe these guys can really crank, but the beta feels a long way from home. Unless they organize their code in such a way that the beta is a long ways behind whatever in-house build they are testing, and they only merge changes into the beta long after they've proven stable? I don't know...

This isn't actually in case in PoE, but give player ability to handle task/quest/whatever village idiot sends you in way that player wants to handle it, which fighting seems to be somewhat default option at least in quest that you can find in beta. I would also like to point out that beta currently locks out some of the options to handle those tasks/quests that can already found from game's files or even changes quests/tasks to alternate more limited version of said quests/tasks from those version that can be found from game's files. The issue of annoying and unrewarding trash mob encounters remains, though. It's cool that you can talk your way out of plot-point fights. But I'd be very surprised if avoiding combat were as easy as their design intends it to be. It's like, they know it's a tactical fantasy RPG, so they put a ton of enemies in it. But then they go and say that striking out to fight said enemies is degenerate and goes against role-playing. If you want fighting to be a special thing for "murder-oriented" players, then design it as such rather than dump all these beetles on us. There are so many other ways to make areas interesting, like encountering NPCs. Do *I* want that? Hell no, I like the combat-heavy nature of the genre; at heart these games were, for me, exercises in tactics, reward through winning battles, with a lot of backstory and flavor. Every title PoE pays homage to was like that. Even Planescape: Torment, paragon of the CRPG genere, awarded experience for slaying monsters. I don't understand what convinced Obsidian that awarding combat XP in a combat-heavy game was a bad thing.

Well, my initial problem was your idiotic assertion that you can't admit you play CRPGs without being shamed or shunned by women. Maybe that can work for a certain kind, heh. You've not done a very good job of arguing that it is a problem in CRPGs, either. Well beyond the ad for a known shovelware game that already ripped off DoW with one last year. I'm all set with arguing anything with anyone who calls me idiotic. Time to move on to more civil discussions.

I respect where you're coming from, Cantousent--do they want to evoke more of a tabletop game, in which experience does not flow from felling monsters? Maybe they do, I wasn't there for the planning sessions. I'm coming from having played and loved all of the IE games, and coming to expect experience from winning fights. The tougher the opponent, the more experience rewarded. That's how it was with Baldur's Gate and its sequel, Icewind Dale and its sequel, plus all of the expansion packs. It was always a part of the reward of combat in those games. That's why for me it was a puzzling omission. I backed Pillars of Eternity because I read the front-page nostalgia pitch for IE lovers, not the fine print describing its punitive reward system (read: No chunk of XP for taking on the Spider Queen). I get that the game isn't Diablo. But every game they're evoking had this mechanic. Based on my time in the beta, it really feels absent. Will I get over it and play the final game? Of course. But when they're honoring Icewind Dale down to the little plus sign when your character levels, it feels empty to not connect a clean sweep of the bridge beetles with a modest gain toward that reward. It's like they want to give us an IE successor--except where it disagrees with their incompatible view of how RPGs should dole out achievement. I don't know, it's clearly a religious issue for people. As a longtime CRPG gamer, it's a weird design to me. Maybe it jibes with some role-playing idealism, but they're kidding themselves if they think for a moment this game isn't absolutely loaded with combat. Why tie leveling up with fighting the "right" monster that some village idiot sends you after? Why do I get experience after clicking the area transition to the second level of the cave, not after defeating the (unavoidable) guardians blocking it? It just plays awkwardly. PS - the "shill" accusation was directed more at those whose flaming, intelligence-insulting attacks make it hard to question any of OE's designs. I'm tired of being called a dopamine addict for favoring XP rewards alongside loot rewards--as if combat XP is something for combat philistines, and other RPG rewards are for the pure at heart.

Alas as anyone who works with code knows, promising updates every X interval can result in some rather meaningless patches. I'd rather they post patches "when they introduce significant changes or fix enough bugs to let you actually beta test systems". It's not that I'm not eager...PATCH NAO!!! BUT FIRST FIX!!