Sartoris
-
Posts
36 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Sartoris
-
-
Sartoris and Immortalis are right about the problems with No XP.
Josh is also right about certain circumstances with where an "all creatures/enemies give you XP when you kill them" system leads to unwanted gameplay.
Why does it have to be one or the other? (I don't think you fairly represented the yellow corner, Mr. Mod!)
- In quest chains, the worry is that if you are asked to side with NPC 'A' or NPC 'B,' siding none and killing all will always be the outcome that nets most profit via XP and loot. While this was true in IE games, this can be balanced by giving no XP is one or the other is killed first, or equal rewards for killing neither or only one, or alternating based on the situation, etc. I hope no one sees this as a problem.
- Trash mobs in IE games gave a negligible amount of XP anyway. So what, 15xp from each Xvart split six ways, whoop-dee-doo! No big loss. But large, powerful creatures, or perhaps enemies above your level or that give some degree of challenge should give you a reward. Do you really want to only be killing things so you can collect the crap they drop and sell it?? It will very rarely be of use to your characters if every encounter works this way.
- Why not give give varying XP, including none, based on the type of encounter? The only reason against doing this that I can think of is that it would require a lot of balancing and effort from devs. Don't get me wrong, this is a valid reason if true, but one that only a dev can comment on.
So... what's wrong with a little of column A and a little of column B? Can't we do a bit of both, specifically to address the problems of either extreme?
If you go back and read the 1500 posts on this topic that are all in the threads that got locked.. I mentioned like 5 ways to get around this abuse.. one of them is close to what your saying.
Yeah, I'm not surprised. I've heard a lot from people who want Kill XP and next to nothing from people who don't. Do these people actually exist?
In the end, as Polanski said, the devs likely are already well enough aware of the pros and cons, I suppose all that's left is to show them our preference while there's still (possibly) a window of opportunity for such a big change to gameplay.
Actually, I'm not sure that they could even make such a big change at this point without delaying the game...
I've waited 14 years for an actual well done successor to BGII. I'm willing to wait longer if we can make Pillars of Eternity that game.
Accept this isn't going to be a BGII successor. It's an infinity engine style game. And last time I checked, BGII isn't the only infinity engine game.
Every single IE game had xp gained by killing monsters (as well and lots of other fun stuff), even Torment for crying out loud.
-
"Your responses seem to suggest you have a lot of faith in the developers to implement their chosen systems in a way that will lead to you having a fun time with this game. Some of us don't share that optimism, or are at least much more wary of this than you are."
you should never be able to claim strawman. ever. you use like an automatic weapon, but then claim others is using, and is typical wrong doing so.
we have faith that quest xp is balanced and simple. the reason we have faith that the developers will implement balanced and simple is because it requires 0 Faith. it is the balancing system o' xp that requires no faith because it is requiring Zero balancing.
PoE will give you enough xp to reach level 10 or 11... am not recalling which. developers is spreading out so that you get that xp in relative even increments basd on QA gameplay. so, yeah, if you is honestly disturbed that you is not getting xp in dribble amounts o' 10s, 50s and 100s xp denominations that is fundamentally more difficult to balance than quest xp regardless o' fact that you will get approximate same amount o' xp with quest xp during similar amounts o' gameplay time, then we has little sympathy for you, and we believe you is deluding self regarding what you think is fun. you will have similar opportunities to level and improve your character regardless o' quest xp implementation and you will be getting same xp regardless o' how others play the game, but simple failure to see ticks o' 10xp, 50xp, and 100xp will reduce fun?
fine. is good to know. Gromnir Does have faith that even the more incompetent developers could use the considerable resources that would go into the ultimately pointless balancing attempts other than quest/task, and use those resources to improve the game in a multitude o' un knowable and non-specific ways.
you don't believe balancing is actual necessary? is a pointless observation. is a major goal mentioned many times as part o' oriiginal kickstarter and since that time, so effort will be expended to balance. choice therefore becomes infinitely simple: do you want the developers to spend a tiny fraction o' resources on balancing xp rewwards that will result in perfect balance, or some other far more respource intensive system that will by necessity end up less balanced. you simply cannot make a more balanced system than quest/task, because it complete ignores the balancing calculus.
that being said, yes, if the ticks o' 10s, 50s and 100s o' xp is essential to your fundamental enjoyment o' the game, as peculiar as that is striking us, then we understand your need to argue... though we again, find your timing... amusing.
HA! Good Fun!
"we have faith that quest xp is balanced and simple. the reason we have faith that the developers will implement balanced and simple is because it requires 0 Faith. it is the balancing system o' xp that requires no faith because it is requiring Zero balancing."
So you have faith because... you... don't have faith? Wha...?
Do you... do you even read the things you type? Are you responding for any purpose other than to try to say other people are wrong for expressing their preferences?
How about I remove the offending word the following way.
Your responses seem to suggest you believe that
have a lot of faith inthe developers willtoimplement their chosen systems in a way that will lead to you having a fun time with this game. Some of us don't share that optimism, or are at least much more wary of this than you are.Is that all right with you? Did I get rid of the scary word now?
And I seriously fail to see how me saying that you believe the developers will implement the quest-only xp system in a way that will cause you to have fun is at all a strawman.
In case you need to be educated, from wikipedia:
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
- Person 1 asserts proposition X.
- Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if that were an argument against Person 1's position.
In what way is saying that you think the developers will create a game you enjoy with quest-only xp an incorrect representation of your beliefs? Seriously how?
Moreover, I'm not even using that summary of what you are saying to argue with you! I'm not trying to argue with you! At this stage I've simply accepted that you are slavishly devoted to the quest-only xp system and believe that is the best choice.
I, and some others, believe differently. And that's ok.
Do you understand that Gromnir? I'm not arguing with you. All the things I've wanted to say have been said. At this point I'm just enjoying watching you flail around in your sad attempts to defend a system that you seem to be irrationally attached to.
-
2
-
Sartoris and Immortalis are right about the problems with No XP.
Josh is also right about certain circumstances with where an "all creatures/enemies give you XP when you kill them" system leads to unwanted gameplay.
Why does it have to be one or the other? (I don't think you fairly represented the yellow corner, Mr. Mod!)
- In quest chains, the worry is that if you are asked to side with NPC 'A' or NPC 'B,' siding none and killing all will always be the outcome that nets most profit via XP and loot. While this was true in IE games, this can be balanced by giving no XP is one or the other is killed first, or equal rewards for killing neither or only one, or alternating based on the situation, etc. I hope no one sees this as a problem.
- Trash mobs in IE games gave a negligible amount of XP anyway. So what, 15xp from each Xvart split six ways, whoop-dee-doo! No big loss. But large, powerful creatures, or perhaps enemies above your level or that give some degree of challenge should give you a reward. Do you really want to only be killing things so you can collect the crap they drop and sell it?? It will very rarely be of use to your characters if every encounter works this way.
- Why not give give varying XP, including none, based on the type of encounter? The only reason against doing this that I can think of is that it would require a lot of balancing and effort from devs. Don't get me wrong, this is a valid reason if true, but one that only a dev can comment on.
So... what's wrong with a little of column A and a little of column B? Can't we do a bit of both, specifically to address the problems of either extreme?
If you go back and read the 1500 posts on this topic that are all in the threads that got locked.. I mentioned like 5 ways to get around this abuse.. one of them is close to what your saying.
Yeah, I'm not surprised. I've heard a lot from people who want Kill XP and next to nothing from people who don't. Do these people actually exist?
In the end, as Polanski said, the devs likely are already well enough aware of the pros and cons, I suppose all that's left is to show them our preference while there's still (possibly) a window of opportunity for such a big change to gameplay.
Actually, I'm not sure that they could even make such a big change at this point without delaying the game...
I've waited 14 years for an actual well done successor to BGII. I'm willing to wait longer if we can make Pillars of Eternity that game.
-
3
-
I'm pretty sure that was your argument.
I'm pretty sure that you don't even try to understand.. I didn't get that from what he is saying..
I think the problem is that I am willing to see your side of the argument.. I totally get and agree with the pluses that no kill-xp is trying to achieve.. my beef is just the method to get there. You and a few others are actually just against the kill-xp system because it seems "archaic" and "dated" 2014 YOLO.. No matter what explanation or half measure I offer.. it's not enough.. inexcusable.. NEVER!
Like you just won't allow it to exist even though people in this thread who are against it.. are explaining in their own words that fighting is lackluster because it doesn't feel like it has purpose.. but nobody is allowed to say.. Kill -XP is missing.. no we have to point and type around that but still we say .. "Theses wolves and beetles and lions are boring and I want some meaning from fighting them"
100% agree. Unfortunately, because people are likely going to feel like the combat, or at least some portion of the encounters (the devs can't design perfectly), are not rewarding enough, when they come across those they will just reload to avoid them.
To Sawyer and Co.:
Please stop trying to make me engage with your content only in the way you want me to. Let me do whatever I want and reward me as best you can. If the reward you give for various playstyles is not perfectly equal, that's unfortunate, but very similar to the games you are seeking to emulate e.i. the IE games.
I would much rather play a game that has the same flaws as the IE games than one that has a whole host of new ones implemented in a misguided attempt to eliminate the old ones. Especially since those new systems don't even eliminate the old problems. They just substitute degenerate gameplay with a different kind of degenerate gameplay.
-
2
-
-
If I'v gained any non-combat experience on this forum..
He would just call us an irrational grognards who love degenerative gameplay and hate balance, if he did show up here.
Then he would once again declare Baldurs Gate 2 as a terrible game, and that we are idiots for liking it, because Darklands is the best RPG ever.
The sad thing is that due to his misguided quest to remove any source of degenerate gameplay from Pillars of Eternity, he's simply introduced it in another form.
I can see the strategy guides on GameFAQs now.
"Ok so we're on the quest to kill the Ogre, so you can safely sneak by the first and third group of beetles, but we might as well kill the second group because we need the broken crown in the treasure chest from the attached room. You'll get another quest once you kill the Ogre to retrieve it."
"But definitely avoid the group of fire elementals on the 2nd floor. The +2 Longsword of Burning isn't worth the likely rest you will need to take between them and the boss. Especially since the +1 Longsword of Might that you have does only 8% less damage..."
UUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHH
The inevitable strategy guides for this game are going to focus on which encounters to avoid and why, instead of providing interesting tatical setups for how to experience them.
-
13
-
-
Here is one of my major concerns with the quest only xp system. It can lead to the player feeling like they should only experience content if there is a quest directly associated with their current activity. I had this thought initially while reading Sensuki's comments about the wolf encounter in this thread.
One of the fun aspects of BG and BG2 for me especially on my first playthrough was simply wandering around. Once you started BG2 Chapter 2 you were simply inundated with quests and new maps to travel to. Although it was often a quest that opened up the new map, you as the player were free to explore that content as you wish.
This would still be the case with Pillars of Eternity's quest only xp system, with one major drawback. If you are exploring an area simply because you enjoy wandering around to experience the content (heck maybe you are role playing as some Gandalf-like figure that wanders around getting cool nicknames and nearly getting smallfolk killed on adventures) and you run across those wolves in the ruins. You dispatch them, but not without taking some amount of health damage or expending a non-zero amount of consumable resources. If those wolves aren't directly tied to some reward then you as a player have just needed to spend strategic resources (or mental effort dealing with tactics) without equivalent compensation.
Maybe you are ok with this, just like some people are ok with playing a character that might receive less xp in BG2 for being diplomatic. If no, then no harm no foul. You move on.
However, maybe not. Maybe you feel like the resources you had to expend to deal with the unrewarded fight was not worth it. This worries you because now you feel like you won't be as prepared to face the undoubted encounters you will face when you decide to actually do that quest that brought you here in the first place. You are now worried that by expending resources to deal with the wolves you have essentially "gimped" your party's ability to complete content that will be rewarded. I could go into detail about why this is silly, but I know there are plenty of players that will think this why.
Why do I know that? Because that is the same thinking underlying the "degenerate gameplay" that Josh Sawyer hates so much. What is so sadly ironic is that by trying to eliminate the possibilities of degenerate gameplay, the designers, with this quest only xp system, have ensured that a portion of players will participate in it.
There is a non-zero number of players who, when faced with the wolf scenario I outlined above, which we already know is in the game, will simply reload and sneak past or never engage the wolves unless they have a quest that requires it.
The only way the developers can ensure that kind of gameplay doesn't happen is to make sure each and every encounter is either tied directly to a quest or tied to other rewards e.g. loot (but not xp!) that makes it worthwhile. By trying to eliminate degenerate gameplay by removing combat, skill, or dialogue xp, Obsidian has just insured that a portion of the playerbase will participate in degenerate gameplay by reloading and not experiencing that content unless it is tied to a quest reward.
This is bad game design. XP is simply another reward system, similar to loot, or plot, or whatever. If you think you can remove degenerate gameplay by having quest only xp you have fundamentally misunderstood why some gamers play the way they do.
Moreover, quest only xp wasn't how the IE games handled this mechanic. So why change it? Considering that the developers laid out their guiding principals for this game as:
Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past:Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment.
Project Eternity aims to recapture the magic, imagination, depth, and nostalgia of classic RPG's that we enjoyed making - and playing.
and
Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving ofIcewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.Why is there not a very high bar for changing these kind of core mechanics? Wouldn't it just be easier to stick to what is known to work (even if its not perfect) so that the development team can instead commit more resources to producing fun and engaging content?
-
13
-
-
Work is hard.. multi classing.. unique classes with special feats.. balanced combat xp.. its too hard... it's too much work to keep track of it.. good thing our "publisher" is now a forum of 15 year old cry babies.. otherwise we might be held accountable and actually need to work a little overtime here and there..
It's interesting to see the huge difference between InXile and Obsidian and how they deal with their community. I am sure many people weren't happy with the direction of wasteland 2.. but at least Brother None doesn't treat / ignore his own community like they are disease ridden pariahs after the checks all cash.
They cant really do anything, every post the devs would do would only generate rage from one side or another. InXile has no real forum for tides of numenera right now afaik. Which is a good thing cause else it would be a immense "why did you go turn based" s*it storm.
You're absolutly right that a response may generate rage on both sides. However, perhaps if the devs said "We will be giving xp for completed quests and skills use, dialogue, and combat because we want players to be rewarded for engaging with content we put in the game in a more intermediate fashion. We realize that this system can be abused by players to seek to manipulate the xp system to extract maximum rewards. However, as Pillars of Eternity is designed to closely implement the IE games, we feel like this choice adhears most closely to that principal."
I would wager that would make more sense to a larger number of players given that the Kickstarter described Pillars of Eternity in the following ways:
Project Eternity aims to recapture the magic, imagination, depth, and nostalgia of classic RPG's that we enjoyed making - and playing.
Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.
But I definitely understand there would be quite a few players who would be very upset given that Obsidian has strongly hinted that this game would be quest only xp. Plenty of players are very exited for that mechanic too. I'm just not one of them.
-
4
-
-
I think anything you do in this game should give XP, whether that be conversations, disarming traps, combat, etc. I don't see the problem here? You are awarded with XP in anything you choose to do.
I can't support these sentiments strongly enough!
-
2
-
-
(quote system died on us again)
"Gromnir, why does it have to be "as simple and straightforward to implement"?
"Surely, when designing a game, the developers should start by asking "What will be most fun and rewarding for players?", and not "What will be the least amount of work for us?""
"Note that I'm among those who are fine with the PoE's XP system (although I also enjoyed how XP was handled the Infinity Engine, with the exception of XP scaling in IWD2), so I'm not trying to be combative, it's an honest question."
answer:
scroll up and read josh quote as provided by indira. balancing a system of xp awards is notoriously difficult on developers and QA.
quest xp balances by not balancing. quest and task xp takes the whole complex mess of coming up with a calculus that appropriately awards for various tasks that will have admittedly startling different frequencies of usage and functionally solves the extremely difficult problem of balancing proper xp awards by taking the balancing completely out of the process. developers make certain that there are opportunities to be stealthy in the game, they make lockpicking useful and rewarding. they provide options to utilize diplomacy and/or guile. the developers obviously don't need to provide an appropriate number of combat encounters as there will be more than enough of those, but they must still need makes combats engaging and varied. however, quest/task based xp does not require the developers to find any proper balance or formula for awarding xp in an ad hoc manner. actions do not have an xp value even if developer must still be conscious of whether or not particular skills are reasonably useful and fun. getting xp is not, in and of itself fun. leveling might be, but not getting xp.... save for in the same way timmy gets his gold star for memorizing multiplication tables up to the 3s place.
why am we suggesting that alternative xp system must be as simple and straightforward as quest xp? because simplicity, elegance and unbreakability is among the main positive attributes of quest xp from the prospective of the developer. the resources and effort saved by functionally solving the problem of balance by ignoring it is more than inconsequential and those resources can be utilized to improve the game in many other unforeseen ways. we cannot say specific what the resources is used for in the alternative, and "a lot" strikes us as woeful vague and unenlightened, but the resource savings is some where between yowzah and Boing!
so, yes, given that a prime attribute o' quest xp is resource savings, one would expect that the replacement system, particularly in the late stages o' a game beta, would need be equal simple and resource cost-effective to be representing an attractive alternative to the developers. am not being unfair by adding simplicity and straightforward to our challenge... a challenge which still has no takers btw.
HA! Good Fun!
"getting xp is not, in and of itself fun"
That's no problem if that is your opinion, but for me it is fun. It is an aspect of the game that I enjoy. I definitely understand that for you, its not. But I enjoy the recognition given to me, in the form of xp, by the accomplishments I make in the game. Before you try to explain to me why I don't actually find this aspect fun or why I'm deluding myself in some way can you please instead try to accept that some people have a different sense of what is fun than you. I understand that this game will reward me for completing quests. I would also enjoy being rewarded for defeating monsters, picking locks, dialogue choices, etc. Different strokes for different folks.
"from the prospective of the developer"
I fundementally reject the need to tailor all discussion to within only the lanes in the road that you keep trying to establish. Yes I am clear that Obsidian has stated that the game will only provide quest xp. However, I think it is useful to provide feedback that this decision will negativly contribute to my enjoyment of the game.
"improve the game in many other unforeseen ways"
What if I want to improve the game by having it give combat, skill, and dialogue xp? That is what I want to do. What is so wrong with laying out my preferences? I realize they may not be implemented. So what. I want to provide Obsidian feedback.
That to me is what is so toxic about your responses to people in this thread. Your comments center on telling people that combat, skill, and dialogue xp simply will not happen and activly attempt to argue with people who are simply stating their preferences. I don't believe your contributions to this discussion are constructive.
Its fine if you want to talk about why you prefer the quest xp system. But please stop trying to tell people their preferences, if different, are somehow invalid. They are well within the designed purpose of this forum to offer those thoughts.
Your responses seem to suggest you have a lot of faith in the developers to implement their chosen systems in a way that will lead to you having a fun time with this game. Some of us don't share that optimism, or are at least much more wary of this than you are.
It should be completely appropriate to express that concern in this forum and indeed in this thread as the original developer feedback echoed that concern. Please stop trying to tell people their concerns are invalid simply because Obsidian seems to have made particular design choices. Those kind of responses do not contribute to a healthy forumn environment. We should be encouraging the free exchange of feedback, all you appear to be doing is explaining to people why their feedback is wrong or otherwise inconsequencial.
-
4
-
-
stuff*groan* am trying to be patient. am not sure what you is tying to achieve with what you think is insightful but is clearly misguided quotes. you will be able to sneak and diplomacy your way past many obstacles and achieve success in may quests. the obsidians don't need tally and balance the weight o' the value o' those skills because all successfully completed quests, regardless o' your solution, will achieve equal payoff. am not certain how to make this any more simple or clear.
as to helm:
"If you guys hate combat XP so much, then why did you back the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate that Obsidian promised us? "
we will get plenty o' experience for combat, but it will be exactly the same amount o' experience as we get if we snuck past all the spiders and then tricked the ogre through dialogue.
we all get to be wieners. yay!
sart:
"Are you saying that for every playthrough of BG2 you always killed every creature you encountered in every instance, always?"
and you complain about strawman? *chuckle*
that being said, especial if we were close to leveling, we would be more inclined to search out a mob to kill just for the experience Points and not 'cause the experience o' combat were fun. thanks for helping illustrate that point even if it ain't what you were hoping to reveal.
"Hopefully that apocalypse of horrible game design will not come to pass. As it stands I am not convinced. I'm worried."
dear lord. you didn't go there, did you?
HA!
HA! Good Fun!
Gromnir, what I did was ask a question of you. I was seeking clarification of your earlier remarks, which you have now provided. I was not making an argument. That is why it was a question.
But hey, my bad for taking such a combative tone that it seems like all I want to do is argue. I'm serious. I understand that for you and some others a quest based only xp system seems fun. For me and some others it clearly doesn't seem fun. I've tried to lay out the reasons why I think it is a bad design decision. You've stated why you think its a good one.
Time will tell. I can say that this is another area where I wish the developers would have stuck much closer to the IE model that they proposed in the Kickstarter.
P.S. And thank you so much for not including your "challenge" on that last question.
-
2
-
-
"But that is because the entire premise is based on a fallacy that I tried to point out to you. No one is cheating you in a game if you choose to play in a way that would give you somewhat less xp as long as that playstyle is still fun."
is not a fallacy. if Gromnir is certain that by choosing a certain play style we is gimping ourself out of significant xp or usefulness or whatever, we will be disinclined to play such a build. you are making an assumption. josh also has observed that while fallout allowed near limitless gameplay builds using special, only a handful ever got widespread use. in spite o' the potential for fun, the reality is that there were only a handful o' builds that were efficacious enough to merit playing. is unlikely Gromnir is alone in his resistance to self handicapping, and while we don't know where josh and other black isle/obsidian folks got his feedback, his fallout observations seem to reinforce our belief.
and keep in mind that josh is not the Sole Arbiter o' all things PoE. seems a bit silly to suggest that this is josh's choice and everybody else at obsdian is meekly following along.
"That playstyle was fun in the IE games. I still play them like that to this day. Once Sawyer got the reigns of complete creative control he chose to implement the systems he prefers not necessarily (that is the key word here because there are people on both sides of this argument) the systems that his players would prefer"
another unsupported assumption? many folks, such as Gromnir, felt that the ie system o' xp awards (we mentioned the silliness o' stockpiling scrolls to memorize for massive xp awards) were horribly broken. we could enjoy bg (not so much) or bg2 without approving of the xp award system. furthermore, let us be honest about the ie games (sans iwd2.) ad&d rules and the infinity engine approach to actualizing ad&d made it much more difficult to build a diplomatic or stealthy character. you are setting up a false choice. thank goodness we ain't stuck with mechanics as limited as we had in bg and bg2. if all we had were horrible ad&d, then perhaps you would have at least more o' a point.
regardless, you still fail to answer our challenge. is a simple truism that obsidian has a goal o' making all builds if not equally powerful, then at least equal viable and hopefully equally fun. so, "provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player." you do not see such a goal as worthy? very well, we already stated much earlier that we were at an impasse because o' this. nevertheless, the goal is to provide juice per squeeze for every build. that is a given. so, provide a xp system that provides equal xp that is as easy to implement. am still waiting.
"I intend to make sure that Josh knows that this design decision will probably negatively contribute to many peoples enjoyment of this game."
the codexian grognards came out o' the woodwork during bg3 development and fo3 as well. am finding particularly amusing that this time it is post beta that we is seeing vocal resistance from a the intransigent few. is kinda amusing timing. good luck though.
HA! Good Fun!
So Gromnir I'll try to take you at your word and see where that leads. You say, "if Gromnir is certain that by choosing a certain play style we is gimping ourself out of significant xp or usefulness or whatever, we will be disinclined to play such a build."
Are you saying that for every playthrough of BG2 you always killed every creature you encountered in every instance, always? Hence you never role played your character in BG/BG2 as someone who seeks out diplomatic and or stealthy solutions to quests? Or if you did so are you saying that every time you did you always went back and killed the creatures you would have otherwise skipped?
This seems.... unlikely at best. Instead I would wager that sometimes you went out of your way to kill stuff, sometimes you didn't. In fact, especially on your first playthrough, I bet you did what felt fun not what metagamed the content.
You say, "josh also has observed that while fallout allowed near limitless gameplay builds using special, only a handful ever got widespread use. in spite o' the potential for fun, the reality is that there were only a handful o' builds that were efficacious enough to merit playing."
The same can be said of the IE games. Most Wizards stacked Int, Priests Wis, Fighters Str, etc. Did this somehow make these game not fun to play? It doesn't seem like it. BG/BG2 is widely regarded as one of the best rpg's (and in some lists as one of the best overall games) of the last 20 years. Having every build be "viable" is is not way a requirement for a game to be fun.
In fact I hold that it actually contributes to the opposite effect. Since every stat does the same thing for every class (Might increases damage, intelligence increases AOE and DOTs, etc) I contend that it actually will make players stick more rigorously to "optimized" builds. The unfortunate thing is that these builds will be the optimal ones for multiple classes. So in the IE games we had a system where there were a small number of optimal builds per class (if you include multi/dual classing there were actually quite a few good but different builds for the same class), to a Pillars of Eternity system where we might see that there are only two optimal builds, one for DPS ranged/heals, one for DPS melee, and one for TANK melee.
Hopefully that apocalypse of horrible game design will not come to pass. As it stands I am not convinced. I'm worried.
You say, "you still fail to answer our challenge. is a simple truism that obsidian has a goal o' making all builds if not equally powerful, then at least equal viable and hopefully equally fun. so, "provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player." you do not see such a goal as worthy?"
I do see the goal as worthy, but the "challenge" you are posing is similar to asking someone to design a internal combustion engine with modern parts that can somehow make a car fly to the moon. Its just not going to happen. Its a silly thing to ask people to try to do, as Azrael Ultima tried to point out with his time xp example. I think you keep offering the challenge in some juvenile attempt to try to say, "I challenge you to do X, but you can't so all your other arguments or discussions are invalid because you didn't meet my (or Sawyer's) challenge."
Well I'm sorry, but I'm simply not going to play your game. I will continue to try to tell you why that is a stupid question to ask given that multiple people have expressed their opinion that the challenge is inherently unworkable, false, or simply wouldn't produce fun gameplay.
-
3
-
-
"You can be free to choose however you want to play the game in an enjoyable way as long as each particular way of playing it is rewarded enough to make the playstyle fun. The playstyles don't need to be equal at all. As long as skills checks are rewarded and good xp is given both for the murder solution and the sneaky/diplomatic solution the everything is fine."
and how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun? quest/task avoids such balancing.
and around we go. serious. is 2002 all over again and nothing new is spontaneously appearing.
*shrug*
doesn't matter though regardless o' what you think o' Gromnir pov, obsidian/bis has disagreed with you for a decade or more, and they disagreed all during development o' PoE. is yet another corpse on the pile o' would-be ad hoc xp proponents. is getting a bit fetid, but we expect the corpse pile will continue to grow.
HA! Good Fun!
"how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?"
Oh I don't know. I guess you have a development studio and internal QA testers ya know... do what they do. Seriously why is this a question? Its like asking, how do you decide how many monsters to put in a level in Quake? This is what game designers are paid to do. I think its the least we can expect.
Its interesting that you mention that Obsidian has disagreed with people who want kill xp as well as other xp gains in the game. Here is a list of all Obsidian RPGs ever developed:
KOTOR II - 2004 - had kill xp
NWN2 and expansions - 2006 to 2008 - had kill xp
Alpha Protocol - 2010 - had kill xp
Fallout: New Vegas - 2010 - had kill xp
Dungeon Seige III - 2011 - had kill xp
South Park: The Stick of Truth - 2014 - had per battle xp
Previously you tried to say that old pnp games didn't award kill xp but only awarded xp for completing tasks. I showed you, although you refused to admit it, that the original D&D and all its offspring are designed to award xp per monster killed. Although as always it is up to the DM how they decide xp gains. Nevertheless, the systems are designed to give xp upon kills.
In response you created a strawman argument pretending that what I said what that the systems did not give lump sum xp rewards at a later date. However, this is completely specious non-sequitur as no one in this thread has expressed a problem with characters being given the xp, they would earn per each kill, at the end of a quest.
I told you before to get your facts straight if you are going to try to build an arguement on them. I'm calling you out again as it seems to be a recurring crutch for you. If Obsidian disagreed with kill xp as far back as 2002 why did they incorporate kill xp into every game they have produced since then?
The better question is will you throw up another strawman to try to answer this or will you be willing to admit that D&D systems are designed to give xp for monster kills (as well as other things) and that Obsidian games until Pillars of Eternity have done so as well?
it might be worth noting that all games you mentioned other than ap, which weren't genuine a rpg anyway, is expansions... and you really don't know what is straw man. it did occur to you that expansions might be forcing limitations on the developer o' the expansion seeing as how it ain't obsidian's licence or ip?
*eye roll*
is not your fault you weren't here for bg3 or fo3, so you didn't get the full arguments from the bis and obsidian developers, but this is one topic where you simple couldn't be more wrong if you tried. josh, in particular, were brutal with the ad hoc proponents. this game has also been in development for more than simple the week the beta has been available and the obsidians no doubt reexamined the quest xp issue during development.
so, again, "provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."
still no adequate response. surprised? no.
HA! Good Fun!
ps 'cause maybe missed, but there seems to be great misunderstanding 'bout xp awards for d&d pnp at the time o' the ie games
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1494840
Actually I was around (the codex at least) during all the BG3 and Van Buren talk. I'm well aware of Sawyer's visceral hatred of many IE games mechanics. However, I also closely followed the mechanics of released Obsidian games, in which this quest only xp mechanic never emerged.
You are very right to point out that Obsidian did not have complete creative control over KOTOR, NWN2, New Vegas, DSIII, or South Park. However, at a minimum I believe did have enough control over NWN2 to enforce quest only xp. Do you know who didn't have creative control though? Josh Sawyer
As we all know he is the lead designer of this game and clearly has enforced this particular xp mechanic. It may very well be that no amount of people expressing dissatisfaction with the mechanic now will make an anthill of difference in the end. Because, as you point out pedantically, no one has proposed an alternative xp mechanic that preserves the lead designers misbegotten devotion to the mistakenly worshiped principal of balance.
But that is because the entire premise is based on a fallacy that I tried to point out to you. No one is cheating you in a game if you choose to play in a way that would give you somewhat less xp as long as that playstyle is still fun.
That playstyle was fun in the IE games. I still play them like that to this day. Once Sawyer got the reigns of complete creative control he chose to implement the systems he prefers not necessarily (that is the key word here because there are people on both sides of this argument) the systems that his players would prefer.
If by discussing the mechanics of the beta in the "Backer Beta Discussion" forums I am somehow crossing a line then so be it. If a mod tells me to stop I will. But I am trying desperately to get an opinion on the record post beta release that this system is not what many players want.
It may not make a bit of difference in the final game, but if the people that disagree with this design decision don't make their opinions known both before and after the beta release then the playerbase will only have itself to blame when the game is released with this poor xp system.
I intend to make sure that Josh knows that this design decision will probably negatively contribute to many peoples enjoyment of this game. Your incessant desire for someone to come up with a system that meets the impossible balance demands placed on it by Josh, combined with the reasonable desire of many of us for it to incorporate xp rewards for combat, a mechanic that probably comprises over 50% of the time spent in the game (and up to 70% or more if it is anything like BG2), is simply inane.
Its impossible. Its either quest only xp or quest, skill, combat, exploration, etc xp.
The second options worked and continues to work in the IE games. I don't believe quest only will contribute as much lasting enjoyment to this one.
Time will tell. At least now there is a record of people telling Josh he was wrong in 2002, wrong at the beginning of development of Pillars of Eternity, wrong during the beta release, and very likely, wrong during and after release of the game as well.
-
4
-
-
"You can be free to choose however you want to play the game in an enjoyable way as long as each particular way of playing it is rewarded enough to make the playstyle fun. The playstyles don't need to be equal at all. As long as skills checks are rewarded and good xp is given both for the murder solution and the sneaky/diplomatic solution the everything is fine."
and how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun? quest/task avoids such balancing.
and around we go. serious. is 2002 all over again and nothing new is spontaneously appearing.
*shrug*
doesn't matter though regardless o' what you think o' Gromnir pov, obsidian/bis has disagreed with you for a decade or more, and they disagreed all during development o' PoE. is yet another corpse on the pile o' would-be ad hoc xp proponents. is getting a bit fetid, but we expect the corpse pile will continue to grow.
HA! Good Fun!
"how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?"
Oh I don't know. I guess you have a development studio and internal QA testers ya know... do what they do. Seriously why is this a question? Its like asking, how do you decide how many monsters to put in a level in Quake? This is what game designers are paid to do. I think its the least we can expect.
Its interesting that you mention that Obsidian has disagreed with people who want kill xp as well as other xp gains in the game. Here is a list of all Obsidian RPGs ever developed:
KOTOR II - 2004 - had kill xp
NWN2 and expansions - 2006 to 2008 - had kill xp
Alpha Protocol - 2010 - had kill xp
Fallout: New Vegas - 2010 - had kill xp
Dungeon Seige III - 2011 - had kill xp
South Park: The Stick of Truth - 2014 - had per battle xp
Previously you tried to say that old pnp games didn't award kill xp but only awarded xp for completing tasks. I showed you, although you refused to admit it, that the original D&D and all its offspring are designed to award xp per monster killed. Although as always it is up to the DM how they decide xp gains. Nevertheless, the systems are designed to give xp upon kills.
In response you created a strawman argument pretending that what I said what that the systems did not give lump sum xp rewards at a later date. However, this is completely specious non-sequitur as no one in this thread has expressed a problem with characters being given the xp, they would earn per each kill, at the end of a quest.
I told you before to get your facts straight if you are going to try to build an arguement on them. I'm calling you out again as it seems to be a recurring crutch for you. If Obsidian disagreed with kill xp as far back as 2002 why did they incorporate kill xp into every game they have produced since then?
The better question is will you throw up another strawman to try to answer this or will you be willing to admit that D&D systems are designed to give xp for monster kills (as well as other things) and that Obsidian games until Pillars of Eternity have done so as well?
If they worked in a d20/D&D game, they have to use xp on kills. Seriously. If they do an expansion pack for a game by another company and it has xp for killing, what are they supposed to do? Sequels (and not spiritual successors) sin of similar stuff to expansion packs. New games can use anything that the devs want. That they don't want xp on killing for PoE means absolutely nothing about what they did/tought in 2010 or 2014 or in the past century. Unless you are Doctor Who or have a time machine built into a DeLorean, past is past.
Now rant because I say so (aka feel free to ignore the rest).
D&D has evolved quite a bit since its origins. Hell, new D&D even encourages roleplaying in a big way compared to previous editions. Characters are supposed to beat encounters and get experience from them. An encounter can be anything: from killing an annoying kobold bard to avoid a public confrontation between two factions. The means by how the players solve the situation is meaningless per se. The DM just designs the adventure, populates it with proper encounters/rewards and the xp of those encounters can be given any time or at the end. Whatever the DM, and not the rulebook, says. That is what a real cRPG should encourage. It doesn't mean not getting xp from killing stuff, it means not getting it as you are used to. It's abstract enough that you get experience by killing wolves and use that experience to level up pickpocketing. Or gain experience disabling some traps with your rogue class and get enough experience to raise your fighter class.
Random encounters in such a system shouldn't exist. Or be special cases that break the rules. But monsters in a quest map, should be part of the xp budget of the quests to solve in there. The beetles and spiders to reach the cave for the farmer's quest? Should be considered. That you deviate exploring and find wolves? That must have been considered too.
Not getting xp on kill doesn't mean getting less. If the game is well designed you still get the same no matter what you do. It may require lots of scripts and whatever but far from being impossible.
I really don't see what would have prevented them from implementing quest only xp in NWN2. It was their own game and really only shared a name with the first NWN.
Likewise, I can't see what would have prevented it in KOTOR II or New Vegas or even DSIII for that matter. Would it have been strange. Of course. The system itself is strange already.
And I'll go ahead and point out that Alpha Protocal was a new game. So was South Park.
But the real reason I brought up those games was because Gromnir was once again trying to rely on a complete misunderstanding of history to back up points he was making. If there is one thing I can't stand its a person who makes up their own "facts".
I don't mind anyone expressing their opinion. I will agree with many above posters that ultimately this entire issue boils down to what peoples preferences are. Mine are strongly on the side of providing xp of all types, kill xp, skill xp, dialogue xp, quest xp, etc.
-
3
-
-
* shrugs *
This is always going to be personal interpretation.
I was sold a spiritual successor to the I.E. games. This feels like a sheep in wolf's clothing. Period.
I can't agree more. Although since I didn't really have a chance to back the game before now I can't really say I've been "sold" anything.
-
3
-
-
Sounds like a good reason to use the familar Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma to me. With an attribute system were penalties/rewards range from around -4 to 4 and have exponential effictiveness as they increase/decrease.
So basically the developers could have stayed as close to the IE mechanics as possible.
This would definitely cut down on much of the strange feeling of the current attribute system and fix some the glaring issue that not many people want to discuss about the a character who spends absolutly zero points at character creation is still viable.
They could have. They didn't want to, because that system has it's own slew of problems, not to mention that they probably would have had to license it to avoid legal trouble. Sounds to me like you're looking for a D&D based game, in which case you're wrong here.
It works just as well as an argument to use any other possible stat system as well. That is, it is completely useless for the purpose of advocating one stat system over another.
You also seem to have misread the pitch. They wanted to stay close to the look and feel of IE games, not to the AD&D rule set and by extension, IE games mechanics.
I agree that the IE game's mechanics have their own slew of problems. However, there should be no problem with Pillars of Eternity using the standard D&D attribute names. KOTOR II (an Obsidian developed game) used the same names for the attributes without the license. I would point out that no one had major systemic complaints about its use of that system either...
Here is the description from the Kickstarter site:
Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.I always took this to mean that as much of the internal mechanics from these games would be incorporated as possible. But I can't deny that I was clearly wrong. Seems Sawyer and Co. have a plan to remove features many of us want and replace them with features we don't.
I really hope the final game can still capture all that they intend with that statement, but from my perspective, it doesn't look hopeful.
-
"You can be free to choose however you want to play the game in an enjoyable way as long as each particular way of playing it is rewarded enough to make the playstyle fun. The playstyles don't need to be equal at all. As long as skills checks are rewarded and good xp is given both for the murder solution and the sneaky/diplomatic solution the everything is fine."
and how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun? quest/task avoids such balancing.
and around we go. serious. is 2002 all over again and nothing new is spontaneously appearing.
*shrug*
doesn't matter though regardless o' what you think o' Gromnir pov, obsidian/bis has disagreed with you for a decade or more, and they disagreed all during development o' PoE. is yet another corpse on the pile o' would-be ad hoc xp proponents. is getting a bit fetid, but we expect the corpse pile will continue to grow.
HA! Good Fun!
"how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?"
Oh I don't know. I guess you have a development studio and internal QA testers ya know... do what they do. Seriously why is this a question? Its like asking, how do you decide how many monsters to put in a level in Quake? This is what game designers are paid to do. I think its the least we can expect.
Its interesting that you mention that Obsidian has disagreed with people who want kill xp as well as other xp gains in the game. Here is a list of all Obsidian RPGs ever developed:
KOTOR II - 2004 - had kill xp
NWN2 and expansions - 2006 to 2008 - had kill xp
Alpha Protocol - 2010 - had kill xp
Fallout: New Vegas - 2010 - had kill xp
Dungeon Seige III - 2011 - had kill xp
South Park: The Stick of Truth - 2014 - had per battle xp
Previously you tried to say that old pnp games didn't award kill xp but only awarded xp for completing tasks. I showed you, although you refused to admit it, that the original D&D and all its offspring are designed to award xp per monster killed. Although as always it is up to the DM how they decide xp gains. Nevertheless, the systems are designed to give xp upon kills.
In response you created a strawman argument pretending that what I said what that the systems did not give lump sum xp rewards at a later date. However, this is completely specious non-sequitur as no one in this thread has expressed a problem with characters being given the xp, they would earn per each kill, at the end of a quest.
I told you before to get your facts straight if you are going to try to build an arguement on them. I'm calling you out again as it seems to be a recurring crutch for you. If Obsidian disagreed with kill xp as far back as 2002 why did they incorporate kill xp into every game they have produced since then?
The better question is will you throw up another strawman to try to answer this or will you be willing to admit that D&D systems are designed to give xp for monster kills (as well as other things) and that Obsidian games until Pillars of Eternity have done so as well?
-
7
-
-
"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."
I disagree fundementally with the need to do this. Why must different playstyles reward the same amount of experience? Who cares?
the developers do. many players do. those who wish for more replay-ability do. nevertheless, if that is your pov, we understand the impasse. you do not see inherent value in players choosing different approaches but getting same/similar xp value. the developers disagree wholeheartedly with you and thus they have chosen a method that guarantees equal xp to all players regardless o' how they solve a quest. why should kill ogre get xp, but trick ogre get nothing? why should a character who specializes in unlocking every chest get loot AND more xp than a person who don't have a dedicated lockpicker? etc. you don't have a problem with the disparity. thus ends common ground and we will make no headway. thankfully, obsidian sees value in balance xp awards. lump sums is how old pnp did it. you is still being rewarded for killing stuff by getting your xp award, but you feel slighted 'cause sneaky and diplomats is getting same lump sum? why?so, given that obsidian is making game and has stated innumerable times they don't want fail builds or superior builds that gain excess xp, answer the challenge:"we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer:"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."HA! Good Fun!@Azrael Ultima I think I found your strawmen.
In case you're having trouble connecting the dots Gromnir, see all those highlighted words, no one but you is saying that.
I do realize that by acting like someone is it makes it much easier for you to argue against what they are actually saying. But no one but you is saying that people who what kill xp feel cheated that sneaky and diplomatic characters would get the same amount. No one but you is saying that skill use in dialogue shouldn't be rewarded by xp.
There are just many of us who would also like to be rewarded with xp for participating in the most frequent component of the game. Combat.
fine, then balance it. if you don't want sneaky and diplomats cheated, answer our challenge.
still no takers
HA! Good Fun!
Your fallacy is that you think you are being cheated for playing the game a particular way. No one is cheating you Gromnir. You can play the game however you want. If you want to be sneaky then be sneaky. If you want to be diplomatic then be diplomatic. If you want to kill everything that lives, then be a mass murderer. If you want to be all of those things as much as possible and don't care if your character is role-playing or being consitent. Then do that too.
You can be free to choose however you want to play the game in an enjoyable way as long as each particular way of playing it is rewarded enough to make the playstyle fun. The playstyles don't need to be equal at all. As long as skills checks are rewarded and good xp is given both for the murder solution and the sneaky/diplomatic solution the everything is fine.
If a player wants to horribly abuse the xp system by metagaming, well then that's their choice. As a designer I would be happy that I can give that playstyle, which I have trouble relating to, an enjoyable way to play the game.
If case you should say that it is impossible to satisfy all these playstyles without being game breaking, I will simply point you in the direction of BG/BG2. In that game some amount of combat was necessary, but if you chose to solve a quest in a diplomatic or sneaky way nothing required you to go back and kill everything just to have enough xp to move forward. You could choose to if you wanted to.
I want to play a game with choice. That to me is much more important than balance. That was how the IE games worked and what initally intrigued me so much about Pillars of Eternity. Unfortunatly, many of the systems, if not significantly altered, simply do not support that principal. This is unfortunate as it was stated the game was to be a spiritual successor to the IE games.
-
6
-
-
Might stacking wizards aren't the ones with the really big fireballs. Intellect increases aoe, might increases damage. So for some reason, intellect doesn't enable you to do more damage per area, but it does make you capable of putting an extra 77% of energy into your spell with 18 int, as opposed to a measly 30%(I think?) for 18 might (assuming damage is proportional to energy density).
How does that make any sense at all?
You know exactly what is meant by "big fireballs".
That aside, all stats are, necessarily, game mechanical abstractions. Asking for them to be fully explained in-universe is often not terribly sensible. Int somehow makes abilities affect larger areas and last longer. Does that make logical sense? Probably not. Does it work as a game stat? I think so. Maybe it would have been better suited with a name like "Intensity".
Sounds like a good reason to use the familar Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma to me. With an attribute system were penalties/rewards range from around -4 to 4 and have exponential effictiveness as they increase/decrease.
So basically the developers could have stayed as close to the IE mechanics as possible.
This would definitely cut down on much of the strange feeling of the current attribute system and fix some the glaring issue that not many people want to discuss about the a character who spends absolutly zero points at character creation is still viable.
-
"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."
I disagree fundementally with the need to do this. Why must different playstyles reward the same amount of experience? Who cares?
the developers do. many players do. those who wish for more replay-ability do. nevertheless, if that is your pov, we understand the impasse. you do not see inherent value in players choosing different approaches but getting same/similar xp value. the developers disagree wholeheartedly with you and thus they have chosen a method that guarantees equal xp to all players regardless o' how they solve a quest. why should kill ogre get xp, but trick ogre get nothing? why should a character who specializes in unlocking every chest get loot AND more xp than a person who don't have a dedicated lockpicker? etc. you don't have a problem with the disparity. thus ends common ground and we will make no headway. thankfully, obsidian sees value in balance xp awards. lump sums is how old pnp did it. you is still being rewarded for killing stuff by getting your xp award, but you feel slighted 'cause sneaky and diplomats is getting same lump sum? why?so, given that obsidian is making game and has stated innumerable times they don't want fail builds or superior builds that gain excess xp, answer the challenge:"we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer:"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."HA! Good Fun!@Azrael Ultima I think I found your strawmen.
In case you're having trouble connecting the dots Gromnir, see all those highlighted words, no one but you is saying that.
I do realize that by acting like someone is it makes it much easier for you to argue against what they are actually saying. But no one but you is saying that people who what kill xp feel cheated that sneaky and diplomatic characters would get the same amount. No one but you is saying that skill use in dialogue shouldn't be rewarded by xp.
There are just many of us who would also like to be rewarded with xp for participating in the most frequent component of the game. Combat.
-
3
-
-
Look, if this were a Gandhi sim (or any sim!), I'd be right there with you. If the noncombat stuff were just as prevalent as the combat stuff or if players had to choose between pumping combat or noncombat skills, then you would be 100% right. But this is a combat heavy game where 99% of the character development is centered around making characters that can murder things with great efficiency. I do not see an issue with the xp system rewarding players additionally for succeeding at what the game focuses on.
This is exactly why the game should reward combat xp. I have serious trouble understanding how anyone can not understand the simple game design logic behind what Shevek is saying here.
-
2
-
-
"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."
I disagree fundementally with the need to do this. Why must different playstyles reward the same amount of experience? Who cares? You are not competing against anyone but yourself. What prevents you from turning down the difficulty if you want to be a diplomatic character? Please note that you were not required to kill every monster and soak up every possible xp point in order to have a great time with BG/BG2. The same could be true of Pillars of Eternity.
In my previous post I stated:
I would like to be awarded experience for overcoming challenges in the game that require resource expenditures from me personally (mental involvement in the plot, tactics, etc) as well as in-game resource expenditures. By in-game I mean that if I need to use camping supplies because I chose to kill monsters instead of sneaking past them I would like the game to award more experience that the option not requiring the resources would.
This includes disarming traps, opening locks, exporing, etc and all that good stuff. BG/BG2 gave experience for all of those things and gave experience for killing monsters. Why can't Pillars of Eternity do this? This is what the IE games did.
I want to support an game as similar as possible to the IE games of yore. I just now got back from an overseas trip where I had no reliable internet connection for six months. I want to pre-order the game, but issues like this one frankly scare me. And I'm not currently confident enough in the development of this game to put my money down on a pre-order.
-
3
-
-
Well, thank you for pointing that out to us.
If you'd read the thread, however, you would be aware that no one here claimed that might equalled strength. The point of the discussion is that given that might isn't strength, what is? Is the physical body of people in this world independent of their ability to smash boulders? Will we see hordes of shaky old men rip people apart with bare hands due to their enormous soul power?
1) Yes I have read the thread, but it seems that when it derailed from the first idea you didn´t. It was, in fact, asked:
The real question is: Is the notion that might has nothing to do with strength reflected in the attribute checks it is relevant for?
Meaning: Which attribute is checked for lifting a heavy boulder?
Here you have it, the question that united "strength" with the in-game attribute "might". It has a lot of answers too, but you can re-read to find them.
2) You are wrong again, the real point of the post is that there can be physicaly strong wizards, heck its even on the title. You may or not agree to that but that was the real point of the thread. (I don't for example: as some people pointed out most of the characters that are not flawed in the dichotomy body-mind, are supernatural beings, sometimes of godlike powers (Tolkiens Noldors) or directly gods (Gandalf, Thor, Mercury), not the more terrenal "nerdy" creatures to what wizards are actually associated)
3) Yes, you will see old mans ripping mountains apart with their bare fists, the monk has all the traits for that.
People, please: MIGHT is not STRENGTH.
If you destroy boulders with your fists in this game is not because your biceps are of epic proportions, its just that your ability to take power from your soul is epic. That is what might means. Does it feel counter intuitive coming from years of d&d? Yes, but its not a mistake in a coherent level. Think of might as "Ki", "Energy", "Presence","Chakra", "Cosmos" or heck, the lore friendly "soul power"!
Ok then so when the Might stacking wizard hits a beetle with his longsword he is in someway interacting with some internal soul energy that then causes more damage to the creature?
Is this the same for the fighter then? It isn't his muscles (seeing as athletics has no effect on combat damage) its his soul energy. Well ok then. So given that having a fighter with zero points in athetics has no effect on combat I guess we have to conclude that in this game your body's physical ability to effect the world isn't represented by the attribute system.
This is the the road the developers want to take then ok. It is their game. However, this doesn't meet my expectations and I am very dissappointed with the current system.
As I have done previously in this thread I think there are ways the developers could alter the attribute system to resolve this problem to my (and maybe others?) satisfaction
I don't think Might is an absolute attribute, like the old "wisdom" that represented will, knowledge and sometimes perception, "might" may be Strength + Soul Power without problem. Whats is Soul Power may not be explained until we play the game to prevent spoilers.
-----
Don't misunderstand me, for me it "feels" strange and I would like the return of old and classic Strength as much as you both, but the attribute by itself is not illogical, just vague. (and possibly on purpose)
PS: For the 100% body physycal ability to affect the world there is still constitution
I like your post because I think you have captured exactly what is strange about the attribute system. I definitely agree the attribute is vague. Its made vaguer by having inconsistent lore.
Do you know what isn't vague, at least to the majority of people to will play the game? The attribute system from the IE games. So what we are seeing here as well as in many other places, is that in those instances where the developers chose to take a radical departure from the IE system, multiple people end up being confused, feel that the system they have chosen is strange, or are otherwise unhappy. However, I will note there are some folks who do like it just as much or better.
Let me ask, are any of you happier with this system and why?
If not, wouldn't it be better for the developers to adhear to a more IE-like attribute system? Wasn't Pillars of Eternity supposed to do exactly that?
-
Fine. Lets see. Your proposal stinks for 5 fundamental reasons.you don't need more information.
1)If there is content in this game that is not tied to a quest, your system doesn't address it.
2)If there are times when combat is forced/required, your system doesn't address it.
3)If the diplomatic route in a quest simply requires a single skill/stat check, while the combat route requires use of more than one player skill, your system does not take that into account.
4)If sneaking past an encounter doesn't grant loot rewards but intimidation and/or combat does, your system does not address it.
5)If solving a dungeon puzzle requires no character skill and rewards XP, but killing the dungeon level's inhabitants requires the use of several of your character's skills but Doesn't reward XP, your system is a joke.
In light of the above, I'd have to conclude that BG2's system, while still flawed, is certainly a better system than the one you are proposing.
Hey Gromnir, that was SIMPLE.
actually, quest xp addresses all your concerns by simply not dividing those individual aspects into unnecessarily minor parts. you get xp for achieving major goals, period. you want to divide actions and provide individual rewards for little achievements, then somehow add them up and balance them? why?. obsidian actually hearkens back to old pnp roots and observes that it doesn't matter what route you take to achieve the ultimate goal of the quest.
this is not complex. you are adding complexity where it is not needed. you should not need a metaphorical pat on the head for every success in the game.
quest/task is infinitely easy and it is impossible to break... save for when it is bugged as it currently is.
HA! Good Fun!
Gromnir, I like you. I think you contribute very sensible and good ideas.
However, in this one very limited, highlighted, case above, you have totally missed the mark.
Its time for this old grognard to break out his library and school you. Here is a quote from the original pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons rulebook
As characters meet monsters in combat and defeat them and as they obtain various forms of treasure (money, gems, jewelry, magical items, etc.), they gain "experience". This adds to their experience point (EP) total and gradually moves them up through the levels of their class.
What follows in the book is a list of how much experience a monster provides based on its hit die.
Now, AD&D, D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, and Pathfinder all include the experience gains by monster's slain. It of course remains an option for a DM to award experience based on quests and other things, but that is not the core experience mechanic supported by "old pnp roots."
I think it is healthy to have disagreement and discussion about the game mechanics, but please check your "fact" statements to make sure they are indeed correct lest you build a house on a foundation of sand.
am gonna break out old d&d rule books if we must, but you is misreading. xp awards were given at the END of adventures. sure, you gain experience as you progress, but the actual awards happen at end of adventure and is not tabulated ad hoc.
HA! Good Fun!
Unfortunatly, the problem with Pillars of Eternity isn't that experience is awarded only after a quest is finished. The problem is that killing monsters doesn't award experience yet it is a central component of what the player does in the game.
My point with the D&D rulebooks is that they did indeed award experience based on killing monsters. It doesn't matter if you didn't record the experience on your character sheet until the adventure was over. You got the points because you killed monsters.
But as other posters have pointed out, this horse has been beat to death, resurrected and beat to death again. So I'll simply state the following:
I would like to be awarded experience for overcoming challenges in the game that require resource expenditures from me personally (mental involvement in the plot, tactics, etc) as well as in-game resource expenditures. By in-game I mean that if I need to use camping supplies because I chose to kill monsters instead of sneaking past them I would like the game to award more experience that the option not requiring the resources would.
Now this would allow someone who is metagaming to design a strategy whereby the extracted the most possible amount of experiences out of a quest. So what. If they want to play this way, give them the choice. Again, I am hopeing this game can say as close to the IE games as possible.
So why introduce this change? Why do the devs keep driving the design away from IE-like games? That is not what Pillars of Eternity was supposed to be.
-
5
-
-
Fine. Lets see. Your proposal stinks for 5 fundamental reasons.you don't need more information.
1)If there is content in this game that is not tied to a quest, your system doesn't address it.
2)If there are times when combat is forced/required, your system doesn't address it.
3)If the diplomatic route in a quest simply requires a single skill/stat check, while the combat route requires use of more than one player skill, your system does not take that into account.
4)If sneaking past an encounter doesn't grant loot rewards but intimidation and/or combat does, your system does not address it.
5)If solving a dungeon puzzle requires no character skill and rewards XP, but killing the dungeon level's inhabitants requires the use of several of your character's skills but Doesn't reward XP, your system is a joke.
In light of the above, I'd have to conclude that BG2's system, while still flawed, is certainly a better system than the one you are proposing.
Hey Gromnir, that was SIMPLE.
actually, quest xp addresses all your concerns by simply not dividing those individual aspects into unnecessarily minor parts. you get xp for achieving major goals, period. you want to divide actions and provide individual rewards for little achievements, then somehow add them up and balance them? why?. obsidian actually hearkens back to old pnp roots and observes that it doesn't matter what route you take to achieve the ultimate goal of the quest.
this is not complex. you are adding complexity where it is not needed. you should not need a metaphorical pat on the head for every success in the game.
quest/task is infinitely easy and it is impossible to break... save for when it is bugged as it currently is.
HA! Good Fun!
Gromnir, I like you. I think you contribute very sensible and good ideas.
However, in this one very limited, highlighted, case above, you have totally missed the mark.
Its time for this old grognard to break out his library and school you. Here is a quote from the original pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons rulebook
As characters meet monsters in combat and defeat them and as they obtain various forms of treasure (money, gems, jewelry, magical items, etc.), they gain "experience". This adds to their experience point (EP) total and gradually moves them up through the levels of their class.
What follows in the book is a list of how much experience a monster provides based on its hit die.
Now, AD&D, D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, and Pathfinder all include the experience gains by monster's slain. It of course remains an option for a DM to award experience based on quests and other things, but that is not the core experience mechanic supported by "old pnp roots."
I think it is healthy to have disagreement and discussion about the game mechanics, but please check your "fact" statements to make sure they are indeed correct lest you build a house on a foundation of sand.
-
1
-
The experience system
in Backer Beta Discussion
Posted
I would be fine with this system. But I foresee some issues in implementation. Nevertheless, I would like it much better than quest-only.