frapillo80

My friend, it's simply not you. Think of this as our own little version of the Blood Wars, and you've got two forces of absolute evil fighting to see which one can be worse. My vote is for myself, of course. It is endless conversation with no possible solution that everyone agrees with, because it is based on people's individual subjective notions what people feel to be best solution in question that don't have objectively best solution. This is similar issue than our endless parade of romance topics where people argue back and forth why romances are integral part of IE experience or why they generally make story focused games better especially when game is meant to work around players' decisions. Although romance threads have died in past months some what because of xp threads return to popularity in past couple months. But I would guess that romance threads will jump again when release gets closer and more and more backer come back to look how game looks (and maybe some non-backers that have read some articles about game at get interested about it). Yikes! Thank you for the warning, I won't even touch the romance threads with a long stick!

My friend, it's simply not you. Think of this as our own little version of the Blood Wars, and you've got two forces of absolute evil fighting to see which one can be worse. My vote is for myself, of course. You know what, realizing that all the available choices are evil is actually a reassuring feeling!

I am honestly starting to feel a bit bad about, as a newcomer, having somewhat contributed to fanning the flames of a debate that, I am starting to realize, has been going on for ages and in countless threads (and I am sure I haven't catched up with all of it yet). But my gripe was actually very simple: currently, fighting non-quest mobs only offers strategical disadvantages compared to stealthing past them. As I see it, it's an element of poor balance and poor design. I feel that something should be done about it, and that's not piling up denial upon it.

I'll tell you, so you can add it to the rest of your tedious erudition and double it in size: it's called sarcasm. I have no problem with suspension of disbelief, but I see Into the Fray as you describe it as a tool that allows the Fighter to stay even more rooted to the spot, making him even more similar to a Wall from MtG; a crude equivalent of taunt, which I personally consider a dumb mechanic; and a cheap shortcut for cutting corners on AI. Since it's fine to suspend disbelief indefinitely, just call it "teleport enemy". On one thing I agree with you: the name "Fighter" is misleading, maybe "Eric" would be more appropriate, from the shield kid in D&D cartoons. P.S. Clumsy patronizing in the hope of making sound the interlocutor a whiny child and by contrast appear somewhat clever is a rather stale technique, even for you.

the developer responses in the fighter update is enlightening. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66380-update-81-the-front-line-fighters-and-barbarians/?p=1461112 into the fray and knockdown is both considerable more than passive defensive issues. and again, the passive defense issues further the fighter's role. so, in other words, am not seeing a valid complaint. sorry, we never played the card games other than stuff such as poker and blackjack. HA! Good Fun! So Into the Fray means a Fighter, let's say, armed with stiletto yanks an enemy that is outside his melee attack range (else what's the point if the enemy is already within engagement distance) into attack range? Does it use up a Grappling Hook? Or the Fighter just needs to be wearing a yellow-and-black ninja outfit and to yell "COME HERE!" very loud? I'm honestly failing to see the tactical flexibility: if I'm getting it right, apart from the fact that it's the enemy entering the fighter's engagement area instead of viceversa (not much of a difference, given how the Fighter's high defenses shrugh engagement attacks off), it seems to be the equivalent of the fighter taking a step forward. Besides, I have the feeling that knockdown by itself, in an interrupt heavy game like PoE, is not exactly a world-changer.

Just to clarify what kind of options I had in mind (and I know, these are stupid-a** proposals, but I hope they give an idea): Suppression (modal): the Fighter's attacks lower the attack rate of the target (adjusted by target level, fortitude save, etc.); the extertion stops the Fighter' own automatic stamina recovery, in addition to the bonus from Defender Battering (passive): each blow lowers the target's chance to recover from Prone status (obvious synergy with Knockdown, Priest's Pillar, Ranger's companion, etc.) Coordinated attacks (passive; man, what stupid names): for each companion that is attacking in melee (and only in melee) the same target as the Fighter, the latter has an increased chance of critical (this to encourage other setups than the BG1 style "one tank and 4/5 archers/gunslingers") The thing I've already said about enemies targetting fallen companions: Fighter shoulders the enemy away a bit placing himself between the enemy and the fallen companion; Fighter has defenses lowered for a few seconds. They are all pretty crummy, but at least they draw the picture of a veteran of the battlefield who is not at all a pwnage specialist, and even the two passives actually create opportunity for some semi-meaningful choices in battle. Disclaimer: I would not dream of pushing for taunts, God forbid

Another example might be (I'll be exaggerating things a bit): the Fighter resembles a Wall from Magic the Gathering. Let's say a thorny wall, that also damages attackers. And it has also the option of being a Greater Wall or a Super Wall. You cannot get any lower maintenance than a wall, granted. You cannot get any duller than a wall, either. I mean, I know very little about Magic, but if a had to choose a Magic card to build an interesting and tactically fun RPG class upon, well, a Wall would probably be among my last options. And it's not a problem of maintenance: having a class that most of the time is low maintenance us fine. But whenever the flow of the battle doesn't make soaking hits in melee a priority, what can the fighter do (apart from knockdown)? Be a wall just the same, and soak hits in melee. Every class more or less has some ability to actively try and change at least a bit the flow of battle (or die in the attempt in some cases). The fighter can only be a wall, and walls are passive melee soakers, so no option to take any risks in exchange for a possible greater/different payoff. I agree about not changing the level of maintenance much, and that the fighter's active options should't be offense/dps related. But let the poor thing be More Than Just a Wall, because otherwise the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial just exacerbates the issue, at least from the impression I get.

That's not quite his position I believe. I think it's more like, he doesn't like systemic incentives that favor one playstyle over another, if the game provides the possibility for multiple playstyles.Ah, my bad, I stand corrected in that case. I thought I remembered something about "no reward for taking pointless risks" but I guess I was wrong (quite embarassingly, I even have the incorrect memory that I felt it really striking when I read it. Argh...). Still, this kind of implementation gives birth for that kind of feelings I mentioned.

[i think the current akwardness of the experience system lies, more than in the quest xp, in an implementation of it fueled by Sawyer's philosophy that the player shouldn't be rewarded for straying from the path and taking unnecessary risks (sorry, I really can't seem to find the exact words, correct me if it's the case). Edit: scrap this, it seems I really got things wrong.] Now, I agree about discouraging players from becoming genocidal xp machines, but if you disconnect a part of the content from any significant reward, even an indirect one (be it xp, loot, story, anything) and make it risk-only, well, you are making that game content pointless or, worse, a straight annoyance (so why put it in at all? That's the worse form of padding). Besides, it's very tricky to mess with the risk-reward concept that is so crucial to an RPG: supposedly, the adventurer gets better by taking risks, not by playing safe and staying in bed in the inn. If you make, let's say, the spiders I encounter while exploring risk-only, while the same spiders I encounter while stumbling blindly looking for some dead pigs have a big reward attached, the player starts to feel like he is in the hands of an especially moody living DM who, depending on the mood, can either reward or punish the same thing you have done before. So you can't help asking yourself "why am I being punished for exploring and rewarded for wandering aimlessly for some stupid pigs? Is this game a trial to the player's intentions?" It also creates the annoying feeling that more than your actions or choices, what makes the real difference is whether you are currently under the Greater Spell of Quest Giving or not. So not being under the Greater Spell of Quest Giving creates what Lephys called 'uncovered bases', that is, pointless content. Now, the bestiary is a band-aid to try and cover one of those bases, but the risk is that it conveys that same feeling of 'am I under the Greater Spell of Bestiary?', and when the spell runs off, we are back from the start.

Same here, absolutely. Else it becomes a rehash of the old "you can complete the quest following the good path or the neutral path or the evil path!", and you end up anticipating the general structure of each quest. And I wouldn't be against a quest that you can complete only by stealth either, by the way.

Oh definitely. That was very awesome of Hiro to give you a key. You can totally try it out now and share your thoughts from first-hand experience, . But, purely from a design standpoint, the concept of "objective"-only XP covers all bases consistently. It results in the game not inaccurately simulating in-the-moment character betterment stemming from the act of combat, then switching arbitrarily to abstract world-pertinent accomplishment-based quest rewards for everything else. "Oh, you unlocked a door that happened to have an important prisoner behind it? 1000XP! Oh, you just unlocked a door? 10XP!" The current system isn't really covering all the bases, but it's not simply because we need to reward XP for all kills everywhere. It's because it needs to cover more bases. It can do so by simply expanding upon the same approach it's already using -- designated objectives grant XP. When it works right, there's even already "you didn't get any quest for this yet, but you accomplished it, so you get XP!" in, so it's not as if that function would even be anything new for expanded combat-specific objectives throughout the land. It was very awesome indeed, and I'm sure I won't give in to the temptation to call sick from work one more day!

I am weak. Weak. Ok, yes, and thank you very much indeed.

But wouldn't be unfair towards the other backers? I am just asking, I am quite new to kickstarters... Ok, I'll be strong: I also have to be back to work tomorrow, so forum-holiday is almost over. But, thanks, really. This was more difficult than deciding whether backing or not...

Argh, I've being trying to resist the temptation up to now (I've took a dive in the forums only these last two days because I am a bit sick and with not much to do). Although having read and seen so much about it in a short time has somewhat defeated the purpose. But thanks just the same!

@Lephys: Agreed, but in order to achieve all this, there's need for a much more sophisticated implementation of the quest xp system than the crude, arbitrary feeling thing I keep reading about and seeing in videos... (I mean even more arbitrary feeling than the standard levels of RPG arbitrary, which are admittedly pretty low...)

I see. My apologies for misunderstanding, and for the involuntary overdose of snarks and coattails.Which means that you probably didn't see my advice on post diversity... the material you quoted weren't yours. "I even gave him, ah, how did he put it? some "no-doubt well-intentioned advice that I delivered in such a polite and endearing manner that he will take it under advisement"..." bad form mate. and no, we didn't read, but don't feel bad or emasculated or somesuch as we ignore many posts. is so much noise. in any event, to stay on topic, we believe that the reflection that went into development o' kickstarter, and all the QA feedback the developers got, plus the two years o' arguing that were largely ending dismissive of kill xp, should not be ignored because some folks is loud on message boards. "Avoiding combat does not lead to less experience gain. You shouldn't go up levels any slower by using your non-combat skills rather than your combat skills. We plan to reward you for your accomplishments, not for your body count." tim cain were going in the right direction. throw a minor bone to the kill xp proponents? sure, why not? even so, we see no reason to give more than a token bestiary quest. HA! Good Fun! Apologies for the bad form as well, it's just that since you started that post referring to me, I wrongly thought that your following words were referring to this: P.S. Do you ever write anything that is not on the tune of " You think you don't like [current implementation of feature x] , but that's just because you only want a carbon copy of BG1/2/whatever. [Current implementation of feature x] is the best thing since sliced bread. Obsidian are never late, nor are they early. Obsidian arrive precisely when they intend to."? Oh, and apologies for this self-quote as well, it's just that I was feeling soooooooo emasculated, I'm sure you understand...

Edit: sorry, I seem to have quoted a previous post of mine for no reason at all, and I have no idea how I did it...

Very limited attribute increase, tied to very specific and very rare/obscure quests would sound very nice to me (like the Tarot Deck in the Watcher's Keep, or Minsc +1 strength in Unfinished Business' quest for Boo)...

Yeah, its kind of like, DEV1: "Lets add all these super awesome and complex combat features, and make combat super challenging so it plays a huge role in our game!" DEV2: "But what about stealth players..?" DEV3:"O we will give them this little stealth ability and itll be cool." PLAYERS: "OMG IM GETTING PENALIZED FOR USING STEALTH IN A COMBAT HEAVY GAME!!!!" DEV2: "What did you do?!? You said you added stealth!" DEV3: "I DID! I just didnt think it was a big deal....fine lets make all xp quest xp so no one feels a need to participate in combat" DEV1: ".....but i worked so hard to make combat awesome...." PS: I didnt mean to attack anyone specifically with the above remarks, it just struck me as a pretty funny scenario... It is pretty funny indeed...But I sympathize with stealth role players who are getting the (other) short end of the stick, that is, the usual, barebone, boring mechanics, just thinly disguised by the sudden load of stealth-connected quest-xp which, admittedly, compared to IE games must be a great step forward for them. P.S. Apologies for the amount of edits in my posts, it's just that I can't stand my own typos.

I see. My apologies for misunderstanding, and for the involuntary overdose of snarks and coattails. Which means that you probably didn't see my advice on post diversity...

If the devs see stealth as just as important as combat or dialogue in solving quests and earning xp, I would expect them to create stealth mechanics that are, if not as sophisticated and complex like those of combat, well, at least decently tactical. Instead, they seem obsessed with xp balance, which is bound to come out as a bit shoddy in any case, while the current stealth mechanics (and those of IE games as well) remain...bah... 1) allocate points 2) click on search 3) don't get too close to the mobs That's it? And they are building roughly a third of quest solving upon this mechanic? This really seems like a bone thrown to stealth role-player. I mean, if stealth had decently complex mechanics, I wouldn't even complain about trash mobs, I'd be happy to waltz stealthily past them...

If you don't like it; don't read it. Gromnir is awesome and that's a fact. Don't ever change, Gromnir. But I didn't even dream to complain about it, I even gave him, ah, how did he put it? some "no-doubt well-intentioned advice that I delivered in such a polite and endearing manner that he will take it under advisement"...

Well put. I think quest xp has the potential to work really well, just not exactly in its current implementation. Probably the upcoming changes will improve it, I think more likely than not. Although they are a last minute fix, and I am afraid it will show.

This is the real root of all otherwise baffling decisions, including the absolute need to avoid the Spectre of Quest Staggering. Although a backer (I'm not) might say "balancing Baldur's Gate 2 wasn't easy either. So?" Baldur's Gate 2 had much more people working on it and it still failed in that balancing (similarly as all IE games failed), why they want to do things differently this time.Will PoE's final price be a fraction of what was Baldur's Gate launching price, in order to reflect the low number of people working on it? If not, why should it matter to the final quality? By the way, I'm sure all those people who remember Baldur's Gate's Chapter 2 so incredibly fondly do so exactly because it failed completely to achieve any semblance of balance. I can't say what will be launch price of the PoE as that is to Paradox to decide, but budget of the game is smaller than what Baldur's Gate 2 had, which means that do achieve similar overall quality they can't take the most laborious options for every mechanic in the game to achieve their goals. It is not that Baldur's Gate or any other game fully failed in balance or that they weren't good game, but that they had optimal ways to play them which weren't always ways that designers meant to games to be played and this was because designers failed their job (according to said designers) so they don't want to those design mistakes that they did with IE games again with their new game (stated by said designers as reason why they have changed things). Ok, but that happens to the best games. I think the devs were being really perfectionist about it: I mean, if that's a failure in balancing, well, I personally wish for more failures like that. And for the time the balancing of such a complex setting was just grand. While PoE will be a 2014 game.

Point, I very much doubt it would end up like in the sentence that followed the one you quoted. That's just me. P.S. Do you ever write anything that is not on the tune of "You think you don't like [current implementation of feature x], but that's just because you only want a carbon copy of BG1/2 whatever. [Current implementation of feature x] actually is the best thing since sliced bread. Obsidian are never late, nor are they early. Obsidian arrive precisely when they intend to."?