frapillo80

As in the Sawyer quote I just posted the XP system is set up to be changed quite easily So why shouldn't they if the additional solution doesn't overly interfere with design goals? But I am fine with it, I already said so. I was just following Gromnir's directives on the perfection of the current implementation of the quest system.

I is serious, yes. I has shown I understand the devs' problem as well, yes. But since you put it this way: Then, the devs should just follow their vision and grit their teeth during these three remaining months, instead of caving in and compromising on bestiaries and such. When the fickle crowd will see the definitive, bug-free December incarnation of the game, will be swept away by the "simplicity, elegance and effectiveness" (or whatever) of the devs' quest system, will abjure any previous criticism, and will see stuff like the current pointless trash mobs under a totally different light.

It could be. Personally, I have the feeling that having to back up the claim that "every build will be viable" complicates things enormously in that respect, and having different mob composition for different levels of difficulty as well, although to a lesser degree, I think.

Sounds a nice enough improvement over the current wilderness mobs. Thanks for sharing, by the way.

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.

This is the real root of all the 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?"

I guess a "0 stamina just kills you" option would be a dirty quick fix, although it would render a part of the stamina-health mechanics pointless. But even that would be better than the 0 stamina exploits, IMO. Expecially with the current trash mobs, I mean: I already know I am not getting anything out of the figh; I'm going to lose some precious health even in the best case; if by chance two lions gang up on my mage and he's about to go down, well, for sure I'm not going to heal his stamina only for him to lose even more precious health in a meaningless fight. I think during quest fights I would feel somewhat less tempted, but still. Priest's Withdraw could of course target fallen companions, although without stamina recover in this case, and maybe with some general fine-tuning.

I don't think it would be any weirder than an enemy keeping hitting a paralized/petrified/knocked down character. And not all enemies shoul do it, maybe only the dumbest/frenzied/beastlier ones (and with a partially random chance of it happening). But right now the 0 stamina Sphere of Otiluke opens the door to any kind of cheese, and changing only the AoF only changes things a bit against casters, or when you mismanage your own spells. We'd still have four lions playing cards while waiting for your careless companion who failed his stealth check and got savaged to get up so they can get another swipe (or slam-dunk) at him, rinse and repeat. The dying mechanic has a similar effect to an enemy attacking your health while you are down, but while your companions can distract/paralyze/interrupt/knockdown/kill the offending enemy, what can you do in combat with the dying mechanism, since nothing can heal health apart from resting? Then your only option is to kill everybody very quickly, which limits your options much more than enemies targetting the fallen (which, of course, still gives you the option to kill everybody real quick to save your fallen companion). And invulnerability-when-down could still be active in Easy or Normal mode, or (even better), be a separate option like permadeath. It's not a thing I think the devs should thrust upon every player.

" I find quite pointless to think that there is any other intent for these topics": of course, why bother actually reading them and finding out that, my, that's not necessarily the case. What a rascally topic! As I've told you, keep assuming, that's the way. I can live with that.

in the developer thread for barbarians and fighters, you were one of the only persons who observed that the the fighter seemed kinda like a vanilla tank. 'pon reflection, you were the lone person who made such an observation. josh explained the PoE fighter's role, and then there were much rejoicing... save for some folks who wanted to turn the thread into a balance debate. in any event, folks were recognizing, accepting and seeming pleased with the role o' the PoE fighter. what is truly amazing to us is we has seen some folks from this thread who posted in the developer update thread for fighters... and yet they act shocked that the PoE fighter does not play like a bg fighter. regardless, am agreeing that the PoE fighter is more interesting than their bg counterparts. the bb fighter is low maintenance, but we have numerous options in combat. given the role o' the PoE fighter, we don't understand the complaints... save that many folks is wanting the PoE fighter's role to be different. more than a few folks folks complaining o' boring want the PoE fighter to play like the bg fighter. HA! Good Fun! Fighters are definitly a step up from BG1/2. And it's not a bad thing that they play different. My problem is that as a class, they have no option to take a risk in exchange for a different payoff, therefore, inflexible (and dull) compared to other classes (I'm not saying compared to BG1/2 fighters). Their current declination is: tank -> tanker -> tankest. Defender is a no-brainer. Then you have the 0-risk Guardian or Unbending or Vigorous Defense. The rest is passive. No way to change even a little bit the flow of battle, apart from a couple of knockdowns. No risks. If fallen companions were targettable by enemies, they could get some ability like shoulder-charging against the enemy that is wailing onto the fallen companion, create separation and put themselves between the enemy and the companion, at the price of defense lowered for a few seconds. Stuff like this, not dps modes/ability in order to turn them back into BG1/2 fighters.

The title says "the PoE beta xp system" for a reason. And even if it's the follow up of the "Do you want combat xp?" thread, well, you'll be amazed to find out that the reply to such question can be "no". Or "not necessarily". So even in the original thread, not bothering to read the posts and just assuming that anybody who posts there wants combat xp is a poor excuse. Even more so in the follow up thread that clearly states "the PoE beta xp system". But be my guest, keep assuming and don't bother reading. And yes, I offered some insight on some possible alternatives (maybe awful or insignificant, that's up for debate). And no, I won't point it out for you. Read.

Argh. So who would ever find that fighting those lions and losing resources, health, fatigue and companions would be a good choice? In that case, why bother with balancing at all? Let's stick to the few classes/builds/powers/gear that are viable, ignore all the rest that doesn't work, and be happy that the devs provided the options, even though they are not viable, or just plain stupid. And for the last time, I am not saying xp combat is the solution. If you claim that I want combat to be the optimal choice, well, feel free to take your time, read the rest of the thread, get a faint idea of what you are replying to, and then reply. The problem is, right now combat against non quest mobs (should I repeat it for the uptenth time? Non-quest mobs. That means, uh, mobs that are not tied to a quest in any way) is the suboptimal choice, and stealth is the no-brainer choice. You prefer stealth? You happy with stealth having a distinct advantage (or none of the penalties, which boils down to the same thing)? Fine. But don't call it balanced, or good design. I fight those lions as you can just overrun them with certain tactics and it makes it faster and easier to move on the map as you don't need to try avoid them. Also you don't lose any resources permanently even if you fail with your tactics it only takes time same way as sneaking past them does. Balancing is done to give players more options You are arguing in topic which is for asking combat XP, instead of one of topics that speak about combat mechanics one just assumes that adding combat xp is at least part of your solution to problems that you have with backer beta. I find stealth less optimal choice in backer beta than combat, because using stealth drops more overall time from me than combat. I have also pointed previously (not necessary in this thread) that I think that there is too much encounters in bb's maps and they should be more compelling to engage. But I have also said (not in this thread) that backer beta is meant to test mechanics and it is maps made for prototype version of the game so its encounter design probably don't represent encounter design that rest of the game has and people probably should take these things in account when they judge it. If you can overrun those lions that simply means that kiting is still a problem (damn!) and/or engagement mechanics are poorly implemented. Try and overrun the beetles. And it means that stealthing and occasionally overrunning are no-brainers, while fighting remains a stupid choice. Besides, "I only read the title of the post so I assumed..." is a poor excuse. Should I move to the mechanics thread, only to have someone like you say "I assumed you didn't have any truck with xp because I read the title and the title doesn't mention that", or "Hey! You just mentioned xp, you should move to the xp thread, it's a mechanics thread here."? In any case, I am arguing in the thread that says "xp system", where you'll see (if you can bothered with reading at least some of it) that some people ask for combat xp, some other for no combat xp, some for xp for traps and locks, and some (like me) for better balancing of risks and rewards, no false choices and no pointless, time and resource consuming, annoying padding (which is not a thing for a combat mechanics thread, where you discuss actual combat dynamics like engagement, talents, weapons and so on).

It provides good improvement at a minimal cost for the devs, which I guess is exactly the kind of solutions they need most right now.

Except that the choice of fight or not to fight may be contextual. Suppose you've built your party to be especially good at facing undead, but, conversely, not so good at facing spiders. That means that you'd want to fight the undead but avoid the spiders, no?That means that the undead is the lesser evil between fighting x instead of y, but stealth still remains the no-brainer choice, and still trumps both fighting x and fighting y. Even if stealth doesn't work in 50% of the encounters, it still has a distinct advantage in 50% of the cases, and no penalty in the rest. And this is because by stealthing through trash mobs/quests you end up just as good in combat as those who fight through them, because stealth and combat are improved fom separate resource pools.

Argh. So who would ever find that fighting those lions and losing resources, health, fatigue and companions would be a good choice? In that case, why bother with balancing at all? Let's stick to the few classes/builds/powers/gear that are viable, ignore all the rest that doesn't work, and be happy that the devs provided the options, even though they are not viable, or just plain stupid. And for the last time, I am not saying xp combat is the solution. If you claim that I want combat to be the optimal choice, well, feel free to take your time, read the rest of the thread, get a faint idea of what you are replying to, and then reply. The problem is, right now combat against non quest mobs (should I repeat it for the uptenth time? Non-quest mobs. That means, uh, mobs that are not tied to a quest in any way) is the suboptimal choice, and stealth is the no-brainer choice. You prefer stealth? You happy with stealth having a distinct advantage (or none of the penalties, which boils down to the same thing)? Fine. But don't call it balanced, or good design.

yesthey did. Maybe not using the exact phrase "spiritual successor", but they did communicate that idea in many ways. In their kickstarter pitch, which plainly and purposefully targeted IE nostalgia. In interviews with gaming sites during and after the kickstarter - there was probably not a single one that failed to mention the IE games. By not objecting to interviews/articles on popular gaming sites where the authors actually did use the phrase "spiritual successor" in the introduction/headline/commentary. (At least where I live, it's customary for a journalist to send the interviewee a draft of the edited interview article before release, to get confirmation that the way it was edited/cut/presented still represents their views correctly. And even if they didn't get that chance, they could have complained after the articles were released.) In presentations at gaming conventions, where they started the presentation with huge slides showing the IE games. In their two-sentence pitch on the game's official website, where they boil down the essence of what they are selling to this:"Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we! Introducing Obsidian's PILLARS OF ETERNITY." Seriously, the effort by some posters here to shout down arguments that involve comparisons to the IE games, and trying to convince us that the whole IE connection is just in our heads and our own fault, is starting to approach the abusive tactic of gaslighting. It also doesn't help when gaming websites report or do interviews with Obsidian and the interviewers and sites mention 'spiritual successor', and then Obsidian or any of the Obsidian dev's do nothing to correct them of the usage of that term. Which is why Obsidian should come out with a statement and say PoE is NOT a spiritual successor. For some reason, Obsidian are silent on this. I am afraid that if they did at this point, three months before the official release, their next Kickstarter would raise peanuts.

Poe should be compared to BG1; not BG2. We aren't high level in the beta; we're level 5. Take a level 4 party in BG1 with basic gear and them fight Worgs/Hobgoblins/Half-Ogres. You'll see that the fighter is a beast. Wielding a two handed sword the Fighter cuts through trash mobs like butter. The Fighter usually won't even need allies against trash mobs. One hit; *BOOM!* The enemy could very likely blow up; at the very least the enemy will almost certainly die. It made fights with trash mobs mercifully short, and sometimes even fun. Xp also helped make them feel like they weren't a waste of time. My party's have already quite lot magical gear in level four and five in BG. And I would point out that PoE's fighter does handle easily enemies such wolves and drakes, that are similar lower level mobs as worgs/hobgoblins/half-ogres are in BG. Beetles also are quite easy to handle, although wood beetles with their current poison attack that does too much damage can kill anybody quite easily. I would also point that only game which combat PoE should really be compared is IWD, as that is the game which combat Obsidian said they will use as inspiration for PoE. I would also point out that PoE's fighters role differs from role that D&D's fighter has and that class balance is changes so that fighters (and other melee characters) wouldn't dominate in low levels and then magic users on high levels, which means that classes in PoE play differently than their counterparts in D&D. Again, apologies to the rest of the readers for repeating myself ad nauseam: I'm not talking about powergaming, I'm talking about combat not having to depend on gear level in order to still be fun and viable.

It irks me because it DOES prioritize one type of game play, that is, stealthing past non-quest trash mobs. And it's abundantly clear that you didn't understand a thing about my position, and at this point I have to apologize to the rest of this thread's readers for boring them to tears by repeating my position ad nauseam: as you all can see, if this is the result, you suffered for nothing. I always try and stick to the "read first, answer after" myself, but I cannot force others to do the same.

Which is the epitome of bad design, giving the player a choice where only one option is viable and the others are plain stupid. Especially in a game that prides itself on not being the usual xp/loot farming, kill everything, exploit the hell out of the system kind.

So what quest are most lion prides and feral druids being an obstacle to? I'm fed up with repeating myself, but if you don't even go and read the thread you are replying to, I have no other choice. So: what part of "combat penalizes you for fighting 0 xp non-quest trash mobs, stealth doesn't" and "stealth and combat draw from different pools of resources, so it's a non-choice" is not clear enough?

Good point on BG1; and I still believe that the comparison holds, up to a point, even with BG2, with some caveat. Which makes things even more worrying, if it truly turns out to be a fact that a level 5-8 party in PoE is more dependent on gear-level than a level 11-13 party in BG2 for combat not to become dull and tedious.

First, combat against trash mobs doesn't appear to be fun enough, not by a long shot.But most importantly, the current setting really messes up the risk-reward balance, which is crucial in a RPG. So let's say we make combat get all the xp, and quests grant you no xp, no significant loot, no reward and on top of that cost you health and resources and dead companions when you do them: but, a-ha, you do them because they are fun by themselves. Are you sure you would not get any kind of frustration from questing? And remember, at least quests reward you with story developments, 0 xp trash mobs don't even have that. They currently are just shamelessly pointless content padding, and a royal annoyance if you don't have stealth.

I said it enough times: combat against 0 xp mobs is a high risk, high loss, no reward choice, while stealthing is the no risk choice. So where would the "reward the outcome of the quest regardless of the methods used to solve it" you claim be when you fight a 0 xp trash mob? A lion pelt worth 1/10/20/30 the losses you face in terms of consumables, camping gear, inn, not to mention the waste of time and the risk of losing a companion? That's the problem, 0 xp trash mobs are not part of quests and they only offer losses/disadvantages if fought and, on top of that, they become incredibly more time-consuming than if you stealth past them. That's why I always use the term "0 xp trash mobs" or "non-quest fights": but then you reply about the "outcome of the quest" and I am left speechless. To sum it up: currently, fighting against non-quest mobs is the stupid-a** choice, stealthing is the no-brainer choice. Which means there is no real choice. Finally, stealth and combat get improved from two separate resource pools, so there is even less of a meaningful choice, or a sort of trade-off at least. An epic no-brainer.

I'm not talking about powergaming, I'm talking about fun. Point is, combat in Spellhold (halfway through the game if you did most of chapter 2 quests) without magic gear is still fun. But then I hear that PoE's combat is dull ALREADY in Dryford village because of low gear, with Fine and Exceptional gear all around, and party being level 5-8? * shudders* I really hope it's just a DT problem (which I personally like as a mechanic).