Atheosis

You don't have to be a completionist to max it out. Not even close.

The things that nearly everyone seems to agree on: 1) Bounty xp is way too high. 2) Trap xp is way too high. I think that's where Obsidian should start, along with targeted enemy buffs (hello kith enemies and most non-caster melee monsters).

Yeah it really is. You are talking about making level 8 the new level 12 basically and level 12 becomes all but impossible to reach with current xp totals in the game. It would take huge changes all over to make work.

So I assume that code can only change thing percentage-wise across all levels? Personally I think a 50% increase would be healthier than 100%. 100% would be for masochists I suspect, especially early on.

You actually get half immediately and half when turning the heads in I believe. There's definitely a significant amount of xp awarded just from the fights alone.

They aren't going to completely redo the xp and leveling system in the game so I don't know why we're even discussing it. The game has been released. It's not going to change in drastic ways. They just need to trim off the excess xp that makes it so easy to hit the cap and they need to buff roughly half the enemies in the game so they pose a threat equal to their level. Many enemies need their accuracy significantly buffed for instance. Seriously though, talking about drastic redesigns of game systems is just totally unrealistic.

There already multiple threads on this topic. The answer is maybe when it comes to official changes and almost certainly when it comes to modding. The question on the modding front is whether or not the people involved have any idea what they are doing when it comes to game balance. I think a mod that simply reduces xp from bounties and side quests is something that would probably be hard to screw up though.

I'm sorry but I was an early defender of the way things are, but then I did all the bounties and realized there was a genuine issue with xp availability in the game. Difficulty is much more subjective, but hitting the xp cap with huge amounts of content untouched? That's a quantifiable problem.

Before they eventually fixed it every loading screen on Divinity Original Sin took several minutes for me. Your load time issues make me laugh.

The game economy is definitely a huge mess, especially late in the game. I'm surprised that more people aren't talking about that. It is so easy to basically buy every magic item and every high price gem in the game by the end. I blame the stash, which I have disliked design-wise from the very beginning.

Hm, i'm kinda surprised about you being saddened or surpised about this. No matter how good a game, there are always people who hate this or that with power of a thousand suns, or extortionsts ("If you don't change/implement this or that minor quibble, i'll never buy a game from <Publisher> again") etc.. Especially if it's a new IP where players projected all their diverging wishes and someone just HAS to be disappointed. Also there are many questions that don't have a clear, objective answer, but are often a matter of taste, e.g. is limited rest a design decision (some love it, some hate it, some want it changed to be even stricter, some confuse their opinion on it with fact etc.), I think it would be sad if a good game had predominantly bad reactions, but most reviews, customer/player ratings etc. are good to great. Yep. The game has some clear balance issues, but overall is still the best CRPG I've played in a decade. I'm really looking forward to Obsidian's future improvements and hopefully a thriving mod community. I just wish modding was a lot easier--they didn't really make the game as modder-friendly as I was hoping for.

Yeah, it looks like the quest files are referencing some id values to determine how much experience should be awarded. I'm trying to figure out exactly where the exp tables are; if it's something that can be modified in VS then that would make it a lot easier. A good start would be linking the different quest files to their in-game counterparts. From there, you could start playing with the "ExperienceType" and "ExperienceLevel" values. Or, just create a script that ensures that no quest outside of the crit_path has an ExperienceLevel greater than some number. So i asked one knowledgeable dude, and apparently there is no xp table. But there is a formula located in PillarsOfEternity_Data\Managed\Assembly-CSharp.dll in CharacterStats class ExperienceNeededForNextLevel method. It is : ((currentLevel * (currentLevel + 1)) * 500). Also the guys that made iemod already made some framework to change that kind of stuff https://bitbucket.org/Bester/poe-modding-framework A shame its not in xml, i'm not sure i'm up to getting visual studio with all the additional stuff required just to change this. Also i wouldn't be surprised if its very easy to f something up with that decompiling stuff... It's a shame that they didn't make the game easier to mod in general. I love when game designers make the files easily accessible and you can just tweak the values in a text editor. PoE's data all seems to be buried deep within proprietary files.

I never said this change wouldn't have to come with a rebalancing of the XP in the game - of course it would. This would be a very comprehensive change, and it would take a lot of time and energy (which is why it probably won't happen). But this is the only way to fundamentally fix the system so that players who do everything and players who do the critical path are still within a few levels of each other. That or (as I said) make sidequests give little to no XP (not a preferred solution). It's a mathematical reality - those are the only two solutions. If X is crit path XP and Y is sidequest XP, the only way to ensure that the level difference between "X" and "X + Y" is only a few levels is to make Y very, very small, or to make the XP requirement double each time (or triple, or multiply by 1.5 - the coefficient doesn't really matter. The important thing is the mathematical form.) The current system scales quadratically (exactly quadratically, actually), and you need the system to scale logarithmically. Again, I don't care if you double the XP requirements each time or just multiply them by 1.5 (or 1.2, or 1.8759 - it really doesn't matter). But you MUST base the requirement for the next level off of your current XP, not a linearly increasing amount. Because the way the current system is, the amount of experience required for the next level is an increasingly small amount compared to your current experience. That's the fundamental problem. The amount of experience for the next level needs to be a constant percentage of your total experience at the previous level. Like I said - doesn't have to double each time, but does have to multiply by something each time (instead of adding something). Maybe Obsidian will prove me wrong and fix it in such a way that sidequests still mean something and you don't overlevel to oblivion by being a completionist. But I'm not holding my breath. You can't fight math. Sorry, but I just don't agree. First of all, halving side quest xp and reducing bounty xp to ~1-2k xp per bounty will go a long ways on its own. Then they just need to buff the underperforming monsters' damage/accuracy/spell selection. It might not be as all-encompassing as your rebalance notion, but it would be a lot easier and would accomplish what most people want. The issue as it currently exists is that there is too much optional xp in the game and too many enemies that don't live up to their level. These issues can be fixed without wholesale redesign of the xp and leveling system in the game. Disagree by countering my math, not with your intuition. The solution you propose could work... somewhat. It's basically equivalent to making sidequest XP negligible in comparison to the main quest. In PoE, that means making the total available sidequest XP roughly on the order of 20000 or so. Assuming critical path has 45000 (getting you to level 9), this would mean that sidequest XP comprises ~30% of the XP in the game. Fair enough. But what about the sequel? What about when we're talking about the difference between level 24 for a crit path player (300000 XP, let's just assume that's the crit path max in PoE 2) and level... hmm, that'd be level 28 for a completionist at 406000 XP (if we want to preserve the "sidequest XP is roughly 30% of total XP" rule). So now we're talking about a difference of 4 levels. And the game becomes trivially easy for the completionist. Do you see the problem? I said it before and I'll say it again: "If X is crit path XP and Y is sidequest XP, the only way to ensure that the level difference between "X" and "X + Y" is only a few levels is to make Y very, very small, or to make the XP requirement double each time (or triple, or multiply by 1.5 - the coefficient doesn't really matter." The problem is not with the XP tuning. The tuning isn't great right now, granted - but even if its fixed the fundamental problem remains. The mathematical form of the "XP to next level" function does not support sidequest XP that is any constant percentage of crit path XP, because the percentage of total XP needed to level up decreases dramatically as you get higher in levels. Compare 2 -> 3 (3000 -> 6000, a 100% increase) to 11 -> 12 (66000 -> 78000, an 18% increase). And it doesn't get better. What about 24 -> 25 (300000 -> 325000, an 8% increase)? The functional form of the "XP to next level" function simply does not support sidequest XP being any constant percentage of crit path XP. I don't know how to put it any more clearly than that. If they want the game to remain fun for both completionists and non-completionists, and they want sidequests to not award pitifully small amounts of XP in the sequel, the leveling curve has to change. Again - I don't know how to put it any clearer, it's a mathematical fact. They can put band-aids on it for now, but the system is flawed and will give them buckets of trouble later in the series. I didn't say make side quest xp negligible. 50% of what it currently is would still be significant xp overall. The difference is that you would actually need to do most of the stuff in the game to reach the cap. Presently my guess is that you only need to do roughly half the side content to hit the cap, though I'm not certain of the numbers. Since reaching the cap is not necessary to beat the game it just shouldn't be this easy. And projecting issues into the future with the sequel just seems silly to me. Hell they can redesign the whole leveling system and simply convert characters to that system when you import them if they want. The point is that they can't realistically redesign this element of the game after release, but they can adjust what is actually there to solve the issues that exist to an acceptable if not totally ideal level.

On the other hand being able to place only one feels absurdly limiting. I think there's a middle ground that can be found. A free level 4-6 spell with super accuracy. Is real good. Their damage isn't even remotely close to the spells they mimic, so your point is invalid. Traps often have more effect than just damage. Which makes your point invalid. The cc traps, yes, though even they have much weaker effects than the spells they mimic. And most traps are damaging traps with piddly damage vs their spell counterparts. I'd say traps are basically 2-3 spell levels weaker than the corresponding spells (meaning the weakest aren't even on par with 1st level spells). If traps were as powerful as the spells they mimic a limit of one would make sense balance-wise.

I firmly believe bounties should give 10% of their current xp rewards. You get gold and unique items from them, you don't need crazy xp too.

I get what you are saying, and I had the same mentality earlier on, but as I've progressed I've realized you can hit the cap while leaving huge amounts of stuff untouched. And considering you don't need to reach the cap to beat the game (not even close), it seems rather clear that optional content is giving too much xp. Bounties in particular are just absurd at the moment.

Fair enough. More challenging optional encounters would be nice. Though I'm not bothered in the least if encounters on the critical path are indeed tuned for the critical path. I just don't want to be 4-5 levels higher than the critical path for doing all the sidequests. 1-2 levels is just fine. Agreed; too much level variance at any given stage of a game simply leads to a mess. While how much I do in the way of sidequests before reaching any given point should have a noticeable impact on how hard I find the encounter, it shouldn't be the primary factor dictating it; that's a job for the difficulty selection. Amusingly enough, it was a... well, a crit path related quest that gave me the only real challenge in the Act 2/Defiance Bay area portion of the game. Huh, I found that fight rather easy.

On the other hand being able to place only one feels absurdly limiting. I think there's a middle ground that can be found. A free level 4-6 spell with super accuracy. Is real good. Their damage isn't even remotely close to the spells they mimic, so your point is invalid.

I never said this change wouldn't have to come with a rebalancing of the XP in the game - of course it would. This would be a very comprehensive change, and it would take a lot of time and energy (which is why it probably won't happen). But this is the only way to fundamentally fix the system so that players who do everything and players who do the critical path are still within a few levels of each other. That or (as I said) make sidequests give little to no XP (not a preferred solution). It's a mathematical reality - those are the only two solutions. If X is crit path XP and Y is sidequest XP, the only way to ensure that the level difference between "X" and "X + Y" is only a few levels is to make Y very, very small, or to make the XP requirement double each time (or triple, or multiply by 1.5 - the coefficient doesn't really matter. The important thing is the mathematical form.) The current system scales quadratically (exactly quadratically, actually), and you need the system to scale logarithmically. Again, I don't care if you double the XP requirements each time or just multiply them by 1.5 (or 1.2, or 1.8759 - it really doesn't matter). But you MUST base the requirement for the next level off of your current XP, not a linearly increasing amount. Because the way the current system is, the amount of experience required for the next level is an increasingly small amount compared to your current experience. That's the fundamental problem. The amount of experience for the next level needs to be a constant percentage of your total experience at the previous level. Like I said - doesn't have to double each time, but does have to multiply by something each time (instead of adding something). Maybe Obsidian will prove me wrong and fix it in such a way that sidequests still mean something and you don't overlevel to oblivion by being a completionist. But I'm not holding my breath. You can't fight math. Sorry, but I just don't agree. First of all, halving side quest xp and reducing bounty xp to ~1-2k xp per bounty will go a long ways on its own. Then they just need to buff the underperforming monsters' damage/accuracy/spell selection. It might not be as all-encompassing as your rebalance notion, but it would be a lot easier and would accomplish what most people want. The issue as it currently exists is that there is too much optional xp in the game and too many enemies that don't live up to their level. These issues can be fixed without wholesale redesign of the xp and leveling system in the game.

Rogues are good. I don't think they need any help. But giving them trap bonuses to damage and trap count would be nice.

On the other hand being able to place only one feels absurdly limiting. I think there's a middle ground that can be found.

Feels like an IE game to me. I don't know what other people are playing...

Which basically means estocs are better sometimes and great swords are better sometimes. So basically they are pretty much balanced. I hadn't given it too much thought, so I was probably wrong about great swords being better, but it does seem they are pretty balanced overall. If not, the imbalance certainly isn't particularly large in one direction or the other. Estocs will be more consistent in damage output while great swords and pole axes have greater damage spike potential based on enemies.

Identical bonus types do not stack. If you go into your character screen and look at the bonuses your items are giving you, you will see the ones that are "suppressed" and can adjust your party's equipment to minimize overlaps. It's not something the game really explains very well.

Well this is true in shadow fights, Aloth and durance can get perma deathed pretty fast by these guys who are some of the more fun opponents. Other than them though there aren't too many fights you get forced out of position and to adapt are there?I'd say that sadly a lot of the other fights rest on your initial angle of attack, if the enemies all run towards Eder, it's already pretty much done. Let me think. Banshees (not bothering with their crazy in-game name) also teleport and have an aoe paralyze that is quite nasty. Mind control effects can be real trouble as well, though if they don't mind control your cipher you can flip it rather easily. AOE attacks can do quite a bit of damage to your whole party, especially the squishies. I've lost a few fights due to the insane raw damage of plague of insects (which seems to hit a lot harder than other enemy aoe attacks). I've figured out counters to most of these issues as I've played, and leveling gives protection spells against mind control and paralysis, so again it does seem to get easier as you level up. I do get what people are saying and I do think there's some validity to it, but again it wasn't until I got past level 9 that things became "easy", and that's on normal. Then again for me almost losing a fight or having one or two people drop feels challenging. I don't need to party wipe and reload to feel challenged, and I think that's what some people are looking for. I've probably only party wiped four or five times, and most of those were the result of being caught off guard by an attack that I didn't expect (plague of insects and the final boss in endless paths' aoe attacks account for pretty much all of them). Funnily enough you've basically named the things I mentioned, I include phantoms and banshees with shadows as they're often together on path at least. Insects comes from pwgra/ogre Druids mind control comes from spores. Theyre pretty much the main fights with a bit of challenge to them on path. You already only get 2 supplies on both I believe hard and definitely path. For me part of the fun is stocking up supplies at an inn, food potions, resting bonus etc. then going off on the quest to get it done before you come back, I just wish it was necessary but it really isn't. Sure you can return at any time but in lots of contexts such as raedrics hold that doesn't make any sense, I would say it's pretty cheesy to go back for supplies all the time, i have no problems with an attempt to stop you using all cool downs every fight and for me it's worked because I make sure I Don't. Got this from mods for BG where you can't rest in many places such as starting dungeon more than once and illithid lair for example (youre trying to escape you can't spend 3 days napping) I totally get that it feels a bit metagamey UT prefer it to nothing. Fampyrs too. I do feel that human spell casters need more stuff like confuse, paralysis, etc. They aren't very scary in PoE, and they were always scary back in the BG games. I also feel that most melee bruiser types need to hit harder. Adra Animats are big and tanky but their damage is piddly. Same goes for trolls and forest lurkers. Ogres are the only big bruiser enemies that feel like they hit appropriately hard (plus they have that aoe prone attack). Can't say I've discovered Fampyr's, as I said, I did avoid a lot of side stuff due to finding things a bit easy. Animats and Lurkers are good examples of impotent enemies (bad accuracy), big packs of ogres can be really nasty when they have druids around, half the problem is that the encounters are extremely up and down in difficulty, just with a large tendency towards down. I wouldn't claim for a second every encounter is too easy, just the majority and it's that that kind of ruins the feel for me. Yeah I get it. Having not played on the harder difficulties it's hard for to understand how people find them so trivial, but I guess I'll experience it myself in future playthroughs. I do feel that Obsidian needs to be careful and not be too heavy handed in how much they increase the difficulty. If they address bounty xp and reduce side quest xp a bit while buffing the underperforming enemies (kith, trolls, lurkers, and both varieties of animat come to mind) I think they can make great strides without turning the game into a masochistic nightmare only a small portion of players can enjoy.