Hassat Hunter

What is penalising you from your playstyle if it stays EXACTLY the same. But there are 2 variations added for other people? Wouldn't it be very egoistic to claim your playstyle needs to become prefered? What exactly is endangering you from using your playstyle if you like it most if 2 others are in you like less, and hence don't use? Enlighten me... You'd still get more XP, since you don't have to share your XP amongst the group. And get the full XP of your playstyle (it's not like you get less XP for being a fighter, that would be unfair). Basically what you're saying is "if I am a fighter, I want more XP than the rogue and diplomat." But this game is made for more playstyles than just your fighter, so (sadly for you) that wont happen. No, it isn't. Stealth players can stealth. And have stealth skills and options and questpaths do so. Fighters can fight. And have fighting skills and options and questpaths to do so. Diplomats can work things out. And have diplomat skills and options and questpaths to do so. Why is any of them watered down if all are viable? Why does the fighter need to be more viable for the system to work (it wouldn't be better...). Why is supporting proper stealth and diplomacy unlike the IE games inherrently making fighters watered down? I need some reasons, since honestly, I don't understand them...

Exploration XP. The windmill is off the beaten path, surrounded by orcs. In BG, some maps can be completely avoided. Surerly you can get "exploration XP" for them... what does it matter what that exploration portraits. Yeah, but now you just need to "clear it" not "clear it out"... And if the Infinite Dungeon is 15 levels of fighting with no NPC's, quests, a rich story etc. it's a waste of developertime. We can play Torchlight III or Diablo III instead. That's not what PE is about. So I surely doubt it will be a 15 layered Bloodlines sewer slog. No, we're not... :?

It is not. That's exactly what we advocate though. Players who can do what THEY want. Not being forced to do what the SYSTEM wants them. Not sure why it's oppossed by the otehrs... And obviously it's also for my game... I'm not getting a different PE than you guys. We aren't. We aren't punishing anyone. It's an open playing field for all. However it raises an important question... why is removing combat XP a punishment? Why is making a good system a punishment? Why is making viable stealth punishing? How exactly is allowing people to play how they want punishing them? Or forcing the game my way. I'm not saying they should fight. Or stealth. Or diplomacy. I say... Do whatever the hell YOU want. And I want a system to make people be able to do that. Why oppose that? Really?

The easiest way would be not to tie finding area to quests... and why should it? Objective-XP includes exploration, so finding that mill should give some XP regardless if there's a quest or not. You didn't do/did the quest? You still get some for going out of the way and finding said location. Same with dungeons. You could give some XP for clearing a level in any way and moving on. You don't even need to be sended there.

I'm going to assume you have little experience with OE. Or RPG's in general. Quests aren't simple "give X to Y", they allow multiple paths, solutions. If you discover the quest giver is the enemy, and you kill him... congrats... Quest completed. I'm not sure why you think OE is such a newbie gamedev that this would instead lead to a quest failure and no reward. EDIT Also, AGAIN, "quest XP" is really "objective XP"... it's not awarded ONLY for quests, nor only at the end of them. If the quest is very long and hefty (like the MQ) there will be several objectives inbetween who give XP rewards. So abandoning a quest halfway could have still benefitted you, depending on the quest. Why I have to explain this to someone who played Vampire: Bloodlines, though, is beyond me... (or maybe I am confusing you with someone else)

It's the job of the devs to do this. That is to say a lot of us make our arguments while trying to look at the problem from the designer/developer's perspective. That is why some of us come to similar conclusions to the devs. Indeed. I generally also look at the issue not from a gamers stand, but also developer. And for developers, there's a LOT to gain. It's easier to implement, balance, test, create. Allowing the use of more precious time to other systems and developments. Also helping gamers. But from a gamers point it's good too. As stated, no need to grind all locks/mines/enemies etc. just to keep up. More options for the player to roleplay. The more players can enjoy a game the better no? Also, what's a system that is complex, but still easy. Aside from the difficulty adding 10 different XP's and then modifying them on the row when stuff happens, how do you explain to players how the system works. Imagine the fireball damage saying 10. Clear, no? Now it says "10. -2 if in water. -2 if in the air. If used after another fireball +3. +2 while on fire. If the enemy is already burning 0. If the enemy is iced 20. -4 if you cast any fire-based spell in the last 45s. +2 if you wear magic robes." That's... just too much, wouldn't you agree?

Ehm, 'individual task XP' IS "Quest XP"... a better phrase would be "Objective XP" really (it's just longer and has not such a nice ring to it, but more properly reflects the system PE uses). You aren't just rewarded for quests, but objectives. And that can include finding areas, proceeding along (like the next level of a dungeon) or, well, anything really. The sky's the limit. EDIT: Oh, I guess I misread and you mean XP per every task you do. A bit like the Elder Scrolls principle. Yeah, rather not. Rewarding everything, from combat to locks to talking to picking flowers only makes people need to do tasks they don't want to to advance. Something that's exactly the opposite from what's intended, that people can play how they want and are not forced to abandon their style and play otherwise, accept tasks they don't want for XP. Making the game more fun, not a job...

I don't believe Stealth is the "I win" button most make it out to be. As stated, you need to invest in it. Wear less armor. Etc. If you fail, you're in a bind. It's not as riskfree as others want you to believe just to sell their "stealth is the only way to play this game" misguided idea, in order to pronely put combat on a number one spot. Because we all know grinding makes games better, right?

Well, they need a healing power. Can't blame them from making more powers... otherwise being a Jedi would be boring indeed.

Quoting really sucks now, yeah... EDIT: Sweet. Should have found this thread earlier

True enough. Yet here people are claiming everyone would be more than willing to skip content and stuff and just get it over with. That in any games everyone obviously picks the obvious "fastest path" of "least resistance" It even goes so far that I get insulted for playing Deus Ex gunnery. And I am obviously a sucky player to still do that since "stealth is so much better"... even if in DX neither combat nor stealth player are penalised. Or actually forced to deviate from their path... or even tempted.

Could be me... but the objective-XP pro's are getting constant reinforcements. The pro-combat XP seem the same 3 or 4 guys from the start. Not really getting bigger. And that also should say something about who is very loud...

No, the conflict comes because; Group A (the combat-XP people) think the sewers suck because it didn't give XP. And with combat-XP it wouldn't suck Group B (the objective-XP people) see the sewers sucking isn't related to any XP design. Not getting XP is not the cause, and giving it is not the solution. The design itself is just horribly flawed. And not a system for reward changes that. It's just that they dropped the ball there. Which is a very real risk regardless of the system (see also Dragon Age and Divinity 2). Both groups do think the place is a waste of time, and bad. And no, we don't think that because "we sneak through"... we think so because it really is horribly designed. And making it a place to rush through is indeed something we don't want either. But it's a no-issue if areas are just properly populated with GOOD encounters, hidden treasures, quests, NPC's etc.

I phrased my question very succinctly in an effort to get an answer that I (quite frankly) already expected. According to your very reason there is no actual purpose to fighting through that sewer system. In other words it is meaningless to use combat in that situation. Does that sound like good game design to you? If yes, please never ever design a game. If no, then you have made my case for me I am sure glad you're not a game-developer. Why would it be GOOD gamedesign to force people to kill every enemy in a long boring sequence. Next you know you'll be telling me OE should have made a [sorry, you cannot enter the core and confront Darth Traya enter until you killed EVERYTHING on Malachor] cause that would have made Malachor so much better. Well, then you should be glad. If removing the XP gains is fixing loopholes, this is the ultimate loophole fix. ""You got XP from killing individual enemies in BG and IceWind Dale", you don't get that in PE. It's almost like they closed some loopholes."

I think it's funny how you point out that certain minor areas in "combat + quest xp" games did not reward combat with xp as "proof" that quest only xp is better. And Dragon age 2 used quest xp only? Wow, it was a bad game too. Thanks, I didn't know that. Now I have "proof" that quest only xp will suck for PE. You seriously FAIL reading don't ya? Those all GIVE XP. And suck. And give XP while sucking. Nope, DA2 didn't do that... congrats on confirming you really REALLY suck at reading. Added to ignore... should have done that much earlier.

You wouldn't know which one that were. Unless you're playing with a guide next to you. And why anyone would do that beats me. But I guess for you guys efficiency beats any kind of fun. Let me ask you. Killing dude X gives you a +2 weapon. Exploring a cave for 15 minutes gives you the same +2 weapon. Are you still going to cry "stealth is more efficient" etc.? Because I doubt killing the dude costs the same time...

KOTOR2 and BG2 have shown us that, no, that's not a good sollution. Especially working in a team, where obviously some would have combat skills and some stealth, it wouldn't balance out, most would just get both.

First of all; means you don't get NO loot. Nowhere does it state an EQUAL amount of loot (which is impossible, since kills drop loot). It simply says "you can get loot outside of combat" WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO READ AND UNDERSTAND??? And let's see how much attrocious sequences a game has that does give XP per kill. DA2: Entire game DA:O: Large fractions, like the ending, dwarven tunnels, etc. KOTORs: Malachor, Star Forge (although it was cut up with cutscenes and conversations making it better than Malachor), Taris sewers. PS:T: Everything after Sigil Drakensang; The game was so good, I can barely remember anything of the 2 game's ingame. Should tell something. :/ BG1: Forests, mines, endgame. BG2: Underdark. Divinity 2: The Fortresses (and I heard they were workse before the DKS). So yeah... it's really exclusive to Bloodlines. The point is, pointless combat is boring and stale in any game. Wheter it gives XP or not. Go ahead to the Codex and say the end of Dragon Age: Origins was awesome, since the grind was accompanied by XP. I expect a lot of laughter. We're just too kind here to do so... Please tell me how Malachor is the best part of KOTOR2. Exactly. Giving XP wouldn't have changed this. It would still be an abymyssal part of the game. Blame the design. One could think because BG didn't have such a long slog of boring combat? Not even the finale? I feel free to point you to Dragon Age: Origins though, who "fixed" that by having it. XP included. Hint; It sucks. Have you played Commando's? It's HARD. Really hard. I don't really know of the other stealth games like Splinter Cell, since they're not my type of games, despite what certain people here try to convince you off... None whatsoever. And the question should be; why should it? Why, considering it's already a drap slog, should we go out of our way to kill all enemies? What reason is there to promote that? What is wrong with allowing a regular path without killing everything? I guarantee you, if you had to kill everything, the place would have an even worse rep than it does now. Is that good for a game, truly? Well, you made a valiant effort. But you see what we had to deal with in the first few pages of this thread. Thanks for trying!

You know in IE resting was free, and healed right. OMG... Combat costs 0 resources.

Good luck guys talking to the brick wall who can't properly see Josh's words. I kind of given up...

Why do you need an instant-reward? Why return to the quest-giver for the reward? Give it right away, makes it go faster. Why reward option A with dialogue A later and B with B later. Such a late reward is silly... just give XP and the later dialogue should do C whatever you did.

Nor was it mine... however the question was "what if we give no quest XP" to which the counter was "how to level without XP"... figured you would answer that (didn't see that the no XP part was cut from the quote)... Anyway, the current situation is... (combat xp/stealth xp/dialogue XP) + exploration xp + quest completions = objective XP why change it to; combat xp + (specific instances of stealth/dialogue XP) + exploration xp + quest xp.

That's not removing XP. Also when we talk "quest XP" in this thread we really mean "Objective XP"... exploration bonus XP would be included in that. Clearing that up since from this post, it seems that wan't clear. You and me both. The less of the TES-grind system the better...

It'll be a hell easier to program... that's the difference. What seems easy on paper can be hard to replicate in a game. Like "add physics"...

I don't mind... but this is a RPG. How do you want to level and build up your character without XP?