Valorian

Monks should get the least XP because they're extremely egoistic and foolish to not lend an artifact to help defeat the Vile Overlord of Darkness. Valorian would again get the most XP, he defeated both the selfish monks and the Overlord. Sadly for Rudolph, while visiting the hospice he was infected with the plague and died as well.

In fact, I'm not trying to convince anybody. That would be like convincing those hordes of peasants, from a distant past, that Earth is not flat. I can understand the pain of those who tried.

It is not better. They can coexist. There is no need to remove xp for victory in battle to please fanatics who hate combat. If they are going to reward efficiency, which is an aspect of intelligence - Valorian the Munchkin would get the most XP. He obtained the eye without causing a bloody mess that could've potentially endangered the object and later removed the threat of the lizard priest. The least xp should go to the adventurer who left the lizard priest alive because there's this horrific possibilty that the lizard priest, who's alive and kicking, will hunt him down with his minions and end his miserable thieving life. Valorian and Barbara get a bonus to XP because they also made a huge favor to all incompetent wannabe adventurers, like Junta the Wonderboy, who would get disintegrated by the fearsome lizard priest with a mere gesture of his hand.

Okay. So you want XP for killing things because your elf chick's combat abilities should go up when she has practice killing things, but you don't want your elf chick's shield block ability to go up when she practices blocking things with a shield because...? But her block ability will improve after accumulating enough combat experience. This system also offers a wider array of possibilities for character advancement.

Valorian: 'XP for kills'. : You want 'learn by doing'. No.

Senseless.

Oh, look. My little, but fervorous fan club has gathered. Whassup kids? There, there, I see you have some small issues with learning new things. No problem. If you can't learn it using logic, you'll have to learn it by heart. So let's start with the basic premise, please repeat it after me: Barbarian elf enters an area. Slays dozens of giants. Doesn't find the cat/elephant/Waldo. Gets 0 xp. His combat skills do not improve, at all. Barbarian elf enters the same area after a month. Finds cat/elephant/Waldo. Gets 1000 xp. His combat skills miraculously improve. Game has tactical and intense combat encounters all over the place. And keep repeating it for about 16 months, every time you refresh our beloved Obsidian forum pages. Maybe you'll get it just in time.

It sure doesn't. But killing hostile creatures is often a step in the process of completing an objective. You killed hostile creatures to complete an objective, and you got XP for the completion of that objective, therefore you gained XP for killing hostile creatures. How . many . times . will . I . have . to . spell . it . out . for . you . ? A - step. Some - times. Only - a - step. It's the key part. Concentrate. You still have to bring the cat back and talk to the peasant. You still have to free the maiden. You still have to unlock the door and find the lost underpants. If only objectives grant xp, and if my character doesn't engage in completing said artificial 'objectives', he will end up underleveled. .. I thought I was clear enough, but maybe I wasn't since you continue with your obtuse mantra. If the act of killing things that are out there for your blood grants xp, it should grant it immediately, and not when I find the lost cat, underpants or maiden. Because the barbarian elf is not interested in finding a lost cat, underpants and freeing the maiden. Barbarian elf enters an area. Slays dozens of giants. Doesn't find the cat/elephant/Waldo. Gets 0 xp. ... I have to say that I'm deeply sorry for offending sheep with an unfortunate comparison I made before. To all sheep out there: forgive me!

I actually asked how killing something wouldn't constitute the completion of an objective Killing hostile creatures obviously doesn't constitute the completion of an objective in itself, since if it did... then you'd get xp directly for completing said objctive of killing hostile creatures. Precisely because... surprise, surprise... in those games you do get xp for killing enemies. And it's not a marginal amount of xp. You can do just fine without rescuing cats.

My barbarian elf mostly avoids other people's "objectives". He's kind of a fantasy anarchist. I agree with you about people being a bit silly. I don't know about obnoxious though (you sound kind of mad?), I find the word "sheep" more appropriate. However, there are some pisters in here that are acting in a very childish manner. I agree, but you have to understand that a sheep is childish by its nature. For instance, when sheep see their shepherd it's a moment of immense pleasure, a sort of self-induced nirvana mixed with hysteria. I certainly see how you could associate such behavior with a human child, but do not confuse sheep and children. A sheep loves the shepherd and fears him at the same time. If sheep could express their love for the shepherd, they would; abundantly. To make a mundane example.. if sheep had a like button for their shepherd, they'd press it furiously and repeatedly as soon as the shepherd appears or shows them a finger. Oh hi there, Lephys. You were asking something about how and why would my barbarian elf lose lots of xp when avoiding extensive conversations with people? Dunno, maybe a peasant could ask him to bring back his cat? That's called an 'objective', right?

My barbarian elf mostly avoids other people's "objectives". He's kind of a fantasy anarchist. I agree with you about people being a bit silly. I don't know about obnoxious though (you sound kind of mad?), I find the word "sheep" more appropriate.

But this is all excellent. I mean their goal to accommodate various play styles and roleplaying possibilities, right? The first character I'm going to roleplay will be a sneaky orlan diplomat with a royal accent, elegant eyeglasses and a gun (just in case). He will sneak and talk past encounters, swiftly and painlessly, hoarding objective and exploration XP. On the second playthrough I'll roleplay a barbarian elf. He will be of the "less talk, more action" type. He'll avoid boring people and their excruciatingly logorrheic speeches. Doing so, the elven barbarian will probably miss on lots of objective based xp. He will excell at combat though and will kill enemies with passion and zeal. Unfortunately for him, he won't improve his combat skills by killing enemies... he will die asking himself "why?". Do not worry though, my dear barbarian elf, even if you're likely going to be 5 levels below the sneaky orlan diplomat by the time you reach the first crit path special encounter - it's going to be fine: level scaling will abduct your enemies and replace them with rubber versions!

Oh well, I wouldn't want you to feel violated...

Congratulations, you've managed to win an argument over the internet. +1500 XP. (You may decide whether it's for winning the encounter or completing the objective ). You're still treating this whole matter as if somehow the quality of the game would fundamentally depend on how the experience is handed out. Thank you for giving me xp, I appreciate it. But that's not important, what is really important here is that I'm helping you. I'm helping you to let it out and finally feel free: "I HATE COMBAT! I HATE IT SO MUCH!!!" *channels Oprah* I invite you and other people who are vehemently against combat xp to let it out, reapeat the quote, and embrace freedom of the mind and peace of the soul.

Right, they don't have one at all. You're jumping like Super Mario from foundation to foundation and they keep failing, but now you've run out of foundations to jump on. Don't know, ask yourself why did you mention a game that you liked a lot which had kill XP in an argument against kill XP.

Arguing about anything on a forum is absurd so I don't find this particular instance of absurdity any more absurd than the norm. Also, it's fun to poke at degenerashoun from time to time.

I'd expect the developers to offer us an environment where we can choose our allies and enemies, and each choice is equally valid. In this context, yes, killing other sentient beings which could be our allies under different circumstances is murder. So if it's not a sentient being then it's ok to give xp? Now it's not about sociopathic behavior, but instead about the possibility of making allies? If we can't make an ally out of a sentient being then it's ok to murder it? What about sentient beings that want to murder us and become red as soon as they see us? Is it ok to kill them and get xp for doing so? Or should we just run to the next map and pray to god they change their minds and become allies? And guess what.. both games had kill XP. Yes, yes, even your beloved PST. Shocker!!

It is, but when exactly was this called into question? When you started posting about encouraging sociopathic behavior and then tripped over it. Indeed. Especially if we're talking about a game. And especially a game which is supposedly going to offer lots of tactical combat. So now we're calling it "committing murders" and not "killing enemies". Okay, that being out of the way... From what aspect is it wrong to encourage combat in a game with lots of tactical combat, lots of combat abilities and lots of loot used in combat? From a moral aspect? Because it's sociopathic? But then we go back to the sociopathic problem of joining sociopathic guilds.. why would we encourage this no-no behavior by giving xp? You can't kill them for xp if it's scripted to not give an xp reward after the quest. I believe this is really the smallest of the weak arguments against kill XP that is thrown around a lot. I don't think anyone would find it problematic that killing a random unarmed peasant or citizen grants 0 XP. The problem is you might have misread some marketing lines. It's not just the spiritual successor for PST.

Fixed it for you. Playing, for instance, a barbarian that kills things because he prefers to use the sword rather than putting on eyeglasses and asking the skeleton warrior in a British accent "Excuse me, may I pass?", is not roleplaying? How come when you murder yourself it's sociopathic behavior, but when you join sociopathic gangs to help them murder, destroy and steal - it's suddenly roleplaying?

Rewarding the act of siding with bandits, thieves and murderers to complete quests encourages sociopathic behavior and therefore should not grant any XP.

I have just quoted your post in which you are all worked up about the need to scale optional non-linear content, because it's apparently a huge problem if it isn't tailored to the player's level. Not a huge problem anymore though, after Sawyer's post.. You are ignoring reality and facts again. So I did read some of your posts. On the other hand, I have no intention to read your excruciatingly boring essays where you reapeat the same illogical notions over and over again. Like your brilliant, Nobel worthy essays on "why is level scaling the exact same thing as difficulty levels". It's obvious that you get lost in those litanies, forgetting what you're writing, who were you responding to, what was it about... I've never said that. You can turn off caps lock. But it doesn't come off as a shock that a person who is detached from reality is also a liar.

There are many reasons why I like being rewarded with XP after defeating an enemy. One of them is the feeling of accomplishment. When I cut down a specific enemy I'd like to know its power value expressed in XP. I want to know how successful my party was at dealing with the foe. XP per enemy offers this. An elegant XP system would take into account the character's level and the specific challenge rating/level of the enemy. So if you, let's say, kill an aumaua barbarian that is 4 levels above your PC - it will be reflected in the XP reward. The higher the XP reward and the lower time & resources spent = more success. I also enjoy the thrill of leveling up in the middle of the fight which can change the tides of battle. I believe that not all solutions to encounters should offer the same XP. Why would someone who spends valuable consumables and time podering about tactics in combat get the same reward as someone who just sneaks past the encounter or selects a few dialogue options to be done with it? Ultimately, it would be disappointing that a game with a focus on tactical combat actually promotes avoiding combat (yeah, even the "but enjoyment!" value thins out after a certain amount of time spent fighting). It's also indicative that out of 12 abilities for base classes... 12 are used to defeat enemies in combat. Yet the "abstraction of xp" doesn't take into account combat at all. There are other options to achieve the gameplay you are aiming for rather than outright removing direct XP for defeating enemies. For starters, clever scripting. Those who wish to kill, get xp when they kill. Those who wish to avoid combat and just complete the objective get xp when they complete the objective, but don't get any xp for getting back and killing enemies linked to the objective.

This is like talking to a brick wall. lol A brick wall is considerate enough to be quiet. He's pretty loud and hysterical. I'm not sure how many more times he's going to edit my posts to include Sawyer's name to attract attention to his bizarre thought(?) processes. It's good for the shock factor at least, I guess. All in all, I think he's not going to understand that level scaling the entire game (except rats!!), within a range or not, is not the same thing as scaling certain crit path encounters, even if we drilled it through his skull directly into the brain.

Clean it up first and take a deep breath, please. People don't go to jail because of colossal inconsistencies in their posts, don't worry. You're also all foamy and I can't see you. It's crystal clear to anyone with at least a brain cell present in the head that when you kept elaborating your little level scaled goblin factory in dungeons you weren't talking about "crit path special encounters" only. You were advocating something that isn't even remotely similar. I still think that LS is feces, in any form, and I've explained why. I have no reason to be disappointed since I had already known, because it was already asked and answered, that there will be some level scaling present for the critical path. His phrasing "the only things we're likely to scale with player level are crit-path special encounters" makes it sound like an even rarer occurence than what has previously been said. I think this sounds better; why would I be disappointed all of a sudden over this improvement?

Lephys, your detachment from reality is amusing. You've been advocating level scaling in a form that's nothing like what Sawyer described in this thread. Yet you start a charade how people suddenly accept it even if "you were saying the same things all along!" ... Lephys: Optional branching quests need level scaling, because we have to make sure it's tailored to the player's level. Sawyer: Optional/side/exploration content will not be scaled at all. Lephys: See! I was saying the exact same thing all along. Why did you disagree with me!? Your forum buddy S_o lives in a parallel universe of his own, as well. His first post in this topic: Basically advocating level scaling for the entire game from the get-go. Sawyer: Optional/side/exploration content will not be scaled at all. S_o in response to Sawyer's comment: "Cool, exactly what I wrote few pages ago. Good to hear." The amount of irony is so huge that I'm not sure if serious, or just forum clowns.