Valorian

One doesn't exclude the other. Quest xp can coexist with kill xp. Was waiting for someone to post this. Yes, that's true but which do you think requires more work? They're working on a budget and I think this part is fair game. You'll get the xp one way or the other. Of course it's just an opinion and I've already stated my preference Neither requires more work. The work invested in an xp system is minuscule compared to, for example, the BIG BIG BIG city 2 and ultragigadungeon. So it's ridiculous to even mention this as an issue. Getting "xp one way or the other, who cares" is not good enough for me.

Defensive mode, while you're trying to deflect and parry warhammers, swords, dodge arrows, run for your life when you see an incoming finger of death.. etc., would still drain your endurance and stamina. I don't see how it makes sense for endurace to regenerate while you're actively investing your brain and body and its every muscle into combat. It shouldn't take as much effort to steer a shield into the path of a sword thrust as it does to thrust the sword. There's not as much change in momentum required, and hence your muscles can recover from fatigue a little quicker because they are using less energy. Granted it's not going to be as fast as if you completely withdrew from combat, but it should help. Oh it does take a lot of effort and endurance/stamina to deflect and dodge blows, I don't know what you're talking about. Anyway, it seems that you'd want more endurance (renamed to stamina) drained when you thrust the sword (for auto-attacks) than when you parry blows?

One doesn't exclude the other. Quest xp can coexist with kill xp.

Oh my... So they call exploring as much of their world and finishing as many of their quests - grinding? It gets better and better.

This sounds a bit strange to me... Why would I lose Stamina from getting hit (and not from attacking)? I know it is just a mechanic, but it should at least make sense. Because this game will likely become a test site where Josh and Tim can go wild with extravagant and fancy ideas. No xp for kills, HP regenerate on their own during combat (so you can take cover) etc.

Yeah, I find the answer disappointing as well. This certainly isn't in the vein of IE games. I love seeing xp awarded when I defeat an enemy, which is an accomplishment in itself. Before "BUT HE DIDN'T SAY THAT.." starts, I'd like to point out that the question had this line: "It implies you won’t give experience for kills ..", and it would only make sense that if they do plan to have xp for kills to clearly state it and correct a wrong assumption.

New details (kind of): "As for regeneration, I'd like to experiment with handling health in a manner somewhat similar to the 1992 RPG Darklands. Characters have two health resources: Stamina and Health. Proportionally, the character takes much more Stamina damage from an attack than Health damage. Stamina recovers relatively quickly on its own (and with the aid of magic) but Health damage requires rest. If a character hits 0 Stamina, he or she will go unconscious. If a character hits 0 Health, he or she dies." This time, he left out if stamina (previously endurance) recovers relatively quickly on its own both inside and outside combat. If it was only out of combat automatic regeneration (the sensible option) I believe he'd mention that. If it's both... my concerns remain the same.

If they're rare, induce slow regeneration instead of outright healing you and take several seconds to use.. then it's fine.

Those are valid points in the OP. I'd rather have a very varied bestiary than another big city and 10 levels of a gigadungeon. Monster models will be 3D and big cities will also need some 3D stuff, no? Will the big city 2 need some unique (creature) models as well? Is the team who develops creature art and models completely separated from the team who creates scenery art and models? There's 1,5 years left.

Awww. *passes ImNotCreative a tissue to wipe the tears*

This kind of reasoning (crit plot crit path and movieplot only omg!!) brought us the abomination of level scaling in the first place. The whole game is a set of plots and little stories. The critical path is only one of them. The player should reasonably expect that the critical path has some of the toughest combat encounters in the game. Why should designers accommodate a minority that is only interested in railroading themselves through the critical path (movie-style) ignoring the rest of the game, and ruin the experience for everyone else by introducing this nonsense? These critical path encounters won't be boring if, logically, they're some of the toughest fights in the game. You want to beat them? Stop crying, explore the world, train with your weapons and spells, find some powerful artifacts and then come back and deal with the big bads. Level scaling is not needed at all for them to not be boring.. what is needed is just some player/designer common sense. You should check you reading comprehension, I was talking about over leveling. From what you are saying I guess that only way you can deal with tough encounters is grind side quests and find +x equipment MMO stile. Don't worry you will be able to do that because level scaling is probably going to be limited. I've comprehended your BS just fine. Not that I'd miss anything intelligent if I hadn't. You, on the other hand, keep missing the point. Of course it's about leveling, you little pumpkin. Yes, the only way you can deal with tough encounters is... *drum roll* ... by getting stronger; leveling up. Who would have thought, right? And you level up and get stronger by.. *drum roll* .. completing quests and defeating enemies. If exploration in a non-linear quality RPG is "grinding" and a "MMO style" feature in your parallel universe... you'll probably enjoy DA2 a lot. And your last sentence shows how you fail at logic yet again. You'd be able to "grind" regardless of level scaling. And you keep misusing the word "grind": there won't be grinding in PE unless they don't have the common sense to not make enemies respawn over and over again.

This kind of reasoning (crit plot crit path and movieplot only omg!!) brought us the abomination of level scaling in the first place. The whole game is a set of plots and little stories. The critical path is only one of them. The player should reasonably expect that the critical path has some of the toughest combat encounters in the game. Why should designers accommodate a minority that is only interested in railroading themselves through the critical path (movie-style) ignoring the rest of the game, and ruin the experience for everyone else by introducing this nonsense? These critical path encounters won't be boring if, logically, they're some of the toughest fights in the game. You want to beat them? Stop crying, explore the world, train with your weapons and spells, find some powerful artifacts and then come back and deal with the big bads. Level scaling is not needed at all for them to not be boring.. what is needed is just some player/designer common sense.

What kind of example does this set for Bioware? Bioware HQ: "Yeaah! What a relief! If they can get away with very little level scaling in PE, we're free to level scale every single creature, including NPC cats and dogs, in all our future games! Hell yeah!!"

"We will have very little level scaling and almost entirely in critical path areas since there's a lot of variability in when players approach them." I don't get this. Isn't it one of the logical aspects of a non-linear RP game to not be able to just walk through the plot at any level? What's so horrifying about having the player doing side quests and exploring the world to grow stronger and then face the tough critical path encounters? If you choose to go at a lower level, deal with dire consequences. Why would the crit path adjust to the player by scaling encounters to his level?

Indeed. Now, if critical path areas encompass half of the game..

I'm not sure XP is supposed to represent general heroism. Should the player lose XP for himself killing townsfolk? It should be for overcoming challenges. Monsters threatening townsfolk can be a challenge and if they're killing people, that should be an XP granting quest of its own, not just taking a necklace. XP represents a variety of things. Quest xp clearly shows that. So, should you get xp for things only when you get asked by someone to do something? I think not. Killing someone/something that wants to kill you is an achievement on its own that deserves bonus xp. When he kills townsfolk himself he loses reputation which usually ends up in indirect xp loss. I think its not a problem to get much experience for killing an evil monster. But why not giving much exp for unconventional, in my opinion even my interesting ways as sneaking and discussing? Its still not possible for all figths, so where is the problem? The problem is that some would like to cut out kill xp completely. That's what I'm against. And I'm all for giving xp for unconventional problem solving, I just believe it's not necessary to give equal amounts in all situations.

A quest is defined by the quest giver. The challenge is defined by the designers. Killing tough enemies is challenging. Avoiding is certainly not the best way to deal with problems. When you eliminate the source of the problem you don't need to fear it'll "seek you out" again.

I'm not sure XP is supposed to represent general heroism. Should the player lose XP for himself killing townsfolk? It should be for overcoming challenges. Monsters threatening townsfolk can be a challenge and if they're killing people, that should be an XP granting quest of its own, not just taking a necklace. XP represents a variety of things. Quest xp clearly shows that. So, should you get xp for things only when you get asked by someone to do something? I think not. Killing someone/something that wants to kill you is an achievement on its own that deserves bonus xp. When he kills townsfolk himself he loses reputation which usually ends up in indirect xp loss.

Only if the alternative paths are not designed in accordance with their intended difficulty. Sneaking past a major boss fight should be an interesting experience on its own. Perhaps even challenging, with something more complex than pass/fail. Same goes for a dialogue encounter. Sadly, I haven't seen (many) examples of "challenging" sneaking or persuade dialogue options in party based RPGs. Even if they are challenging, by choosing such options you have a situation where demons/undeads/monsters are left alive and will continue killing innocent people. Saving lives by killing them should be rewarded with extra xp (kill xp).

Isn't it a custom to give experience in PnP to players who use their character's skills? And I don't agree its harder to kill than it is to sneak. Every situation is different. It might even be harder to talk your way through the situation (a more fitting test to 'Bard' characters than butchering) than either sneaking or killing. I don't know what is the "custom" in pnp games, but this isn't going to be one. Giving xp based on skill usage pushes forward a silly situation of plentiful xp for the most banal actions, like crafting. It is harder to kill a tough encounter than to sneak past it or click a persuade option. Either you have enough points in sneak/persuade or you don't, there's not much philosophy or tactics involved. And like I said, eliminating threats is more fruitful than simply avoiding them.

Lots of hyperbole. Not giving xp for kills is a horrible and counterintuitive system. You won't be able to kill thousands or billions of rats in the first place, if they're intelligent enough to not make enemies respawn. In many cases getting the same xp for avoiding combat and defeating your opponents doesn't make sense, at all. Player A: Kills a group of ogres that have been terrorizing the countryside for years and gets the stolen quest item. He spends a fair amount of time defeating the ogres and using a variety of combat tacticts. These ogres won't be terrorizing anyone ever again. Player B: Sneaks past the ogres and gets the stolen quest item. Ogres are still alive and kicking and killing peasants. Sneaking past them took a lot less time and skill than killing them. / Bribes them by clicking a dialogue option to go somewhere else. They keep killing peasants at the new place. XP reward for both cases: Same. Why in the hell?

Now that a Stronghold is imminent, I just hope it doesn't become a business simulator with an endless influx of money per day/week/month that makes all depletable sources of money (like loot) trivial if you're patient enough... And lets you buy all the items you want present in the game. I won't hold my breath on it though.

Then you either have to grind to catch them up or they become completely useless and will never catch up. As they fall behind, they will only contribute less. The real problem would be how to actually measure the contribution. A guy who successfully cast a hold spell and immobilized an opponent, but dealt 0 damage, for example. He potentially saved the team from defeat. How'd you figure out what's the appropriate xp share for him...

BG style, definitely. More party members = less experience per party member.

Yeah, I agree. A better solution than their proposed system would be to simply have the cooldown last until the fight is over. So these lower level spells instead of being per-cooldown would be per-combat-encounter. Same thing with endurance/hitpoints. If they want them to regenerate on their own - at least don't make them regenerate during fights. Please. *imagines himself begging Obsidian not to have DA2-style furious combat and attack speed as more design objectives pop up*