aluminiumtrioxid

Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm by declaring War on Straw about points I didn't make start to wear on me. Please, point out how the additional problems I illustrated about implementing combat xp are also present in the objective xp system, or how additional problems will arise which are not present when you use combat+objective xp. Why would avoiding combat mean you're a moron? Whining about how combat isn't profitable on a given difficulty level because you don't have the required tactical skill to make sure the benefits outweigh the costs, instead of lowering the difficulty - that makes you a moron. Not to mention how inherently flawed your argument about Deus Ex is - if the developers implement stealth and diplomacy to be as valid playstyles as combat is, PE ceases to be a game solely about combat, no matter how much it hurts the H&S-loving folks. Thus, there is no reason to cry about how it doesn't reward a playstyle which is a core component of the game, not the only one.

A great counterargument to "implementing combat xp in the right way would be an even bigger waste of time and resources than implementing romances." Congrats. 7) If anything I don't like is implemented (combat xp), then it is a major waste of time and resources. I will add that to the list. Thanks. I have given you a detailed list how many additional tasks would come with implementing combat xp (not to mention the additional chance for bugs and the resources spent to eliminate them). Since objective xp accomplishes the task just as well, I think it is reasonable to say combat xp is unnecessary. Also, if your problem is "combat costs resources", maybe you could admit you're a little **** (= ) and set the difficulty on a lower level, where the cost/benefit ratio better suits your tastes?

A great counterargument to "implementing combat xp in the right way would be an even bigger waste of time and resources than implementing romances." Congrats.

Yeah, like, you can't ever buy scrolls/wands/potions. Material cost? Check. Not to mention that the required cost to get through any given fight will be different based on the difficulty level you play on. So there will be players for whom the cost will outweigh the benefits, and there will be players for whom the question is a no-brainer. Shocker! I just said that you have material costs for combat. Yes, killing elites for loot and avoiding every other combat situation will be the no-brainer path of choice for PE. as you have said, the only reason to engage in combat is for loot (reward). So... if the non-elite fights do reward you with (small) loot, your problem is "They reward you with loot! People will slaughter everything because of that! Hahaah! Contradiction!", but if they don't, you whine about how stealth is more effective? Also, you've managed not to adress any of my points.

This is what the "quest xp only" advocates are saying: You forgot the most important one: it would take an unreasonable amount of time to precisely hand-craft the exp value of every critter, build level-appropiate encounters from given xp budgets, assign different xp values to different non-combat methods in a manner which is not only balanced with the amount the players would gain by slaughtering critters, but remains balanced regardless of the actual level of the player (thus, xp value of the critters). Ugh. I think we can safely assume that it will not necessarily require resources (very rarely did I have to use potions or wands in the IE games), and what you gain will usually be better than what you lose (3 charges of the fireball wand and 2 strength potions for the Awesomium-forged Sword of Awesomeness? C'mon...). "If you want to get those items, you have to weigh your own personal material cost to get through the fight against what you will get out of it." Yeah, like, you can't ever buy scrolls/wands/potions. Material cost? Check. Not to mention that the required cost to get through any given fight will be different based on the difficulty level you play on. So there will be players for whom the cost will outweigh the benefits, and there will be players for whom the question is a no-brainer. Shocker!

I think we can safely assume that it will not necessarily require resources (very rarely did I have to use potions or wands in the IE games), and what you gain will usually be better than what you lose (3 charges of the fireball wand and 2 strength potions for the Awesomium-forged Sword of Awesomeness? C'mon...).

There will be quests where the obviously advantageous method of conflict resolution will be combat (somebody pays you to get rid of some bandits); there will be times where stealth will be more advantageous (did you honestly think you could get away with slaughtering those museum guards?); and there will be times when diplomacy wins the day (getting the leader of that country to sign that treaty is going to be hard if complex sentences are beyond your abilities). Also, there will likely be some situations where the obvious solution is not the best one (remember those orks you massacred in chapter 1? Yeah, you totally could have gotten them to be your private army with the macguffin you got in this sidequest in chapter 4 - if you had the lore skills to decipher how to use it, or were clever enough to think about hiring a professional to do it for you...). Also, "diplomacy checks" did have a cost in Alpha Protocol, they probably will find a way to make it a valid playstyle. No reason. However, is that a problem with the principle, or the implementation?

You're right, absolutely right. Sneaking is the clever and efficient way of playing PE. That is your argument for combat xp, isn't it? "Sneaking(/diplomacy) consumes less time and resources." Thus, isn't sneaking (and diplomacy) a more efficient (and, by extension, clever) way to play?

This. Why should one player who simply sneaks through an area receive the exact same amount of xp as another who fights his way through? Because he played the game in a clever and efficient way? Shall the developers, perhaps, insert a "shoot yourself in the foot" button in the game, and each time you press it, you gain xp for neatly crippling yourself? Also, it's a despicable act to affiliate the obviously superior race of cats with quite stupid viewpoints. Shame on you people.

Playing P:E instead of using our free time for, say, physical exercise or self-education is also pointless. Does the fun we receive from playing P:E mitigate our concern for utility? Yes! So, what's so wrong with doing things because we enjoy them?

This explains the notable lack of arguments that make sense, then.

I believe you still didn't convince anybody why is it so terribly bad if a design decision penalizes a suboptimal playing strategy (which is not used by the overwhelming majority of players anyway).

I like that idea.

Which is a consequence to your choice of playing the game inefficiently (through the power of roleplaying, but still - would the concern of "my character is a pacifist, so in the first mandatory fight he can't fight, thus the concept of mandatory fights is inherently wrong, because it hinders my ability to play a pacifist" be valid?).

Wrong. I love combat. But the peaceful solution is more efficient in most games, and my expectations would be severely violated if it turned out that killing things was more profitable.

Congratulations, you've managed to win an argument over the internet. +1500 XP for 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.

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? I find your misguided attempts to undermine the moral foundation of my arguments really pointless, because they don't have one. Also, just to kick the absurdity meter into overdrive territory, and stop pretending that this argument ever had a point: I find your example of red-colored enemies trying to murder us extremely offensive and racist! How dare you use an example where color is an indicator of a sentient being's disposition toward us?! Hurr durr! And guess what.. both games had kill XP. Yes, yes, even your beloved PST. Shocker!! And how is this an argument against objective-based xp?

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. It's also not just the spiritual successor of the H&S-wank IWD series. Edit: anyway, have you ever thought about how utterly absurd it is that we're arguing about the validity of a feature which will not be in the game, in a topic which has nothing to do with said feature?

It is, but when exactly was this called into question? Again, just for the minority who are seemingly incapable or unwilling to interpret subtext (and/or are infamiliar with the concept of exaggerating for sarcastic purposes): killing in itself is not (necessarily) sociopathic behavior. But when you hand out xp for committing murders, you basically encourage the players to kill everything in their way who doesn't give a quest (rewarding more xp than the amount you'd gain by slaying them - although you can still kill them after you've done said quest). I believe massacring friendly towns in order to level up can be interpreted as sociopathic behavior, don't you agree? Also note that I never said that roleplaying a sociopath is morally reprehensible and therefore should be excluded from the options in the game. (I may have implied, though, that the possibility of playing a typical munchkinish murderhobo - commonly referred to as "adventurer" in D&D terms - holds little interest for me in a game intended to a) be a spiritual successor for Planescape: Torment and b) create an immersive and believable game world my character is a part of.)

Fixed it for you. Huh? You wrote:Yeah, rewarding sociopathic behavior is so much better and is proven to enhance gameplay in every possible way imaginable. Let me translate what you wrote so you understand: "Killing sociopathic. Reward get for sociopathic behavior bad. Better no reward for sociopathic acting. That better much." *grunt*I see you little buddy sharp_one doesn't get it either. He is also still pissed because me and Valorian told him he had no idea what he was talking about. Oh woops, I wanted to ignore you. hehe Bugs are insects. Therefore, all insects must be bugs. Are you sure you want to continue pointlessly trying to prove to me that I was saying a completely different thing from what I've said, just because your ego is bruised by your own assumption that I implied you're a sociopath?

Are you really incapable of understanding how rewarding the act of killing encourages killing things indiscriminately? Also, before you start complaining, there is a difference between "encourages" and "inevitably leads to". Why on earth is it so hard to accept that maybe we shouldn't reward massacring entire towns for xp gain? Edit: just as a side note, I think I am the authority of what I mean when I write something, since I am the one who knocks wrote the actual thing.

Killing an evil ork in in a game is "sociopathic behavior". lol And since when is "rewarding the act of killing systemically encourages sociopathic behavior" equal to "kill xp is for sociopaths"? If you can't tell the difference, you really are hopeless. Edit: also, I think "evil orks" have a place in Forgotten Realms and Lord of the Rings, where Always chaotic evil is true, but not in an rpg intended for actual mature audiences.

I'm afraid it's not I who is changing the subject. Would you care to point out where exactly did I say "kill xp is for sociopaths"?

FYI, insulting fellow forum members and using strawman arguments is usually not very well received here. You'll look uncivilized and rather foolish at best. I don't intend to waste my time arguing with someone who is either incapable of understanding written text, or wilfully misinterprets what I'm saying.

Yeah, rewarding sociopathic behavior is so much better and is proven to enhance gameplay in every possible way imaginable. Please. Go and play the Sims or My Little Pony and leave Baldur's Gate to us psychos and sociopaths. Using violence and/or threats of violence as the main method for solving problems should not be encouraged if your aim is to create a believable and immersive universe for actual roleplaying instead of hack&slash action. Mainly because, you know, there are actual consequences of killing other sentient beings in most rational universes. Most of them involve the people whom you have angered by killing their relatives/favorite lackeys/pet dogs/whatever doing everything in their power to make life as unpleasant to you as possible. And, inevitably, some of these quite understandably angry people will be stronger than you (and your party). Integrating this philosophy as a gameplay element is a win-win scenario - those who like combat will get even more combat, while those who choose an alternate way of dealing with the situation can experience the smug satisfaction which accompanies the realization that they had the foresight to deal with a problem before it even became one.