aluminiumtrioxid

Soo... he will likely be undergeared still if you avoid every dungeon you possibly can in PoE regardless.. or are you still trolling? I do not appreciate your accusations of trolling, but I'll bite. a/ There might be quests where a character's revulsion for damp caves full of creepy-crawlies might be overruled with the promise of certain rewards - say, ph4t l00t in the case of the trickster/thief, ancient secrets whose unearthing will bring unprecedented academic fame and tenure at a recognized university for the scholar, a MacGuffin that might Unite the Nations and Bring Peace to ALL TEH LANDZ for the diplomat, etc. That means a very selective and on a case-by-case skipping of dungeons, not all of them. b/ If a character is going for noncombat resolutions whenever possible, that means he's way less dependent on loot and especially consumables than someone who always jumps in combat whenever possible, so being slightly undergeared doesn't pose as much of a problem as being underleveled does.

By erratic I mean that there is no character progression for doing things you want, but only for the things the developers feel won't harm the ballance of the game. Or to put in more simply you don't get any instant satisfaction from the game. I specifically called for using part of the area xp budget to reward challenging fights and small related goals (eg. clearing the path of bugs). I also called for an encounter- or milestone-based redistribution of quest xp. If you get rewarded for challenging fights that are independent from any other tasks, small quest-independent goals and specific encounters within a quest, that should be enough instant satisfaction, methinks. None of the IE games did this. The power curve was set, that if you did all the quest (normally) the game would have been easy. Erm wut. The fact that there is a level cap and later on there won't be a discrepancy between Team Frag Guy who eagerly slaughters his allies to win favor with the Dark Gods experience doesn't make it okay to reward immersion-breaking behavior "because there's a level cap and down the line it won't matter". That's just bad design. I'll take this as you just being religiously addicted to one side and ran out of logical things to say.. I never trolled you or paid you a diservice.. if your gonna **** post please take it to /b/ or the codex. Thanks. Your post to which I replied with that had nothing to do with my post to which you were replying. Therefore "u w0t m8" is a fairly reasonable (if not very eloquent) response on my part. Yes, it's fairly easily fixed, but the original question was "why is double dipping a problem at all", not "how can we solve this problem?" We never said this.. Double dipping can be a problem.. but munchkins will always find a way.. its not the biggest problem. Dude... I bolded the relevant parts.

If I'm roleplaying a diplomat or a trickster or a scholar or a pampered noble who has no reason or intentions of getting to damp, cramped spaces where various monsters try to kill him/her just for the hell of it, then yes, the only reason for me to break character and go down is the fact that my character would be severely underleveled/geared if I skipped that content.

Yes, it's fairly easily fixed, but the original question was "why is double dipping a problem at all", not "how can we solve this problem?"

That still wouldn't solve the problem, the character progress curve would still be erratic. If by "erratic" you mean "fairly easy for the developer to predict and balance around", then yes. Otherwise I'm just not seeing it. It's not going to be "fairly easy".. dude seriously.. the scope of this game is huge don't be silly.. I'm sure Obs can do it but don't make it sound like a few weeks of work.. that's huge if they haven't planned it from the start. U w0t m8.

Because, generally speaking, people don't find that fun, but they just do it anyway. Also, you know what's even less fun than going back to kill the enemies you've so expertly sneaked by/parleyed with/whatever? Feeling that the game is actively punishing you with half xp for sticking to a character concept of someone with a principle of "after negotiating with someone, I don't turn back to murderize them, because I'm not a ****ing sociopath".

That still wouldn't solve the problem, the character progress curve would still be erratic. If by "erratic" you mean "fairly easy for the developer to predict and balance around", then yes. Otherwise I'm just not seeing it.

I'm just saying it would be a lot easier to tally up the amount of quest xp you can gain on every map, single out especially challenging wilderness encounters and similar other possible small goals, take out a fraction of the area xp and assign them to the completion of those, then break up the quests to smaller milestones and distribute the remaining xp between the completion of said milestones.

Way I see it, it looks a lot easier to implement than "assign arbitrary xp values for every creature type, tally all the xp one can get in the different areas of the game with the current xp system, make sure that the creatures' xp value remains steadily lower than the quest xp totals, assign an amount of xp to the completion of certain milestones in the quest that makes up for the discrepancy between the current xp totals and the kill xp totals, then figure out a way to reward noncombat resolutions with the same amount of xp as killing would, even when the player chooses to slaughter his way through some encounters and avoid others, and on top of that, make double dipping impossible, oh and also reward the use of individual noncombat skills such as Mechanics, taking care that the same amount of xp can be gathered with every possible combination of noncombat skills one might have". Because essentially that's what the implementation of kill xp would require if you don't want to **** over those who would prefer to solve their problems in other ways than turning the opposition into cute red stains on the floor.

It's both. You were active on the other thread, you heard the arguments from both sides. The most vocal supporters of the Sawyer-design (yes. that's what I'm calling it from now on) made it a point to remind us over and over again that anything except hand-placed, greater-goal-specific XP rewards (ie. exactly what we got in the Beta) would constitute a detriment to balance and gameplay and it simply wouldn't work well. Some went so far as to label certain types of unacceptable objective XP as "systemic" (stuff like Getting XP for successfully engaging in one of your class skills). "Everything that is not done as part of a quest" includes killing opponents in my book, but whatever. Proponents of objective xp argued that it's easier to balance the game around hand-placed (not necessarily goal-specific) chunks of XP with as little variation based on how said objectives are accomplished as possible. I still stand by the opinion that this statement is true. That doesn't change the fact that the implementation we've seen in the beta is a piss-poor way of doing objective xp.

Poor Stun, he poured his heart out trying to explain the same thing throughout 25 pages now, not counting different threads, but there is no accounting for people being stubborn. The problem still isn't the lack of kill xp, it's the lack of "everything that is not done as part of a quest" xp.

Because it should be viable for everyone else who isn't a mage, too, and because it would only increase damage on opponents who have elemental DTs, making it inferior to Might.

Because they are gross? I believe the expression we're looking for is "they have cooties".

In such a situation I mostly think the area designers are incompetent. I mean, it's a boring non-choice either way: if you get xp for both, then Nothing Road is obviously better. If you only get xp for Beetle Road, that's the better option. Arguments hinging on developer incompetence should be disqualified, I think. That's a surprisingly insightful post from you, and I fully agree. I'd also add a further layer, though, where greater success in a certain area means increased difficulty in another one, just to avoid having an "optimal" path (those irk me for some reason). As long as players are not punished for having to make the choice at a set level, this is completely fine. I'm not completely sure that outwitting a dragon isn't worth as much xp as defeating it in a fair combat, but that hugely depends on how intelligent dragons are in the setting, I guess. Also, you should totally be able to trick the king into thinking that you've killed the beast, and even out the reward discrepancy.

Another thing maybe worth considering: noncombat conflict resolution, if well done, is usually heavily dependent on player skill and ingenuity*. This makes noncombat difficulty fairly static. Combat, on the other hand, is just as dependent on your characters' skills and talents as it is on your tactical acumen. If you get your ass whopped, you can always go away, do something else, then return when you're better equipped to deal with the problem, making the difficulty extremely variable. This disparity means there is no way to assign an xp value to combat and noncombat resolutions that accurately represents their relative difficulty for every player. The easiest way to make rewards even remotely fair then is to give out the same amount of experience for every possible resolution, which is the easiest to accomplish by only giving out xp for the completion of objectives. *E.g. in PST you are tasked to make a guy forget, which you can accomplish by visiting a museum, inspecting every item, talking with the curator about these items, discovering that one of them are levitating bird-shaped shards from the river Styx whose water washes away memories, talking to a girl at an entirely different location, discovering that she eats desires, talking to an alcoholist at a third location. noticing that his enchanted tankard keeps stuff in it frozen, convincing him to talk to the girl who eats his desire for alcohol, getting said tankard, then going back to the museum and trapping one of the flying shards with it. Meanwhile there's a lot of other stuff screaming for your attention, so it's not as easy to figure out as it sounds.

Isn't necessarily wrong, but eats up dev time and resources to implement well, and you can achieve essentially the same effect with a lot less fiddling around by simply assigning xp for the completion of objectives.

As long as the game provides you with enough opportunities to gain the same amount of xp doing noncombat-oriented stuff the combat-focused guys can't do (because, say, they have brought swift vengeance to the eeevil guy whom you can trick into revealing said noncombat-type quests if you have an appropriately high noncombative reputation), I see no problem with it.

In Deus Ex, it's usually a hassle having to avoid enemies whenever you try to do anything of importance, so engaging in combat (which usually consists of shooting them in the head with a tranqulizer dart from behind a crate, or crawling up to them and hitting them with a charge prod, because you thankfully don't have to kill everything) is meaningful. I half-expect myself to clear maps in PoE, too, because I don't want to be forced to exclusively level stealth on the whole party, and that means avoiding enemies at certain points will probably be a huge pain in the ass.

...If the villagers are really as bothered by the beetles as you paint them to be, they will probably task you with clearing the forest of them. I mean, it's not like the beetles crawl into the village at night and threaten to kill their loved ones if they dare to complain about them to the next adventurer Yes. A farmer offers you 25 objective xp for each beetle you deal with. This objective is completely optional too. Sounds good to me. I wouldn't need to have an objective like this in my quest log, but whatever. Excellent, then we can agree that rewarding combat can be done in a way that completely fits into the current paradigm. ...What were we talking about?

...If the villagers are really as bothered by the beetles as you paint them to be, they will probably task you with clearing the forest of them. I mean, it's not like the beetles crawl into the village at night and threaten to kill their loved ones if they dare to complain about them to the next adventurer

I guess we can agree to disagree then *shrug* To the point that she is willing to persecute the latter in court? That is a little extreme don't you think? I mean how is a guy supposed to meet a women if just by trying to talk he can be persecuted in court or be on employment blacklist or even jail? Are feminist allowing only the upper class of men to be worthy of female attention? That is extremely sexist. Well, individual women can be scum just as well as men can be, but I doubt blanket statements like "all women want to be abused by rich, powerful and good-looking men" are helpful based on that fact. Also, "feminists deeming only the upper class of men to be worthy of attention" would be classist, not sexist, were it true Or maybe you know only one side of them and if you would have a higher social status they would allow you to behave differently? Ever thought about that? *squints* How does that question follow from what I've said? It's my theory, and I'm not talking about the ideology of feminism but rather the implication of their action not words. Well, you're entitled to your theories, but I still don't see it. True enough, but I doubt many women you've been involved with would identify as feminists

You say that as if it was a bad thing

In all fairness, though, at least it gave you a way to get something actually good for all that useless gold you had sitting in your pocket. Two wrongs don't make a right, but still.

With all social stigma of molestation, rape etc. and all the feminists organizations that are willing to help the "victims"? And mind you any "woman rights" organisation capability of hiring lawyers surpasses most "Rich Guys" capabilities to do so. With that in mind, yes I think women decision to not persecute a specific person of high status is her own conscious decision that she do not mind being "molested" by this particular type of men. I think you're vastly overestimating a/ the power of feminist organizations, b/ the amount of women seeking help from said organizations, c/ the willingness of courts to prosecute in cases like this, and d/ the speed of the legal process. But still, "attractive guy with bright future prospects expressing an interest in me" is different from "guy I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole expressing an interest in me", and I don't think it speaks of moral bankruptcy if someone complains about the latter while welcoming the former. Yes, they all liked it. Mind you I personally think that most of them would not allow it if I was the guy of lower social status. I'm gonna chalk it up to selection bias (girls who aren't attracted to strong, domineering guys wouldn't get into a relationship with a strong, domineering guy, and girls who are attracted to them generally find it attractive if their partner behaves in a strong and domineering fashion). Most subs I know don't like to be dominated by people they perceive as their inferiors, but I think this has more to do with what goes into their kink than them being eeeeevil. I just don't see how feminism could lead to widespread polygamy, that's all.

So, is Rich Guy's ability to hire better lawyers, put her on a blacklist, or just generally make her life as unpleasant as he can supposed to be completely inconsequential to a woman's decision-making process when she decides to let aforementioned Rich Guy (who is also her boss, remember) molest her? So you're saying every girl with whom you have slept with forced you to slap them around before you were allowed to put your **** in them? Intriguing. What. Usually a question end with "?", you know. ""What." You've just been witness to something so bizarre, so eye-crossingly stupid (or possibly so mind-crushingly terrifying as to put you beyond the capacity for rational thought), that your brain no longer has the cognitive faculties to put together a more articulate response."