Sir Chaox

Well, of course it's because of that. Did I express myself a bit clumsy? English is not my native language. Lol, sorry, I was making reference to an American TV show (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia). It's not funny at all unless you've seen that episode.

Sigh. It's not that I hated BG, but I certainly didn't like it that much. It just felt so generic and bland. The only way I could have ended up more pessimistic about this is if you said they wanted to to be a successor to Icewind Dale. (When I want a plotless game about killing things for no reason, I play TF2.) PE will have descriptive text like PST and likely have good dialogue as well; it will be much more plot oriented than IWD (which is essentially a dungeon crawl for the IE engine) and might be a step up from BG. But good combat is a focus of this game as well.

As for your question, I think this would make sense to do. IIRC, one of their goals was to make the game viable with as many party members as you want to take, including none. So you can take as many companions as you'd like, create your own entire party, or run it solo. Hopefully, this has not changed. (or maybe I am remembering the future, as this was not announced yet... )

Adding to this, class quests are cool, but I don't think quests should be based on class alone but also skills (or solely on skills). Now I realize that classes get bonuses towards certain skills, but if I am able to, as a fighter, increase my stealth skills high enough so that I can match a rogue (a rogue perhaps focusing half on stealth and half on other skills), should I not be able to do the stealth quest lines? Obviously I will never be better than a rogue who has fully excelled at stealth, but I should be able to complete those quests, even at a significant disadvantage. I would like to see hybrid builds get this kind of attention in the game. Obviously, this won't work in every case. As a fighter, I would never be able to do the Wizard quests... but damn it, would I try!

I think they are trying to avoid scenarios that involve only one path for success. There is also stealth, a valid path that is neither combat nor diplomacy. Outside of those 3 major options, perhaps specific cases allow you to use particular skills or spells to get by without combat. I am certain all quests will be solvable through combat in some way... Not sure if the other paths will always be viable but an alternative should exist. Sigh. I hate games where stealth/diplomacy is a waste and only works half the time whereas shooting people has a 100% success rate. Look at the trial in NWN2. If you're a fighter, than you just go straight to trial by combat. If you're a rogue who invested points in social skills, then you spend a lot of time faffing about before you end up in the trial by combat anyway, even though the fighter got to skip the stuff he sucked at. Well there are certain advantages to using stealth prior to combat (scouting, backstabbing/flanking opponents, or simply circumventing them altogether if you can). Diplomacy might give you an advantage (gain allies or avoid combat altogether). But at the end of the day, fighting will solve most situations in a typical RPG quest, so it makes sense to make it the lowest common denominator a majority of the time. It isn't exactly a good thing if stealth or diplomacy always gives you a 100% chance to complete a quest. Player skill gets taken into account during stealth, so if you are not careful in your movements, it might be your own fault you fail. And I know they are trying to avoid "one button win" scenarios with diplomacy, though maybe a few of those will still be in the game when it makes sense. I sort of remember the trial example you are referring to, but I don't remember the outcomes. From how you describe it, I am sure they will be avoiding such scenarios in this game, though logical outcomes should always trump player desire; sometimes a fight will break out, no matter how skilled you are at sweet talking or sneaking. It all depends on the context of the situation.

I think they are trying to avoid scenarios that involve only one path for success. There is also stealth, a valid path that is neither combat nor diplomacy. Outside of those 3 major options, perhaps specific cases allow you to use particular skills or spells to get by without combat. I am certain all quests will be solvable through combat in some way... Not sure if the other paths will always be viable but an alternative should exist.

I wonder if Normal difficulty for this game will have legitimate challenge or if it will be like most other games: almost no challenge at all.

Trust me if you knew the margins on that "cheapo" hamburger you might not feel the same way. So while mcdonalds won't charge you for your pickle remember this.... they don't give you a discount for leaving it off either. Well said... But I still got lunch for 99 cents!

I sort of remember a system like that in Bloodlines, but most of the people who are critical of the objective system (not myself) are concerned because the IE games offered a certain level of flexibility as they were not designed around needing to accomplish something significant to gain any experience; this especially can be an issue in wilderness areas where you may stumble upon minor encounters that don't have the depth or length of an actual quest but should still be rewarding to the player (assuming PE contains such encounters... which it should!). BG1 was full of such encounters.

You know, I actually think this is wrong for reasons different than other people have argued. Let's say you kill two different groups of three wights (or whatever). One of the groups was on terrain that played to their abilities, and the other group was on terrain that hindered them. It make sense to reward the accomplishments of killing each group differently. It'd be easy for this type of thing to have poor balance, so Hiro's point well upthread that this XP system seems to require more dev time and attention seems a fair one. Ultimately I doubt it'll make or break the game. First of all, congrats on getting through all of this madness. Now, towards your example. The quote you took out was not referring to a scenario similar to the one you created, but I will indulge you anyway. The quote (outside of any context) is simply stating that there is no difference between getting XP for each individual kill as we play versus getting XP in a chunk for completing an objective that may have involved killing some things. This is debatable, of course, but I am just clarifying what was meant. Question: did the player create the terrain that hindered the wights or did they just happen to be in a location that hinders them, making the fight inherently easier based on location. If based on player skill: XP should be equal, but I don't think you were referring to this. If based on natural environment: I'm not even sure if they will have a system that hinders particular monsters based on location, but if they did do this, then it should probably just be based on overall difficulty of the encounter, much like higher level wights would give more XP to kill then lower. And to further clarify, you would only get XP if it meets the requirements to be considered an accomplishment; unfortunately, we do not have enough details yet to know what these requirements might be.

I'd say we don't really have enough information yet to answer this with 100% accuracy, but from what they've provided so far, the accomplishment system should be designed to reward players fairly equally no matter how you choose to play the game. No problem.

Ehm... if you want to inspect the XP system of PoE... doing so by turning off the XP gains information doesn't exactly seem the way to achieve that.It sounds to me like inspecting the roleplaying by simply clicking random options and never reading. You won't get any of the information you need for a conclusion... I definitely won't get a full idea without the numbers, but knowing WHEN they are giving experience will help me determine WHEN they believe experience should be delivered to the player (especially interested in how they plan to give XP in minor encounters in wilderness areas, if they exist). I won't know what value they place in each encounter, but I'm OK with that for the sake of allowing this idea to work. I guess I'd like to have it both ways on this one.

Although I would agree that XP numbers should not necessarily sway a person from RPing, I think it would be helpful to have the option for those that might be (myself included). Not sure if this was the original intention or already suggested in this thread, but this would be nice to see in PE as well; the game will tell you when your party has received experience, and only the numbers are omitted (from both the bottom log and the character screens). It would be nice to know when the game is rewarding XP during quests and encounters (since the XP system is accomplishment-based, we won't be seeing a ton of these messages all the time). I guess I'm only asking for this because I want to know how intelligently designed their XP system is.

So... We're cool?

Good question, one that has been in debate over here. But basically it is more what Lephys just said; it is an interesting way to play the game. I mean, you'd never know when you're about to level up. So you end up not caring at all about when it happens (at least I wouldn't). Maybe it would focus you more on the characters and quests or maybe it will have no real effect at all. I can't really tell until I try it!

...

I think that they will be designing more refined encounters with less loopholes in this game, regardless of the experience system adopted, but ultimately it should still feel like an IE game for all the other attributes it holds: 6 man party, exploration, a variety of classes and skills similar to D&D, RTwP combat, expert mode options to make it more like an IE playthrough (journal without hand holding, perma-death),... just off the top of my head. Does this new experience system change things? Absolutely. It is yet to be seen if it is for better or worse, like you said, but I don't think it will be enough to make this no longer feel like an IE game. I think there is a lot of potential to make things better with this system, but it may require a lot of hand placement of accomplishments for both major and minor encounters to make certain all scenarios (including stumbling upon an ogre camp in the wilderness) be rewarding for the player in terms of experience specifically (which it should).

Fair enough! My thoughts are that they have thought about this already, because enemy adventurer parties were a pledge reward during the Kickstarter; it's not something they will be forgetting about. But I don't want to assume anything; hopefully we will hear more about the accomplishment system soon.

Why can't fighting this enemy party be considered a potential accomplishment, where XP is rewarded for killing them?

For what it's worth, Expert Mode is essentially a set of various option values that can be toggled on and off. In other words, apparently, we'll be able to access all or most of those values individually and toggle them as we see fit. I only say that because I wasn't sure if the suggestion you read was mine for the Hidden Experience thing to be an Expert-Mode-type option. I just meant, that style of option, is all. (Basically, this was just in case you didn't know we'd have a lot of individual toggle flexibility on options.) I don't think it was your post, Lephys, but I can't remember who's it was, yesterday was so long ago and all... Yeah, I did not know that. I thought Expert Mode was an all-or-nothing deal. Unless you mean in normal mode we can toggle them all on if we wanted but expert mode toggles them on permanently? I guess it doesn't matter really, but doesn't seem much like an expert mode if we can just turn it off whenever we wanted to. Sounds more like a preset of preferences.

I agree in principle that designing out some of these things could be a good idea. My real point here is: when something is just not interesting to do (like wandering around the wilderness throwing fireballs off screen to kill things for XP as someone mentioned earlier), why on earth would someone do that when they could get all of the XP they need doing something interesting? (That's why it matters whether there is a level or XP cap.) Ah, I think I understand what you mean here. So you are saying that instead of determining the fastest route to the level cap, the player should just play the game normally and they will eventually reach the cap, regardless of how they play. I will respond to this below. Yes it is fair to me (and I think you will agree). Let's use BG1 for an example again. You can choose where you will go and when and you can choose to leave some parts of the map completely unexplored. Of course, you will get more XP earlier by doing some of the harder maps first. If I wanted to powergame BG1 (which I usually don't) I would buy a protection from acid scroll and lot of healing potions and go kill all of the ankhegs with Imoen before picking up anyone else in the party. It's not the easiest way to play, but if I want XP early, it's doable. If I wanted an easier play through I would pick up Xzar and Monteron on the first map and then go to the FA inn to pick up Khalid and Jaheira. Doing things the second way, it will take a lot longer to level up than doing it the first way. How could it be otherwise when you have that much flexibility in a game? I think I am using the term "path" a different way from what you are thinking, and I will take fault for that; I was clearly not specific enough. I am only talking about the different branching paths in a single specific encounter or quest; there are multiple branching paths for any one encounter or quest (or at least there should be). I can choose to handle a situation in a number of ways, some common ones being diplomacy, fighting, or stealth. No matter which path I choose to take to solve this single specific encounter, I should receive a relatively similar amount of experience (with perhaps some deviation if sub-objectives are utilized). I am NOT referring to a path through the entire game; obviously if one player explored more areas and encountered more quests than another, they should be getting more experience than someone who is following a linear path through the whole game. Same applies if you choose to go to harder locations and tough it out; you'd get more experience for it earlier on. So I do agree with what you said above, but I was not arguing against that. So here is my response. Let's say that you and another player go to all the same places in the same exact order throughout the entire game. You both find all the same quests and encounters. However, you are playing a combat playthrough that focuses mostly on fighting enemies to accomplish goals while the other player wants to avoid combat as much as possible, either through diplomacy or stealth. You both are able to still accomplish all of your quests and encounters, following your desired preference whenever possible. Now in the real game, perhaps following different play styles will result in a very different playthrough (you get different quests and areas opened up to you), but for the sake of my example, let us say this does not happen. You still have different outcomes based on your option choices, but you still encounter the same number of quests and areas. In this scenario, I believe both players should have a very similar amount of experience received; your playthroughs will be very different, but both player's parties should be pretty much the same level by the end of the game.

I disagree. It is the balance between the various ways of playing the game that is key to this discussion. Hang on, let's underline 'level cap' here. In BG1+TotSC, you would hit the XP cap (and similar arguments apply to a level cap) by doing the main quest, Durlag's Tower and little else. In addition, at every point in the game, there was enough XP to strategically level your party if that's what you wanted to do (e.g. the basilisk map with Korax the dire charmed ghoul that we discussed earlier in this thread). So, in the end (or, really, at any point in the middle), it really doesn't matter whether you chose option a or option b (or both) to solve a side quest. There is far more XP to go around than you can actually gain in a single play through. So, if someone chooses to be a 'degenerate' gamer they would only be making the game tedious for themselves, not unbalancing the game. OK, but the purpose is to avoid creating these scenarios because it is not good design. The scenario I mentioned in my previous post (the one referring to a non-objective system where the player chooses both the diplomatic and combat solutions) really does not make sense to do; you would be meta gaming in order to maximize your experience gains. Also, saying that there is enough XP through a single playthrough does not warrant awarding more experience to one option over another; this would mean that some paths would reach level cap earlier than others, and therefore be stronger earlier on. Is that fair to you? No matter how you are playing the game, you need experience to level your characters and improve your skills to match more difficult challenges later on. Saying one path gives more experience than another makes it more difficult for players pursuing a certain branch in the game, and it may make certain branches more attractive than others; we want players to have full freedom to do what they want without thinking about "what path will give me the most?" Also, it does make sense to give similar experience levels no matter what option was chosen; you will have a significant learning experience regardless of whether you fight, talk, stealth, or whatever else. But there can be exceptions to this. Some branches may be more difficult to pursue than others and require more effort to complete; this can be in the form of additional sub-objectives needed to be completed to accomplish the main objective. This can add a bit of variety to any situations that warrant it. Depending on the kind of quest, certain branches could have appropriate sub-objectives that may be difficult to pursue without the right skill sets.

Most of the time, whatever is offered just isn't worth it; the amount of content for the price is pitiful, especially compared to the good old expansion packs

I disagree. It is the balance between the various ways of playing the game that is key to this discussion. If a combat playthrough (fighting more often than any other option) gave more experience than a diplomatic playthrough (trying to gain advantages through dialogue), then that would create an imbalance. Also, if a player is allowed to follow multiple branches in a situation, which effectively increases their experience gains over other branches, then that would imbalance the game as well. How would that be possible? Let's look at a non-objective system, one that rewards XP for single kills and other minor tasks. In the combat branch, you kill all the enemies and you are done with them; you don't have a second option to take, but you got experience for each kill and are satisfied. But following a diplomatic branch, if you chose to talk with the enemy first and convince them not to fight or to do something advantageous for yourself, you would get XP for that, but then you can also choose to just kill them all anyway and be rewarded combat XP on top of that (because you get XP per kill). That's not fair for people following the combat branch, and players may choose to manipulate the system to increase their overall XP gains by intending to kill them in the end but first getting additional experience through other methods. I believe this is what we've been referring to as "degenerate design"; allowing the player options that were not originally intended by the designer. Comparing that to an accomplishment system, you may only get experience for solving a particular problem or making a significant change in an encounter. If you pacify the hostiles through dialogue, you get experience and maybe even some reputation points or future allies; killing them afterward changes nothing towards your initial objective because they are already pacified. Meanwhile, you can just kill them instead and get a similar XP reward from fighting, and you'd also get loot and gold, but you'd miss out on the other diplomatic bonuses. I think we should have each path be worthwhile to follow and also be balanced between one another (in terms of experience) so that the player can feel like any path is viable and therefore will not worry about whether or not a chosen path gives more or less experience compared to another and just focus on the path they wish to play. If gives more freedom to the player to do what they want and not worry about XP rewards. One last thing. I am not advocating that a player follow a single branch through the entire game; I am simply saying that any option taken should be fairly balanced (not necessarily fully balanced) between the other options in terms of XP rewards, so that the player does not have to second guess the action for one that might have given more experience. Other rewards may differ drastically, such as loot/gold/reputation/etc. (for example, one branch may end with you getting nothing at all but XP, which is fine to me if it makes sense), but the XP rewards should remain fairly similar in most cases.