Stun
-
Posts
2849 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Stun
-
-
Forgive me for clipping 3/4 of your post, but ^^^This^^^ is actually a really good point. And one I frequently bring up on these XP threads. So I want to focus on it.Really? Do you buy an RPG to just play it once?Because after that first playthrough your stated reason for exploring has been eliminated. You now know what's out there. Then what?
Then, exploration doesn't matter as much.
Let me make my stance clear. I do not advocate Kill XP because I'm greedy and wish to be rewarded every 10 seconds. I advocate Kill XP because of what you've just said here. I'm looking at the big picture. I'm concerned about whether or not I'll still love doing an RPG's side content 5 years from now, when I'm on my 10th playthrough or more....when there's no more discovery. No more thrill-of-the-unknown... when even the story has lost some of its appeal.
For me, the process of leveling, and getting rewarded for doing things (like killing enemies) can *carry* an RPG, as it keeps things important.... Combat (and even exploration) will still matter on the 10th playthrough because you'll be getting rewarded for engaging in it.
Of course, this argument can also apply to quest XP, but unless all combat encounters are tied to a quest (which we already know won't be the case), Quest XP won't cover all the bases, and that's my worry.
-
Aah, but he's not a party pooper. He has re-iterated the fact that Nude archery is within the spirit of the game. lolNone saw that coming! I want my money back, I was planning a 5 character naked + 1 party in beetleville. Sawyer, such a party pooper.
Anyway, the proposed AI adjustments make sense, and I hope it's not too much of a hassle putting them in. The only problem I have is with this one:
No. I'm not a big fan of ESP-based AI. The enemy shouldn't know how much stamina a character has.AIs should prefer... targets with low Stamina
-
1
-
-
Both of the issues you brought up are the resulting "fixes" to what he thought were degenerate gameplay in the IE games. *THAT* is the reason for the gripes.See, this is what I'm talking about. Josh Sawyer doesn't think the IE games are synonymous with DG - he just finds some aspects of them DG. You may disagree about what was or wasn't DG, but turning the term into a pejorative doesn't really help anyone - it's a useful term when used correctly.
1) Health + Stamina bar - in the IE games, people just reloaded when one of their characters died. Josh saw this as DG, so he created a bizarre system that reduces the chances of people dying.
2) The slo-mo Scout mode that also encompasses detection - In the IE games, both stealth and trap detection were Overpowered rogue skills, as they cost the player nothing in terms of gameplay. Your Rogue could simply turn both modes on, and function just as efficiently as the mage or fighter who's not actively trying to look for anything or trying to hide.
THAT, my friend, is why I cringe whenever Josh discusses Degenerate gameplay - because we know that he's going to try and come up with some absurdly convoluted fix, which will typically result in either a reduction of fun, or a reduction in... sense, and at the same time, will simply introduce new types of Degenerate Gameplay.
I wouldn't even call it passive, as it wouldn't (shouldn't) result an automatic success without some effort on the player's part. Theoretically, the player in Detect mode should still move cautiously, like he had to in Durlag's tower if he didn't want to be fried by a deadly trap. Success and failure should depend on 1) how many ranks in.... whatever skill governs trap/secret object detection, and 2) the recurring time-governed check that the game would make when a detector comes near the hidden object/trap.And your suggestion is spot-on. They need to just make detect hidden a passive thing of some sort.
-
3
-
-
There's a really simple solution to this one. Remove Detection from the scouting mode. It doesn't belong there anyway. Give it its own "detect" button that can be switched on/off at will without making everyone walk slo-mo.- If I want to find hidden items, I have to walk around in scouting mode all the time.
This is just dumb. Walking around in constant scouting mode with the game in fast motion is the optimal way to play right now. And that's stupid. Scouting needs to be overhauled (i.e. with some passive component) or removed. Structuring a game mechanic such that the optimal strategy is to do something absurd is the absolute definition of degenerative gameplay.
Oh sorry, what am I thinking. We can't do that. It'd be too IE-game-like, and we all know those games are synonymous with Degenerate Gameplay.
-
1
-
-
What the game could do is provide you with some positive reinforcement for finishing a battle conscious. Something similar to the bonus you get at an inn (but with a shorter duration).
Or, maybe it could remove the bonus you got at the inn if you do fall unconscious.
Or... Here's a crazy thought: They could make it so that if you go down you're dead.
^there's your incentive to stay upright.
-
1
-
-
Why are we talking about Stealth? Do you get XP for sneaking in PoE? Nope. Not in the Beta at least.
As for the IE games... lets see, Stealth completion of quests? Of course there's many *many* opportunities to do so if that is your cup of tea.
BG1:
1) The thieves guild quests
2) The skyship component-gathering quest
3) The Iron Throne Building quest (chapter 5's *main* plot.) You don't need to kill anyone in the building. you just need to retrieve the Letter from Reiltar.
BG2:
1) Irenicus' dungeon. Not a single enemy drops anything meaningful. Nor are the kill XP rewards worth the time. Therefore, the most efficient way to complete the "escape from your captor" quest is to use stealth, and grab loot from the containers.
2) Circus Tent - Stealth is the way to go. Although you do need to kill the gnome.
3) Copper Coronet quest - Free Hendack. Combination of Stealth and pick pocket will net you the quest XP in that one.
4) Darnise Keep. You can stealth past everything until the boss (Torgal does need to be killed.)
^a very small list. In no way complete. But it doesn't matter. The real difference here is that the BG games at least give you a choice on how you get XP. PoE does not. In POE your choices are: Either complete quests, or GTFO.
-
7
-
-
...do those choices include getting more powerful by fighting? Aaah, no they don't. Stop claiming that Obsidian is developing a game that offers the player choices when what you really mean to say is that Obsidian is developing a game that offers Gromnir the choices he prefers.obsidian is designing an RPG. is not getting through? they are developing a Game that offers the player Choices. those choices include
Shill.
-
Really? Do you buy an RPG to just play it once?I sure don't go exploring in RPGs for experience. I explore because I want to know what's out there.
Because after that first playthrough your stated reason for exploring has been eliminated. You now know what's out there. Then what?
-
I called it.. 2 years ago, I called it.I would also like them to cut all numbers by half. There is no need to have MMO level numbers, I hate that ****.
-
6
-
-
The IE games are RPGs that had unmatched party-based gameplay. And that party-based gameplay was neither limited to combat roles, nor was it watered down by the need for uniformity. That is to say, you could still *feel* the different classes outside of combat, as they all had non-combat roles baked into them. But there's no such feeling to be found in PoE. Outside of combat, the classes are irrelevant. Non combat skills have nothing to do with classes.
What are IE games? Be more specific. People are talking about feeling but everyone has different feelings.
He made a point in his last post. Where's yours?By the way, some people here seem to think that all it takes for a game to be a spiritual successor to the IE games is to have an Isometric camera view, a 2d look, and be party based.But the IE games were Much More than just that so maybe we can stop sticking our heads in the sand on this topic already.Seriously people, the more you feed Helm, the more he will enjoy it. Just ignore his posts and move on. He made this moniker to troll, and guess what, he is succeeding.
This is a sharp departure from the very *core* of the infinity engine game design. And it is intentional. Josh prefers a classless system and you can feel that preference in PoE. It's not the least bit masked by the classes he did give us.
And then we've got the bajillions of little things that have already been discussed ad nausium on this forum, which taken individually don't mean much, but when piled all together end up making PoE feel like something else Entirely from any IE game ever conceived.
-
5
-
-
He made a point in his last post. Where's yours?Seriously people, the more you feed Helm, the more he will enjoy it. Just ignore his posts and move on. He made this moniker to troll, and guess what, he is succeeding.
By the way, some people here seem to think that all it takes for a game to be a spiritual successor to the IE games is to have an Isometric camera view, a 2d look, and be party based.
But the IE games were Much More than just that so maybe we can stop sticking our heads in the sand on this topic already.
-
6
-
-
Recovery serves several purposes.what gameplay purpose does recovery even serve? (other than reload times)
1) It's time for Change! D&D had rounds. But D&D is Bad, m'kay. Therefore no more rounds. Instead, your actions are on a timer now.
2) We wanted the awesomesause MMO feel, but when we floated the idea of cooldowns for stuff early on, everyone started whining and we have no idea why! so we managed to repackage the concept and call it 'recovery'... Success! Fooled everyone!
3) Balance! No longer will the heavy armored guy be able to swing his axe as often as the medium armored guy
4) Because it just makes sense that your Chanter chant...slower(?) in heavy armor than if he's nekkid
5) Because We watched various Lets Plays on Youtube and noticed that players were having more fun with recovery times than without.
6) Because just adopting weapon speed factors is so dull.
7) Come on, come on, do the Convolution with me!
8.) Because too much heavy armor-wearing is degenerate gameplay, so we added the obligatory gameplay price tag to it.
-
6
-
-
No, The 6 quick item slots per character are for potions and scrolls. And I would assume that when the final version of the game comes out, the 4 weapon set slots would be for backup weapons. Character inventory should be for... whatever the player wants it to be for. Like amulets, rings or armor that you're not sure whether you wish to equip or stash at the moment. Or...yes, extra consumables that you don't wish to assign to anyone just yet.I don't know that I agree with that. I do agree the inventory needs serious help though. The number of slots on each character is WAYYY too little. You basically have to move everything to the stash that isn't a consumable and it is just a pain in the ass. The only reason it is even limited is to prevent the party from hoarding consumables, but it fails at this because the way it is now you are basically going to put everything in the stash that isn't a consumable so you get the same end result.
No, it's not to prevent the party from hoarding consumables. The 8 slot inventory is for tactical items used in combat, such as potions, scrolls, and backup weapons.
And yes, it should be A LOT more than just 8 slots. It should be double or triple that much so that you don't have to do the inventory housecleaning ritual every 5 minutes. I *totally* agree with Karkarov and Sensuki on this one.
I agree about the last part. "loot to stash" would certainly be a useful option to have when you click on a dead body or chest. But the first part doesn't address the issue at all. It's not currently 'difficult' to move stuff from your inventory to the stash. It's just tiresome when it needs to be done constantly because someone in your party got "full".What is needed is simply the ability to move stuff from the tactical inventory to the stash more easily, and moving loot directly to the stash.
-
Uh, no Gromnir, they most certainly are NOT the same thing, ESPECIALLY since one can, in fact, include kill XP while the other cannot. Objective XP encompasses so much more. In an Objective XP system, if you have a multi-faceted/multi-step quest, you are being rewarded according to your progress. For example, lets say you are tasked with solving a murder mystery. You'd be rewarded whenever you do something that furthers your investigation. Like killing someone who's impeding it. Such a system also leaves open the possibility of dynamic rewards, like increased XP for using your head and finding the most important clues... Or increased XP for being more thorough in your investigations. OR.... partial/reduced XP for bringing one of the murderers to justice but killing the others etc.
don't be that guy. don't perpetuate a mistake we seen floating around and being repeated. quest xp. goal, task, objective xp. none o' these matter IF the alternative being addressed is kill/combat xp. personally, we see the attempts to distinguish objective xp from quest xp is a matter o' semantics, and ultimately meaningless. however, do not lose sight o' the simple fact that regardless o' how one labels quest/task/objective xp mechanics, they all necessarily preclude kill/combat xpSince I think terminology is important, and this thread exemplifies that fact, I don't like the phrase 'quest only.' I prefer 'results oriented,' but I don't want to dilute my point by getting into the nitty gritty of my position just now. The point is, there's a lot of overlap in what folks want from the game, and some of the folks seem to be separated less than their arguments would suggest.
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1495069
cant wants to be fair. some board yahoo wants to make the issue 'bout the subtle differences 'tween objective, quest and task meanings and cant obliges. cant can't just ignore, can he? 'course not. the thing is, such distinctions in definition is not only largely meaningless, but they is irrelevant in the present context-- quest/objective/task/etc. all preclude combat/kill xp.
we applaud your desire to try and be fair, but that quality that makes you see all opposing arguments as having some point o validity ignores the reality that many arguments don't have any relevance. definition o' quest/task has been clarified by the developers and what they mean is important, but none o' that actual matters in the present context, 'cause whatever definition you use, you won't be able to include kill/combat xp. is a not relevant.
HA! Good Fun!
With quest-only XP, none of this happens. You're given the quest, and then you just get paid when you solve it. It's no less primitive, 'mindless' or open to 'grinding' than the Kill XP you've been ranting against.
-
2
-
-
I don't think we were talking about build or weapon choices there, Gromnir. But rather, the way in which combat was rendered secondary (and even pointless in many cases) in the grand scheme of things.
And like I said earlier on this thread, that'd be a decent design if they were designing Planescape Torment 2. But they're NOT. This is a combat centric game and combat should bestow the *best* rewards.
-
1
-
-
LOL
When people are Skipping massive swaths of game content because they deem it pointless and worthless, we're no longer talking about viability, nor is it "win/win". Instead, it becomes a question of crap design. Even Josh will tell you that.
-
2
-
-
Excellent post, Fluffle.Hey everyone,
in this thread I'd like to discuss in how far it is the developers'
responsibility to take care that players play in a certain way.
And in how far developers can and should define what a "correct" way of playing
a game is.
First let me say that I usually do not care about combat mechanics much in a
game as long as the game provides a good, fascinating story.
However I think I have noticed some mechanisms so far that try to enforce
a certain way of playing the game when I wonder why it is the developers'
responsibility to do that.
Two Examples for that.
1) Kiting.
IMO The engagement system is used to prevent kiting.
If a player likes to kite however why stop him?
Should a player not have the freedom to kite if he likes doing so?
If you leave the possibility to kiting open, then people who like to kite can do so and people
who dislike to kite can still decide not to do it.
As long as kiting is not necessary to win a fight.
2) KILL XP - Grinding
If people like to grind to get stronger so that it is easier later on why stop them?
As long as this grinding is not a requirement to beat the game.
If I remember correctly Planescape:Torment had two grinding dungeons.
It was the players' responsibility to use them or not.
At the moment I just feel like the game, that is the developers, try to encourage a very certain way
of playing the game because they deem other ways as not being "good"
(However they define and justify that).
So it's your turn now:
In how far should developers encourage certain ways of playing the game?
In how far should and can they be responsible for how players play their game in contrast
to the players being responsible for their own actions?
Yes, especially in a role playing game, the developers should not ever attempt to close off/eliminate any sort of playstyle.
IMO it's alright if they want to encourage a particular playstyle (read: give subtle hints that a certain playstyle will result in more meaningful gameplay) But it's when they try to control the player's decision-making process by forcing the issue, that their game ends up suffering for it.
-
Yes.Uh.. and? I am guessing by your short posts.. that you forgot the point your trying to make.. or you just realized your pretending to know why we want something.. when we supposedly don't know..
Isnt it obvious?
There are dozens of reasons why I've replayed BG2 300+ times in the last 14 years. You're off by a billion miles.
-
We were not promised a hunting simulator. This game isn't properly set up to be one anyway.People engage in combat for no material or experience gains all the time in real life. "The thrill of the hunt" is a cliche phrase that sums this up.
While Combat in this game can be fun (even brilliant at times), it is not visceral enough to generate the proper satisfaction to engage in it even in a 2nd or 3rd playthrough of the beta, let alone the 2nd or 3rd playthrough of the 60 hour full game IMO **shudder**. And I suspect that even the developers know that the gamer is probably going to need a little more incentive than just 'personal satisfaction' or some silly 'achievement badge' equivalent in his head. The system currently in place incurs combat costs/risks (use of rare consumables; expending of limited per day abilities; possibility of death etc.) that assume an XP reward, yet there are none. That is faulty design any way you look at it. And it stems from the need to keep development costs down, not from any genuine attempt to make the game more fun.There is a visceral satisfaction that comes from engaging in a difficult encounter and overcoming it, even if it is just digital 1s and 0s.
Aah, and we rush right back to trying to, dishonestly, portray the Combat XP crowd as an inconsequential singular opinion held by some freak singular in the far corner of the internet. I've had this very same "it's just your opinion man!" retort tossed at me whenever I dared criticize any part of Dragon Age 2's crap design at BSN (for example) a few years ago. I was, of course, vindicated later when even the developers of that piece of garbage conceded, and acknowledged that their designs were objectively misguided.To say that you personally don't care because you understand that the game does not give you sufficient reward or chance for reward by engaging in those bandits is your singular opinion. It is not some game design theory you came up with. People play games without rewards ALL THE TIME. It's fun. They are games. While some games have become filled with little lottery tickets after you destroy X number of monsters that is not what originally attracted people to the IE games. They were ROLE playing games. You took on a role and fulfilled a destiny. The interaction with the story and your own personal protagonist is what attracted many to Baldur's Gate. You did things not knowing what loot you would get, how much exp they were worth, or if you would even live or have to reload the game.
To say that YOU can't be bothered makes it clear that YOU need rewards to do things, which is a personality trait YOU have. It may even be a common gaming trait. But please don't make it sound like we all need to be rewarded for every single action we take in a game. Sometimes its fun to fight the dragon just to see if you can beat it, not to go online read the correct anti-dragon strategy, execute him, and prosper off the xps and acquire the next piece of equipment your build requires.
Edit: and *someone* seems to be trying to impose his own opinion on what made the IE games so fun, while tongue-lashing us for doing the same. Tsk. Tsk. By the way, To argue that exploring the wilderness maps in BG1, lawnmower style, wasn't done for the sheer thrill of gaining XP and becoming more powerful as a result, is to IGNORE BG1 and everything it stands for.
-
It doesn't? Well since we've been through, what, 10 threads about this now (?), and no other in game reason has been given, how are we supposed to conclude that?Yeah... OR, Poster B wishes you to simply employ basic reasoning skills to realize that, even without XP, there are still things to be gained from combat within the system. Loot is, factually, a reason for killing things. Doesn't mean it's THE reason,
But maybe that's the whole idea after all: to make combat feel as pointless as possible so people treat it as a punishment and avoid it unless mortally necessary. This of course, can be a fairly *good* design philosophy.... If you're trying to design Planescape Torment 2. But since PoE is a combat focused game, this design doesn't do anything but leave a giant nagging feeling that something is missing. One need only do the Gorge map in the Beta to see the truth behind my words.
-
...do not exist on this thread, or any other XP thread on this forum so you are addressing No one but the giant Straw man you're trying to burn down.The people that are so hardcore grindxp,
-
6
-
-
That neither addresses the motivation to engage in combat nor the motivation to engage in exploration.... First off, whether or not the best loot is in the shops, there's still loot.
Translation: "well, hehehe, at least enemies drop vender trash!"Oddly enough, loot that can be converted into currency and then used at the shops (unlike experience points).
Oh I'm sure that's what they're trying to say. But that's not what their arguments are advocating. These XP threads have become very *simple* reads. A typical exchange goes like this:Second, I'm pretty sure the people who say kill XP isn't crucial to the game aren't going to be advocating grinding enemies anyway; they view combat as a natural consequence of exploration, which you do because you want a sense of having completed everything. If you think that the loot isn't good enough to really give a sense that it was worth it, that is way easier to fix than rebalancing the experience point gain to allow for kill XP.
Poster A: If we don't get XP for engaging in combat, then what's the point in engaging in combat?
Poster B: LOOT!
The conclusion that Poster B wishes us to arrive at is that Loot is somehow to be seen as a replacement/substitute for kill XP, which, according to previous arguments from Poster B, is what used to cause people to kill grind. So now instead of Kill grinding for XP, we've got people arguing that Kill grinding for loot is what you can do now.
This doesn't sit well with me, and it shouldn't sit well with anyone else.
-
1
-
-
I found loot drops in general to be remarkably underwhelming in this demo. And, just like in IWD2, the best loot was in the shops. This is a topic on its own, however, so I'll just sit back in smug approval as I watch the Quest-XP only crowd reduced to advocating kill-grinding for loot.You don't get any loot in this game from combat, it is an illusion. All of the resources you get from combat are spent to replenish your combat resources.
Really?! Wow. I could've sworn item durability was removed. You still have to replenish your weapons and armor? Or, are you saying that illusionary equipment will be dropped by foes? Or both? *blink blink* o_o
Helm's talking nonsense. Enemies do drop loot, sometimes very good loot. The two fights in Dyrford itself drop excellent armor and weapons including probably the best ranged weapon in the demo, so much so that if you go the pacifist route you're actively handicapping yourself for the rest of the beta, or at least until you get through to some rather nice found loot.
Some other drops are more disappointing though; wildlife usually just drops monster bits which may or may not come in handy in crafting, and some of the other human enemies had fairly underwhelming drops. I hope they fix the latter; don't mind wolfs dropping wolf hides and spiders dropping venom sacs and spider legs.
-
Not to mention pretending to be a moderator. last I checked, it wasn't up to Panteleimon to dictate what gets discussed on a developer's thread.He was nice enough to respond to a direct question in brief. Stop acting like a complete baby.
Throwing insults at other people doesn't help your argument and is just troll click bait. Refrain from throwing insults and your posts might be taken seriously.
On "Degenerative Gameplay" - Fixing the Incentives for Healing and Scouting
in Backer Beta Discussion
Posted · Edited by Stun
Theoretically, leaving it on shouldn't guarantee its success. Successfully finding hidden objects/traps should be based on how many ranks you have in the governing skill and the player's willingness to be thorough and cover the whole map. That's all. It should impose no more costs on the player than that.
That's how the IE games did it. There's simply nothing wrong with such an implementation.