Stun

I was talking about the lions. Where the lions are? They added a dungeon. Even better. He doesn't. the lions on the gorge map aren't part of any quest. And therefore, XP rewards for killing them can only be tied to either 1) exploration, or 2) the lions themselves. Therefore everyone who gets attacked by the lions receives the same XP for dealing with them. We don't. Just like there's no rewards for doing the Ogre quest stealthily. You take into account that there's only 1 way to deal with the lions on the gorge map: Kill them. because they attacked you. . This satisfies all playstyles, since all classes and all builds in this game are geared towards fighting. So does Combat XP. As long as we separate the two, there cannot come a time when balance is broken. You do quests for XP, and you kill non-quest tied enemies for XP. Whether the game allows for stealth game play and whether it rewards it are two very different things. I asked you this precise question earlier and you managed to wildly dodge it even as you got out your dictionary and tried to re-define the word Sneak. Remember? Therefore, I'm going to ask it again. Show me how I can use stealth to complete ANY of the 4 quests in this beta. Go ahead. Straw man. No one is asking for Skyrim's systemic system. We're just asking for Kill XP. Kill XP is VERY MUCH different than trap disarming for XP, or sneaking for XP or lockpicking for XP in that it's not a singular action. There are 200+ ways to kill something in this game and by setting flat XP values for an enemy, you are allowing the player party to choose how they're going to kill that enemy. And whatever way they choose will always lead to the same XP reward. This is something SEPERATE and unrelated to Quests. And personally, I particularly see it as a perfect solution for something like the 15 level megadungeon, which SHOULD be a friggin dungeon crawl, not some diplomatic adventure <gag>

I've noticed that playing on easy is actually more difficult than playing on Normal. But that's probably just a bug.

Why? Do they not exist? are they not hostile? Do they not attack the party? Did the devs not specifically place them in the party's way? They're not part of any quest, and therefore cannot be Double-dipped, exploited, or talked down. Nor does attaching an XP value to them break balance, since they will always be available to everyone who chooses to explore that optional map in between questing.

sorry mc, but it kinda is binary. a primary value o' quest/task is that it avoids balancing. if you create categories that include kill/combat and quest and whatever, you has invalidated the point o' quest/task. you has necessarily reintroduced balancing. What a load of baloney. There's nothing stopping the devs from utterly separating combat from quests. Take the Ogre quest in the beta. That one is worth 2000xp (or whatever) regardless of how you complete it. Therefore, the Gromnirs of the world are happy. Now, what about the totally-unrelated-Lions on the other map? Hmm? Oh, I know! we can make them worth XP if they stomp on the party while they're exploring. Problem friggin solved.

Sawyer has been known to form his design decisions on a whole lot LESS than this. He has flat out admitted that his reasoning behind PoE's bizarre Inventory design (for example) was based on IE game 'Lets Plays' he's watched on YouTube. There is no science here. And it wouldn't matter if he personally talked to all 73,000 backers and got their opinions on everything. (he's already called us irrational grognards for daring to like BG2's design) He Perceives in a vacuum, and it still must be.

That's the female paladin, right? The Paladin with a vagina - aka. Pallegina. How clever. It's got that beat-you-over-the-head-till-you-get-it quality to it. I love subtleness. I approve!

5 out of 4 people don't understand statistics.

Depends on the issue, of course. But if your response to 'pointless' posting is to just give us an admittedly pointless retort like "/thread!" Or "stop whining!" or "I'm Sawyer's spokesman/mind reader, and I've come to proclaim to you that he's aware of your concerns so stop posting them already!", then you're wasting your time...and you're also not using this board as it was designed to be used.

Obsidian did not create this BB forum to be an outlet for bootlicking fanboi praise gushing. They created this Forum for FEEDBACK. Do not for a minute think that your "/thread!" retorts and tireless attempts to shut dissention up is doing them (or anyone else) any good at all.

Wow. So this most definitely isn't a question of If they're going to release it this year, but very much WHEN they're releasing it this year. And even more interesting is that the release date seems to be dependent on when Bioware is going to release DA:I. You mean the BG series Item sketches. (Only the BG series had them) Indeed. They were a minor thing but they were so very cool.

Like I said, that is of no concern to me. I'm not your tutor.

You are mistaken. But that is of no concern to me. I'm not your tutor. I'm just someone who takes pleasure in responding to silly posts. That's an odd comment from someone who insists on communicating in an imaginary dialect. In any case I....kinda agree with you. Implementing a system where combat is rendered a pointless exercise likely won't cause the game to tank. Instead, it'll probably cause the game to suffer the PS:T syndrome.... everything is awesome except the combat.

It didn't need one gromnir. And...it doesn't matter. You quoted the post that had a link, and STILL played dumb about it. Or maybe you weren't playing.

which post from last page? the link in the quoted post here is new, as you no doubt realize at this point. HA! Good Fun! No it's not. It's working perfectly. It links us to my post from the last page.

we did, and you is wrong, I said check my post from the last page. I'm wrong for agreeing with you? lol. Ps: BWHAHAHAHAH! HA! GOOD FUN!

And this is supposed to mean what, exactly? Are we all supposed to hold Cain and Sawyer to some undisputable high authority on what constitutes 'superior' game design simply because they decided to observe a group of QA people playing a beta? I'm not. Check my post from the last page.

Er...that "planet retardia" comment was directed at the devs. So why did you fire it back at us 'folks'?

First, Lets stop pretending that combat will always be tied to an objective, when we've already witnessed a beta that demonstrates otherwise. Ok? Second, lets stop splitting hairs. If an unrewarded combat's only point is to block something purposeful, then we've got something worse than pointless. We've got a pointless hindrance. Third, putting a bunch of encounters on maps that contain no quests/quest objectives whatsoever, and then compounding this by not even rewarding XP for exploring those maps, is the very definition of Pointless. Stop defending stupid design.

And that's why nobody ever plays any game unless it has Kill-XP. I imagine it has almost nothing to do with whether or not anyone will play the game. On the other hand, Whether or not they see its combat as pointless....

nevermind.

Huh?

Aaah yes. It's time now for the meaningless but ever entertaining rebuttal of: "combat is for the fun!". "combat is for roadblocking point A from point B in a quest" , and my personal favorite: "combat is for the roleplaying"!

That's an odd comment from someone who insists on communicating in an imaginary dialect. In any case I....kinda agree with you. Implementing a system where combat is rendered a pointless exercise likely won't cause the game to tank. Instead, it'll probably cause the game to suffer the PS:T syndrome.... everything is awesome except the combat.

Yes. Couldn't have said it better. Clarity, after 24 pages. Who could have imagined such a thing?

Aaah yes, the ever famous Potion of gunpowder enchanting. Or: hey if you want Arrows of lighting, there's a poison for that!