Stun

You're missing his point. Volourn is clearly pointing out that the game isn't rewarding you XP for your accomplishments. And that is correct. I can show you several non-combat accomplishments you can make in this Beta at least that go completely unrewarded. I can also show you current developer confirmation that only QUESTS will be rewarding you XP. Of course, that passage is from one of Tim Cain's updates. Those can actually be taken with a grain of salt. a LOT of the stuff he said has since been eliminated, changed, rendered too expensive to implement etc.

Past experience? There's never been an Obsidian game or an IE game that didn't reward XP for kills. And therefore, you'll never find empty POINTLESS maps in those games because even a quest-void map will contain enemies you can kill for XP Horrible answer, Gromnir. you make 0 sense. if you want us to assume obsidian incompetence to bolster your point, we won't do so. we can't think o' the last obsidian game we played where we didn't get quest experience either. if we simply voided all kill xp and had that xp awarded at the same points we were getting quest/task xp, we would not have felt diminished by the experience. we don't need a gold star every 5 seconds. HA! Good Fun! Wait a minute. Someone who doesn't want XP for kills would not see a map void of XP rewards and quest Objectives as "incompetence". Instead, they'd chalk up the POINTLESS map as "practice for the real thing". Or "downtime because we don't need a gold star every 5 seconds" Or "well hehehe, at least you get loot!" And therefore, there's no reason to assume that Obsidian WILL bother to insert a quest into the Gorge map or other maps like it in the final product. XP-less maps do not contradict the Quest-only design.

Ok, lets take what we saw in this video one point at a time. 1) You Bring your love interest a mammoth tusk. 2) Your Love interest is so happy to have a mammoth tusk, that she decides to marry you. 3) You rush to the Temple of Mara to have your wedding. 4) Hired mercenaries crash your wedding. A wild death-filled melee ensues. blood drenched bodies litter the floor. 5) the wedding is rescheduled and all is well. I don't see the problem..? This is several magnitudes better and more realistic than anything Bioware has ever given us. But on a serious note, one of the great things about Skyrim that never gets the credit it deserves is the way random events can come together to create their own story -sometimes a hilarious and memorable one. This video illustrates a wonderful example of that. Also, Marriage in Skyrim actually *works*, unlike Romances, because it serves a gameplay purpose.

Past experience? There's never been an Obsidian game or an IE game that didn't reward XP for kills. And therefore, you'll never find empty POINTLESS maps in those games because even a quest-void map will contain enemies you can kill for XP Horrible answer, Gromnir.

In other words, you're basing your entire stance on Faith? There's no missing quests in the Gorge map. We were told that there's 4 quests in the beta. All four are solved by doing the village and Dyrford crossing. None in the Gorge map.

*groan* am trying to be patient. am not sure what you is tying to achieve with what you think is insightful but is clearly misguided quotes. you will be able to sneak and diplomacy your way past many obstacles and achieve success in may quests. the obsidians don't need tally and balance the weight o' the value o' those skills because all successfully completed quests, regardless o' your solution, will achieve equal payoff. am not certain how to make this any more simple or clear. Oh I don't disagree that your quotes are misguided. In fact I'm pretty sure I cited them because they were misguided. More to the point: with a system that rewards XP only for completing quests, you are not guaranteed that your play style will be rewarded (contrary to your FALSE claim). An example is Stealth gameplay. You weren't rewarded for it at all in this beta. Another example, and one you've ignored every time it was presented to you on this thread, is the Gorge map (the wilderness map to the left of the village) Here we have a giant chunk of the beta, a sizable amount of content. But because there are no quests tied to it, there are No XP rewards given out for completing it, no matter what your playstyle is. Now I'm sure that for you this constitutes terrific design and "proof" that a quest XP only system is teh BEST. But someone like me will tell it like it f*cking is: Crap. Spending an hour 'exploring' an entire map and the dungeon beneath it and getting NOTHING to show for it, is not ideal.

see, now That is strawman... please point out to sart as he is confused about strawman. we stated that the developers does indeed try to make all builds viable, but that does not necessarily follow that every obstacle will be surmountable via sneaky or diplomacy or every single skill available. we said that quest xp means that the developers does not need ask how players chose to accomplish goals-- the choice is left up to players, and xp awards do not favor any singular approach. there is no best xp build. there is no right or wrong approach. Um...No Gromnir. you said THIS: Does the Beta reward ANY xp for sneaking past the Ogre, or any other quest/quest objective? Nope. Does Gromnir know what the hell he's talking about? NOPE.

Because pen and paper AD&D does not put nearly as much emphasis on combat as AD&D based Video games do. Bards and thieves for example, are FAR more powerful in pen and paper due to the immense importance of non-combat skills. And another example I cited is also worthy of discussion: Beast Masters and Druids. In Pen and Paper, Rangers and Druids are virtually *gods* when you put them in a Wilderness setting. They can turn the entire forest against a foe. BG2 didn't capture that. It couldn't. But the lore dictates that Rangers and Druids be in the game anyway. So they put them in, so people can role play them. Unfortunately they put them in without their full nature power and without giving them new powers to compensate. The result is that Beastmasters (a Ranger kit) and just about all the druid kits are 1) weaker than they should be, 2) definitely weaker than other classes that did not suffer from the translation To computer. I don't recall claiming they had to be as some rule. Just that this is how things turned out in the Baldurs gate games

Ok. I'll answer both your questions. Your argument was that the system awards all playstyles. It does not. You cannot solve any quest in the beta by sneaking, for example. When this was pointed out to you bluntly and clearly, you decided to redefine 'sneaking' so that it fits within the definition of another playstyle entirely (talking), and then you proceeded to call people 'silly" and "obtuse" for not "realizing" that the sneaky playstyle is rewarded.

we were cautioned about being rude to you in spite o' you getting sweary and silly... but you make difficult. we said, "our first encounter with the ogre in the caves were solved diplomatically... or sneaky, depending on how you look at it. should we have been robbed of all xp for quest completion because we chose to complete quest other than through violence?" now, explain what is wrong with our observation. you ASSumed that by sneaky we meant stealth. that was an incorrect ASSumption, the fallacy o' the ASSumption made all the more obvious by the fact that we observed initial that our solution were diplomatic. we then added that depending on how one looked at the situation, our solution were in fact sneaky. we used deception. we were not genuine diplomatic but were sneaky and deceptive. you ASSumed and is making a big issue outta nothing. congrats. HA! Good Fun! Ha! talk about silly. <sigh> I assumed that sneaky = stealth because that's what it friggin is. It doesn't matter if Gromnir believes that being sneaky means you marched right up to someone and started talking to him. Especially when the claim is being made that all playstyles are supported. OK, Gromnir. Turnabout is fair play. I was "Sneaky" against the Ogre in my first playthough too. I killed him after giving him the impression that I was just there to engage him in chit-chat.

"sneaky" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sneaky we lied. we were deceptive. we were sneaky. Uh-uh. no, sorry. In a game where Lying/Deception use different skill/attribute checks than Stealth, you cannot group them together as one and claim that they both constitute "sneak". Sneaking is its own skill in this game. Even gets its own button in the UI.

That would be a fantastic rebuttal, if it wasn't for the fact that the Originals of all those titles also granted combat XP. (Especially dungeon siege 1 & 2, which did not grant XP for anything BUT combat)

It's not like Bioware tried to create a few underpowered classes in order to give the player a 'challenge to overcome' or whatever. The game is an RPG and often times a class will be designed for role playing purposes. This will sometimes mean that the class is more story/flavor relevant than combat effective, so it'll be significantly underpowered when compared to other classes. Bards in Bg1 are a perfect example. Beast Masters and wizard slayers are examples in BG2

No, it isn't. At least not all games, or this game. Yes it is. Ego stroking is a stated design goal of this game. Mentioned by the devs in one of the updates in fact https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/317536 Avellone sums it up at @3:40 of the video if you don't feel like reading. And nothing he's saying is unique. People don't play games for the purpose of being put down and belittled.

What do you mean, sneaky? You can't solve the Ogre quest by stealth in any way. Thus, one who role-plays a sneaky character is shut out from XP/quest rewards in that quest unless he changes his style of game play.

Fine. Lets see. Your proposal stinks for 5 fundamental reasons. 1)If there is content in this game that is not tied to a quest, your system doesn't address it. 2)If there are times when combat is forced/required, your system doesn't address it. 3)If the diplomatic route in a quest simply requires a single skill/stat check, while the combat route requires use of more than one player skill, your system does not take that into account. 4)If sneaking past an encounter doesn't grant loot rewards but intimidation and/or combat does, your system does not address it. 5)If solving a dungeon puzzle requires no character skill and rewards XP, but killing the dungeon level's inhabitants requires the use of several of your character's skills but Doesn't reward XP, your system is a joke. In light of the above, I'd have to conclude that BG2's system, while still flawed, is certainly a better system than the one you are proposing. Hey Gromnir, that was SIMPLE.

Oh, you mean this one from a page an a half ago? Insufficient information given. The parameters are not even remotely comprehensive enough to promote an honest discussion. We'd need to know how much easier/harder the diplomatic route will be vis-a-vis combat route. We'd need to know precisely how viable stealthing will be. We'd need to know exactly how many instances of required combat there is (Josh told us to expect many). We'd need to be assured that every single option will be viable in every single quest. We'd need to know how much content is not quest tied. And lastly, we'd need to know how significant the enemy loot drops will be. Otherwise your proposal is neither better design, nor simpler design. It's just Lazier design. And BG2's system was better.

such posts reveal just how utterly and intractably obtuse you is being. nevertheless, instead o' getting stoopid and repetitive and sweary, answer our challenge as posed above. HA! Good Fun! I see no challenge from you posed above

No sh*t, Sherlock. This is probably why I would never advocate quest only xp -OR- combat only xp. Instead, I'd advocate both quest and combat xp.

Bullsh*t, You're stating an opinion as fact. I want XP for completing quests equally as much as I want XP for killing things. Take either of them away from me, And I will respond to the omission the SAME. Incidently, there would be nothing stopping the devs from increasing quest completion rewards for those who completed those quests non-violently, thus equaling out the discrepancy you claim will occur for players who take the violent route. And by the way, it's not up Gromnir to decide whether or not a thread discussion is "too old" to be discussed. I don't see a moderator tag next to your name, so stop pretending you're one.

Congratulations, you've just made a terrific argument for the inclusion of Quest/objective XP. Now all we have to do is find someone on this forum who was ever against getting XP for quests and objectives, and you'd be all set to declare verbal victory. I do however take issue with your notion that Loot should replace kill XP as the reward for choosing the violent option in a game that gives you choices. I can't see that system promoting anything but unrestrained save scummming and total meta gaming. (should I talk this enemy party down or should I kill them for their loot? Oh I know! I'll kill them, then check and see if their loot is any good. if it is, I'll take the loot. if not, I'll reload, talk them down, and take the XP!) I'd also like you to tell me why a system that rewards quests, tasks, AND kills with loot and XP will somehow manage to be less effective or less elegant in promoting diverse playstyles and CHOICE, than a system that decides to un-evenly reward all playstyles.

I suspect that the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between "combat is way, way too hectically fast" - and - "you just need to get used to it!" Playing the demo for 1 week straight will probably result in: 1) One getting used to carrying out a 5-person-party's second by second actions against several enemies 2) One being able to glean more info-per-second from the blindly fast-scrolling combat log that must keep up with the equally fast combat action. But it will not change stuff like: 1)The battlefield movement speed of enemies 2)The opinions of people who want slower combat anyway.

I don't see the problem with that. If the game world's lore dictates that Elves are the best archers, then it makes sense from a build perspective that if you want to be the best archer, you should choose Elf as your race. Of course, the +1 bonus to Dexterity that Elves got in the IE games didn't go very far in making them that much better in archery than a Human. Especially since I'm pretty sure Bows (in the BG games at least) applied your Strength modifier to damage.

You mean your comments? Don't know. Might have something to do with the lack of clarity in them. Most of the time they're nothing but one liners. And there's only so much anyone can glean from one-liners.

Nah, an additional "stash all" button is what's missing to actually make the stash perform its intended function, the reduction of time spent on rote item nudging. You hand-pick what you need for the current adventure, then press "stash all" and move on. Yeah, that would work too.