Stun
-
Posts
2849 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Stun
-
-
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.
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.
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 XPnot faith. past experience.
Horrible answer, Gromnir.
HA! Good Fun!
-
Ok, lets take what we saw in this video one point at a time.At WORST, you end up with blatantly, cringeworthy and obvious attempts to pander to and cater to that demographic, while ultimately failing HORRENDOUSLY because it's ****ing awkward for the developer:
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.
-
3
-
-
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 XPnot faith. past experience.
Horrible answer, Gromnir.
-
2
-
-
In other words, you're basing your entire stance on Faith?Gromnir actual has spent more than 20 hours playing PoE without getting any xp other than the meredith (sp?) fight. our quest log is broken. you is making weird assumptions that empty maps and missing quests will be the norm in the final build. if that makes you feel better, so be it.
asking for maps with quests is not exactly an argument against quest xp. that should not need be clarified, but it seems it is.
HA! Good Fun!
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.
-
1
-
-
Oh I don't disagree that your quotes are misguided. In fact I'm pretty sure I cited them because they were misguided.
*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.stuff
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.
-
2
-
-
Um...No Gromnir. you said THIS:
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.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.
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.you ain't punished. you get same xp as those who sneak past combats even if you do get 1007 drops n' such that sneaky folks don't get. the guy that does the fight gets valuable loot drops that the sneaky or diplomatic player does not receive. the sneaky doesn't waste potions or camping resources. is a Role-Play game. aren’t you happy you get meaningful choices? regardless, notice we said "punished" not discriminated.... although that is one o' the more feeble semantic arguments we has seen in awhile. am suspecting that loot drops more than make up for camping supplies, but even if they don't, is up to player to decide where is the value. even so, there is no punishment or discrimination for choosing fighty. there is likewise no Punishment for diplomatic or sneaky players when discussing xp rewards, 'cause they is gonna get exact same xp regardless.
-
1
-
-
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.No, it's just like they didn't try hard enough not to create blatantly underpowered classes.
Also, in PnP D&D, there pretty much wasn't any such thing as a class designed for not-role-playing, so why should a cRPG based upon a PnP game suddenly differentiate between classes that are specifically for roleplaying (somehow making it okay that they consistently suck throughout a playthrough, compared to all the other classes) and ones that are for not-sucking?
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 gamesWhat mandates that these two things be mutually exclusive?
-
1
-
-
Ok. I'll answer both your questions. Your argument was that the system awards all playstyles.keep going. makes you seem so much more enlightened. the relevant aspect o' our observation were that we dealt with the ogre without violence, without killing. you want to quibble over the fact that Gromnir used a denotative correct descriptor that you felt were ultimately misleading?
...
why?
...
what difference would it make if we solved through stealth or deception or diplomacy if we were contrasting with combat?
please, continue.
HA! Good Fun!
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.
-
Ha! talk about silly.
we were cautioned about being rude to you in spite o' you getting sweary and silly... but you make difficult.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"
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!
<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.
-
1
-
-
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.
"sneaky"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.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sneaky
we lied. we were deceptive. we were sneaky.
-
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 might be worth noting that all games you mentioned other than ap, which weren't genuine a rpg anyway, is expansions... and you really don't know what is straw man. it did occur to you that expansions might be forcing limitations on the developer o' the expansion seeing as how it ain't obsidian's licence or ip?
-
1
-
-
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
-
Yes it is. Ego stroking is a stated design goal of this game.
No, it isn't. At least not all games, or this game.As for the ego stroking, well isn't that the point of games?
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.all builds have combat efficacy. however, as this is a cRPg, it allows us to solve quests via sneaky and or diplomatic means. 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?
c'mon folks, be serious.
HA! Good Fun!
-
1
-
-
Fine. Lets see. Your proposal stinks for 5 fundamental reasons.you don't need more information.
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.
-
2
-
-
Oh, you mean this one from a page an a half ago?don't let your ADD stop you from scrolling up a couple posts. hint: post starts with, "we pose this challenge..." Gromnir is extreme subtle.
HA! Good Fun!
Insufficient information given. The parameters are not even remotely comprehensive enough to promote an honest discussion.we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer:
provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player.
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.
-
1
-
-
I see no challenge from you posed above
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.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.
HA! Good Fun!
-
No sh*t, Sherlock.asking for both kill and quest xp utterly defeats the Point o' quest only.
duh.
HA! Good Fun!
This is probably why I would never advocate quest only xp -OR- combat only xp. Instead, I'd advocate both quest and combat xp.
-
3
-
-
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.don't be obtuse. if you want xp for individual kills or individual lockpicks you is not actual advocating the quest/task xp reward approach.
*sigh*
and the reasons why xp for kills and individual activities PLUS quest awards has been beaten to death... beaten beyond death, is that if the fighty character gets more xp 'cause xp from fights ends up yielding more xp, then you is functional encouraging fighty even if you do make diplomatic and sneaky options viable. quest and task xp awards avoids any sorta attempts to balance awards for differing play styles... yadda-yadda, etc. ad nauseum.
*groan*'
you don't have any idea just how obtuse this all is and how repetitive.
HA! Good Fun!
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.
-
5
-
-
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.<stuff>
there is no more simple and elegant method than quest and task xp that will provide all styles o' gameplay with same xp awards.
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.
-
3
-
-
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!"The whole "combat is to fast" argument has alot to do with lack of training, I made 3 playthroughs and the game gets easier to manage if you have some experience with it. Its not really fast, most of your party members do one action every 6 seconds if not interupted, the rogue hits every 4 seconds. You have usually more than one seconds for every character which is quite long if you know what you are doing andyour fighters do not need to use a ability every second. Right now when I jump into the game to try stuf out combat feels really slow.
If feels like a lot of those "combat is to hectic" complains come from people that do not want to learn and adapt to the system. When I played BG for the first time it was overwhelming and I had to pause constantly. Same thing here.
A quality of life additon would be adding hotkeys for your party members like 1-6 and hotkeys for the skills. Thats basicaly everything you need.
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.Having significant bonuses or penalties based on race, culture, and background choices will simply mean that people start picking those options based on the class they wish to play as. It'll just end up like in the IE games, where any archer character will be an Elf.
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.
-
4
-
-
You mean your comments?That is not what I said in my post. Why is it so hard for you not to misrepresent the comments of others?
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.
-
4
-
-
Yeah, that would work too.An extra row of inventory space per character would really help here.
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.
Backer beta: Developer Impressions
in Backer Beta Discussion
Posted · Edited by 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.