Stun

Seriously, you claim that killing things for XP hampers role playing..... It didn't in PS:T You claim that Players could "abuse the system" (as if that matters anyway in a single player RPG. Are you our personal gamer policeman?) by solving the quest non violently for XP, then turning around and killing everything on their way out for an XP double dip..... That could hardly ever happen in PS:T and in times when it could, it didn't make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things since quest XP was so much more substantial than kill xp. No. there can only be 2 benefits to a No XP system. 1) To eliminate grinding 2) To discourage violence. #1 is a lazy copout. The most logical way to eliminate grinding is to not over-populate the world with trash mobs in the first place. #2 is quite obviously NOT the reason, since discouraging violence in a combat centric RPG who's combat system the developers spent an inordinate amount of time designing and detailing, is like a Restaurant owner and Chef who discourages his customers from eating his food.

Try playing Planescape: torment. Might make things easier to understand.

yes, because players can stealth or speak their way to the target without falling behind in power. if the game grants xp for killing it's balanced around those encounters, and you have to kill them if you don't want to be too weak later on. btw you still have the option to kill everything, if that's the way you want to play your char - nothing is stopping you. your complaint sounds like you give **** about the rpg aspect and simply want your precious xp. It would be an RPG aspect if the option to kill everything yielded the same (or relatively similar) XP rewards as "pacifying" everything. Because therein lies meaningful choice. But as it stands, this will only be the case when an enemy(s) is part of a quest objective. And even THAT would be fine with me, if it wasn't for the fact that this game is also exploration heavy. You have a world to explore. And lets say you're role playing a wandering, individualistic-minded Barbarian who enjoys killing things. So here's your "choice": 1) Go off and explore the wilderness before anyone gives you a quest objective to do so. Result: you miss out on tons of XP because you end up killing things without an in game quest objective to do so 2) Break character and become a patient and obedient mercenary who only kills when asked, and only explores when he's given a reason to by someone else Lets see....I'm a role player, but I'm no LARP'er. I'll be doing #2. It'd be a stupid waste of time to do #1, since there's no XP for kills.

Aah. So wanting XP for engaging in your class's profession means that you support combat Grinding. Really? Are you guys, like, 5 or something? It doesn't mean any such thing. And you know it. Try coming up with a better argument. Actually, Try coming up with a better argument while at the same time admitting that you didn't enjoy any of the IE games, which were all about getting XP for killing things.

so who said that there won't be quests where you have to kill the big bad monster at the end of the tunnel? the xp is quest driven and imo that's better than simple xp rewards for killing. it's also less prone to abuse without a ton of scripting involved. I'm sure there will be quests like that. Probably many of them. And if there is, has the "mass murder spree" issue been solved? Nope. I just don't see what benefit eliminating Kill XP brings to the equation. Every one of the IE games had both quest XP and kill XP. Even Planescape Torment which wasn't combat focused at all. Was it some huge problem that had to be addressed so ham-fistedly?

Just a note here: PoE is not an adventure game. Obsidian has made no bones about the fact that it is very much a combat-centric RPG. And while there's going to be tons of scripted, skill based problems to solve, Combat is still the giant elephant in the room. You will not be "free" from it. So the lingering issue remains: You're halfway down the Mega dungeon. You've killed scores of monsters to get there, and you'll have to kill many, many more to get to the end.... But you're not getting EXP for doing so. Don't know about you, but that's a jarring notion for me. Especially since it's not just the Mega dungeon. Josh has repeatedly stated that Exploration is going to be a focus of this game. So imagine hiking through all the Wilderness areas, all caves, and all the other dungeons. Unless Loot is your sole, driving motivator, you're going to tire of engaging in literally unrewarded combat after several hours of exploring the wilds. There's also the logic factor. Logic dictates that the more you do something, the better you get at it. But the no-xp-for-kills system goes against this. You're level 1. You run off for some combat practice. You kill 1000 zombies in the cemetery but doing so doesn't make you become any better at killing things..... Unless someone asked you to kill those zombies (ie. killing them was a quest objective). Silly.

LOL, I don't recall ever buying a single player game and then being told, 1 month later, that I can no longer play it unless I buy DLC. Please, lets not defend stupid.

You're right. It's erroneous to call them Cash Grabs because that implies a quick, almost Fly-by-night money making scheme. And that's not even remotely what MMOs are about. Successful MMOs are specifically designed to be the exact opposite: They're long term cash flow for a company. They're shameless fan-milking machines that require the player to first Purchase the game at full retail price ($50-$60) and then continue to shell out monthly subscription fees. As a consumer, that was a business model I used to be ok with but now I utterly despise on principle alone. The day Obsidian decides to bastardize PoE by making an MMO iteration carrying its name is the day I divorce myself from the franchise entirely, and depending on how pronounced the bastardization is, the entire company forever.

Ooh, Yeah. I forgot about this one.

Indeed he has. Erroneously, though, so we'll give it a pass. He seems to be defining Balance as a synonym for diversity, which it's not. But Diversity is always a good thing in an RPG, while Balance can often times suck all the soul and replayability out of an RPG. Anyway, my list. Pros 1)Party makeup choice - It's unusually vast for a game in 2014. 11 classes and 6 races, with the added option to manually build an entire party of 6 via the Adventurer's hall. Can't ask for much better than that! 2) Absolutely stunning area maps. The ones we've seen at least. So right from the get-go we're given something tangible to point to that even the most die-hard of the "old-schoolers" agree is a definite improvement from the Infinity engine games. 3) Scripted events screens - They make the little pen and paper D&D nerd in me squee whenever I see them. 4) A relatively low-medium level campaign. 12th level is the cap? That's perfect. Higher than BG1's constricting level 8-9 cap, and lower than BG2's crazy level 40 cap. I'll take it! 5) The fully customizable/toggleable difficulty settings and options. As they describe it, you can virtually pick and choose just about every single gameplay detail you want and don't want. I really appreciate that and often wonder why more games don't do this. Cons 1) No multi-classing. Yes, yes, yes, I know that they did their best to make each individual class as customizable and open ended as they could, but lets face it. there's just no substitute for the real thing. One of the features that made the IE games so breathtakingly replayable, even more than a Decade after the fact, is that there was virtually no limits to build choices. 2) The Bottomless Inventory. It stinks of the modern dumb-down disease. RPGs are supposed to be all about choice and consequence and inventory limits are a part of that. For example, If you create a party of really (physically) weak characters, -or- if your party only consists of 1 or 2 characters, you should NOT be able to haul around as much loot as a full party of strong-backed warriors. Period. I am disappointed that Obsidian has decided that "ease of use" has to trump simple reality on this one. 3) No EXP for killing stuff. This is an issue that I was initially on the fence about, but the more I began thinking about it over the past year, the more I've grown to dislike it. This will be a combat-centric game with a 15 level mega dungeon, and they've decided to eliminate one of the key motivators for engaging in combat: EXP rewards. Imagine the ramifications: You're out exploring the wilderness and you come across a pack of really tough Bears. It's a long and drawn out fight. You're forced to use up valuable consumables and your per-day talents. You eventually emerge victorious. Congratulations. You're rewarded with.... NOTHING. No EXP. But here, have some bear pelts (basic crafting components) for your trouble. Rejoice! 4) Stamina = Health, and Health = Health. A bizarre attempt to please modern gamers who are used to seeing their bars go back up instantly after a fight, while at the same time, trying to please the IE game fans who believe that you should have to rest to regain lost health. So lets make a system that incorporates both concepts simultaneously. The end result is an overly convoluted brain-sore that requires a lot of explanation and creative redefining of the word "stamina" in order to make any sense. 5) Rogues = Heavy Hitters. I'm open minded on this one, and am willing to defer judgment until I see rogues actually play out in-game, but as of right now, I'm worried about the implications. IMHO, no one should hit harder with a weapon than a warrior.

Just to be clear, these are 'passive' abilities that the fighter gains, yes... and not 'per encounter' or per day? Also I have a question about Carnage. We know its AOE is dependent on the Barbarian's intelligence score. Does weapon reach also affect the AOE? (ie, will it have a larger area of effect if the Barbarian is using a spear than if he's using, say, a dagger?

What questions do you seek answers to, exactly? Oh wait, the questions in your OP.... These are very Plot-specific questions. So no. The developers have already made it crystal clear that they will not be divulging plot spoilers. You'd know this if you were actually around here in the 2 years since you started this thread. That said, Sawyer has already discussed, in general terms, stuff like Animancy. Perhaps you can use such revealed info as a source of speculation until the game actually comes out.

I'm sure there's more than 5. None of the e3 reviews touched on Stealth, or Crafting, or Alchemy, or Thievery (for example) but we know those are in the game, and anyone can easily picture the use of those skills both inside and outside scripted interactions.

From one of the articles: Really, Obsidian? You've decided it would be a good idea to put action bars over everyone's heads?

I think I like these kinds of "progress report" updates more than many of the other types of updates we've seen (like Art updates, or even class updates) That said, I have a couple of questions. First, on a project like this, how long of a period is Beta-to-release? Second question is about this: So it's safe to say that the UI is still in Alpha...? So, what's the ETA on a possible screenshot/reveal of the UI?

I don't know there was this game I played a long time ago called D&D that seemed to handle scaling really well when the person running the game knew what they were doing. Not applicable. A D&D session is a linear experience by design. Moreover, any DM who knows what he's doing is going to Prepare and populate the specific adventure with encounters before the session begins. This means that whatever encounters the players face have already been created and specifically designed before any levels have been gained. Thus, scaling has not occurred. The only DM's who decide, on the fly, to "add extra monsters" or "up the level of the end boss" because it turned out that the players "gained too many levels", or because they were "having too easy of a time with the current encounters" is a BAD DM by definition. He failed to design a challenging experience from the get-go. A *good* DM will never level/encounter scale because his own intelligent in-combat control of any monster/encounter should always suffice. Since 2nd edition D&D....the ruleset the governs BG2. The game I was citing. Feel free to dust off your old Monster manuals and dispute me on this. Liches are Higher level monsters. They're better spell casters. They're more intelligent. They have better immunities. They're higher up on the Cleric Turn-Undead Tables. And if you want to get more technical, they can't even be physically defeated until you destroy their phylacteries. In D&D Lore, some Liches become GODS. Ever heard of Vlaakith, or Vecna? Again, the need to Level scale caused Bioware to spit on the lore. By the way, have you found that Developer quote yet that confirms that crit-path encounter scaling is definitely in, as you say? or have you decided to shamelessly plead the fifth on that false claim now that someone called you out?

I wouldn't consider encounter adjustments based on your reputation as Scaling, as it would constitute reactive, story-based choice and consequence. Lets say you p*ss off a faction once, so they send an assassin after you. Cool. Then lets say you piss them off again, in a much more grandiose fashion, so they decide to declare open war, and send a batallion after you. That's super cool. But that's totally different than a situation where the game world omnisciently detects that your party is level 10, instead of level 6 and thus magically transforms the Ghouls in the mega-dungeon into Super-ghouls just for your own personal challenge-sake.

^Is this still a valid talking point? PoE already has publisher backing. It's at the Paradox booth at E3, remember?

^Another BG2 example of the nonsensical occurs in the critical path. In spellhold. The main "boss" (story wise) in spellhold is Dace. Dace is a vampire. FYI, In the Undead heirarchy, Lich > Vampire. Always. But, because Bioware decided it would be a good idea to scale things for the purposes of "challenge", one can come to Spellhold at a high level and find himself encountering a random Lich and his minions in the hallway just before Dace, instead of what the story dictates is supposed to be there (lesser undead, like skeleton warriors, ghasts and mummies). This not only renders the story illogical, but it also renders the game world unbelievable. (why is a dungeon's hallway TRASH mob encounter a Lich, while its main boss is a vampire?) Scaling ruins a game's integrity even when it succeeds in "challenging" players. It's a devil's deal. There's not a single game that it doesn't taint in some way the moment it occurs.

LOL "Can" and "If". We've never heard that before from you dreaming arm-chair developers. Name ONE game that's ever done scaling well. Just one. Theory crafting is nice and all but at some point, your side needs to PROVE those fantastical game design theories you so eagerly try to shove down our throats whenever the topic comes up. Because my side has dozens and dozens and dozens of actually existing games we can cite that Prove that such theories always die horribly in application and implementation. Even the greatest game ever made, BG2, couldn't get it right. As minimal and subtle as its encounter scaling was, it was still wrong enough to spit all over the lore whenever it occurred. Begging your pardon...? They haven't confirmed any such thing. All we've gotten from Josh on the subject is "maybe" and "possibly" and other non-definitive language.

Or unless PoE uses a shared EXP system, in which case it'd be just like the IE games: They'd become more powerful, more quickly than a full party. You're stating an opinion. I, personally, find it Boring (not to mention replay-killing) when I bust my ass, do every quest, find every item, meticulously design my characters to excel so as to become powerful enough to dominate the enemies in this game, only to discover that all my work was hopelessly in vain, because the game has decided that power acquisition is not a reward, but a punishment - that the tougher you are, the tougher everything else will automatically become. And That's a terrible design in an open world game with a focus on exploration. Consequently, I think to myself, what's the point? Might as well skip everything and just do the main quest line... less headache.

It's not even a remote consideration on the part of the developers of this game. Josh has said that they're not even designing this game to require a full party. So why bring it up?

And then the player notices that the game is tracking his combat behavior, so he switches his tactics. Decides not to use spells so often. What then? Will the game suddenly 'un-scale' future encounters? PS: If you're going to randomly merge my posts, please be so kind as to do it completely, instead of deleting half of what I wrote. They added a tutorial and a new difficulty setting in the main menu. The encounters themselves were not changed at all. No.

It wasn't? I personally did not find Witcher 2's prologue battles as difficult as other people did. But I suspect that the reason why it gets that stigma is maybe because of the harsh learning curve of the game itself. Witcher 2 has an unintuitive UI. Even a simple act, like Drinking a potion, takes several steps. In my first playthrough, I remember being up against a L'avallete grunt, and getting killed because it took me too long to figure out how to bring up the Quen sign. And of course there's the QTE's which are insta-kills if you don't have the reflexes (but those can be toggled) Once you do learn the controls, the beginning of the game isn't difficult at all. Again...No? As powerful as you get in TW2, you still come up against stuff like the Draug, or the Wraiths at the haunted asylem that will swarm you and pose a serious challenge regardless of your level-up skills. And then there's Dark Mode. But I'm not sure TW2 is a valid example of anything in this discussion, as the game is story heavy; it doesn't really have an "end boss". You're not discussing level scaling OR encounter scaling here. You're just discussing the effects of intelligent AI.

Basically this. Level Scaling means the enemy scales directly based on level. Such as an encounter is designed for a level 5 party but you get there at level 8. Since you outlevel the original design all the enemies are simply leveled 2-3 times to meet your level range. Sometimes (though rarely) this means enemies might also become a new "varient". Like what was originally just a Fire Imp for example is now a full on Fire Elemental. Encounter scaling is where the encounter is changed to meet the challenge of the party in dynamic ways. For example... it might be an encounter originally designed for level 5 where you arrive at level 8 with your party. The enemies don't level, they are still level 5. But now there might be 2-3 more of them, or instead of normal arrows they might have fire arrows, or maybe there is now a trap that wouldn't have been there before that your party might fall into. The level or "challenge" of the enemies on a pure numbers basis didn't change but the encounter changed in a way that made it more challenging. or TLDR version Level Scaling = The enemy was changed to become stronger or weaker based on the strength of the party. An encounter against three enemies will always be an encounter against three enemies. Encounter Scaling = Aspects of the encounter are added or removed based on the strength of the party. An encounter against three enemies might not always be an encounter against just three enemies. In other words, there's no real difference. In both instances the party's LEVEL determines what they see on the battlefield. Yeah, that's called level scaling. And that was precisely what we were discussing before you decided to come in and try to correct our use of very plain and obvious gaming terms.