PrimeJunta

@Razsius ... Okay, I guess. You see it as a "half-measure" and "appeasement" as well. You feel like you're being pandered to, and that makes you mad. Fine. I'm not really interested in these emotional reasons though, personally valid as they are. (Although if your objective is to make your 'camp' not look 'unreasonable,' that's not exactly helping, though.) The rest of your post is a defense of kill XP, which is also not something I'm interested in pursuing. So I still don't see it, except from purely emotional/ego grounds (feeling first deprived of a prize, then slighted, then pandered to). As to "shoehorned in," I don't see it that way. Again: the core design goal of P:E's XP system was to reward accomplishments, not activities. Filling in your bestiary is an accomplishment. Killing things is an activity. Therefore, bestiary XP makes sense from that POV whereas kill XP doesn't. Nor does trap/lock XP, which is why I was really surprised to hear they're considering it, and hope they won't include it. I.e.: I'm all for quest XP, objective XP, bestiary XP, and discovery XP, because all of these reward accomplishments, but I'm against kill XP, trap/lock XP, uncovering-fog-of-war XP, or practicing-your-skills XP, because they reward activities.

That doesn't explain why you hate bestiary XP. It just explains what kind of XP system you'd like even more. I still don't get it, other than from a purely emotional POV (you're upset at not getting exactly the XP system you want, and you feel they're patronizing you with a "half-measure"). Is that it?

I honestly don't get the hostility to bestiary XP. It makes a lot more intuitive sense than kill XP (XP is supposed to, at some level, represent learning, and bestiary XP makes that connection more concrete; it also doesn't make sense that you can keep learning more, and always the same amount, by killing more and more of the same kind of critter), it's much easier to manage for the game designers since they won't need to watch out and compensate for XP hotspots like spawn points and they can easily tally up the total available XP at any stage in the game, and it gives a feeling of continuous progression that's IMO the best thing about kill XP (and something I find myself missing in the BB). I.e., from where I'm at it has all the benefits of kill XP with almost none of the drawbacks. If anyone would care to enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

Try synergizing with other caster classes. A combo of a druid casting a group fortitude debuff followed by a wizard attack against fortitude is pretty powerful.

The twist with the Cypher system is the use of XP as in-play currency, e.g. to reroll a die, get a temporary advantage, etc. This works well in a tabletop setting and can be a quite a lot of fun. The T:ToN "two flavors of XP" system is a workaround to produce some of the same feel on a computer game. I don't see what it could bring to P:E. There are no mechanics for spending XP on other things besides character advancement, so there's no need for the two flavors of XP, and P:E has very traditional level-up mechanics rather than the Cypher system's half-level-less "tier" system. Take away those parts, and what's left is plain quest/objective XP -- pretty much what P:E started with. Which part exactly would you like to see in P:E?

Does Dark Sun count?

Good post, @gkathellar. These design decisions are all about balancing one thing against the other. Binary thinking is rarely all that fruitful in general.

@Hiro: I'm glad we don't have a problem. It was a warning, not an announcement. 1. "Mitigate" means something like "reduce the severity or impact of a problem." In your example with the ogre, you yourself described the difference in incentives between kill XP and bestiary XP. This is exactly what I mean when I say it mitigates the problem. It does not completely eliminate it, but it makes it a great deal less severe. 2. "Kill quest giver" etc.: I realize there are other ways to address the problem as well. I did not reply to the ones I had no issues with. A reputation system is a good way to encourage players to kill discriminately. 3. Here you just repeated what you said earlier -- i.e., the difference in incentives and consequently your behavior with bestiary XP as opposed to kill XP. I consider the behavior with bestiary XP more logical and consistent with in-world goals, and therefore preferable. However, you are contradicting your previous flat assertion that, I quote, "bestiary XP is kill XP." It's not: you just described the difference! 4. Here you're completely ignoring my argument and evidence, and simply asserting that I misread the original description of the fighter class, and throwing in a gratuitous accusation of brown-nosing Josh. Classy, Hiro. Real classy. Summa summarum: nope, you really aren't worth talking to. You added nothing of substance but merely repeated your already-debunked arguments and did not knock off the gratuitous barbs, instead you piled on a few more. Welcome to my ignore list. <plonk> Edit: WTF, three four alts?

@Hiro, snipping out the quoting because the editor makes it so difficult. Instead, addressing point by point. First off, if you have a personal problem with me, please DM and we'll see if we can sort it out. Otherwise I would really appreciate if you'd knock off the unsubstantiated accusations like "feigned ignorance" and the rest. If you don't, I'll have to conclude that you're among the people not worth talking with. Now, to the substance. 1. Look up "mitigate," since you clearly don't appear to understand what it means. 2. I was bothered by disappearing and unkillable NPC's, magically in-teleporting enemies, set pieces where you were popped in the middle of a group of enemies etc. in the IE games. I would prefer producing the desired effects without these kinds of kludges. I would be mildly bothered by them if they're used in P:E as well. 3. Re the ogre cave: aren't you contradicting yourself here? Earlier you were arguing that bestiary XP is just like kill XP, here you're arguing that the incentives are, in fact, different. Which is precisely the point I'm making -- why I'm against kill XP but for bestiary XP. Which is it? 4. Vision of the fighter class. I contend my reading of the original description is correct, and the class described there is a combat generalist, not a defense specialist like BB fighter. I also contend your reading of it is incorrect. I do concede that it's possible that your reading was correct and mine not, in which case my views of the class were based on a misunderstanding. As evidence, I present the same paragraphs again, with the passages emphasizing versatility highlighted: -- STARTS -- If you see a fighter, chances are good that he or she is going to be able to take a lot of damage, but that's about all you can be sure of. ... Fighters are men and women trained to use a wide variety of traditional weapons in brutal combat. They are often put in -- or put themselves in -- harm's way and are built to take an extraordinary amount of punishment. Though not traditionally as mobile as the monk nor as likely to dish out individually withering attacks as a rogue, fighters are dependable and flexible, able to shift between a variety of attack modes that alternate between high damage, maintaining a strong defense, weakening opponents, and dealing harsh retribution to those who attack his or her allies. Some fighters build up arsenals of feints, knockdowns, and special attacks rather than rely on the “slow and steady” approach. And while fighters are often thought of as being primarily melee-based, they can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms. They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close. Though it may not look like it to see them in battle next to wizards and priests, fighters are just as able to tap into the power of their souls to devastating effect: accelerating their attacks to a superhuman speed, striking foes with such power that nearby opponents are knocked off their feet, and maintaining a phenomenal endurance that allows them to rapidly bounce back from even terrible wounds. When they aren't locked in life and death struggles, fighters are, unsurprisingly, often quite athletically capable. Even so, it's not uncommon to find fighters who are stealthy and well-educated. Moving unseen and knowing how to get out of a jam can come in handy even for them. -- ENDS -- Now, would you care to support your assertion that the original vision described a tank/defense specialist? Finally, prebuffs. I have already agreed with you that if your contention is valid that you can wade into battle with 5-8 pre-buffs, some or most of which will last through more than half the encounter, then I continue to be opposed to them. I've even conceded that I haven't studied the lengths of the buffs in depth, and may be mistaken in my impression that most or all are short-duration enough that the ability to cast them out of combat would not turn pre-buffing into rote or cheese. If you insist on belaboring the point, I will simply point you back to this message. And, once again, when expressing my opposition to pre-buffs my primary objection has always been to the rote casting of long-duration buffs. I can understand that you've missed that part, what with all the discussion going on in these forums.

@Hiro, re the pre-buffs: I had not actually checked the durations of the buffs, nor have I actually played a priest -- I've been relying on BB Priest. It's clear my impression of their durations was wrong, if some of them do go as far as 56 seconds. If that is the case (and I have no reason to doubt you on this score), then allowing them out of combat is a bad idea and would lead to cheesy or rote tactics.

Ah yes, the feigned ignorance. Well you've been obstinately arguing over things for some time prior to the beta. And when the beta is released, there's back flips and flip-flopping everywhere. Some examples would help. Bad-mouthing people without evidence is generally considered bad form. Until you fill up the bestiary, yes. Or, if you figure that there are plenty of spiders, you might skip them figuring that you'll fill up the bestiary later. Or, if it's ogres and there happens to be a nonviolent way to deal with a particular ogre, you might do that figuring that you'll always fill the bestiary entry on ogres later. So yes it does TOO mitigate the grind for XP. Nyah. Which introduces an inconsistency into the way the world behaves: why are these characters unkillable, while those aren't? I'm a tiny bit bothered by things like this. Aren't you? Yep, it does show that there's a lack of 'something' there. I did not expect to feel that when playing the BB, but there it is. I think it's a clever and non-shoddy solution to the problem, though. This, I think, illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding, and perhaps a fundamental difference in which we view the whole game. None of my objections to any particular mechanic are fundamental and inflexible. I object to mechanics because of the effects they have on gameplay. In particular, when discussing XP mechanics, incentive effects. I do not object to kill XP because "kill XP is bad." I object to it because it incentivizes boring, repetitive behavior (grinding) and favors some approaches over others (solving problems by murdering things rather than other ways). If these problems are resolved or greatly mitigated without introducing other, equally serious or worse problems, I'm happy. Bestiary XP does address both of these problems, as long as it's appropriately balanced with the number of critters around. If, say, killing at most a quarter of each type of critter will fill it up, then the incentive to go around murdering things isn't all that big, but you still get that nice little feeling of progressing through combat. It's a win-win. More feigned ignorance. Oh how you forget the thread where I pointed out to you that the Fighter in PoE is what it's designed to be. Nothing has changed from it's original design and vision. Uh, Hiro. By "evidence" I meant something I have said, not something you have said. And I am not feigning ignorance. As stated, I have based on my idea of what the fighter was going to be like on the paragraphs I quoted in the above post. Clearly this vision shifted over the course of development, and I objected to that shift. Well, that's what I've been talking about. Yes, if it is possible to go into combat with 5-8 pre-buffs active, and those pre-buffs last long enough to make a significant impact, then I am not OK with it. I would be OK with one or two lasting maybe halfway through the encounter. Once again: I do not object to pre-buffs qua pre-buffs. I object to them if they promote rote (=cast the same set of long-duration buffs on every rest) or cheesy (=go into combat, find out what you're facing, die, reload, prebuff with the appropriate counters, win) gameplay. Short durations and buffs with more in-combat utility (e.g. "suppress hostile status effects") greatly mitigate both of the problems. Under these circumstances, my objection is no longer relevant and I withdraw it. And, once again: if, indeed, buff durations are or can be long enough that pre-buffing becomes cheesy or rote again, then my objection applies again, and I would prefer that pre-buffing is not allowed. This is how I form my opinions on the game. This is also how my preferences on particular mechanics shift. It's contextual. I like combat XP in NetHack. I wouldn't like it in P:E. I would like pre-buffing if there are significant-enough limitations on it that it doesn't become rote or cheesy, but would not like it if buffs are powerful and long-duration enough to turn it into rote or cheese. How hard is this to understand? Edit: missed the last bit about the fighter. I read that original description as describing someone who's quite versatile in combat -- high-damage, high-defense, ranged, melee. I have based my ideas on the class on that idea. It is of course possible that I've entirely misunderstood it, in which case my views have been based on that misunderstanding. It's clear that one of us has, if you think the BB fighter fits that original description. However, I don't think I misunderstood it. When I read those paragraphs now, they still appear to describe someone a great deal more versatile than the specialized tank in the BB.

Yeh, you pointed that out earlier. I have no idea how an Earthstrength Warden plays though, but whatever it is it's clearly not what was originally envisioned.

"Very long" -- lasts multiple typical encounters. "Long" -- lasts more than half the length of a typical encounter. "Short" -- lasts up to six rounds. "Very short" -- lasts up to two rounds. As I said though, my main problem with pre-buffing is with the very long duration spells you cast by rote post-rest. A secondary problem is with counters you cast from metagame knowledge before a fight. And yet again, if buff durations are as short as in the BB, I have no problem being able to cast them out of combat. It'll give a minor tactical edge from time to time, not become a required or dominant strategy. OTOH if P:E does introduce more long-duration buffs (or change the duration bonus from abilities so that they enter play), then I think that the current restriction on casting them only in combat should stay. The fact that you can only pump it to 18 + bonuses? LongER. If the bonus is big enough to turn short-duration buffs into long-duration ones, then I believe the restriction should be retained. If not -- and my current fee-fee from the spell durations is that it's not -- it could be lifted. And am still arguing against, if I may point out. Yep, if the Resolve bonus added so much duration that it allowed buffs to last an entire fight for the typical encounter, then the restriction should be retained.

I did that? Wow. There's a crucial difference: it's capped, which means that it eliminates or greatly mitigates the incentive to grind, and -- as long as it's decently balanced -- it doesn't incentivize stupid stuff like going back to kill your questgivers for the XP. These are my two main issues with combat XP. Bestiary XP is a clever alternative which doesn't have them but does have much of the same 'feel,' so I like it. Hu? I don't recall saying anything all that firm about the fighter until actually playing it. Can you provide a quote? My recollection about my fee-fees about the fighter pre-beta were based on the "combat generalist" description from the early updates I've even quoted here a few times. The BB fighter isn't a combat generalist, and I did object that to fairly early on. As I said, the main beef I have with pre-buffing in DnD is the rote post-rest thing with long-duration buffs, which gets more important as you go up in level. The other, somewhat lesser one is pre-buffing counters to a fight of which you have metagame knowledge. Short durations eliminate the former and greatly mitigate the latter, because it might have run out by the time you actually need it. I much prefer P:E's "suppress hostile effects" counter, for example, which you cast when you're actually hit with something. (Also, yes, long durations = bad, short durations = good, for a variety of other reasons, but that's a different discussion..) Temper temper. Seriously though, you're wrong. I haven't flip-flopped over the fighter. I've thought all along that the design intent was a combat generalist with high survivability and consistent damage output as stated in the original description,* and then I objected when it turned out that we got a pure tank/defender instead. I will admit that I may have been sloppy reading the subsequent updates discussing it; if the change in intent was evident from them, I missed it. *here it is again:

Man @archangel you sure talk a lot about this "winning" thing.

I did the 'rithmetic and the fireballs are quite close to what a L5 mage would cast in DnD. However, and this is a big however, they scale with level in DnD and don't in P:E, which means that by L8 they will feel noticeably wimpier than the DnD equivalents.

When I acquire relevant new information or experiences, I change my mind. What do you do? Specifically, from your list: XP. Yep, I did think objective-XP would be enough. Now I think bestiary XP and exploration XP would complement it nicely. Still opposed to kill XP and lockpick/untrap XP. (I never was opposed to bestiary or exploration XP though; bestiary XP didn't even figure in the discussion.) Classes. I don't recall having very strong opinions on them before trying them out in the BB. I've always liked the stated design intent of allowing more freedom within classes, e.g. by using different attribute sets and equipment choices to make for various frontline and second-row builds, and that there are no required pump/dump stats for each class. My main objection to the classes in the BB has been, in fact, that some of them (notably the fighter and to a slightly lesser extent the rogue) are extremely role-limited. No major shift in opinion here; more like developing an opinion where I didn't have one before. Pre-buffing. I was and am still strongly opposed to DnD style rote pre-buffing, where you spend a while after every rest casting the same set of long-duration buffs, or where you cheese fights by knowing what you're facing and pre-casting the correct counters. The short durations of the P:E buffs have addressed this problem already, though, so I don't see much harm in allowing casting buffs out of combat. So yeah, my opinion has shifted on this account. Other things I've changed my mind about: no-friendly-fire fringes on AoE's from INT bonus (didn't like the idea, do like it in practice), the stash (thought it was a good idea to only allow access to it on rest, now I think we should be able to access it any time out of combat, or just get rid of it and have unlimited, self-sorting party inventory), individual stealth (thought it was a must-have, but now think the party stealth as currently implemented is OK). Personally I tend to LOL more at people who pull an opinion out of their behind and then stick to it come hell or high water. No shortage of that here either.

Nice graph, @Ineth. Does give a much clearer view of the results.

Eek, yes, no, that would be an express ticket to OCD-ville. No thanks!

@Namutree out of curiosity, why do you hate the idea of exploration XP? (The way I'm imagining it is something like a small but not completely insignificant XP reward for discovering a significant new area, regardless of any quests or objectives associated with it. You wouldn't get it for randomly entering people's houses in a city or village, but you would get it for discovering a new wilderness map, new dungeon, or new dungeon level, for example.)

Yes, finally a pretty good poll. My only quibble with it would be that "Specific Combat Scenarios" is redundant as it already falls under quest or objective XP. Voted for everything other than that (for that reason), Combat and Lockpicking. Reasons: I think it's better to reward players for results rather than activities. Bestiary XP is a bit of a gray area but I voted for that because it makes sense to reward learning things with XP, and it'll bring back some of the IE game "feel" when beating up things without many of the problems associated with "plain" combat XP.

The first IE game I played was BG2. It happened to me... many times with that. Same for Planescape: Torment which is just perverse in the character-building mechanics. The IWD's and BG1 not so much but by the time I played those I already knew how these things work.

Re brain/heart... that's a thing too, especially so with "retro" stuff like this. However, when discussing this stuff it's IMO important to keep it clear which one's talking. I really dig most of the IE games despite their occasionally glaring laws, and in a way some of those flaws have become central to the experience. Fixing them results in something that doesn't feel the same and therefore loses that golden glow of nostalgia. There are people who really dig British sports cars of that certain period when it was really hard to get electricity, oil pressure, and brakes all working at the same time, and I've understood from talking with them that similar cars that, you know, work most of the time just don't have the same charm. Even so, I think that if you wanted to build a spiritual successor to, say, the Triumph Spitfire, it would be a bad idea to knowingly design it to break down every few miles. Same thing with this project. Fix the flaws. It will be better. We can enjoy it and then reminisce together about how awesome it was when you figured out 30 hours into the game that your character and party build just wasn't going to cut it and you had to start over.

Oh, that post wasn't for you. It was for whoever's reading.

We're clearly disagreeing, whether we agree about it or not, and yes, I agree that some of that is due to different preferences. We can still discuss the respective arguments on each of our sides. For example, "I don't care about degenerative gameplay" means "I don't care if the systems in my game are broken or exploitable." That's about equivalent to "I don't care about design." That's a perfectly valid position to take, but IMO it kind of disqualifies you from talking about the subject to start with. It's a bit like someone saying "I don't care for music" but insisting on discussing the latest performance of Wagner's Ring at Bayreuth anyway. Second, "limiting my options through game design." That argument is fundamentally nonsensical, as has been pointed out to you by several people already. A game is a created artifact. It is defined precisely by the limitations it puts on your options through its ruleset. Remove those limitations, and you have no game left. It's like starting with a group of people playing a tabletop game and then throwing out the rulebooks and deciding to tell each other stories instead. That can still be brilliant fun, but it's no longer a game by any reasonable definition of the word -- and, of course, since things on a computer are made of rules -- programming logic -- that cannot, by definition, exist on a computer. I.e., whatever your preferences are, your arguments are weak. If you really want to conclude the discussion, just say "I like exploitable systems." To that there really is nothing to add.