Tartantyco

The issue there is that you'll create dump stats, which directly conflicts with the stated design goals. All attributes should be useful for all classes.

I'm afraid we're going to have to put you down, old boy.

There is an assumption made in your second post that I think is simply false. That is the assumption that you should be able to sneak past everything. First off, in v257 you could easily sneak all the way to the Spiders in front of the Ogre Cave entrance without being noticed in Dyrford Crossing. In v278 they seem to have removed the first Wood Beetle's patrol route, and moved some of the Stone Beetles around. However, you can still sneak to the Spiders in front of the Ogre Cave entrance while only killing the first Wood Beetle. You simply cross down to the Wolves, hug the Western side of the map(Instead of moving East after crossing the river, like you did) down to the bottom of the map, then follow the bottom past the Wolves. You can do this with the default party. Secondly, I don't think sneaking is intended to be an alternative solution to every obstacle. It serves just as big a role in damage avoidance. You can avoid pretty much half the encounters in the Skull Dungeon with the default party, which is pretty decent. I don't think trying to sneak past someone in a corridor 5 meters across and lit by torches, or trying to sneak past Beetles by walking right past their face isn't really reasonable, is it? I assume the reasoning when it comes to Mechanics is that if you can spot traps with it, you should be able to spot secrets with it. It seems more reasonable to put this into perception, but it may have to do with how it affects character builds. Maybe they don't want it attribute related, maybe it makes only a limited few builds viable, maybe detection would become too common, or too uncommon. Overall, I think you have some reasonable points concerning Scouting and related mechanisms, but your analysis also seems pretty blinded by your attitude towards the game, making you ignore alternative approaches, utility, and reasons for the current system. I find this unwillingness of forum denizens to analyse the PoEt systems, and instead use them as an excuse to suggest their own convoluted and frequently incompatible systems, extremely unproductive.

Are you still posting in the wrong thread, Cantousent? Sounds more like a "General Suggestions Thread" post to me.

Did you press "Done" in the bottom right corner after filling out the name?

See? You can't even make a basic argument in favor of it.

Mechanics, Lore, and Survival are speech related for certain. Athletics may also be, but I haven't seen any examples. In addition, they are used for plenty of other environment interactions, in addition to their direct non-combat applications, such as sneaking and identifying. Maybe you should educate yourself a little more about the game before you start making these broad statements? Regardless, even if it was 100% combat focused, that's still not an argument in itself for Combat XP.

You're trying to change the criteria by demanding that they detract from combat ability, and by ignoring all their effects simply because some affect combat. That's how you're moving the goal posts. It doesn't matter if some, or all, of them affect combat(And necessarily at the expense of combat ability if not all of them affect combat), leveling isn't all about killing things. Leveling influences your ability to sneak, interact with objects, resolve puzzles, quests, and the like.

Like Ankheg Plate from Taerom Fuiruim.

Stop trying to move the goal posts. You're also wrong about Fallout.

Yes, yes, the good old "muh combats, becuz logiks". First of all, this is a pooled XP system. If you want a Skyrim-style direct skill improvement system, you're in the wrong neighborhood. Short of that, there's no point in arguing for causal XP based on "logic." Second of all, leveling does not simply "make you better at killing". Leveling allows you to increase Lore, Stealth, Athletics, Mechanics, and Survival. All skills that have plenty of uses beyond combat. Leveling makes you better at resolving the various challenges in the game. Some of those may be combat related, others dialogue related, or stealth related, and so on. Third of all, just because something is combat focused does not mean that combat has to be directly rewarded. You are simply re-iterating an old argument that didn't fly the first time it was flung weakly into the air like a rancid cabbage.

Maybe thats what needs to change. How about something as straight forward as a one time objective xp bonus for clearing dungeon and wilderness maps of 80% of all hostiles? That rewards a nice chunk of xp for killing while avoiding degenerative scenarios by setting the bar at 80% rather than 100%. Still crappy but not as 100% crappy as no kill xp at all. No, that would directly reward precisely what they want to avoid incentivizing. They don't want you to get into fights for no other reason than to get XP.

I'm sorry Zansatsu. I simply don't take kindly to people using the No True Scotsman fallacy to crown themselves ultimate arbiters of what is or isn't the IE legacy.

What the hell, Indira?

I have no idea how you think that anything I said is supporting your argument. Well, you seem unable to follow the actual discussion so far, so that doesn't come as a surprise.

Don't move the goalposts around. This is the quote I replied to: We're not talking about light armor.

There is nothing to add to this discussion. It's just nonsense. We have something like three thread running on this subject, but people keep expanding its footprint.

What was stupid about your statement is that you think that the player will police him self to enjoy the game. He will either play the game how he likes it and it will be fun for him, or he will drop it as soon as he realizes that it's boring to him. You do realize that you're making my argument for me right now? If you have to "roleplay" around bad design, that is not a good thing. People will play the game the developers make, not "roleplay" the game that they want.

Non-issue detected.

Sure. There should probably be separate slots for purely cosmetic clothing, but the flesh-colored wood shavings would have to go regardless. It's just weird. I didn't say you were confused. I said you were getting tripped up over it. As in, you're hinging your opposition on a purely cosmetic issue.

"I really want to play as class X, but it's overpowered due to bad design, so I guess I should just restrict myself to a smaller portion of the game content." Great idea, Sarex.

Are you really getting tripped up over this? It's a purely cosmetic issue. Add default clothing, soblem prolved. Fighting without armor has been pretty much standard throughout history, especially for ranged troops.

Because having players have to police themselves in order to get enjoyment out of the game is just great design.

The first patch is out, khermann.

I liked the IE games the way they were, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want mechanical progression in future sequels, be they direct or spiritual. People seem to forget that there were plenty of differences between the various IE games.