Utukka

I actually prefer it to be like Baludrs Gate. It allowed me to play lazy when I wanted to or "roleplay" a more realistic venture. Freedom is a good thing, it's not like this is some competitive game against others where every aspect needs to be 100% controlled. Hell, if you care that much about showing others how good you are, you can just stream/record yourself playing no rest/no reload and voila! My favorite part of BG2 was playing 100% random generated parties and trying to run no reload through insane on w/e that main mod was called. Good stuff.

This.

^The problem with that is 1) you're essentially having to code separate games within 1 game if your choices are gonna impact more than Merchant A is available or unavailable. 2) They're telling a story, not giving you a real world simulator. 3) Different endings then have to be factored into the expansions or sequels if you don't advance it 100 years. I've heard of several games that gave different choices and multiple endings that completely ignored your "choice" in future installments. Was directed towards Osvirs earlier post.

I always viewed this as a nonissue and here's why. 1) I assume they were doing something before hand rather than just waiting for me in that room. 2) I'm following a story, this is NOT a living world, these people are *destined* to be in there at that time, patrolling this area, guarding this area, it doesn't matter if one dropped a deuce beforehand, his part in this story is to be in that room or region at this time based upon w/e ingame reasoning/"my actions". 3) Yes it makes sense for them to call for help, but it's like when you attack a place in BG or any other game, wouldn't it be more effective to fall back and attack as a whole group rather than come at you in pairs/small groups? The entire castle/cave/hall/whatever, would come to life if a group of 6 people were blasting through yet it would be near impossible for a party to kill an entire "army" at one or two fights. Unless of course the developers intent was to let you steamroll everything. The point is, you're roleplaying within their story which requires certain things for balance/narrative. I have no problem striving for more realism or more choice, but regardless, your outcome is what the developers have determined is the correct outcome for said path.

^I suppose I find loot/full exploration/story opportunity more motivating than XP. The example earlier of Jaheira killing animals for XP is probably the best example I've seen for not having XP based on "combat" but I think that could easily be solved by just not granting XP for them. Being that everything is hand placed, it seems easily controllable even tho I guess it may be less confusing for new players to not have combat XP. Personally, I think it can be done either way and still achieve the same results. For your example about the NPCs, I get that people used to use diplomacy to get the XP and then kill the no longer hostile NPC to get the combat xp and items. Removing the XP and putting at the end would help deter such action but the fact remains that a diplomat or "peaceful" party will still break role in order to get the loot or w/e other benefit to be gained. I don't think either result is better than the other. As for design, ya, games not done or available in detail so ya, it's just random thoughts/discussion from all sides.

Sorry to skip a bit here but I have to ask....if the big concern here is people who complete the stealth option then go back to slaughter the guards for exp..why would they skip creatures that might have good/interesting loot? I understand the idea that objective based exp is meant to keep people in roleplay mode instead of min/max, but a person who cares about getting an extra 100 xp is probably gonna go back for the loot or whatever benefit that combat can give....if the loot/benefit from combat isn't worth going back for, then my assumption would be that combat to begin with wouldn't be the worthwhile choice or each choice is equally bad. In the end, as long there is a worthwhile benefit to completing the other aspect, said player will do it. Self control is your friend fellow roleplayers.

If you can control when an "execution" occurs then sure....otherwise, leave it for the last monster on the screen. I personally don't like watching animations that make no sense to take place/make the guy momentary invulnerable. Looking at you Assassins Creed.

^The problem today is that the knoobs don't want to be known as knoobs and expect to obtain all achievements without the effort hence the state we have arrived at today as the knoobs are the larger population.

Since this is still on going with new posts about the same stuff. I'll post this again. The reason is because it's not a true world and you don't *see* the leveling of enemies, it's more of an assumption that they were doing tasks that led to their current level rather than spending their life waiting in an abandoned empty cellar for you to come across. Each event regardless of your choices still leads to them telling you a story, which means even tho you may change this or that or "define" your character in a certain way, you're still coming to one of the choices the developers decided was a suitable ending which means you're on an in game time line.

Oh look another one with reading skills deficiency. And one question how come that the world where only the player and his party gain strenght and level up is not damaging the internal consistency and common sense in a world? The reason is because it's not a true world and you don't *see* the leveling of enemies, it's more of an assumption that they were doing tasks that led to their current level rather than spending their life waiting in an abandoned empty cellar for you to come across. Each event regardless of your choices still leads to them telling you a story, which means even tho you may change this or that or "define" your character in a certain way, you're still coming to one of the choices the developers decided was a suitable ending which means you're on an in game time line.

To be honest, I'd like the bosses (specifically) to be level scaled above my level on higher difficulties and below my level on lower difficulties. They'd still be rough being lower level, just not as much. To be blunt, making the bosses & encounters as "realistic" as possible (statistically & "danger") and then just "down size" them is a good way to go? @Obsidian: Follow your vision first and foremost. In this way, it wouldn't matter how many side-quests I do, the boss I get too (and dungeon?) would be scaled above my level. Would this mean they get better loot or that they statistically are just stronger and more threatening? One Bandit actually becomes like a character in the party in terms of realistic strength/size/physique etc. etc. "You know that's a bear right?" on Hardcore difficulty and "Teddybear!?" on Easy. Now, the Bear is a bad example (as it probably would be a part of that "not scaled" section, unless and if tamed & trained). I can see interesting plots unwinding, a sense of urgency, some areas that you have visited and left scaling slightly in strength because you left, recruiting more members for your next offense or whatnot. With a possibility to intercept in a random encounter on Fast Travel? I think this goes in the "Difficulty"-bin though. Likewise, maybe a business begins to down-scale (go out of business) because you are buying up the market. Thought: Would that have consequences? Maybe by taking all the stones and doing some mysteric secretive hard side-quest stuff actually make some boss & dungeon weaker? I think Level scaling can be great for a narrative, just no no Final Fantasy 8 or Oblivion. No. What FF8 and Oblivion do is that they are trying to appeal to the farmfest, i.e. level grinding. You can get to level "45" fast in both games, and get good gear/upgrades for it. Just run around in a circle for a while, spin the hamster wheel~ Luckily! To shred some light, P:E won't be like that. Right? The Bandit Lord is level 5, by default @start of game. I am playing on Hardcore mode, as I reach level 2, the Bandit Lord scales to level 6 etc. etc. I might be level 4 when I face him which would make him... level 8. On the easiest difficulty, the Bandit Lord perhaps starts at level 1, and only scales +1 every other level. The Bandit Lord could still be rough on Easy & Hardcore durr, Normal, just has lesser hitpoints or something. Not sure I followed you fully but I'll make an attempt here.....I *think* if I read correctly....much of what you said does go into the "difficulty" bin, as far as scaling encounters up or down but in many ways, I think my original theory stands. The point was is that level scaling based upon the character level(aside from "difficulty chosen") isn't really necessary due to the fact that developers are hand placing encounters/quests rather than consistantly respawning farmable monsters. Back to the example of the Boss of "act 1" being level 5, the developers SHOULD know the max and lowest level that you could achieve before reaching him which allows them to tailor the difficulty of the encounter rather than even need scaling for the sake of scaling. Difficulty scaling should be the only thing they need due to already knowing the strength of the character relative to the encounters. Last ditch attempt to get my point across: Make the game on normal, balance it out based upon knowledge of character level/strength compared to hand placed UNREPEATABLE encounters, then work on optimal DIFFICULTY scaling for hard/easy.

What lore reason is there for a Cleric being unable to wield an axe? Honestly, I don't even remember it from the games I've played. All I remember is that in BG and other games, pure clerics couldn't use swords, axes etc.something with it being against their Ethos. I imagine Oblivion could write whatever they wish, the point was just that as long as it fits in "their lore", then I'm ok with it.

If everyone can learn anything and get all the feats and learn all the abilities the whole class system is redundant. Why not use classless system like in Fallout and World of Darkness? Well... "Everything" you could of course have a pool of abilities and skills that are class exclusive, and a pool of skills and abilities that are more general. Not anyone can learn to read minds, but everyone can learn how to use weapons. This^. Class should also define level of specialization to an extent.

If I remember correctly, they're controlling the encounters you face hence they control the XP you get hence they WILL know roughly what level you will be at by the time you reach "x" area. For example Boss 1 = Level 5. If you don't do sidequests, you reach him at lvl 4, if you do sidequests, you reach him at level 5. Now that might make some feel the "need" to do the sidequests as to godforbid, not have a "disadvantage". The question then becomes, is the loot from the sidequests and the potential lore worth enough of a reward for sidequests or is exp ontop of the spoils too much? "Grinding" or "overleveling" is only an "issue" in a game like Diablo 2 where you can just repeatably do the same area over and over and over. Again, IF I remember correctly, Obsidian will not be supporting endless tristram/arcane sanctuary runs so level "scaling" etc will not even be an issue because the level of power is already hand placed and paced. As for this: Who says you have to gain a level at each quest or none at all? Perhaps they place this at a point in the game where you only gain 1 or 2 levels by the end of them but the creatures strength is roughly equivalent throughout with varied abilities where the point of this part of the game is focused more on lore, loot, environmental challenges, and challenging the abilities in which you've selected thus far rather than going from lvl 15 to lvl 25. For example: Quest 1 you might be fighting hordes of undead so it might be easier for a cleric or priest or someone specialized in blunt weapons. Quest 2 might be against a thieves guild so it would be more beneficial to have someone good at detecting/removing traps. Quest 3 could be settling a dispute between 2 military powers so it would be easier for someone who excels in diplomacy. Quest 4 could be having to fight in narrow corridors where it's more 1 on 1/hand to hand combat so your party needs to be stronger individually Quest 5 could be against "swarm" creatures where you have to fight larger numbers and have to fight tactically to not be surrounded/overwhelmed Levels start to become less consequential when they factor in skillsets and "environmental challenges" further. The question then becomes, is their multiple ways to complete the quest and what's the impact of the choices you've made?

As long as lore and such is still taken into account, I agree. For example of what shouldn't be....clerics wielding axes, warriors raining down armageddon without magical means, politicians telling the truth. "Good" examples, any class being able to add to stealth, lockpicking, running, first aid, climbing, poetry etc.

^ Math aside, it's safe to assume the majority of people so far have understood the intent behind his post.

I'm going to disagree on this one. Just because they managed to win the battle of Isandlwana in convincing fashion, you still have to factor in that the British didn't even bother with fortifying their position and didn't even take the threat seriously. Even if the Zulus had pressed their luck and pushed the British all the way back and out of Capetown, the British would've rolled back even larger than they did to take back such a strategic military position/trade route. Lets not discount the political ramifications of letting the Zulus walk away with the win. There's a reason the official "war" was so short. Hell, the Zulus had a hard enough time with the Boers, yet alone the true strength of the British Empire.

1)I'd prefer numbers to start and end on the lower side. 2) Instead of stat inflation or just being able to take more damage, I'd prefer they give more utility skills and lower the "resource" cost of utility skills in combat, and lower the time requirement of some defensive abilities. I'm gonna use a Fighter as an example since a Mage is more obvious in their fulfillment. A fighter might have a few "mobility" and "crowd control" abilities at hand. Here's 3 different types of examples, a Charge(run to enemy), a Shield bash(stun/knockback?), a "Throwable Net" to snare enemies. In many games, you either have to pick 1 of the 3 to "max" which means the 2 nonmaxed skills are near useless, or if you can have all 3, it costs 1/2 your "resource" to use 1 of them or you gotta wait for a 30 second cooldown or in BG2 case, use once, maybe twice, then rest. With all 3 being available for a battle, potentially multiple times in a fight depending on the balance of it....you'd achieve the fighter being able to take less damage while giving it more of a strategic approach rather than just having damage reduction, higher HP, or a roll for block/dodge chance. I can only imagine what you could come up with for other classes. 3) I know Diablo is a ARPG which will be different from PE obviously...but I think it's a perfect example of stat inflation being bad, as well as skill limitation through lack of skill slots and extended cool downs(not taking into account poorly designed skills). I realize it wasn't ONLY stat inflation that did this, it was also the combination of skills being based upon "dps"/attributes, the items being the bulk of stats for your character(which meant gear without "x" stat was useless or undesirable), and also the horrid item affixes. Also on a side note, I could only imagine the potential balance nightmare for the devs if each class had 3-4+ usable utility skills multiplied by a party of 6. It's just food for thought and could in my opinion, lead to a much more in depth/engaging combat. It could also potentially open the door for larger "herds" of monsters due to the player having more combat options besides cast fireball once, twice, then go melee.

Do half of you play on easy/normal or abuse enemy ai? Go play BG2 on insane without metagaming or using cheap tactics such as...Summon magic swords/creatures, open door, let summons in, close door. Rinse repeat. Cloudkill/fireball/web entire groups of enemies out of their sight range and just wait for them to die because they're too stupid to move out of it. Do a straight up fight the entire way through and see how much you need potions. I suppose the argument that will come in, well that's because it's on "insane" and "that's a balance issue!". I partially agree BUT...I have yet to see a game get it PERFECT where they can afford a challenging gameplay where you don't need potions. Sorry if the negligible difficulties find themselves with a bunch of worthless potions that make a mode that's already supposed to be easy, even easier.

If characters can craft....I wouldn't limit it exactly the way you suggested. This game from what I've gathered so far, and what most people seem to want in their RPGs is to be able to define their character by their own choices. Restricting you to a specific "craft" per class, is one more thing that defines your character. Also keep in mind, anyone can use heavy armor so it would make sense to possibly know how to upkeep it yourself. Before it seems I'm against the idea completely...I could however see something like this....a Cleric who typically is restricted from using nonblunt weapons/arrows, might not know how to make or repair those items being that their class has no use for them. Then again, a Cleric might be a blacksmith in the old days before "the event" so who knows?

BG 2 = AWESOME. I've thought about doing BG1 again since I haven't played that in years(don't remember it being near as good as BG2), then doing some more runs of BG2.

Missed that line, my bad.

I suppose I don't even get the point of it being an option for a single player only game. It's a waste of design time and effort. Design and balance the game as if people wont be saving/reloading for best results. Can you really not restrict yourself from abusing the game? Is it an ego thing that you want people to know for a fact that you couldn't have abused to get past? What's your reasoning for that they should focus on stopping them from reloading? Do your accomplishments feel marginalized to you if you know others didn't absolutely play through the way you did? Do you feel the developers will design the game in the idea that people will reload? Would it make you feel better if the developers said they ARE NOT taking into account that you can save/reload? Should the game be unmoddable so others can't take out the difficulty/intended gameplay?

Personally..who cares. I like to play ironman/hardcore, w/e you want to call it, the majority likes to play softcore(diablo style). I'm not saying you should just give people everything because they're just gonna reload till it works but that's part of the point. If he's gonna reload/cheat, he's gonna do it and it doesn't affect my style, hell, if he wants to spend 30 minutes reloading till it works, all the more power to him. The bottom line is, the role play element is available for ME to use to guess what, roleplay the way I want to. I suppose if you're looking to post on youtube/forums, "look at me guys, I beat this challenging unabusable game before everyone else!" or "look at me, I'm one of the few that could make it through super duper hard mode", then I suppose trying to force the player to play a certain way makes sense.

There's plenty of old people in real life that aren't qualified to greet the door at Walmart....pretty sure a few could slip through in PE. so your a sixty year old guy not qualified to greet the door at Walmart...and then you somehow become an amazing adventurer? At sixty your not really growing anymore, that's the point. age and xp, (if we assume realism is a factor) would seem to be linked, i.e. you should gain more xp as you get older. Quite the event at the start of PE. I agree it does make more sense to be younger but you never know.