Hormalakh

Josh? Is that you? Are you hiding behind a puppet ID? Oh you're not Josh? Then why are you saying things with such conviction without bringing evidence? I don't want you miss it this time, so I bolded it, italicized it, underlined it, and colored it red. Don't miss it again! Once more. Just in case. BTW this is from the same link you quote 5 minutes ago. It was also the same place that Josh Sawyer addressed your concerns about "degenerate gameplay." It seems that you didn't read his comments or chose to ignore them.

That's the point right there. Was combat in VtMB fun? If it wasn't fun for you you wouldn't enjoy the sewers. It isn't objective XP that was the problem, it was the boring slog of the same enemies in combat that was the problem. With XP you just kill them knowing "hey at least I get some XP." It's a sugar-coated crappy part of the game, no pun intended. Also, why do you have to kill everything in sight? If they attack you, why is running away not an option?

Stylized for your reading pleasure.

No. They were just an unavoidable obstacle. I don't understand the green dragon. Am I missing something? You still got your combat didn't you? An unavoidable combat is still combat. What exactly is your point? You wanted combat, I gave you scenarios where you get combat. If you want to choose combat, you are free to do so. It's just that the decision becomes a difficult one for you to make now and you're just frustrated that the answer isn't so easy to make. you have to sit and figure out whether fighting mobs is worth it or not. In the past it was a no-brainer. Now, it's not so easy to make that choice. Josh's design works as planned.

No. Sawyers definition of "choice" seems to be "its a choice as long as you do it my way or suffer the consequences". A "choice" is whether to push the rest button or not, a "choice" is choosing to heal or continuing, a "choice" is what you put or do not put into inventory, etc... He said loot isn't systemic. he didn't say loot doesn't exist. please read carefully before reaching your conclusions. In any case, his design decisions are the ways he wants to tackle certain issues found in the previous games. Being able to rest without any risk involved wasn't a choice: it was a decision already made for you. You go into fights with full spells and health if you could do it. if you didn't rest, that wasn't because you made a "choice" not to rest. That was because you forgot to or just didn't realize it. If resting had some sort of actual decision process then you could call it a choice. But if there is no question to answer it becomes moot.

So people here have played Doom right? It's an oldie but a good one. You didn't get XP in that game for exploring and trying to find secret areas. Did you guys find those games to be "linear" where you walked straight through a hallway? Did you sneak past every single enemy while exploring?

I am not talking about conflict resolution or killing elite mobs for good loot $$$. I am talking about regular adventuring or sneaking past regular mobs on the way to your destination. Sneaking is the most efficient way to play PE under such circumstances as we have already ascertained. It would not make sense to play such a large portion of the game the unefficient way. If you are not good at sneaking, it is inefficient to sneak past enemies. If you can handle the combat with minimal loss it would make more sense to kill the enemies and proceed than try to sneak past (and fail, being caught with your pants around your ankles and your enemies at your back). Like I said Windspear Hills had narrow halls. You can't sneak past that. If you need to find a key to continue down the dungeon and that key is stuck in a room full of vampires, you can try sneaking past them and trying to unlock the chest to get the key, you can turn undead them (and they flee) and get the chest, you can fight through them. All of these options become actual decisions. XP isn't a factor anymore and you can play with or without combat.

So are the only enemies in existence going to be ones that directing affect the local populace? That would feel very linear. And anything that doesn't affect them just becomes a waste of time then. Seriously? Your character is also part of the game. Your character will have his or her own needs and objectives will also come from that. Whatever the story is, there will be a driving force for your character to continue with the game. Objectives can be derived from those internal drivers. Or gods. Perhaps a god asks you to do something. Or maybe you're a priest and your god demands something. The "objective givers" are innummerable. Come now. Don't act like this is something new. Were you ever upset when in previous games, you were given quests by their respective "quest givers?" What's the difference now? Killing enemies didn't really further the game - it didn't really make the game any less linear. Exploration always comes naturally. If you explore you find new quests. If you want to explore every location, yuo'll have to fight some enemies on the way. They just don't give you xp.

Yup. In PE you would of course kill Firkrag for the loot, becase he is an elite mob. And after that you sneak until you reach the next elite mob, because it is the most efficient way of playing the game. Windspear Hills had narrow hallways that meant you couldn't avoid combat: it would be difficult to by-pass every single combat encounter. And to sneak until you reach the next elite mob would mean you'd need a party of all theives with extremely high sneak skill. Or a whole bunch of invisibility spells. you'd also miss out on the armor and weapons that the enemies would drop (the little loot). So if you're good at combat and think you can fight the minions without too much expense you'd kill them and net the loot. If you're a weakling who just runs away from each enemy, you could be a poor weakling (no loot for you). This is choice in character and playstyle. See how varied your characters can be now? I doubt you do, so we'll continue this little dance...

Sorry but a method of gameplay that offers advantages over other methods (using less resources) is "degerative gameplay". One of the goals of P:E it to program around every uncontrollable human compulsion ("I just cant help myself from pushing the button!!11!") so mechanics like this must be revised to include some method of whacking the player with a rolled up newspaper to ensure they toe the line. Sneaking and diplomacy will have to come with some "cost". Maybe losing one health per second while in stealth mode? I cant think of a good way to cost the player for a diplomacy check. Failing either will probably just result in combat but thats not enough. the cost is that you lose out on loot or some other reward. the point is that sawyer would not create such a one-sided scenario and call that deciding. you've been around long enough on the boards to realize that sawyer's definition of "choice" is true. he's given plenty of examples, why are you ignoring those?

And this is bad, because...? yeah because convincing bandits not to attack you deserves Exp but killing a hostile yeti that eats people is nothing right? if the townspeople asked you to kill the yeti and it becomes an objective, what's wrong with dealing with the problem however you wish to? killing him, talking to him to not come back (taking his loot with him), and probably a few other creative ways that i can't think of right now. what's the problem? So the only way to advance your character is in doing whatever an npc tells you to? For some reason a dirty peasant holds the key to my growth? Not that I think the devs would make every objective come from an npc but should that be the case it would be terrible design. Yes. The dirty NPCs hold the key to your growth. Is there an issue? Are you going to tell me how this is communism and socialism and how the liberal elite are trying to take your god-given rights to "play your game your way?" Don't be silly. Either the NPCs tell you to kill the yeti or something else tells you to do it. In any case, the idea that killing this yeti will net you XP is relayed to you. Then you go kill it.

You're right, absolutely right. Sneaking is the clever and efficient way of playing PE. That is your argument for combat xp, isn't it? "Sneaking(/diplomacy) consumes less time and resources." Thus, isn't sneaking (and diplomacy) a more efficient (and, by extension, clever) way to play? Yes, that is true for PE. Sneaking will be the most efficient way to play the game, and you are right. Everybody will of course choose the most efficient path, seeing that it doesn't really make sense to do anything else other than sneak and make wise diplomatic decisions. This "most efficient" path is not how Sawyer's design decisions have been made until now. What makes you think that this will be the case? He has always tried to make design decisions that have difficult choices. Stop coming up with ridiculous examples that go counter to how the mechanics are going to work.

I agree. That is why xp for all optional content like sidequests should be removed from the game. Nobody should be rewarded for doing anything, which will make the game just as fun if not more. don't be daft. side content means creating extra objectives for players to finish if they wish. those who are interested in saving every cat from every tree should be able to. those who want to see what happens next in the story don't have to. what does this have to do with combat xp? Take Windspear Hills from BG2. Let's say the main objective (worth 50k XP) was to save the Paladin's boy. Let's say that the paladin also told you that he hated Fiirkaag and wanted to get rid of him from the Hills. That would be an optional objective. You could tell him to leave the hills and never come back (and he'd take his Holy Avenger with him) or you could kill him. That can also net you 5k XP once you get rid of Firrkaag. Where is the issue? E: if you haven't played BG2 you wouldn't realize this, but you can save the boy without killing Fiirkaag. You just side-step the dude.

And this is bad, because...? yeah because convincing bandits not to attack you deserves Exp but killing a hostile yeti that eats people is nothing right? if the townspeople asked you to kill the yeti and it becomes an objective, what's wrong with dealing with the problem however you wish to? killing him, talking to him to not come back (taking his loot with him), and probably a few other creative ways that i can't think of right now. what's the problem?

A perfect example of non-XP giving was actually Baldur's Gate 2 in the Sun Temple. The shadows kept coming and you could keep killing them but they netted you 0 XP. You didn't "waste" time with the shadows all day. You killed the few that you had to to clear a path and moved on. Nobody complained about that, did they? And the combat-lovers got to combat it up. h/t UpgrayDD for reminding me about the Sun Temple.

completing ojectives regardless of how you complete them should be the design. devs should not reward specific playstyles, they should reward players completing objectives in any way that they wish. this expands playing styles and creativity.

A few things. 1- killing orcs "to save a little girl" shouldn't require XP for your character to do the quest. If you wish to role-play the good character you would save the girl. if you wish to role-play the bad character, you would kill the girl. both quests should not allow XP to factor into the equation. Role-playing should be the factor. You can do this easier when you're rewarding objective-based xp only. 2- there are too many different options for rewarding xp if you were to script everything. exceptions and individually scripting each enemy to give xp or not give xp is bound to create bugs and errors that can be avoided with objective-based xp. 3- objective-based xp does not preclude players getting xp for killing certain enemies (if they are an objective). by making each specific kill an objective-based one, systemic errors are less likely to occur. 4- until you figure out a way to limit players from gaining xp without having to play against their character, combat xp doesn't make sense for a game trying to show-case the RPG elements of "letting you play your character the way you want." An example (or two or three) is druids killing animals, pacifists having to kill everything with XP just to keep up with the joneses, etc. 5- combat should be enjoyable without the requirement of "XP" to make it fun. If XP is what you, as the player, consider "reward" this is shining light on the fact that combat isn't particularly fun. developers should go back and fix combat, not sugar-coat combat by giving XP. 6- why is it wrong for you not to kill everything in sight? 7- each combat should be a decision. If xp (the ultimate commodity reward, XP is useful everywhere) is the reward, there is no decision. Hand-placed loot considerations (from killing enemies) and the risk of combat make for a more interesting choice. Is it worth the risk to utilize your resources now for the possible loot gained? With XP, you are always sure that the reward is worth the risk. Difficult battles always pay well in XP and easy battles pay a little in XP (yet they still pay). --- finally, i'm frankly a little tired of seeing the same comments about "degeneracy" over and over again. Snide comments about "here we go again, now the devs are calling us degenerates!" have been explained by Sawyer and others numerous times. Seriously, get over yourselves. Degeneracy isn't directed at you. Stop it with the useless snide remarks. It adds nothing to the conversation and wastes other readers' time.

Oh, hello. Spear and shield (plus)? Yes! Yes! Yes! Rejoice, no more monkey grip shaped hoops to jump through to be able to use one of the staples of ancient warfare (spear+shield)! Your quote reminded me of "Gladiator" for some reason. Hey Devs, any chance we can get a "net" for our fighters to use to entangle enemies? That would be pretty cool.

Can you explain what an animator does actually? are you using other's people's models and "moving them?" Are you building your own models? are you using maya? What do you find the most difficult part of animation? What one animation are you the most proud of? Do most game animators work on movies as well or do they usually stick with games? Are there any significant differences between animating movies and games? What do you wish more animators would do? What is the biggest lesson you've learned from your previous games that has influenced how Project Eternity is animated? Any advice for beginner animators interested in getting into the field? Any word on whether or not we're going to get first-perspective close-up animations when talking to important NPCs a la Fallout/Fallout 2? Do you only do in-game animations or cinematic animations as well? Is P:E going to have cinematic animations (at all)? I also loved Chuck Jones and grew up with his work. Which of his works do you like best? Oh and most important of all: Mac or PC?

I do think that Volourn makes an interesting point. If this man continued to fight the good fight there was a chance that he could have changed things for the better. This isn't to take away anything for what he accomplished, but it doesn't mean that there were things that he didn't accomplish. Or is this just a matter of "too soon"?

The wildlife never really poses much of a challenge either. Unless there's some extra adjective in front of their name (dires, vampirics, hell, etc)

please read my initial post about the greek concept of barbarians. It was not strictly meant 'non-Greek'. The Chinese also have similar connotations for barbarians in their literature. Similarly, outside of the RPG/D&D scene, barbarian still maintains its previous connotations. Using "pop culture" as the reference for games is a poor substitute for creativity, especially in a game intended for mature audiences.

My mistake on wisdom. I did look at "most hated" polls. Along with sorcerer, and bard (which were hated more) barbarians were one of the top 4 hated classes in DnD. I've posted the link. Monk was also one, but there was an extremely long discussion about monks earlier last year. As for the name, if we aren't having "two-handed swords", "studded leather armor", and other innane faux-medieval terminology in the game, I don't understand why we should have "barbarian" as a class if we aren't going to be true to the name "barbarian". The skills/mechanics is something we agree on.

I didn't actually see any arguments for me to address. If your argument is that "Conan is a barbarian. People want to be Conant, ergo we need a barbarian class" that isn't much of an argument and I have already addressed that (as have some others). Conan is not a class. A fighter/thief is a class. A ranger is a class. Conan would have fit fine in either of these classes. I'm thinking of writing a book called "Edward the philistine." He's going to be strong, smart, and gets all the women :rolls eyes: Maybe in fifty years "philistine" will become a class that you can play in D&D. @Adhin You had an upper-limit for wisdom in 3e barbarians. Illiteracy might not mean stupid but it shows a "lack of civilization" and this combined with other stereotypes thrown at barbarians really makes the class a fairly narrow niche class. As stated before, "barbarianism" was basically an insult -one with no actual truth- thrown at non-Christians living in the outliers of "civilized Europe." This is a poor name for a class verging on being insulting. A mature game like this shouldn't be continuing mischaracterizations and "popular ideas" that are just plain wrong. If we will use barbarian as the class name, then let's be realistic. If we use another name (like berserker) then let's still continue to think about ways in which we can expand the class so that a varied number of characters can play it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_the_Barbarian Also known as Conan the Cimmerian. First found in a few stories in pulp magazines.