jvempire

It's sad to see that some people here are trying to win arbtrary arguments. It shouldn't be whos right or wrong here, it should be about finding the best system for the game. People get more examples! Arguing over a system that is still in the idea phase can only go so far, with examples of good xp system from games we have a starting point of actual helpful discussion.

This is where we can only assume how the game is designed. If they are designing the game around objectives, than what you described probably won't happen. Instead the tough enemies will be assigned to an objective in some way. Or people have been suggesting that maybe some tough enemies could be hidden objectives (like kill ancient dragon or something). Though, only once Obsidian starts talking about the specifics can we really dissect the game mechanics.

Reading's not a problem. It's a very simple system. Health A and Health B. Just because they call one health bar "Stamina" doesn't make it functionally something different. The "Stamina" bar performs the same function as a Health bar, just because there's a backup Health bar doesn't make the first one anything different. At some stage, why even bother having either bar, just remove them both since we're going to remove inconviences. If clicking a rest button is so inconvient that we'll design it out, why not take the next logical step and design out Health entirely, because it's inconvient to have someone fall unconcious. We don't really need to wait and see how this works out, there's really no mystery here. It's a regenerating health bar called "Stamina". Well first your claim was that health can't be hurt during combat, which it wrong because both health and stamina can be damaged. Stamina is regenerating, this is what they've said, no mystery there. As for the point of having these two bars, as it says in the update the point of stamina is that it's easy to gain and lose but if you run out of it the character falls unconcious. This means they are vulnerable, which they can lose more of their health, and/or the enemy moves on to one of your other party members. Instead of just having health, this creates a little more tactics to the combat. You regen all the stamina after combat because the point of it is specific to combat.

I believe someone said earlier in the thread that while you don't get xp, you still gain skill from all combat. Though I'm not perticularly sure if this is confirmed or just someone's theory. Really, the hardest part at the moment is that since major development of the game hasn't started yet we can't really discusss much about. Once development starts picking up when the kickstarter ends than things will be less vague, and it will be easier to discuss what is going on with the game.

Where is regenerating health? The stamina bar is now functionally equivalent to health, because damage is subtracted from stamina instead of health until stamina is depeleted. Stamina regenerates after battle. So basically, we now have a regenerating health bar called "Stamina", and a backup health bar. I see your point there, if the game is design in such a way that it becomes rare that the player will ever lose actual health than I can see it becoming a problem. Though the example that Sawyer gave doesn't really imply that.

Not sure if serious... I think it maybe a sarcastic remark since of course the opposite is what is going since magic can't heal you, but because it's the internet so it's hard to tell.

Where is regenerating health?

You can still roleplay your character the way you want to. The only difference is that the game will not be rewarding you for doing things for which no sane DM would ever reward a player. Actually, a sane DM would reward experience, because the Player took seperate actions which would make him more experienced. This is just trying to dictate playstyle, instead of making a solid RPG system. This is "I don't want anyone to have more experience than me because they did more stuff", there's no logical reason behind it. If I go write code, I get better at writing code, even if I didn't give the code to some random person. If my character kills critters, he should get better at killing critters, not by reporting back to someone and saying "Yup, I killed 5 critters!". Can anyone give me a single reason for this system that does not amount to "I don't want people to play that way"? Did you read the thread?... I don't understand the point of ignoring what people are saying. The reason for making it objective based is that it's easier to balance the game. Since the devs are handing out the xp they can see what levels people will be at throughout the game, and they can balance they see fit to make mostly everyone's gaming experience fun. With grind though, while it's not impossible, it's much more difficult to balance the game out. It generally ends up with the player having to kill enough enemies to get an orbutrary amount of xp so they can catch up with the pace of the game, or they exploit the system and become overpowered and make the game dull since there's no challenge. Of course you can figure out some balance to this, but it can get convaluated (see oblivion, fo3, new vegas, skyrim). We can also assume that since the game is being designed around objectives, there won't be massive amounts of enemies that won't give xp to you. Of course this part is only my speculation. Now I really want to hear some examples people have of systems that use grinding well. I've read the thread. I've also read the intent behind it, because as I said earlier, there's no logical reason to choose a nonsensical implementation over one that makes sense. Not trying to flame, but you're illustrating that the intent is exactly as I said, "I don't want people to play that way". -It does not make it "Easier to balance the game", balancing the game is trivial. The developers can easily add up the experience attained by following the primary path, and the primary path + side quests, and compute the min/max xp range. All they have to do is add each xp reward for each possible action to a spreadsheet as it's added. Then all they have to do is make minor tweaks to the xp rewards in order to get everything to where they want it. -"make mostly everyone's gaming experience fun" is a strawman arguement. You're determining what makes a game fun for everyone. -It's not harder to balance the game with people grinding, if they choose to grind, let them. It's their problem. There's no reason to dictate to people "You cannot play that way, it's wrong!". -Your next statement is another strawman. You don't force people to grind. You balance the game for a point in between "Main path only" and "Full completion run". -Then you are dictating what's fun for everyone again. You cannot say whether or not it makes it dull for people who choose to grind, in fact, logically it's quite the opposite. People grind because it enables gameplay they find fun, some people enjoy being overpowered. -Using anything from Bethesda as an basis isn't a good arguement, they've demonstrated time and again they don't know what RPG's are. One of the most glaring examples is their inability to add any meaningful dialogue or noncombat skills. Additonally all of the games you note are Player Based skill, and by definition, not RPG's. -You are making multiple false assumptions. Just because xp/kill exists doesn't mean that grinding exists, and if grinding exists, that doesn't mean it's mandatory. I can easily design a dungeon for you using any edition of AD&D/D&D that rewards xp/kill, and xp for actions, that does not include grinding. I can even do so with an entire campaign. You are equating xp/kill to grinding, and that's a false assumption. One does not logically lead to the other. I don't understand why it's bad to create rules for the player, or like you said "I don't want people to play that way". There is nothing wrong with this, since even with grind the developers will make decisions that will limit what the player can do. It's all about how it's handled, and the way the player gets xp should be up to the developer not the players. For all issues about the balance, I ask again. I want to see examples of systems that allow for people to grind. Like specific games. This isn't meant to be an agressive statement, I'm curious here. Fun is subjective, yes, but I don't believe this means developers should cater to everyone. If they have a vision, they should stick with it. My assumption is that the developer will create a system that works if they focus on one system, but of course that's just my assumption. And yet again, I never said grind is impossible to balance. And like you said, it all depends on the design. Which we can't really say about project eternity at all, because all we have are ideas. We have no idea on the specific mechanics of the game, so any statement talking about them is of course an assumption. Therefore, neither of us can make an argument on if this objective system is good or bad at the moment. It's only speculation. This is why I ask the people who are for the grinding side, bring some specific examples of games which use grind positively. It will help us all understand where you are coming from.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone to reduce his pledge, so keep in mind that I'm not saying that in response to you, but if you truly feel that you won't enjoy the game as much, you have the right to reduce your pledge. However, where the hell did you see that the game would be anti-combat? Really? The way experience is doled out to the player has absolutely nothing to do with how much or little the game is combat oriented. It's simply misguided to equate objective oriented xp with a less combat oriented game. In fact, I think the combat has received the most attention so far and they're creating a game that is clearly intended to combat centered. The story will still be great, I'm sure, but the combat is the focus at this moment. They've already said that you won't be able to complete the game without at least some combat, for instance. This idea of Obsidz downplaying combat is a red herring. If there is to be a total lack of healing and such severe consequences for combat (maiming and perma-death) as was stated by the folks from Obsidian coupled with their other comments regarding the focus of experience leaves one with a clear impression that it is anti-combat oriented. How can anyone see it any other way? And yes, I do own and have played Planescape Torment. I just forgot to include it in the list. I loved Annah with her Brit accent and cutting wit. Mort was a real blast as well. There is healing and death certainly isn't permanent nor maiming of your characters. First, resting heals you. Second, talk about making the game objective based and consequences for combat do not equal anti-combat. This is ignoring how the combat works and how challenging the other options will be. Because we don't entirely know all combat will work and how all other options will work at the moment, you can't make your claim about the game. I believe your concern is that the other options will be easier, which would be a problem if that happens. It is a good idea to voice this concern, but making absolutes out of assumptions is not a good practice.

You can still roleplay your character the way you want to. The only difference is that the game will not be rewarding you for doing things for which no sane DM would ever reward a player. Actually, a sane DM would reward experience, because the Player took seperate actions which would make him more experienced. This is just trying to dictate playstyle, instead of making a solid RPG system. This is "I don't want anyone to have more experience than me because they did more stuff", there's no logical reason behind it. If I go write code, I get better at writing code, even if I didn't give the code to some random person. If my character kills critters, he should get better at killing critters, not by reporting back to someone and saying "Yup, I killed 5 critters!". Can anyone give me a single reason for this system that does not amount to "I don't want people to play that way"? Did you read the thread?... I don't understand the point of ignoring what people are saying. The reason for making it objective based is that it's easier to balance the game. Since the devs are handing out the xp they can see what levels people will be at throughout the game, and they can balance they see fit to make mostly everyone's gaming experience fun. With grind though, while it's not impossible, it's much more difficult to balance the game out. It generally ends up with the player having to kill enough enemies to get an orbutrary amount of xp so they can catch up with the pace of the game, or they exploit the system and become overpowered and make the game dull since there's no challenge. Of course you can figure out some balance to this, but it can get convaluated (see oblivion, fo3, new vegas, skyrim). We can also assume that since the game is being designed around objectives, there won't be massive amounts of enemies that won't give xp to you. Of course this part is only my speculation. Now I really want to hear some examples people have of systems that use grinding well.

The thing that I'm trying to point out myself is that not every monster will be tied to quests or "objectives" because it really wouldn't make sense. And I don't think I'm far off if I say that probably most enemies won't be tied to quests where you can sneak/parely/otherextravagantoption to overcome them. We have no idea at this point really. If the game is designed around the objectives it could be easy to make most enemies appear in the objectives, but maybe they aren't. There's no argument here, we can only speculate.

While both systems, grind vs objective, can work, I think making the xp objective based is much more managable. Since the developers control the xp flow, it's much easier to balance things out. If this means enemies outside of objectives are more obstacles than something you are required to kill random x amount to keep up with the pace of the game, than I'm fine with that.

Saying you enjoy grind, saying you dislike grind. These are opinions, yes, great. Without evidence to back up your claim though, it's an unhelpful statement. For people who like grind I suggest referring to a specific system that uses grinding in a good way and making an argument as to why it's better than this new system. Or maybe explaining how grind mechanics can help improve the game. But if you say "i like x" this isn't helpful for the developers, or anyone for that matter.

And? It might be easier for a restaurant just to serve chicken soup all day too. This is about the customer, right? The customer needs to explain why though. You can't have feedback from blind statements.

the point is that you can still kill everything on sight. or do you just kill for the xp as josh described? The point is that I choose not to abuse the system, unless in another play-through I feel like it. This thread is an existential struggle between gaming libertarians and Utopianistic-gaming Maoists. I want an explanation as to why grind is more simple and better for designing an RPG game than having xp granted by objectives. Saying you enjoy grind is not an argument, that's just a statement with out anything backing it up. Like I said before, basing the xp around quests/(or the term they are using is objectives) is easier for the designers to balance the game since they can estimate where players will be xp wise. With grind, this can end up making the game un fun for people that didn't grind the random magic number they need, or super easy and boring for others that grinded all the way up and remove all the challenge out of the game. Now you can try to fix this, but then you end up with Oblivion, FO3, New Vegas, Skyrim's convoluted leveling systems.

But.... it's much easier to design the game around quests than grind. With quests you can have a better understanding of what level the character is at, which means you can better balance the game. With grind, even if you find grind fun, it's harder (and in reality more complex) to balance the game if everyone can continously level up.