Marceror

March 23, 2015

Fighter may be boring, but at least it fills its role of a tank better than any other class. Similar observation with the priest. Sort of straight forward but it fills a unique role. Rogue on the other hand, even though Obsidian considers it one of the "core four" really has no unique core role. Any other class can pick locks and sneak around. So all a rogue really has going for it is some damage potential, which every other class also has. As a rogue lover, I find this very unfortunate. Even not as a rogue lover, it's unfortunate.

I disagree, Dragon Age: Origins feels much more like a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate than this Frankenstein of RPGs. Not to mention that it has a lot more depth. Here's a quick comparison for why I feel the way I do. This is by no means an exhaustive list of differences; it's just something I came up with quickly. But I think it shows on a mathematical level why things weigh as they do: Why does PoE feel like a successor to me? Isometric style gameplay Party of 6 companions that are fully under my control 2D painted backgrounds Large number of playable classes and races Expecting to have a deep story taking place in a huge high fantasy setting (remains to be seen, but I have high hopes). Expecting to have a large number of well-made, deeply fleshed out companions (remains to be seen, but I have high hopes). Similar value of ability scores (e.g. 3 - 20), though very different abilities. Inclusion of a player stronghold. Lot's of great loot and gear to be found. What isn't like I.E? Quest only XP Crafting/enchanting (though this is a plus in my book) Rogue-like abilities are not unique to rogues Why does DAO feel like a successor to me? Deep story taking place in a high fantasy setting. Large number of well made, deeply fleshed out companions. Lots of great loot and gear to be found Rogue-like abilities are unique to rogues What isn't like I.E.? Not isometric style Party of only 4 companions Only control one party member at a time and use customized "AI priorities" for others. Fully 3D game world Small number of playable classes and races Large game world, but not huge like in BG. Super high ability scores, and very different abilities. No player stronghold (just a small camp for resting). So if I assume equal weight for each item, the final score comes out to 6 points in favor of PoE (9 major similarity minus 3 major differences) and -4 points in favor of DAO (4 major similarities minus 8 major differences). Again, I'm sure this isn't a perfect list, but I think it illustrates my thinking.

I get where you're coming from. That said, Dragon Age Origins was also touted as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. I loved DAO (less so the second title, and I haven't even bothered with the 3rd), but in terms of looking for a spiritual successor to the I.E games, what I've seen of PoE gets us about 1,000% closer to that mark than DAO did. So some things in life are relative. I may not be thrilled with every decision, but I still feel like there's a worthy successor in the works with PoE. Though it's still way too early to make a final judgment on that.

It's compelling from a "this is what Obsidian has decided" point of view, but not necessarily from a "this is what I believe would be best" point of view. I see no reason that latter category of discussion can't happen here. To the best of my understanding the devs are interested in our feedback, and KS update 84 states as much. I certainly wouldn't want to see people withhold their opinions just because Obsidian already made certain decisions. And at the end of the day, who knows what decisions they may end up changing based on backer feedback. So debate on, I say.

Your post would appear to be on topic, and it would seem you should be commended for that. But upon further consideration, this post has been off topic for so long now that on topic is actually off topic at this point. In which case, you should probably be admonished for making comments that seem to be completely out of left field!

He probably means something more along the lines of, "Obsidian chose to do it this way, and it's unlikely that anything we say here will cause them to change their minds." That would be true even if the tables were turned and XP for kills was front and center. "I win the argument because the devs have already made their decision" isn't how debating works. The debates here are largely theoretical. A reasonable case for a particular idea is no less a reasonable case because Obsidian happened to choose a different direction.

What's so hard to understand about this? Note that I'm not necessarily in the "pro xp for killing camp". It's what I'm used to and it makes sense to me. But I'm choosing to be in the "keep an open mind and see what Obsidian delivers camp".

So basically this is the ole "I win, you lose" argument that I used to use on my sister when I was 7. Whatever gets you through the day, pal.

I wonder if you think you're being persuasive.

doesn't make a difference. once you add ad hoc awards for individual minor success, you create the balancing problem we mentioned before. you don't actual believe that kill xp + quest exp alleviates balancing problems, do you? HA! Good Fun! Back in my day we got experience for killing, questing and detrapifying stuff, uphill both ways in the snow. And that's how we liked it! Seriously, the IE games may not have been perfect in this regard, but it absolutely never ruined my experience of multiple run-throughs of BG, BG2, IWD, IWD2 and PST. So I see no reason to get in a twist about using that method here. But that's just me.

Oh, and since I've seen posts asking for proof for why combat xp is valid, well here's my thought. An example: Adventurers walk into a clearing. Adventurers are taken off guard by an ambush. The adventurers rally together and fight as a united force to overcome the ambushers. The battle is difficult, and the adventurers sustain a variety of wounds in the process, but nothing life threatening. They defeat the ambushers, and learn more about their own capabilities as individuals, and as a group. This is the very definition of what it means to gain experience. You go through life and learn from your, well, your experiences. This ambush need not be tied to some larger quest in order for it to provide that experience.

Personally I love the IE approach for xp. Get some from finding and defeating traps and similar skills (valid to expect some experience here). Get some from combat (which certainly is a valid source of experience for an adventurer). And get yet more from completing certain quests. To me that feels more balanced overall. But I'm keeping an open mind on what OE has proposed.

Do you see personal attacks since TrueNeutral's request? If so, every single post has a report button for posters to use and we request that you do so. We cannot moderate every slap fight or person slamming the door on their way out (to teach us a lesson). I was more referring to this moderator comment: "Also, if you want to discuss this specific issue in more depth I'd suggest you make a seperate thread - this has gone long past going off-topic from discussing developer impressions." We're still not talking about developer impression as far as I can tell. But my comment was made more in passing than with the intent to "back seat moderate".

Love how everyone is totally ignoring the moderators. I'd say this thread is overdue for a lock.

I won't be skipping it Than clearly you won't be playing the game correctly!

Passing thought here, but perhaps Stun, Helm and Tartantyco should be given their own subforum where they can argue about anything and everything related to the game!

Regarding quest only xp, one thing that I'm not totally comfortable with is the fact that one of the key outcomes of xp/leveling up, is you become a more potent combatant. How does one become a more potent combatant if they never engage in combat?

I think that what it means is PoE needs fully animated finishing moves!

In George's case (or at least in the context of the passage) I don't think it's so much an absolute preference for Turn based combat as it is simple gamer instinct. He thought combat was too fast, and would have benefitted from being slowed down a bit so the player can see the complexity of the system more clearly. Well? Turn based is the obvious solution to that. It's slower. But note that he also suggested that they simply slow things down....and that's what lots and lots of people here are suggesting. I don't have an absolute preference for turn based either. I merely mentioned that with all of the combat abilities characters have, turn based may have been a better direction for the game. I coined the term pause-with-real-time, because that's appropo to how I've come to regard combat. I spend more of my time paused, issuing commands, making sure my positioning is right, party members aren't humping, etc. A short burst of real time follows, and then back to pause. At least, until I'm certain I can just let the combat play out without any real risk to my party. Combat still needs to be refined a lot, but I actually don't mind the pause with real time thing that much. And I was raised on real time with pause with the infinity engine games. But again, if I'm totally honest, turn based is probably the ideal solution. But ultimately I don't care. As long as the combat system works, I'm good with any flavor of those options.

That was my line. Glad to see that it's catching on.

People will probably complain if they withhold the numbers also. One constant in life is that "people will probably complain". So that hopefully won't form the basis for their decision.

Sometimes you do need them to figure out just why the heck it is happening, though. That aside, you need to start at some point. You can't always afford to wait for that "perfect" beta build. Well, we're pretty god-damned far from perfect right now.

I find it odd that no one is railing him for his comments about turn based combat. When I've made effectively the exact same observation I tend to get flamed for it. I guess it must be his holy aura protecting him!

A beta is supposed to have bugs. That's the definition of beta: feature complete, and testing for bugs/optimizations. The problem here is that everyone's expectations are not based on the reality of software development. Everyone here seems to believe that they were getting a 5-hour demo, not a beta. There are bugs, and then there are bugs (i.e. the game breakers). Ideally Obsidian would have addressed the major game breakers during their internal beta process, so that tens of thousands of backers wouldn't have to experience them and report them ad infinitum. You simply don't need 20,000+ people to confirm that gear and quests disappear regularly or that characters often get stuck in place. While I respect PrimeJunta's points, I think most around here realize that I'm firmly in the camp that believes Obsidian jumped the gun releasing this to backers -- and I can appreciate that a software development veteran, who's used to this sort of process sees if differently. Based on Obsidian's own announcements, the backer beta is meant to focus on the classes, combat, UI, crafting/enchanting, etc. But until you have a more functional game it's extremely difficult to provide meaningful feedback on those areas. The fans are not professional beta testers, so giving them a fundamentally broken game and expecting them to know how to sort that out is unrealistic at best.