Qaladan

Of those 2 choices, I'd say #1 for sure. I hate that we have to do this because nobody can be trusted, but dems da breaks. Please do #1.

Agreed. My first instinct was to say God no to repeatable quests, but they can work within reason.

Yes, absolutely! In party arguing was a fantastic trait from the Baldur's Gate games. Not like today's Dragon Age type game where it feels like "BEEP BOOP YOU DIDN'T STRANGLE THE KITTEN I HATE YOU NOW." The infighting from BG kind of crept up on you and really gave the characters personalities.

Haven't read the rest of the posts in the topic, but if they implement the "objective based EXP only" idea, it'll give the game a level cap on it's own.

Have they mentioned how spells will be done? Caught onto the project semi-late. They may just make it based on your in battle stamina.. several games have done it before to varying success. Keeps you from having to interrupt the flow of gameplay by resting in the middle of nowhere.. and it keeps you from either A. Burning your mage out too early or B. Saving all your spells until the boss, therefore making the mage practically useless until then.

I think people are too soft these days. Especially when it comes to failing in a video game! The amount of newcomers raging over losing rookies in the new XCOM game is crazy. Sometimes, you just can't win a situation. I'm all for there being failures. However, the failures need to have a longer reaching application than just "u not get exp". Perhaps have a different quest come up down the line where you can redeem yourself for a past failure. Maybe have an NPC be killed because you couldn't put down a murderer in the past... have an item shop be missing some items because you didn't stop a bandit. Perhaps even something like that could lead into getting a new quest to stop the WHOLE gang instead of just one guy. The ideas are limiteless. It boils down to the fact that I would have failing, but take away the reason to have people reload their save by having something come out of it. While reloading saves for failing is common place, it becomes mechanical and people start quicksaving every 5 seconds.. I feel that breaks immersion.

It should do the ol' "Quest is unbeatable" gag after you murder someone important to the plot. And it should allow you to continue playing, if that's your choice.

I'm for it, but I totally understand the people who are against it. The majority of people have grown up playing jRPGs and MMOs where you grind to get by. Hell, I'd be lying if I said it was therapeutic sometimes to just walk around, murdering and growing stronger. If you've ever played Dungeons and Dragons and the like, while you do get exp from murders, the majority of exp rewards are for completing objectives with bonuses given based on HOW you complete said objective.

The original reason from Dungeons and Dragons of old (besides it being overpowered to have 10 +strength rings on) is that the magic in each ring would interfere with each other. Nah, it doesn't really make much sense considering you could wear a magic amulet under your magic armor.. but I've always gone with it. It's definitely more of a balance issue than anything, and the flavor is left over from the olden times. Stats have historically been extremely important in this type of game (but with some of the things the crew has been saying, maybe that will change. They spoke highly of not wanting "instawin" situations from stats.) so I can understand 1 or 2 rings, max.