TRX850

You're changing my description though. A "group" of 3 ankhegs is not the same as 3 "separate" ankhegs spread out across a field. If while fighting the first ankheg, it's obvious I don't have the right weapons or tools for the job, it might take me a while to defeat it, but I can then decide to go off and find a better weapon or whatever. Or I might be injured and need to heal up before returning. Or it's just costing me too many resources at this point in the game. And so I divert from this objective for a while. I do try to read all of your posts, Lephys. I really do. Each time there's a wall of text though, it's so hard to sift out the points you are trying to make. All I can say is that with BOTH combat XP AND quest XP, it will not affect the play style of those who prefer a more objective approach to the game. But without combat XP, you're severely limiting choice for all those other players who prefer a different, non-linear play style. So if we have both systems in place, there's no case to answer. It's that simple.

So often we're part of stories where NPCs or other characters reveal their true colours in Act 3 and betray you. How about a story that gently seduces your lead character into turning on their own faction? And not in a simple good or evil way, but a complex morally-ambiguous situation (like war, for example) where loyalties can change based on new information and circumstance.

From Project Eternity Update #36: Off to our elfhomes, but first... "UI Design - Tim and I have been talking about our user interfaces recently. We want to make sure that we improve the functionality of the original designs without completely losing the feeling of those interfaces. One thing we want to avoid is making the UI too "minimalist". We don't want it to feel bloated, of course, but we also recognize that the IE games had "solid" interfaces. They looked like they were made of materials -- wood, stone, and metal -- and had substance to them. When you look at the interfaces for the IE games, they help immerse you in each setting. We'd like to do the same for Project Eternity."

Ok, I got as far as this: "Let's award XP every time 3 things die" and had to reply. "Let's award XP every time 3 things die" might be an objective. Go kill 3 ankhegs for 500XP each, but only get the 1500XP after the 3rd one is dead. You might kill the first one, but your party gets injured. You walk to the other end of the field and encounter the second. You defeat it, but your party has been decimated. You return to town to heal up and reconsider. While there, you accept some easier quests and go do those for a while. But......you're saying I won't get my 1000XP (2 x 500) because I didn't trigger a "Let's award XP every time 3 things die" objective. Well, there's my problem. I want XP after defeating a single foe. It's so simple. It's so easy to understand. It covers all situations. All play styles. All choices. You can go back and kill that 3rd ankheg if you want, once your party it healed. It's up to you. Maybe there's a bonus of 100XP for completing the objective. But forcing a player to do things in threes or any other number that is greater than one is eliminating choice. It becomes linear. It becomes predictable. I don't know why this is still unclear. I really don't.

I don't think we're in disagreement about how Challenge Ratings work. Those values are up to OE to decide. But it's mostly incidental, coincidence even, that a weaker enemy will usually take less time to defeat than a much stronger one. Maybe the lowest XP award should always be greater than zero, I don't know. If a squirrel or unarmed peasant can still potentially graze you to death, then they must still be a threat.

Even if you don't level up, you should still be entitled to XP you got from killing enemies in one half of a quest. There's any number of reasons not to do the quest in a linear fashion. You might have multiple quests active at any one time, and choose to do parts of them in any order you like. Quest XP encourages linear play. Combat XP gives you freedom. And btw, it's combat XP AND quest XP that work together, not one or the other. I keep saying this. If you have both systems in place, everyone benefits.

Hassat, you must be skimming through these threads, because I have said on the old thread and this one that I would rather level up outside of combat. Not in combat. I'm happy to make camp or go to town, or training halls or whatever. That would be more interesting and make levelling up a bit of an event in itself. But I also don't have anything against anyone who prefers to level up the old way. It's really not an issue for me. Also, I'm not talking about carrying over flawed XP systems from the games you mentioned. P:E is having a facelift to prevent or deter degenerate behaviour, or at least that's the way I understood Josh Sawyer's comments. XP in itself wasn't the problem. The problem was the core design surrounding it. So if they are addressing the core design for P:E, then there's no need to get rid of combat XP, because it should now work at supporting quest XP the way it was always supposed to.

You're talking about multiple enemies in a single encounter counting as one "XP Checkpoint". I'm talking about single enemies regardless of whether they're on their own or in a group. If I fight one at a time, short time = low xp and long time = high xp. Whether squirrels or unarmed peasants give 0 XP or 1 XP isn't the issue. I fully expect the lower end of the XP spectrum to feel a bit like pocket change, whereas I'm probably going to be more interested in the "big notes" for XP the higher my level. And again, I'm not addicted to receiving XP every 10 seconds in a battle of 1000 goblins. If I'm powerful enough, I'll probably cleave them all to pieces without having to retreat. Frequency in that example is a non-issue. The issue of receiving XP after each kill is more important after fighting small groups or single enemies. In those cases, I can kill then evaluate my position. Do I have enough XP to level up? If so, I may head off and do that, then return better prepared. Consume away! (actually, don't eat your own face, there are probably laws against it)

^ We need more ideas like this.

For the reasons I explained earlier. It's not about the length of time it takes. It's about removing a single, individual threat one at a time. I don't expect to encounter more than one dragon (if at all) in the game, but I'm ok with the fact that because it is so powerful and will provide boss loot etc, that I only get the XP once I defeat it. Big battle = Big XP + Big Loot + Bragging Rights. It's easier (for me) to accept that XP comes after defeating 100% of a creature, regardless of how much time I spend. The "unfairness" of length of time is reflected in the increased XP. Edit: One could almost say that there is a direct correlation between the XP value and the length of time it takes. Low XP = expected short combat duration. High XP = expected longer duration.

I just want my XP as I go. If it allows me the option of backing off to go level up, I can still choose where I go after that in my own game. I've earned it after all.

I didn't mean all 10 at once. I meant 10 separate encounters, spread out across that area of the map. Fight 5, then deciding to go elsewhere is valid, and for the reason KaineParker said; because some people just want to have a look round. Well, those two and a raft of other valid examples. Sometimes, quests are interrelated; you find a magic weapon in one quest that would be perfect against an enemy in another quest, so if you like, you can divert from the first one while doing a bit more of the second one. And while on the second quest, you accept a third quest, and depending where it is and what it entails, you can do some of that before deciding you'd better go back and finish the first quest. It just comes down to catering for a multitude of play styles. I don't think I ever advocated laziness. Only choice. Edit: I remember the first time I played BG1, I kept putting off the trip to Nashkel because I wanted to explore other areas first. Xzar and Montaron kept hassling me to head south, but I wanted to do more and more quests on the way, many of which were all done in a somewhat unorthodox order, like a drunken spider spinning a web. It wasn't a very efficient way to play, in hindsight, but it was memorable and fun. And crucially, the game handled the XP rewards for me at every ridiculous choice I made.

It was both constructive and helpful. The old IE system of including combat XP within a quest probably irks the more astute players here because they're super aware that the game design surrounding it was flawed. Rest spamming, creature respawns, level squatting, flawed level scaling, and all the other reasons given in the original thread (I can't remember them all) led to unbalanced XP exploitation and so-called degenerate behaviour. It looks as if OE are aware of those previous design flaws and are aiming to correct them. Quest/objective XP might be one way they intend to address it, and that's fine. I don't *hate* it btw. It's not a hateworthy concept. But with everything all said and done, there *appears* to be situations where quest/objective XP only covers say, 90% of realistic play. Maybe that figure is arbitrary depending on play style or a player's skill level. If the objective is to clear the area of 10 tough enemies, but you only kill 5 because your party has been decimated, you have a choice to temporarily abandon that objective while you head off in search of easier quests to get your party level up, before returning to finish the job. I personally feel that the party is entitled to the XP of those 5 tough enemies (it could be substantial) because they removed a threat with each encounter. It might mean the difference between levelling up and not levelling up before deciding whether to look elsewhere for a while. And I'm not talking about levelling up during combat, but between each stage of the objective. So it's not that objective XP is downright bad, it's just that combat XP fills in the gaps when valid (well, I would call it valid) situations merit it.

The dragon example is sound analysis Lephys. You're using game mechanics and logic, and upscaling the situation to demonstrate a flaw, and that's cool. When you say the game only rewards you XP when something dies is a fair comment. Some might say the game rewards you when an individual threat is removed, irrespective of its power, i.e. you can't kill half a dragon and claim a threat has been removed. It remains a threat until it dies. So maybe combat XP is a little contradictory in that the reward comes from removing a threat, rather than by learning (tactics, muscle memory etc). And in the case of dragons vs. weak goblins, a reasonable design would be to keep the power level inversely proportional to the quantity of encounters, i.e. one or two dragons per campaign, but 1000 weak goblins spread out in groups.

It's a bit like being level-drained, or at least in the NWN sense, where you didn't lose XP, just a semi-permanent level until you cured it with a Restoration spell. But if you didn't have that spell available to you, you had to go off and find one. There was no benefit to being level drained though. But with this new disease idea, you can become affected by it, similar to the level drain example, but at least while going off to find a cure, you get some "interesting" side-effects. I particularly like the idea of gaining "disease lore" and semi-resistance to the symptoms with each contraction. And if there were a few "Whoa!" moments with spells in combat because they worked differently, then at least there'd be added entertainment value.

Back on topic, but still relevant to XP rewards, what if "successful stealth XP" didn't need to adjudicate your hide and move silently skills against a discerning enemy, but rather what you had access to *if* you managed to sneak past? So if you snuck past an enemy guard into a back room, you'd then have opportunities to gain XP for using some of the following skills: - Disable Device - Open Lock - Pickpocket - Search - Set Trap - Listen - Spot - Sneak Attack Even if the guard was pacing back and forth, or randomly scouting the area, the same would apply. It's still up to the character to remain stealthy, but there needn't be a complicated stealth-determining system like imaginary lines on the floor etc, which become arbitrary if an enemy is scouting randomly. I think skills like Disable Device, Open Lock, and Pickpocket are definite contenders for XP rewards based on challenge rating. Other skills like successfully Searching (finding hidden doors or traps), Listening, Spotting, and Setting Traps may need careful adjudication with respect to CR, and only award XP for non-trivial outcomes. A combat character might kill the guard and still have access to the same skills as a stealthy character, but has put themselves in danger (potential loss of health and resources) and possibly alerted other enemies in the area. So the real worth comes from avoiding those things for a stealthy character. And chances are, a combat character won't have as high skill points in the skills listed above as an archetypal stealthy character, so success is by no means guaranteed. And lastly, sneak past the guard and then Sneak Attack him for the usual (calculated) risk/reward. Edit: Actually, it's not CR for skills, it's DC (Difficulty Class), but you get the idea.

I'm pretty sure everyone on the other thread has been arguing for discussing the same thing all along. The issue was ostensibly that objectives had a "greater-than-one" component, which meant it was possible to have incomplete objectives dependent on player actions, and the argument discussion was whether it was appropriate to get kill xp for a partial objective. Reducing it to one sounds like combat xp + skills xp + objective xp + quest xp all in one, which is what we're after......isn't it? Either way, my brain trees are quivering.

Variable AoE for Fireball and other area spells. - Expand up to ONE area size larger [-25% damage], or... - Re-focus up to TWO area sizes smaller [+10% and +20% damage respectively] Maybe as you position the spell, it shows the AoE ground radius, and you can mousewheel up or down to expand or contract it. Use this AoE table as a guide.

Hassat, I believe we ultimately want the same thing. But all you're doing is arguing against a simple solution that (in combination with new fixes and design considerations) will provide for you rather than frustrate you. No matter what I say, you are determined to get angry and believe that I'm going to ruin your experience. So it's best we just drop it and move on. See you on the forums.

Good idea. What could possibly go wrong?

This is actually a great idea Lephys - if I'm running a fever, maybe I'm physically weak but it boosts the power of my fireball spell at the same time. Or spells that have disease-like effects. - Contagion - Infestation of Maggots - Swamp Lung - Cause Disease? (if there's no Cure Disease spell, then...)

Benefits of Disease - Cannot contract a second disease while current disease is active. - Greater chance of intelligent "living" creatures avoiding melee contact with you in battle. - All living creatures within 5 feet with a definable olfactory system must make a Fort save or experience minor nausea. That sounds like a better option.

I beg to differ. All I did was point out (point out, mind you, not invent) that it is the only scenario in which getting 10 XP per enemy as opposed to only getting 100XP for each 10 enemies has any kind of significant detriment. Those who brought up that as a reason for per-kill XP instead of objective-based XP are the ones who are hung up on it. That's why this thread is 25 pages instead of like 6. Someone says "What about when people partially complete things?", to which not just me responds "Well, let's evaluate that. See, it actually doesn't cause a problem, unless the player is voluntarily ridiculous." And people just glance over that, then respond as if our evaluation of the proposed problem scenario was somehow nonsensical and arbitrary. TRX, I value your input on these forums. I really do. It is typically more extensive and valuable than the average post. So, I really don't understand why you would do this. As one person to another. I'm "hung up" on examples I didn't even make, then took the time to evaluate? *sigh*... I think I'm out of this one, on that note, as I quite literally do not know what else to say. I meant the *player* would be irrational, not you. Don't make me have to play the Scrubs "Guy Love" video. Because I *will*....

Well folks.....<in the voice of Vinnie Jones>....."It's been emotional."

Disarming traps is not the extent of a rogue class though. They have an entire rainbow of skills that can net them XP rewards. There's no reason they couldn't equal another character's XP by utilizing all their skills, even if they avoided some of the combat. Edit: And besides, what's to stop a stealthy character from engaging in ranged combat or magic during an encounter?