Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

TRX850

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    632

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by TRX850

  1. TRX850
    I did consider that, but it's mostly true for fighters. Wizards on the other hand might find it useful to keep putting points into an armour proficiency skill so that it reduced penalties for Arcane Spell Failure for example. Not sure it would be useful for other classes, unless there was some non-skill penalty that was affected. Rogues have separate skill points for skills affected by heavy armour. We can solve this problem though, just like the tonal conversation feature. Of course, a talent/feat could also zero out any Arcane Spell Failure, a bit like the Armoured Arcana feat tier in IWD2. I did try maxing that out for my Bard character once, and it was actually pretty useful. Most walkthroughs say it's a waste of time though, but hey, some of us here prefer the path less trodden.
  2. TRX850
    @Lephys, you're hung up on the idea that players will only partake in 10% of every side-quest they accept, and ignore the other 90% for some irrational reason. I think it originated from an example of how a side-quest could be delayed for any number of valid reasons; injury requiring rest, too hard, change of heart, side-tracked by another quest, and so on. Whenever an objective is only partially met, it will likely be for a valid reason. No one would willingly gimp every objective in the game, because they'd never receive any objective/quest XP. If P:E was 100% linear in design, it would pretty much force players to complete all non-optional objectives before progressing, but I think we are all expecting a mostly open world like BG1&2, so you have to allow for partially completed quests/objectives.
  3. TRX850
    Saying that the old system is "broken at best" doesn't mean it can't be fixed in P:E. If lockpicking and disarming traps was part of an objective, would that change a player's behaviour? Seriously, no single character can excel at every skill or playstyle in the game. That's why you spread the load across your party so everyone has a chance to shine. Award XP for all skill checks that overcome non-trivial threats or gain non-trivial items/lore. I've said it so many times in this thread.
  4. TRX850
    Then the game should award XP for key skills that allow those play styles to shine. Disarmed a deadly trap? Award XP. Negotiated your way through a grueling stand-off? Award XP. It's so, so simple, yet people seem to hate the idea of being rewarded for what they're good at.
  5. TRX850
    Well said Raz. I was going to write a lengthy response to Hassat Hunter, answering his questions, but there's not much more to say that hasn't already been said. One last example I'll mention is something that happens to many players. You take on a quest, and get part way through, only to find it's way too difficult for your current level. So you head off somewhere else and complete a couple of easier quests to get your levels up, then return to the original quest. Hassat would have you believe that that's a "sloppy" play style. And according to his design, you wouldn't get the partial XP for doing the early part of the quest. Which by anyone else's standard is just plain unacceptable. The same goes for similar "change of heart" examples. You get part way through a quest only to learn that the quest-giver is not who they appear to be, so you might refuse to complete the quest and abandon it and/or kill the quest-giver. This thread is nearing its allotted number of 500 posts, so will close down soon. I've mostly stopped worrying about the XP issue anyway. As I've mentioned before, if the XP system is gimped towards a play style that doesn't suit a lot of players, an "XP Mod" will be just around the corner, thanks to the modding community. TRX, out.
  6. TRX850
    I was saving this, but what the hell.
  7. TRX850
    That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the game engine should provide the player with choice, even if it's the *illusion* of choice, and then let the reputation/faction system handle the consequences of their actions. If a player starts killing everyone in sight, then yes, the game will react harshly, prompting the player with the option to choose a better strategy. But by not providing that option in the first place, the game is deciding what is best for the player without them really having to decide. Have you ever wondered what would happen if you betrayed someone in the game? Or started off evil then decided to turn good? Or vice versa? It's called choice. Or would you not want to have that choice available to you?
  8. TRX850
    I haven't read all 480 posts in this forum, but I've read quite a few. And the feeling I get from both sides of the argument is that some people want XP rewards a certain way, but are not entirely sure why they want it that way, other than claiming it's tidier or better. My viewpoint is from a purely design angle. It has nothing to do with play style. I like sneaking and negotiating and investigating mysteries. Combat is a by-product of adventuring that happens to be challenging and fun. Excitement followed by reflection. Like a good movie that draws you in. I stand by my earlier comments that combat XP is needed to handle situations that quest/objective XP cannot. Namely partial or unintentional involvement in an objective, or a desire to play against the system with a chaotic or evil lead character. I honestly don't know why people are so against having this simple system in place to support quest XP rewards. No one ever said it should replace it. I just find it amusing that "someone" quite a while back stated that combat XP was proven to be a bad system and therefore quest XP was the answer, and so many people believed it without a shred of evidence and jumped on a band wagon without realising what they'd agreed to. I learned a long time ago that you can't stop someone who is determined to miss the point. And once someone digs their heels into an idea, it's highly unlikely you'll change their mind. Having said that, I know that most of you here are intelligent enough to know that claims without evidence are not claims at all, and while all of us still speculate, including myself, the only reasonable outcome has to be based on good, clear examples that bring reason and rationale to the discussion. I doubt the devs are reading any of this, but I believe they will find the best design solution in the end.
  9. TRX850
    Back when I was in the SCA, there were plenty of plate mail wearing members that excelled at dextrous fast movement. One guy in particular was an ex-army, martial arts expert. Not sure what his armour weighed, but it was heavy full plate. And because it was perfectly tailored, he could maneuver in it like it was a second skin. I wish I had video of it to show you guys. It was amazing. He trained in it for hours every day until it was as if he was wearing light, unrestrictive armour. So I'd vote for proficiency points towards armour reducing all penalties to zero. This is one case where reality should come before abstract systems.
  10. TRX850
    Something I discovered about game design while on these forums was the beauty of dynamic on-the-fly design for various aspects: - Custom loot - Cursed Items - Certain boss enemies - NPCs - Passwords and puzzles - Environmental skills like Listen or Wilderness Lore If any or all of these were different with each playthrough, for me, that would keep the game alive.
  11. TRX850
    Sure it does. For the reasons I gave above. I've suggested before that XP should be awarded for overcoming non-trivial threats or gaining non-trivial items/lore. Dangerous traps. Fast talking. Getting a good deal. It's actually rewarding you for investing in skills. Last time I checked, that's true in the real world too. As above. You should get XP for disarming a dangerous spike trap. The number of traps and locked doors/chests in P:E is a finite number, so at least the total XP reward would be a known value. Agreed. But the game doesn't take into account the party's current agenda. You might be in a hurry to get from A to B, with the intention of returning afterwards to the xvart camp. It has no way of knowing that until you return. Why deny them XP for a partial objective that wasn't their main focus for now? The core mechanic will determine if any XP for the bear is awarded based on a CR value. Then the reputation/faction system will determine what ripple effect killing a bear has. Maybe that druidic faction will come pay you a visit? Maybe you got a bearskin pelt out of it? And you could net some XP for that trap if you successfully detected and disarmed it, as I mentioned above. The devs will probably design everything in the game to belong to an objective in one way or another. And for all the reasons I gave, and a whole lot more I'm sure I'll think of tonight, there needs to be a system to handle partial outcomes. I don't want extra XP. That's not what my argument is about. It's about giving the player the freedom of choice, and not allowing the "system" to largely decide it for you. I will most likely play a good guy the first couple of playthroughs, and will play with a rational mindset. But eventually, whether I intentionally turn maverick -- or have no option but to end up with a few messy objectives -- in terms of design, combat XP will handle the messy bits. Edit: Using the old system, fighters got naff all skill points to invest every level, whereas rogues received a ton. And what are rogues good at? Stealth and Negotiation. Bards and Monks come second, and maybe rangers. At least in IWD2 they did. So, if a non-fighter character prefers not to fight, preferring to use his/her non-combat skills, wouldn't it make more sense to award XP for those skills to balance things out more? XP for lockpicking and disarming traps. XP for brokering a particularly sensitive peace deal, or talking your way out of trouble. And so on. A combat-ready fighter won't have the same skill-set, so the bulk of their XP comes from fighting. A sneaky diplomat won't be killing as much, so the bulk of their XP comes from stealth and fast talking.
  12. TRX850
    Can we not combine lying in conversation with this dialogue option now?
  13. TRX850
    We're getting somewhat closer to an understanding here, just like before. I can feel it. There are many other reasons why you might not complete an objective all in one go. - You're traveling overland from A to B, but pass the fringes of a xvart camp, and before you know it, a few of the little buggers come at you. So you kill those, and continue on your way. That's a partial objective. - Early in the game, you might arbitrarily kill a few bears in the forest which belong to a druidic faction. Maybe you got too close and aggro'd them and decided to fight. Then later in the game, you encounter an evil dude who wants the forest cleared of animals. Well, you've actually killed a few bears already, but have no intention of killing 57 other bears. That's a partial objective. - You might end up killing 5 out of 10 bandits before they suffer a morale failure and try to run away. You're only able to shoot 2 more with arrows before the rest escape. That's a partial objective. I think what you're talking about is how does the game engine determine a party's intent before the fact. Whereas my argument is about adjudicating behaviour after the fact. So I still go back to my Cause and Effect argument. Award the player with an unbiased core mechanic, THEN determine the effects (if any) against their reputation and whether there's a ripple effect onto various factions.
  14. TRX850
    @Lephys, I personally would support disabling level up during combat. Just grey it out, and allow players to level up either at a rest spot afterwards or in town or whatever. Easy. And I wasn't suggesting that running away or delaying objectives was a preferred play style. More of a necessity in some circumstances. I'd much rather run away when all my characters were reduced to 1 HP, rest up, and return to finish what I started, rather than let everyone die, then reload. And in answer to another point, Challenge Rating (CR) is there to adjust XP rewards when party level and enemy level differ. If my party was vastly superior to a group of bandits, I know in advance they will net me little or no XP. But I'm still gonna wipe the floor with them because I want their loot. And we also previously discussed fighting multiple enemies over time, compared with one enemy for the same duration. The greater the threat, the more unfair it is. That's not my rule. That's just the way life is. The XP system shouldn't have to divvy out points based on how long you take. I'm not sure what else you're asking, but in terms of design, I still believe combat XP will handle any partial outcomes of combat.
  15. TRX850
    I understand your argument, as always. If there is more inherent risk in choosing the combat option over stealth, then maybe you should be rewarded more? It might seem like doubling up, but that's only because in your example you coincidentally chose the same XP value for objective success as the sum total of kill XP. 500 in this case. But it doesn't have to be equal amounts. What if it was 1000XP for the objective, regardless of which way you accomplished it? 500XP for killing, and 1000XP for quest completion, compared to 1000XP for poisoning them, without the risk of combat. It doesn't mean that every quest/objective will favour combat, for the reasons I gave in my consequences example a few posts back. People need to remember that it's the sum total of all quests and side-quests in the game that should provide a good balance of beneficial play styles, rather than aim for equal outcomes/XP per objective.
  16. TRX850
    It comes down to granularity. My understanding was that an objective could mean defeating multiple foes to count as completed. It would be rather silly to have every individual creature in the game defined as an objective. That defeats the purpose of grouping multiple activities and outcomes into a single objective. I think it's also because combat is (possibly?) the only activity in the game that can have a partial outcome when it comes to a group of enemies. It doesn't work that way with other activities or skill checks. You either succeed at disarming a trap or you don't. Or appraising an item. Or tumbling during battle. Or crafting an item. Or taunting an enemy. Or casting a spell. Combat XP is a catch-all method for handling partial outcomes of combat. Edit: It's also a method that allows for chaotic/irrational game play if your lead character is so inclined, as discussed in the Cause and Effect thread.
  17. TRX850
    We did discuss the difference before. And it's subtle. You might kill half the enemies and need to flee. You might backstab a single enemy and slink away. You might not return to the quest at all. You might return after some time, and be denied the kill XP the whole time you've been away. Combat XP deals with a "partial outcome" cleanly, whereas objective XP does not. Which is why I see the solution being a combination of combat XP, objective XP, and consequences.
  18. TRX850
    ^^ The point was to illustrate that certain choices have either a positive, neutral, or negative reputation/faction outcome, or consequence. And can be different from one side quest to the next. Some choices will give mutually exclusive outcomes, as they should. But all allow for a preferred play style and don't unfairly punish other play styles. In the first combat example, you'd receive combat XP and loot, but miss out on XP for the diplomatic or stealthy options. You'd miss out on discovering the location of the hidden treasure, AND your reputation would take a hit. Presumably because you'd be playing with a chaotic or evil agenda. So it's swings and roundabouts. The second example was for a more compliant or mainstream play style. But notice how the reputation consequences differ between A and B. Edit: The outcomes reflect the party's agenda, not the quest objectives.
  19. TRX850
    ih hihih hih hihih hih.......Numbers ROOL!!
  20. TRX850
    You could make the same Move Silently skill check (with partial bonus) for Disable Trap and Set Trap for the same reasons, i.e. play to the archetype and make it slightly more difficult for non-rogue classes.
  21. TRX850
    Some basic examples of how a combination of XP incentives (both combat and quest/objective) and consequences of actions can shape future events depending on the party's agenda. Side-Quest A. Side-Quest B.
  22. TRX850
    I think we should merge the terms "Combat Focused" and "Quest Focused" into the term "Consequence Focused" and re-evaluate our expectations.
  23. TRX850
    But with a spanky new reputation/faction system in place, killing everything and going (unstealthily) everywhere could lead to potentially undesirable consequences for a careless player. This new system, which they've said they are developing, gives the player a choice. i.e. Kill certain enemies and you may antagonize Faction X, which leads to future conflict. Sneak by certain enemies or negotiate peacefully with them, and you've remained neutral with Faction X, so no obvious future conflict. Now, does that present players with a choice, or does it decide for them?
  24. TRX850
    What if during a lockpicking attempt, you also had to make a move silently check? (with a small bonus, since you're not actually walking, but you are still moving). - If you succeed at lockpicking and succeed your move silently check, no problem. - If you succeed at lockpicking but fail your move silently check, nearby monsters may be alerted. - If you fail at lockpicking but succeed your move silently check, then no loot and no monsters are alerted. - If you fail at lockpicking and fail your move silently check, then no loot and you may alert nearby monsters. The noise you make could be the lockpicks breaking, or the lock tumblers grinding, or heavy armour clanging, or a combination depending on the outcome. So the act of lockpicking plays more to the archetypal stealthy rogue, and helps further delineate from other classes. Which is not to say you couldn't have a stealthy lockpicking fighter or priest etc.
  25. TRX850
    I don't always want to take the combat route, because I don't always want to kill everything. But if the game puts a bunch of tough enemies in my way, who award no XP and no loot, then there's no sensible reason to fight them. All that's happened is the game has removed a player's choice. But if those same tough enemies awarded XP and loot, I now have an informed choice. And with a reputation/faction system in place, I have to take into consideration who I might antagonize if I choose to fight. XP rewards do not exist in a vacuum.
×
×
  • Create New...