Lephys

Undoubtedly. I'm simply emphasizing that the two are not mutually exclusive. I think the basic rule for XP/rewards should be the amount of effort involved in their acquisition. Obviously with a tolerance for certain builds/choices to reduce the amount of effort necessary for a given reward, and for certain builds/choices to increase the amount of effort necessary for a given reward.

^ Yeah, but the surface is always SIGNIFICANTLY cooler than the rest, as the temperature difference between the actual lava and air is so extreme. So, the surface layer should, theoretically, always be at a much higher viscosity than all the underlying lava. That is, of course, if it's not churning/erupting lava, in which case I don't think you'd be able to walk across it even if it DIDN'T melt you to death (constantly fluctuating/insubstantial surface upon which to walk...) It might be that some of it would cause slow sinking if you didn't move quickly enough. Wait, are we distinguishing, here, between "lava" and "magma"? *shrug*

Only if the stronghold-proper is below sea level and the landscaping crew botches the moat. Oh, wait...

AKA "I don't like the game I don't even have all the details on and like to assume lots of things about." That's a pretty big dilemma. They should probably just scrap the project. That would fix it. You wouldn't have anything to suffer such grief over. *dusts off hands* u_u Actually, he was referencing specific aspects of BG2's systems that he didn't like. So "There wasn't a whole lot I did like about it," in that context (you know, that thing you find so bothersome as to ignore it completely), it probably meant "There's not a lot in BG2 I wouldn't change if I went back in time and remade it." If he hated BG2 as hard as you're implying, he'd make a completely different genre of game. It wouldn't have combat, or levels, or NPCs, or dialogue, etc. The fact that P:E is still utilizing pretty much the entire backbone of the IE games is a testament to this. But, you know, the overdramatization of every little change is always an option, too, I suppose. "Wait... quests are going to entail different things than in the IE games?! Health won't be determined by the same balancing equations? WE'RE NOT USING THE EXACT D&D RULESET ANYMORE?! How in the hell are we going to represent things? With some other form of MATH?! AAGGGHHHH! *facepalm*"

A) I used it specifically in reference to your meaning. It was either inaccurate, or it was not. B) You felt no need to change/correct the word choice in that post ^ there, but rather the need to aim at yet another arbitrary one-upping to help yourself feel accomplished (rather than simply accomplishing actual constructive discussion.) C) You have yet to deny that you feel it's necessary to point out to people how wrong they are even after they've acknowledged a mistake or unforeseen problem with their own point. I sincerely hope it's all somehow worth it inside that mind of yours, because it remains quite pointless outside of it. *shrug*

I think what he was getting at is that all of the math we currently use in RPG equipment and combat is based upon representing real-world aspects of equipment and combat. Damage vs. HP is just a mathematical representation of weapon effectiveness vs. survivability (in a lot of games, armor pieces actually increase your "health"). Weapon "speed" basically accounts for how many times you could practically attack with that weapon within a given duration. Attack roll represents all the factors involved in a human effectively striking a target with a weapon exactly where and how they want to (with critical hits being that rare, perfect hit). Etc. While we don't typically try to simulate everything on a 1:1 scale, all of our math and systems are pretty much based upon elements pulled straight from reality.

If you're dissatisfied with the implementation of dragons in many existing games, then it might be prudent to discuss methods of improving their implementation. Unless, of course, powerful, flying, reptilian creatures are inherently a terrible game design element for some reason. Aww man, you inadvertently fed him! "You said the word even the Knights who say 'Ni' can't stand! You just said it again! Oh no! Now I'VE said it! AHHHHHhhhhhhh!" A troll is sort of like a T-rex. Just remain perfectly irrational and unproductive and he won't see you!

Weapon Swapping: As long as it's a properly weighty choice (as many have suggested/addressed already), I don't see it as a problem. I think if something's not actively "locked in combat" with you at the time, you should be able to dance around the battlefield, continuously sheathing one weapon and unsheating/drawing another, if you'd like. If an enemy starts charging a Ranger, who's firing his bow at it, I don't see the need to penalize him for drawing his longsword before/as it reaches him. But, it should be a problem if you swap whilst engaged by a foe. Whether it's the extra attacks damage due to the time it takes you to swap weapons, or additional bonuses to the enemy's attack(s) during the weapon swap... doesn't matter to me. That's getting back into the realm of balancing, rather than actual system design. Equipment Degradation: I think the problem isn't actually inherent to the existence of any form of durability system. I think it's that the realism achieved by the state of your equipment being permanent (never improving until you manually fix it, but always declining with every added combat engagement) is outweighed by the amount of work the player puts in. I mean, you first either have to spend your time and effort (with combat, lockpicking/skill-builds, exploration, gathering enough money/selling enough loot for money, etc.) just to obtain necessary equipment. Then, your stuff inevitably gets damaged mid-combat, and you suffer the penalties there. THEN, you have to go all the way back to a repair person (sometimes when you could've otherwise pressed on) AND pay money to have your stuff repaired, or to purchase repair supplies for the road again. Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the spetrum, what's the incentive for doing all this? Being able to actually progress and play the game. One side of that scale's a bit heavy, methinks. The possible solution? Abstract the degradation a bit so that it's a temporary effect, similar to (but not quite the same thing as) a typical de-buff in many RPGs. AND, perhaps, allow for some control over the likelihood or frequency of degradation. A perfect example would be with the weapon types. Maybe, since crushing is so effective against heavy, plate armor, a maul would be the only thing with a chance of damaging the armor itself. And maybe, if a sword is least effective against heavy, plate armor, using a sword against plate would have a chance to damage the sword (Hey! We're creating synergy between degradation AND weapon-swapping! 8D). Heh. Either way, going along with their per-rest/per-encounter system for many durations/limitations for things, at the very LEAST I'd say your stuff should "automagically" get repaired when you rest (an abstraction of the assumption that if you're a seasoned warrior who relies on his gear all the time, you know how to repair it when you get some down time and/or the assumption that you're going to go somewhere to get it repaired anyway.) Another potential layer to such a system would be actual honing/improvements (re-temporing/forging/sharpening/armor reinforcements) that could be optionally purchased and applied to equipment to reduce the likelihood of even short-term armor/weapon durability penalties. Part of that just comes back down to balancing, of course. Okay, they're temporary now, and don't just happen inevitably when you get damaged or attack things (only certain weapon/armor combos). Should you have to put up with them for multiple combat encounters (until next rest area)? Or should they go away at the end of the encounter? Etc.

I'm lightened up. I apologize if my words suggested otherwise (tone is often iffy in text). I'm simply curious as to why Valorian feels that it's more important to accurately stress the degree of stupidity he feels people's ideas and suggestions possess than it is to simply point out problems he foresees with them and, perhaps, even suggest some alternatives as well (both constructive actions in a discussion.)

Nope. It's exactly this simple: Kill XP = "I want to award XP for the death of things." Objective/quest XP = "I want to award XP for things that I designate as accomplishments that warrant XP gain." What do ALL of the above have in common? They're all actions/events/phenomena that you, the designer, decide you want to award XP for. So, at the very least, its unnecessarily complicated to have a system that denotes kill XP as separate from objective XP. That's what the decision's about. In fact, I'd say that the only arguments against the use of objective-only XP, so far, would be more accurately described as knee-jerk reactions to a simple change to a familiar system, out of sheer worry at potential imbalance. That's why all the example situations presented in order to point out the "flaw" in the objective-only XP system have been quite impractical, at best. Unless you believe they're going to have Diablo-style dungeons/areas simply teeming with living things awaiting sweet, sweet death, which will take up all your time and effort at the helm of your keyboard and mouse and never give you anything for your troubles. Which, again, would be a balance issue, not a system issue. The system doesn't cause any problems that aren't fixable without amending the confines/capabilities of the system. Not that anyone's pointed out so far, at least.

I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with pure, mocking sarcasm. Does it just make you feel better? Do you need that to get through the day? I know you are quite intelligent, but your voluntary actions don't always show it. He already acknowledged the folly of that particular suggestion here: How constructive is it to basically rub it in? Back to the armor/damage issue at hand, the problem isn't the ability to switch weapons often to be more effective, it's the necessity to switch weapons often just to be reasonably effective. It's not a problem in that you can't make a functional game designed in such a way. It's a problem in that the restrictiveness tends to outweigh any depth it brings to the table. In fact, the more complexity you inject at that point, the more of a chore the weapon-swapping becomes. Imagine if you had 12 companions, and you had to pick a different set of 6 for every single battle, or suffer a 50% effectiveness penalty. Constantly. I think this is one major strength the new system has that the old one didn't really account for (well, at least). And now we just have to wait for all the details on the new system, 8P

I'm not against the reputation system working like that at all. That's what it's there for. To function in ways only reputation can. But, in a game that requires XP (as combat is heavily prevalent as a mandatory means of conflict resolution throughout the story), you've either got to make some of the optional stuff necessary, or you've got to just make it all optional. Well, IF you're going to make any of it necessary (either an optional choice to handle an unavoidable situation, or just a single optional non-combat quest/objective that you can either do or not do, that gets you part of the XP you need to stay up to par on story challenges), you can't just offer non-XP in place of XP. In other words, if you say "Oh, just let reputation be the balancing factor when XP's out of whack between combat and non-combat routes," you're going to have to allow reputation to allow that non-combat-picking player to beat the game, or make the rest of the game easier. I'm not talking about non-combat people being JUST as proficient at combat as the combat people. But they shouldn't have a FAR tougher time of things just because they handled things with cleverness rather than brawn. "Chose all the non-combat options you could in branches where combat WOULD'VE given you XP? Welp, have fun being 7 levels behind the other guys..." That isn't going to cut it. Am I saying that every single time you award 100XP for combat, you have to award 100XP for something that isn't combat? No. But, you've gotta balance it out in the end. It's not a matter of whether or not you use XP, or loot, or reputation, or quest opportunities (which really just leads to potential XP, loot, or reputation, as far as things that actually affect balancing go). It's a matter of making sure they all balance out well when all's said and done. Money is sometimes not needed or useful in progression. Loot is sometimes not needed or useful in progression. Reputation is sometimes not needed or useful in progression. XP is ALWAYS useful and needed in progression. So, you simply have to make sure you don't say "Don't worry... you'll get a yummy cookie!" to the people who choose the non-combat options YOU provided them in your game design. XP is not about pleasing the player. It's the core of character/party progression. It is not a shiny. When everything else can be about aesthetics, and style, and player pleasing, and niceties, and obtaining things, XP is always about pacing and balancing progression. The only reason it exists is so that you can start the game as not uber-beings, and become better as you go (so that you're not fighting the exact same challenge factors the whole way through, and you can actually experience the progression of things and the fruits of your characters efforts and accomplishments.) So, yeah, if balanced objective XP doesn't cut it, I don't see any possibility other than XP addiction. XP slot machines, baby.

Sorry, I know I'm not Trashman, but I think I have the answer. What is "By simply accounting for morally-questionable objective handling," Alex. That's just the thing. Killing something is only NOT an objective when it is specifically designated as such by the game's design/programming. Ending all life in the whole game world is not a viable objective (as a story generally relies upon the interaction of living entities), so even someone who wants to kill their way through every situation they can is going to be limited to only certain situations. But, IN those situations, if killing actually serves a purpose toward some end, it should probably be rewarded with XP. If you just run through the woods killing squirrels and bears, you shouldn't gain XP. Why would you even want to do that UNLESS you just happened to get XP for it, or unless you just happened to enjoy playing with the combat mechanics of the game for the sheer fun of it (in which case there's no reason to INSIST upon a reward for every single act of ending life.) No one's against being able to kill more things as opposed to fewer things in an RPG and getting rewards for it. What we're against is encouraging behavior that's in no way a part of the game. There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone who runs through the forest, ridding it of all its fauna. There's just something wrong with childishly demanding a reward for every action you simply see fit to perform. XP isn't candy. It serves a purpose within a logic-based system that serves as a backbone for the entire game. It'd be nice to be able to sell stuff right when you pick it up, instead of having to lug loot around that you only have for its monetary value, but I comprehend why it is that we can't do that, and that's perfectly fine with me. Even though I obtain loot for each thing I kill and loot or each chest/container I open, I can't USE it 'til I get back to a town or settlement. I'm not about to demand that we not be required to perform a certain amount of work before being able to sell things and upgrade our equipment. That wasn't directed at you, TRX. I simply don't understand why people cannot see that it isn't some crazy imbalance in the game for every living thing not to instantly imbue your characters with extra skills, stats, and abilities when TONS of things in the game don't immediately give you a usable reward. And that killing things will be rewarded as an objective. I challenge you to go play any other RPG (that doesn't have infinitely respawnable mobs/content) and write down EXACTLY how many times you go kill 90% of a group of enemies and never finish off the rest. And how many times you can kill PART of a group of enemies, but then LESS than 100% of that group of enemies is somehow even MORE difficult than the whole group was and prevents you from killing any more of them at all. How many times can you prove the viability of the feeble "I need XP without actually killing all the enemies within 3-feet of each other and/or accomplishing anything but the death of things!" example before you either hit a dead end or accidentally kill a whole group/complete an objective beyond sheer killing? How many levels can you gain by doing this? Someone do that, post it on youtube, and then we'll have scientific evidence that the argument isn't ridiculous. If you want to play the game without ever getting anywhere, and you want XP for it no matter what, then you need a game that consists of a clickable button that says "Kill something" and a little XP counter. Every time you click the button, you get XP. There you go. That's the most perfect game design I can think of if you're simultaneously anti-progress and pro-kill-XP. You could always just sell/give your copy of P:E to a friend and pick up Diablo if you don't already own it. That game's literally designed around the idea of kill XP. 99.9% of that game is killing, and the other .1% is UI.

Yeah, heh. The thing is, I'd much rather have something that doesn't even seem to immediately make sense in the forest (some giant stone hand holding a giant stone teacup) that's NEVER explained, ever, blocking my path than a 2-foot diameter fallen tree. Sure, a tree fits in the forest, but the idea that I can't traverse a 2-foot-tall obstacle is FAR less believable than the idea that the hand of a giant tea-drinking likeness statue somehow made its way into this forest and I simply don't have the information as to why. Hell, if it needs to be a tree, just make it a ginormous tree. I'm not gonna say "WAIIIIT a minute... *takes some soil samples*... would THAT species of tree REALLY be growing in such a mild climate with this much iron in the soil? They REALLY should've had a much smaller tree here, one that I could easily traverse, but at the same time was incapable of traversing, u_u..." I don't care WHY it's so big. I don't even need to know. Same thing with 2-foot streams. I don't care if swimming's not in the game... I can EASILY jump that! SO easily! If you don't want me to wonder why I can't jump it, make it a 15-foot stream.

He was just stating his opinion. I thought that was what message boards are for. Also, while "message board" is a term used to describe forums, this one happens to blatantly be labeled "Project Eternity: General Discussion." I could be mistaken, but I believe stating your opinion is only part of what discussion entails. And why exactly do you feel the need for your opinion to be heard and considered in any capacity while at the same time ignoring all others, or unconstructively telling people that they're "wrong" in the midst of a simple sharing of opinions? Just curious. Also, "combat XP" is not out. Nor is "kill XP." You will get XP for killing. You just won't necessarily get XP at the moment of something's death. That's really the only inherent design difference from other XP systems, as far as combat and slaying are concerned.

While I understand the point you're making, it only works in a combat/level/progression-based RPG within limited, individual instances. If the enemies at level 15 are 10 times harder (and have exponentially higher armor/damage/attack/health values) than level 2 enemies, then you can't really offer people a path from level 2 to level 15 that only gives you outcomes that are simply their own reward. The reason "good/evil" is often brought up in regard to this aspect of balancing is because it is a dichotomous system at its extremes. In other words, IF you're offered the choice between "good" things and "evil" things, then you SHOULD be able to stick with all good choices in one playthrough, and all evil choices in another. There should never be a quest that's like "YOU MUST HELP THIS CUTE FLUFFY BUNNY AND YOUR CHARACTER LOVES DOING SO" if you're allowed to "be" not-good. So, either path (and any combination, there-in) should be viable in terms of the core mathematical progression aspects of the game; otherwise, it's just bad design. Doesn't matter how you divvy it up.

That's perfectly fine. I never said magic = just upping numbers. I don't want that either. I'm just saying reasonable power limitations (that are, like you expertly put it, an expansion of utility, option, and capability rather than a sheer addition to potency) and powers/abilities beyond what's 100% a 1:1 match to real life aren't mutually exclusive. That might mean some things basically laugh at sword blades but fall to a swathe of arcane power, but that's how things work. Doesn't make things have to be ridiculous. But we also don't have to focus on a game in which everything requires only a nick to an artery, and it's just eventually going to die no matter what, so we can strategically run away now. So, with the abstraction of numerical representation for the sake of the needs of RPG mechanics (and video game coding), and the addition of factors like magic, you're simply GOING to have stuff that's more "powerful," in SOME aspect or another, than plain old regular reality. The useful point is, don't let it get ridiculous. That's what we can distill from all this. Not "don't have soul powers," or "make sure no one's more powerful than a real person." It just needs to all be balanced, based ONLY on the needs of the system, and never on the "need" for Hollywood, flashy, explosive entertainment. You can still have awesome, interesting magic/soul-power mechanics and aesthetics without having characters destroy mountains and dragons by pointing at them.

Mayhaps. Or maybe they could charge some abilities up (which is basically the exact same concept as channeling/focus duration, but before you use the ability rather than after) like I had suggested. But, maybe only one at a time? (You start charging a different ability, and the first is no longer readied, much less charged.) Anywho the balancing of that is beside the point. I only brought up that possibilty again because it would still constitute a very similar ability use (after charged/prepared) to a Wizard spell. But, yeah, that would be a cool way to differentiate. Maybe it starts as single-target, and the target has to pass a Will save or he BELIEVES he is burning (some form of non-damage effect.) After several seconds, he actually catches ablaze (low burn damage/sec). After several more seconds, the damage increases and the fire flares outward (igniting anyone within a small AoE.) Several more seconds and it grows. Up to whatever ceiling is reasonable. *shrug*

The type of "equal" rewards a game SHOULD have takes into account mutually exclusive rewards. i.e. For every "No no, you keep that kickass reward, because I'm a super considerate person" choice, there should be (SOMEwhere in the game, and not as a result of the exact same quest choice) a "Aww, crap. Since I greedily killed this guy so I could loot his house (which I couldn't have done without being a greedy bastard), he didn't tell me about some treasure or other quest opportunity that it turns out he knew of, so I missed out on THAT reward that only the ultra-considerate guy got" choice. Words can only be so specific, without context. It's the context of "equal rewards" that's important. I don't think anyone wants "You killed that guy and looted his place? You get 500 gold! You were nice and helped him out? You got rewarded with 500 gold!" in every single choice branch in the entire game.

What's unfortunate is that, if you had read it, you most likely would've seen this part: Rendering your "I think you are missing the mark a little in game design terms" point a bit unnecessary. 8P The rest of your response, though, is a lovely assessment of the question posed. So kudos, ^_^

^ *nod nod*. A different enough set of values might even work. Smaller AoE radius, shorter/longer range, less damage, less burn damage, etc... Not to mention, as we've both stated, a variation in effects. Maybe the Cipher's fiery explosion involves some sort of Will-save against an additional mind effect, and the Wizards has some other effect (armor reduction because the fire is so much more concentrated, etc.). Variety is the spice of RPG design... Oh, and life. ^_^

^ The imbalance of loot isn't the problem in the given example scenarios. The problem is short-cutting. It's a matter of "Crap... that acid works exactly like it's supposed to, and that anti-acid spell does too, but I don't want you to be able to avoid damage here... instead of changing the source of the damage to something that I haven't coded a protection spell for, I'll just make this PARADOXICAL acid. It is both acid, AND not-acid, u_u. You don't have a spell that protects against paradoxical acid... PROBLEM SOLVED! *dusts off hands*" So, I would argue that railroading is not only the root of the problem, but also the seed from which that root sprang forth. "The problem" being specifically the one being pointed out the most in this thread.

Yeah, it seems best to incorporate stuff like that in one of two controlled ways: 1) If it's a crime you can commit completely at your leisure throughout the game (pickpocketing, assault, breaking and entering, etc.), then it should be punished with some non-time-consuming penalty. No jail-time, community service, nothing. And this is IF you allow such crimes wherever and whenever. 2) If it's a crime you can only commit in certain situations (as tied to specific quests/scenarios), then a time-consuming outcome could easily be used (basically as a branch/path/outcome for that quest or scenario). When you put stuff in like in TES games, where you can just go spend time in jail every time you get caught stealing, or accidentally nick someone ('s head off) with a weapon, I dare you to find a player who has ANY desire whatsoever to experience that more than once. And nothing else in the game punishes you by making you spend time doing nothing like that. If you make mistakes in combat, you immediately pay in HP/consciousness, etc. If you make a "mistake" on a quest, you get attacked or lose out on a monetary reward or more quest opportunities, but you get to IMMEDIATELY keep playing the game in some form of constructive fashion. I don't like it when criminal punishments basically give you a time-out from gameplay. Especially when they're disguised as "still constructive" segments because you get to break out of jail, or talk your way out (same exact scenario every time.) That's like time out PLUS a chore. "You go stand in that corner for 30 minutes, OR until you manage to stack all 50 of these cups without them falling down." It's only "constructive" towards getting you back to the actual gameplay. Which is why I think it would best be implemented only as part of the actual gameplay, in specific scenarios, however numerous they may be (as the devs see fit.)

Well, I like where you're going with stuff, for what it's worth. I would like to simply comment that I hope they keep the direct 1:1 ability emulations between classes to a minimum. To clarify with an example, I don't mind Ciphers having Pyrokinetic abilities, but I don't want to see: "Wizard Spell -- Fireball: Range, 20 // AoE, 7 // fire damage, 40 // burn damage, 5 per-sec for 7 secs. The Wizard creates a compact sphere of fire that explodes upon impact and launches it at a foe or area. Cipher Ability -- Mentolotov: Range, 20 // AoE, 7 // fire damage, 40 // burn damage, 5 per-sec for 7 secs. The Cipher uses pyrokinesis to hyper-heat the air around a given foe or at a given location, causing a fiery explosion." That is not to say, of course, that Pyrokinesis can NEVER do AoE fire damage, but I'd rather add some diversity into the "emulations." I want a Cipher's fiery abilities to do more/different (Ciphery) things than a Wizard's fiery (Wizardy) spells. Simple, single-effect spells/abilities like Sleep or Stun/Daze are fine to basically copy. It would be the same thing, really, as creating fire. A ranger may create fire for his arrows with a flint and steel, and a Wizard may create fire via arcane energy, and a Cipher may create fire with mental soul powers *shrug*. It matters not. But it matters what they DO with that fire. You can't really "do" different things with Sleep or Stun (that affect the gameplay mechanically or situationally), so there's no problem with direct copies, really.

I like all the rest, but "drop armor" sounds a bit funny. If your heavy breastplate's buckled onto your torso, and IT'S being pulled upon by a psycho-kinetic gravity well, then wouldn't you simply be pulled with it? I guess you COULD unbuckle it and drop it, as a tactical "I can avoid getting pulled with it!" reactionary decision. *ponder*... Also, while the effect is in place, can you re-supply on gravity from the well with a gravity bucket? (I had to, ) ALSO (in seriousness), I really like the "targets an AoE or individual enemy" part. I reference the Fable spell system in another thread, and I think that's one of the few highly valuable things from that system. On abilities where it made sense, you could either target an area (for a lesser potency of the effect across the area), OR focus the exact same ability/spell effect at an individual enemy (for greater potency.)