Lephys

I'd like to think PoE is taking his system and making some... adVancements... 6_u

Shouldn't it be called a Tactical Guide? I jest. /jest... /jest... o_o

Yeah, that's more what I was talking about. I'm not wholly against your background affecting your disposition-related reputation (You're known to be cruel/passionate, etc.), but the main thing was more "because of the stuff your character went through earlier in life, here's where their standing starts with various groups/types of people." I know the same thing could be achieved with just "Blah blah blah [slave]" dialogue options, but it might fit in better/be more intuitive if it actually (where applicable) affects your starting reputation with certain peoples. Sometimes, it could even bestow negative reputation with certain groups.

Honestly, it probably cost more to print that notepad than it would to burn a plastic disc. *Shrug* It's not like we're not getting the documentary, and it's not like it's difficult to burn a physical copy of it. You can even Lightscribe Josh's face onto it if you want.

Annnnnnnd done with Hiro. I think a couple attempts was more than courteous.

Don't know why I didn't think of this before... it was even mentioned in here a couple of times, but, I really like the idea of your background, at least, modifying your starting reputation.

Yeah... pickpocketing tends to turn random NPCs into convoluted slot machines. They might as well just allow for the looting of couch cushions. Really, though, the act of pickpocketing can contribute a lot to narrative situations, but those can also be hand-coded into specific dialogues/situations. There's no need to just allow anyone and everyone to have their gum wrappers stealable out of their pockets.

I never said you said lions would always be avoidable throughout the whole game. I don't know if I can avoid all lions in the whole game (I was merely pointing out that neither of us knows that we can). And yes, I don't know if we'll see lions later in the game unless I have meta-knowledge. I totally addressed that in the remainder of my response, but you've inadvertently pre-emptively responded before reading that part. Just for the record, not every word of every response is "Yeah, but you're wrong because...". Some things are just supplementary comments, and are not aiming to disprove your point. It's not really more compelling than any other system. It's just also compelling. But, that's not really important, so we'll just call that my opinion, I suppose, and I won't worry with it and waste anyone's time. You're missing the point. How do you even know there's enough XP in the game to reach the level cap without killing everything you see? You don't. If anything drops loot less-than-100% of the time, and/or drops a unique item (like an Elder Lion Pelt, for example), how do you know that won't be useful, and/or you won't need that some other time? You don't. You simply trust that the design of the game makes friggin' sense, and that some of the things in the game are going to be optional, because the developers told you that when they advertised their game design. So, I'm not arguing that there's no reason to desire to "play it safe" and kill all 5 of your beetles up-front to make sure you go ahead and get that XP reward. I'm just saying, unknowns are there and are promoting erring-on-the-side-of-caution, bestiary XP or no. Hell, even without XP... You don't know anything concrete, without meta-knowledge. I have played WL2, for what it's worth. Why would you want to do that? For loot and XP. Who does that? Some people. I don't think you know what conjecture means. I'm not even arguing how many people are doing it. I'm arguing that it can be done. Versus PoE, in which there will apparently not be any infinite source of combat encounters. How is that conjecture? Infinite things to kill, if you choose, all giving you XP for every kill. But there's just no reason at all to kill any number of infinite things for XP, simply because you don't do it? Also, going back to my point a little higher up in this response, about unknowns... how do you know how much XP you'll get from not-killing a bunch of random encounters in the desert to get you to the level-cap and/or keep up with the progressive difficulty of critical path encounters? You're the one who brought that up, about bestiary XP, but now you're acting like it doesn't exist, or you don't comprehend the workings of unknowns and incentives. This baffles me. And lastly, I think I'm somewhat repeating some of this from either this thread or another, but I'll tell you why, off the top of my head, bestiary XP isn't great: - It doesn't really represent accomplishment via combat in any kind of even fashion. - It still represents the act of killing something (oftentimes not even something that was in your way at all, and that wouldn't have attacked you unless you decided to go wander into its personal space and/or piss it off), while the acts of doing everything else in the game don't provide you with XP, even though XP covers the advancement of pretty much any skill at which your character can improve in the whole game. - It's kind of half of one thing, and half of another, without actually being either. It's an objective, but a somewhat arbitrary one (in the sense of what you're representing with XP gains.) For example, you kill X beetles and get a chunk of XP, but you don't get XP for intimidating X people in dialogue. So long as you only get XP for successfully accomplishing something pertinent to the story via intimidation in a given dialogue, you should only get XP for successfully accomplishing something pertinent to the story via combat. There are probably more reasons. I'll think on it some more.

Anyone who hasn't, definitely check out Bedlam on Kickstarter. It looks pretty great (if you like that sort of game), and they only have 10 days left to reach their goal, and beyond! And spread the word, even if it's not your cup of tea! (Sorry... just wanted to emphasize that little tidbit from the end of this update, on account of their 10-day deadline for crowdfunding).

And that's a very good suggestion. I know it's tricky, because there's a lot of familiarity and "like"ness affiliated with the specific mechanics of D&D, but they're having to use different mechanics because they don't have the rights to the d20 system. It's kind of hard to sort of rewrite a rulesystem while not-copying it, but still maintain the exact same feel. Still, it's an admirable goal, and a good encouragement. And, for the record, I wasn't trying to burn you at the stake or anything. Just encouraging people to focus on what can be changed, and not on the pre-emptive judgement of failure, etc., is all.

Out of those two options, I much prefer the first. Once you've fought so many Foe X's, you just don't really gain anything from fighting more. Of course, that's strictly a simulation (if not a perfect one) of gaining XP through doing. So, the game would still be ridiculously inconsistent if lockpicking and crafting, etc. (all the things the abstract XP and level-ups represent progress in) didn't also produce diminishing XP-per-activity-performed. And, in comparison to that option, I much prefer the objective XP approach, in which XP rewards are given for your choice's/action's relevance to the story/game world, as dictated by the story/game world itself, and not just by some isolated evaluation of whether or not your character "achieved" something related to simulated progress for the sake of progress.

The beta's also a very small portion of the whole game. That you can avoid plenty of lions in the beta doesn't mean you'll just get to avoid lions always, in the whole game. Not to mention the fact that it's a beta, and things (including placements of foes) will most likely change in unknown-at-this-time ways. You've got a point, here, about not knowing how many of Foe X you'll encounter in the future, and about XP rewards being more useful the earlier you can get them. Which is one reason why I don't think Bestiary XP is the best way to go. However, that still doesn't mean it's inherently more compelling to grind for that XP versus any other system. In a regular per-kill-XP system, you don't know how many more enemies you'll encounter in the game, without meta-knowledge. Why wouldn't that be encouragement to kill what you can, when you can? There's no "need" for grinding even with the bestiary XP design. There are simply reasons why you could benefit from some "grinding." That's no different in WL2. Arbitrarily stating that you didn't feel like you had to kill everything lends no support to the argument about the effects of an XP system's potential rewards, and the potential behaviors to reap those rewards. WL2 has a much higher level cap than PoE, and even "reswpawning" (unlimited) random encounters, with guaranteed XP for every single enemy death. Somehow, bestiary XP is evil and compels grinding, but WL2 is totally fine and doesn't encourage it at all? That's what you seem to be saying, so correct me if it isn't. (I'm not telling you "YOU'RE SAYING THIS," in other words. So we can avoid taking that turn in the discussion.) Anywho, like I said, I don't think bestiary XP is an exceptionally good idea or anything. I've said some stuff about it already, in here, I believe (hard to keep track, what with so many threads talking about the same things). And I'll gladly go to town with you on breaking down exactly why it's bad, if you'd like.

I think we should all get grognard plushies. Or, you know... pillows with lifetime warranties. They could just be called Pillers of Eternity. 6_u

Either that, or just have some kind of press-and-hold toggle key to display status information above characters' heads. And/or show it while paused. That and engagements/targets, etc. You could have quite extensive visual indicators for all this, and just only show them when you're actually, voluntarily thinking "Hmm, hang on... lemme see who all's attacking whom, again, at the moment. *Pause/press-key*" Then, have intuitive "this guy just engaged this guy" cues in combat, when things happen, so that you don't have to get all your info from pausing and looking at the extremely verbose while-paused indicators.

YES! At the very least, finding out what they have available for the take should incur some sort of check. The huge problem with the Fallout system is that you get to freely browse their pockets, somehow without touching them or arousing suspicion in the slightest. Then, it only checks when you move something. And you can take a friggin' assault rifle from them without anyone noticing. Ideally, there would be some representation of bulkier items being more difficult to take, etc. At least some kind of difficulty range, with indicators, even.

Well... let's just never try anything that might not possibly be perfect on the first go. Also, the game is still not finalized. You can't tell someone they failed an obstacle course when they're halfway through. Unless they died or something... Slowness and number of iterations hardly matters in light of the proper results. I have no issue with people voicing complaints about the current state of the game, but they're still working on the game. Maybe spend less time deciding they've failed and more time making objective (aka useful) arguments as to why things should be changed, and how. Whether they change it or not is beyond our control, but constantly going "OH god... this dinner's gonna be burned" when it's still in the oven is both pointless and disrespectful.

Not quite. Because, A) you have other reasons to kill those creatures (if you end up killing 5 beetles, for example, while completing some main story/quest/objective, then it's impossible to have "ground" those beetles, unless you consider just playing the game at all to be "grinding" for the game's completion, in which case, you should probably just play games you actually like at that point). and... B) the amount of creatures you need to kill for that one-off XP reward will be SIGNIFICANTLY fewer than all the creatures of that type in the whole game. So, you're not really encourage to just run off and grind through all the creatures you see. That being said, I'm not advocating it as a fantastic idea. Just pointing out that it doesn't really inherently lead to any more grinding than could be had with any other system. I really think objectives should simply be used in conjunction with the placement of both combat encounters and other objectives in order to allow for combat encounters to frequently directly contribute to XP rewards. Bestiary XP is still a little wonky. It at least represents the combat, but still only a really small portion, and still only rather arbitrarily.

This. It works in games like Diablo, where the constant progression is essentially the core of the game. Doesn't really work when you make stats a 99% permanent, representative-of-the-actual-measure-of-a-person-thing. It's not an inherently bad thing. But, it's kind of like 1st-person versus 3rd-person view. Giving Eternity 1st-person view would be pretty preposterous. So, just because first-person view is nice, and fun, doesn't mean it's a fit for this game's design. Same with anything more than quite-rare stat gains. The more you gain stats, the more pointless this specific design for the stats becomes.

Is anyone else noticing by the weird graphics? I am aware it is a screenshot, but the character models are not precisely defined. For instance it's hard to tell apart the two models on the left. Where does the blue character end and where does the enemy behind him start? Everything looks very 'fuzzy'/blurry. Also the left character looks like he has a transparent left leg. Yeah... Methinks the characters need to be treated slightly (the key word here being "slightly") different from the environment. I dunno if they need a subtle "outline" (like an edge shadow or something), or what. But, they need enough contrast to be clearly defined as individual character shapes on the screen plane, without just goofily standing out everywhere they go. Also, it's not so bad in that grass (as it seems to sort of envelope their feet), but on flat ground, I think they still need darker/more-concentrated shadows right around their feet, to connect them more to the ground. Also also... keep on' a-polishin'! We muchly appreciate your dedication to making sure the game has a nice sheen to it, ^_^

You are a lost cause... getting xp for combat is not grinding xp... grinding is a process the players partakes in, with a specific goal in mind. Getting xp for kills is just a mechanic. You can grind kills for xp, just as you can grind quests for xp. It ultimately comes down to the how the mechanics are implemented in the game, (whether or not it's encouraged or practical to grind in the first place) and the what the player decides to do with them. The key is the "always" part. No one ever said "Oh man, I had to grind through that whole main narrative just to get to max level and beat the game!". Grinding is when you repetitively partake in an activity that grants some kind of useful reward for every single iteration of that activity, solely for the purpose of obtaining a constant stream of that useful reward until you've gotten "enough" of it. Take out the "always," and grinding isn't even an option anymore, much less any degree of necessary. If you're not directly simulating the gain of actual combat experience from every iteration of combat (aka if your XP system isn't simulating that idea across the board), then there's no reason why only objectively significant bouts of combat shouldn't grant XP. It's not about combat XP automatically being grinding. It's not about anyone being compelled to kill every single living creature on the planet, even. It's just about consistency in the XP system. If I can't go around lying to everyone in town, and gain XP for every lie I successfully tell -- only the ones that actually get me past the guards into the castle, or convince someone to not-start-a-war, etc. -- then I shouldn't get XP for putting a sword through some never-hurt-anyone wolf in the woods, just because I'd like to walk through the space where it's standing.

All the PoE XP system really needs is some iterative evaluation and tweaking. If you microwave a bowl of food, and it's still cold in the middle, then you put it back in the microwave. You don't change the food, or insist that you must obviously use something other than heat to cook it, since it didn't come out perfectly. The objective XP concept works fine. It just needs to be hashed out better, and "trash" mobs need to be better positioned relative to actual objectives, etc. It's no different from anything else, like treasure chests, etc. If you fight your way all the way to a treasure chest glittering with magical gemstones, and you puzzle out how to open it, and it contains enough riches for your entire stronghold to survive for a year, then you obviously don't need to ALSO find a big bag of XP there for you. Same with combat. If hacking your way through some hostile creatures actually gets you something (access to a place of pertinence, nice/useful loot, the completion of some other quest-type/related objective, etc.), then you're already getting XP, even if not just for the simple act of hacking some living creature to death. No, you can't make someone fight 73 battles, THEN give them a bunch of XP because all those 73 battles led up to that one objective. That's a frequency issue, clearly. But, that's not "objective XP"s fault. That's "we didn't do this as well as we should have"s fault. So you do the same thing, but better, and keep tweaking that 'til you get it nice and functional. Then, the only people who are unhappy are the people who are going completely out of their way just to hack some beetles to death that weren't doing anyone any harm, then going "WHY DID I DO THAT WITHOUT HAVING A REASON TO DO THAT?! WHY U NO PROVIDE REASON, OBSIDIAN?!" I know it's a lot of work and effort to go through a whole game and design that out nicely, but it's not really conceptually very difficult. Whether you call it that or not, you're deeming things "accomplishments" or "objectives" from the get-go. I mean, why does killing one guy get you 1,000 XP, just because he was a bandit lord, and killing another guy only gets you 100? It's not because that guy was literally 10-times-as-difficult as the other guy. It's because of the very idea of significant/narrative-pertinent accomplishments and achieved "objectives." Thus is the nature of RPGs. I don't think people who invented PnP gaming before there were computer/video games sat around DMing campaigns in which their players just all arbitrarily ran around in the wilderness to purposely encounter hostile things, just so they could say "Oh, it's hostile! I'm overcoming it!", then went "GOOD JOB, GUYS! You're doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING here, but at least things are dying, so... huge XP rewards for everyone! 8D!" No, the foundation of PnP gaming is significant choices. Here's a situation, what do you do, as your character? Oh? Wow, that was neat. Have some extra XP for that. Not "Oh, good job, you finally killed you fought, then rested, then fought, then rested until you killed your 70th goblin in a row. Now you're level 3 already, and there hasn't been any point to any of this except the thrill of watching dice come up in 'hit' ranges and the joy of receiving XP! 8D!" Basically, if you're actually playing the game, you should be completing what would be deemed "objectives" (argue semantics all you like). If this is true, then the extremely-boiled-down key is just don't have a linear game. Do I have to do only very, very specific things to tackle objectives? Or do I get awesome choices, and varied, spiffy outcomes depending on my choices (both short-term AND long)? And lastly, is there any general playstyle/choice-set that the game is suggesting is perfectly feasible, but that doesn't even let me reach the level cap, which I must reach to keep up with the inherent progression of difficulty that flows through the main narrative? If all those things are handled then you're fine. And, if that's the case, then you shouldn't be worried about what happens if you're dicking around, not actually handling any objectives. I get that, as it stands, with all of those NOT handled, way too much stuff falls into the "not actually handling objectives" category. Which is the problem. Not the very concept of marking things as objectives relevant to your game world and the whole purpose of the game's gameplay.

That doesn't really help in a game with a level cap. Also, the build that IS over-powered, when it grinds some more XP, is going to remain proportionately over-powered in comparison to your bad build. Unless you somehow only allow the bad builds to grind some more XP. 8P

Degenerate design is design that goes against its own idea. It is not "oh, you did something, and I don't think people should play the game like that." People referencing that term as if it's just "When you think no one should ever play as a Ranger... playing a Ranger is now 'degenerate.'" I'm not saying some people don't mean that by it. But, I'm sorry... if someone's going to actually argue that you simply shouldn't do something purely because they don't think you should, that's just silly and no one should give them the time of day. Even if that person's advocating the same thing I am, I'm still going to tell that person that their argument is null. Also, I think the biggest problem with this discussion (and why I've seen about 73 repeat arguments/responses from every new person who joins in) is that there's an awful lot of over-shooting going on in here. If someone advocates combat XP, there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean "Obviously you just want a bunch of XP for killing innocent children in the streets, and also you don't want people who don't kill to ever get XP." When someone points out that killing always giving XP would mean that people who fight lots of optional fights will be way ahead of the game, they don't mean "OMG, everyone should get EXACTLY the same amount of XP, no matter what they do." Etc. The truth is, nothing in the game should generate XP every single time you do it, UNLESS it's the simulationy system of actually improving that thing you're doing whenever yo do it. That's not hate for kills. That's just general design. In this XP system, there's no reason for every death you create to generate XP. Going back to overshooting, that doesn't mean that NO death you create should ever grant XP. The entire focus of this type of system is choice, as related to actual role-playing of your characters in a narrative setting. That's the very reason that quests give you XP. If you solve a problem for someone, why does that give you XP, when sometimes all you did was a lot of thinking and running around? Why does successfully convincing the magistrate of this peasant's legitimate claim to nobility somehow give you XP? Should you get XP every time you convince anyone of anything? Because the sheer act of using that skill successfully should give you XP? No. It's the same with killing. By design, XP and leveling just happens to be a part of the game, because it's an RPG. You could just as easily make a medieval fantasy tactical combat game with absolutely no leveling system whatsoever, and combat would just be one of the challenges you overcome in the game to progress and play the game. Then, you wouldn't get XP for ANYTHING, much less combat. And combat wouldn't be pointless. So, no, just because there's XP in the game, and there's combat in the game, doesn't mean combat is useless unless it always grants you XP. XP does not legitimize combat. That being said, It's perfectly fine for combat success to generate XP. Sometimes. Why it does when it does is kind of what makes an RPG an RPG, and not just a "do things and get better for no reason" game. That's what separates an actual RPG from a typical MMORPG. Why do you level up in an MMO? So that you can kill better things, and get better loot. Why do you kill better things and get better loot? So that you can level up... and so on. I understand how character improvement for improvement's sake is enjoyable, but that doesn't mean some developer who's making an RPG is obligated to make sure you have the ability to do that. There are plenty of games out there that require you to actually produce some significant results with your actions before actually rewarding you with anything other than the enjoyment of gameplay itself. Also, people keep saying how mind-blown they are that every-single-kill-XP would be not included in a "combat-centric" game. Well, when combat's "centric" to the game, that means that most of the stuff you're doing is going to be directly linked to combat. Meaning, even if you're not getting XP specifically for the act of combat, you're going to be getting XP for a lot more of the things you're accomplishing... things which, because of the pervasiveness of combat, are going to require combat. I realize that doesn't cover purely-optional encounters, but, again, those don't inherently need to be covered with XP, any more than any other action needs to (trap-disarming, lock-picking, convincing people of things in dialogue, etc.). The key here is the significance of what you're doing. There are plenty of situations in which fighting/killing and talking/sneaking/doing-anything-that-isn't-fighting-or-killing can yield significantly different results. Then, if you're deciding what gets XP and what doesn't (and how much you get) based on the results of your choices/actions, then there are plenty of opportunities for combat to produce significantly different results, and therefore significantly different XP, than some other option. And vice versa.

'Tis. I like a lot of the things in the PnP Shadowrun ruleset. It does some interesting stuff. Like... Initiative and turns and all that jazz. And extra combat/spell dice pools. Annnnnnywho, . /digress

Nah, you're not hijacking the thread. Just providing info useful to the discussion, . The main thing, I suppose, is that, whatever's intended needs to be accomplished. Now, I sincerely hope that we'll be allowed to move at least some while still engaged. I kinda thought that was the point of engagement radii not just being like... the length of a character's forearm. That, and it's a simulation at-heart. In general, it's simulating the fact that you can't simply jog away from someone who's actively fighting you with a sword and shield, and get away scott free, guaranteed. So, IF it's intended that any-and-all movement invokes an AoO, well... I believe that's a bit counter-productive. The "problem" was with the Fighter's ability to do something significant in battle that others couldn't. Namely, actually "tie up" enemies in melee combat. Three instead of one. And that, in most games, everyone can kind of just jog past, if they really want to. Sure, they'll get attacked, but that's about it. So, it seems like the rules of engagement really need to reflect that idea, and not more than that idea. Being locked into place just because someone's within a certain range of you is a bit overly restrictive, and goes beyond the idea that just, if a Fighter runs out to meet you in melee combat, you're going to have to do a lot more to deal with him than just run-on-past and take one free hit. *shrug*. Maybe we'll get an update on this? Obviously there are some bugs at the moment, regardless of whatever the current goal of the system is.