Lephys

Whether or not it's my opinion is irrelevant. I'm obviously not going to state something that differs from my opinion, so that's kind of a given. But, more importantly, my claim either holds true or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then I'm perfectly willing to know that. But, as far as I can tell, it does. Also, you forgot to say anything that refuted what I said.

Well, that and, it's not like the Kickstarter campaign was "give us a bunch of money, then we'll figure out what kind of game to make, from scratch! 8D!" They pitched an existing design, and it didn't say anything about romance. It's unfortunate, but every single instance of "I backed expecting this, but I didn't get it!" amounts to "too bad. You should've asked more questions before you backed." It's not mean, it's just fact.

You could "beetle wing" the edges of the shields together, to smash fingers and hands and arms, etc. 8D!

What's degenerate play is to need so desperately to be able to kill things and get XP for them that you can't enjoy the game without getting XP for every single thing you slay, because it bugs you so badly. That in no way supports the roleplaying of a character in an actual world (at least to some degree), which is what separates this kind of RPG from, say, Diablo. The funny thing is, the problem would technically be "solved" if you just removed the "problem" mobs. Then, the issue would be "Why aren't there any beetles just standing around in the woods, so that I might slay them and get XP?!" In which case, what availability of killable XP factories is acceptable? That's what the point of Sawyer's contention, is, I think. It's degenerate to say "To hell with the rest of game design. Stuff gives you XP, BECAUSE!"

For what it's worth, they said that anything sent by the 22nd will be honored, even if they don't get to it until after then.

I guess always getting away with it, in the moment, doesn't mean that no one ever realizes what you've done afterwards. For example, if you keep convincing people you're someone else, they'll probably eventually find out you're not that person, but they still won't know exactly who you are. Of course, then I guess you couldn't really develop that reputation. *shrug*. I guess they could describe you, unless you used elaborate disguises.

Having combat XP wouldn't allow you to anticipate level ups any better, unless you somehow psychically knew how many enemies there'd be in an area, and where they all are, and how much XP they'll grant, all before-hand. Also, just because the current state of the system isn't perfect doesn't mean throwing combat XP back in will fix everything. Or, to put it another way, there can be a problem without that problem simply being "there's no combat XP for every kill I make." And there is a problem. Right now, it's not working like they want it to, exactly. And even once it is, it'll probably still need some tweaking.

It isn't a lot, but it basically automatically represents a lot of people? How does that work, exactly? I mean, when they say "9 out of 10 doctors recommend this," I don't think they mean that they just asked 10 doctors about it and called it a day.

Or traps. 8P

Pointing out why kill XP isn't supported by logic and pointing out why the omission of kill XP is logically okay are the exact same thing. So, it's funny how one minute later, we talk about the same thing we were already talking about? Also, you can apply logic to it all day long. Why the hell said you couldn't? Just, when you apply logic to it, you get the same result of "this doesn't really make sense like that." Logic isn't dependent upon realism, either. In the absence of the ability to perfectly simulate everything in the game, it is logical to have things abstractly represent the real world. Otherwise, our options would be "make the perfect simulation, or nothing at all." After that, it's just consistency. Thus, "But you really get experience when you fight things!" isn't consistent with the fact that you don't actually improve your Stealth and Lore skills when slaying beetles, etc. Also, Stun, I would very much like it if you could argue with me, personally, when you quote and respond to me, instead of melding everything anyone else on "my side" has ever said.

No no, it's fine. It's just really easy for us to sort of connect things that don't need connecting, and that's happening a bit throughout the discussion, is all. I mean, clearly, the current, right-this-moment state of the XP system needs improvement. And yes, per-kill XP is fun, and has been fun in many a game. But, first off, I don't think the goal of objective XP is to eliminate any and all combat-related XP. But... I just don't think the approach is the problem, here. I enjoy the discussion, too, and simply wish to see it bear fruit.

I thought that actually delving into reasons for your character's choices and actions within the game world, as opposed to just defaulting to points for action, was one of the things that separated the RPG genre from, say, the action-shooter genre. I don't see why it's annoying that the game utilize motivations other than "They're worth points, man!" for things like killing random "threatening" (if you go screw with them) creatures in the woods. Obviously if everyone in the game wanted 10 (insert animal part here)s, things would get a bit dull. But, I suspect that was just a simple example of the approach, and not a creed by which the game should live its life.

@Zansatsu, It is selective logic. Was it just arbitrarily determined that that would be an acceptable compromise, as opposed to some other compromise? No. There was a reason. Just like there's a reason for wanting the XP in the first place. Which, on that note, I don't think only one group of people deserves to "get the XP they want." But, there's got to be a better reason than just wanting it to do something a specific way. Here's how I see it: There are 2 options: -Award XP for literally everything you do. -Award XP for only some things you do. The latter is, essentially, objective XP. So, unless you want the former, I don't see how objective XP is inherently problematic. Basically, I don't see how "let's make sure everything you kill gives you some XP, except for occasionally, when we manually determine whether or not it should give you XP" is somehow better than "Let's represent all your choices and solutions with XP, based on it being deemed a significant choice/action/solution." That, and, based on the entire ideology behind quest XP "you did something significant, and therefore get this XP, which abstractly represents the experience you gained for handling this situation", I don't see why every action you take has some inherent need to be represented with a direct XP reward. I don't think it's a crime that there are some beetles in the woods that you COULD fight, but wouldn't get XP for. I think it's a crime if they're just everywhere in the entire game, and you never, ever get any XP. It's all about the particulars. It could be simple, really. Maybe they could have exploration-based objectives, such that many of the places that would count for this would require combat. You could get to some of them without it, but others, you'd HAVE to fight through this pass, etc. to get to the other side, or to explore the pass. Something like that. Because, honestly, getting 50 XP every single time you kill a beetle just doesn't make any sense. If I make Jello pudding 700 times, do I become a master of the culinary arts? No. In fact, the FIRST time you make Jello pudding is by far the most significant time. After that, you can hone your muscle memory and familiarity with the process, etc., but it's not going to be equivalent to entire level-ups worth of XP, like in typical RPGs. It's just a fun "Yay, I'm progressing!" thing. It was highly adjustable in D&D. Your DM decided whether or not what you did was significant. And, as others pointed out, you often got rewarded for being efficient/clever, rather than just putting yourself through hell.

I'm not trying to arbitrarily criticize here. I realize that simplicity and intuitiveness is the ideal. But, at the same time, I just don't think that "each of these is a good decision, in its own way, but you can't max them all" is somehow flawed in design.

But then, how do you check stats in dialogues/situations? "[Damage: 14] I will smash your skull in! *You smash his skull in*"? That's the functional difference; pseudo-simulationist stats represent more than just those raw combat/mechanics-related values. *shrug* Would you have two sets? Or would you do it a different way, perhaps, that I haven't yet thought of?

I'm unclear on exactly what was confusing about that. Could you specify?

@Webslinger, Just sharing info, for whatever its worth. You do with it as you see fit.

Honestly, I think unless you actually finish "using" it, you shouldn't lose it. I mean, if I'm going to summon a fireball, and it takes me 5 seconds, and I'm 1-second in, I don't understand what I've lost if I get interrupted at that point. In D&D lore, it was the mental preparation of the spell. But, in PoE lore, there's nothing that says "Oh no, you lost your place in the middle of a spell! NOW IT'S GONE!" No, it's in your spellbook. You just can only cast so many times per day because of what the book can handle, and what I guess your body can handle, etc. So, *Shrug*. I dunno. You already get, what, a 2-second delay, then have to restart the spell cast? I think that's plenty. Unless the spell is actually at the end of its casting, I don't think you should lose it just because you "began" casting it, and took an arrow to the knee. Also, if there aren't currently many channeled spells, this would be a good factor for them. If you have a spell that does something each second for 6 seconds, well, if THAT gets interrupted, you've lost the spell and had its effectiveness cut off. Stuff like that, I think, would make Resolve vs. interrupts a lot more important. *Shrug*

I remember discussing this some time back, and I thought it was a pretty good idea. You've got to think... you'd have to adjust your Health ALL the way down to 1/4th of your Stamina before you'd hit the floor of pointlessness. I'm just talking conceptually, there. Nothing says you can't place restrictions on the adjustments. But, it would be interesting to have someone with 80 Health and 60 Stamina, or 60 Health and 80 Stamina, methinks. That seems like a very good dynamic to play off of, if you ask me.

Yeah, I mean, "Hey, Fighter, go handle the frontlines!" is the general role of the Fighter, but that doesn't mean it's just "let him take a crapton of damage so other people don't, and call it a day." There are still tactics to employ to mitigate the amount of damage your Fighter takes, etc. Plus, we're playing without talents right now. Or, the majority of them. The beta starts you at Level 5, but doesn't give you 5 levels worth of Talents. There might be talents that serve a huge role towards mitigating Fighter Health-loss/damage-taken.

Here's what I don't comprehend: Arguing "the act of besting something in combat should yield XP! Because combat yields experience! It was a challenge! Etc.!" Followed by "It's 100% fine if, after I complete a quest that grants me XP, then totally separately decide I want to best those people in combat, the game doesn't give me any XP, even though I've just overcome a combat challenge, u_u." Such selective logic, we have. For the record, only having the kill award XP if whatever it would accomplish wasn't already accomplished is the very definition of objective XP. None of this means that "the current state of the system in the beta's fine! It's objective XP, so it doesn't matter how its done, 8D! There's only ONE objective -- Beat The Game -- and it takes you from level 1 to level 12? That's 100% great, because it's objective XP! 8D!" There's definitely a problem, and it needs to be solved. The actual solution is more important than justifying a system switch. You can slap per-kill XP into the current system all day, and it still has to be tweaked out the wazz to get it to solve the problem. I think an easier solution is simply to incorporate combat into more of the objectives. Whether that's broadening the list of things that count as objectives, or simply having existing objectives represent more existing combat elements, etc. Again, per-kill XP is just objective XP with an objective slapped on every single living organism that can be fought. If we agree that there are times when something dying really shouldn't give you any XP, then why not just tweak the objectives to cover that?

... You only have 6 choices. Plenty of other games not only have more stats than that, but also more individual effects from each stat. It's really not that hard. It's like classes. When you see a class list, do you think "Hmm... which one's the BEST one?", or do you just think "Hmm... which one would I like to play the most?"? If you prefer the effects of INT, you boost INT. If you'd just like to do awesome raw damage when you hit, boost Might. etc. Just like "pick any class you want." No one gets confused and gives up at class choice, so why should 6 stats that all provide good benefits (I understand the system needs a little tweaking, but they've already acknowledged that, and that's what beta data is for) be paralyzing via choice overload?

I think you'd sincerely appreciate some patience. They just told you they're working on stuff as fast as they can. Jeez...

No price will ever prevent a human being from opting to assume something based on zero information.

That's not entirely true. Max Might does not = max combat effectiveness. There are other factors related to your combat effectiveness. The easiest (but not only other) example is Dexterity. If you have 4 Dexterity (and therefore horrible Accuracy), and max your Might, you get +... what, 30-something % damage output? Sure. But, what does that matter when the majority of your attacks are misses or grazes, and you hardly ever critical anything? Do we need to make sure all the factors are feasibly "balanced" in terms of stat significance? Yes. I'm not saying none of it matters at all. But, Might doesn't automatically equal "you're the best! 8D!". I mean, as far as healing goes, INT matters a lot, if you're using AoE heals. If you hit a smaller area and miss a person, but heal for more, that's a significant difference from hitting a huge area for a bit less healing. etc.