Lephys

Giving the Fighter the ability to replenish a bit of Health after a fight is over seems like a good option. That way, they're not regenerating Health during the battle (they're still limited by a static Health pool during the fight), but you still mitigate the "you're probably going to take 1,000 more hits than anyone else during battle" issue with low health after every fight. *shrug*. There are other options, but I think this one should go on the list, at least.

Bummer... Either that, or, at pretty significant choices, you can dilly around for a minute while the chat comes up with feedback for you. I know a lot of people on there set up really quick polls, and link to them in chat, etc. That way, people: A) don't waste time telling you stuff you're not even considering doing at all, and B) can quickly and efficiently pitch their choice to you.

Self-control is great, but you really shouldn't be forced to exercise it, by a game that's all "this game is designed to support however you feel like playing your character! Look at all those equally viable choices!". It's very similar to the whole "good character vs. bad character" thing in all the simple alignment/morality-based RPGs. 90% of the time, being good through the whole game objectively nets you oodles more benefits than being bad. So, the option to be bad is kind of a slap in the face. Might as well put in the option to wield a GIANT sword, but it takes 73 seconds to swing it. But, if you swing it, it does 9,000 damage to everything within 30 yards. That's silly. It's so lop-sided, it's not even practical. Why even put that choice on the table? With kill-XP and the like, it's more minor. But, as I've pointed out, it's not exclusive to killing. Trap-disarming, using dialogue options, etc. The game's supposed to promote the handling of situations, and progress. Not just sandbox simulation for its own sake. Besides... if I were really gonna make a game with per-action XP in, performing the SAME action would produce less and less XP over time. What I mean is, that first goblin you kill? It would give you 50XP, let's say. The second one? 40. The third? 30. Same with traps. That 10th bear trap you disarm's going to net you like 1XP. Until finally it just won't give you any. The whole point in all this is that it's not at all feasible for the system to simulate you getting XP for EVERY single instance of some action performed. Objective XP is one way to handle that. It's not the only way, but it is a way. It still has to be done right. That's another thing I think some folks don't get. You don't just take Baldur's Gate, strip out the kill-XP, and call it a day. "YAY! SOLVED!" No. You build the game around the idea that all your possible actions will be abstractly represented only by certain objectives that are marked as significant. Between that, and how many other rewards there are available for per-kill rewards, it's perfectly feasible to design the game not to screw over people who like to fight everything with a pulse. The other thing is... it's perfectly okay for everything in the game world to not be extinct by the end of the game. If you play a PnP campaign, there are essentially infinite wolves and the like. Why? Because you're not just killing all living things in the entire area. You just happen to encounter, at that point in time, some wolves. The mechanics don't need to encourage your party to slay all the things. There's just no reason for it. It's not that you can't be encouraged to slay things. Just not all the things. Not-slaying some things should be a perfectly valid choice. In a lot of games, if you don't do that, you're missing out. And that's what objective XP is all about. It's just a different way of representing the same thing. It's not about making sure people who like combat don't ever get anything. The XP's abstractly handled, either way, and Objective XP just tries to handle it a little better, is all.

Dopple on, ganger. Dopple on...

@Grand_Commander13, Following your line of reasoning, since a game could never not benefit from an infinite amount of potential improvement in non-multiplayer areas, there's never a valid scenario in which it's okay to actually spend resources on multiplayer. I think that's what Bryy's getting at. At some point, you've got plenty of game in your game, and it's acceptable to add something that isn't strictly necessary, without that choice being penalized for somehow detracting from what you could've done with the game.

The lack of delay? As in, the default "you're not a partner yet" setting is "Have fun with a 1-minute delay"? I can't ask my friend yet, btw. He's asleep right now. He works the night shift. He'll be in in a couple of hours.

Stupid Pacific Time Steam activation... When I got Fallout New Vegas at midnight, my time, I had to wait 2 hours just to actually play it. 8P Not really a big deal. It just irks me. Heaven forbid someone play the game an hour before someone else, because of friggin' time zones.

@Amentep, Yeah, I know what you mean about the outcome. I didn't state it or anything, but the binary choice to which I was referring was more so the player's choice between outcomes (what ultimate options are actually available to you). But, it would obviously still be dumb to have 5 outcomes, but only 2 actual in-the-moment choices. So... both. But, yeah, that's the thing. I mean, quests are the same way. They tend to be lamest when they're just "either do this, or don't do this." But, when you get "I need my crops to stop dying," and you can either immunize his crops against the problem, OR go cut out the root of the problem, OR acquire him some land elsewhere so that he isn't affected by the problem, etc... That's a lot more interesting, from the player's perspective. There's a lot more to do, a lot more things affecting what you can or cannot do, etc. And a lot more specifics to the various outcomes, even though "the farmer gets to stop having dying crops" is always a common aspect of all the positive outcomes, that's doesn't make them all the same outcome. I'd really like to see that applied to romances. They're always very linearly designed. "If you do this, this, or this, you get + points. If you don't do those things at key places, you either miss out on points, or you lose points depending on what you didn't do. OR, if you do bad things, you lose out on points. After every so often, the points = new love level." It's SO basic. Then, someone like Bioware dresses it all up with full voice-acting and current-gen graphics. The core is still just a piddly love-o-meter, with options to increase it strewn throughout the game.

@Bryy, If you're using Twitch, I don't think that 1-minute delay is supposed to be standard. I could be wrong, though. My friend watches a lot of Twitch streams, and they seem to be doing things in the game, AND talking about them with the people in chat, relatively lag-free (maybe a second or two). Of course, they're all pretty big streamers, so maybe until you're a money-receiving level of streamer, you have the evil lag? *shrug* I can ask him. He wants to start streaming on some kind of regular basis, so he's researched it a bit, specifically with Twitch.

I really kinda wish Perception affected it. In concept. Of course, if you've got a party of 6, then odds are, someone's got high Perception. In which case, as long as they're standing nearby, their sight range will effectively override lesser-Perception-members' sight ranges. *shrug* Still. It'd be nice if your 18 PER ranger could see 1.5X as far as anyone else in your party.

Clearly the dev team's animators arbalest with magnificent skill! 6_u

I sure am glad I posted that link to the Objective XP thread, like 8 pages ago, so that this thread didn't get derailed... Oh, wait. Oh well... some good (albeit stubborn) discussion in here, nonetheless. ^_^

There should be a [Haughty] disposition for dialogue options that increases the size of your head when Big Head Mode is turned on.

Seems fine. If your characters can easily see it, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to easily see it as well. But if they can't, you shouldn't be able to. I give it two puns up.

I'm gonna play a Chanter named Sandal. "CHANTMENT!" Not really. I'm'a be a Weezard. STEP ASIDE, ALOTH, and taketh notes! Notes... I should've used that line with a Chanter companion. Pun opportunity, MISSED!

MOBAs feature such a hyper-active level of tactical play that I'm not certain there isn't just as much of a disconnect between those games and this one as there is a similarity in the first place. I'm not saying "No one who plays MOBAs will like PoE." I just don't think the MOBA crowd is somehow THE go-to demographic for PoE enthusiasm. Honestly, I think PoE just needs to be well-advertised for what it is, and people will decide if they like it or not. Part of the problem with the current gaming populous is how reliant a lot of them are on being told which games they will like because of which games they like. So now, whenever something's 3% different from what they're used to, or what they expect, they just freak out. "TURN-based?! OMG... I'm not even going to try that!" ... "ICE cream?! Ewwww! You say it's tasty, but, I dunno... it looks funny!" *Shrug*. I think the purpose of marketing is actually just to make sure all the people who happen to like what your product entails don't fail to know about it, or to know it well enough to actually come to the realization that they feel it's worth the purchase. Not to just take a product, and go out into the world, find people who are potential profit-contributers, and convince them they want your product. I get that you want a good image and all, and you don't want to waste time on demographics that just naturally don't coincide with your product's goal, etc. But... the focus has just shifted ridiculously toward "Make things, then GET people to want them." Instead of just making things people want, and making sure as many people as possible who want those things, know about them.

Well, blood's in the game, so I guess there won't be pet names? Oh, that wasn't a logical "OR" statement... 8P

Yeah, but a lack of focused, single-player RPGs and an abundance of unnecessary/forced multiplayer are two separate problems. In a game like this, 2-player co-op functionality is all that would be needed. No extra game mode, no huge match-hosting servers, etc. So, it's extra resources, yeah. But it's not an "omg, singleplayer focus will ONLY be ruined if we put multiplayer in!" amount of them.

I wouldn't say anything, but, very, very little. It is, indeed, a good thing. Unless you ask a number of folks who just want to play the whole game early. I believe they also demanded a golden goose egg, and said they wanted one RIGHT NOW.

Jennifer Hale has voiced every female character in every game, ever, I'm pretty sure. I think she started her career as the voice of Mrs. Pacman, who didn't even have a voice. I think Seth Green needs to voice a character in every game, for what it's worth. Joker was, by far, the best Mass Effect character. Sure, the extent of the post-mission game-world progression was just "we'll all make slightly different comments about recent events if you talk to us after every mission." But talking to Joker as often as possible was SO worth it.

Good catch, 5anitybane! I kind of took over the relaying of title requests after the order already had 600 or so members. I've been double-checking new requests, but hadn't thought to check the existing list. I shall pass this on to the Great Green One,

See, that's a completely different, and perfectly reasonable, statement. Wasn't so hard, was it? I, too, hope for this, but have no idea just how valuable beetle loot, in whatever form it takes, may be in the land of Eora.

All the baggage in the world doesn't change the fact that betas come in all shapes and sizes. Or the fact that, if you decide to spend your money on an assumption, you already know you might not be correct about what you think you're getting for your money. I realize that the tiers made it quite clear what was in them... I was talking about what you're getting with beta access, specifically (the topic of this entire thread), not "what all items are included in your tier pledge." So, I don't think you got what I was saying, and the comparison's terribleness is now suspect.

You're awfully sure of things, to have so little information. Perhaps they are a delicacy to a certain culture/group of people? Made all the more rare and worthwhile by the evident difficulty of slaying them for their meaty goodness.

Indeed, your question does belong here, which is why I said nothing to the contrary. I was just letting you know about the thread, since you seemed to have more to say about the issue beyond just the question.