Lephys

Wrong. You shouldn't need XP just to enjoy your choices. In the presence of an XP-based leveling/progression system, however, you should get XP for doing things. But it's not to justify the doing of those things. It's not as if starting the game with a level 12 party and never getting any XP for anything would result in a pointless game. It would simply lack what an advancement system brings to the table, but there's still plenty of game there, without XP entirely. None of that means "you should never get XP."

I think the XP gained is supposed to be directly proportional to the calories burned doing whatever it is you did. Also, I think this currently has its own thread.

I agree. I wasn't saying "Slap it in!". I was only pointing out that the specific instance of fictional elves for which that design was drafted might very well chuckle at our idea of what is and is not a hindrance.

Indeed, Caerdon. It's like saying "Don't put companions in the game, because I want to play the game solo!"

The lag's minute?! That's fantastic! Oh... oh wait... A minute. Nevermind. 8S

Please know that for every person that might be compelled to complain about the delay, there are two who applaud you guys in your efforts in the face of your limitations. We know you guys are working very hard and going through a lot just to accommodate us, and we greatly appreciate it. Also, because I have to... I think you guys should start a newspaper-style blog to update us on the status of things. As per this thread's title, it could be called... The Support Ticket Times. 6_u (Not really... but "really" on the assurance/appreciation, ^___^)

That's a fantastic concept, and it's great in practice in PnP games and such. But, in a cRPG? It pretty much just gets twisted into an annoyance. I think the biggest problem is that the game isn't really designed around supporting that injury as a unique stamp on your character. So, whereas in a PnP game, it could produce all manner of splendid, meaningful consequences in various situations, in a cRPG, it just ends up being "that penalty you now have forever, until you go do this elaborate ritual to fix it... and repeat that, every single time you get maimed. OR just reload your game and skip all that." The cons greatly outweigh the pros in a cRPG. Until someone designs one otherwise.

You are correct, sir.

Seems like a perfectly relevant point to me. If you don't enjoy combat, why demand that something coax you into combat? And if you DO enjoy combat, then you're already happy with your choice to partake in it, before XP even factors into the equation. At that point, the only reason you'd be upset is if your choice to partake in as much combat as possible yielded an XP detriment as compared to other lines of choosing. Which won't be the case here, so what's the issue? Also, the reason for not always getting XP for the act of killing is the same as the reason for not always getting XP for the act of disarming traps. "I get 20XP every time I disarm a trap! 8D! Oh look! A field of bear traps! Time out, party! I don't enjoy disarming dozens of bear traps, but we're gonna scour EVERY ounce of this forest for them, and disarm every single one! THANKS, developers! Without that XP incentive, I wouldn't have had this great reason to make choices I don't enjoy in the least! ^___^"

If you explored about in such a case, would you be doing a little... soul-searching? 6_u

They're not the same. They're similar. Annnnywho... you understand, and you disagree. That's fine. No worries. I think we can both agree on the original sentiment of this thread, which is what matters more here, I suppose. The player should never have to guess the exact mechanical effect of something they're actively (and permanently) choosing for their character.

And are you a fictional fantasy race? I'm just saying... just because that armor would present obvious problems for you doesn't mean it wouldn't prove inconsequential to elves.

@Amentep, The binaryness of those choices sucks. It's often between "Eww! No! Not in a MILLION years!" and "OMG! I LUV U 4EVZ!!!" It'd be nice, just using the exact same scenario as an example, if you could actually choose between "Look, I don't hate you or anything, but I'm just not really after that" and "Never in a million years!", along with maybe a couple of in-favor-of-a-relationship-attempt options. Not just one, single track that you can either move forward or backward on. As for the rest, though, I very much agree.

I'm not trying to justify my comparison. I'm just asking a simple question. Obviously, you aren't required to answer it, but I think the toying with me is a bit uncalled for. *shrug* Also, that's a lovely re-iteration of your opinion on feat text, but, for the record, I want them to directly reference mechanics, also. I simply would like for lore descriptions, AND direct-mechanics breakdowns, where applicable. Maybe that wasn't clear from my initial statements.

*sigh*. They had a lot more funds than that. That's just all they raised in their Kickstarter campaign. Their budget for Divinity: OS is comparable to PoE's, so I wouldn't go expecting 4 times the game, if I were you. That, and Divinity was using Larian's own, already-established, in-house engine. Obsidian had to start with Unity, familiarize themselves with it, and build everything off of that. EDIT: Sorry, Flow. You beat me to it, 8P. I type too slowly.

I agree about the specific phrase "almost like." I probably shouldn't say that anymore. What I mean, I suppose, is simply "It's like." But, I don't think that says anything about a lack of usefulness in comparisons. Do you, or do you not, want your NPCs to directly reference game mechanics? And why/why not? Those answers will tell us if my comparison was useful or not.

At this rate, we should have the game bug-free by the time the 18th hits.

I don't understand the level of againstness here... With a queue, I can tell my Wizard "Cast Shield on this guy. When you're done, and as soon as you can cast again, cast Obscuring Mist over here, so our foes will be driven away from that area, so that they can see, and will lose their strategic advantage that that area offers." Without a queue, the only difference is, I have to constantly monitor my Wizard's actions, specifically, and pause to make sure he didn't stand around like an idiot, just firing off wand blasts at the nearest foe, for a couple of seconds purely because I wasn't anal enough with my manual micromanagement. A queue allows you to queue things. That's it. It doesn't force anything, it doesn't murder your family. It's not evil. What's the big deal? It's not a virus. It's just a friggin' feature. Apply these same arguments to formations, and see how silly it is. "NO! You can already pause! You should just move everyone, manually, to make sure they always stay in formation!" I mean, movement is an action. It's just a position-affecting action. Just because queuing up 5 fireballs would be moronic doesn't mean there's nothing you can do with a queue that isn't moronic.

I'm also voting for "most likely unintentional." Although, it'd be cool if there were some intentional ways to see on the other side of walls. Also... is it sad that I now want a Druid spell called "Fog of War" that produces an area of mist which bolsters your allies' fighting capabilities? ^_^ That's on up there with my D&D weapon idea -- a Length of Chain enchanted with the Command spell... The Chain of Command.

Yeah... quite often incorrectly-used? Yes. Meaningless? Not so much. If you look at stuff objectively, immersion is pretty simple: If RPGs weren't designed to objectively generate at least some immersion, then instead of that NPC saying "You must traverse the wilds of Grielsban, and hope that you manage to catch the creature unaware," etc., they'd just say "Dude, go to that quest marker that just appeared on your minimap, and kill that big green guy. You'll get a bunch of XP for it." The only purpose of all that effort and writing is to have NPCs "feel" like actual people, at least to some extent. That's all immersion is. To some people, it's a bigger priority that to others, but I really doubt there are many who care absolutely nothing about it. And, again, it does get incorrectly used on the reg... "This game has daggers, but not rapiers? THAT BROKE MY IMMERSION!". Really? You can't fathom a world in which the local populous simply doesn't sell rapiers? Heh... That, and the majority of things don't really break it. They just affect it. It's like road traffic; maybe it's not preferable, but you still end up getting where you're going.

That's fine, as well. But, really, if you don't want a beta with only four quests in it, don't spend $25 based on nebulous expectations. I mean, if they were charging $3,000 for the beta, would we just assume that we must be getting a bunch of Obsidian stock along with it or something? Or a real-life, fully functional grimoire?

You do have to applaud his patience with such things. Sit around 8+ hours a day designing all this stuff for the past year and a half, and now you've got people asking for a complete rundown of it in action, over and over and over and over... Seriously. *Applause* to Josh and co.

I don't see why elves shouldn't consider their own capabilities when designing their armor. If it doesn't 'cause them problems, it seems legit.

Maybe an ultra-tiny race of beings populates the character's belly button, and the character's attacks are just the firings of ship artillery from the tiny-people's... navel academy. 6_u

In the spirit of this topic, PieSnatcher... I just want to tell you that you have beautiful ayes. 6_u