Ganrich

The devs were doing demos at conventions. After wiping on the beetles I am pretty sure they were playing it incredibly safe. They want to ensure that players see spells/abilities, skills, scripted scenes, dialogue, and the entire ogre quest chain. They didn't turn on a god mode which many FPS demos at the conventions do. Anyway, they were playing to show the game, but not trying to show the best of the best in terms of tactics. I wouldn't use them, or the demos, as a basis for how to play the game well. Just my 2cp

Been on a Mike Patton kick lately.

The thing with ideas is that you could give one, and someone may shoot it down. Maybe the whole forum shoots it down. However, 1 person reads it and makes an adjustment to that idea. That adjustment makes the idea more palatable to the previous naysayers while possibly still making you happy. I had a couple ideas last night that Hiro debated. That won't stop me from posting ideas tomorrow if I have any. If you don't give ideas then you can't expect anything to change as other ideas you might be against are put forth, and discussed. These ideas get there day in the sun for the developers to read and perhaps consider. Your idea is never seen. Do what you will. On armor... I think changes need to be made for sure. I know AI needs to press the back line more frequently. As of now not wearing armor on your ranged classes is too good an option.

@ Hiro - that is fair. Not all of us Quest/Objective XP guys are on the same wavelength. I have no issue killing critters in the game. I just like having a logical, in-game reason to do so. I don't want my reasoning to be XP since it is an abstract. Not that I can't restrain myself, but I would rather be rewarded with in-game knowledge. Some just want to always avoid combat. I want to do what the character that I lay out would do, and some (particularly my first character) will be a guy that is all about learning. Sometimes I expect that will cause combat, and other times it will cause avoiding it. However, I want to be equally reward and for playing it that way. Many Combat XP systems in the past haven't done that, but it can be done....... just not easily.

gonna have to disagree. give us a choice between option 1 and option 2 and we cannot find a way to make option 2 The Win. 'course, in the spirit o' full disclosure, Gromnir were one o' the folks who were loudest on the bg2 boards railing against the mowing o' bg1 wilderness maps. thank goodness the bioware developers felt similar and nixed such maps in bg2. HA! Good Fun! Different strokes, no? We are all like snowflakes.

I don't disagree with you, but the reality is that Sawyer does care, and as a repercussion we have to make concessions. I really like Sawyer, and really agree with a lot of his ideas. I like Quest/Objective XP systems, but not because of they are harder to exploit. I like them because they feel more free to me. That said, most games with Kill/Quest systems were a problem not because of the system, but because of the implementation. EG - I can Diplo my way through a dodgy conversation and get 900XP for quest completion, or I can not diplo it, get 1200xp for killing 3 bandits, and get that 900xp for completing the quest. It is what it is, and we have to make due with the hand dealt. Best thing we can do is make suggestions to remedy the abrupt difference between what this game will likely have and what we are use to.

Option 2 sounds cool, Gromnir. I would argue that one could be just drawing the lay of the land on a piece of parchment though.

You're substituting combat xp which people argue can be abused with other systems that can be abused? The Cyclopedia? Lure one beetle and kill it with a party of 6. Then lure another beetle and kill it. etc. The same with other enemies. Lure one enemy, kill it. Lure the same enemy on its own and kill it. That page is now complete and you're rewarded with xp by luring one enemy out at a time. And with awarding Crafting with xp, that can be abused as well. The way I see it, the more you go from the current system in PoE and introduce other suggestions like the Cyclopedia or crafting while ignoring the xp systems that were in the IE games like combat xp, the more players will find ways to abuse that system. And Obsidian probably knows this. Um... I recommend a system that reward one for filling the Cyclopedia XP by killing enemies, and you say it is exploitable because you can kill enemies to get that XP. Enemies are in clumps for the most part anyway. If you pull one... you tend to get a few. There are exceptions like a few wood beetles and the lions. What you are saying is that the game itself is possibly exploitable, and that has nothing to do with the Cyclopedia idea. The crafting system should only give XP once btw. I realize I didn't put that in, but without that you could run the risk of something like spell memorization xp system abuse. Although, the resources to craft those things are still limited.

-If the Cyclopedia weren't linked with lore then completely filling out a page on an enemy monster could give XP. However, doing this with Lore governing the speed that the Cyclopedia fills in makes it a required skill. This is less of an issue if NPCs with high Lore help fill the Cyclopedia out. Has anyone tested this? -XP could be granted for crafting items. That is all I have atm. I made similar suggestions here. Especially as it pertains to the Cyclopedia because as I see it Lore is pointless atm. Really all the enemy Information will be posted online not far from launch so by giving some reward for filling it out seems right to me. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68164-a-different-view-on-the-whole-xp-controversy/?p=1500282 Yup!! I agree. Lore is a conversation/scripted event skill atm as far as I am concerned. It is for people who want to play the Hermione Granger type of know-it-all. I do like playing those types of smarties though. As long as Obsidian makes it so an NPC with Lore also helps fill out the Cyclopedia entries... I am fine. I wouldn't be crest fallen if they gutted the link between lore and the Cyclopedia though.

I agree with this, for the most part. However, Objective XP are stagnant. They never change from game to game, or difficulty setting to difficulty setting. Quests are the same way. They can easily be managed. Much easier than combat XP in PoE since the enemies change based on Difficulty. I don't know if those XP gains have to be marginal, but I understand your point. Also, I am also bleary eyed. Thanks for hanging around to discuss this. I am enjoying it. Cheers.

No, it is a big part of "most" RPGs. Not all paradigms need to be replaced, but neither do all paradigms need to be upheld with impunity. This debate is hot because it is (like the Health/stamina debate) fundamentalists vs progressives. Instead of fighting we should look to compromise, and suggest something that would make both sides at least somewhat happy. It is very much the same though. People do what they do because of XP incentives in an RPG. If the developer/DM wants players to beat all the baddies in an area they go with combat XP. If they do not then they don't give XP for it. People clear maps in BG because of XP. They wouldn't have with a quest/objective XP system. MMOs give you combat XP, the whole genre is built around it. Not all RPGs are, nor should they be. Role Playing Game is not synonymous with Combat XP simulator. You play a role, and to some that means a role in combat, but to others it means a character archetype within a setting. Neither is wrong, because an RPG is built around both of those things. However, in cRPGs those 2 sides can clash. In PnP games most DMs I have played with, and myself included as a DM, do not give out xp after every combat. Most tally it after the session, before the session, or after certain sections of the campaign. This is to keep from interrupting the flow. Even though handbooks show XP amounts for enemies the DMs work on a more quest/objective based system. I don't reward combat as a whole because sometimes I have laid an encounter that allows fairly simple ways to bypass a fight (leveling a building with a bad guy in it instead of combat, stealth, diplomacy, etc). You can't do this in a cRPG nearly as well as a DM can. However, you can get away with not requiring your players to kill everything on every map and remain equally rewarded to a player that does. This system doesn't have a balance there atm, and I admit that. However, a compromise can be found. Ideas for Objective XP dumps other than clearing FoW and sub-boss XP: -If the Cyclopedia weren't linked with lore then completely filling out a page on an enemy monster could give XP. However, doing this with Lore governing the speed that the Cyclopedia fills in makes it a required skill. This is less of an issue if NPCs with high Lore help fill the Cyclopedia out. Has anyone tested this? -XP could be granted for crafting items. That is all I have atm.

I agree with this 150%.

Ah, my bad Zansatsu... I completely misread your post. I am special. Forgive me.

This right here is the main problem with the mentality behind designing this game. If the players don't have the self-constraint to not do something like that, well then maybe they should **** off and play an mmo, instead of a Role-Playing Game. I don't disagree, but I could say the same thing about people who want kill XP to justify combat need to **** off and play an MMO instead of a RPG.

See now this is an Idea. This thread was about ideas not yelling at each other. We can do that in all the other xp threads. How is that different or easier to implement than combat xp. I mean if you make it a marginal xp gain, might as well not have it, and if you make it substantial, then there might as wel be combat xp. At least that's how I understand it, but I'm half asleep so. edit: Might as well have rare or "elite" enemies give xp or something. But this is pointless, you either have combat xp or you don't, no point in half arsed solutions. You think adding a system that gives XP on a map to map basis is equally difficult to balance than on an enemy to enemy basis? What about harder difficulties with different enemy compositions (more, less, or different enemies)? Maps remain constant across any play through. Enemies don't which is something I am really excited about in PE. I tend to play on normal on my first go, and then make it harder after that. So new enemy comps/numbers = AWESOME. I think we need to make some concessions based on the time Obsidian has to get it working... I keep looking at Gromnir's quote in his signature: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."-George Bernard Shaw I am trying to make concessions that are at least feasible given the time we have until this game launches. Completely overhauling the XP system may, or may not, be feasible. I am leaning toward it not being feasible. I am trying to be reasonable. I do agree that the system needs some work for sure, but I refuse to scream about it being broken and tell Obsidian that the game needs Combat XP. It isn't helping.

I can see that being abused. Clear the appropriate percentage or most of the percentage that doesn't have enemies and get the xp reward. Yes, Obsidian please implement this now! Fair, but not really any worse than completing a quest through diplomacy and killing them anyways for maximum XP. Eh, it was one idea. When I say Percentage I mean the majority, and only less than that on maps that are coastal that don't allow you to clear the Fog completely. The FoW needs to be fixed for this to work of course. You shouldn't be able to see over rocks/walls/trees/ect.

Hard to do if you don't believe the PE system is indeed garbage. I am leaning, at present, toward thinking the system could use more Objective XP dumps for exploring the maps, completing major map objectives (killing the spider queen maybe or sub-boss mobs in general), clearing the fog of war, etc. I don't believe that just going back to a more pure kill XP system (I know the IE games had Quest XP too) is the necessary, nor necessarily the right, answer at present. Unrelated to your comment, Volourn, but I have seen people say that the fact that being able to skip clusters of enemies is bad. I am kind of thinking it is an ok thing tbh. Why would any rational being, from an RP perspective, wipe out an entire clearing of beetles? Sure, they are hostile, but if you were trying to move through that area in RL wouldn't you avoid some of the clusters as well? Isn't avoiding sections of combat a good thing? It isn't like killing a couple of beetles is challenging? A player playing on a harder difficulty looking for challenge may wipe EVERY map in the game of enemies, and their fun is in that challenge. Another thing is that if you come across a crafting recipe that requires something the beetles drop then you may have a logical, in-game reason to clear them out. You may also have one of those boring gather quests at some point (I hope not). Eh, this is how I feel about it anyway. To each their own though. I think adding an XP reward for clearing the FoW (or a percentage depending on the map layout) would really help as players that want to kill everything can do that, but others can scout the area and avoid the little encounters they don't feel they need to engage in can do so.

Lephys, there is no room for pragmatism here. This is the internet.

I really dig the health/stamina system, but it definitely needs tweaking. Either the ratios or the DT, buffs, debuffs, and CCs need to be more potent or prevalent (depending on class). I definitely don't think the system has failed. @Sensuki - I thought the barbarian health ratio was 1/8 H/S. Did they change that with this patch?

The Talent Beloved Spirits refers to the "Cipher" class instead of Chanter.

? I don't see it. I had to close steam, and reboot it.

If you were talking about DnD then I would agree. However, this isn't DnD, and Paladins aren't holy warriors of a Deity. They are Soldiers with conviction based on an Order. Lay on Hands is a melee, single target heal. A modal aura that heals over time would make the paladin much less active, and allow the paladin to commence in melee or ranged combat. They only would break the combat rhythm when they need to lay on hands for VERY limited burst healing. Simultaneously, one player may not even opt into the modal heal, and make a different paladin with a healer behind him (druid or Priest). Priests sit back and buff and heal with some occasional debuff/damage. Best healers in the game because they heal for chunks of stamina. Druids are offensive with ranged heal over time spells, but no burst healing like the Priest. However, they have the ability to keep a party up in most situations. What I am suggesting does, in no way, make a Paladin a Priest. What it does is give 3 different types of healers that a player could use one of, or opt for 2 in the party makeup. It increases what the paladin is capable of as a class, and increases party diversity. I like the idea of a regeneration aura, but it would have to be minimal else it would be overpowered. A chanter would be a better candidate if you insist on having 3 healing classes. I thought chanter at first too. However, the Paladin already has a single heal, and the Chanter has none. Chanter is also "the" summoner class in the game. I think it would be easier to balance the Paladins with healing than giving and balancing the chanters. I do think having 3 healers would be welcome. I always hated the IE games only having 2 of 10ish (not including kits) classes that can heal. Which classes that are capable healers, outside of Druid and Priest, I don't care but Paladin and Chanter are definitely the most likely candidates.

Yup, Ciphers have some devastating abilities and have enough focus at the start of combat to use 1 or 2. Soul Ignition is just broken, and basically is basically a finger of death on whoever you target. That is exacerbated by the fact that you can cast it continuously with the speed at which Focus is gained. They gain focus way too fast IMHO, but that is based on the power of their spells. They have a nice variety of spells, but are limited by selected specific ones as they level (Like a Bard or Sorc in the 3rd edition DnD).... I've been experimenting with Ciphers, and I'm enjoying them a great deal. They are working well as the Gish the were obviously intended to be. I do not feel like they are overpowered though. Ciphers spells actually work. Imagine that. Damage spells do effective damage. Spells which blind, paralyze, charm, or otherwise disable actually are effective and incur a duration that is worthwhile. The rate at which they can acquire focus may need tweaking, but I don't think it unbalanced or crazy to actually play a spellcaster who spends a major percentage of their time actually casting spells. After my long foray into figuring out all the nuances of the Wizard class, the Cipher is a breath of fresh air. I imagine this is what the Wizard would have played like had it not had all of its qualities diluted and gifted to other classes. I have only played with the Cipher twice. So, the example here is Soul Ignition, but there are other spells that have been mentioned up thread that are a bit over the top. Combat start you have 35 focus at level 5, and there are 3 beetles. Soul Ignition (costs 20 focus I do believe) beetle 1, and it will either die or be so low that a single hit can kill it from the appropriate damage type. Fighter has engaged the 2 remaining beetles and you are at 15 focus. Fire a single shot from a bow at the lowest health remaining beetle, and you have 20 focus. Soul Ignition that same beetle and you are down to a single beetle. That will occur pretty often at lower difficulties. However the damage you can lay down at higher difficulties is still pretty absurd. I don't disagree with your assessment of the Wizard at the moment, though. It is in dire need of something to make it more desirable of a class. They definitely took a lot of the things that made them great and gave them to other classes, and now the wizard is a shell of itself. AoE is too difficult to land in the current game, and without that they do substandard damage.

If you were talking about DnD then I would agree. However, this isn't DnD, and Paladins aren't holy warriors of a Deity. They are Soldiers with conviction based on an Order. Lay on Hands is a melee, single target heal. A modal aura that heals over time would make the paladin much less active, and allow the paladin to commence in melee or ranged combat. They only would break the combat rhythm when they need to lay on hands for VERY limited burst healing. Simultaneously, one player may not even opt into the modal heal, and make a different paladin with a healer behind him (druid or Priest). Priests sit back and buff and heal with some occasional debuff/damage. Best healers in the game because they heal for chunks of stamina. Druids are offensive with ranged heal over time spells, but no burst healing like the Priest. However, they have the ability to keep a party up in most situations. What I am suggesting does, in no way, make a Paladin a Priest. What it does is give 3 different types of healers that a player could use one of, or opt for 2 in the party makeup. It increases what the paladin is capable of as a class, and increases party diversity.

Priests aren't really OP though. They are necessary because they are the only class that have a large amount of heals that can target party members. I would easily say that another class needs to be able to heal, but in a different way. Perhaps Paladins should have an aura HoT ability, or give the Druids a few more healing abilities. A class being necessary doesn't make it OP. It just means that its role is required, and perhaps another class should also be capable of that role to a different degree. Paladins and Druids should be able to heal others much more than they can presently to take necessity of a Priest in the party composition. However, if given too much then that begs the question "would you bring a Priest?" If you need the buffs then yes, but if you have a Pally/Druid and a Chanter then maybe not. Things are out of whack that is for sure. Paladins aren't fkin healers. Druids need to be a replacement for priests, like the IE games, else party diversity is ****ed on that aspect. Lay on Hands. I am not saying they need to be turned into pure healers like a Priest, but through Lay on Hands and a possible modal Aura. Party diversity is already ****ed because the only true healer is the Priest so I don't see your point there. You are going to have 5 randoms and a Priest in every party with what we have seen in beta. How would party diversity fair worse if Paladins have more healing than present, and of course Druids as well? Oh, wait it wouldn't, because that 1 slot that (at present) is devoted to a priest could be taken up by 2 other classes.