Helm

That is what Inxile is planning for Torment. No trash mobs, no strong emphasis on combat, driven by the narrative = quest only XP. Makes sense. Once you add a strong emphasis on combat and trash mobs to the equation (= Pillars of Eternity), then quest only XP doesn't make any sense. At all.

Where is the quest + objective + combat xp option in the poll? Like in the IE games? EDIT: I just chose Quest xp and objectives that are large in scope + Kill xp. Seems to be the closest to what I want.

^This.... ^Is so much better than this. The aesthetic of the former is absolutely perfect with the hand drawn sword on parchment paper, now we just have a little sword icon on the description and a tiny little window to scroll through. It's fugly. Also, there is so much screen space, so make the pop-up window with item statistics and description a bit broader.

Wouldn't the dropped loot from the bodies be the reward? No, because Obsidian doesn't want to deprive the pacifists of good loot. Some of it is helpful (for crafting), but it is more the exception than the rule. As it stands, combat is almost completely optional. This isn't the Skyrim crowd, the gamers here will notice something like that real fast.

That's just it - the system was sold to me on the idea of being able to play the way you want and overcome obstacles (and I assumed go exploring for fun). As it sounds from the beta testers, it's more like doing what you're told (which I believe the kill-xp crowd were presciently complaining about). Indeed. Let's get right to the core of things: experience points is a numerical abstraction, which reflects that your player character has seen stuff, learnt new things and evolved. If the game rewards five RL hours (26h in-game) of exploring, fighting, sneaking, talking, everything, with zero experience points, then they don't serve any function at all. Then, either remove them entirely (which would crush the entire system PoE is built on), or redo stuff entirely - either by re-introducing kill xp or make a kill-xp-like system (per encounter, per obstacle, per sneak, per discovery, per smart convo pick, per sneeze). I bet the hay fever trait would come in handy there.

Torment doesn't have trash mobs, and there is no emphasis on combat. Torment is driven solely by the narrative, so quest only XP will work absolutely fine. Actually, that is the only system that even makes sense for that type of game. I just said that.. jerk. LOL Oh, sorry. I missed it. This thread is moving too fast.

That's just it - the system was sold to me on the idea of being able to play the way you want and overcome obstacles (and I assumed go exploring for fun). As it sounds from the beta testers, it's more like doing what you're told (which I believe the kill-xp crowd were presciently complaining about). Yeah, Sawyer was quite vague, so it is understandable that many people understood him unless they analyzed every single word of what he wrote.

Torment doesn't have trash mobs, and there is no emphasis on combat. Torment is driven solely by the narrative, so quest only XP will work absolutely fine. Actually, that is the only system that even makes sense for that type of game.

Yes... Break free of your shackles, let the XP flow through you. Give into your feelings, you know it is true. NO ONE can resist the POWER of the dark side. Hehehehehehehe

... The point is that it is not anymore logical to get XP from kills, so arguing that objective-XP is illogical when you're arguing for an equally illogical is inconsistent. Why are you wasting our time misrepresenting arguments? Nobody that I know of on the objective-based XP side is arguing that the system is logical. We're arguing that it provides a better gameplay result than XP-for-kills. I never wrote that objective xp is illogical. You did so right here, dude. I wrote that is unlogical if a killing a beetle cannot be an objective. I never wrote that objective xp in general is illogical, because it isn't.

...If the villagers are really as bothered by the beetles as you paint them to be, they will probably task you with clearing the forest of them. I mean, it's not like the beetles crawl into the village at night and threaten to kill their loved ones if they dare to complain about them to the next adventurer Yes. A farmer offers you 25 objective xp for each beetle you deal with. This objective is completely optional too. Sounds good to me. I wouldn't need to have an objective like this in my quest log, but whatever. Excellent, then we can agree that rewarding combat can be done in a way that completely fits into the current paradigm. ...What were we talking about? Yep, now we're getting somewhere. What if the game had a bounty hunter that gives the player completely optional objectives to kill specific enemies/monsters and rewards the player for each kill with xp and gold? That wouldn't be much different from combat xp really, but I guess people are only happy if they are told what to do and have the corresponding quest in their quest log I guess.

... The point is that it is not anymore logical to get XP from kills, so arguing that objective-XP is illogical when you're arguing for an equally illogical is inconsistent. Why are you wasting our time misrepresenting arguments? Nobody that I know of on the objective-based XP side is arguing that the system is logical. We're arguing that it provides a better gameplay result than XP-for-kills. I never wrote that objective xp is illogical. You're the one writing that combat xp is illogical or something.

...If the villagers are really as bothered by the beetles as you paint them to be, they will probably task you with clearing the forest of them. I mean, it's not like the beetles crawl into the village at night and threaten to kill their loved ones if they dare to complain about them to the next adventurer Yes. A farmer offers you 25 objective xp for each beetle you deal with. This objective is completely optional too. Sounds good to me. I wouldn't need to have an objective like this in my quest log, but whatever.

Dealing with the ogre, that specific ogre, is an objective. It's an objective because the farmer wants you to deal with the ogre. Nobody wants you to deal with the beetles. If somebody wanted you to deal with the beetles, then you could get XP for it. To make it really simple, you get XP because the developers wanted to give you XP for dealing with the ogre. That specific ogre. It's not meant to be "logical". XP-for-kills, as explained sooooo many times already, isn't "logical" either. Why? Because XP levels you up, and you can assign your leveling points in any way you want to. You're missing the point. Dealing with the ogre can be an objective, so dealing with the beetles can be an objective too. I have been told that this is completely illogical, because beetles can't be objectives for some reason. So please explain to me why beetles cannot be objectives and cannot be rewarded with objective xp. Are beetles not worthy of being an objective or what is the problem? What about spiders? Can killing 20 spiders not be an objective either? Probably in the same way how a thief gets better at lockpicking by chopping off an ogre's head and completing the objective? You know, like in the demo?

You know what's really weird? This is exactly the argument I'm making against systemic XP. Reward achieving objectives only, and you leave maximum freedom for the player to find ways to get there. Reward specific ways of achieving the objectives, and you're steering the player towards those specific ways. There are times I feel we inhabit completely parallel realities with different rules of basic logic or something. Why can killing an Ogre be an objective, but killing beetles not be an objective? In which super duper uber logical parallel reality is this a true statement? Next to the village (like in the demo) are numerous and very dangerous giant beetles (the ones we also saw in the demo) that are eating villagers, so the villagers don't go into the forest anymore. I decide to help out the helpless villagers by slaughtering the beetles (because I'm a nice guy). Then I slaughter the ogre (also in the demo). Why should I only be rewarded with XP for slaughtering the ogre, but not be rewarded with xp for slaughtering the beetles? Doesn't make any damn sense. I'd understand if the beetles were docile creatures, but as we saw in the demo, that is absolutely not the case. You as a DM would deny me XP for helping out the villagers by resolving their beetle problem, you would only give me XP for resolving their problem with the ogre. You (and Sawyer for that matter) are this terrible DM that I am talking about.

It isn't really about combat xp anyway, the thread is more about why the player only gains XP for overcoming specific obstacles dictated by the developer and absolutely no XP for overcoming any other obstacle that the player might run into (which of course makes the latter an extremely unattractive thing to do, especially if it is a high-risk task). In the demo we were shown how the player receives exploration xp for finding the ogre's cave, then he could kill the ogre or choose a peaceful solution to receive some more xp. This is very Infinity Engine-esque, which is great. I have no problem with it. But what about the beetles? What if have the ability to communicate with them and make them my buddy beetles who help me in some way? WHY shouldn't I get XP for that? WHY shouldn't I get XP if I decide to kill them instead because they are extremely dangerous and kill civilians hunting or looking for food in the forest? Why should I only get XP for the Ogre, why should I only get XP when I am told where to go and what to do? I hate this lack of choice and only being rewarded for doing what I am told that I must do in order to get xp. It is like playing a playing a PnP session with a really bad DM: "LOL, NOOB, you didn't do it my way so you GET NOTHING."

Zelda is also really fun, although the games don't reward the player with experience points at all. You need to collect items to advance through the games. Just because a game is good and handles xp in a different way (or not at all) doesn't mean that it would be good for an Infinity Engine style game like PoE. People should stop mentioning Bloodlines, it is a completely different type of RPG just as the Zelda series is also completely different. (BTW, Thank god Sawyer isn't a huge Zelda fan, a Zelda/Baldur's Gate hybrid called "Pillars of Hyrule" is the last thing I would want to play)

No dragon romance = NO BUY! lulz And the combat looks like crap too. So yeah, I'm done with Bioware.

Combat won't be rewarded with XP because the developers want to encourage the player to avoid combat as much as possible. Obsidian Josh Sawyer is going to great lengths to make combat as unrewarding as possible, a substantial amount of item drops will contain useless vendor trash, so that people who strongly dislike combat (which is basically everyone who didn't like the IE games) don't whine about being deprived of good loot. Combat will always be an answer, although it will make more sense to minimize risk and effort by avoiding it if possible. I really hope that the combat which we are better off avoiding will be fun, because that is real important. Because Sawyer has terrible nightmares about players abusing his game by slaughtering everything and getting rewarded with XP for doing so. This ruthless killing of NPCs has to be STAWPED NAO!!

The music in the first trailer fit much better (it was also much shorter, but whatever), in the second trailer it did not seem to be arranged as well. The music also sounded like it was highly compressed in the second trailer (similar to a low bitrate MP3). They were just making suggestions. I'm sure the composer desires to receive feedback if an individual or group of individuals liked the piece or not.

It is you who is trying to prove that RTwP takes more skill than turn-based - not the other way around. I'd still like to hear your theory about RTwP fans though, no need to dodge my question. I've been waiting for a week or so for you to answer. I believe you want to say that RTwP fans are stupid morons and therefore play all games on easy. That is what you wanted to write, is it not? No it doesn't lol. You've consistently ignored anything to do with pause and ignored the statement about the weight of individual actions in turn-based combat. If you're going to go for a Real-time versus turn-based argument - try saying that (this is a bad comparison) Air Hockey requires more skill than chess - not going to happen. Real-time PC games are not Air Hockey and Turn-based games are not chess, but the point still stands. Your air hockey (RTwP) vs. chess (turn-based) comparison really is pretty retarded. It seems to me that you are suggesting that turn-based combat is vastly superior because it is more profound and more in depth, and therefore requires more savvy and understanding, than RTwP combat. Quite a laughable statement to make, especially on a forum about a RTwP game. Why don't you just straight out say that RTwP is crap and that Obsidian are all complete morons for choosing RTwP over TB for Pillars of Eternity. Anyway, you consistently ignore every fact that I have written. The stakes of individual actions are also very high in RTwP games and constantly pausing does not change this, your entire party can wipe if you make even one mistake. I even gave you good examples. RTwP however requires more skill (better said, some additional skills) that not everbody has. RTwP requires all of the tactics and strategy of a turn-based game and also requires the player to issue all actions in parallel (and not serially like in a turn-based game). In a turn-based game you never have to worry about constantly needing to be aware of every current and potential hostile action at any given moment and react accordingly. This is why the sluggish and inept love turn-based and hate RTwP combat so much. The APM (actions per minute) are much, much higher in a RTwP game than in a turn-based game. This is why some people feel overwhelmed by the RTwP combat system and are tired of constantly over-abusing the space bar, which in actuallity is nothing more than a feeble attempt to try and cope with the faster paced combat, because they suffer from a sluggish cognitive tempo. Turn based is essentially a rather simple sytem, RTwP is much more complicated. People who are not sluggish and inept really enjoy the faster paced and very deep combat of a RTwP game, the slow pokes under us simply hate RTwP because it overwhelms them. I don't feel like repeating myself 10 times in one post. The Above is an answer for the rest of your post.

It is you who is trying to prove that RTwP takes more skill than turn-based - not the other way around.Both systems can be extremely challenging, RTwP does require more skill though. I would still like to hear your theory on the "direct correlation between enjoyment of turn-based combat and the difficulty setting preference of the player". I have already asked you three times. If I make a simple mistake, e.g. I accidentally order my character to move in the false direction, and immediatly notice this mistake, then I can correct it rather easily (and hopefully also with minimal consequences). This is true. Another reason why RTwP is so great, good that you pointed this out. This is not always true though, even a simple wrong movement can cause you to loose an entire round, because your character has reached his goal a bit later than planned. If you start casting a spell and decide to cancel for some reason, then your character looses the entire round, it can't be corrected. The stakes of individual actions are also very high in RTwP games like BG, having a character loose an entire round can really hurt. Loosing a round means that 6 seconds of gameplay are practically lost because your character can't really do anything other than run around and possibly dodge AoE spells. Canceling spells or actions or issuing new movement commands is not only possible in a RTwP game but often times also required. This of course complicates combat. Like I wrote, RTwP requires more skill, a player has to constantly be aware of every current and potential action and react accordingly in realtime. In a turn based game, you just issue commands in order (of course with a basic tactic in mind) and that is basically it. Turn based is essentially a rather simple sytem. More actions are required in a RTwP game, the combat is more complicated. Not necessarily more challenging, just more complicated and faster paced. Constantly hitting the spacebar to pause the game does not make a RTwP game any less complicated anyway. Some people just find RTwP combat confusing, that's the way it is. Some people will just never like turn-based combat. And yes, the sluggish and inept can and will abuse the space bar if they play a RTwP games. Anyway, I don't understand how you think they can enjoy a RTwP game as much as a turn-based game. In a turn-based game they have all the time in the world to think out every single action and don't have to constantly hit the spacebar either. I am not discrediting turn-based combat, I have not said that turn-based games are crap. You seem to want to believe this though for some reason, it's like you think I am an extremely evil RTwP fan who absolutely hates the turn-based "master race". lol I only stated that the sluggish and inept just might have a problem with RTwP, that is why they bitch and whine that it is so bad........... And here we are. Hard. And then I hope that the game will be challenging.

Usually hardest. I am asking because I think there is a direct correlation between enjoyment of turn-based combat and the difficulty setting preference of the player.Yes, this is quite obvious. I asked because I want to hear your theory. You missed the point. Turn-based places higher stakes on individual choices. Once you've made a move in turn based, you cannot correct it, you cannot take it back. In RTWP if you make a tactical error you can correct it by pausing the game and re-issuing a different command.Individual actions in turn-based when difficult are very important, and you can only make a certain amount of wrong moves or you have to reload/you've lost. Realtime combat has a greater demand on the moment to moment decisions of the player and in some cases their reactivity. Pause trivializes this to some extent (depending on how far you abuse it). That really isn't a point. Once you make a tactical decision in a RTwP game like Baldur's Gate you can't take it back either, there is no "undo move" button. For example, if you cast the wrong spell in BG, then you have to wait until the end of the round in order to cast a spell again. A lot can happen in this small amount if time and it can really hurt if it was an unwise tactical decision. Seems to me that you are somehow trying to prove that turn-based combat is fundamentally more challenging. That is not the case. Both realtime with pause and turn-based combat can be challenging and both require a good understanding of tactics in general and the game's rules. RTwP however requires more skill, a player has to constantly be aware of every current and potential action and react accordingly in realtime (and pause to issue commands if required) and is therefore not the system of choice for the sluggish an inept. This does not mean that RTwP is harder than turn-based, both can be extremely challenging, RTwP just requires skills that are not as pronounced in some people. The quality of the AI scripting is based solely on the talent of the programmer(s) and not on the combat system. I do however believe that programming the AI for a turn-based game is simpler, seeing that the combat system is simpler in design (I do not mean less challenging). Are you trying to say that RTwP on easy is less challenging than turn-based on easy? And bad games will always be bad games, independant of the combat systems

If it doesn't matter, because Torment isn't about combat, then why must it have turn-based combat and not RTwP combat like the spiritual predecessor? A decent combat system would have vastly improved Arcanum. i plead indifference on the combat system. it is not important and so i do not care which type they use. if you think the combat of a game like torment is so important that the type used (regrdless of how well or not it is made) will ruin the entire game, i think you are playing the wrong gamearcanum would certainly be a better game if combat was not so bad, however it was not the combat that made it what it was, and that is even more true for torment. personally, i would have preffered that torment had no combat at all (both the old and the new) Many people have been repeatedly stating that the combat in Torment is not important. Fine. If it isn't important, then why must the game have turn-based combat? It could have used RTwP like the spiritual predecessor. That's all i'm saying.

You didn't answer the question though. And by the way what difficulty do you play games on?I have played many turn-based games, including Jagged Alliance. Why do you want to know with which difficulty setting I play games? With which difficulty setting do you play games? Marketing is a blight on the earth. And luckily inXile's decision was based on what they thought would be best for the game. Turn based also won the vote, if only by 200 votes. It's true that some die-hard turn-based fans don't like the 'stress' of real-time combat. RTwP suffers less from this, because of the pause feature. You are talking about real time with pause here, not real-time. Allow me to quote the illustrious Vault Dweller: For the record he's talking about the early 90s XCOM, not X-COM: Enemy Unknown. Inxile was saying for weeks that they had a strong preference for turn-based and that the game will be better with this combat system (for a reason that is unsubstantiated imo). I assume that this turned the vote in favor of turn-based. Anyway, it is also perfectly acceptable if I open the door at the beginning of my turn in XCOM. I then have all the time in the world to plan my actions and the aliens can't do very much. Once I enter that door in a RTwP game I will probably pause the game to get an overview (which isn't very different from a turn-based game), but the second I unpause the enemies will immediatly start attacking. You have to constantly be aware of every action that is going on in this room at any possible moment and react accordingly. Some people find this overwhelming.