Helm

Oh yeah, like this is any better then what they are palnning. This is just pretty much just a standard quest xp system. And then you sneak past every enemy, because there is not point in fighting. You get the enviroment and quest loot, and that's it. Great! lol

Like: Sneak past enemies for 50xp OR Fight enemies for 50xp Nice. You have just made avoiding combat much more attractive. Not to mention that any other creatures (not part of an objective) can still, will and should be avoided. But this is great for those who hate combat. Really, it is. Your TL;DR filter is broken. That was part of his point on why throwing in a name of "objective XP" is bad. Oh, ok. I didn't bother to read his while post, it's all garbage anyway. I shall revise.

Well, Amentep, we have explained it to you a few times and I can't make it any clearer. Those who sneak will get the same enviroment and quest loot as those who fight (loot is "systemic" as Josh likes to say). Those who fight will use resources and also gain resources to replenish these lost resources from fighting. The outcome will be the same for 2 activities. The obvious choice then is: to sneak and avoid combat. If a stealth ability required resources, then those who fight would have an advantage, because they would have more loot. Josh said that this will not be the case. And avoiding combat cannot require any resources. You could avoid combat in Baldur's Gate too.

-

Oh, i'm sorry. Now my opinion is insulting you. Implementing any feature costs resources you know. It's just not a waste if i implement what you like. Right? Why don't we just remove xp all together? Costs less resources. Like I said, bad illogical argument.

True, but then it would contradict with what Josh said here and what he said about only questing is pure benefit (i.e. quest loot) and nothing else. I really have to find that post where Josh talks about "degenerate gaming". He said that a player should do what he wants and no play style should be punished in any way. Avoiding combat (not necessarily stealthy) will always yield the best results. If you fight, then you lose resources and gain resources, in other words, you don't gain any resources and you don't lose any. If you avoid the combat, then the outcome will be the same, but you will a) possibly have more health b) not have endangered your party and c) have the same amount of loot and xp as somebody who decided to fight in that encounter. I already showed you the links, but I have to look for the one where Josh talks about degenerate gaming. Fighting => you lose resources (-1), you gain resources (+1), enviroment loot (1) =1 Sneaking => you lose no resources (0), enviroment loot (1) = 1 Sneaking (what you just said) => you lose resources (-1), enviroment loot (1) = 0 If you lost resources for stealth abilites, then stealth would not be a viable option, because you would run out of resources very quickly. I have posted this link about 20 times: Sneaking will not be punished, i.e. the stealth option will always be available. Not to mention that simply not engaging in combat (running away, whatever) does not cost resources, which is rather obvious. I cannot stress this enough. The most profitable option will of course be to skip all combat, except for elites (rare mobs with good loot $$$).

No you're not. Not engaging in combat will still yield the best results.

I have provided my arguments; you have consistently failed to adress them, and masked your inability to do so with poorly-executed sarcasm. Still waiting for the counterarguments which can actually hold water. I have addressed all your arguments. For example: You said implementing combat + quest xp is costly and time-consuming and that is a reason why it should not be implemented. I said that is true for implementing any content. In other words, that is a bad argument. Should I repeat myself for the rest too?

In this case you should get 3/4 of the gold pen.

*Heisenberg's cat is wondering* The use of strawman arguments and deftly avoiding to provide meaningful counterarguments instantly make someone a master of rhetorics. Running out of arguments?

9) Only the implementation of combat xp is problematic. Implementing any other content (like quest only xp) is not problematic at all. 10) Avoiding combat does not mean you are a moron. Although avoiding combat to yield the better result makes you a moron. This is because the god of contradiction will otherwise make your head explode. 11) A human's ability to see if a mob is elite (boss or lieutenant) and will drop good loot is improved by lowering the difficulty of the game. This is because obsidian has hired a magical fairy that grants all players who lower the difficulty the ability to see if a mob is elite or not.

Implementing combat xp costs hundreds of thousands - wait millions of dollars to implement. Quest only xp costs absolutely nothing to implement, anything that I like is implemented for free by the tooth fairy. I will add this to my list. 8 ) Avoiding combat means you are a moron. Even though avoiding combat is the most efficient and smartest way to play the game, according to aluminiumtrioxid Btw, while playing Deus Ex I lowered the difficulty of the game to "stupid", because I was playing the game wrong by being stealthy, even though the game rewards you for be stealthy. Yes, this is a contradiction. It is also sarcasm.

Oh, now you are comparing racing games to cRPGs. Let me try: Fondling in a sex-simulator is the equivalent of winning a battle or picking a lock in a cRPG. STDs are the equivalent of losing health in an cRPG. Visiting the doctor for STD-healing is the equivalent of healing wounds in a cRPG. Giving cash to your pimp is like paying bandits so they spare your life in a cRPG. Sex toys are like loot in a cRPG. The orgasm is the equivalent of quest xp. And, of course, having sex with 100 women is like completing a cRPG. Wow, this is fun.

A great counterargument to "implementing combat xp in the right way would be an even bigger waste of time and resources than implementing romances." Congrats. 7) If anything I don't like is implemented (combat xp), then it is a major waste of time and resources. I will add that to the list. Thanks.

*sigh* Elites (lieutenants/bosses) are rare. And: Combat requires more resources. Resources cost loot (cash). Sneaking requires no resources. = Pacifists will not be punished with less loot. q.e.d

Yeah, like, you can't ever buy scrolls/wands/potions. Material cost? Check. Not to mention that the required cost to get through any given fight will be different based on the difficulty level you play on. So there will be players for whom the cost will outweigh the benefits, and there will be players for whom the question is a no-brainer. Shocker! I just said that you have material costs for combat. Yes, killing elites for loot and avoiding every other combat situation will be the no-brainer path of choice for PE. As you have just said, the only reason to engage in combat is for loot (reward).

I think we can safely assume that it will not necessarily require resources (very rarely did I have to use potions or wands in the IE games), and what you gain will usually be better than what you lose (3 charges of the fireball wand and 2 strength potions for the Awesomium-forged Sword of Awesomeness? C'mon...). "If you want to get those items, you have to weigh your own personal material cost to get through the fight against what you will get out of it."

4) It is not possible to script the game to not reward xp for killing under certain circumstances (where it makes sense). The god of combat xp will otherwise cause the programmer's computer explode and engulf Obsidian's office killing everybody.

This is what the "quest xp only" advocates are saying: 1) Humans only kill for xp and cannot restrain themselves from going on a murdering spree to kill every living thing in the game if they are rewarded for doing it. In other words, all humans are complete morons and must be restrained from killing for xp by the game designers. 2) No Human would ever go on a killing spree for loot, because loot is not a reward. Only combat xp is a reward. 3) Killing everything only for loot or for fun is completely fine. No, killing for loot is still not a reward. 4) It is not possible to script the game to not reward xp for killing under certain circumstances (where it makes sense). The god of combat xp will otherwise cause the programmer's computer explode and engulf Obsidian's office killing everybody. 5) Quest xp and quest loot are not rewards for doing a quest, Humans complete the side quests only for fun and roleplaying. Only the goddess of quest xp and quest loot demands the implementation of quest xp and quest loot, otherwise the programmer's computer will explode and engulf Obsidian's office killing everybody. 6) Those who like combat will always engage in combat, even though the reward for avoiding combat will be greater in PE, because those who like combat are complete morons and choose the unwise path. Number 2) is actually true for Project Eternity, because loot is not a rare resource. You will not need to kill to get decent loot, i.e. you will always have enough no matter what you do.

means you don't get NO loot. Nowhere does it state an EQUAL amount of loot (which is impossible, since kills drop loot). It simply says "you can get loot outside of combat" WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO READ AND UNDERSTAND??? Combat requires more resources. Resources cost loot (cash). Sneaking requires no resources. = Pacifists will not be punished with less loot. q.e.d And let's see how much attrocious sequences a game has that does give XP per kill. DA2: Entire game DA:O: Large fractions, like the ending, dwarven tunnels, etc. KOTORs: Malachor, Star Forge (although it was cut up with cutscenes and conversations making it better than Malachor), Taris sewers. PS:T: Everything after Sigil Drakensang; The game was so good, I can barely remember anything of the 2 game's ingame. Should tell something. :/ BG1: Forests, mines, endgame. BG2: Underdark. Divinity 2: The Fortresses (and I heard they were workse before the DKS). So yeah... it's really exclusive to Bloodlines. I think it's funny how you point out that certain minor areas in "combat + quest xp" games did not reward combat with xp as "proof" that quest only xp is better. And Dragon age 2 used quest xp only? Wow, it was a bad game too. Thanks, I didn't know that. Now I have "proof" that quest only xp will suck for PE.

If you place the best loot in chests, then who gets tthe best loot? Exactly, those who sneak and those who fight. Like Sawyer said, you won't be punished for your gamestyle. More below. They lose out on loot that is held by advesaries they don't kill. That's the point I took from his TOEE example. you have to weigh your own personal material cost to get through the fight against what you will get out of it. So it probably won't be worth it, especially if you can just sneak past and get the easy (good?) loot from the chests. Don't forget, just as Sawyer said, combat costs resources.

Don't forget the resources for combat. It says so right there, "not a no brainer" and stuff, it might not even really be worth it to fight him. But as I have said many times, killing elites will usually be a good idea to get some good loot. The rest can be ignored, because it will not be punished. And on a pacifist run you still get the chests with the good (probably better) loot.

I am Greenballz the dragon. You need not know more. I can just kill elite mobs and sneak past the rest. It really is the most efficient way to play PE and always get the best loot. And I don't think it will be too hard to see if a mob is elite or not, should be a no-brainer.

I'm not sure if it is wise to compare a shooter to a cRPG.

Sneaking doesn't mean that you always use a stealth ability. You can just avoid combat. And if I am not good at sneaking, then I will spend all of my xp points on my sneak ability it until I am.