Helm

Yes. I, Greenballz the dragon, love humor. It is cherished ritual of our species. But RPGs are no joking matter.

I was being sarcastic, because both are important in a game that is based on tactical and strategical combat. I'm sorry that you could not understand my sarcasm, I didn't want to make it so complicated to understand.

@Hassat Hunter Every class in PE can sneak and sneaking will not be penalized, i.e. you will not have to kill for loot, there will be plenty in the enviroment and as quest rewards. Please, tell Josh there should be no reward for doing anything optional (like side quests or combat in side quests), because this improves gameplay. You have just proven that side quests and combat xp are not needed. You apparently have not played Deus Ex 1 then, because stealth was always rewarded. Items and Health were scarce and it forced you to make wise stealthy decisions This also made sense, it was a stealth game. And we all loved it for that.

Sure it does. why waste time and resources on a pointless chore that also yields the worst results? You will of course have to fight to remove obstacles.... But oh, woops, in PE you can just sneak by those too. And why is sidequesting awarded with xp then? Oh yeah, because otherwise nobody would do them. Then you should hate the design of PE also. Avoiding combat in PE is pure benefit, because it yields the best results. But somebody who hates combat would of course not have a problem with this. By the way, stealth and non lethal fighting has always yielded the best result in Deus Ex 1 + 3. Nobody minded, because Deus Ex is a stealth game and that is what we wanted and also expected.

level scaling (this seems to have been fixed) regenerating health bar quest only xp no "missing" mechanic (this also seems to have been fixed) any other unannounced "dumbing down" of the mechanics

@OP Choose the standard class (which will probably be Humans), which will be good at everything but excel at nothing (and at the same still be the race of choice for certain classes). Make a party full of Humans if you don't like making strategical choices. It will work.

So what you're saying is... respawns? Yeah. Rare respawns with worthless xp that are only there to improve immersion.

You mean sneak naked. True warriors always sneak for quest xp you know.

How dare you say that! lolz

What you noobs talkin' about? Every game should have quest xp only so that we can sneak and avoid the combat that I hate! Oh shut up ninja. Like you just said, "quest xp only" is for those who hate combat. That does not makes sense for a game that is supposed to be based upon tactical and strategical combat. I know kitty, like golly jeez Ninja, wuts your problem? By the way In Deus Ex: Invisible War (Deus Ex 2) they tried a different approach and catered to the Call of Dooty fans. And it sucked ballz. Really, it sucked. And the fans were pissed, which is understandable. Screw you, you green ballz! And you too fluffballz. I am hoping that they implement a mechanic so that I can sneak past every combat situation in Call of Duty! Just like they are planning for PE. Combat sucks! Skullzzzzzzz. More orc skullzzzzzzzzzzzz. Hey guys, wuts up? I just finished X-Com: Enemy Unknown. Great game, lots of phun. Yeah, that was a great game Mr. Alien. It really was lots of fun. That game sucked! I couldn't avoid combat! Wut? Are you some kind of moron Ninja? Yeah, he hates any game where you can't avoid combat and wants every single game to have a substantial stealth ability. lol lol. yessssss. more skullzzzzzzz. more lich skullzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

^ Trolling is not going to solve this problem @Lephys Although this is actually not even a problem in my opinion, seeing that the spiritual predecessors of PE (the IE games) did not have a substantial sneaking ability. -Valorian's Cat

Quest xp only is just for those who hate combat. Doesn't make sense in a game that is supposed to be based on tactical and strategical combat. Not to me at least. But, it can be fixed i suppose. Quest xp only is definitely not the answer though.

Another subject that we've covered before, so I'll reiterate a position I took before: I think you should get experience for combat, but it should decline over time for each enemy of a given type/class/species that you defeat, which would be rather realistic. Eventually you would gain no experience for defeating an enemy. It simply doesn't make sense for combat not to result in experience, especially novel/new combat experiences. Initial combat encounters with a given enemy would provide substantial experience, but each following encounter/defeated individual of this enemy type would reward less experience, and this decrease in experience would accelerate until you eventually stop receiving experience, because you already "know" the best ways to fight and defeat/kill this creature. Well, Josh will have to fix it somehow, so that the game can cater to the the combat lovers (combat + quest xp) and to the combat haters (quest xp only). Imagine the horror of those who pledged when they find out that PE is mechnically totally different than the IE games. Thats gonna be a real ****storm. By the way, the system you described is already used in the IE games, well very similar at least.

Because they don't like fighting. If you go to work and hate your job, why do you go? Because you're rewarded with money, not "just because." Combat xp is for those who hate combat (Valorian's Kitty can solve this one): Actually it is exactly the other way around. Quest xp only is for those who hate combat. Combat xp + quest xp is for those who actually like combat, seeing that combat is required and can not be avoided like the pest.

On the contrary: the exploitability and degenerate strategies made it too easy. That's what exploitability and degenerate strategies do. Easy but tedious and boring. Ohhhh, so now the IE games are bad games. Why are you here again? Because you love Skyrim? lol This is getting ridiculous. And god, I can't read your ridiculous messages anymore. I am tired of repeating myself because of your comprehension problems and lack of good argumentation. So now you have started attacking me personally. All I can say is: Combat xp is for those who like combat, it is not the other way around. Why the hell would I want combat xp if I hated combat? Like I said, did you think that up yourself or do you have a 12 year old write your argumentation? Combat in a game that is supposed to be based heavily on tactical and strategical combat will be pointless. Thats it. About the rest: Read the last 20 posts. Very, very slowly....

So you would do side quests, even if there was no xp reward? Interesting. By the way, combat xp if for those who DO like combat. Makes sense right? Yeah, just like in Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Planescape, Icewind Dale.... Those degenerate games with ****ty systems. Oh wait, whats this? Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we! Introducing Obsidian's PROJECT ETERNITY Hmmm. Sneaking? Never heard about this? All classes can sneak and avoid the pointless combat. It's a feature. hehe

Oh, it was too hard, thats why. Hmmm. You can turn on super duper easy mode you know. And what does the combat xp have to do with the gaming rules? Nothing really. They would be the same even with quest only xp. Think before you write dude. And I don't think that the people who pledged $4 million think the same way. I think they are expecting a real IE game and not some dumbed down crap. Wait, wut? Are trying to say I'm a noob because I like combat xp? LOL.Yeah, I loved Fallout and BG and Icewind Dale and Planescape, they all had combat xp. You know, those games for noobs. I see you want me to repeat myself for 20th time. What is this, some kind of psychological profiling? Anybody that likes combat + quest xp is pathalogical liar? lol Sorry to see you run out of arguments by the way. Yes, I like roleplaying and character development, which will now be pointless in this game, which is supposed to be combat oriented in the first place. Should I repeat myself another 20 times? Do you think you will understand then? Well what about you? Do you like to kill everything even though it is absolutely pointless? You know, just to waste resources for something that you don't need anyway? I bet you would love to do side quests and not receive any xp (cookies, as you say), right? It's just about the quest and the adventure, nothing else matters. Right? And why do you have a problem, if this game has combat and quest xp just like the spiritual predecessors?

I don't get it either seeing that PE is supposed to be a game based heavily upon tactical and strategical combat and is not a "one hit to kill" type of game. That is why you have combat xp. Here is an example: What if I am wandering around (adventshurrin' ya know) and see some orcs? I won't bother to attack them, because it is pointless. I won't need the loot (Josh said, enough loot even for not engaging in combat), and you don't get xp for combat. And if they attack me I'll be like "Screw those raiding, pillaging, filthy, child killing super evil orcs, combat is just a pointless chore and a waste of time and resources. I'll just run away now, so, buh bye evil orcs". Wash, rinse, repeat for every encounter which isn't an elite mob or boss / lieutenant with good loot $$$. Unless of course I get a quest reward for killing them. Yeah, "Kill 20 orcs for 500xp" sounds like a great quest and a lot of fun, right? And what if I only feel like killing 15 orcs? Well too bad. Go back and kill some more even though you don't want to. Sounds like fun (no not really).

God, I hate that, especially when the voice acting is bad. The game has to have American accents too. It can be really good, like Jon Irenicus in Baldur's Gate 2 or Agent 47 in the Hitman series (the voice actor did a really good job in Absolution!!), but most of the time it is just so damn cheesy and sounds like crap, it's this kind of "would you like some crumpets and tea m'lady" kind of accent. Bah.

^ Yeah, remove healing and add an auto-regenerating health bar. Done. And don't you dare call it "dumbing down"...

And this is a problem, because...? And it's a ****ing fantaaaaastic mechanic, to just want to avoid every single combat situation in combat based game, because....? OTOH, "Clear out the orc encampent in Derpwood to stop them from raiding the homesteads" would be a meaningful quest. You forgot about the pacifist solution. Sneaking is just as important in a combat based game you know.... lol

That is not metagaming. Metagaming, roughly said, is if I know something that my in game character can't know and I use this to my advantage. i.e. I use a strategy guide. Nope. Metagaming is any in-game action you take for out-of-game reasons. Racing to win in a racing game is not metagaming, because winning a race is an in-game objective. Attempting to complete a quest in a cRPG is not metagaming because it is an in-game objective. Going back to kill monsters for XP is degenerate/metagaming, because you are not doing it for any in-game reason. This is metagaming. Even Josh uses the term metagaming like I described it, seeing that you like everything he says, maybe you will believe me now.... or maybe you will never get it. Translation: if a mechanic you don't like is used in a way you like, you redefine it as no longer the mechanic you don't like. Thanks for making that clear; I'll try to account for it in future exchanges with you. How many times do I have to explain it to you until you understand what I am saying? If it is done like in the IE games, i.e where a few creatures spawn weeks later, but not anywhere at the same amount and without elites, then that and only that IS OK. The xp would be worthless anyway (you know how an xp system works, right?) Jeez. Why do you believe diplomacy is always good? I was obviously talking about the mechanic and not always choosing the diplomatic resolution to a conflict. It sounds like you don't like cRPG combat much at all, then. If that's the case, then (a) Why do you want to play a combat-heavy cRPG to start with, and (b) Why aren't you overjoyed that you can avoid all that boring, tedious chore of combat by engaging in stealth, diplomacy, or other approaches instead? Why do you think the system used in the IE games (the spiritual predecessors to this game) is a bunch of bull**** and needs to be fixed? I dunno, doesn't seem to makes sense to say that the system used in the greatest RPGs ever created is utter crap. As Valorian has told you many times, you seem to have problem understanding written text for some reason. I'm not going to explain it slowly to you either.

That is not metagaming. Metagaming, roughly said, is if I know something that my in game character can't know and I use this to my advantage. i.e. I use a strategy guide. That would be a really stupid way of going about it, and not what I suggested at all. I was suggesting that if you return to the dungeon the next day, you might find some scavengers gnawing on the bones you left behind. Return to it in a month, and maybe a tribe of kobolds moved in. And so on. It would be silly if the exact same monsters respawned every time, except in a wilderness setting where they would represent beasties wandering in from neighboring areas. It would not be believable to have one band of murder hobos be able to entirely depopulate a huge wilderness area. Well, that is ok. But then again it isn't respawning and the IE games used a similar system. In your world, if the police arrests and jails a criminal biker gang, does no other criminal gang ever take over its business? I dunno. Maybe the evil bandits spilled mutagen which sept into the soil and the chipmunks in my scenario mutated after they ate the spoiled acorns. Then their DNA mixed with that of the bandits. This turned them into super evil chipmunks of destruction, who rebuild the camp and then start their plan of world conquest. But, that would not respawning. Which is a good thing. Exactly! Phew, we can finally agree on something! None of them are pointless chores, if rewarded appropriately. But combat will always be the worst choice, seeing that you always benefit more from sneaking or diplomacy, because it is the easiest (an therefore most logical) solution to reach the same goal. Why do you believe sneaking or diplomacy are always easier and provide more benefit than combat? Diplomacy will (should) have many shades of gray (Avellone is working on this game after all!). Diplomacy is always good, so I guess we can leave that out. I just don't see why I should engage in combat, if there is no reward. Well, you could say: To make yourself feel better because you are roleplaying. Well **** that, I like to develop my character to be a fighting machine of goodness, that smites out evil orcs and nasty wizard liches. It is not just about story, it is about story and character development and my character will never engage in pointless combat, because the game is not rewarding me for combat, it is ONLY rewarding me for crossing an imaginary line however I feel like doing it. That's bull****. What if I am wandering around and see some orcs? I won't bother to attack them, because it is pointless. I won't need the loot (I will have more than enough, because "loot is systemic") and you don't get xp for combat. And if they attack me I'll be like "Screw those raiding, pillaging, filthy, child killing super evil ****, combat is just a pointless chore and a waste of time and resources. I'll just run away, so, buh bye evil orcs. Go **** yourselves and play with those who only love quest xp". Unless of course I get a quest reward for killing them. Oh yeah, "Kill 20 orcs for 500xp" sounds like a great quest and a lot of fun. And what if I only feel like killing 15 orcs? well too bad. Go back and kill some more even though you don't want to so you can get some more xp. That's bull****.

NO RESPAWNS, except for the type where a few enemies repopulate an area, but only weeks later. You know, just like in the spiritual predecessors.

Nope. Killing critters for XP (rather than to accomplish some in-game goal) is degenerate. Any in-game activity you do for metagame reasons is. And that is indeed one reason they've dropped combat XP. The main reason being that it makes the system easier to balance and more difficult to break. How can killing creatures and receiving xp be metagaming and receiving xp for quests not be metagaming? Because having endless respawns adds nothing to the game, other than eventually annoyance. On the contrary. They can make, for example, travel an interesting gameplay element. If you're able to completely depopulate a wilderness, there's no more cost to traversing it. If there's always a possibility of a potentially dangerous random encounter, you need to take that into account when planning your moves. It adds depth to the gameplay. Sometimes a quite a lot of depth, even. Certainly. Depopulate a whole dungeon and come back 2 minutes later to see that everything has respawned. Wow, sounds great. That really makes you feel like you changed the world... If I wipe out a bandit camp, then that bandit camp is GONE. The only thing that will populate it again are chipmunks, bears and the flowers that grow on the dead bandits. I don't need the game to say to me: "haha, we're back even thought it makes no sense. So **** you looser." Nope. See above for an example. Another benefit is that it adds life and depth to the setting. If you kill a family of bears occupying a cave in the wilderness, it won't be too long before something else moves in. Replicating this in a game makes the world more believable. That is not an insignificant benefit IMO. Yeah. After you kill the bears a pack of wolves moves in the next day. Respawns like that happened in the IE games too, but it took weeks and the critters had such a low level that the xp was worthless by that time. Yup. No endless xp and no endless loot.