Helm

What makes combat a pointless chore, but sneaking, diplomacy, or other problem-solving not a pointless chore? 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.

Well, that is exactly what I mean. You only engage in combat for a reward, which you get regardless of what you do making combat only a tedious chore. Why should I even engage in combat if a simple peaceful solution is just as good as violent one? Josh doesn't want to penalize the pacifist solution and in turn is making the combat in a combat based game absolutely pointless, so why even bother in engaging in senseless combat. Just choose the no-brainer solution and you're done. Yup, you only engage in combat if the game forces you to do so, because otherwise it is almost always absolutely pointless. Doesn't make sense. Maybe Josh likes to hold our hands while we play, who knows. No, I want to have the decision to do one or the other and not have the game make that decision for me. The better solution will always be a no brainer, unlike in the IE games (or even in Fallout) where you could actually choose. In PE I will already know the better solution and it won't be the pointless combat. And it doesn't even have to be a choice where conflict resolution is required. 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. I'll just run away, buh bye evil orcs". 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 to bad. Go back and kill some more even though you don't want to. Why should any choice I have to make always have the same outcome, just because Josh does not want to penalize a player for any choice that he makes? Why engage in combat? You get the same loot, same xp, same, same, same. And how does it make sense that sneaking past an imaginary line for quest xp makes you a powerful warrior and master potion brewer in PE? If you wanna make an isometric Deus Ex game, then quest only xp is the way to go. But this is not an isometric Deus Ex. Quest xp makes sense for linear games, or for stealth games. Bloodlines is a good, but very linear. Deus Ex is a stealth game. Objective xp makes sense in these cases. But that is not the point, they are just making combat pointless by making every choice, no matter what it is, have practically the same outcome. Combat will just be a waste of time (in a game, that is supposed to be combat oriented). The story might change, sure, but this is not an interactive book, it is an RPG. Ohhh, thats a good one. Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we! Introducing Obsidian's PROJECT ETERNITY. Btw, combat xp is still used in games.

I never said that you could always avoid combat under every circumstance and I never said that you would also want to avoid an elite mob or boss (because they usually have good loot). As far as I know it will not be possible to always avoid combat anyway (like I have said). But Josh said himself that pacifist choices will not be punished. So you might have different loot, you might get the same loot with a different solution, but you won't have bad loot.

Josh also says here that he also does not want to reward gamers with xp for killing. And how the **** is he planning on stopping me from "degeneratively" going back to kill for loot? Loot was also important in the IE games, the loot you found on creatures was probably more important than the xp you received from killing them. Loot is also a reward and it will stay that way unless you pull "a Bethesda" and implement a totally ****ed up economy where cash is worthless. Why the heck does he even want to tell me what to do? If I want more xp or more loot then I will go back and kill those creatures and that should be my decision and not a decision the developer makes for me. I have to say though, that a situation like that is extremely unlikely. I personally never wasted my time to run through an entire dungeon again just to kill a few monsters that I might have missed just for loot and xp. Why does Josh think xp is a reward and cash/loot is not a reward anyway? Oh thats right, there will probably be so much loot that you won't have to kill for any.

Yes, correct, he did, because he wants to give the player the freedom to choose how he wants to solve a quest. The only problem with this system is that he is punishing those who like combat by turning it into a pointless chore. You don't need to engage in combat for xp, you don't need to engage in combat for loot, you would only need to engage in combat to pass an obstacle. But not even that is necessary, because you can just sneak past many enemies. Why should I waste my time to kill enemies, if I can just sneak past? This is rather strange concept for a game that is supposed to be the spiritual successor to the IE games, which based heavily upon combat that was not pointless. There is no disadvantage in avoiding combat (sneaking), otherwise combat would be pure benefit which would stand in contradiction to Josh's stance on "degenerate gaming". And true, like I have written many times, you will not always be able to sneak or avoid combat, combat will be obligatory in certain situations. That is not what I think. Stealth would be interesting, but not if it makes combat pointless (where it is not obligatory). Why should "Valorian the Munchkin" not be rewarded for his solution to solving the problem with lizard priests? Doesn't make sense to me. Josh can fix this problem and maybe he will do that too. He still has some time, lets see what happens.

Um, but that is what he said. Sorry, that you don't like it. If you think otherwise then tell me what he really said. So start discussing and stop whining please.

^ There is no pure benefit in combat or in sneaking, one mechanic is not better than the other. The only pure benefit is completing the quest, to favor one style of gameplay over another is degenerate gameplay (as Josh has said many times). And why should there be a tradeoff? If you only sneak does that mean you will break the game and cannot fight anymore? Nope, pacifists wil not be punished, they will have similar (good) loot and will always be able to fight (when obligatory). Fighting does not make you stronger at all, only walking over an imaginary line does, which will allow pacifists to become great and powerful warriors. So, why all the butthurt? All I did was tell you what Josh wrote and I even gave you some links in my last post. If you don't like what he said, well, then complain to him and not to me.

That's a good point. There are a number of ways to address it though. I hope they will. For example, there could be tough, unavoidable combat -- a less combat-focused party would be at a disadvantage there, and would have to go through more consumables to survive that than a more combat-focused party. Or you could require different types of consumables for noncombat solutions -- invisibility potions for stealth, for example. Whatever they are up to, pacifist players will not be at a disadvantage at all. You can fight, you can sneak or you can do both and will never be at a disadvantage, because only questing in PE is pure benefit, nothing else.

Of course combat will be pointless, but it will be fun as josh said. I guess.

Because Josh knows we're all stupid and he is trying to help us. He also doesn't want to pacifist players to be at a disadvantage. Thank you Josh.I.e. If the game used the system you just mentioned, then somebody who only sneaks would break the game, because he would not be able to pass obligatory combat situations. Combat in PE is only for "fun" (except for the few obligatory situations where combat is required) and sneaking is only for "fun". The prize comes from reaching a goal however you like.Those who sneak will not be at a disadvantage in any way, and will not have less loot than someone who engages in combat for "fun". So it is very likely that most will just sneak through the game, seeing that combat is somewhat pointless and just takes longer. No combat xp, because Josh and Tim don't want pacifists or those who like to sneak to be at a disadvantage.

It is not my intention to be snide here, but stealth is literally "the act or characteristic of moving with extreme care and/or quietness, especially so as to avoid detection." Sneaking is a part of stealth. I understand what you mean, though, about the difference between a Rogue's abilities and the other classes' abilities in that regard, and I agree. However... In other words only a rogue should be able to "hide in the shadows" (like in D&D) and complete feats that require a large amount a dexterity, so that the borders between classes are not too loose in regards to stealth abilities. This is supposed to class based game after all. Yes, but I couldn't think of a better way (well, not of the top of my head at least) to distinguish between "stealth" and "sneaking", even though they are fundamentally the same thing. Anybody can "sneak", but only very few actually master "stealth". I guess "furtively", "clandestine" or "latently" might have been better terms for "sneaking" in the way I used it. Well, anyway, like you said, you know what I mean. What I meant was the "hide in shadows" thief skill in D&D. I.e. a master rogue/thief could walk around in the middle of a room full of enemies and they would never even see him, because he was hidden in the shadows. Sure, any character could use the shadows (darkness) or an object to conceal themselves. I was talking about stealth abilities, that require dexterity, whatever they might be. I guess a monk could do some of them and a ninja too (I know, no ninjas in PE), it depends on how the classes are designed. But a paladin, barbarian or wizard? Nope.

Well, that would be bad game design if the game gave those who sneak just as much xp as those who fight. So "Valorian the Munchkin" and "Barbara the Barbarian" should get the most and exactly the same amount of xp.

Well, at least you have described how your "non systemic" loot system will work (instead of being vague). Thank you for that. But of course it's a no brainer in your example. Kill everything and get more loot and xp if you need xp and more good loot otherwise you just sneak past and empty the chests. But that is a decision I should make and not one that the game designers (you and Cain) should make for me. In PE the default action would just be: sneak past with your entire team (because every class can be stealthy) unless you need some more loot to sell for cash, but you will probably have more than enough cash from killing some unchallenging trash mobs and emptying treasure chests anyway. The only reason to even kill anything in PE is for loot to sell, so you have cash for combat items, which are never used, because your jolly crew of bandits always ignores combat, because there is no point in combat other than to gather cash, which you don't need because you never engage in combat. lol That was just a extremely minor bad game design decision. You should have gotten xp for either using the password too. Or no xp for unlocking a computer at all. Problem fixed. You have said many times that you have played D&D for years and absolutely love it. But after over 20 years of D&D you have suddenly realised that "kill and objective xp" is fundamentally bad and degenerate game design? Yeah, I know, I know. It's degenerate game design. Seriously, since when is it obligatory to do every quest and kill every monster in Baldur's Gate? You could skip entire areas if you wanted to and still win, because the fundamental design of the game was fantastic. Well, of course quests will be pure benefit in PE, it will actually be the only benefit. lol Those who prefer to sneak their way through the entire game (at least where it is possible) would technically be at a disadvantage, because they will have less loot, but practically they won't even be at a disadvantage, because they won't even need cash anyway (as I described above). You and Cain seem to more focused on how to implement the ability to "pacifist sneak" your way through practically the entire game and are protecting this unorthdox game design in every way possible. Well, as Confucius say: "Sneak make powerful warrior, get objective xp. Combat no make you stronger than sneaky, combat always bad choice". Two words: deep stash. Makes sense. One should only need to sneak through the entire endless paths dungeon once after you have opened all of the chests and stolen the loot. Oh man, the IE games had so much degenerate game design, as Josh has already said many times. Health bars that DO NOT regenerate like in Call of Dooty is degenerate, being able to miss your oponent is degenerate, not being able to sneak through the whole game is degenerate, etc. I don't blame you for not being able to keep up.

No. Awarding loot is not systemic. So loot is uncommon or what? In other words it is quest based and not quest and combat based? Which means that mobs only drop weapons and armor? And what if someone sells all of the armor and weapons he finds on mobs? How will you try to balance out a pacifist's disadvantage in this case? You sound like you really need to read (or re-read) the information they've already released. That would probably trim half of your questions before you even post them. Here's Marceror's thread stalking compliation on Sorcerer's Net. He also includes sources for things mentioned on other gaming sites/reddit/etc: http://www.sorcerers...ead.php?t=58186 Oh, ok. Seeing you know every detail about the game then you can answer my questions in 2 sentences instead of the 3 that you just wrote.

No. Awarding loot is not systemic. So loot is uncommon or what? In other words it is quest based and not quest and combat based? Which means that mobs only drop weapons and armor? And what if someone sells all of the armor and weapons he finds on mobs? How will you try to balance out a pacifist's disadvantage in this case?

I believe massacring friendly towns in order to level up can be interpreted as sociopathic behavior, don't you agree? Yes. Unless it is an orc bandit town full of filthy raiding, pillaging and murdering orcs lead by an evil lich who eats the brains of children and tortures kittens. DIE ORCS AND LICH LEADER, DIEEE!!! *ahem* Anyway, you got like 1 xp for killing a peaceful villager in BG... and then came teh Flaming Fist to kick your ass. Real hard. And then you were dead. Oh yeah, it was worth it. You leveled up real fast that way. "I SURRRVE TEH FLAMING FIST"

Yeah, LOL. Evil characters should not get any XP, because they are sociopaths and sociopathic behavior should not be rewarded. LOL

Are you really incapable of understanding how rewarding the act of killing encourages killing things indiscriminately? Also, before you start complaining, there is a difference between "encourages" and "inevitably leads to".Why on earth is it so hard to accept that maybe we shouldn't reward massacring entire towns for xp gain?Edit: just as a side note, I think I am the authority of what I mean when I write something, since I am the one who knocks wrote the actual thing.Huh? You wrote: Yeah, rewarding sociopathic behavior is so much better and is proven to enhance gameplay in every possible way imaginable. Let me translate what you wrote so you understand: "Killing sociopathic. Reward get for sociopathic behavior bad. Better no reward for sociopathic acting. That better much." *grunt* I see you little buddy sharp_one doesn't get it either. He is also still pissed because me and Valorian told him he had no idea what he was talking about. Oh woops, I wanted to ignore you. hehe

^ ^ A UI with hotkeys would be nice though, so that you don't always have to access your inventory just to change your weapon or drink a potion.

This. Stealth can range all the way from sneaking past a campsite with drunken, passed-out bandits at night without waking them up to stealing a key, undetected, from beneath a king's seat cushion in the midst of a royal banquet. Defensive stealth should be pretty simple for almost any class, even though it will still have a range of skill levels. But, offensive stealth (stealth that involves movement progression and/or targets and actions while remaining undetected) will most likely be where Rogues will be necessary, or at least highly valuable. It's just like Josh said about positional stealth benefits at the point of combat initialization. I don't think your full-plate fighter is going to ambush-flank a group of bandits from the trees without making too much noise and giving himself away before his attack is executed, but that doesn't mean he can't make his way gently into a shadowy area and stand very still until a suspicious guard passes him by in a castle corridor. That makes sense actually if stealth can only be used offensively by the rogue (e.g. backstabbing)... but then again what you described is not really stealth it is just plain old sneaking. Sure, any class could do that. They just have to make sure that the stealth of the rogue will always be drastically superior to that of a fighter or a wizard for example. In other words only a rogue should be able to "hide in the shadows" (like in D&D) and complete feats that require a large amount a dexterity, so that the borders between classes are not too loose in regards to stealth abilities. This is supposed to class based game after all.

Killing an evil ork in in a game is "sociopathic behavior". lol And since when is "rewarding the act of killing encourages sociopathic behavior" equal to "kill xp is for sociopaths"? If you can't tell the difference, you really are hopeless. Killing something (like an ork) = sociopathic behavior, and rewarding that is baaaaad. bad, bad, bad. lol. That is what you wrote, but apparently you don't even understand what you wrote yourself. I pointed out that yor post is ridiculous (killing an ork is not sociopathic behavior), but you don't understand, and now you are pissed off and keep on bothering me. The end. I am just going to ignore you from now on, that seems to be the only solution.

I'm afraid it's not I who is changing the subject. Would you care to point out where exactly did I say "kill xp is for sociopaths"? lol. you mean your post on the last page? Killing an evil ork in in a game is "sociopathic behavior". lol Btw, you did the change the subject. It went from "rewarding combat with xp is sociopathic behavior" to "One should be able to resolve a conflict peacefully, if ones wishes". I do agree with you on the second quote, but you also just changed the subject... maybe you actually did realise that your first post was ridiculous.

FYI, insulting fellow forum members and using strawman arguments is usually not very well received here. You'll look uncivilized and rather foolish at best. I don't intend to waste my time arguing with someone who is either incapable of understanding written text, or wilfully misinterprets what I'm saying. lol. You said that kill xp is for sociopaths (so killing and not receiving xp makes you sane) did you not? Yeah, Gary Gygax is a ****ing psychopath because he implemented kill xp in D and D. Saywer is a ****ing psychopath because he played pen and paper D and D a lot and loved it. LOL Stop whining just because I am telling you that argumentation does not make any sense at all. I'm sorry, that I have to be so direct and aggressive, but sometimes that is the only way to make stubborn people understand that they are absolutely wrong. And Also don't try to change the subject by all of a sudden talking conflict resolution, etc. So, stop wasting my time with your ridiculous posts please and go and play the Sims or something.

Not like this is new or something. The IE games all used minimal scaling. I emphasize MINIMAL.

No. Oh, ok. So you're going to punish players who make pacifist choices, because they will receive less cash and loot to sell. Interesting... But perhaps you have contrived a mechanic to fix this? Yeah, rewarding sociopathic behavior is so much better and is proven to enhance gameplay in every possible way imaginable. Please. Go and play the Sims or My Little Pony and leave Baldur's Gate to us psychos and sociopaths. Using violence and/or threats of violence as the main method for solving problems should not be encouraged if your aim is to create a believable and immersive universe for actual roleplaying instead of hack&slash action. Mainly because, you know, there are actual consequences of killing other sentient beings in most rational universes. Most of them involve the people whom you have angered by killing their relatives/favorite lackeys/pet dogs/whatever doing everything in their power to make life as unpleasant to you as possible. And, inevitably, some of these quite understandably angry people will be stronger than you (and your party). Integrating this philosophy as a gameplay element is a win-win scenario - those who like combat will get even more combat, while those who choose an alternate way of dealing with the situation can experience the smug satisfaction which accompanies the realization that they had the foresight to deal with a problem before it even became one. Are you some kind of ****ing clown or comedian? You just said: "kill xp is for sociopaths" and now you are talking about conflict resolution or something. FYI: You will have to kill in this game no matter what you do (Sawyer has said combat cannot be totally avoided), so if you play PE it then you are also a sociopath (as you like to say) because you will have to kill. And I have no idea how receiving xp for a kill makes a player a sociopath and not receiving xp for a kill makes the player a pacifist or a sane person. BTW: Just because you receive xp for kills does not mean that you should not be able to solve a conflict peacefully (in a conversation for example). My god, is today "stupid logic day" or what?