Helm

Who's to say that resolving a quest through combat won't be the best solution in certain situations? For example, if you spare a bunch of enemies during one quest, they might come back as reinforcements in another one and make things more difficult for you. Also, fighting can be very satisfying if you are playing a combat-oriented character. I enjoyed my Brujah playthrough in VTM:Bloodlines even though you didn't get any XP for killing enemies in that game either. I simply liked the feeling that my character was powerful enough to single-handedly take out a bunch of tough enemies while the Ventrue character from my previous playthrough had a lot of trouble in the same situation. Resolving a quest either peacefully or brutally should of course be in the game. It just does not make sense to not give any XP for combat at all. Combat and quest/objective XP is the way to go. This is not Deus EX, Thief, whatever. This is a spiritual successor to the IE games and they were based heavily upon combat and you were rewarded for doing so.

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.

Loot isn't systemically connected with killing a target/any targets specifically. Okay, so NPCs drop worthless loot (if at all). Check. I don't think gaining experience points is the only reason why players engage in combat. I love Deus Ex, Thief and Hitman. Are you making an isometric stealthy Thief game, then the objective based XP would really make sense. An isometric thief game would be pretty cool beca------- oh no wait, PE is supposed to be a spiritual successor to the IE games. Too bad. But seriously, no, XP and loot is not the only reason that we engage in combat, but it is a reason to engage in combat and perhaps not avoid combat as much as possible. But why should I engage in combat with Orks if they only drop crap loot (if at all) and I am not rewarded with XP either? If there is no point in doing something then I personally will not do it either. I'll just kill what is in the way and forget the rest. You're the designer, maybe you have something up your sleep to not make combat (under many but not all circumstances) totally redundant. And PE should be heavily based on combat (well it supposed too, you know, like in the IE games).... But I guess you'll have to hear that from the playtesters first before your change your mind and switch back to quest + kill XP.

D&D has been on a decline ever since TSR was bought out. Quite sad.

Kill experience wasn't "removed" (it wasn't ever implemented) to prevent anyone from outleveling an area. When XP is rewarded for killing creatures, quests solutions than involve not killing creatures still systemically encourage players to go back and kill those creatures -- or make players feel like they have completed the quest "wrong" because they didn't kill the target. The issue isn't necessarily one of balance, because often players will exhibit the same behavior even if the amount of XP gained from creatures is extremely small. Aha, and what about loot? Do the enemies not drop any or are you implementing an economy where cash is worthless (like in Skyrim) so you wouldn't bother picking up anything anyway? Wow, sounds like a cool game where combat is always avoided because it is pointless. Maybe you should call the game Pacifist: The Pacifisting.

Josh is opting for an approach similar to what we had in BG, the only difference being that it will not be encounter level scaling but ranged place centric level scaling (as I understand). It should be minimal (I hope) so you will probably not even notice it.

Btw objective + kill based XP is the way to go imo. You should be rewarded for doing both and not just one or the other.

I keep on thinking: Baldur's Gate + Stealth. Hmmm...... how is that gonna work? I need more info before I can bash or praise the mechanic. I have to say though that it would not make much sense (to me) to have a warrior in full plate also have stealth abilities though... If you ask me only Rogues should be stealthy. Lets say you have a quest and you are given the choice to a) break down the gate with your team and raise hell while slaughtering every alerted guard or b) a more subtle approach where your stealthy rogue sneaks by the guards, climbs through a window and takes out numerous guards silently. Something like that would be pretty interesting.

Yes, it was. If you are going to make money worthless (like in TES) then at least let the merchants have unlimited amounts of cash. ^^

This is like talking to a brick wall. lol I mean, I would tell you to google "level scaling" but somehow I doubt that you know how google works. ^^ Level scaling is when you level scale the game substantially and not just some enemies because of balancing issues. What Sawyer has just proposed is totally different from the scaling used in New Vegas (which he originally proposed) and other games. But ok. I give up, this is ridiculous. Baldur's Gate is romance simulator because it had romance. Baldur's gate is a sleeping simulator because you can sleep. And it is cat killing simulator because you can kill cats. etc. etc. etc. Your logic is correct. Happy?

Some guys are saying that this method of balancing: is level scaling... So if you balance a few encounters (ONLY in the main campaign), then it is a level scaled game... In other words if you level scale an entire game without range or only a few encounters in the main campaign within a certain range, then that is the exact same thing. I know, I know. It's ridiculous. lol.

Umm, nobody said that the entire game would be level scaled, because Sawyer himself never said that. Just the main campaign, comparable to NEW VEGAS. I have even written that myself somehwere in this thread. Anyway, that was how things stood for a few months. But now it has been confirmed. NO LEVEL SCALING. The end. Thank god. This is a stupid argument anyway, I refuse to respond anymore. You comprehension skills either lack substantially or you are a troll. Choose one. Buh bye.

I'm not mad. I'm just feeding your trolling and your lack of comprehension. It might be what keeps sucking you into the thread and re-editing your posts. right?. lol. You are the one who is trolling and flaming (because you are mad or something). Sawyer said in that quote that the game would be level scaled no matter what you say. Anyway, you mean our lack of comprehension, right? Or did you want to say that EVERYONE in this thread (except for you and Sawyer of course) is a retard because we understood what Sawyer said differently?

Mmm, sure. If Mr. Sawyer says "the main campaign will be level scaled and New Vegas might be a good comparison" then that of course meant that the game will not be level scaled at all... You do know that the design for this game is not set in stone yet, anything can change. Maybe he changed his mind, maybe he meant something else. It is hard to say. But like I said, who cares. No level scaling confirmed. The end. If you are mad or something about this thread then open a new one called "all teh winers about teh lvl skaling r 2 stupid" and go and flame there instead.

Again, as I have already said, his description was very unfortunate if he meant otherwise. Read this: The entire main campaign path New Vegas was heavily level scaled you know. But why are we even arguing about this? Sawyer has just confirmed that the game will not be level scaled so who cares. /close thread.

This is excellent news. We are getting so many great games now that we don't have to buy this so called AAA crap anymore. :D Unlikely, at least not substantially imo. Avellone will be putting a lot of work into PE.

No, he said that the main campaign will be level caled similar to what we had in New Vegas. If this is what he meant from the beginning, well, then he should have been more specific and not have chosen such an unfortunate description. Yeah, that is called encounter scaling. It would be preferable.

I think we've said this before, but the only things we're likely to scale with player level are crit-path special encounters and even then, only within a range of levels. E.g. take a boss like Sherincal in IWD2. Maybe you'll encounter her at 5th level, but it's possible you could encounter her at 8th level. If 5th-8th is the most common range, we'd scale around that, but if you encounter her sub-5th level, you'll have to deal with the difference. If you encounter her at 9th or 10th by some x-treme XP mining, it will be a little easier for you. The reason to scale the crit path special encounters is to allow for the fact that not everyone wants to do a lot of side content. Some people want to (largely) stick to the crit path with minimal side quests. When it comes to the optional/side content, there won't be any scaling at all. Rats in the cellar will still be rats and may explode from your mere presence and the dragon Chrysophylax will probably burn you to ashes if you mosey up to his lair at 3rd level. I do believe you have not been this clear on the subject as of yet. I would prefer encounter scaling for balancing issues (like in Baldur's Gate), but I can live with this system. It is somewhat similar to the system used in Dragon Age (which was ok but not great btw), just not as extensive. Just make sure that you make hardcore ironman mode extremely brutal (practically forcing a player to harvest as much XP as possible.) But what Josh just proposed isn't level scaling. It is a hybrid content scaling of some sort and will only be used very little and only for specific balancing issues. Thank goodness.

*DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE STUPID. Omg, sorry. Thank god I saw that typo. Sadly I can't edit that post anymore....

I have no problem with selling everything that I find (I like that actually) I just want the currency in the game not be worthless. I would like to actually spend all that hard earned cash on something other than only on a house. The economy in Baldur's Gate 2 for example was pretty good, there was always something you could spend your cash on. :D And here is the worst case scenario: Skyrim. Cash meant absolutely nothing in that game, it is practically useless after you bought the houses because you can find everything you need in abundance. I don't know how much cash I had in that game, it was absolutely ridiculous. Gosh, the economy system is so bad in that game....... But I do like youe recommendations too @sea.

You caught me, I love easy games, and simplistic games. That is why I am here. /Sarcasm. I hate Bethesda games, but don't take it personal. Even if you like games like Skyrim with dumb downed mechanics does mean that you are stupid. I am talking about "The legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past" (Zelda 3) and not "The Legend of Zelda" (Zelda 1). Zelda 1 is actually pretty linear (even though it is also an awesome game).

I am happy about any update that does not include info about how they are planning on dumbing down the mechanics (that made the ie games great btw)... :D

Zelda is linear. You go do dungeon 1, and then make your way to dungeon 2, and so on. They don't have to level scale because of this. Games like TES require some level scaling because you can ignore the main quest till you are near max level. At which point the difficulty would be non existant. Any single player game with rpg progression that is open like that had to consider that. It isn't necessary in iwd to level scale because it is linear. I hope PE is more open, and allows me to do what I wish, when I wish. Which means they may require some level scaling. Sounds to me like you want it to be more of a funneled experience than I do. It is all personal taste, but I prefer a little freedom vs funneled story arc. Hmmm, well I like freedom too, but you just seem to like games with RPG mechanics dumbed down to retard level where you just wander around aimlessly just hacking and slashing away without any tactics or strategy. Btw "A Link to the past " is not clearly linear. There is a lot of exploration and you also have to figure out what to do. Not to mention that you do not have to enter every dungeon in a linear fashion.

Oh, I know the official terms. But stamina is nothing other than health (at least in this game) no matter what you call it. ^^ i.e. Main health bar (stamina) Secondary health bar (health)