Yonjuro

Wait, wait, wait. We're not there yet. Approximately 50% of the posters on this thread do not yet accept the fact that Obsidian is removing kill xp in POE. That's why this thread is up to page 5 right now, instead of page 1 or 2. I think they might be saying something different from what you think they are saying. I believe the argument is: while you don't get XP for everything you kill in PoE, in many encounters you will kill things and get XP as a direct result - i.e. the 'accomplishment' for which you are awarded XP will be that you killed something. In the IE games, one could say, killing something was always an 'accomplishment' in PoE it isn't always, but it may be very very often, potentially even most of the time (we don't know how much yet). I think that's what people are saying.

If you rested in Cloakwood in BG1, you would sometimes need to fight some spiders. In IWD1, resting in the Vale of Shadows might get you rudely awakened by some yetis. I think it could happen any time you rested outside of an Inn (or, in BG2, outside of an Inn or stronghold). In BG2 you tended to get waylaid by the same enemies quite often (they even dropped the same loot) so you might call that a respawning enemy. It wouldn't have been a reliable way to grind XP, just some random encounters.

(Thanks Pipyui. Excellent summation of where we are n this thread.) And, it's next time. I think we have some glass half full people and some glass half empty people here and also a general disagreement about the level of the glass. I'm optimistic about PoE, but I see the concerns people have. It is entirely possible that removing 'degenerate' game play from PoE will also remove some of the fun and flexibility of the IE games (or not, we'll see). Here are some legitimate concerns that were voiced here and and elsewhere: 1. By removing kill XP you remove heinous examples of grinding (e.g. resting in a place with respawning enemies) but you may (I used the word 'may' on purpose here; a well done accomplishment/objective system may work fine) also remove options a player has. Especially for solo or small party play throughs where fighting hard enemies early (*cough*, ankhegs, *cough*) would level a solo character up faster. The really 'degenerate' case above (abuse of respawns) comes with own penalty (i.e. it would be too boring for me to bother with) so one could argue that it doesn't matter. 2. How is XP divided? (This may be known (?), but I can't recall). Is it X points divided by the number of party members (like most XP in BG2) or is it X per party member (like 'quest experience' in BG 2). If the latter, it could turn small and solo runs into a miserable grind rather than a fun challenge (though, in some of the IE games, some solo characters, such as monks, tended to get overpowered late game, if anything; still it was hard to keep them alive that long, so it was a reward for getting through the early game). 3. I can think of a few others, but I'll stop with those two XP related items; add to the list if you have other concerns. So, in the continuing drama that is this thread, here are two items of possible concern. PoE may do a great job of getting rid of bad mechanics of the IE games and keeping only the good stuff, or maybe the baby (and the wash tub) will get tossed out with the bath water. We don't know. But, opinions?

Indeed, too much balance and you have probably wrecked the game, since whatever character you invest in, you'll get more or less exactly the same sense of power and progress, as it were. As for you other worry, I do understand where you come from. I've played all those great D&D CRPGs so many times, so I really hope that the vibe is lost on the way, Yes, exactly. I'm convinced that we'll see something that's very well written and very well engineered. I hope it's also fun to play. BG 1&2, flaws and all, were a lot of fun.

That would be interesting, .... This is an interesting idea. I replied in the new thread.

That would be interesting, connecting reputation to talking your way out of fights. It would provide a mechanics (you need some work put in to it for it to work), a choice (not every reputation would work on everyone) and a way to balance it (gaining a reputation could be harder on higher difficulty). I like it, kudos. I think Josh mentioned that the party is gonna work like in IWD2, that means that you can change the party leader and that everyone in the party can specialize a different skill, so there is no need to pool resources apart from something like stealth. (Moved from the old thread.) This is a nice idea. If your reputation is a bit more brutal than average, you might end up having an easier time talking your way out of some fights later (of course, this could backfire in some cases too). So, it may give you strategic options like 'scorched earth policy' on some early fights to help you talk your way out of later ones.

Likewise, even without using the fanpatches I used later on. So, I'm somewhat on the 'what?' on that post as well... It might be due to mods. I never used the BG2 console until I got a new monitor and set the resolution higher (with the widescreen mod). After that, Saemon Haverian stopped appearing after the pirate horn subquest (I think his position might be hardcoded, so he was probably appearing inside of a wall or something). Apparently it is a known bug and the only workaround I've seen is to spawn a new Saemon Haverian with the console.

This could be an interesting idea. What you describe sounds a lot like the role of the Shamaan in primary cultures (for those not up on their anthropological lingo, 'primary' is what used to be described as 'primitive' even though the cultures were anything but primitive). In BG, when the PC got special abilities in dreams, it was a little odd that they would wake up knowing exactly what the powers were and how they worked. In a primary culture, if you had a vivid disturbing dream, you went to the shamaan who helped you turn it into a useful revelation/power. That could have been a use of the mechanic you are proposing.

What is this about checking the entire town? I don't understand what you people are talking about and what that has to do with my suggestion. You're just making a bunch of crap up to what end? Because you don't like a realistic world? I really don't get it, you're all being irrational. (Well, yes, that would be one explanation - all of the people saying this are irrational - but, if they are, there's no arguing with them anyway, so there's no point in telling them that they are. The other possibility is that you haven't understood their concerns, in which case, it would be more constructive to get more information from them. Calling them irrational is not going to be an effective way to do that, is it?) So, back to the subject: Let's look at an example from PS:T, a brilliant game story-wise but with some genuine issues with how the game play worked. To get through one of the portals in ragpickers square, you need a specific item called, 'junk' which you may not be carrying around with you (because, you know, it's JUNK). One way to find this out is to ask a character near the marketplace, a woman who is salvaging nails. However, the first time you speak to her, she doesn't tell you this. There is no obvious time to go back and ask her again. You could end up wandering around talking to everyone to try to figure out what you needed. That makes PS:T pretty broken in terms of game play. A second example was the search for Boo in BG2, part of the unfinished business mod. It does have a few different possible resolutions, but after you've seen them, it isn't a hugely interesting encounter. However, I like doing it (and there's not really much choice if you want to keep Minsc) if I'm going to go to spellhold early because the reward is very good. The trigger is pretty random (go into and out of the docks some number of times). Some games it doesn't trigger at all, probably due to a bug. Is that more realistic than having it trigger, say, the first or second time you leave the docks? I don't think so; it's just unpredictable in an annoying way. If the different outcomes were more random but the getting the quest was predictable, I think that would be more interesting. Staggering quests doesn't need to be done in either of those annoying ways (and I don't expect them to be in PoE), but they are examples of the (perfectly rational) concern that several people have. My preference would be that things like getting quests would be one of the more predictable parts of the game and things like combat and some of the puzzle like things needed to advance a questline would be less predictable.

You can probably change the order of the characters to make the back and forth less cumbersome, but I agree that a comparison tool could be very useful.

I think it was 400. (The real humor is when a party member levels up as a result.)

I agree, but I don't think the more linear part is better. Really, I think the biggest flaw with BG2 (my favorite game of all time, by far) is that you get the save Imoen quest first and if you do it early, as I often did, then you have all of the chapter 2 quests to do after returning from the Underdark in a place where they don't quite fit the story. If you save Imoen late game, you have the problem that your PC would be unlikely to leave her there for that long (unless the 'best friend' relationship is one-way in your PC's mind, which it could be; for me, the most chaotic and most evil PC I've played still wanted to save Imoen (maybe partially out of spite for Irenicus)). From a metagame perspective, I really like the flexibility of BG2. It was especially good for solo runs where different (low level) classes might be better at different quests. I also like the low barrier to entry to chapter three (15k gold; you can have that much before leaving the slums if you don't buy much). It allows a very wide variety of play throughs. However, both BG1 and BG2 point you in a reasonable direction on your first play through, so you don't get the aimless wandering that can happen is a flexible game. I think it's one of the things that both games got right. Even BG1 was a lot more liinear w.r.t the main quest.

Yes. Tastefully done, sir. (And, maybe a purple potion and blue potion thrown in for +3 INT each, just in case).

I don't think I would notice the first three of those the way I've usually played that map. I typically have some kind of protection from petrification on anyone who gets near a basilisk. I didn't usually use Korax (because he's slow) and usually scout outdoor areas with an invisibility spell since the thief doesn't need to open anything. Would those three make the map more interesting to play? I think they just add restrictions, no? Number four, on the other hand, I would notice. I suspect a lot of players would reload and fireball with extreme prejudice, but there are some good straight ways to play that too. It's a little bit like the elder orb in the twisted rune that dispels your negative plane protection (if I'm remembering that correctly).

(Well, the IE games did have the Wand of Magic Missile (aka the wand of spell interruption). It shot one Magic Missile for less damage than a sling but it never missed.) I'm fine either way as long as everyone plays by the same rules.

The basilisk map is an interesting example. You could do a lot of things with the difficulty slider, but many of them would not make the level better. Just to remind everyone, conveniently, the game developers provided you with a dire charmed ghoul at the beginning of the map who wants to be your friend and help you (ok, yeah, those guys had a sense of humor). So, one solution to the puzzle with a fairly low level party is to keep the ghoul in front and engaging the basilisks (since the ghoul, being undead, is immune to them) and only bring your party up later with ranged weapons and spells. You also need to keep the other guys on the map (some monster, a mage etc.) from killing your ghoulfriend before you finish off the basilisks and you need to finish them before the dire charm wears off. (Implicit in this is that you stealth scouted the level in advance to solve the puzzle because wandering around is not a great idea on this level.) So, ways to make this harder: 1. The basilisks could gaze at unprotected party members in the back 2. They could run away when they realize their gaze is failing or when they start getting hit 3. Add additional enemies to the map 4. etc. But those might make the 'ghoul solution' just not work because you won't have time to finish off the basilisks and, since, the ghoul needs backup to kill the basilisks, item 1 would just mean you need protection from petrification for more people. Likewise, if you were using a party member protected from petrification in place of the ghoul, making things take longer only means you need more scrolls, potions or memorized spells. So far, none of this makes the level more fun, just more difficult in an uninteresting way (and probably requiring a higher level party to beat). Then again, if things were laid out carefully there could be added difficulties that required you, say, to bring up melee fighters to protect the ghoul between basilisk encounters or something, so there could be interesting ways to do the difficulty slider too (, unless that just makes the party tank (or some other) solution strictly better). So, that's a roundabout way of getting to the point: I suppose what most of us would like (maybe?) is for the difficulty slider to add interesting tactical requirements to the puzzle. In the above example, requiring melee fighters and the ghoul to switch off 'taking point' might be interesting. Requiring more Mirror Eyes potions or the equivalent would not.

Sure, that's a fair point (and not unrelated to the point I'm trying to make here). These aren't tactical challenges - or at least not good tactical challenges (maybe the twisted rune is to some extent). A better example is the final 2 fights with Irenicus. Compared to the end of BG1, these were very disappointing. Especially the first one on the tree. On my first play through, I worked out what I thought was a good strategy and then I literally killed him by accident. He was built up as some kind of uber mage in the cut scenes and then the guy you fight is just a regular mage. I retreated everyone along the same branch of the tree and summoned some skeletons to slow down his inevitable (I thought) pursuit. The plan was to use the branch points for ambushes. While I was getting my party ready for him he died - from the skeletons.

So much for learning tactics. Kangaxx- Used spell immunity and spell shield and resist fear on my melees, put my paladin(with holy avenger) closest to the lich and cast death ward on him and let the lich cast all his spells on him. Took me a few reloads to find out hot to position my characters so they all survive.(I think I beat him on my second try but lost half of my party) So you see the encounter isn't impossible without finding out a "simple piece of information that is obvious in hindsight". Not to mention that what you said is a go to guide that you find online on how to beat the lich. Mindflayers in the sewers I beat by summoning creatures and letting them take on the mindflayers psionic attacks. Took me maybe one reload to get through it. I don't remember this last one, but this is simply learning patterns. For the encounter to be what you want, the devs need to make an AI for the game that will change the behavior of the enemy every time you enter a fight. We could have a better discussion if you would stop thinking you were going beat me in this battle of wits you seem to think is taking place here (btw, how so you think that's been going so far?) and think about what point I'm trying to make. Yes, I know, as does anybody with a BG2 manual in their possession, that there is more than one way to make your party immune to imprisonment (and I've beat these three levels in different ways, too). My point is that in hindsight these fights have trivial solutions (the first two, I'll say more about the the twisted rune). If you reload even once, you can figure out the solution from the info in the manual. Kangaxx is not a hard fight if you know two things about him.There is no puzzle to solve. You need to figure out a counter to the one thing he does and you need a plus four weapon. This is not a tactical challenge. Do you agree with that point or not? And now I'll give you an idea of what's it's like to be me talking to you: You said, Finally, something we can agree on.

That's a very different play style than I had with the IE games. I rarely got my party members killed because it seemed like something my PC just wouldn't do. I suppose that probably causes me to play a lot more conservatively than you do.

Fair enough. The first three that come to mind are: Kangaxx - very silly encounter. You need a plus four weapon and some kind immunity to imprisonment - so reload buy the staff of Rynn and recruit Korgan. The rest of the party hides while Korgan goes berserk and beats Kangaxx to death the staff (Phase three is profit!). The mindflayer area in the sewers. This is extremely silly and it does exactly what you said you don't like - it hits your party with a psionic blast before they go into the area (the game directly tells you what you need to defend yourself). It probably does this because during play testing, testers wandered in there without enough chaotic commands spells (the one specific thing you need to make it easy) and hilarity ensued. Finally, The Twisted Rune - This one is less silly because a high level party probably has everything they need. But if you go there at the wrong time, you can't leave and need to reload. When you do reload, you probably know everything you need to make the fight fairly easy - a winning strategy is practically handed to you by the level layout once you know what the enemies look like.

What this all boils down to is that you always want the game to tell you what the next fight is going to be, or you want the ability to escape from any fight. No, what this boils down to is that you don't respond to what I actually say. You assume I must really secretly mean something stupid and you respond to that instead. I explicitly said that I don't want the game to tell me anything. I also said that there's a difference between reloading and learning tactics to play better. You stated in no uncertain terms that think you reloading is the same as using in-game tactics to win. It isn't. It would be dead easy to write a computer program to win, say BG2, or any of the IE games - a few hundred lines of code (because reloads mean you can try again until you succeed - mindless search for the 'win'). It would be nearly impossible to write a program to do a no reload win of BG2 because it actually needs to learn strategy and tactics and not memorize partial solutions.

My take. The last couple of hours were an endless horrible grind and I hated every moment, I'm never going to replay BG1 (because of the ending). Starting at what point? The final fight in the temple? Before that? What was that place you entered into the.. what was that now. From thieves guild into the maze system thing? The thieves maze. Yeah, that was a grind, especially the first time. One part that I would change is that there is some kind of jelly that can insta-kill a character that fails a save. That just seems cheesy. Did you revisit the thieves maze after playing through some other IE titles? I think it's mostly pretty manageable and I'll bet it wouldn't be nearly as bad as you remember. Other than the nasty jellies, I think there were two battle horrors (that are good to fight one at a time luring them into ranged weapon fire) and some annoying skeletons that shoot magic arrows at you (in front of some nasty lightening traps (that the skeletons are resistant to)). The skeletons are doing to you what you just did to the battle horrors. Those boney bastards! Anyway, using stealth and disarming the traps in advance makes that one manageable. I think you can lure them up to the edge of the maze to neutralize the ranged attacks too. Anyway, that was a tangent - how about an example of a tactical fight that you liked?

Right, but how can one make such a judgment call (that this encounter had a special attack that was impossible to predict)? Player Party X walks into a room of Clay Golems. They did not expect to encounter clay golems, and no one in his party has a blunt weapon. So...Clay Golems win. Reload. That's a good example. As far as I'm concerned, that encounter is fine and player X is out of luck because most parties will have a blunt weapon somewhere and if one doesn't well, those are the breaks. In the IE games, the healers can only use blunt weapons. If your encounter was scoutable and/or had some space for tactical retreat, then I like it better. You can also kill the golems with thief traps which you either need to set in advance or keep the golems busy while your thief backs off and sets them. Then you lure the golems onto the traps. I only want to deprive you of encounters that simultaneously: 1. have very specific preconditions to win, so specific that most players will not meet the preconditions in normal play and 2. no way to find out in advance what the preconditions are (The second and third joinable NPCs that BG2 hands you in the tutorial level are Misc who has proficiency in mace and Jaheira who has proficiency in quarterstaff and clubs. If you can't beat a clay golem, that's your problem. ) Others on this thread may wish to deprive you of additional encounters.

Reloading because the fight was difficult is good. Reloading because the fight has some strange very specific thing that will be obvious in hindsight but impossible to tell in advance is bad. I think that's the argument that (most) people are making here. Silly example: You walk into a room (that you had no way of scouting in advance and onto an immediate dispell invisibility trap) and a guy hurls the 'Kill Your Party Instantly With No Save' spell and kills your party instantly with no save. You reload and go the store to buy six 'Protection From Kill Your Party Instantly With No Save' scrolls and then read them before going back in the room. Victory! vs. Less silly example: You walk into a room and there's a beholder elder orb in the room who starts casting true sight. You know what a beholder is. You run back out before the true sight finishes, go to the store and buy things to protect you from petrification, imprisonment, magical damage etc. or maybe you even have them with you already. Better than the first example; some would argue that it's not a lot better. vs. Much less silly example: You walk into a room and there's a party just like yours, maybe a few levels higher and maybe there's eight of them. You might lose and need to reload, but that's ok. So we don't want traps, we don't want fights to surprise us because we might be low health (stamina?!?), we want to be told everything about the fight before hand or to be able to retreat and make preparations (how this is different from reloading I don't know), and we want the enemy to have equal resistances to everything (so there isn't any weakens we can exploit on our next play-through). If you want to argue against my point you actually need to read the words I write and understand what they mean. So, in order: 1. Of course there can be traps. The point of my first silly example is that the situation is unwinnable without reloading and trivial when you have the information you need; The only way to get the information is to fail and reload. It's meant as an extreme example of what people are objecting to. I hope that is now clear to you. Ask more questions if it isn't. 2. Of course there can be surprise fights. If you reload, it's not a surprise anymore, is it? If you need to reload to get information to win the (no longer surprise) fight, that is when it becomes a problem. 3. Ok, then I'll explain it to you and then you will know how it is different. Scouting ahead and/or tactically retreating is part of role playing a character who is acting cautiously which a character might reasonably do in very dangerous environment. It isn't the game telling you anything, it is your adventuring party figuring it out. It's also part of the skill of playing the game. Reloading until you accidentally win or gather enough information to intelligently win is metagaming not playing the game. Do you now know how the two are different? In my final example, the enemy had you outclassed and outnumbered and probably has capabilities that your party doesn't have, so there's no equality there, but this one does require some explanation. The reason for using that example is that if you come across an adventuring party similar to your own, you are likely to be able to figure out a reasonable set of tactics on the fly. That is, you don't need more information than you have. You still may lose because your tactics didn't work but you won't lose because there's some strange requirement that you have no way of knowing about. Let me repeat the beginning of my previous post. Reloading because the fight was difficult is good. Reloading because the fight has some strange very specific thing that will be obvious in hindsight but impossible to tell in advance is bad. The key thing here is: if a little scrap of knowledge makes a fight easy and the only way to get that little scrap of knowledge is to fail and reload, then the game is broken.

I agree that it would be better if you had to kill all four of them. I don't agree that having a high level enemy with special capabilities is Cheese. (and, Kangaxx can imprison from a distance, you can't do that). Also, you can detect the traps and know in advance which ones can't be disarmed. That's part of the problem to solve. A good strategy will keep your party from triggering the traps. I'm surprised you have the opinions that you have about this. Well, no. For that to work, you also need to have buffed to make yourself immune to the magic attacks or Semaj and Angelo will kill your whole party before you finish off Sarevok. So, sure, given the right buffs, that's one of many strategies that will work.