archangel979

Lol, you put two aRPGs as your examples. Both of them don't have complex characters.

Or let us multiclass

Saving and loading is not a feature of gameplay, but a quality of life thing. It is here because PC players don't like to play with Checkpoints or other options. People that exploit features but don't have fun doing it should not do it. It is up to players to control themselves and not to things that are not fun. If the developers are forcing players to do unfun things, then it is developers job to not do that. Like lets say PoE is trying to force only one play style.

I don't want it to turn into another DAO as well. I backed it for its promise to be more like IE games, not more like DAO. I am sure OE would love to have another DAO on their hands (and their sales numbers) but this is not what they proposed in KS. Unfortunately mechanically the game is starting to look more like DAO then BG. Which is a shame because in my opinion DAO is a much inferior product to BG1 and 2 (or PST or even IWD games when it comes to challenging, complex and fun combat). I don't even talk about DA2 here as even DAO should not be the goal.

Then make yourself more clear next time. When talk about the balance but don't continue it is automatically assumed you want balance and anything that breaks that balance is bad.

Only if the game is designed for you to need all that XP. If the game is designed like in BG where you got much more xp through the game so you did not need to kill everything it is OK. Actually it's not balanced for killing everything it's balanced for more "normal play" and thus when you DO kill everything your character becomes unbalanced (OP) - this is what makes it "grinding" - ie: to achieve something not intended by the games design - exploiting a "loophole" in the design etc. And that is bad how? It is my choice if I do this. How does this affect you if I have a bit easier fights? Even If I complain the game is too easy, people will just tell me to play on harder difficulty. Not to mention the system that falls apart because players are one level higher than intended is a terrible system. Also see the conversations we had about how BG2 added more monsters if players overleveled the fights. All together makes for a 10x better game than what you want. This just reminds me of people that complained on WL2 forums about how WL2 lets you savescum and wanted the devs to implement strict rules into base game so nobody can save scum skill checks. We sent them away and told them to leave people to play as they want. I can only say the same to you. Leave us to play the game as we want and ask for a game that supports both playstyles instead.

Agreed. I dont like it either. I didnt even like DAO (the first one) combat and attribute system (altough DAO had also very good things, mainly the storytelling), and it seems PoE is much like DAO in that aspect. Bad news, imo. I dont understand why the hell they dont just copy (with some tweaks) the system that has worked well for decades (D&D). 1. They don't have the licence. 2. They don't consider D&D a good system. And I agree that some PoE systems remind more of DAO then IE games.

Only if the game is designed for you to need all that XP. If the game is designed like in BG where you got much more xp through the game so you did not need to kill everything it is OK.

BTW, I recently learned that PoE is not only one experimenting with changing health and healing mechanics. DAI will not have regenerating health but rest spots. It will also not have healing spells but only healing potions (and of limited carry capacity).

I just cannot agree with you on this. The sheer fact that I played BG2 for more then 10 years without noticing level scaling is a proof in my eyes that BG2 system was perfect. How does not noticing a feature make it perfect? Also, how the hell did play the game so much and not notice it? Level scaling diminishes the reward of leveling up. Even in BG2 it can get so bad that sometimes it can actually punish you for leveling up. Not to mention how it screws up the difficulty. The only reason the level scaling in BG2 was merely a minor problem was that it was kept extremely minor until you reached a high level. So, I'll reiterate. Level scaling if added sparsely doesn't matter except being a minor annoyance, and if added with a heavy hand it's game breaking. So, I would suggest OE avoid it. Also, if you never noticed it; why do you even care if it's in the game? Because just like in PnP it makes the game more challenging and interesting. And unlike Oblivion and other bad level scaling examples it wasn't just higher level bandit with super mega cool equipment. Replacing Gauths with Beholders, adding a Lich or replacing Werewolves with Greater Werewolves is good, it is something a GM would do as well. Also since it wasn't being activated for each level you party had but at thresholds it was also good. And let me repeat that it matters a lot since it keeps content challenging and not boring.

Actually they said there will be combat outside of Crisis but only if players choose to start that combat. There will be no automatically hostile enemies.

[selfish response] Well, if they spent lots of money on professional translations that would have meant less content overall for everyone. As a person that is not a native English speaker but only foreign language I know is English I am glad they did it this way lol. From what I heard they have employed professionals now to fix it (they got money from sales now to do this) and non-English versions will be improved with patches.

OE is still playing Wasteland 2 so they need longer for next patch :D

Heh! I admit it would be a bit crazy. However, I am chuffed to bits over ToN's ambitious xp system attempt, and I do feel both versions we've been "shown" for PoE are lacking: quest only xp and quest+subquest+bestiary+lock/trap. Also, the divide in the comminuty, although false, has been going something like this: Those for kill xp and the system in BG are supposedly degenerative, xp-hungry non-RPG munchkins, and those for quest xp/subquest are true RPG:ers with pure playing at their finger tips. So, why not try something that goes beyond such fallacies? Kill XP people would still go berserk over Numenera XP system. It does not work in combat heavy scenarios and you lose even more per each combat you are part of while you will not even get awesome loot as best loot (Artifacts) are almost always gained through quests. At best you will get Cyphers which were not used by the enemy.

There is no level scaling in PoE. And that is not a good thing. Also, it is not level scaling. BG games added more enemies, not scaled all of them to your level. Also it wasn't adjusted for each player level but only at some thresholds. The system was so well done in BG that I didn't even know about the system until I read it on BGEE boards. No level scaling is always good. The biggest flaw of BG2 by far was the insufferable level scaling. God I wish I could find a mod to get rid of it. In some cases the game can actually get harder from leveling up! That's BS!!! Leveling up should always be a good thing with no downsides whatsoever. I've played a lot of RPG's, and I have yet to ever play one that was better thanks to level scaling. I just cannot agree with you on this. The sheer fact that I played BG2 for more then 10 years without noticing level scaling is a proof in my eyes that BG2 system was perfect.

I always expected there to be lots of combat.

That doesn't explain why you hate bestiary XP. It just explains what kind of XP system you'd like even more. I still don't get it, other than from a purely emotional POV (you're upset at not getting exactly the XP system you want, and you feel they're patronizing you with a "half-measure"). Is that it? Because it is a pathetic half measure. If lack of kill xp is a problem after all implement that as it should be. Otherwise stick to your design vision and make your current system as best as possible. Also Bestiary XP is just a glorified kill XY creatures to gain a reward quest and it seems there will be one for most of the creatures in the game. It will not even be explained, at least in NWN2: SoZ, the hunter explained why it is needed in the lore of the game.

There is no level scaling in PoE. And that is not a good thing. Also, it is not level scaling. BG games added more enemies, not scaled all of them to your level. Also it wasn't adjusted for each player level but only at some thresholds. The system was so well done in BG that I didn't even know about the system until I read it on BGEE boards. I seen level scaling in Oblivion after playing for 1h. BG 1 and BG2 were very high on the "sandbox" ladder. Not quite up on top with Fallout and Elder Scrolls, but player freedom was extremely significant. In the Enhanced Editions (which incorporate ToSC and ToB), and especially in umbrella mods like Big World, this is particularly evident. Once out of the initial "dungeon", the player was free to explore an enormous world, do a huge amount of quests in any order, and kill and loot many enemies. In fact, exploring BG1 and BG2 in this "sandbox" manner was absolutely awesome - and it was made possible, to a large extent, by the kill xp and loot system, that actually rewarded the player for independent actions outside the main plot line. Removing this kind of incentive takes a lot of fun out of "free roam", and makes the game more dull for everyone. I'm not sure what Baldur's Gate games you played, but neither of them was a sandbox, although BG 1 is the closest to one, with the many wilderness environments. Still, areas were unlocked as you progressed through the story chapters - in a true sandbox, you could've visited them whenever you wanted. The mechanics, like shopkeepers' inventories disappearing when you killed them, are also at odds with sandbox design. BG 2 on the other hand isn't really anything like a sandbox at all. Incidentally, almost all of its dungeons have a quest or two tied to them, so it would've arguably been perfectly fine with an objective-based XP system. And you could go to all areas in Fallout right from the start? No. And to access some end game areas you had to do quests. Just like doing 3 quests in BG1 let you unlock all areas. BG2 was less open, but still pretty free in letting the player choose how to play. It certainly felt sandboxy without feeling generic like Elder Scroll games.

Killing an opponent is a very specific "objective". Killing any opponent is bound to give you *some* experience (mostly depending on the difficulty of the fight). I absolutely do not understand this bias against "kill XP". If it's what many players want, why not give it to them? How would it lessen game enjoyment for other players? This is like arguing against loot drops (which is also something I absolutely cannot comprehend). The only explanation coming into my mind is, ironically, the same that explains the "no bad builds" concept and the oversall diminishing effect of player strategies on game outcome (like decreasing stat importance etc.). That explanation is as follows: The developers are in fact catering to the "lowest common denominator" and are making the game more casual. By decreasing the effect of player actions (such as build strategies or getting bonuses from winning fights) they are making the game "streamlined" so that a "good" player does not enjoy significant advantages for playing the game better than "mediocre" or even "bad". Hopefully, this is not the case and we will get a game where our actions do matter, and not just a rollercoaster from point A to point Z that is the same for everyone. this post describes well how I feel about it. By controlling Xp so much they are trying to control player experience instead of giving us a sandbox like in IE games. If you over leveled in BG2 encounters would have +1 lich (as example). Also mastering all parts of the game is part of the fun. Optimizing the play is as well. And removing kill xp does not even stop this as people will optimize quest farming and still have easier time in parts of the game same if there was kill xp.

No I say that they decided to try cater people that weren't happy with their original decision, but same time they try to be true for their original vision of the game. I would point out that their original vision about xp system was Their decision to uses xp system where you gain xp by accomplishing objectives that are tied to quests accomplish this design goal perfectly and don't cause problems to any other design goals that Obsidian had, but some of their backers, people that funded the game and therefore have opinion and feelings that Obsidian pays heed for as company that wants to please those that make it possible that they can make this game, expressed that they want to get xp more regularly than what the original system gave and they also expressed notion that there should be systemic xp gain like in IE games. But as limitless systemic xp gain would compromise their original vision they have come up with compromise that they think allows them to keep their original vision and same time give those backers that ask more regular and systemic xp something that resembles what they asked for. This kind changes to original design is quite typical in game development as publisher often ask changes in the games so that they can sell them better, this time changes are demanded by people that funded game in kickstater, many who claimed that it is time to give developers option to develop games that they want to develop and not compromise them by demands of those publishers, but as we can see nothing has fundamentally changed, as developers are bound to demands of those who fund their games. And it still does not change the fact that it is a half measure that does not really fix anything. It will just mean people will be avoiding combat in second part of the game. There is nothing wrong in letting people get full kill xp except for those that are part of quest. It solves the problem of people doing quests and then killing quest givers or others that are part of quest xp already.

No he is saying they see some peoples points and want to put things in game to make the exp gain more consistent and less "I turned in a quest BOOOM EXP!!!" while also giving something to the people who do go out of their way to participate in lots and lots of combat that might be optional. AKA: Bestiary EXP. It isn't a "half measure" or some banal attempt at appeasement. It is their way of addressing the exp economy in game to be a little more balanced and fair to the player. Also what the heck does Skyrim have to do with Objective EXP? There is no EXP for completing objectives in skyrim (unless you mod it in), but if you go kill 5001 bandits with a long sword I bet you got a boatload of advancement on your armor/weapon skills. I don't have a problem with Xp coming from different sources and in smaller amount and I also wanted that. I don't believe Bestiary XP has anything to do with XP economy, it is pure appeasement of combat XP crowd that is much bigger then it seems by these forums (non IE games lovers also play RPGs and get combat XP in games and OE wants those to buy the game as well). And I still consider it a half measure which will bring same problems after people exhaust Bestiary XP per creature. Only real solution is to enable full combat XP but have so much XP by endgame so everyone is at max lvl but they choose the way they got there (more questing or more killing). Also the IE system of comparing party level to encounter and adding more stronger enemies to the mix worked well. Those games let you carve your own path through the content with little restrictions and it still felt challenging without the feeling of everything leveling to your level like Oblivion had. As for Skyrim, it was not a comment about XP but about the anti combat xp crowd being much smaller than people think, about the same as Skyrim haters. I took Skyrim as example because it is a popular game to hate among classic games fans (I could have said Fallout 3 but a fantasy game fit better and it is more recent then Oblivion which could also be a good example).

You can always learn something more from a death and life situation and it was not always the same. At lvl 1 you need to kill 10 such creatures to level, at lvl 10 you needed 1000, at lvl 20 you needed 50 000. As long as XP for next level rises exponentially enemies can keep giving same XP. There is a limited amount of enemies in the game afterall.

So you are saying they figured out they made a mistake and now they are making pathetic concessions instead of fixing it or staying true to their original vision? Going middle of the road is bull****. Either bring back kill xp or don't have half way solutions like bestiary xp

This would not work. Numenera is a conceptually different then D&D. Combat in Numenera is supposed to be last option and you gain little from it from it but lose a lot (since your life and "mana" come from same pool). Also it is too late for PoE to make big changes. Also the TToN update didn't go into details on acquiring XP, just on spending it. Only details they gave us are GM intrusion system which cannot be implemented into PoE without adding months of additional development time because they would need to change all major encounters.

I don't understand this dichotomy. You think Skyrim fans are the type of gamers who are by definition fond of objective XP? No, I am claiming that just like Skyrim haters are a really loud minority (including me), so are anti combat xp supporters.