archangel979

Have they? Why are they adding bestiary and trap xp into the game than?

Only 14% Steam reviews didn't like WL2. OE can decide if they want to be better then that and try to do thing better then WL2. If OE thinks 86% positive user reviews is good enough they can ignore the WL2 haters and their "suggestions".

And I am the 2% that hates Skyrim. Does not matter, the developer needs to decide which group it wants to cater to.

Well, then it's even MORE rewarding if it is fun AND you gain XP from it AND you gain stat points from it AND you gain new abilities from it AND you gain gold from it. Where do we draw the line on that train of thought, I wonder? We draw it where it is a problem to balance or outside the design scope. If each combat would give you something cool like some traits based on enemy you killed that would be very cool but it needs to be balanced and part of design. XP is easily balanced as they have been using combat Xp for a long time now and they also know players like it.

Or combat is more rewarding if it is fun AND you gain XP from it.

Because JESawyer is not Santa Claus.

I would rather have feats less often like in Fallout 1 and 2 but being more meaningful like higher level Fallout perks.

er...it hasn't (?) - Combat xp 70-votes, Bestiary xp 90-votes (?) It's been catching up to it but isn't over it. archangel is probably referring to the bars in the histograms I poster earlier. But those bars don't show the cumulative score, they each reflect only the votes cast during the corresponding time segment. In other words, of the people who voted on (roughly) the first day of the poll, a higher percentage selected Bestiary than Combat. But among the people who voted on (roughly) the second to third day of the poll, Combat was more popular. Overall, Combat still scores lower though. Yes, I didn't compare your graphs with the poll, I assumed (incorrectly) that you put total percentages for each time, not only percentage of that time.

It is good that combat XP has gone over Bestiary XP, because Bestiary is just a poor man fix for lack of combat xp.

OK, but people there would still not call them Elder Lions as elder already has a set meaning.

Or Alpha Lion. Or Pack Leader. Or Prime Lion.

I'm not really arguing against that, per se, but DnD itself has wolves, worgs, and dire wolves. I do think that sometimes it can come across as a little bit of WoW naming if you have three categories of each monster or the like. However, as long as it's not glaring, I don't think it's necessarily bad. Elder Lion kind of sounds like someone running a town hall meeting rural Massachusetts to me, though. That is what I complained about after first beta build. Elder is MMO naming, in old RPGs designers tried to make sense. Elder Lions are not pack leaders, lions don't follow old weak lions, but strongest ones.

Are stronger Lions still called Elder Lions in latest beta? If they are, MMO naming being removed from the game needs to go into things to fix for release version.

So you are complaining that there is too much content for the early portion? Maybe the complaint should be that they make that content more fun j/k It is hard to make it fun where it is so large. It needs to be cut 30% and what is left will be fun. It starts as "what is this" and turns into "well this is interesting" and then goes to "ok, I just need to do this and this" and ends up as "when is the end of this already?!".

Start of WL2 is OK until you get to first bigger map. Both are way too big for such early maps. It takes effort to have enough fun to finish it. And after that the bigger game opens up and the main fun begins.

Not with that attitude there's not. That's like running around punching everyone you see in the face, and saying "There's no such thing as a peaceful meeting." What happened to you, archangel, to make you so cynical and bitter? Sincere question. I had too many discussions with people like PrimeJunta.

Is there a peaceful way to defeat the spider queen?

Only game I had to start over after 10+ hours of playing was Diablo 2 where I ****ed up my build and could not progress in Act 4.

On the internet there is only arguing, no discussions. And nobody cares to concede because unlike real life talking to strangers lets you "always win" in your mind.

Oh, that post wasn't for you. It was for whoever's reading. +1 for using sound logic and patience to clearly dismantle clichés and common fallacies. Lol. Another guy that wants to win the internet.

I clicked on all options. I want as many sources of XP as possible :D Does that make me that special snowflake?

We're clearly disagreeing, whether we agree about it or not, and yes, I agree that some of that is due to different preferences. We can still discuss the respective arguments on each of our sides. For example, "I don't care about degenerative gameplay" means "I don't care if the systems in my game are broken or exploitable." That's about equivalent to "I don't care about design." That's a perfectly valid position to take, but IMO it kind of disqualifies you from talking about the subject to start with. It's a bit like someone saying "I don't care for music" but insisting on discussing the latest performance of Wagner's Ring at Bayreuth anyway. Second, "limiting my options through game design." That argument is fundamentally nonsensical, as has been pointed out to you by several people already. A game is a created artifact. It is defined precisely by the limitations it puts on your options through its ruleset. Remove those limitations, and you have no game left. It's like starting with a group of people playing a tabletop game and then throwing out the rulebooks and deciding to tell each other stories instead. That can still be brilliant fun, but it's no longer a game by any reasonable definition of the word -- and, of course, since things on a computer are made of rules -- programming logic -- that cannot, by definition, exist on a computer. I.e., whatever your preferences are, your arguments are weak. If you really want to conclude the discussion, just say "I like exploitable systems." To that there really is nothing to add. I know you are really trying but should have learned by now that you cannot win the Internet. You presented your opinions and I presented mine. They are pretty opposite. The best you can get out of this situation is that we can agree to disagree.

No, no, just ... just no. I know it's tradition, but I am so, so tired of that tradition. A ranger is a guy who roams across the wilderness. There is nothing linking that archetype to fighting with paired blades, other than giving players a way to play the Drizzit (and that wasn't even related to his being a ranger! 1E drow were all ambidextrous!). You want a ranger? This is a ranger. These are some rangers. And you know what, fine, this can be a ranger too; but he fights with a blade in each hand because he got a racial feature or spent some feats or whatever, not because he's a ranger. /nerdrage From your examples only Aragorn is one true Ranger. And D&D rangers were based on him. He is not a ranged weapon specialist. Later dual wielding rangers become popular and then it became part of their base design. For a game that is a spiritual successor to IE games where all 4 combat ones had dual weapon rangers, there is nothing wrong in asking for a dual weapon rangers. The focus around animal companion is already a unique twist on the classic archetype, no need to remove dual wielding "just because".

I never played wow and I still feel that Fighters and Rogues in cRPGs are boring. And I need to highlight that, that they are boring in COMPUTER GAMES derived from PnP. In fact fighters and rogues (especially the latter) are great in PnP. I have been playing a Rogue for ages in my earlier campaigns and they get a lot of tactical choices either in the social scenario or the combat one through magic items, traps etc. Actually I have played a ton of MMO's and I can tell you playing a "Warrior" tank in WoW is one of the least boring things you can do in a MMO. It required a reasonable set of abilities, but you had to use most of them constantly, there was tons of movement in any fight that wasn't throw away, and many of your abilities were positioning or reactive based so you had to pay some level of attention to what was going on to use them correctly. Playing a fighter in BG1? Yeah, that is some boring stuff. Good thing you can play up to 6 characters in BG and not just your fighter. And managing the whole party is way more fun than playing one in MMO (unless you prefer playing with other people more than single player games)

Prebuffing was kind of OK in BG1, but in BG2 and later in NWN games it became terrible. It was so bad in NWN2 you had to use mods that would cast all your buffs you set up with one click (and use up all the slots) instead of your waiting few minutes until it was done. I never used that mod but after a while I lost all the will to prebuff and would rather load the game and do the fight again if I lost.