SergioCQH

No question, 6 wizards with max might. Musculomancers for the win! EDIT: Myomancer sounds better.

Wikipedia basically said the exact same thing I said. Metagaming is using knowledge found outside the game. You're not using the term correctly. The term you want is powergaming or exploitation. Here is Wikipedia's definition for the term you are looking for: Powergaming (or power gaming) is a style of interacting with games or game-like systems with the aim of maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as (in video games, boardgames, and roleplaying games) storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie. Due to its focus on the letter of the rules over the spirit of the rules, it is often seen as unsporting, un-fun, or unsociable. This behaviour is most often found in games with a wide range of game features, lengthy campaigns or prize tournaments such as role-playing, massively multiplayer or collectible games.[1]

Indeed. You get XP at the end, which factors in how difficult getting to the end was. So basically, you get delayed kill xp, because there's not option to sneak the entire party through the whole dungeon.

Repeat.

Nope, you're the one that doesn't understand the term. Metagaming is playing the system, not playing the game. In Baldur's Gate it would look like this: A) Violent -- You kill people as part of the quest, you get fat loot, you get 1300 XP for killing bandits, and 1000 XP for removing the tyrant from the throne, totalling 2300 XP. B) Pacifist -- You take the pacifist path, you miss out on fat loot, you implicate the tyrant, guards take him away. You get 1000 XP for removing the tyrant, plus 500 XP for finding the unorthodox solution, plus some item better than what you'd get by going on a rampage to make up for the loot and XP. C) Metagaming - You take Path B first so you get the better item, and 1500 XP. Then you go back to kill everyone for the extra 1300XP, and all the loot. You do this not because this is what a reasonable person would do in the universe, but because 2800 XP > 2300 XP > 1500 XP, and Big Item + Random Loot > Big Item > Random loot. That's exploitation, or powergaming, not metagaming. Meta is a Greek prefix that means higher. In the case of metagaming, higher refers to higher knowledge found outside of playing the game. The situation you describe does not require any higher knowledge that the game doesn't provide. Just because a term is fancy, doesn't mean it applies.

1) So don't grind for money. Or pick better targets, like the Skaen Cultists. 2) Keyword: currently. This is a beta. Also, do you really expect to go to a merchant and go "Hey there bub, I got 6 beetle shells here, how bout you trade me them shiny magical boots for the lot? If you want to trade a crappy item for a good one, you'll need a lot of those crappy items. But you can trade 3-4 shells and get a rope and grappling hook, or camping supplies. That's a fair trade in my book. Pick better targets? There's currently very little picking involved. Every step you take in the wilderness, you trip over packs of ravenous beasts. Dungeons are the same way obviously. No kill xp was meant to make combat optional. In practice, it just means you still have to kill everything, you just don't get any xp.

So basically you admit that quest xp makes as little sense from a roleplaying perspective as kill xp. Why did you bring up that argument in the first place then? I don't think you understand what the term "metagaming" means. Anticipating xp rewards from kills for level up is just plain old gaming. Metagaming would be anticipating quest rewards because you have already done the quest or read about the quest in a walkthrough.

And how, exactly, does stabbing beetles make you better at lockpicking? You're just regurgitating arguments that have been shot down in every other thread on this same subject. At least think through your own reasoning before posting stuff, dude. This is rich. You're using an argument that applies to ALL XP systems to denigrate kill xp. That's idiotic because this game uses an XP system, so you're basically saying this game makes no sense according to you.

Except that loot currently sucks too, so we don't even have that. Beetle shell gets you 50cp. New boots cost 5000cp. Hooray, 99 more beetles to go. Now we're grinding for money instead of xp, which is even worse.

Actually, giving xp for combat makes the MOST sense from a roleplaying perspective. Of course killing a lot of things will make you better at killing other things. It's called practice. What does NOT make sense from a roleplaying perspective is getting xp from a quest where you used stealth to complete the objectives, then putting points into your axe skill.

The game as it currently stands is truly a "Trial of Grinding" because you still have to wade through tons of enemies, but now you're not rewarded for it.

That's cause the quest log is bugged and experience is not always being properly reported for some reason. Once they fix the log and the reporting issues it will be fairly easy to tell when you have gained exp. I don't care about knowing when I have received xp, I want to know when I WILL receive xp and exactly how much. If you kill one rat and you get 50 xp, then you know that you have to kill X more rats to level up. It's not possible to anticipate like this with quest xp unless it's a replay and you have all quest xp rewards memorized.

Sounds like you prefer this system, you just want it improved. I want this poll to be simple. Do you want kill xp or not?

We're not beta testing the future. We're beta testing what the devs gave us to beta test.

Right now, looks like it's just this one.

Personally, I thought it was a cool idea prior to playing beta. Now, I absolutely hate it. The major problem I have is that I cannot anticipate level-ups. I have no idea when I will get any xp or how much the xp will be. Combat is now a chore instead of an opportunity. Basically, I really want combat xp back.

Right now, combat is unrewarding and not that much fun. Before playing the beta, I thought that giving no xp for combat made some sense. Now, having played it, I realize that the carrot is pretty important. Gaining no reward from spending time and effort on combat is pretty demoralizing. It makes me not want to play.

Actually, I just tested this. Casted Soul Ignition on Medrath with a 19 int Cipher and a 3 int Cipher and you can see the difference in duration in the combat log. The 19 int cipher's soul ignition lasts 23 seconds and the 3 int cipher's only lasts 14 seconds. So that part seems working as intended. The fact that neither Medrath nor any of his comrades responded in any way to the Soul Ignition is another matter . . .

If this had actually been achieved, it would be fantastic design. Unfortunately, the current attribute system has not only failed to achieve this holy grail, it has actually regressed to something worse than what we're used to in RPGs.

No, people are hung up on the fact that wizards and every other class must max might before any other attribute.

Sure, every stat has some use in combat. I never said they had no effect. But that doesn't change the fact that strength is the MOST USEFUL, and thus every character must max strength.

It's easy to ignore int for characters that use only single target instant damage effects. Also, extended duration only matters if the effect runs its course. In combat, it's almost always better to focus down individual enemies quickly as opposed to doing steady damage to all enemies at once. As a question what mode are you playing on. Hard and PotD fights tend to be more than long enough to justify 2x duration effects. In a game with limited resources per combat like this one, crowd control and dpc(damage per cast) are far more important than single target damage. I can not think of a single class that doesn't benefit from intel in an appreciable way. Not even rogue as 25 second hobble = 25 secs of 1.5x damage via sneak attack trait. So your point is that all classes should max int as well? How does this conflict with my point in any way whatsoever? So, to maximize combat effective, everyone should max strength AND int, and you just end up with even more homogeneity than before.

Even though the "no bad builds" policy of making all attributes equally important for all classes sounded somewhat good on paper, I think its execution has proved a failure. There are still bad builds and dump stats, and even worse than before, it's the same stats for ALL classes now. Every character I make has 18 strength(or more). No matter if it's a fighter, a cleric, or a wizard, it's got to have big muscles because big muscles just make everyone more effective at what they do. Every character I make has minimum perception and resolve because these stats don't do anything. Almost every character I make has maximum dexterity except for support characters. Intellect does nothing for characters that don't use area effects, status effects, or DoTs. Constitution does nothing for characters that don't fight up front. With the old attribute systems that we are familiar with, each class had a cookie-cutter stat distribution. With PoE's system, EVERY CHARACTER has the same cookie-cutter stat distribution. I think that's a step backwards, not forwards.

It's easy to ignore int for characters that use only single target instant damage effects. Also, extended duration only matters if the effect runs its course. In combat, it's almost always better to focus down individual enemies quickly as opposed to doing steady damage to all enemies at once.

Spears are actually terrible weapons in duels, despite what Hollywood movies would have you believe. If two equally skilled combatants, one with a spear and one with a zweihander, were to duel, I would bet on the zweihander every time.