Matt516

Nailed it, Lephys.

Thanks for the link, Cantousent. That'd pretty much what I was getting at. XP is a design tool. If you're offering XP for something as a designer, it's because you A) want to incentize the player to do the thing and disincentivize not doing the thing or B) allow the player to advance their character. Lock/trap XP doesn't seem necessary when either of these is taken into account. There's already an incentive for opening locks/traps that stand in your way, and incentizising that further only promotes degenerate gameplay. As far as advancement goes, the devs seem to want to advance the player at a certain rate, and that rate can easily be managed with the other sources of XP. Lock/trap XP is just weird, immersion breaking, and unnecessary IMO.

Just popping in to say please, please no lock or trap XP. It's a holdover from the IE games that doesn't fit with PoE's XP philosophy. Not only does it tie optimal XP gains to a specific skill, but it also leads to very non-immersive play as your party runs around, compulsively unlocking everything in sight for the sweet, sweet XP nectar. Just please... no.

Sure, but the problem with your arguments ... I wasn't making any arguments about combat XP, just telling you how to interpret the poll lol. I'm pretty much done arguing about XP for the most part, which is why I didn't make any arguments. Not really sure what you were responding to there, but it wasn't what I wrote. Matt is too busy doing math to stoop to our lowly pleb level.. That was a bit uncalled for.. . I never implied anything of the sort. He asked why the poll said a thing. I answered his question by saying it said a thing because that's what people think. Then he responded to arguments and statements I never made and I responded by voicing my confusion about that. And now I'm voicing my confusion about your post. Math hasn't even been mentioned so I don't know where that's coming from. Have I said something else that offended you?

Sure, but the problem with your arguments ... I wasn't making any arguments about combat XP, just telling you how to interpret the poll lol. I'm pretty much done arguing about XP for the most part, which is why I didn't make any arguments. Not really sure what you were responding to there, but it wasn't what I wrote.

Awesome! UI-wise: Still waiting for those weird little circly health pips to be replaced with a proper health bar (or removed entirely) - but that's a huge nitpick. In general, super excited to see what's changed and been improved! :D

CaptainMace, the reason combat XP is so low and exploration XP is so high is that about 75% of voters think that exploration XP is justified while only 50% think that combat XP is justified. That's... pretty much it. The people who want combat XP are pretty loud (not that that's a bad thing), but this poll (and the other two previous polls as well) reinforces the evidence that the community is pretty much evenly divided on combat XP. Half of us want it and half of us don't. Therefore, for either side to claim that their opinion represents what "true" fans of PoE want or some such is completely disingenuous. Just something to keep in mind.

No worries. Just wanted to make sure it was also being reported in the correct place.

Eh... I was actually kind of apprehensive after reading that update. Looks like the kind of thing that could be really interesting or just bad. Wouldn't be easy to balance either. As for putting it in PoE... Why?

Shadowrun system is nifty. Wouldn't work for PoE since that would require a complete redesign of all the game systems.. But it is nifty.

That's interesting. I always thought the Elder Scrolls way of doing skills was pretty interesting. Did TES get their ideas from Darklands, perhaps?

This would probably be better suited for the bug forum.

Also, just wanted to point out that spells missing is hardly an invention of PoE. Saving throws in IE made a lot of spells really variable in their usefulness. That said, there was a lot more variability in how spells were affected by saving throws as well. Some couldn't be saved, some were save for half damage, etc. A little variability in how PoE spells responded to attack resolution could go a long way to making magic feel more interesting to use.

Goodness gracious, you two, give it a rest. Especially Hiro - you're arguing with like 5 people at the moment. Admirable stamina, but really not productive to the thread in the least. Take the personal insults to PM if you must. Leave the forums for issue-based arguments. (You too, Uomoz. Arguing about who is or isn't a troll, while on the internet, is like punching a cactus. It's stupid.)

I mean, numerically the numbers aren't a big deal. You only need ~300ish respondents or so to accurately (from a statistical standpoint) measure the yes/no preferences of a population of 75,000 with 95% confidence. We're not there yet with this poll, but it's not unattainable by any means. The other biases you mentioned are certainly a concern - though I don't think they invalidate this poll. They inform it, sure - but just because this poll is representative of people who self-select, use the forum, and are in the beta (which isn't actually true, many frequenters of this subforum aren't in the Beta so it's really only the first two) doesn't mean that it can't be useful to OE.

If you had a reason to employ an escalating-cost point-buy system, sure. But, if not, the easiest thing to do would be to simply grant +1 attribute points every 6 levels. The result is the same. The only difference would be that, if you had lower stats, you could increase them by 3 points after 6 levels. But, in the end, you'd still be limited to whatever degree by the maximum point-buy allowed by the system, based on how many total points you could get. ^ This.

With the way the attribute system is designed though (incremental increases and most attributes can be useful for everyone), the best build would just be a straight 12s or whatever. Boring. The attribute system design specifically avoids the need for a point buy system.

Yeah... If your area transition code can't handle large character models, the solution is to write better area transition code...

Because in TES there's a skill for everything. Skill for running, skill for talking, skill for blocking, skill for hitting, skill for every kind of magic, skill for potions, skill for sneaking, skill for swimming, etc. So it makes sense to award skill XP whenever a skill is used. And you're right that awarding XP for everything is similar. But in a system that doesn't have a skill for everything, but has been very specifically constructed to have a divide between combat and noncombat skills (something TES struggles with not having), the skill XP system doesn't really make sense. I could maybe see noncombat skills improving in that manner - lockpick and you get better at lockpicking, etc. But it wouldn't work for combat skills because the entire system is built around character levels as opposed to discrete skills. Also, having a party (as opposed to a single character) also presents problems - you'd be forced to have a single character for each skill lest the skill XP go to waste. If playing with permadeath on, that could really screw you over (as opposed to the current system where you can have multiple specialists in one skill without any disadvantage). I'm not knocking the TES system. It's just unsuited for PoE due to major structural differences between the game systems (party vs single, combat levels vs combat skills, etc).

Because the Elder Scrolls system is completely different from PoE's system. You can't just copy/paste. The skill system in PoE is nothing like in TES. Implementing that kind of system would require completely redesigning all of the game and skill systems from the ground up. Not gonna happen - the game was designed (like the IE games) with abstract XP and levels. There's nothing wrong with a skill-based leveling system, but it's not gonna happen for PoE (nor should it IMO because that would be a huuuge departure from the IE "feel").

I mean.. I'm not against a "don't care" option (though it'd need to exclude any other option to be working properly, which I'm not sure is possible). It would make the poll better for sure. I just don't think it's strictly necessary.

Gotcha.

No, but they are delicious.

You're not describing an unbalanced character though - the traits you mentioned all have tradeoffs. They're balanced because they aren't all good or all bad. Are you asking for these kinds of traits, or truly unbalanced traits like (for example) "your character is terrified of cats. Automatic -20 Accuracy against felines."

Lock XP boo! Boooooooo!