BrokenMask

I'm not saying that MOBA players don't like other type of games. I meant that I don't see a reason that they would like this game BECAUSE they like MOBAs. Does that sentence make sense? I'm not native English speaker. Also, you just said "casual" players <_< Most of casual players don't play games that require lot of time per playtime. I mean, maybe they have 100 hours spent into multiplayer games, but most casual players I have talked to don't play rpgs and such singleplayer games that require lot of time.

Well, that certainly isn't a strawman comment Nope, totally not a comment that ignores the arguments given. Not at all. I just don't see why MOBA audience would be interested in this. Seriously, MOBA has completely different hook than what CRPG has... You might as well be saying "Oh, so you like Call of Duty? Well, you would obviously love Street Fighter, they are both action games!" <_< Sure, SOME people will like both genres, heck, majority of people like multiple different genres, but you are saying "Hey, its great idea to target this one particular market that has barely anything to do with this game!" as if it would be this genius sure to work plan. I'd leave marketing to professionals. Surely Paradox has better idea about what audiences these types of games should be marketed to, at least when compared to companies like EA and that horrible marketing campaign with DA: O... Seriously, what the hell was that.

Just out of curiosity and I'm not trying to argue I'm simply curious why this matters in a single player game and it comes up a lot. Why does it matter in the slightest if a player desides to go around and gain a bunch of xp and lvls from doing side objectives thus making him very powerful and allowing him to complete the story with greater ease? I don't understand why people care about that. What am I missing? Well, it just feels disappointing when the story that is supposed to be more... Well, I know its bad word to use, but let's just say "epic" is anticlimactic. Like, its always disappointing when final boss is easiest boss in the game.

Perhaps to make it more difficult?I don't believe the point was that sneaking past / fighting a different enemy there would give you more xp, but rather having no enemies there would give you less. That would still be an unfounded assumption. Edit: make that a FALSE assumption. I just watched the first gameplay video we got (the one that showed the beginning of the game) Zero XP was rewarded for entering the Glenfathan ruins. And this is despite the fact that: 1)there were plenty of enemies outside (in fact, a whole group of Glenfathans) 2)Entering the ruins was actually a plot based objective discussed at camp. Explain that. Because not entering those ruins is impossible - it's not an objective, it's a scripted interaction. I didn't say that entering all caves/ruins would grant xp. We were discussing xp awarded for exploration / objectives vs, kills. In the beetles example, you get xp for reaching the cave - having to go through the beetles. In the beginning game example, you're on rails - you can't 'find' the cave through exploration - you're sent through it by the game. Why should that award you xp? Umm, not that I agree with him, but Stun is arguing that game should give you exp for either killing beetles or sneaking past them and doing it visibly <_< So basically, by his "logic" he could argue that you should get exp for killing Glanfathans Honestly, I don't care whether beetles are accounted for or not. Giving exp for sneaking past enemies as alternative for killing them has that thing that you might as well go to every spot of map with enemies and "sneak" past them to get exp which means that even if you are playing pacifist playthrough, you are compelled to do ridiculous things like "sneaking" past enemies in dead end or whatever. I mean, even the games that award exp for sneaking past places have usually group of enemies in locations where you can't sneak past them so if you want exp for them you have to kill them.

<_< Why are people being so.. Annoying about this? Its like if you guys are trying to write a rulebook or something. And you are having same conversation in two different threads! Okay, let's assume that 1500 exp for entering the cave isn't balanced to take account of what obstacles you possibly encounter on the way to cave and its just reward for going to the cave. So what? What does it matter? Why does it matter? Don't tell me this is about logic, exp never makes sense. And on case of the intro gameplay video, well, to be honest, we would need to get the full game to know how it works. Do you only get rewarded for finding optional locations? Is the intro section the only section where you don't get exp for progressing since its completely linear? Was the video that was shown to us from earlier build or something? Etc. Only thing that matters is whether exp is balanced so that player who does everything doesn't remain too weak or become too strong. We already know that main game will be less hard than optional areas, which make sense since if people ignore everything optional, they would have less exp and thus have harder time with main game. Let's just hope that won't mean that player who does everything can just steamroll through the main game. I assume doing the opposite and completing only main storyline quest isn't impossible since otherwise optional areas wouldn't be "optional" In otherwords, what really matters is how the system affects gameplay, not whether those beetles were accounted for 1500 exp...

Oh are we strawmaning now, ok... Where do you think the lore on the wiki came from? The lore was in the client and on the main website for those who where interested, maybe it's still on the main web site. It came out through weekly journals. People who are not interested in the story will just skip dialog and cutscenes in any game, people who are interested will read the lore (weekly journals) and watch cutscenes, what you did as a child does not equate to everyone else. This is all besides the point, he said there was no bare bone lore, I proved him wrong. So the fact there is bare minimum proves him "completely" wrong? You seem to be awfully lot focusing on nitpicking one aspect of the post just so you can say "I'm right, you are wrong" Also, your logic that "people not interested in reading lore would skip the story anyway" is faulty. There are quite lot of people who never bother to read through ES lore while still being interested in the "story". Like I said multiple times, its irrelevant. Sure, SOME people of that huge fanbase probably follows the lore. But heck, some of those people might not even play the game. I've seen a thing happen before where people who never actually play the game still read on the fluff and do fanart and crap. Why? Because they actually like the characters more than the actual game. And again, TF2 has comics which explain the silly story, but how many people actually play the game FOR those comics?...

So does anyone know if we get exp for any new location or at least caves/dungeons we find? Anyway, yeah, in pretty much most of rpgs I have played, there are alternate ways to start quest. Like, if you complete quest without ever talking to quest giver you get "Hmm, I wonder if someone would be interested in this item" journal entry or such

So out of curiosity, what if beetles respawn? How that would affect your guys' argument about them needing exp reward? Affect only first time?

Well, I see someone might be taking this bit too seriously

The system would. You've dealt with the enemy and got rewarded for it. Any further actions against this enemy would thus not yield anything. And that would also apply to issues in the mega dungeon. Lets say you're on level 1, and there are 3 ways to unlock level 2. All three reward XP 1) Solve a puzzle that unlocks the Level 1 exit door. 2) Beat a Boos who has the key 3) find the hidden tunnel that leads down. Nothing is Stopping you from doing all three, but you're going to get XP rewards for the first solution you came up with. There are also problems as to count what as stealthing past an enemy. After all, many of them will be in the wilderness. Do you get experience for getting to a certain point without fighting? Does it still count if you run away from monsters and reset the fight? What about if you die and then stealth past? How do you determine this location on which experience will be granted? This sounds like a hellish concept to balance. One would have to look at every map separately, then place the markers and then beta test the hell out of it. Plus, wouldn't that prompt the situations where player needs little more exp to level up, so they decide to sneak past enemy to get the little exp they need only to afterwards kill the enemy anyway?

Both LoL and DotA have that. At least do some research before you talk out of your ass... Did you even read what he wrote? <_< You seem to pick ONE thing out of many criticism to nitpick. Yes. Both of those games have an excuse for why there are two sides trying to destroy big crystal thing on other side of the map. Sure, you can call that "story", just like how you can say that people play TF2 for a story about two brothers competing about a gravel mine. ...You guys what is most ridiculous thing about this thread? MOBA = Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. How come on people saying "MOBA players would love to play PoE!" not notice something that is rather big difference between that genre and this game?...

Umm... Stun. Someone already pointed out that problem with getting exp for sneaking past the enemies is "What prevents you getting even more exp by killing enemies AFTER sneaking past them?"

So? Each of TF2 character has backstory that you can read on, but nobody plays the game for their backstory <_<

I'd assume "You find the entrance to next level" Though for all I know, the dungeon is so huge that each level has multiple quests and objectives there. So maybe you only get exp for completing those objectives.

Maybe there is exp for each level completed in mega dungeon? Anyway, to add on my long post on last page about diplomacy directed to Stun, I have really big problem with focusing on skills that I know open speech options, bonus dialog or alternate ways of completing quests than combat. So for example, it was really important for me to beat ZAX in chess and get extra info with high science and such even though those are only minor things <_< So in case of fallout its really bad since there are lot of non combat skills, but in case of rpgs with less non combat skills I don't tend to have as hard time in first playthrough. Still, I wouldn't have it any other way, even though default characters tend to be far better balanced than mine, I love having lots of non combat options.

Nope. Seriously. I'm not kidding. My first character in both fallout games sucked in combat because I made sure I had high int and high charisma and that my science and speech and such skills were high. Meaning that I had to save scum through forced combat segments until I got power armor and implants and had spare skill points to put into weapons and etc. Was really frustrating to make sure my character doesn't get killed in the early parts(like ants and scorpions in darn tutorial level), but totally worth it. I DO actually love talking my way out of situations, I kinda prefer to play rpgs in pacifistic way when I can. I prefer doing quests that are like "Have enough skill to repair the toaster" rather than "Go there and kill all the evil bunnies", but I do complete both since I'm kinda obsessed with 100% completion as well. That said, I do still like combat when I create characters that aren't diplomacy based, but my first run is always the uber nice guy run. I've noticed the tendency for best rewards to be for the "goody goody fantasy/space/whatever Messiah" characters, but I've never have chosen to play in that way because I know that refusing reward for altruistic reasons results in you getting even better reward anyway. After all, why would I be playing diplomacy for rewards if I'm willing to create a character that makes early game combat really painful when I know that game has forced combat segments and that there are quests that will be about combat that I'm compelled to complete due to my obsessions?... ...Granted, it'd would make my life much easier if I learned how to bette build a balanced character who is good enough in combat to survive early game and still good in diplomacy In case of fallout though, my achilles' heel is that there are multiple skills that allow me to get extra non combat stuff, so I feel compelled to increase my speech, science, mechanics, etc since I know they unlock dialog options and alternate ways of completing quests... And granted, gore in Fallout is pretty awesome and since I like combat, I fight all hostile enemies that can't be avoided or there is no reason to avoid them and after I'm far enough in game I don't need to reload constantly anymore, except to make sure my darn companions don't die... Stupid dog, why do you keep dying? D: THANKFULLY, not every game is like fallout and have multiple skills for multiple different types of non violent solution <_< Vampire the masquarade bloodlines allows me to be as violent I want without having 3 different skills to invest points in just so that I can have extra dialog with super computer, convince everyone they are wrong AND repair that toaster

Oh yeah, right, Morrowind didn't have that... Skyrim does have level scaling, but its never to same insane degree as Oblivion. Heck Skyrim is pretty easy game, level scaling mostly means that stronger enemy type start spawning and that bandits have better armor. Like, reach certain level and after that level game allows stronger dragon type spawn, but weaker dragon types are as weak as they were before. Unlike the Oblivion were level scaling means that enemies get exponentially stronger so eventually a single bandit will take hours to fight... Yeah, I think you got the point, Skyrim enemies aren't as insane. It makes for good power fantasy to go through bandit camp and kill them all in few hits, unless you ask from person who actually likes Olblivion I suppose.

Yeaaaaaaah, in case of ES, its done in the way that allows for really easy (and boring) grinding, but that game doesn't even have exp at all so I guess it doesn't count for sake of this conversation? Granted, you don't HAVE to do grind and you probably level up too fast anyway just by playing game normally. And in case of the most horrible game in series*coughOblivioncough* leveling up is really bad idea since level scaling is stupid in that game.

Off the top of my head, Vampire: the Masquerade (PnP) and VtM: Bloodlines (cRPG), Shadowrun Returns (cRPG), Numenera (PnP and certainly the upcoming cRPG), Call of Cthulhu (PnP). I don't remember if original DnD had kill XP or it was awarded only for treasure. And yes, I've played all of those. Me too. Sort of, I haven't played PnP since I don't have a group, but I own both of those books, well besides Vampire PnP. Shadowrun Returns is technically more of a tactical game though by its gameplay. I mean, yeah, its rpg, but gameplay wise its combat is like even simpler version of XCOM 2012 remake's tactical combat. But yeah, forgot that neither it nor Bloodlines had exp for killing. Shadowrun Returns is pretty good, not greatest or "deepest"(I hate that word, but its easy buzzword to use) rpg, but VtM: Bloodlines is considered to be one of best(its awesome. And definitely buggiest rpg I have ever played. Considering you can't play it on modern computers without fan patch) rpgs from what I've have heard. Unless I've heard wrong and classic cRPG fans hate it for some reason?.. I can't see why anybody would dislike it though, unless they hate vampires on principle or first person rpgs. So yeah, thats at least two cases were exp for quests completed only works well and nobody complains about it. Riiiiight? <_< I haven't actually visited forums to those games Oh and yeah, Deus Ex was awesome too. Though I guess someone here might nitpick it since its fps rpg Haven't played darklands yet, I'm planning to get it soon

That is just bad gameplay then. When none of the choices seem fun or rewarding, the game designer failed. The funniest thing is when this discussion started, it went along the lines you don't need rewards for combat because combat is fun, but now after the demo it did a 180 and all of sudden the argument is that getting rewarded with loot is enough. Funny how that goes. This debate is starting to become boring and annoying. And everyone in this thread loves to put words into other people's mouths. I'll just say few things that is bothering me in this conversation before I lose completely the interest in this... First, nobody here has even played the game so everyone is complaining about nothing. Yes you can complain about lack of exp reward, but so far its hypothetical "Why would I do this if I don't get exp". For all I know, you could complain about it for hours and when you finally get the game you are suddenly happy with killing beetles or happy with how you don't have to kill beetles to keep up with intended level. Second, YOU guys are the ones who say its not rewarding unless we get exp. The people who are like "Objective based exp sounds awesome" seem to think otherwise, yet you are now claiming that we agree with you guys about it? Third, let's say some people do just want to stealth(or run away assuming hostile enemies don't follow you forever) always past the beetles and never get rid of them. Why should they not be allowed to do that? Fourth, how many rpgs lack exp for killing enemies anyway? Has anyone here played one?

Thats really your problem if you don't like combat enough What an interesting backwards mindset you have. The reason (stated reason, in fact. Please see Update #7) that Obsidian has decided to eliminate kill XP is because they wish to reward players who prefer non-combat solutions to the problems presented to them. In other words, they wish to fully reward players who view combat as not as important to good roleplaying. If I "didn't like combat enough", wouldn't it follow that I'd fully welcome this no-XP-for-Kills system that PoE is going to have? Well, you just said that if you don't get exp for killing beetles, you don't see why you should kill them just for loot drops <_< So apparently only reason to kill beetles is exp aka grinding, otherwise its "too much work" which sounds like you don't like combat enough if combat itself doesn't motivate you to battle them. And for people who say "What about those enemies who are really annoying? If I don't get exp with them, I don't want to deal with them", how is that a bad thing? If I'd have a reason to avoid combat with really annoying enemies, I'd definitely do that. Also, you are rewarded with bestiary entries for fighting enemies, but I might be only one who would fight monster just to get bestiary entry. I blame being one of kids who got introduced to pokemon in young age

I assume you DO have played mobas since you are saying that In which case you should know that moba players don't automatically overlap with CRPG fans. Buahahaha. Lol. What's so funny? What he said is true. And what's with the "like" from Obsidian developer Roby Atedero for this worthless, content-free post? I am disappoint. Well, post he replied to DID contain faulty logic. So apparently Bioware was designing RTS and not CRPG before they made Baldur's Gate(I can't confirm whether thats true or not) and since DOTA was RTS mod, that somehow means CRPG and MOBA fanbases overlap? I do agree though that his reply was pretty pointless. I mean, there is no really point with "lol, you are wrong" posts <_< Better to just explain why they are incorrect rather than be troll-y about it.

Geez, thank you for reminding me of that Seriously, I'm bit in denial about whether I regret my decision to get the key before I learned size of beta or not xP

MOBAs are more RPG than most AAA RPGs. Mechanics wise? Since plot and writing wise, nope. Besides, MOBAs are far more action rpg than PoE is. Sure there are tactics in both, and some tactics will probably be similar, but again, different audiences and different core hooks. I know a lot of moba player and sure SOME of them would like PoE, but all of them also happened to be WoW player(either currently or ex) so does that mean Paradox would be smart to target WoW player audience?...

I don't see myself being all that motivated to acquire the loot that a friggin beetle might or might not drop. Thats really your problem if you don't like combat enough