Gromnir

which don't mean anything. seriously. define what qualities make for a spiritual successor? we sure as hell can't define what amounts to feel o' a spiritual successor. sorry. is arguing over nonsense. obsidian no doubt thought they were making easy on themselves by using inherent ambiguous terms, but somehow folks is doing the opposite and using vague to bludgeon the developers. like or don't like. have a serious argument over what does and doesn't qualify o' successor stuff is... silly. HA! Good Fun!

initial thread query is silly. get 100 ie game fans together and have them list what they thinks is essential to be making an ie game successor. raise your hand if you expect genuine uniformity from those 100 fans. *shrug* the fact that obsidian has slight difference o' opinion than Gromnir is probable a good thing. for example, we wouldn't have made a class-based system integral. recognizing that PoE couldn't be ad&d or iwd2 d20, we woulda' dumped classes to actual better achieve obsidian stated goal o' allowing greater player character development freedom and choice. people keep saying "spiritual successor to the ie games" as if that gots a meaning. it don't. as much as obsidian aimed to be recreating the feel o' ie games, there is no definitive list o' essentials 75% o' us could agree 'pon, and we were never offered anything but feel anyways. two point that should be obvious, but isn't: 1) is not d&d... couldn't be d&d, so much o' things some folks would think o' as essential to the feel o' the ie games is not possible in PoE... or at least, not practical. 2) anything a person thought were busted in the ie games is not gonna be something they believe is essential to replicating the feel of the ie games. duh. point two seems to be getting lost. we thought ranged combat were busted in bg, so when the iwd developers changed ranged combat, we didn't mind. other folks wailed that bis were destroying their essential character builds... ruining the ie games. as we noted earlier, we thinks the d&d class systems is broken-down and busted, particularly kits. so, guess what, we don't wouldn't miss classes and we don't miss kits. kits were busted, so they clear ain't essential to feel o' a game replicating the feel o' the ie games. people is having this insane debate over whether PoE replicates ie without recognizing you don't have any functional definition as to what is or ain'ty esential to an ie game, and you sure as hell can't define a feel. is PoE features you like. is stuff you dislike. is stuff you thinks will make PoE better. is stuff you think obsidian has done that is not making PoE a good game. whatever. quit using the ie successor feel crap as an excuse. man-up... or woman-up, as the case may be. HA! Good Fun! edit: added 1 word

we can see valid reasons for eliminating pre-buffing. am recalling more than a few dragon or lich battles in bg2 wherein the prebuffing took longer than the battles themselves. the thing is, the lack o' pre-buffing does add a level o' complexity and distraction that makes combat all the more chaotic. am having a difficult time keeping straight who and is not buffed or debuffed. half of what is occurring in battles is functional a "mystary." am knowing that the obsidians think the "mystary" bit is funny, but is Gromnir's opinion that squad-based, tactical combat should be a bit more transparent. HA! Good Fun!

am not thinking we need discuss this much. we noted when crafting were first detailed that we didn't see a genuine point to plants if we already got animal viscera involved in recipe making. we observed that we didn't see a compelling reason to add hunting 'shrooms if all it were from a gameplay perspective were using tab or, lord forbid, pixel hunting. if finding PoE plants were a repetitive and mindless mechanic, we couldn't fathom a purpose. well, we got pixel hunting for plants. is this 'posed to be our motivation for map explorations? am admitting that this is a minor issue with all the other problems PoE current faces, but... why? HA! Good Fun!

am not having an issue with pacing, but combat feedback is a particular shortcoming in our estimation. we can assume that stuff such as DoT can be balanced rather easily in a patch as they weren't such a big deal previous to the recent patch. likewise, encounter abilities not resetting 'cause we never leave combat is also annoying but fixable... we hope. we can't see debuffs on foes. now, for some games this ain't a problem 'cause o' fewer mob attacks, differences in ai or (*groan*) pacing or whatever. regardless, keeping track o' foes in PoE presents seeming unique difficulties. is the Scrum mentality o' foes causing issues unique to this game? with all foes stacked on top of each other, how does we distinguish two beetles, spiders or guards that otherwise looks the same? perhaps the lack o' meaningful visual contrast is handicapping the ability to discriminate? dunno. what we do know is that either some single fixable issue or a gestalt o' issues is making it exceeding difficult to keep track of enemies such that we may not intelligently utilize debuffs. as a side issue to combat feedback, we will once again note that the combat log, complete extended, is effectively making so that we may only see one action by each party member at one time. given that we can't tell which foes is affected by debuffs, this makes the combat log a bit too brief for us to be getting genuine useful feedback. it would be extreme helpful to makes savable text versions o' combat logs. fight a single foe in bg2 such as a dragon and you not need help to follow debuffs layered 'pon it. in bg2 you could also buff your own party before combat, so one/many steps were removed to make actual combat less frenetic. per encounter PoE abilities for virtual all characters also tends to increase the number o' debuffs we have available. we got stuff such as grass and additional foes stacking or interfering such that even if there is subtle visual cues for debuffs, we ain't seeing what to look for in PoE. ... the thing is, we don't have a single fix for our debuff complaint. we can't think o' an obvious fix, and am doubting there is time to address complex or subtle fixes. discouraging. HA! Good Fun!

another one o' these? *groan* but there is either a disconnect or somesuch. you further pulling up old posts to support your position would be an amusing approach in the present case. am thinking it were perhaps a mistake to pm you. in the pm we were arguably more condescending and less fair as we assumed (in)action on your part that would lead to you repeated making claims that were unsupported or unsupportable, we suggested a different approach. in our board posts, we do not make assumptions or hinder you with failures you have not earned-- we take your posts as you write them. that very well could be, ironically, an inability to express yourself. it could also be transparency o' you promoting agenda rather than seeking truth. is it perhaps the case you have such an agenda and refuse to accept that you could be wrong? am not genuinely concerned. we don't make such assumptions, especially when actions is more significant. personally, we would suggest that your persona is more fraudulent than ours. Gromnir is consistent, but we has, on numerous occasions found common ground with developers. you, on the other hand... well, you is kinda a dog with a bone on some issues. is kinda funny that you remind us a bit o' karzak, the difference being that he didn't have the fake facade. now, am thinking it would benefit us all if you kept actual discussion of issues to the issues rather than having this become a little whimper fest where you or Gromnir discuss where we see flaws in the other's posting style. we noted that PoE, for instance, did have degenerating weapons and that feature were dropped, but you would rather discuss what you see as Gromnir personality faults? perhaps 'cause you cannot make valid arguments on issues. grow up. if you can't make an argument, don't. is no shame in being wrong. turning these into nothing more than a complaint that Gromnir is mean and unfair 'cause he exposed you and were not nice about it diminishes you, not Gromnir. again, replay o' bgee don't tell us much other than that you ain't really wedded to companions, not even new bgee companions. most randomn "oops" kinda crap sucks in a crpg, but is not the least bit random when such stuff as bg breakable weapons is an example. as others mentioned, bg weapons broke for a limited and explicable plot reason, which as a person replaying the game you is both aware of and is knowing how to minimize the potential handicap. you know the simple ways to circumvent the illusory problem right from the start. horrible example. current play through reveals nothing that you wish it to... but it does reveal some o' what you do not. now, you gonna grow up and stay on-topic, or no? HA! Good Fun! ps apologies for not responding timely as we were working on a bit o a deadline this weekend. we will attempt to chastise you with more immediacy in the future. whack puppy who piddled on the floor needs be contemporaneous with the poor behavior for the correction to be creating a genuine learning experience.

am not sure what proof you is offering. example: in another thread, you mentioned how much you loved the bg companions and how even though you played mp with a created party, you left open-slots to add bg companions. hell, bgee even has three new companions with full bg2 style quests and you still didn't leave open slots. am not sure what proof we can get from your anecdotal play o' bgee. heck, three possible companions have been available to you thus far and you has spurned them all. 'course now that we made this point we suspect somewhere along the way you will adopt a companion... that will show Gromnir, eh? *shrug* also, is kinda funny, but weapon degradation actual were planned as an initial feature. is not same as bg breaking (which as noted already were a bg plot point and complete irrelevant once you got magic weapons early in the game) nevertheless, josh thought it were a good credit sink. *shrug* fans didn't like the feature, and more important, it appears that the other PoE team members didn't like it neither. removing weapon degradation were, it seems, a very easy change as it were only affected by a single skill. HA! Good Fun! Heh! You missed the context by a mile. That playthrough of mine is all about them six characters I rolled up myself (I have played the game dozens of times, I don't need to hear from those companions yet again. It's my prerogative to play BG the way I want to. However, some quest-xp-only people seem hell-bent on policing how it should be played. Also, for this crowd, companions > carefully roleplayed party of six you rolled up yourself. Why is this? I don't know. they are slaves under the laudatory quotes on the box.) My proof is that I keep on playing even if my party nearly got wiped out or if a weapon broke. I didn't re-roll, instead I roll with the punches. That's my way to RP combat in that playthrough. Obviously, if they all die I need to reload. So far, it hasn't happened. we got context. we saw what you wrote before... want us to quote? even when doing mp style you left slots open 'cause you says you liked companion banter. you liked bg companions. clearly you didn't like'em that much. well, as usual, is best to ignore what people say and look instead at what they do. you didn't get wiped, so no issue there. is always easy to have backup weapons 'cause you has played the game previous and already know weapons will break and will be easy for you to get easily found magic versions... because you know where the magic versions is too. *shrug* regardless, just as developers is likely to put more stock in actual feedback by watching folks play, so does Gromnir. we hear what you says, but then we see what you do. is illuminating. thanks. HA! Good Fun!

the amusing thing is that some o' the folks who are complaining is aware we have been doing this for fifteen years and that the bioware developers actual put the Gromnir character into one o' their games. what possible motivation could a handful o' schmucks on the PoE boards come up with that 1) we hasn't already heard many times-- is cute they all think they is unique and clever and 2) they genuine believe is likely to alter a fifteen year pattern ? anywho. alignment were kinda a funny quirk o' d&d. PoE cannot use d&d. therefore, is no reason to use alignment. proviso: if this were an elric of melnibone game, then alignment (although not d&d alignment) would be appropriate. anybody know who has digital elric rights? HA! Good Fun!

reputation is subjective. alignment is objective. is not an either/or scenario. both reputation and alignment may exist simultaneously. however, is a bit unwieldy to do both. even so, is not mutual exclusive. if developers says that people in the community think you are a jerk or dishonest 'cause you lied to the inn keeper when you told him that his stable were on fire, it is kinda tough to argue that the developers is wrong. developers is handling the behind the scenes stuff such as gossip and innuendo. you may think that perhaps the degree o' your reputation for dishonesty or jerkiness is excessive, but is just a subjective quality anyways. admittedly, is also gonna be a question o' how far your reputation extends, and as such, most games with reputation actual has differentiation based on factions. your reputation in a small burg might not have any impact on your reputation in the kingdom of Eld many thousands of leagues away. nevertheless, reputation is always subjective. alignment is different. alignment is objective. is lying a matter o' pushing you towards chaos or towards evil? is there situations where a lie could push your alignment towards good or lawfulness? get 10 people to discuss what law, chaos, good and evil in d&d alignment actual means and you will not get uniformity. you will get angry folks who think you is full o' crap 'cause you gave the character 1 chaos point for lying to the innkeeper even when the lie were part of an elaborate scheme to return the rightful count to power. but wait, the count were secretly one o' those horrible animancers using captured children as undead experiments, and while technically he might be the rightful count, he had murdered the previous count which arguably made him ineligible to be the new count anyways... though he were never tried for the crime o' murder, so... nevertheless, while the murderous count was in power he had instituted a very progressive public works program as well as some much needed tax reforms that boosted the economy. he also made universal healthcare available in his county. was lying to the innkeeper an inherently chaotic act? was helping the count lawful? was knowledge o' the counts misdeeds making your help evil but lawful? what if you honest believed the count when he claimed he had turned over a new leaf and were not going to torture kids no more for the sake o' animancy? would it make a difference to your good v evil slider if you believed the count's claims o' good intentions? what if count actual committed more atrocities after you aided him? would that change evil v. good slider? alignment is... a mess. is complete unnecessary as long as you do not have spells, gods and/or items that track good v. evil anyways. HA! Good Fun!

yeah, we have mentioned multiple times in multiple threads that we got a particular problem with the lack o' transparency o' PoE combat. we would like changes to combat log, but more important, we frequent have no way to discern which foes is affected by debuffs, which prevents us from intelligently layering additional debuffs. these is only a couple issues, but am thinking that an obsidian fix would be much time/resource consuming. now maybe not everybody sees our big problems as being problems. is possible that obsidian don't see our stated concerns as genuine problems. the thing is, we is discouraged that any discussion is largely pointless as there simple ain't time to make any major or meaningful changes. bugs are squishy? sure, but there is loads o' them... more than we expected at this late date. quashing all those annoying little bugs will take considerable time and efforts, and obsidian doesn't have an abundance o' time and man-hours. the beta gives us time to provide feedback to obsidian so they can quash bugs, but not much else. is disappointing. optimization and solidification is not likely to happen til after release. but perhaps we is complete wrong... just don't seem like it. HA! Good Fun!

I thought Gromnir was closer to Thanos. We need a chart for this. another Gromnir thread? in any event, we got no actual superpowers, and if death has a personification, we feel no urge to date it/her... not even if she were more like neil gaiman's death, hmmm. Gromnir's role? Kurtz from Heart of Darkness, or perhaps Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now? regardless, am having concerns about the 2014 release. the recent patch, while certainly an improvement, leaves us with new concerns without anything close to even half eradication o' our worries previous to the patch release. o' particular concern, as far as bugs go, is the startling frequency o' per-encounter abilities failing to reset after a combat ends... and reload does not solve this issue. we will be a bit more patient, but we hope that obsidian is not doing as so many developers/publishers has done in recent years and contemplated the release o' an unfinished product that will needs be considerable solidified and optimized after going gold. oh, sure, the game may be released in december, but will it be resembling a finished product before january or february of 2015 when the inevitable post release patches are finally made available? dunno. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure what proof you is offering. example: in another thread, you mentioned how much you loved the bg companions and how even though you played mp with a created party, you left open-slots to add bg companions. hell, bgee even has three new companions with full bg2 style quests and you still didn't leave open slots. am not sure what proof we can get from your anecdotal play o' bgee. heck, three possible companions have been available to you thus far and you has spurned them all. 'course now that we made this point we suspect somewhere along the way you will adopt a companion... that will show Gromnir, eh? *shrug* also, is kinda funny, but weapon degradation actual were planned as an initial feature. is not same as bg breaking (which as noted already were a bg plot point and complete irrelevant once you got magic weapons early in the game) nevertheless, josh thought it were a good credit sink. *shrug* fans didn't like the feature, and more important, it appears that the other PoE team members didn't like it neither. removing weapon degradation were, it seems, a very easy change as it were only affected by a single skill. HA! Good Fun!

it should also be obvious that given that PoE could not be an ad&d or d&d d20 game, many so-called ie feature would be off-limits to the obsidian developers. the fact that obsidian would need to develop a complete original rule system precluded the possibility of many features being identical. as much as ps:t was a different game than iwd, you had basic mechanical similarities due to using a variation o' the infinity engine. even where iwd2 complete changed things with d20 mechanics, it was still a d&d game and the d&d nomenclature that was part of bg1 was still present in iwd2. as part o' the initial kickstarter, we knew that obsidian was needing to start from scratch with its rule mechanics. sure, PoE would be an isometric 2d game with squad-based fantasy combat, but as soon as we knew that PoE could not be d&d and that a new rule system would be developed, any reasonable and rational person would be recognizing that many significant differences between the ie games and PoE would be necessary. hell, we lobbied for a classless rule system, but we assume that idea were rejected out-of-hand as it would be too different from the ie games. oh, and the infinity engine is a +15 year old dog that gots more than a few fleas. as much as some folks loved the ie games, any developer attempting to recreate the "feel" o' the ie games would likely attempt to make improvements... as well as use a healthy k9 advantix II application to prevent the old ie cooties from infecting PoE-- thank goodness. HA! Good Fun! ps "sure, PoE would be an isometric 2d game with squad-based fantasy combat," funny aside: in our first PoE beta combat, we immediate attempted to rotate the camera. we Knew that PoE were 2d isometric, but even so, we still attempted to rotate camera.

lack of appropriate and/or useful combat feedback has been our (Gromnir's) most frequent complaint thus far. the combat log itself is extreme brief and the numbers, while useful, often do not make a great deal o' sense if we cannot tell who is affected by buffs and debuffs. we has played a mmo or two where we could save combat log to a text file. such a feature would be a great help as we could see more than, perhaps, a single action by each party member. is likely too late to add such a feature, but is possible fodder for the expansion which is seeming already in development. more significant is the lack o' an ability to identify which foes is suffering debuffs. we has pointed this out numerous times and even made specific reference to the ranger's marked prey ability. marked prey is a powerful per-encounter ranger ability, but there is no simple way for us to observe which freaking wood beetle or spider were tagged with marked prey. even when we scroll over each wood beetle, we frequent get very little useful info feedback. we have many buffs and debuffs in this game, but am struck by how the lack o' useful feedbacks makes such abilities far less appealing to us. the effective layering of debuffs is an important tactical concern in many squad-based tactical combat games. PoE often makes such layering a matter o' guesswork rather than strategy. is bad design, from our pov. HA! Good Fun!

No argument there. I'm sure the main quest line will be very interesting. But they don't have any non spoiler side quests they could have showcased that actually had an interesting quest mechanic or story line? This was the most basic of basics. This demo I'm assuming was meant to wet our appetite for what was to come. Maybe not. All it showed me was same old same old. odd. we never looked at the beta as a appetite wetting demo. after all, it ain't an actual demo, and it has a very limited release. you had to pay for the game to get the opportunity to beta, and they even cut off the opportunity for new folks to join in the beta with end of crowd funding. you already bought the game-- no need to wet appetite. also, the game starts you off at level five in an insular locale. is very little introduction to the world, and as noted above, the quests is insular as well. if the developers were wetting appetite, we would expect graphic theatrics, and story development to get you involved in the world. the exact opposite is happening with the beta as the events o' the world, and the story o' PoE is being kept hidden. if this were a wet appetite excercise, we would expect a dozen partial started but unfinishable quests... y'know, to make us want the opportunity to finish'em. we would expect that in addition to the aforementioned story teases, we would also get gameplay teases that would compel the crpg junkies to want More. am knowing that there is much distrust o' developers, so when they explain stuff, people has a tendency to disbelieve. *shrug* nothing 'bout the beta suggests that the developers were trying to wet our appetite. it appears that the beta is what they claimed it were, and less. we got higher level characters so we could actual see and test a more useful spread o' abilities. obsidian said they wanted feedback so they could better develop talents, and is tough to give meaningful feedback about character builds when you only reach level three in an intro demo. developers specific said they didn't wanna do intro stuff to avoid possible spoilage. the beta is also useful for the developers to be doing hardware build bug hunting, but again, we gots characters with far more abilities, so there is simple more that is breakable. 'course, we thought this were a genuine beta wherein we would get useful chance to give feedback 'bout features. am thinking we were mislead a bit on that point as game is functional at feature lock and developers is gonna need work very hard simply to make 2014 release. nevertheless, the beta were never advertised as a appetite wetting demo-- quite the contrary. HA! Good Fun!

That one is a good Idea. am done with kill xp debate, 'cause more than you realize, it is moot. that being said, your recognition that the aforementioned would make a good quest is part o' the problem for all our ad hoc compromises. as between a well-developed quest that can be designed to provide multiple solutions v. an automatic grant of experience points, the quest/objective will always be having the capacity for greater options. as we noted above, you could design cartographer quest to allow for dialogue shortcuts or swindling, and kgambit gave intriguing reward possibilities HA! Good Fun! Yup it can if these actually become quests. I have a feeling they won't. Also I'm not debating Kill xp anymore, I'm coming up with objectives that I hope to see in the game that will make the play through more fulfilling. You can achieve all these things without quests as well with other forms of XP, but again it's moot. As it stands if the quests available in the game are all in the vein of what we have seen as their showcase demo, then I'm bored already. actually, the portion o' the beta we have were specifically used because it is insular and limited. the beta were chosen so it would not have far-reaching or extensive impact on the rest o' the game as a whole. therefore, it should come as no surprise that the beta quests necessarily must be o' a similar insular and discrete nature if they is to be successfully offering rewards. the level o' complexity and depth for the beta were specifically chosen to be shallow. we thought that point were made clear. guess not. HA! Good Fun!

That one is a good Idea. am done with kill xp debate, 'cause more than you realize, it is moot. that being said, your recognition that the aforementioned would make a good quest is part o' the problem for all our ad hoc compromises. as between a well-developed quest that can be designed to provide multiple solutions v. an automatic grant of experience points, the quest/objective will always be having the capacity for greater options. as we noted above, you could design cartographer quest to allow for dialogue shortcuts or swindling, and kgambit gave intriguing reward possibilities "The reward upon completion of the "cartographer's quest" might be a map that results in some previously hidden area being revealed on the world map with a hidden treasure to be found there, or perhaps a permanent boost to the appropriate stat or an equippable item that grants the same" those rewards could be altered slightly depending on how you resolved the quest. all o' which is seeming far superior to us than a simple automatic grant. the quest approach, with partial grants of xp granted for successful objectives (can't believe we need actual iterate that point) offers more role play options, which in a Role-Play game is inherent more desirable, but rewards may also be tailored based on actual role-play choices so as to increase the replay-ability o' the game. first play through you maybe just kill everything on the map to uncover. second play-through you might wanna at least try some o' the dialogue options that require perception or intellect or... whatever. but keep in mind, we can do similar for all such automatic xp grants suggested so far. we can make'em, every single one'o' them, into more compelling and varied quests. so, why is the automatic grant of xp superior? what about the automatic grant makes it a better option? and while we recognizing it will never be admitted, am thinking if you consider the point, you will see how this ties in directly to any/all quest/objective/task xp arguments. therein is the problem... or the solution, if only folks would realize. HA! Good Fun!

The reward upon completion of the "cartographer's quest" might be a map that results in some previously hidden area being revealed on the world map with a hidden treasure to be found there, or perhaps a permanent boost to the appropriate stat or an equippable item that grants the same You could also do the same with discovering certain landmarks; a statue here, a ruin there, etc. It's kind of a nice idea - gives out some exploration xp - doesn't have to be a lot for each step - and then add a reward at the end. as a fully developed quest, we can see many ways to make the fog of war clearing mechanic at least a bit more interesting from a role-play perspective. HA! Good Fun!

gonna have to disagree. give us a choice between option 1 and option 2 and we cannot find a way to make option 2 The Win. 'course, in the spirit o' full disclosure, Gromnir were one o' the folks who were loudest on the bg2 boards railing against the mowing o' bg1 wilderness maps. thank goodness the bioware developers felt similar and nixed such maps in bg2. HA! Good Fun!

am admitting that awarding xp for clearing the fog of war appeals to us personally 'bout as much as does a nice heaping tablespoon of vegemite. *shudder* option 1) mechanically, we can see adding this idea as a quest... a cartographer's quest. am not certain what the reward would be. perhaps the lone achievement in the game could be Cartographer Completionist (aka slow death.) clear each map would result in some objective xp, and final reveal of all fog of war would result in a final quest reward. get you a golden compass and some 1007? player could use dialogue options to hire sub-contractors to do some exploring... or even possibly to lie to the quest giver 'bout areas not actual explored. "yes, that is genuine walrus tusk scrimshaw i traded for when i was in the arctic mapping the coast of ____________." could use stealth or combat to clear maps. could find ways to get all sorta abilities to be relevant and make the quest more interesting. or option 2) you could make a simple automatic award device by which you get xp for clearing the fog of war for each map. hmmm. does option 1 or option 2 sound more like the kinda thing you (not the kill xp folks, but, y'know, sane people) would want in a crpg? sure, you may change option two, but if it is simply an automatic award, will it be Possible to offer more gameplay options than an actual quest? am thinking we is back at square 1, but then again, others may see different. HA! Good Fun!

if that were true, we would be startled, but not apologetic. am understanding that menopause is actual a common cause of cerebral hemorrhaging. perhaps you is simple confusing cause and effect. do you really wanna make this a Gromnir thread? on topic: we don't envision a developer response that would appease kill proponents and allow obsidian to maintain other promises. HA! Good Fun!

the obsidian pov on quest xp is not unclear or hidden. we got numerous links to obsidian clarifications on the matter. what would another such posting serve? is a handful o' folks, without any QA or testing feedback, predicting doomsday scenarios for PoE combat... there is folks who is arguing for kill xp 'cause that were how all the ie games did it, gosh darn it. short of giving kill xp folks a complete new xp mechanic, what could the obsidians say that would satisfy the kill xp proponents? let the kill xp proponents stew. is ultimately a very minor issue. assuming it ain't affecting actual gameplay o' QA folks, what motivation does the obsidians have to change from a mechanic which they believe promotes essential goals o' balance, diversity o' gameplay style and simplicity? 'cause a small number o' contrarians believe that quest xp would discourage combat gameplay? is quieting the codexians and other p00p hurling monkeys in these threads enough reason to dismantle a mechanic they believe is working in favor o' one they rejected? ... again, the obsidian pov on this matter is Not a secret. if we could craft a hypothetical response that would not only satisfy the kill proponents but were also compatible with previous offered obsidian promises and opinions regarding xp mechanics, we would gladly offer such a solution. does anybody have an example o' such a response that would actual appease those furious with (un)righteous indignation? we ain't seen one? as tough as it is to believe, this issue will burn itself out in time. is so many more significant and serious concerns. there will be bigger obsidian mistakes and gaffs for the rage monkeys to seize 'pon. will be bugs and wacky design choices and seeming unfulfilled promises that will result in dozens o' little threads such as these. this thread should actual be looked at positive by the obsidians. if this nonsense is the genuine biggest and most populous issue folks have with PoE, the obsidians should be overwhelmed with relief. our advice: let it burn. HA! Good Fun! edit: font size issues... again

you is using a non-issue related to differentiation in denotative definitions of objective v. quest to fabricate an argument. cant is fair. cant gives you the benefit of the doubt. *shrug* "Avoiding combat does not lead to less experience gain. You shouldn't go up levels any slower by using your non-combat skills rather than your combat skills. We plan to reward you for your accomplishments, not for your body count." "Tim and I would rather not give XP for general killin' because it leads to a lot of weird/degenerate scenarios, but I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal." "Gameplay degeneration occurs when a player engages in gameplay not because they enjoy that gameplay but because the game's mechanics put the player at a disadvantage for not taking advantage of it. Rest spamming is one example. Wholesale slaughter/genocide is another. Quests that involve a peaceful option to resolve that get turned around after completion when the player murders the saved parties is a familiar expression of this sort of degeneration. If XP is linked to quests and objectives within quests, the player has much more freedom to resolve those quests in whatever way he or she wants, whether that means talking through it, fighting, sneaking around, or using some mixture of skills/scripted environment objects to reach the goal." the poll and the developers from two years ago were not confused or confusing. regardless o' the silly semantic argument you wanna drag cant into, kill xp were always precluded. sorry, is not the issue you wish it were. seeming unnecessary clarification: even if there were a difference between quest and objective xp, it would not matter in the present context because quest/task/objective xp ALL preclude kill xp. HA! Good Fun!

sure it is. the reason gallup included is 'cause it is relevant. regardless, the guy who linked the poll strategic left out information that were included with the poll. is misleading. at best it is misleading. you not find relevant? HA! again, am not surprised, but at least you have the information in front of you to now make that decision, an informed (if irrational) decision. HA! Good Fun!

don't be that guy. don't perpetuate a mistake we seen floating around and being repeated. quest xp. goal, task, objective xp. none o' these matter IF the alternative being addressed is kill/combat xp. personally, we see the attempts to distinguish objective xp from quest xp is a matter o' semantics, and ultimately meaningless. however, do not lose sight o' the simple fact that regardless o' how one labels quest/task/objective xp mechanics, they all necessarily preclude kill/combat xp http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1495069 http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61543-are-you-for-or-against-gaining-experience-points-only-for-completing-objectives/ cant wants to be fair. some board yahoo wants to make the issue 'bout the subtle differences 'tween objective, quest and task meanings and cant obliges. cant can't just ignore, can he? 'course not. the thing is, such distinctions in definition is not only largely meaningless, but they is irrelevant in the present context-- quest/objective/task/etc. all preclude combat/kill xp. we applaud your desire to try and be fair, but that quality that makes you see all opposing arguments as having some point o validity ignores the reality that many arguments don't have any relevance. definition o' quest/task has been clarified by the developers and what they mean is important, but none o' that actual matters in the present context, 'cause whatever definition you use, you won't be able to include kill/combat xp. is a not relevant. HA! Good Fun!