Gromnir

I don't care about what you feel that it's fun for you. Considering time/resources, they should stick to what they have and use their remaining time/resources to fix/balance/polish the game and not catering some loud people. Unless that loud people want to pay from their pocket those optional systems. Then that's ok a long as the resource known as time allows it. The only way they will have the time to allow it is if the pro-combatxpers come up with around 200k or so and make another donation. They are asking them to overhaul the one system that has more to do with game balance and power curves than anything else. It would easily take a month or two possibly more to do just that, forget about all the bugs, polishing, and everything else you have to put on hold. It is a ridiculous request that is not as popular as people think and it is not going to happen. As a D&D CRPG modder, I can tell you, in all sincerity, that this is not true. Even a single experienced person could do it, and well in time, before release. If they wanted to have it in, that is. I have already asked one OE dev about it, and provided a solution/set up for how it could be done, even for free. He declined. Also, they already have some creature/monster/enemy ranking system in, since you have this "most powerful foe defeated" feature in. It's a design choice more than anything else. *Ahem* Not everyone agrees with your assertion that it is to late Gromnir though I admit it will not be changed by choice. naughty. you should not misrepresent indira. our post: a bit misleading no doubt. whether you could slap together a kill xp system ignores comments such as josh made in regard to this issue: "Not only is it extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA staff, but it inevitably leads to nasty metagaming that, in my opinion, runs counter to some of the guiding principles of many RPGs." please note josh did not say that implementing a kill system for xp were technical difficult. he did observe that such a system were extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA. implement a system is only the start o' the effort that would be needed to Fix your "improvement." would you give xp for sneaking past monsters instead o' fighting. stun thinks sneaking past monsters is unworthy? does you? how much for lockpicking? if you give for kills, then why not lockpicks... and how much for lockpicks? again, am believing there is a fundamental misconception 'bout the problem. end post. indira responded thus: Gromnir: Agreed. It's basically what I'm saying: Josh & Co would be more than capable of inserting it (like I just wrote, it's already in, at least rudimentarily). However we do not agree about perfect balance. I say like Sensuki: "balance==banalce", in this case it's true for an xp system in a CRPG. Obviously, it needs quite some tweaking and decent min-max variations over the course of the game, but in essence: I want the game to be slightly imbalanced. This makes each playthrough so much more fun. As for my system (I said that in another thread): I'd keep it pretty close to the BG2 system, so yes, lockpicking and disarming traps, would be in, for instance end repost. therefore, even indira agrees with our statement that, "it is too late to create a new mechanic which achieves goals... especially as feedback from QA on this game reinforces obsidian belief that the current xp system is working as anticipated." the difference is that indira does not value the same goals as obsidian. nevertheless, indira did actually agree with our assertion, so, you is incorrect. no new mechanic that achieves balance is possible. is moot. HA! Good Fun! No he stated they could do it, and that he did not believe perfect balance was necessary. As in he doesn't agree those stated goals of perfect balance are necessary. Nor do many of us. actually, no. he/she agreed that a new mechanic that included the promised balancing could not be added in the requisite time with the available manpower/money resources. he/she doesn't believe such balancing is necessary, but he/she agreed that that josh's statements about the balancing being prohibitive for qa and designers was accurate. this is simple reason folks. an engineer says he can't build a replacement bridge by December that will satisfy certain design requirements such as weight limits, longevity, etc. another engineer shows up and claims that a bridge can be built by December, but her specs is complete different. not all bridges is the same just as not all xp mechanics is the same. a primary goal mentioned in the kickstarter promise were balance. indira says balance ain't necessary? well, that's nice, but it ain't actual helpful or responsive... she offers a very nice rope bridge, but that ain't what obsidian promised or would be willing to replace their current design with. so no, as we noted, a balanced xp mechanic cannot be constructed in the time remaining, and indira agreed... she simply doesn't see balance as a necessary quality. issue is moot. HA! Good Fun!

am sympathetic, but please note that the kickstarter pitch were perhaps not what you imagined it to be. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1495069 the developers were up-front and clear that body count would be de-emphasized in PoE and that making all builds equal viable and giving all such builds equivalent potential for xp acquisition were primary goals. there should not be a surprise in 2014 when it weren't a surprise in 2012. HA! Good Fun!

I don't care about what you feel that it's fun for you. Considering time/resources, they should stick to what they have and use their remaining time/resources to fix/balance/polish the game and not catering some loud people. Unless that loud people want to pay from their pocket those optional systems. Then that's ok a long as the resource known as time allows it. The only way they will have the time to allow it is if the pro-combatxpers come up with around 200k or so and make another donation. They are asking them to overhaul the one system that has more to do with game balance and power curves than anything else. It would easily take a month or two possibly more to do just that, forget about all the bugs, polishing, and everything else you have to put on hold. It is a ridiculous request that is not as popular as people think and it is not going to happen. As a D&D CRPG modder, I can tell you, in all sincerity, that this is not true. Even a single experienced person could do it, and well in time, before release. If they wanted to have it in, that is. I have already asked one OE dev about it, and provided a solution/set up for how it could be done, even for free. He declined. Also, they already have some creature/monster/enemy ranking system in, since you have this "most powerful foe defeated" feature in. It's a design choice more than anything else. *Ahem* Not everyone agrees with your assertion that it is to late Gromnir though I admit it will not be changed by choice. naughty. you should not misrepresent indira. our post: a bit misleading no doubt. whether you could slap together a kill xp system ignores comments such as josh made in regard to this issue: "Not only is it extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA staff, but it inevitably leads to nasty metagaming that, in my opinion, runs counter to some of the guiding principles of many RPGs." please note josh did not say that implementing a kill system for xp were technical difficult. he did observe that such a system were extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA. implement a system is only the start o' the effort that would be needed to Fix your "improvement." would you give xp for sneaking past monsters instead o' fighting. stun thinks sneaking past monsters is unworthy? does you? how much for lockpicking? if you give for kills, then why not lockpicks... and how much for lockpicks? again, am believing there is a fundamental misconception 'bout the problem. end post. indira responded thus: Gromnir: Agreed. It's basically what I'm saying: Josh & Co would be more than capable of inserting it (like I just wrote, it's already in, at least rudimentarily). However we do not agree about perfect balance. I say like Sensuki: "balance==banalce", in this case it's true for an xp system in a CRPG. Obviously, it needs quite some tweaking and decent min-max variations over the course of the game, but in essence: I want the game to be slightly imbalanced. This makes each playthrough so much more fun. As for my system (I said that in another thread): I'd keep it pretty close to the BG2 system, so yes, lockpicking and disarming traps, would be in, for instance end repost. therefore, even indira agrees with our statement that, "it is too late to create a new mechanic which achieves goals... especially as feedback from QA on this game reinforces obsidian belief that the current xp system is working as anticipated." the difference is that indira does not value the same goals as obsidian. nevertheless, indira did actually agree with our assertion, so, you is incorrect. no new mechanic that achieves balance is possible. is moot. HA! Good Fun!

it is our belief that the major pacing issue folks is dealing with is that you start at level 5 equivalent. am admitting our first combat were confused. subsequent combats has likewise been confused, but what has disconcerted us more since our first couple play experiences is that we frequent cannot tell friend from friend and friend from foe... and we got no idea which foes is under the influence o' which debuffs. that being said, combat speed slowed down considerably once we figured out what each class could/should do. that learning curve to be understanding the capabilities o' the classes were multiplied by the fact that we started with level 5 characters. at least, it is our belief that pacing is more a matter o' info overload than anything else simply 'cause game has slowed considerably for us on subsequent beta plays. nevertheless, there is a great deal o' micro-management with combat. that appeals to us. then again, am admitting that some micromanagement is related to our aforementioned learning curve comments. am suspecting that use o' some abilities will become nearly reflexive once we get a better handle on combat. sure, we will still be micro-managing, but the complexity will decrease a great deal making the micro-management less cumbersome. as for paladin, fighter and rogue suffering from auto-attack, we don't get that at all. the fighter, rogue and mage do not throw many surprises at us from a design perspective-- they are what we expected. mages get lot o' spells, and very familiar spells. fighters is good in combat and can take hits. we use rogues as flankers and disablers. *shrug* these classes is not surprising us with what they can do, but then again, we sorta expect them to be the archetypal options on an otherwise diverse class list. that being said, we have not utilized fighter, rogue or paladin in an auto-attack mode in combat. with the per-encounter abilities o' each class, we typical find that there is always an option we can be considering the use o' in any given combat. sure, some abilities is limited to use-per-day, and so we may choose auto-attack instead, but, we always has options and we don't feel limited to auto-attack. however, and this is a Big however, we observed that with a paladin as our main character, combats lasted longer than with any other character we has played thus far, and those options include: chanter, cipher, druid, mage, ranger, priest and barbarian. our paladin buffing o' fellow party members were, no doubt, very useful, but it simply took longer to dispatch any foe with a paladin as our main character. that being said, it is possible that Gromnir had his head lodged up his kiester and were playing the paladin all wrong. nevertheless, the feel we had for the paladin were that it did not contribute relative as much to our offensive power as any other class we played. as for druid and mages, well, with so many casters, we believe you may get pretty much anything you want simply by choosing a different class. want your abilities to be per-encounter? play a cipher. want particular powerful offensive spells? play a druid. wanna simply roll-stomp everything? play a chanter. *shrug* am not thinking the developer want to make all casters capable o' many per-encounter abilities... that is why they got so much caster class diversity. 'course, priests are, once again, heal-bots. oh, sure, they gots many useful buffs and offensive spells, but you are likely gonna want at least one healer-type in your party, and the priest is your only option. just random thoughts inspired by your post. HA! Good Fun!

which complete ignores that we can sneak past all the spiders in the cave. admitted, we haven't tried to stealth past the ones outside the cave. *shrug* doesn't matter. if we sneak past spiders and then kill or use dialogue to finish the ogre quest, why should we be penalized? we accomplished the goal. is bizarre that you can't grasp this basic concept. your stealth-only resolution fixation complete ignores one o' the benefits o' quest only xp: the developers don't discriminate, nor do they care how you accomplish the quest. refusal to provide a numerical advantage to one resolution v. another is one o' the chief benefits o' quest xp, and you seem mentally incapable o' grasping such an utterly obvious concept... but you didn't get your ps:t foible... which you actually edited your way into. you can't grasp that it is taking fewer resources to Not balance than any mechanic which would be, necessarily "extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA staff." you don't realize or recognize that adding a mechanic that would be "extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA staff" is far too resource intensive to achieve at this late date. you don't understand that the espoused goals o' PoE as noted in the kisckstarter were, "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," which clearly conflicts with a notion o' per-kill xp awards. ... is simply not worth responding direct to you at this point. really. our admission o' a complete failure to make you recognize concepts as axiomatic as water is wet or autumn follows summer aside, the entire issue is moot. is too late to create a new mechanic which achieves goals... especially as feedback from QA on this game reinforces obsidian belief that the current xp system is working as anticipated. *shrug* am genuine beginning to understand nietzsche's mental breakdown. the true horror is that we recognize that we is the guy doing the flogging o' the horse. HA! Good Fun!

you are trying to be rational. that Will fail. HA! Good Fun!

And I'm still mystified by Gromnir's inability to grasp the concept behind loss of Quest XP for the Stealthy playstyle but not for, say, talking. Especially since he seems to be championing the false notion that the Quest XP-only system rewards all playstyles equally. And then of course, the utter subject-changing and red herrings he'd respond with whenever ANYONE pointed this out to him. (well, that part's not so mystifying) Hey Gromnir, Can you complete any quest in the beta via stealth? sure we can complete quest via stealth. we can stealth past bugs and spiders and all kinda stuff. we can use stealth lots. you asking stoopid on purpose... again? or perhaps are you asking a silly question such as can we complete a quest via nothing but stealth. *chuckle* we would observe that such a query is rather pointless and is one very good reason for implementing quest xp as it don't discriminate or punish based on how we accomplish goals. but thanks for showing just how limited you wanna be in this discussion. oh, and you can complete solo, and you will level faster, just not enough to unbalance. you get +5%. yippie. HA! Good Fun!

no disagreement. is more than a few folks on these boards who is sick o' us waxing poetic concerning ravel/ei-vene/mebbeth/marta character. no matter what criticisms we got for chris avellone, the development o' that "single" character changed the way we look at crpg writing. HA! Good Fun!

independent game developers (different than developers working directly for a publisher) have a duty to their wives, children, selves and perhaps coworkers to be making games that will earn enough money so that they can stay in the business o' making games. ... that's it. HA! Good Fun!

ps:t were our favorite crpg. being our favorite does not mean that we cannot recognize flaws. one glaring flaw were the xp mechanic. wisdom, a stat which were the prime attribute o' no playable ps:t TNO class, were an xp Multiplier. not only were many quest rewards tied directly to a minimum wisdom score, but having a high wisdom resulted in potential more than 33% improvement in all xp gained in the game. playing as a high strength and low intelligence/wisdom fighter, as were a viable and enjoyable build in all othe ie games, resulted in a player not only missing a significant amount o' wisdom specific content, but it created an xp penalty for those players foolish enough not to boost wisdom. ps:t, as much as we loved the game and still frequent replay it as a high wisdom, high charisma player, were a classic example o' developer schadenfreude. you wanna play a vanilla fighter in ps:t? HA! joke is on you, 'cause not only does ps:t combat suck, but you is getting a functional xp penalty for playing as a traditional fighter build. great game, but with some bad mechanics. nothing precludes a great game from having some flaws. HA! Good Fun! Honestly I would call Ps:T a adventure game with rpg elements. Most people played with max wis/int/char anyway most folks who played it later than winter 1999 likely did go wisdom/int/charisma route... which were most people, 'cause initial sales sucked, and the memory leak made near unplayable for many anyways. again, not a perfect game, but recall that the game starts you off as a fighter in a d&d game. am expecting that many folks played game for a goodly bit as a fighter, if not most folks who were just starting the game with 0 board feedback or walk-through. HA! Good Fun! edit: can't spell walk-through? sheesh. in any event, ps:t, as fantastic as it were , were horrible for exp mechanics, balance, etc.

ps:t were our favorite crpg. being our favorite does not mean that we cannot recognize flaws. one glaring flaw were the xp mechanic. wisdom, a stat which were the prime attribute o' no playable ps:t TNO class, were an xp Multiplier. not only were many quest rewards tied directly to a minimum wisdom score, but having a high wisdom resulted in potential more than 33% improvement in all xp gained in the game. playing as a high strength and low intelligence/wisdom fighter, as were a viable and enjoyable build in all othe ie games, resulted in a player not only missing a significant amount o' wisdom specific content, but it created an xp penalty for those players foolish enough not to boost wisdom. ps:t, as much as we loved the game and still frequent replay it as a high wisdom, high charisma player, were a classic example o' developer schadenfreude. you wanna play a vanilla fighter in ps:t? HA! joke is on you, 'cause not only does ps:t combat suck, but you is getting a functional xp penalty for playing as a traditional fighter build. great game, but with some bad mechanics. nothing precludes a great game from having some flaws. HA! Good Fun!

he weren't aware that ps:t were the most schadenfreude o' the ie games insofar as xp were concerned. and he weren't aware that zero balancing takes less work than an xp system that requires balancing efforts, and, etc. list gets longer with each post. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68043-do-you-want-experience-from-combat/?p=1497923 keep in mind the linked post alone deserves a dead trout smack in the face, seeing as how he edited his post from reference bg2 exp mechanic to ps:t. but yeah, at least when confronted with actual statement from josh, he admitted that it weren't a balance problem... though he still managed to grouse about the fix. HA! is genuine funny for us to see stun posts as they do more for quest xp side o' the argument than does any three quest xp proponents combined. we need simple wait for him to post to be offered new ammunition. HA! Good Fun!

I wouldn't count on that. Well, I'm not banking on it. I feel confident when the full game is released I will be more than satisfied with the results, but I think enough people are invested enough in this game that if something is lacking it will be relatively easy to fix and someone will be passionate enough to do so. I seriously doubt OE is going to release an incomplete game. the only worry/concern for us is that obsidian already has an expansion for PoE in the works and as such, some know problems or concerns may be considered expansion fodder for the developers. 'stead o' going the extra mile to stabilize and optimize PoE, the plan may be to simply get PoE out before DA:I, then fix PoE known concerns with a paid-for mega-patch/expansion... but that is extreme cynical. am still hopeful that PoE will meet and/or exceed our reasonable expectations for a kisckstarter funded ie throwback game. HA! Good Fun!

Link? http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67912-does-having-more-characters-in-your-party-reduce-xp-gained/?p=1493247 I find myself to be very fond of that system. I know that will make things tough for solo players, but... shouldn't it be harder for people who decide to go it alone? am admitting we currently like it most 'cause stun tried to use as an example o' unavoidable xp exploit, when in fact it revealed that the developers were aware and were countering the obvious issue. is just more classic stun hi-jinks. am still mystified 'by his inability to grasp the concept behind loss o' kill xp for stealthily moving past combat encounters to complete quests when xp is being awarded for kills. regardless, as noted before, the ultimate issue is moot. the resources to change the current xp mechanic and achieve promised balance/diversity is not possible... and we still ain't seen a superior mechanic that would encourage diversity and balance even if it were more resource intensive, though such a mechanic could conceivably benefit a future game. as we already noted, if some poster creates such a unicorn, we s'pose obsidian would be grateful for that kinda Future benefit. HA! Good Fun!

excellent. see, we are getting clarification by asking questions. we do not know what other questions you asked of developers. did you ask them what were their impressions o' quest xp mechanic via formal QA and the considerable informal testing o' game so far? did you ask if quest xp were functionally discouraging players from engaging in combat as some folks here fear? were quest xp achieving goals o' more diverse gameplay and builds? were quest xp resulting in players replaying various boss battles to see what xp rewards were best. were obsidians pleased or displeased with quest xp thus far? etc? is always a good thing to ask relevant questions. am curious to see what answers the obsidians provided you... if you asked such questions. HA! Good Fun! Those are indeed excellent questions, which already had been put forward on these forums before I asked OE about this (just one dev, mind you), so I didn't ask those. perhaps those questions you think is good has already been asked? though am thinking the answers would be more meaningful to you if you got answers for yourself. regardless, as elerond already pointed out, a balanced system that rewards all styles o' play, promotes diversity and doesn't give specific reward for body count were part o' the initial promises and goal o' obsidian for PoE. implementation o' a per kill exp system is therefore problematic 'cause, "Not only is it extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA staff, but it inevitably leads to nasty metagaming that, in my opinion, runs counter to some of the guiding principles of many RPGs." even you admit that a balanced variety o' a per kill system would be requiring much resources. so, while we does encourage you to ask the excellent questions, the issue is still moot. obsidian did not hide goals o' a balanced xp mechanic, and balancing your mechanic would result in prohibitive resource allocation. your goals for an xp mechanic is not part o' obsidian's equation for achieving goals as promised. and stun is still complete deluded about stealth. stealth in combat should not necessarily grant more xp than stealth to avoid combat. stealth xp rewards only for combat usage discourages a potential valid gameplay style. but again, we couldn't explain to you that no work is requiring less effort than that which would be needed to balance an per kill xp system... effort even indira seems to concede would be considerable. am also still enjoying your laughable ps:t foible. you actual edited your post to achieve worst possible example from an ie game. is classic. HA! Good Fun!

excellent. see, we are getting clarification by asking questions. we do not know what other questions you asked of developers. did you ask them what were their impressions o' quest xp mechanic via formal QA and the considerable informal testing o' game so far? did you ask if quest xp were functionally discouraging players from engaging in combat as some folks here fear? were quest xp achieving goals o' more diverse gameplay and builds? were quest xp resulting in players replaying various boss battles to see what xp rewards were best. were obsidians pleased or displeased with quest xp thus far? etc? is always a good thing to ask relevant questions. am curious to see what answers the obsidians provided you... if you asked such questions. HA! Good Fun!

I don't care about what you feel that it's fun for you. Considering time/resources, they should stick to what they have and use their remaining time/resources to fix/balance/polish the game and not catering some loud people. Unless that loud people want to pay from their pocket those optional systems. Then that's ok a long as the resource known as time allows it. The only way they will have the time to allow it is if the pro-combatxpers come up with around 200k or so and make another donation. They are asking them to overhaul the one system that has more to do with game balance and power curves than anything else. It would easily take a month or two possibly more to do just that, forget about all the bugs, polishing, and everything else you have to put on hold. It is a ridiculous request that is not as popular as people think and it is not going to happen. As a D&D CRPG modder, I can tell you, in all sincerity, that this is not true. Even a single experienced person could do it, and well in time, before release. If they wanted to have it in, that is. I have already asked one OE dev about it, and provided a solution/set up for how it could be done, even for free. He declined. Also, they already have some creature/monster/enemy ranking system in, since you have this "most powerful foe defeated" feature in. It's a design choice more than anything else. a bit misleading no doubt. whether you could slap together a kill xp system ignores comments such as josh made in regard to this issue: "Not only is it extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA staff, but it inevitably leads to nasty metagaming that, in my opinion, runs counter to some of the guiding principles of many RPGs." please note josh did not say that implementing a kill system for xp were technical difficult. he did observe that such a system were extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA. implement a system is only the start o' the effort that would be needed to Fix your "improvement." would you give xp for sneaking past monsters instead o' fighting. stun thinks sneaking past monsters is unworthy? does you? how much for lockpicking? if you give for kills, then why not lockpicks... and how much for lockpicks? again, am believing there is a fundamental misconception 'bout the problem. HA! Good Fun!

unfortunate observation: if obsidian were getting primed to do a deadlands or deadlands-like kickstarter, am doubting he woulda' needed to google it. HA! Good Fun!

I quoted that as something I said/referenced not you...in regard to selling units....more of a thing we say in sports. we played d-1 football. always hated when somebody "quoted" us with what they thought we meant. that kinda thing would get any journalist seriously skewered. though, admittedly, by the time we got to University, we were no longer quotable as an athlete seeing as how we only ever got one start and that were due to injuries. as an aside, we saw "oh noes" nonsense in a post by helm, which kinda figures. HA! Good Fun! ps is a complete aside, but our one start were the kinda thing that were so complete epic fail that nobody would believe how bad we performed if we didn't still have video o' it. "nobody could be that bad," is actual responses we heard from friends who called us up after the game.

as soon as we can get our quest log to not evaporate, we will give it another try. this bug happens regardless of which load screen we use, so... well, we decided that the game were unplayable for now. not your fault o'course and we look forward to experimenting just as soon as obsidian ________ or gets off the pot. HA! Good Fun!

"Oh noes, I can powergame in Fallout by metagaming because of the wonders of the Internet. Game sux." is never good to put into quotes something somebody didn't say nor has ever claimed. makes you look like a schnook. that being said, we did observe that Developers has observed that fallout functional encouraged folks to metagame and they (sawyer and cain) seems to think that is a bad thing. personal, we don't mind occasionally playing a gimped character... particular after we has played the game a few times, but developers seem discouraged that a game they built with limitless seeming build potentials resulted in a very small number o' actual character builds getting played. HA! Good Fun!

**** man if they consider past xp mechanics to be failures this game is worse off than I imagined. Thank god they have a partnership with Paizo as a Pathfinder cRPG will no doubt have combat as well as other XP...not to mention popular/established mechanics already in place. This is especially true considering the IE games didn't try to have what you consider equal rewards for different resolution of quests so it's rather silly to judge it as if it did. Besides not everyone thinks there was an issue nor do they think of this as an improvement. Sure two of the head guys on PE think there was an issue but we've established that one didn't do too well when left to his own ideas....so yea cause for pause is very much warranted. *chuckle* it would be hard for stun's example to be any worse as an example o' past failures. ps:t? A Wisdom of 12 and lower, no bonus 13 gives you about a 2% bonus to experience earned. 14 5% 15 8% 16 10% 17 13% 18 15% 19 18% 20 20% 21 23% 22 25% 23 27% 24 30% 25 35% the game was so skewed in favor of wisdom it were ridiculous. intelligence and charisma also were receiving superior xp rewards, but as we noted in another thread, ps:t were the prime example o' th schadenfreude josh were talking about in his recent balance article. you could not active play as a cleric in ps:t, so no class had wisdom as a prime attribute, but wisdom not only got you the best xp awards, it gave you a freaking BONUS beyond the awards. and unlike other ie games, you could level as a thief, mage and fighter, so you were smartest to do all three if you wanted as much xp to get as much wisdom a possible. stun example o' the best is perhaps the worst freaking example we can recall, and clearly the most arse-backwards ie game as far as experience were concerned. is ironic that stun edited from bg2 to ps:t, 'cause he backpedaled his way into a complete ridiculous xp mechanic that made so that anybody who played through ps:t as a high wisdom mage character knew very well that playing as a low int/wis/charisma fighter as were oh-so-common, in other ie games were a functional punishment, particularly as combat... sucked. schadenfreude, and stun actual edited his way into it. tickles our sense o' whimsy. we loved ps:t, but stun points to it most farked mechanic as the guide for PoE? we couldn't have scripted this to make stun look more foolish. honest. HA! Good Fun! edited out oh-co-common... as if the c is all that close to the s on keyboard. sheesh

is so difficult to tell if you is being intentional obtuse for effect, or not. perplexing. *sigh* is not a "nuh-uh" argument. is axiomatic that NOT making any attempt to balance is easier than attempting to balance a myriad different xp award types. quest xp does not make any attempt to balance. it is therefore less resource intensive than ANY xp mechanic that attempts to do so. this should be so obvious that it is beyond question, but somehow it ain't. Explain how Kill XP imbalances PS:T. that has been done literal hundreds o' times in multiple threads, and Gromnir is simply repeating. folks who don't kill get less xp than those who do.... but you is the guy who couldn't understand why the absence o' stealth xp were a problem for those playing stealth characters. your inability to see the obvious is literal astounding, and keep in mind Gromnir has witnessed these boards since the late 90s. to be genuine surprised by a poster's inability to grasp simple concepts is noteworthy in and of itself. "Several problems with that." well, you got us-- this time we will say "nuh-uh." you just ain't worth the effort. if we can't explain that no work is requiring less effort than any amount o' genuine work, particularly when a developer describes the task in question thus: "Not only is it extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA staff, but it inevitably leads to nasty metagaming that, in my opinion, runs counter to some of the guiding principles of many RPGs." 1) no work v. 2) hard to balance for designers and qa staff yet you can't grasp that 1 is easier than 2? HA! Good Fun!

is so difficult to tell if you is being intentional obtuse for effect, or not. perplexing. *sigh* is not a "nuh-uh" argument. is axiomatic that NOT making any attempt to balance is easier than attempting to balance a myriad different xp award types. quest xp does not make any attempt to balance. it is therefore less resource intensive than ANY xp mechanic that attempts to do so. this should be so obvious that it is beyond question, but somehow it ain't. and as for immortalis perception o' a change in our posting, that is your imagination. perhaps you has read more posts and become familiarized, or more likely, you don't wanna simple admit that you were caught by ye olde schmuck detector 2000. am not sure if that is a sign o' growth or regression on your part. curious. HA! Good Fun!

didn't avoid the question of why should we care, we have answered many times, you just don't wanna hear. is a problem you exhibit frequent. might wanna have that checked out btw. "PoE is a role-play game that allows sneaky and diplomatic. give xp awards for individual kills, and individual lockpicks and individual whatever inevitably leads to an ideal approach for maximizing xp by making the right gameplay and character development choices. quest only xp avoids the need to devise a fair an balanced calculus. quest is simple and guaranteed to result in every player getting exact same XP rewards for completing quests regardless o' how they chose to complete the quest." fallout is an example. is not a handful o' folks exploiting. is the fallout community as a whole quickly realizing that there were clear best builds. all those customization choices were largely pointless, 'cause only a handful o' actual builds were typical played. take out a major motivation for finding a best build, and you increase likelihood o' diversity. as for talking out our arse about issue being moot or what developers has learned from QA. HA! perhaps you should ask the questions o' the folks with the answers before making such claims. you is the one talking out his arse. HA! Good Fun!