Gromnir

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!

leaving out relevant information is, at best, misleading. you may not personally be swayed (HA! big surprise there, eh?) but is always funny when we see only tiny fraction o' a poll or story linked. makes us wonder why. you either don't have the same level o' curiosity or discernment or... whatever. *shrug* the missing information were clear relevant, which is why gallup included such information. baro did not include. HA! Good Fun!

obsidian is designing an RPG. is not getting through? they are developing a Game that offers the player Choices. those choices include builds and weapon types and a host o' other factors. and in the grand scheme o' things, combat is not pointless (see above) but is treated exactly equal, which is kinda the point o' an rpg, and clearly were the obsidian's point based on their kickstarter promises. need us to point those Again? http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61543-are-you-for-or-against-gaining-experience-points-only-for-completing-objectives/ goal from very start is mentioned right there at start o' the older and more populous poll. oh, and am not gonna do more than observe that you mistaken brought ps:t as kinda an ideal xp mechanic earlier in one o' these threads. lord knows you don't want us to go that way again. "what we've got here is failure to communicate." tactical combat is not being discouraged unless you has the complete bizarre notion that any mechanic that seeks to encourage diverse roleplay styles in addition to combat is fundamentally and inexplicably making combat pointless and worthless... but we has been down this road again. you is not getting less experience by doing combat. you simple isn't getting more. this, like ps:t and fallout, and bg2 is ROLE-PLAY games. the notion that by other folks getting the same, you is getting less is just... childish. actually can't think o' a better term than childish. *shrug* http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67672-toggling-xp-systems-for-a-peaceful-co-existence/?p=1499053 nevertheless, we see that you, in particular, cannot be reasoned with. were our mistake in making the attempt once again. we said we would not repeat that mistake, but clear no progress has been made... none is capable o' being made. HA! Good Fun! edit: what is with weird font size problem we have on this board? weird

yes, no doubt all those folks who play as elves instead o' as humans or dwarves consider those other options useless. use magic? in a game with sword? hell, only a wimp uses spells, or druids, or stealth or dialogue or bothers to solve puzzles when you got an option to kill instead. heck, the very idea that some jerk developer provides an alternate secret door or puzzle route whereby a dwarf druid could bypass combat more properly completed by elven fighters and non-magic using mages just chaps our hide. the more alternative options a cRPG developer includes in a game, the more it devalues the actual choices Gromnir makes. am knowing how enraged we were that folks in fallout were able to dialogue the final confrontation-- it made our combat focused character useless... that is why we sent a very tersely worded postcard to tim cain explaining that the more choices he gave other folks in fallout were the same degree he were robbing us o' the point and fun o' playing a combat character. bad tim. ... wait. that doesn't make sense. that makes us sound like a complete nut-job. the ability o' other folks to complete the same game w/o resorting to combat made our game less fun... robbed it o' a point, robbed it o' worth? that would be crazy talk-- complete gibbering nonsense that nobody in their right mind would believe, yes? *snort* "When people are Skipping massive swaths of game content because they deem it pointless and worthless, we're no longer talking about viability, nor is it "win/win"" ... this is actual the exact reason for implementing quest/task xp. if you make other options available, but make them literal worth less, then you discourage those other optional play styles. make dialoguey or stealthy or creative options worthless is exact what quest/task xp avoids. and 'round we go. HA! Good Fun!

both such routes is viable 'cause of quest/task experience awards, which would seem like kinda the point o' such a mechanic. everybody wins. ... no? there is still folks that says, "no"? am actual finally able to sympathize with strother martin. kinda a kewl name btw. HA! Good Fun!

is always naughty when people post only part of an article http://www.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx "Overall, residents who are more educated are less likely to say the collapse harmed their country and more likely to say it benefited them." o' really? "Residents who say that "most people" in their country are afraid to openly express their political views are more likely to say that the collapse harmed their country than those who say that "no one" is afraid. This suggests the freedom they thought they might have after the fall of the Soviet Union has not materialized -- and in some cases, the situation may be even worse." so, is not that things were better before ussr, or that things were good in ussr, but that power vaccum made things worse? surprise? youth is also a major factor according to gallup pollsters. understandably, people who lost pensions and healthcare had an immediate stake in the loss o' ussr. "Adults between the ages of 15 and 44 -- some of whom were not even born or were very young at the time of the breakup -- are nearly three times as likely as those 65 and older to say the collapse benefited their countries. The picture is similar in all countries except Georgia, where residents in all age groups are as likely to say it was a benefit. Older residents in all 11 countries whose safety nets, such as guaranteed pensions and free healthcare, largely disappeared when the union dissolved are more likely to say the breakup harmed their countries." when a person not wanna link entire article, it is always good to ask: why? HA! Good Fun!

All proof lead to the contrary clarification for those new to the fora: Gromnir is ambivalent about pencil drawings in the descriptions. HA! Good Fun!

am not certain we care about the pencil drawings in the descriptions, but the actual icons were, in our estimation at their best in iwd... though we honest don't recall iwd2. bathed in blood armour and black swan armour icons were fantastic. yeah, the icons were tiny, but the iwd versions looked so much better than the bg or bg2 varieties. http://noctalis.com/dis/icewind/arm-plat.shtml HA! Good Fun!

probably not. however, you will know that the developers is equal frustrated when they start saying stuff such as, "it will be ready when it is ready." HA! Good Fun!

you may change your tune when you find out that they did indeed listen, but is still rejecting combat/kill xp. HA! Good Fun!

Quest are the objectives, everything that needs to be done to fullfill quest is a stepping stone to solve the objective. You can define it in any way you want. it actually doesn't matter for the present poll, 'cause whether you use quest or the "objective" as described in the previous poll, it precludes combat/kill xp... which is what this poll is demanding. am glad we could clear that up, 'cause some folks get confused by insignificant nomenclature and semantic distinctions. HA! Good Fun!

others may disagree, but we feel that wasteland 2 has benefited a great deal from beta feedback. the original wasteland 2 discouraged us from purchasing. recent wasteland 2 has convinced Gromnir to purchase wasteland 2. inexile not only made money from the beta funds they generated (perhaps that is a bad thing) but they did improve the game, and much o' the improvement were due to player feedback. PoE beta does not strike us as a beta such as inexile's wasteland 2 beta. the PoE beta may be helpful for hunting bugs, but obsdian is seeming very committed to a 2014 release. our beta input, we suspect, is extreme limited. yeah, we will help iron out hardware configuration bugs. we will also be able to give feedback on strictly numerical boosting talents, but clearly this ain't a beta such as wasteland 2 had. with time remaining to bughunt and add talents and actual finish the game, we suspect that beta feedback is o' limited and focused interest to the developers. is not necessarily a bad thing to ignore community late in development and simple make best game possible-- try and please the community, which never agrees on anything anyway (only slight hyperbole) is a sisyphean endeavor and a waste o' remaining time. nevertheless, the PoE beta is, while not exactly fraudulent, is perhaps a bit misleading. am not believeing that the developers is all that concerned with most board feedback o' the beta. HA! Good Fun!

apostrophes in a name make it exotic? *shrug* at the same time, it were a bit o' a fad a few years ago to hire grad student or "expert" linguists to create Genuine game languages. bioware did such a couple times, no? genuine new languages has, for the most part, left Gromnir unimpressed. am recalling that frank herbert only ever used five words o' fictional fremen in his books. am knowing Tolkien fascination is kinda a nerd prerequisite, but the fact that he created complete original languages never impressed Gromnir all that much. yeah, Tolkien were attempting to create a whole English Mythology, so perhaps he thought a core language were necessary foundation, but frankly (no pun) we prefer Dune to Fellowship of the Ring... and we expect that if we is ever murdered, our killer will beat us to death with The Silmarillion as kinda a final cruel joke. ... where were we? oh, yeah, apostrophes makes names more exotic... everybody knows that elf or grilvac names need inexplicable apostrophes. HA! Good Fun! ps we made up "grilvac"... shoulda' made it gr'lvac?

It isn't like this thread is even indicative of any significant portion of backers or that it's responses mean anything. This is a shades of grey issue but the poll only allows for black and white. Even then it isn't like "combat XP" is even pulling a convincing win. Out of 320 votes at the time of this posting combat xp is only winning by 20 votes. That's a huge 3 whole percent, what a massive margin. and don't forget the previous poll with more respondents. we have seen some crazy-arsed attempts at distinguishing nomenclature, but previous poll, regardless o' wording, specifically rejected combat/kill xp as part o' "completion of objectives." more than 70% either were in favor o' objective or didn't care. less than 30% wanted a mechanic that woulda' envisioned kill/combat xp as described in this poll. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61543-are-you-for-or-against-gaining-experience-points-only-for-completing-objectives/ HA! Good Fun!

"Objective XP and Quest XP are two different terms" that have been used interchangeably by many, frequent and often, and is not gonna satisfy the current folks arguing against quest xp regardless. *groan* you are suggesting a fine, and in your words "subtle" distinction 'tween objective and quest xp. this is a semantics argument. you claim that the nomenclature difference from the previous poll, makes it different than the issue specifically being debated and polled. play innocent or ignorant if you wish 'bout the implication is that past poll and current is not analogous, but the OP poster from previous poll made clear via following quotes: "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." however, if, in spite o' the above quotes you are still attempting to argue that polls is not truly analogous, then Gromnir makes obvious slippery slope argument when playing the semantics game. combat xp IS potential part o' quest and/or task or objective xp mechanics. however, combat xp and conversational xp is not subject o' specific discrimination in quest xp mechanics. if you really wanna go down path o' finding subtle differences where they does not actual exist, you is in for a serious slippery slope problem. the subtle difference you suggest is not so subtle. most folks in the current polls has been cautious to describe the alternative to combat xp as quest or quest/task xp, but even if they have not, is a distinction o' semantics only. "Don't we already have a thread or two dedicated to arguing XP?" seen after we posted... but we agree. am actual believing we have four or more such threads, which seems silly to us. HA! Good Fun!

Correction, that poll if for Objective XP, not Quest XP. Subtle but important difference. is not a meaningful difference. the current system is, for all intents and purposes, an objective xp mechanic. quibbles over nomenclature is silly, particularly when developers specific said that there would be no particular xp for "body count." in current build, folks got xp for simply entering the ogre cave. therefore, as can be seen, xp is not simple awarded for completion o' quest in even the current PoE builds. nevertheless, quibble over nomenclature is creating an issue that did not exist when the previous poll were formulated and is not meaningful now either. HA! Good Fun! edit: previous poll, not previous problem. Im not quibbling over nomenclature. In my borked game, I never received a single point of XP for any action. Other posters say they got XP for entering the ogre cave. So if that's how the system is going to work, incremental XP rewards doled out along the way vice one lump sum at the end of the "quest", then most people will be happy. Objective XP and Quest XP are completely different imo. we would be careful o' playing the slippery slope semantics game, 'cause it will become problematic for you. quest/task/objective xp does not discriminate against play-styles. at the time o' the previous poll, the developers had made clear that "body count" would not specific yield additional xp, but keep in mind that if a player does kill all enemies to accomplish a goal, then functionally they is getting xp for combat. at the same time, if a player uses stealth to avoid combat and then finds a diplomatic solution to the ogre problem, they is arguably getting xp for stealth and conversational abilities. argue semantics will not end well for you. furthermore, one need only watch the jorge and rose beta to see xp gain 'pon entering o' ogre cave. is admittedly a later build than the one you have access to, but you need simple watch the video to see objective/task xp being awarded... is not some kinda sneaky bit o' sleight o' hand that folks is trying to slip past gifted. you can see for yourself if you wish that PoE is awarding quest/task/objective/whatever, even if your build is complete bugged... such as is Gromnir's btw.. HA! Good Fun!

Correction, that poll if for Objective XP, not Quest XP. Subtle but important difference. is not a meaningful difference. the current system is, for all intents and purposes, an objective xp mechanic. quibbles over nomenclature is silly, particularly when developers specific said that there would be no particular xp for "body count." in current build, folks got xp for simply entering the ogre cave. therefore, as can be seen, xp is not simple awarded for completion o' quest in even the current PoE builds. nevertheless, quibble over nomenclature is creating an issue that did not exist when the previous poll were formulated and is not meaningful now either. HA! Good Fun! edit: previous poll, not previous problem.

New approaches are always going to met with some resistance. Rest assured Bradly & Josh that a sizable amount of your Beta Backers/Kickstarters are behind you with the XP system you have implemented for Pillars of Eternity. Don't let the incessant Trolls on that thread derail what you're trying to do with PoE. <3 a previous poll, with far more respondents, showed that 70% o' backers either preferred quest or didn't care. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61543-are-you-for-or-against-gaining-experience-points-only-for-completing-objectives/ the new polls are amusing, but far less dispositive or meaningful than one might suggest. HA! Good Fun!

Incorrect. Red Army forces operated alongside national communist parties (whom were quite popular as they were often the dominant resistance against the fascists) and were democratically elected either fully into power or as part of coalition governments. The Red Army itself, contrary to what many believed, evacuated the areas quite quickly and were basically entirely gone by the early 50's. ehm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia Some of you guys were not paying attention in history class (if you are not from Russia, otherwise I understand that they dont teach that there) some of the naivety regarding the ussr is understandable. most folks only learn through history classes. Gromnir were hardly any kinda expert, but at least we went to former soviet russia during late 80s and early 90s... saw empty shelves in stores and had folks offering us a car for sony walkman cassette player. if we had brought more condoms with us, and colda' figured a way to smuggle them out o' russia, we coulda' earned a small fortune in diamonds. also, we got to see first hand just how much the Poles loved the soviet back in the 80s. that being said, for many folks, this is history... is something that happened in the past that they only hear 'bout from teachers or books. get some wacky professor at a fringe university, or read a book written by some kook and perhaps you got a rationale for believing craziness. it once were that publishing a book included expense that only a company with significant capital could think to embrace. it is a good thing that any private citizen can publish dozens or hundreds o' books and sell 'em on amazon, but there is also far less fact checking o' published works compared to the past... there is also less meaning to being published as is no longer something only reserved to the elite academic. "publish or perish" were the oft repeated refrain o' folks trying to make a career in academia. no more. any nut with a theory can publish a book, and not every college history professor is teaching history. for folks who only know o' ussr through books and professors, their education may be sadly but understandably lacking. HA! Good Fun!

Sam has to get cut and clear waivers to be signed onto the practice squad. He had a good preseason, but he is still undersized and the Rams are pretty deep at DT. It would not be surprising for another team to pick him up though, but at the worst he'll be on the practice squad. David Fales made the Bears lineup as the 3rd string QB. That kid will be starting by next year, I guarantee it. david fales starting. starting? well, as it is the bears, chances are they will need to go two or three deep into their qb depth chart next year. heck, fales may get a start this year if the bears have a typical qb season. even so, am thinking you might be having expectations just a wee bit high for fales, though the fact that trestman is his coach clearly helps. HA! Good Fun!