Gromnir

^This is the clearest you've been this topic, Gromnir, and I do read what you write. You know that I don't agree with OE on this quest-xp-equals-diversity-of-playstyle, on contraire, but I respect them for believing in their design vision. And like Josh has said on numerous occasions: Faced with a game design he made that's not working as intended, he would change it. I hope that policy applies in this case too. There will be plenty of possible solutions available then. P.S. As for addressing my gender on this forum, "he" would be more IRL-correct, but my avatar's named after my favourite and often recurring D&D character, and that's a she. "he" it is. keep in mind that we have said, "given the impossibility o' replacing the existing xp mechanic with a different xp mechanic that achieves obsidian's espoused goals (i.e. encouraging diversity of play style, balance, simplicity) in the time remaining before the release of PoE," with only the most minute and insignificant variations many times. we can repost each iteration if you wish. am thinking that if you is being fair, you will agree that on this point we have not been unclear. at this point in development, producing an xp mechanic that achieves obsidians's espoused goals AND would also include kill xp is simply not possible. we also recognized that you do not believe that obsidian's goals is justified. we were not unclear on this point and we can also repost quotes on this point if you so desire. *shrug* is a fundamental difference o' opinion as to what goals should be pursued. nevertheless, as we has been explaining ad nauseum to zan, neither you, nor anybody else, has ever suggested that in the time remaining, obsidian could produce an alternative xp mechanic that included per kill xp, that achieved their espoused goals o' balance, diversity o' gameplay styles and simplicity. there simple is no argument on this point. zan chose obfuscation and denials rather than a simple admission that your proposed exp mechanic were, from obsidian’s pov AND their stated goals, not a viable replacement. again,we think it is complete fair to argue whether obsidian goals is valid, but zan were holding you up as an example for something you never actual claimed could be achieved. bad on him. hopefully you aren't actual defending him, 'cause if so, bad on you too. HA! Good Fun!

if the technology used to to drive rovers (am not believing we have seen a dune buggy on mars) were the same and compatible with scripting game ai, you would indeed have a very powerful point. PoE is new game with new code which, although Gromnir is no expert on such things, suggests to us that one could not simple plug-in infinity engine ai improvements into PoE. in fact, technology, as it becomes more complex, almost necessarily becomes more buggy... not to be confused with your hypothetical dune buggy. the more complex the system is, the more things can go wrong... is another o' those axioms. thus we necessarily add a level o' complexity to ai that were not there 15 years ago. am expecting many tools the developers has at their disposal nowadays is better and more efficient, but it is our understanding that building games is also more complex today than it were 15 years ago. am not certain how the balance works in favor or against developers. am aware that developer staffs is necessarily much larger today. even so, on this issue, we is not speaking with any expertise. am admitted only slightly more aware o' increased scripting difficulties or streamlining since 2000 than we is regarding genetic modifications to achieve drought resistant corn. HA! Good Fun!

HA! am gonna take that as a joke... is only good one you has made thus far. is ironic off-topic however. you need to be aware o' off-topic... and apparently hypocrisy. given the impossibility o' replacing the existing xp mechanic with a different xp mechanic that achieves obsidian's espoused goals (i.e. encouraging diversity of play style, balance, simplicity) in the time remaining before the release of PoE, this topic is moot. HA! Good Fun!

again, if such a belief makes you feel better 'bout yourself, who is we to deny your little fantasy. Gromnir is just a simple board poster and clear not as clever as you, but, "better a witty fool than a foolish wit." so, which category do you thinks you belong to, the fool or wit? now, on-topic... is still moot. HA! Good Fun! I don't think your stupid Gromnir (as I said it's diabolical). Quite the contrary. I do think you have a nasty streak which you are dumping all over this forum. oh, more talk 'bout Gromnir instead o' topics? what did we note about that earlier? *snort* in spite o' your confusion you seem quite aware o' material for which you should take offense, no? and please review. what we had no patience for is when posters purposeful misrepresent. claim to not understand Gromnir? fine, but you have no such excuse for josh comments, cain comments or indira comments. pretend as if what indira were suggesting were same as obsidian claims o' need/goals for an experience mechanic were conversely mendacious or cretinous (denotative, not connotative.) so, much as with this topic itself, we have a functional choice o' two diametric opposed options. we seem harsh to you? gosh. am tending to agree that we is harsh, but only with the willful obtuse or mendacious. indira statements and josh position were not confusing, even if Gromnirs posts elude you. no excuses. HA! Good Fun! I've never misunderstood Josh or Cain, I misunderstand you. I don't agree with their stated goal or need for perfect balance. Indira stated a combat Xp system could be implemented in time. You said not a balanced one and he agreed but that wasn't an issue for him and it isn't one for me. I already admitted to that. I've never read you anywhere saying Combat Xp could be balanced until a page ago at least I don't think so because again you intentionally play the fool (which you clearly are not) and yes your post can be hard to read and understand perfectly. I thought balance was your whole problem with it. Maybe you said it can be balance before somewhere but I've only been on these forum for 2 weeks. I skim a lot of the post because some are very long or a chore to read. I don't think I'm alone in that, and this is just a forum, I'm not trying to master every topic, just enjoy a game. You jump off topic, disguising your insults and condescension with a calculated court jester bit, then at the very end after you spent all that time patronizing someone tell them to stay on topic. Sheesh. I've never been warned by a moderator so I assume they don't take issue with me. I don't know that you really read what I say either. I've said multiple times I'm not married to Combat Xp and am only here to discuss why I prefer it over quest only. I've agreed that the problem I've noticed with the progression of the Quest only Xp at the moment is pacing and that the wilderness will, after I've completed this game once, serve little function for me, which is sad because it's a beautiful game. Really why trudge out everywhere again using up resources once I know where the important stuff is? One thing I enjoyed about the IE games was the fact that if I didn't stay on point all the time I still could progress if I decided to just do some Dungeon romping. To me having Quest only XP is actually going to shrink how much I do everytime I replay the game, if I do replay it. Doesn't mean I won't like the game. am gonna ignore most o' this 'cause it is for the most part clear obfuscation or flat out mendacity. for instance, cain and sawyer has never asked for "perfect balance," but you keep repeating and knocking the stuffing outta that strawman. as we noted, even indira admitted that to do a balanced mechanic would be requiring considerable effort. you quoted indira responding to such a query. to therefore then act confused is fraudulent... or worse. however, main point is this: "You jump off topic, disguising your insults and condescension with a calculated court jester bit, then at the very end after you spent all that time patronizing someone tell them to stay on topic. Sheesh. I've never been warned by a moderator so I assume they don't take issue with me." Gromnir is the one staying on-topic In Spite o' you and others trying to make the thread about Gromnir and his posting style. You is jester in question, though you, like stun, don't seem to get the obvious. if you weren't dragging off-topic and making the thread about Gromnir, we sure as hell wouldn't be making it an issue. duh. clearly if our posting style were a problem from bis/obsdiain pov, we would not have been able to maintain the style for over ten years. 'course am doubting that sinks in either. leave topic about exp and you won't hear Gromnir bring up Gromnir once. if we get off-topic, is 'cause you can't accept that simple fact. 'course if you do insist on making us a star in this thread, we will indulge your peculiar needs and fixations. am flexible. oh, and fact that we can continue this ridiculous debate about Gromnir is clear proof that you is understanding us, or you simple would desist, left befuddled and confused but silent. HA! Good Fun! complete aside: we is referring to indira as he/she 'cause zan keeps calling indira a he. indira strikes us as a female name. the fact that the name is feminine does not require that indira actually be be female, but we made the assumption that indira were belonging to the fairer sex. if our assumption is incorrect, we will accept correction and apologize for the continued he/she bit. whichever gender is appropriate is the one we will use forthwith, though truth-to-tell, indira's gender is not particular important to us, we simply wish to avoid being rude when using pronouns to disagree with her... or him.

toee COMBAT, when not bugged into unplayability were exceptional... although it did suffer some balance issues limited to toee and not d20. example: Reach Weapons for Everyone! the game, as a crpg and as a whole, were brilliant (sarcasm) as we were charged good money so we could beta an unfinished and stanky pile o' sweaty gym clothes and old cheese. HA! Good Fun!

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67291-more-like-bg2-please/?p=1492281 relevant comments... at least immediate relevant. start reposted --the last thing we want is d&d attributes. am thinking we mentioned elsewhere, multiple times, that ad&d made character development choices beyond first level largely inconsequential. once abilities, class, and *groan* kit were chosen, it were largely game-over for character development. each class had a prime attribute or two, and drop rest attributes to 3 were making perfect sense... unless you really wanted your monk to abuse the keldorn armour bug. for a fighter, we needed as much strength as possible, and dex and con were good too. a sorcerer didn't need a damned thing, so unless you wanted to abuse limited wish spell, you could turn a sorcerer into a high con pack mule if you really wished to. etc. if we gave an equal number of points to 5 people playing a fighter character (am aware that with asinine rolling this wouldn't be possible) and told all 5 to build the most efficacious fighter they could with those points, we would end up with 5 largely identical fighters. stoopid. d&d class system with obvious dump stats were stoopid. d&d with only meaningful choices at level 1 were stoopid. thac0 and dual-class/multi-class, and the fact that by 12th level it didn't matter what stats you had anyways 'cause magic items determined your efficacy were all freaking stoopid. ok, so we discussed more than attributes, with this point, but d&d attributes were stoopid. -- bg2 benefited from being the... 5th ie game? yeah, fifth. bring up such stuff as diversity an number o' monster foes ignores the fact that black isle and bioware had worked for years to end up with the diversity and depth o' content you eventual saw in bg2. expecting a similar catalog o' monsters and spells n' such would be unrealistic and unfair. compare to bg1 instead wherein we fought the same hobgoblin, gnoll, and kobold ambushes innumerable times, and wherein ogre mages were stand-ins for demons. -- from a tactical perspective, it also took 5 games to get to bg2 refinement. bg1 had us use 1 tactic for any and all combats. priest would summon as many skeletons as possible. when we saw enemies, our mage and priest/druid would then cast aoe such as web or entangle. depending on our mood, we would then have mage lob in a fireball and kill or cripple everything while the rest o' our party reduced any combined foe to kibble via ranged weapons. the skeletons would act as meat(less) shields for anything that got past grease, web, entangle. heck, if we were feeling particular impatient, we would add haste to our archers who probable had arrows o' piercing. spam monster summons, webs and fireballs while maintaining steady rain o' missiles. spells such as confusion or hold person/monster were overkill, but if we had 'em, why not use 'em? it were serious moronic the way we could approach every combat exactly the same way. but again, it took 5 games to get to bg2 sophistication. end reposted there is some revisionism that exists regarding the ie games. tactical sophistication o' bg? HA! bg2 levels o' diversity, challenge and sophistication took many years and multiple iterations. furthermore, the ie version o' the ad&d rules had its own peculiarities and limitations. we find PoE rules mechanics far superior to anything we saw in the ie games (though we had fewer complaints about iwd2.) ad&d were a pnp rules set that the biowarians (mal)adjusted to work in a crpg environment, and the results were quite enjoyable... fantastic even given what they had to work with. nevertheless, the basic combat mechanics o' PoE strike us as being far superior to what we got in bg, and tactical sophistication is also a major improvement over all early ie games. HA! Good Fun!

again, if such a belief makes you feel better 'bout yourself, who is we to deny your little fantasy. Gromnir is just a simple board poster and clear not as clever as you, but, "better a witty fool than a foolish wit." so, which category do you thinks you belong to, the fool or wit? now, on-topic... is still moot. HA! Good Fun! I don't think your stupid Gromnir (as I said it's diabolical). Quite the contrary. I do think you have a nasty streak which you are dumping all over this forum. oh, more talk 'bout Gromnir instead o' topics? what did we note about that earlier? *snort* in spite o' your confusion you seem quite aware o' material for which you should take offense, no? and please review. what we had no patience for is when posters purposeful misrepresent. claim to not understand Gromnir? fine, but you have no such excuse for josh comments, cain comments or indira comments. pretend as if what indira were suggesting were same as obsidian claims o' need/goals for an experience mechanic were conversely mendacious or cretinous (denotative, not connotative.) so, much as with this topic itself, we have a functional choice o' two diametric opposed options. we seem harsh to you? gosh. am tending to agree that we is harsh, but only with the willful obtuse or mendacious. indira statements and josh position were not confusing, even if Gromnirs posts elude you. no excuses. HA! Good Fun!

again, if such a belief makes you feel better 'bout yourself, who is we to deny your little fantasy. Gromnir is just a simple board poster and clear not as clever as you, but, "better a witty fool than a foolish wit." so, which category do you thinks you belong to, the fool or wit? now, on-topic... is still moot. HA! Good Fun!

additional observation: is there a way to possibly enhance Heart of Winter so that it doesn't suck? we think not. HA! Good Fun!

we woulda' paid $100 each if enhanced editions o' bg, bg2 and iwd were using the iwd2 rules mechanics. *sigh* is not to be... and am knowing how much some o' you folks hate d20 d&d, but we thought the one thing iwd2 got right were the 3.0 d&d rules. am also curious about an eventual ps:t enhanced, but am not certain where/how we would start improving the game mechanically. ps:t were... different. gain abilities up to 25. can choose 3 different classes, though only one at a time. there already exists the widescreen mod for ps:t, as well as kinda post bis patches that fixed remaining bugs. have a group o' developers sit and try and figure out how to improve ps:t w/o changing too extreme might result in a bunch o' folks staring blank at the walls for a considerable amount o' time. add more factions? sure, but that would take considerable new content rather than mechanic fixes, yes? you could add other factions and have 'em be little more significant than adding a kit, but that would be kinda lame. am s'posing cleric option for TNO could be added, but wisdom is already the You-Win ability. is tough to come up with mechanical ps:t changes... in part 'cause ps:t were so odd/broken, but still wonderful. HA! Good Fun!

hey, if that belief helps you sleep at night, run with it.... damn mixed metaphors HA! Good Fun! I'm glad to see you come in loud and clear when you want to insult people. actual, we typical come in kinda oblique, but hey, we work with what we got. HA! Good Fun!

hey, if that belief helps you sleep at night, run with it.... damn mixed metaphors HA! Good Fun!

as an aside, Gromnir is getting very creative with rogue escape ability, particularly when coupled with a cipher. cipher abilities frequent target an ally, so escape (1 per encounter) is proving to be an essential ability for us. perhaps surprisingly, crippling strike works with ranged or melee weapons, so we typical use 2x per encounter as well. regardless, rogue is definite Not an auto-attack candidate in our beta plays. HA! good Fun!

But you believe combat xp can never be perfectly balanced and we agree, it never can be and we don't care it's miniscule in the differences. So very strictly perfectly balance combat xp cannot be implemented, but you would argue it never could no matter the time frame, so why agree to your conditions when we don't want them. However the system that we are in favor of could be implemented in the allotted time. mischaracterization o' our arguments... or any argument we has seen. Gromnir has noted that an advantage o' quest based xp is that it avoids the need to balance. and you is incorrect, being an optimist, we has actually suggested that a perfect balancing algorithm may exist, but that it would be prohibitively difficult to achieve. given that the alternative, quest xp, doesn't require such complex calculus, it strikes us as a far more rational, and pragmatic approach. regardless, you were wrong. "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." you claimed that this were a point o' potential disagreement. it isn't. both the obsidian developers and other kill-xp proponents with tech know-how agree that a mechanic that seeks to balance cannot be added to PoE at this late date. moot. "Look Gromnir you can lecture me all you want about combat xp can't be perfectly balanced. I get that. I also know this isn't going to get implemented. However a system i would prefer could be implemented in time for launch. In the context of your argument I don't wish to conform in terms of coming up with a perfectly balanced alternative when I'm not interested in it. " is not a matter o' perfect balance. you jokers is so funny. even so, some honesty from start would serve you better. if you were like indira and could at least admit that you don't consider balance a necessary quality, we would disagree with you, but you would not make yourself such an easy target for scorn & or ridicule. not care about balance? is a perfect acceptable pov. many folks don't see a need for balance in a sp crpg. the developers disagree however and made promises based on their beliefs in the importance o' balance from the start o' the kickstarter. moot. 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! 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!