Cantousent

Clever. PoE looks to me to be a perfectly good spiritual successor to the game. It doesn't to some folks, often based on very narrow definitions of what a spiritual successor *must* be to them personally. Why should Obsidian come out with such a statement? Because some backers think that lack of combat XP means it can't be a tribute to the IE games? I'm a backer. I think it is. Frankly, this proposal is simply baiting Obsidian and they'll likely simply ignore it. They should.

I wouldn't take it personally, Hellraiser. We beat Grom with a stick, feed him raw meat, and then turn him loose on folks all the time. That's when he's not going after one of us, and there are bruises to prove it. :Cant's wry grin icon: The thing is, on any other particular issue, you might be on the same side with someone who's a bitter enemy in this thread. No biggie. I myself *do* think that PoE is intended as a spiritual successor to the IE games, but like Matt up above says, the aspects they want to enshrine with PoE are specifically stated. When folks use the 'spiritual successor' argument to clamor for a particular feature, it can probably be off-putting to some folks. Now, I've always given wide birth to the IE successor argument because I think it's one of the better ones for combat XP. Note, I don't want combat XP. I hate it and have since waaaaay the hell before PoE was anyone's idea. ...But it's important to me personally to own up when I see positions I personally believe have merit. I don't think the fact that PoE aspires to recapture some of the IE experience (as something we experience as gamers playing the game) means that it must by necessity have combat XP, but it is a point of deliberation. It is only one point and as a single point it does have its limits. The way each IE game doles out experience is different at least to some degree, up to and including no combat XP for large stretches of IWD2 in the times I played it. That's not a flaw in the crpg. That's the way WotC decided to structure XP in 3.x. Frankly, there's nothing much new in the voluminous course of this debate. There are clever ways of stating the same arguments, but it pretty much boils down to whether you like or don't like the decision and, if you don't like it, whether or not you will let it destroy all your good will. Some folks are probably over eager to defend Obsidz. I'm probably one of them. On the other hand, as someone mentioned up above (I beg pardon I can't remember who) there are folks who had set their hearts against PoE because of some earlier slight and will jump at the opportunity to attack the game now that there's a beta. There will be even more who come out of the woodwork upon release. I'd like to think the vast majority of the people here aren't simply haters, though. Maybe they hate some aspect or another, but they still want the game to be fun and do well. Just the view from my rose colored glasses. EDIT: Went to look and Curry made the reference I cited above.

I know the argument, Immortal. I just disagree. The fact is, if you have laborious and unentertaining combat, you have bigger worries than the reward method for it. If combat is entertaining in and of itself, then folks will enjoy it and that *is* a reward. EDIR; Sorry. Posting from my phone and it's a pain.

So, the people at Eurogamer don't mind laborious combat... as long as they get XP goodies? If the problem is combat, it's combat. From a design standpoint, giving XP won't make people happy with the combat. I sure as hell hope that Obsidz sticks to their guns on this.

As an aside, how about a class that directly benefits from the sole act of killing? lol The Serial Killer class. Among other features, he gets a tiny amount of XP for every kill. I kid I kid! ...But, actually, even a tiny amount of XP per kill would be a real benefit to a character, especially at low levels. Kill opportunity in even a more traditional (as opposed to action) RPG will be ubiquitous. Far more than locks and traps and whatnot. On a more serious note, someone up above mentioned making quest givers unkillable. Think about that. I thought one of the biggest arguments for kill XP is Freedom™ to do whatever you want. The solution that gives players back kill XP is to take away that freedom? I think there was also a comment about the incentive to kill being extra gear. I personally think it's perfectly reasonable for folks to get extra gear from kills. If the quest givers have extra gear, go for it. If you want to do the quest and then kill the quest giver, fine. I don't think you should finish the quest and then get extra XP for killing the quest giver. As for lockpicking XP: I don't mind folks getting extra XP as a result of lockpicking. I don't want it to be incidental. I want the design team to fashion the XP rewards in the way that serves their creative vision best. Maybe there is a minor objective that can only be completed by lockpicking. Fair enough. Just no XP for randomly going out of your way to pick locks. Truth to tell, most folks will do whatever they can to pick locks on prominent doors and chests anyway, and there's practical value in disarming and setting traps that far transcends incidental XP anyway. As for the beastiary, I think it's a great accommodation. Not my cuppa, but good for the folks who enjoy it. I would simply suggest, as someone mentioned up above, and forgive me for not remembering the name. I think it was Hydra. Anyhow, tie it to Lore and maybe even Int and Per. Don't have a quest giver per se, but *do* have journal entries and track it like a quest. That way, it's not simply combat anyhow. It's the ability to engage with creatures (often in combat) and learn useful things, sometimes even non combat related things, from encounters.

Yeah, those of us who wanted objective only XP are 'whining' because that's what the game already has. We see tons of threads started by people 'whining' for Objective XP. There has been a lot of whining, but I doubt that it's from the folks who are already getting what they want. ...But at least some folks are manning up and making a direct argument for what they desire instead of making backdoor arguments that, in a comical twist, sometimes put them at odds with people who want the same thing. The argument against the bestiary is that it's the equivalent of combat XP and so just give us combat XP? lol Oh, I like this one: we should get lockpicking XP because it's intuitive and natural and the only True Way™. OH, and if they give lockpicking XP for the relatively small number of opportunities to use it, I can argue for kill XP that will dwarf lockpicking XP in the aggregate. The fact is, in the beta itself, lockpicking XP sets up situations where one person will get XP entirely randomly not because of a good decision or because of forward thinking, but because I turned to the right first and found the key whereas you turned left and picked a lock. I had the key and didn't even get the chance to pick a lock, and so it's only natural that one gets more XP for achieving the exact same result. One didn't do more. One didn't find more places. One didn't come up with a clever solution. One went right and one went left. Not to mention, why should I get less XP for finding the key on someone's body? picking his pocket? Convincing him to open the door? Or simply putting my boot through it?

Moreover, regardless of the so clever metagame argument, there are two other possibilities. One is that you hit a room with three locked doors. You might have some doors locked and come back later, which might even be more prudent, but you don't need metaknowledge to know you get an immediate gameplay reward for going out of your way to pick all locks and are thus habituated to it. ...Or, you find the key before you find the lock and are denied experience for achieving the same thing.

When would you not want to pick a lock? Can you bash a lock? Do you get XP for doing so? Can you find a key to the lock? Do you get XP for doing so? Can you convince someone to open the lock for you? Do you get XP for doing so? Unlike kill XP, lock picking XP surely can't be so pervasive in the aggregate that it requires extra balancing, but why it be a big deal to get XP on top of what really is the main reason to open most chests... the loot inside. One would think that getting into loot stashes is intuitive because the whole point is to get the loot. ...And if you get credit for the other methods, then why not just let the loot be the reward? ...Or simply make the chest an encounter and grant XP for that? It's idiotic, but why not? It would also preserve quest XP. Also, that way someone who finds the key to the chest before he finds the chest won't be penalized because he automatically opens it with the key. This isn't a hypothetical situation. Hell, you can get to locks in the PoE beta and unlock them before you find the key. If you find the key, you automatically use it. Now, as for lock picking to get to specific objectives, won't we already get XP for surmounting that hurdle anyway? Once again, it won't matter how we overcame the obstacle. The point will be that we did and were rewarded with XP for doing so. I've did a quick glance through the posts before I sit down to read them as best I can. If I reiterated a previous argument, just take my comments as support for the person who made it.

I thought of the whole lockpicking/exploration/etc comment in Sawyer's post wasn't specifically saying that they were thinking of giving incidental XP. I thought they were going to try to find a way to grant XP for folks who engage in those activities. If they give XP for picking a lock, then why the hell wouldn't they just give XP for killing individual monsters? ...And if I were one of the combat XP advocates, I'd try to force that door the rest of the way open myself. It's simply a stupid idea on its face. If they grant incidental XP for every other activity *except* for combat, a lot of folks will think they're going out of their way to **** with them, and I don't blame them for feeling that way. No XP that isn't determined by the design team. I don't care if you give quest XP and call it Objective XP, Results XP, or 'Sawyers balloon bag of bilious XP granting.' No kill XP, no lock-picking XP, and no XP for wandering around aimlessly. Hell, use Grom's grand exploration quest-line. ...Or just give people an achievement for doing it. Whatever. The beast-log idea seems like a great way to accommodate folks who have a particular desire. It's not intrusive and doesn't dangle incidental rewards in a significant way. It *is* a quest that just doesn't have the attendant quest nomenclature, and probably it would still work just as well if it *did* have the overt quest structure. Do something similar with lock-picking if need be to accommodate folks clamoring for lock-picking experience. They've been loud, proud, and vocal in this forum. Just don't give them an insta-XP rush for picking some random lock.

haha I thought about this and just came back expecting a response along the lines you just gave, Gromnir... only a lot harsher. lol Okay okay, if you use the structure, why not just call it what it is then: a quest! What I'm thinking is that what some folks want is the sort of spontaneity of getting random encounters. That's why I think, for some of the folks who want combat XP, they might find some gratification of having XP thrown at them unknown. It won't really be a 'random encounter.' It could be partially random or completely set, but maybe have some of these things happen outside of the quest structure to give the feel of surprise. Otherwise, I'm not even going to pick at the small points because the important thing to me is that we don't have combat XP. Out of all the issues and topics, it's really the only one I follow much at all. I won't refuse to play and enjoy the game if they go back on their plans, but I'm convinced it would be a mistake. Anyhow, I was going to edit this explanation in, but now... :Cant's smiling under the halo icon: EDIT: Always behin' tha 8-ball, I am!

I completely agree with this approach. Not necessarily an official 'quest,' but something that has the same structure as a quest.

Is killing the only way to unlock the nsstiary? If there are other methods for at least some, then the argument is moot. Instead of being cleverly semantic, which is all it is now.

There's a practical advantage to at least addressing the issue in some manner. Namutree's question makes sense, it isn't combative, and it doesn't constrict the design team. Let's say they come out with, "we're still deciding on whether to grant incidental XP (kill, lockpicking, exploration, etc.) and so we can't really answer the question now." Sure, there will be a firestorm, especially because kill-xp advocates will feel emboldened. While I don't want that to happen, if that's what the design team is thinking, it would be good to know. However, a lot of people who want kill XP would still be happy even if word came down, "we don't have any intention of granting strictly kill XP, but we're still devising new ways to grant XP based on various playstyles." I personally don't want XP granted for anything incidental, however, I *do* like the encounter idea. There will undoubtedly be XP granted because of combat in some situations, and I think there should be. Some situations in an RPG of this sort will simply require combat. Some situations might require a different skill set. Players should be rewarded for overcoming the encounter and using a variety of tactics. XP should reflect the benefit of using different methods. If the idea is to make sure that every method always yields the same result, I'm no in for it. Some methods are inherently better from the PC's perspective. Combat will undoubtedly play a big role in the game. Combat *is* a requirement. Let some objectives reflect that. Let some objectives require more creative thinking. Make some of them rule out a combat solution. Make some of them have a variety of solutions and have some of the solutions better than other solutions. ...And, before someone pulls out his stick of 'arbitrary smiting,' how is the quest system in and of itself not arbitrary? Freedom on our part shouldn't mean a sterile game that reflects absolutely *none* of the design teams character... and such an RPG would be impossible to make anyway. EDIT: I wish I'd known Sawyer was going to answer this issue before I wasted the time posting this. lol

I guess I'm on 'the other side' of the combat XP divide in that I don't want it in the game, but I have to back up what my Hydra friends is saying about not following the production. On one hand, that I didn't (and largely don't) follow the production is my fault. I could have and chose not to do so in order to save something for the wedding day, so to speak. On the other hand, the beta release is kind of a fresh start experience in that regard. It doesn't seem out of line to expect the devs, any one of them, to come out and brave the heat in order to clarify the position. Hell, Bell dons an asbestos suit and faces all sorts of ugly criticism of his music in order to interact with the community. Frankly, that we haven't heard a single definitive word on this can be construed as simply taking the hard line approach and not even acknowledging the issue. ...Or, worse from my standpoint, it means that there're still fierce internal debates and they *can't* make a definitive statement and don't want to air their laundry in public.

I'll play a mage, of course. He'll be a sweet talkin' scholar with a penchant for educatin' errant fools who don't know better. After that, since chanters are basically *real* bards a la Shakespeare and Homer, I'll play a Chanter and kill them softly with my song.

I just created a new party. I stopped playing the beta after about five hours or so (I think it's around five hours) because I hate spoiling the finished game. Anyhow, some things still seem unpolished to me in the final product, but the game, even in beta, was surprisingly well done. I'm looking forward to playing it. However, I got tired of waiting and some folks complaining about how Sawyer likes Darklands got me hankering for it again, so I purchased it on GoG and I'm going to finish that. At the rate I play them, it might be a month before I get to WL2, but it looks *good*.

I keep seeing this argument that the design team is simply too lazy to include combat XP. That doesn't make sense. Sure, balancing combat XP is more difficult. ...But it's not just harder. After all that effort, the balance will still be inferior. It's not a matter of laziness. It's a matter of believing that the benefits to the overall package are not worth the shortcomings. ...And, frankly, I think balance is the least of the issues. Players will always gravitate towards things that grant immediate gameplay rewards. The people who want the 'freedom' of combat XP don't want freedom at all. They want instant gratification of a desire for rewards. You are just as free to kill everything if you want, you just lack the XP incentive to do so, which means that, if you play the role of the badass who kills everything in sight, you do so for the role you have envisioned for your character, not because you see a gameplay advantage to do so. I *do* think equating loot and mats to XP is clever, but they are different things. First of all, as Hydra says, it's easier to balance extra loot off of kills than loot *and* XP. However, I don't think most people who advocate quest only XP have gone so far as to say there should *never* be any reward for extra combat. Getting extra loot from people you kill is an intuitive and natural expectation for defeating them in combat. Not only that, but the players must balance the risks involved with combat against the rewards for engaging in it. Moreover, the player doesn't get valuable loot from every combat. He might engage in a fight expecting a reward only to find the fight was costly and yielded nothing of particular value. If you get XP from every fight, there is always a reward for fighting. The risk diminishes compared to a guaranteed reward. Potential loot is a reasonable reward for combat. Guaranteed experience becomes a *much* larger factor in the aggregate than loot. ...And, anyhow, like most clever arguments, claiming that loot has parity with XP simply doesn't pass the smell test. Putting them in the same category is merely an after the fact argument for combat XP. It's preceded by the kitchen sink and followed by whatever desperate tactic the proponents can fashion next. Maybe I'm a shill for OE. I'm certainly a fan. However, literally years before Project Eternity, I advocated quest only XP. I have had bitter arguments with people like Gromnir over other issues. I have disagreed with Obsidian's design decisions in other ways. So, shill or not, I don't always toe the 'company line.' For folks who think *Gromnir* has been a shill for Obsidian should really read his posts on other issues. No, it's not shilliness that compels me to agree with Obsidz about combat XP. In years of running table top RPGs, I have never allocated kill XP for a game I have personally run. I don't limit myself to 'quest only' in the sense that there had to be a quest giver and a person to whom the party turned in the quest. On the other end, I would sometimes grant more or less XP based on the number and difficulty of the monsters the party faced to achieve an objective. ...But the simple act of fighting the monsters themselves never warranted an XP reward. So, shill or not, I've had the same view for many years. Certainly longer than Obsidian has been in business.

Okay, I'm convinced that it's a trivial matter. I actually like the idea of a few coppers just to outfit yourself, although I would guess that there's something to showing the flavor of the culture. .. But, it can't be frivolous *and* powergaming at the same time. My point about starting was more that folks was about wanting a certain look. I guess that's not an issue either.

Yeah, but he doesn't just run into range. He runs way the hell up to cast. I've observed this many many times where, if I cast out of range, the character runs up much more than is necessary. I've sometimes caught the character running up, selected him, had him move *back* a little and cast successfully. I mean, if they path him to run up a certain distance, why can't they path him to move up just to the range of the spell? ...Or, if that causes issues, then 90% of the range? They're already pathing him forward.

The problem with my wizards, and the first run the PC was a wizard so I was using two, is that if they could cast the spell from where they were standing, no problem. If they had to move at all, they ran up way farther than necessary. They don't just run to within range to cast the spell, but actually up into the battle to start casting, whereupon the bad guys notice them and kill them. This sort of stuff happened in the BG games also, but it seems much worse in PoE. ...And it forces me to keep moving people in small increments to position. I don't mind having to take time to worry about positioning because without it the tactical feel of the game goes out the window. I just wish my wizards would path forward just enough to cast the spell.

Okay, I think Grom has a point about it not being a big deal. On the other hand, I don't think it would exactly be hard to implement. For some of these ideas at this point in development it's just a matter of deciding whether the idea has merit or not and whether the idea can be implemented without screwing up something or creating bugs. I think Sen's idea would gratify at least some people, not piss anyone off, and there would still be a shop early on for changing out weapons just in case. The devs might not want to do it because they don't think the payoff is worth the effort for themselves or the player, but if it's easy and won't cause a snafu, why not? I do know that anything they do, including fixing bugs, runs the risk of causing some crazy unforeseen consequences. That's why it's a real pain, because inadvertently causing a bug with something that seems simple on its face could actually happen, and then hunting down and fixing that bug without causing other bugs is always a worry. I just don't see how allowing a menu at character creation for gear could be all that risky. ...And I don't think the players should be in a position of choosing the starting culture based on the weaponry and armor. Anyhow, I won't get worked up over it either way in the finished product. I still think that having the backers get creative and offer suggestions and try to interact with the community is a good thing. <.<

Gromnir, you are a bastard, but I did laugh out loud. :Cant's guffawing icon: I don't agree with everything Sen says, but I don't really mind having a choice of starting gear. More important to me is to see my starting attributes at the *end* of character creation. I guess even that might not matter. It really depends on whether our starting stats are more or less our final stats. If there will be a lot of movement for stats, it won't matter. If our starting stats are more or less what we'll have for the whole game, then they are far more important. Gear will naturally fluctuate, but what about attributes? That's what I want to know.

There are two things I'll say that I've read from other members. If only I could remember them, I would credit them, but I'll honor them anyway by reaffirming what they said. 1 This is not QA work you're doing, but actual design work. Truly a boon for us. Even if the devs don't take everything you've done lock stock and barrel, at least you've made some arguments that can have a great deal of impact along the line. 2 For the love of God, please give us all of these things *before* we assign attributes. I think assigning attributes should be the last thing we do *after* we've got all the modifiers in place so we know what the grand total of everything will be. Great job, Sen, and I hope that Obsidz recognizes you in some way for the sheer amount of work you do, either by bringing you in for the launch or giving you a 'Gromnir'esque character in the game or something.

No chance in hell, but I completely agree with you. If we're going to have enchanting, either make it truly interesting or keep it as out of our faces as much as possible. Of everything in the game, I think they dropped the ball on crafting. It's the only thing other than outright bugs or fixable system things that I think is simply horrible design.

I contend that quest XP is in and of itself just as arbitrary as hand placed XP. By definition, all of it is arbitrary. There is no completely objective standard for when, how, or how much to award for kills. However, kill XP can be consistent within the system whereas results XP relies on the subjective assessment of the design team. Of course, all manner of things within the game rely on that same subjective assessment of the design team. I can see a desire for consistency, even if I don't think everything should be sacrificed for it, pretty much the same way I balance.