Cantousent

I'd rather Sawyer use some sort of designer legalism to explain away the water flowing uphill and instead rename Might to Soul Prowess or something. Okay okay. It's out of my system now. I won't keep bitching in this thread. <.<

Now, *that's* commitment to detail! Great catch, dude!

As an aside, I've enjoyed what I played of the WL2 beta, and it's turn based. It's so close to release, I stopped playing it, but I'm happy with the combat. Much more polished than PoE's combat, but it's been in production longer. I'm perfectly happy that ToN will be TB. ...But I don't think there's a chance in hell of PoE suddenly becoming TB. They're more likely to suddenly change the XP system, and I don't even think there's a chance of that. I certainly hope not.

Holy crap! I didn't even *know* that. I've been putting all those crafting things in my party stash. In fact, it's the majority of the junk I had in my stash by the end of my first run. Thanks for the tip, Inky!

I got up and visited the doctor today and verified that I have lost 100lbs (45.45k) since the end of February. I will lose another 70lbs before the end of next February. I've stopped being the mopey dopey loser who's letting himself go downhill. I might still be a pathetic loser, but I'll be a pathetic loser who'll look good in a muscle shirt again before he's 46.

Pixel Hunting for Plants sounds like a game show. :Cant's Bob Barker icon: Personally, I could do without complex crafting anyway, *and* the huge amount of crafting crap that accumulates. If they were going to include crafting, they should have made it meaningful in some way rather than just tossing together such exotic ingredients such as 'rice' and 'grain' and 'missing string.' Crafting should have been something truly interesting and what it is now... ain't. Anyhow, that ship has sailed, so, yeah, let folks use the tab function. I just hope that we aren't buried under the sheer amount of crafting crap and it auto stacks in large quantities in our stash. Better yet, how about they don't make crafting necessary for decent kit? Then it won't matter.

Yeah, IB, I agree. I think one of the things that make it tough for folks who have specific griefs, such as kill XP and the like. How can you tell whether you like combat or the XP system if neither combat nor the XP system work as intended. I think the beta has been quite useful, but I know from having worked QA before that you really have to put aside your game player expectations when trying to hammer out the deficiencies in the game. That's why I respect Sen so much, as well as folks who've been toiling away dutifully to find flaws in the system, because it can have a real impact on your overall feelings if you don't keep the crude nature of the build in mind. Just started my hard run. No FPWs, but I took on Medreth's band and several beetles between resting and that last group of beetles were a lot tougher on hard level. Two people down and one *just shy* of shaking off the mortal coil. I cringe at the idea of the PoD. I'll do it because I'm an achievement whore, but it promises to be pretty tough in some specific battles.

As long as people are within fairly broad confines of polite debate (such as not calling each other names or threatening one another), I can think of no reason why the pro-kill XP folks should not be allowed to voice their opinions. You can be sure that if Obsidz did a 180 and changed their design, I would be here fighting like hell over it. Anyhow, there's one XP thread, as you say DC, and it's like the other topics in threads in the forum, read at your own risk! :Cant's looking over his shoulder icon:

Well to be fair, pretty much all XP rewards are arbitrary. I won't point out that the exception is kill XP. <.< Seriously, to be fair, I think that XP rewards and quests in general are arbitrary. Then again, what artistic endeavor in which the artists wishes to interact with the public can help but be arbitrary? Even kill XP, which I concede is less arbitrary, is still arbitrary in the amount it rewards per kill. Even if there is a rational consensus based on the numerical values dictates that XP rewards be greater for a bugbear as opposed to a kobold, exactly what should that reward be? 3.x prevents players from getting experience from lower level monsters they meet at higher levels, and if I recall it right, the number of creatures doesn't matter, and yet folks can make the argument that facing a thousand orcs can be more dangerous than facing, say, a young dragon. Rational people can always make good arguments for bad things. Hell, in these forums, I'm sure we're all making a good argument for a bad position at some point. I believe that the backers should trust the design team. At some point, no matter what anyone says or how hard they try, we're going to subject to their artistic vision.

I actually like TB combat better, but I'll enjoy the combat with RT:WP. The statement Eurogamer made about the system could have been made about any and all of the ie games. It would be funny if they changed to combat XP at the last minute. Then we'd suddenly switch sides with us objective XP folks becoming the Molotov ****tail throwing insurgents and the combat XP folks manning the barricades. I hope that doesn't happen, but it would give everyone a nice fresh perspective of how the other guy feels. hehe

@Morhilain: I think they should announce weapons being ineffective with floating text and perhaps a voiceover ala the ie games. I'm sure others have already said as much an so this post is simply an affirmation of whoever said it first. EDIT: Damned phone makes posting hard. ie games, not is games.

As an aside, I especially enjoyed slogging through Lionheart trying not to get my ass handed to me by epic enemies named English Longswordsman or some such. I agree with Fiebras that it's probably just getting the hang of a new system. I finished the first run and I'm going to start a new run on hard with Homer the Bard just to see how that plays. Maybe hire a barbarian instead of a pally this time.

In the full game, I would expect that there will be several options for quests of various difficulties with multiple steps that can be run concirrently. For the same reason you don't get one level per X Kills in a game with combat xp, you shouldn't get one level per x quests. Some will be worth more than others and you'll have choices about what to do and when. If we don't get XP regularly and often, I'll be extremely surprised.

I know that I leveled up at a checkpoint during a quest. For example, when I walked into the big battle in the cult dungeon, I leveled up because it was a checkpoint. ...But this has nothing to do with combat XP, really. If you had the same circumstances in BG, at least if I recall it right, you would have the same circumstances for the quest XP. You would get kill XP on top, but if you went out of your way to avoid quests in BG, you would still miss out on a boatload of XP. The issue you describe is quest design, as Tart said, not whether you are granted kill XP. EDIT: And, of course, if you avoided all dialogue and/or declined all quests, I suppose you could create the circumstances despite how the devs designed the quest. Yep, ultimate freedom. We don't need no stinkin' quests in an IE game!

I played on normal, which probably meant to be easy for the grognards among us. I only had one fpw that I can recall, which was the first time I met up with the beetles. I did have several characters go down during battles, including the cultist boss where all but two of my characters went down. My PC was a mage and I hired a paladin. I used her lay on hands quite a bit at first. I did make many mistakes, but I think having a full party of six helped make up for my playing deficiencies. I actively tried to use as many spells as possible, which meant spamming a full round of fireballs into enemies and then having them meet up with that pillar priest spell that has knockdown. I don't think the game is too easy because for a lot of the people who've been playing the ie games for years, hard is probably normal but I agree with the folks who say that it's hard to know for certain until the bugs are gone. Really, until the mechanics are relatively bug free, how can you balance an encounter in the first place?

I'm impressed with the amount of variety in abilities. I mean, some of them can be frustrating, but most of that is balancing, so I'm not really worried. My complaint about combats devolving into dog piles doesn't apply as much any more. Maybe it's because I'm in dungeons with natural choke points? ...And I think I've made mistakes that I've instinctively blamed on the game but eventually see as errors on my own part.

Laugh. Out. Loud. I got to the end of the dungeon with the crystal eater spider dungeon. I had my rogue scout up and saw that it was full of spiders and another bad guy. So, seeing a room full of bad guys who were clearly belligerent, I had my PC cast wall of fire, my priest put down a glyph, and my bb mage throw out a fireball. That wall of fire is pretty damned awesome. If you know a fights coming and have time to throw that down, it seriously puts the smack on baddies. Literally *one* spider got into melee range, and it was quickly slapped around by my melee guys while my casters enjoyed a Miller Time in the back. It's funny, because I'll sometimes get people knocked out for silly mistakes, but the game seems pretty forgiving right now on normal. I have a feeling I would have had several full party wipes on hard with some of the dumbass or lazy mistakes I made this run. I have a feeling Path of the Damned will be absolutely brutal, but I'm sure they'll fix up combat before I play that, since it won't be until after they're done.

To be serious for a sec, I had my priest spam out her spell that removes and prevents adverse status effects. That might have been what did the trick. I didn't think of other stuff. I was just worried about standard poison.

laughed out loud. I wouldn't worry, though. I think you received a universe correcting ass kicking that crashed the game and set things right. Now when you go in, the spiders will be gone. Instead, there will be an army of gibberlings waiting to put the smack on you. <.<

All I was saying is that getting into the combat feedback was not a terrible thing since there was fairly broad agreement. I guess you don't like the word 'philosophy,' Fiebras, but I don't think they should reinvent the wheel. I was just saying that it was something open for debate that might actually see some movement. I didn't feel like it was a dramatic statement and I still don't see it as hyperbolic. Then again, I think most of our discussion about things here are philosophical by nature. EDIT: one not made all the difference

The realism argument is simply completely bunk. I can see that you want the system to include combat XP and that you think this better reflects reality, but it's simply a matter of where you draw the line. I'm not trying to personalize this. I don't think there's anything inherently bad about wanting combat XP. I also don't say one system is inherently better than the other. I think, in this situation, objective XP is better and I prefer the design overall, but that's simply my preference. Combat XP might make XP more granular, but no less unrealistic. There's a whole line that goes from an attempt to completely simulate the way in which people improve their skills in real life and a completely static character who doesn't improve at all. If you say that combat XP should be included because it's more realistic, then someone else can say why have character classes at all? If someone says that Might doesn't make sense for physical *and* magical prowess, then someone else can say why stop at six attributes? Why not have ten? Why not have fifty? I respect that you want to draw the line in a different place, but I disagree that it really has to do with making the game more realistic. For some folks, that particular spot of realism might be the most important thing. For others, it's different, which is why the design team has to decide on a line and create the system to reflect their creative choice. ...And, furthermore, some folks will undoubtedly argue for combat XP based on realism, but realism will be for them merely a back door argument to sneak in what amounts to their real motivation, which is simply wanting XP for killing. I'm not saying that anyone in this thread has been disingenuous in such a way, just that I've witnessed such behavior from time to time. A bit more of a snag for me, however, is the idea that you don't want to be forced to quest. I can understand the realism argument, even if I don't agree. Fair enough. Questing? Why on earth would you back or buy a game like PoE (or BG, IWD, or PS:T) and complain about the need to quest? Even in a strict action CRPG like Diablo, you couldn't advance the game without questing. I mean, I really have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that you shouldn't be 'forced' to quest in an IE game. People talk about keeping to the spirit of the IE games? How about one of the few things *every* IE game had was that questing was expected and necessary? I remember someone mentioning a while back that he didn't want to be forced to kill monsters and that requiring dungeon spelunking was too confining also. I'm not making this up, if the search function goes back far enough, it was several years ago in the Obsidz forum. Folks were making fun of the idea by saying that we should have the barmaid class for folks who didn't want to have to quest or engage in combat. The point is, questing, combat, crafting (which I would be perfectly happy if they left out of the game), soul based magic, strongholds, and a mega dungeon are all what this game will be. I respect that you want combat XP. I don't, but that doesn't mean I wish ill on you. Fine. ...But the argument in favor of combat XP is that you don't want the *need* to quest? On this issue, Indira and I disagree, but I think, rather than changing the system to satisfy folks who will only be happy with combat XP, the system should be tweaked to grant objective XP more regularly and in a broader set of circumstances. *That* should not be hard for the design team. I've even identified ways and advocated them where players get XP for encounters that aren't in the quest log at all before hand. It gives the player the feel of some random achievement that could honestly be called an objective without taking away from the designer's ability to control the content. Grant XP for killing the spider queen. Make a log entry that says something like, "we came across a dreadful arachnid of immense size and power! Some wanted to leave her in peace, but I feared for the safety of the village and so we engaged her and, through force of sword and fire, destroyed her and her brood of eight legged spiders." That gives the feel of spontaneity on the part of the player while letting the designers do what they want. Do I think you should get XP for every spiderling you vanquish in the cave? No, I don't. Finally, I think the biggest reason for objective only XP is actually exemplified by this discussion. If you get XP for combat, then why not get XP for crafting? ...And if you get XP for crafting, why not exploring? I think XP has become a huge mess because everyone wants to have a little extra reward for doing something they're inclined to do in the first place. Not rewarding someone with XP for an activity is simply not the same as punishing people for engaging in it. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think folks should get some sort of XP reward that comes as a direct result of that activity. Make some objectives require combat. (That's already true at any rate, but put in that 'random' encounter I cited and give objective XP for killing the critter). Make some objectives require a glib tongue or street smarts or stealth or whatever. You still get rewarded for engaging in your brand of fun, but it's still controlled by the design team. ...And it wouldn't be any more open to abuse than stacking every quest possible. You could conceivably get experience any way you wanted as long as you invested in the skills and attributes required to do so.

I don't know, Kronos did say that he wanted more than just a quick statement about what was wrong but also ideas about how to fix it. ...And, unlike other issues, like XP systems, which are bitterly contested, or bugs, which, as Grom says, are largely identified and on the docket for fixin', the issue of combat and combat feedback is something of a philosophical issue that see wide agreement in this forum and might see movement in a positive direction with player feedback.

I think of you as providing a public service, Sen. My comment wasn't meant to offend at any rate. I think a lot of players like to brag about their character builds and in game accomplishments. If that weren't true, it wouldn't make sense for some games to list STEAM accomplishments as positive design features. ...And it would take a real loser for someone to take the time to get every single say... Portal accomplishment. :Cant's whistling and looking at the ceiling icon: I just call things like Iron Man mode and PoD and the like bragging rights modes because I think of them as something the real die-hard players will use. I'm going to try at least some of these modes, but I'll wait until the finished game, like I said.

I can't stay at my computer long enough to finish the game in one sitting. I can leave the game running for a long time, I guess, and I haven't seen the game degrade while running, so maybe I'll just start a game and pick at it when I get the chance during the day. I'll probably do a hard run, but I don't want to do any of the bragging rights modes because I want to save something for the finished product. Like TLN, I had one encounter with someone who simply took a complete pounding. I killed off all his cultist buddies, and then I settled down to a slog that literally took almost ten minutes. I used every offensive spell, changed out to different types of damage, even changed position to see if maybe it were related to where he was standing, but eventually my party just whittled him down and he died. It wasn't even difficult. Just boring. I think normal is way too easy in that I can only specifically remember one fpw and that was when I first encountered the beetles. On the other hand, I've been playing cRPGs since... Temple of Apshai? Maybe something sooner. Normal should probably be way too easy for a lot of the backers and that's why they've invested so much time on things like Iron Man and Path of the damned and whatnot.

I would say there's a difference between using an encounter timer to give all of the mobs health back or give it significant damage increase on one hand and making the design decision not to include kill XP. It's a false comparison. While I like Diablo (mostly one and two) it doesn't pretend to have much role in the role playing department. Kill XP isn't incidental in Diablo, it's the primary way to gain XP... by a huge margin. By your example, Pen, the Diablo designers intentionally introduced something from outside the system to punish players for taking too long to finish off a mob. Whether that's a good decision or not is a different discussion. In PoE, the player is not directly granted XP rewards for killing monsters. The game doesn't introduce anything from outside the system or setting to punish players. If you take the time to bypass the spiders within the spider cave, you aren't granted less experience for dealing with the ogre. If you don't clear the wolves and beetles from the overland map, you don't receive less experience. Conversely, you don't receive less experience for killing all those things. See, now it really *is* your choice. You're playing the badass you want to be in the game because that's how you envision your character. You don't kill everything because you're conditioned to do it for the extra XP rewards. tl;dr You aren't *punished* by lack of kill XP. You simply aren't rewarded for extra killing.