Cantousent

I personally love this idea. Just a minor tweak to an excellent idea is that I don't think explorer xp need be doled out for each map. Folks whose only desire is kill XP want immediate gratification of XP reward desires. I know I'll get some guff from some kill XP proponents on that, but I believe it's the driving force. I've even said it's a good argument of sorts because it makes combat more visceral for folks if they're getting immediate rewards, it's just not a good enough argument to win the day. However, folks who explore would, in my opinion, be more amenable to story and loot rewards. Not even big loot rewards. Explorer people are like goody two shoes types who go way out of their way to be the good guy in the game. Yeah, they like to see some gameplay reward lovin' thrown their way from time to time, but story rewards and a pat on the back (or a condescending pat on the head) will have more impact. I speak as one of these pathetic goody two shoes player types. Also, I think explorer rewards for side quests make a lot of sense for these groups. Some quests might not be readily apparent, but finding out that the super tough battle you just fought wasn't some random monster you found running around but you chanced upon the super Lionspider of dooooom and overcame it without foreknowledge! That needs a log entry because, where I agree with Gromnir is that just getting XP in your log doesn't make any sense at all. Even if you didn't know it was a 'quest' before-hand (which it clearly was) anything significant enough to yield XP should be significant enough to yield questesque lovin' in your journal. I don't want to mislead folks. I hate kill XP. I don't mind XP awarded for killing, but I am completely against the mechanic that yields XP for wandering around killing things. I think XP rewards should be significant and noteworthy events in the characters' lives. I think Seari has a point about the balance issue, especially since it's one of the big reasons the designers cite for quest XP. ...But they also care about the story and their artistic vision and anything *anything* that rewards some act will encourage the mass of players to engage in it. From my perspective, they want you to be able to kill your way through the game as a choice, and it's less of a choice if it's one of your primary rewards. That is to say, if you can sneak, talk, or fight your way past encounters, and you get a better reward for fighting past it, whatever your inclination, the reward will always be poking around somewhere in your considerations. If you get the exact same reward for any of the three (or four or five or however many ways of getting past the encounter) then you chose fighting because, damn it, that's. how. you. roll! External rewards for one thing or another cheapen player choice.

Well, I'll own to the fact that I had a bunch of beetles eat my lunch. Of course, I was being lazy after my Medreth fight. It was close, but I've gotten into bad habits and didn't really use all my people at first. I don't know that the fight is broken. I'm on normal, which is how I'll finish at least one run, and I think it's totally legit to get a beat down on normal if you're not paying attention, especially the first time you fight a certain creature. Plus, I have a lot of caster, and micromanaging aoe spillover makes me sad. Mages are my faves, and I think it just plain sucks that they have such limited single target options. At least as it seems to me, I'm listening to what you guys have to say on the issue.

I request fixing the damned board software so that I don't end up with weird setting every time I hit quick reply, which is virtually every time I post. :Cant's bemused icon: More to the point about the music, can we have the music shut down when we alt+tab out of the game? I'm telling you, the wife hates game music and after 18 years, it would be messy to divorce her over it. I can play it soft and then alt+tab out to play a show or something and, like I said about the menu settings, I play a lot of movies and tv shows from my computer to the TV. I put my computer music through my entertainment center. I don't want to have to turn off the sound in game every time. Having it stop playing when I tab out would be nice. ...And that seems pretty normal for a lot of games I play anyway.

Funny, on normal I didn't prepare for my battle with Medreth... and before someone accuses me of metagaming, my character isn't stupid. I don't need outside knowledge to know telling Medreth I let his prey get away would probably lead to a fight. Still, the first and only battle I had in my first stab at the beta led to a cluster **** slugfest. This time, I'm paying more attention to combat and, for the same reason, I thought it was fair to set up my folks expecting a fight which my character would know to be imminent. I got in position but didn't buff, engaged in dialogue, engaged in combat, and used a *ton* of spells. With one more character than last time, I didn't exactly coast. Only one person went down, but it was close and that includes *a lot* of healing. Clearly the other guys are receiving a lot healing, and I suspect some of it comes from overlap from my own spells. The description should get rid of the word 'enemy' if the spell can lead to friendly fire. I mean, I was trying to be careful about the area in aoe spells, but I don't think it's as fine as that circle suggests. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm happy to hear some abuse if it explains things better to me.

I actually just wish the devs would come out and make a statement. Even if they come out and say, "we have considered your input but we are happy with the way our current system deals with experience." Sure, the issue will probably be persistent, but it's clearly a big topic with a lot of traffic. Just come out every few weeks and reaffirm your position. I saw that our Saw wielding friend responded to at least one of the threads recently. Come on in and dole out abuse if it comes to that. Send in one of the other devs to put down the word. :Cant's looking around for a member of the design team icon: Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Please, folks, don't turn this thread into a Grom battle thread. If you put aside his brusque manner, he is right about the fact that Obsidz has been pretty determined to stay the course. I personally think there are some incremental things that they could do to improve the system that wouldn't cause much grief, but I think it's hard to get a good feel for these things from a beta or demo anyhow. I mean, with a new system and brand spanking new setting, there's no way they can draw people into the story aspects in the scope of a beta, and so combat is even more important and it's a new system that will require time to decipher. Grom, I swear if you attack me for sticking up for you, I'll... probably run away.

I made up my new character last night and I'm thinking about including a paladin just for tanking. I figure I'll use him as my primary tank and see how he fares. A lot times (resists temptation to cite MMORPGs) you really have to experiment with a class to get a good feel. I agree with Fiebras that the fighter has the most intuitive feel right now, but shouldn't that naturally be the case? The trick is to figure out great ways to use other classes to tank and ways to make your fighter pull some good DPS. ...And, with a new system, it will require a good deal of experimentation to back up theory and number crunching. Plus, I agree with Monte that having two tanks, at least one healer, and a variety of dps makes for the easiest way to play the game. We'll get into ways to finesse the game without standard compositions as we play. EDIT: Sadly, I won't get to play the new character until tonight, but I'm looking forward to comparing my results to what I've read here.

I think some of the discussion is becoming confused. The first thing I'd say is that quest only is perfectly viable design decision, and so if you advocate that, I'm not putting you down as holding that specific point on the spectrum. It seems to me that many of the people arguing for a quest based system either have a much looser interpretation of 'quest' or don't really advocate quest only in the first place. I'm in that number. Since I think terminology is important, and this thread exemplifies that fact, I don't like the phrase 'quest only.' I prefer 'results oriented,' but I don't want to dilute my point by getting into the nitty gritty of my position just now. The point is, there's a lot of overlap in what folks want from the game, and some of the folks seem to be separated less than their arguments would suggest. Second, while I think some of the exchanges are heated, I don't think you're a mindless basher to come in here and offer suggestions. I don't think backing the game gives you license to make demands and I don't think the devs should be forced to respond to every line of inquiry, but I do think that being a backer (or even a long term fan) should earn you at least some consideration. Take my ideas or don't, but we should at least try to be charitable on all sides of this. That doesn't mean I won't end up flaming someone, but I'll try to be considerate about it when I do. :Cant's wry grin icon: Vol is pretty good about getting under my skin. I'll end up flaming him and getting banned or something. <.< I don't think the combat XP folks will win the day, but keep fighting for what you want. I would. Moreover, even if the combat XP crowd *doesn't* win, that doesn't mean the devs might not be swayed into a much more incremental change such as the suggestion regarding encounters with big monsters or unscripted encounters. I personally don't think every bit of XP should need to be tied to the quest log *beforehand.* I like the idea of some encounters, of all stripes and varieties, with some that can only be successfully completed in one or two ways and some that have multiple solutions, yielding XP as the party progresses. It keeps the game fresh and gives it a spontaneous feel without taking away *any* of the control the devs want to have. I *do* believe anything that yields XP should have a reference in the journal as a significant event, but without being so crass as to actually state XP or the like. At least the journal proper. The stats can do whatever the devs want and I'm sure that folks who follow the stats want to know things like the XP allotments and creature power etc.

I don't have a favorite tactic because I didn't want to get too far in the beta, for the same reason I'd been avoiding the forum here for so long, I don't want to get spoiled too much. My only battle was against Medreth, and that ended up being a slugfest rather than a tactical encounter. lol Although I did get out a few spells at least during the fistfight. My first run at the beta was with my favorite class, the wizard. I've decided to clear out the beta after the patch, and I'm going to celebrate some ol' skool beatdown by creating an homage to Homer in the form of a chanter. So I don't really have any good battle tactics, but I'm soaking up what I read from you guys and thinking of some. Keep those ideas coming!

Yeah, Zan, I think you're one of the people who tries to break out of these confining roles which folks want to assign to us. The fact is, the person who flames you regarding combat XP today might be the person backing you up on romances (one way or the other) tomorrow. I do think sometimes sides can be diametrically opposed, but I also firmly believe that sometimes people trying to think outside of the entrenched positions can help break through from time to time.

You've inspired me, LF. I hate playing betas, mostly because I hate having the experience of the full game ruined, but I'm going to start a new game and play the entirety of the beta after the patch comes out. Your enthusiasm is contagious. EDIT: And Helm, the rat bastard, talking about how Sawyer lurves Darklands, has inspired me to purchase the game on GoG. I just hope it doesn't format my hdd. ...Or it that PoR2?

I'm definitely not part of the kill XP crowd. I want the devs to decide the exact manner in which XP is awarded, but that doesn't mean it has to come from quests only. I was actually thinking of starting a separate thread myself because of a discussion I was having with oak (I can't remember his full screenname). He and I were having a friendly argument about quest v results XP. ...But even quest XP is prejudicial. Who decides what should be a quest? Who decides what is an 'evil' quest as opposed to a 'good' quest. ...And there *will* be some moral distinctions (or something amounting to moral no matter what folks call it) in the design, and why would we want something so sterile and removed from humanity that it doesn't reflect at least some of the character of the design team? Now, to the point about others types of XP. I don't want completely random kill XP, but I do think that significant encounters should get XP. Not all encounters should require killing to overcome them and perhaps some should not even have killing as an option to overcome them. That's a design thing, but encounters with set creatures who always inhabit the same area are not 'random' in the sense that most people mean. The player may not know the lions are there, but he will still encounter the lions if he visits the area in which they reside. Why would it be bad or reward 'subversive' gameplay to give XP for overcoming the encounter, especially if the party isn't forced to kill the lions in order to get a favorable outcome? ...And tying XP to various methods for overcoming the encounter without giving a quest to do so beforehand does not seem difficult on its face. It is essentially quest only XP that just doesn't have a lot of dialogue and a previous entry in the quest log. Likewise, I don't think folks should get XP for simply walking to places on the gameworld map, but I do think folks should get an XP reward for truly remarkable discoveries, especially if it entails some difficulty and persistence on the part of the gamer. How is that different than rewarding completenik questaholics who complete every obscure quest they can find? So, while I'm not pro kill XP crowd, I am nevertheless a proponent of broadening out the XP system beyond where it currently is. Especially if it preserves the whole idea behind quest only XP in the first place, namely: no reward for extreme metagaming and increased balance.

I'm at a crossroads on this, but, while I have answers to the points in question, I don't think it really relates necessarily to the discussion at hand. So, without retreating from my particular position, I'll let my words stand as I have already written them and agree to disagree with you, oak. :Cant's wry grin icon: ...But that doesn't mean I yield the prerogative to flame you later out of spite or just plain orneriness. :D

Yeah, I think noise and heat do account for a lot, but you don't. Cool. Believe what you want, but I contend you're wrong on the issue, not only on kill xp generally, but in this regard. The poll in question is simply not a good argument. By your own admission, the devs have been exposed to roughly the same divide for some time, but *this* poll amounts to victory for the kill-XP crowd? *shrug* If you believe that, fair enough. Then, we have your argument that demonstrates movement on one issue shows potential movement on another. Fair point, but I don't now, nor do I foresee, that weapon degradation is on par with the XP system. More to the point, I generally recognize what I personally believe are good arguments. This poll isn't a good argument. Even by your own words, it doesn't seem you believe this poll is make or break for kill or quest XP. "...this particular poll's results mirror every single poll we've ever had on the kill XP issue since about 2012. The Obsidian forum is, and always has been, split down the middle on the issue. This suggests that the people's positions on the matter are pretty much entrenched and final, and it will take more than 'noise and heat' to get anyone to move." DNA claimed victory based on this poll, and I continue to believe it's a fallacious argument. However, since I'm not trying to take Grom's place, and this isn't a deathmatch, if you want the last word, I'll let you take it. Feel free.

From my point of view, Stun, whether some other guy like me thinks the poll is good or bad doesn't matter anyhow. I think the backers should come in and argue for what they want. I just think this poll isn't the best argument to make, but even that doesn't matter. If I felt as strongly as you do about something in the game, I'd come here and argue for it just like you do. I'm just offering a view of one particular idea. To your points, oak, as a practical matter, my contention is that: 1 quests in and of themselves, are inherently judgmental 2 some outcomes will be better by any rational argument, whether from a druidic, wizardry, or sword arm perspective (or good, evil, or pink fluffy moral reference) 3 saying that all that matters is the objective that the designers come up with which, as I pointed out in 1 are already loaded, while my method doesn't matter is also likewise restrictive and 4 result oriented XP is already fairly common. I'm not asking for something new. I'm advocating using a method that has been around for a long time. As to my use of real life examples, I'd like to point out I use striking examples in order to make the point more obvious, but each one of the examples I cited have happened in real life. The point isn't that the game is going to be nonfiction, but if you don't address realistic motives and attitudes in the game world, you will have failed at some level in designing the game. I completely agree that folks should be able to play whatever moral perspective they want, and that's why I think the design team should take care in how they approach it. You didn't say, "A better way to address the results oriented idea is to do [insert idea here]." You said, "don't do it at all." If I'm reading your views right, I'll gladly read a response but let it rest since I have always believed results should matter at least as much as objectives.

Yep, I do. With the amount of noise and heat the pro kill-XP crowd is generating on this issue, I'd figure that they'd have more votes, to be frank. I expected more of a lopsided victory for it in a forum poll. Now, even assuming that *prospective* weapon degradation was as central to their design philosophy as quest only XP, that was a bit earlier in development. At this point, quest XP is cooked into the pie and I don't think they'll budge on it without more than what I've seen. Then again, I've always said I could be wrong. I'm just giving my opinion. I wasn't being snarky or trying to make fun of anyone. I contend, even now, that this poll isn't going to be the silver bullet that kills quest XP. If it is, I'll come online, without rancor in my heart, and own that I was wrong. My example may have been flawed, I'll admit, but there is no way to separate judgment even in quests. Sometimes the means are more important than the ends, also. If I mention to my friend that I really wanted to get that job that someone else just managed to nab out from under me, he could try to help. He could talk to the employer on my behalf. He could buy the company. He could blackmail the HR person who does the hiring. He could murder the person who took the job from me. I agree that the design team has to be careful, but they have to be careful for quests in the first place. ...And, from any rational point of view in terms of the characters, there *will* be some outcomes that are superior to others. I think it breaks character more to say that all methods are the same or even that all consequences are the same regardless of methods.

You balance the game, but you don't make it your primary goal... Yeah, I think it's important, but it's not "OMG sacrifice everything to it" important.

The fact that the game is single player shouldn't be a reason for sloppy game design. It's also not an excuse to completely throw over balance, and the design team would rightfully be castigated if they didn't try to playtest and balance the game.

I'd like to have a single scout also. To me, it's kind of the opposite of an exploit where the players uses some disconnect in the way the engine depicts reality to do something that intuitively simply isn't possible even in the context of the game world. Intuitively, not only should it be possible for one character to scout while the others don't, it should be possible for one character to scout while the others use distraction to allow the rogue to hide more effectively. As for exploits, it makes sense to try to find and correct them from a design point of view, but don't think you're going to eradicate them entirely.

This poll shows that a sampling of less than 300 people on this forum out of tens of thousands of backers (and some of the people voting in this poll might not even *be* backers and some of the people posting about the beta are neither backers nor have played the beta *by their own admission*) shows that a bare majority wants combat XP and of that bare majority, a bare plurality wants to wait long enough to implement it. I've been expecting someone to cite this poll as a compelling reason to completely rework the XP system in the game, and here it is. As a nod to the guy up above who rightly pointed out that this forum provides one of the few ways that the devs can get feedback, I will say it makes sense that the designers at least have some consideration to what folks say, but this poll does more to undermine the combat XP position than to support it. ...And I think I have a demonstrated commitment to play it straight, so I might be wrong, but it's not a partisan moment when I tell you I sincerely believe that this poll is actually quite *bad* news for the combat XP crowd. Frankly, I don't think it would matter if you'd won the day by 40 or 50%, but to have a spread of about 5% is not what you want to further your case.

Wait... Bruce Willis was dead the entire time? That must mean I see dead people!

So, what's wrong with pretenshus pseudo-intellectualism, ya bastard? lol I have to admit, I laughed out loud when I read the part about the inventory baby. I do contend that it's hard to get a feel for the whole of the PoE campaign from the demo. Wasteland is set in a post apocalyptic Western United States. The setting is more or less immediately accessible as an idea. The whole PoE world might be great, we just can't tell whether or not it will be by a few conversations and some race and class descriptions. I am quite glad that WL2 ships in September. I stopped playing the demo quickly because I wanted to save the actual game for when it was finished, which is why I did hardly anything in the PoE demo. I'm even afraid to visit the other forums because I don't want to be spoiled on anything.

This is where an ol' skool Obsidz fanboy like me jumps up to defend PoE. Okay, I'll oblige briefly on that count. I think there's a difference. PoE doesn't have the same history or grauitas that the Wasteland/Fallout universe has. Wasteland has been in production for a lot longer. The devs are going to handle things like ammo and other like items differently in a post apocalyptic setting than in a fantasy universe. The PoE demo doesn't give the player a chance to immerse himself in the game world, whereas Wasteland 2 has a familiar game world in which many players will already feel some affinity. There, fanboy credentials polished. Now for a frank assessment: Wasteland 2 is much better judging by the demos. If I had to make a choice based on them, I unreservedly say that I would choose Wasteland 2 at this point, and I didn't even pledge for it. I got my beta access to Wasteland 2 *because* of my pledge to Project Eternity. In fact, what I've seen of Wasteland 2 so far makes me wish I'd pledged more for the Tides of Numenara. I reserve judgment until I've played both finished products, but I can certainly understand why someone would come to your conclusions at this point, Merc.

laughed out loud. :D ...But, as someone mentioned earlier, this *is* one of the few ways for the devs to get community feedback. I don't think they should bow to every major uprising, but I would hope they at least take into account the views they have explicitly solicited. I think this will always be an issue because folks don't want to think that the design team is making moral judgments about what decisions the players make. However, I've never seen an RPG where the weren't judgments about outcomes. I think they have to be careful, but I do think they should reward better results, which means that there will be some judgment about what constitutes a 'better result.' For example, from the lions' perspective, having the townsfolk send out the most corpulent member every few days to provide a feast for the pride would be the best outcome, but that's probably not going to happen. Indeed. So lets all stop pretending that "system abuse" is some sort of factor here. It isn't. I get the point, but system abuse is a factor here. Strictly speaking, it's a factor if for no other reason than the devs themselves have cited it as a factor. I *do* think that kill xp is more prone to abuse, but I also concede that it's a matter of degree. All robust systems will have some potential for abuse.

On one hand, I think the 'you must do all quests' argument due to 'quest' only experience is ridiculous. On the other hand, if I'm to be intellectually honest, that feeling could also be turned around on folks who don't like combat XP because it encourages folks to commit 'genocide.' However, the entire exchange *does* reinforce the basic premise that people do what they are rewarded for doing. I think kill XP is more prone to abuse, which is a balance issue, but that doesn't mean that questing XP cannot be abused as well. I would like to point out that, while I don't like kill XP per se, I nevertheless contend that significant encounters the players may face ought to yield experience. Some of them might be of the nature that they can only be overcome through combat, and folks should get XP for overcoming them by combat. Some of them might be of the nature that some other method is the only reasonable option for success. 'Quest' XP should be limiting to a certain degree, which is why it is useful for balancing, but it shouldn't be a straightjacket. As examples of what I mean, let's take a group of DnD goblins that the party randomly encounters. The devs don't give XP for overcoming them because they are more or less trivial for a well prepared party and the monster type is ubiquitous. No XP. Now, let's take a pride of hungry assed man eating lions that the party randomly encounters. The party sneaks by the lions and goes on their merry way, XP. Party knocks off lions and makes the road safer, even more XP. The party has a druid or some sort of lion taming dude who manages to tame the lions and donates them to the nearest zoo, a hefty infusion of XP. The party doesn't get 'kill' XP, but they do get XP for killing the lions. Better results yield better XP. Now, let's take an encounter with a powerful entity that the represents an immediate danger to the party and the region. It is unable to communicate and there are no reasonable options to overcome that entity other than combat, leaving it alive will only allow it to become stronger. The party only gets XP for killing it. It is nonetheless not kill XP. It is XP awarded for the only beneficial result. Let's take a strange bird of great value that is only beneficial to the party if it captured alive. The party may use stealth to overcome the fowl encounter by capturing the bird or have some druid type tame it. The party gets the same amount of XP in either case, but gets an extra gameplay reward because the druid can turn it into an animal companion. 'Quest' only XP need not be as sterile and bland as folks imagine it to be. I don't know exactly how the devs will implement it, but I don't see why 'quest' only XP need not yield results for overcoming even random encounters. EDIT: clarity