Cantousent

I'm not stepping in the middle of a brawl, but I did think I would mention that I don't really believe it's that important at this point to say that stealth doesn't have any specific quests associated with it in the beta. Even if the release date were closer, I would still think of the beta as being an unfinished representation of the completed work. I don't think we should have an objective oriented quest based system, but rather a results oriented system. In that case, there are many possibilities for rewarding stealth over dialogue or combat, and I like that idea. I don't see what it really has to do with combat XP per se, but I do hope to see a robust system that takes into account a variety of styles. I just don't think that the absence of evidence of reward for one particular style in the beta means that one can't exist in the finished product.

Great read. Wizard is my favorite class and I'm sure I'll suffer through at least one play even if the class is gimped. ...But a lot of game require the players to find good combinations that make each class more powerful, so I'm hoping that in time I can find ways to overcome the deficiencies wizards might have.

I loved PS:T also, but I think of it as a true work of art in the sense that individual elements might seem out of place or outright crazy, but the experience as a whole changed the way I looked at video games. I don't want another PS:T, although I did pledge at... I think the silver level or something for the ToN game. What I expect in PoE is fun combat and a well done story. If it accomplishes that, I'll be happy. I don't expect something transcendental. Just a lot of fun.

lol Forget the beta, the board is buggy. Should just learn not to use quick reply. Anyhow, had to take a peek at the oddity system. http://www.underrail.com/wiki/index.php?title=Oddity_XP_System Very interesting. Something definitely built with the game in mind, but if you switched out oddity for something else, it would actually work pretty well, I think. I like the idea of pushing the envelope... as long as you're up front about it to the consumer.

Most of the folks I know who want to solo a game like PoE do so for bragging rights, so if it's harder, they get more satisfaction. ...But I don't think the game should be equally easy or rewarding for every style or build in every case, although I *do* think the game should try to reward every style at some points in various ways.

I've gotten rid of my DIrectv account. I find that I use Netflix for most of my viewing, but I plan on putting up a HD antenna and connecting it to a computer I plan to build specifically for recording and the like. My current computer already hooks to the TV, but I was thinking of things that I could use to focus the new rig on the multimedia aspect, such as solid state drives and the like. Any suggestions?

I'm just jonesin' to get the ring-tones. I finally threw in the towel and bought a smartphone, so I'm hoping to get instructions on how to install the ringtones. I do reserve judgment until the final product ships. I have my hopes, though.

The button argument is the worst of the whole bunch. I kind of assume it was facetious, but just in case it's not, I'll point out that that you can't balance a system for combat XP and then tell folks to decide whether they want it or not. This whole idea that "it should be the players' choice" is ridiculous in the first place, and it could even be carried out to any extreme. Don't like magic? Put in a button to prevent magic from being in the game. Granted, a whole slew of stories, NPCs, quests, and content will disappear, but we've placated people who have a specific gripe. Once they've balanced for one or the other, the XP system is simply part of the game. There's also no single factor that goes into the decision for the way they design the XP system. Someone up above did a really good post going over various arguments, which was a good read, but, while I could try to give a good account of the opposing view, I figure someone who is emotionally and personally invested in his position will make a better advocate for it. Nevertheless, even though I usually only give counter arguments from the other side in order to address them from my point of view, I never pretend they don't exist or trivialize them with button talk. I would think that the design team creates the game first and foremost from a 'normal setting' point of view. Things like hardcore and ironman can't have much bearing on the design decision for the basic game. Those are things that require extra care in implementing because they take the basic game and change certain aspects to make it significantly harder. Fairness is a factor, but not in the way that some folks seem to believe. It's not that someone can get XO for combat and will go around killing folks just to get that XP that bothers me. From a design perspective, they want the gameplay to be fun, but they also want to engage the player in a campaign complete with backstory, plot elements, interesting characters, and tough choices. I don't think, as a single issue, it would be worth it to remove XP just because it habituates some players to metagame and undo some of those artistic decisions the design team makes. ...But the metagaming argument doesn't stand alone. It's part of a larger list. Combat XP does make it harder to balance. Now, a while back (like years ago) I was in a thread with Sawyer and Gromnir and I argued most vehemently that they were too concerned with balance, and I still sometimes feel that way. However, balance *is* an issue. If we include combat XP and provide enough fodder, the design team has to work harder to ensure the game is challenging enough for some folks and yet hard enough for others. ...And game difficulty *will* be a source of bitter dispute after this game ships. I know, I'm playing Nostradamus here, but I'll lay down the bet on it right now. ...Second And, there will be people complaining that it's too hard and folks complaining it's too easy. A system that controls the XP will help mitigate something that will already be an issue no matter what the design team does. There is nothing preventing folks from engaging in combat if they so choose. The fact that people complain about lack of combat XP merely demonstrates the whole point about habituating people to certain behavior. You don't always get loot drops, achievements, story or character development, or even face new creatures in every battle and yet folks want XP rewards for each encounter. The IE games had combat XP, which is, from my perspective, simply a good argument for it. However, like everything else, it needs to be taken as part of a whole package. There are other aspect of IE that are already not in PoE, and the same folks don't complain about each and every one. In fact, using the DnD 3.5 system, at least one of the games had a lot of combat where I received no XP because the challenge rating was too low. In fact, the IE games had, within the whole slew of them, modifications to XP, alignment, THAC0, attributes, etc. etc. etc. Combat XP does in fact make combat more visceral for some folks. I concede that and also see it as a pretty good argument. However, no XP system will every truly remove the disconnect between an abstraction of something so profound as human experience and improvement on one hand and the game in which it is depicted on the other. So, while I sympathize with this particular argument, and a couple of others, I don't think they are sufficient to overcome the benefits of creating a system that preserves the artistic vision of the story designers and helps keep the gameplay balanced for all players. The fact is, while we've heard a lot about letting people play the way they want, combat XP has far more impact on how people view gameplay than does quest/challenge/whatever only XP. With all that said, I think something far more worrisome would be if the design team tried to make every method of overcoming challenges equal. *That's* where the over inclination to balance would hurt because some methods, and sometimes combat, should sometimes yield better results, and 'quest only' XP is at its heart result oriented.

I was thinking that myself, MC. I'm assuming 'promancers' are people who want in game romances? Sadly, while I don't want to be a naysayer, I would actually rather see combat XP than romances in the game. Maybe something like Annah or Deionarra, but no actually kissy face romance. If it came to it, I would actually join with the combat XP folks to do away with romances. I don't like to be the 'anti' everything guy. It just that combat XP is merely misguided. CRPG 'romances' are just plain sad. I sure as hell hope that they don't have heavy romantic story lines aren't already included in the game.

It's not a one off thing as regards XP. If the entire system uses combat XP, then it has an impact on everyone. I wish folks advocating combat XP would stop pretending that their method has no effect on folks that don't want combat XP whereas quest only XP places an undue burden on folks who oppose that view. The fact is, there is a profound impact on either side in choosing one or the other. I have never said that quest only is always better in every game. I have even referenced some RPGs where I thought combat XP made sense (Diablo, which I *did* like), but I have said that in anything but a dedicated *action* RPG, quest only makes more sense. I have suggested ways in which quest XP could be made somewhat more palatable to folks who need the immediate gratification of combat XP. To further the point, I suggest something like (but of course only as a rough example): goblins threaten town: 1 Killng all goblins: 900 xp (town saved) 2 convincing the goblins to sign a peace treaty 300 xp only to find out later they've slaughtered the whole town when they got the chance. Players can then eradicate them to solve the problem for an additional 300 xp 3 convince outside group to invest in mining rights to nearby minerals that employs the goblins and townsfolk, creating a truly multi-cultural blossoming metropolis 1200 xp 4 Setting up a puppet state that enslaves the goblins and the townsfolk While I wouldn't take 4, it's one case where the devs could include that 'evil' option. However, there's always the possibility of redemption later and it might even have more rewards. The point is, combat might yield the most xp in any given situation and maybe less xp in others. EDIT: for clarity

:Cant's praying that the forum gods don't strike down another thread that has become focused on Grom's posting style icon: *This* is the winning argument for my side. I wish it were the logic of our arguments, which I believe are sound. I wish it were our clever delivery or witty repartee, which I don't think everyone appreciates. <.< I wish it were the desire for a hand holding campfire singing moment, which it ain't. Simple inertia and the fact that it's already implemented on one side and the fact that the majority of folks probably don't care will be what wins the day. I think the mass of backers want the devs to go with their primary instincts. ...But, to be fair, this far out I would be doing exactly what the proponents of combat XP are doing: advocating my position in hopes that my side might prevail on the design team. It's one of the reasons I'm posting in these threads now. I want the status quo and so I'm continuing to point out the benefits of challenge only XP in the hopes that inertia will carry us through to the end. ...But I can still see some small accommodation to various things. For example, Stun's point about this lion. Give it a challenge value if it's tough enough and then dole out XP for overcoming or avoiding the obstacle. That doesn't seem all that tough and it need not even be combat resolved. ...Or maybe there are some challenges that can only be combat resolved with some that can only be resolved ideally through some other means. That doesn't grant generic combat XP. It just makes specific encounters the equivalent of quests for the purposes of XP feedback. It actually *is* quest only XP by mechanic, just not with all the attending quest accoutrements.

I don't have anything against the combat XP crowd. First of all, I've seen some of them online for literally over a decade from the BIS days. Second, I can sympathize with a lot of the opposing arguments. I don't believe by the mass the other side is stupid, obnoxious, or deficient. I jus think they're wrong. I figure they must feel the same way about folks on my side, otherwise they wouldn't argue. Anyhow, when I thought that they were going to include combat XP, along with every bit of incidental XP folks could conjure out of a sense of 'fairness,' I was quite vocal about opposing it. It looks like the school of thought I support has won the day. I certainly hope so, but I figure that there are more areas on which most of us agree than disagree. That's as close to a kumbaya moment for me. If it turns out the devs lose their grit and include combat XP, I'll argue inasmuch as I think we have some small chance of taking back the day, then I'll just figure my side lost and get on with life. ...But, like aeon said, two diametrically opposed positions can't find an accommodation for both sides without one side losing.

I dunno, I just don't think you can take for granted a few hundred die hard fans accurately represent the feelings of the sheer number of backers let alone the number of potential customers who will buy the game on release. STEAM is great, and I love it, but I think you still find a lot of superfluous data. ...But I will concede that at least there is data to be had if you can just sift through it.

By checking how many people downloaded it off Steam? Good point, you glorious wretch! Okay, so assuming you can see exactly how many people downloaded the demo, see how many people played for a substantial amount of time, see how many people post on the topic here in this forum, and then comparing it to the number of people who even generated the key, do you really believe that the number of people represented here should carry the day? Dude, how many people have even voted in this poll, let alone posted in this topic?

In terms of overall percentage of backers, how would they know how many backers have even played the beta? I know a lot of avid gamers who refuse to play demos or betas I the first place. I played briefly to get a feel and stopped playing the beta quickly because I want to play the finished game. The problem, as I see it, is that you can get a large percentage of respondents but still have a tiny sliver of the whole. Now, if they had a professional pollster who could try to make what amounts to an online survey into a reasonable assessment, fine, but I doubt that's the case. Since they can't do that, I don't think they should throw over their design decisions to message board whim. I mean, they should take into account compelling arguments they read, assuming they're even reading this thread, but that doesn't mean tossing over their own expertise in favor of folks coming at them with pitchforks and fiery brands in an online setting.

PS:T is probably my favorite game, but arguments for quest only XP need not rely on citing it. Sure, PS:T provides examples that are perfectly legitimate in discussing quest only XP, but they shouldn't rely on it. I also don't tend to introduce story rewards in the quest/combat XP argument. Story rewards are separate from XP rewards which are separate from loot. There will be story and loot incentives to kill monsters, and folks should at least give a nod to that fact, but it's not all that important to the argument. Maybe as a brief response to folks who pretend that combat is rendered pointless if it doesn't yield XP. However, I don't really even advocate quest only XP. I advocate a system that rewards overcoming challenges. Trash mobs and the like shouldn't provide XP. As an aside, I've seen some folks say that BG and BG2 didn't have trash mobs, which is ridiculous. At any rate, since there will be many relatively minor foes in a CRPG, I don't think we should get XP for fighting them. There will, however, be major foes. For example, I guess there's a big assed spider in the beta. Now, I don't think you should combat XP for killing the spider. I *do* think you should get a reward for overcoming/getting past the spider, one method of which could be killing it. It requires *a little* more effort in design, but I think it would be far better, and far more intuitive, than suggesting there need be a quest entry in your journal before you can get XP for overcoming the obstacle. Frankly, while you might not have a 'quest' to overcome the spider, you should definitely have a journal entry for overcoming the obstacle presented by the huge assed spider or any other remarkable encounter. I don't think what I suggest would placate all of the combat XP crowd, but my purpose isn't to placate other views so much as to advocate my own personal preference in regards to how XP would work in a game.

Why should the design team tempt us to evil acts in the first place? Of all the arguments I've heard, that idea is the most confounding. The design team should allow us to envision and then create the character we want. It should be entirely neutral in what we decide to do and should have no stake in whether we play evil, good, neutral, dithering, or anything else. Personally, I don't view 'immediacy' as a problem either. There will, by necessity, always be a disconnect somewhere along the line between an abstraction of character growth and character actions in a game. That's something else that also confounds me: many of the folks who hate challenge (quest) centered XP are the same folks who hate the TES system of XP awarded by carrying out specific actions. To me, advocating combat XP (itself an abstraction) is simply one step closer to the TES idea that spamming fireball makes you a better mage. In fact, I would say that the TES system, which I don't want at all, is more 'logical' according the premise. The thing that really stands out to me is that you say you can't think of a single benefit to quest-only XP. I get that you don't like it, and I figure we should give opposing views a fair hearing. But I'd figure that people can at least recognize that there is at least a logical basis to the Challenge only XP stance, even if that player doesn't agree with it. In this case, there are tons of posts that provide a logical framework for both sides, including everything from challenge only XP to granting XP awards based on combat, lockpicking, dialogue and even exploration. I prefer the challenge only oriented approach to XP rewards, but I can at least give a good shot at explaining the combat XP point of view.

I thought about pointing out the shortcomings in using message board participation to judge what the 'majority' wants. Gromnir beat me to it, which worries me. I mean, he should be worried that we're having similar thoughts. For my part, agreeing with Gromnir too often usually results in getting in a bare knuckle brawl with him, and I'm a 90lb online weakling. :Cant's pugilist stance icon: Hey, I can kid too. <.< In all seriousness, I think the devs should trust their instincts regarding what will make the game good and mix in truly stand out ideas from the boards as they see them. For example, in regards to another subject on this board, I'm in what amounts to a small majority as I see it. Among the backers at large, there's probably a wide variety of people forming a majority who would be in the opposition, but most of them don't have real depth of feeling on the matter. That's my instinct, but I believe it at any rate. The devs thought about the ins and outs and made a decision, just as they'll do here. However, in this case, I think the situation is different in that you might not even get a weak majority to support the push to include arrows and even if you did, it's probably such a non issue to most folks that you might as well fall on the side of convenience. Once again, for the charm, using my intuition rather than access to cold hard facts that probably haven't been accumulated. For my part, I say leave out arrows, but I don't care enough to fight over it and I'll live with arrow stacks or not. I hope not to be completely bogged down with inventory tetris, but I've had different views over the years on the subject.

I hadn't thought of this, but I'll sometimes hear a song and it immediately brings Tristram to mind. I don't really remember much else about the music, although that means it didn't irk me either, but I loved the music in Tristram.

From my perspective, this is the most powerful argument against my position. I still hold to my view, but if there were a single vexing argument to me from the opposing side, it's this.

Why do I even use quick reply? I'm constantly having to fix the interface after I click in it? ugh Regarding the idea that combat XP is intuitive in a combat heavy game, I'll elaborate on something other folks have said, which is that the logical extension of that idea is not to give combat XP, but have XP based on the abilities you actually use. I don't want a TES style system, but it is in keeping with the logic that I see used for combat XP. Experience Points serve as an abstract notion to represent growth in skill as a result of the decisions players make. Combat XP is no less an abstraction of the idea of self-improvement than quest only XP. We could draw the line closer or farther, but we're drawing it somewhere. ...And the same argument could be made for classes vs classless, levels vs no character levels, etc. I completely agree with wicker that the reward need not (and probably should not) be the same for every option of how to solve a quest. I think sometimes combat should yield superior results. I think sometimes talking should yield better results. In story terms, I think there should be a reward for thinking about how to approach and overcome challenges (we should probably think in terms of challenges rather than quests in the first place) *and* there should also sometimes be unforeseen and unforeseeable consequences from time to time. Using dialogue or stealth to overcome a challenge might be your preferred method, but every now and then, you should have negative consequences for refusing to use more physical means. Of course, the same goes the other way. In terms of XP, however, if folks can solve a quest and get that superior XP reward for using one method, it defeats the purpose if the player then goes around to metagame and kill all the creatures anyway. I think the player should be *allowed* to do so, but not *rewarded* for doing so. Rewarding behavior virtually always habituates rational people to engage in it. Quest XP is not superior because it is inherently better. In a game like Diablo, combat XP is central to the design. Fine. I enjoy Diablo. Loved 1 and 2 with xpacs and I... didn't quite *love* 3, but it didn't slip in my estimation because of combat XP. Combat XP is not better because it is inherently so, and it's certainly not better because it was in a game in years past. I agree that PS:T can't be the only basis of reference, but it is a legitimate point of reference to make arguments, at least to my way of thinking. That said, just as PS:T is only one of the many ie games, combat XP is not what defines the ie games for me altogether. Someone who only engaged in fights when forced to do so could still play and win BG and BG2. In fact, one of my favorite areas in any game is Durlog's Tower, where there was plenty of XP outside of combat. The combat XP wasn't a big deal in Durlog's tower. Combat XP was not the point of BG and BG2. It was central to Dungeons and Dragons, but the games could have removed those licensed elements without destroying the fun of the game. In fact, I think, if it had been tooled from the beginning without combat XP, most folks here would still have enjoyed the games. Maybe I'm wrong, but who here says that combat XP is the single factor that made all of the ie games so fun to play?

I comprehend, but disagree. It's possible to use one thing to illustrate something different. Anyhow, Vol, if you want to tell me what I can't post, I'll nominate you for moderator. :D

I laughed out loud, ya bastard. However, I still think there's fun to be had for mowing down mobs if that's what you like to do. It's not like removing the XP reward entirely kills the fun, right? OT: Is your icon Michael Douglas from Falling Down?

Someone mentioned up above that quest only XP isn't new, and I agree. Well... let's just say that it's manifestly true that it's not new and it would idiotic for me to pretend it wasn't. Combat XP rewards have been the norm, but devs have toyed with various systems. Hell, look at FPSes. They aren't RPGs, of course, but your gameplay feedback comes by way of more powerful weapons as you progress through the game. Sometimes, you might get stat increases or other abilities as the game progresses. Hell, Painkiller used cards in almost a sort of minigame way. Bloodlines was a great game (yeah, it had its faults, but it was still fun) and it didn't dole out combat XP. Elder Scrolls games take the 'learn by doing approach,' which is logical extension of combat XP. After all, if you should get XP for killing monsters because that's only intuitive, shouldn't you only get XP for the manner in which you killed them? TES games don't just dole out XP for combat, they dole out XP per use. So, it's not like combat XP has been the only game in town, and I'm glad to concede that. However, let's go back to the FPS example. Here is a genre in which combat isn't merely a main focus, often it's the only real gameplay focus from front to back. You don't get XP for killing monsters. You don't even get better weapons due to killing monsters. Your primary positive feedback comes from getting to places where you have access to weapons. Even in hardcore FPS games from way back, such as Wolfenstein and DOOM, you could avoid some areas to get to better weapons or armor faster and then, if you so desired, you could go back and kill monsters. ...Or you could save ammo and not waste time going back to kill monsters. The point is, even in a game where combat is the only point, you don't get positive feedback for killing per se. It's the same in PoE. You don't get XP rewards for killing, per se, but there's still a huge incentive to kill monsters. In some cases, you have no choice but to kill monsters. To be fair, on the other hand, I will own this: I can't say, "you should be willing to give the game a try even if the rule is quest only experience" if I'm not willing to give ground and say, "I should be willing to give the game a try even if combat experience wins the day." I think some folks are too emotionally involved in changing the system to include combat XP, but I would be the same way if there weren't some navel gazing bastard who didn't face moral dilemmas in the game.

Yeah, gotta love a developer who takes the heat. I think, other than PS:T, the theme for Freehaven in MM6 is my favorite. I don't know if anyone else talked about it in this thread, but it's definitely not 'epic.' Great music for the area, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_gOX3Mt3Lc Anyhow, as regards remembering music, I didn't think much about it when I read the commentary earlier, but I was putting going through my music library and I saw something there that struck me. I played a lot of the Ultima series 1-4. I was listening to a lot of Bach at the time and I had a couple of CDs that sampled his concertos, and my memory works both ways, I can't hear them anymore without thinking of the games, and I can't see or read about the games without the music playing in my head. I'm too much of a Philistine to hold my own in a music thread. I love music and I enjoy having good music in the game. I just hope that they don't throw over the main theme for something 'epic' that sounds like it belongs in a B movie about the exploits of Sinbad the Sailor or something.