Cantousent

hahaha SqueakyCat. Okay okay, I'm indulging a bit right now, so maybe I'm not being as sensible as I should be, but I think Gorth's idea about having no experience and merely upgrading gear based on what people get and basing skills and perks and the like on specific points in the story arc. I don't know if I'd go that far, but it's intriguing.

I laughed out loud when I read this. Wonderful example of localizations.

Okay, Gatt, but the point about how xp is allocated isn't a question of combat v non combat xp. It's a question of how skills relate to xp. I don't agree that folks won't kill stuff in the course of adventuring. I think they would. While some people might notice how it works, my bet (not my assertion based on proof, Vol) is that a lot of folks wouldn't notice the lack of experience gain because they would still be gaining experience. So, the folks who would most likely notice would be folks killing things just for xp. I don't have it in for them, but I don't completely sympathize with them either. I want you to enjoy the game, but I still think combat design is a flaw. I probably always will at this point.

Oh, I'm an Obsidz junkie from way back in the BIS days. Once they let me be the water boy for the Obsidz team and I've been loyal ever since. Anyway, the game I liked most is PS:T, which definitely gave tons and tons of combat xp. I'm going to go with whatever they decide, but I do prefer objective only xp. As for you, Vol, ol' man, tsk tsk tsk Quote the whole sentence if you want a response. :Cant's fond smile icon: Good to see you still like a good brawl, but I'm too lazy to get into fisticuffs these days.

See, here's what I don't understand. Squeaky, don't get me wrong. I'm trying to engage in discussion, not insult you, but combat xp is the deal breaker? I mean, I can understand if there's a list and combat xp is one issue for you. I don't think it should be, but I respect that it is. ...But it can't be the one thing that put you on the fence. I simply don't understand why folks have such depth of feeling based on combat xp. Do you think it will prevent you from killing monsters if that's what you want to do? Do you think it will make it so folks won't craft, pick, talk, hack, or otherwise do the other things they liked to do before any one of those things garnered xp? Will you really miss the xp if you aren't looking for it? I bet they could've made the game quest only xp without showing the xp gains and the vast majority of folks who complain about the decision would never have known the difference.

I have to admit that I'm sooo looking forward to this kickstarter being finished. I wish I could say because I want them to start the actual development. I wish I could say I want them to secure the funding they need. I wish I could say it means we're closer to the end product. Sadly, while all of that would definitely be true, the most vexing thing is that I've become engrossed in the damned kickstarter and I'm either checking in here and the kickstarter site, or I'm somewhere wishing I could be here or the kickstarter site. I never thought of myself as more of a loser than right now. :Cant's sheepish grin icon: EDIT: Thanks Merin. :D

I think the thing is that folks should simply respect that every stretch won't necessarily have something that appeals to you directly, but each stretch does add to the game in one way or another and that those things added together may create something greater than the sum of its parts. ...And, if you want something different, advocate for it. The way I look at it is that I'll pester for what I want, but I'll let the matter drop once the design team makes a steadfast and considered decision.

All's I can think when seeing Edair is, "here's someone who could really use a bottle or two of wine."

Okay okay, no boob plate... but can we have a hot Elf wizardess in bikini-mail? :Cant's duck and run icon: Seriously, though I'm happy with it. I didn't see anything that impacts me directly, but the translations make sense and the prospect of more information coming up from multiple sources this week does appeal to me. I'm looking forward to having a stronghold/base/headquarters... HOUSE! One of the great things about games these days is the ability to get a house and kick up my heals, although I tended not to use my house as much in New Vegas as some of the other games. Go figure. Well, enough of my rambling. Just happy to see things progressing.

Okay, I know this might sound snarky, but it's not meant to be. "But you still have to complete objectives." I don't understand the issue then. I will reread the whole thread in a bit, but for the time being, I will simply ask whether the devs should create a game where you should be equally rewarded or doing nothing and doing something? I know there is a group of players who want only role-playing for its own sake, without combat or questing. There is a group who wants nothing more than exploration for it's own sake, avoiding combat of any sort and simply uncovering more and more areas. ...But I don't think the design team should be constrained by those groups. They might or might not want to inlcude some non-objective oriented RP, such as playing the part of a barmaid or gold merchant or famer. They might want to include some sort of experience gain for folks whose only desire is to uncover more map. On the other hand, maybe uncovering more of the map can be an objective and therefor will receive experience whether you achieve it by walking, running, riding, flying, or teleporting to do it. There's a huge number of things the design team could put in the game, some of which serve to achieve no objective at all, but the game wouldn't be improved by including all of them. I think the combat experience is such a hold-over from the early days of PPGs that it's a corner-stone of design, but I don't think it should be. As a genre, we didn't start out with sneaking as a separate source of xp. We started out with combat xp and some sneaky bastard said, "why not me?" More and more, it's "why not me?" I'm not saying that's *you* and I'm not saying you would be bad even if it were. I'm just saying that I think the game might be better without the burden of that consideration for the design. I'm advocating what I see as the best design, but I would much rather have the devs come out and say explicitly "there will be combat xp" or "There will not be combat xp."

Where did I say I hadn't read your post? I did read it. I just can't scour the forum. I try to read those threads in which I participate carefully. Frankly, I wasn't being personal. I'm still not. I disagree with notion that object/quest/purpose only xp rewards only one style of gameplay. You can complete objectives in a variety of ways and as long as that variety is sufficiently broad, you can't argue that there's only one valid style of gameplay unless you say that completing objectives is simply one of many types of gameplay. Even in sandbox games, you could have multiple objectives outside the main story arc, but the point behind questing and adventuring is still exploration and accomplishment. EDIT: And, *re*-reading your latest post, I will point out that the manner of xp gain and leveling or even whether or not there are levels and classes is all variable. The line is the question, not the fact that the devs control where it is. If their discretion is that quest only xp is the way to go, it's no different than deciding at combat or combat and other action or only at specific plot points. It's when and where that are the question and if you trust the design team, it shouldn't matter that much one way or the other.

Any system that encourages players to solve the same problem more than once using different strategies is simply flawed. I don't want a game that rewards the PC for sneaking, then speaking, then going back and killing when he was already done with the immediate task by sneaking *or* speaking *or* killing. This has got to be the most vexing issue to me. I'm not much of a message board cowboy anymore. I don't have the stamina to read everything like I used to and I sure as hell can't flame (or even heatedly debate) for fifty pages, but this one issue is one of the few that I find irritating. I get that folks want combat experience, but the idea that it's a deal breaker just seems silly. ...And getting experience for the widest variety of things doesn't make any more sense. Now, I *will* say this, there's a certain argument to be made for practice. For example, if you're a hunter, you learn to hunt better by hunting. You're a better at running by running daily. Sure, but if that's your main concern, you should be pushing for the Elder Scrolls mechanism for experience gain, which is to get points only for performing actions associated with the area in which you gain experience. I prefer the abstracted method and the best (not perfect, merely best) way to avoid glaringly silly exploits is to limit experience to objectives. However, some objectives may very well be associated with combat. In fact, like I will probably keep saying throughout the whole project, experience shouldn't just be tied to objectives, but should also be scaled to the most beneficial outcome. Yeah, that entails discretion on the part of the design team, but that's why they're paid so much anyway.

I'd rather see no xp for combat/lock-picking/diplomacy per se. However, I do think how well you achieve your goals should impact on the amount of experience. You could even, in some cases, get more experience for killing enemies. That way, you don't have a case of doing both. Some solutions are better than others, and I don't think the game should always reward the same regardless of method. In some cases, killing might get better rewards, not only in xp, but also in loot and whatnot. In other cases, the lethal solution might get less. The outcome, and desireability should be king. Moreover, the game should make it harder to use a one note approach. If all you ever do is resort to violence, the game should make it tougher. You should have a rep in the community. You can't deal with the factions as easily and a lot of side quests might be out of reach for you. Conversely, if you never kill, you should have a tougher time also. You, likewise, have a rep and some side quests will be gone. Folks with the reputation for doing whatever it takes to finish the job should get it. If you have the rep of being brutal, brutal folks will seek your services. If you have the rep for being sly, smooth, or creatively pacifistic, then folks who need subtlety will seek your services. If you have the rep that you won't kill someone in cold blood, the local king-pin probably won't try to hire you to assassinate someone. If folks want consequences for their actions, then quest/objective xp makes the most sense to me, and there's plenty of opportunity to put in extra bits of xp here and there for side/small objectives.

My point about the 'bitch' from "Alien" is that villains (and I understand that folks will want to discount the counter-example, but we can merely call her the chief adversary if you'd prefer) need not all become confusing chacters wrought out of different shades of grey. Some of the most memorable examples of literary antagonists have been by and large two dimensional. Look, most of the time, I'm jonesin' for someone a little edgy or interesting, but I don't think that's the only option that works in every case. In many ways, I think the 'bitch' from Alien is actually one of the most splendid villains/adversaries from any movie or book. She's completely foreign to our experience, but we understand her on some primal level. In terms of being a force of nature, something entirely inhuman, at some level most true psychopaths fall under that category. They're human, but their thoughts are foreign to us. Cujo, a beloved pet, provides a terrifying adversary. So, I agree with the idea that nuanced villains are great, but sometimes the devs can use a stereo-type villain to great ends, especially in contrast to the more subtle villains.

Oh yeah, Temple of Apshai! I never finished it. :Cant's rueful smile icon: However, I did finish the original Adventure game if I'm not mistaken. I thought it was comedy that I could play the entire game of ZORK I on the computer in Call of Duty. fun times.

Think of the Alien from 'Alien.' No shades of grey there. She wanted to eat and feed her young. You're food. Your moral compass and all of your shades of grey ideas are just chatter to her. She doesn't understand the ideas, let alone your words. I don't think every villain should be like that, but that 'bitch' was a compelling 'villain.' In that story, there were human villains also. They had motives and whatnot. Finally, while I also love the shades of grey idea, not every literary figure need have shades of grey. In fact, some folks in real life, while they still have a variety of motives and beliefs and predispositions, are basically bad at their core. There might be shades of grey in them, but they've beat most of those lighter shades to charcoal colored. Just saying we don't need to have every villain overwrought. Some of them might want nothing more than to feed you to their facesuckers.

I know Sawyer has said in the past that he liked the idea of quest/objective only experience. Will the game have kill xp on top of quest or no?

I don't just think that's cool as a one time idea, dusk, I actually think that's a great way to do the game. If your reason for going forward is by and large personal, then you have plenty of choice to help other folks for any number of reasons, and I like the idea that you'll be the minor player in someone else's troupe from time to time even if you're the main character in your own story.

I don't think shades of grey are always necessary in a great villain. I also think there's a difference between the over-arching villain and other villains such as different groups, henchmen and underlings, and potential antagonists who aren't ever really villains in the first place. In all those groups, some might be two dimensional. A stereo-typical villain can come in handy and still be extremely well written. Others might be simply bored, jaded, enthusiastic, or even compelled, which could cover the henchmen pretty well. I also think that an evil villain (not in the DnD 'I cast a spell that detects your evil aura' sort of sense) who has other qualities but the vast majority of players would consider evil. The twins from IWD2 would fall into that category. Then there could be the shades of grey sort of villain that most of you seems to prefer in this thread. I'd like to see shades of grey in the game, but I also think the ideal has become so overwrought that it's no less cliched than the same ol' bad guy who virtually screams "I am EVIL" in every dialogue exchange.

I don't see why it's an issue if the PC can do *two or three* things particularly well. Sure, I don't think he should be able to do everything well, but even in real life, where some folks can do a variety of things phenomenally well, virtually everyone can do at least a couple of things really well. I know a guy who can shoot like a nothing you've ever seen but can also breakdance like a star. Just because you can fence shouldn't mean you can't sing also. Why is it such a problem if the PC can excel at a couple different things. More important is that he can't master everything, which would be much more of an issue. EDIT: sorry, a bit slow right now, but I think my meaning is clear. I'm trying to clear up my message. Obviously, I can drink better than I can type, but I will point out that neither is a combat skill.

What question is there? You can fight like Sugar Ray Leonard and Sweet Talk to Cicero? What's to understand. You realize some folks can sweet talk but also fight. Some folks are both smart and athletic. There's nothing to understand but that we're not reduced to fighting or anything else. I think that is perfectly sensible. I doubt if it boils down to being to do every blessed thing imaginable. Hell, if you wanted to sweet talk and shoot straight, you could do that in any of the Fallout games. I don't understand why folks rail against this idea on its faces.

this is probaably my favorite update so far. The big thing is, you'll get the same xp no matter how you overcome the obstacle.

Maybe its because I'm a bit lubricated right now, but I can't see an y reason why you would be unhappy with this update. If it encourages folks to rely on non combat skills.... so whay? This is one of my favorite updat es. It shows that the design is committed to giving us ways to overcome obstacles in the way that we prefer as a player. Now, I don't think they should make every battle avoidable through non combat skills only to make key combats unavoidable. That would suck. But if you make a truly sweet talker or a super stealth character vialbe, all good!

'The Designers of Obsidz' calendar? I gotta tell you, I think they would have slim pickings of the devsI'd be interested in seeing and they'd use. On the other hand, they could include photos for a community poll to find out. lol I think the obsidian offices are located close to a Lamborghini dealership. Catch some pics of hot babes in fast cars (or fast babes in hot cars) and make a PE calendar for that.

Yeah, that's why I started this thread because I'd like something like what you suggested, which I also said in that thread. I thought the idea was worth it's own thread because it's a separate idea. lol