Amentep

Took me a bit to find it, but totally worth bringing to the discussion, I think! I think - if I understand Sawyer's position correctly - is that he doesn't consider combat xp to be "degenerate gameplay" but that combat xp as implemented in most games encourages (sometimes railroads) combat solutions - even when other solutions are available (or in addition to solving things in other ways - the "turn in quest, then kill quest giver" syndrome). It is when a game system has the unintended consequence of encouraging specific behaviors in players (rather than letting the player choose how they play within the framework that the game gives) that is the creation of degenerate gameplay. So I could see (and I've probably been more hopeful about the XP systems than most) that if the feedback ends up being negative with regard to the player experience in Beta with the XP system that there could be major adjustments if it becomes clear that the system isn't fun and can't be tweaked to be fun.

Its a good idea. In addition, to cover extreme builds, I wonder if a group of backers could co-ordinate testing some extreme builds together so that a wider group of testing can be done without everyone testing the same build) Perhaps using a thread to post which attribute will be concentrated on and with which class?

Or we could talk about Beta experiences with the XP system in PoE - that's actually on-topic AND constructive.

Kill XP vs Quest/Objective XP vs hybrid XP systems has been a topic for theoretical debate for a year now (probably the second most popular debate after Romance threads). Add in subjective qualities tied to how the IE games did it and how far the current systems have moved away from that, and that people pledged money for an IE successor game - yeah there's been a bit of controversy over the decision to go with Objective XP and a fair bit of passion (in both positive and negative senses).

I remember that post, either way I think that the xp system is just a numbers game. The only difficult thing should be to figuring out how much xp each quest, creature, action gives in order for the game pace to be fluid. Yeah I remembered it as well, which is why I've been interested in how the XP system works in practice in the beta. The theoretical discussion is fine, but I also remembered Sawyer saying a lot of his philosophy centers on how players play vs the systems themselves so that I figured the Beta would be important in terms of feedback regarding XP (much more so than the previous debates had been).

Sawyer implied early on in one of these debates it *was* something that could be changed late in development (how late is something I could only guess) -

RTwP is a given? I bet you had strong opinions about the new Torment eh? RTwP was at least as far as Project Eternity is concerned as it was stated be RTwP in the Kickstarter iteslef. That also said, the D&D rules were never on the table; to think that the rules were going to be a 1 to 1 duplication of D&D was never on the table either. I think most posters here are aware of that. I think what most posters are arguing is that there are some changes that are too far from the expectations created for them when saying that you're going to do an IE styled game.

The most important question, does it have per kill xp? Yes it does, but the ability to alter skills/equipment that comes with level up is locked until between missions.

To be fair, if it is a handicap, its one they readily accepted when they pitched the Kickstarter as a successor to the IE games.

I don't think a game should protect a particular play style. If you're playing a stealth person and flub a stealth check and beetles attack then its a valid consequence of trying to sneak around steely eyed beetles. If you're playing a diplomat and you're straying off the paths to explore - or even to do a quest yourself - then you're taking on that risk. I don't see that being a negative thing; being able to play the character of your choices shouldn't (IMO) be a free license to succeed at that style of play.

Lions are generally going to attack when they have an advantage; they're not stupid. Most predatory animals are going to attack because something triggers its kill instinct (running, obvious signs of injury that make it look like weak prey) and it'd be more likely to tackle a straggler or a scout than it would 6 people, particularly if the 6 people didn't run as it initially attacked. Obviously a sick or desperate animal is more likely to attack against high odds. A lioness with cubs is more likely to try and draw the attention away from the cubs and escape than it is to just attack - but it would attack if it couldn't draw the threat away but its also unlikely to pursue if it runs the threat off. At least that's what years of PBS nature documentaries have told me.

To be fair, the game forcing combat with hostiles that spot you is a separate issue to whether the experience point system encourages killing as the optimality solution path. One is a result of the world and narrative, and one is a result of the game system.

Honestly, I couldn't say its worth paying full price for. There are a lot of missions (probably over 30) but many are short side missions. I don't feel cheated buying it at full price (I do love brawlers and action RPGs) but even with that, I'd probably feel more satisfied had it come out at a lower price-point. If you really like hack/slash brawlers/action fantasy games with light RPG elements then it might be worth looking at if the price drops.

I'm always willing to give the developers the benefit of the doubt. And in theory a well balanced system that is fun for players can be done with objective XP or Kill XP. Theory into practice is always the tricky bit. You gain resources from combat, but combat also costs resources. The items that you receive from combat are mostly only for crafting. The item drops are usually not high quality, so that people who dislike combat (which I believe are the target audience of this game) don't whine about being deprived of good loot. If you don't like crafting (a substantial amount of players don't) then combat is completely pointless. And see for me that's just...well not a good approach to take. If I'm going with a stealthy or diplomatic path, I would want/expect the rewards I receive to make it so that I'm better at stealth or diplomacy. For me as a player, if the fighter path gets better armor/weapon drops that provide combat related bonuses - why would I care? I'm not completing it as a combatant so that loot is irrelevant to my experience. It'd be a problem (IMO) if the only way to get leather armor that provides a super stealth bonus is to kill a character the same way it'd be a problem if the only way to get my fighter's best in-game weapon is to get past a series of locked doors, traps and sticky diplomatic situations where combat would always lead to TPK. IIRC he said it was scaled within ranges, ie if you're expected to get to a point, it might be scaled to parties of the 5-7 level, but won't scale up/down if you hit there at level 3 or 8.

So I figure I'm about halfway through with Sacred 3, and I figure I should put forth some in-depth thoughts about the game. So Sacred 3 is an isometric mission based game in which you choose 4 characters and fight battles of monsters through a series of stages. This is quite the departure from the series, but I'm not against such departures (I liked Dungeon Siege 3, for example). The game play is easy to pick-up and the missions are paced well so that its relatively easy to avoid losing advancement (as the game only saves permanently between missions. There are some development skills and equipment that the player can choose to develop to compliment or benefit their play style (or compliment a team). Is it fun? The probably depends on your tolerance for action rpg-lite games (or brawler games as some call them). I can't imagine the the game would be satisfying to the die-hard Sacred 1 or 2 fan; much like Dungeon Siege 3 and the avereage DS fan, this game is too different from its predecessors to provide the same type of experience of the earlier series. Skills are less than Sacred 2, the open world exploration from 1 and 2 are gone. Instead of Sacred 1 or 2, the game reminds me the most of the Genesis game Arcus Odyssey by Wolf Team. One can debate whether going back to a 20-something year old game for inspiration (intentionally or not) was worthwhile, but I have a soft spot for Arcus Odyssey, and am probably a more forgiving action RPG & brawler player than most. Unlike most modern action RPGs loot is negligible. And while equipment and skills each have their own development trees, after finding a set that works for your play-style (which is easy to do as you can buy back money applied to develop skills) there's very little need to put points in anything but the ones you are using. So that reward of seeing your gear progress as you gain levels and advance skills (like in Diablo or Sacred) is mooted. With the radical departure from the past, I can't understand who Deep Silver thought the game was going to appeal to. The mission centric focus makes it more Diablo III like so I can almost see why they changed from open world, but I can't see Sacred 3 appealing to that crowd without the loot and progression. I doubt it'll appeal to the average Sacred fan in general as its not like that game at all. Now this isn't to say that the game doesn't do anything right; it does have its own charms. The visuals are nice. Combat is easy and mostly fun, although after awhile its obvious that the new opponents are going to fall into the same rough categories that all the previous ones did, maybe with different patters or wait times between special attacks. I don't think the floating text that some reviews have mentioned detract from the game play; as the screen centers on the PC, anything off to the side is generally not as relevant as you'll see it when it gets close enough to be important. While the previous Sacreds had sort of a unique sense of humor (heavy metal band's farewell tour of Ancaria, anyone?), the humor in Sacred 3 is very broad (puns, a villain who often uses malapropisms, several winks and nods to the player showing its not taking itself too seriously). I'm all for humor in games (there's a bit bit where the in-camp aid Aria starts talking with glee about treasure being the parties after saving the treasure from the Ashen Army only to be reminded that they're not there to loot their allies which I thought was amusing) but too often the game seems to want to keep the player at arms length from its narrative. For example - one of the conceits of the game is that the villains are using "weapon spirits" - kind of like souls of the dead heroes of the past to power their army. Through the game the player can, somehow, unlock these and add the weapon spirit to give bonus/drawbacks. The weapon spirits correspond (more or less) to the player characters from the previous game. But almost all of these are comedy characters (the dark elf is constantly making sexual innuendo, the demoness is constantly wanting violence; the dryad is a hippie, the vampiress (whose death, we are told, involves getting drunk and accidentally staking herself) makes comments as if she's still drunk). They are hard to take serious and seem to exist only so there's an excuse for verbal feedback in battle (above what Aria does as you're telepathic tactician). Some of these comedy elements so over-the-top that it becomes hard to take the game itself seriously. Note I said "somehow" above in unlocking weapon spirits. The game came with a manual that explained nothing about the game. Assuming that there would be an in-game tutorial, I've went through and picked up most of the mechanics, but some are just utter mysteries, including whether the weapon spirit unlocking is random or not. And while I'm not against day one DLC (I'll never get it unless it comes packaged with the full game at a later date, but still...) similar to the two extra missions locked away by a pay window but whoever thought it was a good idea to lock away the 5th player type was wrong, particularly when the back of the box says something like "...choose from 5 powerful heroes*" with the "*" being a disclaimer in small print that one was DLC. Yeesh. If you like isometric action games I think the title delivers some enjoyment, but even with that there are probably better choices, overall, unless you're just a big whopping fan of the genre, like I am. But for most players - particularly fans of Sacred 1 and 2 - I don't see this game offering anything in game play that you're looking for (hopefully, Unbended will deliver on that.

Heartbreak Ridge, yeah?

Absolutely, but this doesn't mean we're gonna be swapping spit in the shower. Skipping the formalities and getting straight to business, I see. Always knew you were a promancer, just didn't realize you were pro-promancer too...

The number of people who we know have access to the backer beta (from the Kickstarter numbers) is 7615. The 109 people who've voted only represent 1.4% of the backers. Ignoring the self-selction angle, my memory of statistics is that to draw conclusions to the greater population you'd want about 10% of the population voting (762 or so) at the bare minimum. You'd also want those 762 randomly sampled (ie not self selecting) to hope for any kind of validity to the results. My hope with quest/Objective XP was that it would give value to differing play styles (diplomatic, stealth) without devaluing killing things. That would be an improvement (IMO- I know many differ on this) to how the IE games did it. But I also acknowledge that if we're talking about spiritual successors to the IE games, combat in those games is required and is rewarded and (in the end) kill XP isn't inherently "bad" in and of itself. Player level almost only affects combat. Why would dialogue give XP that rewards the player by making him or her stronger in battle? Doesn't make sense. It would make sense if the player level didn't just indicate how strong a character is combat wise. It makes as much sense as XP does in general. Its an abstraction, looking for sense in it is (IMO) going down the garden path. If you're going to look at things from an overly realistic lens, what does turning over an ogre's head to a farmer give a person from an experience perspective? How to pack a severed head? How to travel so it doesn't rot? Best handling techniques? Realistically turning over an item at the conclusion of a quest like this would net you nothing but money (and a piglet). But XP is an abstraction, you get the quest reward for everything you do in the quest and it makes you better at whatever you want. Same thing as kill xp. The ideal, to me, is that the player is rewarded for the play styles available in the game; if killing is the primary (or only viable) path all XP should be primarily focused on killing or supporting killing. If other play styles are viable, the rewards should be such that the player is able to further that play style.

The number of people who we know have access to the backer beta (from the Kickstarter numbers) is 7615. The 109 people who've voted only represent 1.4% of the backers. Ignoring the self-selction angle, my memory of statistics is that to draw conclusions to the greater population you'd want about 10% of the population voting (762 or so) at the bare minimum. You'd also want those 762 randomly sampled (ie not self selecting) to hope for any kind of validity to the results. My hope with quest/Objective XP was that it would give value to differing play styles (diplomatic, stealth) without devaluing killing things. That would be an improvement (IMO- I know many differ on this) to how the IE games did it. But I also acknowledge that if we're talking about spiritual successors to the IE games, combat in those games is required and is rewarded and (in the end) kill XP isn't inherently "bad" in and of itself.

I would hope - this being the beta and all - that people will be honest about the flaws. Otherwise it won't get fixed because Obsidian will think its okay. Fully agree. 1) Nobody is saying you should not be addressing the games flaws. What we're saying is that if you expected it to be "more done", then you were fooling yourself. I'm sorry that you are now facing the realities of making a complex product, but these are the realities. 2) The idea that Obsidian won't do **** if we don't report it is complete bull. This is their job. There's things that are broken, and there are things that are subjective. Something that is broken is obviously broken - losing equipment, for example a bug existing in the demo. The subjective stuff, though, is important too, because you can have a mechanically excellent game that is no fun to play. So my reference to observations is more on the subjective stuff. The idea that people should give the beta "slack" because its a beta would mean the beta in itself is meaningless. If the systems are ultimately unfun, people should express that (mind you, constructive criticism is always best). Do I expect Obsidian to scrap everything and start over? Not necessarily but it can help Obsidian filter all of the feedback and try to make fixes to improve the experience for everyone. Otherwise, there is a risk that Obsidian will assume that people are fine with subjective areas; there's an old saying when making policies that I think is valid here - don't make a policy you can live with today that you can't live with a year from now. If Obsidian doesn't know people aren't enjoying something today, how can they anticipate how people will react to it when its still the same when the game is released? Now vitrol and all isn't really helping anything, but yeah constructive criticism seems to be as much a point of a public beta as bug squashing.

Not to be "that" guy, but a poll with around 100 votes dosnt really mean anything.... I'll be that guy, anonymous self-selecting internet polls are worthless. Your population is so limited (and again, self-selecting) that any attempt to draw the conclusion of such a poll to the larger society would carry a huge margin of error rendering it meaningless. They can be fun, but certainly not definitive.

You are being deprived of any character progression for a days worth of playing a game, as to why that is bad, well it railroads you in to doing quest to have character progression at all, ie. it removes choice from you. Everything is pretty much explained and discussed in this thread already: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67140-experience-point-system-in-the-beta-and-onwards/ How on earth is kill-XP any different from your complain. You have to slaughter anything that moves, otherwise you are denied character progression. It forces you to be murderhobo, instead of playing quests and adventures. All XP is an abstraction of some kind. You don't have to kill even if kill XP is granted; but if the game railroads you into combat then your characters have to be able to kill. This is a fine distinction but an important one, since the IE games did railroad you into combat, so combat ended up being their primary focus. There are a few different arguments going around but what I get from them is that Kill XP can encourage combat as the primary solution to problems. Objective XP does not, but it does inherit a couple of new problems: potentially giving a dis-incentive to killing (as the risk is greatest in combat but the reward is theoretically equivalent to other solutions) and in having a player play the game for a significant amount of time with potentially no reward. The ultimate factor really is implementation (IMO) since as I started, all XP is an abstraction.

I would hope - this being the beta and all - that people will be honest about the flaws. Otherwise it won't get fixed because Obsidian will think its okay.

Poorly executed Objective XP could so greatly unbalance the risk/reward in combat that the player only risks combat because there's no other way (which was, I believe, one of the complaints of the anti-Objective XP side, that if you can stealth by most enemies and still get enough experience to level up and beat the fights you have to do, then there's no real incentive to fight given the risks undertaken). My hope, of course, would be that kind of implementation of Objective XP wouldn't pan out, but I can't say that it couldn't happen anymore than killXP certainly encourages combat as the superior option (particularly in the IE games where stealth and diplomatic XP were relatively sparse).

lol, You'll have to stand in line behind my wife and mother- in-law They also use the same avatar?