Why I'm not entirely happy with Update #7.

[Monte Carlo]

It's fair.

 

Excuse me? It's a single-player game.

[alanschu]

How do you know they aren't using XP rewards each time you use a skill? That would also result in equal gains for combat or non combat skills.

 

How do you weight when someone uses soemthing passive, like stealth abilities, versus giving xp each time a combat action is taken. Furthermore, does this not still overly reward combat? Heck, it'd actually reward people being all super sneaky to get that xp, and then rewarding them moreso to go back and stab people. People are no longer encouraged to simply sneak (or simply attack) but to do weird metagame activities instead.

[Monte Carlo]

And I'm largely content with the answers I've heard on the XP question. I'm no longer particularly worried about it.

 

The combat/non-combat divide was my greater concern.

 

what answers have we had? I'd like to see a green name on the left hand side of the post before I'm completely happy.

[alanschu]

It's fair.

 

Excuse me? It's a single-player game.

 

 

Yes, and I'm sure you've never seen people say "OMG my particular playthrough style artificially weakens my character." Hell, you're already doing it yourself when you express concern over what's the point of tough combat encounters so that people can be happy that their 95% proficiency in basket weaving is useful.

 

I'll agree that class mechanic balance is a bit less of an issue than in a multiplayer game, but if two characters pick the exact same race/class, if the combat heavy class always ends up more powerful than the designers have undermined their goals of allowing valid non-combat style playthrough. Sorry if you don't like it, but they've pretty much stated that their goal is to minimize the reliance on combat.

 

During bloodlines development, there was an interview where one dev (maybe even Cain?) stated that they found it absurd to reward players for metagaming by allowing a stealthy playthrough, but additionally rewarding the players for still going back and killing the guards that would have provided the obstacle for the more direct, combatitive resolution. In this case, it actually biases against the combatitive playthrough since they wouldn't try to sneak past.

[Gurkog]

If there are tough wandering monsters, they aren't just put there for no particular reason.

They should be. If it's to be a credible world, some things should simply exist because they do, and not be part of some pre-written narrative.

 

I'm talking specifically from a game design perspective. If they are there, then they provide a challenge for some reason. Even if that challenge is simply killing said creatures. The same reason you'll have chests to unlock and caves to explore.

 

And so the circle turns. Why not just give XP in the first place then?

 

The xp is given for reaching an objective. You can kill stuff, talk your way by, sneak, use wilderness skills to find a secret path, etc... whichever you pick you get the same xp for passing them. I do not see what is so bad about that.

[Tuco Benedicto]

Completely agree with Sylvius. I don't want to be completely constrained by a critical path. I want to have the option to explore and Do Stuff. I leave rigid, critical path-type stuff to Bioware.

 

If Obz could elaborate on how XP will be handled I'll be grateful.

While i can't tell you how much freedom they are going to leave to the player (for obvious reasons) I should point that the exp system doesn't have nothing to do with how forced down to a path a player is going to be.

 

Once again, take Bloodlines as a reference.

 

It's not that anyone is preventing people from wandering in a forest killing stuff. I'ts merely about not giving exp reward for that. Which doesn't mean that there can't be rewards for special monsters (maybe because they are tied to a quest, maybe because you can carve out of their body some kind of trophy that you can trade for some reward).

Also, exp isn't the only kind of reward.

For instance Killing a Giant Pantherbear (...yeah, I made that up) could simply give you access to its lair where you can loot some awesome item from a corpse.

Or its pelt could be skinned/looted and used to craft a valuable armor.

OR someone put a bounty on that beast somewhere and sooner or later you are going to get your exp reward anyway, just not for the kill.

And so on.

There are no issues or limitations that a good design can't dismiss.

[Monte Carlo]

^ I'll keep saying it, but they referenced games like Icewind Dale, not me. How does this decision fit into that?

[IcyDeadPeople]

How do you know they aren't using XP rewards each time you use a skill? That would also result in equal gains for combat or non combat skills.

 

How do you weight when someone uses soemthing passive, like stealth abilities, versus giving xp each time a combat action is taken. Furthermore, does this not still overly reward combat? Heck, it'd actually reward people being all super sneaky to get that xp, and then rewarding them moreso to go back and stab people. People are no longer encouraged to simply sneak (or simply attack) but to do weird metagame activities instead.

 

Considering the scope and depth of this game, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if there turn out to be a few ways for people to exploit or game the system who want to level up quickly.

 

However, these guys have a lot of experience with different game systems and I'm sure they can do a solid job of iterating on the game and balancing the character progression.

 

XP rewards for completing quests would seem to require the game to be much more linear in nature compared to what we've heard so far. XP for killing enemies would seem to leave out the non-combat skills.

 

The only other alternative I'm aware of would be XP rewarded for using skills, or possibly a sort of combination where XP is gained from using non-combat skills or killing enemies (combat skills). That said, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Obsidian has come up with some entirely new kind of XP / progression mechanic based on souls or something similar.

Edited September 23, 2012 by IcyDeadPeople

[Gurkog]

^ I'll keep saying it, but they referenced games like Icewind Dale, not me. How does this decision fit into that?

 

They said they will add at least one dungeon like IWD, not that the entire game will be a dungeon crawl.

[Stun]

I'd love to see how this would have worked in Icewind Dale.

LOL! It would suck monkey balls in Icewind dale, for a slew of obvious reasons, not the least of which being that if you could talk your way out of combat, the game would end up being like 30 minutes long. And there'd only be about 3 non-combat skills to put points in 1) lock picking, 2)trap disarming, 3) talking

 

 

This system is reminiscent of a game like Fallout, not a classic Fantasy CRPG and especially not a dungeon crawler.

The system would work great in a game like Planescape Torment.

[Darth Trethon]

 

Sure it does. My question has to do with how the events that aren't part of larger quests fit into the XP system. If everything I can do is either part of a larger quest or has its own associated XP value, that would be a solution, yes. Or they might decide that there is little enough in the game that isn't associate with a larger quest that the extra stuff is its own reward - killing a guard you don't need to kill (or stealing from him) gets you loot but not XP, for example.

 

Update #7 is the first one I've seen so far that leaves large enough holes behind wherein I immediately saw potential risks. Everything else that's been announced has ranged from good to incredible.

 

Anything can be a goal, even self imposed goals....such as not dying in the fight you just picked or going to the bottom of that unmarked dungeon. I seriously think you are blowing this way out of proportion....I'm pretty sure you'll get xp for nearly every action that requires some kind of skill. Beyond that you have GOT to stop saying we only get xp for quests...that is NOT what the update says,

[alanschu]

^ I'll keep saying it, but they referenced games like Icewind Dale, not me. How does this decision fit into that?

 

Because it's just inspired by. I think anyone hoping for a complete carbon copy is going to come away disappointed for anything. It assumes that not only do the devs putting forth a kickstarter have a game idea they're really passionate to work on, it also assumes that the devs are only passionate about doing nothing differently than they had in the past.

[kenup]

Even in real life, you can be good at more than one thing. Especially if one has to do with fitness(weapon skills ingame) and the other with, say physics or programming(mental skills).

But you could be even better at fitness if you never took the time away from physical training to go learn physics.

 

There are some teenaged girls somewhere who are really good at calculus. There are also some teenaged girls who are Olympic gymnasts. I'm fairly confident that those two groups don't overlap; the gymnasts don't have time to excel at calculus.

You can only get so far. And over exerting yourself, will have negative effects. Training physically for too many hours per day, every day, will not help. Dividing that time between keeping yourself fit and your college studies for example will be good for both mind and body.

 

Teen years are not the last years in which you can improve yourself. And what someone wishes to showcase themselves as, or work as, doesn't take away other skills/talents. And I like how you ignored the rest of my post about still getting faster at the top or better at something, if you solely focus on that. But a police man, doesn't have to forget how to write poetry(non-combat) as his hobby in order to learn to shoot straight(combat).

[Chronos]

Looting precious stuff and powerful artifacts/weapons is a more than adequate as a reward for combat.

Having better equipment and weapons already means being stronger in battle.

[Krios]

The devs. are just outlining their thoughts on paper. I would not be surprised a lot of what they have announced, changes in the beta due to game engine limitations, time constraints, etc. They have left out the actual specifics of how they intend to do this allocation of XP/reward for non-combat solutions/actions.

[Nakia]

I am very happy with the info in Update 7. I prefer getting XP for completing quests. I have never played any 4E D&D and probably never will. Not getting XP for killing things doesn't mean you will not be able to increase you skill ability as you the skill. Sword, magic, ranged.

 

True, you can't please everyone but I am pleased.

[Monte Carlo]

^ I'll keep saying it, but they referenced games like Icewind Dale, not me. How does this decision fit into that?

 

They said they will add at least one dungeon like IWD, not that the entire game will be a dungeon crawl.

 

And how will XP work in that bit? We need a dev to give us a clue. I don't want every little action to be a scripted objective.

[Anaeme]

Update 7 is great...sylvius the mad does not have a point here..

 

 

He is basically saying Skill, Attribute points and feats should all be lumped...no thanks!

[dan107]

Even in real life, you can be good at more than one thing. Especially if one has to do with fitness(weapon skills ingame) and the other with, say physics or programming(mental skills).

But you could be even better at fitness if you never took the time away from physical training to go learn physics.

 

There are some teenaged girls somewhere who are really good at calculus. There are also some teenaged girls who are Olympic gymnasts. I'm fairly confident that those two groups don't overlap; the gymnasts don't have time to excel at calculus.

 

There are indeed individuals who overlap having a high intelligence with tremendous physical ability. Look at college athletes for instance. Most of them aren't terribly bright of course, but there are always a few that get straight As at top Ivy League schools while being tremendous athletes and going on to play professional sports.

 

There are not that many people out there who are extremely fit and talented physically, and also not that many people who are highly intelligent, therefore people who combine both are rare indeed, but they do exist. And since we'll be playing exceptional heroes, bolstered by the concept of a rare "strong soul" there is nothing wrong with having a character that's a beast in combat, but also highly persuasive and intelligent.

 

More importantly, realism aside, having a versatile character gives you more role-playing options as a player. I could never understand this desire to have a character that forces you to handle every situation the same way because of you're completely hamstrung by ability choices you made 40 hours ago. I want to be able to approach every decision based on what makes sense in any given circumstance. If someone's nice to me, I want to be charming to them. If someone's rude to me, I want to intimidate them. If someone attacks me, I want to be able to kill them. Making situationally appropriate decisions -- that's true role-playing, not a creating cardboard cutout character that does the same thing every time.

[Anaeme]

Update 7 raises two concerns.

 

First, I am not immediately comfortable with the idea that combat and non-combat skills will be purchased separately. I like having to choose between magic missile and herbalism. I like being able to focus on one thing and get REALLY good at that thing, paying for that by lacking versatility, and I like being forced not to be especially good at things if I choose to have versatility. Versatility has value. Therefore, versatility should have a cost.

 

Maybe the game world will be designed such that this will still work, but at first glance don't like the idea that I can make an expert in non-combat solutions who is also an expert in combat solution.

 

 

Second, not penalising people for avoiding combat is good, but Tim specifically referred to getting XP for quests as opposed to getting XP for killing things. How does that work when challenges are overcome without those challenges being tied to a quest? Is that effort wasted? In some cases, perhaps it should be wasted: grinding low-level monsters probably shouldn't grant XP is there's no reason for killing them. But if I ignore the quests available to me and start stealing from people, does that mean I won't earn XP for that stealing?

 

I can imagine world designs where that would work, but I can imagine many more where it wouldn't.

 

I'm not saying these features will make the game worse. I'm saying they worry me.

 

I was happy to see the update, and I think this one has been my favorite, simply because of the focus on making the non-combat skills fun.

 

However, I understand and share your concern about using separate skill points or perks for combat vs. non-combat skills. That's a big part of the fun of leveling up for me, when there are number of different awesome options to choose from and I have to make a tough decision.

 

If we had a single pool of perk points for both, it would seem to be much more fun, or at least the replay value would be higher, as I'd be able to play very different character builds multiple times, focusing on any of a number of different skills, perhaps my first character might focus on piercing weapons and my second character might focus more on brewing poisons, for example.

 

I have never seen Sylvius be so wrong on an issue as this one...

[Darth Trethon]

^ I'll keep saying it, but they referenced games like Icewind Dale, not me. How does this decision fit into that?

 

They said they will add at least one dungeon like IWD, not that the entire game will be a dungeon crawl.

 

And how will XP work in that bit? We need a dev to give us a clue. I don't want every little action to be a scripted objective.

lol I seriously doubt they will annotate everything in your journal. That would be a waste of their development time and resources to implement....

 

killed bandit

unlocked door

stealth kill

 

No, but I am relatively sure you will get xp from each action that requires some kind of skill(including combat). I am fairly sure it will work like Fallout New Vegas where you don't get journal entries but you get xp for every action that takes skill from persuades to lockpicking and hacking and so on.

[IcyDeadPeople]

Update 7 is great...sylvius the mad does not have a point here..

 

 

He is basically saying Skill, Attribute points and feats should all be lumped...no thanks!

 

I don't know about Attributes, but if you have a single pool of perk points at each level up from which to choose a perk from among all your combat and non-combat skills, it would result in a tougher decision at level up, which in my view is more fun than a "no-brainer" choice as I believe J.E. Sawyer called it in a recent post.

 

Certainly it's still possible for there to be lots of fun options to choose from, and I'm sure Obsidian will work hard to avoid any "no-brainer" progression choices, even with the combat and non-combat skills split; however, if they were combined into one pool, it would seem to result in a more difficult choice.

Edited September 23, 2012 by IcyDeadPeople

[Stun]

Update 7 is great...sylvius the mad does not have a point here..

 

 

He is basically saying Skill, Attribute points and feats should all be lumped...no thanks!

No, he's not saying that. Not exactly, at least.

 

He's focussing on just lumping the Skills together (combat and non) and arguing that they shouldn't be seperate from one another when it comes time to dole out the level up points for them. That is to say, he prefers a system where, when you level up, you get, say, one point to spend, and you have to decide whether to spend it on combat skill, or a non combat skill. Thus forcing you to think hard and make tough choices with your build.

 

I see his argument but personally don't agree with it. Both the NWN games, as well as Temple of Elemental Evil seperated the combat and non combat skills and gave you points to spend in both columns at the same time, and it worked fine. Didn't hamper roleplaying any build in the slightest way, and it still managed to eek out a few head scratching "where whould I spend this point?" moments. For me at least.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Stun

[alanschu]

And how will XP work in that bit? We need a dev to give us a clue. I don't want every little action to be a scripted objective.

 

Why not? You don't even seem sure what that even means.

 

I mean, if you want to split hairs awarding XP after killing a creature is effectively a scripted event. There are likely going to be event handlers set up for the creatures and there's probably going to be some sort of OnKilled() function that determines whether or not XP is awarded.

[Monte Carlo]

Hey, like I give a toss if you want to use your professional knowledge as a stick to beat me with. You get my drift, and you also know that I haven't got a clue what OnKilled() means.