Ask 'ANYTHING' on Reddit 10AM PDT / 1PM ET Today!

[Regenshire]

You mean.. "solving" an encounter by sneaking past them, for example?

This is not the same as solving an encounter by killing the monsters. Why should both ways give the same amount of xp?

To validate playstyles equally.

 

BBBAAARRRRPPPPP. Wrong answer. Why validate something with little risk and involves a win-button skill dump versus a massive battle?

 

 

Because someone doesn’t want to play the game the same way you do and if they received a lot less xp for that play style they would in essence be forced to play a pure combat build.

If a player wants to create a crack team of assassins and have them attempt to sneak past all of the guards to get to the main boss combat, they should be able to do that with feeling like they are gimping their characters by taking that approach.

 

As long as XP is awarded on a per encounter (as opposed to only for quests) basis it should works for both combat and more skill based play through, imo. For example, if you enter a hall and there is a group of monsters, getting past them (via combat, dialogue, sneaking, ect), give the party xp for accomplishing that feat.

 

I just hope they don’t make it based on only completing quests, but I don’t get that impression from what has been said, instead they seem to be implying awarding xp for encounters/exploration. This means you still get xp for doing stuff outside of quests.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Regenshire

[Tale]

So if someone's playstyle consists in killing as many peasants as possible.. it should be validated with the same amount of xp as any other playstyle?

Playstyle is an approach to challenges. Slaughtering peasants doesn't strike me as approaching the challenge of an orcish strongholds. It is faffing about.

[Loranc]

Hmm.. they really slowed down on answering questions now.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Update just came out I guess.

[Tigranes]

There's little point, for me personally, to wander off the path and just explore unless it's tied to a quest or goal. I'd just be using up resources with no XP gain.

 

This is the kind of assumption I don't get. They haven't said that there will be less sidequests, or that they don't like sidequests or exploration. They haven't said that they will not give you XP. The only information we do have is that the critical path will be slightly level-scaled, while sidequests will not be level-scaled, and that they are looking at XP given when you complete a quest or part of a quest. (Whether kill XP is given is not clarified.) In other words, everything points to a typical RPG world with plenty of sidequests with their own XP and gear rewards (e.g. the mega-dungeon).

 

I think people quickly read through a small selection of sentences and then balloon it up into huge hopes or fears about the game, sometimes not in context of what the devs were talking about, or simply imagining a single sentence to imply an ocean when they mentioned a drop of water.

[Loranc]

^ Update just came out I guess.

 

Are they done then with reddit?

[Monte Carlo]

There's little point, for me personally, to wander off the path and just explore unless it's tied to a quest or goal. I'd just be using up resources with no XP gain.

 

This is the kind of assumption I don't get. They haven't said that there will be less sidequests, or that they don't like sidequests or exploration. They haven't said that they will not give you XP. The only information we do have is that the critical path will be slightly level-scaled, while sidequests will not be level-scaled, and that they are looking at XP given when you complete a quest or part of a quest. (Whether kill XP is given is not clarified.) In other words, everything points to a typical RPG world with plenty of sidequests with their own XP and gear rewards (e.g. the mega-dungeon).

 

I think people quickly read through a small selection of sentences and then balloon it up into huge hopes or fears about the game, sometimes not in context of what the devs were talking about, or simply imagining a single sentence to imply an ocean when they mentioned a drop of water.

 

No. I am making my assumptions based on the vibe i'm getting, and about the questions they are comfortable answering versus the ones they aren't. This isn't just a single-issue fixation like spell cool-downs, this is finding out with thirty hours to go that some of the core elements of IE-style (not D&D) games are in fact completely absent.

[Valorian]

Neither requires more work. The work invested in an xp system is minuscule compared to, for example, the BIG BIG BIG city 2 and ultragigadungeon. So it's ridiculous to even mention this as an issue.

Doesn't require more work?

You think balancing an entire game is easier than creating a city or a dungeon?

Allowing kill xp shifts the balance enormously.

They could marginalize kill xp and leave quest xp as the "game changers" but then why have kill xp in the first place?

As I said, if they could (for example) make their life insanely easier by keeping it quest xp....

I would say go for it.

If it TRULY is no problem to create multiple ways to gain xp and balance that at the same at no aditional cost.. (yeah right)

Then go for that one!

 

Is this the BSN with their zots... and logic has gone out of the window? Mkay.

 

Yes, it's really not that hard to count the enemies you placed in the world and assign a proper xp value based on their level or their general challenge potential. And then design a level up xp progression table around it.

 

You have to do the same with quest xp.

[Maf]

You have to do the same with quest xp.

Now try combining them and give every way of completing the quest the same feeling of accomplishment...

Seeing where I'm going with this?

[Loranc]

We moved up 8,000 in the past 20 minutes donation wise. That's pretty amazing.

[Tigranes]

No. I am making my assumptions based on the vibe i'm getting, and about the questions they are comfortable answering versus the ones they aren't. This isn't just a single-issue fixation like spell cool-downs, this is finding out with thirty hours to go that some of the core elements of IE-style (not D&D) games are in fact completely absent.

 

And what core element of IE-style game has just been declared missing?

 

I agree if kill XP is completely removed, then that's a pretty big change, and I don't know if I like it or not until I learn more. But I don't know if that fundamentally changes the experience. BG2 in particular gave huge dollops of quest XP in conjunction with kill XP (which in many filler fights amounted to little). As far as I can see, levelling is closer to IE-style games (slower pacing) than modern RPGs (level up every 3 minutes), there's little to no level scaling, there's plenty of sidequests, etc.

[Monte Carlo]

^ ARe you telling me that this stamina mechanic and no magical healing isn't radically different from the spirit of the IE games? Really?

[Valorian]

So if someone's playstyle consists in killing as many peasants as possible.. it should be validated with the same amount of xp as any other playstyle?

Playstyle is an approach to challenges. Slaughtering peasants doesn't strike me as approaching the challenge of an orcish strongholds. It is faffing about.

 

But slaughtering peasants without guards arresting you is also a challenge, don't you think?

 

What makes you the arbiter of what's a challenge and a valid playstyle and what isn't?

 

Furthermore, shouldn't XP be based on the CHALLENGE and not on accommodating all playstyles equally?

[Valorian]

You have to do the same with quest xp.

Now try combining them and give every way of completing the quest the same feeling of accomplishment...

Seeing where I'm going with this?

 

All ways of completing a quest shouldn't be awarded with the same amount of xp.

 

You're not going anywhere.

[Loranc]

Not really sure what you guys are talking about.. I was busy posting updates and the Q&A's, so I've only been reading bits and pieces. (Think I commented on it earlier but briefly) What exactly is going on?

[Tamerlane]

A whole bunch of, "Stop playing the game wrong!" and some other stuff I can't quite follow.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Tamerlane

[Monte Carlo]

The latest update is, for me, a bit of a car crash mechanics wise.

[Maf]

All ways of completing a quest shouldn't be awarded with the same amount of xp.

And there we have our opinion.

You might state it as fact, but that doesn't make it so.

Sorry to disappoint!

 

In other news:

Anyone else felt the vibe they're going with healthy people maybe actually being the minority in the game?

[Moirnelithe]

Honestly why all the fuss? Look at the direction RPGs have been going the past years and then tell me you would really considering withdrawing your pledge because of combat xp. The RPG genre is in a world of trouble right now and the last thing it needs is bickering about mechanics. I really don't want to see Dragon Age MCMXLIII.

[BSoda]

^ ARe you telling me that this stamina mechanic and no magical healing isn't radically different from the spirit of the IE games? Really?

...why are those two points part of the "core mechanic", though ? They sound pretty trivial to me.

Edited October 15, 2012 by BSoda

[Loranc]

karathos

Are you guys looking for any other source of investment, or relying entirely on Paypal/Kickstarter? There is precedent out there for kickstarter campaigns that meet their goals, but only receive a fraction of the actual amount because of chargebacks/frivolous donations/etc.

Assuming that you receive less than the $3.2mil that it's currently at, what affect will that have on the project?

 

Obsidian_Ent[S]

Adam Brennecke: The budget entirely based on the Kickstarter/PayPal donations. Our planning takes into account of the chargeback/frivolous donations/fees/fulfillment of goods.

[Loranc]

11,926 in the past half an hour in donations, just wow.

[SqueakyCat]

There's little point, for me personally, to wander off the path and just explore unless it's tied to a quest or goal. I'd just be using up resources with no XP gain.

 

This is the kind of assumption I don't get. They haven't said that there will be less sidequests, or that they don't like sidequests or exploration. They haven't said that they will not give you XP. The only information we do have is that the critical path will be slightly level-scaled, while sidequests will not be level-scaled, and that they are looking at XP given when you complete a quest or part of a quest. (Whether kill XP is given is not clarified.) In other words, everything points to a typical RPG world with plenty of sidequests with their own XP and gear rewards (e.g. the mega-dungeon).

 

I think people quickly read through a small selection of sentences and then balloon it up into huge hopes or fears about the game, sometimes not in context of what the devs were talking about, or simply imagining a single sentence to imply an ocean when they mentioned a drop of water.

 

Who was talking about the amount of sidequests? I was referring to what J.E. Sawyer said:

 

"We plan to grant XP for exploration-based quests and objectives, so if there's something like the mega-dungeon that's focused on moving from level to level toward a goal, we will award portions of XP for achieving those goals. Most players will likely use combat to get to that point, but that doesn't need to be the only solution."

 

My point was that I like to just wander about and hopefully encounter interesting foes not necessarily tied to a quest/objective. There seems little point to do that unless it is tied to a quest/objective.

 

Since the question was directly asking about XP kills and that's the answer we got, I'm not 'reading' anything into what he said. If you interpret differently, fine. I'm sure you'll be happy with the game.

 

For what it's worth, I did not 'quickly' read anything. I've been watching and reading these forums since the beginning and feel I'm fairly well informed.

[Monte Carlo]

I'm a massive fan. I'd like to think that my concerns were viewed in the context of how supportive I am on almost everything else.

[Regenshire]

There's little point, for me personally, to wander off the path and just explore unless it's tied to a quest or goal. I'd just be using up resources with no XP gain.

 

This is the kind of assumption I don't get. They haven't said that there will be less sidequests, or that they don't like sidequests or exploration. They haven't said that they will not give you XP. The only information we do have is that the critical path will be slightly level-scaled, while sidequests will not be level-scaled, and that they are looking at XP given when you complete a quest or part of a quest. (Whether kill XP is given is not clarified.) In other words, everything points to a typical RPG world with plenty of sidequests with their own XP and gear rewards (e.g. the mega-dungeon).

 

I think people quickly read through a small selection of sentences and then balloon it up into huge hopes or fears about the game, sometimes not in context of what the devs were talking about, or simply imagining a single sentence to imply an ocean when they mentioned a drop of water.

 

Who was talking about the amount of sidequests? I was referring to what J.E. Sawyer said:

 

"We plan to grant XP for exploration-based quests and objectives, so if there's something like the mega-dungeon that's focused on moving from level to level toward a goal, we will award portions of XP for achieving those goals. Most players will likely use combat to get to that point, but that doesn't need to be the only solution."

 

My point was that I like to just wander about and hopefully encounter interesting foes not necessarily tied to a quest/objective. There seems little point to do that unless it is tied to a quest/objective.

 

Since the question was directly asking about XP kills and that's the answer we got, I'm not 'reading' anything into what he said. If you interpret differently, fine. I'm sure you'll be happy with the game.

 

For what it's worth, I did not 'quickly' read anything. I've been watching and reading these forums since the beginning and feel I'm fairly well informed.

 

I personally think objective is a pretty subjective word. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is a quest based goal given to you by an NPC, it could simply be getting to the end of a maze, exploring the zone, getting past a group of zombies, ect.

 

I agree that a system that only awards XP for quests penalizes exploration based gameplay, so I hope they make it so that quests are not the only avenue of character growth, but I also think it does not need to be linked to kill counts, and instead to accomplishments.