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

[Valorian]

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?

 

BSN sytle logic, indeed.

 

If a quest objective is to get an artifact (and in the process you can also free a prisoner captured by orcs), but you fail to free the prisoner... Why should you be awarded with the same xp as someone who managed to free the prisoner?

You both solved the quest.. in different ways with different playstyles.

[Tigranes]

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

 

They sound like a nice way to freshen things up and build on the formula without breaking it.

 

You're surely not advocating that the only true IE-successor is one that has numerical HP and resurrection spells, clerics that can heal, fireballs, green circles beneath people's feet, etc. Now, I don't want to get into the debate of what is and is not a 'core mechanic' - we went there already with Fallout, it took everyone 5 years to realise you can't really draw a list of essential elements (though NMA tried). My point is that there were certain composite effects IE games delivered that stayed with people - tactical party full-control combat with a distribution of roles, non-scaled opponents and management of scarce resources; a plethora of main and optional quests providing a range of solutions; relatively mature writing in dialogue trees; beautiful pre-rendered backgrounds; etc.

 

From that vantage point, I see the stamina mechanic as an excellent way of improving the IE mechanics while keeping in its spirit. Harder to say with limited healing, as there clearly will be ways to heal, just not in the form of Clerics Heal. Obviously, someone else can say they sound properly crap, but I think it's important to have perspective with regards to what is 'in the spirit of the IE games', what a single sentence can be extrapolated to mean, and how that effects your pledges or not.

[Ink Blot]

Random encounters will just be a giant annoyance if there's no XP award for them. Unless, of course, they're considered an objective and you're rewarded XP for overcoming it. I don't think there's an easy solution, since it's easy to just grind out battle after battle with every critter on the map and gain a ton of XP that way, and thus being overpowered from a design standpoint for some of the encounters. But on the other hand if XP aren't awarded for kills, it tends to take some of the enjoyment out of battles.

 

Having said that, I'm pretty confident that Obz will come up with a good solution to it that will be satisfying for most players.

[Loranc]

FYI update is up http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/328976

[Maf]

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.

Seeing that they're handcrafting close to everything including items and gear..

I so no reason not to explore?

So you don't get to see a number when that ogre finally goes down...

I'd rather have the +2 club of awesome instead anyway.

[Tigranes]

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.

 

Mea culpa, I believe I interpreted your comments slightly differently.

 

I can't imagine that they'd have a situation where you do sidequests to get XP, but you come across some nasty dudes and beat them down for no gain. I agree it would be rather stupid, and until further confirmation one way or another, I'd think they'd use common sense there to work out a solution.

[Valorian]

Random encounters will just be a giant annoyance if there's no XP award for them. Unless, of course, they're considered an objective and you're rewarded XP for overcoming it. I don't think there's an easy solution, since it's easy to just grind out battle after battle with every critter on the map and gain a ton of XP that way, and thus being overpowered from a design standpoint for some of the encounters. But on the other hand if XP aren't awarded for kills, it tends to take some of the enjoyment out of battles.

 

Having said that, I'm pretty confident that Obz will come up with a good solution to it that will be satisfying for most players.

 

Ideally, if it's a good game with challenging enemies it will be hard to "grind" encounter after encounter.

It certainly shouldn't be any easier than getting quest xp.

[Loranc]

ImNotAnAlien

Is the game going to be on Steam?

 

Obsidian_Ent[S]

Adam Brennecke: Yup. Steam and GOG.com.

[Moirnelithe]

Random encounters will just be a giant annoyance if there's no XP award for them. Unless, of course, they're considered an objective and you're rewarded XP for overcoming it. I don't think there's an easy solution, since it's easy to just grind out battle after battle with every critter on the map and gain a ton of XP that way, and thus being overpowered from a design standpoint for some of the encounters. But on the other hand if XP aren't awarded for kills, it tends to take some of the enjoyment out of battles.

 

Having said that, I'm pretty confident that Obz will come up with a good solution to it that will be satisfying for most players.

You could be rewarded by weapon upgrades, finding a spell scroll for your mage to learn, craft components, additional dialogue, getting a feeling for the massiveness of the world created, finding eastereggs, etc.

[Rabain]

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.

 

Personally I'd rather have a mix of both, it just feels odd to me to avoid a bunch of monsters in a dungeon, be rewarded XP for reaching some goal (invisible X on the ground?) but still have that bunch of monsters behind me somewhere who, if I go back to kill, reward me nothing? While you might start throwing in objectives like, get the magic orb, or kill the evil bossguy etc you can't really do that for every single group in the game. At some point you start getting rewarded for reaching the invisible X on the ground.

 

For example I would much rather have a system where if you have reached X by avoiding monsters, then going back and killing them rewards less XP than if you just started killing them before reaching X. After you kill them you reach X and get less XP from X.

 

You might say both systems are the same with regard to how much XP you get but one just outright feels better to me, the one where you get XP from both sources as opposed to just one.

[Tamerlane]

On linking EXP to quests reducing the importance of exploring:

 

... What?

 

I... unless I'm totally misunderstanding, this is just a complete and utter failure of imagination and memory. It works only if you define quest as strictly "clear-cut thing that person in town tells you to do". What if the only way to find some quests is by exploring? You know, like what happened all the time in the IE games?

 

It also works only if you define "reward" as "EXP", but... eh.

 

On this:

BSN sytle logic, indeed.

 

If a quest objective is to get an artifact (and in the process you can also free a prisoner captured by orcs), but you fail to free the prisoner... Why should you be awarded with the same xp as someone who managed to free the prisoner?

You both solved the quest.. in different ways with different playstyles.

WAT.

 

...

 

WAT.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Tamerlane

[Tale]

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.

Why wouldn't "interesting foes not necessarily tied to a quest" be an objective on their own? Is there some assumption that quest givers define objectives?

 

Dungeons can grant XP based on progress through dungeons. Quests on quest completion. Dragons on slaying the dragon or stealing their hoarde or whatever. Random encounters on surviving the encounter, whether you run, talk, or fight. etc. etc.

 

And the dungeon concept isn't limited to literal dungeons. Find gnolls on a mountain side? It could be just as easily tied to progress up the mountain.

[Lysen]

awshtjs

Super excited about the new game, but I've gotta know! What was in Fall-from-Grace's diary!?

 

Obsidian_Ent

Chris Avellone coyly answers:

Grace's secrets are her own, and not even I could crack that book.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Lysen

[JFSOCC]

I'm really impressed by how many questions they've answered, even from latecomers. That is most unusual, especially since it can be a bit of a chore to go through the avalanche of questions coming down on them. I'm especially impressed with Chris Avellone, who goes out of his way to answer all the questions he can.

[SqueakyCat]

This was just said in the announcement thread by J. E. Sawyer:

 

"Tim and I would rather not give XP for general killin' because it leads to a lot of weird/degenerate scenarios, but I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal."

 

Is that explicit enough for everyone?

 

No XP for killing.

 

I am very sad and need to re-evaluate.

[Valorian]

On linking EXP to quests reducing the importance of exploring:

 

... What?

 

I... unless I'm totally misunderstanding, this is just a complete and utter failure of imagination and memory. It works only if you define quest as strictly "clear-cut thing that person in town tells you to do". What if the only way to find some quests is by exploring? You know, like what happened all the time in the IE games?

 

It also works only if you define "reward" as "EXP", but... eh.

 

On this:

BSN sytle logic, indeed.

 

If a quest objective is to get an artifact (and in the process you can also free a prisoner captured by orcs), but you fail to free the prisoner... Why should you be awarded with the same xp as someone who managed to free the prisoner?

You both solved the quest.. in different ways with different playstyles.

WAT.

 

...

 

WAT.

 

Oh sorry to upset you, divine dungeon master of "it's all in my head I don't need xp", but I do want xp for accomplishments as it represents the character's growth.

[Monte Carlo]

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.

Why wouldn't "interesting foes not necessarily tied to a quest" be an objective on their own? Is there some assumption that quest givers define objectives?

 

Dungeons can grant XP based on progress through dungeons. Quests on quest completion. Dragons on slaying the dragon or stealing their hoarde or whatever. Random encounters on surviving the encounter, whether you run, talk, or fight. etc. etc.

 

And the dungeon concept isn't limited to literal dungeons. Find gnolls on a mountain side? It could be just as easily tied to progress up the mountain.

 

So take a really simple, easy-to-understand mechanic and replace it with a more complicated one?

 

Man, I want to take a fighter, a cleric, a thief and a magic user into a dungeon, kill monsters and earn XP and loot. A nice story and NPC banter on the top.

 

Basically I want a steak and I'm being offered bizarre sushi with some sort of strange-tasting goo on top.

[Valorian]

This was just said in the announcement thread by J. E. Sawyer:

 

"Tim and I would rather not give XP for general killin' because it leads to a lot of weird/degenerate scenarios, but I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal."

 

Is that explicit enough for everyone?

 

No XP for killing.

 

I am very sad and need to re-evaluate.

 

Yeah and getting xp for "objectives" only doesn't lead to degenerate scenarios of ignoring everything but the objective....

 

Why did I even bother thinking they can do better, considering their previous rulesets. :/

[Tamerlane]

On linking EXP to quests reducing the importance of exploring:

 

... What?

 

I... unless I'm totally misunderstanding, this is just a complete and utter failure of imagination and memory. It works only if you define quest as strictly "clear-cut thing that person in town tells you to do". What if the only way to find some quests is by exploring? You know, like what happened all the time in the IE games?

 

It also works only if you define "reward" as "EXP", but... eh.

 

On this:

BSN sytle logic, indeed.

 

If a quest objective is to get an artifact (and in the process you can also free a prisoner captured by orcs), but you fail to free the prisoner... Why should you be awarded with the same xp as someone who managed to free the prisoner?

You both solved the quest.. in different ways with different playstyles.

WAT.

 

...

 

WAT.

 

Oh sorry to upset you, divine dungeon master of "it's all in my head I don't need xp", but I do want xp for accomplishments as it represents the character's growth.

If you're referring to the "there are rewards other than EXP", I meant things like items, abilities, companions, the +1 wisdom you get from talking to a random stranger in a random bar in an unimportant part of town.

 

If not, I shall repeat my earlier WAT.

[Maf]

They stated this will be more akin to BG/PST.

Just like IWD was it's dungeon crawler counterpart, they're hoping to be able to do IWD3 in the future.

Which would be more what you'd like (and less what I'd like, honestly).

They can't make everyone happy but I'm sure there's at least some middleground!

Just like how I liked BG/PST more than IWD, but enjoyed IWD just the same.

[LadyCrimson]

I guess I don't need XP for every rat or bandit I take down, as long as the general notion of character progression is there. Exploration for me is wanting to see what's there, not whether I get tons of XP from killing things I might encounter along the way. XP-per-kill is the common way to do things (in a lot of games...) and I wouldn't mind seeing what Obsidian can do with a different type of XP system.

[Amentep]

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

 

What is the spirit that it's violating? Not meaning this accusatorially, but I don't see the stamina or healing things as issues.

 

Because to me the spirit of the IE games has nothing to do with setting, lore or game mechanics (particularly since they didn't all share the same setting, lore or game mechanics).

 

"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.

 

My thought is that they'd do this by triggering some sort of goal if you explore and find something interesting; like if you wandered and found the sculptor in BG1 who was part of the stolen jewels quest and triggered that quest that way. Or stumbled upon some bandits waylaying a caravan and you could help either side, sneak past it or defeat the bandits and take the caravans stuff.

 

But I might be wrong - just how I took it on first brush.

[JFSOCC]

I'm happy. I think there were so terrible problems with xp for killing enemies, such as it not being a smart option to use stealth or social options, because it would yield less reward.

By making it based on the end-result (goal achievement) they've given the player free choice on how they will deal with their problems without being penalized for choosing one over the other. Players can keep to the playstyle they prefer this way.

[Valorian]

On linking EXP to quests reducing the importance of exploring:

 

... What?

 

I... unless I'm totally misunderstanding, this is just a complete and utter failure of imagination and memory. It works only if you define quest as strictly "clear-cut thing that person in town tells you to do". What if the only way to find some quests is by exploring? You know, like what happened all the time in the IE games?

 

It also works only if you define "reward" as "EXP", but... eh.

 

On this:

BSN sytle logic, indeed.

 

If a quest objective is to get an artifact (and in the process you can also free a prisoner captured by orcs), but you fail to free the prisoner... Why should you be awarded with the same xp as someone who managed to free the prisoner?

You both solved the quest.. in different ways with different playstyles.

WAT.

 

...

 

WAT.

 

Oh sorry to upset you, divine dungeon master of "it's all in my head I don't need xp", but I do want xp for accomplishments as it represents the character's growth.

If you're referring to the "there are rewards other than EXP", I meant things like items, abilities, companions, the +1 wisdom you get from talking to a random stranger in a random bar in an unimportant part of town.

 

If not, I shall repeat my earlier WAT.

 

And why would that eliminate getting experience for kills? Killing things makes you better at combat, shocking right?, and when you level up you can advance your combat focused skills mainly... But you don't get to advance your combat skills by killing things, you get only quest xp and then advance your combat skills - for killing things. Makes perfect sense.

 

WAAAT.

[Tamerlane]

Have they stated that non-combat skills will not be related to levelling up?

 

Because THAT would be a wat.png right there.