Update #24: Less than 30 Hours to go! Life and Death, and Audio CD Soundtrack!

[Kaldurenik]

Do attacks / abilities / dodge / block / parry and so on also take stamina from your character?

 

Anyway i hope so ^^

 

Also if it works like i hope it do... I will be very very happy... Even if it dont i will still be happy not very very but happy anyway

Edited October 15, 2012 by Kaldurenik

[Zap Rowsdower]

I like that healing magic is rare because its a simple yet unique take on fantasy magic, also having necromancy being neutral instead of instantly being baby-eating evil. Also I like the stamina/health system, that's a nice way to do it and makes it less gamey.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Josh, would you kindly comment, specifically, on:

 

* The lack of healing (or is stamina really the new hit points in this crazy brave new world?)

 

* The XP model (do I get XP for killing a wandering critter not linked to a quest)

You can heal Stamina pretty easily. Priests can do it for a lot of folks, but fighters can self-replenish and paladins can bark orders at you until you suck it up and Deal With It. Health can't be restored by magic; it requires you to rest to get it back.

 

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.

[norolim]

I have to say I honestly did not expect this to be confusing to anyone. Here's an example. Bob the Fighter has 32 Stamina and 30 Health. He gets hit by a number of attacks that subtract 25 Stamina and 5 health (leaving him with 8 Stamina and 25 Health). He is a fighter, so he chooses to use one of his abilities to regenerate Stamina. He does this and quickly bounces from 8 Stamina to 15. Unfortunately, he gets smacked again for 20 Stamina and 4 Health. He is knocked out (effectively 0 Stamina) and at 21 Health. The guys who knocked him out move to other targets.

 

Francine the priest casts restore stamina on Bob when combat is over. He recovers to full Stamina quickly, but is still at 21 Health. Depending on how the next few fights go, they will either have to retreat to rest or find a safe resting spot up ahead.

Exactly, I'm also surprised that this is puzzling for some of you, people. Looks like an excellent system.

 

I think this harkens to the issue of enemy AI, they just ignore the unconcious? Could seem pretty odd that someone who was beating the crap out of you sees you fall down and is ready to kill you, then ignores you and runs off to fight someone else.

Why would you spend time dealing with a non-threat while there are other targets still threatening you? Even in standard D&D with unconsciousness/dying rules, it's tactically a bad idea to spend time finishing off a target that's out of the fight instead of moving on to other enemies.

Very true, Rabain, I replied to your comment in the other thread, when you had similar doubts. You should've read it:

 

You are forgetting one thing: that it is a battle/skirmish scenario you are talking about...not a duel. You are trying to rationalise, so let's imagine a real skirmish. And these tend to be fast and chaotic. When you kill an opponent, do you think his friends will just watch you lean over him drill a hole in his skull with your sword? No, as I see it, during a battle a participant that incapacitates an enemy will immediately look around and try to engage a standing opponent, because a standing opponent is much more deadly than an unconscious one. Because at any moment that standing foe can deal that decisive blow that will end your life. In a real skirmish you fight for your life, not XP. This is how it works, if you want to keep it real.

[Gfted1]

So restorative magic is only available outside of combat but restorative abilities are available inside combat? I assume then that all classes will have some restorative ability inside combat?

[Monte Carlo]

it and makes it less gamey.

 

Wow. I mean. Wow.

[Ieo]

Then you're knocked out/out of the fight. It's not a whole lot different from being knocked out but not killed in D&D. When combat ends or when another character restores some of your Stamina, you're back up. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it's more work.

 

I think this harkens to the issue of enemy AI, they just ignore the unconcious? Could seem pretty odd that someone who was beating the crap out of you sees you fall down and is ready to kill you, then ignores you and runs off to fight someone else.

 

I can see at least a couple tacks to this in terms of combat AI "reasoning":

 

* Immediate threat is down, can't tell if dead--run off to help team member who's having trouble

* Immediate threat is down, can't tell if dead--another enemy is still attacking, must defend/fight back new immediate threat

 

(Basically, perhaps I wouldn't finish off anyone until after all immediate threats are down and I can check the prone post-battle.)

 

 

Edit: Wow, like eight other responses were added while I typed that. LOL

Edited October 15, 2012 by Ieo

[C2B]

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.

 

And I was wrong.

 

Anyway, how will the game award exploring then?

[Monte Carlo]

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.

 

Sorry, I don't understand the answer. Are you telling me that every single encounter in this game has an objective? What's the "degenerate" bit all about?

 

Srsly, this is a big deal to me and possibly others. The XP mechanic genuinely makes me wonder.

[jb.]

Wow. I love the direction they're taking with stamina, health and death. This actually may be the most promising news I've read in an update so far, since the initial video.

 

Upping my pledge!

[Zap Rowsdower]

it and makes it less gamey.

 

Wow. I mean. Wow.

I mean more in the sense of abusing the rest system or something similar. Less gaming of the system.

[rjshae]

I like that healing magic is rare because its a simple yet unique take on fantasy magic, also having necromancy being neutral instead of instantly being baby-eating evil. Also I like the stamina/health system, that's a nice way to do it and makes it less gamey.

I'm a little iffy about all this clamoring for making healing rare. It will have other consequences for the game that the same people may not like quite so much. I guess we'll see...

[shibby191]

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.

 

Sorry, I don't understand the answer. Are you telling me that every single encounter in this game has an objective? What's the "degenerate" bit all about?

 

Srsly, this is a big deal to me and possibly others. The XP mechanic genuinely makes me wonder.

 

I think what he's alluding to is un-fun "grinding" in a lot of games. For example in some games with encounter locations where monsters respawn and you get XP for killing each monster you could keep grinding that area and boost your levels quickly which could then lead you to be overpowered for the point in the story you're in. By keeping most XP quest based you remove the grinding aspect and keep the story moving.

[Tale]

So restorative magic is only available outside of combat but restorative abilities are available inside combat? I assume then that all classes will have some restorative ability inside combat?

What I'm interpreting.

 

Restoring stamina is available from abilities, magic, abilities, perhaps potions as well. Restoring health requires rest. Like setting up camp.

 

What's the "degenerate" bit all about?

I would be surprised if he's referring to something other than this. I've played a few games where they reward you with XP for completing a quest using skill checks. Like you talk an enemy out of a fight. But then they also reward you for killing your way through. So the ideal solution became talking them down, then stabbing them in the back. Basically, situations where the ideal solution to any scenario was to game the system for as many quest solution paths as possible because they were all separately counted.

[aVENGER]

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.

 

Awesome!

 

It sounds similar to the goal-based XP system which was used in VtM:Bloodlines. I really liked it as it gave players the freedom to resolve quests in several different ways (stealth, diplomacy, combat...) without being penalized for it.

[Zap Rowsdower]

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.

Could you there be something akin to the perks in Alpha Protocol? Because I think it was a great way of not making combat pointless in a game where only completing missions give you EXP.

[Cantousent]

I despise incidently (or whatever catchy term folks use these days) experience rewards. I hate picking the lock with a bobby pin, hacking the terminal, and finding the key all in order to get experience for doing the same damned thing. Objective oriented experience is absolutely superior.

[Dermi]

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.

 

Sorry, I don't understand the answer. Are you telling me that every single encounter in this game has an objective? What's the "degenerate" bit all about?

 

Srsly, this is a big deal to me and possibly others. The XP mechanic genuinely makes me wonder.

 

I think what he's alluding to is un-fun "grinding" in a lot of games. For example in some games with encounter locations where monsters respawn and you get XP for killing each monster you could keep grinding that area and boost your levels quickly which could then lead you to be overpowered for the point in the story you're in. By keeping most XP quest based you remove the grinding aspect and keep the story moving.

Adding to what shibby said, it may be something along Witcher games: in there you get XP for killing creatures, but it's so low compared to XP rewards for accomplished quests, that killing alone won't make you level up a bit. Pretty funny in game about professional monster hunter

[Monte Carlo]

It sounds a bit love / hate to me and I guess appeals to the story-tyme crowd.

 

I think there could be a compromise but I don't detect that it will be on the table.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Sorry, I don't understand the answer. Are you telling me that every single encounter in this game has an objective? What's the "degenerate" bit all about?

 

Srsly, this is a big deal to me and possibly others. The XP mechanic genuinely makes me wonder.

Gameplay degeneration occurs when a player engages in gameplay not because they enjoy that gameplay but because the game's mechanics put the player at a disadvantage for not taking advantage of it. Rest spamming is one example. Wholesale slaughter/genocide is another. Quests that involve a peaceful option to resolve that get turned around after completion when the player murders the saved parties is a familiar expression of this sort of degeneration. If XP is linked to quests and objectives within quests, the player has much more freedom to resolve those quests in whatever way he or she wants, whether that means talking through it, fighting, sneaking around, or using some mixture of skills/scripted environment objects to reach the goal.

[norolim]

Hmmm. I'm not sure about the XP thing, though. If for example in Baldur's Gate II I decided to kill Firkraag (and killing him wasn't associated with any quest), and I was not given any XP for that, I would be rather disappointed...I mean it's a bloody red dragon...it's extremely hard to kill him. I would guess my characters would have learned a thing or two in the process. Josh?

[Monte Carlo]

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.

 

Sorry, I don't understand the answer. Are you telling me that every single encounter in this game has an objective? What's the "degenerate" bit all about?

 

Srsly, this is a big deal to me and possibly others. The XP mechanic genuinely makes me wonder.

 

I think what he's alluding to is un-fun "grinding" in a lot of games. For example in some games with encounter locations where monsters respawn and you get XP for killing each monster you could keep grinding that area and boost your levels quickly which could then lead you to be overpowered for the point in the story you're in. By keeping most XP quest based you remove the grinding aspect and keep the story moving.

 

Here's the thing - the bit you find "un-fun" is the bit I like. Not exclusively, but it's part of the fun for me.

[Lord2]

Isn't the soundtrack included in the higher tiers... or is this a different one?

[shibby191]

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.

 

Sorry, I don't understand the answer. Are you telling me that every single encounter in this game has an objective? What's the "degenerate" bit all about?

 

Srsly, this is a big deal to me and possibly others. The XP mechanic genuinely makes me wonder.

 

I think what he's alluding to is un-fun "grinding" in a lot of games. For example in some games with encounter locations where monsters respawn and you get XP for killing each monster you could keep grinding that area and boost your levels quickly which could then lead you to be overpowered for the point in the story you're in. By keeping most XP quest based you remove the grinding aspect and keep the story moving.

Adding to what shibby said, it may be something along Witcher games: in there you get XP for killing creatures, but it's so low compared to XP rewards for accomplished quests, that killing alone won't make you level up a bit. Pretty funny in game about professional monster hunter

 

Yes. I think the Witcher 2 had a really good balance with this. Vast majority of XP was from completing quests and objectives but you would get a bit for monster killing (based on your level compared to the monster). Only time I even bothered to grind is if I was so close to the next level I could smell it I'd go off and kill a few things to eek out that last few XP. But it wasn't fun at all to just grind XP by killing as it just wasn't worth it (to me).

[Monte Carlo]

Thanks for the answers Josh, that clears a lot up. I'll be honest, at the moment it doesn't sound like my cup of tea but I'm pretty set in my ways around stuff like that.

 

For me, part of the fun of the old games was wandering around, finding cool encounters, fighting and gaining power for me to tackle the next bit of the critical path. This seems like it's a step away from that.