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

[norolim]

I would definitely every single time stick a sword in his head if I had the opportunity.

Than 1) as I said you wouldn't last long, and 2) I wouldn't want you as a companion-in-arms; I would kill you myself if I saw you trying to sticik your sword in a fallen enemy's skull (esp. taht it's not as easy as you think it is) instead of helping me with that huge ogre.

 

BTW, how are you planning to check if the poor fellow is dead? Will you take his pulse? No? Cut his head to make sure? Good luck with that. That will take you half a minute...or actually would, 'cause you'll be dead well before you finish.

[Infinitron]

The thing here is that this is so much more complex than simply saying "I want to get xp for killing monsters". That in itself is meaningless unless the game itself is structured in such a way that it really rewards the kind of exploration and grinding experience that Monte wants.

 

The game that Obsidian want to make doesn't sound like it will provide that kind of structure, even if it DOES end up handing out experience rewards for monster-slaying. So what would be the point of it?

Edited October 15, 2012 by Infinitron

[Jaesun]

Quest based XP is the greatest bit of incline I have heard about this project so far this month. It's what made Bloodlines so amazingly awesome. Don't change it Sawyer, stick to your guns.

 

This.

[Ieo]

It's about design and reward. I like random stuff. Exploring. Wandering monsters. I like to wander on and off the critical path.

How does not getting 5XP for every killed kobold prevent you from doing any of this?

 

It doesn't... Which does beg the question of exactly what "rewards" different people are getting from the world-exploration-kills bit.

 

And then some people insist that the removal of xp doesn't make sense from a single-player standpoint, like "who cares if someone gets a lot more mob kill xp to level?" which could be a valid argument. But here's another problem---balancing difficulty levels.

 

Tuning the difficulty levels requires more control over in-game balance with respect to a bell curve of playstyles. If, say, on default mode, killing all the enemies for a given quest nets 25% more than using noncombat options for objective completion, eventually the game difficulty by level will drop to 'easy'. Same applies upwards. Does the designer opt to balance against a 50% required mob kill for xp, or what? Would the split xp gain between combat/noncombat eventually defeat some of the purpose of difficulty levels?

 

Now, what I'm seeing in this thread is very similar to the whole cooldown hysteria--I highly doubt this would be implemented in base form as it is, in a vacuum. Obsidian knows that people like the rare big monster threat in classic RPGs, for example; even if xp isn't rewarded, there are other ways to make the difficult combat more "worthwhile" as well (especially considering we're going to have how many epic backer-created things in the game). Overall, there's definitely room for additional mechanisms and tuning.

[norolim]

The faintly patronising tone of the hipsters on this thread amuses me.

Actually, you've managed to offend prety much everyone on this forum including the devs in your trollish rage, So, why don't you go for a walk, now. Please. I also think there sould be at least some XP for killing monsters, but I don't feel entitled to fling insults at everyone because of that.

Edited October 15, 2012 by norolim

[MaximKat]

This thread has 177 members currently viewing out of 64,623 pledging.

 

Hardly an adequate sampling.

Seeing as only 4 people out of those 177 are against the idea, we can say with 99% confidence level that less than 10% in the whole "population" share their opinion. Math FTW. And that's assuming that the sample is uniform, which it's usually not, in favor of those unhappy with something, as we all know. Edited October 15, 2012 by MaximKat

[Waywocket]

This thread is depressing. Nothing but personal attacks and hate the moment anyone wants to have a real discussion.

 

I'm totally bummed now because it's impossible to have a conversation here .

[Ignatius]

I love the shift toward goal orientated experience gains. I've never cared much about the experience I've gotten from killing monsters anyway, it's the big accomplishments that really make you feel good anyway. Like saving Tradesmeet. Soooo much EXP!!!

 

This isn't all that big a change. And I don't think people are going to miss generic monster kill EXP all that much. Especially when you need 29000 exp to reach the next level and killing that Gnoll gives you... 100 EXP.

 

For the health system... whatever does away with cheesy camping mechanics I whole-hardheartedly approve of. So this stamina/health system is just great.

 

Yeah, um 2 cents.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Ignatius

[lolaldanee]

I love the stamina concept! this is making a lot of sense

regarding xp: there are 2 games that only give you xp for doing certain things or reaching a point in a level

one is bloodlines the other dark messiah of might and magic

in both games this system workes very very well

i'm all for it

(thinking of it: both games are skill based rather than level based also, that felt great too *hint hint*)

Edited October 15, 2012 by lolaldanee

[Zoraptor]

The faintly patronising tone of the hipsters on this thread amuses me.

Monte, dude. You compared people who don't agree with you to Maoists, implied that people who don't agree with you only want snuggly wuggly bunny filled cuddle times and are busy filling your past decades' wardrobe with surplus cereal grain byproduct. That's being just a tad patronising yourself.

 

System Shock 2, Deus Ex and Bloodlines all say that goal based systems work well. Looks far more that you are about justifying your own preferences as being Objective Truth and Basic Freedoms when actually they're just your preferences, and come across rather notably as, well, needing someone patting you on the back and giving you validation. You can still play however you like, you just may not always have the Great Hand of the XP giving you the thumbs up every time you put some poor kobold/ gnoll to fire and sword, and may get similar rewards if you engage some local rats in the wishy washy anarcho-socialist art of diplomacy rather than just blithely annhilate them.

 

28 replies added since I started, hoho.

[rjshae]

This thread is depressing. Nothing but personal attacks and hate the moment anyone wants to have a real discussion.

 

I'm totally bummed now because it's impossible to have a conversation here .

Yep. It'd be good if this discussion were held in a different thread.

[Michael_Galt]

I like most everything I read there, but it looks like I'll have to play on "expert", as I very much dislike "unconsciousness 'death'".

[Gyor]

So far, I like some of the concepts about death and dying. But I guess it is always a little complicated to do it right...I mean, in recent games it is only game over when the whole party is down, then it is restart/quickload. Alright, now with party-members having a chance to actually die "for real" and no way to resurrect them it at least sounds more realistic and daring...

 

But I'll be the voice of honesty here: If one of my party-members falls and death is acertain for her/him, it is a quickload for me anyway. It even was with D&D-resurrections...never used those spells or temples anyway, rather played the battle once more to do it "right" this time...

 

So, I appreciate the concept of death not being a minor setback like in D&D, as death should be more than just a nuisance. And like that death always felt in the D&D-settings..at least for me. When every little priest can cast such a spell I always wondered why anyone was even afraid of getting killed...

 

Also, I truly hope that this also means the gods won't run around "in person" in the world of PE...I never liked that aspect in Forgotten Realms and stuff...so many gods...it sometimes felt more like "Discworld"

 

Did you read the lore on the God of Light and that farmer who became an avatar of that God and ended up blown up by the Godhammer bomb?

 

As for why anyone would fear getting sick when priests can just heal them, its called bankrupacy, something millions of poor Americans have experienced.

 

I like this new God, he's more then just God of Death, he/she is more complicated, God of Life and Death, doors and cycles with the latter two domains being attached as methors for the reincarnation cycle.

 

Also like the whole necromancy angle, I can see a Paladin devoted to protecting the science of necromancy Its all very grey, instead of evilness.

 

I get why thier is no resurrection spell, but why no reincarnation spell?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cantousent]

Hey, why don't folks lay off Monte for a bit. Heaven knows I don't want to end up in the middle of a shooting match, but he's just defending his favored style of play, which is exactly why these boards are here. Argue against his damned points and not his person.

 

I just hope that Sawyer follows what he's been saying for years now, that xp should be doled out by objective.

[Solothores]

Wasn't the underlying idea of this kickstarter project that Obsidian finally can realise their vision of an RPG without having interference by people that think they need to tell them what they ought to do?

[Yarro]

Well, I wasn't sure if I should raise my pledge, but i wanted the Stronghold and I wanted the troll!!

 

With the newest update with the stamina/health system, I'm even more happy that I went (significantly!) up!

 

I trust the devs to make the best game they can squeeze out of our money. They have proven it in the past and will prove it again!

 

And for all "that's so no old school" whiners: it should be a new game with the same "old" feeling, but not the same ideas (they should just have redone BG if so). I like the stamina/health ideas much better, than the old "the one with most health potions wins" style.

 

Not everything that's "old school" is good, let the devs make a fresh and unique experience out of this!

 

Greets

[Tamerlane]

I like most everything I read there, but it looks like I'll have to play on "expert", as I very much dislike "unconsciousness 'death'".

Permadeath is a toggle for lower difficulty levels.

[cyberarmy]

Quest based XP is the greatest bit of incline I have heard about this project so far this month. It's what made Bloodlines so amazingly awesome. Don't change it Sawyer, stick to your guns.

 

This.

 

 

This also!

 

Stamina and health system is really nice too, similar to Darklands. This project was great at the begining and it keeps getting better Keep up the good work !

 

Also dat hot dwarf <3

[Valorian]

Codex echo chamber.

 

The sad thing about the Codex is that they have a kindergarten level cognitive capacity and are fast at registering new accounts.

If Sawyer said he'll feed them with a plagued chicken, they'd be all extatic.

 

It's all about who said something, and not the actual content of what's being said (unless it's something that Bioware included in their games in a way or the other in the past ).

[Huinehtar]

I really think that objective-based system is equal for all gamers. Doing a quest with non fighting skills or fighting skills gives the same amount of XP. In several RPGs, with a XP/Kill system, the only help to non fighting characters is to reward them with XP relative to their non fighting skills (for stealing, good use of diplomacy, etc...)

But as some said, killing a monster can give no XP without any goal, but included in a objective, rogues or fighters can be rewarded with XP. And they even can have a trophy if they want!

[Althernai]

In this example, it would be trivial to flag those bandits as no longer worth XP once you've persuaded them not to attack.

But this is exactly what they are doing -- except of course it is applied on a game-wide scale and the underlying programming might be a bit different. If you are able to resolve an encounter without violence, you get the XP once and don't get it twice for killing. I am sure there will be story-less encounters that can only be resolved through violence (e.g. a mindless animal or automaton or whatever) and in that case, you are back to the XP for killing system.

 

I remember there was a great Neverwinter Nights module (called Tales of Arterra, I think) which implemented this system and it worked beautifully. Combat becomes much more meaningful when you don't need to habitually slaughter everything that stands in your way simply to get the levels necessary to beat the game. I always wondered why it was not more widely used and I'm very glad that Project Eternity will have this element.

[mstark]

With respect, how players behave in a computer game is a matter for them.

 

I've played a game with a paladin where I stole nothing in-game. My choice.

 

I've played a game where I've Chaotically-Neutralled and meta-gamed everything. My choice.

It's still the responsibility of designers to set up mechanics that don't screw with the player's desires. BTW, this sort of XP bias can work in ANY direction, not just combat. In Deus Ex: Human Revolution, you earned markedly less XP from mission to mission if you didn't stop to hack literally anything you came across -- even terminals for which you already had the password!

 

For the world monsters per exploration--

 

There could be different enemy types granting different xp as well. "Epic" class enemy wouldn't be linked to any quest, for example, but give good xp for the challenge. "Common" enemies could give minimal world-kill xp. "Trivial" creatures, even NPCs, would give no xp and must be linked to quests. Not sure how that would work out in the UI, though, in terms of identification--or perhaps it's something discovered only after the fact.

This is exactly what I would like to see in this game . It solves the problem the developers are worried about, us abusing the system, but keeps the thrill of fighting badass monsters and making it rewarding (without artificially tying them to "quests").

 

It follows the model of "don't break what isn't broken" while addressing the flaw of the system

Edited October 15, 2012 by mstark

[grotbag]

It's about design and reward. I like random stuff. Exploring. Wandering monsters. I like to wander on and off the critical path. I like gaining power at different rates of progression (you call it grinding, I call it enjoying the game's combat mechanics).

 

Some players want perma-story tyme, but I don't. It's an XP system I think works and I'm comfortable with, it's simple and fairly elegant and i'm a small 'c' conservative when it comes to these things.

 

I am also a passionate advocate of how I choose to play a game I paid for is nobody else's concern.

 

Monte, I've always enjoyed your posts, but I think you're pushing far too hard towards making this issue a libertarian conflict of personal enjoyment rather than a debate about the practicalities of XP. You're arguing that if a player feels the dopamine-maddened urge to reach level 100 early by exploiting the game's mechanics instead of playing through a balanced challenge, no designer should have the temerity to attempt to restrict them by introducing a tighter XP system that limits this kind of behaviour.

 

This just isn't right. If a player chooses to enjoy a game by feeling a rush of faux-achievement as the progress bar dings up faster than it should be, building an overpowered character and trampling over every challenge in the game, then they can take 30 seconds to use a level-up cheat code. It should not be demanded of any game's designers that they keep the base system baggy and vulnerable to exploitation in order to keep the players who enjoy exploitation happy, on the grounds that this won't affect all of those players who are willing to self-impose the restrictions that are aren't included as part of the product itself. Their job is absolutely to impose rules, and to impose limitations upon the player.

 

Your argument just seems...to take your argument to the most absurd extreme, it seems a bit like arguing that the makers of chess should include a Godzilla piece with every board, because some players like to give up on the tactical challenge of the game and take out Godzilla and knock over all of the opposition pieces and win in a single turn, and what right do any of us (apart from their poor opponent, presumably) have to question how they enjoy playing chess? The restrictions of levelling-up and character creation seem to me to be pretty fundamental to the genre and so a tight XP system which rewards different playstyles sounds ideal - if you want to remove those restrictions, you can always find an easy way to do so, but it shouldn't be offered up as part of the base game.

 

(Presumably by now the thread's moved on six pages and this post is totally redundant. Still.)

Edited October 15, 2012 by grotbag

[MaximKat]

I like most everything I read there, but it looks like I'll have to play on "expert", as I very much dislike "unconsciousness 'death'".

They've said that there will be a separate option for this.

[C2B]

Codex echo chamber.

 

The sad thing about the Codex is that they have a kindergarten level cognitive capacity and are fast at registering new accounts.

If Sawyer said he'll feed them with a plagued chicken, they'd be all extatic.

 

Are you suggesting that all the members disagreeing are codexers?

 

(I'm unsure on the system itself, but trust Sawyer)

Edited October 15, 2012 by C2B