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

[Althernai]

Yeah, because outside quests you can only kill mindless animals and such..

Only if you define quests very broadly. For example, suppose you are stopped by a bunch of bandits who tell you "Your money or your life". I would not really call that a quest, but you do get XP for killing them. In fact, you usually get XP for killing stuff if that's the path you want to take. The only exception is psychopathic behavior on the part of a player who randomly slaughters non-hostile, non-quest NPCs --- but you never got much for those anyway, even in the Infinity Engine games.

[MaximKat]

It doesn't. But I want xp awarded for this objective. I killed them I completely removed the threat and I want an xp award to further hone my (combat) skills.

Captain's log, stardate 12345 Wait, wrong game.

Quest log:

"Dealt with an assassin attack: +100 XP

You were able to defeat the assassins sent after you. You have killed them without mercy, but were left to wonder about who and why would pay for your death. Perhaps you should keep the sword nearby during sleep, just in case."

[Hobz]

 

Why would discovering a secret door/dungeon give xp and killing an enemy not?

 

1) Because it's not just discovering that will grant xp, but exploring it and solving the problems inside.

 

2) But most importantly, because xp on kills promote one playstyle over the others, even slightly, while discovering a secret door is not.

[Clammo]

The Stamina and Health system sounds good now I've read the example, makes sense.

 

I'm in two minds on the XP for combat debate - as a rule I tend to not slaughter everything and just do what needs to be done to fulfill the quest in my playstyle (usually sneaky). However that has, in previous games, led me to have an underpowered character as designers often reward for combat over mission. So whilst the XP for objectives rather than combat suits me I can see Squeaky and Monte's point of view if their playstyle is more grinding.

 

Not sure what the answer is, as I suspect it'd be difficult to balance the games difficulty and challenge if players adopt a peaceful approach to complete a mission/objective and then engage in wholesale slaughter after the objectives are completed for more XP. Then again it's a single player experience, so if someone chooses to overpower their character by in effect doubling up on XP then really it's not harming anyone else's game experience.

[Clammo]

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'".

 

There's the option to turn on death in normal mode, it's just not the default.

[Valorian]

Yeah, because outside quests you can only kill mindless animals and such..

Only if you define quests very broadly. For example, suppose you are stopped by a bunch of bandits who tell you "Your money or your life". I would not really call that a quest, but you do get XP for killing them. In fact, you usually get XP for killing stuff if that's the path you want to take. The only exception is psychopathic behavior on the part of a player who randomly slaughters non-hostile, non-quest NPCs --- but you never got much for those anyway, even in the Infinity Engine games.

 

You're mixing apples and oranges. I'm talking strictly about hostile encounters and not "psychopathic slaughtering of non-hostile non-quest NPCs".

You won't be able to persuade zombies and ogres, for example.

 

It doesn't. But I want xp awarded for this objective. I killed them I completely removed the threat and I want an xp award to further hone my (combat) skills.

Captain's log, stardate 12345 Wait, wrong game.

Quest log:

"Dealt with an assassin attack: +100 XP

You were able to defeat the assassins sent after you. You have killed them without mercy, but were left to wonder about who and why would pay for your death. Perhaps you should keep the sword nearby during sleep, just in case."

 

Funneh. Yeah, better to bribe them.. so they can come later for more.

 

Why would discovering a secret door/dungeon give xp and killing an enemy not?

 

1) Because it's not just discovering that will grant xp, but exploring it and solving the problems inside.

 

2) But most importantly, because xp on kills promote one playstyle over the others, even slightly, while discovering a secret door is not.

 

1) Removing the immediate threat to your life (killing the opponent) is generally more valuable than discovering a secret dungeon. This should be reflected in xp rewards.

 

2) Giving xp for discovering secret doors, but not for defeating enemies promotes one playstyle over another, more than slightly.

[Althernai]

You're mixing apples and oranges. I'm talking strictly about hostile encounters and not "psychopathic slaughtering of non-hostile non-quest NPCs".

You won't be able to persuade zombies and ogres, for example.

Sure -- but you do get XP for killing those (I think this is the third time I tell you this). If you stumble on a hostile creature which doesn't do anything except fight you, you should get XP for killing it and making the world a safer place for civilization. Such mindless encounters generally don't matter much in any case as there should not be many of them

[rjshae]

The two approaches (XP for monsters vs. missions) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If the designers want to allow XP reward for vanilla monster-slaying behavior, they can always implement bounties as side quests. Alchemists will want the extracts from certain creatures; merchants for bandit scalps; village elders for getting rid of orc raiders, &c. The players would just need to be a little more patient about receiving their XP.

Edited October 15, 2012 by rjshae

[Valorian]

You're mixing apples and oranges. I'm talking strictly about hostile encounters and not "psychopathic slaughtering of non-hostile non-quest NPCs".

You won't be able to persuade zombies and ogres, for example.

Sure -- but you do get XP for killing those (I think this is the third time I tell you this). If you stumble on a hostile creature which doesn't do anything except fight you, you should get XP for killing it and making the world a safer place for civilization. Such mindless encounters generally don't matter much in any case as there should not be many of them

 

Well, yes, that's nice and all.. except for the fact that they stated there won't be any kill xp.

 

Not many of them? All the wilderness areas with various crypts and caves... I bet there will be plently of such "mindless" enemies, as you describe them.

[Hobz]

@Valorian

 

Absolutely not, it's like saying doing side quest promotes a play style over the others. You can choose as a player to explore the world whether or not you tend to rely to fighting or sneaking to resolve problems.

 

I'm afraid i'm not making myself clear, of course you WILL receive xp for wiping out a group of cultist for exemple, but you will gain that xp as part of a bigger goal "getting rid of the cult" not a few points at a time, cultist after cultist, just like a more diplomatic player won't get xp after each npc he convinces. In the end for the "fighting style" it doesn't matter how the xp is distributed.

It's just that the guy snicking up and making the ritual go all wrong buy removing a regent will have the same xp, because he will also have "delt with the cult" but in a different way. The snicking and lock-picking will not reward points in and of themselves, just like every cultist did not gave you xp.

 

Again, i'm not saying "you should not fight and be rewarded for it" i'm just saying rewarding for accomplishing goals, whatever the way you choose to use, would be great. And if a matter can only be dealt with buy hacking and slashing then give the reward after the fight for "dealing with/surviving the bandit ambush". I'm good with it.

[Valorian]

@Valorian

 

Absolutely not, it's like saying doing side quest promotes a play style over the others. You can choose as a player to explore the world whether or not you tend to rely to fighting or sneaking to resolve problems.

 

I'm afraid i'm not making myself clear, of course you WILL receive xp for wiping out a group of cultist for exemple, but you will gain that xp as part of a bigger goal "getting rid of the cult" not a few points at a time, cultist after cultist, just like a more diplomatic player won't get xp after each npc he convinces. In the end for the "fighting style" it doesn't matter how the xp is distributed.

It's just that the guy snicking up and making the ritual go all wrong buy removing a regent will have the same xp, because he will also have "delt with the cult" but in a different way. The snicking and lock-picking will not reward points in and of themselves, just like every cultist did not gave you xp.

 

Again, i'm not saying "you should not fight and be rewarded for it" i'm just saying rewarding for accomplishing goals, whatever the way you choose to use, would be great. And if a matter can only be dealt with buy hacking and slashing then give the reward after the fight for "dealing with/surviving the bandit ambush". I'm good with it.

 

The thing that I'm trying to point out myself is that not every monster will be tied to quests or "objectives" because it really wouldn't make sense. And I don't think I'm far off if I say that probably most enemies won't be tied to quests where you can sneak/parely/otherextravagantoption to overcome them.

[KDarkmoon]

Sadly after hearing more details such as the game being anti-combat oriented and more of a puzzle solving thing, I've decided to reduce my pledge from $72 to $25. I was expecting something similar to the old Infinity engine games. Not some anti-violence oriented puzzle game as this sounds like it is going to be. While I hate pure hack n' slash that some "action rpgs" these days are, I do enjoy the excitement of combat in RPGs like the Fallout series, Knights of the Old Republic I & II and the old Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale games. I guess I am thankful for this critical bit of details now before I pledged too much support for a game that I am no longer sure I'll be interested in playing.

 

Still, I wish the folks at Obsidian well. They have made several great games that are among my favorites.

[jvempire]

@Valorian

 

Absolutely not, it's like saying doing side quest promotes a play style over the others. You can choose as a player to explore the world whether or not you tend to rely to fighting or sneaking to resolve problems.

 

I'm afraid i'm not making myself clear, of course you WILL receive xp for wiping out a group of cultist for exemple, but you will gain that xp as part of a bigger goal "getting rid of the cult" not a few points at a time, cultist after cultist, just like a more diplomatic player won't get xp after each npc he convinces. In the end for the "fighting style" it doesn't matter how the xp is distributed.

It's just that the guy snicking up and making the ritual go all wrong buy removing a regent will have the same xp, because he will also have "delt with the cult" but in a different way. The snicking and lock-picking will not reward points in and of themselves, just like every cultist did not gave you xp.

 

Again, i'm not saying "you should not fight and be rewarded for it" i'm just saying rewarding for accomplishing goals, whatever the way you choose to use, would be great. And if a matter can only be dealt with buy hacking and slashing then give the reward after the fight for "dealing with/surviving the bandit ambush". I'm good with it.

 

The thing that I'm trying to point out myself is that not every monster will be tied to quests or "objectives" because it really wouldn't make sense. And I don't think I'm far off if I say that probably most enemies won't be tied to quests where you can sneak/parely/otherextravagantoption to overcome them.

We have no idea at this point really. If the game is designed around the objectives it could be easy to make most enemies appear in the objectives, but maybe they aren't. There's no argument here, we can only speculate.

[Hobz]

On the contrary I think most of them, if not all, could very well be. Because even clearing a cave of spiders, or wiping a group of bandits can be a "goal". But in the end we don't know yet, and those "goals" would have to be designed slightly differently than the quests we know now. I guess time will tell.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Hobz

[Cantousent]

Sadly after hearing more details such as the game being anti-combat oriented and more of a puzzle solving thing, I've decided to reduce my pledge from $72 to $25. I was expecting something similar to the old Infinity engine games. Not some anti-violence oriented puzzle game as this sounds like it is going to be. While I hate pure hack n' slash that some "action rpgs" these days are, I do enjoy the excitement of combat in RPGs like the Fallout series, Knights of the Old Republic I & II and the old Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale games. I guess I am thankful for this critical bit of details now before I pledged too much support for a game that I am no longer sure I'll be interested in playing.

 

Still, I wish the folks at Obsidian well. They have made several great games that are among my favorites.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone to reduce his pledge, so keep in mind that I'm not saying that in response to you, but if you truly feel that you won't enjoy the game as much, you have the right to reduce your pledge.

 

However, where the hell did you see that the game would be anti-combat? Really? The way experience is doled out to the player has absolutely nothing to do with how much or little the game is combat oriented. It's simply misguided to equate objective oriented xp with a less combat oriented game. In fact, I think the combat has received the most attention so far and they're creating a game that is clearly intended to combat centered. The story will still be great, I'm sure, but the combat is the focus at this moment. They've already said that you won't be able to complete the game without at least some combat, for instance. This idea of Obsidz downplaying combat is a red herring.

[Krios]

The Kickstarter counter is at 3.3 million. With 24 hours to go and with Paypal included, it is possible we have already reached our goal of 3.5 million! And we have just reached 10 levels at the mega dungeon too!

[Ieo]

Sadly after hearing more details such as the game being anti-combat oriented and more of a puzzle solving thing, I've decided to reduce my pledge from $72 to $25. I was expecting something similar to the old Infinity engine games. Not some anti-violence oriented puzzle game as this sounds like it is going to be. While I hate pure hack n' slash that some "action rpgs" these days are, I do enjoy the excitement of combat in RPGs like the Fallout series, Knights of the Old Republic I & II and the old Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale games. I guess I am thankful for this critical bit of details now before I pledged too much support for a game that I am no longer sure I'll be interested in playing.

 

Still, I wish the folks at Obsidian well. They have made several great games that are among my favorites.

 

You didn't play PS:T, the other major IE game cited on the KS. Enough said. And, what Cantousent said...

 

Back-loading xp to objective hardly means removing the combat option. I mean, wow. You people are now just being irrational.

[Scarletguard]

I wonder if the MP3 / FLAC versions of the soundtrack will come with the artwork on the physical CDs.

[KDarkmoon]

Sadly after hearing more details such as the game being anti-combat oriented and more of a puzzle solving thing, I've decided to reduce my pledge from $72 to $25. I was expecting something similar to the old Infinity engine games. Not some anti-violence oriented puzzle game as this sounds like it is going to be. While I hate pure hack n' slash that some "action rpgs" these days are, I do enjoy the excitement of combat in RPGs like the Fallout series, Knights of the Old Republic I & II and the old Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale games. I guess I am thankful for this critical bit of details now before I pledged too much support for a game that I am no longer sure I'll be interested in playing.

 

Still, I wish the folks at Obsidian well. They have made several great games that are among my favorites.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone to reduce his pledge, so keep in mind that I'm not saying that in response to you, but if you truly feel that you won't enjoy the game as much, you have the right to reduce your pledge.

 

However, where the hell did you see that the game would be anti-combat? Really? The way experience is doled out to the player has absolutely nothing to do with how much or little the game is combat oriented. It's simply misguided to equate objective oriented xp with a less combat oriented game. In fact, I think the combat has received the most attention so far and they're creating a game that is clearly intended to combat centered. The story will still be great, I'm sure, but the combat is the focus at this moment. They've already said that you won't be able to complete the game without at least some combat, for instance. This idea of Obsidz downplaying combat is a red herring.

 

If there is to be a total lack of healing and such severe consequences for combat (maiming and perma-death) as was stated by the folks from Obsidian coupled with their other comments regarding the focus of experience leaves one with a clear impression that it is anti-combat oriented. How can anyone see it any other way?

 

And yes, I do own and have played Planescape Torment. I just forgot to include it in the list. I loved Annah with her Brit accent and cutting wit. Mort was a real blast as well. There is healing and death certainly isn't permanent nor maiming of your characters.

[Tamerlane]

Sadly after hearing more details such as the game being anti-combat oriented and more of a puzzle solving thing, I've decided to reduce my pledge from $72 to $25. I was expecting something similar to the old Infinity engine games. Not some anti-violence oriented puzzle game as this sounds like it is going to be. While I hate pure hack n' slash that some "action rpgs" these days are, I do enjoy the excitement of combat in RPGs like the Fallout series, Knights of the Old Republic I & II and the old Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale games. I guess I am thankful for this critical bit of details now before I pledged too much support for a game that I am no longer sure I'll be interested in playing.

 

Still, I wish the folks at Obsidian well. They have made several great games that are among my favorites.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone to reduce his pledge, so keep in mind that I'm not saying that in response to you, but if you truly feel that you won't enjoy the game as much, you have the right to reduce your pledge.

 

However, where the hell did you see that the game would be anti-combat? Really? The way experience is doled out to the player has absolutely nothing to do with how much or little the game is combat oriented. It's simply misguided to equate objective oriented xp with a less combat oriented game. In fact, I think the combat has received the most attention so far and they're creating a game that is clearly intended to combat centered. The story will still be great, I'm sure, but the combat is the focus at this moment. They've already said that you won't be able to complete the game without at least some combat, for instance. This idea of Obsidz downplaying combat is a red herring.

 

If there is to be a total lack of healing and such severe consequences for combat (maiming and perma-death) as was stated by the folks from Obsidian coupled with their other comments regarding the focus of experience leaves one with a clear impression that it is anti-combat oriented. How can anyone see it any other way?

...

 

You remember that BG combat could end with your characters getting gibbed, right?

 

And healing is sort-of in, but the HP bar is split between healable and non-healable HP.

 

EDIT: I mean ****, you're worried about the consequences of combat being too high and discouraging combat, but the least-combat-focused IE game had the fewest consequences to combat...

Edited October 16, 2012 by Tamerlane

[Trap]

good stuff BUT... little to no curative magic?? yet you make a paladin class / priest class.. A little confused about that... sorry..

Paladins cure diseases and can heal wounds as like a Knight with skills of a novice priest.. typically.. Why even have a paladin class?

[jvempire]

Sadly after hearing more details such as the game being anti-combat oriented and more of a puzzle solving thing, I've decided to reduce my pledge from $72 to $25. I was expecting something similar to the old Infinity engine games. Not some anti-violence oriented puzzle game as this sounds like it is going to be. While I hate pure hack n' slash that some "action rpgs" these days are, I do enjoy the excitement of combat in RPGs like the Fallout series, Knights of the Old Republic I & II and the old Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale games. I guess I am thankful for this critical bit of details now before I pledged too much support for a game that I am no longer sure I'll be interested in playing.

 

Still, I wish the folks at Obsidian well. They have made several great games that are among my favorites.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone to reduce his pledge, so keep in mind that I'm not saying that in response to you, but if you truly feel that you won't enjoy the game as much, you have the right to reduce your pledge.

 

However, where the hell did you see that the game would be anti-combat? Really? The way experience is doled out to the player has absolutely nothing to do with how much or little the game is combat oriented. It's simply misguided to equate objective oriented xp with a less combat oriented game. In fact, I think the combat has received the most attention so far and they're creating a game that is clearly intended to combat centered. The story will still be great, I'm sure, but the combat is the focus at this moment. They've already said that you won't be able to complete the game without at least some combat, for instance. This idea of Obsidz downplaying combat is a red herring.

 

If there is to be a total lack of healing and such severe consequences for combat (maiming and perma-death) as was stated by the folks from Obsidian coupled with their other comments regarding the focus of experience leaves one with a clear impression that it is anti-combat oriented. How can anyone see it any other way?

 

And yes, I do own and have played Planescape Torment. I just forgot to include it in the list. I loved Annah with her Brit accent and cutting wit. Mort was a real blast as well. There is healing and death certainly isn't permanent nor maiming of your characters.

First, resting heals you. Second, talk about making the game objective based and consequences for combat do not equal anti-combat. This is ignoring how the combat works and how challenging the other options will be. Because we don't entirely know all combat will work and how all other options will work at the moment, you can't make your claim about the game.

 

I believe your concern is that the other options will be easier, which would be a problem if that happens. It is a good idea to voice this concern, but making absolutes out of assumptions is not a good practice.

[Ieo]

If there is to be a total lack of healing and such severe consequences for combat (maiming and perma-death) as was stated by the folks from Obsidian coupled with their other comments regarding the focus of experience leaves one with a clear impression that it is anti-combat oriented. How can anyone see it any other way?

 

And yes, I do own and have played Planescape Torment. I just forgot to include it in the list. I loved Annah with her Brit accent and cutting wit. Mort was a real blast as well. There is healing and death certainly isn't permanent nor maiming of your characters.

 

That's odd; with the combined health/stamina mechanic (sounds like you don't quite understand how that's supposed to work), rest-based healing (something to replace the Vancian mechanic perhaps), and possible perma-death tweakable by difficulty levels, I got the impression that combat could be more challenging and thus more fun for the people who like combat.

 

How can anyone see it in your extreme way?

 

 

Eh--people talking about the lack of healing, reread the update about stamina healing and resting and Josh's comments in this thread.

[Gatt9]

Sadly after hearing more details such as the game being anti-combat oriented and more of a puzzle solving thing, I've decided to reduce my pledge from $72 to $25. I was expecting something similar to the old Infinity engine games. Not some anti-violence oriented puzzle game as this sounds like it is going to be. While I hate pure hack n' slash that some "action rpgs" these days are, I do enjoy the excitement of combat in RPGs like the Fallout series, Knights of the Old Republic I & II and the old Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale games. I guess I am thankful for this critical bit of details now before I pledged too much support for a game that I am no longer sure I'll be interested in playing.

 

Still, I wish the folks at Obsidian well. They have made several great games that are among my favorites.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone to reduce his pledge, so keep in mind that I'm not saying that in response to you, but if you truly feel that you won't enjoy the game as much, you have the right to reduce your pledge.

 

However, where the hell did you see that the game would be anti-combat? Really? The way experience is doled out to the player has absolutely nothing to do with how much or little the game is combat oriented. It's simply misguided to equate objective oriented xp with a less combat oriented game. In fact, I think the combat has received the most attention so far and they're creating a game that is clearly intended to combat centered. The story will still be great, I'm sure, but the combat is the focus at this moment. They've already said that you won't be able to complete the game without at least some combat, for instance. This idea of Obsidz downplaying combat is a red herring.

 

In Baldur's Gate at one point I came upon a village of some critters, Gnolls I think. I had a reason to go spend an hour cutting my way through them, my character progressed as a result.

 

If Baldur's Gate used this system, it'd be entirely pointless. Why bother spending an hour killing the Gnolls if in the end, I didn't gain anything.

 

"Objective based" xp only downplays combat because it removes the reward system from engaging in it, making it pointless to enter into any combat that doesn't have an "Objective" assigned to it.

[SqueakyCat]

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

 

Hardly an adequate sampling.

Which is why I also hope they stick mostly to their own vision and not be too influenced by what goes on in the forums.

Don't get me wrong, I can completely understand not being happy with something in a proposed game, but why not give them a chance instead of assuming the worst?

 

I'm very used to the xp-per-kill type of system (or whatever) but I'm open to other options and directions. Sometimes things that initially sound unappealing to me because it's not what I'm used to ends up becoming my favorite new thing. eg, I love chocolate, but it doesn't mean I want to eat it all the time.

 

Sorry for the delay - had errands.

 

Thing is, I've played Bloodlines and other 'quest/goal' experience games and do not care for the system. They have said this is what they'd like to do (although a tiny opening was left). It's not that I'm not used to this type of system, I simply prefer the other.

 

Personal preferences -- we all have them. I am, however, willing to see what they finally come up with as this isn't written in stone at this point.