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

[Infinitron]

It's still re-inventing the wheel from where I'm sitting. Getting a reward in terms of experience and treasure for the risk of expending energy, time and resources to fight it is a no-brainer for me.

From my perspective, it's more like severing a Gordian Knot. In the places where I've seen it employed (e.g. the NWN module Witch's Wake), it worked very well. I attacked/fought with creatures I couldn't avoid or who had things I actually wanted (or if I just hated their guts), but when I came across creatures that had nothing worth taking/weren't worth the hassle, I just avoided them.

 

It think it's weird to see people describe this approach as "elitist" when it's actually a response to extremely popular behavior I've seen player after player after player engage in. Complete quest via stealth, double back and kill everyone. Complete quest via conversation, double back and kill everyone. Complete quest via environment interaction/skill use, double back and kill everyone.

 

Josh, you don't even need to back this up by mentioning something as obscure as Witch's Wake.

 

Deus ****ing Ex. The original, not Human Revolution.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Infinitron

[Ieo]

I just don't get the point. It's a single player game. If someone wants to run around killing everything, become overpowered, and essentially ruin their game (from my perspective), what difference does it make? Who is it hurting if that's how they like to play?

 

I prefer to explore everywhere and get experience as I make my way through the story and quests.

 

To each his own. Why is this so terrible? Why do we need to be forced to only have one option?

 

I dislike becoming overpowered too early on, but how is that hurting anyone else's gaming experience?

 

Sorry, but you are missing the point, which Josh described a bit earlier (this thread is moving too fast).

 

The point is to balance xp reward for players who don't necessarily want to slaughter everything in sight towards a quest goal in order to level. Traditionally, due to xp value per mobs, that also meant that those who did kill got significantly more xp than someone who used stealth or even dialogue options. Now, with the back-loaded xp upon quest completion, that means more options for completion (even more replayability, more RP possibility).

 

The only outstanding issue is world exploration mobs, for which I suggested different tiered levels of xp per type as a compromise. "Epic" world monsters that one can kill for xp challenge, for example, would be quite rare compared to the others.

 

To Josh, while I really like the back-loaded model for fairer xp spread based on questing, I do agree that there should be a compromise for some world non-quest monsters, assuming there are any.

[Maf]

Love the update!

Especially the lore, I like how the world is coming together.

 

Small question for the paypal page:

I can't see the playing cards listed as an addon?

Intentional or accidental?

Need them cards!!

[Valorian]

I just don't get the point. It's a single player game. If someone wants to run around killing everything, become overpowered, and essentially ruin their game (from my perspective), what difference does it make? Who is it hurting if that's how they like to play?

 

I prefer to explore everywhere and get experience as I make my way through the story and quests.

 

To each his own. Why is this so terrible? Why do we need to be forced to only have one option?

 

I dislike becoming overpowered too early on, but how is that hurting anyone else's gaming experience?

 

Srsly, why is this so difficult to understand?

The point is to not encourage "kill everything" approach. XP given for every kill, on top of the zone/quest reward, does exactly that.

 

Aren't monsters and other enemies who.. you know, try to reduce you to a pulp when they see you, meant to be killed? Isn't the developer supposed to balance the game so that encounters are not endless and are challenging enough to not make leveling up a breeze?

 

And why would killling peasants for instance hand out any xp?

[Monte Carlo]

Bloodlines-style XP system confirmed. I'm very happy.

 

Also everyone complaining about it is giving me succulent sustenance with their tears of anguish. Guess it must be odd to be faced with an actual RPG for a change and not that hideous monstrosity that the genre has become in the last decade. Oh what fun, let me grind encounters until I'm the max level! Oh, I get more XP if I kill the questgiver after turning the quest in? DIE!!!

 

I'm glad that the manner in which a complete stranger chooses to enjoy a piece of digital media has become such an important source of schadenfreude for you.

[Infinitron]

BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO YOU? It's a single player game for chrissakes.

 

You can still do whatever you want. You're just not getting rewarded for it with experience points. Makes it more of a challenge - as a hardcore combat player, you should be stoked.

[jvempire]

I love how folks who, by implication, can't help meta-gaming and exploiting systems are advocating a restriction of those of us who can.

But.... it's much easier to design the game around quests than grind. With quests you can have a better understanding of what level the character is at, which means you can better balance the game. With grind, even if you find grind fun, it's harder (and in reality more complex) to balance the game if everyone can continously level up.

[Merin]

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.

 

Which isn't healing surges from 4E, per se, but is a similar attempt to give "so many heals per day" before you can't be healed anymore by any means short of rest and time.

[SqueakyCat]

I just don't get the point. It's a single player game. If someone wants to run around killing everything, become overpowered, and essentially ruin their game (from my perspective), what difference does it make?

Yes, what difference does it make? Why do you assume that's impossible?

 

The objective system allows for more options than just killing to reach that goal.

 

sigh...

 

I'm not assuming anything. You are misinterpreting what I wrote. Yes, someone can kill anything that moves, but will never be overpowered with the quest-based experience. That's not my playstyle, but I know for others it is. My point is, how is that hurting anyone else's game in a single player experience?

[kahoshi]

So now the argument is "I want to make my game suck, you shouldn't prevent me from abusing your game and should instead make a game you don't like just so I can kill eveyrthing!"

 

Sound logic.

[Azzy]

I really support the no combat xp it fits with what I like in rpgs and avoids the need for fighting. I don't really see the argument for it from a gameplay position XP is like achievements a candy for a behaviour by removing it you can still do that thing its just the game no longer rewards it.

[SqueakyCat]

I just don't get the point. It's a single player game. If someone wants to run around killing everything, become overpowered, and essentially ruin their game (from my perspective), what difference does it make? Who is it hurting if that's how they like to play?

 

I prefer to explore everywhere and get experience as I make my way through the story and quests.

 

To each his own. Why is this so terrible? Why do we need to be forced to only have one option?

 

I dislike becoming overpowered too early on, but how is that hurting anyone else's gaming experience?

 

Sorry, but you are missing the point, which Josh described a bit earlier (this thread is moving too fast).

 

The point is to balance xp reward for players who don't necessarily want to slaughter everything in sight towards a quest goal in order to level. Traditionally, due to xp value per mobs, that also meant that those who did kill got significantly more xp than someone who used stealth or even dialogue options. Now, with the back-loaded xp upon quest completion, that means more options for completion (even more replayability, more RP possibility).

 

The only outstanding issue is world exploration mobs, for which I suggested different tiered levels of xp per type as a compromise. "Epic" world monsters that one can kill for xp challenge, for example, would be quite rare compared to the others.

 

To Josh, while I really like the back-loaded model for fairer xp spread based on questing, I do agree that there should be a compromise for some world non-quest monsters, assuming there are any.

 

I didn't misunderstand, read every line in ths thread and the AMA. I simply disagree and would like to see a compromise, if possible.

[reflectingsphere]

Hey guys at obsidian,

on http://eternity.obsidian.net/ you forgot to list one add-on! The "Project Eternity Playing Cards $+10" are missing! Please add them, so that we can also purchase them! (I have to use Paypal for payment.)

 

Thank you!

Edited October 15, 2012 by reflectingsphere

[kenup]

BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO YOU? It's a single player game for chrissakes.

Ask yourself the same thing. If killing by the millions rewards more, eventually everyone will go for that to reach the maximum. With the Sawyer's suggestion, every roleplay option is available.

[Monte Carlo]

BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO YOU? It's a single player game for chrissakes.

Ask yourself the same thing. If killing by the millions rewards more, eventually everyone will go for that to reach the maximum. With the Sawyer's suggestion, every roleplay option is available.

 

Point not Found

[Cantousent]

As we argue this, the project has amassed $3,277,993 on Kickstarter.

[Waywocket]

The point is to balance xp reward for players who don't necessarily want to slaughter everything in sight towards a quest goal in order to level. Traditionally, due to xp value per mobs, that also meant that those who did kill got significantly more xp than someone who used stealth or even dialogue options. Now, with the back-loaded xp upon quest completion, that means more options for completion (even more replayability, more RP possibility).

 

The baby does not need to be thrown out with that bathwater. It's perfectly possible to set the XP reward for solving a problem non-violently to a value which makes up for the difference.

 

The complaints that some players will then do both seems bizarre - you don't have to give them that XP twice.

[Waywocket]

BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO YOU? It's a single player game for chrissakes.

Ask yourself the same thing. If killing by the millions rewards more, eventually everyone will go for that to reach the maximum. With the Sawyer's suggestion, every roleplay option is available.

 

Your post makes no sense.

[Semper]

Point not Found

 

the point is that you can still kill everything on sight. or do you just kill for the xp as josh described?

[Jasede]

If you love grinding so much why don't you play WoW and leave this game to us, the RPG fans?

[Rabain]

You didn't seem to have read my explanation. On a battlefield it is a bad idea to take your time with a fallen enemy. It takes time and effort to make sure an unconious person is killed. And it also makes you vulnerable. Battles and skirmishes are usually crowded affairs. There is always someone next to you. And that person may at any moment attack you. So think about it. Your life is at stake. What do you do: start stomping the head of an unconcious enemy or engage the foe next to you, that might at any moment end your life with a single blow?

 

You seem to be missing the point entirely. In order to be in a position of sticking a sword in someones head, you would have had to be fighting them for some time in order to have "defeated" them and now they are at your feet. You have obviously had plenty of opportunity to stick your sword in various parts of their anatomy in order to put them down in the first place. You have also not had someone standing beside you ready to end your life with a single blow or else they would have done so already while you engaged their friend. Now you have just defeated their friend and have one less opponent attacking you...but suddenly the other guy is ready to kill you with a single blow?

 

You are saying that at exactly that point in every combat you are suddenly surrounded and need to retarget. Every single time, in every combat? Sorry, that is just unbelievable. It might happen occasionally, it might happen even more than occasionally if you assume the guys you are fighting are top 1% fighters in the entire world but no way it happens every time.

 

Also if there is even one ranged enemy around why would that person not target the unconscious and kill them off? I am assuming that is what you will do most of the time if you see some enemy go down, even if it is just stunned you will want to hit it hard while vulnerable.

 

Anyway, like I said, maybe this system will turn out to be different enough to be interesting but the current logic of it just doesn't seem...logical to me.

[SgtGriff]

* sigh * the XP model. I view it as very restrictive.

 

In what way is it restrictive? So far as I can tell those who are complaining about it either misunderstand the concept, or haven't thought it through very carefully.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Sorry to duck out, but I need to prep for our D&D game tonight. Objections to the proposed XP system are noted. We're not finalized on any of this stuff; quest-based XP is just an idea that Tim and I are interested in pursuing.

[Maf]

Can't we keep the xp discussion in 1 thread please?

This has already spanned multiple.

Won't join in as I've already said my say in one of the other poor victimized threads.

[Tale]

sigh...

 

I'm not assuming anything. You are misinterpreting what I wrote. Yes, someone can kill anything that moves, but will never be overpowered with the quest-based experience.

It's objective based, not quest based. But maybe that's beside the point.

 

Why do you think they'll never be able to be overpowered?

 

That's not my playstyle, but I know for others it is. My point is, how is that hurting anyone else's game in a single player experience?

It's not. But I might as well ask you how stealth and charm getting XP hurt other people's games. Because that's a large part of what the system does, it allows for alternate playstyles to reach the same end.

 

I'm not worried about how you play. The problem is it needs to reward the people who don't kill.