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

[Monte Carlo]

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.

 

Well then, I'm pleased to inform you that there's a very successful developer named Bethesda that caters to tastes precisely such as yours.

 

Funny, I hate sandboxes like Skyrim. Loathe first person games.

[norolim]

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.

You are lucky the times when people fought battles are over 'cause I'm afraid you would last long on a battlefield. You completely don't understand battle dynamics. When you're fighting an opponent those around can as easily stab you in your back as when you're molesting a fallen foe. The difference is that when you are fighting someone you can't really do much about it. You fight your opponent, because he is a threat to your life. When you incapacitate him he is no longer a threat. Now those around you are th eonly danger. It looks like you believe that, at that point, it's a good idea to disregard that threat around you and insted concentrate on the "meatbag" on the ground that can do nothing to you or any of your allies? I'm not trying to be mean to you, but I'm afraid there is absolutely no logic to your reasoning.

[Kitan]

hehe... the XP tied to quests makes the homicidal maniac path less appealing :D

 

I remember when I played BG with a solo character wiping whole populations off the map hrhr... chaotic evil ftw

[Maf]

So, gonna try sparking this one up again:

LOVE that being healthy might not be the case for a lot of people in the P:E world!

Can already see the endless possibilities here.

Must keep my enthousiasm in check for 2 years somehow...

-edit

Rather :

Getting back to health from a disease or other antagonist isn't as clear cut.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Maf

[Monte Carlo]

Like I said before, basing the xp around quests/(or the term they are using is objectives) is easier for the designers to balance the game since they can estimate where players will be xp wise.

 

And? It might be easier for a restaurant just to serve chicken soup all day too. This is about the customer, right?

[Infinitron]

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.

 

Well then, I'm pleased to inform you that there's a very successful developer named Bethesda that caters to tastes precisely such as yours.

 

Funny, I hate sandboxes like Skyrim. Loathe first person games.

 

 

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).

 

Funny, I hate sandboxes

 

hahahahahaha

[Merin]

Well, I like the general idea but I would like to see some rare world monsters like Firkraag that a player could optionally challenge... although now that I think about it, the reward needn't be xp either, but rather loot. Hmmm.

 

Or, here's the thing - when are "goals" assigned? It doesn't have to be by a quest giver, a la WoW style.

 

You stumble upon Firkraag's lair - and suddenly you have a new goal "Discover what's inside this lair" that appears in your journal. You continue to follow the goal, and it ends with you in Firkraag's lair and you are trapped! You either have to talk your way out, sneak your way out (?) or fight your way out. Once you do, you get the XP... and then (if he lived) Firkraag blocks you from entering his lair again.

 

You can have "explore to find" goals, and "random encounter" goals without them being pre-assigned by NPCs like quests.

 

It just takes a few seconds of thinking outside the established cRPG / MMORPG design. Or, more accurately, look at some outlier games in cRPG design.

[Monte Carlo]

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.

 

Well then, I'm pleased to inform you that there's a very successful developer named Bethesda that caters to tastes precisely such as yours.

 

Funny, I hate sandboxes like Skyrim. Loathe first person games.

 

 

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).

 

Funny, I hate sandboxes

 

hahahahahaha

 

I can't let you get away with that one ... how can anybody enjoy a Bethseda games combat mechanics?

[Tamerlane]

Everything sounds Real and Good and True.

 

Splitting health in two is good from both a lore and a gameplay point of view.

 

Making EXP quest dependent is an understandably sticky item, but I'm not sure how we're going from "you get the EXP for completing the objective" to... what we're arguing about here. You can still kill thangs and loot their stuff. This great and glorious freedom has not been impeded upon but the Communazi oppressors.

[Rabain]

Imagine yourself in a fight. You've just knocked an opponent out. Would you waste time finishing him off, or rather concentrate on the enemies that are still around you? Remember, no matter what, this guy will not be able to harm you: if you win, you'll kill him later, if you lose, you'll be dead long before he comes to his senses.

I would definitely every single time stick a sword in his head if I had the opportunity. Consider where you are, you are in the world of PE were priests and paladins and whoever else have abilities to bring injured (unconscious) allies back into battle. They are doing it to your own allies, they are sticking swords and axes and magic in every head of every one of your friends they can, your allies are not getting back up...

 

So yeah I'm sticking that sword in my opponents head every single time I can.

[volrath]

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.

[rjshae]

How much XP do you get for handbags at 10 paces?

[Monte Carlo]

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

[Semper]

And? It might be easier for a restaurant just to serve chicken soup all day too. This is about the customer, right?

 

the thread indicates that the majority of customers like an objective based xp system. perhaps you should get over it? btw you never answered why you need exp to enjoy the combat while there's still loot to gain as a reward.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Semper

[diablo169]

People moaning about not being able to grind mob kills for exp should go play Diablo or Wow. good god. I sincerely hope the devs stick to their guns on this, its intelligent design.

[Huinehtar]

I think the question is not really the fact that some players want to kill some monsters for rewards and XP and to prevent them to gain XP or not.

I think the point is more about "non fighting" characters, because in fact, even if you gain XP and rewards by diplomatic/stealth/commercial (etc...) skills, these characters won't gain XP by killing. Otherwise, fighting characters can have both XPs. So the point is about whole game difficulty I believe. (Yes, a non fighting character can learn some fighting skills, but high non fighting skills seem "useless").

[MaximKat]

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?

[Monte Carlo]

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.

 

Hello? This is a dungeoneering IE game romp, not emo vampire story-tyme.

[Jasede]

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

You are the hipster.

[crazyrabbits]

Imagine yourself in a fight. You've just knocked an opponent out. Would you waste time finishing him off, or rather concentrate on the enemies that are still around you? Remember, no matter what, this guy will not be able to harm you: if you win, you'll kill him later, if you lose, you'll be dead long before he comes to his senses.

 

I typically kill downed enemies when they fall, regardless of whether something else is attacking me. In something like BGII, when I finally down a giant troll after what could be a solid minute of slashing him, I'm going to make he's not going to get back up after he goes unconscious. I've been in combat situations where I've felled a large enemy, concentrated on other attackers, then had to deal with him again when he got back up. I've forgotten about downed enemies who've attacked me on my way out of a dungeon or area.

 

Insofar as whether combat XP is or isn't a good thing, I don't think only accomplishment-based XP is the way to go. There are people who will speedrun through the game and be screwed if they're not getting XP (however small it is) for combat encounters along the way. Likewise, there's always been an intrinsic value to fights where you see how much XP you've earned - most of the time, it's fairly insignificant, but it makes you feel like you're working your way towards a bigger goal. If I want to change things up after multiple playthroughs and try completing a quest than killing the questgiver for more XP, that's my business. I don't feel we should be arbitrarily restricted by a different experience system.

[jvempire]

Like I said before, basing the xp around quests/(or the term they are using is objectives) is easier for the designers to balance the game since they can estimate where players will be xp wise.

 

And? It might be easier for a restaurant just to serve chicken soup all day too. This is about the customer, right?

The customer needs to explain why though. You can't have feedback from blind statements.

[Infinitron]

I can't let you get away with that one ... how can anybody enjoy a Bethseda games combat mechanics?

 

You basically described a typical sandbox RPG, then proceeded to claim that you "hate sandboxes".

 

I...don't know what to say to that. I'd better get out of this thread before I get warned by one of the mods.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Infinitron

[RushAndAPush]

Why am I hearing that everybody wants Sawyer to edit his XP mechanics? If you guys want to play Baldur's Gate why not just play Baldurs Gate?

Edited October 15, 2012 by RushAndAPush

[Monte Carlo]

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

You are the hipster.

 

I am going to, in the circumstances, have to take that as a compliment.

[Monte Carlo]

I can't let you get away with that one ... how can anybody enjoy a Bethseda games combat mechanics?

 

You basically described a typical sandbox RPG, then proceeded to claim that you "hate sandboxes".

 

I...don't know what to say to that. I'd better get out of this thread before I get warned by one of the mods.

 

Later dude, I'm sure you'll grace us with your cuttingly acerbic wit another time.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Monte Carlo