Degenerate Gameplay

[UpgrayeDD]

A: Kill Everyone Now! Self-explanatory, I believe.

 

B: The Fools are Blind and Deaf! Your character could sneak past the God of Guards, he/she is that good!

 

C: What A Bunch of Suckers! The Devil would be afraid negotiating with your character.

 

So, why should one of these options be worth more, xp-wise, than another? You as player design a character. The game should present an equal number of opportunities for all designs. There should of course also be situations where either guile is useless, violence is futile or stealth pointless. That forces the character to rely on companions for certain situations.

Well if both B and C are true then it sounds like there was no challange at all in your given scenario. If they are doing a task that is so incrediable easy to them why are they being awarded at all. I think we should award them for eating pie while we are at it. A seems to be the only choice where you don't imply that its a walk in the park.

 

So option A couldn't possibly be easy? Also, imagine that options B and C are equally as tricky as combat (relative to your current combat, stealth, and diplomacy/negotiation skills, respectively). Example flaw: corrected. Any thoughts now?

First notice the underlined part. If the combat was also no challange it shouldn't give much Exp either. And whats going to be so tricky about stealth and diplomacy? Is there some secret minigame they are making I haven't heard of? I can't really think of an existing example where diplomacy was hard to accomplish. And from what the devs have said there won't even be a role so selecting chat options 2 2 4 3 will likely be all it takes. and how tricky should we expect stealth from a top down isometric game? That being said if they all offer an equivalent challenge and resource consumption then I have no problems with the Exp being equal.

[Hassat Hunter]

If there is one thing KOTOR1-KOTOR2 and BG1-BG2 tought us is that rewarding each action is a pretty bad idea.

 

Getting XP for each door opened? Getting XP for each mine defused? Getting XP for spells learned (that one was especially exploitable)?

It's only inclusion in the games made that you got doubly-screwed if not possession the skills. Why isn't the chest content the reward for opening it. In KOTOR2 you even got triple-nailed, since content could be broken if bashed.

Why can't the reward of a defused mine be NOT being blown up (or poisoned, or debilitated, or frozen, or webbed, or whatever). Why does it also need XP?

Why does everything need rewarding with XP when the rewards are already there, plain and simple?

[UpgrayeDD]

Why can't the reward of a defused mine be NOT being blown up (or poisoned, or debilitated, or frozen, or webbed, or whatever). Why does it also need XP?

Why does everything need rewarding with XP when the rewards are already there, plain and simple?

So by you logic shouldn't stealthing past enemies and avoiding being stabbed be its own reward?

[Hassat Hunter]

Yes, and it would be.

None is rewarded (not combat, not stealth), just doing the objective is.

 

And it doesn't matter how you do it, just... do it.

[UpgrayeDD]

so do you just ignore everything else that other poeple post? I already explained how avoidance is rewarded over combat in a good bit of detail using information from the devs. If you'd like I can quote it for you or you can explain where I went wrong.

Edited January 16, 2013 by UpgrayeDD

[Hassat Hunter]

Nope, I do read it.

Also seen the links posted and readed them.

 

I just don't take them literal. As in, every encounter is exactly balanced 100% for all types (combat, stealth, diplomacy). Sometimes one is a little better, the other time the other. In total it balances out. That's what JE Sawyer means.

And I have no reason to assume that's not how it's going to be without combat XP ruining this premises.

[UpgrayeDD]

I wish I had the same blind faith that no matter what the game designers know whats best about everything. I've seen a lot of games that might of been great turn out to be big disappointments due to poor mechanics. I've also heard the promises to bring back the fun of older IE games and they fell very short. I personally don't like seeing history repeat itself. If all the new gaming mechanics that are flying around now are so great then why are there so many people looking back at how great older games used to be?

Edited January 16, 2013 by UpgrayeDD

[Lephys]

First notice the underlined part.

 

Noted. My mistake. That doesn't change the fact that he didn't say it wasn't easy, either. You chose to voluntarily ignore that possibility, whilst only addressing situations B and C, then calling the example out because their described ease didn't seem to fit the issue.

 

If the combat was also no challange it shouldn't give much Exp either. And whats going to be so tricky about stealth and diplomacy? Is there some secret minigame they are making I haven't heard of? I can't really think of an existing example where diplomacy was hard to accomplish. And from what the devs have said there won't even be a role so selecting chat options 2 2 4 3 will likely be all it takes. and how tricky should we expect stealth from a top down isometric game? That being said if they all offer an equivalent challenge and resource consumption then I have no problems with the Exp being equal.

 

 

Are you claiming that the act of maneuvering your character through a field of enemies, undetected, can't possibly ever be easier than combat, or that dialogue sessions will never take more thought and consume more time than a given session of combat? You've never played an RPG in which your character(s) took out groups of enemies in a swift, single environmental interaction (collapsing a column with a bomb or fireball or something) or a well-placed AOE spellcast?

 

Once again, it seems you're unnecessarily assuming that Stealth will consist of simply clicking a button that toggles between 100% detectability and 100% undetectability, then strolling care-free past all hostiles, and that dialogue options will be labeled "*Convince the man to give you awesome stuff!*", while ignoring the fact that combat can potentially require very little effort in certain instances.

 

If you're going to take the time to argue against people who are putting forth the effort of considering possibilities beyond just what suits their stance, the least you can do is do the same yourself. My interest here is not in making sure whatever you say is wrong, but instead in better understanding what can/should be done regarding the issue at hand by taking into account all that anyone who chooses to post on the matter has to say.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Lephys

[UpgrayeDD]

First notice the underlined part.

Noted. My mistake. That doesn't change the fact that he didn't say it wasn't easy, either. You chose to voluntarily ignore that possibility, whilst only addressing situations B and C, then calling the example out because their described ease didn't seem to fit the issue.

And since he never said it was easy or hard I didn't applied a value to option A. I certainly didn't say that it should be rewarded over B or C. I addressed the options he gave the most information on

Are you claiming that the act of maneuvering your character through a field of enemies, undetected, can't possibly ever be easier than combat, or that dialogue sessions will never take more thought and consume more time than a given session of combat? You've never played an RPG in which your character(s) took out groups of enemies in a swift, single environmental interaction (collapsing a column with a bomb or fireball or something) or a well-placed AOE spellcast?

no I fully expect there will be times when you simply can't stealth past some enemies. But it doesn't change the fact that when you can it becomes the optimal solution as it conserves your resources for those unavoidable fights. If I'm wasting limited resources killing units I could easily bypass then I'm making those later fights that much harder.

Once again, it seems you're unnecessarily assuming that Stealth will consist of simply clicking a button that toggles between 100% detectability and 100% undetectability, then strolling care-free past all hostiles, and that dialogue options will be labeled "*Convince the man to give you awesome stuff!*", while ignoring the fact that combat can potentially require very little effort in certain instances.

I'm pretty much expecting an "avoid this radius" type system. Do you really expect easy combat encounters to be hard to stealth past? In my experience its usually the final encounters where stealth gets hardest.

If you're going to take the time to argue against people who are putting forth the effort of considering possibilities beyond just what suits their stance, the least you can do is do the same yourself. My interest here is not in making sure whatever you say is wrong, but instead in better understanding what can/should be done regarding the issue at hand by taking into account all that anyone who chooses to post on the matter has to say.

So who are these people who are putting forth the effort of considering possibilities beyond what suits their stance that I am arguing against? They pretty much only seem to be arguing for the stance they support which is objective/quest exp only. You say your interest ins't in proving me wrong but then you say I have no interest in looking past my own point of view? Even though I said earlier and if diplomatic solution and stealth solution are more difficult/resource consuming then combat they should be rewarded accordingly you're going to assume I think combat should always be the best rewarded?

[PrimeJunta]

How will quest only XP give rise to degenerate strategies (if that's what you mean by "degenerative" gameplay?) Examples, plz. I've produced several examples of kill XP yielding degenerate strategies, so it's your turn now IMO. TL;DR: put up or shut up.

Ohhhh, that is the question that always makes you rage, because you can't answer it. You answer is not satisfactory, because it makes absolutely no sense.

 

:sigh: I've already answered that question: it doesn't. The whole point of quest-only XP in a game where questing is the core mechanic is that it aligns with the in-game goals and therefore does not result in degenerate strategies. Kill XP on the other hand does not align with the in-game goals and therefore does result in degenerate strategies. Examples have been provided.

 

If you disagree, kindly provide an example of a degenerate strategy produced by quest-only XP in a game, such as P:E, where questing is the distinguishing, core gameplay mechanic.

 

You hated the gameplay, yet you loved the gameplay, yet you hated the gameplay but loved the game? wtf? lol

So I ask you again, why do you hate combat + quest xp, even though you loved the games that used it?

 

I loved the games overall, despite their flaws. I liked the gameplay in them, despite its flaws. There are many specific features about the gameplay that I loved, and some that I did not like. I could write a list, but that would be long, and I'm not sure you're interested enough in what I think to read it, so I won't bother unless you ask nicely and promise to do so, with a modicum of thought.

 

 

That is a major mechanic and it improved the gameplay in the IE games enourmously.

 

In my opinion it was a flawed mechanic that detracted from games that were otherwise superb. I have explained why. I'm still waiting for you to address my objections.

 

And I have written about 55 times, why quest only xp is degenerate (but I know, you are blind): Quest only xp is a "degenerate system" in a game that is based heavily on tactical and strategical combat. It makes combat pointless because avoiding combat yields the best results, which is awkward for a game that is combat based.

 

Yes, you keep asserting that avoiding combat yields the best results, but asserting it doesn't make it so. I have already addressed the resource consumption objection.

 

As I said earlier in this very thread, I am puzzled by this, since it is JES's explicit intention to craft a system that does not systematically favor any approach over others. Of course the resource consumption issue needs to be addressed, but that's quite easy. You simply have to impose a cost on non-combat activities, e.g. use of lockpicks when picking locks, or add a small reward to combat, e.g. minor loot drops sufficient to compensate for the consumables used in combat. Unlike XP, neither of these rewards is accumulative, so the perverse incentives it adds are very weak to nonexistent. It's also the kind of thing that's dead easy to tweak in the late stages of playtesting and balancing.

Edited January 16, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Lephys]

So who are these people who are putting forth the effort of considering possibilities beyond what suits their stance that I am arguing against? They pretty much only seem to be arguing for the stance they support which is objective/quest exp only. You say your interest ins't in proving me wrong but then you say I have no interest in looking past my own point of view? Even though I said earlier and if diplomatic solution and stealth solution are more difficult/resource consuming then combat they should be rewarded accordingly you're going to assume I think combat should always be the best rewarded?

 

I said that my interest is not in making sure that whatever you say is wrong. In other words, if we're standing side-by-side, and you tell me "There's no way it's raining," and water is falling from clouds onto my head, I have no interest in proving myself superior to you in any way, but I'm going to feel compelled to point out the fact what I can observe (rain falling from the sky) seems to indicate that you are mistaken. It's entirely possible you could mean something else by it, like "You've gotta be kidding me," or maybe you muttered a thought aloud about it not raining in a specific location, and you didn't say the location part aloud. It's possible what was conveyed to me was not entirely clear on the specifics of your point. That's precisely why I question and present examples.

 

I might have misunderstood your meaning, but it seemed very strongly that you were suggesting that non-combat skills aren't capable of being anything but incredibly simple, and following it up with a "But, sure, even though that's never gonna happen, I suppose if it magically did, you could knock yourself out with the handing out of rewards." If I misunderstood, then I apologize, but what reinforces the confusion is that, instead of just admitting the possibility from the get-go whenever it was brought up and voicing your opinion on the likelihood of XP-deserving complexity in non-combat skill challenges, you argued against the possibility for a time, THEN finally threw in a "But I'm not really saying it isn't possible."

 

I can't count the number of instances in these forums in which a simple "Yeah, if they could get that to work, that'd be cool, but I don't think they'll get it to work properly because it's so tricky" would've saved countless paragraphs and paragraphs of convoluted discussion, as opposed to the actually-posted "No, that possibility is the worst idea ever, because in some implementations I've seen in other games it didn't work well, and obviously there's no possible design that hasn't already been implemented in another existing game! !"

 

You either agree that something is possible, or you don't. If you agree it's possible, then why argue against it? No one said "Combat should NEVER award XP!" We just said "Combat shouldn't always award XP." And then touched on "Well, shouldn't non-combat stuff potentially award XP, then?" So a big "What?! That's ridiculous!" or "NO!" to that doesn't mean "Well, except for sometimes!" It's one or the other. There's no reason to go through all that to argue against a possibility when you're only really arguing against certain sets of specific circumstances. And if you can't think of any example that verifies the proposed possibility, what's wrong with saying "I don't know how you'd do that. It seems like you can't." And maybe asking for one?

 

 

no I fully expect there will be times when you simply can't stealth past some enemies. But it doesn't change the fact that when you can it becomes the optimal solution as it conserves your resources for those unavoidable fights. If I'm wasting limited resources killing units I could easily bypass then I'm making those later fights that much harder.

 

Observe: Does it? How does it automatically become the optimal solution? I can think of situations in which it wouldn't be the optimal solution, so that seems to contradict what you claim. If you can point out otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it, and would understand the correctness of your words.

 

Example situation: There are some bandits rather forcibly interrogating a finely-dressed merchant. You have no idea who he is, but, unbeknownst to you, he will be in your debt (if you save him) and can offer you very cool rewards in the form of quality equipment and/or discounts, etc. BUT, you came to this bandit camp because you knew that they were amassing stolen goods. So, you know there's a chest in this tent full of nice goodies. You don't know exactly what, but bandits don't steal mundane things of no value. However, they're being quite liberal with their efforts to "make him talk." So, if you take the time to slowly make your way past all of them without being detected to avoid combat and get to the chest, he will die.

 

So, A) The optimal solution isn't really clear, because you're not even sure what the exact rewards will be (which could be the case in the majority of the game), and B) You're prevented from both taking advantage of the resource-saving avoidance of combat that stealth provides AND saving the merchant, meaning that you can't use both approaches.

 

Either such a scenario is impossible or there's a flaw in my belief that stealth isn't inherently optimal in this example (in which case, please explain), OR stealth isn't inherently optimal in this situation.

[Lephys]

I just want to point out one more time, regarding the "OMG, we won't get anything for combat!" concern, that this is what Josh Sawyer said regarding enemies and loot:

 

Loot in IE games (and PE games) is typically hand-placed with very little randomization involved. I.e., it is not systemic. Some loot is in containers, some loot is given as quest rewards, and some loot is on creatures. Not all creatures carry loot. In Temple of Elemental Evil, on the fourth level of the temple, there's a massive fight before a room containing treasure chests with molds/jellies/puddings. You don't have to actually do the massive fight to get to the treasure chests (and if you're sneaky enough, you don't have to fight the critters near the chests). However, Hedrack, the high priest, carries several nice items. If you want to get those items, you have to weigh your own personal material cost to get through the fight against what you will get out of it. The important thing is that there's a decision to make. In terms of gaining loot, it's not a no-brainer.

 

I bolded the parts important to his ideas about loot. Nowhere in that did I see "And so, you see, I hate loot, and people who enjoy combat, and no one will ever get anything for combat, MUAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHHH!!! *Dramatically pulls cloak across his face beneath his eyes in a diabological gesture, whilst lightning flashes ominously in the background*"

 

I'm curious as to how people decided combat would produce no rewards, or an extremely strained "MAYYYYbe worthless rewards, u_u." When discussing his feelings on loot and combat, he specifically reference a scenario from ToEE in which one of the enemies "carries several nice items." Again, how do you get "Ahh, so Josh Sawyer hates quality loot..." out of that? How, I say?

 

*glaaaarrrrrrrrrre*... o_O

[Helm]

^

 

Because Josh said that sneaking will not be punished, because loot is "systemic". Avoiding combat will not give you less or lower quality loot.

 

And If you use deductive reasoning then you come to the conclusion that avoiding combat will yield the best results, which is awkward for a combat based game.

 

Yes. You will always have enough loot, no matter what you do. Avoiding combat will almost always yield better results, because combat will be a waste of time and resources. You only need to attack the (very rare) creatures that drop good loot and can ignore the rest.

 

Yeah! It's great! PE is not gonna be combat based, but "avoiding combat" and stealth based, because the reward for being stealthy will be much larger! I hate combat and this system is great! *wooohooo!!!*

 

*hisssssssss* yes, the brood queen is not pleased..... *hissssssss* not pleased at all. *hissss* quest only xp is like saying that having facehuggers implant embryos into potatos instead of humans yields the same results. and we don't have to worry about the humans becoming hostile. better results. *hissssssssssssssssssssssssssss*

 

must send facehuggers to ninja now. buh bye. *hissss*

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[PrimeJunta]

@Helm, don't you think you're being a bit childish? There is an actual, reasonable discussion to be had about this. The devs might even get some good ideas if they peek in. How much do you think your continuing epic hissy fit is contributing to that?

[Helm]

^

 

Please don't be mad at Helm because of our reasonable argumentation.

 

Yes. No need to throw a hissy fit Junta, because you don't like the fact that our argumentation makes sense. Quest only xp does not fit in a combat based game. Jee-willickers.

 

Yeah and we don't demand quest + combat xp for a stealth game, because it makes just about as much sense as quest only xp in combat based game.In other words it doesn't make any sense at all.

[Hassat Hunter]

I loved the games overall, despite their flaws. I liked the gameplay in them, despite its flaws. There are many specific features about the gameplay that I loved, and some that I did not like. I could write a list, but that would be long, and I'm not sure you're interested enough in what I think to read it, so I won't bother unless you ask nicely and promise to do so, with a modicum of thought.

While Helm probably wont care and read I, I (and with me others I assume) would be interested. And atleast you're guaranteed it will be read with us too .

[Helm]

I loved the games overall, despite their flaws. I liked the gameplay in them, despite its flaws. There are many specific features about the gameplay that I loved, and some that I did not like. I could write a list, but that would be long, and I'm not sure you're interested enough in what I think to read it, so I won't bother unless you ask nicely and promise to do so, with a modicum of thought.

While Helm probably wont care and read I, I (and with me others I assume) would be interested. And atleast you're guaranteed it will be read with us too .

"I love the game, but the gameplay sucks, but I love the game" lol so, he didn't like some aspects of the game, i.e. the combat.

 

He was probably the guy that wrote this question to Josh on Formspring:

As someone who was not really good at the combat in IE games will I be able to put it on "easy" mode and still play the game for the story?

 

But maybe it was you Hassat, that would also fit your profile.

[PrimeJunta]

Oh, okay. I did not expect that.

 

So, specific gameplay features that I really liked, partially recapping what I already said:

 

Likes:

- Support for big variety of character concepts, play styles, and parties.

- Beautiful, lively, hand-painted 2D/orthographic art.

- Huge variety of spells and large variety of well-differentiated magic-using classes.

- Huge variety of monsters.

- Carefully crafted, genuinely variable combat encounters.

- Big variety of combat mechanics, most of which worked pretty well.

- Tactical aspect of combat.

- Wide possibilities for character development, of PC and party members.

- Very tough optional sidequests.

- Party interactions.

 

Dislikes:

- AD&D multiclassing. Whoever thought this one up must've been really drunk. You go from pretty good to awful to god snip-snappity-snap, with no ingame rationale for it.

- Poor AI. Pulling and kiting was too easy, for example. Pathfinding bugs were too easy to exploit as well.

- Encounters as puzzles -- some nearly impossible until you figured out the right spell or spell combo to use (through trial and error), at which point they became trivial.

- Sometimes poor communication of intent to the player. E.g. the Athkatla questgivers were all together and gave no indication of how tough a quest to expect, which lured you into innocently wading into water much too deep for you at the time. Just placing the questgivers differently would've solved this issue!

- Some overpowered spells, e.g. Feeblemind. (Even a feebleminded dragon ought to be able to lash out like the beast it is, even if it loses the ability to cast spells!)

- Terrible overall balance in some of the games; PS:T in particular -- good luck trying to play a high-DEX high-INT, low-CON low-WIS rogue for example.

- Misaligned incentives, such as combat XP (incentives for pointless murder rampages; Jaheira the druid killing wild animals for XP instead of rescuing them etc.)

- Some more or less exploitable mechanics, e.g. rest-spamming, save-spamming, pickpocketing, grinding (in areas with respawns), some "infinite money" exploits in shops IIRC.

- Wonky difficulty/power curve (problem inherent in (A)D&D) -- very early game you're Sir Diealot, very late game you're way overpowered.

 

Overall, though, gameplay is maybe a quarter of the reason I really liked those games. The other three-quarters are because I loved the content delivered by the gameplay. Put another way, if Planescape: Torment had been an adventure game (a genre I don't much care for, usually), I would probably have liked it almost as much. Conversely, an IE game that doesn't have quality art, writing, characters, quests, critters, locations, and items would interest me not at all.

 

So basically what I'm hoping from P:E is that it takes the best parts of IE, expands upon its strengths, and fixes at least its most egregious faults. That's probably too much to hope for, but hey, I'm enjoying it while it lasts.

[Helm]

[bunch o' stuff]

Ohhhh, so now you only have problems with some of the D&D rules then? Well now, PE is going to have it's own ruleset. That has nothing to do with combat xp by the way.

 

But this caught my eye:

- Misaligned incentives, such as combat XP (incentives for pointless murder rampages; Jaheira the druid killing wild animals for XP instead of rescuing them etc.)

Quest only xp prevents me from killing the poor animal, even if I just want to kill it for "fun" or it's pelt (loot)? Wow, that makes sense. Really, it does (not).

 

That is a scripting problem and and not a quest + combat xp problem. Not to mention that this problem was fixed in BG2 (you know that other game that used combat + quest xp). I guess we have to add it to this list.

 

The Brood Queen is not pleased..... *hisssssss*

 

EDIT: I almost forgot. How will quest xp loot prevent me from going on a murder rage? Sure, it will be just as pointless as with a combat + quest xp system. But it is not the obligation of the game programmer to prevent you from going on ridiculous murder rages. Not to mention that removing combat xp won't prevent you from doing that anyway.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, not too much I disagree with...

- Party interactions.

While they were good yeah, the method of starting them (random) was pretty bad in most IE games. I really do like it rather more that one like KOTOR or DA:O can instigate conversations themselves instead of waiting for teammates to give them. Especially seeing after Athklata I never got them again anymore. Bug or out of content? I don't know.

So that is one thing I do think PE should not follow the BG2 outlines.

- Encounters as puzzles

Yeah, found most combat sequences in BG1 prefereable to BG2. Having each mage to have a few layers and having to pull them away each fight got stale quickly. Hopefully in PE they found a way to make mages protected without this rock-paper-scissors system in place, to reduce repetition...

- Sometimes poor communication of intent to the player.

I personally didn't mind this. You just explored, and if too hard you went elsewhere. I much prefer it over modern RPG's who have difficulty indicators and "you should be this level for a quest" and all those guiding systems. It's no shame to retreat and return later, more powerful.

- Some overpowered spells, e.g. Feeblemind.

What about Haste?

I don't mind overpowered spells though as long as they require high-level mages to cast them and they aren't spammable.

pickpocketing

Never really bothered with it in the IE games. Just hope they don't make it like Drakensang and Dragon Age... where there's absolutely no penalty for failure. So you generally just pickpocket everyone for some bonusses and those you cannot yet you return later when your rogue has a few more points in it.

 

It's also basically what I think about the KOTORs. I like it due to the story, the characters, the setting, the exploration, the quests. But the mechanics itself are pretty bad.

Sometimes one will suffer through horribly gameplay just to experience those good points (TOR, DX:HR, Morrowind, Drakensang, Witcher II etc. etc. etc.)

[Hassat Hunter]

- Misaligned incentives, such as combat XP (incentives for pointless murder rampages; Jaheira the druid killing wild animals for XP instead of rescuing them etc.)

Quest only xp prevents me from killing the poor animal, even if I just want to kill it for "fun" or it's pelt (loot)? Wow, that makes sense. Really, it does (not).

What?

 

As to your edit;

What prevents you? Nothing.

It's that you're not REWARDED for it.

A very important destinction...

Edited January 16, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Valorian]

: *attempts at sarcasm*

 

: *kitty wonders who suggested quest XP removal* Sarcasm is meaningful only when it's the result of connecting facts and using logic.

 

I actually wasn't being sarcastic, so, you are sadly incorrect. Also, you cannot "attempt" sarcasm. You are either being sarcastic or you are not. It is a style of communication, not a puzzle or challenge. You can be sarcastic to no effect, or to much effect, but you are still being sarcastic or you aren't.

 

Oh.. so it wasn't a sad attempt at sarcasm when you wrote: "Do away with quest XP all together", and you actually support this position? Ok.

 

People try being (intelligently) sarcastic all the time, but their "sarcasm" often turns out being just an irrelevant and obtuse mess of words. You're a prime example.

 

 

If reason and logic support the idea that combat kills should always produce an XP reward, then that same reason and logic support the idea that performing any other action that involves a progressive skill should also produce an XP reward. If "experience," meaning what it does, should logically be produced by combat, then any other form of character experience should reward game-system XP.

 

 

"We consider tactical combat to be a core component of the game."

If (tactical) combat wasn't marketed as being a core component of the game, then I guess I'd be fine with no combat XP.

 

"We consider picking up flowers a core component of the game."

Then I'd be fine with getting experience for picking flowers up.

[Helm]

- Misaligned incentives, such as combat XP (incentives for pointless murder rampages; Jaheira the druid killing wild animals for XP instead of rescuing them etc.)

Quest only xp prevents me from killing the poor animal, even if I just want to kill it for "fun" or it's pelt (loot)? Wow, that makes sense. Really, it does (not).

What?

 

As to your edit;

What prevents you? Nothing.

It's that you're not REWARDED for it.

A very important destinction...

What if I'm a poor bastard in PE and really need cash? The "quest xp only" system will prevent me from going on a murdering spree for loot.... how?

Oh right, I almost forgot. There will be so much loot in PE that you don't need to kill anything, you will just avoid all combat. The loot system is implemented in a way so that the pacifist players are not at a disadvantage and will still get loot. So not only the "quest xp only" system will prevent me from killing those poor evil orcs, the loot system will too. How funny is that. Killing in PE will be "double pointless". lol

 

Not to mention that you could skip whole areas in Baldur's Gate, because you didn't need to do every side quest and kill every monster, either for loot or xp. If you didn't know that, then you are a moron.

 

But some people like to visit every area anyway so that they can find that super rare loot. Sadly, you must also kill to do this and will also collect more xp for this. How sad. But at least you can avoid the combat in PE now! lol

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[PrimeJunta]

Well, not too much I disagree with...

- Sometimes poor communication of intent to the player.

I personally didn't mind this. You just explored, and if too hard you went elsewhere. I much prefer it over modern RPG's who have difficulty indicators and "you should be this level for a quest" and all those guiding systems. It's no shame to retreat and return later, more powerful.

 

Not quite what I had in mind. Take Planescape: Torment -- you were basically locked out of most of the best content if you chose to play a low-WIS rogue type character, and there was no indication in-game that this was likely to happen. Having "you must be level X to play" is not what I would like at all about the quests; however, I would've placed the Athkatla questgivers so that the tougher ones would not have been in the first area you're likely to get into (the inn), and mmmaybe have added a line to the dialog something along the lines of "Hm, you guys look a bit green for this job. You sure you want to go with it?"

 

- Some overpowered spells, e.g. Feeblemind.

What about Haste?

 

Yeah, Haste too. There were others as well but it's been a while since I played BG2 so I don't recall the details.

 

I don't mind overpowered spells though as long as they require high-level mages to cast them and they aren't spammable.

 

I agree; that wasn't what I meant by overpowered. Feeblemind and Haste aren't super-high-level spells though, yet the former would turn a really nasty dragon into a helpless lump of meat (most of the time), and the latter would effectively double your party's attacks.

 

pickpocketing

Never really bothered with it in the IE games. Just hope they don't make it like Drakensang and Dragon Age... where there's absolutely no penalty for failure. So you generally just pickpocket everyone for some bonusses and those you cannot yet you return later when your rogue has a few more points in it.

 

It's also basically what I think about the KOTORs. I like it due to the story, the characters, the setting, the exploration, the quests. But the mechanics itself are pretty bad.

Sometimes one will suffer through horribly gameplay just to experience those good points (TOR, DX:HR, Morrowind, Drakensang, Witcher II etc. etc. etc.)

 

I agree about the KOTORs and Morrowind. Haven't played Drakensang. Major hate-on for DX:HR, not because of the mechanics (I got so mad I even blogged about it). OTOH I liked the gameplay in Twitcher 2 a great deal, irritating QT events and some annoying boss fights notwithstanding.

[Amentep]

^

 

Because Josh said that sneaking will not be punished, because loot is "systemic". Avoiding combat will not give you less or lower quality loot.

 

He also gave an example of a sneaky person being able to grab treasure chests without fighting but having to weigh whether they wanted to expend more resources to fight one of the areas antagonists so as to get that antagonists gear or not.

 

So yeah, based on what he's saying you can get good loot whether you kill or not, but you won't get loot off of people you don't kill...