My thoughts on project Eternity

[Helm]

My point is that Josh and Obsidian will not be able to avoid putting combat-based questlines into PE, and since we WILL be gaining exp rewards for completing quests, then YES, we will literally be getting EXP for killing things, we'll just be getting it when that quest is completed instead of after every enmy we kill

You don't get any xp for combat. Not after you kill every enemy, not after you finish a quest, never ever ever. NEVER. No xp for killing anything. NOTHING. No kill xp. No combat xp. Zilch. Nada. Noooooothing.

 

You get a fix amount of xp for finishing a quest by either 1) sneaking and avoiding combat, 2) fighting and killing or everything or 3)something in between. And that's it.

I don't understand the butthurt you people have with such a system. It doesn't make killing things pointless (or whatever the gripe is) since the classic #1 reason for killing something in an RPG is still there: Loot.

 

I don't know about you, but my motivation for killing Drizzt in BG1 was NOT to "gain 12,000 exp", but to get his shiny weapons and armor.

Nope wrong. You do not need to kill for loot, Sawyer does not want to punish a player for his prefered playstyle as he said many times. That is what he considers to be "degenerate gameplay".

 

The best loot is found in chests, as quests rewards or on the occasional elite mob. So, It doesn't matter if you avoid or engage in combat, you will always have enough cash and good loot. Yes, combat will be pointless in PE.

[Stun]

Edit:

You get a fix amount of xp for finishing a quest by either.... 2) fighting and killing or everything

Ok, so we can complete quests 1) by engaging in combat and 2) killing things.

 

Split hairs if you wish, but the bottom line here is that by your own admission the system rewards you exp for engaging in combat and killing things

 

Er... so the claim that you get "zip-zero-nada" exp for combat/killing is ridiculously false. So stop making it.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Stun

[Helm]

 

You don't get any xp for combat. Not after you kill every enemy, not after you finish a quest

Really? Not after finishing a quest?

 

So let me get this straight. You are claiming that the system in PE dictates that if you engaged in combat to complete a quest, then you will not receive EXP?

 

BS. Prove it.

 

Of course you would get xp for combat if you had to kill everything to complete a quest.

 

But the game will not force you to kill everything to get quest xp. Actually, you will not need to kill anything to complete a quest.

 

I am just repeating myself now though.

[uaciaut]

^

It wouldn't really matter to me, xp per monster or encounter, I wouldn't really care.

 

But sadly, as you know, you will not get any combat xp in PE at all.

This doesn't make any sense (unsurprisingly). They've clearly stated that you get XP per quest resolve, either solved through fighting or diplomacy/w/e. Basically you are technically being rewarded for choosing to fight and solving quests that way. I thought you were whining because you don't get XP per kill so you can't grind **** or something, but now you're saying you don't mind this.

So you're not satisfied by the fact that you can resolve quests by non-killing? What, are you gonna have guilt trips that you killed to solve a quest and you could've done it otherwise? It is your choice at the end you know.

I'm beginning to think that the only thing that bothers you really the fact that Sawyer said he likes BG2. You just want to hear him say he likes it so you can sleep better at night, don't you?

[Stun]

Of course you would get xp for combat if you had to kill everything to complete a quest.

 

But the game will not force you to kill everything to get quest xp. Actually, you will not need to kill anything to complete a quest.

 

I am just repeating myself now though.

Yes, I edited my post later to directly address this point of yours. Sorry.

 

Again. it's erroneous to claim that there will be no xp rewards for killing things when the system you're describing *literally* rewards you exp for murdering your way through quests.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Stun

[Bitula]

Hi, here's my first post! I really followed PE as a potential old school  RPG remake (I primarily liked gold box series, BG is OK too though), and so got a bit disappointed about what I read here. AFAIU what the OP stated is completly false, which is nice but the XP kill part seems to be true. What I read Helm claims that there is no XP for kills. Then there comes the argument that XP rewarded for quests is equivalent to XP for kills if you chose so, which of course is false, because it does not scale with the amount of kills, difficulty of monsters and difficulty of opposing parties. So that is rather equvalent to "NO XP for kills", I agree with Helm. But how OP and Helm know this is the truth? I don's see anything in the forum definetly suggesting that this is how it will be. Ofcourse none of the typical old  CRPGs had such a simplistic and unmotivating concept as "XP for quests only", so that would be a bad news. Anyone can show me to where is it stated that it will be so? Ofcource MR. Sawyer disliking BG, even if it is somewhat ambivalent in his satements, is also a concern, maybe he could clarify, what did he mean with those statements? Btw, did he like the old Gold Box RPG-s like Pool of Radiance, because if he does I'll forgive it ?

[SophosTheWise]

 

So you hate classic CRPGs then. Bravo sir. Welcome to Josh Sawyer's little club of classic RPG hate.

Anyway, this is why all modern RPGs are dumbed down and classic RPGs are dead. Just change everything until everything that made these games great is gone... What was the point of Project Eternity again? let me give you a hint: The point was not to make a dumbed down modern RPG.

 

Are you serious? I think I've seldom read arguments so rabulistic and populistic. I don't hate classic RPGs, I'm a D&D player, I've played the IE games, I'm currently playing Ultima IV. But just because I enjoy classic RPGs doesn't mean I'm not open to new suggestions. 

 

And new suggestions don't always mean that the game is going to be dumbed down. Believe me, I'm not one for popamole bullcrap. But still the IE games had its faults and I'm happy someone tries to make it better. If it's not better - well, they tried. I really don't get that nerdrage from the Codex and people like you. It almost seems as if your lives depend on wether a game is going to be awesome or not. 

 

As for the point of Project Eternity - as I've said before there are different conceptions of what made these RPGs great, and frankly, I don't think the combat system was one of those things. I loved the stories, I loved the different characters, the wondrous places one could visit, the riddles and dungeons - the adventure. And I absolutely think that Project Eternity could make a better combat system - so just let the guys try it out, I mean holy ****, how hard and dramatic is that?

Edited January 30, 2013 by SophosTheWise

[Calmar]

 

Ok, so I clear the cave. I just kill everything in the way. I am rewarded for doing so. In total 1% of the game is made up of "clearing your path" quests.

Nonsense. Lets take a look at the main plotline for BG2

 

Chapter 2/3 - If you side with the Thieves guild they ask you to go clear out Bodhi's lair. if you side with the Vampires, you're asked to go clear out the Thieves guild

 

Chapter 4 - your quest is to fight your way out of the Asylum (literally. Bhodi informs you that you're her rat in a cage and your goal is to try and escape, by fighting.)

 

Chapter 5 - The gnomes ask you to kill a demon. Then Adelon asks you to infiltrate a drow city, which means you deal with the matron mother---who asks you to go clear out a nearby cave and get some boss' blood.

 

Chapter 6- You're asked to clear out Bhodi's lair again

 

Chapter 7 - you're asked to clear Suldanessalar of irenicus's minions -then you're asked to clear the tree of life of Irenicus's minions ---then you go to hell and have to fight Irenicus and his minions.

 

And that's just the critical plotline. Would you like the laundry list of "clear area x" side quests in BG2? Or better yet, would you like to Discuss Throne of Bhaal, which was 100% "clear this area" quests?

 

Just a little side-note, I wouldn't consider the Underdark part of the main plot. You can use a portal from the Asylum to the Suldanessalar area; the city of the fish-men and Ust'Natha are basically just big obstacles on your alternative route.

[TMZuk]

The "He hates classic rpgs because he dislike Baldur's Gate 2 / combat-XP / etc. etc." posts are quite amusing.

 

What is a classic RPG, I wonder?

 

I consider Call of Cthulhu a classic RPG. Guess what? No XP at ALL there. In fact, that goes for all the games that employs the old Basic Roleplay system. EG Runequest and Stormbringer. These are games from the eighties, and certainly Call of Cthulhu it would be hard to ~not~ consider a classic.

 

Warhammer Fantasy Role Play. Another game from the eighties which I consider a classic. This system does employ XP, but only quest and role play XP.

 

G.U.R.P.S. Only quest and role play XP. Not a classic? I beg to differ.

 

Now the only systems I remember from the "classic" days, that did have XP per kill was D&D and Rolemaster. Rolemaster was tedious and slow in the extreme, with countless tables and what not. And it gave XP for every damn thing, from rowing a boat, to jumping a gorge to killing a goblin. It could perhaps be used by a computer, but please, no! Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, as it was called back then, was a very popular RP-system in the eighties. It is the system BG and BG2 emulates. And while I loved those games for the exploring and the plots, I really disliked and still do dislike the XP per Kill mechanic.

 

It seems to me that most of the classic games did not have XP pr. kill. Not the ones I've played, anyway. But in the end, it dosn't matter much, one way or another. If the game has what I consider the core of a good RP: Exploration, character development, great npcs and companions and an interesting main quest, I could care less what the mechanics are like!

Edited January 30, 2013 by TMZuk

[Somna]

 

 

[...]

Every combat encounter had a challenge rating. And you got experience for overcoming these encounters. This has been around since the beginning. The 2 most popular PnP systems (D&D + Pathfinder) still use this system.

 

And what if the challenge rating is very low (because your level is much higher), what happens then? Well, then you get little to no xp and not some exorbitant amount as you claim.

 

btw, even if you get the experience on the fly or after the session has ended you still got your combat xp! Always!

 

The term "Challenge rating" is 3rd Edition terminology. This terminology most certainly has NOT been around since the beginning, which can (arduously) be verified just by pulling out the Player's Handbooks and Dungeon Master's Guides and reading them.  If the party had zero risk in killing an opponent, the party got absolutely no XP, regardless of the level of the opponent.  Anyone who has actually had to DM those systems knows this.

No, the termininology has not been around since the beginning, even though it fits.

 

Other than that, you just repeated what I wrote. Seems we have a misunderstanding here.

No, I wrote something that sounds similar to you.  That does not make them the same.  

 

With Challenge Rating, if you have a MacGuffin and use it to annihilate a rampaging army in safe circumstances, by how Challenge Rating actually works, you still get SOME kill XP out of it because you did something, but it is heavily ad-hoc'd.

 

With the original D&D/AD&D, if you have a MacGuffin and use it to annihilate a rampaging army in safe circumstances, you get ABSOLUTELY NO kill XP from it by the rules because your party was not at any risk.  You might get story XP (a.k.a. what is being referred to on the boards as objective XP) attributed to it by the DM instead, or the DM may have an alternative reward in mind for the party, but the DM is not supposed to give you any kill XP for it at all.

[Helm]

 

^

It wouldn't really matter to me, xp per monster or encounter, I wouldn't really care.

 

But sadly, as you know, you will not get any combat xp in PE at all.

This doesn't make any sense (unsurprisingly). They've clearly stated that you get XP per quest resolve, either solved through fighting or diplomacy/w/e. Basically you are technically being rewarded for choosing to fight and solving quests that way. I thought you were whining because you don't get XP per kill so you can't grind **** or something, but now you're saying you don't mind this.

You, sir, seriously need to check your reading comprehension skills. And you really need to use a dictionary and look up what encounter means.

[Helm]

 

Of course you would get xp for combat if you had to kill everything to complete a quest.

 

But the game will not force you to kill everything to get quest xp. Actually, you will not need to kill anything to complete a quest.

 

I am just repeating myself now though.

Yes, I edited my post later to directly address this point of yours. Sorry.

 

Again. it's erroneous to claim that there will be no xp rewards for killing things when the system you're describing *literally* rewards you exp for murdering your way through quests.

If the game has endless "kill all enemies for 500xp" quests, then yes, the game would always be rewarding me for combat.

 

But that will not be the case in PE. Why? Read my last posts. There is no need for me to repeat myself.

[Helm]

Are you serious? I think I've seldom read arguments so rabulistic and populistic. I don't hate classic RPGs, I'm a D&D player, I've played the IE games, I'm currently playing Ultima IV. But just because I enjoy classic RPGs doesn't mean I'm not open to new suggestions.

 

And new suggestions don't always mean that the game is going to be dumbed down. Believe me, I'm not one for popamole bullcrap. But still the IE games had its faults and I'm happy someone tries to make it better. If it's not better - well, they tried. I really don't get that nerdrage from the Codex and people like you. It almost seems as if your lives depend on wether a game is going to be awesome or not.

Ok, i'm a nerd, you are not a nerd. Whoever critcizes Sawyer is on a nerdrage.

 

You must have forgotten your intelligence +18 helmet.

As for the point of Project Eternity - as I've said before there are different conceptions of what made these RPGs great, and frankly, I don't think the combat system was one of those things. I loved the stories, I loved the different characters, the wondrous places one could visit, the riddles and dungeons - the adventure. And I absolutely think that Project Eternity could make a better combat system - so just let the guys try it out, I mean holy ****, how hard and dramatic is that?

1) remove combat xp. No more xp for any combat whatsoever

2) implement a substantial stealth system for all classes

3) avoiding combat is not punished in any way, you still get excellent loot and the same amount of xp

4) combat can (almost) always be avoided

5) the tactical combat based game called project eternity is complete. The first tactical combat based game ever created where avoiding combat yields the best results.

 

Yup, they have really improved the combat alright. 100% pure incline.

[Malekith]

 

My point is that Josh and Obsidian will not be able to avoid putting combat-based questlines into PE, and since we WILL be gaining exp rewards for completing quests, then YES, we will literally be getting EXP for killing things, we'll just be getting it when that quest is completed instead of after every enmy we kill

You don't get any xp for combat. Not after you kill every enemy, not after you finish a quest, never ever ever. NEVER. No xp for killing anything. NOTHING. No kill xp. No combat xp. Zilch. Nada. Noooooothing.

 

You get a fix amount of xp for finishing a quest by either 1) sneaking and avoiding combat, 2) fighting and killing or everything or 3)something in between. And that's it.

>I don't understand the butthurt you people have with such a system. It doesn't make killing things pointless (or whatever the gripe is) since the classic #1 reason for killing something in an RPG is still there: Loot.

 

I don't know about you, but my motivation for killing Drizzt in BG1 was NOT to "gain 12,000 exp", but to get his shiny weapons and armor.

Nope wrong. You do not need to kill for loot, Sawyer does not want to punish a player for his prefered playstyle as he said many times. That is what he considers to be "degenerate gameplay".

 

The best loot is found in chests, as quests rewards or on the occasional elite mob. So, It doesn't matter if you avoid or engage in combat, you will always have enough cash and good loot. Yes, combat will be pointless in PE.

 

Let's take BG2, everyones favorite game examble here. The best loot was in chests and elite mobs. The 20 random goblins or bandits or slavers or whateverthat****encounterwas had nothing special anyway. 

 

You get the same XP no matter which way you play the game!!!!! And how exactly this is a problem? Why someone who gets the job done diplomatically should get a lesser reward than someone who gets the same job done with combat? Most backers asked for alternate ways to solve quests besides combat. Whats the point in that if combat pays better in the end?

Or to look at it from the other end, why in Planescape should dialoge give XP in the millions and combat only scraps? BG rewards better if you fight, Torment rewards better if you don't fight. Why shouldnt we have a game that rewards all playstyles equally? 

[Bitula]

Where is it stated that the game will be "Quest reward only XP"? I see that there is a trend to make the game rewarding even without frequent kills. But this in itself does not mean that combat in itself is not rewarded. There are really several ways realize this, not just the simplistic "Quest only" method.

[PrimeJunta]

1) remove combat xp. No more xp for any combat whatsoever

2) implement a substantial stealth system for all classes

3) avoiding combat is not punished in any way, you still get excellent loot and the same amount of xp

4) combat can (almost) always be avoided

5) the tactical combat based game called project eternity is complete. The first tactical combat based game ever created where avoiding combat yields the best results.

Source for (4) or GTFO. You keep whining about this worse than a Burgundy château, despite explicit statements from the devs that they do not intend to make stealth the easy way out.

Our stealth system isn't going to be an incredibly intricate, elaborate system, but it will be more involved than pressing a button and hoping that the RNG doesn't make enemies see you. We really don't view it as the easy way out. We want it to be gameplay on its own that requires observation and adaptation -- especially if you're actually using it to move through unaware hostiles. If you want to use it for light scouting/pre-combat positioning at range, it should be commensurately less risky.

[Malekith]

 

 

You don't get any xp for combat. Not after you kill every enemy, not after you finish a quest

Really? Not after finishing a quest?

 

So let me get this straight. You are claiming that the system in PE dictates that if you engaged in combat to complete a quest, then you will not receive EXP?

 

BS. Prove it.

 

Of course you would get xp for combat if you had to kill everything to complete a quest.

 

But the game will not force you to kill everything to get quest xp. Actually, you will not need to kill anything to complete a quest.

 

I am just repeating myself now though.

Thats your problem. You want the game to force you to kill everything. How is that good game design?

Most of the backers don't want that.

The game still rewards you for combat.It just don't rewards you for combat  better than non combat. That was the goal from the start.

You seem to find that unacceptable. Why is that?

[Wirdjos]

I've been following this thread for awhile now and I'm starting to get rather confused.

 

It could be me, but I don't think it was common practice to award XP on the spot during DnD sessions, usually exp was awarded after the session, and then exp was calculated per encounter, not "per monster", meaning you could get exp for avoiding or talking down an encounter.

 

Could be me, but that's how I've always played it, and I found that satisfactory, and that's also how I'd like to see it in PE; you get experience per encounter, not per monster, I'd even be fine to receive it after quest completion, as long as it does reflect the challenge the quest presented.

 

What locomotron is talking about here is where I was under the impression of P:E heading. Exp is not quest based, but goal based. I don't remember any number of dead orcs being mentioned at any time. A goal can be as simple as getting from point a to b or making sure some else doesn't make it there.

 

You don't get any xp for combat. Not after you kill every enemy, not after you finish a quest, never ever ever. NEVER. No xp for killing anything. NOTHING. No kill xp. No combat xp. Zilch. Nada. Noooooothing.

 

I don't understand how the design in the Helm quote is the same as the design in the locomotron quote. Did I miss an update, a post, or am I just misunderstanding something? Could someone please point me towards the information coming from Obsidian that supports assertions like the one Helm is making above?

[Helm]

The "He hates classic rpgs because he dislike Baldur's Gate 2 / combat-XP / etc. etc." posts are quite amusing.

 

What is a classic RPG, I wonder?

You mean a classic IE style RPG. Which were combat based as we know. And yes, Mr. Sawyer hates Baldur's Gate 2.

 

The most popular PnP systems (D&D + Pathfinder) reward combat with xp.

 

In GURPS it is completly up to the GM how he distributes the xp. so you're wrong about GURPS not giving the player xp for combat.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

You get the same XP no matter which way you play the game!!!!! And how exactly this is a problem? Why someone who gets the job done diplomatically should get a lesser reward than someone who gets the same job done with combat? Most backers asked for alternate ways to solve quests besides combat. Whats the point in that if combat pays better in the end?

Or to look at it from the other end, why in Planescape should dialoge give XP in the millions and combat only scraps? BG rewards better if you fight, Torment rewards better if you don't fight. Why shouldnt we have a game that rewards all playstyles equally?

 

The xp system should be balanced towards giving the most xp for the hardest and most demanding options. Even if it is of diplomatic nature.

 

Avoiding combat by sneaking past every encounter is not demanding, but it yields the same amount of xp. Avoiding combat in PE (a game that is supposed to be combat based) yields the best results.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

Where is it stated that the game will be "Quest reward only XP"? I see that there is a trend to make the game rewarding even without frequent kills. But this in itself does not mean that combat in itself is not rewarded. There are really several ways realize this, not just the simplistic "Quest only" method.

 

You'll have to look for the info. I think it's in 1 or 2 of the updates and Sawyer mentioned it in an interview or a post on the forum. But they didn't advertise it with some big old red text like this for obvious reasons:

 

Project Eternity now features no XP for combat! WOOHOOO!

[Doppelschwert]

If you want to make a point then its your job to search for the corresponding update, not ours.

 

By now I'm pretty sure he's just a troll. He's making stuff up as he goes and is twisting every fact into supporting his case, no matter how ridiculous his exxaggeration gets.

 

As if you'd be able to avoid most of the combat while the devs clearly stated on this forum that you won't be able to evade most of the combat but only parts of it.

 

Also, complaining about different ways to play the game being rewarded equally just says that you're not fighting because its fun but only because you want the best reward, which is a pretty one-dimensional motivation to approach a game, at least imho.

If fighting is fun, I'll fight even if the reward is smaller, because having fun is the whole damn point of playing a game.

[Helm]

 

1) remove combat xp. No more xp for any combat whatsoever

2) implement a substantial stealth system for all classes

3) avoiding combat is not punished in any way, you still get excellent loot and the same amount of xp

4) combat can (almost) always be avoided

5) the tactical combat based game called project eternity is complete. The first tactical combat based game ever created where avoiding combat yields the best results.

Source for (4) or GTFO. You keep whining about this worse than a Burgundy château, despite explicit statements from the devs that they do not intend to make stealth the easy way out.

It must be cold in Finland today....

 

Sawyer said a player should not be punished for his gameplay style of choice. It was his "legendary" statement about degenerate gameplay.

 

I will look for the link (be patient) and post it here so that everyone can see it. Thanks for the great idea btw.

[Helm]

 

Of course you would get xp for combat if you had to kill everything to complete a quest.

 

But the game will not force you to kill everything to get quest xp. Actually, you will not need to kill anything to complete a quest.

 

I am just repeating myself now though.

Thats your problem. You want the game to force you to kill everything. How is that good game design?

Most of the backers don't want that.

No I don't. I just don't want the combat to be annoying and pointless. I want to be rewarded for making wise decisions, I want to be rewarded for making the hardest and most demanding options and not just for crossing some imaginary line.

 

I just want what the backers want. A spiritual successor to the IE games. Nothing more and nothing less.

The game still rewards you for combat.It just don't rewards you for combat  better than non combat. That was the goal from the start.

You seem to find that unacceptable. Why is that?

The game only rewards you for crossing an imaginary line.

 

What the game should be doing is rewarding you for the most xp for the hardest and most demanding options. But that is not what we will be getting.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Helm

[Wirdjos]

But that is not what we will be getting.

 

It probably shouldn't, but this phrase is driving me nuts. You have no idea what we are getting. You have no idea what this game is, what it looks like, or what it will develop into. You don't know, stop claiming you do. This may be a fully pedantic concern, but you, and anyone else that would use it, need to think up a more honest rephrasing.

 

All of us have to remember what we are looking at here. This is preproduction. To almost everyone here, other than industry insiders, this is brand new. Contradicting statements are not flipflopping at this point, they are experimentation. No one has pulled out any stone tablets. Nothing is decided. So noone, not even the devs, know what this game is going to be yet. If you think something presented is a poor design choice, explain why. That is the end of your involvement. There is no need to extrapolate to the point of misinformation. Thank you.

 

[End Rant]