Features concerns so far

[Gfted1]

No doubt containing your rage is a terrible cross to bear, you should keep the cookie for your own comfort. Alternatively, you can also choose to not post if all you have to offer in reply to a subject is personal attacks.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Stop the name-calling, you lowlife virgin reprobates.

[Gfted1]

I had to look "reprobates" up.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

No doubt containing your rage is a terrible cross to bear, you should keep the cookie for your own comfort.

 

Alternatively, you can also choose to not post if all you have to offer in reply to a subject is personal attacks.

 

It's more of an all-enveloping depression which stems from facing mind-boggling stupidity, but nevertheless, I shall do so.

 

Alternatively, I could indeed choose to post something more pertaining to the topic at hand - for example, that Valorian's "verisimilitude-based" argument breaks down entirely when someone points out the fact that non-combat skills also increase with leveling up, thus the whole "my character should be better at combat if he fights a lot" thing doesn't make any sense - ok, you've beaten up a lot of critters, now you know to fight better, and also somehow learned a bit about herbology and ancient history... wait what? And yes, of course, separating combat and noncombat abilities is always an option, but... are the Elder Scrolls games better RPGs because of that? Wait a minute, are they even RPGs? Well, that pretty much settles the question of how great an impact does a semi-realistic skill system have on the RPG-yness of a given game.

I could also point out how entirely idiotic it is to presume that it is a design flaw to have "playing smart" be at odds with "having lots of combat" - in any kind of nuanced setting with complex moral themes, combat should most often be something with heavier consequences than "getting a bunch of xp and loot". And sometimes, the agressive method should yield optimal results, but generally it shouldn't be an option considered lightly.

And it could be mentioned that it's rather hypocritical to ask from the combat-lovers to be better rewarded, because otherwise they wouldn't enjoy combat as much - if you don't enjoy it when it's not rewarded, perhaps it's time to think about whether you really do like it as much as you claim? To which they could of course answer that "having preassigned xp values helps them in getting a feedback about their performance" - but that's a load of steaming bull. First off, including a game mechanics should perhaps be done for better reasons than egostroking; second, if tactics really do matter that much, assigning a number which accurately gauges how hard it is to figure out the correct course of action, and how hard it is to implement it in practice could eat up quite a lot of time.

 

Yes, I could churn out massive walls of texts elaborating on these points, and more... but I see little point in doing so, because our dear friend Valorian had more than enough opportunities to demonstrate his utter imperviousness to reason.

 

(By the way, complaining about name-calling when it was preceded by a paragraphs-long rant about the intellect - or lack thereof - of the original poster is... strange... at least. Which rant, I'll give you that, came in response to some sarcastic comment about the utter insanity of yet another post, but - as anybody with a basic understanding of grammar knows - there is a difference between calling a post, or a poster stupid. [FYI, the second one goes in the box labelled "personal attacks".])

Edited September 20, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Gfted1]

It's more of an all-enveloping depression which stems from facing mind-boggling stupidity, but nevertheless, I shall do so.

 

Alternatively, I could indeed choose to post something more pertaining to the topic at hand - for example, that Valorian's "verisimilitude-based" argument breaks down entirely when someone points out the fact that non-combat skills also increase with leveling up, thus the whole "my character should be better at combat if he fights a lot" thing doesn't make any sense - ok, you've beaten up a lot of critters, now you know to fight better, and also somehow learned a bit about herbology and ancient history... wait what? And yes, of course, separating combat and noncombat abilities is always an option, but... are the Elder Scrolls games better RPGs because of that? Wait a minute, are they even RPGs? Well, that pretty much settles the question of how great an impact does a semi-realistic skill system have on the RPG-yness of a given game.

I could also point out how entirely idiotic it is to presume that it is a design flaw to have "playing smart" be at odds with "having lots of combat" - in any kind of nuanced setting with complex moral themes, combat should most often be something with heavier consequences than "getting a bunch of xp and loot". And sometimes, the agressive method should yield optimal results, but generally it shouldn't be an option considered lightly.

And it could be mentioned that it's rather hypocritical to ask from the combat-lovers to be better rewarded, because otherwise they wouldn't enjoy combat as much - if you don't enjoy it when it's not rewarded, perhaps it's time to think about whether you really do like it as much as you claim? To which they could of course answer that "having preassigned xp values helps them in getting a feedback about their performance" - but that's a load of steaming bull. First off, including a game mechanics should perhaps be done for better reasons than egostroking; second, if tactics really do matter that much, assigning a number which accurately gauges how hard it is to figure out the correct course of action, and how hard it is to implement it in practice could eat up quite a lot of time.

 

Yes, I could churn out massive walls of texts elaborating on these points, and more... but I see little point in doing so, because our dear friend Valorian had more than enough opportunities to demonstrate his utter imperviousness to reason.

I knew you could do it!

 

(By the way, complaining about name-calling when it was preceded by a paragraphs-long rant about the intellect - or lack thereof - of the original poster is... strange... at least. Which rant, I'll give you that, came in response to some sarcastic comment about the utter insanity of yet another post, but - as anybody with a basic understanding of grammar knows - there is a difference between calling a post, or a poster stupid. [FYI, the second one goes in the box labelled "personal attacks".])

That's why I didn't comment until the second one. Were not here to police every slap fight but I do try to keep the personal attacks to a minimum. I appreciate your understanding.

[rjshae]

I've learned to embrace and extend the Ignore list. The forum is a much happier place for me with the reprobates in their place.

[Valorian]

 

On the other hand, Intellect could believably affect damage for both spells and weapons, and Strength would be the attribute that affects damage dealt with weapons.

So... strength and intelligence would affect weapon damage?

 

I don't know. I can understand if a high intelligence Barbarian gains a better understanding of an opponent's anatomy, thus he receives bonusses to damage/criticals, but that's simply the definition of accuracy. So, basically, intelligence here is taking the place of Dexterity, rather than strength. When it comes to the subject of weapons, Strength is Brute force. Dexterity is accuracy. So what's intelligence in this equation? Do we have a situation where the Barbarian is so smart that his blows have more force behind them? Or is he so smart that his blows are more accurate (ie. he was keen enough to aim for the vitals)?

 

Personally I'm fine with either one, so long as there's some sort of believable explanation instead of just: "well, we wanted intelligence to be more useful!". We've all asked for No-More-Dump-Stats, but IMO the solution isn't to double up and have 2 different stats do the exact same thing. Because that just seems like.... Lazy Design.

 

If you ask me, though, I think Intelligence should have an indirect effect on weapon damage. The smart barbarian should be able to master more weapon types/styles. He should be able to make better use of poisons and other types of weapon coatings. Stuff like that.

 

 

Yes, intellect could potentially affect weapon damage, but not like strength. I'd prefer strength to be the main source of physical damage, but maybe there's room for a talent that lets you increase your crit range with intellect. Strength shouldn't directly affect spell damage or healing though.

 

I'm in favor of intellect increasing talent options. Hmm, it would also be interesting to know if there's a wisdom-like stat.

Anyway, while witnessing the unfortunate mental breakdown of a fellow forum member, I realized that attributes should be much more integrated with each other. I'll explain on an example.

 

If you have a character with low intellect and wisdom scores, the negative effects should be considerably greater than the simple sum of individual low intellect or low wisdom negative effects. The character would surely suffer from serious functional deficiencies such as persistent blackouts, but could also gain peculiar talents such as causing hysterical laughter and bewilderment (something like "Tasha's hideous laughter") by forcefully slamming his or her head into random objects, for example.

But I guess it would be too complex for this particular Project, oh well..

 

 

 

The character doesn't know there's an XP bar ticking, no.

However, the character does notice, assuming average or above average cognitive skills, that there's a direct link between defeating a foe in combat and gradually becoming better at combat.

People often roleplay someone who is to some degree similar to them, so I'm not surprised your character would be oblivious to this connection.

Seeing as in PE there is no "direct link between defeating a foe in combat and gradually becoming better at combat", your hypothetical character would be wrong.

 

 

There isn't? Oh my, thank you for letting me now, I almost forgot that we weren't discussing why the lack of kill XP is unreasonable.

 

XP is an abstraction, that's correct.

If something is an abstraction, it doesn't mean that it should also be unreasonable.

 

If a character is made of 90% combat-centered statistics / 10% non-combat statistics, both of which are advanced through XP gain/level up... the unreasonable abstraction would be to not award XP -- when?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The ratio of combat abilities to non-combat abilities has not been confirmed, so your example is flawed. Tying XP to completing objectives or challenges is better than tying it to a body count, because the character actually has to succeed at something to recieve XP. Surely it is more reasonable to correlate growth with success rather than slaughtering mooks.

[Valorian]

The ratio of combat abilities to non-combat abilities has not been confirmed, so your example is flawed. Tying XP to completing objectives or challenges is better than tying it to a body count, because the character actually has to succeed at something to recieve XP. Surely it is more reasonable to correlate growth with success rather than slaughtering mooks.

 

My example isn't flawed. All abilities and talents revealed so far are combat oriented. They're gained when you get enough XP.

 

Tying XP to "objective" count is not better because it is more reasonable to correlate combat growth with combat success.

You should enjoy objectives for the sake of achieving objectives, you don't need XP to validate your "objective" collection.

[anubite]

The problem is XP tied to bodycount means you are highly, highly incentivized to kill everything that moves. This makes roleplaying a 'pacifist' (avoiding combat to conserve resources) or reserved party (like a professional assassin) impossible. We understand that a successor to BG isn't going to likely allow a real pacifist run, but that you shouldn't be forced to kill everyone in a zone to feel satisfied. I like that the game will be designed around varying play styles. There should be benefits and deficits to killing everyone or leaving some alive.

 

The alternative is that you can't really roleplay a wide spectrum of characters/parties and that developers have to design levels around you killing everything that moves to proceed.

 

Who cares which design is more realistically logical? I don't.

Edited September 21, 2013 by anubite

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

My example isn't flawed. All abilities and talents revealed so far are combat oriented.

And that has what to do with the amount of non-combat abilities?

 

They're gained when you get enough XP.

I think we are all familiar with the concept of leveling.

 

Tying XP to "objective" count is not better because it is more reasonable to correlate combat growth with combat success.

Combat success =/= body count. Defeating enemies, through whatever means at disposal, is what should be rewarded, not the act of killing.

 

You should enjoy objectives for the sake of achieving objectives, you don't need XP to validate your "objective" collection.

I could play a game with no XP and be perfectly satisfied. But if you are doing something(combat in this case) solely for the XP, not because of enjoyment, then you should probably play something else.

 

Who cares which design is more realistically logical? I don't.

I certainly don't. Especially in a game where almost everyone has supernatural abilities.

Edited September 21, 2013 by KaineParker

[Valorian]

 

My example isn't flawed. All abilities and talents revealed so far are combat oriented.

And that has what to do with the amount of non-combat abilities?

 

They're gained when you get enough XP.

I think we are all familiar with the concept of leveling.

 

Tying XP to "objective" count is not better because it is more reasonable to correlate combat growth with combat success.

Combat success =/= body count. Defeating enemies, through whatever means at disposal, is what should be rewarded, not the act of killing.

 

You should enjoy objectives for the sake of achieving objectives, you don't need XP to validate your "objective" collection.

I could play a game with no XP and be perfectly satisfied. But if you are doing something(combat in this case) solely for the XP, not because of enjoyment, then you should probably play something else.

 

 

In order:

 

They revealed/mentioned close to 50 abilities and talents, and all of them are combat related. Stamina, health, accuracy, defenses... are also combat related. If that doesn't give you a huge clue about the ratio between combat and non-combat stats, you're beyond help.

 

Not really.

 

Avoiding combat =/= combat success. 

 

If you have a phobia of combat and equate it with "body count", then you shouldn't play an RPG that has "tactical combat" as one of its 3 main pillars.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

They revealed/mentioned close to 50 abilities and talents, and all of them are combat related. Stamina, health, accuracy, defenses... are also combat related. If that doesn't give you a huge clue about the ratio between combat and non-combat stats, you're beyond help.

That doesn't give any real clue because PE is still a work in progress, as in unfinished, incomplete, etc. They might not be revealing anything about non-combat because they haven't finished fleshing out those systems yet. Since no specifics have been revealed about non-combat abilities, making statements along the lines of "character abilities consist of 90% combat abilities and 10% non-combat abilities" is not based in fact. If you assert otherwise, prove it.

 

Avoiding combat =/= combat success.

No one is arguing that. I'm arguing that combat success =/= body count. Hypothetically: If someone has a quest to slay a giant and they do not kill it, they should not be rewarded as they did not succeed in their task. If they kill it, either by slaughtering it and its entourage or just killing the giant, they should be rewarded the same amount because they both succeeded at their task.

 

If you have a phobia of combat and equate it with "body count", then you shouldn't play an RPG that has "tactical combat" as one of its 3 main pillars.

I didn't equate combat with body count, I equated rewarding XP for killing to rewarding for body count, not result. Again, if you do not like doing something if you do not receive a reward for doing it, then you should not play a game where that thing is not rewarded.

Edited September 21, 2013 by KaineParker

[Valorian]

 

They revealed/mentioned close to 50 abilities and talents, and all of them are combat related. Stamina, health, accuracy, defenses... are also combat related. If that doesn't give you a huge clue about the ratio between combat and non-combat stats, you're beyond help.

That doesn't give any real clue because PE is still a work in progress, as in unfinished, incomplete, etc. They might not be revealing anything about non-combat because they haven't finished fleshing out those systems yet. Since no specifics have been revealed about non-combat abilities, making statements along the lines of "character abilities consist of 90% combat abilities and 10% non-combat abilities" is not based in fact. If you assert otherwise, prove it.

 

Avoiding combat =/= combat success.

No one is arguing that. I'm arguing that combat success =/= body count. Hypothetically: If someone has a quest to slay a giant and they do not kill it, they should not be rewarded as they did not succeed in their task. If they kill it, either by slaughtering it and its entourage or just killing the giant, they should be rewarded the same amount because they both succeeded at their task.

 

If you have a phobia of combat and equate it with "body count", then you shouldn't play an RPG that has "tactical combat" as one of its 3 main pillars.

I didn't equate combat with body count, I equated rewarding XP for killing to rewarding for body count, not result. Again, if you do not like doing something if you do not receive a reward for doing it, then you should not play a game where that thing is not rewarded.

 

 

More than 90% of talents and abilities will be combat related. That's perfectly fine too.

 

 

No. You don't improve your combat abilities, talents, health, defenses and accuracy because someone instructed you to kill the giant. You improve these stats because you killed the giant. You improve these stats even more if you kill the giant and his minions.

 

 

Defining kill XP as rewarding for "body count" is patently false. The quality and identity of the opponent you defeated in combat is what matters above all when it comes to XP awards.

Slaughtering a whole city would increase the body count, but wouldn't necessarily procure you more XP compared to the alternative of not slaughering it. 

I will probably like combat regardless,  , but would like it even more with kill XP. Too bad for combatophobia.

[Osvir]

In Vagabond, a manga about Musashi (based of Japanese lore) is a realistic and very philosophical story.

The interesting part I thought about, in reference to the "Out of combat Experience", is that Musashi learns the philosophy and mindset out of combat and then he takes that understanding with him to combat. In many ways this is why he is a better fighter and sword master than many others in the world of Vagabond. Of course, he becomes a better fighter out of sheer battle experience (the more fights he is the less "fear" he has of engaging in battle).

A man who has fought 100 battles would be a better fighter than the one who has fought 10? Maybe. How much does the man who has fought 100 battles think about the Blade, Body & Mind in comparison to the one who has fought only 10?

When I learned tricks with Poi (link to Fire Poi, youtube), I practiced a lot and I got good really fast, but I also observed much more, watching others play with it, I meditated and reflected their movements and envisioned the movements of the poi (without actually swinging any). I have more "Out of Spinning"-Experience than "In-Spinning"-Experience. It is about how well you know your own body and very much "Tai Chi"-philosophy, moving energy and similar, I can spin imaginary poi without holding poi in my hands and imagine the energy, weight and strength of the poi as well. 

So what am I trying to say? Cutting down a man teaches you how to cut down a man (in-combat), but how to swing your sword to do so is something you teach yourself and your own body & mind, regardless if there's a man in front of you or not (out-of-combat).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

More than 90% of talents and abilities will be combat related. That's perfectly fine too.

Link or equation please.

 

 

No. 1. You don't improve your combat abilities, talents, health, defenses and accuracy because someone instructed you to kill the giant. 2. You improve these stats because you killed the giant. 3. You improve these stats even more if you kill the giant and his minions.

Already established 1 and 2.

 

To 3: Why should the reward be less if you did not kill the minions and instead used other means to neutralize them? The party would still be using their skills to overcome a challenge, and the end result would be the same.

 

 

Defining kill XP as rewarding for "body count" is patently false.

How so? You are rewarded XP not for defeating an enemy, you are rewarded XP for killing them. I don't see any good reason why more XP should be given for killing a bandit chief after you have beaten him down to 1HP than if you decide to spare him.

 

The quality and identity of the opponent you defeated in combat is what matters above all when it comes to XP awards.

I see no problem with that, or how that is exclusive to kill XP.

[Valorian]

 

More than 90% of talents and abilities will be combat related. That's perfectly fine too.

Link or equation please.

 

 

No. 1. You don't improve your combat abilities, talents, health, defenses and accuracy because someone instructed you to kill the giant. 2. You improve these stats because you killed the giant. 3. You improve these stats even more if you kill the giant and his minions.

Already established 1 and 2.

 

To 3: Why should the reward be less if you did not kill the minions and instead used other means to neutralize them? The party would still be using their skills to overcome a challenge, and the end result would be the same.

 

 

Defining kill XP as rewarding for "body count" is patently false.

How so? You are rewarded XP not for defeating an enemy, you are rewarded XP for killing them. I don't see any good reason why more XP should be given for killing a bandit chief after you have beaten him down to 1HP than if you decide to spare him.

 

The quality and identity of the opponent you defeated in combat is what matters above all when it comes to XP awards.

I see no problem with that, or how that is exclusive to kill XP.

 

 

1) Inductive reasoning.

 

2) It wouldn't be the same. Engaging in combat doesn't produce the same results as avoiding combat, neither does it use and spend the same resources. 

 

3) "I don't see any good reason why more XP should be given for killing a bandit chief after you have beaten him down to 1HP than if you decide to spare him." Bravo. Neither do I.

Also, I've beaten the bandit chief down to 1 HP thanks to my combat prowess. See.. combat XP without the dreaded increase in the body count. Miracle!

 

3b) You have avoided the example of slaughtering a city.

[ShadySands]

I must admit that I'm a little concerned that there is no cover based third person mode for ranged classes... and multiplayer deathmatches with silly hats

 

Plus when I hit a button I want something awesome to happen

 

Let's make that happen

[Amentep]

I must admit that I'm a little concerned that there is no cover based third person mode for ranged classes... and multiplayer deathmatches with silly hats

 

Plus when I hit a button I want something awesome to happen

 

Let's make that happen

When I hit the "post" button, something awesome happens!

 

Oh you mean in the game...carry on.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1) Inductive reasoning.

Ah, I see. You are aware that inductive reasoning is flawed?

 

Now while it is true that very little has been revealed about non-combat mechanics, assuming the ratio of combat abilities to non-combat abilities is flawed because:

 

1. PE is a work in progress and it is possible that mechanics are either not finalized or even fully designed

2. Since no non-combat abilities have been officially revealed, no quantitative assessment can be made about them.

 

I conclude that no statement can be made concerning the amount of non-combat abilities, as no accurate information pertaining to the amount is currently known.

 

2) It wouldn't be the same. Engaging in combat doesn't produce the same results as avoiding combat, neither does it use and spend the same resources.

How so? Drugging(or "insert other method of neutralization not induced by combat") the minions would yield the same result as putting a sword through their hearts. Resources are still likely to be used, and a test of skill still happens.

 

3) "I don't see any good reason why more XP should be given for killing a bandit chief after you have beaten him down to 1HP than if you decide to spare him." Bravo. Neither do I.

Also, I've beaten the bandit chief down to 1 HP thanks to my combat prowess. See.. combat XP without the dreaded increase in the body count. Miracle!

Then why not reward the party the same amount for overcoming him with their non-combat prowess? Both take effort and are a test of the party's abilities.

 

You seem to be under the impression that I am against XP rewards for combat. I'm not. To paraphrase myself: "XP should be rewarded for overcoming obstacles, not just completing quests. If someone deals with a random encounter, they should be rewarded by the challenge rating of the encounter no matter what method they used to overcome it."

 

3b) You have avoided the example of slaughtering a city.

This?

Slaughtering a whole city would increase the body count, but wouldn't necessarily procure you more XP compared to the alternative of not slaughering it.

I found it to be uncertain. Did you mean random slaughter or carrying out a quest to conquer the city?

 

To random slaughter: Possibly, but if the reason XP rewards are different is because of kill XP gained on quests it still is determined by body count.

 

Quest: Agree. XP should be rewarded for the act of taking the city, not the method. Someone who barges in and slaughters any resistance in sight should get the same reward as someone who uses subterfuge or other methods to achieve the same results.

Edited September 24, 2013 by KaineParker

[Valorian]

 

1) Inductive reasoning.

Ah, I see. You are aware that inductive reasoning is flawed?

 

Now while it is true that very little has been revealed about non-combat mechanics, assuming the ratio of combat abilities to non-combat abilities is flawed because:

 

1. PE is a work in progress and it is possible that mechanics are either not finalized or even fully designed

2. Since no non-combat abilities have been officially revealed, no quantitative assessment can be made about them.

 

I conclude that no statement can be made concerning the amount of non-combat abilities, as no accurate information pertaining to the amount is currently known.

 

2) It wouldn't be the same. Engaging in combat doesn't produce the same results as avoiding combat, neither does it use and spend the same resources.

How so? Drugging(or "insert other method of neutralization not induced by combat") the minions would yield the same result as putting a sword through their hearts. Resources are still likely to be used, and a test of skill still happens.

 

3) "I don't see any good reason why more XP should be given for killing a bandit chief after you have beaten him down to 1HP than if you decide to spare him." Bravo. Neither do I.

Also, I've beaten the bandit chief down to 1 HP thanks to my combat prowess. See.. combat XP without the dreaded increase in the body count. Miracle!

Then why not reward the party the same amount for overcoming him with their non-combat prowess? Both take effort and are a test of the party's abilities.

 

You seem to be under the impression that I am against XP rewards for combat. I'm not. To paraphrase myself: "XP should be rewarded for overcoming obstacles, not just completing quests. If someone deals with a random encounter, they should be rewarded by the challenge rating of the encounter no matter what method they used to overcome it."

 

3b) You have avoided the example of slaughtering a city.

This?

Slaughtering a whole city would increase the body count, but wouldn't necessarily procure you more XP compared to the alternative of not slaughering it.

I found it to be uncertain. Did you mean random slaughter or carrying out a quest to conquer the city?

 

To random slaughter: Possibly, but if the reason XP rewards are different is because of kill XP gained on quests it still is determined by body count.

 

Quest: Agree. XP should be rewarded for the act of taking the city, not the method. Someone who barges in and slaughters any resistance in sight should get the same reward as someone who uses subterfuge or other methods to achieve the same results.

 

 

1) You're funny. You can't point out a SINGLE non-combat ability or talent (from dozens of combat ones) and yet you're still grasping at straws with impetus.

"But umm oh uh.. it's surely their tactic to not reveal a single one in over a year.. wait and see! They just won't stop with non-combat abilities and talents when they start revealing them... uh oh, one day"

 

I'll help you a bit: "Skills" are the things where you're likely to find several non-combat.. skills. 

 

 

2) So you've chosen an example of killing you foes by poisoning. You'll become their best friend/cook and then poison 'em all!  

If there's a possiblity of doing so, it would be a rarity.

You don't spend the same resources as when you engage in combat. You don't use your per rest abilities and talents and you don't use stamina and other potions, you don't lose health.

Once you know how to poison, you can poison them the exact same way every single playthrough. Combat is unpredictable.

 

Also, yes, you should get XP because you've eliminated them. Bravo!

 

3) "XP should be rewarded for overcoming obstacles, not just completing quests. If someone deals with a random encounter, they should be rewarded by the challenge rating of the encounter no matter what method they used to overcome it."

 

... Wait.. stop.

 

How would you systematically reward XP for sneaking past encounters? Do you imagine the whole game as straight corridors with hundreds and hundreds of triggers everywhere for sneaking past encounter XP?

 

 

4) Huh?

The reason why is this: by increasing the dreaded body count by slaughtering citizens, you make the city hostile to you, precluding quests. Also, random citizens are generally worth pitiful XP. InB4.. "But you can poison them and no one will ever know!"

It was clear what I meant by "slaughtering a whole city".

[Sannom]

... Wait.. stop.

 

How would you systematically reward XP for sneaking past encounters? Do you imagine the whole game as straight corridors with hundreds and hundreds of triggers everywhere for sneaking past encounter XP?

I wouldn't know about how, but I know it can be done because it has been done. Lionheart gave 75% of a monster's XP when you snuck past them. And the game wasn't as you describe.

[Valorian]

 

... Wait.. stop.

 

How would you systematically reward XP for sneaking past encounters? Do you imagine the whole game as straight corridors with hundreds and hundreds of triggers everywhere for sneaking past encounter XP?

I wouldn't know about how, but I know it can be done because it has been done. Lionheart gave 75% of a monster's XP when you snuck past them. And the game wasn't as you describe.

 

 

But why not 100%? That's 25% less XP for the person who decided to sneak past all encounters... preposterous!

 

Wouldn't that make people, who don't want to ever engage in combat, upset?

 

 

Also, sneaking in PE looks like this:

You have a circle around you and around your enemies. If you can navigate your party member/s (wait, do you need the entire party to sneak past an encounter to get XP?) so that circles don't touch too much, you've succeeded and you get XP? Sounds good Kaine?

 

Well, we'll find out in a year or so how does it compare to combat. And one of the two will undoubtedly be a generally easier alternative.

[Lephys]

But why not 100%? That's 25% less XP for the person who decided to sneak past all encounters... preposterous!

 

Wouldn't that make people, who don't want to ever engage in combat, upset?

I would think the inability to complete the game would make people who don't ever want to engage in combat pretty upset.

 

Also, I love that this always comes down to the ONLY possibility being scenarios in which there are things that could die, but you instead sneak past them. Would you not then get XP for every second you spend simply not fighting people that could be fought? Even if you're not sneaking past them, or near them. Just, there are things that could die, and you're choosing to not kill them, but you're still going about your business and doing stuff. So, you should either always get XP, apparently, or never get XP. Love it! 8D

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1) You're funny. You can't point out a SINGLE non-combat ability or talent (from dozens of combat ones) and yet you're still grasping at straws with impetus.

"But umm oh uh.. it's surely their tactic to not reveal a single one in over a year.. wait and see! They just won't stop with non-combat abilities and talents when they start revealing them... uh oh, one day"

Good Lord, if you are going to be all butthurt at least have the courtesy to attack what I'm actually posting. I'm arguing that PE is an unfinished system that we do not have the complete details on, therefore making quantitative statements such as "90% of abilities will be combat related" is impossible as that fact can not be known. If you can't comprehend that an accurate quantitative statement about something can not be made without knowing the quantity of the thing in question, well I have some nice beachfront property you would be very interested in.

 

If you object to my assertion, either link to where it was confirmed that "90% of abilities will be combat related" or prove it using an equation.

 

2) So you've chosen an example of killing you foes by poisoning. You'll become their best friend/cook and then poison 'em all!

If there's a possiblity of doing so, it would be a rarity.

You don't spend the same resources as when you engage in combat. You don't use your per rest abilities and talents and you don't use stamina and other potions, you don't lose health.

Once you know how to poison, you can poison them the exact same way every single playthrough. Combat is unpredictable.

 

Also, yes, you should get XP because you've eliminated them. Bravo!

Example of a solution in a specific situation =/= Possible solution in every situation.

 

Again, you keep making claims that are not absolute. It is possible to have potions and per-day abilities with *gasp* non-combat applications, and the contrary has not been confirmed. Now please answer the question, why should a party who completes an objective using non-combat abilities and resources be rewarded less than one who used combat if the end result is the same?

 

1. How would you systematically reward XP for sneaking past encounters? 2. Do you imagine the whole game as straight corridors with hundreds and hundreds of triggers everywhere for sneaking past encounter XP?

1. Encounter rewards X XP. XP is rewarded for completing encounter. Encounter can be completed by a variety of means, possibly including stealth. 2. No.

 

4) Huh?

The reason why is this: by increasing the dreaded body count by slaughtering citizens, you make the city hostile to you, precluding quests. Also, random citizens are generally worth pitiful XP. InB4.. "But you can poison them and no one will ever know!"

So essentially you will get less XP because you will have no objectives to complete? That seems awfully similar to some evil XP system that ruins immersion and slaughters the sacred cows of butthurt fanboys.

 

It was clear what I meant by "slaughtering a whole city".

Not at all. If you mean a specific thing, then you need to specify exactly what you are taking about.

 

Also, sneaking in PE looks like this:

You have a circle around you and around your enemies. If you can navigate your party member/s (wait, do you need the entire party to sneak past an encounter to get XP?) so that circles don't touch too much, you've succeeded and you get XP? Sounds good Kaine?

If skills such as "stealth" and "awareness" factor in to the radii of the circles, yes it does. Far better than stealth implementations in other party based RPGs. Edited September 26, 2013 by KaineParker