Features concerns so far

[Lephys]

Holy carp... the "no kill XP" displeasure again?

 

Look, what's the point of combat in a game WITHOUT a leveling system? There, that's the purpose of combat without XP-just-because-you-battled-a-thing.

 

We've played lots of games in which fighting things was the main way you got XP (whether there was any other reason to fight them or not), and we've grown used to that, and it's pleasant, in a way, to just know how you can get some more XP, and combat is pretty fun, so it's nice to know you can gain XP by doing something fun.

 

This means neither:

 

A) That XP was the only reason, ever, for combatting anything ever in any game in existence. Nor...

 

B) That no combatting of things in P:E will ever net you XP. The emptying of health bars simply won't guarantee you XP every time it occurs. Doesn't mean it won't give you XP any time ever.

 

It's not like if you love combat, and you just fight through the whole game, you're going to be level 1 at the end, with 0 XP, and everyone else who fights as little as possible is going to be level 1,000. They didn't swap out the repetitive task that always earns you XP; killing for, say, gardening. "Every time you grow a tree, you get 1,000 XP 8D!"

 

No, now, there's just a more specific set of criteria for getting XP. It COULD involve talking, or killing, or dancing, or climbing, or sneaking, or subduing-but-not-killing, or concocting, or whittling, or phase transducing...

 

Yes, in real life, "combat" gets you XP. But why does tossing a molotov-like grenade that burns-to-death 53 enemies net you MORE experience than throwing one accurately that burns-to-death 1 enemy? Did you really gain 53-times more molotov-tossing experience because of how many enemies were congregated together in one spot? Does the death of something really earn you XP, or do your actions and decisions earn you XP? Hell, really, the longer you go WITHOUT something dying, the more XP you'd get. If I let a goblin attack me 100 times before I kill it, instead of 5, don't you think I'd get a lot more swordsmanship practice in?

 

Ohhhhh, okay. So, if you want to vote for a "we gain XP by doing, regardless of whether or not anything dies" system, them go for it. But don't tell me that not gaining XP for something's life depleting is somehow heresy, and that combat serves no purpose if the passing of a soul doesn't somehow transfer vast amounts of life experience into your character.

 

"Dude... I just poisoned the main city well... I'M GONNA BE LIKE LEVEL A MILLION by the end of the day! 8D!"

Edited September 14, 2013 by Lephys

[Sezneg]

 

 

Why it's almost like... the real world. Imagine that.

 

 

 

 

Yes, almost..

 

Apart from the little difference that in the real world holding the "objective" trophy in your hands on the podium doesn't improve your hunting skills at all. The act of hunting itself is what does the job.

 

... and this totally explains why you can use exp from hunting to raise your diplomacy skill.

[Tamerlane]

As much as D&D ever explained why you can use EXP from fighting to become a better talker, yes.

[Lephys]

The abstract application of XP to the improvement of both fighting AND talking, simultaneously, isn't being called into question. Yet, that this XP that improves all things is wrong to not fountain up out of entities that have just been killed IS.

 

I think that's the point of the "... and THIS does make sense?" posts in response to the "this doesn't make sense!"

 

If the system made perfect sense as-was, then the only thing that would improve from enemy deaths would be your character's ability to mentally process death and the taking of lives. That, and maybe your Knowledge: Anatomy skill.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Lephys

[bonarbill]

I agree that they should not used the IWD/BG2 map system.  The map travel system in games like Fallout or Arcanum is much more enjoyable because of the exploration aspects.  I enjoy getting lost in the world map finding interesting random encounters and hidden areas.

[rjshae]

 

why it's almost like... the real world. Imagine that.

 

yeah because in the real world you get better at things by avoiding them right?  I also like how every time this comes up it's always used as the example of slaughtering hapless villagers.  when I see you guys do this it cheapens your arguements so much it's not even funny.  I can't think of a single game where I was able to kill npc villagers and did so for XP or gold.

 

Mmm, no, but thanks for the reductio ad absurdum argument. In the civilized world you learn to solve most problems without violence, and in so doing you learn how to be more diplomatic. I take it you've never had that learning experience?

Edited September 15, 2013 by rjshae

[UpgrayeDD]

Holy carp... the "no kill XP" displeasure again?

 

Look, what's the point of combat in a game WITHOUT a leveling system? There, that's the purpose of combat without XP-just-because-you-battled-a-thing.

 

We've played lots of games in which fighting things was the main way you got XP (whether there was any other reason to fight them or not), and we've grown used to that, and it's pleasant, in a way, to just know how you can get some more XP, and combat is pretty fun, so it's nice to know you can gain XP by doing something fun.

 

This means neither:

 

A) That XP was the only reason, ever, for combatting anything ever in any game in existence. Nor...

 

B) That no combatting of things in P:E will ever net you XP. The emptying of health bars simply won't guarantee you XP every time it occurs. Doesn't mean it won't give you XP any time ever.

 

It's not like if you love combat, and you just fight through the whole game, you're going to be level 1 at the end, with 0 XP, and everyone else who fights as little as possible is going to be level 1,000. They didn't swap out the repetitive task that always earns you XP; killing for, say, gardening. "Every time you grow a tree, you get 1,000 XP 8D!"

 

No, now, there's just a more specific set of criteria for getting XP. It COULD involve talking, or killing, or dancing, or climbing, or sneaking, or subduing-but-not-killing, or concocting, or whittling, or phase transducing...

 

Yes, in real life, "combat" gets you XP. But why does tossing a molotov-like grenade that burns-to-death 53 enemies net you MORE experience than throwing one accurately that burns-to-death 1 enemy? Did you really gain 53-times more molotov-tossing experience because of how many enemies were congregated together in one spot? Does the death of something really earn you XP, or do your actions and decisions earn you XP? Hell, really, the longer you go WITHOUT something dying, the more XP you'd get. If I let a goblin attack me 100 times before I kill it, instead of 5, don't you think I'd get a lot more swordsmanship practice in?

 

Ohhhhh, okay. So, if you want to vote for a "we gain XP by doing, regardless of whether or not anything dies" system, them go for it. But don't tell me that not gaining XP for something's life depleting is somehow heresy, and that combat serves no purpose if the passing of a soul doesn't somehow transfer vast amounts of life experience into your character.

 

"Dude... I just poisoned the main city well... I'M GONNA BE LIKE LEVEL A MILLION by the end of the day! 8D!"

     I never called it herasy to get XP for not killing things.  I love how the only way you can try to come up with an arguement is to try to push that idea.  I don't love kill exp I dislike Objective exp.   So please please please anyone of of you who bothers reading this it's not about Wanting kill Xp it's about not wanting objective XP.  when you can wrap your head around that maybe you can begin to understand why I don't want it.  It turns the game into a "walk from point A to point B as quickly as possible".  It turns activity that is not on that direct path into a waste of time and resources. 

     Sawyer talked about kill XP being a way to promote degenerative play but he should look at games that do it and see degeneracy that can go with it.  I used to play DDO for a while.  You'd be able to get little chunks of XP here and there for things like optional objectives and completionism(breaking items/sneaking past most enemies or killing most enemies) but the vast majority of the XP came from quest completion.  As a result about half the population of the servers would litterally just run past most all the enemies to get to the end goal turning trivializing most of the quest.

   Even though it's not a playstyle I enjoyed I didn't blame those people as it was the most efficient way of completing the quest.  But turbine didn't like it and probably saw it as a degenerative way to play the game.  So they came up with dungeon alert which buffs enemies AC/damamge and at red alert gives every mob on the map the ability to slow your movement by about 80% if you get hit.  However because they never did proper testing there would be maps where through no fault of the player doing a normal paced walkthrough of a dungeon would trigger the dungeon alert to yellow and in some cases red alert.  Not only that but multiple players all share the dungeon alert meter so spliting up a party to do multiple tasks becomes something very annoying as it will easily trigger the ridiculus bonuses the monsters get.  So basically normal players get to deal with a stupid and annoying mechanic so that turbine could feel better at slowing down(and failing at it) degenerative play.

    Mass Effect II was another game that had objective Only XP and with it(not because of) came levels with infinite respawn cheese, uninspired linear levels, almost 0 exploration, a rather dull leveling system, not being able to reach the max level without buying DLC, one of the worst final encounters of any game I've ever played to completion, Horrible itemization schemes, etc...  The combat had it's moments and could be fun but that didn't change the fact that I found those other aspects of the game lacking and/or not fun.  Needless to say I didn't find it a game worth replaying since I bought near it's release.

[UpgrayeDD]

 

 

 

Mmm, no, but thanks for the reductio ad absurdum argument. In the civilized world you learn to solve most problems without violence, and in so doing you learn how to be more diplomatic. I take it you've never had that learning experience?

 

Or maybe I see it as a world that hasn't led the same kind of sheltered and easy going life that most Americans and europeans now enjoy?   Becuase even in our modern world that aren't political and criminal organizations that would kill people by the hundreds, thousands, or even millions?   I take it you've never had that learning experience?

[Fearabbit]

Great, nobody listened to me when I said "let's not start that again".

 

 It turns the game into a "walk from point A to point B as quickly as possible".  It turns activity that is not on that direct path into a waste of time and resources. 

 

I take it that this is your main problem with objective XP. How I see it: If there's stuff to do when you stray from the direct path in any RPG, you do it because it's interesting in and of itself, or because you get rewarded for it. In the best case, it's both.

 

If Project Eternity didn't reward you for doing things off the direct path and they were not interesting at all, then I'd agree with your concern. But if they're interesting and I get rewarded in some way, then I don't see why I wouldn't do them. And they will reward me in some way - with a pile of gold, or with a legendary item, or with XP. There's no reason that there can't be small objectives that award you XP if you complete them.

 

In your story about DDO, you said there were small objectives and stuff, but people rushed past that. To which I reply... well first of all, it's an MMO, where I think the mentality is a bit different. Second, apparently the small XP and item rewards were too meaningless, which can be changed by making them better.

 

So I don't really see this as an argument against objective XP, just as an argument for having a good balance between challenge and reward. (And by the way, yes I enjoyed the New Vegas XP system as well. Wouldn't say it's perfect but it's definitely one of the best systems featuring combat XP.)

Edited September 15, 2013 by Fearabbit

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Perhaps they should rename "Objective XP" as "Challenge XP" and describe it as "you will get XP for dealing with random groups of enemies, overcoming obstacles, and completing quests but how you choose to do so is up to you".

[J.E. Sawyer]

Maybe my mind will be blown but most of the mechanics as described so far sound like a soup sandwich to me.

 

1) No healing. C'mon man.

2) No resurrection. I guess this is a non factor since we cant die unless there is a TPW, which means reload anyway.

3) No fast travel.

4) Walking everywhere to go heal / rest / regain abilities. See above for good times.

5) No kill xp.

6) All classes can be all things.

 

1. Not correct.  There are a variety of ways to heal Stamina.  Recovering Health requires rest.

2. Correct, but characters can certainly die if you enable character death or Expert Mode (which flips it on automatically).  If character death isn't enabled, characters who hit 0 Health are maimed (massive penalties to accuracy and defenses, drop if they take any Health damage at all) until they rest, which is a pretty bad condition to be in.

3. Given how our world map works and how we're designing our maps, lack of fast travel doesn't seem to be an issue.

6.  Not correct at all.

[Gfted1]

1. Not correct.  There are a variety of ways to heal Stamina.  Recovering Health requires rest.

My concern doesn't lie with the globe that refills itself after every encounter. It lies with the globe that only goes down and only has one way to replenish. That's what Im referring to, healing your Health. Whats the solution for when Im 5 levels deep and at full Stamina but one hit away from dying because Im at 5 Health? Get on my hiking boots, right?

[Greensleeve]

 

1. Not correct.  There are a variety of ways to heal Stamina.  Recovering Health requires rest.

My concern doesn't lie with the globe that refills itself after every encounter. It lies with the globe that only goes down and only has one way to replenish. That's what Im referring to, healing your Health. Whats the solution for when Im 5 levels deep and at full Stamina but one hit away from dying because Im at 5 Health? Get on my hiking boots, right?

 

 

I really, really, really doubt that you'll have to hike those five levels all the way back up. In fact, I'm willing to bet on it that you won't. Will you have to backtrack a bit? Sure. But all the way? I'll eat my hat if it's all the way. 

[mcmanusaur]

 

All classes can be all things.

Not correct at all.

I'll save this one for future use. While I do have a couple reservations about the "soul magic" (which may or may not turn out to be valid once we know more about it) making every character something of a mage in the manner of Skyrim's dragon shouts, I've really never seen how one can make the case that free weapon and armor choice "lets all classes take on any role". That would be somewhat akin to arguing that just because a warrior can equip a bow in DnD, he can suddenly become a ranger at his discretion (the implication of which is that the actual ranger class becomes pointless).

 

In fact, this is not the case at all; one can think of it in terms of "basic attacks" and "special abilities". In reality, most classes have always been rather similar in regards to their "basic attacks", and the only real functional difference has been in terms of melee vs. ranged (magic staff attacks being a subtype of ranged). Thus, "special abilities" have always been what defines the classes, and PE will rely on a similar principle. A wizard may be able to wield an axe and wear heavy armor, but she will never have the correct supporting "special abilities" to be able to compete with the warrior at his own game (though the melee wizard may be effective in her own right). One could make the case that problems could arise if the "special abilities" of different classes started to overlap too much, but I think this is unlikely simply due to the sheer number of class-specific abilities it would require to cover all roles, if nothing else.

[Wombat]

 

1. Not correct.  There are a variety of ways to heal Stamina.  Recovering Health requires rest.

My concern doesn't lie with the globe that refills itself after every encounter. It lies with the globe that only goes down and only has one way to replenish. That's what Im referring to, healing your Health. Whats the solution for when Im 5 levels deep and at full Stamina but one hit away from dying because Im at 5 Health? Get on my hiking boots, right?

 

The rest system is yet to be revealed but isn't it a similar situation where you have no spells to proceed any further in AD&D based IE games, where you can save and rest, taking chances of possible random encounters, or backtrack to the safer area and rest?

 

Related, while I found that the item degradation as a mechanical money sink was not an appealing idea, I think adding another layer of resource management can be interesting for expert mode.  In deeper dungeons, the players may not be able to get all the resources at once, so, they have to proceed with inefficient equipment even if the party are good in terms of health.  Possible downsides for this, of the top of my head, is that it may reduce the joy of the catharsis in boss fighting with fully recovered party in D&D style game.  Alternatively, the designers may place an establishment which allow the players to fix the items as well as health, but, again, they may need to come up with convincing reasons for the existence of such establishment in deeper level of the dungeons.

[rjshae]

 

 

1. Not correct.  There are a variety of ways to heal Stamina.  Recovering Health requires rest.

My concern doesn't lie with the globe that refills itself after every encounter. It lies with the globe that only goes down and only has one way to replenish. That's what Im referring to, healing your Health. Whats the solution for when Im 5 levels deep and at full Stamina but one hit away from dying because Im at 5 Health? Get on my hiking boots, right?

 

I really, really, really doubt that you'll have to hike those five levels all the way back up. In fact, I'm willing to bet on it that you won't. Will you have to backtrack a bit? Sure. But all the way? I'll eat my hat if it's all the way. 

 

Is it possible that they could provide some innovation for back-tracking long distances in order to speed up play a bit? I mean, once you cleared the path then all you really need to see is the party starting to head back and then the party approaching and reaching the destination. Yes I understand that there should be some price paid for moving back and forth, but that can perhaps be handled through other means.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Well, if you're five levels deep and we haven't provided you with a new rest location, we're terrible level designers -- in which case resting is probably a minor concern in the grand scheme of things.

 

That said, the same issue exists in A/D&D and most A/D&D-based CRPGS.  While I'm sure there's some exception that exists somewhere, in every edition of A/D&D, your ability to replenish HP is always bound by consumable (daily/per-rest) character abilities and consumable items.  Prior to 3E, the character ability resources were extremely limited.  Only clerics and druids had any worthwhile healing and they had to prepare slots specifically for that purpose.  3E/3.5/Pathfinder made it much less onerous for clerics and 4E made it easier for everyone, but outside of combat, 4E parties still have to rely on consumable Surges to maintain combat viability.  Even healing potions in 4E still use Surges and it doesn't seem to be an issue, IME.

 

So yes, Health is a strategic tether like other per-rest resources but it really is like other per-rest resources.  IMO, spacing/pacing is the biggest concern and I think games like Knights of the Chalice have shown that it can be done well.

[Gromnir]

 

 

All classes can be all things.

Not correct at all.

I'll save this one for future use. 

 

am also gonna be saving, though not necessarily 'cause we is thinking exact along same lines as you.  no doubt every class has a feature that is gonna make it unique, but from what little we has seen 'bout PE classes, we is wondering why classes were included at all. developers appear to be working kinda hard make a wide-range o' class concepts viable when the most simple solution woulda' been eradication of classes altogether. one cannot help but wonder if josh's admonishment of gifted1 is genuine valid, or dependent on semantics to proven true for mostest players. 

 

nevertheless, we is mostly guessing. any misconceptions gifted1 gots is the result o' being given just enough info to makes his concerns reasonable. while Gromnir might have actually chosen to explain how or why gifted1 is wrong, josh went with the kinda response he chides others o' using. is another reason we will be saving.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[J.E. Sawyer]

It's not particularly hard to make a wide range of class concepts viable if you don't include build options that will make a terrible character.   I've posted a lot about how the classes work (or don't work) and can be built (or can't be built).  Rather than hunt around and guess at what leads people to believe that "all classes can be all things", I'd like to hear what the basis for that claim is.

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

The trend for PE seems to be to take an existing mechanic and add a disincentive to use it, because degenerative blah blah. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the end result of camping to include: a) not heal you all the way to 100%, b) only allow you to rest on some predetermined interval or c) constantly bombarding you with random encounters every time you try to rest.

 

 

None of the above.

[Lephys]

Well, if you're five levels deep and we haven't provided you with a new rest location, we're terrible level designers -- in which case resting is probably a minor concern in the grand scheme of things.

 

That said, the same issue exists in A/D&D and most A/D&D-based CRPGS.  While I'm sure there's some exception that exists somewhere, in every edition of A/D&D, your ability to replenish HP is always bound by consumable (daily/per-rest) character abilities and consumable items.  Prior to 3E, the character ability resources were extremely limited.  Only clerics and druids had any worthwhile healing and they had to prepare slots specifically for that purpose.  3E/3.5/Pathfinder made it much less onerous for clerics and 4E made it easier for everyone, but outside of combat, 4E parties still have to rely on consumable Surges to maintain combat viability.  Even healing potions in 4E still use Surges and it doesn't seem to be an issue, IME.

 

So yes, Health is a strategic tether like other per-rest resources but it really is like other per-rest resources.  IMO, spacing/pacing is the biggest concern and I think games like Knights of the Chalice have shown that it can be done well.

 

*slow clap*

 

I'm not sure why people keep acting as though this whole health limitation thing is some alien new concept designed to torture us for all eternity. Pun intended.

 

I get the concern for balancing, but it's like there's concern for whether or not the devs are even concerned about balancing. Which just seems naive. You'd think these guys have never made a solid, quality RPG before or something.

 

I encourage those in a state of worry about such things to give the dev team more credit.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Lephys

[Valorian]

 

2 of my top 3 concerns have been mentioned above, in no particular order:

 

1) Exceptionally odd attributes

 

2) No kill xp

 

3) ... [mystery]

 

o/ ---> . 

 

. ^ \o  

 

o/  v  \o

 

***

 

o/ ---> \O

 

\O ˇ \o

 

o/  v  \o

yes i get the picture i think but hmm eater it is brilliant or o/ v \o look closely at this picture the /\ being for number 1, an o being Zero so in truth there is written 01 v 10 INFACT the link google show up with containing there INN! 01 ---> moves to be like 10*10*10*10=10000 bits of information may i say ding ding!

 

 

Ding ding indeed!

You're one of my favorite posters in the universe.

 

 

@Gfted1

 

I wouldn't worry about PE being potentially stressful.

I believe one of their design goals is to incommode the player as little as possible.

 

 

For instance, they could level scale the entire critical path so that players, who don't want to be disturbed by anything off the beaten path, can devour the story straight away. 

They could design attributes with the goal to make your character concepts viable regardless of how you distribute them. You imagine a character concept, close your eyes and then click-click-click -- voilà, there's your viable character concept with his or her universal attributes. (Josh, don't mind me, I'm just joking.. a little bit)

Also, they could build the game so that you can avoid 80% of meticulously designed enemy encounters by playing a micromanagement minigame of avoiding enemy circles with your own, farm exploration and objective XP to advance your stats -- which are almost exclusively combat related, and finish the game.

They could remove item degradation too... and I really wouldn't care.

 

 

 

Classless systems are monotonous and boring, especially in a party based RPG.

Ohi new party member, you can also be a wizard, warrior, rogue and everything we desire, yes?

[Lephys]

They could provide information that then sparks a jumble of unnecessary assumptions and blatant word-spinnings until hysterical chaos ensues...

 

Oh wait.

 

"Health will be limited? Great, that automatically means there won't be enough to get us between rest spots!"

 

"I'm not limited to the choice of either boosting ONLY a select few stats or rendering my character obsolete? Welp, that obviously means that all allocations produce the same results, instead of the amount of viable results being increased to provide more viable stat allocations."

 

"I won't get XP every time I kill something? Great, I'm NEVER going to get XP for killing anything, so killing things serves no purpose, because obviously that's quite literally the only reason the mortality of living entities was ever even implemented into RPGs in the first place..."

 

Seriously, it's totally people's prerogative to consider potential concerns, but what good does it do to sit around worrying about purely assumed details and specifics that are more speculated possibilities?

 

Josh is awesome enough to take time out of his day and hop from thread to thread, answering all our little questions. I think the least we could do is not make slap-in-the-face assumptions every time we only have SOME info on something. "Foliage?! There's going to be FOLIAGE in the game?! I don't think your art team is smart enough not to cover the entire foreground in foliage, so we can't see our characters! Maybe if someone comes along and tells me that won't be the case, I MIGHT think about the possibility of it not being the case, u_u..."

[mcmanusaur]

It's not particularly hard to make a wide range of class concepts viable if you don't include build options that will make a terrible character.   I've posted a lot about how the classes work (or don't work) and can be built (or can't be built).  Rather than hunt around and guess at what leads people to believe that "all classes can be all things", I'd like to hear what the basis for that claim is.

 

I would be inclined to assume that it stems from the fact that in DnD- despite there being a wide variety of classes in recent editions- there's really only a handful of potential roles in combat, and most classes are just subtypes of those roles (a ranger is just a warrior who happens to specialize in archery, for example). Thus, when a class that is typically confined to a single role begins to have the potential to fulfill one or two other roles, that one class starts to encapsulate most of the role possibilities in such a system. The solution is creating classes that are fundamentally different and not re-skins of the same role (I would assume that PE seeks to do that for many reasons), as that would lead to a larger body of possible "roles", but that would take a lot of creativity in the narrowly defined scope of combat.

[Gromnir]

It's not particularly hard to make a wide range of class concepts viable if you don't include build options that will make a terrible character.   I've posted a lot about how the classes work (or don't work) and can be built (or can't be built).  Rather than hunt around and guess at what leads people to believe that "all classes can be all things", I'd like to hear what the basis for that claim is.

ah. instead o' explaining your position, you would rather wait to reveal how gifted1 is mistaken. you understood gifted1's position enough to make an emphatic rejection rather than a plea for greater clarity-- is to tough to claim that somebody's position is "not right at all" AND too vague for you craft a response.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 17, 2013 by Gromnir