"I mean, by taking the logic of "the high-risk road should always yield a better reward" to its logical conclusion, players should gain more xp for wading through traps than what they'd get for disarming them."

 

No. Because there is no skill involved. And, trying to disarm traps is a risk as you might fail and have them go off. Walking through traps isn't using your character abiltiies to beat the challenge. Use common sense.

 

 

"hey know they are wasting everyone's time. They do not care. Because this is not about having a real discussion on design. "

 

Yet, you are still spamming in the thread.  LMAO

Just for good measures, l'll re-post some very interesting info/quote that Amentep so aptly dug up:

 

 

Also who says it's too late for the xp system, I think it would take less time to go back to a know xp system, then to figure out how to make this one work.

Sawyer implied early on in one of these debates it *was* something that could be changed late in development (how late is something I could only guess) -

I want to say something about my high-level approach to design, whether the systems being described are dialogue, rest mechanics, or how you gain experience: the bottom line for any mechanic is how it affects the ways in which players play the game. I.e., after all of the theorizing, all of the speculation, and all of the strong statements of feeling on a mechanic, what matters is how people play the game.

So when I write that what Tim and I want to do is use quest/objective/challenge XP as the primary (if not only) methods of achieving XP, that means "want" will give way to "reality" if they are in conflict -- conflict in practice, not conflict in a forum discussion. When changing the system requires relatively little effort, there's not a ton of benefit to being absolutist over a year in advance. Moving from a class-based to classless system -- that's a big deal. That's something you decide and pretty much stick with. Deciding whether to give XP for monsters or not give XP for monsters -- that's not a big deal. That's easy to address, even late in development. Deciding whether people can rest at certain locations or they can rest anywhere is also pretty easy to address.

These things exist on a sliding scale of difficulty, implementation/adjustment-wise. We plan things so we can make the simple changes easily later on. Generally that means creating simple base layers of mechanics and adding in "adjustment" or tuning mechanics when the metrics/gameplay we see demands it.

 

In short, there's still very much hope.

Edited August 21, 201411 yr by IndiraLightfoot

"I mean, by taking the logic of "the high-risk road should always yield a better reward" to its logical conclusion, players should gain more xp for wading through traps than what they'd get for disarming them."

 

No. Because there is no skill involved. 

 

Player skill or character skill?

Player skill I guess.

Player skill I guess.

 

Dunno, based on that logic, you shouldn't get xp for opening locks or persuading people (assuming the game displays you have enough ranks in whatever attribute is necessary for that) either.

Just for good measures, l'll re-post some very interesting info/quote that Amentep so aptly dug up:

 

 

Also who says it's too late for the xp system, I think it would take less time to go back to a know xp system, then to figure out how to make this one work.

Sawyer implied early on in one of these debates it *was* something that could be changed late in development (how late is something I could only guess) -

 

I want to say something about my high-level approach to design, whether the systems being described are dialogue, rest mechanics, or how you gain experience: the bottom line for any mechanic is how it affects the ways in which players play the game. I.e., after all of the theorizing, all of the speculation, and all of the strong statements of feeling on a mechanic, what matters is how people play the game.

 

So when I write that what Tim and I want to do is use quest/objective/challenge XP as the primary (if not only) methods of achieving XP, that means "want" will give way to "reality" if they are in conflict -- conflict in practice, not conflict in a forum discussion. When changing the system requires relatively little effort, there's not a ton of benefit to being absolutist over a year in advance. Moving from a class-based to classless system -- that's a big deal. That's something you decide and pretty much stick with. Deciding whether to give XP for monsters or not give XP for monsters -- that's not a big deal. That's easy to address, even late in development. Deciding whether people can rest at certain locations or they can rest anywhere is also pretty easy to address.

 

These things exist on a sliding scale of difficulty, implementation/adjustment-wise. We plan things so we can make the simple changes easily later on. Generally that means creating simple base layers of mechanics and adding in "adjustment" or tuning mechanics when the metrics/gameplay we see demands it.

 

In short, there's still very much hope.

I would say there definitely is hope, but Sawyer considers combat XP to be "degenerate gameplay", not to mention that he has insulted us for wanting combat XP (or similar mechanic) a few times. What I am trying to say is that he is firmly convinced that the current system is perfect.

 

But I dunno, let's see what happens. Maybe Feargus will finally put his foot down or maybe Sawyer will finally realise that there actually is a problem.

Edited August 21, 201411 yr by Helm

 

Just for good measures, l'll re-post some very interesting info/quote that Amentep so aptly dug up:

 

 

Also who says it's too late for the xp system, I think it would take less time to go back to a know xp system, then to figure out how to make this one work.

Sawyer implied early on in one of these debates it *was* something that could be changed late in development (how late is something I could only guess) -

 

I want to say something about my high-level approach to design, whether the systems being described are dialogue, rest mechanics, or how you gain experience: the bottom line for any mechanic is how it affects the ways in which players play the game. I.e., after all of the theorizing, all of the speculation, and all of the strong statements of feeling on a mechanic, what matters is how people play the game.

 

So when I write that what Tim and I want to do is use quest/objective/challenge XP as the primary (if not only) methods of achieving XP, that means "want" will give way to "reality" if they are in conflict -- conflict in practice, not conflict in a forum discussion. When changing the system requires relatively little effort, there's not a ton of benefit to being absolutist over a year in advance. Moving from a class-based to classless system -- that's a big deal. That's something you decide and pretty much stick with. Deciding whether to give XP for monsters or not give XP for monsters -- that's not a big deal. That's easy to address, even late in development. Deciding whether people can rest at certain locations or they can rest anywhere is also pretty easy to address.

 

These things exist on a sliding scale of difficulty, implementation/adjustment-wise. We plan things so we can make the simple changes easily later on. Generally that means creating simple base layers of mechanics and adding in "adjustment" or tuning mechanics when the metrics/gameplay we see demands it.

 

In short, there's still very much hope.

I would say there definitely is hope, but Sawyer considers combat XP to be "degenerate gameplay", not to mention that he has insulted us for wanting combat XP (or similar mechanic) a few times. What I am trying to say is that he is firmly convinced that the current system is perfect.

 

But I dunno, let's see what happens. Maybe Feargus will finally put his foot down or maybe Sawyer will finally realise that there actually is a problem.

 

 

 

I have to admit I am pretty happy by that sawyer post.. too bad it was from Dec 2012 and not yesturday in this thread.. I don't know what that means for PoE.. I wish he would look at the forum a little more seriously.. we aren't all a bunch of whining grognards.. some of us have good ideas about what is fun for us without having the issue of being too close to the game..

 

I don't think any developer on this game can objectively know what will work and not work after 2 years of development.. you need a sanity check from people who have never seen it.. I feel this beta was that sanity check.. just wish Josh would let us know how they feel about the feedback..

 

Are we all just stupid and whiney and don't know what fun is? Is the beta too narrow of a vertical slice for us to understand his genius? Or did their idea sorta **** the bed when it left the design paper and got implemented.

 

Please say something Josh besides "Irrational Kids gonna Irrational".. We are your "beloved" fans after all.. the ones you say you aim to please and talk to now that there is no publisher..

 

 

 

Are you turning too? 

 

I am still convinced that objective xp is inherently fairer and easier to implement well than a combination of kill xp and objective xp.

 

I am also incredibly disappointed that based on the beta, "objective xp" seems to mean "quest xp only" for PoE.

 

Edit: I also feel a mix of shame and betrayal at the fact that after months of repeating "no, you kill xp guy are blowing this out of proportion, surely the devs wouldn't be so incompetent as to reduce 'objective xp' to 'you only get xp for completing quests'" I am proven spectacularly wrong by the beta.

 

Anyways, let's get back to our previous discussion which got a bit lost in the noise.

 

Spawn More Overlords!

 

Sorry.. couldn't help myself.

Edited August 21, 201411 yr by Immortalis

Dunno, based on that logic, you shouldn't get xp for opening locks or persuading people (assuming the game displays you have enough ranks in whatever attribute is necessary for that) either.

 

I agree, that was my biggest question in how they plan to scale difficulty some time ago. Picking dialog options can't really be made harder.

 

Dunno, based on that logic, you shouldn't get xp for opening locks or persuading people (assuming the game displays you have enough ranks in whatever attribute is necessary for that) either.

 

I agree, that was my biggest question in how they plan to scale difficulty some time ago. Picking dialog options can't really be made harder.

 

 

Yeah, the unavoidable conflict between noncombat resolution having a static difficulty* while combat is heavily dependent on character level is one of the reasons why I think it's more fair to give the same xp for the completion of objectives, regardless of the route taken.

 

*I mean, picking the right dialog can be made really frikkin' hard (think of Alpha Protocol's endgame), but assuming two players have the same stat allocation, said difficulty is solely dependent on their player skill.

 

 

Dunno, based on that logic, you shouldn't get xp for opening locks or persuading people (assuming the game displays you have enough ranks in whatever attribute is necessary for that) either.

 

I agree, that was my biggest question in how they plan to scale difficulty some time ago. Picking dialog options can't really be made harder.

 

 

Yeah, the unavoidable conflict between noncombat resolution having a static difficulty* while combat is heavily dependent on character level is one of the reasons why I think it's more fair to give the same xp for the completion of objectives, regardless of the route taken.

 

*I mean, picking the right dialog can be made really frikkin' hard (think of Alpha Protocol's endgame), but assuming two players have the same stat allocation, said difficulty is solely dependent on their player skill.

 

 

I think that's fine.. the reason I want kill -xp has nothing to do with quests honestly.. although I admit quests are affected by the mechanic and it needs to be addressed.. but I don't think combat should be rewarded with more xp.. the difficulty of fighting is offset by item rewards anyways..

 

I don't think combat should be rewarded with more xp.. the difficulty of fighting is offset by item rewards anyways..

 

 

Yeah. And let's not forget the monstercyclopedia updates, which is a really good feature, by the way - not only does it make you more efficient at fighting, it achieves that by broadening your tactical horizon instead of just giving a flat damage bonus (unlike the "[creature type] hunter"-style perks in Alpha Protocol and FNV, which also kicked in after killing lots of a certain creature type), feeds nicely into the skill system, and achieves verisimilitude by making you more efficient at fighting only against opponents you actually have experience at fighting.

 

 

I don't think combat should be rewarded with more xp.. the difficulty of fighting is offset by item rewards anyways..

 

 

Yeah. And let's not forget the monstercyclopedia updates, which is a really good feature, by the way - not only does it make you more efficient at fighting, it achieves that by broadening your tactical horizon instead of just giving a flat damage bonus (unlike the "[creature type] hunter"-style perks in Alpha Protocol and FNV, which also kicked in after killing lots of a certain creature type), feeds nicely into the skill system, and achieves verisimilitude by making you more efficient at fighting only against opponents you actually have experience at fighting.

 

 

To be honest.. I don't think the monster cyclopedias are a real tangible reward.. they are awesome and cool.. don't get me wrong.. two thumbs up obsdian.. but they are a lore tool strictly..

 

The information the cyclopedias will give is not only extremely meta abusable.. they don't offer a lot of useful information that makes you stronger.. Fire Elemental.. hmm what damage type is that creature not weak against.. I wonder..

 

On the first playthrough they may be semi useful.. after that.. they will just be this cool thing that gives me back text and cool information.. unless they also give you some kind of bonus to the type of monster they are describing..

 

EDIT:

 

Did I miss some functionality of these things btw..? Maybe I did.

Edited August 21, 201411 yr by Immortalis

A dev has actually posted about the xp system!

 

Experience is awarded only through quest progression. At certain points during quests a "Quest Update" scroll pops up in the top left and any experience gained is shown in the Combat Log. 

 

 

You may have just missed it 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67500-more-obvious-xp-notice/?p=1486643

 

Aluminiumtrioxid: Yeah! I'm quite perplexed and taken aback by that. Like SilentWinter wrote earlier: I had expected at least the rudiments of an intricate and new and fresh objective xp system, where xp triggers went off here, there and everywhere! But as things are now, it's only quest xp as far as we know. It's almost bizarre.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we*ll see a dev post or some lines in a patch update, reading something like this:

"Our fine-meshed objective xp system didn't make the cut, so we scrapped it for the beta build we brought to Cologne. In the next patch, we will have the xp system in place, and we really welcome your feedback on it."

 

If not, I have no clue what happened.

 

Alright folks, well, this certainly answers that: The quest-only xp system is intended this way (perhaps with some long quest being divided into one or two xp chunks before the final xp lump)! So, no mistake, this is what they meant by objective/challenge xp, it seems. I'll be darned.

Alright folks, well, this certainly answers that: The quest-only xp system is intended this way (perhaps with some long quest being divided into one or two xp chunks before the final xp lump)! So, no mistake, this is what they meant by objective/challenge xp, it seems. I'll be darned.

 

Get them pitchforks!

 

No, really, where can we complain?

A dev has actually posted about the xp system!

 

Experience is awarded only through quest progression. At certain points during quests a "Quest Update" scroll pops up in the top left and any experience gained is shown in the Combat Log. 

 

 

You may have just missed it 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67500-more-obvious-xp-notice/?p=1486643

 

Aluminiumtrioxid: Yeah! I'm quite perplexed and taken aback by that. Like SilentWinter wrote earlier: I had expected at least the rudiments of an intricate and new and fresh objective xp system, where xp triggers went off here, there and everywhere! But as things are now, it's only quest xp as far as we know. It's almost bizarre.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we*ll see a dev post or some lines in a patch update, reading something like this:

"Our fine-meshed objective xp system didn't make the cut, so we scrapped it for the beta build we brought to Cologne. In the next patch, we will have the xp system in place, and we really welcome your feedback on it."

 

If not, I have no clue what happened.

 

Alright folks, well, this certainly answers that: The quest-only xp system is intended this way (perhaps with some long quest being divided into one or two xp chunks before the final xp lump)! So, no mistake, this is what they meant by objective/challenge xp, it seems. I'll be darned.

 

How disappointing.. so it's not a bug or a reduced vertical slice of the game..

A dev has actually posted about the xp system!

 

Experience is awarded only through quest progression. At certain points during quests a "Quest Update" scroll pops up in the top left and any experience gained is shown in the Combat Log. 

 

 

You may have just missed it 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67500-more-obvious-xp-notice/?p=1486643

 

Aluminiumtrioxid: Yeah! I'm quite perplexed and taken aback by that. Like SilentWinter wrote earlier: I had expected at least the rudiments of an intricate and new and fresh objective xp system, where xp triggers went off here, there and everywhere! But as things are now, it's only quest xp as far as we know. It's almost bizarre.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we*ll see a dev post or some lines in a patch update, reading something like this:

"Our fine-meshed objective xp system didn't make the cut, so we scrapped it for the beta build we brought to Cologne. In the next patch, we will have the xp system in place, and we really welcome your feedback on it."

 

If not, I have no clue what happened.

 

Alright folks, well, this certainly answers that: The quest-only xp system is intended this way (perhaps with some long quest being divided into one or two xp chunks before the final xp lump)! So, no mistake, this is what they meant by objective/challenge xp, it seems. I'll be darned.

 

Man that is disappointing to read.

Man that is disappointing to read.

Combat is no longer a challenge per itself. Nor exploration. Enemies infesting the maps are only meant as annoyance.

 

People who wish to grind will have to complete every possible sidequest, fed'exing stuff around the world and always being a good boyscout, no matter if their party is composed entirely of evil bastards that eat kittens for breakfast.

 

People who wish to grind will have to complete every possible sidequest, fed'exing stuff around the world and always being a good boyscout, no matter if their party is composed entirely of evil bastards that eat kittens for breakfast.

 

 

This ain't no Icewind Dale, son.

 

Based on the extent of horrible stuff you can not only do, but are actively rewarded for in Planescape: Torment, KotOR 2, Alpha Protocol and Fallout: New Vegas, I think evil bastards won't lack in options geared specifically for them.

Edited August 21, 201411 yr by aluminiumtrioxid

I would say there definitely is hope, but Sawyer considers combat XP to be "degenerate gameplay", not to mention that he has insulted us for wanting combat XP (or similar mechanic) a few times. What I am trying to say is that he is firmly convinced that the current system is perfect.

What's degenerate play is to need so desperately to be able to kill things and get XP for them that you can't enjoy the game without getting XP for every single thing you slay, because it bugs you so badly. That in no way supports the roleplaying of a character in an actual world (at least to some degree), which is what separates this kind of RPG from, say, Diablo.

 

The funny thing is, the problem would technically be "solved" if you just removed the "problem" mobs. Then, the issue would be "Why aren't there any beetles just standing around in the woods, so that I might slay them and get XP?!" In which case, what availability of killable XP factories is acceptable?

 

That's what the point of Sawyer's contention, is, I think. It's degenerate to say "To hell with the rest of game design. Stuff gives you XP, BECAUSE!"

I beg to differ. What's "degenerate gameplay" or "real roleplaying" is in the eye of the beholder!   *Ba-da-dish!*

 

I would say there definitely is hope, but Sawyer considers combat XP to be "degenerate gameplay", not to mention that he has insulted us for wanting combat XP (or similar mechanic) a few times. What I am trying to say is that he is firmly convinced that the current system is perfect.

What's degenerate play is to need so desperately to be able to kill things and get XP for them that you can't enjoy the game without getting XP for every single thing you slay, because it bugs you so badly. That in no way supports the roleplaying of a character in an actual world (at least to some degree), which is what separates this kind of RPG from, say, Diablo.

 

 

You forgot to say "In my opinion".. I know 7 people on this forum who will disagree and according to our poll many more.

Edited August 21, 201411 yr by Immortalis

Whether or not it's my opinion is irrelevant. I'm obviously not going to state something that differs from my opinion, so that's kind of a given. But, more importantly, my claim either holds true or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then I'm perfectly willing to know that. But, as far as I can tell, it does.

 

Also, you forgot to say anything that refuted what I said.

Whether or not it's my opinion is irrelevant. I'm obviously not going to state something that differs from my opinion, so that's kind of a given. But, more importantly, my claim either holds true or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then I'm perfectly willing to know that. But, as far as I can tell, it does.

 

Also, you forgot to say anything that refuted what I said.

 

There is no way to say definitively "This thing is degenerate gamplay" You can't prove that.. Degenerate to who? by what standard? Cause Josh Sawyer says so?

 

In fact.. ever since Josh used the term Degenerate Gameplay in some interview.. I have seen so many fan boys throw it around without even understanding what it is. It has become a buzz word on the codex and obs forums.

 

To answer the second part of your statement. You are essentially stating that killing everything in the game because it gives xp ruins the Roleplay potential of a character. I agree.. and if that is important to you.. don't do it? You don't need to kill everything in an IE game to complete the game.. not even close.. so it's a extreme over exaggeration to make your bogus point.

Edited August 21, 201411 yr by Immortalis

Ya it keeps coming back to this. Gaining xp through combat in a properly designed game that implements all forms of xp gain, does not slip you into I must kill everything in order to win mode. I just don't believe that.   

Ya it keeps coming back to this. Gaining xp through combat in a properly designed game that implements all forms of xp gain, does not slip you into I must kill everything in order to win mode. I just don't believe that.   

You can choose to reject reality and replace it with your own all you want. Doesn't change reality.