Backer beta: Developer Impressions

[Shevek]

 

keep in mind that PoE is also a crpg. there is a single DM for literal thousands o' people, and the dm is dumb... mute. you don't appeal to the dm 'cause the PoE dm is a bit o' software. you cannot ask dm why bob is getting 2x as much xp as is you simply 'cause you made the mistake o' building a more stealthy or diplomatic character.

 

 

But there are no sneaky or diplo characters in this game. All builds are combat characters.

[Gromnir]

 

 

keep in mind that PoE is also a crpg. there is a single DM for literal thousands o' people, and the dm is dumb... mute. you don't appeal to the dm 'cause the PoE dm is a bit o' software. you cannot ask dm why bob is getting 2x as much xp as is you simply 'cause you made the mistake o' building a more stealthy or diplomatic character.

 

 

But there are no sneaky or diplo characters in this game. All builds are combat characters.

 

all builds have combat efficacy. however, as this is a cRPg, it allows us to solve quests via sneaky and or diplomatic means. our first encounter with the ogre in the caves were solved diplomatically... or sneaky, depending on how you look at it. should we have been robbed of all xp for quest completion because we chose to complete quest other than through violence?

 

c'mon folks, be serious.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sartoris]

 

"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."

 

I disagree fundementally with the need to do this. Why must different playstyles reward the same amount of experience? Who cares? You are not competing against anyone but yourself. What prevents you from turning down the difficulty if you want to be a diplomatic character? Please note that you were not required to kill every monster and soak up every possible xp point in order to have a great time with BG/BG2. The same could be true of Pillars of Eternity.

 

In my previous post I stated:

 

 

I would like to be awarded experience for overcoming challenges in the game that require resource expenditures from me personally (mental involvement in the plot, tactics, etc) as well as in-game resource expenditures. By in-game I mean that if I need to use camping supplies because I chose to kill monsters instead of sneaking past them I would like the game to award more experience that the option not requiring the resources would.

 

This includes disarming traps, opening locks, exporing, etc and all that good stuff. BG/BG2 gave experience for all of those things and gave experience for killing monsters. Why can't Pillars of Eternity do this? This is what the IE games did.

 

I want to support an game as similar as possible to the IE games of yore. I just now got back from an overseas trip where I had no reliable internet connection for six months. I want to pre-order the game, but issues like this one frankly scare me. And I'm not currently confident enough in the development of this game to put my money down on a pre-order.

[Gfted1]

Is anybody anywhere advocating for a kill XP only system?

[Marceror]

Personally I love the IE approach for xp.

 

Get some from finding and defeating traps and similar skills (valid to expect some experience here). Get some from combat (which certainly is a valid source of experience for an adventurer). And get yet more from completing certain quests.

 

To me that feels more balanced overall. But I'm keeping an open mind on what OE has proposed.

[Shevek]

 

 

 

 

keep in mind that PoE is also a crpg. there is a single DM for literal thousands o' people, and the dm is dumb... mute. you don't appeal to the dm 'cause the PoE dm is a bit o' software. you cannot ask dm why bob is getting 2x as much xp as is you simply 'cause you made the mistake o' building a more stealthy or diplomatic character.

 

 

But there are no sneaky or diplo characters in this game. All builds are combat characters.

 

all builds have combat efficacy. however, as this is a cRPg, it allows us to solve quests via sneaky and or diplomatic means. our first encounter with the ogre in the caves were solved diplomatically... or sneaky, depending on how you look at it. should we have been robbed of all xp for quest completion because we chose to complete quest other than through violence?

 

c'mon folks, be serious.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

You get to not take health damage and then use rest resources. Thats certainly a bonus. Maybe not the best bonus with regards to the ogre but that kinda thinking could certainly come into play in certain situations. I could certainly see that line of thinking being prevalent in Ironman mode. There is also the rep system which suggests the game will offer reactivity if you are known for not being a total thug in all situations. Is it an equivalent bonus to combat xp? Probably not, but so what?

 

Look, if this were a Gandhi sim (or any sim!), I'd be right there with you. If the noncombat stuff were just as prevalent as the combat stuff or if players had to choose between pumping combat or noncombat skills, then you would be 100% right. But this is a combat heavy game where 99% of the character development is centered around making characters that can murder things with great efficiency. I do not see an issue with the xp system rewarding players additionally for succeeding at what the game focuses on.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Shevek

[Azrael Ultima]

Is anybody anywhere advocating for a kill XP only system?

A few strawmen, i think, though i haven't personally seen them yet.

[Marceror]

Personally I love the IE approach for xp.

 

Get some from finding and defeating traps and similar skills (valid to expect some experience here). Get some from combat (which certainly is a valid source of experience for an adventurer). And get yet more from completing certain quests.

 

To me that feels more balanced overall. But I'm keeping an open mind on what OE has proposed.

Oh, and since I've seen posts asking for proof for why combat xp is valid, well here's my thought. An example:

 

Adventurers walk into a clearing. Adventurers are taken off guard by an ambush. The adventurers rally together and fight as a united force to overcome the ambushers. The battle is difficult, and the adventurers sustain a variety of wounds in the process, but nothing life threatening. They defeat the ambushers, and learn more about their own capabilities as individuals, and as a group.

 

This is the very definition of what it means to gain experience. You go through life and learn from your, well, your experiences. This ambush need not be tied to some larger quest in order for it to provide that experience.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Marceror

[Gromnir]

 

 

"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."

I disagree fundementally with the need to do this. Why must different playstyles reward the same amount of experience? Who cares? 

 

the developers do. many players do. those who wish for more replay-ability do.  nevertheless, if that is your pov, we understand the impasse. you do not see inherent value in players choosing different approaches but getting same/similar xp value. the developers disagree wholeheartedly with you and thus they have chosen a method that guarantees equal xp to all players regardless o' how they solve a quest. why should kill ogre get xp, but trick ogre get nothing?  why should a character who specializes in unlocking every chest get loot AND more xp than a person who don't have a dedicated lockpicker? etc. you don't have a problem with the disparity. thus ends common ground and we will make no headway. thankfully, obsidian sees value in balance xp awards. lump sums is how old pnp did it. you is still being rewarded for killing stuff by getting your xp award, but you feel slighted 'cause sneaky and diplomats is getting same lump sum? why?

 

so, given that obsidian is making game and has stated innumerable times they don't want fail builds or superior builds that gain excess xp, answer the challenge:

 

"we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer:

 

"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sartoris]

 

Look, if this were a Gandhi sim (or any sim!), I'd be right there with you. If the noncombat stuff were just as prevalent as the combat stuff or if players had to choose between pumping combat or noncombat skills, then you would be 100% right. But this is a combat heavy game where 99% of the character development is centered around making characters that can murder things with great efficiency. I do not see an issue with the xp system rewarding players additionally for succeeding at what the game focuses on.

 

 

This is exactly why the game should reward combat xp. I have serious trouble understanding how anyone can not understand the simple game design logic behind what Shevek is saying here.

[Gromnir]

Is anybody anywhere advocating for a kill XP only system?

doesn't make a difference. once you add ad hoc awards for individual minor success, you create the balancing problem we mentioned before.  you don't actual believe that kill xp + quest exp alleviates balancing problems, do you?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

 

keep in mind that PoE is also a crpg. there is a single DM for literal thousands o' people, and the dm is dumb... mute. you don't appeal to the dm 'cause the PoE dm is a bit o' software. you cannot ask dm why bob is getting 2x as much xp as is you simply 'cause you made the mistake o' building a more stealthy or diplomatic character.

 

 

But there are no sneaky or diplo characters in this game. All builds are combat characters.

 

all builds have combat efficacy. however, as this is a cRPg, it allows us to solve quests via sneaky and or diplomatic means. our first encounter with the ogre in the caves were solved diplomatically... or sneaky, depending on how you look at it. should we have been robbed of all xp for quest completion because we chose to complete quest other than through violence?

 

c'mon folks, be serious.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

You get to not take health damage and then use rest resources. Thats certainly a bonus. Maybe not the best bonus with regards to the ogre but that kinda thinking could certainly come into play in certain situations. I could certainly see that line of thinking being prevalent in Ironman mode. There is also the rep system which suggests the game will offer reactivity if you are known for not being a total thug in all situations. Is it an equivalent bonus to combat xp? Probably not, but so what?

 

Look, if this were a Gandhi sim (or any sim!), I'd be right there with you. If the noncombat stuff were just as prevalent as the combat stuff or if players had to choose between pumping combat or noncombat skills, then you would be 100% right. But this is a combat heavy game where 99% of the character development is centered around making characters that can murder things with great efficiency. I do not see an issue with the xp system rewarding players additionally for succeeding at what the game focuses on.

 

oh please, you ain't being serious. we fight or sneak through an entire map, stuck at level 5. we finally beat the ogre through guile and get... saved camping resources?

 

...

 

you can't be serious with these kinda replies.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sarex]

doesn't make a difference. once you add ad hoc awards for individual minor success, you create the balancing problem we mentioned before.  you don't actual believe that kill xp + quest exp alleviates balancing problems, do you?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Who cares if it alleviates balance problems? Obsidian guys where payed to make a game for a reason. I don't like these post, whose only point is well it's easier to balance. Well kill xp is more fun, which do you think will matter more to the players fun or balance?

[Sartoris]

 

 

 

"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."

I disagree fundementally with the need to do this. Why must different playstyles reward the same amount of experience? Who cares? 

 

the developers do. many players do. those who wish for more replay-ability do.  nevertheless, if that is your pov, we understand the impasse. you do not see inherent value in players choosing different approaches but getting same/similar xp value. the developers disagree wholeheartedly with you and thus they have chosen a method that guarantees equal xp to all players regardless o' how they solve a quest. why should kill ogre get xp, but trick ogre get nothing?  why should a character who specializes in unlocking every chest get loot AND more xp than a person who don't have a dedicated lockpicker? etc. you don't have a problem with the disparity. thus ends common ground and we will make no headway. thankfully, obsidian sees value in balance xp awards. lump sums is how old pnp did it. you is still being rewarded for killing stuff by getting your xp award, but you feel slighted 'cause sneaky and diplomats is getting same lump sum? why?

 

so, given that obsidian is making game and has stated innumerable times they don't want fail builds or superior builds that gain excess xp, answer the challenge:

 

"we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer:

 

"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

@Azrael Ultima I think I found your strawmen.

 

In case you're having trouble connecting the dots Gromnir, see all those highlighted words, no one but you is saying that.

 

I do realize that by acting like someone is it makes it much easier for you to argue against what they are actually saying. But no one but you is saying that people who what kill xp feel cheated that sneaky and diplomatic characters would get the same amount. No one but you is saying that skill use in dialogue shouldn't be rewarded by xp.

 

There are just many of us who would also like to be rewarded with xp for participating in the most frequent component of the game. Combat.

[Marceror]

 

Is anybody anywhere advocating for a kill XP only system?

doesn't make a difference. once you add ad hoc awards for individual minor success, you create the balancing problem we mentioned before.  you don't actual believe that kill xp + quest exp alleviates balancing problems, do you?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Back in my day we got experience for killing, questing and detrapifying stuff, uphill both ways in the snow. And that's how we liked it!

 

Seriously, the IE games may not have been perfect in this regard, but it absolutely never ruined my experience of multiple run-throughs of BG, BG2, IWD, IWD2 and PST. So I see no reason to get in a twist about using that method here. But that's just me.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."

I disagree fundementally with the need to do this. Why must different playstyles reward the same amount of experience? Who cares? 

 

the developers do. many players do. those who wish for more replay-ability do.  nevertheless, if that is your pov, we understand the impasse. you do not see inherent value in players choosing different approaches but getting same/similar xp value. the developers disagree wholeheartedly with you and thus they have chosen a method that guarantees equal xp to all players regardless o' how they solve a quest. why should kill ogre get xp, but trick ogre get nothing?  why should a character who specializes in unlocking every chest get loot AND more xp than a person who don't have a dedicated lockpicker? etc. you don't have a problem with the disparity. thus ends common ground and we will make no headway. thankfully, obsidian sees value in balance xp awards. lump sums is how old pnp did it. you is still being rewarded for killing stuff by getting your xp award, but you feel slighted 'cause sneaky and diplomats is getting same lump sum? why?

 

so, given that obsidian is making game and has stated innumerable times they don't want fail builds or superior builds that gain excess xp, answer the challenge:

 

"we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer:

 

"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

@Azrael Ultima I think I found your strawmen.

 

In case you're having trouble connecting the dots Gromnir, see all those highlighted words, no one but you is saying that.

 

I do realize that by acting like someone is it makes it much easier for you to argue against what they are actually saying. But no one but you is saying that people who what kill xp feel cheated that sneaky and diplomatic characters would get the same amount. No one but you is saying that skill use in dialogue shouldn't be rewarded by xp.

 

There are just many of us who would also like to be rewarded with xp for participating in the most frequent component of the game. Combat.

 

fine, then balance it. if you don't want sneaky and diplomats cheated, answer our challenge.

 

still no takers

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Tale]

Look, if this were a Gandhi sim, I'd be right there with you. But this is a combat heavy game where 99% of the character development is centered around making characters that can murder things with great efficiency. I do not see an issue with the xp system rewarding players additionally for succeeding at what the game focuses on.

That sounds like a does-not-follow issue.

 

Just because the game spends more time on one thing does not mean it should reward that same thing extra. In fact, the argument could easily be turned right the other direction. Because the game spends so much time on something, it should reward the alternatives.

 

Both arguments are just people trying to argue that their way of playing is better and the game should validate them. Vaguely equivalent rewards bypasses that nonsense. "Vaguely" is my way of being weaselly here. Extra resources, opportunity costs, I think a good designer can make a passionate argument for one path providing a boost over another. And I don't think people are going to count every XP point possible.

 

But when we venture into territory where you need a thief to get all the trap/lock XP and you can murder all the Goblins for about double the XP even thought you made peace with the Ogre Mage for its own XP bonus, then that niggles.

 

But it is only a trifle. I'm beginning to question whether it's worth it.

[Azrael Ultima]

fine, then balance it. if you don't want sneaky and diplomats cheated, answer our challenge.

 

still no takers

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Actually, i gave you your desire pages ago.

 

Grant XP for time passed, which is both easy to implement, simple and straightforward, and completely independent of any playstyle because it has no connection whatsoever to what the player does. Which is the only way to grant XP independent of playstyle at all.

[Gromnir]

 

doesn't make a difference. once you add ad hoc awards for individual minor success, you create the balancing problem we mentioned before.  you don't actual believe that kill xp + quest exp alleviates balancing problems, do you?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Who cares if it alleviates balance problems? Obsidian guys where payed to make a game for a reason. I don't like these post, whose only point is well it's easier to balance. Well kill xp is more fun, which do you think will matter more to the players fun or balance?

 

time and effort not spent on mythical balancing algorithms that satisfy players regardless o' their play styles can be spent on far more important aspects o' game development. quest/task xp awards is so incredibly straightforward and fair that in spite o' more than a decade o' these interminably repetitive complaints, nobody has ever offered a superior solution that is remotely as simple to implement. timmy doesn't get a gold star for killing each spider. instead he must needs wait and defeat the ogre boss. that is the great sin o' quest xp?  and what would be the cost o' giving you your figurative ego lending? how much effort woulds need go towards making sure that the sneakier or more diplomatic players received similar/same experience.

 

this is classic gordian knot situation. is a simple and obvious solution to what people imagines into a problem.

 

answer the challenge... or not.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sartoris]

 

 

 

 

 

"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."

I disagree fundementally with the need to do this. Why must different playstyles reward the same amount of experience? Who cares? 

 

the developers do. many players do. those who wish for more replay-ability do.  nevertheless, if that is your pov, we understand the impasse. you do not see inherent value in players choosing different approaches but getting same/similar xp value. the developers disagree wholeheartedly with you and thus they have chosen a method that guarantees equal xp to all players regardless o' how they solve a quest. why should kill ogre get xp, but trick ogre get nothing?  why should a character who specializes in unlocking every chest get loot AND more xp than a person who don't have a dedicated lockpicker? etc. you don't have a problem with the disparity. thus ends common ground and we will make no headway. thankfully, obsidian sees value in balance xp awards. lump sums is how old pnp did it. you is still being rewarded for killing stuff by getting your xp award, but you feel slighted 'cause sneaky and diplomats is getting same lump sum? why?

 

so, given that obsidian is making game and has stated innumerable times they don't want fail builds or superior builds that gain excess xp, answer the challenge:

 

"we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer:

 

"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

@Azrael Ultima I think I found your strawmen.

 

In case you're having trouble connecting the dots Gromnir, see all those highlighted words, no one but you is saying that.

 

I do realize that by acting like someone is it makes it much easier for you to argue against what they are actually saying. But no one but you is saying that people who what kill xp feel cheated that sneaky and diplomatic characters would get the same amount. No one but you is saying that skill use in dialogue shouldn't be rewarded by xp.

 

There are just many of us who would also like to be rewarded with xp for participating in the most frequent component of the game. Combat.

 

fine, then balance it. if you don't want sneaky and diplomats cheated, answer our challenge.

 

still no takers

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Your fallacy is that you think you are being cheated for playing the game a particular way. No one is cheating you Gromnir. You can play the game however you want. If you want to be sneaky then be sneaky. If you want to be diplomatic then be diplomatic. If you want to kill everything that lives, then be a mass murderer. If you want to be all of those things as much as possible and don't care if your character is role-playing or being consitent. Then do that too.

 

You can be free to choose however you want to play the game in an enjoyable way as long as each particular way of playing it is rewarded enough to make the playstyle fun. The playstyles don't need to be equal at all. As long as skills checks are rewarded and good xp is given both for the murder solution and the sneaky/diplomatic solution the everything is fine.

 

If a player wants to horribly abuse the xp system by metagaming, well then that's their choice. As a designer I would be happy that I can give that playstyle, which I have trouble relating to, an enjoyable way to play the game.

 

If case you should say that it is impossible to satisfy all these playstyles without being game breaking, I will simply point you in the direction of BG/BG2. In that game some amount of combat was necessary, but if you chose to solve a quest in a diplomatic or sneaky way nothing required you to go back and kill everything just to have enough xp to move forward. You could choose to if you wanted to.

 

I want to play a game with choice. That to me is much more important than balance. That was how the IE games worked and what initally intrigued me so much about Pillars of Eternity. Unfortunatly, many of the systems, if not significantly altered, simply do not support that principal. This is unfortunate as it was stated the game was to be a spiritual successor to the IE games.

[Panteleimon]

 

fine, then balance it. if you don't want sneaky and diplomats cheated, answer our challenge.

 

still no takers

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Actually, i gave you your desire pages ago.

 

Grant XP for time passed, which is both easy to implement, simple and straightforward, and completely independent of any playstyle because it has no connection whatsoever to what the player does. Which is the only way to grant XP independent of playstyle at all.

 

 

Wait, what? So I can leave my game running when I sleep or go to work and I can get XP? You can't actually be suggesting that as a viable system for granting XP. This game isn't turn-based, and even if it was there's no guarantee that time is being spent in any meaningful way(i.e. not picking your nose) .

 

 

Additionally, simply because there are ways to powergame a system to pieces doesn't mean that it needs to be designed with that explicitly in mind, a la Diablo.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Panteleimon

[Sarex]

time and effort not spent on mythical balancing algorithms that satisfy players regardless o' their play styles can be spent on far more important aspects o' game development. quest/task xp awards is so incredibly straightforward and fair that in spite o' more than a decade o' these interminably repetitive complaints, nobody has ever offered a superior solution that is remotely as simple to implement. timmy doesn't get a gold star for killing each spider. instead he must needs wait and defeat the ogre boss. that is the great sin o' quest xp?  and what would be the cost o' giving you your figurative ego lending? how much effort woulds need go towards making sure that the sneakier or more diplomatic players received similar/same experience.

 

this is classic gordian knot situation. is a simple and obvious solution to what people imagines into a problem.

 

answer the challenge... or not.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I agree, they obviously failed on this xp system and thus should go back to the know system, because the time has run out for figuring out how to make this one work. Let them figure it out in their next game, where they will have more time to think on it and make it work.

 

As for the ego stroking, well isn't that the point of games?

Edited August 26, 2014 by Sarex

[Shevek]

 

Look, if this were a Gandhi sim, I'd be right there with you. But this is a combat heavy game where 99% of the character development is centered around making characters that can murder things with great efficiency. I do not see an issue with the xp system rewarding players additionally for succeeding at what the game focuses on.

That sounds like a does-not-follow issue.

 

Just because the game spends more time on one thing does not mean it should reward that same thing extra. In fact, the argument could easily be turned right the other direction. Because the game spends so much time on something, it should reward the alternatives.

 

Both arguments are just people trying to argue that their way of playing is better and the game should validate them. Vaguely equivalent rewards bypasses that nonsense. "Vaguely" is my way of being weaselly here. Extra resources, opportunity costs, I think a good designer can make a passionate argument for one path providing a boost over another. And I don't think people are going to count every XP point possible.

 

But when we venture into territory where you need a thief to get all the trap/lock XP and you can murder all the Goblins for about double the XP even thought you made peace with the Ogre Mage for its own XP bonus, then that niggles.

 

But it is only a trifle. I'm beginning to question whether it's worth it.

 

 

Think of it the other way. What if they made the game that PROMOTED diplomatic and stealth play almost exclusively and every class specialized in a different way of BS'ing your way out crap (it would probably suck, but whatever). What if all talents were about nothing but talking and sneaking too. Would it seem right to you for a player who BS's his way left and right to get the same xp as some dude who just kills crap? If the game was focuses on non combat play, then the player should be rewarded every time he avoids combat.

 

Now lets look at PoE. This game's focus is EASILY killing and all character development is centered around making you a killing machine. The player does not give up anything to develop combat prowess. 99% of the character development is combat centered. The xp system should take that into account. Objective based xp should stay but there is nothing wrong with grafting combat xp onto that as well.

 

To be clear, I would have NO problem with the current system if the character development were entirely skill based and the player had to choose whether to put points into combat or noncombat development. This is not the case, however.

[Silverbarr]

 

 

 

 

 

 

"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."

I disagree fundementally with the need to do this. Why must different playstyles reward the same amount of experience? Who cares? 

 

the developers do. many players do. those who wish for more replay-ability do.  nevertheless, if that is your pov, we understand the impasse. you do not see inherent value in players choosing different approaches but getting same/similar xp value. the developers disagree wholeheartedly with you and thus they have chosen a method that guarantees equal xp to all players regardless o' how they solve a quest. why should kill ogre get xp, but trick ogre get nothing?  why should a character who specializes in unlocking every chest get loot AND more xp than a person who don't have a dedicated lockpicker? etc. you don't have a problem with the disparity. thus ends common ground and we will make no headway. thankfully, obsidian sees value in balance xp awards. lump sums is how old pnp did it. you is still being rewarded for killing stuff by getting your xp award, but you feel slighted 'cause sneaky and diplomats is getting same lump sum? why?

 

so, given that obsidian is making game and has stated innumerable times they don't want fail builds or superior builds that gain excess xp, answer the challenge:

 

"we pose this challenge every time this Stoopid debate reappears and we never get an answer:

 

"provide an alternative system that is as simple and straightforward to implement as task/quest only xp that will will guarantee that regardless of an individual purchaser's style o' gameplay, they will get as much xp as a fighty, diplomatic, sneaky or whatever else kinda player."

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

@Azrael Ultima I think I found your strawmen.

 

In case you're having trouble connecting the dots Gromnir, see all those highlighted words, no one but you is saying that.

 

I do realize that by acting like someone is it makes it much easier for you to argue against what they are actually saying. But no one but you is saying that people who what kill xp feel cheated that sneaky and diplomatic characters would get the same amount. No one but you is saying that skill use in dialogue shouldn't be rewarded by xp.

 

There are just many of us who would also like to be rewarded with xp for participating in the most frequent component of the game. Combat.

 

fine, then balance it. if you don't want sneaky and diplomats cheated, answer our challenge.

 

still no takers

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Your fallacy is that you think you are being cheated for playing the game a particular way. No one is cheating you Gromnir. You can play the game however you want. If you want to be sneaky then be sneaky. If you want to be diplomatic then be diplomatic. If you want to kill everything that lives, then be a mass murderer. If you want to be all of those things as much as possible and don't care if your character is role-playing or being consitent. Then do that too.

 

You can be free to choose however you want to play the game in an enjoyable way as long as each particular way of playing it is rewarded enough to make the playstyle fun. The playstyles don't need to be equal at all. As long as skills checks are rewarded and good xp is given both for the murder solution and the sneaky/diplomatic solution the everything is fine.

 

If a player wants to horribly abuse the xp system by metagaming, well then that's their choice. As a designer I would be happy that I can give that playstyle, which I have trouble relating to, an enjoyable way to play the game.

 

If case you should say that it is impossible to satisfy all these playstyles without being game breaking, I will simply point you in the direction of BG/BG2. In that game some amount of combat was necessary, but if you chose to solve a quest in a diplomatic or sneaky way nothing required you to go back and kill everything just to have enough xp to move forward. You could choose to if you wanted to.

 

I want to play a game with choice. That to me is much more important than balance. That was how the IE games worked and what initally intrigued me so much about Pillars of Eternity. Unfortunatly, many of the systems, if not significantly altered, simply do not support that principal. This is unfortunate as it was stated the game was to be a spiritual successor to the IE games.

 

 

This post sums up how I feel, seems like a major amount of people also.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Silverbarr

[Gromnir]

 

fine, then balance it. if you don't want sneaky and diplomats cheated, answer our challenge.

 

still no takers

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Actually, i gave you your desire pages ago.

 

Grant XP for time passed, which is both easy to implement, simple and straightforward, and completely independent of any playstyle because it has no connection whatsoever to what the player does. Which is the only way to grant XP independent of playstyle at all.

 

actually, you didn't. you did make a vague comment about rewarding for partial steps, but that doesn't solve anything and sure isn't illuminating.  how balance partial steps if you diplomacy, sneak and kill... or some other complete unexpected manner. where is partial steps measured and how. how is those partial steps balanced against each other. and why on earth does those incremental steps matter?

 

seriously folks. quest task is simple/straightforward and infallible. everybody gets same xp for completion.  given that obsidian believes alternative play styles should be rewarded equal and should be encouraged, come up with a better solution.

 

*shakes head sadly*

 

this is not complex, or confusing. not even a little.

 

HA! Good Fun!