Backer beta: Developer Impressions

[Stun]

it might be worth noting that all games you mentioned other than ap, which weren't genuine a rpg anyway, is expansions... and you really don't know what is straw man. it did occur to you that expansions might be forcing limitations on the developer o' the expansion seeing as how it ain't obsidian's licence or ip?

That would be a fantastic rebuttal, if it wasn't for the fact that the Originals of all those titles also granted combat XP. (Especially dungeon siege 1 & 2, which did not grant XP for anything BUT combat) Edited August 27, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

 

What do you mean, sneaky? You can't solve the Ogre quest by stealth in any way. Thus, one who role-plays a sneaky character is shut out from XP/quest rewards in that quest unless he changes his style of game play.

"sneaky"

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sneaky

 

we lied. we were deceptive. we were sneaky.

 

Uh-uh. no, sorry. In a game where Lying/Deception use different skill/attribute checks than Stealth, you cannot group them together as one and claim that they both constitute "sneak". Sneaking is its own skill in this game. Even gets its own button in the UI. Edited August 27, 2014 by Stun

[Gromnir]

 

it might be worth noting that all games you mentioned other than ap, which weren't genuine a rpg anyway, is expansions... and you really don't know what is straw man. it did occur to you that expansions might be forcing limitations on the developer o' the expansion seeing as how it ain't obsidian's licence or ip?

That would be a fantastic rebuttal, if it wasn't for the fact that the Originals of all those titles also granted combat XP. (Especially dungeon siege 1 & 2, which did not grant XP for anything BUT combat)

 

that is the freaking point. dear lord... save us.

 

obsidian made expansions. the original games had a formula and were popular enough to warrant an expansion. obsidian were getting paid to Expand the original game, games which gave combat xp.  is not as if obsidian were working from scratch to build the bestest crpg the could. they followed the formula, the script.  that were their job.

 

have entered the twilight zone.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

 

 

What do you mean, sneaky? You can't solve the Ogre quest by stealth in any way. Thus, one who role-plays a sneaky character is shut out from XP/quest rewards in that quest unless he changes his style of game play.

"sneaky"

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sneaky

 

we lied. we were deceptive. we were sneaky.

 

Uh-uh. no, sorry. In a game where Lying/Deception use different skill/attribute checks than Stealth, you cannot group them together as one and claim that they both constitute "sneak"

 

we were cautioned about being rude to you in spite o' you getting sweary and silly... but you make difficult.

 

we said, "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?"

 

now, explain what is wrong with our observation. you ASSumed that by sneaky we meant stealth. that was an incorrect ASSumption, the fallacy o' the ASSumption made all the more obvious by the fact that we observed initial that our solution were diplomatic. we then added that depending on how one looked at the situation, our solution were in fact sneaky. we used deception. we were not genuine diplomatic but were sneaky and deceptive. you ASSumed and is making a big issue outta nothing. congrats.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Stun]

 

Uh-uh. no, sorry. In a game where Lying/Deception use different skill/attribute checks than Stealth, you cannot group them together as one and claim that they both constitute "sneak"

we were cautioned about being rude to you in spite o' you getting sweary and silly... but you make difficult.

 

we said, "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?"

 

now, explain what is wrong with our observation. you ASSumed that by sneaky we meant stealth. that was an incorrect ASSumption, the fallacy o' the ASSumption made all the more obvious by the fact that we observed initial that our solution were diplomatic. we then added that depending on how one looked at the situation, our solution were in fact sneaky. we used deception. we were not genuine diplomatic but were sneaky and deceptive. you ASSumed and is making a big issue outta nothing. congrats.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Ha! talk about silly.

 

<sigh> I assumed that sneaky = stealth because that's what it friggin is. It doesn't matter if Gromnir believes that being sneaky means you marched right up to someone and started talking to him. Especially when the claim is being made that all playstyles are supported.

 

OK, Gromnir. Turnabout is fair play. I was "Sneaky" against the Ogre in my first playthough too. I killed him after giving him the impression that I was just there to engage him in chit-chat.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Stun

[Volourn]

"obsidian made expansions. the original games had a formula and were popular enough to warrant an expansion. obsidian were getting paid to Expand the original game, games which gave combat xp.  is not as if obsidian were working from scratch to build the bestest crpg the could. they followed the formula, the script.  that were their job."

 

SP isn't an epxansion or a sequel.

 

Also, NWN2, KOTOR2, and DS3 are not expansions. They are sequels. YOU DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE RIGHT GROMNIR?

 

Again, grom, answer me this: Why is PE's xp system worse than SRR which had no xp for combat/kills yet is 10000000x better than the evrsion PE is using? Weird.

[Leferd]

 

 

 

What do you mean, sneaky? You can't solve the Ogre quest by stealth in any way. Thus, one who role-plays a sneaky character is shut out from XP/quest rewards in that quest unless he changes his style of game play.

 

"sneaky"

 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sneaky

we lied. we were deceptive. we were sneaky.

Uh-uh. no, sorry. In a game where Lying/Deception use different skill/attribute checks than Stealth, you cannot group them together as one and claim that they both constitute "sneak"

we were cautioned about being rude to you in spite o' you getting sweary and silly... but you make difficult.

 

we said, "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?"

 

now, explain what is wrong with our observation. you ASSumed that by sneaky we meant stealth. that was an incorrect ASSumption, the fallacy o' the ASSumption made all the more obvious by the fact that we observed initial that our solution were diplomatic. we then added that depending on how one looked at the situation, our solution were in fact sneaky. we used deception. we were not genuine diplomatic but were sneaky and deceptive. you ASSumed and is making a big issue outta nothing. congrats.

 

HA! Good Fun!

I'll take that definition of sneaky and take my Quest XP for it too. Something a scoundrel would do, whether stealth was used or not.

[DCParry]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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.

 

 

You are not part of some disregarded majority screaming for sanity, so shove that idiocy. Make your arguments, own your arguments. I hope your are not stupid enough to still consider forum threads (even for a kickstarter) a representative sample of the population. Speaking for myself, I think all the people still arguing this are maniacs who are using absurd examples and being willfully obtuse in order to should out their demand for some reward for not dying horribly to a bunch of woodland creatures and I don't see any point in participating anymore because threads like these turn into huge bundles of crazy. 

 

I will add one thing. People talk about roleplaying, CRPG's and fighting and asking what is the point of combat if we don't rewarded for fighting? Perhaps we should all be asking this question as anyone resembling stable and sane would. actually. avoid. potentially. deadly. combat. encounters. Period. (teehee) Perhaps not over rewarding (and let me be clear here, your placing-no-value-on-your-own-life playstyle is not being discriminated against, just not getting all the hyper awards it used to) is an exceptionally interesting approach to take. So, in effect, one could argue (and the one could be me) that you are encouraged to role play more and question your characters motivations for slaughtering the local wildlife and assaulting sad ogres instead roam the countryside as a happy murder-band talking your way out of fights with bandits for XP, and then killing those same bandits for murder XO when they turn their backs. 

Edited August 27, 2014 by DCParry

[Gromnir]

keep going. makes you seem so much more enlightened. the relevant aspect o' our observation were that we dealt with the ogre without violence, without killing. you want to quibble over the fact that Gromnir used a denotative correct descriptor that you felt were ultimately misleading?

 

...

 

why?

 

...

 

what difference would it make if we solved through stealth or deception or diplomacy if we were contrasting with combat?

 

please, continue.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

"your characters motivations for slaughtering the local wildlife"

 

POINT. NOT. FOUND.

 

ILLOGICAL. MINDSET.

 

 

Nobody sia sking for xp for 'slaughtering the wildlife - local or otherwise. Nobody is demanding xp for killing the deer. They are asking to be rewarded with xp when overcoming a challenge to their characters when the INSTA HOSTILE beetles, spiders, oh my attack them for NO REASON.

 

Let me ask this? Why do you you feel xp exists? Why does Obsidian believe xp exists? Why SRR XP system superior to PE's current xp system? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?!

[Gromnir]

should make these part o' our signature for the time being:

 

1)  "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."

 

2) http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1494610

 

is gauche to quote self, but what can we do if we don't get actual responses?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sartoris]

 

 

"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."

 

and how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?  quest/task avoids such balancing.

 

 

and around we go. serious. is 2002 all over again and nothing new is spontaneously appearing.

 

*shrug*

 

doesn't matter though regardless o' what you think o' Gromnir pov, obsidian/bis has disagreed with you for a decade or more, and they disagreed all during development o' PoE. is yet another corpse on the pile o' would-be ad hoc xp proponents. is getting a bit fetid, but we expect the corpse pile will continue to grow.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

"how do you measure or decide what is enough for sneaky or diplomatic to be fun?" 

 

Oh I don't know. I guess you have a development studio and internal QA testers ya know... do what they do. Seriously why is this a question? Its like asking, how do you decide how many monsters to put in a level in Quake? This is what game designers are paid to do. I think its the least we can expect.

 

Its interesting that you mention that Obsidian has disagreed with people who want kill xp as well as other xp gains in the game. Here is a list of all Obsidian RPGs ever developed:

 

KOTOR II - 2004 - had kill xp

NWN2 and expansions - 2006 to 2008 - had kill xp

Alpha Protocol - 2010 - had kill xp

Fallout: New Vegas - 2010 - had kill xp

Dungeon Seige III - 2011 - had kill xp

South Park: The Stick of Truth - 2014 - had per battle xp 

 

Previously you tried to say that old pnp games didn't award kill xp but only awarded xp for completing tasks. I showed you, although you refused to admit it, that the original D&D and all its offspring are designed to award xp per monster killed. Although as always it is up to the DM how they decide xp gains. Nevertheless, the systems are designed to give xp upon kills.

 

In response you created a strawman argument pretending that what I said what that the systems did not give lump sum xp rewards at a later date. However, this is completely specious non-sequitur as no one in this thread has expressed a problem with characters being given the xp, they would earn per each kill, at the end of a quest.

 

I told you before to get your facts straight if you are going to try to build an arguement on them. I'm calling you out again as it seems to be a recurring crutch for you. If Obsidian disagreed with kill xp as far back as 2002 why did they incorporate kill xp into every game they have produced since then?

 

The better question is will you throw up another strawman to try to answer this or will you be willing to admit that D&D systems are designed to give xp for monster kills (as well as other things) and that Obsidian games until Pillars of Eternity have done so as well?

 

it might be worth noting that all games you mentioned other than ap, which weren't genuine a rpg anyway, is expansions... and you really don't know what is straw man. it did occur to you that expansions might be forcing limitations on the developer o' the expansion seeing as how it ain't obsidian's licence or ip?

 

*eye roll*

 

is not your fault you weren't here for bg3 or fo3, so you didn't get the full arguments from the bis and obsidian developers, but this is one topic where you simple couldn't be more wrong if you tried. josh, in particular, were brutal with the ad hoc proponents.  this game has also been in development for more than simple the week the beta has been available and the obsidians no doubt reexamined the quest xp issue during development.  

 

so, again,  "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."

 

still no adequate response. surprised? no.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps  'cause maybe missed, but there seems to be great misunderstanding 'bout xp awards for d&d pnp at the time o' the ie games

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67963-backer-beta-developer-impressions/?p=1494840

 

 

Actually I was around (the codex at least) during all the BG3 and Van Buren talk. I'm well aware of Sawyer's visceral hatred of many IE games mechanics. However, I also closely followed the mechanics of released Obsidian games, in which this quest only xp mechanic never emerged.

 

You are very right to point out that Obsidian did not have complete creative control over KOTOR, NWN2, New Vegas, DSIII, or South Park. However, at a minimum I believe did have enough control over NWN2 to enforce quest only xp. Do you know who didn't have creative control though? Josh Sawyer

 

As we all know he is the lead designer of this game and clearly has enforced this particular xp mechanic. It may very well be that no amount of people expressing dissatisfaction with the mechanic now will make an anthill of difference in the end. Because, as you point out pedantically, no one has proposed an alternative xp mechanic that preserves the lead designers misbegotten devotion to the mistakenly worshiped principal of balance.

 

But that is because the entire premise is based on a fallacy that I tried to point out to you. No one is cheating you in a game if you choose to play in a way that would give you somewhat less xp as long as that playstyle is still fun.

 

That playstyle was fun in the IE games. I still play them like that to this day. Once Sawyer got the reigns of complete creative control he chose to implement the systems he prefers not necessarily (that is the key word here because there are people on both sides of this argument) the systems that his players would prefer.

 

If by discussing the mechanics of the beta in the "Backer Beta Discussion" forums I am somehow crossing a line then so be it. If a mod tells me to stop I will. But I am trying desperately to get an opinion on the record post beta release that this system is not what many players want.

 

It may not make a bit of difference in the final game, but if the people that disagree with this design decision don't make their opinions known both before and after the beta release then the playerbase will only have itself to blame when the game is released with this poor xp system.

 

I intend to make sure that Josh knows that this design decision will probably negatively contribute to many peoples enjoyment of this game. Your incessant desire for someone to come up with a system that meets the impossible balance demands placed on it by Josh, combined with the reasonable desire of many of us for it to incorporate xp rewards for combat, a mechanic that probably comprises over 50% of the time spent in the game (and up to 70% or more if it is anything like BG2), is simply inane.

 

Its impossible. Its either quest only xp or quest, skill, combat, exploration, etc xp.

 

The second options worked and continues to work in the IE games. I don't believe quest only will contribute as much lasting enjoyment to this one.

 

Time will tell. At least now there is a record of people telling Josh he was wrong in 2002, wrong at the beginning of development of Pillars of Eternity, wrong during the beta release, and very likely, wrong during and after release of the game as well.

[Stun]

keep going. makes you seem so much more enlightened. the relevant aspect o' our observation were that we dealt with the ogre without violence, without killing. you want to quibble over the fact that Gromnir used a denotative correct descriptor that you felt were ultimately misleading?

 

...

 

why?

 

...

 

what difference would it make if we solved through stealth or deception or diplomacy if we were contrasting with combat?

 

please, continue.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Ok. I'll answer both your questions. Your argument was that the system awards all playstyles.

 

It does not. You cannot solve any quest in the beta by sneaking, for example. When this was pointed out to you bluntly and clearly, you decided to redefine 'sneaking' so that it fits within the definition of another playstyle entirely (talking), and then you proceeded to call people 'silly" and "obtuse" for not "realizing" that the sneaky playstyle is rewarded.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Stun

[Gromnir]

"But that is because the entire premise is based on a fallacy that I tried to point out to you. No one is cheating you in a game if you choose to play in a way that would give you somewhat less xp as long as that playstyle is still fun."

 

is not a fallacy. if Gromnir is certain that by choosing a certain play style we is gimping ourself out of significant xp or usefulness or whatever, we will be disinclined to play such a build. you are making an assumption.  josh also has observed that while fallout allowed near limitless gameplay builds using special, only a handful ever got widespread use. in spite o' the potential for fun, the reality is that there were only a handful o' builds that were efficacious enough to merit playing. is unlikely Gromnir is alone in his resistance to self handicapping, and while we don't know where josh and other black isle/obsidian folks got his feedback, his fallout observations seem to reinforce our belief.

 

and keep in mind that josh is not the Sole Arbiter o' all things PoE. seems a bit silly to suggest that this is josh's choice and everybody else at obsdian is meekly following along.

 

"That playstyle was fun in the IE games. I still play them like that to this day. Once Sawyer got the reigns of complete creative control he chose to implement the systems he prefers not necessarily (that is the key word here because there are people on both sides of this argument) the systems that his players would prefer"

 

another unsupported assumption? many folks, such as Gromnir, felt that the ie system o' xp awards (we mentioned the silliness o' stockpiling scrolls to memorize for massive xp awards) were horribly broken. we could enjoy bg (not so much) or bg2 without approving of the xp award system. furthermore, let us be honest about the ie games (sans iwd2.) ad&d rules and the infinity engine approach to actualizing ad&d made it much more difficult to build a diplomatic or stealthy character. you are setting up a false choice. thank goodness we ain't stuck with mechanics as limited as we had in bg and bg2. if all we had were horrible ad&d, then perhaps you would have at least more o' a point.

 

regardless, you still fail to answer our challenge. is a simple truism that obsidian has a goal o' making all builds if not equally powerful, then at least equal viable and hopefully equally fun. so, "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." you do not see such a goal as worthy? very well, we already stated much earlier that we were at an impasse because o' this. nevertheless, the goal is to provide juice per squeeze for every build. that is a given. so, provide a xp system that provides equal xp that is as easy to implement. am still waiting.

 

"I intend to make sure that Josh knows that this design decision will probably negatively contribute to many peoples enjoyment of this game."

 

​the codexian grognards came out o' the woodwork during bg3 development and fo3 as well. am finding particularly amusing that this time it is post beta that we is seeing vocal resistance from a the intransigent few. is kinda amusing timing. good luck  though.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Leferd]

"I intend to make sure that Josh knows that this design decision will probably negatively contribute to many peoples enjoyment of this game."

 

It's a stretch to say that the XP system is going to negatively impact a player's enjoyment of a game to a significant degree.

 

Quest/objective based XP has never detracted from my enjoyment of a game -e.g.,VtM:B, Shadowrun Returns, and even NWN: Witch's Wake.

 

Bad gameplay will negatively impact my enjoyment of any game. Strong positives of the three mentioned games was that as a player I had the freedom to role play how my character resolves each presented situation without feeling that I am missing out on rewards or XP. Instead I have the satisfaction and appropriate reward for role playing my character and am not receiving any XP penalty for not metagaming.

[Volourn]

Q"uest/objective based XP has never detracted from my enjoyment of a game -e.g.,VtM:B,"

 

Fun game despite garbage combat. XP system is irrelevant.

 

"Shadowrun Returns,"

 

Great xp system.  Merely enjoyable as a gaming experience. Fun but not special, But, the xp system is awesome. Why is PE's xp system worse than SRR? Hmmm..

 

 

"and even NWN: Witch's Wake."

 

An EPIC FAIL of a module that got thrown in the trash right where it deserves.

[Gromnir]

 

keep going. makes you seem so much more enlightened. the relevant aspect o' our observation were that we dealt with the ogre without violence, without killing. you want to quibble over the fact that Gromnir used a denotative correct descriptor that you felt were ultimately misleading?

 

...

 

why?

 

...

 

what difference would it make if we solved through stealth or deception or diplomacy if we were contrasting with combat?

 

please, continue.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Ok. I'll answer both your questions. Your argument was that the system awards all playstyles.

 

It does not. You cannot solve any quest in the beta by sneaking, for example. When this was pointed out to you bluntly and clearly, you decided to redefine 'sneaking' so that it fits within the definition of another playstyle entirely (talking), and then you proceeded to call people 'silly" and "obtuse" for not "realizing" that the sneaky playstyle is rewarded.

 

see, now That is strawman... please point out to sart as he is confused about strawman. we stated that the developers does indeed try to make all builds viable, but that does not necessarily follow that every obstacle will be surmountable via sneaky or diplomacy or every single skill available. we said that quest xp means that the developers does not need ask how players chose to accomplish goals-- the choice is left up to players, and xp awards do not favor any singular approach. there is no best xp build. there is no right or wrong approach.

 

"PoE is a role-play game that allows sneaky and diplomatic. give xp awards for individual kills, and individual lockpicks and individual whatever inevitably leads to an ideal approach for maximizing xp by making the right gameplay and character development choices. quest only xp avoids the need to devise a fair an balanced calculus. quest is simple and guaranteed to result in every player getting exact same XP rewards for completing quests regardless o' how they chose to complete the quest.

 

"you don't wanna play a role-play game that offers choices? then go play an rts game."

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am thinking you don't fully realize that your example is precisely why quest xp is a superior approach. how does developers properly award stealthy gameplay? what numbers resolutions may be provided to balance with combat? yea, our stealth guy might be able to sneak past all spiders and then outwith the ogre, but how does we proper award xp so is similar to the combat player?with quest xp it is a non-issue. is no problem that needs be confronted as there is no balancing being faced by the developers. players can be creative and find their own solutions and developers need not worry 'bout providing relative satisfactory exp awards.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Gromnir

[Leferd]

Q"uest/objective based XP has never detracted from my enjoyment of a game -e.g.,VtM:B,"

 

Fun game despite garbage combat. XP system is irrelevant.

 

"Shadowrun Returns,"

 

Great xp system.  Merely enjoyable as a gaming experience. Fun but not special, But, the xp system is awesome. Why is PE's xp system worse than SRR? Hmmm..

 

 

"and even NWN: Witch's Wake."

 

An EPIC FAIL of a module that got thrown in the trash right where it deserves.

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessments. But my point was that the XP systems for these game were positives and added to the experience, and not detracted from it.

[Stun]

 

Ok. I'll answer both your questions. Your argument was that the system awards all playstyles.

 

It does not. You cannot solve any quest in the beta by sneaking, for example. When this was pointed out to you bluntly and clearly, you decided to redefine 'sneaking' so that it fits within the definition of another playstyle entirely (talking), and then you proceeded to call people 'silly" and "obtuse" for not "realizing" that the sneaky playstyle is rewarded.

see, now That is strawman... please point out to sart as he is confused about strawman. we stated that the developers does indeed try to make all builds viable, but that does not necessarily follow that every obstacle will be surmountable via sneaky or diplomacy or every single skill available. we said that quest xp means that the developers does not need ask how players chose to accomplish goals-- the choice is left up to players, and xp awards do not favor any singular approach. there is no best xp build. there is no right or wrong approach.

 

Um...No Gromnir. you said THIS:

you ain't punished. you get same xp as those who sneak past combats even if you do get 1007 drops n' such that sneaky folks don't get. the guy that does the fight gets valuable loot drops that the sneaky or diplomatic player does not receive. the sneaky doesn't waste potions or camping resources. is a Role-Play game. aren’t you happy you get meaningful choices? regardless, notice we said "punished" not discriminated.... although that is one o' the more feeble semantic arguments we has seen in awhile. am suspecting that loot drops more than make up for camping supplies, but even if they don't, is up to player to decide where is the value. even so, there is no punishment or discrimination for choosing fighty. there is likewise no Punishment for diplomatic or sneaky players when discussing xp rewards, 'cause they is gonna get exact same xp regardless.

Does the Beta reward ANY xp for sneaking past the Ogre, or any other quest/quest objective? Nope. Does Gromnir know what the hell he's talking about? NOPE. Edited August 27, 2014 by Stun

[Sartoris]

"But that is because the entire premise is based on a fallacy that I tried to point out to you. No one is cheating you in a game if you choose to play in a way that would give you somewhat less xp as long as that playstyle is still fun."

 

is not a fallacy. if Gromnir is certain that by choosing a certain play style we is gimping ourself out of significant xp or usefulness or whatever, we will be disinclined to play such a build. you are making an assumption.  josh also has observed that while fallout allowed near limitless gameplay builds using special, only a handful ever got widespread use. in spite o' the potential for fun, the reality is that there were only a handful o' builds that were efficacious enough to merit playing. is unlikely Gromnir is alone in his resistance to self handicapping, and while we don't know where josh and other black isle/obsidian folks got his feedback, his fallout observations seem to reinforce our belief.

 

and keep in mind that josh is not the Sole Arbiter o' all things PoE. seems a bit silly to suggest that this is josh's choice and everybody else at obsdian is meekly following along.

 

"That playstyle was fun in the IE games. I still play them like that to this day. Once Sawyer got the reigns of complete creative control he chose to implement the systems he prefers not necessarily (that is the key word here because there are people on both sides of this argument) the systems that his players would prefer"

 

another unsupported assumption? many folks, such as Gromnir, felt that the ie system o' xp awards (we mentioned the silliness o' stockpiling scrolls to memorize for massive xp awards) were horribly broken. we could enjoy bg (not so much) or bg2 without approving of the xp award system. furthermore, let us be honest about the ie games (sans iwd2.) ad&d rules and the infinity engine approach to actualizing ad&d made it much more difficult to build a diplomatic or stealthy character. you are setting up a false choice. thank goodness we ain't stuck with mechanics as limited as we had in bg and bg2. if all we had were horrible ad&d, then perhaps you would have at least more o' a point.

 

regardless, you still fail to answer our challenge. is a simple truism that obsidian has a goal o' making all builds if not equally powerful, then at least equal viable and hopefully equally fun. so, "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." you do not see such a goal as worthy? very well, we already stated much earlier that we were at an impasse because o' this. nevertheless, the goal is to provide juice per squeeze for every build. that is a given. so, provide a xp system that provides equal xp that is as easy to implement. am still waiting.

 

"I intend to make sure that Josh knows that this design decision will probably negatively contribute to many peoples enjoyment of this game."

 

​the codexian grognards came out o' the woodwork during bg3 development and fo3 as well. am finding particularly amusing that this time it is post beta that we is seeing vocal resistance from a the intransigent few. is kinda amusing timing. good luck  though.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

So Gromnir I'll try to take you at your word and see where that leads. You say, "if Gromnir is certain that by choosing a certain play style we is gimping ourself out of significant xp or usefulness or whatever, we will be disinclined to play such a build."

 

Are you saying that for every playthrough of BG2 you always killed every creature you encountered in every instance, always? Hence you never role played your character in BG/BG2 as someone who seeks out diplomatic and or stealthy solutions to quests? Or if you did so are you saying that every time you did you always went back and killed the creatures you would have otherwise skipped?

 

This seems.... unlikely at best. Instead I would wager that sometimes you went out of your way to kill stuff, sometimes you didn't. In fact, especially on your first playthrough, I bet you did what felt fun not what metagamed the content.

 

You say, "josh also has observed that while fallout allowed near limitless gameplay builds using special, only a handful ever got widespread use. in spite o' the potential for fun, the reality is that there were only a handful o' builds that were efficacious enough to merit playing."

 

The same can be said of the IE games. Most Wizards stacked Int, Priests Wis, Fighters Str, etc. Did this somehow make these game not fun to play? It doesn't seem like it. BG/BG2 is widely regarded as one of the best rpg's (and in some lists as one of the best overall games) of the last 20 years. Having every build be "viable" is is not way a requirement for a game to be fun.

 

In fact I hold that it actually contributes to the opposite effect. Since every stat does the same thing for every class (Might increases damage, intelligence increases AOE and DOTs, etc) I contend that it actually will make players stick more rigorously to "optimized" builds. The unfortunate thing is that these builds will be the optimal ones for multiple classes. So in the IE games we had a system where there were a small number of optimal builds per class (if you include multi/dual classing there were actually quite a few good but different builds for the same class), to a Pillars of Eternity system where we might see that there are only two optimal builds, one for DPS ranged/heals, one for DPS melee, and one for TANK melee.

 

Hopefully that apocalypse of horrible game design will not come to pass. As it stands I am not convinced. I'm worried.

 

You say, "you still fail to answer our challenge. is a simple truism that obsidian has a goal o' making all builds if not equally powerful, then at least equal viable and hopefully equally fun. so, "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." you do not see such a goal as worthy?"

 

I do see the goal as worthy, but the "challenge" you are posing is similar to asking someone to design a internal combustion engine with modern parts that can somehow make a car fly to the moon. Its just not going to happen. Its a silly thing to ask people to try to do, as Azrael Ultima tried to point out with his time xp example. I think you keep offering the challenge in some juvenile attempt to try to say, "I challenge you to do X, but you can't so all your other arguments or discussions are invalid because you didn't meet my (or Sawyer's) challenge."

 

Well I'm sorry, but I'm simply not going to play your game. I will continue to try to tell you why that is a stupid question to ask given that multiple people have expressed their opinion that the challenge is inherently unworkable, false, or simply wouldn't produce fun gameplay.

[Helm]

If you guys hate combat XP so much, then why did you back the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate that Obsidian promised us? Josh Sawyer has a huge problem with combat XP and he hates Baldur's Gate, he would have never backed this game (if he wasn't lead designer). So why did you back the spiritual successor of a game that you thought was fundamentally flawed, because it rewarded the player with combat XP? 
  

FWIW I stopped awarding combat XP very early in my DM'ing career. Lately I've gotten really lazy; I just decide roughly how quickly I want my players to advance per session, and award about that much every time, adjusted up or down depending on how creative they got, how big the challenges were, and how much they accomplished, with individual bonuses for players who did especially well.

So you stopped rewarding players with combat XP but you are still rewarding them for overcoming challenges, like combat? What? 
 
Why are you against combat XP then? lol
 

Is anybody anywhere advocating for a kill XP only system?

No, because it is just as ludicrous as quest only XP in this type of game.
 

That said, Dragon Age Origins was also touted as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. I loved DAO (less so the second title, and I haven't even bothered with the 3rd), but in terms of looking for a spiritual successor to the I.E games, what I've seen of PoE gets us about 1,000% closer to that mark than DAO did. 

I disagree, Dragon Age: Origins feels much more like a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate than this Frankenstein of RPGs. Not to mention that it has a lot more depth.

[Gromnir]

 

stuff

 

 

*groan*  am trying to be patient. am not sure what you is tying to achieve with what you think is insightful but is clearly misguided quotes.  you will be able to sneak and diplomacy your way past many obstacles and achieve success in may quests. the obsidians don't need tally and balance the weight o' the value o' those skills because all successfully completed quests, regardless o' your solution, will achieve equal payoff. am not certain how to make this any more simple or clear.

 

as to helm:

 

"If you guys hate combat XP so much, then why did you back the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate that Obsidian promised us? "

 

we will get plenty o' experience for combat, but it will be exactly the same amount o' experience as we get if we snuck past all the spiders and then tricked the ogre through dialogue.

 

​we all get to be wieners. yay!

 

sart:

 

"Are you saying that for every playthrough of BG2 you always killed every creature you encountered in every instance, always?"

 

and you complain about strawman?  *chuckle*

 

that being said, especial if we were close to leveling, we would be more inclined to search out a mob to kill just for the experience Points and not 'cause the experience o' combat were fun. thanks for helping illustrate that point even if it ain't what you were hoping to reveal.

 

 

"Hopefully that apocalypse of horrible game design will not come to pass. As it stands I am not convinced. I'm worried."

 

dear lord. you didn't go there, did you?

 

HA!

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 27, 2014 by Gromnir

[Zansatsu]

A common complaint against combat xp is that people seem incapable of role playing if any extra xp insensitive exists. So even though a single player game with multiple forms of xp given that could be beaten passively may exist, they can not help but degenerate into grinding for xp or becoming a homicidal maniac simple because the option is out there. Even though it is single player and there is no competition against other players at all. I think it's a self control issue myself.

[Sartoris]

 

 

stuff

 

 

*groan*  am trying to be patient. am not sure what you is tying to achieve with what you think is insightful but is clearly misguided quotes.  you will be able to sneak and diplomacy your way past many obstacles and achieve success in may quests. the obsidians don't need tally and balance the weight o' the value o' those skills because all successfully completed quests, regardless o' your solution, will achieve equal payoff. am not certain how to make this any more simple or clear.

 

as to helm:

 

"If you guys hate combat XP so much, then why did you back the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate that Obsidian promised us? "

 

we will get plenty o' experience for combat, but it will be exactly the same amount o' experience as we get if we snuck past all the spiders and then tricked the ogre through dialogue.

 

​we all get to be wieners. yay!

 

sart:

 

"Are you saying that for every playthrough of BG2 you always killed every creature you encountered in every instance, always?"

 

and you complain about strawman?  *chuckle*

 

that being said, especial if we were close to leveling, we would be more inclined to search out a mob to kill just for the experience Points and not 'cause the experience o' combat were fun. thanks for helping illustrate that point even if it ain't what you were hoping to reveal.

 

 

"Hopefully that apocalypse of horrible game design will not come to pass. As it stands I am not convinced. I'm worried."

 

dear lord. you didn't go there, did you?

 

HA!

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

Gromnir, what I did was ask a question of you. I was seeking clarification of your earlier remarks, which you have now provided. I was not making an argument. That is why it was a question.

 

But hey, my bad for taking such a combative tone that it seems like all I want to do is argue. I'm serious. I understand that for you and some others a quest based only xp system seems fun. For me and some others it clearly doesn't seem fun. I've tried to lay out the reasons why I think it is a bad design decision. You've stated why you think its a good one.

 

Time will tell. I can say that this is another area where I wish the developers would have stuck much closer to the IE model that they proposed in the Kickstarter.

 

P.S. And thank you so much for not including your "challenge" on that last question.

[Stun]

 

stuff

*groan* am trying to be patient. am not sure what you is tying to achieve with what you think is insightful but is clearly misguided quotes. you will be able to sneak and diplomacy your way past many obstacles and achieve success in may quests. the obsidians don't need tally and balance the weight o' the value o' those skills because all successfully completed quests, regardless o' your solution, will achieve equal payoff. am not certain how to make this any more simple or clear.

 

Oh I don't disagree that your quotes are misguided. In fact I'm pretty sure I cited them because they were misguided.

 

More to the point: with a system that rewards XP only for completing quests, you are not guaranteed that your play style will be rewarded (contrary to your FALSE claim). An example is Stealth gameplay. You weren't rewarded for it at all in this beta.

 

Another example, and one you've ignored every time it was presented to you on this thread, is the Gorge map (the wilderness map to the left of the village) Here we have a giant chunk of the beta, a sizable amount of content. But because there are no quests tied to it, there are No XP rewards given out for completing it, no matter what your playstyle is. Now I'm sure that for you this constitutes terrific design and "proof" that a quest XP only system is teh BEST. But someone like me will tell it like it f*cking is: Crap. Spending an hour 'exploring' an entire map and the dungeon beneath it and getting NOTHING to show for it, is not ideal.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Stun