Backer beta: Developer Impressions

[IndiraLightfoot]

Mayama: Although I love fast pace and good RTwP, I have a feeling you're right on that one. That kind of combat would fit this game. Still, I believe the RTwP combat can be fixed. However, it's too late to fix the fact that the game is very combat-oriented, but it won't have that deep character development of an RPG touching your soul (excuse the pun).

[Ashen Rohk]

I'd have to disagree about TBC, I overall prefer RTwP. Having said that, it really does benefit some games - Wasteland 2 in particular as I remember trying to play Fallout: Tactics in real time and it became a mess. I RTwP.

 

Everyone also seems to be basing how the storyline and companion interaction will be based on a side quest area and some blank slate party members who have no character whatsoever. This was done so we could experience it when the game launched. I know you could get set up to be burned, but you can't judge the storyline/companion aspect when it's been deliberately left out.

[Zansatsu]

 

 

I can't, in general, stand to work with process-oriented people. They're the ones who are concerned that you clock in at the right hours, make sure that everything is properly written down, call endless meetings to properly assign responsibilities, and so on. Goal-oriented people are concerned about what needs to be done in order to get that thing we're working on finished and out the door, what it has to be like, and so on. Of course some process and, in teamwork, a great deal of discipline is needed to actually do that, but I find it extremely important that goals go first, adherence to process second.

 

I'm happy to report that I am a goal-oriented person through and through. I have a hard time working with too process-oriented folks as well.

Well yes thats basicaly the difference, when I was younger I liked to grind in RPG'S way more than now. It was nice to feal the increase of power it gave you and it brought you a little bit closer to the perfect build. Nowadays I honestly do not care because I realized that it does not change anything. Grinding through millions of monsters to get a level wont change the story, wont really change my experience and only delays the interesting parts of the game. Theirs nothing more frustraiting than beeing locked behind a grind gate bevor you can experience now content. Its the reason why people rush through all content bevor end level in all mmorpgs ever created.

It took me 5 months to reach lvl cap in Swtor. I did every quest on every planet and I did every flashpoint along the way. I even PvP'd periodically. Just because the ability to grind is in a game doesn't mean everyone will do it. Are there people who do that? Yes a lot. Does everyone? Well according to you all yes, we can't help ourselves.

[Ashen Rohk]

I do not want grind in my single player RPGs. If I want grind I'll log in to whatever MMO I'm playing this week.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I'd have to disagree about TBC, I overall prefer RTwP. Having said that, it really does benefit some games - Wasteland 2 in particular as I remember trying to play Fallout: Tactics in real time and it became a mess. I RTwP.

 

Everyone also seems to be basing how the storyline and companion interaction will be based on a side quest area and some blank slate party members who have no character whatsoever. This was done so we could experience it when the game launched. I know you could get set up to be burned, but you can't judge the storyline/companion aspect when it's been deliberately left out.

This is a fair objection you raise, but even if the story is great. This is a game, and it's clearly built heavily around combat and the level progression for your roleplaying character revolves almost solely around combat rewards.

[Zansatsu]

I also never reached lvl cap on ESO because after 3/months I didn't have enoughtime to play to keep paying the fee. But again iI did every quest and dungeon and crafted as I went. I felt no need to rush to completion

[Zansatsu]

I do not want grind in my single player RPGs. If I want grind I'll log in to whatever MMO I'm playing this week.

That's fine, but you don't have to grind. That you feel compelled to is on you.

[prodigydancer]

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with only getting XP for quests, and I don't think lack of combat XP is going to bring about the fall of civilization, but in a game that's heavily focused on combat and where the bulk of the abilities/talents/spells are oriented toward combat effectiveness, it makes little sense to me that combat yields no XP at all.

I'd like to see at least symbolic amounts of XP for kills too. But in the end - who cares where those points came from if you get enough of them to reach the level cap?

 

The lack of inventory space is potentially much more annoying (depending on how many items you need to carry). If there's one thing Larian did right in D:OS it's unlimited inventory space (they sort of ruined it with all the clutter and nonexistent auto-management though).

Edited August 27, 2014 by prodigydancer

[prodigydancer]

Honestly I think they should have gone full middle finger mode like tides of numenera and switched to turn based combat.

Turn based combat sucks. This is my honest and final opinion on the matter after playing a lot of turn-based games. I know TBC fans will never admit it but we - people who prefer RTwP - do exist. And we do want to play a game that suits our tastes once in a while.

 

TToN going TB was a huge disappointment for me.

Edited August 27, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Gromnir]

 

I'd have to disagree about TBC, I overall prefer RTwP. Having said that, it really does benefit some games - Wasteland 2 in particular as I remember trying to play Fallout: Tactics in real time and it became a mess. I RTwP.

 

Everyone also seems to be basing how the storyline and companion interaction will be based on a side quest area and some blank slate party members who have no character whatsoever. This was done so we could experience it when the game launched. I know you could get set up to be burned, but you can't judge the storyline/companion aspect when it's been deliberately left out.

This is a fair objection you raise, but even if the story is great. This is a game, and it's clearly built heavily around combat and the level progression for your roleplaying character revolves almost solely around combat rewards.

 

am confused. what game is you talking about? PoE is specifically not built around level progression as a reward for combats. PoE rewards players for quests and tasks completions and there appears to be the possibility for non-combat resolutions for many/most such quests and tasks. 

 

is possible you is actual talking about fallout:tactics however. even so, we wouldn't feel particular bad if xp were granted at the completion o' major objectives on each fo:t maps as 'posed to granting rewards for kills. am recalling the first time we completed the st. louis map, we utilized a scorched earth approach, particular after securing the sniper rifle. the actual mission goal were to save some injured soldiers, but instead we killed everything on the map because the xp were fantastic and 'cause there were so much .50 ammo available if you chose to go ahead and wipe out every mutant. 

 

am suspecting that the inflated xp award for the genocide at st. louis is the kinda thing quest/task xp awards seek to minimize.  

 

st. louis were also a bonanza for xp if one had the capacity to disarm mines.... which we also exploited shamelessly. every accidentally exploding mine were not only representing lost salvage but wasted xp. 

 

good example though. thanks for reminding us.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Ineth]

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.

 

Gromnir, why does it have to be "as simple and straightforward to implement"?

 

Surely, when designing a game, the developers should start by asking "What will be most fun and rewarding for players?", and not "What will be the least amount of work for us?"

 

Note that I'm among those who are fine with the PoE's XP system (although I also enjoyed how XP was handled the Infinity Engine, with the exception of XP scaling in IWD2), so I'm not trying to be combative, it's an honest question.

[Ineth]

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.

 

I'm imagining my Orlan rogue sneaking into the cave and pickpocketing the Ogre's head right off his body...

[lightblade75]

Why do computer games fascinate people? Because you get a feedback ever time you do something in a game. If your pac-man eats some dots or a ghost you get at once your points to bigger your high score. In a crpg like PoE it would be a lot of other things (e.g. exploring the wilderness, talking to NPCS in the way I like it as a character, accomplish tasks, etc.) that motivates me to play on and on. XP for slaying monsters is the most classic one and therefore I would realy like to see it in this game. But there are so many motivating things to do - to play in this game, that give you a positive feedback - even to listen to the great music and ambient sounds that XP for slaying monsters can even be on a very low place on the scale of importance. PoE is going a new way in terms of character attributes, so why not try to gain XP in a "new" (other) way than slaying monsters or picking locks.

[PrimeJunta]

Surely, when designing a game, the developers should start by asking "What will be most fun and rewarding for players?", and not "What will be the least amount of work for us?"

 

If they had unlimited budget and development time, then sure.

 

In the real world, though, they do have to consider payoff for effort. If it takes a lot more time to balance system A than system B, then they should only make system A if the payoff in gameplay enjoyment is commensurately bigger.

 

I dig that we have different opinions on exactly how big the payoff from a well-balanced systemic/quest XP system would be, and, conversely, how much it would detract from enjoyment if it turned out they didn't have time to balance it properly and it ended up full of exploits or with some approaches consistently rewarded more highly than others, but it's not right simply to dismiss the cost from consideration.

[Azrael Ultima]

Well, Ineth did say "start by", not that they would immediately lock that down as their final plan.

 Completely true and completely irrelevant. The sleeping player will hit the level cap before doing anything. The speed run player will fail to hit the level cap by the game's end. One style is clearly advantaged.

 

Not irrelevant. Only objective trait you could be advantaged or disadvantaged on.

 

Whether being under/overleveled is an advantage or disadvantage is dependent on the players preferences. Some people like the extra challenge and would therefore consider it an advantage. Others prefer outleveling fights.

If you use that as part(or all) of the requirements, you become unable to find any system at all that fulfills them. Not a sensible interpretation if you're actually looking for a solution.

 

Not to mention that granting all levels before you reach the first fight or right on character creation are valid uses of the system given, and would avoid all of the issues you brought up.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Azrael Ultima

[Stun]

 

You're missing his point. Volourn is clearly pointing out that the game isn't rewarding you XP for your accomplishments. And that is correct. I can show you several non-combat accomplishments you can make in this Beta at least that go completely unrewarded. I can also show you current developer confirmation that only QUESTS will be rewarding you XP.

 

Of course, that passage is from one of Tim Cain's updates. Those can actually be taken with a grain of salt. a LOT of the stuff he said has since been eliminated, changed, rendered too expensive to implement etc.

 

It rewards your accomplishments because all those activites, killing monsters, lockpicking locks, and so forth are done so you can solve a quest. The only way to win this or any similar game is by solving quests.

 

Except that here in the Beta, there's an entire map (the what's-it-called Gorge) filled with monsters, and lock picking, scripted events and a dungeon. But since there's no quest tied to that map, there's no XP to be had in it. Or because of it. Or in reference to it. none at all.

[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.

 

I'm imagining my Orlan rogue sneaking into the cave and pickpocketing the Ogre's head right off his body...

 

Before the final patch, BG2 allowed you to do that. The genies in Trademeet want you to bring them Ihtafeer's head. When you find her, you can sneak into her hut and pick her pocket for it.

 

^there's your impossibly non-violent solution, right there!

Edited August 27, 2014 by Stun

[Azrael Ultima]

Before the final patch, BG2 allowed you to do that. The genies in Trademeet want you to bring them Ihtafeer's head. When you find her, you can sneak into her hut and pick her pocket for it.

 

^there's your impossibly non-violent solution, right there!

 

Always good to keep a spare around. Certainly better than the games where you can somehow fail to find vital body parts on a corpse.

"What do you mean, 'he doesn't have a heart'?"

[Ganrich]

His name was Tinman. What did you expect?

[Ashen Rohk]

 

I do not want grind in my single player RPGs. If I want grind I'll log in to whatever MMO I'm playing this week.

That's fine, but you don't have to grind. That you feel compelled to is on you.

 

True, but is an accepted part of MMO mechanics - grind for what you want. Very few single player RPGs require grind - the only example I can think of off the top of my head is in Morrowind if you're too low level and Caius Cosades tells you to bugger off and level up.

 

E.g. massive grind for legendary in Guild Wars 2, or finish a fairly tricky quest in IWD2 for that insane sword that's +10 on HoF that drops from the sky in Chapter 5. One is woven into the story and requires quest completion and the other is excessive repetition. To me, that is the difference.

[Ashen Rohk]

 

I'd have to disagree about TBC, I overall prefer RTwP. Having said that, it really does benefit some games - Wasteland 2 in particular as I remember trying to play Fallout: Tactics in real time and it became a mess. I RTwP.

 

Everyone also seems to be basing how the storyline and companion interaction will be based on a side quest area and some blank slate party members who have no character whatsoever. This was done so we could experience it when the game launched. I know you could get set up to be burned, but you can't judge the storyline/companion aspect when it's been deliberately left out.

This is a fair objection you raise, but even if the story is great. This is a game, and it's clearly built heavily around combat and the level progression for your roleplaying character revolves almost solely around combat rewards.

 

Sorry, I might be misunderstanding you here! You don't get XP rewards for combat, but from quest completions.

 

Or are you saying that you should be able to get XP from combat due to the nature of the game?

[IndiraLightfoot]

No worries! It was me not expressing it clear enough. What I meant by "combat rewards" in this case was the options you're granted at levelling, when your characters progress.

 

1) Char creation at start of game ==some rp/background stuff + your first combat skills

2) Enter game, seek out quest givers

3) In-between quest givers playing ==mostly combat (or, as some people have reported, quite a bit of sneaking as an option), some convos with NPC and companions, a few puzzles and obstacles in the form of traps and locks.

3) Immediate reward in-game playing==loot + fun doing 3)

4) Hand in quest items to, or do stuff for, quest givers

5) Get quest xp

6) Sooner or later, your character levels up

7) Reward at level-up: primarily enhanced and diversified combat skills, a few non-combat skills

Rinse and repeat, until entire game is done.

 

Extras: Stronghold and loot cuddling/polishing (crafting)

Edited August 27, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[GreyFox]

 

+"but combat kills xp is bad design and leading to difficulty in balancing. "

 

No, it doesn't. BG series is very balanced xp wise. And, combat kills xp wise has worked for DND (and others) for decades and for good reasons. Balance has NOTHINg to do with xp. XP isn't even about 'balance'. Whether xp is put in via combat or via quest completion or via whatever method, balance is achieved through other mehods.

 

but, again, what are the goals of xp? Why was it used in DnD and other games? Answer that fully and you know why XP system is subpar (thus far, might work in full game) in PE ebat but works well in DOS and SRR? Hmmm...

 

You could farm your characters to level cap in couple hours in BG by killing respawning high xp monsters like sirens for example. 

 

 

So?

 

That only affects you and its your game so who the f*** cares. If you are the type of person who does that then the issue is yourself and not the game. If some fool spends his time derping on sirens for a few hours to reach max level then he's in the wrong game anyway.

 

Plus that's easily solved by removing respawning sirens.

[Elerond]

 

 

+"but combat kills xp is bad design and leading to difficulty in balancing. "

 

No, it doesn't. BG series is very balanced xp wise. And, combat kills xp wise has worked for DND (and others) for decades and for good reasons. Balance has NOTHINg to do with xp. XP isn't even about 'balance'. Whether xp is put in via combat or via quest completion or via whatever method, balance is achieved through other mehods.

 

but, again, what are the goals of xp? Why was it used in DnD and other games? Answer that fully and you know why XP system is subpar (thus far, might work in full game) in PE ebat but works well in DOS and SRR? Hmmm...

 

You could farm your characters to level cap in couple hours in BG by killing respawning high xp monsters like sirens for example. 

 

 

So?

 

That only affects you and its your game so who the f*** cares. If you are the type of person who does that then the issue is yourself and not the game. If some fool spends his time derping on sirens for a few hours to reach max level then he's in the wrong game anyway.

 

Plus that's easily solved by removing respawning sirens.

 

 

It is comment about BG being very balanced xp wise. I didn't present any opinion one way or another about it being good or bad thing or any other thing.

[Uomoz]

The point of the per objective experience is to give the same progression for all the possible playstyles, ex by using combat, skill, dialogue, etc. IMHO it's not primarily meant to prevent exping on respawning monsters, none really cares about that.