Backer beta: Developer Impressions

[Gromnir]

stuff

am assuming you have been busy with rl the past couple years? hope all is well. Gromnir was gone from the boards for about 18 months as well.

 

in any event, we suspect that the most telling aspect o' the current debate is the absolute silence from the obsidian developers regarding the current squabble over the xp mechanic. absolute nothing has been added to the dialogue by boardies, so the developers feel they have no need to respond to what is essentially... noise.

 

in any event, we hope to see you post more frequent... right up until you say something we disagree with. joke. we joke.

 

HA! Good Fun! 

[Mayama]

Their should be a company that is like

 

Max Ernst

 

OR

 

Francis Bacon

[ManifestedISO]

Okay, now what happened in Isla Vista. 

 

Wait, I saw a movie about Bacon, long time ago, at the MCA La Jolla. He was in his home, a burglar dropped through the ceiling, attempted to burgle, stayed for dessert, and Bacon ... that's it, that's all I remember. It was in ... summer '99.

Edited August 28, 2014 by ManifestedISO

[Ink Blot]

I'm glad Gromnir is holding the fort for quest only XP.  Mostly I'm just here to add one more voice to his position.

 

I've been following this thread and a couple others dealing with combat XP.  Since almost all arguments have already come out, take my comments that duplicate other posts simply as agreement.  There are too many posts and threads to keep track of them all.

 

First of all, I think the folks who cite more recent observation to claim that combat XP is great are making after the fact arguments.  DnD had combat experience.  It's been a staple for years, but that exact moment where one designer decided to impart XP for random killing created a prejudice that it was natural.  Since that's been the norm for so long, it's hard to take arguments seriously that depend on direct observation about a current opinion that disregard habituation.  On the other hand, I am sympathetic to folks who just love combat XP.  I merely disagree with them that it's better.

 

Second, XP is not 'first among equals' in the court of game rewards.  It is king of the game reward court.  I have long been an advocate of story based rewards, but I would never claim that story based rewards rise to the level of XP.  Loot, achievements, titles, and the like are simply inferior to XP rewards.  That isn't to say that some people might not prefer some of these rewards at any particular time, and perhaps have an inclination to seek any other specific rewards at various times, but XP is pervasive and has the single largest impact on gameplay.  Granting XP as positive feedback trains the player to engage in that activity.  So, having painted the process into a corner by fixating players on combat, developers were forced to face angry players of other inclinations by rewarding an increasingly large number of things, such as stealth, lockpicking, using attributes in dialogue, exploration, etc.  Most of those rewards fall far short in the long run compared to combat, however.  Unless you've created a lockpicking RPG, in which lock are ubiquitous and in need of picking, you simply won't have any other incidental positive feedback that even comes close to the sheer number of potential slaughter victims who provide fodder for XP.

 

Anyhow, like I said, I'm mostly just here to add one more voice to folks who prefer the current philosophy behind quest only XP.

This is a good post, IMO.

 

The problem I personally have with the game as presented so far isn't so much that I think there's an inherent flaw with quest-only XP. In fact, I kind of like the idea of quest-only XP. But to me, the game is sending mixed signals with the design and mechanics. I still can't grasp the thinking behind giving no reward for combat kills, while every ability, spell, and talent in the game that I've seen so far is oriented toward making the character better at... killing and combat. If the whole idea is to give you alternate methods of solving quests and no matter how you do it, you get the same XP award, then why are there no talents, spells, abilities or even racial and class perks that will help you build a character that can be more effective at solving quests without combat?

 

***Thank you for you attention while I beat this dead nag to a fine paste.***

[Zansatsu]

 

I'm glad Gromnir is holding the fort for quest only XP.  Mostly I'm just here to add one more voice to his position.

 

I've been following this thread and a couple others dealing with combat XP.  Since almost all arguments have already come out, take my comments that duplicate other posts simply as agreement.  There are too many posts and threads to keep track of them all.

 

First of all, I think the folks who cite more recent observation to claim that combat XP is great are making after the fact arguments.  DnD had combat experience.  It's been a staple for years, but that exact moment where one designer decided to impart XP for random killing created a prejudice that it was natural.  Since that's been the norm for so long, it's hard to take arguments seriously that depend on direct observation about a current opinion that disregard habituation.  On the other hand, I am sympathetic to folks who just love combat XP.  I merely disagree with them that it's better.

 

Second, XP is not 'first among equals' in the court of game rewards.  It is king of the game reward court.  I have long been an advocate of story based rewards, but I would never claim that story based rewards rise to the level of XP.  Loot, achievements, titles, and the like are simply inferior to XP rewards.  That isn't to say that some people might not prefer some of these rewards at any particular time, and perhaps have an inclination to seek any other specific rewards at various times, but XP is pervasive and has the single largest impact on gameplay.  Granting XP as positive feedback trains the player to engage in that activity.  So, having painted the process into a corner by fixating players on combat, developers were forced to face angry players of other inclinations by rewarding an increasingly large number of things, such as stealth, lockpicking, using attributes in dialogue, exploration, etc.  Most of those rewards fall far short in the long run compared to combat, however.  Unless you've created a lockpicking RPG, in which lock are ubiquitous and in need of picking, you simply won't have any other incidental positive feedback that even comes close to the sheer number of potential slaughter victims who provide fodder for XP.

 

Anyhow, like I said, I'm mostly just here to add one more voice to folks who prefer the current philosophy behind quest only XP.

This is a good post, IMO.

 

The problem I personally have with the game as presented so far isn't so much that I think there's an inherent flaw with quest-only XP. In fact, I kind of like the idea of quest-only XP. But to me, the game is sending mixed signals with the design and mechanics. I still can't grasp the thinking behind giving no reward for combat kills, while every ability, spell, and talent in the game that I've seen so far is oriented toward making the character better at... killing and combat. If the whole idea is to give you alternate methods of solving quests and no matter how you do it, you get the same XP award, then why are there no talents, spells, abilities or even racial and class perks that will help you build a character that can be more effective at solving quests without combat?

 

***Thank you for you attention while I beat this dead nag to a fine paste.***

 

 

You've said this many times and never gotten any type of answer and I think it's a fair point. I can't give you an answer because I don't know the reasoning behind it.  I also don't need combat xp in a game for me to enjoy. I also don't think there is anything wrong with Quest only XP.  I don't feel like it is being tackled properly in this game and the design seems to be at cross purposes what with the incredible focus this game places on combat. As it pertains to the wildernesses I hope there are a ton of side quests in each area, maybe there will be. If not it will feel like a lot of empty space without any other reason to be there. Not even exploration xp or Unique boss fight Xp or just something. The first time I play through the game I'm sure I will explore as much as possible in order to see what's out there, after I know, I will avoid all unnecessary parts of the game. That seems like a waste.

[wickermoon]

So no one ever learns from combat...ever. And because characters should never improve on their own experiences, which combat belongs to, I guess, it is imperative that they must only improve when they make an arbitrary decision. I like the idea that you'll get the same XP from a quest no matter the choice you're doing. But the way this is handled, by not rewarding fighting XP, is rather silly. Instead, lower the quest-xp by the amount of fight-xp for those solutions that will incorporate fighting. Thus, non-quest-related encounters could still yield xp. Or is anyone here telling me that enemies, creatures that are always hostile, solely exist to be there, not to be fought? That is ridiculous. Attacking the party or being attacked by the party is their ONLY purpose.

 

 

btw. to all the people who say that this no-combat-xp is a new concept: It is not. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines (to name a video game) had this game design mentality years ago. But then again, Bloodlines was designed vastly different. The design choice fit the overall game design.

Edited August 28, 2014 by wickermoon

[Monte Carlo]

The backers wanted a Ford Mustang. Josh really wants to build a Prius. So he packs all the crappy Prius features inside a Mustang chassis.

 

As soon as you hit the accelerator, instead of that throaty roar, you get the tinny whirring of electric.

 

Nobody is fooled.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Monte Carlo

[Ashen Rohk]

+1 to quest only XP here.

 

Gotta say, I thought scroll reading and lock picking/trap disarming in BG2 was ridiculous. Pools and pools of easy XP.

[Gromnir]

 

I'm glad Gromnir is holding the fort for quest only XP.  Mostly I'm just here to add one more voice to his position.

 

I've been following this thread and a couple others dealing with combat XP.  Since almost all arguments have already come out, take my comments that duplicate other posts simply as agreement.  There are too many posts and threads to keep track of them all.

 

First of all, I think the folks who cite more recent observation to claim that combat XP is great are making after the fact arguments.  DnD had combat experience.  It's been a staple for years, but that exact moment where one designer decided to impart XP for random killing created a prejudice that it was natural.  Since that's been the norm for so long, it's hard to take arguments seriously that depend on direct observation about a current opinion that disregard habituation.  On the other hand, I am sympathetic to folks who just love combat XP.  I merely disagree with them that it's better.

 

Second, XP is not 'first among equals' in the court of game rewards.  It is king of the game reward court.  I have long been an advocate of story based rewards, but I would never claim that story based rewards rise to the level of XP.  Loot, achievements, titles, and the like are simply inferior to XP rewards.  That isn't to say that some people might not prefer some of these rewards at any particular time, and perhaps have an inclination to seek any other specific rewards at various times, but XP is pervasive and has the single largest impact on gameplay.  Granting XP as positive feedback trains the player to engage in that activity.  So, having painted the process into a corner by fixating players on combat, developers were forced to face angry players of other inclinations by rewarding an increasingly large number of things, such as stealth, lockpicking, using attributes in dialogue, exploration, etc.  Most of those rewards fall far short in the long run compared to combat, however.  Unless you've created a lockpicking RPG, in which lock are ubiquitous and in need of picking, you simply won't have any other incidental positive feedback that even comes close to the sheer number of potential slaughter victims who provide fodder for XP.

 

Anyhow, like I said, I'm mostly just here to add one more voice to folks who prefer the current philosophy behind quest only XP.

This is a good post, IMO.

 

The problem I personally have with the game as presented so far isn't so much that I think there's an inherent flaw with quest-only XP. In fact, I kind of like the idea of quest-only XP. But to me, the game is sending mixed signals with the design and mechanics. I still can't grasp the thinking behind giving no reward for combat kills, while every ability, spell, and talent in the game that I've seen so far is oriented toward making the character better at... killing and combat. If the whole idea is to give you alternate methods of solving quests and no matter how you do it, you get the same XP award, then why are there no talents, spells, abilities or even racial and class perks that will help you build a character that can be more effective at solving quests without combat?

 

***Thank you for you attention while I beat this dead nag to a fine paste.***

 

even if you see "mixed signals" am not seeing a genuine relevant question. sure, the ie games were squad-based tactical combat games with rpg elements. is not surprising that when obsidian attempts to recreate a game that feels like the ie games, the mechanics will be combat focused. the d&d mechanics used in ps:t were also combat focused, but it would be myopic to suggest that combat were the focus of ps:t. similarly, in spite of the fact that people seem extreme dismissive o' the relative mechanical relevance o' ability scores, Gromnir has found even in the small sampling o' encounters in the beta, non-combat aspects is extreme important. perception and intellect don't show up in combat logs, but they has already been significant in Gromnir resolving quests. 

 

in PoE, in addition to fireballs and battle axes and accuracy and deflection, there is intellect, resolve, lore, mechanics and other aspects o' the game that can lead to successful quest completion. is many o' the same folks making PoE as made ps:t. PoE has far more mechanical options for non combat resolutions than did ps:t and yet we can only hope PoE does similar as ps:t with non-combat quest resolutions... and quest based xp makes it far easier for the developers to award players appropriate and proportional for non-combat actions than ps:t ever did.

 

and lord knows we don't want specific xp awards for exploration. that would be a personal nightmare for Gromnir as it would be recollecting the worst aspects of BG. wandering through largely empty wilderness maps, hoping we might run into a mob o' kobolds or gnolls or wolves just to have made the past thirty minutes of wandering relevant. to actual have some kinda xp pay-out to give value to such nonsense is... disturbing. exploration should not be a reward objective. compelling quests discovered and completed is what we look forward to, and if some exploration makes such questing more fulfilling, then so be it, but exploration xp? *shudder*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Monte Carlo]

Grom, nobody has answered the question - you've thirteen levels of monster-infested dungeon. How do you make quest-only XP for that? If the XP is for 'clearing level three of orcs' isn't that just macro XP for the same thing. Or does every death in PoE require a mini-story to keep the Planescapers happy?

[swordofthesith]

+ 1 to quest only XP. I have no problems with that whatsoever. I am pretty stoked that the developers are giving XP out for the way we choose to solve the challenges we encounter in the game, rather than killing Orc #3182371379218.  Let's move beyond D&D folks. 

 

PS: Just ran into the Ogre in the Beta. I thought it was great that the developers gave us a non-violent solution to the Ogre encounter. 

Edited August 28, 2014 by swordofthesith

[Bill Gates' Son]

 I might as well +1 for quest only XP as well.  We still exist even though we're not as vocal as the people who prefer XP for every action.

 

Quest only XP worked well in VtMB and Shadowrun Returns.  In the infinity engine games, kill XP was too small for me to notice, so I usually kill enemies for the loot  anyway.  If quest only xp makes the game more balanced, then I'm all for it.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Bill Gates' Son

[GreyFox]

+1 to quest only XP here.

 

Gotta say, I thought scroll reading and lock picking/trap disarming in BG2 was ridiculous. Pools and pools of easy XP.

 

Right, because clicking the diplomacy dialogue option is tough business.

 

 

Boy howdie fellers if you thought dem dere lock pickins was easy just wait till they gotsta click option #3 for their EXP that'll learn em.

Edited August 28, 2014 by GreyFox

[Monte Carlo]

What could be more 'degenerative' that dump-statting dialogue skills and simply walking through the game by picking text prompts?

[Silverbarr]

 

+1 to quest only XP here.

 

Gotta say, I thought scroll reading and lock picking/trap disarming in BG2 was ridiculous. Pools and pools of easy XP.

 

Right, because clicking the diplomacy dialogue option is tough business.

 

 

Boy howdie fellers if you thought dem dere lock pickins was easy just wait till they gotsta click option #3 for their EXP that'll learn em.

 

 

Ha, this made me giggle good point actually.

[IRMA]

Honestly, not getting xp for killing.mobs would ruin the game so much! Like why the **** would i care about battling some bugs or something, seriously.

I will keep myself calm by thinking they only turned it off for this beta and you will get xp for killing **** in final product.

This is very vital thing.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Grom, nobody has answered the question - you've thirteen levels of monster-infested dungeon. How do you make quest-only XP for that? If the XP is for 'clearing level three of orcs' isn't that just macro XP for the same thing. Or does every death in PoE require a mini-story to keep the Planescapers happy?

IIRC, you get XP for clearing each level.

[Stun]

Doesn't that sound just a wee bit...DULL?

Edited August 28, 2014 by Stun

[Chocrates]

Doesn't that sound just a wee bit...DULL?

 

How is it any different?

You will get the same XP for clearing out the dungeon or sneaking through the dungeon?

The reward for murdering the creatures in the dungeon is the loot.

[PrimeHydra]

To the folks who don't want combat XP: Did you play Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale? Did defeating monsters in tactical combat as a major--in the case of IWD, primary--means of progressing feel bad? I'm not trying to badger you. I really am curious where your expectations come from.

 

See, a lot of us here want a successor to BG/IWD. We noticed the "Miss Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape Torment?" on the home page, said to ourselves "Hell Yes", and clicked the "Back Now!" button. Then we booted up the beta, won our first few fights, and were left scratching our heads. No experience for ridding the town of the bandits, because I didn't complete the quest the "right way" but lying convincingly to the baddies at the inn. WTF? The reward was based not on winning a complex tactical battle, but not having enough of stat X.  There's a reason we feel a little gypped.

 

I load up Baldur's Gate, and I can tromp around the wilderness, kill some baddies, and have a few levels to show for it. The wilderness areas in this beta are disappointing because they don't offer rewards beyond monetary ones. It doesn't feel much like those old favorites. Yet the UI screams Baldur's Gate. It's as if they want to lure us 90s nostalgoids in, and then push their own gaming vision on us, a vision incompatible with the game that PoE obviously tries to be in every other category.

 

My guess is you who like the current system either haven't played BG/IWD, or found them too combat-heavy. You're looking a dialog-heavy, Planescape-Torment-like experience. The thing is, you're already getting that. Why can't we have a combat-rich successor to our favorites, that rewards battle like those did? Were those classics really so fundamentally flawed just because PoE's designer thinks they were? I don't know, but I've been playing Baldur's Gate 1 lately--it's a lot more fun than anything in this beta.

 

Had I known these things, I might not have backed Pillars. (I know, haha, owned by fine print.) They're going to have to deliver a very different experience if they want it to feel rewarding. The beta proved this--at least for me.

Edited August 28, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Matt516]

 

Combat-based XP - there's a case for and against. Much of it is based on personal preference. So people (on both sides) should stop pretending that there is a right and wrong answer. Ultimately, even when both sides are being completely logical, some people will want combat XP and some will not. Neither is an objectively better way of doing things. So chill.

 

I'm a quote myself in an attempt to (vainly?) steer this conversation back towards something resembling a reasonable discussion.

 

Combat XP is a preference. It isn't objectively better or worse than no combat XP. The only thing that makes its absence objectively worse (at the moment) is that the quest XP implementation isn't properly tuned yet. What we should be discussing is not whether or not combat XP would be a viable solution to the current reward structure woes (it obviously would, it's tried and true) but what alternate solutions can be implemented. OE has made the decision not to implement purely combat-based XP. That decision is made. As with attributes and rolling to hit, OE is trying something new here. Let's stop bitching and focus on helping them make it succeed.

[prodigydancer]

To the folks who don't want combat XP: Did you play Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale? Did defeating monsters in tactical combat as a major--in the case of IWD, primary--means of progressing feel bad? I'm not trying to badger you. I really am curious where your expectations come from.

IWD was a very combat-driven hack-and-slash CRPG. in BG combat was less important and in PS:T it played even less significant role. Which means a game doesn't have to put heavy emphasis on combat to be great.

 

Getting XP for kills is totally OK with me. But on the other hand not getting XP for kills may lead to fewer but more memorable fights. Let's face it: video game combat is unavoidably repetitive. Available options are limited and winning strategy is usually the same or almost the same. Classic example: roll a mage in Arcanum and spam one button (Harm) ad infinitum.

 

Finally, there's a problem of wrong incentives, so to speak. When XP gains and loot are the only true reasons to fight then there's something fundamentally wrong with how combat is implemented in the game. Battles must be interesting on their own. And any combat vs. stealthy or peaceful approach decisions should be based on RP reasons not on metagame.

Edited August 28, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Ink Blot]

even if you see "mixed signals" am not seeing a genuine relevant question. sure, the ie games were squad-based tactical combat games with rpg elements. is not surprising that when obsidian attempts to recreate a game that feels like the ie games, the mechanics will be combat focused. the d&d mechanics used in ps:t were also combat focused, but it would be myopic to suggest that combat were the focus of ps:t. similarly, in spite of the fact that people seem extreme dismissive o' the relative mechanical relevance o' ability scores, Gromnir has found even in the small sampling o' encounters in the beta, non-combat aspects is extreme important. perception and intellect don't show up in combat logs, but they has already been significant in Gromnir resolving quests. 

 

in PoE, in addition to fireballs and battle axes and accuracy and deflection, there is intellect, resolve, lore, mechanics and other aspects o' the game that can lead to successful quest completion. is many o' the same folks making PoE as made ps:t. PoE has far more mechanical options for non combat resolutions than did ps:t and yet we can only hope PoE does similar as ps:t with non-combat quest resolutions... and quest based xp makes it far easier for the developers to award players appropriate and proportional for non-combat actions than ps:t ever did.

 

and lord knows we don't want specific xp awards for exploration. that would be a personal nightmare for Gromnir as it would be recollecting the worst aspects of BG. wandering through largely empty wilderness maps, hoping we might run into a mob o' kobolds or gnolls or wolves just to have made the past thirty minutes of wandering relevant. to actual have some kinda xp pay-out to give value to such nonsense is... disturbing. exploration should not be a reward objective. compelling quests discovered and completed is what we look forward to, and if some exploration makes such questing more fulfilling, then so be it, but exploration xp? *shudder*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Sorry, Grom, but 'relevant question'? I was under the impression that this was a forum for discussion, which means one can question, comment, and/or offer observations. I wasn't aware it was a question and answer forum. I realize you want to beat anything that even remotely looks like a dissenting view of quest-based XP into utter abasement, but you'll note I said I don't actually have an issue with quest-based XP. I have an issue with the way the game is designed, given there is only quest-based XP.

 

My first impressions so far with this game are that it has potential be very good and a lot of fun. But with respect to the discussion at hand of quest/combat XP, the way the game presents so far to me is jarringly odd.

 

To give an analogy, it seems Obs is telling you you can get from point A to point B and you can get there any way you choose. You don't have to take a car on the paved road. You can go overland, climb that mountain, go through the cave complex, take a canoe down the river, charter a flight, or any combination of those if you want. But hey, every few miles, we're going to also give you something to help you along: jumper cables, a map showing all the gas stations on the paved route, instructions on how to change a tire, a GPS device for the car, a gas card, windshield wiper fluid, a course on auto mechanics, a car repair kit...

 

[sarcasm]Great stuff for the guy that's choosing to spelunk, or climb that mountain, or paddle down the river.[/sarcasm] Oh sure, there's a couple skills thrown in. So yeah, here's a flashlight for you spelunkers (batteries not included), a pair of rubber boots for you canoeists, and a chalk bag for you mountain climbers.

[Gromnir]

you can ask any question you wish, but if it don't present a genuine problem, it isn't actual relevant. if you wanna imagine problems, that is ok too, as you said, it is an open forum, but the mere fact that the game mechanics is combat focused does not preclude role-play. any original d&d and ad&d pnp player can tell you that combat focused mechanics is hardly sending mixed signals about the importance o' role-play in such games... though troika didn't seem to understand this when making toee. regardless, ps:t highlights the fact that combat skewed mechanics does not limit rp options, and as already noted, PoE adds far more rp mechanics than existed naturally in ps:t.

 

also, your lack o' imagination regarding PoE ability checks is amusing but illustrative. am thinking you clear ain't trying to be fair. as we said, ps:t did far more with far less regardless. 

 

aside, am thinking chrisA were suffering from the schadenfreude josh mentioned in quoted portion earlier. after all, he took swords out o' ps:t because? he also made wisdom the clear Win ability score in spite of the fact that you could not play as a cleric. the horrible balance o' ps:t, in spite of the availability o' non-traditional ie game role-play solutions to quests were exemplified by the fact that once you know that playing a high wisdom (with emphasis on charisma and intelligence) no other builds were genuine worth playing in subsequent runs through o' ps:t. play a straight vanilla fighter in ps:t with crappy wisdom and charisma? why? quest xp mighta helped... a bit, but game were woeful unbalanced.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

Grom, nobody has answered the question - you've thirteen levels of monster-infested dungeon. How do you make quest-only XP for that? If the XP is for 'clearing level three of orcs' isn't that just macro XP for the same thing. Or does every death in PoE require a mini-story to keep the Planescapers happy?

you probably didn't play bg2 watcher's keep? this issue doesn't require much imagination to fit quests into such levels. even iwd had such opportunities in dragon's eye and the severed hand.  we ain't talking about diablo where the only gameplay is killing monsters, yes?

 

we know you like relative straightforward killing o' mobs... in tunnels, but you is not giving the developers much credit if you thinks a large dungeon crawl hamstrings them. you don't believe that obsidian can do as well with quests in dungeons as bio did with watcher's keep?  am s'posing that is fair, but am guessing it is more wishful thinking on your part as you is a proud proponent o' Kill Stuff in Tunnels as the height o' crpg gaming. nothing wrong with that, but it don't appear to be the direction obsidian is heading.

 

HA! Good Fun!