Backer beta: Developer Impressions

[Shevek]

"Stuff in Tunnels" was 99% of the gameplay in the IE games (save for Torment, which was mainly about reading). "Stuff in Tunnels" was what character development was all about in the IE games. This is why they awarded combat xp.

 

Example: You talk to Lord Jierdan for two seconds and then send a couple hours in his dungeon. You see a short cutscene with Irenicus torturing you and then you spend 45 minutes running though an intro dungeon. You talk to a couple guards outside a tent for 2 seconds and then you spend 20 minutes in an illusion dungeon. You talk to a priest for 3 seconds, then you are off fighting beholders for an hour or more.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Shevek

[Gromnir]

"Stuff in Tunnels" was 99% of the gameplay in the IE games (save for Torment, which was mainly about reading). "Stuff in Tunnels" was what character development was all about in the IE games. This is why they awarded combat xp.

 

Example: You talk to Lord Jierdan for two seconds and then send a couple hours in his dungeon. You see a short cutscene with Irenicus torturing you and then you spend 45 minutes running though an intro dungeon. You talk to a couple guards outside a tent for 2 seconds and then you spend 20 minutes in an illusion dungeon. You talk to a priest for 3 seconds, then you are off fighting beholders for an hour or more.

and again, ps:t was an ie game. also, replay watchers keep and observe how many quests per level were included.

 

people are imagining problems, problems which do not seem to be an issue for the PoE QA folks or the obsidian developers... which is including sawyer AND cain.

 

Gromnir is quite willing to fight the good fight even if there is no chance o' winning, but that just ain't the case with quest xp. sure, the dedicated resistance is wasting their efforts, but more important, there ain't a genuine issue to be fighting for. you wanna see ticks o' 10s and 50s and 100s xp rather than getting in larger increments. *shrug* even if that were somehow meaningful, nobody has yet provided a more elegant, simple and perfectly balanced alternative.

 

soooo... sorry, but there simple ain't an issue here worthy o' all the efforts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Mayama]

Ok from now on we call BG "stuff in tunnels1 and 2" and planescape "chit chat the game" ok?

[Ineth]

 

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.

 

 

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

 

I think it'll be fine.

 

For example In BG2's Watcher's Keep, I usually rested at the end of each dungeon level -- and because so many level-up benefits (like new spell slots) only become useful after the next rest in BG2, that meant I received most of the benefits from the dungeon level's accumulated XP all in one go at the end of the level.

Might as well have gotten all the XP in a big chunk at that point.

[Ink Blot]

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.

I don't know if it's me or the incredibly annoying writing style you've adopted for the forums, but I'm not sure I grasp your point here. Sure, PS:T managed to deliver a kick-ass roleplay experience but it wasn't a kick-ass roleplay experience because of the combat skewed mechanics. It was in spite of it. And Obs wants to make a good roleplay game with choices, consequences, and lots of different way to overcome obstacles other than combat so why in hell did they choose to go with a combat-skewed game mechanic when they had the opportunity to go so much further beyond that? Is that relevant enough?

 

And 'lack o' imagination'? Really? How about this then, Grom: yeah, I know there are ability checks, but the game is skewed to combat. You want to be good at the combat-skewed 'core mechanic' of the game, then you'll build your character appropriately. This means lower scores in the abilities used in checks. Want to pass that 16 Perception check? Good luck with your combat-ready character build. Want to pass that 15 Resolve check? Good luck with that combat-ready character build. Now, you can counter that point with a "Then don't build your character that way" argument, but what's the incentive when every single talent and ability is a combat-enhancer? If Obs decided to toss in abilities,spells, perks, and talents that would help you out in non-combat situations or aid in avoiding combat, then I wouldn't complain. And maybe they plan to add something like that later - and I'll be happy as a pig in a sty. But so far it doesn't seem that way,

So sure, you can build a 'pacifist' character if you want (I'll use that term for a character focused on avoiding combat as much as possible for the purposes of this discussion) but that means all the goodies you get from leveling up are hollow and useless to your character concept. Where's the much-vaunted roleplay in that? Where's the player satisfaction of thinking "Great, my character has gained a level and now I can grab this talent that really fleshes out the concept"? Oh yes, let's not forget the 6 skill points you get that you can invest in increasingly expensive skill levels. So fairly early on you'll end up going two, three, or more character levels and gaining maybe one level in a single skill that your character focuses on while the combat focused characters are gaining character-concept useful spell/talents/feats left and right.

 

*edit* Spelling.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Ink Blot

[GreyFox]

Hey now Gromnir has a nice writing style!

[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.

 

And 'lack o' imagination'? Really? How about this then, Grom: yeah, I know there are ability checks, but the game is skewed to combat.

 

you keep saying that like it means something. you already admitted that ps:t offered an excellent role-play experience in spite o' the ad&d mechanics. and yeah, obsidian were specific making PoE so that it would be reminiscent o' the ie games... all the ie games. so there shouldn't be a surprise that the game mechanics is at least familiar to those who played the combat-skewed ie mechanics games. PoE is less skewed in favor o' combat than were ie games, and ps:t were delivering a, in your words,  "a kick-ass roleplay experience." and many o' the same guys who made ps:t is also working on PoE, particularly Chris Avellone.

 

...

 

sorry. is nothing to see here. am not certain why you so much wish for there to be a problem, but there ain't.

 

would Gromnir prefer if PoE had more obvious non-combat mechanics. actually, yes. so what? combat mechanics o' d&d never handicapped our role-play in pnp and it didn't hamstring black isle when they made ps:t. PoE is a ie throwback, so we ain't surprised by the games mechanics. None Of Which Has Any Relevance to Why The Developers Has Chosen to Go with Quest XP Over Per Kill XP.  we capitalized 'cause the relevant point seems to getting lost... again.

 

*shrug*

 

as pnp d&d and ps:t revealed, mechanics is not a true obstacle and the folks who made the mechanics, including both cain and sawyer, sees quest as a superior way to makes all builds viable. furthermore, and yet 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." regardless o' the seeming combat focus o' the mechanics, provide the superior alternative. obsidian may send you a cloth map or signed copy if you invent such a Unicorn.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[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.

 

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.

 

Mahaha, that made me giggle.

 

To me, using an ability or learning a spell isn't the kind of thing you should get experience for - it's not a means to an end of anything.

 

But - the ogre conversation I found had maybe two options that ended in peaceful resolution, the rest in combat. It's not about mechanics, it's about choice and balance. I think in IWD2 at some point if you use a monk or paladin to finish a conversation you get a literal mountain of bonus experience. Avoiding combat netted you far more experience. I think, and I may be wrong on this, that making sure you get the same experience at the end of a quest whether you killed everyone or talked it out is the way to go.

 

When push comes to shove, I don't really care either way as long as I can level up my dudes and not get murdered by the rats in the cellar 20 minutes in.

[GrinningReaper659]

@PrimeHydra I'm not going to reiterate any of my arguments regarding XP here, but I'll gladly answer your questions.

 

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.

 

I have completed Baldur's Gate 1 and Baldur's Gate 2 (both original releases and EEs) many times over the years, including recently. I have played Icewind Dale extensively, but not nearly as much as the BG games. I haven't played ID2 although it is on my to-do list. I played PS:T as well, but again, not nearly as extensively as the BG games. To your question: no this means of progression did not feel bad. I quite enjoy tactical combat and engaging in tactical and strategic combat in video games is no doubt a not insignificant factor contributing to my love of them. After RPGs, my most played genre would be strategy games. I love many games with combat as the primary focus and means of progression and I love good, challenging combat in games. I don't think that kill XP is the only way to do things (nor necessarily the best) and the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument falls apart as the quest-XP system is the one that is in place now, like it or not. Because of this, it's on the guys that want per-kill XP to prove that it should be in and is better than quest-XP. That's how I see it anyway. Your side of the argument requires a big change, keeping quest-XP of course doesn't.

 

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.

 

My excitement for this game stemmed from a love of those games as well. I think my expectations were different than yours, though. As to the bandit quest, I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying. If you resolved it one way and get XP and in another way and didn't, then that's a flaw in the program and should be corrected. If you didn't get XP because you did something without first activating its associated quest, then you're pointing out an important to note limitation of Quest-XP Only systems. I see quest-only XP and per-kill XP as two sides of the same coin, both are very limiting. I think that quest XP can be less limiting to player freedom if done right, however, than a system that uses Quest XP with per-kill XP as well. The latter suggests to the player how to explore and complete quests, the former only suggests that quests should be done (and potentially that exploring should be done in order to find quests, still not as limiting as the per-kill XP suggestions IMO). I'm all for a comprehensive objective-based XP system, but as that's not gonna happen I don't agree that per-kill XP needs to be added in.

 

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.

 

I've got to say, I haven't missed per-kill XP for a moment while playing the beta. Maybe it's because I'm an obsessive completionist or something, but I enjoyed the combat and know that I will certainly end up killing as many wolves and beetles in this game without per-kill XP as I would if it were included; I just don't care that the game isn't giving me some sort of special reward every time I do it.

 

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.

 

Nope, I played them (all but ID2 anyway, as mentioned above) and did not find them too combat-heavy, ID1 included. No, I'm not looking for nor was I expecting a sequel to PS:T in PoE, I was expecting a modernized conglomerate of what made all the IE games great, as envisioned by the guys at Obsidian. You can have a combat-rich successor, and as for the rewards, I guess I'm just an oddball in that the form of reward doesn't bother me. Progression is the reward, I don't engage in combat for the XP, it's a part of the progression of the story and my character(s) within that story so I'm doing it with or without the XP. I've played some BG1 lately too, and I agree that it's quite fun; I wouldn't agree that PoE isn't fun if you were suggesting that. PoE doesn't need to be BG series sequel and you shouldn't have expected it to be. Spiritual Successor is a term used for a reason, it gives a wide berth for artistic license of those creating the successor. This is necessary to bring the games up to modern times, combine great elements of multiple games, and also design what Obsidian thinks is a great RPG in general.

 

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.

 

Call it fine print if you will, but the way I see it is that your expectations were overly specific to your desires. There's plenty about the design of PoE that I'm unhappy with, but I did not sign up as a backer with the expectation that I would get to choose which elements were in and which were out. Apart from those things specifically stated as being in during the campaign (I believe isometric view and RTwP were among them), I didn't expect anything specific but rather hoped for the game to be enjoyable for me. I truly am sorry if it isn't for you and hopefully it will be by release, but I don't see that change coming in the form of per-kill XP if I'm being honest. It doesn't seem likely they'll be adding it. The beta proved to me that I can enjoy the combat of an IE style game without the "dopamine injection" on each kill. By the way, I don't mean to use the term "dopamine-injection" derogatively and I don't see it as a bad thing, it's just a phrase that someone used on the subject which stuck and is a quick and convenient way of saying what I mean to say (which has now been negated lol). I think that with bugfixes and refinement this Quest XP system will be superior to 'itself' + 'per-kill XP.' It's not ideal in my opinion, but I think that it's better than what you're proposing. My extensive arguments for this can be found in the many XP threads.

[Ink Blot]

 None Of Which Has Any Relevance to Why The Developers Has Chosen to Go with Quest XP Over Per Kill XP.  we capitalized 'cause the relevant point seems to getting lost... again.

Seems to me you're the one lost, Grom. The thread title mentions impressions, not Quest XP. You're the one that insists on bringing everything back to Quest-based XP. I've repeatedly stated I don't have a big issue with that. My point still stands that the game is skewed too heavily towards combat for a game that's supposedly concerned with solving quests in other ways. If you want to continue to stir up some kind of debate about the superiority of Quest-based XP over combat XP, then by all means. Feel free to ignore my posts and have at beating the poor plebs that don't understand the superiority of Quest XP into submission. But you're the one constantly quoting my posts and telling me they're irrelevant. If this were the Quest vs. Combat XP Debate thread, I'd agree with you. But it's not. It's an impression thread.

 

Hope that's clear enough.

[Cantousent]

Someone mentioned up above that quest only XP isn't new, and I agree.  Well... let's just say that it's manifestly true that it's not new and it would idiotic for me to pretend it wasn't.  Combat XP rewards have been the norm, but devs have toyed with various systems.  Hell, look at FPSes.  They aren't RPGs, of course, but your gameplay feedback comes by way of more powerful weapons as you progress through the game.  Sometimes, you might get stat increases or other abilities as the game progresses.  Hell, Painkiller used cards in almost a sort of minigame way.  Bloodlines was a great game (yeah, it had its faults, but it was still fun) and it didn't dole out combat XP.  Elder Scrolls games take the 'learn by doing approach,' which is logical extension of combat XP.  After all, if you should get XP for killing monsters because that's only intuitive, shouldn't you only get XP for the manner in which you killed them?  TES games don't just dole out XP for combat, they dole out XP per use.  So, it's not like combat XP has been the only game in town, and I'm glad to concede that.

 

However, let's go back to the FPS example.  Here is a genre in which combat isn't merely a main focus, often it's the only real gameplay focus from front to back.  You don't get XP for killing monsters.  You don't even get better weapons due to killing monsters.  Your primary positive feedback comes from getting to places where you have access to weapons.  Even in hardcore FPS games from way back, such as Wolfenstein and DOOM, you could avoid some areas to get to better weapons or armor faster and then, if you so desired, you could go back and kill monsters.  ...Or you could save ammo and not waste time going back to kill monsters.  The point is, even in a game where combat is the only point, you don't get positive feedback for killing per se.  It's the same in PoE.  You don't get XP rewards for killing, per se, but there's still a huge incentive to kill monsters.  In some cases, you have no choice but to kill monsters.

 

To be fair, on the other hand, I will own this: I can't say, "you should be willing to give the game a try even if the rule is quest only experience" if I'm not willing to give ground and say, "I should be willing to give the game a try even if combat experience wins the day."  I think some folks are too emotionally involved in changing the system to include combat XP, but I would be the same way if there weren't some navel gazing bastard who didn't face moral dilemmas in the game.

[Mayama]

As to the bandit quest, I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying. If you resolved it one way and get XP and in another way and didn't, then that's a flaw in the program and should be corrected. If you didn't get XP because you did something without first activating its associated quest, then you're pointing out an important to note limitation of Quest-XP Only systems. 

 

Those guys that still say that you dont get xp for doing quest in a certain way act dump on purpose to have a argument and it really starts to get on my nerve. By now EVERYONE that follows the beta knows that theirs a bug that wipes your questlog if you load from ingame and you can avoid it by loading only from the start screen.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Mayama

[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.

 

Mahaha, that made me giggle.

 

To me, using an ability or learning a spell isn't the kind of thing you should get experience for - it's not a means to an end of anything.

 

But - the ogre conversation I found had maybe two options that ended in peaceful resolution, the rest in combat. It's not about mechanics, it's about choice and balance. I think in IWD2 at some point if you use a monk or paladin to finish a conversation you get a literal mountain of bonus experience. Avoiding combat netted you far more experience. I think, and I may be wrong on this, that making sure you get the same experience at the end of a quest whether you killed everyone or talked it out is the way to go.

 

When push comes to shove, I don't really care either way as long as I can level up my dudes and not get murdered by the rats in the cellar 20 minutes in.

 

 

Well yea I was hoping to get a few laughs

 

I honestly don't care too much as long as it's done correctly but I've found that a lot of the "pro quest" people to be snobby and hypocritical(not saying you fall into that category) and that's the main reason I'm replying in these threads about it.

[GrinningReaper659]

@Mayama I tend to assume people aren't being willfully misleading like that generally, but maybe I'm naïve ha.

 

Yes, though, most should know by now (certainly anyone following the beta threads) that there is a bug which is preventing XP from being awarded in many cases. Either way my statement on the matter stands I suppose. If he was complaining about an oversight or bug which will almost certainly be fixed then there is no problem. If he was complaining about a limitation then my argument concerning the lesser of two evils in terms of limitations should be referred to.

[Gromnir]

 

 None Of Which Has Any Relevance to Why The Developers Has Chosen to Go with Quest XP Over Per Kill XP.  we capitalized 'cause the relevant point seems to getting lost... again.

Seems to me you're the one lost, Grom. The thread title mentions impressions, not Quest XP. You're the one that insists on bringing everything back to Quest-based XP. I've repeatedly stated I don't have a big issue with that. My point still stands that the game is skewed too heavily towards combat for a game that's supposedly concerned with solving quests in other ways. If you want to continue to stir up some kind of debate about the superiority of Quest-based XP over combat XP, then by all means. Feel free to ignore my posts and have at beating the poor plebs that don't understand the superiority of Quest XP into submission. But you're the one constantly quoting my posts and telling me they're irrelevant. If this were the Quest vs. Combat XP Debate thread, I'd agree with you. But it's not. It's an impression thread.

 

Hope that's clear enough.

 

you is being more than a little disingenuous considering it is a thread s'posed 'bout ziets' impressions, and your concerns don't appear particular relevant to his....

 

"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?"

 

no  a quest xp concern for you? okie dokie. you is clear being disingenuous. but hey, we will play along. fine?

 

we already agreed we would prefer less combat specific focus on mechanics, but again, as this is s'posed a throwback game to ie, we would be very much surprised if game were not built around a mechanic to support squad-based tactical combat with role-play elements.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 28, 2014 by Gromnir

[Ink Blot]

we already agreed we would prefer less combat specific focus on mechanics, but again, as this is s'posed a throwback game to ie, we would be very much surprised if game were not built around a mechanic to support squad-based tactical combat with role-play elements.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

And that's fine. I don't even have an issue with combat focused talents/spells/abilities. Hell, as you said, that's part of the IE experience, and I would expect that to be an element of the game. But why can't there also be talents/abilities/spells that are non-combat focused that the player can spend those XP awards on? Best of both worlds. I just don't see why you can't understand this point. But you know what? You win. You've outargued me and I'm done. So enjoy the narrow-focused quest-only XP 'debate', Grom. Have good fun.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

we already agreed we would prefer less combat specific focus on mechanics, but again, as this is s'posed a throwback game to ie, we would be very much surprised if game were not built around a mechanic to support squad-based tactical combat with role-play elements.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

And that's fine. I don't even have an issue with combat focused talents/spells/abilities. Hell, as you said, that's part of the IE experience, and I would expect that to be an element of the game. But why can't there also be talents/abilities/spells that are non-combat focused that the player can spend those XP awards on? Best of both worlds. I just don't see why you can't understand this point. But you know what? You win. You've outargued me and I'm done. So enjoy the narrow-focused quest-only XP 'debate', Grom. Have good fun.

There are no talents/abilities/spells that are not used in combat because the devs wanted to avoid creating a system where you have to spend resources on either being good at combat or being good at something else.

[Volourn]

"Hell, look at FPSes.  They aren't RPGs,"

 

End. of. rine.

 

Last i checked, PE is a RPG. bring in other genres just dumbs down the discussion.

 

OMG! Super Mario has no xp yet is very fun and popular this must mean rpgs shouldn't have xp either. OMG!

 

Does. not. compute.

 

 

I play RPGs because they are RPGs. I want to play a FPS I'll play a FPS.

 

Capiche?

[Cantousent]

I comprehend, but disagree. It's possible to use one thing to illustrate something different.

 

Anyhow, Vol, if you want to tell me what I can't post, I'll nominate you for moderator. :D

[wickermoon]

 

 

we already agreed we would prefer less combat specific focus on mechanics, but again, as this is s'posed a throwback game to ie, we would be very much surprised if game were not built around a mechanic to support squad-based tactical combat with role-play elements.

 

HA! Good Fun!

And that's fine. I don't even have an issue with combat focused talents/spells/abilities. Hell, as you said, that's part of the IE experience, and I would expect that to be an element of the game. But why can't there also be talents/abilities/spells that are non-combat focused that the player can spend those XP awards on? Best of both worlds. I just don't see why you can't understand this point. But you know what? You win. You've outargued me and I'm done. So enjoy the narrow-focused quest-only XP 'debate', Grom. Have good fun.

There are no talents/abilities/spells that are not used in combat because the devs wanted to avoid creating a system where you have to spend resources on either being good at combat or being good at something else.

 

 

Then why is there this divide between chit-chat and fighty-fighty attributes? If you pump Resolve, you'll have to forego some points in either might, con or dex. The concept of avoiding a system where you have to decide is really strange, considering that PoE is about decisions. If Obsidian focusses on a game in which to solve quests in vastly different ways then creating a system where you have to decide on what to spend your resources on is mandatory, or otherwise you'll have a character that can do everything at once, making stats absolutely obsolete in the end. (edit: Also it makes the game a "Choose-your-own-story" like the Yawhg. I like the Yawhg, but that is not what I want from and what was promised for PoE)

 

Also, to whoever used VtM:B as an argument for the Quest-Only-XP: VtM:B was a vastly different game, geared to a vastly different playstyle and has nothing to do with BG,PS:T or PoE. It could never be compared to any of those games. In PoE, monsters exist to be slain. In PS:T encounters where rare and fine-tuned, but that is what makes PS:T special and PoE is nothing like that. PoEs encounters are more in the vein of BG1 and BG2. They are aplenty, some of them are rather random and they cannot be avoided or justified in some cases. Then there is the logical aspect that combat experience does exist, no matter what kind of fantasy universe you come up with. And the argument that every way of solving a quest should yield the same amount of xp is also invalid, as xp rewards can be tuned towards that. There are encounters every group is able to fight, whether the wolves in the south of Dyrwood or the freakin' beetles/spiders to the east of it. Loot, mostly, is not the reason to fight these battles, as the monetary gain is almost neglegible and not every battle can have a meaning behind it. Some are there because the fauna of the world is simply hostile towards almost anyone.

In D&D's Forgotten Realms there are many creatures who're just inherently hostile to almost any intruder and will attack, no matter what you do. This is, of course, partly due to the concept of D&D. But PoEs fauna is very similar in that regard. Again, PS:T, is a very rare exception and while we're at it, taking PS:T - the ONLY exception in all of this - as THE archetype for PoE is ridiculous, sorry to say that. You take the one exception and act like it's the norm (and yes, that is headed towards Gromnir), but it is not and this is just ridiculous. You act like you are the authority here yet your arguments are non-existant.

Edited August 28, 2014 by wickermoon

[Volourn]

"Anyhow, Vol, if you want to tell me what I can't post, I'll nominate you for moderator. :D"

 

You cna post what you want, and I can disagree.

 

I['m no Obsidian mod. I'm fortunate I'm allowed to post. L0L

[Immortalis]

I agree with all of this. Spot on. Echoes my sentiments exactly. Well, except for combat XP. Bugs need to be ironed out before I can make a decision on that one.

 

So close.. I guess the sawyer koolaid is too strong.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Immortalis

[IRMA]

Let's face it: video game combat is unavoidably repetitive. 

 

It is repetitive when the developers make it repetitive.

When you make the game where every fight can be won using one strongest spell then its not the game to be blamed, it's the creators of the game. You have to have mobs having various powers and different attacks for which you need to change tactic to come around; for example golems in BG2 who could not be defeated by piercing weapons, trolls whom you couldn't kill without fire or acid, magic golems, demi-lich, dragons...

[Monte Carlo]

 

Let's face it: video game combat is unavoidably repetitive. 

 

It is repetitive when the developers make it repetitive.

When you make the game where every fight can be won using one strongest spell then its not the game to be blamed, it's the creators of the game. You have to have mobs having various powers and different attacks for which you need to change tactic to come around; for example golems in BG2 who could not be defeated by piercing weapons, trolls whom you couldn't kill without fire or acid, magic golems, demi-lich, dragons...

 

 

Temple of Elemental Evil - one of the best tactical RPG ports from a pen and paper game, ever.

 

It was *never* repetitive.

[Mayama]

 

 

Temple of Elemental Evil - one of the best tactical RPG ports from a pen and paper game, ever.

 

It was *never* repetitive.

 

It was the only turn based game in which standard trash monster encounters didnt anoy me after the first few ones.