Jump to content
DnaCowboy

Do you want experience from combat?

Poll: Do You Want Combat Experience Included In The Game?  

377 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you the backer want experience from combat?

    • Yay, how on earth could any game call itself a crpg without combat exp?
      208
    • Nay, questing is king
      169
  2. 2. Would you be happy to wait for combat xp to be implemented in the main game or wait and pledge towards it as an add-on?

    • I'd prefer to have combat XP implemented in the main game although that means the game may be delayed
      109
    • I would far prefer combat XP be added as the first add-on pledge
      6
    • Would you be happy to wait for combat xp to be implemented in the main game or wait and pledge towards it as an add-on?
      1
    • Alternative approach (which the voter will lay out in thread)
      7
    • N/A
      89


Recommended Posts

                          VICTORY

Not really, because this poll won't change anything. PoE will never resemble an Infinity Engine game and the systems will stay borked.

 

Just buy Icewind Dale Enhanced Edition and forget about Pillars of Eternity Josh Sawyer's Dream RPG. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w17vHsQz5oM


Pillars of Eternity Josh Sawyer's Quest: The Quest for Quests - an isometric fantasy stealth RPG with optional combat and no pesky XP rewards for combat, skill usage or exploration.


PoE is supposed to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's GateJosh Sawyer doesn't like the Baldur's Gate series (more) - PoE is supposed to reward us for our achievements


~~~~~~~~~~~


"Josh Sawyer created an RPG where always avoiding combat and never picking locks makes you a powerful warrior and a master lockpicker." -Helm, very critcal and super awesome RPG fan


"I like XP for things other than just objectives. When there is no rewards for combat or other activities, I think it lessens the reward for being successful at them." -Feargus Urquhart, OE CEO


"Didn’t like the fact that I don’t get XP for combat [...] the lack of rewards for killing creatures [in PoE] makes me want to avoid combat (the core activity of the game)" -George Ziets, Game Dev.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This poll shows that a sampling of less than 300 people on this forum out of tens of thousands of backers (and some of the people voting in this poll might not even *be* backers and some of the people posting about the beta are neither backers nor have played the beta *by their own admission*) shows that a bare majority wants combat XP and of that bare majority, a bare plurality wants to wait long enough to implement it.  I've been expecting someone to cite this poll as a compelling reason to completely rework the XP system in the game, and here it is.

 

As a nod to the guy up above who rightly pointed out that this forum provides one of the few ways that the devs can get feedback, I will say it makes sense that the designers at least have some consideration to what folks say, but this poll does more to undermine the combat XP position than to support it.  ...And I think I have a demonstrated commitment to play it straight, so I might be wrong, but it's not a partisan moment when I tell you I sincerely believe that this poll is actually quite *bad* news for the combat XP crowd.  Frankly, I don't think it would matter if you'd won the day by 40 or 50%, but to have a spread of about 5% is not what you want to further your case.

  • Like 2

Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This:

 

..And I think I have a demonstrated commitment to play it straight, so I might be wrong, but it's not a partisan moment when I tell you I sincerely believe that this poll is actually quite *bad* news for the combat XP crowd.  Frankly, I don't think it would matter if you'd won the day by 40 or 50%, but to have a spread of about 5% is not what you want to further your case.

 

And lastly, we backed PoE as a spiritual successor to the IE RPGs, not as a port or emulation of the IE engine. We're in brave new, D&D-less territory and I am fine by that. We have the good folks at Overhaul Games to fulfill that nostalgic scratch for us grizzled dungeoneers. I want to try something new, not a re-hash of the IE games.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally feel like something's missing without combat XP, but I'm also willing to trust that the devs have made their choice after giving it careful thought.  Guess we'll have to wait and see how it turns out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And lastly, we backed PoE as a spiritual successor to the IE RPGs, not as a port or emulation of the IE engine. We're in brave new, D&D-less territory and I am fine by that. We have the good folks at Overhaul Games to fulfill that nostalgic scratch for us grizzled dungeoneers. I want to try something new, not a re-hash of the IE games.

Attempting to separate nostalgia from the equation suggests you weren't around for even one day of the kickstarter. They sold this project on Nostalgia. It wouldn't have generated half its funding without it. If you really only backed this project for the purposes of getting "something new" (which is a Bullsh*t claim and everyone here knows it), then one wonders why you didn't just throw your money at any of the several dozen super-high publisher funded titles coming out this year and next year. They'll be doing "New" a wee bit better than any $4 million project ever will. They must. It's the main focus of their $50 million+ budgets.

 

But that doesn't matter anyway, does it. Kill XP has exactly NOTHING to do with Nostalgia or the IE games. It's just as much a staple of modern RPGs as it is the old ones.

 

 

As a nod to the guy up above who rightly pointed out that this forum provides one of the few ways that the devs can get feedback, I will say it makes sense that the designers at least have some consideration to what folks say, but this poll does more to undermine the combat XP position than to support it.

Wait... what? A poll that shows a majority in favor of combat XP undermines the combat XP position? In what alternate reality? Oh, by the way, This is Obsidian we're talking about. The same company that scrapped their Weapon Degradation design for PoE, citing fan disapproval, on LESS than what we're seeing here. Edited by Stun
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would hate the option of putting lions in a zoo if I were playing most Druids. It's not neutral or balanced and it fails to protect nature IMO. I think it would be possible to devise creative solutions that would work for most character types but it may take quite a bit of work.

 

It could also be a problem in that what a dev sees as a solution would not work at all for some (many?) players, as in the proposed solution above. (I'm not trying to knock your proposal specifically. I'd guess that anything I came up with would have similar problems. I'm trying to illustrate the difficulty of finding quest paths that work and that don't lead to many players, for whatever reason, not wanting to complete the quest.)

I think this will always be an issue because folks don't want to think that the design team is making moral judgments about what decisions the players make.  However, I've never seen an RPG where the weren't judgments about outcomes.  I think they have to be careful, but I do think they should reward better results, which means that there will be some judgment about what constitutes a 'better result.'  For example, from the lions' perspective, having the townsfolk send out the most corpulent member every few days to provide a feast for the pride would be the best outcome, but that's probably not going to happen.

 

 

I think an advantage of quest XP is that, if it's well implemented (a big if), there should be less room for moral judgments about what decisions the player makes. If you talk your way or sneak your way through a situation (or come up with creative solutions like giving meat to the lions or having one enemy group attack another group), you'll get the same XP as if you fight your way through a situation. 

 

In your example, you get more XP for solving a problem in the way that you think is optimal and playing in character, not the way that I think is optimal or in character. I disagreed with your example because, to me, it would not be balanced. It highly favors the humans and their desires/goals over the native wildlife and their goals/desires. It also encourages human encroachment on areas that were previously undeveloped. I think that the latter is what is most out of character for most druids. Since it's impossible for devs to take players' POV about certain issues into account (like how one should best play a druid to stay in character) or anticipate every way that a player might solve a problem, I think it's better for them to avoid deciding what constitutes the best way to play any particular encounter. 

Edited by oaktownbrown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait... what? A poll that shows a majority in favor of combat XP undermines the combat XP position? In what alternate reality? Oh, by the way, This is Obsidian we're talking about. The same company that scrapped their Weapon Degradation design for PoE, citing fan disapproval, on LESS than what we're seeing here.

Yep, I do. With the amount of noise and heat the pro kill-XP crowd is generating on this issue, I'd figure that they'd have more votes, to be frank. I expected more of a lopsided victory for it in a forum poll. Now, even assuming that *prospective* weapon degradation was as central to their design philosophy as quest only XP, that was a bit earlier in development. At this point, quest XP is cooked into the pie and I don't think they'll budge on it without more than what I've seen. Then again, I've always said I could be wrong. I'm just giving my opinion. I wasn't being snarky or trying to make fun of anyone. I contend, even now, that this poll isn't going to be the silver bullet that kills quest XP. If it is, I'll come online, without rancor in my heart, and own that I was wrong.

 

In your example, you get more XP for solving a problem in the way that you think is optimal and playing in character, not the way that I think is optimal or in character. I disagreed with your example because, to me, it would not be balanced. It highly favors the humans and their desires/goals over the native wildlife and their goals/desires. It also encourages human encroachment on areas that were previously undeveloped. I think that the latter is what is most out of character for most druids. Since it's impossible for devs to take players' POV about certain issues into account (like how one should best play a druid to stay in character) or anticipate every way that a player might solve a problem, I think it's better for them to avoid deciding what constitutes the best way to play any particular encounter.

My example may have been flawed, I'll admit, but there is no way to separate judgment even in quests. Sometimes the means are more important than the ends, also. If I mention to my friend that I really wanted to get that job that someone else just managed to nab out from under me, he could try to help. He could talk to the employer on my behalf. He could buy the company. He could blackmail the HR person who does the hiring. He could murder the person who took the job from me. I agree that the design team has to be careful, but they have to be careful for quests in the first place. ...And, from any rational point of view in terms of the characters, there *will* be some outcomes that are superior to others. I think it breaks character more to say that all methods are the same or even that all consequences are the same regardless of methods. Edited by Cantousent
  • Like 1

Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And lastly, we backed PoE as a spiritual successor to the IE RPGs, not as a port or emulation of the IE engine. We're in brave new, D&D-less territory and I am fine by that. We have the good folks at Overhaul Games to fulfill that nostalgic scratch for us grizzled dungeoneers. I want to try something new, not a re-hash of the IE games.

 

Attempting to separate nostalgia from the equation suggests you weren't around for even one day of the kickstarter. They sold this project on Nostalgia. It wouldn't have generated half its funding without it. If you really only backed this project for the purposes of getting "something new" (which is a Bullsh*t claim and everyone here knows it), then one wonders why you didn't just throw your money at any of the several dozen super-high publisher funded titles coming out this year and next year. They'll be doing "New" a wee bit better than any $4 million project ever will. They must. It's the main focus of their $50 million+ budgets.

 

Hi there!

 

I will give you a cookie if f you can find anything in the original Kickstarter manifesto that promised you (and I do mean just you) a pixel for pixel, code for code port or emulation of the IE engine. The keyword here is SPIRITUAL successor, not CARBON COPY. Pillars of Eternity was always going to echo the style of the IE engine but it would not be AD&D 2nd edition come again.

 

It was disingenuous  of you or anyone else to expect the Josh Sawyer and the rest of the Obsidian to do the same exact thing all over again. Besides, apart from the lack of combat XP there is a truck ton of tribute to the spirit of the IE games in Pillars of Eternity. Just look at the classes & races, presentation of the game world and the way we players interact with that game world. That's all IE all the way buckeroo. 

 

 

But that doesn't matter anyway, does it. Kill XP has exactly NOTHING to do with Nostalgia or the IE games. It's just as much a staple of modern RPGs as it is the old ones.

at alternate reality? Oh, by the way, This is Obsidian we're talking about. The same company that scrapped their Weapon Degradation design for PoE, citing fan disapproval, on LESS than what we're seeing here.

 

And I don't understand why you're so hysterical about kill XP. You can still kill away to your hearts content in the game. They haven't removed the monsters and turned Pillars of Eternity into storytelling time. You still have monsters, they don't give XP but they still give out valuable drops in the way of items and crafting material. And as you pointed out yourself, if you really, really need that l33t kill XP kick there is an armada of RPGs that have been released or will be released that will satisfy that kink of yours. 

 

I have been playing computer RPGs since Shadows of Yserbius and like you I have lived in a "Kill things to get XP" worrld but I am pretty cool with the no XP deal. There is still lots of combat but it has taken away the pressure to grind XP from random mobs. Instead this game places an emphasis on creative problem solving. Some players will solve their problems with combat and others will find other ways around some of the avoidable obstacles in the game. Rock!

 

 

 

Wait... what? A poll that shows a majority in favor of combat XP undermines the combat XP position? In what alternate reality? Oh, by the way, This is Obsidian we're talking about. The same company that scrapped their Weapon Degradation design for PoE, citing fan disapproval, on LESS than what we're seeing here. 

 

This, buckoo: And I think I have a demonstrated commitment to play it straight, so I might be wrong, but it's not a partisan moment when I tell you I sincerely believe that this poll is actually quite *bad* news for the combat XP crowd... Frankly, I don't think it would matter if you'd won the day by 40 or 50%, but to have a spread of about 5% is not what you want to further your case.

 

 

Edited by swordofthesith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there!

 

I will give you a cookie if f you can find anything in the original Kickstarter manifesto that promised you (and I do mean just you) a pixel for pixel, code for code port or emulation of the IE engine.

<gag>

 

Asking for Kill XP does not equate to asking for a pixel-by-pixel code port of the IE games. But hey, feel free to dishonestly move the goal posts.

 

 

This, buckoo: And I think I have a demonstrated commitment to play it straight, so I might be wrong, but it's not a partisan moment when I tell you I sincerely believe that this poll is actually quite *bad* news for the combat XP crowd... Frankly, I don't think it would matter if you'd won the day by 40 or 50%, but to have a spread of about 5% is not what you want to further your case.

How can a poll dismissed away as not big enough to be an accurate representation suddenly constitute *bad* news? (or good news, or any news). I'm still trying to get either of you 2 to explain that one to me. But I won't be holding my breath. Since complete nonsense is impossible to explain away by definition. Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My example may have been flawed, I'll admit, but there is no way to separate judgment even in quests. Sometimes the means are more important than the ends, also. If I mention to my friend that I really wanted to get that job that someone else just managed to nab out from under me, he could try to help. He could talk to the employer on my behalf. He could buy the company. He could blackmail the HR person who does the hiring. He could murder the person who took the job from me. I agree that the design team has to be careful, but they have to be careful for quests in the first place. ...And, from any rational point of view in terms of the characters, there *will* be some outcomes that are superior to others. I think it breaks character more to say that all methods are the same or even that all consequences are the same regardless of methods.

 

I don't follow this example because, to me, a video game is not real life. Of course, in real life, your friend shouldn't murder the person who got the job or blackmail the HR person (and if your friend could buy the company, why doesn't he just hire you for something, it would make a lot more sense than buying a company just so you could have a job).

 

But in an RPG, it might make a lot of sense for certain characters to blackmail the HR person or murder the person who got the job, especially if they had the skills to do that with little chance of being caught. If that were not the case, playing an "evil" character in most RPGs would never make sense or be fun. (I hope that players who choose an evil path in an RPG would agree that they shouldn't do those things in real life.) 

 

I have no problem with the game punishing or rewarding a player for certain decisions. If you get caught murdering someone, you should be thrown in jail, guards should try to attack you, etc. If you're known for blackmailing or double-crossing people, others should be wary of dealing with you so maybe you lose some quests. If you always help those in need, NPCs will generally think more highly of you and trust you more but you'll also get more NPCs wanting you to help them (in ways that may be tedious or cost resources even after taking in-game rewards into account) and some NPCs will view you as a sucker. (I thought that Obsidian was doing this in PoE.) Those in-game consequences are much different than the devs deciding (based on their own opinions and biases) that X is the best way to play a given character or solve a given problem. Let the player decide that, based in part on the in-game consequences of certain in-game actions.

 

But don't reward me for playing a druid in ways that I think go against what a druid would do. To me, that encourages meta gaming and makes the game a lot less fun to play. Either I have to play the game the devs' way (and feel like I'm not able to play the character I wanted to play) or I lose XP and other rewards. It's the devs deciding how a druid should be played, not the player. IMO it constricts gameplay possibilities and should be avoided whenever feasible. 

Edited by oaktownbrown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my point of view, Stun, whether some other guy like me thinks the poll is good or bad doesn't matter anyhow.  I think the backers should come in and argue for what they want.  I just think this poll isn't the best argument to make, but even that doesn't matter.  If I felt as strongly as you do about something in the game, I'd come here and argue for it just like you do.  I'm just offering a view of one particular idea.

 

To your points, oak, as a practical matter, my contention is that:

1  quests in and of themselves, are inherently judgmental

2  some outcomes will be better by any rational argument, whether from a druidic, wizardry, or sword arm perspective (or good, evil, or pink fluffy moral reference)

3  saying that all that matters is the objective that the designers come up with which, as I pointed out in 1 are already loaded, while my method doesn't matter is also likewise restrictive

and

4  result oriented XP is already fairly common.  I'm not asking for something new.  I'm advocating using a method that has been around for a long time.

 

As to my use of real life examples, I'd like to point out I use striking examples in order to make the point more obvious, but each one of the examples I cited have happened in real life.  The point isn't that the game is going to be nonfiction, but if you don't address realistic motives and attitudes in the game world, you will have failed at some level in designing the game.  I completely agree that folks should be able to play whatever moral perspective they want, and that's why I think the design team should take care in how they approach it.  You didn't say, "A better way to address the results oriented idea is to do [insert idea here]."  You said, "don't do it at all."  If I'm reading your views right, I'll gladly read a response but let it rest since I have always believed results should matter at least as much as objectives.


Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wait... what? A poll that shows a majority in favor of combat XP undermines the combat XP position? In what alternate reality? Oh, by the way, This is Obsidian we're talking about. The same company that scrapped their Weapon Degradation design for PoE, citing fan disapproval, on LESS than what we're seeing here.

Yep, I do. With the amount of noise and heat the pro kill-XP crowd is generating on this issue, I'd figure that they'd have more votes, to be frank.

 

What an interesting comment. Suggests that a gamer's tastes are malleable based on the amount of noise. Of course if that were true then anyone who makes a trip to BSN would come back the next day convinced that PoE should have romances, otherwise it's not an RPG. But, I can say from experience, that my last foray into the BSN cesspool had the complete opposite effect on me.

 

I expected more of a lopsided victory for it in a forum poll.

Well, I can't account for any strange expectations you might have formed in your head, but this particular poll's results mirror every single poll we've ever had on the kill XP issue since about 2012. The Obsidian forum is, and always has been, split down the middle on the issue. This suggests that the people's positions on the matter are pretty much entrenched and final, and it will take more than "noise and heat" to get anyone to move.

 

In fact, it will probably take the game itself to change anyone's mind.

 

Now, even assuming that *prospective* weapon degradation was as central to their design philosophy as quest only XP, that was a bit earlier in development.

Eh? maybe a couple weeks earlier, tops? Which wouldn't support the point you're trying to make. The XP issue was first announced to us in Update #7, while weapon/armor degradation feature came a bit later when they announced the Crafting stretch goal. Both were design features they presented to us before Production actually began. Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think noise and heat do account for a lot, but you don't.  Cool.  Believe what you want, but I contend you're wrong on the issue, not only on kill xp generally, but in this regard.  The poll in question is simply not a good argument.  By your own admission, the devs have been exposed to roughly the same divide for some time, but *this* poll amounts to victory for the kill-XP crowd?  *shrug*  If you believe that, fair enough.

 

Then, we have your argument that demonstrates movement on one issue shows potential movement on another.  Fair point, but I don't now, nor do I foresee, that weapon degradation is on par with the XP system.

 

More to the point, I generally recognize what I personally believe are good arguments.  This poll isn't a good argument.  Even by your own words, it doesn't seem you believe this poll is make or break for kill or quest XP. "...this particular poll's results mirror every single poll we've ever had on the kill XP issue since about 2012. The Obsidian forum is, and always has been, split down the middle on the issue. This suggests that the people's positions on the matter are pretty much entrenched and final, and it will take more than 'noise and heat' to get anyone to move."

 

DNA claimed victory based on this poll, and I continue to believe it's a fallacious argument.  However, since I'm not trying to take Grom's place, and this isn't a deathmatch, if you want the last word, I'll let you take it.  Feel free.

  • Like 2

Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i think now that i would like to have XP´s from combat. No matter what i said previously but it is just rewarding. And to have a reward for an action where you could possibly die is .. rewarding ;)

 

But well, yes would be better imo. Still i can live without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yep, I do. With the amount of noise and heat the pro kill-XP crowd is generating on this issue, I'd figure that they'd have more votes, to be frank. I expected more of a lopsided victory for it in a forum poll. Now, even assuming that *prospective* weapon degradation was as central to their design philosophy as quest only XP, that was a bit earlier in development. At this point, quest XP is cooked into the pie and I don't think they'll budge on it without more than what I've seen. Then again, I've always said I could be wrong. I'm just giving my opinion. I wasn't being snarky or trying to make fun of anyone. I contend, even now, that this poll isn't going to be the silver bullet that kills quest XP. If it is, I'll come online, without rancor in my heart, and own that I was wrong.

 

 

 

more misrepresentations from folks. 

 

to let cant know, sawyer explained that indeed, the community did not see a need for a credit/wealth sink and removing weapon degradation were an insular feature easily removed. furthermore, after discussions internally, sawyer recognized that The Team agreed that weapon degradation were not a positive or necessary feature.

 

quest xp is not insular. quest xp is direct related to promises regarding balance and play-style diversity. furthermore The Team is not in favor of removing quest xp. if obsidian, The Team, agreed that balance and play-style diversity were unnecessary and if we actual had a marked majority o' the community complaining, and if quest xp could be easily removed and replaced in the time remaining, then, maybe you would have similar situations.

 

HA! Good Fun!


"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stun, you are not my son (thank the Gods) but you are strong in the ways of the Troll Side of the force. As a master of the Dork Side, you have my respect. And with that, I'll leave you to your constant trolling of this dead horse issue.  :cat:

Edited by swordofthesith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To your points, oak, as a practical matter, my contention is that:

1  quests in and of themselves, are inherently judgmental

2  some outcomes will be better by any rational argument, whether from a druidic, wizardry, or sword arm perspective (or good, evil, or pink fluffy moral reference)

3  saying that all that matters is the objective that the designers come up with which, as I pointed out in 1 are already loaded, while my method doesn't matter is also likewise restrictive

and

4  result oriented XP is already fairly common.  I'm not asking for something new.  I'm advocating using a method that has been around for a long time.

 

As to my use of real life examples, I'd like to point out I use striking examples in order to make the point more obvious, but each one of the examples I cited have happened in real life.  The point isn't that the game is going to be nonfiction, but if you don't address realistic motives and attitudes in the game world, you will have failed at some level in designing the game.  I completely agree that folks should be able to play whatever moral perspective they want, and that's why I think the design team should take care in how they approach it.  You didn't say, "A better way to address the results oriented idea is to do [insert idea here]."  You said, "don't do it at all."  If I'm reading your views right, I'll gladly read a response but let it rest since I have always believed results should matter at least as much as objectives.

1. I disagree on your first point. Maybe I don't understand the argument but I don't understand why a quest needs to be inherently judgmental, at least with respect to the means used to complete the quest. As I said, I think that it's an advantage of quest XP. If you accomplish objective X, you'll be rewarded with Y (could be XP, loot, reputation, other). 

 

2. I'm not sure that I agree on your second point. Perhaps you can provide an example. If you're using the example above (about wanting a job that another person got), I disagree. I think that, of the different ways you suggested of dealing with the problem, some of the solutions would be better from one perspective while other solutions would be better from another. E.g., from the perspective of someone who wants to gain power regardless of the means, the blackmail or murder options might be best. From the perspective of the person who currently had the job that you wanted, none of the above would be the best and you'd just try to get another job (or have your friend hire you on his own without firing the other person). From the perspective of your friend, talking to the employer would probably be the best, especially if you did an excellent job there and he could somehow use that to have closer contacts with your employer. I don't think that any of those are irrational (or that any of them are inherently less rational), although I think some of them are more immoral than others. (I think all of them except allowing the person with the job to keep it are immoral.)

 

3. I don't think I ever said (or suggested) that the only thing that matters is the objective that the devs come up with. I've said that I think that quest XP can help avoid the problem of devs deciding and enforcing how a player should play the game. 

 

4. I don't care how long something has been around. If that's important to you, I can understand your view on this issue, although I don't understand why you'd argue against kill XP (or support other changes in PoE from the IE games) if that's the primary thing that you care about. 

 

I said that I think that having realistic in-game consequences for actions is good and is, IMO, a better way to deal with in-game actions. That deals with the means used as well as the results. 

 

We may be misunderstanding each other here. I've tried to clarify my position but maybe we're starting from such different points of view that further discussion is unlikely to be edifying or clarifying for either of us. If you want to continue, I'll do my best to continue as well. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right. I'm merely disagreeing with what I understand your position to be. 

Edited by oaktownbrown
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at a crossroads on this, but, while I have answers to the points in question, I don't think it really relates necessarily to the discussion at hand.  So, without retreating from my particular position, I'll let my words stand as I have already written them and agree to disagree with you, oak.  :Cant's wry grin icon:  ...But that doesn't mean I yield the prerogative to flame you later out of spite or just plain orneriness.  :D


Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I would say the people have seen the backer beta and changed their minds.

 

 

Or maybe they're just sick of voting in every new poll that asks the same question over and over when the issue was supposedly settled two years ago.  :)

Edited by kgambit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is just my interpretation of objectives but that implies more than just quests to me. Again that could just be how I view it. As for the rest of it I'm over it but still prefer a more robust Xp system.

 

 

 

 

I would say the people have seen the backer beta and changed their minds.

 

 

Or maybe they're just sick of voting in every new poll that asks the same question over and over when the issue was supposedly settled two years ago.  :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps this is just my interpretation of objectives but that implies more than just quests to me. Again that could just be how I view it. As for the rest of it I'm over it but still prefer a more robust Xp system.

 

 

 

 

I would say the people have seen the backer beta and changed their minds.

 

 

Or maybe they're just sick of voting in every new poll that asks the same question over and over when the issue was supposedly settled two years ago.  :)

 

 

the terminology is inconsequential. the notion o' quest/task xp as described by sawyer and cain were described in the op o' the linked poll, and that description has remained constant since that time... since before that time actually. the implementation is also consistent with the description provided.

 

HA! Good Fun!


"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...