Discussion: the PoE beta xp system

[Zed]

Not giving exp for combat is super disappointing.

 

If the problem is that quest solution paths become "unbalanced" (OH MY GOD THE HORROR), then the problem lies in the quest design.

 

Taking away combat exp makes combat worse, and the game worse. Because it's a combat-oriented game.

 

My suggestion is to make an alternative mode, call it Sawyer's Fun Balance mode, where there is no experience and the levels are set at specific points in the game.

And then have the standard game play just like BG2.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Zed

[Lasweetlife]

If the game is going to be good, it is going to be good without combat xp. If it's going to suck, all the combat xp in the world won't save it.

[wanderon]

 

Yeah, we're talking about various other forms of XP including exploration, trap, and lock XP.  We've also discussed XP connected to unlocking elements in the bestiary, which is sort of a limited-pool form of combat XP that eventually gets exhausted and doesn't require you to commit genocide to reach it.  Also, kith (humanoid people) are not (and would not be) in the bestiary, and those are the characters most often associated with quests.

+1 on exploration and bestiary XP.

-1 on trap and lock XP. It would just encourage mindlessly unlocking and untrapping things whether it makes sense or not.

 

Finer-grained objective XP would help a lot too.

 

Context: I would prefer to have XP doled out frequently and in small doses rather than rarely in large doses, but I like the incentive structure of quest/objective XP. The bestiary XP would, I think, go a long way to creating the "feel" of IE game combat XP without screwing up the incentives.

 

The XP system is not among my top five priorities for the game though ATM, and I could certainly live with coarser-grained quest XP as well.

 

 

I'm confused - exactly what locks or traps are likely to be in the game that it would NOT make sense to open mindlessly or otherwise? 

 

As long as the rewards are reasonable amounts based on difficulty/skills needed I think this is a fine idea.

[prodigydancer]

Taking away combat exp makes combat worse, and the game worse.

/sigh

/facepalm

 

I give up...

Edited September 23, 2014 by prodigydancer

[frapillo80]

 

 

Aren't CRPGS at their heart, about combat? Sure theres been some games that have tried to deemphasize combat to some extent, with varying levels of success.Thats not to play down the importance of game worlds and storylines and the like. I mean take for example the HUGE posts in the forums about armor and weapon design.. combat has always been at the heart of CRPGS from the beginning.

And your point is? Remember, PoE doesn't punish you for killing things (and there are RPGs that do punish you, e.g DX:HR).

 

---

 

I still don't understand why so many people consider combat such a chore. (And if it's fun then why is it so necessary to get XP for it?) But it's even more puzzling that the same people apparently want to make the chore practically mandatory. Talk about being masochistic...

 

Personally, I think combat is fun. In most games anyway. And when ti's not, XP tends to make it more irritating because you can't opt out.

Combat against a well assorted and diversified group of adventurers (or something equivalent), with a top notch enemy AI and within a solid combat system is fun by itself even without xp or loot. Combat against lion after lion/beetle after beetle/trash mob after trash mob with no AI to speak of and a single auto-attack (or two, if we count the lions' slam-dunk), with no xp and none or minimal loot, not so much. Edited September 23, 2014 by frapillo80

[prodigydancer]

Combat against lion after lion/beetle after beetle/trash mob after trash mob with no AI to speak of and a single auto-attack

Avoid it. Problem solved?

 

You're trying to push XP into the equation but it falls out. XP won't make AI better and it won't make the fight more challenging. The whole encounter (as you described it) is still garbage. And when it's over - and you got your precious XP - you're one step closer to more mandatory garbage encounters further down the road. Feels great, eh?

Edited September 23, 2014 by prodigydancer

[gkathellar]

 

 

Aren't CRPGS at their heart, about combat? Sure theres been some games that have tried to deemphasize combat to some extent, with varying levels of success.Thats not to play down the importance of game worlds and storylines and the like. I mean take for example the HUGE posts in the forums about armor and weapon design.. combat has always been at the heart of CRPGS from the beginning.

And your point is? Remember, PoE doesn't punish you for killing things (and there are RPGs that do punish you, e.g DX:HR).

 

---

 

I still don't understand why so many people consider combat such a chore. (And if it's fun then why is it so necessary to get XP for it?) But it's even more puzzling that the same people apparently want to make the chore practically mandatory. Talk about being masochistic...

 

Personally, I think combat is fun. In most games anyway. And when ti's not, XP tends to make it more irritating because you can't opt out.

Combat against a well assorted and diversified group of adventurers (or something equivalent), with a top notch enemy AI and within a solid combat system is fun by itself even without xp or loot. Combat with lion after lion/beetle after beetle/trash mob after trash mob with no AI to speak of and a single auto-attack (or two, if we count the lions' slam-dunk), with no xp and no or minimal loot, not so much.

 

 

And in the first case, it's more fun if there's a -ding- at the end for the level you just gained.

[frapillo80]

 

 

Combat against lion after lion/beetle after beetle/trash mob after trash mob with no AI to speak of and a single auto-attack (or two, if we count the lions' slam-dunk), with no xp and none or minimal loot, not so much.

Then avoid it. Problem solved?

So why padding the game with pointless content that is best to avoid?

[frapillo80]

 

And in the first case, it's more fun if there's a -ding- at the end for the level you just gained.

 

Well, that goes without saying! I always try to learn as much as possible from killing fellow adventurers.

[prodigydancer]

So why padding the game with pointless content that is best to avoid?

Now that's something I agree with. Quality, not quantity, Obsidian. I'll rather have a couple of complex and tactically advanced fights per map than a dozen of easy and forgettable ones.

[frapillo80]

 

 

Combat against lion after lion/beetle after beetle/trash mob after trash mob with no AI to speak of and a single auto-attack

Avoid it. Problem solved?

 

You're trying to push XP into the equation but it falls out. XP won't make AI better and it won't make the fight more challenging. The whole encounter (as you described it) is still garbage. And when it's over - and you got your precious XP - you're one step closer to more mandatory garbage encounters further down the road. Feels great, eh?

I said several times in the previous posts that I don't like trash mobs. But, if I must have trash mobs, at least don't make them demotivating and pointlessly time and resource consuming like they are now.

 

Now, to flip your argument over: the trash mobs are still garbage, not challenging and with no AI to speak of. Did taking away the kill-xp solve any of those problems?

[frapillo80]

 

So why padding the game with pointless content that is best to avoid?

Now that's something I agree with. Quality, not quantity, Obsidian. I'll rather have a couple of complex and tactically advanced fights per map than a dozen of easy and forgettable ones.

Yes, I think that after all we are of the same idea. To me, kill-xp is plan B, getting rid of trash mobs altogether is plan C, and integrating all fights into quests/making them diversified and challenging plan A. With plan A, I don't care that much about kill-xp.

 

But I'm also trying to be realistic about it, and I think at this point there is no chance for plan A. And the devs will never go for plan C, because it will leave the wilderness areas emptier than in BG1, and I guess PoE is supposed to improve that aspect, not make it worse. That's why I'd settle for plan B: it's not much, but kill-xp would at least chase away part of the sense of frustration and pointlessness currently conveyed by non-quest fights.

Edited September 23, 2014 by frapillo80

[Gfted1]

 

 

So why padding the game with pointless content that is best to avoid?

Now that's something I agree with. Quality, not quantity, Obsidian. I'll rather have a couple of complex and tactically advanced fights per map than a dozen of easy and forgettable ones.

Yes, I think that after all we are of the same idea. To me, kill-xp is plan B, getting rid of trash mobs altogether is plan C, and integrating all fights into quests/making them diversified and challenging plan A. With plan A, I don't care that much about kill-xp.

 

But I'm also trying to be realistic about it, and I think at this point there is no chance for plan A. And the devs will never go for plan C, because it will leave the wilderness areas emptier than in BG1, and I guess PoE is supposed to improve that aspect, not make it worse. That's why I'd settle for plan B: it's not much, but kill-xp would at least chase away part of the sense of frustration and pointlessness currently conveyed by non-quest fights.

 

 

If you integrate all fights into quests, then you have just created kill XP under a different name.          

[frapillo80]

 

 

 

 

So why padding the game with pointless content that is best to avoid?

Now that's something I agree with. Quality, not quantity, Obsidian. I'll rather have a couple of complex and tactically advanced fights per map than a dozen of easy and forgettable ones.

Yes, I think that after all we are of the same idea. To me, kill-xp is plan B, getting rid of trash mobs altogether is plan C, and integrating all fights into quests/making them diversified and challenging plan A. With plan A, I don't care that much about kill-xp.

 

But I'm also trying to be realistic about it, and I think at this point there is no chance for plan A. And the devs will never go for plan C, because it will leave the wilderness areas emptier than in BG1, and I guess PoE is supposed to improve that aspect, not make it worse. That's why I'd settle for plan B: it's not much, but kill-xp would at least chase away part of the sense of frustration and pointlessness currently conveyed by non-quest fights.

If you integrate all fights into quests, then you have just created kill XP under a different name.

Yes. And then, any quest you have to solve by killing, or any quest you can solve by killing AND you decide to solve by killing is kill XP under a different name. I fail to see the problem. Should we eliminate any killing from quests? And why?

[Hellraiser789]

I have to say that the Bestiary XP idea is...goofy.  It seems like a really silly tacked-on mechanic to give out little gold stars to players.

 

That said and out of the way, implementing exploration xp (and even the silly bestiary xp giveaway) could be done in a very simple mechanic similar to KGambit's cartographer's quest.  At the beginning of the game, the PC could encounter a Volo type character that is looking for adventurers to compile a guide to the Eastern Reach for his readers back in Aedyr complete with maps, locations, adventures, etc..

 

 Once the quest is accepted (unless you kill him for his gold), every scripted sequence yields an XP reward.  Obsidian could also add XP for fully exploring maps, towns, villages, quests and even the bestiary.  Towards the end of the game, or in an epilogue, the player could meet back up with the quest giver and get a compiled version in the form of a book to go into his/ her journal or inventory.  

 

Actually, it would be nice if there was some mechanism for exporting this as a PDF or as an document online to a STEAM account...not sure how hard that would be to implement

 

Sorry, a little behind on the thread, but wouldnt it be awesome to have like a hand-drawn map that shows the areas youve explored? (like the bestiary for monsters encountered?) This would be separate from the actual map, just like a bonus thing. Also, with the bestiary - I think there should be some options - sounds like a cool thing, and Im find with it and the exploration being like a quest (as long as its unmissable?). But give some options like studying the monsters and stuff. I mean, this brings the low risk thing vs high risk combat, but maybe have it where 50% is combat and 50% is studying, because both give different kinds of information? This encourages different playstyles throughout the game so you dont feel you need to kill stuff all the time. Or maybe have it so combat fills the bestiary quicker, and the studying takes longer and more samples? To reflect the added information from combat (and the higher risk) vs studying the behavior of creatures (which would take a while IRL + reflects the lower risk)?

 

I dont know what the best answer is... Theres a lot of directions this project seems to be able to go in. I mean, I like that theyre doing their own thing, but at the same time, as others have mentioned, the game has A LOT of combat heavy features. So combat either needs to be REALLY FUN or needs incentives. Personally I think the best situation would be to encourage both styles, combat and stealth, exploration and quest, and do as much as possible to keep it balanced so no one can complain. But that takes A LOT of work and time. So I dont know how this will work it. I guess leave it up to the devs and have faith in them.

[Hellraiser789]

 

 

When do you feel it wouldn't make sense to pick a lock[..]

 

 

When you have a barbarian with 22 Might wielding a 2hd weapon?

 

 

[..] Or disarm a trap

 

When you have enemies walking right there and not triggering them?

I mean that would mean that traps have souls and are sentient so that they recognize some kind of "faction" and, should the victim be of an hostile "faction", then they trigger, otherwise they don't?

 

Oh wait...that wouldn't be how you handle traps would it?

 

 

 

HAHAHA one of my favorite moments in BG2 was in the opening dungeon - there were a couple dwarves picking on some thieves and they were just standing between the trapped pillars. Then one would run up and get frozen solid and the other would be like " O **** " and start backpedaling, only to be coated in fire from the other trap. Ah, good times.... Yeah everyone and everything should activate traps. Just makes more sense.

[Gfted1]

Yes. And then, any quest you have to solve by killing, or any quest you can solve by killing AND you decide to solve by killing is kill XP under a different name. I fail to see the problem. Should we eliminate any killing from quests? And why?

Every crap trash mob cant be a quest because then you have created the situation that the non-kill XP crowd are whining about. Its degenerative gameplay, now Ill be FORCED to kill everything, me OCD!, immurshun, people will stealth past then go back and kill, etc...

[Hellraiser789]

I am not fond with idea about current proposal of bestiary xp. But if Obsidian adds full lore xp (meaning that characters get xp from every lore entry they find, like for example books, interesting places, pieces of art, stories about world, etc.), I think it would fit fine, as it would encourage player to explore world, seek every corner, speak to everyone and hunt wild life to find more about world.

 

In current form I would also say that combat xp would only make game worse, as it would add heavy emphasis of the combat that game currently have even more, and I don't want see PoE become yet another hack & slash everything RPG, which is direction that it already leans (basin on backer beta), but instead I would like to see that it is much more story driven RPG that has combat with heavy tactical and strategic emphasis on it. So what I would like to see I less enemy mobs and adding story behind those that are left.

 

I don't that tedious combat become any more compelling if its point is make that combat easier, by for example giving xp from it. I would instead try to make combat less tedious in general, by lessening number of combat encounters, make encounters feel special by adding story behind them, trying them feel as unique challenges instead of chores dropped on the map, and if possible to give characters clear in-game world motivation to seek those combat encounters.

 

Also, I think they need to add depth to the bestiary - have specific information about the monsters and stuff, as well as like combat relevant information and lore related stuff, detailed descriptions, etc.

 

As much as I hate to say it, I kinda liked the Codex thing from Dragon Age. It wasnt the best, but it was cool to be able to look back and thumb through the lore. Of course, I didnt look through half of it, but itd be cool if it was a better system. Like in baldurs gate, I would open a book and read it just to learn more about the lore and stuff, so I think itd be cool to be able to do that. But when you are done, that information is stored in your Memory (codex type thing) and you can go back and look at it and stuff. Would also be kinda cool to have some effect on gameplay, like some books give +1 Mechanics or something. (I know its not Skyrim, but I thought it was kind of a cool idea, showed how you would learn different things from books). 

 

Im excited for the game and I think a lot of people on this forum has great ideas. Itll be cool to see whats actually implemented though.

[frapillo80]

 

Yes. And then, any quest you have to solve by killing, or any quest you can solve by killing AND you decide to solve by killing is kill XP under a different name. I fail to see the problem. Should we eliminate any killing from quests? And why?

Every crap trash mob cant be a quest because then you have created the situation that the non-kill XP crowd are whining about. Its degenerative gameplay, now Ill be FORCED to kill everything, me OCD!, immurshun, people will stealth past then go back and kill, etc...

I said I don't like trash mobs merely seven or eight times within a couple of pages. I also stated clearly that if I could choose I would only want tactical, well designed fights integrated into the quests. Sigh... Edited September 23, 2014 by frapillo80

[Hellraiser789]

So basically the main problem for everyone (or most people) is that combat needs to be fun. This could mean giving it more depth in a roleplaying sense (through quests, bestiary, etc), making it more fun so it doesnt feel like a chore (after all, if you LIKE to kill all the beetles, then it wouldnt matter if theres no combat xp), or basically making the combat more spontaneous or more explained ( = no trash mobs).

 

I dont think its a matter of combat xp just BECAUSE. I think its really a way to solve some of the underlying problems the game currently has. If I have a reason to enjoy combat, I dont need combat xp; combat is fun and rewarding in itself. But that doesnt seem to be the case currently so people need a reason/reward for taking time out of their day (and resources, etc)

 

Lets put it like this: What if there was no quest experience. You enjoy quests right? Would you still do them if you didnt get a reward? no experience and only good loot every once in awhile? But theres TONS of quests - dont worry, youll enjoy them! Would you still do that fetch quest or look for someone if you found out there would be no reward? 

 

Go kill some rats. Good - youre done. Thanks, you did a great job! Have a good day. ~ NPC walks away, no reward, no xp...

O you found the farmer's daughter! Thank you so much! Heres a....bear claw... I found the other day. Thats cool right? Totally. What, you dont like it? ....Ummm....its TOTALLY a MAGICAL bear claw. No idea what it does though.... Have fun! ~NPC runs away hoping you dont shoot him. (you gained 1 Bear claw, no xp)

 

But you would totally do those quests wouldnt you?

Edited September 23, 2014 by Hellraiser789

[frapillo80]

(Warning: longish post)

 

First of all: I don't want to come across ungenerous towards the devs: I think they are doing a good job, and this is still a Beta.

 

That said, I cannot help having the feeling that all this mess on 'only quest-xp' and 'no quest staggering' has its roots in one fact: that these two choices simply save a huge amount of time that otherwise ought to be spent in balancing the difficulty of encounters and quests against the variables represented by the different level the player might be at when facing each quest/encounter combined with each of the five difficulty settings.

 

Let's take IWD: most of xp are from the main quest, and almost all of the sections of the main quest have to be faced in a strictly predetermined order. In other words, a lot of time saved in balancing the encounters, since the only variable is the difficulty setting (having less party members is balanced by leveling up quicker: I am not sure I remember correctly, but I think there was no xxxx experience points to each party member like in BG2).

IW2 has all these characteristics, plus the dynamic invisible wall of 0 kill xp as a further safety net: in case the devs had not taken something in consideration when balancing, the xp proportional to level took care of it. Makes sense, since afair both games were quite rushed (I think the second even more so).

Now, the opposite extreme, BG2: the fabulous Chapter 2 likely made necessary a huge effort in balancing the entire game, since they had to take into account the five (I think) difficulty settings combined with anything that ranged between the player who only leveled up with the xp from the main quest and still had to be able to face Spellhold and all the rest, and the completist who milked every drop of xp from Chapter 2 and could not feel underwhelmed by the Underdark or Ust Natha, for example. I think it was a great success, especially considering the magnitude of the task.

 

Now, to PoE: I think the devs don't have enough time for balancing properly according to all the variables, and both the "only quest-xp" and the "no quest staggering" (especially if quests will really be compartmentalized by chapters, that is, more or less by player level), will allow them to avoid spending a huge amount of time they don't currently gave balancing everything. Plus, PoE difficulty settings also change the composition of enemy groups, which I think is why the difficulty cannot be changed in-game: this further complicates things for the devs, since they don't even have the safety net of the player self-balancing things by changing the difficulty on the fly. So, if the reasons really are the ones I've stated, I totally understand, but at the same time they also create misunderstandings and frustration among many backers.

 

Now: I'm not a backer, so I have no right to ask for anything, and I could very well be completely wrong about the whole thing.

And even if I am more or less right, I don't even know if this would be productive or even feasible, but maybe the devs might just announce: "Sorry folks, but we really don't have time for proper difficulty balancing, so you'll get it in future patches a few months into 2015." I think 95% of the backers would reply with a resounding "no worries!"

Of course, unbalance difficulty might cost the game a few points in the reviews, which is no small matter, and I understand it perfectly: but what if I am right about only quest-xp and compartmentalized quests being functional to save time on balancing, only to cost even more points because they might baffle the reviewers.

 

 

Ok, I'll shut up now, and I am almost sure that I am simply overanalyzing things.

Edited September 23, 2014 by frapillo80

[Cantousent]

Yeah, those of us who wanted objective only XP are 'whining' because that's what the game already has.  We see tons of threads started by people 'whining' for Objective XP.  There has been a lot of whining, but I doubt that it's from the folks who are already getting what they want.  ...But at least some folks are manning up and making a direct argument for what they desire instead of making backdoor arguments that, in a comical twist, sometimes put them at odds with people who want the same thing.  The argument against the bestiary is that it's the equivalent of combat XP and so just give us combat XP?  lol  Oh, I like this one: we should get lockpicking XP because it's intuitive and natural and the only True Way™.  OH, and if they give lockpicking XP for the relatively small number of opportunities to use it, I can argue for kill XP that will dwarf lockpicking XP in the aggregate.

 

The fact is, in the beta itself, lockpicking XP sets up situations where one person will get XP entirely randomly not because of a good decision or because of forward thinking, but because I turned to the right first and found the key whereas you turned left and picked a lock.  I had the key and didn't even get the chance to pick a lock, and so it's only natural that one gets more XP for achieving the exact same result.  One didn't do more.  One didn't find more places.  One didn't come up with a clever solution.  One went right and one went left.

 

Not to mention, why should I get less XP for finding the key on someone's body? picking his pocket?  Convincing him to open the door?  Or simply putting my boot through it?

[Hellraiser789]

(Warning: longish post)

 

First of all: I don't want to come across ungenerous towards the devs: I think they are doing a good job, and this is still a Beta.

 

That said, I cannot help having the feeling that all this mess on 'only quest-xp' and 'no quest staggering' has its roots in one fact: that these two choices simply save a huge amount of time that otherwise ought to be spent in balancing the difficulty of encounters and quests against the variables represented by the different level the player might be at when facing each quest/encounter combined with each of the five difficulty settings.

 

Let's take IWD: most of xp are from the main quest, and almost all of the sections of the main quest have to be faced in a strictly predetermined order. In other words, a lot of time saved in balancing the encounters, since the only variable is the difficulty setting (having less party members is balanced by leveling up quicker: I am not sure I remember correctly, but I think there was no xxxx experience points to each party member like in BG2).

IW2 has all these characteristics, plus the dynamic invisible wall of 0 kill xp as a further safety net: in case the devs had not taken something in consideration when balancing, the xp proportional to level take care of it. Makes sense, since afair both games were quite rushed (I think the second even more so).

Now, the opposite extreme, BG2: the fabulous Chapter 2 likely made necessary a huge effort in balancing the entire game, since they had to take into account the five (I think) difficulty settings combined with anything that ranged between the player who only leveled up with the xp from the main quest and still be able to face Spellhold and all the rest, and the completist who milked every drop of xp from Chapter 2 and could not feel underwhelmed by the Underdark or Ust Natha, for example. I think it was a great success, especially considering the magnitude of the task.

 

Now, to PoE: I think the devs don't have enough time for balancing properly according to all the variables, and both the "only quest-xp" and the "no quest staggering" (especially if quests will really be compartmentalized by chapters, that is, more or less by player level), will allow them to avoid spending a huge amount of time they don't currently gave balancing everything. Plus, PoE difficulty settings also change the composition of enemy groups, which I think is why the difficulty cannot be changed in-game: this further complicates things for the devs, since they don't even have the safety net of the player self-balancing things by changing the difficulty on the fly. So, if the reasons really are the ones I've stated, I totally understand, but at the same time they also create misunderstandings and frustration among many backers.

 

Now: I'm not a backer, so I have no right to ask for anything, and I could very well be completely wrong about the whole thing.

And even if I am more or less right, I don't even know if this would be productive or even feasible, but maybe the devs might just announce: "Sorry folks, but we really don't have time for proper difficulty balancing, so you'll get it in future patches a few months into 2015." I think 95% of the backers would reply with a resounding "no worries!"

Of course, unbalance difficulty might cost the game a few points in the reviews, which is no small matter, and I understand it perfectly: but what if I am right about only quest-xp and compartmentalized quests being functional to save time on balancing, only to cost even more points because they might baffle the reviewers.

 

 

Ok, I'll shut up now, and I am almost sure that I am simply overanalyzing things.

 

I tend to agree. But they did claim they were making a spiritual successor to BG2. Thats pretty high standards. I mean, does that mean everything has to be right? No, and I dont necessarily want a carbon copy (BGEE) of the IE games either. Personally I wouldnt mind seeing the game get pushed back if it meant a better game (I thought that flexibility was the point of kickstarting...?) but I also did not back, so thats not a decision that should be up to me. Also, I personally like games that have enemies that scale to your level (and RANDOM loot, LOVE Borderlands), and it would be cool to see the enemies "level up" like that group of bandits that had leather armor - Now theyre decked out in scale mail and have Flaming Arrows (Black Talon bandits in BG1 were awesome). I know that would be a lot of work and time, but personally I think its worth it. I'd be super disappointed if I found out that the game wouldnt be released until next year, but I can wait. Ive been waiting 10 years for a game like BG2. I can wait another if I have to and it means getting the best possible gameplay out of Pillars of Eternity. 

 

Waiting for Epic Game > Lesser Game Immediately

[frapillo80]

I tend to agree. But they did claim they were making a spiritual successor to BG2. Thats pretty high standards. I mean, does that mean everything has to be right? No, and I dont necessarily want a carbon copy (BGEE) of the IE games either. Personally I wouldnt mind seeing the game get pushed back if it meant a better game (I thought that flexibility was the point of kickstarting...?) but I also did not back, so thats not a decision that should be up to me. Also, I personally like games that have enemies that scale to your level (and RANDOM loot, LOVE Borderlands), and it would be cool to see the enemies "level up" like that group of bandits that had leather armor - Now theyre decked out in scale mail and have Flaming Arrows (Black Talon bandits in BG1 were awesome). I know that would be a lot of work and time, but personally I think its worth it. I'd be super disappointed if I found out that the game wouldnt be released until next year, but I can wait. Ive been waiting 10 years for a game like BG2. I can wait another if I have to and it means getting the best possible gameplay out of Pillars of Eternity.

 

Waiting for Epic Game > Lesser Game Immediately

Agree on almost everything (well, to be honest I don't like enemy equipment scaling with my level, always found robbers clad in priceless glass armour a bit ridiculous; and I loved BG2 unique items with their own stories, hated Dragon Age semi-random loot, but that's nitpicking).

And I don't want a carbon copy of BG1 or 2 either, but Kickstarter is a foul beast sometimes: you promised wilderness areas and exploration, backers forked money for that promise (among others), and now you can't take it back: only now you don't have time to make every wilderness encounter/mob significant nor for balancing everything, and now we're stuck with 0 xp trash mobs. And so on with the other problems. That's why I try somewhat to be realistic when it comes to possible solutions. Personally, I'd wait until summer if it helped things enough.

Edited September 23, 2014 by frapillo80

[Immortalis]

 

Yes. And then, any quest you have to solve by killing, or any quest you can solve by killing AND you decide to solve by killing is kill XP under a different name. I fail to see the problem. Should we eliminate any killing from quests? And why?

Every crap trash mob cant be a quest because then you have created the situation that the non-kill XP crowd are whining about. Its degenerative gameplay, now Ill be FORCED to kill everything, me OCD!, immurshun, people will stealth past then go back and kill, etc...

 

 

 

I love you gfted1.. Josh should hire you as a co-designer.. you trim through the bs like a hot knife through butter..

 

We are just dancing around obvious solutions.. there's no way 3 months before release Josh can whip everyone at obs to generate 1200 more quests to make EVERY encounter meaningful.. like can we come back to reality for a second?

 

Maybe gfted1 will disagree with me here.. but honestly there's a reason most of these games had Combat XP.. it solved the very problem people have been complaining about since beta started.. I'm sorry to the Sawyer fans out there..

 

I don't see what was fixed by doing this.. Just add Combat XP then adjust quests to counter weight things out so that passive quest rewards give higher bonuses to offset the killing of NPC's, then make the NPC's disappear or worth nothing..

 

or just flag all quest NPC's to not give XP and let people decide how to do quests without that incentive.. (we will ignore the fact that quest related npc's probably have the best gear in the game so power gamers will still be want to kill them.. which every counter argument glosses over because people realize it invalidates their point)