Discussion: the PoE beta xp system

[Hiro Protagonist II]

So, the people at Eurogamer don't mind laborious combat... as long as they get XP goodies?  If the problem is combat, it's combat.  From a design standpoint, giving XP won't make people happy with the combat.  I sure as hell hope that Obsidz sticks to their guns on this.

 

Who cares what reviewers think. Gamers who may be thinking of buying PoE won't watch those reviews and their concerns anyway. I'm sure Obsidian don't care about reviews either.

 

One thing I did get out of it which I don't get from reading a review. The tone of their voice which I found quite telling.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Gromnir]

 

 

So, the people at Eurogamer don't mind laborious combat... as long as they get XP goodies? If the problem is combat, it's combat. From a design standpoint, giving XP won't make people happy with the combat. I sure as hell hope that Obsidz sticks to their guns on this.

Wrong again.. It's been stated about 1000 times why this argument is crap

That's not a rebuttal. I could just as easily say that it's been stated about 2000 times why this argument is good.

 

And neither of us would be correct, because the necessity of combat XP for game (and combat) enjoyment is a matter of PERSONAL PREFERENCE. Stop acting like your position is the only reasonable one. Combat XP is a good reward system for RPG gameplay. That doesn't mean it's the only good reward system. OE is doing something different - good for them! Let's help them succeed instead of bitching endlessly about one single feature as if the game will live or die based on its inclusion.

 

am not certain if we agree that combat xp is a good reward system for PoE. we gotta consider the goals o' the games and the developers, no? stated goals is balance, providing diversity of character build options and simplicity. no doubt there is a way to make combat xp balanced and encourage, rather than discourage, build diversity, but doing so would take considerable effort.  the effort spent on making combat xp could be spent elsewhere on any number o' different features and options. regardless, combat xp is not simple if you want balance and to encourage diversity o' character builds, sooooo...

 

*shrug*

 

in any event, folks is fighting over when they get their pie. the developers does reward you in PoE. they got a very good notion that X amount o' hours o' gameplay will yield Y numbers of leveling opportunities. the developers has stated that they wanted to slow leveling down compared to recent d&d crpgs, but regardless, they gots a very good notion o' how quickly people will level in theircrpg, and leveling and getting loot is the typical rewards in these games. is not that absence o' combat is failing at rewarding players, is simple that players in PoE, as it is currently designed, is getting larger and more predictable xp rewards. end result is gonna be the same whether combat were implemented or not. however, you is necessarily demanding an extra (and unnecessary) step from developers as they would need try and figure out how to provide xp totals for gameplay that would result in their current rate o' leveling. 

 

why? why make a system more complex? why make more difficult and time consuming when end result for player will be the same?

 

elegance and simplicity is not necessary in an xp mechanic.  nevertheless, particular given the limited resources available to the developers at this time, and recognizing that this same issue was beat to death two years ago, why on earth would you subvert simplicity and elegance for combat xp? 'cause folks want their pie... now?  you get no argument that combat xp can work in a crpg, but given the stated goals of the developers, and the limited development time remaining, we will once again observe that if combat xp were to be implemented in PoE, the time to do so woulda' been two years ago.

 

nietzsche would weep. this poor horse has been beaten past recognition.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

I know the argument, Immortal. I just disagree. The fact is, if you have laborious and unentertaining combat, you have bigger worries than the reward method for it. If combat is entertaining in and of itself, then folks will enjoy it and that *is* a reward.

 

EDIR; Sorry. Posting from my phone and it's a pain.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Cantousent

[Matt516]

Just wanted to point out that we do agree that the devs should follow their vision and stick to their guns on this, Gromnir. Wasn't able to tell from your post if you thought I was in the Pro Combat XP camp - somewhat sounded like it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I know the argument, Immortal. I just disagree. The fact is, if you have laborious and unentertaining combat, you have bigger worries than the reward method for it. If combat is entertaining in and of itself, then folks will enjoy it and that *is* a reward.

 

EDIR; Sorry. Posting from my phone and it's a pain.

I now how it is on a phone man, I'm convinced auto-correct is an evil force out to destroy mankind.

 

I agree with you. If you are not enjoying combat, getting a pat on the back every time you kill isn't going to make it better. I can't wrap my head around playing something you don't enjoy just to get an in-game reward, because I play video games to have fun. *shrugs*

 

As it is, Objective XP is the best system for Obsidian's stated goals for PoE. The arguments have been had, the points have been made, and the Dark Lord of Balance has decided that Objective XP is the way PoE will go.

[DCParry]

 

 

 

I tend to agree. But they did claim they were making a spiritual successor to BG2. 

 

 

THEY

NEVER

CLAIMED

THIS.

 

Christ, it is like I am stuck in a freaking loop of insanity seeing the same exact posts, repeated over and over again, all having no basis in any sort of reality. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

I tend to agree. But they did claim they were making a spiritual successor to BG2.

THEY

NEVER

CLAIMED

THIS.

 

Christ, it is like I am stuck in a freaking loop of insanity seeing the same exact posts, repeated over and over again, all having no basis in any sort of reality.

Even if they did, spiritual successor is pretty subjective. As these forums seem to suggest, BG2 and the other IE games were different things to different people.

 

As it is, Obsidian promised and isometric RPG with RTwP combat and a party. From what I can tell, that describes PoE.

[Hellraiser789]

 

 

 

I tend to agree. But they did claim they were making a spiritual successor to BG2. 

 

 

THEY

NEVER

CLAIMED

THIS.

 

Christ, it is like I am stuck in a freaking loop of insanity seeing the same exact posts, repeated over and over again, all having no basis in any sort of reality. 

 

 

Honestly, I agree. Thought I elaborated there, but I guess not. Must have been a different post. I want a game LIKE BG2 & the IE games. It doesnt mean that it needs to be the same, and it doesnt mean they need to implement combat xp or anything like that. I WANT them to do their own thing. What I was referring to was that it will take a LOT of work to implement truely Objective XP, and that it should be expected that making a game that lives up to the IE games will take a lot of work. I think theyve done a great job with the game, and I will probably get the game no matter what, so I have faith in the devs. Just voicing my opinion.

 

And maybe they didnt SPECIFICALLY IN THOSE EXACT WORDS say that it would be a spiritual successor, but thats what they implied. These are their exact words, right off the website:

 

"Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment."

 

THIS is whats on the wikipedia page:

 

"Pillars of Eternity will feature a party-based real-time-with-pause tactical gameplay, fixed isometric user interface for the game-world with two-dimensional pre-rendered backdrops,[1][6] in a similar vein as its spiritual ancestors Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale series and Planescape: Torment (all based on BioWare'sInfinity Engine)."

 

So basically, regardless of EXACTLY what they said or meant, they IMPLIED and it was interpreted as a spiritual successor to the IE games. As I was going through the forums, it bugged me a bit too, and I think we need to have some faith in the Devs, but I was pointing out that people DO have certain expectations (justified or not) and that the devs need to be aware of it and take it into consideration (which im sure they are & do). Does that mean everything must be the way BG IWD or PST did it? No, but that doesnt remove the expectations for an amazing game that exist (which I am sure it will be)

Edited September 24, 2014 by Hellraiser789

[curryinahurry]

 

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.

 

 

Regarding combat as being fun, there are a couple of things worth pointing out with regards to the BB and combat being not very fun at the moment (for some) beyond the whole, "combat is a buggy mess". These are that the character & party in the Beta are significantly underpowered due to lack of magical equipment and crafting, and that there is no implemented AI, so every fight turns into a scrum.  Personally I have been enjoying combat in the Beta (and not finding nearly as difficult as many seem to be complaining), even with all the obvious flaws.  I hope that talents flesh out classes a bit more, but the kernel of a good system is there...and much better than the IE games.

 

Also, just to be clear about my position on the whole XP thing; I am 100% against Kill/Combat XP, but I am in favor of augmenting the quest system to reward exploration...that was really the point behind my post.  Currently the game has a pretty clear design logic about rewarding XP; if that logic can be extended into rewarding greater exploration and increasing player agency (like in your creature research example), I'm all for it.  What I don't want is a series of ad hoc tack-ons like lockpicking and the current bestiary xp solution.  

 

One thing I am surprised hasn't made it into the game is the kind of robust rumour/ jobs system associated with taverns from Darklands. Considering Josh Sawyer is such a fan of that game,  I thought we might have something like that as a way to uncover quests and encourage exploration.  The whole Spider Queen encounter could easily have been handled with such a rumour system.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

I tend to agree. But they did claim they were making a spiritual successor to BG2. 

 

 

THEY

NEVER

CLAIMED

THIS.

 

Christ, it is like I am stuck in a freaking loop of insanity seeing the same exact posts, repeated over and over again, all having no basis in any sort of reality. 

 

 

 

So basically, regardless of EXACTLY what they said or meant, they IMPLIED and it was interpreted as a spiritual successor to the IE games. 

 

the best you can say is that the author of the wiki page INFERRED something based on a an article Not written by anybody at obsidian.

 

and again, "spiritual successor" is ambiguous. we find it most amusing that obsidian is getting bludgeoned with something so vague. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 24, 2014 by Gromnir

[forgottenlor]

I just wanted to give my support for the bestiary idea and I hope you give it a try in next patch. It is a new system, and it needs to be tested. There is going to be opposition on the grounds that its not the tried and true combat xp, which people are used to. Some players don't want new systems, or are at least going to be opposed to a new system until they have to try it out and get used to it. I have high hopes though that this new system makes combat more rewarding under normal circumstances and that I think is what the goal should be. I also think its an interesting new mechanic, and would like to see how it works in practice.

I also support mechanics xp, and here is my thinking. If lore is useful at filling out the bestiary, if mechanics is useful at gaining traps and locks xp, and if stealth is useful to avoid less rewarding combats, it makes the use of a lot of skills seem important and enjoyable. The other skills need to be balanced with this in mind, and that makes the whole non combat aspect of the game for enjoyable.

[Hellraiser789]

the best you can say is that the author of the wiki page INFERRED something based on a an article Not written by anybody at obsidian.

 

and again, "spiritual successor" is ambiguous. we find it most amusing that obsidian is getting bludgeoned with something so vague. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

O I agree, it is a VERY vague term. And wikipedia isnt known for being super reliable about everything. My point was that, regardless of what the devs originally intended, their words were taken to mean spiritual successor by many (not everyone). For instance, I didnt find out about PE for a long time, but when i did and looked it up, there were people shouting left and right about how its the spiritual successor to BG and when wikipedia and other sources say that too, it kinda reinforces it. I dont think obsidian deserves half the bashing they get for it, but that doesnt mean they should ignore the expectation either (not saying they do, just pointing it out). Of course, as many have said spiritual successor is very vague and interpreted to mean many different things by many different people, and its impossible to try and please everyone. Im mostly happy with where things are going, so this kind of thing definitely isnt an end of the world for me.

 

in regards to curryinahurry. Im glad to hear that some people overall enjoy combat, and I agree that right now it may seem harder than it actually will be due to the reasons you gave. Personally havent played the beta, as I was unable to back, but I was simply going off of things I read and assumptions from the forums and videos Ive seen. Perhaps I was misplaced in thinking so, and spoke too harshly. Ive not seen a whole lot of people saying they enjoyed the combat, but then again, usually if people like something they dont feel the need to post or talk about it. So good to hear thats its not hopelessly bad or unplayable

Edited September 24, 2014 by Hellraiser789

[curryinahurry]

^ TBH, I think most of the people who hate the combat (and are being very vocal about it) are the ones who played the IE games a bajillion times and were expecting to step right into the same type of combat, or have understood that this wasn't going to be a clone of the IE games and have been bitterly disappointed since before the beta was released and now have the right moment to air their complaints. 

 

Combat in this game is going to be tough and fairly tactical all the way through.  There are a lot of options and a new stamina/health system, and both of those take some time to get through.  I tend to be a very cautious player, and between that and knowing a good deal about the mechanics going into the beta, I haven't found any of the  combats (that weren't bugged) to be overwhelmingly difficult.  That said, some of the combat is a bit tedious because of poor balancing/ underpowered equipment, and the whole Damage Threshold mechanic needs a seroious overhaul/ revision.  But the core mechanic are logical and allow for some potentially very interesting game play once the AI and polish has been taken up a few notches.

[Hellraiser789]

^ TBH, I think most of the people who hate the combat (and are being very vocal about it) are the ones who played the IE games a bajillion times and were expecting to step right into the same type of combat, or have understood that this wasn't going to be a clone of the IE games and have been bitterly disappointed since before the beta was released and now have the right moment to air their complaints. 

 

Combat in this game is going to be tough and fairly tactical all the way through.  There are a lot of options and a new stamina/health system, and both of those take some time to get through.  I tend to be a very cautious player, and between that and knowing a good deal about the mechanics going into the beta, I haven't found any of the  combats (that weren't bugged) to be overwhelmingly difficult.  That said, some of the combat is a bit tedious because of poor balancing/ underpowered equipment, and the whole Damage Threshold mechanic needs a seroious overhaul/ revision.  But the core mechanic are logical and allow for some potentially very interesting game play once the AI and polish has been taken up a few notches.

 

Well thats good to know. You just made my day! Doesnt mean the system doesnt need work, but I am much happier if its simply a vocal minority. Well, I have faith that Obsidian will get it right, regardless of the system they implement. Cant wait for it to get released lol

 

PS: While I understand just about everything you see on forums should be taken with a grain of salt, its still good to hear positive feedback from testers as well because sometimes the forums tend to get brought down by negativity.. Not necessarily a problem here specifically, just something Ive noticed from a lot of sites (something obvious, I know, but still helps to remind people).

Edited September 24, 2014 by Hellraiser789

[Gromnir]

this would be an opportune time to go on a wiki rant, but we won't do it. regardless, we will note that a quote from a wiki source means nothing. is not wiki quoting obsidian or even wiki quoting an interview. you lifted a wiki quote that were referencing PoE and cited an article by some guy named matt peckham. mr. peckham, btw, never said "spiritual" anything in his article. random and nameless wiki guy is your source. and? sadly, because so many *insert term of vile condescension here* read wiki and believe it counts as a primary source, the vile effluvium that builds and festers at wiki entries tends to spread... like an infection. we would not be surprised if your wretched wiki quote were the actual source of this horrible "spiritual successor" nonsense of which we are now constantly being reminded.

 

and once again, the term is vague to the point o' meaninglessness.  those qualities we liked in the ie games is gonna be the ones we would want replicated in a *sigh* spiritual successor. the same can be said o' you and any other fan o' the ie games. those features we disliked in the ie games would not be integral to any attempt to make a game that is an homage to the ie games with 2014 tech. Gromnir prefers turn-based and would have been quite happy to see it used in PoE. nevertheless, one o' the few specific features mentioned by obsidian in the kickstarter were that PoE would have rtwp. rtwp were not integral for Gromnir. am betting there is a dozen things we woulda' wanted in a PoE game that you and others would hate in PoE. heck, the obsidan folks mentioned that PoE would have bg style exploration, whatever the hell that really means. Gromnir were on the BG2 development boards when bg exploration were discussed and such exploration were near universal cursed by the fan base. the Co6 boards hated bg wilderness maps and wanted more level design similar to durlag's tower. your ie spiritual successor is gonna be different than many other folks' notion... and that is a good thing. nevertheless, the term is meaningless.

 

btw, "homage" is actual a term used on the kickstarter page.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hellraiser789]

this would be an opportune time to go on a wiki rant, but we won't do it. regardless, we will note that a quote from a wiki source means nothing. is not wiki quoting obsidian or even wiki quoting an interview. you lifted a wiki quote that were referencing PoE and cited an article by some guy named matt peckham. mr. peckham, btw, never said "spiritual" anything in his article. random and nameless wiki guy is your source. and? sadly, because so many *insert term of vile condescension here* read wiki and believe it counts as a primary source, the vile effluvium that builds and festers at wiki entries tends to spread... like an infection. we would not be surprised if your wretched wiki quote were the actual source of this horrible "spiritual successor" nonsense of which we are now constantly being reminded.

 

and once again, the term is vague to the point o' meaninglessness.  those qualities we liked in the ie games is gonna be the ones we would want replicated in a *sigh* spiritual successor. the same can be said o' you and any other fan o' the ie games. those features we disliked in the ie games would not be integral to any attempt to make a game that is an homage to the ie games with 2014 tech. Gromnir prefers turn-based and would have been quite happy to see it used in PoE. nevertheless, one o' the few specific features mentioned by obsidian in the kickstarter were that PoE would have rtwp. rtwp were not integral for Gromnir. am betting there is a dozen things we woulda' wanted in a PoE game that you and others would hate in PoE. heck, the obsidan folks mentioned that PoE would have bg style exploration, whatever the hell that really means. Gromnir were on the BG2 development boards when bg exploration were discussed and such exploration were near universal cursed by the fan base. the Co6 boards hated bg wilderness maps and wanted more level design similar to durlag's tower. your ie spiritual successor is gonna be different than many other folks' notion... and that is a good thing. nevertheless, the term is meaningless.

 

btw, "homage" is actual a term used on the kickstarter page.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well, I also noted that wikipedia isnt a super-reliable source. Literally in the second sentence on my reply to your last comment. So wiki was wrong, no surprise there. My point wasnt that wiki is reliable or even that PoEt is SUPPOSED to be a spiritual successor. My point was that the flow of information and what people are SAYING is that it is, regardless of the accuracy of the statement. Not necessarily anything that can be done about that, just pointing it out.

 

Also, my original comment wasnt demanding that it be a spiritual successor even. Just that if they are trying to capture the feel of the IE games, it will require a LOT of work (IMO, yours may vary).

 

I agree homage is probably a better term, but I DID quote from eternity/obsidian page so....  (perhaps homage is on there; regardless the quote I used it what I personally took away from the kickstarter site, you may have taken away something else entirely)

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Obsidian should release a statement saying PoE is NOT a spiritual successor to the IE games. That would put it to rest.

[Matt516]

I mean... it really make no difference whatsoever to any of the various arguments about mechanics. Spiritual Successor or no, OE really doesn't need to include any particular features of the IE games except for the ones they specifically mentioned in the Kickstarter.

[Cantousent]

I wouldn't take it personally, Hellraiser.  We beat Grom with a stick, feed him raw meat, and then turn him loose on folks all the time.  That's when he's not going after one of us, and there are bruises to prove it.  :Cant's wry grin icon:  The thing is, on any other particular issue, you might be on the same side with someone who's a bitter enemy in this thread.  No biggie.

 

I myself *do* think that PoE is intended as a spiritual successor to the IE games, but like Matt up above says, the aspects they want to enshrine with PoE are specifically stated.  When folks use the 'spiritual successor' argument to clamor for a particular feature, it can probably be off-putting to some folks.  Now, I've always given wide birth to the IE successor argument because I think it's one of the better ones for combat XP.  Note, I don't want combat XP.  I hate it and have since waaaaay the hell before PoE was anyone's idea.  ...But it's important to me personally to own up when I see positions I personally believe have merit.  I don't think the fact that PoE aspires to recapture some of the IE experience (as something we experience as gamers playing the game) means that it must by necessity have combat XP, but it is a point of deliberation.  It is only one point and as a single point it does have its limits.  The way each IE game doles out experience is different at least to some degree, up to and including no combat XP for large stretches of IWD2 in the times I played it.  That's not a flaw in the crpg.  That's the way WotC decided to structure XP in 3.x.

 

Frankly, there's nothing much new in the voluminous course of this debate.  There are clever ways of stating the same arguments, but it pretty much boils down to whether you like or don't like the decision and, if you don't like it, whether or not you will let it destroy all your good will.  Some folks are probably over eager to defend Obsidz.  I'm probably one of them.  On the other hand, as someone mentioned up above (I beg pardon I can't remember who) there are folks who had set their hearts against PoE because of some earlier slight and will jump at the opportunity to attack the game now that there's a beta.  There will be even more who come out of the woodwork upon release.  I'd like to think the vast majority of the people here aren't simply haters, though.  Maybe they hate some aspect or another, but they still want the game to be fun and do well.  Just the view from my rose colored glasses.

 

EDIT:  Went to look and Curry made the reference I cited above.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Cantousent

[frapillo80]

Again, the problem is no strictly the lack of combat xp: it's that, whitin a RPG's balance between risk and reward, fighting current trash mobs is the high risk, no reward choice, while stealthing is the no brainer choice because it's the no risk one. And this in a game that has one skill governing stealth and dozens of talents/abilities/mechanics geared towards combat.

 

I hear that combat is a mess because of poor gear: this is very worrying, because if it's gear dependant it means that it's not a good system. In BG2 a high level warrior was still effective with a plain sword, which was useful against Protection from Magical Weapons, and it made the modded excape from Spellhold with Bodhi removing your high-level gear, thus forcing you to fight with whatever you found, a great experience. There's Diablo out there for gear dependant combat: I'm not sure I'd like anything even remotely close to that in PoE (just to clarify: I had truckloads of fun with Diablo 2 at the time, eh).

 

Finally, I do want Obs to stick to their vision. I doubt though that answering the backers with lawyer-like nitpicking like "we never used the exact words 'spiritual successor'" and so on is a wise move if you ever want to do a Kickstarter again, and I am sure they are well aware of it. So I don't think justifying them with this specific argument is doing them any favours.

Edited September 24, 2014 by frapillo80

[Namutree]

So, the people at Eurogamer don't mind laborious combat... as long as they get XP goodies?  If the problem is combat, it's combat.  From a design standpoint, giving XP won't make people happy with the combat.  I sure as hell hope that Obsidz sticks to their guns on this.

Boring combat can be made MUCH more bearable with xp. Do not underestimate how happy some people get when they receive xp. Not to mention the fact that right now the game is horribly imbalanced in favor of stealth. 

Edited September 24, 2014 by Namutree

[curryinahurry]

@ frapillo80

 

If you're referring to my post, I nowhere stated that 'combat was a mess because of poor gear'.  I posited that people might find combat frustrating because, aside from buggines and balance issues, our lack of magical equipment leaves us relatively underpowered leaving less room for error.  I made it from the beetles all the way through the Ogre Cave and Spider Queen on normal without resting...it requires a bit of patience and planning but its not nearly the nightmare I've read other people posting about on these forums. 

 

Also, A high level warrior without magic items in BG2 would have and AC of what, -1, -2?  How long would the fighter last without rings, cloaks, majic armor, potions. etc.  Those items are all gear...not just swords.  Actually, in 2e, without gear, a stock fighter was pretty much useless at high levels without magic items in a high magic setting like the Forgotten realms.

[frapillo80]

And one more thing I always forget to mention: stealthing past five prides of lions takes 10 seconds, fighting them can take 10 minutes, and all that to end up in a worse situation (less health, consumables, camping gear, more fatigue, more time wasted trekking to the inn, etc).

Something has to change.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

And one more thing I always forget to mention: stealthing past five prides of lions takes 10 seconds, fighting them can take 10 minutes, and all that to end up in a worse situation (less health, consumables, camping gear, more fatigue, more time wasted trekking to the inn, etc).

Something has to change.

There's a word that starts with a "b" and ends with "eta" that explains this.

[frapillo80]

@ frapillo80

,

If you're referring to my post, I nowhere stated that 'combat was a mess because of poor gear'. I posited that people might find combat frustrating because, aside from buggines and balance issues, our lack of magical equipment leaves us relatively underpowered leaving less room for error. I made it from the beetles all the way through the Ogre Cave and Spider Queen on normal without resting...it requires a bit of patience and planning but its not nearly the nightmare I've read other people posting about on these forums.

 

Also, A high level warrior without magic items in BG2 would have and AC of what, -1, -2? How long would the fighter last without rings, cloaks, majic armor, potions. etc. Those items are all gear...not just swords. Actually, in 2e, without gear, a stock fighter was pretty much useless at high levels without magic items in a high magic setting like the Forgotten realms.

No, I wasn't referring to your post, I read somewhere that apparently an internal tester or such said that the combat is dull because of poor gear. I'll try to dig it up, hoping I haven't misunderstood.

P.S. I went several times through modded Spellhold at max difficulty with fighters wearing no magic trinkets, standard studded leather/chain/splint mail or in some cases nothing (for a while, at least), and a plain spear or halberd in hand, and they are still effective. More importantly, combat is still as fun as before, which is why I'm worried about PoE's combat supposedly being dull because of low gear.

Edited September 24, 2014 by frapillo80