Jump to content

Discussion: the PoE beta xp system


Recommended Posts

 

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.

Problem is, it requires the kind of changes that go much deeper than just giving the Paladin 5 more or less points of base deflection. Which would be fine if it was a word that starts with a "a" and ends with a "lpha", but as you said, it starts with a "b" and ends with a "eta", which I thonk is what is getting some people worried (myself included).

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ frapillo80

 

Its not.  There are some issues with Damage Thresholds and Deflection values that seem to be buggy...but  the core mechanics are pretty fun.  But these things really depend on how close to the IE games (particularly IWD and the BG's) you want the combat to feel like.  It's more complicated combat and magic is less powerful (at least in the beta) so fun seems to be from the player's POV and expectations

 

BTW playing through BG2, for even the second time, makes the game significantly easier.  Also the reference to one situation or location isn't an argument for the class being effective without magic gear.  Try fighting a Dragon or a summoned Balor or walking into Bodhi's Nest.  These are all situational, as is your example, but taking the game as a whole, Fighters are pretty feeble without magic gear in BG2

 

With regards to your stealth post: If you would rather sneak by the pride of lions than fight them, that is pretty much on you.  If you've set up your party to be stealth capable, and the system allows you to stealth past the lions, it seems to me that is exactly the point behind the XP reward strategy...reward the outcome of the quest regardless of methods used to solve it.  I'm not really clear on what your frustration is in this regard

Edited by curryinahurry
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about powergaming, I'm talking about fun. Point is, combat in Spellhold (halfway through the game if you did most of chapter 2 quests) without magic gear is still fun. But then I hear that PoE's combat is dull ALREADY in Dryford village because of low gear, with Fine and Exceptional gear all around, and party being level 5-8? * shudders*

I really hope it's just a DT problem (which I personally like as a mechanic).

Link to post
Share on other sites
THEY

NEVER

CLAIMED

THIS.

yes

they

did.

 

Maybe not using the exact phrase "spiritual successor", but they did communicate that idea in many ways.

  • In their kickstarter pitch, which plainly and purposefully targeted IE nostalgia.

     

  • In interviews with gaming sites during and after the kickstarter - there was probably not a single one that failed to mention the IE games.

     

  • By not objecting to interviews/articles on popular gaming sites where the authors actually did use the phrase "spiritual successor" in the introduction/headline/commentary. (At least where I live, it's customary for a journalist to send the interviewee a draft of the edited interview article before release, to get confirmation that the way it was edited/cut/presented still represents their views correctly. And even if they didn't get that chance, they could have complained after the articles were released.)

     

  • In presentations at gaming conventions, where they started the presentation with huge slides showing the IE games.

     

  • In their two-sentence pitch on the game's official website, where they boil down the essence of what they are selling to this:

    "Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we! Introducing Obsidian's PILLARS OF ETERNITY."

Seriously, the effort by some posters here to shout down arguments that involve comparisons to the IE games, and trying to convince us that the whole IE connection is just in our heads and our own fault, is starting to approach the abusive tactic of gaslighting.

Edited by Ineth
  • Like 4

"Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them." -- attributed to George Orwell

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ frapillo80

 

Its not. There are some issues with Damage Thresholds and Deflection values that seem to be buggy...but the core mechanics are pretty fun. But these things really depend on how close to the IE games (particularly IWD and the BG's) you want the combat to feel like. It's more complicated combat and magic is less powerful (at least in the beta) so fun seems to be from the player's POV and expectations

 

BTW playing through BG2, for even the second time, makes the game significantly easier. Also the reference to one situation or location isn't an argument for the class being effective without magic gear. Try fighting a Dragon or a summoned Balor or walking into Bodhi's Nest. These are all situational, as is your example, but taking the game as a whole, Fighters are pretty feeble without magic gear in BG2

 

With regards to your stealth post: If you would rather sneak by the pride of lions than fight them, that is pretty much on you. If you've set up your party to be stealth capable, and the system allows you to stealth past the lions, it seems to me that is exactly the point behind the XP reward strategy...reward the outcome of the quest regardless of methods used to solve it. I'm not really clear on what your frustration is in this regard

I said it enough times: combat against 0 xp mobs is a high risk, high loss, no reward choice, while stealthing is the no risk choice. So where would the "reward the outcome of the quest regardless of the methods used to solve it" you claim be when you fight a 0 xp trash mob? A lion pelt worth 1/10/20/30 the losses you face in terms of consumables, camping gear, inn, not to mention the waste of time and the risk of losing a companion? That's the problem, 0 xp trash mobs are not part of quests and they only offer losses/disadvantages if fought and, on top of that, they become incredibly more time-consuming than if you stealth past them. That's why I always use the term "0 xp trash mobs" or "non-quest fights": but then you reply about the "outcome of the quest" and I am left speechless.

 

To sum it up: currently, fighting against non-quest mobs is the stupid-a** choice, stealthing is the no-brainer choice. Which means there is no real choice. Finally, stealth and combat get improved from two separate resource pools, so there is even less of a meaningful choice, or a sort of trade-off at least. An epic no-brainer.

Edited by frapillo80
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you might do it because its fun...that tends to be my reasoning.

 

They might introduce other incentives in the final game that are not Xp related, like crafting for pelts, beetle shells, what have you.  But finally, the game is allowing you to make the choice of whether to fight against non-quest mobs; to handle these encounters as you think is best.  For you that means avoiding these encounters so that you can horde supplies or otherwise play more 'optimally' for your playstyle.   For me...I just kill any critters that are in my way.  If they are not in my way (like the Wurms), I don't go out of my way unless there might some chance of monetary gain.  Different playstyles...that is what the whole XP system is about...still not seeing a problem.  

 

Using these boards as any indication of how the gaming community or even the majority of Backers will receive the XP system is a bad idea.  There are, between Kickstarter, Paypal, and Slacker Backers, likely over 100,000 people who have already forked over money.  Most of the complaining we have heard on these boards is from about 20 or 30 individuals.  Hardly an overwhelming number.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you might do it because its fun...that tends to be my reasoning.

 

 

First, combat against trash mobs doesn't appear to be fun enough, not by a long shot.

But most importantly, the current setting really messes up the risk-reward balance, which is crucial in a RPG.

 

So let's say we make combat get all the xp, and quests grant you no xp, no significant loot, no reward and on top of that cost you health and resources and dead companions when you do them: but, a-ha, you do them because they are fun by themselves. Are you sure you would not get any kind of frustration from questing? And remember, at least quests reward you with story developments, 0 xp trash mobs don't even have that. They currently are just shamelessly pointless content padding, and a royal annoyance if you don't have stealth.

Edited by frapillo80
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ 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.

Poe should be compared to BG1; not BG2. We aren't high level in the beta; we're level 5.

 

Take a level 4 party in BG1 with basic gear and them fight Worgs/Hobgoblins/Half-Ogres. You'll see that the fighter is a beast. Wielding a two handed sword the Fighter cuts through trash mobs like butter. The Fighter usually won't even need allies against trash mobs. One hit; *BOOM!* The enemy could very likely blow up; at the very least the enemy will almost certainly die. 

 

It made fights with trash mobs mercifully short, and sometimes even fun. Xp also helped make them feel like they weren't a waste of time. 

Edited by Namutree
  • Like 2

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...you seem to not be getting my point.  All of these claims you make are conditional to you...not to me or potentially the 100,000+ other backers of this game.  You talk about risk-reward like its separate from questing and that it's some type of absolute value...its not.  Encounters are an obstacle to overcome on the way to completing a quest.  How you choose to deal with the obstacles is up to you.  If you think that the risk of combat trumps the reward of loot you might get...then that is your analysis of the situation.  I may have a very different analysis since I figure that camping supplies are easily found/purchased, I know how to manage combat efficiently, consider combat enjoyable, and I would rather engage in the combat than sneak around the encounter because my party might be poorly optimized in that respect.   

 

And with regards to your second point...if all XP was combat related...well you would simply have a different style of game, one that rewarded combat.  The results would be much more sand-boxy with quests as a fun thing to do for anybody who wanted to take them on.  Its likely that a lot less effort would be put into quests in such a game.  that is how design works.  The system works just fine the way it is...it just seems to irk you because it doesn't prioritize one type of game play.   I'm not going to continue this argument.  I understand your position, but I think you're looking for a reason to play the game a certain way that just isn't there...its your choice and your analysis.  the game will reward however you choose, if you are fairly smart about how you go about making your choice...that is good design

 

@ namutree  poor encounter design isn't really an argument.  Believe me...I only play fighters, I know exactly what they can and can't do in all of the IE games.  And, this game is closer to IWD in terms of levels and difficulty.  And by the time you reach Spellhold...you absolutely need magical gear.  

 

We have seen some fairly tough battles in the beta...but that has more to with the developers beefing up certain encounters/critters as they stated they wanted us to try to use our full complement of resources ).  It isn't necessarily a fair indication of the final game.

Edited by curryinahurry
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feel that fighting against some enemy is stupider choice than sneaking past them, then you should in my opinion sneak past them instead of demanding reason to fight that enemy.

 

Combat feels to fun for me, but it is also frustrating because it don't work as intended, which makes most effective tactical to be unintuitive ones that depends heavily on cheesing. 

 

Right gear makes combat feel better because it rises your party's power level rises meaning that you can use more fun tactics without getting punished too much compared to cheesy tactics, this of course don't mean that higher level gear fixes issues that combat currently has.

 

But if some mechanic or part of the game is frustrating and boring, then it lazy design decision to try fix it by giving player better rewards for doing it, as those mechanics should be such that they compel player to use them instead of needing to bribe player to use them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poe should be compared to BG1; not BG2. We aren't high level in the beta; we're level 5.

 

Take a level 4 party in BG1 with basic gear and them fight Worgs/Hobgoblins/Half-Ogres. You'll see that the fighter is a beast. Wielding a two handed sword the Fighter cuts through trash mobs like butter. The Fighter usually won't even need allies against trash mobs. One hit; *BOOM!* The enemy could very likely blow up; at the very least the enemy will almost certainly die.

 

It made fights with trash mobs mercifully short, and sometimes even fun. Xp also helped make them feel like they weren't a waste of time.

Good point on BG1; and I still believe that the comparison holds, up to a point, even with BG2, with some caveat.

Which makes things even more worrying, if it truly turns out to be a fact that a level 5-8 party in PoE is more dependent on gear-level than a level 11-13 party in BG2 for combat not to become dull and tedious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...you seem to not be getting my point. All of these claims you make are conditional to you...not to me or potentially the 100,000+ other backers of this game. You talk about risk-reward like its separate from questing and that it's some type of absolute value...its not. Encounters are an obstacle to overcome on the way to completing a quest. How you choose to deal with the obstacles is up to you. If you think that the risk of combat trumps the reward of loot you might get...then that is your analysis of the situation. I may have a very different analysis since I figure that camping supplies are easily found/purchased, I know how to manage combat efficiently, consider combat enjoyable, and I would rather engage in the combat than sneak around the encounter because my party might be poorly optimized in that respect.

 

And with regards to your second point...if all XP was combat related...well you would simply have a different style of game, one that rewarded combat. The results would be much more sand-boxy with quests as a fun thing to do for anybody who wanted to take them on. Its likely that a lot less effort would be put into quests in such a game. that is how design works. The system works just fine the way it is...it just seems to irk you because it doesn't prioritize one type of game play. I'm not going to continue this argument. I understand your position, but I think you're looking for a reason to play the game a certain way that just isn't there...its your choice and your analysis. the game will reward however you choose, if you are fairly smart about how you go about making your choice...that is good design

 

@ namutree poor encounter design isn't really an argument. Believe me...I only play fighters, I know exactly what they can and can't do in all of the IE games. And, this game is closer to IWD in terms of levels and difficulty. And by the time you reach Spellhold...you absolutely need magical gear.

 

We have seen some fairly tough battles in the beta...but that has more to with the developers beefing up ceratin encounters/critters as they stated they wanted us to try to use our full complement of resources. It isn't a fair indication of the final game.

So what quest are most lion prides and feral druids being an obstacle to? I'm fed up with repeating myself, but if you don't even go and read the thread you are replying to, I have no other choice.

So: what part of "combat penalizes you for fighting 0 xp non-quest trash mobs, stealth doesn't" and "stealth and combat draw from different pools of resources, so it's a non-choice" is not clear enough?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feel that fighting against some enemy is stupider choice than sneaking past them, then you should in my opinion sneak past them instead of demanding reason to fight that enemy.

 

 

Which is the epitome of bad design, giving the player a choice where only one option is viable and the others are plain stupid. Especially in a game that prides itself on not being the usual xp/loot farming, kill everything, exploit the hell out of the system kind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@ 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.

Poe should be compared to BG1; not BG2. We aren't high level in the beta; we're level 5.

 

Take a level 4 party in BG1 with basic gear and them fight Worgs/Hobgoblins/Half-Ogres. You'll see that the fighter is a beast. Wielding a two handed sword the Fighter cuts through trash mobs like butter. The Fighter usually won't even need allies against trash mobs. One hit; *BOOM!* The enemy could very likely blow up; at the very least the enemy will almost certainly die. 

 

It made fights with trash mobs mercifully short, and sometimes even fun. Xp also helped make them feel like they weren't a waste of time. 

 

 

My party's have already quite lot magical gear in level four and five in BG. And I would point out that PoE's fighter does handle easily enemies such wolves and drakes, that are similar lower level mobs as worgs/hobgoblins/half-ogres are in BG. Beetles also are quite easy to handle, although wood beetles with their current poison attack that does too much damage can kill anybody quite easily.

 

I would also point that only game which combat PoE should really be compared is IWD, as that is the game which combat Obsidian said they will use as inspiration for PoE.  I would also point out that PoE's fighters role differs from role that D&D's fighter has and that class balance is changes so that fighters (and other melee characters) wouldn't dominate in low levels and then magic users on high levels, which means that classes in PoE play differently than their counterparts in D&D. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...you seem to not be getting my point. All of these claims you make are conditional to you...not to me or potentially the 100,000+ other backers of this game. You talk about risk-reward like its separate from questing and that it's some type of absolute value...its not. Encounters are an obstacle to overcome on the way to completing a quest. How you choose to deal with the obstacles is up to you. If you think that the risk of combat trumps the reward of loot you might get...then that is your analysis of the situation. I may have a very different analysis since I figure that camping supplies are easily found/purchased, I know how to manage combat efficiently, consider combat enjoyable, and I would rather engage in the combat than sneak around the encounter because my party might be poorly optimized in that respect.

 

And with regards to your second point...if all XP was combat related...well you would simply have a different style of game, one that rewarded combat. The results would be much more sand-boxy with quests as a fun thing to do for anybody who wanted to take them on. Its likely that a lot less effort would be put into quests in such a game. that is how design works. The system works just fine the way it is...it just seems to irk you because it doesn't prioritize one type of game play. I'm not going to continue this argument. I understand your position

 

It irks me because it DOES prioritize one type of game play, that is, stealthing past non-quest trash mobs.

And it's abundantly clear that you didn't understand a thing about my position, and at this point I have to apologize to the rest of this thread's readers for boring them to tears by repeating my position ad nauseam: as you all can see, if this is the result, you suffered for nothing.

I always try and stick to the "read first, answer after" myself, but I cannot force others to do the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

@ 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.

Poe should be compared to BG1; not BG2. We aren't high level in the beta; we're level 5.

 

Take a level 4 party in BG1 with basic gear and them fight Worgs/Hobgoblins/Half-Ogres. You'll see that the fighter is a beast. Wielding a two handed sword the Fighter cuts through trash mobs like butter. The Fighter usually won't even need allies against trash mobs. One hit; *BOOM!* The enemy could very likely blow up; at the very least the enemy will almost certainly die.

 

It made fights with trash mobs mercifully short, and sometimes even fun. Xp also helped make them feel like they weren't a waste of time.

My party's have already quite lot magical gear in level four and five in BG. And I would point out that PoE's fighter does handle easily enemies such wolves and drakes, that are similar lower level mobs as worgs/hobgoblins/half-ogres are in BG. Beetles also are quite easy to handle, although wood beetles with their current poison attack that does too much damage can kill anybody quite easily.

 

I would also point that only game which combat PoE should really be compared is IWD, as that is the game which combat Obsidian said they will use as inspiration for PoE. I would also point out that PoE's fighters role differs from role that D&D's fighter has and that class balance is changes so that fighters (and other melee characters) wouldn't dominate in low levels and then magic users on high levels, which means that classes in PoE play differently than their counterparts in D&D.

Again, apologies to the rest of the readers for repeating myself ad nauseam: I'm not talking about powergaming, I'm talking about combat not having to depend on gear level in order to still be fun and viable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

THEY

NEVER

CLAIMED

THIS.

yes

they

did.

 

Maybe not using the exact phrase "spiritual successor", but they did communicate that idea in many ways.

  • In their kickstarter pitch, which plainly and purposefully targeted IE nostalgia.
  • In interviews with gaming sites during and after the kickstarter - there was probably not a single one that failed to mention the IE games.
  • By not objecting to interviews/articles on popular gaming sites where the authors actually did use the phrase "spiritual successor" in the introduction/headline/commentary. (At least where I live, it's customary for a journalist to send the interviewee a draft of the edited interview article before release, to get confirmation that the way it was edited/cut/presented still represents their views correctly. And even if they didn't get that chance, they could have complained after the articles were released.)
  • In presentations at gaming conventions, where they started the presentation with huge slides showing the IE games.
  • In their two-sentence pitch on the game's official website, where they boil down the essence of what they are selling to this:

    "Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we! Introducing Obsidian's PILLARS OF ETERNITY."

Seriously, the effort by some posters here to shout down arguments that involve comparisons to the IE games, and trying to convince us that the whole IE connection is just in our heads and our own fault, is starting to approach the abusive tactic of gaslighting.

 

It also doesn't help when gaming websites report or do interviews with Obsidian and the interviewers and sites mention 'spiritual successor', and then Obsidian or any of the Obsidian dev's do nothing to correct them of the usage of that term. Which is why Obsidian should come out with a statement and say PoE is NOT a spiritual successor. For some reason, Obsidian are silent on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

THEY

NEVER

CLAIMED

THIS.

yes

they

did.

 

Maybe not using the exact phrase "spiritual successor", but they did communicate that idea in many ways.

  • In their kickstarter pitch, which plainly and purposefully targeted IE nostalgia.
  • In interviews with gaming sites during and after the kickstarter - there was probably not a single one that failed to mention the IE games.
  • By not objecting to interviews/articles on popular gaming sites where the authors actually did use the phrase "spiritual successor" in the introduction/headline/commentary. (At least where I live, it's customary for a journalist to send the interviewee a draft of the edited interview article before release, to get confirmation that the way it was edited/cut/presented still represents their views correctly. And even if they didn't get that chance, they could have complained after the articles were released.)
  • In presentations at gaming conventions, where they started the presentation with huge slides showing the IE games.
  • In their two-sentence pitch on the game's official website, where they boil down the essence of what they are selling to this:

    "Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we! Introducing Obsidian's PILLARS OF ETERNITY."

Seriously, the effort by some posters here to shout down arguments that involve comparisons to the IE games, and trying to convince us that the whole IE connection is just in our heads and our own fault, is starting to approach the abusive tactic of gaslighting.

It also doesn't help when gaming websites report or do interviews with Obsidian and the interviewers and sites mention 'spiritual successor', and then Obsidian or any of the Obsidian dev's do nothing to correct them of the usage of that term. Which is why Obsidian should come out with a statement and say PoE is NOT a spiritual successor. For some reason, Obsidian are silent on this.

I am afraid that if they did at this point, three months before the official release, their next Kickstarter would raise peanuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you feel that fighting against some enemy is stupider choice than sneaking past them, then you should in my opinion sneak past them instead of demanding reason to fight that enemy.

 

Which is the epitome of bad design, giving the player a choice where only one option is viable and the others are plain stupid. Especially in a game that prides itself on not being the usual xp/loot farming, kill everything, exploit the hell out of the system kind.

 

 

It depends, if you find that some encounters are better to avoid than fight, but other players instead found that it is better to engage in those encounters instead of avoiding them, then design does what it should do, which is to offer player ability to play how they want to play. 

 

Also it is not on general level bad design to put encounters in the game that are better to avoid than engage and similarly to putting encounters which avoidance would be poorer choice than engaging them.

 

If your reason to avoid combat is that it takes too long or is frustrating because of how it currently flows, I would point out that game is currently in beta and is under balancing meaning that current form will not be final form.

 

But if we take words and say that current way is bad design then making combat the optimal option by giving experience from it where stealth would go with little reward would only transfer places of this options and it would still be bad design.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

@ 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.

Poe should be compared to BG1; not BG2. We aren't high level in the beta; we're level 5.

 

Take a level 4 party in BG1 with basic gear and them fight Worgs/Hobgoblins/Half-Ogres. You'll see that the fighter is a beast. Wielding a two handed sword the Fighter cuts through trash mobs like butter. The Fighter usually won't even need allies against trash mobs. One hit; *BOOM!* The enemy could very likely blow up; at the very least the enemy will almost certainly die.

 

It made fights with trash mobs mercifully short, and sometimes even fun. Xp also helped make them feel like they weren't a waste of time.

 

My party's have already quite lot magical gear in level four and five in BG. And I would point out that PoE's fighter does handle easily enemies such wolves and drakes, that are similar lower level mobs as worgs/hobgoblins/half-ogres are in BG. Beetles also are quite easy to handle, although wood beetles with their current poison attack that does too much damage can kill anybody quite easily.

 

I would also point that only game which combat PoE should really be compared is IWD, as that is the game which combat Obsidian said they will use as inspiration for PoE. I would also point out that PoE's fighters role differs from role that D&D's fighter has and that class balance is changes so that fighters (and other melee characters) wouldn't dominate in low levels and then magic users on high levels, which means that classes in PoE play differently than their counterparts in D&D.

 

 

 

Again, apologies to the rest of the readers for repeating myself ad nauseam: I'm not talking about powergaming, I'm talking about combat not having to depend on gear level in order to still be fun and viable.

 

 

But it is fun and viable, but hopefully it will be more fun and viable in future when Obsidian gets it work as intended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

@ frapillo80

 

But it is fun and viable, but hopefully it will be more fun and viable in future when Obsidian gets it work as intended.

 

It's not bad within quests, but also because story/xp reward helps you go on. But just imagine all the cultist sequence not being part of a quest...

Trash mobs, I think they are dull-dull. And pointless. And penalyzing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you feel that fighting against some enemy is stupider choice than sneaking past them, then you should in my opinion sneak past them instead of demanding reason to fight that enemy.

 

Which is the epitome of bad design, giving the player a choice where only one option is viable and the others are plain stupid. Especially in a game that prides itself on not being the usual xp/loot farming, kill everything, exploit the hell out of the system kind.

 

 

It depends, if you find that some encounters are better to avoid than fight, but other players instead found that it is better to engage in those encounters instead of avoiding them, then design does what it should do, which is to offer player ability to play how they want to play. 

 

Also it is not on general level bad design to put encounters in the game that are better to avoid than engage and similarly to putting encounters which avoidance would be poorer choice than engaging them.

 

If your reason to avoid combat is that it takes too long or is frustrating because of how it currently flows, I would point out that game is currently in beta and is under balancing meaning that current form will not be final form.

 

But if we take words and say that current way is bad design then making combat the optimal option by giving experience from it where stealth would go with little reward would only transfer places of this options and it would still be bad design.

 

 

I agree that it should feel equal. And I mean giving players the ability to choose stealth and making it a viable option as a skill. I can understand that, as with combat xp, why would I ever want to stealth past enemies? I can just kill them and get the xp & loot too. If you look at mechanics - now your character has the option to disable traps and open locks with his skill, but it isnt REQUIRED. Lore should do some in-game stuff too (not sure if it does or not). I'm not sure what is best. I think I might just end up leaving this one to the devs and what they think will be the best design for their game. I like actual Objective XP, but thats a ton of work and super time consuming, so I understand they wouldnt be able to do that at this point in the development. I like the discussion, but I do see it kinda going in circles, so Im not sure how long ill stick around for this one. Ive kinda said everything I have to say on the matter. We'll see if I think of anything new to say later.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends, if you find that some encounters are better to avoid than fight, but other players instead found that it is better to engage in those encounters instead of avoiding them, then design does what it should do, which is to offer player ability to play how they want to play.

 

Also it is not on general level bad design to put encounters in the game that are better to avoid than engage and similarly to putting encounters which avoidance would be poorer choice than engaging them.

 

If your reason to avoid combat is that it takes too long or is frustrating because of how it currently flows, I would point out that game is currently in beta and is under balancing meaning that current form will not be final form.

 

But if we take words and say that current way is bad design then making combat the optimal option by giving experience from it where stealth would go with little reward would only transfer places of this options and it would still be bad design.

Argh. So who would ever find that fighting those lions and losing resources, health, fatigue and companions would be a good choice?

 

In that case, why bother with balancing at all? Let's stick to the few classes/builds/powers/gear that are viable, ignore all the rest that doesn't work, and be happy that the devs provided the options, even though they are not viable, or just plain stupid.

 

And for the last time, I am not saying xp combat is the solution. If you claim that I want combat to be the optimal choice, well, feel free to take your time, read the rest of the thread, get a faint idea of what you are replying to, and then reply.

The problem is, right now combat against non quest mobs (should I repeat it for the uptenth time? Non-quest mobs. That means, uh, mobs that are not tied to a quest in any way) is the suboptimal choice, and stealth is the no-brainer choice. You prefer stealth? You happy with stealth having a distinct advantage (or none of the penalties, which boils down to the same thing)? Fine. But don't call it balanced, or good design.

Edited by frapillo80
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is the epitome of bad design, giving the player a choice where only one option is viable and the others are plain stupid. Especially in a game that prides itself on not being the usual xp/loot farming, kill everything, exploit the hell out of the system kind.

Except that the choice of fight or not to fight may be contextual. Suppose you've built your party to be especially good at facing undead, but, conversely, not so good at facing spiders. That means that you'd want to fight the undead but avoid the spiders, no?

  • Like 1

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

@ frapillo80

 

But it is fun and viable, but hopefully it will be more fun and viable in future when Obsidian gets it work as intended.

 

It's not bad within quests, but also because story/xp reward helps you go on. But just imagine all the cultist sequence not being part of a quest...

Trash mobs, I think they are dull-dull. And pointless. And penalyzing.

 

It would be bad encounter design if cultist segment wasn't part of quest I agree, but it is so it should be judged as so.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...