Discussion: the PoE beta xp system

[frapillo80]

 

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?

That means that the undead is the lesser evil between fighting x instead of y, but stealth still remains the no-brainer choice, and still trumps both fighting x and fighting y.

 

Even if stealth doesn't work in 50% of the encounters, it still has a distinct advantage in 50% of the cases, and no penalty in the rest. And this is because by stealthing through trash mobs/quests you end up just as good in combat as those who fight through them, because stealth and combat are improved fom separate resource pools.

Edited September 24, 2014 by frapillo80

[Elerond]

 

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.

 

I fight those lions as you can just overrun them with certain tactics and it makes it faster and easier to move on the map as you don't need to try avoid them. Also you don't lose any resources permanently even if you fail with your tactics it only takes time same way as sneaking past them does.

 

Balancing is done to give players more options

 

You are arguing in topic which is for asking combat XP, instead of one of topics that speak about combat mechanics one just assumes that adding combat xp is at least part of your solution to problems that you have with backer beta.

 

I find stealth less optimal choice in backer beta than combat, because using stealth drops more overall time from me than combat.

 

I have also pointed previously (not necessary in this thread) that I think that there is too much encounters in bb's maps and they should be more compelling to engage. But I have also said (not in this thread) that backer beta is meant to test mechanics and it is maps made for prototype version of the game so its encounter design probably don't represent encounter design that rest of the game has and people probably should take these things in account when they judge it.

[frapillo80]

 

 

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.

I fight those lions as you can just overrun them with certain tactics and it makes it faster and easier to move on the map as you don't need to try avoid them. Also you don't lose any resources permanently even if you fail with your tactics it only takes time same way as sneaking past them does.

 

Balancing is done to give players more options

 

You are arguing in topic which is for asking combat XP, instead of one of topics that speak about combat mechanics one just assumes that adding combat xp is at least part of your solution to problems that you have with backer beta.

 

I find stealth less optimal choice in backer beta than combat, because using stealth drops more overall time from me than combat.

 

I have also pointed previously (not necessary in this thread) that I think that there is too much encounters in bb's maps and they should be more compelling to engage. But I have also said (not in this thread) that backer beta is meant to test mechanics and it is maps made for prototype version of the game so its encounter design probably don't represent encounter design that rest of the game has and people probably should take these things in account when they judge it.

If you can overrun those lions that simply means that kiting is still a problem (damn!) and/or engagement mechanics are poorly implemented. Try and overrun the beetles. And it means that stealthing and occasionally overrunning are no-brainers, while fighting remains a stupid choice.

 

Besides, "I only read the title of the post so I assumed..." is a poor excuse. Should I move to the mechanics thread, only to have someone like you say "I assumed you didn't have any truck with xp because I read the title and the title doesn't mention that", or "Hey! You just mentioned xp, you should move to the xp thread, it's a mechanics thread here."?

 

In any case, I am arguing in the thread that says "xp system", where you'll see (if you can bothered with reading at least some of it) that some people ask for combat xp, some other for no combat xp, some for xp for traps and locks, and some (like me) for better balancing of risks and rewards, no false choices and no pointless, time and resource consuming, annoying padding (which is not a thing for a combat mechanics thread, where you discuss actual combat dynamics like engagement, talents, weapons and so on).

Edited September 24, 2014 by frapillo80

[Elerond]

 

 

 

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.

 

I fight those lions as you can just overrun them with certain tactics and it makes it faster and easier to move on the map as you don't need to try avoid them. Also you don't lose any resources permanently even if you fail with your tactics it only takes time same way as sneaking past them does.

 

Balancing is done to give players more options

 

You are arguing in topic which is for asking combat XP, instead of one of topics that speak about combat mechanics one just assumes that adding combat xp is at least part of your solution to problems that you have with backer beta.

 

I find stealth less optimal choice in backer beta than combat, because using stealth drops more overall time from me than combat.

 

I have also pointed previously (not necessary in this thread) that I think that there is too much encounters in bb's maps and they should be more compelling to engage. But I have also said (not in this thread) that backer beta is meant to test mechanics and it is maps made for prototype version of the game so its encounter design probably don't represent encounter design that rest of the game has and people probably should take these things in account when they judge it.

 

If you can overrun those lions that simply means that kiting is still a problem (damn!) and/or engagement mechanics are poorly implemented. Try and overrun the beetles. And it means that stealthing and occasionally overrunning are no-brainers, while fighting remains a stupid choice.

 

Besides, "I only read the title of the post so I assumed..." is a poor excuse. Should I move to the mechanics thread, only to have someone like you say "I assumed you didn't have any truck with xp because I read the title and the title doesn't mention that", or "Hey! You just mentioned xp, you should move to the xp thread, it's a mechanics thread here."?

 

In any case, I am arguing in the thread that says "xp system", where you'll see (if you can bothered with reading at least some of it) that some people ask for combat xp, some other for no combat xp, some for xp for traps and locks, and some (like me) for better balancing of risks and rewards, no false choices and no pointless, time and resource consuming, annoying padding.

 

In current build you can overrun any enemy with certain tactics, although kiting isn't one of them or at least I don't know how kite enemies effectively.

 

You haven't offered any other insight in this thread that you thing that combat isn't rewarding enough to do it instead of the stealth, and as topic is about getting combat xp in the game, it is only natural to one to assume that you want combat xp, especially when you haven't even pointed out single mechanic in combat that you think need change (or at least I haven't notice that such mention).

 

This thread is follow-up for thread "Do you want xp from combat?" like it mentions as first thing in OP, so you can argue as much you want that this isn't we want combat xp thread as you want, but it will not probably change my mind about subject.

[frapillo80]

In current build you can overrun any enemy with certain tactics, although kiting isn't one of them or at least I don't know how kite enemies effectively.

 

You haven't offered any other insight in this thread that you thing that combat isn't rewarding enough to do it instead of the stealth, and as topic is about getting combat xp in the game, it is only natural to one to assume that you want combat xp, especially when you haven't even pointed out single mechanic in combat that you think need change (or at least I haven't notice that such mention).

 

This thread is follow-up for thread "Do you want xp from combat?" like it mentions as first thing in OP, so you can argue as much you want that this isn't we want combat xp thread as you want, but it will not probably change my mind about subject.

The title says "the PoE beta xp system" for a reason. And even if it's the follow up of the "Do you want combat xp?" thread, well, you'll be amazed to find out that the reply to such question can be "no". Or "not necessarily". So even in the original thread, not bothering to read the posts and just assuming that anybody who posts there wants combat xp is a poor excuse. Even more so in the follow up thread that clearly states "the PoE beta xp system".

 

But be my guest, keep assuming and don't bother reading. And yes, I offered some insight on some possible alternatives (maybe awful or insignificant, that's up for debate). And no, I won't point it out for you. Read.

Edited September 24, 2014 by frapillo80

[Elerond]

 

In current build you can overrun any enemy with certain tactics, although kiting isn't one of them or at least I don't know how kite enemies effectively.

 

You haven't offered any other insight in this thread that you thing that combat isn't rewarding enough to do it instead of the stealth, and as topic is about getting combat xp in the game, it is only natural to one to assume that you want combat xp, especially when you haven't even pointed out single mechanic in combat that you think need change (or at least I haven't notice that such mention).

 

This thread is follow-up for thread "Do you want xp from combat?" like it mentions as first thing in OP, so you can argue as much you want that this isn't we want combat xp thread as you want, but it will not probably change my mind about subject.

The title says "the PoE beta xp system" for a reason. And even if it's the follow up of the "Do you want combat xp?" thread, well, you'll be amazed that the reply to such question can be "no". Or "not necessarily". So even in the original thread, not bothering to read the posts and just assuming that anybody who posts there wants combat xp is a poor excuse. Even more so in the follow up thread that clearly states "the PoE beta xp system".

 

But be my guest, keep assuming and don't bother reading. And yes, I offered some insight (maybe awful or insignificant, that's up for debate). And no, I won't point it out for you. Read.

 

It says it for because people want to change current xp system by adding combat xp, that is the reason why this thread and previous threads were created. I find quite pointless to think that there is any other intent for these topics (this is I think at least twentieth thread about this topic in past two years).

 

I don't really care enough as your points what I have read seem to be off their mark (in my opinion) that I don't feel that seeking your particular insights afterwards would be worth of my time when they didn't arouse my attention first time I read them (I have read all post in this topic, but sometimes I just don't remember individual points that specific individual has presented for various reason, but I would guess that usually it is because I haven't think that particular point to be interesting at first place).

[frapillo80]

" I find quite pointless to think that there is any other intent for these topics": of course, why bother actually reading them and finding out that, my, that's not necessarily the case. What a rascally topic!

 

As I've told you, keep assuming, that's the way. I can live with that.

Edited September 24, 2014 by frapillo80

[Cantousent]

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.

Clever.  PoE looks to me to be a perfectly good spiritual successor to the game.  It doesn't to some folks, often based on very narrow definitions of what a spiritual successor *must* be to them personally.  Why should Obsidian come out with such a statement?  Because some backers think that lack of combat XP means it can't be a tribute to the IE games?  I'm a backer.  I think it is.  Frankly, this proposal is simply baiting Obsidian and they'll likely simply ignore it.  They should.

[curryinahurry]

These threads are getting as comical 

Edited September 24, 2014 by curryinahurry

[PrimeHydra]

 

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.

Clever.  PoE looks to me to be a perfectly good spiritual successor to the game.  It doesn't to some folks, often based on very narrow definitions of what a spiritual successor *must* be to them personally.  Why should Obsidian come out with such a statement?  Because some backers think that lack of combat XP means it can't be a tribute to the IE games?  I'm a backer.  I think it is.  Frankly, this proposal is simply baiting Obsidian and they'll likely simply ignore it.  They should.

 

I agree that it's silly to disqualify the game as a "spiritual successor" on this basis. Hell, they called Dragon Age: Origins a spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate. PoE is much more so.

 

Beyond that hyperbole, the backslash against cutting combat XP is completely understandable. In the IE games, this mechanic was central to progression and to combat reward. So when the Icewind Dale fans go "WTF", their nostalgia and expectations should not be dismissed as silly or irrelevant. Theirs was my own initial reaction.

 

In fact, I was surprised that so many folks did not want experience from combat, given the game's heritage. Nobody ever complained about it in Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale. But reading these forums, it's clear that a lot of people like Obsidian's decision. That's why I'm agreeable to a compromise. The bestiary unlocks are good enough for me--certainly preferable to a weird option that makes full clears obligatory to match a default quest-only progression. I wouldn't use such a toggle unless it provided extra experience, but then that's unfair to quest-XP fans.

 

It would have been nice if they'd made this design decision (and its motivation) clearer--at least as clear as the IE nostalgia bait on the project's homepage.

Edited September 24, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Immortalis]

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.

 

This removes meaningful choice from the game just as much as punishing players for skipping combat does.

 

The minute one choice has an obvious advantage over another it means other other choices have less meaning. At no point in this game will fighting be a better option then bypassing combat if the expenditure of resources is not rewarded by something in return.

 

If combat was very difficult and had high costs to be successful then gave XP.. this would introduce choice. Can I keep fighting? Should I turn back? Should I stealth past? It's only when the non-combat xp crowd takes things to an extremist meta game level and say

"I CAN'T DO IT JOSH.. I CAN'T SKIP A SINGLE GIBBERLING.. PLEASE REMOVE COMBAT XP SO I CAN SKIP GIBBERLINGS.. I NEED EVERY XP AND YOU NEED TO STOP ME.."..

 

Me, Stun, Hiro, Volly, Indiria and the caffienated owl guy all enjoy the combat xp without meta gaming the **** out of games. Nobody defending combat xp actually wants it to break the game.. We just want meaningful progression for our choices.

 

It's only people in the non-combat xp crowd to have a problem with meta gaming systems and seem to not be able to help themselves.. despite the level cap..

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

The number wasn't important.. try to deflate your ego a bit.. The person in question knows exactly what rebuttals have been made to his argument.. he is rehashing old tales and knows it.

 

If you want to be pedantic about the number then go ahead. I wasn't trying to raise a good rebuttal but remind him of the last 4 closed threads of discussion we had on that argument already.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Immortalis

[Immortalis]

 

 

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.

Clever.  PoE looks to me to be a perfectly good spiritual successor to the game.  It doesn't to some folks, often based on very narrow definitions of what a spiritual successor *must* be to them personally.  Why should Obsidian come out with such a statement?  Because some backers think that lack of combat XP means it can't be a tribute to the IE games?  I'm a backer.  I think it is.  Frankly, this proposal is simply baiting Obsidian and they'll likely simply ignore it.  They should.

 

I agree that it's silly to disqualify the game as a "spiritual successor" on this basis. Hell, they called Dragon Age: Origins a spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate. PoE is much more so.

 

Beyond that hyperbole, the backslash against cutting combat XP is completely understandable. In the IE games, this mechanic was central to progression and to combat reward. So when the Icewind Dale fans go "WTF", their nostalgia and expectations should not be dismissed as silly or irrelevant. Theirs was my own initial reaction.

 

In fact, I was surprised that so many folks did not want experience from combat, given the game's heritage. Nobody ever complained about it in Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale. But reading these forums, it's clear that a lot of people like Obsidian's decision. That's why I'm agreeable to a compromise. The bestiary unlocks are good enough for me--certainly preferable to a weird option that makes full clears obligatory to match a default quest-only progression. I wouldn't use such a toggle unless it provided extra experience, but then that's unfair to quest-XP fans.

 

It would have been nice if they'd made this design decision (and its motivation) clearer--at least as clear as the IE nostalgia bait on the project's homepage.

 

 

A lot of people like whatever Joshes decision is.. There is a lot of koolaid drinking.. When I suggested bestiary gives xp everyone told me to shut up it wasn't needed.. The minute Josh says it though, everyone praises him for dropping a divine olive branch upon the masses..

 

I am not saying everyone on this forum is like that of course.. But I am sensing that whatever Josh deems as non-degenerative gameplay.. the majority will just agree with it. (On this forum.. it's a different story in other forums)

 

I do agree with you that Combat XP removal does not mean PoE isn't a spiritual successor.. and I agree that people who were upset about it being missing have a legitamate reason to be upset.

 

In fairness Obsidian offers refunds to kickstarters who aren't happy and I doubt anyone will take them up on the offer. I'm not arguing for Combat XP because I feel Obsidian ripped me off and lied to me.. I want Combat XP because I think it will make the game better.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Immortalis

[PrimeHydra]

A lot of people like whatever Joshes decision is.. There is a lot of koolaid drinking.. When I suggested bestiary gives xp everyone told me to shut up it wasn't needed.. The minute Josh says it though, everyone praises him for dropping a divine olive branch upon the masses..

 

Was it your idea? Then they should have given you credit, or at least acknowledged that it had been suggested before. I wasn't there for that conversation, and I'm sorry people trolled you. I can only say you are not alone in that experience.

 

If I had my druthers, we'd have good ol' combat XP like in the IE games. But (surprisingly to me) a lot of people don't want it in the game. (I don't get it, either, but if that's what they want, then it's OK for OE to provide a compromise that gives each group of supporters some concessions.) Until I learned about the (your) bestiary unlock idea, I didn't think a compromise was even possible. It can be made to work reasonably well, provided that

- the amount of experience granted by bestiary unlocks is sufficiently motivating

- the bestiaries are revealed gradually enough that we don't quickly cap out on this reward

- the bestiaries themselves provide interesting/useful information, so that we get not only an XP reward but a tactical/lore reward

- the player is notified when an individual tier in a bestiary unlocks, so that after winning a tough fight they receive, if not an immediate XP reward, a promise that they are getting closer to a sizable chunk of experience. Something like "Spider Bestiary Updated".  When the final tier is revealed, they should see "Spider Bestiary Unlocked (10,000 XP or whatever)"

 

If the fanbase were overwhelmingly in favor of combat XP, I might be more stubborn on this point. The fact that a compromise is even possible was news to me.

Edited September 24, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Elerond]

 

It would have been nice if they'd made this design decision (and its motivation) clearer--at least as clear as the IE nostalgia bait on the project's homepage.

 

 

 

They stated following design goals in their seventh update for the project

 

Design Goals

In putting together our non-combat system, we have made a list of goals for the design of these skills and the rules they need to follow.

Non-combat skills are gained separately from combat skills. You shouldn't have to choose between Magic Missile and Herbalism. They should be separate types of abilities, and you should spend different points to get each one.

Non-combat skills do not use the same resources as combat skills. You don't spend the same stuff for a non-combat skill as you do for combat skills. Some don't use anything at all to use, so you will never find yourself unable to blast an opponent if you get caught sneaking.

All non-combat skills are useful. If we add lockpicking to the game, we will make sure that there are locks to pick and worthwhile rewards for getting past them.

All non-combat skills can be used frequently. If you take disarm traps as a skill, you should expect more than two traps in the entire game world. Frequency of application has a large impact on how useful something is.

Combat can be avoided with non-combat skills. There will often be ways to avoid fighting. Yes, we will have the standard methods of talking your way out of a fight or sneaking around an encounter, but there will be other ways too. Perhaps you can re-sanctify a desecrated cemetery to prevent any further undead from rising, or maybe figuring out a way across a ruined bridge will always avoid the bandits on this side of the river.

Avoiding combat does not lead to less experience gain. You shouldn't go up levels any slower by using your non-combat skills rather than your combat skills. We plan to reward you for your accomplishments, not for your body count.

 

From which the last one was probably reason why they ended with current quest xp.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60578-update-7-non-combat-skills-with-tim-cain/

 

Although they hadn't locked xp system down when KS campaign ended, but from their messages one could determine which direction they were leaning towards

 

 

Gameplay degeneration occurs when a player engages in gameplay not because they enjoy that gameplay but because the game's mechanics put the player at a disadvantage for not taking advantage of it. Rest spamming is one example. Wholesale slaughter/genocide is another. Quests that involve a peaceful option to resolve that get turned around after completion when the player murders the saved parties is a familiar expression of this sort of degeneration. If XP is linked to quests and objectives within quests, the player has much more freedom to resolve those quests in whatever way he or she wants, whether that means talking through it, fighting, sneaking around, or using some mixture of skills/scripted environment objects to reach the goal.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61533-update-24-less-than-30-hours-to-go-life-and-death-and-audio-cd-soundtrack/?p=1242071

 

 

There's nothing wrong with defeating Firkraag being a quest or objective all in itself. That's what I meant before. There's nothing wrong with explicitly associating XP with defeating specific enemies or specific groups of monsters as part of a quest where it makes sense. If the quest is "clear the slums" and you're supposed to get rid of the kobolds, the goblins, and the orcs, you might be able to sneak/talk your way through that, but you're probably going to "get rid" of them with some magic missiles and axes to the face.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61533-update-24-less-than-30-hours-to-go-life-and-death-and-audio-cd-soundtrack/?p=1242085

 

 

Tim and I would rather not give XP for general killin' because it leads to a lot of weird/degenerate scenarios, but I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61533-update-24-less-than-30-hours-to-go-life-and-death-and-audio-cd-soundtrack/?p=1242032

 

Feargus hold at least then same notion than some people here that XP for the kills is something that belongs to IE games and games that are reminiscent of them.

 

The XP for kills thing is still an ongoing discussion here. Our goal is to make this a game that is reminiscent of the IE games and in my mind that does mean XP for kills. We just need to balance with other systems.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61543-are-you-for-or-against-gaining-experience-points-only-for-completing-objectives/?p=1244325 (in this you have to trust Infinitron and me, if you don't want go through kickstarter messages )

 

So it I agree that it would have nice if they could have included more detailed information about their system (which isn't even now fully carved in stone) in their pitch, but as they had only to offer their general design goal that they specified in their updates during the campaign, which they have followed quite thoroughly during development and as they gave their inclinations, I would say that they have done good job in informing backers on what they plan to do.

[PrimeHydra]

Elerond: I realize that Obsidian have expounded on these points in various posts, articles, and interviews that can be dug up from around these forums and around the web. What I meant was that unless you discovered and read this fine print, the lack of combat XP came as a bit of a shock.

 

Not every backer is a devout follower/consumer of all information OE releases. I'm pretty sure I just Googled "modern Baldur's Gate", found the Pillars of Eternity webpage, and was like "sign me up!" I didn't follow the kickstarter campaign or subscribe to its email updates.

 

Significant design changes like this need to be made clear on the product front page. Say, a link that says "How we are changing and improving on the IE formula".

 

It's a moot point now--it just would have been nice, at the time, to expect this change and understand why it was there.

Edited September 24, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Gromnir]

 

A lot of people like whatever Joshes decision is.. There is a lot of koolaid drinking.. When I suggested bestiary gives xp everyone told me to shut up it wasn't needed.. The minute Josh says it though, everyone praises him for dropping a divine olive branch upon the masses..

 

Was it your idea? I really think they should have given you credit, or at least acknowledged that it had been suggested before. I wasn't there for that conversation, and I'm sorry people trolled you. I can only say you are not alone in that experience.

 

If I had my druthers, we'd have good ol' combat XP like in the IE games. But (surprisingly to me) a lot of people don't want it in the game. (I don't get it, either, but if that's what they want, then it's OK for OE to provide a compromise that gives each group of supporters some concessions.) If the fanbase were overwhelmingly in favor of combat XP, I'd be right with you in saying "not good enough".

 

this is an argument that has lasted in fits and starts for two years. we have seen nothing posted in the past three months that is genuine new... which is part of our concern. the obsidian were actual clear 'bout what they meant... two years ago. folks fully debated two years ago. folks had polls two years ago... polls that had far more total responses than the recent versions. folks has offered many perfect options over the course of two years. folks who believe they came up with a clever angle is likely repeating something that were discussed to death a long time ago. in spite of developer clarity, there is even folks who is still getting twisted up over semantics: objective v. quest v. task or other names confuse some people. in spite of developer efforts, people is at least pretending like this is the first time they has seen such nomenclature. is amusing and sad.

 

oh, and these same developers were seeing and hearing and responding to these same complaints Years ago when they were developing bg3 and fo3. 

 

but yeah. there is folks who is reflexive defending any developer response. is actual likely confusing to developers. check some o' the developer updates and how people responded compared to complaints the developers is getting these days. nothing has changed from two years ago or from any number o' developer updates, and typical the developers were painful clear regarding mechanics and rules issues, but is actually funny to see some folks complaining today that were acting like women at a 1960s tom jones concert. how many rage monkeys were throwing their digital panties on stage just a short time ago? a developer responds and there is a tendency to overreact. it is unfortunate for the developers, but the ecstasy some experience from basking in a developer's presence (*snort*) is short lived.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

Elerond: I realize that Obsidian have expounded on these points in various posts, articles, and interviews that can be dug up from around the forums and around these web. What I meant was that unless you discovered and read this fine print, the lack of combat XP came as a bit of a shock.

 

Not every backer is a devout follower/consumer of all information OE releases. These things need to be made very clear on the front page. It's a moot point now--it just would have been nice, at the time, to expect this system and understand why it was there.

 

But as I said and tried to show that they didn't had decide that point when they launched their kickstarter campaign, and not even that point of time when campaign ended and as we have seen experience system is still not carved in stone. But they gave us their design goals which they aim to achieve with system that they will design with money they got, and as I already said I think that they have achieved quite well. 

[PrimeHydra]

 

Elerond: I realize that Obsidian have expounded on these points in various posts, articles, and interviews that can be dug up from around the forums and around these web. What I meant was that unless you discovered and read this fine print, the lack of combat XP came as a bit of a shock.

 

Not every backer is a devout follower/consumer of all information OE releases. These things need to be made very clear on the front page. It's a moot point now--it just would have been nice, at the time, to expect this system and understand why it was there.

 

But as I said and tried to show that they didn't had decide that point when they launched their kickstarter campaign, and not even that point of time when campaign ended and as we have seen experience system is still not carved in stone. But they gave us their design goals which they aim to achieve with system that they will design with money they got, and as I already said I think that they have achieved quite well. 

 

I'm just saying, a link on their front page reading "How our vision differs (and hopefully improves upon) the Infinity Engine games", or similar would have been great. There it could have read "currently, killing enemies does not reward experience as it did in the IE games. We feel that blah blah blah." Again, not all of us have been following the project since its Kickstarter days.

 

I'm certainly not saying the game (or their achievement of design goals) is a failure. And anyway, I don't want to belabor this further. My original point with this line of discussion is that the folks who were surprised/disappointed when winning (tought) fights yielded no experience, had a valid response.

Edited September 24, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Gromnir]

 

 

Elerond: I realize that Obsidian have expounded on these points in various posts, articles, and interviews that can be dug up from around the forums and around these web. What I meant was that unless you discovered and read this fine print, the lack of combat XP came as a bit of a shock.

 

Not every backer is a devout follower/consumer of all information OE releases. These things need to be made very clear on the front page. It's a moot point now--it just would have been nice, at the time, to expect this system and understand why it was there.

 

But as I said and tried to show that they didn't had decide that point when they launched their kickstarter campaign, and not even that point of time when campaign ended and as we have seen experience system is still not carved in stone. But they gave us their design goals which they aim to achieve with system that they will design with money they got, and as I already said I think that they have achieved quite well. 

 

I'm just saying, a link on their front page reading "How our vision differs (and hopefully improves upon) the Infinity Engine games", or similar would have been great. There it could have read "currently, killing enemies does not reward experience as it did in the IE games. We feel that blah blah blah."

 

I'm certainly not saying the game (or their achievement of design goals) is a failure.

 

am having some sympathy for those who are discovering that PoE does not match what they imagined. nevertheless, the developers has been soul-numbing clear on many issues, and the fact that they did not want kill xp in PoE was one such issue. xp mechanics has been covered in many board posts and updates. furthermore, kill xp and ad hoc xp awards is not easy to implement and balance. the discussion needed to happen two years ago.

 

we sympathize, but looking at elerond links, and recognizing that they ain't the totality o' developer responses on this issue, Gromnir is at a loss regarding your... complaint? what more could you possibly expect from the developers?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

I'm not arguing for Combat XP because I feel Obsidian ripped me off and lied to me.. I want Combat XP because I think it will make the game better.

I frankly get irritated with you sometimes, Immortal, but you have to respect a straightforward statement.  ...And, for the record, yeah, I *did* know my counter argument regarding combat and XP was a rehash.  Then again, what the hell isn't at this point?  :Cant's rueful grin icon:

 

Then there's this, which made me laugh out loud:

 

 

...is actually funny to see some folks complaining today that were acting like women at a 1960s tom jones concert. how many rage monkeys were throwing their digital panties on stage just a short time ago? HA! Good Fun!

  "rage monkeys throwing digital panties"  I love Gromnir when he's not beating me up.  The bastard!

 

I think we need more levity in these XP threads before we start eating each other.  :Cant's looking over his shoulder icon:  For the record, I'm too grisly to taste good.

[Elerond]

 

 

Elerond: I realize that Obsidian have expounded on these points in various posts, articles, and interviews that can be dug up from around the forums and around these web. What I meant was that unless you discovered and read this fine print, the lack of combat XP came as a bit of a shock.

 

Not every backer is a devout follower/consumer of all information OE releases. These things need to be made very clear on the front page. It's a moot point now--it just would have been nice, at the time, to expect this system and understand why it was there.

 

But as I said and tried to show that they didn't had decide that point when they launched their kickstarter campaign, and not even that point of time when campaign ended and as we have seen experience system is still not carved in stone. But they gave us their design goals which they aim to achieve with system that they will design with money they got, and as I already said I think that they have achieved quite well. 

 

I'm just saying, a link on their front page reading "How our vision differs (and hopefully improves upon) the Infinity Engine games", or similar would have been great. There it could have read "currently, killing enemies does not reward experience as it did in the IE games. We feel that blah blah blah."

 

I'm certainly not saying the game (or their achievement of design goals) is a failure. And anyway, I don't want to belabor the point further. My original point with this line of discussion is that the folks who were surprised/disappointed when winning (tought) fights yielded no experience, had a valid response.

 

 

But they hadn't had decided that they wouldn't have experience reward from killing during kickstarter campaign even if Josh and Tim were leaning towards that direction and after campaign ended and decision was made in some point of time after it would have been quite useless to add such disclaimer, I would say.

[C2B]

 

 

 

Elerond: I realize that Obsidian have expounded on these points in various posts, articles, and interviews that can be dug up from around the forums and around these web. What I meant was that unless you discovered and read this fine print, the lack of combat XP came as a bit of a shock.

 

Not every backer is a devout follower/consumer of all information OE releases. These things need to be made very clear on the front page. It's a moot point now--it just would have been nice, at the time, to expect this system and understand why it was there.

 

But as I said and tried to show that they didn't had decide that point when they launched their kickstarter campaign, and not even that point of time when campaign ended and as we have seen experience system is still not carved in stone. But they gave us their design goals which they aim to achieve with system that they will design with money they got, and as I already said I think that they have achieved quite well. 

 

I'm just saying, a link on their front page reading "How our vision differs (and hopefully improves upon) the Infinity Engine games", or similar would have been great. There it could have read "currently, killing enemies does not reward experience as it did in the IE games. We feel that blah blah blah."

 

I'm certainly not saying the game (or their achievement of design goals) is a failure. And anyway, I don't want to belabor the point further. My original point with this line of discussion is that the folks who were surprised/disappointed when winning (tought) fights yielded no experience, had a valid response.

 

 

But they hadn't had decided that they wouldn't have experience reward from killing during kickstarter campaign even if Josh and Tim were leaning towards that direction and after campaign ended and decision was made in some point of time after it would have been quite useless to add such disclaimer, I would say.

 

 

Edit: Seems like I was wrong. Anyway, I remember it being quite a headache to update the frontpage in general.

Edited September 24, 2014 by C2B

[Gromnir]

"Avoiding combat does not lead to less experience gain. You shouldn't go up levels any slower by using your non-combat skills rather than your combat skills. We plan to reward you for your accomplishments, not for your body count. "

 

the above were emailed to us on 9/22/12 as part o' update #7. the only way to miss such information is if folks didn't read the emails or updates. blame obsidian 'cause folks didn't read updates posted on these boards and emailed to us?  

 

we got something of a reputation as being a harsh critic o' developers. is puzzling. even so, there don't appear to be a basis for blaming obsidian for failing to inform backers that they were panning on making kill xp verboten in PoE... and the time to have been debating were back in september and october of 2012, back when obsidian informed folks what they were doing with xp. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[frapillo80]

Furthermore, kill xp and ad hoc xp awards is not easy to implement and balance.

 

This is the real root of all the otherwise baffling decisions, including the absolute need to avoid the Spectre of Quest Staggering.

 

Although a backer (I'm not) might say "balancing Baldur's Gate 2 wasn't easy either. So?"

Edited September 24, 2014 by frapillo80

[Elerond]

 

Furthermore, kill xp and ad hoc xp awards is not easy to implement and balance.

This is the real root of all otherwise baffling decisions, including the absolute need to avoid the Spectre of Quest Staggering.

 

Although a backer (I'm not) might say "balancing Baldur's Gate 2 wasn't easy either. So?"

 

 

Baldur's Gate 2 had much more people working on it and it still failed in that balancing (similarly as all IE games failed), why they want to do things differently this time.