Discussion: the PoE beta xp system

[Captain Shrek]

Gromnir. 

 

Would you concede that the real problem is encounter design and having filler combat? Or is that also another one of those unnecessary frivolities for you? 

[Hellraiser789]

I've gotta give gromnir that one. I didn't agree with half of what he said but his last paragraph IS a good point. I don't know what else needs to be fixed but if changing everything to combat xp would require so much work (to be fair they said it would not, so....) that another feature would be cut or it detracted from the quality of other areas, then I wouldn't mind not having it. OBJECTIVE xp, if implemented correctly, I might be willing to argue has more weight, but that's just my opinion.

 

PS: Gromnir there IS a difference between quest only xp and objective xp, even if it's just a matter of how it's handled. For example in DA (not that this should be DA in any way) picking up lore objects gave xp. Was that part of a quest? Or finding new areas - gave xp. Also not part of a quest. There IS a difference even if you seem to think the two can be blurred together.

[Matt516]

I don't always agree with Gromnir 100%...

 

But when I do, it's when he makes a post like the above pointing out the meaningless and semantic nature of much of this argument.

 

Stay contentious, my friends.

[Gromnir]

Gromnir. 

 

Would you concede that the real problem is encounter design and having filler combat? Or is that also another one of those unnecessary frivolities for you? 

"filler combat" is no different than grindy. you is simply tossing in a term that you believe has universal qualities, and am assuming that you feel that PoE combat encounters also have such qualities. explain your concerns, or don't. we can guess why you believe that some/much/all (?) PoE combat encounters in the beta were filler, but there is no reason for us to not only refute (if we cared to do so... hell, we might agree with you) but to also make your argument for you.

 

people, explain what your actual concerns is. you folks is good at identifying problems, but you is extreme weak on the explanations. 

 

as for 789...

 

*groan*

 

the developers were very clear 'bout what they were doing with xp. is boardies, such as yourself, who got fixated on the labels and failed to realize you were arguing irrelevancies given what obsidain actual claimed they were doing with xp.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 25, 2014 by Gromnir

[Namutree]

I've gotta give gromnir that one. I didn't agree with half of what he said but his last paragraph IS a good point. I don't know what else needs to be fixed but if changing everything to combat xp would require so much work (to be fair they said it would not, so....) that another feature would be cut or it detracted from the quality of other areas, then I wouldn't mind not having it. OBJECTIVE xp, if implemented correctly, I might be willing to argue has more weight, but that's just my opinion.

 

PS: Gromnir there IS a difference between quest only xp and objective xp, even if it's just a matter of how it's handled. For example in DA (not that this should be DA in any way) picking up lore objects gave xp. Was that part of a quest? Or finding new areas - gave xp. Also not part of a quest. There IS a difference even if you seem to think the two can be blurred together.

They can be blurred together, but to use 'objective-xp' which is a bit vague instead of 'quest-xp' which isn't vague at all has caused some confusion among fans. I'm not sure who the first person to use the term 'objective-xp' when they were trying to convey 'quest-xp' was thinking, but they certainly confused me and others.

[Immortalis]

 

Gind XP is completely different than combat xp. In my experience, a lot of JRPGs require grinding in order to progress, but I dont think any of the IE games required that. Although maybe im just terrible at JRPGs....hahaha

Only XP I ever grinded in IE games was the Flesh Golem cave in BG1 where resting spawns more Golems which are fairly easy to kill for 2000 xp. But even they stopped spawning after few rests so you could not really grind them. 

 

 

More importantly.. you don't need to do this to beat the game.. If you chose to do that then you were rewarded for it.. and let's be honest. If range attacks and BG Cheesing wasn't so easy to do.. you wouldn't be grinding them out so easily.

 

If those golems actually were as hard as their experience reward suggests.. you would have to be either VERY good at the game or you would have been run out of that cave instantly.

 

Combat XP != Give us a game that we can easily break mechanically through the abuse of the system. It means reward me for doing things that aren't quests.

 

 

I've gotta give gromnir that one. I didn't agree with half of what he said but his last paragraph IS a good point.

 

No it's not.. it's called rebalancing the game to account for the addition of combat xp.. It's not easier then.. doing nothing.. or leaving it the same.. It is however not gonna break the fabric of the universe to make an attempt at. Obsidian is the best company to do it.

 

I'm telling you right now no feature will be removed to do this.. They are in the final months of beta testing, the game is done. It's balancing tweaking and bug fixing.. We aren't gonna lose features to add a good xp system.. Worst case scenario the game MIGHT be delayed.. which is probably a good thing.

 

I would rather wait 2 - 4 months longer then get a buggy lackluster mess when I have already been waiting for a game like this 7 years.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Immortalis

[Namutree]

I didn't even know those golems respawned. 

Edited September 25, 2014 by Namutree

[Captain Shrek]

 

Gromnir. 

 

Would you concede that the real problem is encounter design and having filler combat? Or is that also another one of those unnecessary frivolities for you? 

"filler combat" is no different than grindy. you is simply tossing in a term that you believe has universal qualities, and am assuming that you feel that PoE combat encounters also have such qualities. explain your concerns, or don't. we can guess why you believe that some/much/all (?) PoE combat encounters in the beta were filler, but there is no reason for us to not only refute (if we cared to do so... hell, we might agree with you) but to also make your argument for you.

 

people, explain what your actual concerns is. you folks is good at identifying problems, but you is extreme weak on the explanations. 

 

as for 789...

 

*groan*

 

the developers were very clear 'bout what they were doing with xp. is boardies, such as yourself, who got fixated on the labels and failed to realize you were arguing irrelevancies given what obsidain actual claimed they were doing with xp.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Actually filler combat is not so much as a "silly nomenclature" as your current mood dictates is the problem with the fanbase. I assume being a gigantic obsidian/bio fanboy you played NWN, IWDs and NWN2. Did it not bother you that the games needed to kill way too many people to achieve very little?

 

Now to the main point: Why I think it will be a problem in this game.

 

When a game is geared to give you Quest only XP,  then basically all combat is filler combat as long as it is not the end boss. Funny isn't it? Why would I fight at all if there is no real motivation to fight? 

 

I would point out here, that if stealth is a viable option then fighting is definitely suboptimal. Boss-fighting will give you all your tactical challenge. This is of course besides the point that I believe that the game is too cluster-farked to be really enjoyable. 

[Gromnir]

call us an obsidian/bio fanboy is... amusing, but am gonna let that slide.

 

and you still haven't explained what you think filler combat is... and which PoE encounters were fillers. you has simply expanded your complaint so that it now includes other games. you did exact opposite of what woulda' been helpful. we now not only have the beta, we got a veritable horde o' games with literal hundreds or thousands o' different combat encounters.

 

...

 

what is wrong with you people?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Captain Shrek]

call us an obsidian/bio fanboy is... amusing, but am gonna let that slide.

 

and you still haven't explained what you think filler combat is... and which PoE encounters were fillers. you has simply expanded your complaint so that it now includes other games. you did exact opposite of what woulda' been helpful. we now not only have the beta, we got a veritable horde o' games with literal hundreds or thousands o' different combat encounters.

 

...

 

what is wrong with you people?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Actually I did explain what filler combat is some pages ago. I thought it was unnecessary to do so again, but here it is:

 

 

I guess a little lining out of what trash combat is, will help here:

 

When you have to fight enemies that do not in any way contribute to the game progression, except by making it longer, the combat can be considered filler/trash. Case in point: 

 

1) IWD 2 Golbins : Yeah, there is a goblin invasion going on. But jesus christ, do I have to fight every effing one of them??

2) NWN2 : Zombies and Orcs. WHHHHYYYY?? 

3) Dragon Age: Darkspawns. 

 

Sometimes these "mobs" do make sense, but that does not mean that they should be there for you to make sweet XP-love to. The game content ought to come from encounters that tell a story. Not from dungeon hacks from Diablo. Which makes the entire dungeon level in PoE a brilliant idea: Those who are masochist enough and really like the filler content can go there to extinguish that hunger for morbid gut wrenching. The rest can actually play the game. 

 

To make things absolutely clear, this is not, I repeat NOT equivalent to saying that there should be no combat in RPGs. That particular sentiment has a copyright. This is to point out that fattening up the game with beetles/turtles/wombats is not really helping. 

[Hellraiser789]

Combat XP != Give us a game that we can easily break mechanically through the abuse of the system. It means reward me for doing things that aren't quests.

 

Well them why should you get xp for quests? Why don't they just have you level up at plot relevant points in the game? Since the story and developer railroad is so important, why bother with having xp for anything else? Because RPGs are supposed to reward you for performing actions that are relevant to the game. And this is supposed to be a game that implements heavy combat and tactical fights, why WOULDNT you reward combat? Regardless of all the spiritual successor stuff, they promised tactical and rewarding combat as one of their biggest goals/promises/pillars/whatever you want to call it. If the combat isn't rewarding, then it needs to be improved - I think most people would prefer that over combat xp, but if the combat encounters DONT get better then people would like combat xp to tide them over.

 

And you can make the point "where were you 2 years ago?" Well not everyone even knew about this 2 years ago. I heard WHISPERS of this like MAYBE last year at the earliest and I've been waiting for a game like BG for 10 years. And while I will agree, I'm sure most of the points made were made countless times before, from what I've heard the devs said "just wait til the beta - then you'll see how awesome it is." And now the beta is out and people are still iffy about it. Regardless of whether they implement combat xp or change anything, is it inherently wrong to voice your opinion? I'm sure it'll be a great game regardless, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give our opinions to improve it. Even if they don't implement combat xp I'll still buy and play the game. And I think at the end of the day, everyone has the same goal - to make PoE the best game it can be. And you know what? After talking about it, I'm not sure quest only xp is a bad way to do it. Why? Because we TALKED about it and it seems to have some potential. Would you prefer I just accept everything and not ask questions because my intelligence is too low? Or maybe I should just not bother and say screw it and take my money elsewhere? Blatant attacks on the devs is one thing, but simple discussion is different.

 

PS: I fully intend to get this game, and most likely will buy it regardless of reviews, videos, recommendations, etc, (and certainly regardless of what xp system they use - that's not even THAT big a deal for me) I am just making the point that not everyone necessarily feels that way

 

PS - I apologize Immortalis for the quote I used. I misread your position and was mistaken in thinking you were pointing out that combat xp EQUALS abuse of the system. My bad.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Hellraiser789

[Gromnir]

 

call us an obsidian/bio fanboy is... amusing, but am gonna let that slide.

 

and you still haven't explained what you think filler combat is... and which PoE encounters were fillers. you has simply expanded your complaint so that it now includes other games. you did exact opposite of what woulda' been helpful. we now not only have the beta, we got a veritable horde o' games with literal hundreds or thousands o' different combat encounters.

 

...

 

what is wrong with you people?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Actually I did explain what filler combat is some pages ago. I thought it was unnecessary to do so again, but here it is:

 

 

I guess a little lining out of what trash combat is, will help here:

 

When you have to fight enemies that do not in any way contribute to the game progression, except by making it longer, the combat can be considered filler/trash. Case in point: 

 

1) IWD 2 Golbins : Yeah, there is a goblin invasion going on. But jesus christ, do I have to fight every effing one of them??

2) NWN2 : Zombies and Orcs. WHHHHYYYY?? 

3) Dragon Age: Darkspawns. 

 

Sometimes these "mobs" do make sense, but that does not mean that they should be there for you to make sweet XP-love to. The game content ought to come from encounters that tell a story. Not from dungeon hacks from Diablo. Which makes the entire dungeon level in PoE a brilliant idea: Those who are masochist enough and really like the filler content can go there to extinguish that hunger for morbid gut wrenching. The rest can actually play the game. 

 

To make things absolutely clear, this is not, I repeat NOT equivalent to saying that there should be no combat in RPGs. That particular sentiment has a copyright. This is to point out that fattening up the game with beetles/turtles/wombats is not really helping. 

 

*sigh*

 

saying "zombies and orcs," or goblins and then stating that they don't contribute to the game progression is Not an explanation.

 

...

 

we blame the fing schools.

 

"And you can make the point "where were you 2 years ago?" Well not everyone even knew about this 2 years ago. "

 

we answered this already... give us a sec to link.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68476-discussion-the-poe-beta-xp-system/?p=1514497

 

and

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68476-discussion-the-poe-beta-xp-system/?p=1514511

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 25, 2014 by Gromnir

[Captain Shrek]

Saying "is not an explanation" does not happen to be a valid defense either. I tried. But against the might attribute of Grominr I failed my Int check. Good going...

[Cantousent]

Words do matter.  Otherwise every post we make here would be random gibberish.  (Okay, okay, I know that to some of you, that's all *mine* are.)  The point is, the problem is defining the terms.  For example, I don't prefer 'quest XP' or 'objective XP.'  Nope, I prefer 'results XP.'  I throw my own little term into the mix and it can be confusing, especially if I don't state clearly how it is different from the others.  I'm not going to do that for 'results XP' now because, to be candid, this thread has so much to digest that I don't want to muddy the waters.  For that reason, I've been using 'quest XP' and 'objective XP,' and by and large I've been using them interchangeably.  I agree with my Hellraising friend that there is a difference in definition, but it's become so muddled that there isn't much difference in usage.

 

Likewise, if you define 'spiritual successor' as 'slavishly following every old convention because people have been conditioned to expect it in the manner of Pavlov's dog,' then I think the phrase will cause heartache and grief.  ...But Obsidian didn't cite a bunch of random games in appealing for backers.  They cited Infinity Engine games.  Now, as I've said quite a bit, that doesn't mean it must have 'kill-' 'combat-' 'random ganking XP' to do the job, but I can't get mad at folks for bringing it up.  That's a point of discussion, and I don't want to trivialize what I see as a valid point of view with which I disagree.  'kill XP' was not what made the IE games great for me, and so it is not necessary for PoE to have 'kill XP' in order to have that great IE feel.

 

Of course, I could mention Lephys' distinction between 'combat-' and 'kill XP' because I agree with it, but why interrupt the successor argument?  :Cant's **** eating grin icon:

[frapillo80]

I am honestly starting to feel a bit bad about, as a newcomer, having somewhat contributed to fanning the flames of a debate that, I am starting to realize, has been going on for ages and in countless threads (and I am sure I haven't catched up with all of it yet).

But my gripe was actually very simple: currently, fighting non-quest mobs only offers strategical disadvantages compared to stealthing past them. As I see it, it's an element of poor balance and poor design. I feel that something should be done about it, and that's not piling up denial upon it.

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Gromnir]

Saying "is not an explanation" does not happen to be a valid defense either. I tried. But against the might attribute of Grominr I failed my Int check. Good going...

you didn't say... anything. zombies and orcs from nwn 2 don't "contribute to the game progression." provide a why and not simple a conclusion based on some vague feeling. you aren't explaining actual complaints and we ain't gonna do your work for you. 

 

btw, as a hint, we would be much more likely to use various bg encounters as examples as filler. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

I am honestly starting to feel a bit bad about, as a newcomer, having somewhat contributed to fanning the flames of a debate that, I am starting to realize, has been going on for ages and in countless threads (and I am sure I haven't catched up with all of it yet).

My friend, it's simply not you.  Think of this as our own little version of the Blood Wars, and you've got two forces of absolute evil fighting to see which one can be worse.  My vote is for myself, of course.

[Namutree]

I am honestly starting to feel a bit bad about, as a newcomer, having somewhat contributed to fanning the flames of a debate that, I am starting to realize, has been going on for ages and in countless threads (and I am sure I haven't catched up with all of it yet).

But my gripe was actually very simple: currently, fighting non-quest mobs only offers strategical disadvantages compared to stealthing past them. As I see it, it's an element of poor balance and poor design. Something should be done about it, and that's not piling up denial upon it.

It very much is poor design. There are a few solutions for this issue, pick any 2 of them and the situation will be fixed:

 

1) Make it so resting at the Inn is cheaper. Making the minimum cost of 30 cp to 10 would help a little.

2) Some of the trash mobs need to be a bit weaker. The lions & Beetles come to mind. If they're weaker than you'll take less damage and make more profit from killing them.

3) Combat xp is a solution. 2x the level of the enemy would be fine. Too low to break the game, but would make the player at least feel better about the situation.Not to mention the level cap prevents the player from abusing it too much.

4) Increase the value of loot the enemies drop.

[frapillo80]

 

 

I am honestly starting to feel a bit bad about, as a newcomer, having somewhat contributed to fanning the flames of a debate that, I am starting to realize, has been going on for ages and in countless threads (and I am sure I haven't catched up with all of it yet).

My friend, it's simply not you. Think of this as our own little version of the Blood Wars, and you've got two forces of absolute evil fighting to see which one can be worse. My vote is for myself, of course.

You know what, realizing that all the available choices are evil is actually a reassuring feeling!

[Captain Shrek]

 

Saying "is not an explanation" does not happen to be a valid defense either. I tried. But against the might attribute of Grominr I failed my Int check. Good going...

you didn't say... anything. zombies and orcs from nwn 2 don't "contribute to the game progression." provide a why and not simple a conclusion based on some vague feeling. you aren't explaining actual complaints and we ain't gonna do your work for you. 

 

btw, as a hint, we would be much more likely to use various bg encounters as examples as filler. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Actually I did. But as I final try I will oblige by explaining it in detail: 

 

In  IWD2, the starting map, if you removed most goblins from the scenario, would you feel that the game is any different? There is still the secret cave where all you need to frame is a single tough representative fight. That precisely what a trash mob is. Fighting these goblins adds nothing to the core game, except making it boring to reach plot relevant areas where the real story fights occur. I'd respect the game more if it had a wasteland/darklands like world where your character skill would determine if you needed to fight those monsters. 

 

In NWN2 the same is true of Orc caves and the zombie infested crypts. Remove these encounters and the game is actually much more enjoyable. 

 

Contrast this with XCOM, where combat is really the core gameplay. Where it is enjoying combat that makes you play in the first place.  As I see it, the current BB is just not that interesting to play as a combat oriented game. You can very well claim that this is subjective, but I doubt it. When you have to pause more often than real time the game, it is a badly designed implementation. To really enjoy it you have to have to have severe masochist tendencies. But I digress...

 

In IWD/IWD2/NWN2/NWN you could NOT afford to NOT fight the trash mobs as they gave out XP. Losing that XP made you characters weaker later on. This is plain effing horrible design. It enforces a kind of gameplay that you can not enjoy even if you like the story. 

 

Right now, removing combat XP from the game has basically  made it obvious that stealthing through the game is the optimal way to play it. There is nothing to gain really by fighting unless the developers force you to fight by hiding quest relevant items or even items that make you reasonably strong behind quest unrelated or number-bloated out monsters. For the latter example take the NWN2 orc cave. The orcs were quest relevant. But fighting through them was a chore to reach their boss. 

 

I am willing to force myself with the bad combat just to listen to the story. I just hope that the bad combat is not made ncessary. And this is all the while, when I consider myself a combat loving creature... 

[Gromnir]

ps

 

iwd2 has little o' what we would define as filler combat, but again, you still haven't given a useful definition, so we cannot say what you mean by filler. as we noted above, mc is a boardie who has been open and honest about his preference for fighting... in tunnels. the game progression is iwd2 (am sure you mean something by this that is different than other folks) were right up his alley. game progression were achieved by providing the player with a multitude of varied combat situations. the fight against the goblins at the targos wall were a much different encounter and were requiring different tactics than were the fight against sherinical outside the ice temple, or the swarm o' hook horrors that dropped from the ceiling, or whatever. the story and rp elements were largely muted in iwd2, and the sequence of combats, which unlike bg were having us rely on a wide variety o' tactics to be overcoming them, were the  raison d'etre o' iwd2 gameplay. fighting... in tunnels. arguably the only obvious filler combats in iwd2, for Gromnir at least, were the initial goblin encounters on the targos docks, but we recognize that the game had no tutorial and that level 1-3 is extreme lethal in d&d d20-- one critical hit = insta-death. first few encounters in iwd2 is a tutorial and a chance for some free xp to level beyond insta-death. so, in point o' fact, we wouldn't consider such stuff filler either.

 

but again, we specific avoided defining filler, and we will continue to do so, 'cause is your non-explanation. you may instead wanna argue with us that iwd2 game progression were not what we suggest or that we is wrong about varied combats, but until you actual explain, you is simply proving our point. 

 

it's the schools. we hear critical thinking and analysis given as goals, but we so rare see any o' that stuff. and is not just US schools neither as we taught in europe for awhile... decades ago.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

 

I am honestly starting to feel a bit bad about, as a newcomer, having somewhat contributed to fanning the flames of a debate that, I am starting to realize, has been going on for ages and in countless threads (and I am sure I haven't catched up with all of it yet).

My friend, it's simply not you.  Think of this as our own little version of the Blood Wars, and you've got two forces of absolute evil fighting to see which one can be worse.  My vote is for myself, of course.

 

 

It is endless conversation with no possible solution that everyone agrees with, because it is based on people's individual subjective notions what people feel to be best solution in question that don't have objectively best solution. This is similar issue than our endless parade of romance topics where people argue back and forth why romances are integral part of IE experience or why they generally make story focused games better especially when game is meant to work around players' decisions. Although romance threads have died in past months some what because of xp threads return to popularity in past couple months. But I would guess that romance threads will jump again when release gets closer and more and more backer come back to look how game looks (and maybe some non-backers that have read some articles about game at get interested about it).

[archangel979]

 

 

Gind XP is completely different than combat xp. In my experience, a lot of JRPGs require grinding in order to progress, but I dont think any of the IE games required that. Although maybe im just terrible at JRPGs....hahaha

Only XP I ever grinded in IE games was the Flesh Golem cave in BG1 where resting spawns more Golems which are fairly easy to kill for 2000 xp. But even they stopped spawning after few rests so you could not really grind them.

 

 

More importantly.. you don't need to do this to beat the game.. If you chose to do that then you were rewarded for it.. and let's be honest. If range attacks and BG Cheesing wasn't so easy to do.. you wouldn't be grinding them out so easily.

 

If those golems actually were as hard as their experience reward suggests.. you would have to be either VERY good at the game or you would have been run out of that cave instantly.

 

Combat XP != Give us a game that we can easily break mechanically through the abuse of the system. It means reward me for doing things that aren't quests.

 

Well I didn't abuse ranged attacks. I went to the cave at a time I could beat both Sirens and those Golems fair and square and had magical weapons.

But while I was there, I didn't do it because I had to, but because I found it fun to get a bit of fast XP and maybe level one of my guys as a result. Also it is not something I figured out on my first playthrough.

I am sure in PoE once I know the game, I will find easy to do quests that give good XP and go do that before doing other stuff. It is in our human nature to optimize everything we do.

[Captain Shrek]

 

ps

 

iwd2 has little o' what we would define as filler combat, but again, you still haven't given a useful definition, so we cannot say what you mean by filler. as we noted above, mc is a boardie who has been open and honest about his preference for fighting... in tunnels. the game progression is iwd2 (am sure you mean something by this that is different than other folks) were right up his alley. game progression were achieved by providing the player with a multitude of varied combat situations. the fight against the goblins at the targos wall were a much different encounter and were requiring different tactics than were the fight against sherinical outside the ice temple, or the swarm o' hook horrors that dropped from the ceiling, or whatever. the story and rp elements were largely muted in iwd2, and the sequence of combats, which unlike bg were having us rely on a wide variety o' tactics to be overcoming them, were the  raison d'etre o' iwd2 gameplay. fighting... in tunnels. arguably the only obvious filler combats in iwd2, for Gromnir at least, were the initial goblin encounters on the targos docks, but we recognize that the game had no tutorial and that level 1-3 is extreme lethal in d&d d20-- one critical hit = insta-death. first few encounters in iwd2 is a tutorial and a chance for some free xp to level beyond insta-death. so, in point o' fact, we wouldn't consider such stuff filler either.

 

but again, we specific avoided defining filler, and we will continue to do so, 'cause is your non-explanation. you may instead wanna argue with us that iwd2 game progression were not what we suggest or that we is wrong about varied combats, but until you actual explain, you is simply proving our point. 

 

it's the schools. we hear critical thinking and analysis given as goals, but we so rare see any o' that stuff. and is not just US schools neither as we taught in europe for awhile... decades ago.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I liked how you conveniently dropped out other examples. And yeah, IWD2 is pretty much a definition of trash mobs. No need to defend it. You are right to point out that it is the reason it was created; to be a diablo clone in IE with party. 

 

Frankly that is exactly how I would describe PoE combat right now. Except Diablo is a more honest game and plays better as it has no party. 

[frapillo80]

 

 

 

 

I am honestly starting to feel a bit bad about, as a newcomer, having somewhat contributed to fanning the flames of a debate that, I am starting to realize, has been going on for ages and in countless threads (and I am sure I haven't catched up with all of it yet).

My friend, it's simply not you. Think of this as our own little version of the Blood Wars, and you've got two forces of absolute evil fighting to see which one can be worse. My vote is for myself, of course.

It is endless conversation with no possible solution that everyone agrees with, because it is based on people's individual subjective notions what people feel to be best solution in question that don't have objectively best solution. This is similar issue than our endless parade of romance topics where people argue back and forth why romances are integral part of IE experience or why they generally make story focused games better especially when game is meant to work around players' decisions. Although romance threads have died in past months some what because of xp threads return to popularity in past couple months. But I would guess that romance threads will jump again when release gets closer and more and more backer come back to look how game looks (and maybe some non-backers that have read some articles about game at get interested about it).

Yikes! Thank you for the warning, I won't even touch the romance threads with a long stick!