Reminds me a bit of FTL, generally assaulting all pirates, rebel and slavers. Just to keep others from suffering from their traps. No XP was given at all, and sometimes the rewards where worse than if I let them alive... sometimes better. It feels good to make choices since you want to make them, are forced into them due to circumstance (heavily damaged, offered the slaves, which would die if you kept assaulting) rather than for an arbitrary XP hanger to the best option.
In before "HASSAN HUNTER WANTS POE TO BE LIKE FTL!" even though I don't know this Hassan fellow myself.
Take it or leave it Deus Ex and Bloodlines show you how to do an Objective XP system well. How not to reward one playstyle over the other (okay, Bloodlines gave bonus XP for stealth so it's less appliable there, but overall it did a good job. Deus Ex does it all around). It's very typical of modern developers that they don't get that and try to "improve" the system or think they know how it worked, yet still come up with the XP-system attrocity that was Human Revolution. Game was quite okay, but they totally failed to have the proper XP system for their game, instead resorting, indeed, to XP per "kill" and giant bonusses for one playstyle (if in Vampire bloodlines it was 1 extra point every once in a while, here it would be the V:B equavalant of 5 PER MAP).
I totally understand that they're different games, yet their XP system is not type-bound. It can infact be used pretty much every single game, heck even a RTS, or a racinggame, anything really! So I don't quite seem to see the argument "you want it to be like Deus Ex. It wont be, it will be like IE" not understanding I'm not even talking about Deus Ex, just it's experience granting system... and yes, that it would work perfectly fine on an IE-title.
The concept isn't really hard to understand, why is it still not understood. Or do you understand it just fine, but happilly twist it around to make a point of your own or something?
sadly there isn't (in PoE) - pickpocketing will be limited to some scripted-interactions (maybe dialogue choices too).
That's a shame... can't say I ever used it, but there were some interesting things that could be achieved by that reading various walkthroughs.
Because unlike some people I can actually support systems to allow for different ways, even if I wont be using those myself.
All the classes are different on the basis of combat. Most of poe's innovations are about reforming combat. The elements Obsidian cares most about "getting right" are combat. OE's willingness to ignore lore or create an attribute system that makes no RP sense should show that, but you 'combat deniers' just don't seem to get it.
Of course they are. The story doesn't need much testing now does it. It's also written by Chris Avellone. If they are starting to be worried about THAT, we sure as hell all have a reason to get worried.
Their system is totally new, so obviously they want to get it just right before release. Does that mean they care less about getting story "just right"? Probably not, otherwise they would just give you the start to play rather than something else to avoid spoilers. They don't want those for the people who are going to play their game. Does that tell you they do or don't care about that subject of the game?
If the answer is not, it explains a lot.
Talking to npc's is not diplomacy, and you can't lose based on a conversation. You can totally ignore the text and still win.
I certainly hope for any decent RPG to this not being the case. If you can totally skip every dialogue on your first PoE game and win, I will be sorely dissapointed...
What a load of BS. No one has suggested that nothing that doesn't give xp isn't worth doing. Also, while you must talk to npc's for the critical path; talking poses NO danger, and can be over in seconds if you don't read it. So why should it give xp?
You seem to have missed every single page of every single thread (around 1 or 2 dozen) on the subject. Your budy Stun has been one of the most loud proprietors of this standpoint from the start. Just look through his post-history for a long summary of posts where "no combat XP = run past all enemies"...
You seriously need to inform yourself of the standpoints of your own party.
As for the second part, see the above quote reply. I could simarly say the same. I find one lone kobold, I smack his puny little face in 2 in seconds... So why should it give XP?
Oh boy, do I look forward to the reply on that one. Sadly I know I will never get it as it would be just another point swept under the rug so you can keep pretending there have not be 1 or 2 dozen full of threads with post explaining just why objective XP (not quest XP) is still good for combat-focused games aswell.
* Combat does not always triumphed any diplomatic solution. Sometimes the player isn't strong enough to win a battle; in such cases diplomacy is clearly superior.
But, but, that requires reading. Didn't you say just lines before that that's not required, skippable in seconds and something of no importance?
* Never said the game didn't have bugs, but that's not a testament to the xp system; it's a criticism of the programmers.
Games were released in far better quality back in 1998 than they are now. It's also quite demeaning that the people who worked so hard to give us the games we love where crappy programmers, which is undoubtfully not true. But yes, human error is prone to show up somewhere in one way or the other. So tell me which of the 2 make it more likely? In designing values per enemy, then designing a non-combat workaround bonus of around the same or an alternative dialogue option for that, and then keep that up to date if XP values are adjusted throughout the game or the enemy's encounter is modified with less/more or different foes. Or setting a single value, and just granting said value in all 3 cases (you fought, talked out of it, or stealth, no matter same value), and the combat encounter can be tweaked to hearts content without having to worry about the outlying problem of bringing 2 other values to shape. Or if re-balancing XP is needed, just one value needs adjusting rather than multiple (the monster XP value) throughout multiple maps in the game.
Heck, the combat-pro group (of which I am part too, something you guys still don't seem to grasp) also profits from this since unbound to experience encounters allows creators to modify them to their content to the needs of the encounter, without having to worry how this modifaction affects the XP balance.
Encounter feels easy? 2 archers are added to provide ranged support.
* In the kill-xp system this means taking into account the xp of those additional 2 archers. Does that give too much XP in the encounter? Does something else needs to change to offset that? Do we need to raise the conversation XP bonus to measure up. Hey, this gives too much too soon to players, we need to nerf something else elsewhere... etc.
* In the objective XP system these 2 archers are added, the combat designer deems the encounter good, and he can move on without having worried that he changed anything but the balance of a single encounter.
But hey... I've been saying this for a dozen or 2 threads, and you probably (again) retort the designer from the objective XP system is a lazy incompetant idiot or something. Since making stuff quicker to work with and less bugprone for designers never lead to more content in the same timespan or something. But hey, who cares about content, right? I mean aside from Hassat Hunter who wants a system that works good for all players, be they heavily stealth or more conversation-orientated, easier on the developer (Obsidian has the reputation to produce buggy games, wouldn't you support a way that seriously lessens this while still benefiting players too?) and allows for rapid rebalancing to the final designer (I assume Sawyer in this case)?
But hey, screw that right? I haven't thought about this at all and are just looking for another Deus Ex right. While the kill-XP argument has been build around... eeehm, remind me again?
* This point is 100% false. Oops!
Go replay, without mods if you have them. It's definitely true. It was also the most ridicilous bad developer decision I have seen till date. I especially recall since when I wasn't aware of D&D at all (first time BG1) I figured I should pick easy to help me go through it better. Oh my, what mistake that was with the long leveling that gave compared to normal.
@ Stun; Well, heavily broken systems still can be successful and produce successful sequals. I think I might have mentioned a game called "Oblivion" before? A fundamental to the leving system being indeed broken, still being produced, heavily sold and producing offspring. And some even dare call it good.
Also if you bothered reading my post (go ahead, I'll wait) you know 'patches' reffered to that they tried to patch up a broken system rather than fixing it entirely. So instead of reworking to an objective-XP system they tried methods as huge bonusses for quests, but that was really only a "patch to the wound." (not a gamepatch... it was pretty clear if you actually read my post)
Now that we're so many years later and have a start at beginning anew, yes, I would like for them to rework the core system rather than taking the same flawed system of old and riggidly trying to make it work properly with adding needless stuff like mine or lockpick XP (sadly, the same suggestions being presented today )
Of course I never played the Infinity Engine games. Or I would have seen them for what you know they are, perfect games without any flaws what-so-ever. So we should keep everything the same. Except Obsdian already reworks a lot of IE-things people had issues with. Rest-spam, spells-per-rest, D&D combat. Why aren't those kept since they were perfect? Do things just because IE-games did them is no argument. Since many things have changed from there already, mostly due to much complain of the mechanics. Surely you can think of faults of you own (oh no, wait, perfect, nvm)? Things they can now after all this year finally solve starting anew? Rather than working forth on old mistakes? I am sad to inform you however you can't expect your IE-game, because while like it, it will have signifcant changes. This game isn't made for people who think IE were perfect and any change (for the better) is going to become horrible bad and ruin the game.
I am sure everyone who played IE-games played them just like you, thought just like you. Someone like me who thought "okay, it's kinda bad this choice between dialogue and murdering has a 75000XP award difference?"
I ask you... have you ever played Knights of the Old Republic II? If so, tell me... what did you think of the Nar Shaddaa Refugee sector, where the "conversation" sollution wielded 3000XP and murdering the entire sector wielded 80000XP?
Surely anyone who thinks thats utterly ridicilous just doesn't want an IE-game... or played IE-games, right? Can't be we have valid reasons to object...
And yes, I am still of the opinion Bestiary XP *can* be good, if there are other sources of information aside from combat. If it's just murdering off until "ding" and there are no alternatives, it's just another patch to lap up an issue rather than fix it.
Now don't dissapoint me when you fail to see my point, pick certain parts of my posts to complain rather than taking the whole in mind, or just keep rambling the same boring old line of "you have no argument, I don't understand why you would, you never posted any reasons..."