Combat XP - What Just Happened..?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I never said you said lions would always be avoidable throughout the whole game. I don't know if I can avoid all lions in the whole game (I was merely pointing out that neither of us knows that we can). And yes, I don't know if we'll see lions later in the game unless I have meta-knowledge. I totally addressed that in the remainder of my response, but you've inadvertently pre-emptively responded before reading that part.

 

Just for the record, not every word of every response is "Yeah, but you're wrong because...". Some things are just supplementary comments, and are not aiming to disprove your point.

 

The old Lephys, I never said, you said, she said, he said, whoever said, never said, talking in circles word play. Good to see you're true to form. So you agree that you don't know you'll encounter lions later in the game. Therefore, will you kill those lions now to get the xp reward? And if you do encounter the same type of lion in the game and it can be avoided, will you avoid it? And I haven't inadvertently pre-emptively responded.

 

So you're arguing for the sake of arguing? Okay.

 

 It's not really more compelling than any other system. It's just also compelling. But, that's not really important, so we'll just call that my opinion, I suppose, and I won't worry with it and waste anyone's time.

 

It is more compelling because as I said, you have no idea if you are going to meet that exact same type of enemy again. As I said, it's not a case of encountering a lion again. It's encountering that same type of lion again. And the only type of game I've come across that's similar is Diablo 3 and achievements. Kill X amount of something and unlock an achievement. Bestiary xp is the same thing but with an xp reward and bestiary page for your cyclopaedia. Kill 10 crystal spiders, get an xp reward and bestiary page. No need to kill anymore in the game if you can avoid them. Unless you want trash loot or crafting materials but comes down to is it worth it? Maybe not. Especially later in the game when it's trash loot, you have enough money and better equipment and the crafting material is something you may not be using.

 

Kill 10 crystal spiders. XP Reward. Bestiary Page in cyclopaedia. Achievement unlocked!

 

You're missing the point. How do you even know there's enough XP in the game to reach the level cap without killing everything you see? You don't. If anything drops loot less-than-100% of the time, and/or drops a unique item (like an Elder Lion Pelt, for example), how do you know that won't be useful, and/or you won't need that some other time? You don't.

 

You simply trust that the design of the game makes friggin' sense, and that some of the things in the game are going to be optional, because the developers told you that when they advertised their game design. So, I'm not arguing that there's no reason to desire to "play it safe" and kill all 5 of your beetles up-front to make sure you go ahead and get that XP reward. I'm just saying, unknowns are there and are promoting erring-on-the-side-of-caution, bestiary XP or no. Hell, even without XP... You don't know anything concrete, without meta-knowledge. 

 

No, you're missing the point as always. How do you know there's enough XP in the game to reach the level cap without completing every objective and quest in the game, or every bestiary page or picking/disarming every lock/trap? You don't. If anything how do you know that loot from quests drops a unique item, how do you know that won't be useful, and/or you won't need that some other time? You don't.

 

And you're simply trusting the design of the game makes friggin' sense, and that some of the things in the game are going to be optional, because the developers told you that when they advertised their game design. So, I'm not arguing that there's no reason to desire to "play it safe" and complete all optional quests up-front to make sure you go ahead and get that XP reward. I'm just saying, unknowns are there and are promoting erring-on-the-side-of-caution, any form of XP or no. Hell, even without XP... You don't know anything concrete, without meta-knowledge.

 

See what I did there? 

 

You're argument makes no sense.

 

I have played WL2, for what it's worth. Why would you want to do that? For loot and XP. Who does that? Some people. I don't think you know what conjecture means. I'm not even arguing how many people are doing it. I'm arguing that it can be done. Versus PoE, in which there will apparently not be any infinite source of combat encounters. How is that conjecture? Infinite things to kill, if you choose, all giving you XP for every kill. But there's just no reason at all to kill any number of infinite things for XP, simply because you don't do it? Also, going back to my point a little higher up in this response, about unknowns... how do you know how much XP you'll get from not-killing a bunch of random encounters in the desert to get you to the level-cap and/or keep up with the progressive difficulty of critical path encounters?

 

You're the one who brought that up, about bestiary XP, but now you're acting like it doesn't exist, or you don't comprehend the workings of unknowns and incentives. This baffles me.

 

And lastly, I think I'm somewhat repeating some of this from either this thread or another, but I'll tell you why, off the top of my head, bestiary XP isn't great:

 

LOL. 'Some people' is your answer with the WL2 question. Funny how you didn't mention you did/didn't do it. Sounds like you avoid the encounters too. Ahh, the truth comes out. So in a combat centric, xp kill game like Wasteland 2, you avoid or try to avoid those random spawning encounters which to the best of my knowledge only happen on the World map. LMAO. So there's no concern over grinding xp from random encounters in WL2.

 

Yeah, you're arguing it can be done. Well a lot of things 'can be done', doesn't mean that it is done. Sounds like you're arguing just to argue. And you are arguing and using conjecture. Infinite xp? infinite things. Oh god.

 

Also, I'm not acting like it doesn't exist. Where did I say bestiary xp doesn't exist? Can you move the goal posts any further? And I prefer to go off real life stuff like the beta and other games like WL2, to get a sense of how games work, not things like 'infinite xp' and 'infinite things' which you're doing.

 

And lastly, I think I'm somewhat repeating some of this from either this thread or another, but I'll tell you why, off the top of my head, bestiary XP isn't great:

 

- It doesn't really represent accomplishment via combat in any kind of even fashion.

- It still represents the act of killing something (oftentimes not even something that was in your way at all, and that wouldn't have attacked you unless you decided to go wander into its personal space and/or piss it off), while the acts of doing everything else in the game don't provide you with XP, even though XP covers the advancement of pretty much any skill at which your character can improve in the whole game.

- It's kind of half of one thing, and half of another, without actually being either. It's an objective, but a somewhat arbitrary one (in the sense of what you're representing with XP gains.) For example, you kill X beetles and get a chunk of XP, but you don't get XP for intimidating X people in dialogue. So long as you only get XP for successfully accomplishing something pertinent to the story via intimidation in a given dialogue, you should only get XP for successfully accomplishing something pertinent to the story via combat.

 

There are probably more reasons. I'll think on it some more. 

 

Finally, we get to see you list why Bestiary xp is bad in your opinion.

 

So you agree that going off and killing something that's not even in your way encourages a certain play style. eg. kill spree to get that bestiary page and xp reward. Seems more compelling that bestiary xp encourages kill sprees and going out of your way to get it. To go off the beaten track and get those kills. Something a lot of people have argued wasn't a huge problem with the IE games. 

Edited October 15, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

Annnnnnnd done with Hiro. I think a couple attempts was more than courteous.

[leninghola]

 

Level scaling of encounters can be a good thing if it is applied in moderation and done right (by adding more enemies), but horrible if done wrong (like invisibly scaling the HP's or other stats of enemies, as that pretty much negates the hole concept of character progression and gaining power).

However, it is something every GM at pen'n'paper games was 'forced' to do from time to time. There's nothing worse than missing on the thrill of an encounter you ve planned way ahead, only b/c the players have become stronger than you expected. I find nothing wrong with that, nor my PCs the times I tell 'em I did it. Actually, they support my doing it.

 

There is no save/reload system in pnp. cRPG will be less flexible in that respect by default, as you already have a safety net, unless playing ironman.

[Lord Wafflebum]

I'm hoping that before the game is released we can get a sense for how leveling will feel in the full version of the game. I think it's tough to make any informed argument based on what we have. We can see how leveling works mechanically, but it is kind of impossible at this point to see how Josh's vision for a different leveling works when XP is just given away. 

 

I'd love to start at Lvl 1 in the beta, then have the XP system set up to go to level 4 or 5 just to feel how it flows.

[Immortalis]

CaptainMace, the reason combat XP is so low and exploration XP is so high is that about 75% of voters think that exploration XP is justified while only 50% think that combat XP is justified. That's... pretty much it.

 

The people who want combat XP are pretty loud (not that that's a bad thing), but this poll (and the other two previous polls as well) reinforces the evidence that the community is pretty much evenly divided on combat XP. Half of us want it and half of us don't. Therefore, for either side to claim that their opinion represents what "true" fans of PoE want or some such is completely disingenuous. Just something to keep in mind.

 

Combat Xper's aren't true fans of PoE.. they are true fans of IE.. The rest of your post is correct.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Immortalis

[Immortalis]

 

 

-modify difficulty of key story encounters based on party strength, up to a level that makes sense

 

 

 

 

Great.. now I need to make a new thread..

[archangel979]

Explain the different options before you do the poll.

[CaptainMace]

CaptainMace, the reason combat XP is so low and exploration XP is so high is that about 75% of voters think that exploration XP is justified while only 50% think that combat XP is justified. That's... pretty much it.

 

The people who want combat XP are pretty loud (not that that's a bad thing), but this poll (and the other two previous polls as well) reinforces the evidence that the community is pretty much evenly divided on combat XP. Half of us want it and half of us don't. Therefore, for either side to claim that their opinion represents what "true" fans of PoE want or some such is completely disingenuous. Just something to keep in mind.

 

 

Sure, but the problem with your arguments is that they're not related to what we know from the game, they seem to fit for pc rpg in general, but we're not discussing of a game project, we're discussing of a game which already has some features definitely stated, one of em' being an elaborate combat system.

 

Then my question was more : why do so many people consider exploration worthy of experience rewards, when the only reward from exploration should be its result as I said, and why so many people don't find it OK to gain experience from fighting in a game that features so many combat situations ? Again, I don't deny the fact most people think that way, I just say they don't seem to understand the problem here...

 

Same goes for bestiary xp, I mean what the hell is this to begin with ? Getting experience from fighting a wolf for the first time ? Why isn't the bestiary a reward itself then ? With a little log in for every new ennemy displaying a description in which you'd find info about weaknesses, strength, habitat (lore) etc... Do we really need XP from that ?

I am not favorable for stacking rewards for such "deeds". There are different priorities to set in an experience system : the first question we should ask is, how are the deeds rewarded. Therefore, i'll have to say that if I ever have to fight a bunch of demonic unindentified evil flying monsters, I expect to get something else than their fresh vesicles from it.

[Caladian]

 

CaptainMace, the reason combat XP is so low and exploration XP is so high is that about 75% of voters think that exploration XP is justified while only 50% think that combat XP is justified. That's... pretty much it.

 

The people who want combat XP are pretty loud (not that that's a bad thing), but this poll (and the other two previous polls as well) reinforces the evidence that the community is pretty much evenly divided on combat XP. Half of us want it and half of us don't. Therefore, for either side to claim that their opinion represents what "true" fans of PoE want or some such is completely disingenuous. Just something to keep in mind.

 

Combat Xper's aren't true fans of PoE.. they are true fans of IE.. The rest of your post is correct.

 

No, they aren't true fans of IE.  Hated dealing with the combat in IE but absolutely loved the stories... that is the true fan of IE.  the roleplay... not the rollplay.

[CaptainMace]

 

No, they aren't true fans of IE.  Hated dealing with the combat in IE but absolutely loved the stories... that is the true fan of IE.  the roleplay... not the rollplay.

 

 

 

They made it pretty clear that their inspiration is PST, BG and ID, maybe you should check the Torment game from inXile. I think it'll fit your tastes. Though you probably already know of it ^^

[archangel979]

 

 

CaptainMace, the reason combat XP is so low and exploration XP is so high is that about 75% of voters think that exploration XP is justified while only 50% think that combat XP is justified. That's... pretty much it.

 

The people who want combat XP are pretty loud (not that that's a bad thing), but this poll (and the other two previous polls as well) reinforces the evidence that the community is pretty much evenly divided on combat XP. Half of us want it and half of us don't. Therefore, for either side to claim that their opinion represents what "true" fans of PoE want or some such is completely disingenuous. Just something to keep in mind.

 

Combat Xper's aren't true fans of PoE.. they are true fans of IE.. The rest of your post is correct.

 

No, they aren't true fans of IE.  Hated dealing with the combat in IE but absolutely loved the stories... that is the true fan of IE.  the roleplay... not the rollplay.

 

Only PST fits you description. You might be a true fan of PST, but if you didn't like combat in IE games, you are not a true fan of most IE games.

[Caladian]

My point is that I can make a wildly subjective point about it.  Yes, I liked the stories more than the combat.  Yes, I did love PST, but I also loved the baldur's gate games for the same reason.  The only reason I hated the combat in the IE games is because of the grind.  It was always more beneficial to murder everything than not.  So, no you are not no more of a true IE fan than I was.  Those games had an engine built to compliment the stories being told.

[Immortalis]

My point is that I can make a wildly subjective point about it.  Yes, I liked the stories more than the combat.  Yes, I did love PST, but I also loved the baldur's gate games for the same reason.  The only reason I hated the combat in the IE games is because of the grind.  It was always more beneficial to murder everything than not.  So, no you are not no more of a true IE fan than I was.  Those games had an engine built to compliment the stories being told.

 

There was no grinding in Baldurs Gate.. what game were you playing..

 

If you liked IE games minus the thing you spent 80% of the game doing and being rewarded for.. You aren't a true fan of IE.. Also hate to burst your bubble.. PoE won't change anything.. You still have **** tons of combat 80% of the time.. they just added a strong hold and took out the reward system.

 

Do you actually think your gonna be able to resolve most quests by talking your way out of it? Man common.. you been drinking too much fan boy koolaid.

 

Don't worry.. when the the koolaid buzz wears off maybe you will see the beetle forest and lion temple for what they are.. Fluff combat with no purpose. Assuming Obsidian doesn't continue "fixing" the game by removing all combat.. (They seriously nerfed the beetle encounter in response to people complaining the combat is boring)

 

Because Josh can't admit this design is retarded for a combat centric game.

 

Oh well.. at least I have wasteland 2..

Edited October 15, 2014 by Immortalis

[Namutree]

The true fan argument is pointless. People liked the IE games for different reasons.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Namutree

[Captain Shrek]

I am still to see one who claims it was not story/ mage battles/characters that made them like it.

[Namutree]

I am still to see one who claims it was not story/ mage battles/characters that made them like it.

I personally liked BG1/BG2 all-round. I liked the combat, the story, the exploration, and the characters (With a few exceptions). 

 

 

EDIT: I almost forgot, the character creation. Plenty of races and classes to choose from.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Namutree

[Namutree]

 

Because Josh can't admit this design is retarded for a combat centric game.

 

His design isn't complete and is still changing. I agree that as it is it's not very good, but considering Josh is currently changing it I think it's safe to assume he's aware that there is a problem.

[PrimeHydra]

After 6ish Capped threads at 500 posts.. and several polls..

 

Adding in minor bestiary, exploration, lock, and trap XP rewards to increase the regularity of XP rewards across the game.

 

Josh's solution is rewarding Xp for opening locks and disabling traps.. the one thing from Baldurs Gate 2 nobody wanted to see make a return.

 

What the hell just happened?

Getting back to the original post, Immortalis has a good point: Why give XP to traps and lockpicks? It introduces a soft requirement: You have to have a Mechanics-focused character, or you'll miss out on experience.

 

This isn't true of any other XP source, including combat XP!

 

If the goal is to award experience more frequently, that's readily accomplished with granular quest XP (objectives), exploration XP, and bestiary unlocks.

 

Rather than being play-style-focused (combat XP would make sense if PoE were designed without alternative resolutions, like stealth and diplomacy) trap/lockpick XP is literally bound to a specific talent.

 

"What the hell" indeed!  

Edited October 15, 2014 by PrimeHydra

[Matt516]

 

CaptainMace, the reason combat XP is so low and exploration XP is so high is that about 75% of voters think that exploration XP is justified while only 50% think that combat XP is justified. That's... pretty much it.

 

The people who want combat XP are pretty loud (not that that's a bad thing), but this poll (and the other two previous polls as well) reinforces the evidence that the community is pretty much evenly divided on combat XP. Half of us want it and half of us don't. Therefore, for either side to claim that their opinion represents what "true" fans of PoE want or some such is completely disingenuous. Just something to keep in mind.

 

Sure, but the problem with your arguments ...

 

I wasn't making any arguments about combat XP, just telling you how to interpret the poll lol. I'm pretty much done arguing about XP for the most part, which is why I didn't make any arguments. Not really sure what you were responding to there, but it wasn't what I wrote. 

[Immortalis]

 

 

CaptainMace, the reason combat XP is so low and exploration XP is so high is that about 75% of voters think that exploration XP is justified while only 50% think that combat XP is justified. That's... pretty much it.

 

The people who want combat XP are pretty loud (not that that's a bad thing), but this poll (and the other two previous polls as well) reinforces the evidence that the community is pretty much evenly divided on combat XP. Half of us want it and half of us don't. Therefore, for either side to claim that their opinion represents what "true" fans of PoE want or some such is completely disingenuous. Just something to keep in mind.

 

Sure, but the problem with your arguments ...

 

I wasn't making any arguments about combat XP, just telling you how to interpret the poll lol. I'm pretty much done arguing about XP for the most part, which is why I didn't make any arguments. Not really sure what you were responding to there, but it wasn't what I wrote. 

 

Matt is too busy doing math to stoop to our lowly pleb level..

[adam77]

My point is that I can make a wildly subjective point about it.  Yes, I liked the stories more than the combat.  Yes, I did love PST, but I also loved the baldur's gate games for the same reason.  The only reason I hated the combat in the IE games is because of the grind.  It was always more beneficial to murder everything than not.  So, no you are not no more of a true IE fan than I was.  Those games had an engine built to compliment the stories being told.

Yes, you can kill all monsters, peoples, etc. in the game, but why play in such way?

Don't you have even a little bit of mercy and feelings of the npc's in the game? I, for example have never played in such way and I have been through the game without problems.

Edited October 16, 2014 by adam77

[H0RSE]

My point is that I can make a wildly subjective point about it.  Yes, I liked the stories more than the combat.  Yes, I did love PST, but I also loved the baldur's gate games for the same reason.  The only reason I hated the combat in the IE games is because of the grind.  It was always more beneficial to murder everything than not.

 

Wow, after all these posts, you still don't understand what grinding is... Just because something is "beneficial" in a game, does not make that aspect "grindy."

 

Grinding tends to have certain characteristics (or a combination of) that make it a grind:

 

• The content tends to be repeatable. Either the mobs themselves will respwan or the instance, dungeon, whatever can be reset and done over and over.
• Grinding tends to exist in games where it's intended to exist, and it is a known mechanic whose existence isn't debatable.
• Grinding tends to not only be a beneficial mechanic, but often times a superior one, at least if your trying to progress in any timely fashion. You can grind out 10 lvl in a game where grinding is an actual thing, way faster than you would get them just progressing through the game normally. Can the same thing be said for IE games? The "benefit," as you say, that comes from grinding combat xp in IE games, is debatable, and that is basis of your entire argument.
• Grinding is all about efficiency - you don't want a lot of downtime. This helps explain why in games where grinding is known and practiced mechanic, the combat tends to fast-paced and/or frequent, and it also tends to be focused around getting your char a strong as they can possibly get. Killing a group of mobs in a area where they constantly respawn, is grinding. Exploring the entire map of the game and killing everything you see for xp - not so much...  this concept applies to other aspects, such as quests and mats as well, where it ties into farming - this isn't the IE games....  

 

Between the diceroll combat, the pace of the games themselves, and the constant resting, grinding only was not intended in the IE games, it isn't even encouraged. You could even argue whether or not it's actually beneficial, since just doing quests would likely net you way more xp. but then again as I already stated, you can grind quests as well.

 

Sure, you could argue that if a player has an intent to kill for xp, that would make it a grind, thus IE games are "grindy," but that's being completely disingenuous. You're taking a term and stripping it of all it's meaning, and trying to shoehorn it into this grey area of argument where it doesn't really fit. The IE games may have had combat xp, but they were nowhere, in any accepted definition of the term, "grindy." What you talk about being grindy, just comes down to the players choice to do so, not an inherent trait/flaw of the game, thus a game can have combat xp, and not promote grinding at the same time, like the IE games did.

 

Those in favor of combat xp, really just want it so combat feels satisfying, not so they can farm xp off of it. Ironically, by removing combat xp, it can actually make combat feel like a grind.

Edited October 16, 2014 by H0RSE

[Matt516]

 

 

 

 

 

 

CaptainMace, the reason combat XP is so low and exploration XP is so high is that about 75% of voters think that exploration XP is justified while only 50% think that combat XP is justified. That's... pretty much it.

 

The people who want combat XP are pretty loud (not that that's a bad thing), but this poll (and the other two previous polls as well) reinforces the evidence that the community is pretty much evenly divided on combat XP. Half of us want it and half of us don't. Therefore, for either side to claim that their opinion represents what "true" fans of PoE want or some such is completely disingenuous. Just something to keep in mind.

Sure, but the problem with your arguments ...

I wasn't making any arguments about combat XP, just telling you how to interpret the poll lol. I'm pretty much done arguing about XP for the most part, which is why I didn't make any arguments. Not really sure what you were responding to there, but it wasn't what I wrote.

Matt is too busy doing math to stoop to our lowly pleb level..

That was a bit uncalled for.. . I never implied anything of the sort. He asked why the poll said a thing. I answered his question by saying it said a thing because that's what people think. Then he responded to arguments and statements I never made and I responded by voicing my confusion about that. And now I'm voicing my confusion about your post. Math hasn't even been mentioned so I don't know where that's coming from. Have I said something else that offended you?

[Cantousent]

I think it's particularly telling that lock/trap XP is dead last in this poll.  It falls significantly behind kill XP (by about 10 as I reckon it at this time) and doesn't even reach 40%.  I don't think you can take any one poll from these forums and extrapolate too terribly much out of them, although I did think this poll was fun.  However, where was the howl?  I know that kill XP folks were more numerous and more vocal.  Even though I fell on the other side of that issue, I respect that it's been a mainstay for a long time and people are going to be pissed off (can I say that on live TV?).  Where was the huge movement for trap XP.  I understand that, for a variety of reasons, kill XP is more vexing from a design perspective, but lock/trap XP is open to the same exploits as kill XP in kind, even if not in exact flavor or degree.  I'm *not* making an argument for kill XP.  I'm just saying that lock/trap XP is absolutely ridiculous.  ...And this poll doesn't even ask what folks want.  It merely asks what is appropriate.

 

I've greatly enjoyed Wasteland 2.  Yeah, I don't like the way everything grants XP, but that's what the game does.  I'd hope that, whatever happens with PoE, folks will fairly evaluate the game based on how fun it is, regardless of how hard they fought for any particular position.  I'll even just pretend romances aren't part of the game if Obsidz makes a long and elaborate romance line.

 

Anyhow, while I like the game, trap XP is a perfect example of working the system.  Now, aside from the fact that what's in the chest or what's behind the door virtually always makes the XP from picking the lock completely irrelevant and is plenty reward in and of itself, and disarming the trap on such locks prevents wounding the characters and possibly destroying the contents, which makes it a no brainer to do and I'd do it without *any* XP, there are areas in the game with a lot of traps.  Many many traps.  Now, disarming any particular trap might be beneficial.  So, since you would gladly walk over the trap and take the damage if they didn't reward you with XP for disarming it, they must grant XP.  Even worse, there are times when, from a role playing perspective, you might want to leave some of those traps.  For example, if there's an area to which you've gained access, from a story perspective, you might want to leave a healthy number of traps in place to dissuade other folks from trying to access the same area.  ...But even worse than that, there are times when you can actually take advantage of the traps.  For example, you're fighting frogs or wolves or whatnot and you can draw them through the mine field to attack you.  It actually works pretty well.  Shoot them full of holes while they run at you and watch them get blown up trying to close.  However, since the mobs aren't all that hard, at least on Ranger level, and you can be pretty damned proficient at explosives, you get more benefit from those traps.  It doesn't make me hate the game, but it does show how the design encourages the player to act in a counter-intuitive manner.

 

As much as I don't want kill XP, and that's a lot, I find trap/lock XP outright insulting.

 

EDIT:  Matt, Immortalis is just being crotchety.  We need to give him a bottle of rye and grant him XP for killing it off.  :Cant's Rye grin icon:

Edited October 16, 2014 by Cantousent

[Lephys]

Yes, you can kill all monsters, peoples, etc. in the game, but why play in such way?

Don't you have even a little bit of mercy and feelings of the npc's in the game? I, for example have never played in such way and I have been through the game without problems.

To be fair, pretend instead of killable things that the game was just filled with 7,000 treasure chests. Then, asking people "Yeah, you COULD open all the treasure chests, but you don't need to. Why would you see a treasure chest, and think 'Hmmm, I should get what's inside that'?"

 

Sure, when you go play the "it would be crazy to want to run around fighting all the things you can fight" card, it seems crazy. But, that doesn't change the fact that the incentive is there. Why wouldn't you pick all the locks, if they all gave XP, even if you didn't need to pick them? Heck, why do all the quests? If you can reach level cap without doing everything, and plenty of people have gone through a game without doing all the quests, without any problems... is it crazy to do all the quests?

 

Furthermore, why are all those things do-able, and why do they all come with rewards, by design, if the intention is for you to not do them all? What, the game expects people who like combat to get to optionally partake in much more combat, but whoa! NEVER more than like 80% of all the combat in the game! That's just crazy! Obviously, if you kill THESE wolves over here in the Eastern forest, you're supposed to dodge THOSE wolves over in the Western forest. Because you don't NEED to kill all the wolves in the game, and you're supposed to make a spreadsheet detailing exactly how many of everything in the game world you need to fight, before deciding how you like to play, or whether or not, the moment you encounter some group of hostiles, you should want their XP or not.

 

Battle budgets, guys! Battle budgets!

 

 

Matt is too busy doing math to stoop to our lowly pleb level..

That was a bit uncalled for.. . I never implied anything of the sort. He asked why the poll said a thing. I answered his question by saying it said a thing because that's what people think. Then he responded to arguments and statements I never made and I responded by voicing my confusion about that. And now I'm voicing my confusion about your post. Math hasn't even been mentioned so I don't know where that's coming from. Have I said something else that offended you?

 

For what it's worth, I believed him to be joking/being silly. But maybe he wasn't. *shrug*

Edited October 16, 2014 by Lephys