I learned that fights don't give you experience

[PrimeJunta]

Second, what gave you the idea that there are no class restrictions in PoE when it comes to quests or options? There certainly are Cipher-specific dialogue options, and given that each class is what it is, that would also mean that they have class-specific solutions to certain quests.

There is a cipher-specific solution to one of the quests in the BB.

[Quetzalcoatl]

 

 

There's no relation between exploration and the definition of what constitutes quest-related. The point was that the vast majority of all enemies in BG2 are quest-related in one way or another (easily 90%). Instead of arguing against this, you started arguing what constitutes "quest-related"; i.e., semantics.

 

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of opponents in BG2 (and IWD/IWD2/PS:T) are quest-related in one way or another, in that you will be facing them while carrying out a quest. Your own definition of "quest-related" has nothing to do with that argument, and the argument can't be deflected by you focusing on the semantics.

 

As I pointed out earlier, in BG1, this does not hold entirely true, because BG1 has a lot of wilderness areas that are largely devoid of quests (or do not have quests that send you there). In the context of PoE, I would argue that the process of exploration has it's own rewards, but just to be clear, you also do get experience for finding new sites, and I think that it's perfectly reasonable to hand out goal-oriented experience based on finding secrets, finding locations you'd otherwise miss, and so on, just like it was in Deus Ex.

 

Anything is better than murderhobo-oriented experience. Murderhobo-oriented experience really achieves nothing, except forcing the gameplay to be kill-oriented, rather than roleplaying-oriented (character development, achieving goals, solving quests/crimes/mysteries, exploring locales, etc).

 

 

There is a pretty big relation as a matter of fact, imagine exploring the maps in PoE and doing so for hours, all the while you are fighting trash mobs that are in your way. So after playing for hours you open up you char sheet and see 0 xp, 0 character progression. That would be pretty disheartening.

 

So because you guys are scared to miss out on that precious xp, now we have to suffer for our playstyle.

 

Sarex is correct. So much that Obsidian changed their stance on Quest only xp because they even admitted it was a problem and included other types of xp including kill xp in the form of bestiary pages. When you have dev's changing and overhauling the xp system a few months from release, you know there's a problem. I've shown that it's worse with the current bestiary kill xp than the full combat xp in the IE games, the PoE xp system encourages kill sprees even more and I've given reasons why in the beta feedback forum.

 

It's pretty easy for you Luckmann to give an argument from your viewpoint, but if you actually played the beta when it first came out when it was Quest only xp, it was a problem that even some of the die hard Quest only xp fans admitted on this forum.

 

So your complaint was that there was no kill xp and now that they added kill XP, your complaint is that it encourages you kill things for XP? Sounds like there's no pleasing certain people. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Quetzalcoatl

[Sarex]

It's almost as if you've got some pretty die-hard reading disability going on here. I said "There's no relation between exploration and the definition of what constitutes quest-related." and you say that there is a relation, and then go on to argue something completely unrelated to what I said. This is the second time you clearly misconstrue an argument in order to avoid the subject.

 

That being said, nothing in goal-oriented experience excludes exploration rewards in any way. If we assume that PoE takes the approach of BG2 (in terms of "virtually everything is a quest area", which is a pretty safe assumption, unfortunately), you will gain experience via quests as you explore, or your exploration/murderhobo tendencies will make it easier to later complete quests as you return to the area.

 

Even if we assume a BG1 approach and the fact that exploration can be it's own reward independent of immediate experience doleout, why should a murderhobo get more experience than any other solution by default? Why should it not be viable to explore via stealth, if the issue here really is "exploration", and not just instant-gratification highs for the cognitively shallow?

 

Goal-oriented experience gives the players the incentive to seek alternative solutions, and the developers the freedom to create rewarding scenarios aside from combat encounters, and discourages the munchkin behaviour of killing people on principle even after finishing a quest a certain way. It allows you to stay in-character without penalizing yourself. In no way does it affect exploration negatively, nor dismiss violence as a possible means to the same end.

 

Murderhobo-oriented experience, however, incentivizes violence - and only violence - as a meaningful solution.

 

For an example of this, look at Deus Ex: Human Revolutions and compare it to Deus Ex. Deus Ex rewards ingenuity and emergent gameplay, allowing the player to find his own solution to problems, sometimes whether it was intended by the developers or not. There are multiple ways to solve any situation, often including just plain fleeing the scene, and a player is rewarded for exploration, solving problems, reaching goals and finding secrets. DE:HR on the other hand, awards experience for every little thing you do, incentivizing you to do every little thing, including doubling back to kill the enemies you left alive (or, to be specific, do a silent melee takedown), it awards you experience for hacking, even when you have the password, and for lockpicking, even when you have the key, meaning that if you have a choice, you'll always do both.

 

Even the BG/2 game(s) suffer from this, albeit in a much-diminished fashion, in that there are actually several quests where you are rewarded better experience for doing the quest to it's conclusion, and then turning on whomever you've been working with in order to kill them, making sure that you get the kill-experience as well.

 

In PoE, however, you get experience based on result, meaning that no matter what you play or the approach you take, it's viable from an experience perspective. Now, if the developers have truly taking this into account, I honestly doubt (you can't even Stealth independently, only as a party), but as long as experience is Goal-oriented, the possibility is there. If it's Murderhobo-oriented, that ideal is dead. Dead and buried and gone forever, and the best way to go through the game is with a big stick and a surly disposition.

 

Dude if you can't see the point in what I'm saying that I have bad news for you... Try consulting with a doctor it could be serious.

 

Ok, let's take it slow. Do you know what character progression is in a game? Let me explain just in case, characters gets xp, when he gets enough xp he levels up, when he levels up he progress his skills and stats. If you still don't understand I'll break out the crayons.

 

Now, as far as exploring is concerned, I see I need break out the crayons. When you explore and go through an area, you are forced to murder hobos, as you oh so eloquently put it, you will get 0 xp (at least in the original iteration of the xp system), so you will get 0 character progression. Then you will take quests, and the empty spaces you made will only then start giving xp, so only then will character progression happen. What we call that is uneven and erratic character progression and as you may or may not know that is also called bad gameplay design.

 

I don't know how you got that the murderhobo gets any more xp, usually non lethal solutions awarded more xp in BG games. You must be thinking of the famous, "oh noes the bad people exploit the system and double dip" (also, that has been blown way out of proportions, you didn't get that much more xp by doing that). Also as was/is proven in the backer beta exploration via stealth is not plausible, as you can't most of the trash encounters in the wild. As for cognitively shallow and instant gratification, you do realize that you just described video games in a nut shell? Just lol...

 

I don't see how kill xp changed that. The issue here is that you people care too much about how other people play the game. If other people want exploit the system that is their prerogative, why would you care if they ruin the game for them selves?

 

No it doesn't, I don't know how you played the game, but I have not in any of my playthroughs murder everything that was walking. I admit that in my later playthroughs went for the optimal solutions (whatever gave more xp/better items), but that is neither here nor there. You can't stop meta gaming and no matter what Josh thinks neither can he. If you think that kill xp incentives murderhobo playthroughs then you have other problems you should be concerned about.

 

Yeah PoE is not supposed to be Deus Ex. PoE is a combat oriented game, you can even ask Josh about, he confirmed it on numerous occasions on this forum.

 

Yeah no one I know does that ****. At least not on his first 10 tries of the game. Maybe when someone gets bored, he goes for that sort of gameplay style to see what is the max xp he can get or simply what would happen if he does that. But the question still remains, why the **** would you care how someone else plays the game? Especial when the dificulty curve is not optimized for that sort of gameplay (exploitation), that person is essentially ruining his gameplay experience (provided that he enjoyed it in the first place).

 

If you think that PoE won't have any exploits, then buddy, I have some bad news for you. Give it the time the Infinity Engine games had, I predict that it will have even more holes in its gameplay.

 

edit2: Removing kill xp, removed a style of playing the game (or at least made it unplayable), it removed a choice from the game. That you and other people don't like this choice doesn't matter, this game isn't made only for you. Your problem is that you seem to care too much how other people play the game. Nothing stopped you from playing BG in a non lethal way and choosing non lethal options, well I lie your mentality stopped you, that much is pretty obvious, you care too much how much xp other people get to relax and play the game in your own way. I'm afraid that is a problem that you have to deal with and not the game.

 

 

First, this is you again trying to reinterpret what someone said and argue over semantics. It is obvious that Hassat Hunter meant that you can't do everything in a game. Instead of arguing against that, you start arguing over the definition of "100%".

In fact, no TRUE RPG allow you to go through 100% of all the content in one go, simply because there will be branching paths that are mutually exclusive. That's what Hassat Hunter meant and anyone with the cognitive ability over that of a ferret would've realized it instead of arguing the semantics.

 

Second, what gave you the idea that there are no class restrictions in PoE when it comes to quests or options? There certainly are Cipher-specific dialogue options, and given that each class is what it is, that would also mean that they have class-specific solutions to certain quests.

 

I'm not saying that there *are* class-specific quests or quest solutions, but there is nothing saying there's not. There's no class restrictions on things like gear, but there certainly are class restrictions in terms of dialogue choices, talents, and powers. It's not Skyrim (thank god).

 

You have a pretty skewed idea of what 100% the game is and yes it is important to establish what 100%ing the game means. Otherwise what's the point of arguing it.

 

I stay by my statement that 100% the game is going through all the choices/quest that are available in the game and exploring 100% of the maps that are available in the playthrough. That you can make another choice doesn't matter, either way you chose you complete the quest.

 

But I guess you are one of those people that want achievements in the game.

 

edit: Forgot to add, Josh said there would be no class restrictions, so if that's true it means that you can finish any quest. It doesn't matter that you can't access a few dialogs if in the end you can complete said quest.

 

Your arguments are pretty weak and your constant insults only prove that.

 

So your complaint was that there was no kill xp and now that they added kill XP, your complaint is that it encourages you kill things for XP? Sounds like there's no pleasing certain people. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

No, he said that it's better if you go for the full combat xp (ala IE games) then this partial neither here nor there system. Josh still didn't implement the system we asked for and it's still bad. Bestiary isn't kill xp, it's FIRST kill xp.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Sarex

[Yellow Rabbit]

My first thought about "100%ing" was that it supposed to mean "seeing all content the game has to offer". And I concur with Luckmann on that, in proper RPG you can't do it in a single playthrough. There should be class-restricted, alignment-restricted and other whatever-restricted quests and ways to solve them excluding each other so that you have to choose one (and miss all the others). This is called "roleplaying options". Pretty good thing, actually.

 

That said, I've got what Sarex meant too, just wanted to point out that first thing coming to mind after seeing word "100%ing" was that from above.

 

Now, as far as exploring is concerned, I see I need break out the crayons. When you explore and go through an area, you are forced to murder hobos, as you oh so eloquently put it, you will get 0 xp (at least in the original iteration of the xp system), so you will get 0 character progression. Then you will take quests, and the empty spaces you made will only then start giving xp, so only then will character progression happen. What we call that is uneven and erratic character progression and as you may or may not know that is also called bad gameplay design.

You're exaggerating. Yeah, character progression pacing is an issue without kill xp in a combat oriented game. Thankfully, with right content spreading and right balance it can be made not so striking. If you go out exploring and face not only battles but also some quests tied to those battles, it's gonna be okay. BB doesn't do it good, and I suspect that main game won't either, but it's possible nevertheless.

[Sarex]

You're exaggerating. Yeah, character progression pacing is an issue without kill xp in a combat oriented game. Thankfully, with right content spreading and right balance it can be made not so striking. If you go out exploring and face not only battles but also some quests tied to those battles, it's gonna be okay. BB doesn't do it good, and I suspect that main game won't either, but it's possible nevertheless.

 

Don't have to believe me. Ask anyone who played the beta in the beginning, their original version of the xp system was pretty bad. They improved it since, but it's still not good.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Sarex

[Nakia]

When I first played the BB I got to level 8 doing the quests.  My last playthroughs I have gotten to level 9 with the extra beatery XP. 

 

I really do not understand why you are arguing.  Some people are focused on getting XP so they can level up and get more skills/spells so they can kill more things.  Others of us what choices and enjoying doing quests and tasks in different ways.  We want to role play to the fullest possible extent.   I did not find it that eay to level up in BG 1.

[Sarex]

When I first played the BB I got to level 8 doing the quests.  My last playthroughs I have gotten to level 9 with the extra beatery XP. 

 

I really do not understand why you are arguing.  Some people are focused on getting XP so they can level up and get more skills/spells so they can kill more things.  Others of us what choices and enjoying doing quests and tasks in different ways.  We want to role play to the fullest possible extent.   I did not find it that eay to level up in BG 1.

 

Read carefully what I said: "Ask anyone who played the beta in the beginning, their original version of the xp system was pretty bad."

 

Also read that big post before. Removing combat xp, removed a style of gameplay for us players.

[GrinningReaper659]

 

When I first played the BB I got to level 8 doing the quests.  My last playthroughs I have gotten to level 9 with the extra beatery XP. 

 

I really do not understand why you are arguing.  Some people are focused on getting XP so they can level up and get more skills/spells so they can kill more things.  Others of us what choices and enjoying doing quests and tasks in different ways.  We want to role play to the fullest possible extent.   I did not find it that eay to level up in BG 1.

 

Read carefully what I said: "Ask anyone who played the beta in the beginning, their original version of the xp system was pretty bad."

 

Also read that big post before. Removing combat xp, removed a style of gameplay for us players.

 

 

I played the beta in the beginning, and I don't think bestiary XP was a good addition nor do I think that a change to per-kill XP would be an improvement; in fact I think it would be considerably worse. So, no, you should stop making sweeping implications about everyone who played the beta in the beginning that, if you were actually involved in those discussions in the beginning, you know are untrue. If you're talking about the fact that the quest-only XP was a bit buggy or wasn't yet implemented very well as of the first backer beta release, then I'm not sure what the point of that statement is as it doesn't actually support a change of the type of XP system.

 

Also, "removing combat xp" not only doesn't remove a play style (it adds other legitimate play styles in addition to the "slaughter everything" approach), but it also wasn't "removed" at all because it wasn't ever implemented or even planned in the first place.

[Sarex]

I played the beta in the beginning, and I don't think bestiary XP was a good addition nor do I think that a change to per-kill XP would be an improvement; in fact I think it would be considerably worse. So, no, you should stop making sweeping implications about everyone who played the beta in the beginning that, if you were actually involved in those discussions in the beginning, you know are untrue. If you're talking about the fact that the quest-only XP was a bit buggy or wasn't yet implemented very well as of the first backer beta release, then I'm not sure what the point of that statement is as it doesn't actually support a change of the type of XP system.

 

Also, "removing combat xp" not only doesn't remove a play style (it adds other legitimate play styles in addition to the "slaughter everything" approach), but it also wasn't "removed" at all because it wasn't ever implemented or even planned in the first place.

 

Dude, are you for real.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68932-combat-xp-what-just-happened/ There are even more iteration of this topic in the BB forum but this was all I could find with a cursory search.

 

Even the most diehard fans of the quest xp system didn't like it in the bb. I have been part of these discussions since before the beta.

 

Point in case:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67140-experience-point-system-in-the-beta-and-onwards/

 

and all the threads before it.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Sarex

[BrainMuncher]

XP in general in a game like this is dumb and only there because people would freak out and put put their dinner bowl on their head if you took it away. As we have seen.

 

It's there in PnP because the people designing the rules have no control over the adventure themselves, it's a guideline to help DMs manage progression in a totally modular framework.

 

I don't see why there needs to be XP at all in these entirely handcrafted adventures, just hand out level-ups at appropriate spots. Now everyone can play however the hell they want without running into any balance issues. They can:

- stealth past everything

- OCD murder everything without ever taking a quest

- complete every quest

- etc.

 

Then no-one could complain about their playstyle being disadvantaged. Furthermore, design becomes easier as you don't have to account for a range of character levels. This means balance can be tighter meaning less cases of "too easy" or "too hard", and the devs saved a bunch of time tweaking meaningless numbers, so they can spend more time putting actual fun into the game.

[Yellow Rabbit]

Ask anyone who played the beta in the beginning, their original version of the xp system was pretty bad. They improved it since, but it's still not good.

Oh, so you're arguing not against quest-xp on principle but because of it looking bad in earliest BB builds? No wonder then. There was many things broken there. Whether it's an issue of concept or implementaion/balance is another question, I have no say on that. Concept looks okay, though, and works pretty well in other good games, so... *shrug*

[Sarex]

XP in general in a game like this is dumb and only there because people would freak out and put put their dinner bowl on their head if you took it away. As we have seen.

 

It's there in PnP because the people designing the rules have no control over the adventure themselves, it's a guideline to help DMs manage progression in a totally modular framework.

 

I don't see why there needs to be XP at all in these entirely handcrafted adventures, just hand out level-ups at appropriate spots. Now everyone can play however the hell they want without running into any balance issues. They can:

- stealth past everything

- OCD murder everything without ever taking a quest

- complete every quest

- etc.

 

Then no-one could complain about their playstyle being disadvantaged. Furthermore, design becomes easier as you don't have to account for a range of character levels. This means balance can be tighter meaning less cases of "too easy" or "too hard", and the devs saved a bunch of time tweaking meaningless numbers, so they can spend more time putting actual fun into the game.

 

Sure but that isn't the game people backed.

[illathid]

If no kill XP disincentives people from wandering not picking up quests then I'd mission f'ing accomplished. If people don't want to engage the content of the game, there's no reason to reward them with a balanced level progression. Seriously, they're a blight on the community.

[Sarex]

If no kill XP disincentives people from wandering not picking up quests then I'd mission f'ing accomplished. If people don't want to engage the content of the game, there's no reason to reward them with a balanced level progression. Seriously, they're a blight on the community.

 

Who the **** are you to decide who gets to play the game and how? Also what are we suppose to say to people for whom kill xp disincentives them from doing quests in a non lethal way?

Edited January 18, 2015 by Sarex

[Lord Wafflebum]

As I've said before, we have no idea yet if the no-kill xp is degrading to player advancement. The beta is simply not representative of how the actual game plays from an xp standpoint. I'm pretty sure Anthony Davis was saying on the codex that the quest xp system was actually really good.

 

Also, I played the beta from the beginning. I've always been fine with quest only xp.

 

Regardless, kill xp isn't coming back. Josh met you guys halfway with bestiary xp and I think that was quite gentlemanly of him. 

[Sarex]

As I've said before, we have no idea yet if the no-kill xp is degrading to player advancement. The beta is simply not representative of how the actual game plays from an xp standpoint. I'm pretty sure Anthony Davis was saying on the codex that the quest xp system was actually really good.

 

Also, I played the beta from the beginning. I've always been fine with quest only xp.

 

Regardless, kill xp isn't coming back. Josh met you guys halfway with bestiary xp and I think that was quite gentlemanly of him. 

 

LoL, this isn't about us getting our way, this is about making the game good and it not failing miserably when it comes out and pissing off everyone who backed expecting a game similar to IE games.

 

If it turns out that we were wrong then good for him and shame on us, but if it turns out bad, well, then at least we said something and we know we did everything we could to make the game better.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Sarex

[Lord Wafflebum]

There's plenty of precedent for quest-only xp to expect a good outcome. I know I am.

 

Although if it ends up turning out horribly I'll gladly eat my humble pie in the multiple "I told you so" threads

[Nakia]

 

When I first played the BB I got to level 8 doing the quests.  My last playthroughs I have gotten to level 9 with the extra beatery XP. 

 

I really do not understand why you are arguing.  Some people are focused on getting XP so they can level up and get more skills/spells so they can kill more things.  Others of us what choices and enjoying doing quests and tasks in different ways.  We want to role play to the fullest possible extent.   I did not find it that eay to level up in BG 1.

 

Read carefully what I said: "Ask anyone who played the beta in the beginning, their original version of the xp system was pretty bad."

 

Also read that big post before. Removing combat xp, removed a style of gameplay for us players.

 

I have been following this discussion closely.

1) I feel Sarex is making blanket statements for players.  i.e. I didn't back this game because I wanted a certain combat or spell system in fact I hoped they would change the IE games system.  

2) I am famliar with PnP and PbP games and actually took over one when we lost our DM suddenly.  Those are co-op games where a group of people get together andd agree to abide by a certain set of rules.  The DM does have the ability to modify things in order to facilitate game play.

3) PoE is a single player computer game.  It has to deal with the limitations of the the computer.  It has to take into consideration that each one of us has our own preferred play style..

 

 I don't mind the beastery XP if it makes someone happy but if I choose a non[combat options why should I be penalized because as a role player I do not wish to go in for mass killing?  

 

As a game player and a backer of this game who speaks for me?  I speak for me and only for me.

[BrainMuncher]

I think as long as you occasionally level up and get more things to do more stuff then it doesn't really matter a whole lot how those level ups are handed out. More important is that they keep the same pace as the difficulty of the content. The way I see it quest-only XP was a good thing meant to make balancing of the critical path easier. I'm one of those completionists who must kill everything everywhere, which usually leave me over-leveled by the time I move forward - even with diminishing returns functions.

 

I just want to be able to explore everything the game has to offer without making the game progressively easier the further I go. Quest-only XP does that. It also prevents people who don't want to conquer every last inch of the planet from finding themselves under-leveled. Keeps an appropriate challenge for two completely opposite play styles.

 

It also means stealth and diplomacy approaches aren't actively discouraged by the system.

Edited January 18, 2015 by BrainMuncher

[Sarex]

I have been following this discussion closely.

1) I feel Sarex is making blanket statements for players.  i.e. I didn't back this game because I wanted a certain combat or spell system in fact I hoped they would change the IE games system.  

2) I am famliar with PnP and PbP games and actually took over one when we lost our DM suddenly.  Those are co-op games where a group of people get together andd agree to abide by a certain set of rules.  The DM does have the ability to modify things in order to facilitate game play.

3) PoE is a single player computer game.  It has to deal with the limitations of the the computer.  It has to take into consideration that each one of us has our own preferred play style..

 

 I don't mind the beastery XP if it makes someone happy but if I choose a non[combat options why should I be penalized because as a role player I do not wish to go in for mass killing?  

 

As a game player and a backer of this game who speaks for me?  I speak for me and only for me.

 

1) I feel that you are a troll, how the **** would you why/if I didn't back the game. Where have I stated either? Stop putting words in my mouth.

2) Good for you

3) How are you penalized? Because you got less xp then the guy who exploited the game? You get exactly the amount of xp the game has been designed for you to get.

 

I speak for myself also, but unlike you I have been in these threads (xp discussion) since the beginning and know what both side have said.

 

 

I think as long as you occasionally level up and get more things to do more stuff then it doesn't really matter a whole lot how those level ups are handed out. More important is that they keep the same pace as the difficulty of the content. The way I see it quest-only XP was a good thing meant to make balancing of the critical path easier. I'm one of those completionists who must kill everything everywhere, which usually leave me over-leveled by the time I move forward - even with diminishing returns functions.

 

I just want to be able to explore everything the game has to offer without making the game progressively easier the further I go. Quest-only XP does that. It also prevents people who don't want to conquer every last inch of the planet from finding themselves under-leveled. Keeps an appropriate challenge for two completely opposite play styles.

 

It also means stealth and diplomacy approaches aren't actively discouraged by the system.

 

How will combat xp stop that?

[illathid]

 

If no kill XP disincentives people from wandering not picking up quests then I'd mission f'ing accomplished. If people don't want to engage the content of the game, there's no reason to reward them with a balanced level progression. Seriously, they're a blight on the community.

 

Who the **** are you to decide who gets to play the game and how? Also what are we suppose to say to people for whom kill xp disincentives them from doing quests in a non lethal way?

 

 I'm a person with a brain, that's why.

 

The people  who want to play the game that way are the reason the industry keeps making ****ty sandbox games like Skyrim. If you don't want engage in the narrative of narrative based game that's fine, just don't expect t be rewarded for it.

[Sarex]

 I'm a person with a brain, that's why.

The people  who want to play the game that way are the reason the industry keeps making ****ty sandbox games like Skyrim. If you don't want engage in the narrative of narrative based game that's fine, just don't expect t be rewarded for it.

 

Why does one exclude the other?

[Lord Wafflebum]

I'm not sure it's exclusionary. I mean, you still want to do the quests, right? If you intend to play the game to go out into the woods and murder bears or whatever and not follow the story, then yes you'll more than likely be excluded from meaningful xp gains.

 

If combat is your sole focus tho, I think you will not enjoy this game at all.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Lord Wafflebum

[BrainMuncher]

 

3) PoE is a single player computer game.  It has to deal with the limitations of the the computer.  It has to take into consideration that each one of us has our own preferred play style..

 

 I don't mind the beastery XP if it makes someone happy but if I choose a non[combat options why should I be penalized because as a role player I do not wish to go in for mass killing?

3) How are you penalized? Because you got less xp then the guy who exploited the game? You get exactly the amount of xp the game has been designed for you to get.

 

So sarex I will turn your question around on you, not because I think it's a sensible question, but because I want to see what your answer is.

 

 

If there is no combat XP, how are you penalized? Because you got less xp then the guy who did the quests? You get exactly the amount of xp the game has been designed for you to get.

[Yonjuro]

I'm not sure it's exclusionary. I mean, you still want to do the quests, right? If you intend to play the game to go out into the woods and murder bears or whatever and not follow the story, then yes you'll more than likely be excluded from meaningful xp gains.

 

If combat is your sole focus tho, I think you will not enjoy this game at all.

 

 I don't agree with Sarex that kill XP would make PoE a better game, but he is making a reasonable point that you are not responding to.

 

 He is not saying he wants to go murder bears in the woods; that just isn't a fair characterization of his point.

 

 He is talking about playing the game as an adventurer exploring the game world. That worked well in BG1 where there were quests and even entire maps that you would never find if you didn't explore the game world. It is one of my favorite things about BG1 (and one of my least favorite things about IWD1 where you get marching orders for everything you do, especially in the beginning).