I learned that fights don't give you experience

[Namutree]

 

Or nearly every other RPG. I could make that argument about nearly everything. What if PoE didn't let you talk to npcs? You want to talk to npcs? Might I suggest diablo.

 

You seem to think that any RPG element in a game automatically makes something an RPG.

 

What does that have to do with the line you quoted?

[Kal Adan]

Pillar of Eternity is not a "spiritual successor" to the IE games. It was never pitched as one, or advertised as one. Anyone calling Pillars of Eternity a "spiritual successor" to the IE games is simply wrong. PoE is a re-imagining of the IE games. Big difference. Not important in regard to combat XP, but is something that should be cleared up ASAP.

I already proved you wrong - Pillars of Eternity is a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate (link).

 

What does this statement have to do with the line you quoted?

I can't read it for you. It's pretty clear as it is.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Kal Adan

[Namutree]

 

Pillar of Eternity is not a "spiritual successor" to the IE games. It was never pitched as one, or advertised as one. Anyone calling Pillars of Eternity a "spiritual successor" to the IE games is simply wrong. PoE is a re-imagining of the IE games. Big difference. Not important in regard to combat XP, but is something that should be cleared up ASAP.

I already proved you wrong - Pillars of Eternity is a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate (link).What does this statement have to do with the line you quoted?

Spiritual successor does not come up. Unless "spiritual successor" is said that proves nothing. Josh has elaborated many times what PoE's connection to the IE games is, and never once was "spiritual successor" mentioned. So quit the BS. PoE is not a "spiritual successor".

 

 

 

What does this statement have to do with the line you quoted?

I can't read it for you. It's pretty clear as it is.

 

Actually it isn't. The line you quoted was me challenging Mysh's logic that if a feature that was shared by the IE games and Diablo existed, but isn't in PoE; I should be play Diablo instead of complain about said feature being removed. That logic was BS and quite obviously so. That could apply to text. That could apply to movement. That could apply to enemies. That could apply towards being able to switch weapons. It could apply to having an in-game avatar. 

 

All you did was say that I seem to think a game having any RPG element makes it an RPG. Which has no relation what so ever to my and Mysh's argument in any way at all.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Namutree

[Kal Adan]

Spiritual successor does not come up. Unless "spiritual successor" is said that proves nothing. Josh has elaborated many times what PoE's connection to the IE games is, and never once was "spiritual successor" mentioned. So quit the BS. PoE is not a "spiritual successor".

You're the one talking crap here. Your argument is XP for kills was in IE games and so it should be in Pillars of Eternity. My argument is that while Baldur's Gate is supposed to be target title for Project Eternity - as quoted - it doesn't have XP for kills. I even supported this by stating that my Baldur's Gate experience didn't concern XP for kills (or XP as such) in the slightest, because that wasn't what made that game (or IE games in general) great for me.

[Namutree]

 

Spiritual successor does not come up. Unless "spiritual successor" is said that proves nothing. Josh has elaborated many times what PoE's connection to the IE games is, and never once was "spiritual successor" mentioned. So quit the BS. PoE is not a "spiritual successor".

You're the one talking crap here. Your argument is XP for kills was in IE games and so it should be in Pillars of Eternity. My argument is that while Baldur's Gate is supposed to be target title for Project Eternity - as quoted - it doesn't have XP for kills. I even supported this by stating that my Baldur's Gate experience didn't concern XP for kills (or XP as such) in the slightest, because that wasn't what made that game (or IE games in general) great for me.

 

That isn't my argument. My argument is and always has been that XP should be awarded by completing challenges. Not simply because it was in the IE games. Combat XP should be in PoE because combat XP is good.

 

The fact that it was in the IE games and not in PoE is just kinda ironic and disappointing, but there are a lot of things in the IE games that aren't in PoE so whatever. We were promised an Isometric view and tactical combat with RTwP which they have delivered so I don't feel they're obligated to provide combat XP, but rather am simply disappointed that they didn't.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Namutree

[Hassat Hunter]

 

This is why lock/trap XP is so bad. Find a key? Don't use it, you'll get more XP out of unlocking things yourself. And now you must bring a rogue-type, or miss out on lock/trap XP.

 

Sometimes there's never any key. Or the amount of xp is so irrelevant that it's not even worth it to bother picking unnecessary locks and disarming traps you can avoid. Like BG1, there's a tonne of traps at some level of Durlag tower, who would bother disarming all of 'em when taking a single doppleganger down is worth more, and you'd just have one rest encounter to meet one.

 

Disarming traps in BG1 didn't give XP... that was a BG2 invention...

 

The more you know!

[Hassat Hunter]

Also, they pretty much labelled it a spiritual successor on KS, so claiming it's not is mind****-material.

 

Anyway, I don't agree with Quest-XP. I don't agree with Kill-XP. I agree with Objective XP.

 

To see it in effect play Deus Ex (the true one, not Human Revolution) or Vampire: Bloodlines. Shockingly supreme quality games.

 

And even if it doesn't give kill XP I generally used combat through both of them... I'm sure the minds of some of you are now completely blown...

[Guest]

Yeah, but even in VtmB, it was really tempting (and really easy) to meta-game back through for XP. 

 

Is PoE perfect? Probably not, but the current system does address all the problems Josh said he wanted to tackle.

[Luckmann]

 

 

 

...they've already failed on both the "memorable companions of Baldur's Gate" (only 8 companions, hardly enough to fill a single party, let alone do anything remotely resembling being close to Baldur's Gate)...

What does number of companions have to do with their memorability? Actually, it's quite the opposite, less on quantity should make it more on quality.

Nothing. But if you want to evoke Baldur's Gate as an inspiration for companions, there should be loads more than 8. I wasn't commenting at all on memorability, but the plurality. Planescape: Torment also had very, very few CNPC:s (but they worked them differently, so it was alright) but they were all amazingly memorable, but they chose to sell the CNPC:s using Baldur's Gate as an example.

You remember the original number of the NPC companions in the pitch right? We got more through the additional funding and you still complain about that? I mean wtf? It is on par with PS:T in number and hopefully quality. Remember that we are in 2015 and the game had a very limited funding with a ton of things to be developed from the scratch unlike BG which had lore and combat mechanics only to be ported.

 

 

The fact that the number of CNPC:s in the pitch were underwhelming doesn't make the fact that a few were added underwhelming. Something can be bad, be improved, but still be pretty bad. It's not like pizza.

 

As for BG "which had lore and combat mechanics only to be ported" ... all of my lols.

[Zazzaro]

I must say as someone that has purposely avoided anything about PoE (to avoid being over hyped and nothing to do about it for a year or so) I let the game just slip off my radar. But, right around a week ago I just couldn't help myself and started looking at information and this is the first ive seen about the no XP for fighting. At first I was stunned, but after my knee jerk reaction of WTH I kind of like the decision. This will allow me to play in a way I never really play and look to solve quests/puzzles/situations differently. I always choose to fight because I didn't want to miss out on the XP. With the way it is setup, I can now try and resolve situations through dialog/conversation tree, sneaking by and other means. I actually do not mind the decision now and if I have to fight or just want to, hopefully ill get good loot drops. Just the thought of missing out on some rare loot from not fighting mobs will probably have me fighting anyways just like always. But yeah, I don't really mind the decision at all because to me it allows for a more dynamic play through rather than a smash my way through all the mobs game like I normally do. Really looking forward to this game and the 500 page hardback strategy guide due to arrive on Thursday as well.

[Hassat Hunter]

Why do you not have a KS backer icon? 0_o

[MReed]

I would assume because he hasn't requested it -- as far as I know, the only way to get the Kickstarter badge is to post a request in the appropriate thread.

[Malk]

 

 

 

 

...they've already failed on both the "memorable companions of Baldur's Gate" (only 8 companions, hardly enough to fill a single party, let alone do anything remotely resembling being close to Baldur's Gate)...

What does number of companions have to do with their memorability? Actually, it's quite the opposite, less on quantity should make it more on quality.

Nothing. But if you want to evoke Baldur's Gate as an inspiration for companions, there should be loads more than 8. I wasn't commenting at all on memorability, but the plurality. Planescape: Torment also had very, very few CNPC:s (but they worked them differently, so it was alright) but they were all amazingly memorable, but they chose to sell the CNPC:s using Baldur's Gate as an example.

You remember the original number of the NPC companions in the pitch right? We got more through the additional funding and you still complain about that? I mean wtf? It is on par with PS:T in number and hopefully quality. Remember that we are in 2015 and the game had a very limited funding with a ton of things to be developed from the scratch unlike BG which had lore and combat mechanics only to be ported.

 

 

The fact that the number of CNPC:s in the pitch were underwhelming doesn't make the fact that a few were added underwhelming. Something can be bad, be improved, but still be pretty bad. It's not like pizza.

 

As for BG "which had lore and combat mechanics only to be ported" ... all of my lols.

 

This is so true. After some thought I think it plays into character development/ creation too .  But not choosing the combat option for the xp seems to add some fun 

[Suhiir]

*makes more popcorn to munch while this amusing thread continues it's passionate debate*