Asking for a favor from the Hivemind

[Bleed the Man]

It all depends on Obsidian's expectations.

The Army of Butthurt Backers MIGHT end up preventing PoE from becoming a runaway hit like Divinity: Original Sin was, but if they're happy with a Wasteland 2 level of sales, they have nothing to worry about. inXile certainly isn't worried.

Has Wasteland 2's score really been that hurt by backers? I mean, from what I've read the 7.5 or whatever it has seems to be the general feeling towards the game.

Yes I know Steam has it at 85% approval but that's actually kind of low for Steam. F:NV and South Park are in the 97% range. Even D:OS has a 93%.

It's just a theory. I know that the game was hammered with low user metacritics almost immediately after release. For all I know, that could have been D1Ping Steamtards who were pissed off about the graphics...but my impression is that these sorts of games usually get a more understanding reception.

Now look at D:OS's user metacritic. That's a game that had a much rosier and more optimistic pre-release period. *shrug* It's not a sure thing, but it makes sense. We'll see what happens with PoE.

I think that was most certanly due to higher expectations. Divinity OS was made by Larian, a bunch of nobodies for the mainstream audience, and even if they get some love in the RPG circles, they're not "celebrities", so his game is looked with a more positive angle overall.
Wasteland 2 and PoE are made by some of the biggest names you can think of when talking about CRPGs, and are succesors for some really beloved games, so every detail is looked with a high level of scrutiny, and fans are a lot more unforgiving.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm just going to lump all these together here, because you are chasing your tail. "If PoE sells well, those basement dwellers can go fuck themselves" is the thrust of your statement.

It's not. It's a quick comment to your "fear the upset BG fans who feel wronged". My point is simple: it takes one look at the KS page to realize that Obsidian neither lied nor mislead.

The PROBLEM is that those basement dwellers are likely to go out, rip the game a new one to anyone and everyone who will listen and bemoan how Obsidian sucks, Kickstarter sucks, crowd-funding sucks and that they got swindled out of their money by lies and false implications.

No matter what Obsidian would have done, some people would bitch and moan even if it's a faithful BG clone. You can't please everyone.

Your entire argument revolves around a false assumption that if someone feels wronged, they were wronged, and Obsidian is responsible. That's a SJW-style of reasoning.

That's going to be bad. Bad for Obsidian, bad for sales, bad for Kickstarter and bad for gamers in general. How bad it will be has a chance of being mitigated by a game that is good despite not being what was (perceived to be) promised, but that element of knee-jerk reaction will, without a doubt, be present.

Anthony himself said he was worried about MC scores being bombed just like Wasteland 2 when it came out. The quality of the game may stand it up stronger than WL2, but it still is a risk if the number of voices who feel jaded are numerous and loud enough to cause damage. And that damage includes SALES, before you start chanting that mantra of "good sales cancels out this problem" again.

It seems like the only solution is to stop making games and start selling furniture.

So the solution is what? Pander to everyone out of fear that someone might develop negative feelings and give a bad review?

Maybe more along the lines of "let's be a little more conservative when we are working with other people's money? The team didn't sell this as a carte blanch for the devs to make whatever game they wanted with an overhead camera. A game that the majority of people would envision when you think "IE game" would be a start. The details would be different, obviously. But they have done some pretty large departures from any IE game ever made.

They promised a game that would have battles and dungeon crawling like in IWD (I'd say check), companions and exploration like in BG (check), and storytelling/dialogues of Torment (check!). The beta definitely had a strong IE vibe and atmosphere.

Nowhere did they claim that they will make a combat system just like in BG. They said it's a game that pays homage to the IE games (homage: respect or reverence paid or rendered). In one of the early updates they said:

"Let me add that as an Infinity Engine inspired game, our pillars of design include isometric exploration of a fantasy world, a reactive storyline with interesting and believable characters, and real-time with pause combat. Those elements are expected in our game, and we feel strongly about providing them."

^ they state openly what IE-inspired means to them and I can't say that I disagree.

 

[Sensuki]

If you're really that upset about the differences between PoE and IE that you think Obsidian misled you during the campaign ask for a refund and quit shitting on threads please. Thanks.

The KS also says tactical rtwp combat. The combat aint very tactical though. Might be 'tacticool for casualtards' though.

I just got through watching Josh and the producers do a daily walkthrough of an area in PoE on the big screen in the main lounge. It involved combat.

The animations looked smooth, the controls seemed to work just fine, and visually it looked like a 2d/3d mash up of IE combat to me (2d backgrounds, 3d characters). He paused, gave instructions, it seemed strikingly similar to IE games.

This is what I mean about the camera and controls being similar. That's about where the similarity ends though.

Slow James, while I may not agree with all of your individual points, I think you have the right to be disgruntled as I am disgruntled. It is my understanding that tuluse and VD have only played a little bit of PE. VD doesn't even really like Baldur's Gate either, so as far as they're concerned - different is probably good. These are the people that seem to be happy. Even Anthony Davis admitted he stopped finding the IE game combat fun because someone (probably Josh) made him think that the fake attacks were bad or something.

However for us that really, really enjoy the IE game combat - whether we be BG2 Die hards or people that enjoy the RTS feel and fluidity of the combat - most people like us are not satisfied / happy.

TBH I think if they'd included in the pitch - we want to make an Infinity Engine style game, but we're making a game for the people that hated / disliked / did not care for the Infinity Engine combat - then there'd be a lot less issues

 

[Kem0sabe]

Game das marketed as the moderna sucessor of the ie games, with the exception of PST, the ie games were mostly combat focused afairs. As it stands, PoE combate just doesnt feel like ie

 

[tuluse]

Sensuki

I never said you shouldn't complain because the game is bad. Just that "it's not IE enough, I was lied to!" is a retarded complaint.

 

[Sensuki]

Well you must be saying I'm retarded then, because I say it all the time - mostly for combat feel, and I usually use it as a punctuation line for other things that are worse than the IE games - such as many UI elements / missing UI features that were in the original BG, but failed to even be noticed for PE.

 

[Athelas]

TBH I think if they'd included in the pitch - we want to make an Infinity Engine style game, but we're making a game for the people that hated / disliked / did not care for the Infinity Engine combat - then there'd be a lot less issues

Then they obviously couldn't call it an Infinity Engine successor and couldn't rake in all the backer dough.

Even Anthony Davis admitted he stopped finding the IE game combat fun because someone (probably Josh) made him think that the fake attacks were bad or something.

This is a pretty reasonable complaint, to be honest. When I first played Baldur's Gate, I was confused why the characters were clearly attacking, but it didn't show up in the battle log half the time. I guess with the fake attacks, Bioware was trying to make the gameplay more cinematic - in hindsight, it was an omen of what was to come in their future games...

Of course, having characters awkwardly stand still in the middle of combat for up to 6 seconds isn't a great solution either...

 

[Telengard]

I probably wasn't clear enough - I'm not actually sure who is doing the shit posting on the Obsidian Forums and even if they are (for sure) from the Codex.

I just want to be sure it isn't the Codex.

I'm sorry for being too accusatory.

If I saw shit-slinging, 10:1 I'd place it at the feet of the rabble. The everyman. The young.

The rabble are whiny little bitches. Once you open the feedback floodgates to everyone, you get a torrent of poo from the rabble, cause that's what they do. Then you have to wade through all of the poo, ignoring how stinky everything is, to find the occasional gem of inspiration. It takes men with stout hearts (and no sense of smell) to wade continuously through all of the shit* without it affecting their minds.

And why do they sling so much poo? The rabble don't really understand how a game is put together. And, in not understanding, they tend to fixate on one aspect that they do understand, and harp on about it endlessly. Since it's the only thing they understand, it's the only thing they feel they have control over. And when you don't listen, they go into meltdown-mode, and start slinging shit. Now, giving into the endless tirade of one individual, in order to remove his poo, generally just inserts the poo direct into the gameplay, since the design is no longer organized around the core game concepts, but is instead organized around the biggest poo-slingers around.

On the other hand, if lots of people are slinging the same poo, it does behoove one to listen, because maybe - just maybe - they might be discussing something important. Though probably not.

As for Codexians, they're usually too busy shit-slinging at each other to bother with going on some other forum to shit-sling.

XP ISSUE

Quest-only xp is a funny thing.

In the dim recesses of the past, I ran a lot of campaigns without kill xp, mostly because I couldn't be arsed to do the math. And it worked really well when the game was social-oriented, like Storyteller, since it freed everyone up to play their character however they wanted. It also worked decently when, in a more combative game, the goal was fixed and rigid. Like, survive this epic siege however best you can, and the survivors get xp.

An issue always arose, though, when doing it for open,combative games. And that's because it divorced xp from effort. Take the classic choice that everyone has been citing - stealthing an area, fighting across it, or cheesing across it. The stealther sends the rogue ahead to stealth the area, and the rogue makes a handful of stealth rolls to get to the end and complete the quest, spending all of 3 minutes to do so. The cheeser cuts across the entirety of the map and gets the reward in all of 30 seconds. Those, while the one fighting across it takes 3 hours and a multitude of skill rolls and action rolls to make it.

But all of those people get the same xp. Which means, they don't all get the same reward. Because the time invested is so different, the reward per second of effort is different. Those people who fight across the map get less reward in regards to their effort as those who stealth across it, since it took them 3 hours vs 3 minutes, and it took them a whole lot more rolls and chance and difficulty. (For the metagamers, this means finding the most efficient way of completing quest is always best.)

This issue is mostly an issue of quest only xp (instead of chapter-only xp), because xp for quest only makes it all too obvious which level of effort is being rewarded more. Every time someone turns in a quest, they feel it. Chapter only xp doesn't have that issue, not anywhere near as much, since the context of the xp reward is so much more divorced from the actions on the ground.

Making quest only xp is also a whole lot of unnecessary work. Have to make the rewards, balance each reward for quest completion against all of the rewards for the other quests, and debug anything not performing. Since quest only xp doesn't add anything to the game except a highly detailed progress bar (each thing you do in the story gets you xp, filling out your progress through the story), it's way easier just to have a regular progress bar, chapter only xp, and call it a day.



* Or you can hire an admin to go through it and weed out all the crap for you, and since they are not personally invested, it won't suck so much for them.

 

[tuluse]

Well you must be saying I'm retarded then, because I say it all the time - mostly for combat feel, and I usually use it as a punctuation line for other things that are worse than the IE games - such as many UI elements / missing UI features that were in the original BG, but failed to even be noticed for PE.

Do you believe you were--this is the key word--lied to about what Obsidian was trying to make?

 

[Vault Dweller]

They clearly stated in one of the early updates that there were plenty of things they didn't like about the IE combat.

 

[Slow James]

It's not. It's a quick comment to your "fear the upset BG fans who feel wronged". My point is simple: it takes one look at the KS page to realize that Obsidian neither lied nor mislead.


No matter what Obsidian would have done, some people would bitch and moan even if it's a faithful BG clone. You can't please everyone.

Your entire argument revolves around a false assumption that if someone feels wronged, they were wronged, and Obsidian is responsible. That's a SJW-style of reasoning.


It seems like the only solution is to stop making games and start selling furniture.


They promised a game that would have battles and dungeon crawling like in IWD (I'd say check), companions and exploration like in BG (check), and storytelling/dialogues of Torment (check!). The beta definitely had a strong IE vibe and atmosphere.

Nowhere did they claim that they will make a combat system just like in BG. They said it's a game that pays homage to the IE games (homage: respect or reverence paid or rendered). In one of the early updates they said:

"Let me add that as an Infinity Engine inspired game, our pillars of design include isometric exploration of a fantasy world, a reactive storyline with interesting and believable characters, and real-time with pause combat. Those elements are expected in our game, and we feel strongly about providing them."

^ they state openly what IE-inspired means to them and I can't say that I disagree.

You keep going back to "Obsidian didn't lie."

NO ONE CARES.

If you were in a court of law, you'd be able to analyze and present evidence and make rational arguments, but that is totally irrelevant to this ENTIRE conversation.

Scenario: people are butthurt about the game not being designed like some of the more iconic IE games and hurling shit on the Obsidian forums already before the game has come out. On release, many of these people will play the game as some of the first players, witnessing their complaints come to life with new systems not seen before in any IE game. These early, fanatical (and now pissed off) fans storm off and flood the Internet with reviews, feedback and complaints that out a microscope on the game's flaws.

That Obsidian didn't promise "BG3 with a different title" won't stop any of the above from happening. None of it. It will all happen, certain as the sky is blue and the sun will rise. That's a fact. People saw the IE sales pitch and saw what they wanted to see and threw money at it before over-analyzing what WASN'T being said in any of the statements. That is also a fact.

The number of these disgruntled gamers that will engage in this damaging behavior versus the ones that will say "eh, game isn't what I wanted, but is still decent/good/amazeballs" depends on the quality of the game itself. If it is really good, the ratio will be small enough to be negligible. If the game has flaws, then that number will be slanted to the negative.

Perception is reality here. A gamer perceives the marketing to say something it didn't explicitly say. That gamer perceives Obsidian lied when suddenly the game becomes something much different than any IE game ever made. The gamer has their fears confirmed when the game is released, causing them to rant and rave that Obsidian stole their money, that the game is terrible, that Sawyer sold out to make a game for casuals, and then to magnify any actual faults with the game that will appear at release as being "see this shit? Obsidian is terrible - don't buy their games!"

People who are on the fence or unaware of the game (pretty much a vast segment of the planet) have roughly an equal chance at hearing the negative slamming of the game as anything to come from Obsidian or any professional reviewer. And since this is a "fan" speaking and not a "corporate voice," many will listen more keenly. Their perceptions of the game will be tainted and result in lost sales or waiting until much later to buy the game when it is bargain bin.

Everyone's perception became the reality here, regardless of what Obsidian did or didn't actually say. And again, all of that could have been avoided with a IE game clone.


Thing is - I'm not even one of the people upset. I'm not goo-goo for IE games or anything... they are a genre, nothing more. But people in this thread are acting like they have never seen the Internet at work during a release before. No one looks up a marketing statement from two years ago before posting about their emotions or giving their gut reactions from a game as it compares to their expectations.

EDIT: Also, this is exactly like SJW logic, you are right. The difference? SJW expect the world to bend to their whims and feelings just because. Here, people gave money to a business to have their whims and feelings served. A SJW expects the world to be their servant... in the other case, a business transaction has occured.

And while there is no legal ground for someone to stand on for giving money to a Kickstarter, THATS NOT THE POINT. Ticked off people will react negatively because of their perceived slights and transgressions, real or imaginary.

 

[Slow James]

If I saw shit-slinging, 10:1 I'd place it at the feet of the rabble. The everyman. The young.

The rabble are whiny little bitches. Once you open the feedback floodgates to everyone, you get a torrent of poo from the rabble, cause that's what they do. Then you have to wade through all of the poo, ignoring how stinky everything is, to find the occasional gem of inspiration. It takes men with stout hearts (and no sense of smell) to wade continuously through all of the shit* without it affecting their minds.

And why do they sling so much poo? The rabble don't really understand how a game is put together. And, in not understanding, they tend to fixate on one aspect that they do understand, and harp on about it endlessly. Since it's the only thing they understand, it's the only thing they feel they have control over. And when you don't listen, they go into meltdown-mode, and start slinging shit. Now, giving into the endless tirade of one individual, in order to remove his poo, generally just inserts the poo direct into the gameplay, since the design is no longer organized around the core game concepts, but is instead organized around the biggest poo-slingers around.

On the other hand, if lots of people are slinging the same poo, it does behoove one to listen, because maybe - just maybe - they might be discussing something important. Though probably not.

As for Codexians, they're usually too busy shit-slinging at each other to bother with going on some other forum to shit-sling.

XP ISSUE

Quest-only xp is a funny thing.

In the dim recesses of the past, I ran a lot of campaigns without kill xp, mostly because I couldn't be arsed to do the math. And it worked really well when the game was social-oriented, like Storyteller, since it freed everyone up to play their character however they wanted. It also worked decently when, in a more combative game, the goal was fixed and rigid. Like, survive this epic siege however best you can, and the survivors get xp.

An issue always arose, though, when doing it for open,combative games. And that's because it divorced xp from effort. Take the classic choice that everyone has been citing - stealthing an area, fighting across it, or cheesing across it. The stealther sends the rogue ahead to stealth the area, and the rogue makes a handful of stealth rolls to get to the end and complete the quest, spending all of 3 minutes to do so. The cheeser cuts across the entirety of the map and gets the reward in all of 30 seconds. Those, while the one fighting across it takes 3 hours and a multitude of skill rolls and action rolls to make it.

But all of those people get the same xp. Which means, they don't all get the same reward. Because the time invested is so different, the reward per second of effort is different. Those people who fight across the map get less reward in regards to their effort as those who stealth across it, since it took them 3 hours vs 3 minutes, and it took them a whole lot more rolls and chance and difficulty. (For the metagamers, this means finding the most efficient way of completing quest is always best.)

This issue is mostly an issue of quest only xp (instead of chapter-only xp), because xp for quest only makes it all too obvious which level of effort is being rewarded more. Every time someone turns in a quest, they feel it. Chapter only xp doesn't have that issue, not anywhere near as much, since the context of the xp reward is so much more divorced from the actions on the ground.

Making quest only xp is also a whole lot of unnecessary work. Have to make the rewards, balance each reward for quest completion against all of the rewards for the other quests, and debug anything not performing. Since quest only xp doesn't add anything to the game except a highly detailed progress bar (each thing you do in the story gets you xp, filling out your progress through the story), it's way easier just to have a regular progress bar, chapter only xp, and call it a day.



* Or you can hire an admin to go through it and weed out all the crap for you, and since they are not personally invested, it won't suck so much for them.

Ugh. Chapter only XP? That's completely regulated progression. It rewards effort even less, doesn't it?

 

[Telengard]

Chapter xp and quest only xp are largely the same thing - it's just a matter of timing when the xp dump is given. When one has made the choice to abandon combat xp in favor of story xp, one is left with quest only xp and chapter only xp. Of those two, chapter only xp does everything that quest only xp does, but doesn't offer direct causation with action vs reward, not in most people's minds. Since the act of gaining xp is now divorced from the quest, they no longer associate xp with quests.

It's all a matter of perception. When you hand out a reward right after someone does something, they associate the reward with that thing. When it's far away, they no longer associate it with that thing.

 

[Abu Antar]

Chapter exp is bad because then you'd be stuck with whatever talents/abilities/spells/feats/skills you have specced your character with for that entire chapter. Only way to improve would be via equipment or if the game allows you to buy spells/skills or whatever. With quest exp, the reward would still feel gradual.

I'm not surprised people being upset about no combat exp. Reactions were the same when Mass Effect 2 did this (no combat exp).

 

[Telengard]

That's what the regular progress bar is for. See, once one switches to story xp, the game's already on a story progress bar anyways. So, go with the progress bar that's easiest to implement, the regular one, since it doesn't require balancing or any of the other stuff, and call it a day. Players get the same amount of xp in either case, they go up levels at the same time, they can check their progress bar at any time, and they go up levels when the designer designates.

 

[Slow James]

Chapter xp and quest only xp are largely the same thing - it's just a matter of timing when the xp dump is given. When one has made the choice to abandon combat xp in favor of story xp, one is left with quest only xp and chapter only xp. Of those two, chapter only xp does everything that quest only xp does, but doesn't offer direct causation with action vs reward, not in most people's minds. Since the act of gaining xp is now divorced from the quest, they no longer associate xp with quests.

It's all a matter of perception. When you hand out a reward right after someone does something, they associate the reward with that thing. When it's far away, they no longer associate it with that thing.

Why not chapter XP caps, instead? I'd much rather accept the fact that my character can't master everything in the known universe in a few weeks over dropping XP in my lap at given intervals.

 

[Copper]

Anthony Davis - whoever said Obsidian were selling dreams was dead on. It doesn't pay to be humble in marketing, but aspirational brands that sell a dream almost always get bitten in the ass by consumers who got sick on the Kool-Aid.

I'm not a backer, so I've never had to leave the cosy confines of the Codex thanks to diligent stalkers, but I've been following the game with interest due to Josh's relative openness and opinions of design. However, as a potential customer who's seen the sausage being made, some things are unappealing to me.

The biggest problem with quest only xp is that it makes taking quests a no-brainer, as though wandering around town vacuuming up every available fetch quest wasn't already bad enough. This may be taken care of by the reputation system - only the team knows how that works in practice. There's nothing there for rewarding player-driven exploration. Having said that, this can be solved simply by making various environment interactions xp-givers - not every locked door, but the trapped area that leads to some optional side rooms? Maybe the door on the far side could give the party some xp. Maybe finding and killing the center of the beetle colony, even though nobody asked you to do it, could give you some xp.

 

[tuluse]

That's what the regular progress bar is for. See, once one switches to story xp, the game's already on a story progress bar anyways. So, go with the progress bar that's easiest to implement, the regular one, since it doesn't require balancing or any of the other stuff, and call it a day. Players get the same amount of xp in either case, they go up levels at the same time, they can check their progress bar at any time, and they go up levels when the designer designates.

It's not a story progress bar. Not all quests are required to do, and you get xp for steps of quests. So you can level up half way through a quest, or do two halves of quests to level up to beat the bosses, etc.

 

[Roguey]

It's just a theory. I know that the game was hammered with low user metacritics almost immediately after release. For all I know, that could have been D1Ping Steamtards who were pissed off about the graphics...but my impression is that these sorts of games usually get a more understanding reception in that department.

Now look at D:OS's user metacritic. That's a game that had a much rosier and more optimistic pre-release period. *shrug* It's not a sure thing, but it makes sense. We'll see what happens with PoE.

Wasteland 2 deserved its low scores on account of being dull and obnoxious.

PoE is going to have more concurrent players in its first week than D:OS. It probably won't be obnoxious nor dull.

 

[Seari]

I wouldn't have minded if these design changes that they've implemented were an actual improvement over the IE games, but that is just not the case. PoE might not be a carbon copy, but that doesn't change the fact that combat sucks donkey balls(and so does this thread).

List of retarded design decisions:

Spoiler

-engagement system
-2 health pools
-health(endurance) heals when combat ends
-attack resolution system
-^is used for both melee attacks and spells
-attribute system
-butchering of d&d spells(clicky)
-spells don't scale per level
-no kill xp(unnecessary change that was bound to cause unneeded butthurt)
-camping supplies(reminds me of MotB spirit meter in a way, as in very fucking annoying)
-character movespeed
-spell vfx
-unlimited inventory
-group stealth(someone correct me if they're planning to change this)
-small maps
-camera angle

It's not all bad though. There are some things that are a definite improvement over the IE games(reputation and disposition system, better portraits, character progression, stronghold, story and writing).

You fanboy faggots(hi Infinitron) should stop defending them so that they recognize the mistakes that they've made and change them in a sequel.

P.S. Divinity:Original Sin is a shit game.

 

[tuluse]

-camping supplies(reminds me of MotB spirit meter in a way, as in very fucking annoying)

You know Vault Dweller once had something to say about this.

 

[Seari]

It's a boring repetitive chore. What's there to like?

 

[Alex]

By the way, Mr. Davis , did you guys ever consider any alternatives besides the quest XP? Did any of the designers ever consider the XP by Gold Piece system that was in place in old D&D (or something similar)? Or maybe something different?

Edit: Camping could be fun, though. It could give you a whole new way to interact and observe the different environments.

 

[Telengard]

Chapter xp and quest only xp are largely the same thing - it's just a matter of timing when the xp dump is given. When one has made the choice to abandon combat xp in favor of story xp, one is left with quest only xp and chapter only xp. Of those two, chapter only xp does everything that quest only xp does, but doesn't offer direct causation with action vs reward, not in most people's minds. Since the act of gaining xp is now divorced from the quest, they no longer associate xp with quests.

It's all a matter of perception. When you hand out a reward right after someone does something, they associate the reward with that thing. When it's far away, they no longer associate it with that thing.

Why not chapter XP caps, instead? I'd much rather accept the fact that my character can't master everything in the known universe in a few weeks over dropping XP in my lap at given intervals.

I tend to prefer more nuanced systems myself. This is more of a Given thing. Given that the dev has chosen to switch to story xp, then...

Though it should be noted, most games outside of RPGs use Chapter XP. Complete a key event (activate the spell crystal, off a boss and drain his power, find the next trainer), and gain your new power. RPGs are one of the few types that go in a different direction, and offer progression based on a record of kills.

That's what the regular progress bar is for. See, once one switches to story xp, the game's already on a story progress bar anyways. So, go with the progress bar that's easiest to implement, the regular one, since it doesn't require balancing or any of the other stuff, and call it a day. Players get the same amount of xp in either case, they go up levels at the same time, they can check their progress bar at any time, and they go up levels when the designer designates.

It's not a story progress bar. Not all quests are required to do, and you get xp for steps of quests. So you can level up half way through a quest, or do two halves of quests to level up to beat the bosses, etc.

To step back a sec.

Combat XP: Combat xp is awarded for killing a beastie. Thus, combat xp is, at its essence, a record of all of the beasties one has killed.

Quest XP: Quest xp is awarded after turning in a quest. Quests are, in their essence, a snippet of story. Go here and kill that for me. Yes, boss. Go, fight, kill. I have slain the mighty beastie. Thank you, good sir; here is your reward. That's story. Overall, quest xp is a measure of how many quests you have turned in, or, in other words, how much of the story you have seen. Now, a designer can include Extra Quests. An Extra Quest allows one to view an extra part of the story. But extra story is still story.

Now, as you mentioned, Extra Quests might be used to grant bonus xp (instead of such rewards as money, an item, a poster of an anime babe in a swimsuit), but then they are like extra credit. Provide too much extra credit, and throw grade balance out the window (barring such things as the dreaded level-scaling). Thus, extra credit is ideally kept to a minimum, so that everyone is roughly the same level when tackling the key opponents of the game. Which means, even if one switches to chapter xp, the effect on level difference would be minimal. And the Other rewards then become center stage as the primary rewards.

One switched to story xp for balance, after all.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I'm not failing to get the point. Balance is not a way to keep the amazing things out, but trying to keep them in.
If a game has several abilities that are overly effective, then the combat becomes a no brainer, or if some mechanics don't get the enough attention they deserve and enough tweaks, they may end up making the combat "banal" (yes, I chose this word consciously) like the guard/barrier mechanic from DAI.

If you disagree with some views as how Sawyer handles the abilities, that's fine and in some respects I agree, but you can't say "hey, balancing things should be an after though, just put awesome stuff in, don't worry too much if it works or not", because then the awesome stuff is not only not awesome, it harms the game deeply.

The problem I think is how some designers view balance. They don't take into consideration other factors like time or effort (EG: Sure, the level 11 spell does kick-ass damage - but you had to drag your weak-ass shit mage through the entire game until he finally got it). Instead you get "+5 in this skill but -5 in this other skill which you also want to use" making it useless, rather than say "+5 in this and -5 in this other skill you don't want because you've chosen to be a big beefy guy and you don't need +5 in Charisma" or even just "+5 but you can only use it if you've really specialised and also have this other thing". The pay-off / penalty combination ends up being too simplistic or retardedly stupid.

But the primary focus should be on making the game fun. Balance is an important part of that but if your Level 12 Mage can cast Fireballs of Death and level Mountains, and it's fun, then who cares if he's pumping out more Damage per Minute than the Barbarian? Provided both have the opportunity to kill the Big Bad and that there was some pay-off for that (such as the Mage being utter shite for the entire game and having to think a lot while the Barbarian is a good all-rounder).

A lot of times different play-styles aren't taking into consideration. And there's also nothing worse than a game that talks about the power of Magic... When all you run into are fucking Fire Elementals that are immune to your Fireballs, then Ice Elementals that are immune to your Water Spells... And all you've got is some pissant Magic Missile while your Barbarian friend is yet to encounter anything that's immune to his Big Heavy Axe.

Some people enjoy a game where they just whack stuff with a sharp stick. Others want to think about balance and Mana and whether this spell is moer awsum than that one. And some will min/max the fuck out of whatever you do while others will be quite happy getting to the end with 300 Skill Points in Speech that they never used.

See, I kinda like killing trash mobs. It's what I did in Baldur's Gate 1. Area after area of killing wildlife in the wilderness while Michael Hoenig's lovely music played in the background. It was pretty fun. So, there's your reason?

I loved roaming around Fallout 1 & 2 triggering random encounters with bandits just so I could get more juicy death animations. Then again, I also enjoyed the combat. Cost a lot of ammo mind you and meant I was a little limited in weapon choice (using Combat Shotgun mostly thanks to finding shells. Never really did get a proper chance to open up with the heavy weapons. Even the Plasma Rifle was more efficient as it used 1 energy per shot, vs the gatling laser or something that wasted ammo).

Now, I don't mean specifically you (Vault Dweller), but it seems that designers are somehow offended if their mastermind plan of having this boss fight exactly as difficult as they wanted is foiled by some dastardly players who dared to kill more monsters than they should have.

Yeah, I gotta admit I thought the whole point of killing shit in RPGs was basically to adjust the difficulty level. Haven't got enough XP to open that lock? Go kill some shit, then come back.

If the combat is fun: People will enjoy it, and will do it. And they'll only avoid it if they're penalised (IE: Using limited ammo or rare abilities like healing stuff they might need later).