Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General Reloading for better loot.

You should consider reloading for better loot a mini game. Some like to play it some don't. Fixing the 'reloading' for bettter loot is trivial. Do I think they should fix it ? Well to be honest I think they should do what they feel they should do. If they choose not to fix it will I reload for better loot. Maybe - if I feel like it - else I won't. Have I reloaded a Divinity game for better loot in the past. Sure when I felt like it. Have I ever been chased by a level 50 rabbit without knowing said rabit was going to pop out of no where and chase me. Yea. And I had to run around in a circle for an hour to spank it (it is really hard to kill a level 50 rabbit when you are level 9). What has tht to do with random loot and reloading. Figure it out. Btw by the nature of your argument you shouldn't be able to reload if you die. Kind of hope they don't fix that one.

Yeah, that rabbit spawned on me at the bandit camp. I seem to recall saving when the wounded rabbit hopped out of range so I could check the variety of it's drops.
When I loot reload it's infrequent and usually build dependent.

I think randomized loot can add to re-playability when it's done right. If you look at a game with a majority of fixed loot, like BG2 it can lead to players deciding on the order of quests specific to their build before playing, or 'walkthrough scumming'.

Well, apparently you can tell from the start who respawns. Did I know the pillar did my first game? Or the Skeleton in the Black Cave? No?
Do I automatically know if a Wizard is a summoner or Wizard? No? Does it maybe take one or even more respawns before that becomes apparent? Yes?

Do I then have 3000XP just figuring out the fight? Probably. Maybe you didn't with the meta-knowledge of who respawns, but I don't, definitely not my first game...

Apples and oranges.

Exactly.

Exactly, no matter what you do, someone is going to find a way to cheat or "game" the game itself be it through cheat programs, hint guides etc... A developer can not concern themselves with people who abuse those approaches or they will find themselves sitting in dark room nursing a bottle of whiskey staring intently at a loaded revolver.

Going by that horribly flawed logic, developers might as well not fix anything, because there will always be something else that can be broken or abused. Why even strive for balance when someone is always going to find a way to create an unbalanced build? Etc.

You are literally the ONLY ONE who cares at all about what complete strangers may do in the privacy of their own games.

I think they may suffer from a serious case of narcissism. /shrug

Three things.

1) My definition of "one" is different from yours, as I wasn't the one who created this thread. Obviously there is more than one if there is someone else.

2) It would also be silly to assume that the people on this forum represent everyone, when active forums accounts typically account for maybe 1-2% of a game's population.

3) I point you back to the thread requesting summoned minions grant no experience when killed so players can't intentionally allow summoners to live and generate unlimited XP. Because that's something that only impacted the "complete strangers" who chose to abuse that "in the privacy of their own games".

To remind you, your opinion in that thread was:


Why did it matter to you, when summons only generate an unnatural amount of XP for players who are intentionally leaving the summoners alive for the purpose of farming XP in the first place..? It didn't impact you, yet you seemed to want it fixed. You seemed to want to sack a "feature" that other players perhaps enjoyed. Please, explain that, because from where I'm standing your reaction here seems a bit on the hypocritical side.

Truth is, there was a better way to handle summoning, one that didn't leave a flawed mechanic in place. And there's a better way of handling loot, one that doesn't leave a flawed mechanic in place. And regardless of whether or not it purposely impacts you, it needs to be fixed. I don't plan on playing a thief.. whether they are balanced properly or not makes no difference to me. That doesn't mean I should go around protesting thief balance. The "no one but you cares" argument is not a good reason to ignore a flaw, nor is it accurate.

You do not have to intentionally leave a summoner alive to be effected by summons giving experience.

Fixing summons giving XP does not require redesigning and re-balancing the game on a fundamental level.

Eliminating XP from summons does not otherwise impact gameplay. Depending on how you wish to try to prevent 'save scumming', it can negatively impact gameplay (reloading an earlier save for various reasons, and then going through an area getting the exact same loot as before doesn't add anything to the replayability).

Sorry but this Thread is so stupid... when the game editor comes out there will be Plenty of Mods with "uber weapons" if u let the drop always be the same they would be even more encouraged to use those Mods.. so simply let it be as it is

That being said (sorry for the harsh words) here a Solution that would benefit everyone
(But i dont think its even worth wasting developing time for that):
-Give the Bosses Much better Loot
-Reduce the Loot of the "Boss Chests"
-Disable Saving during Combat

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your assessment. I have yet to come across a battle with a summoner where I felt I was being rewarded an abnormal amount of XP. You really do have to go out of your way to allow a summoner to create a lot of extra MOBs to the point where you're gaming the mechanics. It was not a problem a player would find themselves accidentally stumbling upon during a normal play-through.

Regardless, the fix (in that case) was easy: remove the XP from the summons and apply a greater XP bonus to the summoner to make up for the loss. That allows a designer to control precisely how much experience an encounter is worth regardless of how many summons are created. I was in favor of it, but I dislike that others were rallying for that fix while now protesting the fix of another exploitable mechanic.

An exploitable mechanic is an exploitable mechanic, and if the developers can find a way to easily fix it they should be encouraged to do so. I don't see the point in spending so much energy objecting to the flaw being brought to their attention. I feel like people are being overprotective with this particular setup because they want to have the option of abusing it. Since when is that a good reason to not fix an exploit?

I'm also not sure how people outside the development team can insist that fixing this problem requires a "redesign and re-balance" of the game on a fundamental level (particularly when this problem can actually cause balance issues to begin with). If you want to suspect that it might, or be concerned that it would, that's fine. But running interference on the request because you think it might isn't helpful.

I suspect the developers are bright enough to look at these reports, discuss how they feel about the matter, and evaluate how feasible making a change is. I feel fairly certain they don't need players running around telling them which questionable functionality not to fix, and yet some of the people on this forum seem to be on a crusade to do exactly that. And I'm not getting the sense of the purest of motives at work here with some of these responses either.


I never suggested that all containers should use the same loot system (in fact, I specifically said this was regarding particular special containers that are guaranteed to reward the player with an abnormal amount of treasure). All other random containers would remain as they currently are.

Finally, I'm not sure what this has to do with replayability, as nobody is suggesting these special containers have the same rewards in them from one playthrough to the next. Yes, saving in front of a container, looting it, reloading your save and looting it again should produce the same results - but let's not label that as lost "replayability". I thought we were playing a turn-based tactical RPG, not Treasure Lotto. If the game starts feeling more like the latter, then this problem really does need to be fixed.



I think people are making too many assumptions about what is going to be possible with the editor in terms of the main campaign.

That said, I don't have a problem with any of those suggestions you made. However, there are special chests just sitting around (outside of boss (or any) encounter) which guarantee nice magical treasure. These are actually the most easily abused and wouldn't be impacted (unfortunately) by that change.

I actually don't have a problem with someone getting different treasure every time they beat an encounter, because it requires more effort than simply reloading a saved game and clicking on a static object to see what you've won. It's the super-chests sitting in the middle of a very safe location that have a key sitting right next to them that I take issue with.

It is possible to not see this as a problem without wanting to exploit the possibility of reloading. Some may simply want to object to Larian spending time on what they see as a non-issue, possibly implementing changes that could have a negative impact on gameplay.

I'm not trying to run interference, I was trying to point out it is possible to have a different opinion without simply wanting to save scum (you yourself said it is apparently fine for regular containers despite claiming "An exploitable mechanic is an exploitable mechanic"), and the debate itself was futile at this point.

How come it is ok for you to suggest a change or claim something is a problem, but somehow if others give opposing viewpoints there is something wrong with that? Your motives are pure, anyone who disagrees with you... well obviously there is something wrong there? You can continue discussing this indefinitely, apparently, but any objections are some kind of crusade?

In any case, carry on if you are so inclined...

People are, of course, free to object to something they consider to be a "waste of development time", but in the end only the developers know how much time it will take, which employees would be involved, what those particular employees schedules look like, etc.

The problem is nobody comes on here saying "I'd prefer time was spent on something else, but I also admit I don't know how long it would take or who and what would be involved in changing this, so take that opinion with a grain of salt..". Instead, the thread gets flooded with responses akin to "this is a non-issue that only matters to you", which is neither helpful nor constructive. That's the difference (and generally where the arguments start). I, for example, see threads popping up daily which touch on issues that aren't personally important to me, but (unlike some) I don't make a point of trying to run them into the ground.

That isn't directed at you, by the way. I'm speaking in general.


The reason I'm not stressing over every random crate and barrel is because (number pulled out of the air) 99% of the time they produce something that seems useless or trivial, and will likely continue to do so even with numerous reloads. The containers I'm concerned about are the ones that are guaranteed to provide multiple, magical, level-based loot, of which there are only a few in comparison.

But if they want to (and can) fix all of them, I'm all for it.

IMO enemies already give too much XP... no point adding more ontop of that. I would be more for cutting their rewards down in favor of raising Quest XP. But that's me.

And no, summoners should not give more XP just cause they summon. It's their attack. That's like saying sword wielders should give more XP since swords. Mages should give more XP since magic! And rangers should give more XP since bow damage! In the end, it all balances out, or you get an upward spiral out of control.

Yeah, I'm sure Larian is smart enough to see why summoning/respawning XP is an actual issue and spawn change on reload isn't, and the difference between actively seeking out ways to "game" the system (which are obtusive and take a long time) and those that are passive, and as a result can be triggered without realising, and if actively engaged are far easier and rewarding to "game"...

Again; Apples and oranges.

EDIT:
And I would go further... aside from being a waste of time and a LOT of work (I know, trust me) it's also actively making the game WORSE. Who wants to persue that? I know I would say 'screw that' and work on something else instead...

You misunderstand what I meant. And it's not as simple as saying "it's their attack!" and brushing it off.

If a designer wants an encounter to be worth a specific amount of XP because they've designed an area for a particular rate of character advancement, you don't just suddenly toss the XP the summons were worth out the window without compensating the player somewhere else (like making the mobs in an encounter that has a summoner worth more experience).

I'm not saying that is what has happened or has to happen, but rather it's just something that does happen when making a balance fix like this *if the designer was depending on the encounter to award players with a particular threshold of XP that is no longer being met once summons are given a 0 XP value in order to fix a potential exploit*.


I disagree. And I can point out that I also know, and to trust me, and we can compare resumes, etc, but it would be pointless. Because, like me, your mind is made up - I don't make a point of making statements unless I actually stand behind them.

Consider we already outlevel content in the beta, I think that fear is pretty non-existant. And XP will be cut. It's kind of silly to have a lvl 8 boss while you gain 11 lvls easily doing stuff around the world.

Oh, I agree there are definitely problems with pacing and challenges because of level differences, although that's the sort of problem that's going to happen when you allow players the freedom to explore different areas in any order and populate those areas with content that is of a specific level.

I would like to see some sort of level scaling at work, where encounters are raised up to the level of the party. They don't have to be scaled down to the level of the party, however, meaning it would still be possible to wander into areas that are extremely challenging (or downright deadly).

I personally don't have fun facerolling content, and get very bored when a level superiority over my opponents allows me to breeze through a battle. Anything that can be done to remove that problem without necessarily restricting where I can wander is something I can probably get behind.

I don't think simply lowering XP across the board is the answer, however, as then you're basically demanding players consume all content just to scrap enough XP together to remain effective, rather than the content they choose to participate in. You also can never tell when a player is going to go the "evil" route and kill half the town (after doing their quests), at which point you're faced with a player who has (once again) accumulated too much XP and trivialized many of the battles awaiting him.

Larian has never used level scaling in their RPG's. Level scaling is not happening in this one, which Larian has said many times already.

Experience rebalancing IS happening though, which should reduce the problem of overleveling which does exist in the current version.