We've both said our peace on the exploit. You and others think double-dipping on both persuasion and combat XP is totally legitimate, and I do not for reasons I've already articulated.
I'm not particularly trying to convince YOU. I'm content to just offer my perspective and let Larian decide what, if anything they wish to do about these situations.
You have some decent ideas even though we disagree on a few points here and there. So you want to know my thoughts about Karma? Well, it's really hard to say without understanding what exactly is the effect it will have.
Is it something which only gives a reward later on for maxing out a meter? (And if you're not either pure evil or pure good, there's no big reward?)
Or is Karma a system to restrict quests and NPC reactions? So do too many evil things and whoops a several quests are locked out? That might be an issue in games with limited quests and opportunities to change your morality. All the games I've seen with such meters have respawns as part of those games, although I might not remember or be aware of some others.
I do not find "Just add Karma, problem solved" to be a convincing solution, at least not without defining what Karma is and what role it plays to solve such problems.
You're point on just giving feedback to Larian is fair, but I was hoping discussion in this thread would make headway to a unified opinion/feedback that everyone could stand together behind united. This would make it so the feedback had a much higher chance of being listened to and taken into consideration and all parties walk away satisfied.
Which is why most of my responses are targeted to the posters in the thread, instead of just leaving my input and walking away.
And what I want to know is input on:
*karma system
*non-exp reward ideas for 'good' player that are more pacifist
*changing NPC combat level to match level and exp value
*ideas to give non-combat NPCs the ability to defend themselves other than swinging fists ineffectually
*ways to define 'good' vs 'bad' action impact on the world
- 'bad' in this case refers to all decisions to kill any innocent NPC in something other than defense, so double dipping would count
The karma system, as I imagine it:
- Reputation would represent karma level and span both into positive and negative direction
- Reputation would effect NPC interactions and available quests and loot and ect... There would be both a minimum karma level the NPC would require to interact with in certain ways
- Evil would be more about getting direct, selfish power. Most law-abiding NPCs wouldn't give loot, handouts, and free quests to mass murders. This would also help stop double dipping in some instances. Some notable NPCs might appreciate the evil PC and give memorable quests.
- More neutral NPCs might give quests with exp but less loot. Desperate ones, the missing child, would remain unaffected because of setting
- Good would be more about helping others and receiving gratification in happy things in happening and unique loot and interactions
- Karma specific loot and skills
- Maximizing karma (one way or the other) would net unique rewards (ie Talent named Savior/Lucifer, unique loot, and/or unique skills)
- All quests would have both a good, evil, and inbetween options. Thus, if someone got locked into good quests they could tailor there actions to change karma and change sides.
- Limited reputation/karma rewards would direct whether someone went more evil or good or bounced between them for more neutral play-through. Someone shouldn't be able to do all quests after all.
- There could also be actions that always give reputation to a limited degree if it was needed. Giving up exp by praying to god for forgiveness or killing someone/something innocent, for example.
Which is why i find this silly: The only reason this is so obvious at the moment is cause of the limited content. Full release will functionally void all complaints cause ultimately the level differences in the end, no matter player action, will not be significantly different and the functional combat ability will neither.
I don't agree with a "shut up, it won't matter in the full game" stance. You don't KNOW that, and it's completely legitimate to bring up concerns now and let Larian decide if they are valid or not.
This an understandable stance. I'm mostly basing my reasoning off D:OS. While we can't know for sure that things will work out the same, we can reasonably take an educated guess. There's nothing in 2 that implies they wont follow the same limited exp concepts and many things that support it, so I'm working under the assumption that things will work out the same as game one.
*shrug* I could be wrong, but I don't think it's wrong to use game one as a good example to how some mechanics can/will look in the full picture vs specific situations.
