334 réponses à ce sujet

[Harcken]

Realmzmaster wrote...

CybAnt1,

Why would the player character and his party know anything about the enemy they face if they have never seen it before. Now if you are stating that after their first encounter with the creature they would acquire that knowledge I will agree with you.
.

That's like saying:"Why does the PC know about the Grey Wardens?" You probably know a few facts about bears, but I don't think you've ever been in a wrestling match with one. The journal tells the player, not the PC, a lot of info that the PC should not know; if every limitation and physics of the real world were incorportated in a game, we'd get second life with no flying.

[xCobalt]

tmp7704 wrote...

I just don't see the logic in this reasoning, since it seems to hinge on presumption you're supposed to make a choice between one and the other, while you're perfectly free to take both options and both of them provide identical benefits.
 

I guess I should have been more clear in what I said earlier. Rather than pick one or the other, you would have both and the impact from the runes become less significant. I guess you could make an argument that runes are stronger early on since they are a static amount but as one gets stronger, you would benefit more from a % increase, which is what the Rings do I believe.

tmp7704 wrote...
I said if they scale in linear manner then as long as level 1 ring equals benefit of one rune, i'd expect a ring 3x as strong (level 3 being equivalent of level 1 + level 1 + level 1) to provide benefit similar to 3 runes. Yes, it would be more noticeable just like getting 60% bonus from 3 runes is more noticeable than getting 20% bonus from just one. Would think it's rather straightforward.

I'm not sure if they do scale in a linear manner. I would test it, but I don't think theres a need for it. You may have missed what I said earlier and that is, a ring can hold up to 3 abilities. If one level 3 ability is equal to 3 runes, a high-end ring with 3 level 3 abilities would be three times as strong.

It seems you have played Awakenings, what do the runes offer, offensively, in the endgame? 

[CybAnt1]

why does the PC know about the Grey Wardens?" You probably know a few facts about bears, but I don't think you've ever been in a wrestling match with one. The journal tells the player, not the PC, a lot of info that the PC should not know; if every limitation and physics of the real world were incorportated in a game, we'd get second life with no flying.

This is why BTW I suggest my beast lore skill idea.

A skill 1 beast lore skill might mean you know very general things about the creature. 

Skill level 2, you know something about its special attacks (like, it's poisonous, you might need stuff that resists nature/poison damage). 

Skill level 3, you know something about its resistances (like, it's resistant to fire) and vulnerabilities (takes extra damage from cold). 

Skill level 4, you might know something about its behavior (like, if it's a mage creature, what types of spells it might cast at you, or that it tends to use ambush tactics). 

I'd also like to see other "lore" type skills in the game. If you think about it, why is it exactly that the character always knows exactly what every item is and does as soon as it is found? 

In D & D, an item might be mysterious until you cast various spells on it to identify it. You could simply try out the item but there was always a risk that it might be cursed (requiring a remove curse spell to remove it), or if it was a potion, having some nasty side effect (like poisoning you or turning you into a frog).

It would be interesting if there also was an Item Lore skill, the more you raised it, the more likely you are to know what items are when they are found, and what their properties are. But without points in the skill you have to run the risk of "trial & error". 

[tmp7704]

xCobalt wrote...

I'm not sure if they do scale in a linear manner. I would test it, but I don't think theres a need for it. You may have missed what I said earlier and that is, a ring can hold up to 3 abilities. If one level 3 ability is equal to 3 runes, a high-end ring with 3 level 3 abilities would be three times as strong.

It seems you have played Awakenings, what do the runes offer, offensively, in the endgame? 

I have tried to stay away from the runes in Awakening truth be told, simply so the game wouldn't get even easier than it aready was. Just put some mid-range runes which would make some sort of sense for the characters to use them (darkspawn damage bonus because well, wardens, then some resistance runes for tanks, couple hp/stamina/mana things and such).

From playing with the system though, it is much easier to get full sets of high-end runes as they're made from unlimited components and the money is very easy to obtain. They enhanced the basic system with new rune types which do things like increase amount of critical damage you deal, increase character attributes and things like defense or resistance to certain damage types. You can see full overview here: http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Runes

[AlanC9]

CybAnt1 wrote...
In D & D, an item might be mysterious until you cast various spells on it to identify it. You could simply try out the item but there was always a risk that it might be cursed (requiring a remove curse spell to remove it), or if it was a potion, having some nasty side effect (like poisoning you or turning you into a frog).

Well, YMMV, but in my D&D experience this didn't matter. A DM gets to pull the cursed item stunt exactly once. After that, players never trust an un-identified item again. Same thing in BG1 -- you get that cursed girdle early , and that teaches you to never use anything before checking.

[Realmzmaster]

Harcken wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

CybAnt1,

Why would the player character and his party know anything about the enemy they face if they have never seen it before. Now if you are stating that after their first encounter with the creature they would acquire that knowledge I will agree with you.
.

That's like saying:"Why does the PC know about the Grey Wardens?" You probably know a few facts about bears, but I don't think you've ever been in a wrestling match with one. The journal tells the player, not the PC, a lot of info that the PC should not know; if every limitation and physics of the real world were incorportated in a game, we'd get second life with no flying.

The PC may or may not know about the Grey Wardens. Take the different origins.
The dwarves know about the darkspawn because they basically live with them. I would expect a dwarf to know about the darkspawn and the various types. The dwarves know about the wardens because the wardens end their lives in the Deep Roads.
The human noble has probably never seen a darkspawn until Ostagar and would not know the various types on sight. The human noble may have heard of them but that is it.

If you play either the city elf or dalish elf origin your warden has not come in contact with the darkspawn. In fact the first time the dalish elf sees a darkspawn he/she does not know what it is? In fact Duncan is the first Grey Warden the dalish or city elf come across. The other elves have to inform your character about the Grey Wardens. As far as the city or dalish elf are concerned he is just another shem.
Why would my warden know that a monster is a vampire if he/she has never encountered one? Also all vampires myths do not follow the one in the D & D manual especially the ones in the Far East.
How does my character know a lich from a skeleton?
CybAnt1 mentioned a beast lore skill. I would just enhance the survival skill to include that ability. The character or companion could guage the relative strength of the creature. Thereby discerning the difference between a lich and skeleton. It still may not know the name of the creature, but will know how dangerous it is.
Certain lore can be acquired by picking up a book like some information is acquired in DA:O.

I have a problem with the game telling me I am facing an armored ogre and then give me the codex information after I beat it. The same with the Inferno golem which you only see once.
I do not expect ever limitation and physics of the real world tobe incorporated, but I do not expect to be given information on the enemy that I have no foreknowledge of.

[Tirigon]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Like: "hmmm. undead. time to get out the holy water, and the energy drain resistance potions." 
Or "hmmm. fire elementals. time to get out the ice weapons, and fire resistance gear." 
Or "hmmm. beholders. Let's get the eye ray reflecting mirror shield out." 
Or "hmmm. trolls. they regenerate, unless we hit them with fire/acid to prevent it." 
Or "hmmm. basilisks. they can turn us to stone. better have some stuff that increases resistance to petrify." 

Etc. You get the idea. DA seems lacking in this dimension. I'd like to have a greater variety of non-humanoid monsters, that also puts more thought into how to respond to them. 

That is exactly what BioWare has to do if they want me to throw the game away even if it´s a gift.

Worst sh!tidea eva.

[CybAnt1]

That is exactly what BioWare has to do if they want me to throw the game away even if it´s a gift.

Worst sh!tidea eva.

Hey different strokes for different folks. I get it. You like tomatoes, I like potatoes. I understand that. This is why game design is so hard and they usually choose the strategy of pleasing the largest audience; which in turn often ends up alienating the people who think they shouldn't. 

I mean, look, I'm not saying I'm going to throw away the game or raging at Bioware because 90% of the fights are against the same boring humanoid monsters over and over again, who if they have any abilities are just variants of your own and they never use them; etc. I'm just saying I'd like a little bit more variety (as is the case in many other CRPGs) that actually makes you vary not just your tactics but what methods you use against them. 

But I see my idea of just adding a bit more variety (and that's all I'm suggesting) would make you throw the game away. See, that's the problem with trying to design for everybody. 

*Shrug* If they don't add many more monsters in following xpacs and DA 2, I hope modders will make some more, so I can enjoy some variety, and you don't have to throw the game away. 

[Tirigon]

I´m all for variety but not in the "This monster = this weapon, that monster = that weapon" style you suggest. I like a whole lot of enemies, and a whole lot of ways to kill them without being limited to a single strategy for each.

[soteria]

Tirigon wrote...

CybAnt1 wrote...

Like: "hmmm. undead. time to get out the holy water, and the energy drain resistance potions." 
Or "hmmm. fire elementals. time to get out the ice weapons, and fire resistance gear." 
Or "hmmm. beholders. Let's get the eye ray reflecting mirror shield out." 
Or "hmmm. trolls. they regenerate, unless we hit them with fire/acid to prevent it." 
Or "hmmm. basilisks. they can turn us to stone. better have some stuff that increases resistance to petrify." 

Etc. You get the idea. DA seems lacking in this dimension. I'd like to have a greater variety of non-humanoid monsters, that also puts more thought into how to respond to them. 

That is exactly what BioWare has to do if they want me to throw the game away even if it´s a gift.

Worst sh!tidea eva.

So, presumably you hated BG, BG2, and probably NWN2 as well?  Everything on that list was a feature in the Baldur's Gate games.

[Tirigon]

soteria wrote...

So, presumably you hated BG, BG2, and probably NWN2 as well?  Everything on that list was a feature in the Baldur's Gate games.

Unfortunately, I didn´t have the chance to try them yet, but if it´s true, chances are good I will.

However, it depends on how much so it is.
I mean, in ME it´s like that (with ammo types - disruptor for shields, fire for armor etc...), as well as in DAO (Undead immune to nature damage for example), but I like both because it´s not impossible to defeat your enemies using a suboptimal attack. You don´t feel like you have to use special equipment for each to stand a chance.

[AlexRD]

Fallout 3, i don't even have to say why do i?

[tmp7704]

CybAnt1 wrote...

But I see my idea of just adding a bit more variety (and that's all I'm suggesting) would make you throw the game away. See, that's the problem with trying to design for everybody. 

The potential problem with this is the "golf club bag" syndrome mentioned earlier, where players are forced to lug around huge pile of gear in order to be able to deal with encounters. It's also something that seems rather difficult to balance -- make the gear setup important enough for the players to bother, and they can easily run into walls where they're unable to proceed because they don't have the particular kind of weapon/armour needed to deal with the enemies. Make it less important so they're still able to get through in such situation, and you get DA where players simply don't bother with this "variety".

[AlanC9]

Exactly. It's not like the golf bag requires any actual thought to use. But maybe that's the point: People like things that give the appearance of thought; actual strategy is besides the point.



Suddenly I'm back on BG2. People always talk about the mage battles being strategic. But the whole of that strategy is short enough to be put on a loading screen, which is exactly what Bio did. If the mage has defenses, use something in the Pierce Magic line, and then Breach him. If BG2 had DA:O's tactics screen, you could just leave Imoen on autopilot in a mage fight.

[Upper_Krust]

uberdowzen wrote...

The thing is though that it's not quite as simple as going, "Let's make the way the game works completely different at Hard". That alone would probably take several programers several hundred hours of work. You can't just make the game play completely differently like that.

Actually I think you can, and the way to do this is by making choices matter more and scaling them to difficulty.

So a fire rune might only make a 12.5% difference against an ice based foe on Easy difficulty. While on normal it might make a 25% difference, on hard maybe a 50% difference and on nightmare a 100% difference.

What you can then do is upscale enemy health or downscale player damage by difficulty, so that using those tactics, while not essential for normal rank enemies, definately starts to become essential for Lieutenants, Bosses and Elite Bosses.

Because adding more monster's is pointless if you still going to fight them in the same ways.

Which is why I am stressing we should give the monsters greater identity so that you don't fight them in the same way.

That's because those games which are 10-15 hours long have a lot more crafting per hour. Dragon Age isn't as well crafted as those games because it is a lot longer but has to be developed in the same amount of time. Also Baldurs Gate is 2D, it's much easier to make 2D models.

It seems to me that while 3D models take longer to make, they take less time to modify.

Uh, yeah. If it was broken surely they would fix it.

I disagree. Bioware are not omniscient...

I don't think so. Anyway if they were so obviously over-powered they would have noticed in testing.

...Just like they noticed Awakening was so easy? Just like they noticed all the bugs in the game during testing?

Yes, but they are a much harder class to develop. Done badly and they'll be underpowered.

Done badly they can be overpowered or underpowered, but done right they can be balanced.

[Upper_Krust]

[quote]Catcher wrote...

Sorry for the long delay in reply.[/quote]

No apologies necessary amigo.



[quote]My older girl had her sixth birthday this weekend and that's kinda important.[/quote]

Absolutely - congratulations.


[quote]I wrapped all these together because I think it gets at the root of the choices and combat issue: should one or even two choices necessarilly lead to failure or sucess in combat?[/quote]

No I don't necessarily think so. However, the two variables in that equation are the games difficulty level and the rank of the enemy you face.

My suggestion would be that the higher the difficulty and the higher the enemy rank, the more your choices would be critical. So Elite Bosses on Nightmare would require almost (but not quite) perfect strategy. Then down size from that point.



[quote]The DA:O model is designed with a negative answer in mind whild the LO model appears (again, I'll defer to greater knowledge) to say yes. There's nothing categorically wrong with either but we are working in one model and trying to switch it to or emmulate the other is likely to lead to a botched up mess. [/quote]

That would certainly be true if we didn't playtest it.



[quote]Combat difficulty issues are far more complex than this and we're more likely to see positive gains working within the system. That said, absolute immunities on the part of a foe to a major slice of combat, like the frontal immunity you mentioned above, are a major pet peeve of mine and something I think DA:O gets right. Making a character or characters useless for the sake of challenge is a hollow response. There's got to be a better way. [/quote]
 
My example was just for examples sake (although that monster does exist). Again this is where multiple difficulty levels shine.

Peluda Monster (Easy) only takes 75% damage from frontal attacks
Peluda Monster (Normal) only takes 50% damage from frontal attacks
Peluda Monster (Hard) only takes 25% damage from frontal attacks
Peluda Monster (Nightmare) only takes 10% damage from frontal attacks

I agree that absolutes and immunities are not the way to go, but I think something like the above might work.



[quote]Nah. To avoid Spoilers let's just say it was all a Dream and another good example that making mistakes that DON'T kill you can be just as memorable as those that do.[/quote]



[quote]There's something to this, but there's also some questions that beg to be asked. I've certainly noticed distinct differences in how a number of enemies attack and there are special attack forms for several (Sylvans, Shadow Wolves, Desire Demons) enemies that can be everything from irritating to troublesome. Why is this not evident to other posters? [/quote]

Very simple, the choices made by those enemies are not statistially dramatic enough to cause most people to notice the difference.



[quote]I have a feeling it's because these elements aren't really the Party-breakers like say, level draining or Confusion spells were in D&D-based games, but I'm open to further analysis there. [/quote]

I'd agree with that.



[quote]One thing to consider when adding special attack forms, tactics, etc. to any class of enemies is that it's likely going to have to be added at all difficulty levels. I don't have any hard numbers myself, but I would imagine that the number of Players who actually use the Nightmare level to be < 5% of all Players. [/quote]

For DAO maybe, much higher for Awakening though. I have friends who played DAO on easy/normal and played Awakening on Nightmare.



[quote]Even in the heady days of BG2, the Ascention mod which significantly upped the difficulty of BG2: Throne of Bhaal was done by a Bioware employee on his own time. With the audience broader and demanding a wider variety of experiences from an RPG like DA, it will be a hard sell to add something that's seen only on Nightmare.[/quote]

True. See my suggestions above for why that doesn't have to be the case. 



[quote]Here's a thought that I think does take a little something from LO-style but is something I've been thinking about independantly before this topic came to light. One problem with making combat difficult for the more "combat inclined" Player is that the resource-availability model has changed in the DA system, but it seems the level design paradigm hasn't yet. Large encounter areas (or dungeons in common parlance) still look to a number of meeting encounters to attrit resources that are quickly replenished with a short wait time, spell, or potion. What I would propose would be to concatenate several of these into larger set-piece battles where custom placement and tactics can be more easily implemented and tactical resource depletion could become a real concern. Smaller encounters would be limited to generating flavor and Lore. This brings the DA encounter types closer to the JRPG-ish model, but for reasons and goals that fit DA. What do you think?  [/quote]

I have been suggesting something similar here for the past few months. I refer to it as the Vanguard/Rearguard Reinforcements. Basically the idea was that on Hard and Nightmare difficulties certain encounters would happen simultaneously.

ie. Lets say in a dungeon with 17 encounters, when you get to encounter 5, you also face the enemies from encounter 6 at the same time (or if not the same time, they arrive at the end of the battle with no break for the player). On hard we could group maybe 2 encounters, whereas on nightmare we could group 3.

One other interesting idea someone suggested a few weeks ago (which is actually a PC mod) is that potions themselves have a cooldown of 60 seconds. I think this would make crafting far more relevant and take away the potion spamming in harder combats (nullifying their 'harder' nature).

Modifié par Upper_Krust, 13 avril 2010 - 06:10 .

[Upper_Krust]

Tirigon wrote...

CybAnt1 wrote...

Like: "hmmm. undead. time to get out the holy water, and the energy drain resistance potions." 
Or "hmmm. fire elementals. time to get out the ice weapons, and fire resistance gear." 
Or "hmmm. beholders. Let's get the eye ray reflecting mirror shield out." 
Or "hmmm. trolls. they regenerate, unless we hit them with fire/acid to prevent it." 
Or "hmmm. basilisks. they can turn us to stone. better have some stuff that increases resistance to petrify." 

Etc. You get the idea. DA seems lacking in this dimension. I'd like to have a greater variety of non-humanoid monsters, that also puts more thought into how to respond to them. 

That is exactly what BioWare has to do if they want me to throw the game away even if it´s a gift.

Worst idea eva.

The easy way of doing something like this and (for once) pleasing all of the people all of the time, is by making the choices matter more for those on higher difficulties.

So facing fire elementals on easy difficulty and breaking out the ice weapons/spells won't matter as much as on nightmare difficulty.

So not just are the monsters tougher on higher difficulties, but your choices make more of a difference. Thus meaning on higher difficulties the more you need to rely on making the right choices.

[Tirigon]

Upper_Krust wrote...


The easy way of doing something like this and (for once) pleasing all of the people all of the time, is by making the choices matter more for those on higher difficulties.

So facing fire elementals on easy difficulty and breaking out the ice weapons/spells won't matter as much as on nightmare difficulty.

So not just are the monsters tougher on higher difficulties, but your choices make more of a difference. Thus meaning on higher difficulties the more you need to rely on making the right choices.

So what if I want to play on high difficulty because I want a challenge (for example I always play Nightmare nowadays in DAO or it´s too easy) but still don´t want to have the "Ice enemy: Get fire sword, shadow enemy: Get holy sword" kind of play?! I´d like it if you actually had to use different strategies for different enemies, but equipping a sword with different enchantment IS NOT!!! using different strategies, it´s carrying more useless items.

Also, use fire spells on fire demons in DAO and you will see that it´s already very much like you want it to be.....

[Tirigon]

Upper_Krust wrote...


I have been suggesting something similar here for the past few months. I refer to it as the Vanguard/Rearguard Reinforcements. Basically the idea was that on Hard and Nightmare difficulties certain encounters would happen simultaneously.

ie. Lets say in a dungeon with 17 encounters, when you get to encounter 5, you also face the enemies from encounter 6 at the same time (or if not the same time, they arrive at the end of the battle with no break for the player). On hard we could group maybe 2 encounters, whereas on nightmare we could group 3.

One other interesting idea someone suggested a few weeks ago (which is actually a PC mod) is that potions themselves have a cooldown of 60 seconds. I think this would make crafting far more relevant and take away the potion spamming in harder combats (nullifying their 'harder' nature).

I would totally agree if we had a Jade Empire way of fighting because in Jade Empire, you can evade or block EVERY attack of EVERY enemy you ever encounter, provided you are skillful enough, what is quite hard even if you are a very good player.
But the point is, it IS possible.
In DAO, no matter how good you are, you WILL receive damage, simply because you can´t block or evade attacks with your skill as player but based on your stats.
So the ideas you describe wouldn´t make the game more challenging, but simply impossible if your equipment isn´t strong enough.

[soteria]

One thing to consider when adding special attack forms, tactics, etc. to any class of enemies is that it's likely going to have to be added at all difficulty levels. I don't have any hard numbers myself, but I would imagine that the number of Players who actually use the Nightmare level to be around 5%

I don't have numbers for the number of people who play on Nightmare, although several people have taken polls on this question.

Here's one from before release. The majority were planning to play on normal, and about a third on hard. 3% planned to play on nightmare. Before release, we had been told nightmare was extremely difficult, and not for the faint of heart.

And here's one from shortly after release. The game was new, and a lot of us, including myself, thought the game *was* hard at that point.

This one and this one are from last month. The overwhelming majority said they were playing on hard or nightmare. It's possible those polls were posted in a thread with an unusually high concentration of "hardcore" players, but it's still noteworthy.

My own thoughts are that a significant portion of the people who play DA:O have never tried nightmare and will never, because they don't play this game for a challenge. They aren't the "hardest difficulty" demographic and automatically stick with easy or normal, never even wondering if they *could* do hard or nightmare.

Other people think normal is hard enough, and enjoy the challenge at that level. They are probably being challenged because they believed Bioware when they were told they needed to invest in willpower and constitution. Some of these ask questions or learn on their own and eventually move up to hard, but think nightmare is too hard (and they haven't tried it).

Others want a challenge, and usually try a game on the hardest difficulty they think they are capable of. Or, they simply kick the difficulty whenever they start to get a little bored by the game. This is the demographic that is disapointed by nightmare, and if you can believe the polls it's a fairly significant number of people. I think I can honestly say that I've never seen someone complain about nightmare being too hard. The people who actually attempt it almost universally think it's surprisingly easy, and at the risk of changing the thread's subject, I think that's a problem.

Developing content for a limited portion of your demographic *is* a problematic idea, but I don't think it's necessarily all bad.  Bungie implements additional cutscenes to their legendary difficulty mode as a reward for completing it.  I don't think that's the right way to go for Dragon Age, but I think it works for Halo.  Let's say we go with some of Upper_Krust's ideas for making combat more difficult and varied on harder difficulties.  Do we then have "content" that a lot of people will never see?

Maybe not.  If you consider my imagined breakdown of the DA:O demographic, obviously the people who play for a challenge will appreciate it right away.  Then you have the people who don't really look for a challenge, but think the combat tends to be the boring part between dialogue.  Maybe they hear that the harder difficulties are a fun challenge and make for more interesting (and slightly different) fights.  That could breathe new life into the game for them, and you might end up having people play on Hard/Nightmare that would normally never consider it.

Modifié par soteria, 13 avril 2010 - 07:14 .

[Tirigon]

Imo, you can´t say Nightmare is too easy, nor that it´s too hard. It depends on the fight and your class.



For example: High-level mage with blood wound and fireball vs a whole lot of archers: Practically 2-spell-win.



Dualwieldwarrior vs same bunch of archers: Really, REALLY hard.



Same 2 heroes against a revenant: Nearly impossible for the mage unless your other talents are geared for such a fight, much easier, maybe even too easy for the warrior..

[soteria]

Imo, you can´t say Nightmare is too easy, nor that it´s too hard. It depends on the fight and your class.

For example: High-level mage with blood wound and fireball vs a whole lot of archers: Practically 2-spell-win.

Dualwieldwarrior vs same bunch of archers: Really, REALLY hard.

Same 2 heroes against a revenant: Nearly impossible for the mage unless your other talents are geared for such a fight, much easier, maybe even too easy for the warrior..

Sure you can. Regardless of your class, you have access to every class in the game via companions. If the dual wield warrior has high dex and decent armor he will take hardly any damage. He doesn't even have to use abilities, just autoattacking will be enough... it's quite possible he could be completely unhittable by the archers and only take a few points of damage from their special attacks.

Are we talking about soloing or something? I *guess* a mage might have a hard time against the revenant in that case (I don't know), but otherwise, I can't agree. In either case the strategy is simple--only one character in melee range, and have everyone else use ranged weapons. Unless you don't have any potions or no bows on anyone AND no mage, I can't see it being hard.

Unless we're talking about self-imposed restrictions--and if we are, I think that pretty much proves my point--Nightmare isn't hard for the players who choose to play on it. As far as I know.

Modifié par soteria, 13 avril 2010 - 07:54 .

[Catcher]

Tirigon wrote...

I would totally agree if we had a Jade Empire way of fighting because in Jade Empire, you can evade or block EVERY attack of EVERY enemy you ever encounter, provided you are skillful enough, what is quite hard even if you are a very good player.
But the point is, it IS possible.
In DAO, no matter how good you are, you WILL receive damage, simply because you can´t block or evade attacks with your skill as player but based on your stats.
So the ideas you describe wouldn´t make the game more challenging, but simply impossible if your equipment isn´t strong enough.

      I'm not sure I see your logic. The idea in introducing a phased combat like this is to make Players more aware of, and husband their resources more effectively. As it stands, there's little incentive for the Player not to cast the most powerful offensive spells, blow buffs and heals constantly, or use the most expensive combat talents early and often. This is part of what makes combat easier in DA:O than it really should be. The opposition used to have this advantage in the older, D&D-based games because they were meant to die anyway, not move on to the next adventurer group. When you phase combat encounters, you simulate the old-style need to marshall resources and decide when to spend them, just in a tactical rather than strategic manner. I'll try to dance around the spoiler issue to give two examples below.


      At one point in the game, you face a steady stream of weaker opponents in two locations without an actual rest in-between. I've heard some other posters talk about that encounter being difficult and it can't be for the strength of the opposition (only two yellows in the bunch, I believe). It's also difficult because there's a secondary objective which is only possible because the combat isn't one of these 'meeting' engagements that's the norm in most encounters. Without any special tweaking of the opposition other than the speed with which they are engaged, there's a special challege created.

     As a second example, I give a hypothetical change to an actual game encounter. At some point you'll encounter a room where several archers are protected by layers of traps: a fairly typical kind of combat puzzle. Before that room are two smaller rooms where small mobs attack your Party in the typical wearing down encounters you'll see in a D&D-based game just before such a combat puzzle. What if, on a higher difficulty, those mobs were not visible/available there. Then, when your Party is engaged with the archers, one archer (or a leader type character, even better) blows a horn/hits a gong/plays a McGuffin and the mobs spawn to engage your Party from the rear? In the old encounter your mages would blast away the archers after CCing them while your rogue disarmed the traps for the fighters to surge through and engage at close range. While your Party could still easily defeat either group (afterall in the Real universe you did so without a thought), the two groups together along with the timing makes for more of a challenge without being an overwheling wieght of power. Further, if you just had your fighters run through the traps trusting in the Expolration Mode regen to make up for the loss in Health/Mana burned on healing spells, you'd be in a serious bind. Phasing combat alone wouldn't be enough (the reinfiorcements coming in would need to be changed a bit to target you spellcasters/archers for example), but it does give the level designers more to work with and Players more to consider while fitting the style of resource depletion/replinishment in DA much more closely than the old D&D-style.

    Hope that helps. 

[AlanC9]

soteria wrote...
This one and this one are from last month. The overwhelming majority said they were playing on hard or nightmare. It's possible those polls were posted in a thread with an unusually high concentration of "hardcore" players, but it's still noteworthy.

I think it's not so much that the poll threads attracted hardcore players per se as that they attracted players who care about difficulty. Which is pretty much consistent with your take on the playerbase. We don't really have any clue on percentages, though of course any of these groups would be a large number of players in absolute terms.

Also, it's quite common for a game to end up being easier than the designers were aiming. No developer gets all that much playtest time with the final version before they start locking stuff down. It's not like Bio deliberately made constitution and willpower into dump stats and then lied to us about how to build characters.

 I think I can honestly say that I've never seen someone complain about nightmare being too hard.

I've seen that twice. Both times the poster was mercilessly mocked, both for being a bad player and for being too stupid to just turn the difficulty down to a setting he liked.

[AlanC9]

soteria wrote...
Sure you can. Regardless of your class, you have access to every class in the game via companions. If the dual wield warrior has high dex and decent armor he will take hardly any damage. He doesn't even have to use abilities, just autoattacking will be enough.

What do you consider "high"? I find that revenants are pretty threatening in melee until pretty close to the endgame, but I haven't bothered to crunch the numbers yet.