112 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

LambChowder wrote...

During the plague if you use discretion and go into the hospice alone like a thinking, rational person, instead of battling a bunch of Tevinter guards (WHO GIVE NO INDICATION OF EVER HAVING ANY ILL WILL FOR YOU UP TO THIS POINT) instead of slaughtering them in the streets and endangering the innocents for no reason, you're expected to go inside and battle 5 or 6 of them alone. Obviously this isn't something that would come easily to a Rogue, no matter what, unless he laid about ten thousand traps around the feet of every potential enemy and came in with a full loadout of poisons. As if the guards would let me load traps all over the places where htey presumably walk back and fourth regularly. Instead I'm left with the prospect of winning a fight against a bunch of level scaling warriors that could chain stun me for ten years in a row if I had infinite health. Not terribly well thought of them is it.

Ever thought that MIGHT be because the game is not MEANT to be solod, like you do?

[WillieStyle]

tmp7704 wrote...

WillieStyle wrote...

At lvl  7 in lothering using the edge and the tier2 version of thorn of the dead gods, my rogue was hitting bandits for 15-19 damage per hit (non backstab).   I shudder to think what one would have to do to a rogue to get her to hit for only 20 damage per strike at lvl 15.

The Edge has 6.0 base damage, +5 damage bonus and Thorn of the Dead Gods adds another 2 on top of that. So your character is hitting mobs without any armour on them to speak of for ~10 damage per hit at l.7. The ~20 damage i recorded 8 levels later was done with regular tier 7 dagger (6.40 base damage, no damage bonus whatsoever) and done to enemy with considerably more armour. I hardly see a reason to shudder here -- most of the damage increase you get from the stats beyond the extra 10 points of difference i recorded simply gets buffered by increase in the target's armour.

To answer your unasked question in more detail, apparently all it takes for rogue to hit "for only 20 damage per strike at l.15" is not to use the cheesy DLC gear and split their attribute points between dexterity and cunning at about 2:1 ratio rather than just drop it all into one of them (cunning mostly to open the extra dialogue options, locks and traps, dexterity for all benefits it provides) Who would've thought?

Splitting stats between cunning and dex at a 2:1 ratio is fine.
My lvl 7 rogue has 15 strength, 26 dexterity and 28 cunning and doesn't have lethality yet.
The edge is cheesy but by the time you get to the hospice you can have other weapons that are just as good or even better without getting DLC.

P.S.
I was wrong the first time. My lvl 7 rogue didn't have the thorn of the dead gods equiped. He was just using an enchanted dagger in the offhand. With TotDG he's be doing roughly 19-23 damage per hit. 

[tmp7704]

Tirigon wrote...

Ever thought that MIGHT be because the game is not MEANT to be solod, like you do?

It's not a MMO; "not meant to be soloed" is meaningless here especially when you take into consideration the parts like Fade where you are in fact expected to get things done solo through extended periods. If the game provides the player with option to get one of their characters into a situation where they're on their own it is only reasonable to expect --based on experience provided by the game up to that point--  that option was made as valid as all other options provided to the player, rather than some pointless "gotcha!"

[Tirigon]

tmp7704 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Ever thought that MIGHT be because the game is not MEANT to be solod, like you do?

It's not a MMO; "not meant to be soloed" is meaningless here especially when you take into consideration the parts like Fade where you are in fact expected to get things done solo through extended periods. If the game provides the player with option to get one of their characters into a situation where they're on their own it is only reasonable to expect --based on experience provided by the game up to that point--  that option was made as valid as all other options provided to the player, rather than some pointless "gotcha!"

However, the fade part is CONSIDERABLY easier than other parts on the same level - except for the last boss, against which your party is available again.
And it is a party game - you have 4 people to play with, and the difficulty is balanced for that. It is only natural that it is harder if you go alone. Though it is doable, as lots of people have proven.

[tmp7704]

WillieStyle wrote...

The edge is cheesy but by the time you get to the hospice you can have other weapons that are just as good or even better without getting DLC.

As long as you're willing to spend nearly 150g yes, and even then you'll only get +3 damage rather than +5

I was skipping some of the side-quest errands during my playthrough (both to save some content for next games and also because i couldn't justify my character would want to bother with these particular errands) and so never really gathered more than 80-odd gold at any point -- spending 5-20 g every now and then on some upgrades for the whole cast contributed to it too.

If someone goes into the game with long-term plan and knowing in advance there's certain stuff they're going to save for then definitely, i can see such purchases happen. For a player who goes through their first game with no knowledge what to expect though, i'd argue it's not as likely

[tmp7704]

Tirigon wrote...

However, the fade part is CONSIDERABLY easier than other parts on the same level - except for the last boss, against which your party is available again.

Which is partly my point -- if the game up to the situation in question teaches you that any content you're made to go through solo is made easy enough to acommodate for the lack of your companions, why exactly should you expect this one option provided to you so casually is going be unlike your whole experience so far? This is why it can be seen as "bad design" by some -- it's when the game changes its own conventions and/or rules without a clear enough warning in advance.

[Creature 1]

tmp7704 wrote...
Which is partly my point -- if the game up to the situation in question teaches you that any content you're made to go through solo is made easy enough to acommodate for the lack of your companions, why exactly should you expect this one option provided to you so casually is going be unlike your whole experience so far? This is why it can be seen as "bad design" by some -- it's when the game changes its own conventions and/or rules without a clear enough warning in advance.

To me it would be bad design to make everything uniformly easy. 

The most obvious, consistent with the typical character, and easiest route is to talk to Shianni and then follow her advice and head for the back door.  For those of us who want something a little different, it's nice they provided the "fools rush in" option--as long as you're an elf.  I think my elf two-handed warrior will choose that.  Heck, maybe my elf mage will.  We'll see how it goes.  

Oh, and Jack around level 20 has a 51 cunning, 36 dexterity, hits 90% of the time, and does about 60 physical damage, plus maybe 15 extra from runes.  When not backstabbing it's not so good, about 30-40 plus runes.  However, he has two stunning attacks, combat stealth, flurry, and dual-weapon sweep.  I haven't bothered min-maxing in this game because it's fun enough to play that I don't need to do that to amuse myself, and easy enough that I can get away with it.  I can see how a rogue would easily do more damage at the same level. 

[tmp7704]

Creature 1 wrote...

To me it would be bad design to make everything uniformly easy. 

I don't think anyone says things have to be uniformly easy (the overall difficulty is left to the player, that's what that difficulty slider is for) -- the complaint is simply about otherwise uniform game breaking this at single point for no apparent reason.

And if having things consistent is supposed to be bad design... then going with this logic the good design would be the opposite of it, that is to make stats of each enemy entirely random, without any indication which are more difficult than others to boot (indications make things predictable and that's apparently bad) Except it is actually something games shy away from, because such changes to difficulty with no rhyme and reason seem to generally ****** the players off. Which in turn does tend to be sign of a bad design rather than good

[Realmzmaster]

I had no problems with this fight. My character was a city elf with the Ranger specialization. I had paralyze runes in each dagger. One dagger had a flame rune and the other had a frost rune. The guards bought me in. I saw it was a trap (5 on 1). I combat shealth. It gives me time to call up a Great Bear. I tell them say Hello to may not so little friend. I mop the floor with them. I go back outside. The mages attack, but since I have Leilana and Zervan also rangers who call up wolves and Wynne to heal. Leilana, Zervan and PC pull out their bows and wolves go mage chasing. Good fun for all.

Also If you got the drake scales from the Scared Urns quest you can have Wade make some nifty fire resistant armor. Yes , I use this group all the way through the Final Battle. The Arch Demom gets tank by three bears, or three wolves or three spiders and cannot avoid a hail of arrows.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 07 janvier 2010 - 08:28 .

[Tirigon]

tmp7704 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

However, the fade part is CONSIDERABLY easier than other parts on the same level - except for the last boss, against which your party is available again.

Which is partly my point -- if the game up to the situation in question teaches you that any content you're made to go through solo is made easy enough to acommodate for the lack of your companions, why exactly should you expect this one option provided to you so casually is going be unlike your whole experience so far? This is why it can be seen as "bad design" by some -- it's when the game changes its own conventions and/or rules without a clear enough warning in advance.

But you can go in the house with your companions...

When I did this quest I had my entire party with me.

[bzombo]

KCat wrote...

Again, that is why you can go around to the back door, bribe or kill the single guard there, and enter with your whole party through the back.

Why would you think to do that without meta-gaming? Having to meta-game to survive is indicative of poor design in an RPG.

you don't have to. the battle is winnable by other players by just walking in a cleaning up. that is not a hard fight at all.

[Tirigon]

KCat wrote...

Again, that is why you can go around to the back door, bribe or kill the single guard there, and enter with your whole party through the back.

Why would you think to do that without meta-gaming? Having to meta-game to survive is indicative of poor design in an RPG.

At the time you reach the Alienage you should already know that a Fereldan house is most likely to contain someone trying to kill you.

[PatT2]

I knew about the back door because I asked the elf woman if there was another way into the building and she told me . Duh. Try conversation. That's the kind of game this is. Then it's easy.

[tmp7704]

Tirigon wrote...

But you can go in the house with your companions...

When I did this quest I had my entire party with me.

Yes, you can but that's not the point. The game pretty much always gives you options when it comes to doing your tasks. The thing is when it does, these options are generally balanced in terms of effort and rewards. You can skip Redcliffe defense but then have harder time in the castle proper. You can kill optional High Dragon and get rewards for it. Etc and so on.

Here this is not the case -- you have a very easy way to do the quest, another easy way to do the quest, and third way which is much harder in comparison but you gain absolutely nothing for going this route; it'll likely just cost you some potions, poisons and other resources to pull it off compared to your other options. Making some options much less appealing like that simply isn't good design, double so if the player isn't informed about it. I'm honestly puzzled people would choose to argue over this, especially if the argument is going to be basically "oh you don't have to do it this way" or "but it's not that hard" which rather misses the point.

Modifié par tmp7704, 07 janvier 2010 - 10:04 .

[bzombo]

tmp7704 wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

If your main character can't take out 5 dudes by that point in the game... it might be harsh, but you probably suck. Rogue, mage, warrior... doesn't matter. The guys in the hospice are punks.

That fight happens around l.15-16 if i remember right. At that point a character has 200 health or so. Depending on the equipment (going by the posted screenshot) the enemies hit for 15-30 per hit. This means it only takes each of them to hit the player's character twice if that to effectively kill him with combined damage. It definitely takes more than two hits for the player to actually kill any of them.

To say someone "probably sucks" if they run into trouble with that when (again going with the screenshot which shows just one available heal pot) seems stupid rather than harsh. At the end of day the combat in this game is mostly about the numbers -- either you can outheal the incoming damage or you can't, this particular factor is hardly dependant on the player's skill.

level 15-16 and only 200 health? maybe that is the problem. a mage has protective spells to hold off the damage. a warrior should have over 300 health by 15-16, and a rogue somewhere in between. it's doable by all classes.

[Creature 1]

tmp7704 wrote...
Here this is not the case -- you have a very easy way to do the quest, another easy way to do the quest, and third way which is much harder in comparison but you gain absolutely nothing for going this route; it'll likely just cost you some potions, poisons and other resources to pull it off compared to your other options. Making some options much less appealing like that simply isn't good design, double so if the player isn't informed about it. I'm honestly puzzled people would choose to argue over this, especially if the argument is going to be basically "oh you don't have to do it this way" or "but it's not that hard" which rather misses the point.

Why would you get a greater reward for doing things the stupid way?  The contents of the hospice are not going to change depending on whether you go in the front door or the back door, and the total number of enemies to fight remains the same as well. 

If you're unhappy with the way it worked out, reload and use the back door. 

[tmp7704]

bzombo wrote...

level 15-16 and only 200 health? maybe that is the problem. a mage has protective spells to hold off the damage. a warrior should have over 300 health by 15-16, and a rogue somewhere in between.

A rogue is likely to have (slightly) less than 200 health around that level actually, unless they run with bunch of gear which adds to their base attributes -- the thing with rogues is, they're not supposed to be taking much of damage so their points are rarely spend on constitution as it's seen as a waste.

[Creature 1]

tmp7704 wrote...
And if having things consistent is supposed to be bad design... then going with this logic the good design would be the opposite of it, that is to make stats of each enemy entirely random, without any indication which are more difficult than others to boot (indications make things predictable and that's apparently bad) Except it is actually something games shy away from, because such changes to difficulty with no rhyme and reason seem to generally ****** the players off. Which in turn does tend to be sign of a bad design rather than good

I didn't say to be wildly irrational.  Instead, I think the design is rational.  There are three guards inside.  If you go in the front door, they apparently tell you you must go alone, and then two guards follow you, leaving you to fight five guards on your own.  This is rational.  If you go in the back door (the immediately obvious solution to me), the two guards at the front stay outside because they don't know you're inside, and you fight the ones already inside with your companions.  This also is rational. 

Again, having things the same difficulty through the entire game is boring.  The only way that this could be done is to have every encounter occur on the same map with the same enemies, and you with the same companions and the same equipment every time.  Instead we have different environments, different enemies, and different party makeups.  Some combats are incredibly easy for one player and extremely difficult for another.  Then the first player might run into a combat they find hard that the second player finds easy.  A warrrior/rogue team with no templar will have difficulty in a boss mage fight.  A team with an anti-mage mage will find it a cakewalk.  This isn't bad design.  If you're having trouble with an encounter, there's probably a good reason, and probably something you can do about it.  If not, well, in this case the developers provided an alternative, easier route, which is probably the route that it occurs to most players to try first. 

[tmp7704]

Creature 1 wrote...

Why would you get a greater reward for doing things the stupid way?

Because the whole rest of the game rewards you for doing things "the stupid way" i.e. going through unnecessary extra efforts. Why should this one situation be different?

The contents of the hospice are not going to change depending on whether you go in the front door or the back door, and the total number of enemies to fight remains the same as well. 

It actually changes as pointed out in this very thread. If you go inside alone you have to fight more guards than you have to fight when you enter with your whole group.

If you're unhappy with the way it worked out, reload and use the back door.

Which is exactly why there's talk about bad design in this thread. An "option" so unappealing to the player they'd rather reload than go through is simply bad. What's there to argue about?

(for the record this is exactly what i did in my playthrough. It just didn't make sense to waste these heal pots and poisons where i could instead save them for an encounter that actually couldn't be avoided)

[Herr Uhl]

tmp7704 wrote...

Creature 1 wrote...

Why would you get a greater reward for doing things the stupid way?

Because the whole rest of the game rewards you for doing things "the stupid way" i.e. going through unnecessary extra efforts. Why should this one situation be different?

But this is going through less effort in scouting and preparing. It's like Zerg-rushing an enemy, alone.

[Creature 1]

tmp7704 wrote...
It actually changes as pointed out in this very thread. If you go inside alone you have to fight more guards than you have to fight when you enter with your whole group.

Haven't gone in, but someone said that the guards outside are not there if you go in alone and then exit.  If this is not the case, then they should remove a couple of the inside guards. 

If you're unhappy with the way it worked out, reload and use the back door.

Which is exactly why there's talk about bad design in this thread. An "option" so unappealing to the player they'd rather reload than go through is simply bad. What's there to argue about?

Why???  There are multiple options I don't take in the game because they aren't appealing.  Why should you have to want to follow every option?  Should they take out the option to go through the back door because you personally don't want to do that?

[tmp7704]

Creature 1 wrote...

I didn't say to be wildly irrational.  Instead, I think the design is rational.  There are three guards inside.  If you go in the front door, they apparently tell you you must go alone, and then two guards follow you, leaving you to fight five guards on your own.  This is rational.  If you go in the back door (the immediately obvious solution to me), the two guards at the front stay outside because they don't know you're inside, and you fight the ones already inside with your companions.  This also is rational. 

You know what else would be rational? The entire Jarvia hideout zerging you the moment you set foot inside and start a fight. Or any single cave full of the darkspawn or other enemies you get to face through the game. But instead, all these enemies patiently wait in their little groups for you, carefully tailored to give you a steady level of challenge throughout the game.

What is rational and what is good gameplay just doesn't mesh very often. And if the game feels like being rational out of the blue at some point when until that point it continually reinforced in the player that it isn't, then it's good design to warn the player in advance the rules are about to change. We don't have it here -- hence a fair imo assessment this is bad design (through the lack of said good design)

Again, having things the same difficulty through the entire game is boring.

You must find DA very boring then..? Because it's basically how it's built. Enemy group after enemy group after enemy group, all pretty much similar in strength. And then occasionally a boss fight. The content which is intended to be harder is entirely optional and given very clear forewarning it's going to be special (and comes with rewards for defeating it)

[Atreiden]

Bear Pusher wrote...

At least fighting 5 normal guards is easier than being forced into a 1 on 1 duel with a boss level warrior, like Lorne Starling in NWN2. That was f***ing hard for any support class, especially mages.

you where not forced to do that, you could choose one of the npc's in your party to be your champion or let a certain rogue give you some advantages. ****** easy fight with all classes even mages (why am I saying even mages, mages and sorcerers are some of the easiest classes in that game.)

As for the OP, really learn to play and explore. there is a back entrance, which you are told about if you talk to that elf lady from the elf origin (shani?). and really, you cant solo 5 people with a rogue?

[tmp7704]

Herr Uhl wrote...

But this is going through less effort in scouting and preparing. It's like Zerg-rushing an enemy, alone.

Unless the player considers going there alone under the guise of being sick the actual act of scouting and preparing, as opposed to blind zerg rush inside with the whole group without any preparation...

[Bhatair]

Creature 1 wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
It actually changes as pointed out in this very thread. If you go inside alone you have to fight more guards than you have to fight when you enter with your whole group.

Haven't gone in, but someone said that the guards outside are not there if you go in alone and then exit.  If this is not the case, then they should remove a couple of the inside guards. 

If you're unhappy with the way it worked out, reload and use the back door.

Which is exactly why there's talk about bad design in this thread. An "option" so unappealing to the player they'd rather reload than go through is simply bad. What's there to argue about?

Why???  There are multiple options I don't take in the game because they aren't appealing.  Why should you have to want to follow every option?  Should they take out the option to go through the back door because you personally don't want to do that?

How is this a design flaw? I remember reading those 'choose your own adventure' books when I was kid. If I hit a page that said "Sorry, but your story ends here" I'd backtrack and choose a different route. Not write and angry letter to author questioning his reason for including the choice in the first place.