PDA

View Full Version : brute force ... the easiest way to play the game? [spoiler]



Windir
01-20-2014, 03:50 AM
after a couple of tries and playthroughs it seems to me like hacking your way through the game like a brainless meathead is the way to go.
most of the time you only get considerable amounts of renown by killing enemies ... lots of them. especially in the early chapters of the game while the fights are still very easy. fight for the supplies in skogr or run while you still can?
skogr seemed to be a small peaceful village before the dredge came. none of them are warriors or have ever experienced an encounter with the dredge so they are all scared and don't know how to deal with them with ivar being the only exception (rook doesn't know this at that point). in that situation if i was rook i would just tell the people to grab whatever they can and run as fast as they can. after leaving skogr i would try to avoid any dredge and just get this big bunch of peasants, women and children to safety.

but i can't.

if i do i won't get any kills to level up my heroes. and whats worse: i won't get renown to buy supplies. if i don't have supplies my friends and followers die. playing smart and getting to certain points of the game by dodging unnecessary fights is bad. try fighting bellower with 6 lvl2 characters because you don't have more renown.

solution: be aggressive, pick fights whenever you can, charge into battle like a madman, don't let anyone live who opposes you. suddenly you have 3 lvl5 characters in harkon's party and 3 lvl5 heroes in rook's group. "oh", one might say, "that could work." and you don't stop getting renown, because now you can win those harder battles, and you might not need more lvl5 characters to keep going. finally you can spend your renown on supplies and save you friends and followers and even avoid getting poor morale, so the battles are even easier.

i mean it would make sense for hakon and his varl to slay every black-armored figure they see. but rook? i feel like he should be rewarded for being smart and avoiding unnecessary casualties. not punished.

enough of my ranting. what do you guys think?



on a different note:
imagine 2 brothers on a battlefield. one of them rips through the enemies like a reborn achilles but keeping all of his enemies barely alive. the other one just follows and stabs the wounded, defenseless victims until they die. who do you think gains more battle experience? the one that kills or the one that really fights?

Aleonymous
01-20-2014, 07:42 AM
i mean it would make sense for hakon and his varl to slay every black-armored figure they see. but rook? i feel like he should be rewarded for being smart and avoiding unnecessary casualties. not punished.

I agree. This is a problem with Rook's caravan, especially in the latter part of the game.


imagine 2 brothers on a battlefield. one of them rips through the enemies like a reborn achilles but keeping all of his enemies barely alive. the other one just follows and stabs the wounded, defenseless victims until they die. who do you think gains more battle experience? the one that kills or the one that really fights?

I don't get your meaning here :confused: You'd like more renown for a victory (or, even, just for picking a battle, even if you lose it) and not renown that directly depends on the sheer number of kills? Or, you mean that the number of kills should not be a factor that determines promotion-eligibility? (What would the promotion criteria be, in that case?)

Windir
01-20-2014, 08:10 AM
I don't get your meaning here :confused: You'd like more renown for a victory (or, even, just for picking a battle, even if you lose it) and not renown that directly depends on the sheer number of kills? Or, you mean that the number of kills should not be a factor that determines promotion-eligibility? (What would the promotion criteria be, in that case?)

It's more about the last-hit requirements for leveling up. Imagine Mogr tanking 2 giant dredge to buy the rest of the team enough team to clear the battlefield of smaller enemies. after a couple of rounds Mogr's backup arrives and can finish the 2 dredge with one hit because Mogr worked hard taking blows and reducing the dredge's armor close to 0. why shouldn't he be able to level up by doing that? why can't Egil level up by providing willpower so others can kill more efficiently? imo the current kill system is a bit skewed, softening enemies up so the characters you want to level up can get easy kills feels awkward. but that was just a sidenote, i don't think it can be changed easily. ;)

Kardwill
01-21-2014, 08:53 AM
Or, you mean that the number of kills should not be a factor that determines promotion-eligibility? (What would the promotion criteria be, in that case?)
Could be simple player choice, "Expedition Conquistador" style (i.e. buying levels freely for your warriors, with no criteria). Or the number of battles they participated in? It's cool that your characters have to actually contribute to the fight to get better in TBS, but using kills creates some (unwanted?) effects. For example, it can be difficult to level your "shieldwall", the guys who take damage up front and break the bad guys' armor, 'cause they are often uncounscious or severely weakened at the end of the fight, when most kills occur, while heavy hitters can easily rack multiple kills. Same problem with support characters.

It's not a big problem, I can "nibble" at an enemy to give an easy kill to a guy who fell behind, but it can be frustrating.

Rensei
01-21-2014, 11:40 AM
By charging into battle Yourself, You buy the women, orphans and little puppies time to evacuate. By running away You leave the weak behind so Rook charging in can be explained. Also - scumbag Rook approach works to some point - You lose a lot more people and get more bang out of Your supply.

Aleonymous
01-21-2014, 03:31 PM
Imagine Mogr tanking 2 giant dredge to buy the rest of the team enough team to clear the battlefield of smaller enemies. after a couple of rounds Mogr's backup arrives and can finish the 2 dredge with one hit because Mogr worked hard taking blows and reducing the dredge's armor close to 0. why shouldn't he be able to level up by doing that?

Yeah, we've talked about this problem in Factions too: the pain of getting 30 kills on Shieldbangers... What if promotion-eligibility was (also) defined by how much use of your unit's active ability you make, during a combat? Hmmm, how would that work for offensive/defensive abilities? It's hard to "tell" how much a stonewall contributed to a victory, especially if nobody comes to hit you!

franknarf
01-21-2014, 03:58 PM
I guess the last-hit idea comes from those old console games (FFT, et al), eh?

I agree that they skew behavior in combat away from (i) killing enemies and (ii) saving allies; and like the Expeditions Conquistador solution as described by Kardwill. Ideally, there'd be a TF2 solution (where all actions that are useful are rewarded) that worked so smoothly we wouldn't have to consciously distort our decisions in battle, but that would also make leveling dependent on battle experience.

Yellow
01-21-2014, 04:55 PM
imagine 2 brothers on a battlefield. one of them rips through the enemies like a reborn achilles but keeping all of his enemies barely alive. the other one just follows and stabs the wounded, defenseless victims until they die. who do you think gains more battle experience? the one that kills or the one that really fights?


As someone suggested, the number of battles in stead of number of kills could really work out!

Daniel M. Kane
01-22-2014, 12:47 AM
I guess the last-hit idea comes from those old console games (FFT, et al), eh?

Uh, FFT xp is the opposite of last-hit xp -- characters get xp for all actions with some effect, including casting buffs or throwing rocks at teammates. Which led to hilarious cheese like CCing the last enemy and then having a ninja song/dance party to grind levels. That's the seedy downside of systems like that.

Korica
01-22-2014, 01:39 AM
I think Dragon Age: Origins did a good job of making sure your never had under-leveled party members. Everyone received equal Exp, and all members of the band that weren't in your actual battle party would have their level raised so they never fell behind the group, even if they weren't actually fighting.

Rensei
01-22-2014, 05:22 AM
My personal favourite was Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader - it rewarded EVERYTHING: You could leech XP out of enemy by sneaking next to him, robbing him and moving on. If he noticed You, or You decided to kill him anyway You got reduced (or no if You were good at sneaking) XP - same with detecting/disarming traps, dialogues etc.

As for granting the whole party equal XP -it was cool, made the game more fair and allowed You to focus on hitting on Alistair, but I'd rather have more depend on me.