49 réponses à ce sujet

[Amainville]

Rhys Cordelle wrote...

I don't really get why you would go for the dual weilding option if you're playing a warrior? Wouldn't a rogue perform better? I quite like having a sword and shield warrior in my team, but so far haven't been a fan of 2 handed.

My friend, you seem to be forgetting the fact that dual wield warriors are mainly meant to take down hordes of enemies with their AoE attacks. We can survive longer than a rogue can in that position, usually.

[Koralis]

Amainville wrote...

Rhys Cordelle wrote...

I don't really get why you would go for the dual weilding option if you're playing a warrior? Wouldn't a rogue perform better? I quite like having a sword and shield warrior in my team, but so far haven't been a fan of 2 handed.

My friend, you seem to be forgetting the fact that dual wield warriors are mainly meant to take down hordes of enemies with their AoE attacks. We can survive longer than a rogue can in that position, usually.

 

I don't know about that at all.. my rogue can survive in the middle of a throng pretty much indefinitely.  With very high dex (same as the warrior I assume), Duelist defense, good evasion gear + the Evasion talent for times when a blow would have actually hit, I rarely get touched.

With Awakenings, there's also Ghost and the legionarre skills to absorb damage.  


Warriors have an advantage with Second Wind though for extended fights.

[ShadowPlay 14]

Arcane Warrior ftw! Very good flexibility, only problem being Templars, then you have to rely on a well built party, also helps to keep a spare staff around....

[Riv_ire]

Based on my own experience, Dual Wielding warriors are pretty powerful. I have played a DW Warrior and am now playing a DW Rogue. The Warrior uses much more activated abilities, so needs a hefty amount of Stamina. However, it keeps it quite interesting, learning which abilities to use and when. Also, more fun with Gear as DW warriors have more options and imo, more gear dependant (which I like, love getting and outfitting new gear). The Heavy Armour (should you use it) is also cool.

As for the rogues, in my experience they play out more based on Substained abilities (Momentum comes to mind) as well as trying to either get in Backstab position or stun the enemy. I find this interesting as I am constantly trying to get the best angle of attack. Also, I manually control the other chars (I use the PS3 version so not as much micro management needed as on PC one) so I can get them to use their skills that stun the enemy (Paralysis ) so I can get the backstabs on stunned opponents. My rogue doesn't use many activated abilities, mainly only Riposte and dirty fighting, the rest is usually auto attacks.



Both are fun to play and have different play styles, even if the DW talent tree is the same. I did find the Warrior to be able to survive better than the rogue though when a reverant starts attacking him, but my rogue is only lvl 12 so far so still more to explore!

[KragCulloden]

I've made a point to play through Origins with just about every class and weapon combination I could think of, including some I didn't really expect to like. I can honestly say I have enjoyed each playthrough, which I think is very impressive on the part of Bioware to have that much balance and fun in every class and weapon style. I was impressed. Anyone that says a particular class or weapon style is "poor" or unplayable is just inexperienced in my opinion. Some definitely dish out damage faster (DW warrior) but all of them are fun and interesting to play. I even played a gimped mage with little direct damage but lots of support/debilitation spells, and even that ended up a fun and entertaining challenge - especially the solo portions. Thought I'd hate it. My personal favorites are those more in line with realistic warfare - so I'm partial to sword and shield and archers - dual wield is fun, no doubt, but I always feel a bit silly as its sooo gamey. I do wish Bioware had given more love to the single weapon wielder, sans shield, especially considering how often that style is portrayed in the cutscene movies. Honestly, though, that is a minor gripe considering all the various talents and styles the game does have.

[KragCulloden]

beancounter501 wrote...

^^ The game becomes a LOT more enjoyable once you stop trying to "tank". At least in my opinion. Tanking is boring and exploiting some shody AI.

What is the origin of this concept?  Is this something that came from the MMO world?  I played previous bioware RPGs but stick mostly to wargames, so starting up Dragon Age and reading about "tanking" and "DPSers" was quite surprising.  Its such a silly idea, I'm kind of shocked it is already so ingrained in RPG gaming "culture" as it appears to be.

I do hope the dev that started this concept was eventually flogged severely.  Bad developer.  What a cheesy "out" programmatically too - forget any serious targeting algorithms, just set the AI after the one that yells "boo" or has "attack me" turned on. 

Modifié par KragCulloden, 05 mai 2010 - 08:49 .

[Nooneyouknow13]

It's been a concept since the earliest tabletop games. Threat management is a more recent concept, but the concept of having a unit/character that is vastly harder to kill than the other characters/units be in a position to force the enemy to attack them is not even close to new.



Or are you telling me it's never occurred to you to have your heavily armored and high HP fighter block a door way or stairway while the party archers and casters stand be hind him and cast from safety?

[KragCulloden]

@Nooneyouknow13



You misunderstand me. What I'm referring to, and what I've seen most people refer to when discussing "tanking", is tricking the AI into attacking one particular character so the other characters are unmolested as they attack. The game even provides talents to facilitate this - something that did not exist in previous RPGs from Bioware, and does not exist in most other games I know of. I do not play MMOs however, and I seem to see a lot of otherwise new terms showing up on these boards, so I surmise they come from the MMOs.



That is the concept I refer to. Having AI switch to the particular target YOU desire by having them shout or maintain a sustain talent is an extremely weak concept, both programmatically and even in terms of in-game reality. Maybe against monsters, darkspawn, whatever, but when it works just as well against other humans, its just downright silly.



Now things like the Awakening sustain that use magic to continually draw AI back towards the caster/whatever, makes sense in terms of the in-game reality. However, I see no reference to magic in regards to how Taunt and Threaten supposedly work - have you?

[Nooneyouknow13]

You never played Torment I take it? That was Morte's entire purpose in that game - to be nigh un-killable by weapons, and to taunt whatever you wanted into attack him. The only thing even slightly different than normal in DA;O is that taunt is always a multi target taunt instead of single target. In P&P RPGs it was recommended for the GM to have NPCs generally attack the closest, toughest character over the caster or light armor types since otherwise those character would die to often. In previous Bioware games you didn't need talent's to facilitate threat management. Threat tables were still basically used, but distance was the major deciding factor. Load up Baldur's gate, build a 6 person party, and have one person charge a pack of enemies. All of the enemies will circle around and attack that one person, and entirely ignore the people pelting them with ranged weapons. Same thing goes in KotOR, distance is king.

Threat management tools like Taunt are merely game mechanic representations of the tank making sure he's in the way or appears to be dangerous enough that they opponent must focus on him or suffer. Without things like threat, from a design perspective, it becomes insanely hard to balance. Armor for instance either becomes mandatory for all characters, or worthless in general. In DA:O for instance, what would the point of a Warrior be if the only functional difference between the Warrior and Rogue is that the rogue has more skills? You'd have to make the warrior both tougher and deal significantly more damage than the rogue simply to justify his party roll. The guy who can live through everything, but takes very little damage is functionally useless as a party member unless you can convince the enemy to attack him. If we used the old tight dungeon corridor design he'd have worth, but in any kind of open battle he'd be useless. So then we go the other way, and make him an absolute monster - but now the rogue feels like dead weight, since all he does is open locks and disarm traps.

DPS is less of an MMO term and simply more of a real time term. In real time you care about how fast the damage is dished out against tough targets more than how much damage each hit does. In turn based, you care about damage per hit more generally, though if those turns use any kind of Speed attribute in determining if you get more turns that the opponent DPS can come back into play.

Modifié par Nooneyouknow13, 05 mai 2010 - 11:31 .

[traversc]

KragCulloden wrote...

beancounter501 wrote...

^^ The game becomes a LOT more enjoyable once you stop trying to "tank". At least in my opinion. Tanking is boring and exploiting some shody AI.

What is the origin of this concept?  Is this something that came from the MMO world?  I played previous bioware RPGs but stick mostly to wargames, so starting up Dragon Age and reading about "tanking" and "DPSers" was quite surprising.  Its such a silly idea, I'm kind of shocked it is already so ingrained in RPG gaming "culture" as it appears to be.

It's not a concept a game developer "thought up".  It just so happens that in optimized play, these sort of concepts develop quite naturally.  TBH, there's really no easy way around it - one class will be more resilent than the other classes (e.g. warrior) but to balance that out, he will usually deal less damage.  If the warrior were both more resilent AND dealt more damage than everything else, there would just be no need to take any other class. 

Modifié par traversc, 06 mai 2010 - 08:40 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

KragCulloden wrote...

I've made a point to play through Origins with just about every class and weapon combination I could think of, including some I didn't really expect to like. I can honestly say I have enjoyed each playthrough, which I think is very impressive on the part of Bioware to have that much balance and fun in every class and weapon style. I was impressed. Anyone that says a particular class or weapon style is "poor" or unplayable is just inexperienced in my opinion.

I don't think anyone's saying that any class is "poor" or unplayable - I certainly wasn't saying any such thing when I started this thread.

All I am saying is that the warrior class is underpowered when compared to the mage and the rogue. This does not mean that the warrior is unplayable, or a "poor" class as such - it's just less powerful than either a mage or a rogue.

I started a new game as a dwarven noble warrior, using shield and sword, and that just seems to confirm my view on this - it wasn't just inexperience that made my first playthrough with a warrior seem more challenging, though that did play a part. Playing a warrior makes for a more challenging game than playing either a rogue or mage. 

(I actually quit that game in Lothering, as I found the sword and shield style a bit... boring. Restarted as a Dwarven noble rogue, and I do think that the rogue might be my favorite class in the game.)

I find the relative weakness of warriors a bit surpricing, as I'm used to the D&D world. For example, in NWN2, you had the BAB concept (Base attack bonus), which increased at different levels depending on your class - a warrior was a "full BAB" class, meaning that they gained +1 to BAB every level - a rogue was only a "medium BAB" class, meaning that every fourth level, they didn't gain any BAB.

This translated into warriors being actually better at combat, with rogues having to rely more on their wits - a pure rogue was actually quite challenging to play.

In DA:O, it seems that the warrior doesn't gain much that a rogue doesn't get too, when it comes to combat. A well built rogue dual wielding daggers can do more damage in a fight (even face to face, with the "coup de crace" ability, combined with dirty fighting or other stun methods), and can survive (thanks to high dexterity) being swamped by enemies quite well.

Revenant fights, for example, are quite challenging if you play a fighter, much less so if you play a mage, and pretty easy if you play a rogue.  (Big boss fights are actually where I think rogues are even more powerful than mages - because big bosses usually resist much of the magic, but backstabs work wonders)

I wouldn't mind seeing a little re-balancing done to bring the warrior up to a level where it could compete with the other classes - perhaps have an "extra layer" in the fighting tallent trees available only to warriors. Or perhaps give warriors bonuses to attack and defense that scale up with the warrior level, bonuses that the other classes don't get.

[Gecon]

Weakest... ? Well, the most boring. They cant do much really. OTOH nobody else can tank as well as they can.

Rogue better, even if not that much. Stealth and Backstabs gives you options, as does stealing during combat etc.

Nothing else compares to Mage though.

[KragCulloden]

@Nooneyouknow - We differ on the subtleties quite a bit then. What you call "threat management" I call cheesy game gimmick. Your first example of positioning a warrior was not tanking but simple tactical skill - a concept that is destroyed by "tanking" and "threat management" - positioning becomes far less important when you give the players a "target me" button that makes the AI swarm your character of choice.

I just find it weak, but whatever. "Balance", when it destroys all sense of reality, is a big turnoff for me...every unit has strengths and weaknesses, the skill is in managing those - not in coding in panic buttons like Taunt or auto "Hit Me" sustains like threaten. Magic stuff I can buy - its fantasy - but cheap gameyness is just cheap gameyness.

My original point in bringing it up was commisserating with beancounter about it - not to step on anyone's toes about it. If folks like using it, go for it. I happily avoid it. I really don't care all that much about it to get into a p*ssing match with anyone about it.

Modifié par KragCulloden, 06 mai 2010 - 02:41 .

[Fish_Eye_McGee]

I've played this game through six times: S+S Mage, S+S Tank, Backstab Rogue, 2H Warrior, DW Warrior, and a 2H Tank.



Admittedly, backstab rogue was the best DPS for awhile, but my DW Warrior has had by far the best DPS. She could also draw threat and live. I'd argue rogues are the weakest since archers aren't too good before Awakening, and backstab rogues have to be controlled to maximize effectiveness.

[traversc]

I don't think anyone's saying that any class is "poor" or unplayable - I certainly wasn't saying any such thing when I started this thread.



All I am saying is that the warrior class is underpowered when compared to the mage and the rogue. This does not mean that the warrior is unplayable, or a "poor" class as such - it's just less powerful than either a mage or a rogue.

IMO, (well, not that anyone cares about my opinion) but no class is strictly better than any other class. Both rogues and mages can out-DPS warriors and arguably out-survive them too. Warriors' greatest asset are their ability to tank due to superior threat management.



classic MMO strategy. Tank balls up the mob, and nuker blows up the mob. This is far superior than two mages trying to nuke a mob that is scattered all over the place. This is ALSO far superior to two warrior tanks hacking away at a mob one by one entirely inefficiently. Mixing classes in a party is synergistic, whereas adding all of the same class to your party is additive. In other words, it is impossible to say that one class is better than another. It is not just a cliche to say that each class has its own merits.

[beancounter501]

traversc wrote...
It's not a concept a game developer "thought up".  It just so happens that in optimized play, these sort of concepts develop quite naturally.  TBH, there's really no easy way around it - one class will be more resilent than the other classes (e.g. warrior) but to balance that out, he will usually deal less damage.  If the warrior were both more resilent AND dealt more damage than everything else, there would just be no need to take any other class. 

It is wretched design decision.  Probably one of the worst designs ever.  Lets take an already weak AI and then make it even more moronic by creating a tank character concept that does horrible dmg, has huge armor and AC and let the player pick who all the baddies attack.

Best AI is always one that tries to mimic how players act.  Players would ignore a tank until all the heavy DPS type were dead.  Show me a player that would ignore a rogue backstabbing his warrior or Mage.  Or a mage calling down massive spells on a party.  Dumb and dumber.

[traversc]

beancounter501 wrote...

traversc wrote...
It's not a concept a game developer "thought up".  It just so happens that in optimized play, these sort of concepts develop quite naturally.  TBH, there's really no easy way around it - one class will be more resilent than the other classes (e.g. warrior) but to balance that out, he will usually deal less damage.  If the warrior were both more resilent AND dealt more damage than everything else, there would just be no need to take any other class. 

It is wretched design decision.  Probably one of the worst designs ever.  Lets take an already weak AI and then make it even more moronic by creating a tank character concept that does horrible dmg, has huge armor and AC and let the player pick who all the baddies attack.

Best AI is always one that tries to mimic how players act.  Players would ignore a tank until all the heavy DPS type were dead.  Show me a player that would ignore a rogue backstabbing his warrior or Mage.  Or a mage calling down massive spells on a party.  Dumb and dumber.

You're exactly right.  It isn't the best design decision, but it's an easy one.  If they improved AI, then current class balance would be thrown out the window as well.  Warriors would be dead weight, and making them relevant again would not be an easy task, if MMOs are any indication. 

Besides, since when has BW been known for amazing AI or gameplay mechanics?  Personally, I am more peeved that BW decided to basically import D&D mechanics except "with bigger dice" - than I am with how threat works.   

[Nooneyouknow13]

beancounter501 wrote...

traversc wrote...
It's not a concept a game developer "thought up".  It just so happens that in optimized play, these sort of concepts develop quite naturally.  TBH, there's really no easy way around it - one class will be more resilent than the other classes (e.g. warrior) but to balance that out, he will usually deal less damage.  If the warrior were both more resilent AND dealt more damage than everything else, there would just be no need to take any other class. 

It is wretched design decision.  Probably one of the worst designs ever.  Lets take an already weak AI and then make it even more moronic by creating a tank character concept that does horrible dmg, has huge armor and AC and let the player pick who all the baddies attack.

Best AI is always one that tries to mimic how players act.  Players would ignore a tank until all the heavy DPS type were dead.  Show me a player that would ignore a rogue backstabbing his warrior or Mage.  Or a mage calling down massive spells on a party.  Dumb and dumber.

But then your options come down to the mage dying every fight without recourse for the first half or so of the game, the Warrior either being dead weight or goldike, or the rogue being dead weight or godlike.  If this game had perma-death, and traps were powerful enough to OHKO a warrior, you could justify Warriors being better than rogues in combat and the rogue being pure utility.  Open fields do not leed to strategic gameplay without time to set up traps and create the choke points that in-door locations come stock with.  If the AI attacks your rogue the moment he gets into position to start back stabbing, back stabbing becomes a completely useless character skill, as you'll never be able to actually set it up without a circumstance that already allows Coup De Grace to function.  I don't like how threat management is done is pretty much any game, but I see why it's necessary for it to exist.  If an when you have enough crowd control to render the concept of convincing or forcing your enemies to attack the character that can take it, you get what most people already accuse DA;O of - horrendously overpowered mages.  And let's be honest, DA:O is a damn sight better than Baldur's Gate was, since in Baldur's Gate mobs simply attack the closest enemy too them, and randomly change targets when multiple targets are equidistant.

And if you want enemies to simply attack the target percieved as the largest threat at the start of the battle, and you can keep that target alive thoughout the battle either by healing, kiting, or the target simply being resilient enough to handle it, you have a tank anyway.  If the enemy always rushes your mage, you'd build the mage withou enough defenses to handle them, If the rogue was always the primary target you'd make sure they can dodge everything. If the target simply ended up being random every time, you'd be forced to build all characters to survivability over damage, and you'd lose the option of even having a glass canon.  I don;t like tying threat to damage and threat generation only tools.  I'd rather see threat simply drawn from actions, regardless of the final effect the action may have. But threat management as a function of AI isn't going anywhere, and has existed in some way since P&P RPGs have existed. it's always recommended for a DM to play the NPCs to be as dumb as a brick or the players playing easier to kill character would recreate them constantly and feel picked on.

[beancounter501]

I have seen that argument posted all the time. Better class design and balancing is the answer. All classes should be able to become relatively durable with the warrior leading the pack. If the player wants to build a glass cannon then you should expect your character to get killed off - frequently. But it totally ruins it for me when I can simply have some lumbering low damage tank taunt and then the glass cannon proceed to maul everything in sight.



But even using the current framework of DA:O the threat system works pretty good - once you drop Taunt. Warriors rely on Armor for defense, Rogues rely on having a high Def through dex and using stealth to drop Aggro. Mages have lots of options like Rock Armor, Arcane Shield, and Glyph of Repulsion to escape melee baddies. Or CC spells. The idea is too spread the enemies out so they do not focus on only one character. A much more challenging, enjoyable and realistic play style. Plus you learn not to send your warriors half way across the screen from your mage!



@ Travers - Yhea I had to laugh when you said BW does not make good AI. You hit the nail right on the head. Even though they put a lot more effort into DA then they did with their other games. Still, it would be really cool to see the AI react somewhat intelligently to your tactics.

[AstralFire]

The tank concept is a fine one, but it should be used the way it's developed in the last 6 years of tabletop RPGs - instead of the enemies just blindly (or because of 'high threat abilities') attacking the hard to kill guy, make the tank a crowd controller of his own - merely a frontline one. Essentially, if you're tripping every mammajamma that walks past you, clubbing them senseless so it is really damned hard to get past you, and dropping debuffs that massively increase the damage everyone else does - congrats, you're a tank, and there -is- a sensible reason to prioritize you first.

[soteria]

I have seen that argument posted all the time. Better class design and balancing is the answer. All classes should be able to become relatively durable with the warrior leading the pack. If the player wants to build a glass cannon then you should expect your character to get killed off - frequently. But it totally ruins it for me when I can simply have some lumbering low damage tank taunt and then the glass cannon proceed to maul everything in sight.

I still have to agree with Nooneyouknow... I've probably even posted that argument before. Probably the only way to move away from the tank/healer/dps model is to take ideas from RTS games like Medieval/Rome Total War. By that I mean mostly make it very costly to disengage from a fight, and drastically increase the difficulty of defending from multiple opponents. Unfortunately, in a small group it's much harder to form something like a battle line.

[xedgorex]

Without the concept of dps/tank/healer games like this would be incredibly different and not as enjoyable i believe.





We have like two options, distance or threat charts to determine who to go after. It doesn't make much sense to complain about an ability called taunt.



Would you really really wish that the enemies would always gank your mages and rogues? Like someone already said, everyone would become massive defense machines with no damage output. boooo rang.

[beancounter501]

@Soteria - Yhea you have posted that before. I hate the whole concept. I think it stems from the fact that I have never played a MMO. Plus, I am old school and I have played around with some custom AI before - your opponent need not have the intelliegence of a turd!



@ xedgorex - More difficult - YES. More enjoyable? Well it depends if you like fights for your life! Do you want to steam roll everything? Otherwise, it is a lot more enjoyable to me when every battle takes a little micro. If you just want to beat the game then take a tank with max dex and armor. Have him taunt everywhere. Very effective - VERY boring. Plus very mornic. Unless you enjoy watching the horrendous AI swing away at the tank while your rogue/mage turns everything to goo.

[Nooneyouknow13]

There are far too many trash encounters in certain parts of the game to require you to micro without becoming tedious. Many fights simply aren't meant to be difficult.



If Warriors were done in the style of 4e D&D tanks things would make more sense, and large intentionally difficult encounters would be more fun. Critter ranked enemies aren't quite to the level of disposable minions are in 4e however, or that would be a fine game design choice.

[traversc]

Lots of great games balance around having good AI. 

However, it's much more difficult to do, and so for a game like Dragon Age, it's probably not worth the effort.  It should be obvious that, how the classes are currently structured, it would not be a good idea.