75 réponses à ce sujet

[Arttis]

When in the game was I encouraged to have ranged?

Or are you talking awakenings?

I soloed Origins first as sword and shield and had only problems with wolves and mabari.

I agree that archery class would be a stretch but I do not feel like archery is not balanced out enough for the classes it can be used with.If you do use it there is no real noticeable difference between the classes.Since I think they are addressing the classes making them feel different.Archery may need its own class in order to avoid having the classes feel the same.

[Super_Cat]

Archery should be upgraded (it's a little slow to use abilities while mages can rapid fire off most spells) and they should have their own specializations, (one for warrior and one for rogue).



But they don't need their own class.

[Ponce de Leon]

Awakening archers are already probably incredibly (yep, 3 words ending with y) overpowered.

[Vaeliorin]

Super_Cat wrote...
it's a little slow to use abilities while mages can rapid fire off most spells

This is very true.  It was definitely a problem that using non-sustain archery skills was almost completely pointless, because it would actually lower your damage dealt.  The only active archery abilities that were at all worthwhile were Arrow of Slaying (nice to take out a mage before the fight starts) and Pinning Shot (which wasn't great, but could interrupt a mage or hold a single target.)  Scattershot was largely useless (at least on higher difficulties) because the length of the stun was completely negligible.

dark-lauron wrote...
Awakening archers are already probably incredibly (yep, 3 words ending with y) overpowered.

I think it would be better to phrase that as Accuracy was incredibly overpowered.  Without Accuracy, archers would have probably been okay (or maybe even a little weak.)  The massive jump in damage and crit from Accuracy, however, was ridiculous (my archers in Awakening usually ended up with ~150% crit chance, for example.)

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:04 .

[filetemo]

GodWood wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

A full class?

Seriously?

Why is this such a tabboo topic?

I opened a thread demanding more classes and I got many fully frontal rabid contrary responses.Don't know why

[hexaligned]

filetemo wrote...

GodWood wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

A full class?

Seriously?

Why is this such a tabboo topic?

I opened a thread demanding more classes and I got many fully frontal rabid contrary responses.Don't know why

Some people are just dim.  I actually saw a guy in another thread state that all classes could be boiled down to the 3 we have already.  Which is completely preposterous to anyone with a glimmer of imagination in their soul.  I would hope  (and I'm sure) the people working for bioware and doing this for a living are more talented than that.  There are classes that could be added just using the game mechanics already in place (alchemy for one)  not to mention ones that could be added through new game mechanics.

All that being said, I think archery works fine as a weapon tree, I agree it was completely unbalanced (in relation to the games difficulty) in DAA though, but that's tue of pretty much everything.

Modifié par relhart, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:32 .

[Aratham Darksight]

I fail to see the benefit of having a separate archer class. Doing so would reduce the versatility of rogues and warriors, forcing them into more narrowly defined roles, while creating a new class that has an extremely narrow focus and nothing fundamentally new that couldn't just as well be a specialization. Why is this good or desirable?

[Indoctrination]

I am against this. We don't need a class based around a single weapon style. Archery worked fine under warriors and rogues in DA:O anyway.

[Onac Proudmoore]

I don't think that archers need a unique class as well, but maybe something could be done with archery. Fighting with a bow or crossbow didn't look so well in Origins as fighting with a sword or casting spells, also archers missed those great finnishing moves.

[Imryll]

I like the flexibility of being able to create either a warrior archer or a rogue archer, so no. I general, though, I felt that DAO was underitemized and hated the approach of compensating by allowing you to start your journey with OP items if you played the flash game, pre-ordered from a particular outlet, or bought DLC. A little something extra carrying over from DLC is fine, but the gap between starting out with just vanilla DAO and starting a character with items from other sources that you'd actually care abut taking with you into an expansion pack was much too large.

I'd also have preferred it if we only got one specialization per character,but specializations offered multiple rows of abilities.

Modifié par Imryll, 30 juillet 2010 - 04:41 .

[filetemo]

Aratham Darksight wrote...

I fail to see the benefit of having a separate archer class. Doing so would reduce the versatility of rogues and warriors, forcing them into more narrowly defined roles, while creating a new class that has an extremely narrow focus and nothing fundamentally new that couldn't just as well be a specialization. Why is this good or desirable?

it is desirable because it brings more customization of looks, more choices as to which class suits your style, more thinking when building an npc, such as knowing "this class gets these great weapons but that class offers better armors".

And the best of it, it expands roleplaying. It's more appealling to roleplay a "master dalish assasin cultist of the shadows" with his stealth black armour, his pair of poisoned blades and his ninja-like abilities, than "default rogue with default looks and assassin specialization for four new skills which include "play dead" and "improved backstab""

 But again, do not say new classes are not needed or that they add nothing to gameplay. The reason there's no new classes is the same as why there's only one qunari model in dao, why all humans are the same size, why all heavy armors are the same with different textures, why there's no horses and cloaks and why all classes are shoehorned into three: hardware limitations, time limitations, budget limitations and bioware cutting gameplay elements for the aforementioned factors.

We understand why it's done, but please don't say it's not needed. It's cut for other reasons than usefulness, and it's our opinion to be against those decisions and try to push bioware into including them

[IrishSpectre257]

Their own class? No. But they should have their own specialization.

[_purifico_]

Vaeliorin wrote...

_purifico_ wrote...
Well, maybe not another class, but I would really love some archer specialization (maybe not in DA2 but in some new add-on if we'll be having one), because in dao you had nothing to chose from if you went this way. Basicly you had to chose a specialization based on the initial bonus it gave, not on the talents it provided.

That's not entirely true.  Warriors got some nice bonuses from Champion (+attack/defense and an AoE knockdown are useful) and Spirit Warrior (for 2000+ crits ).  Templar wasn't bad either, really (as it gave additional ranged abilities, including, of course, a stun.)  Rogue had Duelist (+attack/defense and the auto-crit could be applied to bows if you switched weapons, activated it, then switched back to a bow) and Bard (Bard was good for anyone, really.)  Ranger and Legion Scout also had useful bonuses for archers.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to see some more archer specific specializations (I really would) but it's not as if none of the specializations in DA were any good for an archer.

Bard was good, I'll give you that, but there wasn't much point in taking it as we already had a bard in the party - Leliana (the songs don't stack if i'm not mistaken). Duelist was pointless too as I managed to get the auto-crit without the corresponding talent. All in all I found the specializations quite "meh". As for warriors - there was a roleplaying moment: I think (and my character) that warriors should stay warriors - bulky dudes with sword and shields. Leave the bows to neemble rogues That's why I've never tried playing an archer warrior, though I have indeed heard that spirit warrior archer can dish out some amazing damage.

[PoisonTheCity]

If they don't get their own spec, can they at least get strings on their bows?

[Klimy]

I cast my vote in favor of archer class. Think it will benefit the game.

[Divine Justinia V]

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

Their own class? No. But they should have their own specialization.

[Aratham Darksight]

filetemo wrote...

it is desirable because it brings more customization of looks, more choices as to which class suits your style, more thinking when building an npc, such as knowing "this class gets these great weapons but that class offers better armors".

And the best of it, it expands roleplaying. It's more appealling to roleplay a "master dalish assasin cultist of the shadows" with his stealth black armour, his pair of poisoned blades and his ninja-like abilities, than "default rogue with default looks and assassin specialization for four new skills which include "play dead" and "improved backstab""

 But again, do not say new classes are not needed or that they add nothing to gameplay. The reason there's no new classes is the same as why there's only one qunari model in dao, why all humans are the same size, why all heavy armors are the same with different textures, why there's no horses and cloaks and why all classes are shoehorned into three: hardware limitations, time limitations, budget limitations and bioware cutting gameplay elements for the aforementioned factors.

We understand why it's done, but please don't say it's not needed. It's cut for other reasons than usefulness, and it's our opinion to be against those decisions and try to push bioware into including them

I don't agree that more classes goes hand in hand with more visual customization. After all, an Origins warrior who wields two weapons and wears light armour looks exactly like a rogue. The chaepest and easiest way around the hardware/time/buget limitations you mention would be to put this hypothetical archer class in exactly the same leather armour that rogues have.

Conversely, you can have increased visual customization without more classes. Simply by adding more distinct looking equipment with distinct properties, that are restriced to certain specializations, or better yet, cater strongly towards particular playstyles. Why not simply have a set of stealthy black armour that is great for sneaking and backstabbing, but not so great for straightforward combat? It'd be visually distinct and primarily useful to rogues geared toward backstabbing.

I also don't agree that splitting off archery into its own class would add choices. Instead, it would take them away. You can choose to be focused on archery already, but this proposed change would make it impossible for your archer to split his/her attention between archery and rogue talents, or a backup melee weapon proficiency. It leads to pigeonholing classes even further.

So no, I don't think adding more classes is needed and would add anything to gameplay that couldn't be achieved by other means. 

You want more visual customization (so do I), but that is achieved by adding more equipment, no matter how many classes are in the game. You want you characters to have more distinct abilities, playstyle and flavour (me too), but I think that this could be done just as well by expanding specializations to be bigger, deeper and more significant than four talents and a miniscule flat bonus. And taking that route would allow for a greater variety of possible characters instead of locking people into a pre-determined path of development at the start of the game.

[DA Trap Star]

I've always felt their should a Sniper class for Archers

[filetemo]

Aratham Darksight wrote...

Conversely, you can have increased visual customization without more classes. Simply by adding more distinct looking equipment with distinct properties, that are restriced to certain specializations, or better yet, cater strongly towards particular playstyles. Why not simply have a set of stealthy black armour that is great for sneaking and backstabbing, but not so great for straightforward combat? It'd be visually distinct and primarily useful to rogues geared toward backstabbing.

that would be, in fact, a good starting point.

[filetemo]

and while we are on topic, please remove completely dual wielding with long swords, it looks unrealistic and incredibly silly, a one handed sword and a small knife it's more than enough, or two daggers. I've never heard in mankind history of anybody who could fight succesfully with two weapons bigger than a meat knife

[Felfenix]

IMO, there isn't even enough of a difference between them for having rogue and warrior as different classes. Only rogues can lockpick? Wow, how classworthy...

[SirOccam]

relhart wrote...

Some people are just dim.  I actually saw
a guy in another thread state that all classes could be boiled down to
the 3 we have already.  Which is completely preposterous to anyone with a
glimmer of imagination in their soul.  I would hope  (and I'm sure) the
people working for bioware and doing this for a living are more
talented than that.  There are classes that could be added just using
the game mechanics already in place (alchemy for one)  not to mention
ones that could be added through new game mechanics.

I think that may have been me, and I stand by it. Every suggestion for a new class I've seen so far just sounds like a specialization of Warrior, Mage, or Rogue, or else doesn't sound like a class at all. The suggestion of "Barbarian" fit that latter description, as does your suggestion of alchemy. It sounds like a crafting skill, not a class. How would you do battle, create gold out of base metals at them? If you're just referring to using things made by alchemy, then why couldn't anyone do that?

I just think Warrior, Rogue, and Mage are about as basic as you can get, and they pretty much cover all the bases. I can't think of anything that doesn't sounds like it belongs to one of those three.

filetemo wrote...

and while we are on topic, please remove completely dual wielding with long swords, it looks unrealistic and incredibly silly, a one handed sword and a small knife it's more than enough, or two daggers. I've never heard in mankind history of anybody who could fight succesfully with two weapons bigger than a meat knife

For some swords, it does look silly, but dual-wielding two swords isn't that uncommon, nor does it always look silly. I couldn't find a good picture of it, but Aidan Gillen in Shanghai Knights has an awesome fight scene where he dual-wields a couple of rapiers.



And lest we forget Leonardo of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, who dual-wields katanas!

Modifié par SirOccam, 30 juillet 2010 - 10:16 .

[SirOccam]

Felfenix wrote...

IMO, there isn't even enough of a difference between them for having rogue and warrior as different classes. Only rogues can lockpick? Wow, how classworthy...

Also backstabbing, stealth, debuffs, etc. In a more general sense, they are supposed to be more damage-focused than survival-focused.

I do think you have a point though. I wonder if they could make everything either Mage or Fighter, then allow you to choose to increase your dps at the expense of survivability if you so desired.

[FarGears]

I 100% agree that archery should have its own class because when you think about every class seems that they have a weapon of choice for the class. For some one that main class is a bow and arrows I would like it too get more archery focused talents because after the whole archery talents are bought then you start to have less important things to get. Also why doesn't bows have enchantments unless for crappy arrow ones.