1380 réponses à ce sujet

[thegreateski]

TiaraBlade wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

TiaraBlade wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

I think it will make classes more unique. What's the point on having a rouge dual wielding if your warrior can too?

Because it would be fun to be able to chose?

Heck why let a mage wield a weapon or let a rogue use armor at all? Let's make them REALLY different!

*eyeroll*

Bioware can do much better than state, "no dual wielding for warriors" to distinguish between rogues and warriors. All it does is say that a warrior, who is trained for battle, is less skilled in weapon use than a rogue and that makes ZERO sense!

It makes perfect sense. A warrior would understand that it's just darn stupid to wield two weapons at the same time. Instead you can wield a weapon and a shield and just hold onto the other weapon that you would have dual wielded as a backup in case your first one breaks.

also, shields are viable weapons capable of cracking a mans skull with ease.

So a warrior would understand it's damn stupid but not a cunning rogue?

Why is it stupid for a warrior to dw but not a rogue?

Why not have a third weapon so if one of my dual wielding blades break, I have that extra you are referring to? OMG, what if my shield breaks? Now I have no back up.

Why are you even arguing against dual wielding? If some of us want to, let us! It doesn't hurt your sword and single tank or two hander warrior one bit!

Feel free to reply but please make some sense this time.

1. A rogue IS a warrior. It's just a different kind of warrior.
2. Warriors can be cunning. Rogues can be stupid.
3. Because it is far easier to block with a shield. Shields are made to recieve and deflect blows. A sword would break much MUCH easier then a shield or a piece of armor.
4. It is always a good idea to have an extra weapon, but a shield is going to last much longer under attack from a foe, It is what they are made for. Also you can't block arrows or magic blasts with a sword.
5. I'm not arguing against it. It's not in the game.

Modifié par thegreateski, 05 septembre 2010 - 03:01 .

[Bryy_Miller]

[/quote]

Oh yeah they've taken away my voice as well

[/quote]

.... no? Your character is still you. You never had a choice to type in responses, so I don't get what you are saying.

[2papercuts]

Shevy_001 wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Chris Readman wrote...

I really wonder why they can't have both dual-wielding warriors and rogues. I mean, for the sake of differentiation, you don't just take something away, you give something new to one of them.

Since rogues are described as mobile with the dual-wielding talents, can't they make warriors who use more brute force in their dual-wielding trees?

Bah! That would make too much sense! Adding features to a sequel? Actually expanding the content and not going the ME2 streamline by deletion route? What madness is this you speak?

Good point,

Genuine question, have we been told anything they're adding to DA2?

I mean they've taken away different races, game length and now a class.

I've not heard about anything they're adding...maybe it's too early??

More blood and gore, cutting enemy's into pieces. All a good RPG needs *rolleyes*
Im really upset about this decision.

no this is a good thing they cut out things that made the DAO bad now they just need to cut out the story and characters to so then they can spend more time on explosion and spikes and blood and good things like that so the game is really good

[TiaraBlade]

thegreateski wrote...

TiaraBlade wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

if a warrior needs to strike at long range. do we have skills to compensate the lack of the archery tree on the warrior?

no.

you're there to tank and swing your sword.

the other 2 classes have both melee and ranged attacks, why can't warriors?

Because they're warriors?



I would not ask the milkman to deliver mail.

Horrible analogy. Warriors are master of arms- to deny them the most skill with weapons, both ranged and not, is idiotic.

Alright then. What is the difference between a warrior and a rogue? Aside from different combat preferences?

If I'm following what you're saying correctly . . .

Some warriors are rogues but rogues are not warriors.

Warriors are straight up, in your face more or less. Some might specialize in tanking (sword and shield) is nice but others want to just rip you apart with it's a big ol' battle axe, two longswords, or a one handed style with the other hand free for grappling. Nothing about them says that they can't dual wield.

Rogues rely on stealth so give them better stealth options, find vital points, etc... they should always be moving whether above or around you, trying to stab you in the back, ham string you, etc... but not go toe to toe- that isn't healthy for people with less armor and possibly less hitpoints.

Focus on those aspects rather than something as silly and illogical as: "warriors can't dual wield... because we want them to be DIFFERENT from rogues!" That's laziness.

[lunarknightmage]

no DW Warrior?? 1st bad news I've heard.



if this is the case, then there better be a rogue/mage hybrid spec that would allow my melee mage to DW like a rogue.......

[Faz432]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

1) They've explained both game length and races
2) They have not taken away any class.

Specialisation then, you know what I meant...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

.... no? Your character is still you. You never had a choice to type in responses, so I don't get what you are saying.

 
You didn't use you a voice for your character in your head?

Modifié par Faz432, 05 septembre 2010 - 03:04 .

[Brockololly]

tmp7704 wrote...

Yup but see that's the thing, introducing "new, improved" dual-wielding for rogues doesn't mean the warriors couldn't retain previous version of dual-wielding as 'theirs'. This could create two options that'd be quite different and no more redundant than it is redundant to allow both the warriors and the rogues to equip either daggers, or swords, or axes or whatever instead of restricting each class only to certain weapons. Or allowing both classes wear all types of armour if they actually want to.

Exactly. I understand their desire to have the classes play differently and they felt it best to limit DW to rogues. But like you said, why not give rogues their new ninja flip abilities while keeping the old DW ones the same for warriro, thus resulting in a "new" distinction between the 2 without cutting content and choices?

This just gives off a very ME2 simplification/limiting choice vibe to me that I'm not a fan of.

[Bryy_Miller]

Faz432 wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

1) They've explained both game length and races
2) They have not taken away any class.

Specialisation then, you know what I meant...

They have not taken it away. Rogue's still have it.

Honestly, stop trying to act like you know what you are talking about.

[R-F]

They better have a sub class to make up for it, i really hate sword and board, and two handed warriors are too damn slow for my liking. Fingers crossed that they have something good to replace the DW, or i guess i'll just have to play as a rogue.

[NICKjnp]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
As for the whole making things more unique- if thats the intent, then why are we giving mages melee attacks if they're supposed to be the field artillery?

Because holding your staff at your armpit and going "pew pew" is not cool. At least, I sure don't think it is.

No one said that mage melee attacks were particularly good, just that you don't look lame while you do them.

Did you do away with the Arcane Warrior spec?

[Faz432]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

1) They've explained both game length and races
2) They have not taken away any class.

Specialisation then, you know what I meant...

They have not taken it away. Rogue's still have it.

Honestly, stop trying to act like you know what you are talking about.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Honestly, stop being so obnoxious and pedantic.

Modifié par Faz432, 05 septembre 2010 - 03:11 .

[lunarknightmage]

NICKjnp wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
As for the whole making things more unique- if thats the intent, then why are we giving mages melee attacks if they're supposed to be the field artillery?

Because holding your staff at your armpit and going "pew pew" is not cool. At least, I sure don't think it is.

No one said that mage melee attacks were particularly good, just that you don't look lame while you do them.

Did you do away with the Arcane Warrior spec?

I want to know this too!!

And, now that they've done away with DW Warrior......there goes my chance for my Arcane Warrior to DW.

There better be something to compensate for this....like Arcane Rogue, I guess....lol.

If Mages will have no option to specialize in melee combat ( other than the new mage staff melee stuff ), then I will seriously lose interest in this game..........

Modifié par lunarknightmage, 05 septembre 2010 - 03:10 .

[Dr. wonderful]

I always thought that Warriors SUCKED at DW (Now I find out, they more dengerous. Great)

But here is a theory:



Warriors are master of arms right? Right.

But when they DW, which arm del the less damage? For I do not fear the man who can strike with the same arm a hundred time but the Man who trained a hundred times with the same arm.

[LadyKarrakaz]

I played a dual wielded warrior once, but always wondered why the skill trees were so similar for warrior and rogues. I won"t regret it if it is replaced by another system that works as good or better, and that brings more originality to each classes.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Oh well. Was fun while it lasted. Not a big deal for me, but still. Whatever they say, obviously all this is simply due to lack of resources (time and funds). Kinda makes you think BioWare is being treated like amateur developers about to make their debut.

[TiaraBlade]

thegreateski wrote...

TiaraBlade wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

TiaraBlade wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

I think it will make classes more unique. What's the point on having a rouge dual wielding if your warrior can too?

Because it would be fun to be able to chose?

Heck why let a mage wield a weapon or let a rogue use armor at all? Let's make them REALLY different!

*eyeroll*

Bioware can do much better than state, "no dual wielding for warriors" to distinguish between rogues and warriors. All it does is say that a warrior, who is trained for battle, is less skilled in weapon use than a rogue and that makes ZERO sense!

It makes perfect sense. A warrior would understand that it's just darn stupid to wield two weapons at the same time. Instead you can wield a weapon and a shield and just hold onto the other weapon that you would have dual wielded as a backup in case your first one breaks.

also, shields are viable weapons capable of cracking a mans skull with ease.

So a warrior would understand it's damn stupid but not a cunning rogue?

Why is it stupid for a warrior to dw but not a rogue?

Why not have a third weapon so if one of my dual wielding blades break, I have that extra you are referring to? OMG, what if my shield breaks? Now I have no back up.

Why are you even arguing against dual wielding? If some of us want to, let us! It doesn't hurt your sword and single tank or two hander warrior one bit!

Feel free to reply but please make some sense this time.

1. A rogue IS a warrior. It's just a different kind of warrior.
2. Warriors can be cunning. Rogues can be stupid.
3. Because it is far easier to block with a shield. Shields are made to recieve and deflect blows. A sword would break much MUCH easier then a shield or a piece of armor.
4. It is always a good idea to have an extra weapon, but a shield is going to last much longer under attack from a foe, It is what they are made for. Also you can't block arrows or magic blasts with a sword.
5. I'm not arguing against it. It's not in the game.

1. I disagree with this. The rogue is the thief, the lockpicker, the guy (or girl) who survives more by speed, wit, and maybe a poisoned blade rather than armor.
2. but you are not answering WHY a warrior would know the dual wielding is stupid but not a rogue. Makes even less sense when a rogue tends to rely more on cunning. At the very least, the average rogue should realize that dual wielding is as senseless for him as a warrior realizes it's senseless.
3. I'm not trying to block, I'm parrying. What about the warrior with the two handed weapon? How is he stopping an attack? Or is he just looking stupid between his swings with his chin jutting out? Am I just hiding behind my shield and poking out with a sword or mixing it up? If my weapons are so prone to break, how come they didn't in DA:O?
4. You didn't answer the question once again though. You said it's better to use a sword and shield with a second weapon as a backup, as if a dual wielder can have a backup. And if shields are so wonderful, why not restrict all warriors to them? Those two handers can't block arrows or shields.
5. You are defending it and using irrational arguments to do so. In the end, it is just a game. Some of your ideas might have some relevance in a completely accurate medieval simulator but this is about fun at the end of the day and some of us will have more fun with more options.

[SDNcN]

NICKjnp wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
As for the whole making things more unique- if thats the intent, then why are we giving mages melee attacks if they're supposed to be the field artillery?

Because holding your staff at your armpit and going "pew pew" is not cool. At least, I sure don't think it is.

No one said that mage melee attacks were particularly good, just that you don't look lame while you do them.

Did you do away with the Arcane Warrior spec?

It was asked in the live chat today.
There wasn't a straight answer, just that the Mage will be focusing on its role as the nuker and (I think) that they will have more combat suriviablity.
*Hopefully* that means it is still in, just as a close ranged damage dealer rather than tank.

[hexaligned]

lunarknightmage wrote...

NICKjnp wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
As for the whole making things more unique- if thats the intent, then why are we giving mages melee attacks if they're supposed to be the field artillery?

Because holding your staff at your armpit and going "pew pew" is not cool. At least, I sure don't think it is.

No one said that mage melee attacks were particularly good, just that you don't look lame while you do them.

Did you do away with the Arcane Warrior spec?

I want to know this too!!

And, now that they've done away with DW Warrior......there goes my chance for my Arcane Warrior to DW.

There better be something to compensate for this....like Arcane Rogue, I guess....lol.

If Mages will have no option to specialize in melee combat ( other than the new mage staff melee stuff ), then I will seriously lose interest in this game..........

They don't even need to be able to specilize in it as far as I'm concerned.  I've already decided my first Hawke is going to be a staff fighter/self buffer, regardless of how much it sucks, I doubt the game is going to be hard enough it will matter.

[NICKjnp]

lunarknightmage wrote...

NICKjnp wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
As for the whole making things more unique- if thats the intent, then why are we giving mages melee attacks if they're supposed to be the field artillery?

Because holding your staff at your armpit and going "pew pew" is not cool. At least, I sure don't think it is.

No one said that mage melee attacks were particularly good, just that you don't look lame while you do them.

Did you do away with the Arcane Warrior spec?

I want to know this too!!

And, now that they've done away with DW Warrior......there goes my chance for my Arcane Warrior to DW.

There better be something to compensate for this....like Arcane Rogue, I guess....lol.

If Mages will have no option to specialize in melee combat ( other than the new mage staff melee stuff ), then I will seriously lose interest in this game..........

I know... Arcane Warrior was the only way I would play a mage in DAO.

[lunarknightmage]

SDNcN wrote...

NICKjnp wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
As for the whole making things more unique- if thats the intent, then why are we giving mages melee attacks if they're supposed to be the field artillery?

Because holding your staff at your armpit and going "pew pew" is not cool. At least, I sure don't think it is.

No one said that mage melee attacks were particularly good, just that you don't look lame while you do them.

Did you do away with the Arcane Warrior spec?

It was asked in the live chat today.
There wasn't a straight answer, just that the Mage will be focusing on its role as the nuker and (I think) that they will have more combat suriviablity.
*Hopefully* that means it is still in, just as a close ranged damage dealer rather than tank.

wait.....so someone specifically asked if Arcane Warrior was still in, and they didn't get a straight answer??

that's.....not that reassuring.....

[WilliamShatner]

R.I.P. I hardly knew thee.



Really. Never played as a dual-wielding warrior.

[Bryy_Miller]

Faz432 wrote...
 
You didn't use you a voice for your character in your head?

I didn't know that there were requirements for using your imagination.

[Bruddajakka]

Personally I always thought Rogues were more about precision, and stealth then being hyper acrobatic ninja monkeys on meth...or I guess in this case Lyrium.



A single precise strike to the back with a poisoned dagger.

[tmp7704]

Hmm despite the snark earlier it never really crossed my mind they could take Arcane Warrior out. I was planning to make the first Hawke arcane warrior + blood mage actually, based on the trailer...

edit: although if it turns out both configurations shown in the trailer are no longer an option, it'd be hillarious.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 septembre 2010 - 03:21 .

[wwwwowwww]

TiaraBlade wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

TiaraBlade wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

TiaraBlade wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

I think it will make classes more unique. What's the point on having a rouge dual wielding if your warrior can too?

Because it would be fun to be able to chose?

Heck why let a mage wield a weapon or let a rogue use armor at all? Let's make them REALLY different!

*eyeroll*

Bioware can do much better than state, "no dual wielding for warriors" to distinguish between rogues and warriors. All it does is say that a warrior, who is trained for battle, is less skilled in weapon use than a rogue and that makes ZERO sense!

It makes perfect sense. A warrior would understand that it's just darn stupid to wield two weapons at the same time. Instead you can wield a weapon and a shield and just hold onto the other weapon that you would have dual wielded as a backup in case your first one breaks.

also, shields are viable weapons capable of cracking a mans skull with ease.

So a warrior would understand it's damn stupid but not a cunning rogue?

Why is it stupid for a warrior to dw but not a rogue?

Why not have a third weapon so if one of my dual wielding blades break, I have that extra you are referring to? OMG, what if my shield breaks? Now I have no back up.

Why are you even arguing against dual wielding? If some of us want to, let us! It doesn't hurt your sword and single tank or two hander warrior one bit!

Feel free to reply but please make some sense this time.

1. A rogue IS a warrior. It's just a different kind of warrior.
2. Warriors can be cunning. Rogues can be stupid.
3. Because it is far easier to block with a shield. Shields are made to recieve and deflect blows. A sword would break much MUCH easier then a shield or a piece of armor.
4. It is always a good idea to have an extra weapon, but a shield is going to last much longer under attack from a foe, It is what they are made for. Also you can't block arrows or magic blasts with a sword.
5. I'm not arguing against it. It's not in the game.

1. I disagree with this. The rogue is the thief, the lockpicker, the guy (or girl) who survives more by speed, wit, and maybe a poisoned blade rather than armor.
2. but you are not answering WHY a warrior would know the dual wielding is stupid but not a rogue. Makes even less sense when a rogue tends to rely more on cunning. At the very least, the average rogue should realize that dual wielding is as senseless for him as a warrior realizes it's senseless.
3. I'm not trying to block, I'm parrying. What about the warrior with the two handed weapon? How is he stopping an attack? Or is he just looking stupid between his swings with his chin jutting out? Am I just hiding behind my shield and poking out with a sword or mixing it up? If my weapons are so prone to break, how come they didn't in DA:O?
4. You didn't answer the question once again though. You said it's better to use a sword and shield with a second weapon as a backup, as if a dual wielder can have a backup. And if shields are so wonderful, why not restrict all warriors to them? Those two handers can't block arrows or shields.
5. You are defending it and using irrational arguments to do so. In the end, it is just a game. Some of your ideas might have some relevance in a completely accurate medieval simulator but this is about fun at the end of the day and some of us will have more fun with more options.

I can't answer all your questions, but I can try to address a few things you brought up.

Point 1) I agree with most of this actucally, but the rogue is far more in actuality. He is your scout or advanced eyes and ears, he is the one you depend on to get into position to take out that pesty mage hiding behind his tanks.

Point 2) Dual wielding is far from senseless for a rogue. In fact if you think about it keeping extra weapons hidden on them to pull out unsuspectingly when someone is focused on the right hand they strike swiftly and precisely with the left (very cunning tactic). Not to mention the imediate backstabbing effects of putting 1 through the back while at the same time taking one across the unsuspecting slobs neck killing him swiftly and quietly as to not garner suspicion.

Points 4 & 5) I really don't know what your argument here is, so can't comment