The main reason to cut it out instead of iterating different versions of dual wielding for both classes seems to be simple cost-effectiveness. Not a great way to design anything that people are supposed to feel passionate about. Now, money matters, but you'd expect the sequel to EA's most succesful new IP ever would have quite a bit more lenience when it comes to budget. This phenomenon of "streamlining" makes me think EA put the team under too much pressure to get the game out fast with an insufficient budget.
R.I.P. Dual-wielding Warrior
Débuté par
SDNcN
, sept. 05 2010 12:24
-
Ce sujet est fermé
- Show only BioWare posts
Retour en haut
#277
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 04:42
Bruddajakka
-
- Members
- 1 508 messages
WilliamShatner wrote...
Does not approve!
Hmm think I've fond the concept for my next Dwarf Commoner.
#278
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 04:45
Zjarcal
-
- Members
- 10 836 messages
yukidama wrote...
Why is trailer Hawke necessarily an AW? Wasn't it said that mages can engage in melee combat now? He could just be particularly good at using his sword-staff.
Even Morrigan engaged in melee combat in the Sacred Ashes trailer. She didn't turn out to be an Arcane Warrior...
#279
Guest_Puddi III_*
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 04:51
Guest_Puddi III_*
Guest_Puddi III_*
-
- Guests
Like I said before, a DW rogue can still focus on strength, unless they're cutting talents like DW Mastery as well... also, qunari enemies might not be restricted to the player's options or fight the same way the player does. The player couldn't learn how to do the Arcane Horror's bolt ability either, for instance.
I'm not much of a fan of weapon and shield either, but 2h warriors can be great in DAO, really. And they're changing all of it a lot, so we can't really make a judgment yet about their efficacy in DA2.
The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...
So now warriors are limited to only weapon and shield or two-handlers type? I'm not too fond of both, I must say. They don't damage fast enough like a Berserker dual-wield warrior.
I'm not much of a fan of weapon and shield either, but 2h warriors can be great in DAO, really. And they're changing all of it a lot, so we can't really make a judgment yet about their efficacy in DA2.
#280
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 04:52
Altima Darkspells
-
- Members
- 1 551 messages
Brockololly wrote...
Yeah- it just seems this is the tip of the iceberg with regards to how DA2 will have fewer abilities and such but more ability to upgrade them. Fair or not, what immediately jumps to mind is ME2 's upgrades with AOE vs. strength.
But to limit warriors to just 2 handed and sword and board is not a good thing IMO. It makes me wonder what else will be scaled back and streamlined....
At least it gives you an idea of how marketing works. When they say they're going to make each class more unique from each other, you'd think that they'd just expand on what they already have. Instead, like pretty much everything we've heard about DA2, they're just taking most of what they already have and hacking it to pieces.
This really is starting to sound rather disappointing.
On the bright side, I'm sure there'll be a mod that will allow warriors to DW on the PC. Of course, you'd have to find a way to live without constantly mashing the attack button.
#281
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 04:54
SDNcN
-
- Members
- 1 181 messages
Altima Darkspells wrote...
On the bright side, I'm sure there'll be a mod that will allow warriors to DW on the PC. Of course, you'd have to find a way to live without constantly mashing the attack button.
Yeah you really got to mash that auto-attack.
#282
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 04:54
casedawgz
-
- Members
- 2 864 messages
Hopefully 2h will suck a little bit less.
Modifié par casedawgz, 05 septembre 2010 - 04:54 .
#283
Guest_MariSkep_*
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 04:58
Guest_MariSkep_*
Guest_MariSkep_*
-
- Guests
Altima Darkspells wrote...
On the bright side, I'm sure there'll be a mod that will allow warriors to DW on the PC. Of course, you'd have to find a way to live without constantly mashing the attack button.
That's how I got the shield skill tree for my Arcane Warrior. Can't tell you how much more interesting that made the spec/class/whatever you wanna call it.
#284
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:00
Perfect-Kenshin
-
- Members
- 976 messages
I think 2h will be able to oneshot most enemies while being extremely slow. So it could be good if you had the right party members with you. One on one though? You're screwed.casedawgz wrote...
Hopefully 2h will suck a little bit less.
#285
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:10
Vaeliorin
-
- Members
- 1 170 messages
Right, so flashy, absurd animations > gameplay, apparently?
How about we just get rid of classes instead. Then you can just make the abilities feel different and not have to worry about making classes different (classes being an antiquated and not particularly realistic concept anyway.)
Honestly, this is yet another signpost along the "Bioware does not want you to buy this game" trail for me.
How about we just get rid of classes instead. Then you can just make the abilities feel different and not have to worry about making classes different (classes being an antiquated and not particularly realistic concept anyway.)
Honestly, this is yet another signpost along the "Bioware does not want you to buy this game" trail for me.
#286
Guest_Ada Wong_*
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:16
Guest_Ada Wong_*
Guest_Ada Wong_*
-
- Guests
A warrior in heavy armor would be slow as hell trying to swing 2 heavy weapons. They'd be totally off-balance. And no battlefield soldier is gonna fight with daggers. Sensible options are a shield, for extra defense, or a 2 hander, which is slow but compensates by dealing massive damage. Plate armor limits mobility and reflexes so you should not get a ridiculous number of attacks.
A dual wield 'warrior' is basically a fighter that sacrificed protection in favor of speed. A DW tank made no sense.
On the other hand, now that DW is rogue only, they should never use two full size weapons. That is impractical and just as bad as DW tanks.
A dual wield 'warrior' is basically a fighter that sacrificed protection in favor of speed. A DW tank made no sense.
On the other hand, now that DW is rogue only, they should never use two full size weapons. That is impractical and just as bad as DW tanks.
#287
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:16
boohead
-
- Members
- 120 messages
maybe now 2h will be a fully fleshed out and viable dps option....instead of having to become a crappy rogue clone to do good dmg.
#288
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:18
ShanerYoung
-
- Members
- 6 messages
The most fun I had in Origins was with a DW warrior, never had much interest in playing a rogue. I really can't say I'm happy with this news, I just hope the warrior specs are massively improved.
#289
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:20
boohead
-
- Members
- 120 messages
i also think warriors can no longer use archery...which seems to be incredibly improved. (can shoot while running)
#290
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:23
Perfect-Kenshin
-
- Members
- 976 messages
True, but it certainly looks cool.On the other hand, now that DW is rogue only, they should never use two full size weapons. That is impractical and just as bad as DW tanks.
#291
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:28
Khraum
-
- Members
- 172 messages
This is awful. There should be a Hitler rant video about this.
#292
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:28
Altima Darkspells
-
- Members
- 1 551 messages
Ada Wong wrote...
And no battlefield soldier is gonna fight with daggers.
Our characters aren't rank-and-file battlefield soldiers. They're skirmishers at best.
Though I think one of the original features of DA (back when it was announced) was to have characters participate in large-scale combat.
#293
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:28
lunarknightmage
-
- Members
- 403 messages
i'll be interested to see how much improved Sword + Shield and 2-h are for Warriors, now that they've removed DW.......
#294
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:36
HighMoon
-
- Members
- 1 703 messages
Ada Wong wrote...
A warrior in heavy armor would be slow as hell trying to swing 2 heavy weapons. They'd be totally off-balance. And no battlefield soldier is gonna fight with daggers. Sensible options are a shield, for extra defense, or a 2 hander, which is slow but compensates by dealing massive damage. Plate armor limits mobility and reflexes so you should not get a ridiculous number of attacks.
A dual wield 'warrior' is basically a fighter that sacrificed protection in favor of speed. A DW tank made no sense.
On the other hand, now that DW is rogue only, they should never use two full size weapons. That is impractical and just as bad as DW tanks.
Ada! How are things going with you and Leon?
#295
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:50
EmonFett
-
- Members
- 13 messages
Nooo not my DW warrior.... I hope bioware is making the right choice.
#296
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:55
tmp7704
-
- Members
- 11 156 messages
He's running in armour rather than robes. The pure mage-Hawke on the game selection screen wears the usual dress, the trailer outfit is the one worn by the warrior.yukidama wrote...
Why is trailer Hawke necessarily an AW? Wasn't it said that mages can engage in melee combat now? He could just be particularly good at using his sword-staff.
#297
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:56
Heavenblade
-
- Members
- 434 messages
Ada Wong wrote...
A warrior in heavy armor would be slow as hell trying to swing 2 heavy weapons. They'd be totally off-balance. And no battlefield soldier is gonna fight with daggers. Sensible options are a shield, for extra defense, or a 2 hander, which is slow but compensates by dealing massive damage. Plate armor limits mobility and reflexes so you should not get a ridiculous number of attacks.
A dual wield 'warrior' is basically a fighter that sacrificed protection in favor of speed. A DW tank made no sense.
On the other hand, now that DW is rogue only, they should never use two full size weapons. That is impractical and just as bad as DW tanks.
Assuming you are talking about "realism." and not just in the context of a fantasy RPG...
Good plate armor doesn't restrict mobility. Every soldier on the battlefield would have a dagger (even the heavily armored ones) in case they were tumbling in the mud and trying to get past eachothers armor (medieval grappling techniques often involve daggerwork). People really underestimate just how awesome and useful medieval plate armor was for it's time period. Not until firearms did the plate ever go out of style. To take down a knight you really had to hit them really hard with a heavy and sturdy blunt object, or incapacitate them and stick a dagger in the armors gaps (which were few and far between). The only drawback of the most well-crafted plate armor was the amount of time it took to put it on and take it off: A small price to pay for full mobility, flexibility, and incredible defensive capability.
And two handed weapons are anything but slow. Especially if we are talking about swords. The "massive damage" would only come into play with something like a hammer. A two-handed sword blade isn't that much deadlier than a smaller sword. It's advantage is reach and flexibility. You'd still be a fool to swing a two-handed sword like a baseball bat against anyone in heavier armor, especially those ridiculous swings they had in DA:O. You'd be skewered or break your blade if you fought like that.
I agree though on the dual-wielding warrior aspect. It makes no sense. Especially two mainhand weapons in both hands. You're almost guaranteed to drop one or be disarmed in the middle of battle fighting like that.
#298
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:56
StonerMkII
-
- Members
- 157 messages
No pole arms? Dang, sounds like DA2 is going to sound a little something like this when walking into a weapon shop:
"You want, daggers, short swords, long swords, bastard swords, or great swords?"
"A Mace? Sorry, like i just said, all we sell is swords."
"An Axe? Sorry, go back to Ferelden. All we sell here is swords or some variant of swords."
Also got to disagree with the whole stabbing Mr. Dual Wielding Fighter in the back. A Fighter can be just as dexterous as any Rogue. Just because he is a Fighter does not make him a Plate Mail hulk of damage and destruction. Fighters can also be lithe, and acrobatic. Would think having worked with D&D all these years BioWare would know that. Cant even count the number of Dex based Ftr/WM variants ive played in NWN the past 3 years. There are definitely other ways for making the classes feel more distinct, and restricting the classes instead of actually being creative and ADDING something to them to make them feel distinct, is not going to make them feel like they are actually special, and/or unique. Guess ive come to expect too much from BioWare after playing their great games the last 10 years or so, either that or EA has totally ruined them. Still have hope for the game, its just this news, even if old news, totally put it in the pits for me.
Would love to see a game with more weapons then swords, and a few axes thrown in for a little flavor. Pole arms would have been a great addition, but whatever. I'll hope for a unique weapon class in DA3.
"You want, daggers, short swords, long swords, bastard swords, or great swords?"
"A Mace? Sorry, like i just said, all we sell is swords."
"An Axe? Sorry, go back to Ferelden. All we sell here is swords or some variant of swords."
Also got to disagree with the whole stabbing Mr. Dual Wielding Fighter in the back. A Fighter can be just as dexterous as any Rogue. Just because he is a Fighter does not make him a Plate Mail hulk of damage and destruction. Fighters can also be lithe, and acrobatic. Would think having worked with D&D all these years BioWare would know that. Cant even count the number of Dex based Ftr/WM variants ive played in NWN the past 3 years. There are definitely other ways for making the classes feel more distinct, and restricting the classes instead of actually being creative and ADDING something to them to make them feel distinct, is not going to make them feel like they are actually special, and/or unique. Guess ive come to expect too much from BioWare after playing their great games the last 10 years or so, either that or EA has totally ruined them. Still have hope for the game, its just this news, even if old news, totally put it in the pits for me.
Would love to see a game with more weapons then swords, and a few axes thrown in for a little flavor. Pole arms would have been a great addition, but whatever. I'll hope for a unique weapon class in DA3.
Modifié par StonerMkII, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:05 .
#299
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 05:59
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
Can Warriors still dual-wield?Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Indeed, most of you are right in your suppositions.
Removing dual wield specialization from warriors allowed us to not only make the classes more distinct, but to make the dual wield attacks all distinctly rogue-ish. A warrior in plate mail being fast with two daggers I could handle, but flipping and rolling into attacks? That didn't make sense. So, we could either have boring, vanilla dual-wield anims, or we could make them for rogues and deliver lithe, acrobatic combat for a class that should be just that.
I recognise that you're not allowing them to learn any dual-weild talents, but can they still carry a weapon in each hand and fight like that?
In DAO, A Rogue couldn't learn any sword & shield talents, but he was still able to equip a sword and shield (in fact, that was the most effective set of equipment for a Rogue with no combat talents at all).
As long as a Warrior can still use the weapons I won't mind as much.
The bigger question is, why are you assuming Warriors are all wearing heavy armour?
#300
Posté 05 septembre 2010 - 06:01
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
Incidentally, this just makes it even more likely that I won't use any Warriors. I don't like big guys in heavy armour. Heavy armour is impractical outside of massed combat.
