1380 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

filaminstrel wrote...

If we're going to have a class-based system, choosing a different class should be meaningful.

Does a single, shared branch of specialization between two classes which otherwise have multiple non-overlapping specializations .... prevent that "meaningful choice"?

If it does, what about shared ability to equip identical armours and weapons? Should this be removed as well? Is the game worse at the moment, while this ability still exists?

[Sylvius the Mad]

boohead wrote...

unique play-throughs.  warriors only  dps spec being a rogue clone was such a let down.

I suppose that would matter if combat style is all that differed between the characters.

Though, that DW Warrior lacked a bunch of stun abilities the Rogue had, plus the ability to avoid aggro at will (Combat Stealth).  I'd say those were pretty big differences.

[Merced256]

Bit surprising, but i'm certainly not upset over it. Warriors to me have always fallen in to the sword & board or big 2her category. This change to me is primarily a cosmetic one. The only thing i can think of, having never made a dual wield warrior myself, that a warrior has over a rogue when dual wielding is the capability for massive armor. Thats it isn't it? Well that and the top warrior line is pretty good for dual wielding in that you regen stamina quickly. But other than that rogues get in combat stealth, lock picking, trap detection, not to mention superior specializations.

I almost want to call this "streamlining" but i'm not sure thats the right word given the connotation it has on these forums. Its more efficient i guess and might "steer" people who like dual wielding toward what might be considered a important aspect of the game.

Modifié par Merced256, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:36 .

[Jarek_Cousland]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Jarek_Cousland wrote...

Dont you realize people like Sylvius and the one after him would rather stay rooted in the past rather then move foreward and god-forbid TRY SOMETHING NEW!?!?!

I want the new things to be good.

And I want rainbows to **** out gold.

[eucatastrophe]

Arttis wrote...

I would like the Oblivion system.
You can learn anything.
Depending on your class you would learn it at a slower or faster pace.

while this sounds i awesome, i think the ship has sailed for DA2

[Arttis]

Can we still equip them in both hands for horrible damage?

[boohead]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]boohead wrote...

 
Though, that DW Warrior lacked a bunch of stun abilities the Rogue had, plus the ability to avoid aggro at will (Combat Stealth).  I'd say those were pretty big differences.

[/quote]

yeah...it was way inferior.  so a gimped clone spec and still your only great dps option.

that was lame.

[Brockololly]

filaminstrel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Why are you guys purposefully ignoring the part of his statement where he says that alone wouldn't have been enough reason, but that they also had another, more important reason?

What other reason?  The entirely arbitrary "distinctiveness" reason?

Yes. That one. I don't think it's arbitrary, or if it is, I don't see it as a problem. There should be separation between the classes, IMO.

It just seems completely arbitrary to me why they eliminated DW from warriors. Why not eliminate DW from rogues and give them something else? Why not simply add content to make the classes more distinct instead of cutting content? I don't think just because having both warrior and rogues duial wield makes them have similar skill sets. Mike said it himself- the rogues will be all ninja flipping and such while dual wielding. The warrior wouldn't.

I understand that they didn't want to put the resources into making a unique DW warrior, I just think its a weak excuse to claim that simply having both use 2 weapons would somehow make them too similar if one class was lithe ninja backstabbing away while the other was wading into combat like a berserker dual wielding.

Having separation between classes is fine, but it would be nice if it was based on your stats and not some arbitrary design decision to make rogues all have flashy animations. If your warrior can't DW it should be because they don't have the necessary stats, not because the developers think DW means you need to have flashy ninja animations that add nothing to the gameplay.

[wwwwowwww]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Yes. That one. I don't think it's arbitrary, or if it is, I don't see it as a problem. There should be separation between the classes, IMO.

Why?  Explain that one to me.

Why do you think there should be a separation between the classes?  Surely you have some justification for this opinion you hold so strongly.

So you just want 1 class then I take it?

[Sylvius the Mad]

boohead wrote...

yeah...it was way inferior.  so a gimped clone spec and still your only great dps option.

that was lame.

The DAO classes were designed with clear roles in mind, I think.  Warriors were supposed to tank and maybe do some crowd control.  That they could learn DW talents at all seemed to me to be a concession to gamers like me who think Warriors should be able to learn almsot every melee combat skill in the game because THEY'RE WARRIORS - they should be better at fighting that everyone, all of the time.

[StonerMkII]

wwwwowwww wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Yes. That one. I don't think it's arbitrary, or if it is, I don't see it as a problem. There should be separation between the classes, IMO.

Why?  Explain that one to me.

Why do you think there should be a separation between the classes?  Surely you have some justification for this opinion you hold so strongly.

So you just want 1 class then I take it?

Well, honestly, from the newest trailer they have out, could you say which class Hawke was? I certainly couldnt. Need to go back and play DA and see if a Warrior can even get the Blood Magic Spec. But really from that trailer it looked like he was a Warrior/Blood Mage.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wwwwowwww wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why?  Explain that one to me.

Why do you think there should be a separation between the classes?  Surely you have some justification for this opinion you hold so strongly.

So you just want 1 class then I take it?

Holy non sequiter, Batman.

[Jarek_Cousland]

wwwwowwww wrote...

So you just want 1 class then I take it?

He wants new things to be "good".


That means everything will be just like the old things, and every dev for any game "he" shows interest in will listen to everything he says cause he's the all knowing power of RPG god.

[

Modifié par Jarek_Cousland, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:46 .

[StonerMkII]

Jarek_Cousland wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

So you just want 1 class then I take it?

He wants new things to be "good".


That means everything will be just like the old things, and every dev for any game "he" shows interest in will listen to everything he says cause he's the all knowing power of RPG god.

[

Not trying to knock you or anything bro, but you seriously sound like a child. Why not say something actually meaningful and try adding to the discussion instead of insulting and personally attacking the posters in the thread? All ive see from your posts are pure out and out trolling, and insults.

[Merced256]

StonerMkII wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Yes. That one. I don't think it's arbitrary, or if it is, I don't see it as a problem. There should be separation between the classes, IMO.

Why?  Explain that one to me.

Why do you think there should be a separation between the classes?  Surely you have some justification for this opinion you hold so strongly.

So you just want 1 class then I take it?

Well, honestly, from the newest trailer they have out, could you say which class Hawke was? I certainly couldnt. Need to go back and play DA and see if a Warrior can even get the Blood Magic Spec. But really from that trailer it looked like he was a Warrior/Blood Mage.

I believe gaider answered this and said he was a mage. I think this syncs up with staves now also acting as melee weapons in addition to their elemental attacks.

[Jarek_Cousland]

Not trying to knock you or anything bro, but you seriously sound like a
child. Why not say something actually meaningful and try adding to the
discussion instead of insulting and personally attacking the posters in
the thread? All ive see from your posts are pure out and out trolling,
and insults.

because this is hardly a "discussion" at all?

Its whining about nothing we have control over, they're choice is theirs. Blindingly following it is stupid, but ****ing about it is even more.


and plus maybe I want to. Demanding coins from the 3 billy goats gruff wasnt good business.

Plus the troll service I was hired for pays on comission, so I gotta work.

[wwwwowwww]

StonerMkII wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Yes. That one. I don't think it's arbitrary, or if it is, I don't see it as a problem. There should be separation between the classes, IMO.

Why?  Explain that one to me.

Why do you think there should be a separation between the classes?  Surely you have some justification for this opinion you hold so strongly.

So you just want 1 class then I take it?

Well, honestly, from the newest trailer they have out, could you say which class Hawke was? I certainly couldnt. Need to go back and play DA and see if a Warrior can even get the Blood Magic Spec. But really from that trailer it looked like he was a Warrior/Blood Mage.

No I couldn't, but I've also not tried to figure it out. I've taken it as them showing us a bit of everything. Everyone should know by now, that trailers like that are meant to tantilate and tease, not give you specifics of the game.

[StonerMkII]

Merced256 wrote...

StonerMkII wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Yes. That one. I don't think it's arbitrary, or if it is, I don't see it as a problem. There should be separation between the classes, IMO.

Why?  Explain that one to me.

Why do you think there should be a separation between the classes?  Surely you have some justification for this opinion you hold so strongly.

So you just want 1 class then I take it?

Well, honestly, from the newest trailer they have out, could you say which class Hawke was? I certainly couldnt. Need to go back and play DA and see if a Warrior can even get the Blood Magic Spec. But really from that trailer it looked like he was a Warrior/Blood Mage.

I believe gaider answered this and said he was a mage. I think this syncs up with staves now also acting as melee weapons in addition to their elemental attacks.

Well heck if thats the case, then im all for Staves being Melee weapons now. Give me a "staff" with a nice pointy, steel blade on the end.

[Merced256]

StonerMkII wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

StonerMkII wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Yes. That one. I don't think it's arbitrary, or if it is, I don't see it as a problem. There should be separation between the classes, IMO.

Why?  Explain that one to me.

Why do you think there should be a separation between the classes?  Surely you have some justification for this opinion you hold so strongly.

So you just want 1 class then I take it?

Well, honestly, from the newest trailer they have out, could you say which class Hawke was? I certainly couldnt. Need to go back and play DA and see if a Warrior can even get the Blood Magic Spec. But really from that trailer it looked like he was a Warrior/Blood Mage.

I believe gaider answered this and said he was a mage. I think this syncs up with staves now also acting as melee weapons in addition to their elemental attacks.

Well heck if thats the case, then im all for Staves being Melee weapons now. Give me a "staff" with a nice pointy, steel blade on the end.

Well they did call it a sword-staff:P

[Azaron Nightblade]

Considering I love rogues I can't say this is a bad thing, especially if it means getting some awesome moves.

Let the limbs and heads fly freely!

[Jarek_Cousland]

StonerMkII wrote...

Well heck if thats the case, then im all for Staves being Melee weapons now. Give me a "staff" with a nice pointy, steel blade on the end.

I can agree with that, and seeing as how Hawke's got that spear thing in the trailer we'll get something like a glaive polearm thing.

[StonerMkII]

Merced256 wrote...

StonerMkII wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

StonerMkII wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Yes. That one. I don't think it's arbitrary, or if it is, I don't see it as a problem. There should be separation between the classes, IMO.

Why?  Explain that one to me.

Why do you think there should be a separation between the classes?  Surely you have some justification for this opinion you hold so strongly.

So you just want 1 class then I take it?

Well, honestly, from the newest trailer they have out, could you say which class Hawke was? I certainly couldnt. Need to go back and play DA and see if a Warrior can even get the Blood Magic Spec. But really from that trailer it looked like he was a Warrior/Blood Mage.

I believe gaider answered this and said he was a mage. I think this syncs up with staves now also acting as melee weapons in addition to their elemental attacks.

Well heck if thats the case, then im all for Staves being Melee weapons now. Give me a "staff" with a nice pointy, steel blade on the end.

Well they did call it a sword-staff:P

Think ill just call it a polearm. Sword-staff....just sounds like the  way of saying.....polearm lol.

[tmp7704]

Merced256 wrote...

I believe gaider answered this and said he was a mage. I think this syncs up with staves now also acting as melee weapons in addition to their elemental attacks.

Staves acting like swords don't explain the epic jumps and heavy armour taken straight from arsenal of warrior Hawke. It really doesn't mesh with the "distinctive classes" argument.

[Bryy_Miller]

This thread is still going on?