1380 réponses à ce sujet

[jbblue05]

I was loving DA2 until I heard news of no dual wield warrior


S&S and 2-hand are our only optioms

So warriors either sacrifice offense for defense(S&S) or sacrifice defense for offense(2-hand)

Why are they making warriors slow-attacking savage brutes meat shields with heavy armor

The appeal of a dual-wield warrios was to be faster and a graceful fighter the perfect balance of offense and defense.

Dual-wielding  makes more sense for a warrior who trained most of his/her life being a master of arms then a rogue who is a street fighter that uses dirty tactics.

Dual wielding has more survivability then a 2-handed warror because they have no defense if they have a bad swing they might as well be dead since they can't block counterattacks.

Hopefully Bioware will do something to make me want to play a warrior in DA2 because I hate S&S and 2-handers are too slow
Plus I dont want to be a rogue and have to give up the berserker and spirit warrior specializations

Modifié par jbblue05, 05 septembre 2010 - 07:14 .

[Kastlefeer]

Real warriors use daggers, teh truth! http://social.biowar...na_id=212771190

Modifié par Kastlefeer, 05 septembre 2010 - 08:28 .

[Dave of Canada]

jbblue05 wrote...

Plus I dont want to be a rogue and have to give up the berserker and spirit warrior specializations

... how do you know Beserker / Spirit Warrior is even making it into DA2?

[Shepard Lives]

SDNcN wrote...

First bad new I've heard about DA:2. Sebastian Hanlon just confirmed on the live-chat that dual-wielding will be restricted to rogues (I think he said Archery is as well). Goodbye armored eviscerators.

I suppose I can deal with it, though. As long as two-handers get more love.

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

Two-hands swing their weapons waaaay too slow, by the time it made one hit, the DW would've made several. By Awakening, after investing 50 points on Dex to qualify for all the DW talents, the DW is considerably harder to get hit compared to two-handers.

[Dave of Canada]

shepard_lives wrote...

I suppose I can deal with it, though. As long as two-handers get more love.

I asked the question if two-handers were still slow and clunky (I believe that was the last question the guy answered) and he said they put a lot of work into it. Take that as you will.

[Arrtis]

GIve rogues a huge bonus to dex letting them achieve the requiremetns easier?

[Shepard Lives]

Dave of Canada wrote...

shepard_lives wrote...

I suppose I can deal with it, though. As long as two-handers get more love.

I asked the question if two-handers were still slow and clunky (I believe that was the last question the guy answered) and he said they put a lot of work into it. Take that as you will.

I'll take that optimistically.

[Akka le Vil]

I'm astounded that the only idea for not making warrior too "roguish" was not to have typical "warrior" dual-wielding, but simply REMOVING dual-wielding for warriors...



This is, simply put, incredibly idiotic and stupid.

Not only it is a completely arbitrary restriction, but it's not even "archetypal", as dual-wielding is much more typical for a warrior than for a rogue - isn't the master-at-arms the one more prone to have the skill to use this style ? :-/

So warriors are going to be some kind of caricatural tank-or-two-hander-brutish-guy. Yay, great. That's not "distinction", that's "shoe-horning". And ridiculous, one-dimensional shoe-horning even.

/facepalm

[Arrtis]

pretty much sounds like.....your not gonna like it but because we know an easy way out were gonna leave you guessing.

[DMC12]

Dave of Canada wrote...

shepard_lives wrote...

I suppose I can deal with it, though. As long as two-handers get more love.

I asked the question if two-handers were still slow and clunky (I believe that was the last question the guy answered) and he said they put a lot of work into it. Take that as you will.

I'm going to view that in an optimistic line of thought, since I felt that the S&S warrior was pretty much the most boss warrior spec. One handers were very slow, DW warriors had horrible abilities in terms of neutralizing the enemy when facing multiple adversaries, and both had no defense at all untill you were close to end-game. Also, in the end, I pumped all my abilities into strength and dexterity, so no big deal.

Modifié par DMC12, 05 septembre 2010 - 09:08 .

[Ponce de Leon]

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.

Umm, right, because swinging a hammer and take your enemy 50 feet away from you made sense, yes? Just saying... <_<

[Dave of Canada]

dark-lauron wrote...

Umm, right, because swinging a hammer and take your enemy 50 feet away from you made sense, yes? Just saying... <_<

That was one of the things that was mentioned in the questions too, they fixed that.

[Mox Ruuga]

Bah. Seems like a stupid move from Bioware.

Like others have already brought up, what if we want a more lightly armored warrior? One that hits hard and moves quickly? Or a rogue that is not some acrobat, but rather uses poison and stealth? It seems that DA2 will be much less replayable and more limiting than DA:O.

I also see that the "us vs. them" mentality that made discussions about the "improvements" of ME2 is already sinking in here. Can the fans who seem to love everything Bioware does give the people who are more critical a break? If you guys seriously think every move the devs make is gold, just be happy that your rhubarb is getting rubbed. Let the others air out their grievances without the constant badgering and accusations. It's not whining, rather it's one of the reasons these forums exist.

[Ponce de Leon]

Dave of Canada wrote...

dark-lauron wrote...

Umm, right, because swinging a hammer and take your enemy 50 feet away from you made sense, yes? Just saying... <_<

That was one of the things that was mentioned in the questions too, they fixed that.

... oh, dammit! 

[Dave of Canada]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Can the fans who seem to love everything Bioware does give the people who are more critical a break?

Is this not a board for discussion but a one-sided agreement thread?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Any bets on what the next thing to be striped or "streamlined" will be?

[AlexXIV]

I hope it is not true.

[lv12medic]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Any bets on what the next thing to be striped or "streamlined" will be?

Aravels will now have a more areodynamic and streamlined look with spoilers and racing stripes...

[Dave of Canada]

lv12medic wrote...

Aravels will now have a more areodynamic and streamlined look with spoilers and racing stripes...

I'll paint mine red. Red goes faster.

[Arrtis]

I think the better solution would be to restrict some skills.

THey can still equip daggers right?

If they can equip that means they can still have super quick animations...

To make rogues the only ones that can use daggers would be....very bad...

[Shepard Lives]

Akka le Vil wrote...

I'm astounded that the only idea for not making warrior too "roguish" was not to have typical "warrior" dual-wielding, but simply REMOVING dual-wielding for warriors...

This is, simply put, incredibly idiotic and stupid.
Not only it is a completely arbitrary restriction, but it's not even "archetypal", as dual-wielding is much more typical for a warrior than for a rogue - isn't the master-at-arms the one more prone to have the skill to use this style ? :-/
So warriors are going to be some kind of caricatural tank-or-two-hander-brutish-guy. Yay, great. That's not "distinction", that's "shoe-horning". And ridiculous, one-dimensional shoe-horning even.
/facepalm

Well, creating all-new DW animations for warriors would have taken away a lot of zots from other things. And I fail to see how warriors are going to be "caricatural". You're just wallowing in your own pessimism.

[Sirsmirkalot]

Akka le Vil wrote...

I'm astounded that the only idea for not making warrior too "roguish" was not to have typical "warrior" dual-wielding, but simply REMOVING dual-wielding for warriors...

This is, simply put, incredibly idiotic and stupid.
Not only it is a completely arbitrary restriction, but it's not even "archetypal", as dual-wielding is much more typical for a warrior than for a rogue - isn't the master-at-arms the one more prone to have the skill to use this style ? :-/
So warriors are going to be some kind of caricatural tank-or-two-hander-brutish-guy. Yay, great. That's not "distinction", that's "shoe-horning". And ridiculous, one-dimensional shoe-horning even.
/facepalm

This has been a decision more based on recources (time especially I'd say) than anything else. But that's the vibe I'm getting about a lot I hear concerning Dragon Age 2.

I just wish they took an additional 6 more months or so to design and develop certain aspects this game. Everything sounds so rushed. Sure, we'll get tweaked combat, but they're cutting deeper and deeper into all of the other aspects.

Modifié par Sirsmirkalot, 05 septembre 2010 - 09:50 .

[Behindyounow]

If warriors gain something in return for losing dual wielding then I don't see a problem. Hopefully a duelling talent tree.