1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Akka le Vil]

shepard_lives wrote...

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.

They are "caricatural" because they are entirely going for a "brutish" approach to the warrior - tank or heavy two-handers - while all the technical wielding (typical skill for a master-at-arms, which IS a warrior) is simply removed.
And you do realize that the excuse you give is just ridiculous ? Because it means either that rogues are going to be hollywood ninja-like (which is yet another idiotic caricature), or that they are simply going for the lazy man way "oh no we can't bother to make different animations for daggers and swords, so let's just remove the core-class warrior ability to dual-wield !".

Even if they wanted to give the hollywoodesque moves for one class, they could have simply make dual-wielding DAGGERS restricted to rogues, and dual-wielding SWORDS/axes/maces restricted to warrior. At least the arbitrary restrictions would have made a bit more sense.

And I fail to see how I can be "pessimistic". It's a DESIGNER who confirmed that they decided to remove dual-wielding from warriors. I can hardly be pessimistic on this point, it's confirmed.

Behindyounow wrote...

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

Yeah, except that dueling DOES feel more "roguish" than "warrior-ish"...

Morroian wrote...

It makes no sense to try and make the classes more distinct?

The problem is precisely that removing dual-wield for warrior makes no sense. Mastery at arms is a staple of WARRIORS, not rogues. Rogues are more archetypal of hidden strike in vital area than machine-gunning people with swords.
I'm all for differenciation, but not about idiotic, arbitrary and counter-intuivite restriction.

IMHO dual wielding 2 full size medieval style swords even 1 handers doesn't make sense no matter how cool it looks.

It makes so little sense that it was actually a common fighting style (samurais used often the katana + wakizashi combination after the style had overcome the initial "it's not traditionnal" backlash, and samurai are much more
"warriors" than "rogues" I think).
And talking about "common sense", you feel that using two swords is ridiculous for a warrior, specialist of weaponry, but okay for a rogue, specialist of camouflage, mortal strike from the shadow and deceit ? Yeah, you make lots of sense yourself...
Oh, and I find it very funny you try to use the "it doesn't make sense even if it looks cool", while all the restriction of dual-wielding to rogues because of the ninja-like movement is precisely described by it. Thanks for shooting your
own argument.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 05 septembre 2010 - 12:06 .

[Danjaru]

Works for me. My main Warden was a DW Warrior with Berserker, Reaver and Spirit Warrior. And in Dragon Age 2 I'd probably try to make Hawke almost exactly the same due to it being so fun with the warden, fun to see that I can't so the two characters won't feel the same

Modifié par Danjaru, 05 septembre 2010 - 12:28 .

[0rz0]

If you really wanna be realistic then the offhand weapon should be limited to a dagger and be used functionally similar to a shield.

[fantasypisces]

Now I have to find a new fighting style I like... I always love duel-wielding warriors
From a role-playing perspective, my character is not nimble and sneaky enough to get into backstabbing positions.

On the other-hand, he hates massive style armor (full plate), but would feel a little 'bare' in just leather.
Wait, omg, chainmail! Yeah I can't envision a guy in full plate twirling all around the place either, but I can in chain.

And besides, ummm, a certain gladiator fighting style from Roman times used duel-wilding weapons (two gladius swords, which were short swords in the modern speak). Heck, technically two did, as another fighting style had a one-handed weapon and a net in the other. Then another person above was correct, a certain fighting style in feudal japan did use wakazashi and katana in unison, although most fighting styles at the time frowned upon it because the wakazashi was more "spiritual" than tool of war.

I'm sad

Modifié par fantasypisces, 05 septembre 2010 - 12:37 .

[biomag]

0rz0 wrote...

If you really wanna be realistic then the offhand weapon should be limited to a dagger and be used functionally similar to a shield.

Not all fighting schools have a "off hand" weapon. As I said, training Escrima/Arnis, you would use both hands the same way.

[Dynamomark]

ambidexterous people can use both of their hands equally well

[Vandrayke]

I like class differentiation



I'd prefer no classes at all, but if we're gonna have them, they might as well be really distinct and have different flavors.

[Faz432]

They wanted to define the two classes, but instead of defining the skill sets they just took one away.



It can't be said that's a great solution.

[Arrtis]

THey should have focused more on class skills to help change the way the weapons skills worked....

[DMC12]

Akka le Vil wrote...

It makes so little sense that it was
actually a common fighting style (samurais used often the katana +
wakizashi combination after the style had overcome the initial "it's
not traditionnal" backlash, and samurai are much more
"warriors" than "rogues" I think).

This is a Western fantasy genre, not an Eastern one... Hell, I'm beginning to think that there's only white people in DA <_< But that's besides the point. But as a Western, medieval style fantasy game, it obviously makes sense that warriors would only be sword and shield or two handed. Case and point? Just look at the armor: it's f***ing MASSIVE! Hell, the heaviest type of armor dwarves (no pun intended) the armor used in the early renaissance/late medieval period. If you're going to be talking common sense, then common sense would say that neither a katana or a longsword is going to get through that plate mail, which is where the crushing force of a hammer, mace, or greatsword comes in.

I for one am in favor of the warrior sticking to heavy weapons and a long sword and shield, the shield also being used as a weapon (at least in the animations/abilities). It makes no sense for a warrior to spin around like a fairy with his two tooth picks when he would have most likely have been trained in a more practical art for the times.

[Bobad]

So will a rogue be able to use two main hand weapons?, like two longswords or a longsword and an axe?

[0rz0]

I don't pretend to be an expert on this stuff but as I read from various sources the main issue with dual-wielding is the lenght of the weapon (that's why daggers/short swords/axes were used - or as biomag pointed out not-too-long sticks: the whole thing is less then a meter max, while just the blade of a longsword is over that) and that it's more then just 2x more difficult to utilise them, because the interactions between them in addition to another weapon to control. And it is expected you're master of single sword combat before you can proceed to use an off-hand weapon.



Actually now I'm convinced they did a good thing with this, despite loosing some cool factor. I'm hoping that will be regained with other stuff.

[Shad0wOGRE]

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.

Reading between the lines means rogues won't be wearing plate armor.

[mousestalker]

If your canonical Warden in your DAO game was a dual wielding warrior I hope they lampshade it with some dialog:



Varric: "You know the hero of Ferelden is a dual wielding Warrior?"



Hawke: "Maker's kidneys, how is that even possible?"



Varric: "Gray Warden secret sauce, maybe?"

[nightcobra]

as long as my warrior is not made into a meatshield and is capable of dealing serious damage, i'm okay for it.

i normally like 2 handed swords, it might seem slow but you can string his skills fluidly and rapidly with the right timing.

[Akka le Vil]

Vandrayke wrote...

I like class differentiation

I'd prefer no classes at all, but if we're gonna have them, they might as well be really distinct and have different flavors.

I fail to see how idiotic and illogical restrictions are actually helping this.

[Akka le Vil]

DMC12 wrote...

This is a Western fantasy genre, not an Eastern one...Hell, I'm beginning to think that there's only white people in DA <_< But that's besides the point. But as a Western, medieval style fantasy game, it obviously makes sense that warriors would only be sword and shield or two handed. Case and point? Just look at the armor: it's f***ing MASSIVE!

You don't make any sense.
It's western. Yes, so ? Are Asian people able to use two weapons and not Europeans ? I just used the samurai example because it was the first coming to my mind, but it doesn't mean this style was exclusive to Japan (in fact it was not native to Japan, it was an imported style, which is why it had to overcome tradition at first) or eastern countries.
Also, my point was that wielding two weapons is more of a warrior (fighting face to face with weaponry) than of a rogue (strikes from behind, deceit, poison and the like) style, so making it exclusive to rogue is absurd and counter-logical.

Hell, the heaviest type of armor dwarves (no pun intended) the armor used in the early renaissance/late medieval period. If you're going to be talking common sense, then common sense would say that neither a katana or a longsword is going to get through that plate mail, which is where the crushing force of a hammer, mace, or greatsword comes in.

I for one am in favor of the warrior sticking to heavy weapons and a long sword and shield, the shield also being used as a weapon (at least in the animations/abilities). It makes no sense for a warrior to spin around like a fairy with his two tooth picks when he would have most likely have been trained in a more practical art for the times.

So having a one-handed sword and a shield is okay and normal to fight armoured opponents with, but two one-handed swords suddendly become tooth picks ?
You've completely convinced me with your fine logic here !
...

[sephiroth199127]

But i find i do more damage as a tank DW person, its also fast which make battles only take a few seconds, if Sword and shild is improved maybe the person can do more with it than use it as shild, you got shild bash but i would like to see some more use of it.

[Jimmy Fury]

Akka le Vil wrote...
They are "caricatural" because they are entirely going for a "brutish" approach to the warrior - tank or heavy two-handers - while all the technical wielding (typical skill for a master-at-arms, which IS a warrior) is simply removed.

And I fail to see how I can be "pessimistic". It's a DESIGNER who confirmed that they decided to remove dual-wielding from warriors. I can hardly be pessimistic on this point, it's confirmed.

The bold is you being pessimistic. You have taken one tiny piece of news: "Warriors won't Duel Wield" and declared this large, elaborate, and entirely negative series of events must also occur.
At no point did anyone say they have removed all technical wielding or stripped any skill out of the warrior class in order to make them just a brute.
You have failed to acknowledge the possibility that removing the DW and archery trees has given room for extending the other trees or creating entirely new trees.
Focusing on the worst possible outcome is the definition of pessimism.

The problem is precisely that removing dual-wield for warrior makes no sense. Mastery at arms is a staple of WARRIORS, not rogues. Rogues are more archetypal of hidden strike in vital area than machine-gunning people with swords.
And talking about "common sense", you feel that using two swords is ridiculous for a warrior, specialist of weaponry, but okay for a rogue, specialist of camouflage, mortal strike from the shadow and deceit ?

Warriors in Origins weren't masters-at-arms though... A master-at-arms can do things with a weapon that others can't. The DA warriors couldn't. Warrior specializations didn't give new weapon attacks for the most part. In fact, having double checked, the Berserker spec was the only one that gave even a single weapon attack (Final Blow) and even that pretty much already existed in the 2H tree as Critical Strike.
Mostly they got to buff general damage, defense, or the party.
So there's nothing in Origins that qualifies warriors as masters-at-arms aside from the ability to use all of the weapon trees. That's not so much mastery as multitasking. 

Nor were Origin's rogues just about hidden strikes and stealth. The Duelist, Bard, Ranger, and Legionnaire Scout specs had nothing to do with stealth at all. Only the Assassin and Shadow specs did.
Heck, if anything the Duelist spec was the closest any of them came to being a Mastery of a specific weapon.

Not to mention that in their base talents rogues get 2 additional attacks while warriors get none. And in the Duelist and Assassin specs rogues get more attack-based boosts than warriors.
Meaning... since you can only use 1 active weapons set at a time (not including switching off to the secondary set or pausing and rearming yourself) Rogues can have more attacks at a given time than Warriors.

So here's the optimistic angle.
Perhaps Bioware is aiming for exactly what you're talking about. By removing 2 weapon trees they'll have more room to focus on making warriors masters of the weapons they do use.
Or more base warrior attacks that can be performed with any weapon or with no weapon at all. Pommel strikes, headbutts, free-hand punching, kicks, etc.
Maybe they'll get a new weapon tree entirely like a battle-ax tree, a hammer tree, or a crossbow tree (since the weapons existed but were fairly neglected in Origins).
Anything really that will give warriors more actual attacks instead of just an overload of buffs. That is how warriors should function isn't it? Thus making them masters of combat instead of just brutes.

because i'm sorry, i know i'll get flamed for this, but DW warriors in Origins were just brutes with an extra sword. It's amazing how people are romanticizing this magical memory of sword-dancing DW warriors... It didn't exist. They couldn't do anything with that second blade that a rogue couldn't but a rogue could do a lot more in backstab position than any warrior in the party.
Which is lame. Seriously. Warriors should be ten-times the fighter of anyone else in the group and they just weren't.


Since the devs love to screw with us, maybe it's a matter of semantics. Maybe there will be warrior-specific dual-wield but now it'll be called the "Sidearm Tree" and be different from the rogue's Dual-Wield tree. Or a twin-ax tree or a sword-and-hammer tree or a crossbow-sidearm tree or something.
In case you hadn't noticed, the devs are evil and take great pleasure in screwing with us. I wouldn't put it past them to do something like that...

[ald0s]

Jimmy Fury wrote...
Warriors in Origins weren't masters-at-arms though... A master-at-arms can do things with a weapon that others can't. The DA warriors couldn't. Warrior specializations didn't give new weapon attacks for the most part. In fact, having double checked, the Berserker spec was the only one that gave even a single weapon attack (Final Blow) and even that pretty much already existed in the 2H tree as Critical Strike.
Mostly they got to buff general damage, defense, or the party.
So there's nothing in Origins that qualifies warriors as masters-at-arms aside from the ability to use all of the weapon trees. That's not so much mastery as multitasking. 

Nor were Origin's rogues just about hidden strikes and stealth. The Duelist, Bard, Ranger, and Legionnaire Scout specs had nothing to do with stealth at all. Only the Assassin and Shadow specs did.
Heck, if anything the Duelist spec was the closest any of them came to being a Mastery of a specific weapon.

Not to mention that in their base talents rogues get 2 additional attacks while warriors get none. And in the Duelist and Assassin specs rogues get more attack-based boosts than warriors.
Meaning... since you can only use 1 active weapons set at a time (not including switching off to the secondary set or pausing and rearming yourself) Rogues can have more attacks at a given time than Warriors.

So here's the optimistic angle.
Perhaps Bioware is aiming for exactly what you're talking about. By removing 2 weapon trees they'll have more room to focus on making warriors masters of the weapons they do use.
Or more base warrior attacks that can be performed with any weapon or with no weapon at all. Pommel strikes, headbutts, free-hand punching, kicks, etc.
Maybe they'll get a new weapon tree entirely like a battle-ax tree, a hammer tree, or a crossbow tree (since the weapons existed but were fairly neglected in Origins).
Anything really that will give warriors more actual attacks instead of just an overload of buffs. That is how warriors should function isn't it? Thus making them masters of combat instead of just brutes.

because i'm sorry, i know i'll get flamed for this, but DW warriors in Origins were just brutes with an extra sword. It's amazing how people are romanticizing this magical memory of sword-dancing DW warriors... It didn't exist. They couldn't do anything with that second blade that a rogue couldn't but a rogue could do a lot more in backstab position than any warrior in the party.
Which is lame. Seriously. Warriors should be ten-times the fighter of anyone else in the group and they just weren't.


Since the devs love to screw with us, maybe it's a matter of semantics. Maybe there will be warrior-specific dual-wield but now it'll be called the "Sidearm Tree" and be different from the rogue's Dual-Wield tree. Or a twin-ax tree or a sword-and-hammer tree or a crossbow-sidearm tree or something.
In case you hadn't noticed, the devs are evil and take great pleasure in screwing with us. I wouldn't put it past them to do something like that...

Signed and don´t worry you will not get flamed because you are right and hit the nail

Modifié par ald0s, 05 septembre 2010 - 02:44 .

[sw33t nothings]

I for one, am not shedding tears over this. It makes sense to me, and I like the change.



But then again, I am horribly bias towards my beloved Rogues and I love anything that favours their superiority. *cough* I know, I have issues.

[nightcobra]

sw33t nothings wrote...

I for one, am not shedding tears over this. It makes sense to me, and I like the change.

But then again, I am horribly bias towards my beloved Rogues and I love anything that favours their superiority. *cough* I know, I have issues.

i'm the same way:lol:, towards the warriors though:devil:

[Suicider_11]

ald0s wrote...

Signed and don´t worry you will not get flamed because you are right and hit the nail

I agree  :)

Modifié par Suicider_11, 05 septembre 2010 - 02:55 .