1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Eudaemonium]

I was expecting this, and I can't say I'm too sad. I did like playing a DW Warrior, but I'm perfectly willing to give it up for the sake of class differentiation. Its not as if DW *isn't* there, after all. I can just play Rogue. I like Rogues in DA more than Warriors anyway, so I look forward to maybe enjoying a Warrior of a different sort in DA2. One which is more fun to play.

[Suicider_11]

I'm not affected much by this change since i had much more fun with a 2-handed warrior in Origins despite being slow. If they can improve SnS and 2H weapon style abilites and/or add a new weapon style I'm up for it. Besides, i wanted the rogue to be more different than a warrior in DA2 and I'm glad that they are making the 2 classes more different.

[Akka le Vil]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

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 fact that a designer himself said "we could improve two-handers and sword & shield animation to compensate" tends to make me believe that yes, warriors will be limited to the two others trees.

Warriors in Origins weren't [...] they just weren't.

You won't be flamed (at least not by me) on this one, because, even if I disagree with you in the end, you answered politely.

Now, as I said, I still disagree, because the core point is : double-wielding is still much more "warrior" than "rogue". It's a "direct" way of fighting that requires mastery, but not acrobatics (in fact, acrobatics in fight are idiotics, even for rogues, but I guess Hollywood is still more inspirational to game designers than proper fighting, which is a shame in a setting that wanted to be rugged and mature). "dancing blades" is rather the duelist approach, and this one, yes, I feel is more "roguish".

It's a completely artificial separation, that is supposed to make classes more distinctive, but is just stupid and arbitrary. It's okay to follow some archetype, but the fact is, dual-wielding is NOT an archetype of the rogue and not warrior. It's like making a paladin class and saying "paladin will be the only ones able to use a staff, for class distinction !". Yes, well, it would in fact make the class distincts, but it would just feel idiotic. That's the situation here, and that's what is irritating me. That and the fact that I love the double-wielding armoured warrior, and my favourite setting is getting tossed because they consider that only Hollywood ninja rogues can wield two weapons, which is doubly insulting and shows more lazyness (not wanting to make two sets of animations, one for "large" one-handed weapons and one for "light" one-handed weapons) and bad faith (seriously, opposing "boring vanilla dual-wielding move" to "exciting, acrobatic dual-wielding moves" just reeks of marketting speech, as if striking with two weapons was vanilla and boring in the first place and you needed to add childish jumps to make it fun...).

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...

I'm ready to believe that developpers tells half the story and use semantics, but for their benefits, I doubt their point is to actually hide things that would please the fanbase... And no that's not pessimism, that's simply realism here

[joriandrake]

I hoped they might get rid of classes ala World of Darkness instead, now it looks more and more as the game becomes dumbed down, streamlined, and mmo influenced instead

[Pzykozis]

Lazyness; not wanting to create a "simple" other set of animations for warriors dual wielding is.. well it made me chuckle a bit. Lazyness! Like it doesn't take absurd amounts of money and time to get animation done.

Personally I think this change works, my rogues were always dexterous fighters anyway (talking about cliché's or archetypes I don't buy into the rogue=ninja type they're more lithe and agile than sneaky sneaky though that plays a part), and dual wielding is a dexterity based combat style moreso than brute strength which is what warriors are for. Generalising sure, and hell my favourite warden was my recent DW warrior but still apart from berserk there's very little difference between warrior and rogue, currently.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 05 septembre 2010 - 03:24 .

[nuclearpengu1nn]

i totally agree that DW talents should be for rogues only

theres no point in being a DW warrior

you benefit more with DW if you are a rogue

[joriandrake]

GreyWarden36 wrote...

i totally agree that DW talents should be for rogues only
theres no point in being a DW warrior
you benefit more with DW if you are a rogue

um, who cares about benefits? My fav., characters were all dual-wield warriors, my primary female city elven warrior was also dual-wielder, I didn't chose this for the damage amount but for awesomness, and warriors are more realistic to wield two weapons than rogues anyway if you try to argue with "realism" in a game

also, "no point"? same could be said about rogues having no point being DW, they would realisticly only use one weapon and focus on precise strikes anyway


Plus what is this nonsense about not being able to move around agile in full plate? I also wear and fight in full armor sometimes because of my hobby/job and you can definetly do quick moves, and roll on the floor then stand up aswell.

Even if one would dismiss this, it is still a game and erveryone should be able to choose for themself if they want to be a DW rogue or warrior, heck, I would be fine with giving warriors the same animation rogues have even if that would be slightly off (because while rogues and armored warriors if trained well can move about the same speed around, the warrior is sure not going to jump high) I would prefer it to another torn out piece of DA1, not to mention armored warriors already jump around when finishing off dragons and ogres anyway, so using the excuse of "realism" or "only rogue-like moves" is laughable.   <_<

[Inzhuna]

Aww. My first character is ALWAYS a DW warrior in all games I play. Well, I guess I'll have to run a rogue first time, then.

[Dave of Canada]

Most posts I see supporting dual wield warriors apparently don't give two ****s about rogues. You've got sword and board and two-handed entirely to yourself, an experience built to make you feel like a warrior but the same cannot hold true with dual wielding? Why cannot rogues get a roguish experience?



And the posts saying that dual wielding warriors should be restricted to light armor... why? What's the point? If you're going to force armor restrictions on abilities, just make a rogue.

[joriandrake]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Most posts I see supporting dual wield warriors apparently don't give two ****s about rogues. You've got sword and board and two-handed entirely to yourself, an experience built to make you feel like a warrior but the same cannot hold true with dual wielding? Why cannot rogues get a roguish experience?

And the posts saying that dual wielding warriors should be restricted to light armor... why? What's the point? If you're going to force armor restrictions on abilities, just make a rogue.

as a sidenote to your comment I want to say if the rogue has enough strenght then I see no cause why not to allow it wield a 2-hander weapon, ofc some rogue skills would simply not work with it but that is not an issue

[Jimmy Fury]

Akka le Vil wrote...
The fact that a designer himself said "we could improve two-handers and sword & shield animation to compensate" tends to make me believe that yes, warriors will be limited to the two others trees.

I see that as a mistake though. The devs have pointed out numerous times that they're not ready to release some info yet and that more answers will come later as we get closer to launch.
If you look closely, almost everything discussed and confirmed so far is something that has been altered not something that has been added.  The dialogue system, the story telling, the playable race, the combat... alterations not additions.
The devs have been very careful (mostly) with their wording. They've been using informational slight of hand on us. Talking about the animations for S+S and 2H doesn't exclude the possibility of new skill sets or even new weapon types, it focuses the conversation on what the dev in question can confirm and discuss.

Perhaps it would be better to use some examples from other threads. Just after DA2 was announced, like that day, there were threads asking about specific party members and romances. At that time Gaider, Laidlaw, and Kirby would respond (if they responded) by saying something like:
"Who knows? We haven't even said there will be party members yet."

Once party members were confirmed the response changed to:
"Who knows? We haven't revealed who all the party members are yet" 
or in the case of romance related questions it's still:
"We haven't said there will be romances yet so you have to wait and see."
These responses aren't denials, they're side steps to avoid accidentally confirming something else they intended to reveal later.
Pointing out that the animations for 2 known trees could be improved doesn't exclude the possibility of adding new trees.
Is it possible that they've limited warriors to those 2 trees?  Sure.
Is it the only conclusion that can be drawn from what has been said? Nope.

[joriandrake]

Juromaro wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

Why would they want to limit our character building options?  <_<  Makes no sense.....  

Why not just make one class that can do it all? Rogue and Warrior shared way to many skills to be seperate classes.

to Erich:  well they already limited us to humans, tearing parts out from the classes is a smaller step

to Juro: Actually I would be all for a single "class" with full skill costumization options as in WoD games, Morrowind, or Divinity 2

Modifié par joriandrake, 05 septembre 2010 - 03:54 .

[joriandrake]

Juromaro wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

to Juro:  well they already limited us to humans, tearing parts out from the classes is a smaller step

to Erich: Actually I would be all for a single "class" with full skill costumization options as in WoD games, Morrowind, or Divinity 2

Nothing wrong with being human, Personally I rarely played dwarf/elf only did so thinking they would play differently. Only thing different was the way people talked to you, but that's my opinion/way of play.

and I rarely ever play human in fantasy games if anything else is aviable, but that is just personal preference (same as yours)

also, " Only thing different was the way people talked to you"? That was already something 99% of the games don't even bother to do, it was partly what made playing as them exciting.

[biomag]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Most posts I see supporting dual wield warriors apparently don't give two ****s about rogues. You've got sword and board and two-handed entirely to yourself, an experience built to make you feel like a warrior but the same cannot hold true with dual wielding? Why cannot rogues get a roguish experience?

1. Dual Wield is not a roguish experience. They are thieves, people that sneak, lock pick and other stuff that doesn't  has anything to do with fighting.

2. What's the point of having warriors except for tanks? If rogues can fight as well as a fighter even put out higher damage and have additional skills like assassination or even bard or sneaking or lock picking, what is the purpose of a fighter? To withstand damage? Why do we call them even warriors, they are just walls.


Instead of giving the rogue some useful skills that are unique to them alone, Bioware took a big part of the warrior skills (just about, what? 25%? Or also archery? so 50% of the skill tree got removed?) and just give it to the rogue to feel like fighters... wow, great work. Really something new.

[hangmans tree]

So berserker wielding two long swords is out of the question I presume? I always went medium or light armour with dualwield...warrior.

As a rogue I was wielding two shortswords to gain mobility and speed (not to mention, stealth with two longswords?) which is a fine distinction itself between the two calsses imo.

[HarryThePlotter]

joriandrake wrote...

Actually I would be all for a single "class" with full skill costumization options as in WoD games, Morrowind, or Divinity 2

Though I understand what you are saying (I loved Vampire) I hated the part where you could get anything in Morrowind and Oblivion. Then you simply end up getting everything forgetting what role you are playing... But that's perhaps just me... I have weak Moral Fibre.

[Skaden]

They keep saying that "DA2 has plenty of choices" right so lets see, no origins, fixed race, and now they just removed my favorite playing style from origins. Make the classes more distinct? Thats pure BS, if they want to distinguish between the 2 classes they should add something on to each style of dual wielding to make them unique to that class (rogues use daggers, warriors use swords) but to remove the option for warriors entirely?!!! Plenty of choice they say, right? I've tried to remain optimistic about this game but this is just stupid and really disappointing. So far all ive seen in DA2 is the devs giving us more limitations than we had in Origins. So what about that Qunari in the trailer? Your telling me he was a rogue?

[Wulfram]

I don't mind what my character's class is called. So I think the question for me is whether I can use a rogue as an agile warrior or if I'll end up caricatured as a thief or sneaky backstabber.

[Jimmy Fury]

biomag wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Most posts I see supporting dual wield warriors apparently don't give two ****s about rogues. You've got sword and board and two-handed entirely to yourself, an experience built to make you feel like a warrior but the same cannot hold true with dual wielding? Why cannot rogues get a roguish experience?

1. Dual Wield is not a roguish experience. They are thieves, people that sneak, lock pick and other stuff that doesn't  has anything to do with fighting.

2. What's the point of having warriors except for tanks? If rogues can fight as well as a fighter even put out higher damage and have additional skills like assassination or even bard or sneaking or lock picking, what is the purpose of a fighter? To withstand damage? Why do we call them even warriors, they are just walls.

Instead of giving the rogue some useful skills that are unique to them alone, Bioware took a big part of the warrior skills (just about, what? 25%? Or also archery? so 50% of the skill tree got removed?) and just give it to the rogue to feel like fighters... wow, great work. Really something new.

So... rogues shouldn't have any combat skills at all?
(thus making it impossible for them to be assassins... since assassins have to fight... <_<)

Or just not the ones you want?

And seriously... again... who gets to declare what is a "rogueish experience" and what isn't? Stop defining Bioware's classes based on what you do in other games.
DA rogues have always been (since there's one game to base it on) decent fighters as well as other things. And yeah, in Origins Warriors did focus on defense.
That's not new.

[Dave of Canada]

biomag wrote...

1. Dual Wield is not a roguish experience. They are thieves, people that sneak, lock pick and other stuff that doesn't  has anything to do with fighting.

2. What's the point of having warriors except for tanks? If rogues can fight as well as a fighter even put out higher damage and have additional skills like assassination or even bard or sneaking or lock picking, what is the purpose of a fighter? To withstand damage? Why do we call them even warriors, they are just walls..

I take it you've never played two-handed warrior or else you wouldn't be saying this, two-handed warriors also put out insane damage and they have the big armor that greatly reduces the amount of damage they take from AOE / focus fire (making the healer's mana happy = making the group happy = making everybody happy). Should the worst come to pass, they can switch out to a sword and shield and tank..

A rogue is a damage class through and through, there's nothing that protects them except for their agile fighter appearence. Dual wield didn't feel like a rogue aspect, it felt like it was horrible because it had to appeal to both warriors and rogues. Warriors could play a two-handed or s&s spec and they'd feel like a warrior, running through enemies with giant weapons and taking barely any damage.

What made a rogue any different from a dual wield warrior? The ability to lock pick and to stealth? Those became useless in the tougher combat. The warrior had more armor, weaponry, were able to do equally the same damage and such. Why even bother playing a rogue?

They changed dual-wield to give it the agile fighter appeal that every RPG nowadays give the rogues, warriors already feel like warriors and mages already feel like mages yet rogues aren't allowed to feel like rogues because warriors want it too. Regardless of what you say, dual wield IS the rogue gimmick weaponry and has been for quite a while. I don't see rogues running around with swords and shields, two-handed weapons and such.

Instead of giving the rogue some useful skills that are unique to them alone, Bioware took a big part of the warrior skills (just about, what? 25%? Or also archery? so 50% of the skill tree got removed?) and just give it to the rogue to feel like fighters... wow, great work. Really something new.

The skill trees also happened to be getting revamped, the dual wield you know and love won't be the same nor will the two-handed / archery / shielded experience.

Archery and Dual wielding also happens to be the only two weapon specs that rogues ever had. Warriors having 2 sucks but rogues getting two for themselves? Preposterous!

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 05 septembre 2010 - 04:24 .

[Dave of Canada]

Lilacs wrote...

The point is WARRIORS are MASTERS of ARMS.  They should NOT be restricted to only using a sword and shield or a two-handed weapon to tank and only be a tank.

Warriors are also DPSer's.  My warrior is a dual wielder and I tanked as such, and she has a hit rate of 100.  She is level 34 now.  So limiting a warrior who can wield any weapon is outright ludicrous.

Then why bother having rogues if warriors can do everything but better?