1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Skaden]

Really why should dual wielding be so exclusive anyway? Why don't they just do it like in Kotor were any1 could dual wield, there were just limitations for it that could eventually be minimized/overcome? In fact I'd argue that that's how they should have done it in DAO, at least let all clases equip dual weapons from the get go like how rogues could still equip sword and board even though they had no skill for it. How much harder is it to pick up 2 weapons than it is to pick up a twohander?

[Jimmy Fury]

Dave of Canada wrote...
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?

Proof of what Dave is saying:
1 Mod made Zev and Leliana completely irrelvant: Arcane Unlock. (Lock bash probably does too but I don't have it)


I mean, just personal preference, I'd prefer everyone be able to use any weapon. With proficiency being determined by specialization and stat build... but that's just me.

wait a fluffy minute...

Taking out the dual-wield tree doesn't necessarily mean warriors can't use 2 weapons... Just that they won't get specific dual-wield attacks.
My Arcane warrior dual wields. He's not very good at it of course but he can still use 2 weapons...

Maybe some of the expanded tree system will allow for weapon-specific focuses like Sword Proficiency or something, allowing the existence of a decent dual-wield warrior just without a special double strike activated power...

[biomag]

Skaden wrote...

Really why should dual wielding be so exclusive anyway? Why don't they just do it like in Kotor were any1 could dual wield, there were just limitations for it that could eventually be minimized/overcome? In fact I'd argue that that's how they should have done it in DAO, at least let all clases equip dual weapons from the get go like how rogues could still equip sword and board even though they had no skill for it. How much harder is it to pick up 2 weapons than it is to pick up a twohander?

The problem is, with weapon skills being outsourced from the warrior class and not giving rogues any useful skills (DA:O failed miserably at making rogues rogue, they were just lighter fighters) you are forcing players to stick to the weapon skills. I am 100% sure you can give your warrior 2 weapons even at DA2 but he will suck using it. Without the skills each weapon becomes miserable.

That's why I keep asking for weapon skills just for warrior class, combat skills that aren't related to weapon styles to rogues (mobility and evasion skills) and spells to casters. So if rogues or mages want to pick up weapons they don't feel like idiots as only warriors have favorite weapons classes and each player can give each of his characters the weapons he desires without being worth less than the typical class representative. The way it is now at DA:O you can't have anything else than a rogue with archery or dual wield. That's stupid and with the innovation for DA 2 it gets worse.

[Faz432]

Just gonna have to wait a few months after release for some bright spark to mod it...hopefully...if possible.

They could of just defined the DW skill sets differently, Rogues focusing on speed, crits and disabling, Warriors on power and armor penetration for example?

Modifié par Faz432, 05 septembre 2010 - 05:02 .

[Skaden]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Skaden wrote...

You talk as if the rogue class was the 1 losing half its skill tree

I want rogues to feel unique instead of weakened warriors, so yes. Warriors regaining dual wielding and limiting it would infact weaken rogues.

Rogues already can feel unique just in other areas, stealth, backstabs, lockpicking you just have to examine them from a perspective other than combat. And if those skills don't feel unique than thats what they should be focusing on improving not just taking away a prominent combat option from warriors... the most combat oriented class. All this is doing is limiting the creativity and potential of the warrior class. And if nothing else why can't both classes dual wield? Just have 2 different types of dual wielding for each class, btw i have a hard time believing that the Qunari from the trailer was a rogue.

[ashwind]

 The problem I think is that Bioware is trying to distinct classes via the way( combat animation ) they fight. 

I agree with those who claim that DW is not what defines a Rogue or makes a Rogue more roguish. 
In DA 1, the reason Rogues do not feel like rogues is because they are not rogues. Bioware's definition of a rogue is a warrior locksmiths with crazy stealth skill (can stealth and run around in massive armor and nobody hears you etc >.<"). 

There are no situation in DA 1 that requires you to be a rogue. Save the Queen, please sneak in unseen - sounds like a job for a rogue? NO, Storm of the Century time. Why sneak in when the game is all about mindless killing? 
Warriors are defined by the prowess in battle, Rogues should be define by their resourcefulness.

Limiting DW to rogues only gives the name Rogue a new meaning: Warrior Ninja Locksmith holding two swords (exclusive).

So if you want to play a DW warrior in DA2 - you still can - they just have a different name thats all.

Modifié par ashwind, 05 septembre 2010 - 05:04 .

[Akka le Vil]

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?

Hu...
Because the POINT that is repeated several times is that dual-wield is NOT a particularly "roguish" experience but more a "warriorish" experience ?
You didn't actually read anything in fact, did you ?

Roguish experience is more into backstab, precise strike, ambush and crippling attacks, and that is what they should aim at.
How, wait, it has been said too, but you didn't see it either.

Dynamomark wrote...

Mike Laidlaw said that warriors are getting more love in DA2.

Removing one of the most (if not the most) prefered playstyle for warriors is giving them love ?
So that is what "tough love" is ?

Jimmy Fury wrote...

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.

You make a good point, true.
Anyway, what HAS been confirmed is that dual-wield won't be accessible for warriors. And even if they still give something else, the fact is that we won't be able to make a heavily armoured dual-wielder, which severely sucks, and the reasons to remove this ability are still completely stupid and lazy.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 05 septembre 2010 - 05:08 .

[biomag]

ashwind wrote...

 The problem I think is that Bioware is trying to distinct classes via the way( combat animation ) they fight. 

I agree with those who claim that DW is not what defines a Rogue or makes a Rogue more roguish. 
In DA 1, the reason Rogues do not feel like rogues is because they are not rogues. Bioware's definition of a rogue is a warrior locksmiths with crazy stealth skill (can stealth and run around in massive armor and nobody hears you etc >.<"). 

There are no situation in DA 1 that requires you to be a rogue. Save the Queen, please sneak in unseen - sounds like a job for a rogue? NO, Storm of the Century time. Why sneak in when the game is all about mindless killing? 
Warriors are defined by the prowess in battle, Rogues should be define by their resourcefulness.

Limiting DW to rogues only gives the name Rogue a new meaning: Warrior Ninja Locksmith holding two swords (exclusive).

So if you want to play a DW warrior in DA2 - you still can - they just have a different name thats all.

That's not the solution. You still can play just 2 types of warrior (s&s or 2-handed) and 2 types of rogues (dw warrior or archer). Your freedom of choice is reduced to a mage or 2 warrior classes.

[Dave of Canada]

ashwind wrote...

Limiting DW to rogues only gives the name Rogue a new meaning: Warrior Ninja Locksmith holding two swords (exclusive).

This is a meaning in a lot of MMOs, RPG games and such nowadays. It's nothing new.

[biomag]

Dave of Canada wrote...

ashwind wrote...

Limiting DW to rogues only gives the name Rogue a new meaning: Warrior Ninja Locksmith holding two swords (exclusive).

This is a meaning in a lot of MMOs, RPG games and such nowadays. It's nothing new.

...just because its common to make 2nd class products BioWare should do the same? How about improvment?

[Akka le Vil]

Dave of Canada wrote...

This is a meaning in a lot of MMOs, RPG games and such nowadays. It's nothing new.

I love how you justify dual-wield exclusive to rogues in one message by saying that rogues should have a roguish experience, and when someone point that it's not a solution because it's just changing the animations in fight and not really giving rogue a roguish experience, you backflip and use the opposed argument.
Not really consistent are we ?

[Dave of Canada]

biomag wrote...

...just because its common to make 2nd class products BioWare should do the same? How about improvment?

har har. I c wut u did there except for the fact that those games made (and still make) bajillions of dollars.

[Dave of Canada]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

This is a meaning in a lot of MMOs, RPG games and such nowadays. It's nothing new.

I love how you justify dual-wield exclusive to rogues in one message by saying that rogues should have a roguish experience, and when someone point that it's not a solution because it's just changing the animations in fight and not really giving rogue a roguish experience, you backflip and use the opposed argument.
Not really consistent are we ?

Lockpicking and such doesn't make it a rogueish experience. Especially not when you can have a single rogue do it all. Tell me why you should bring more than one rogue?

[biomag]

Dave of Canada wrote...

biomag wrote...

...just because its common to make 2nd class products BioWare should do the same? How about improvment?

har har. I c wut u did there except for the fact that those games made (and still make) bajillions of dollars.

... so you prefer WOW to ME or Dragon Age?

[Skaden]

I really want to like DA2 but so far a lot of what i've heard about it just seems like new limitations fixed race, no origins, and now this, cutting down part of 1 class to make the other1 feel "unique" where is this "plenty of choice" they keep talking about?

[Dynamomark]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Dynamomark wrote...

Mike Laidlaw said that warriors are getting more love in DA2.

Removing one of the most (if not the most) prefered playstyle for warriors is giving them love ?
So that is what "tough love" is ?

Like I said, they must've had a good reason.  The "making them more distinct" talk aside, they could've done it because there was not enough time to redesign the DW system for both rogues and warriors.

[biomag]

Skaden wrote...

I really want to like DA2 but so far a lot of what i've heard about it just seems like new limitations fixed race, no origins, and now this, cutting down part of 1 class to make the other1 feel "unique" where is this "plenty of choice" they keep talking about?

You can't compare character development (= I am talking about the game mechanics) to story and the decisions. Alpha Protocol gave you extremely limited character development, but still the game had a lot of choices that influenced the game far more than anything DA:O offered.

[Dave of Canada]

biomag wrote...

... so you prefer WOW to ME or Dragon Age?

I prefer Dragon Age and Mass Effect but that doesn't make WoW a second hand product.

[Inquisitor Recon]

That's stupid. As somebody who played such a class, I am offended.

[biomag]

Dave of Canada wrote...

biomag wrote...

... so you prefer WOW to ME or Dragon Age?

I prefer Dragon Age and Mass Effect but that doesn't make WoW a second hand product.

Still the success doesn't say anything about the quality. That's why I say its a mistake to follow their footsteps at something that won't increase sales numbers.

[Skaden]

Dynamomark wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Dynamomark wrote...

Mike Laidlaw said that warriors are getting more love in DA2.

Removing one of the most (if not the most) prefered playstyle for warriors is giving them love ?
So that is what "tough love" is ?

Like I said, they must've had a good reason.  The "making them more distinct" talk aside, they could've done it because there was not enough time to redesign the DW system for both rogues and warriors.

If that were the case they should have just left it the way it was, its all about consistancy its stupid to take away all these choices we had in the first game. And for what? If they truly want to make the rogue more distinct then they should focus on the classes actual strengths not just try to force a unique combat style onto it, that won't feel like a rogue it will feel like a ninja stealth warrior.

Modifié par Skaden, 05 septembre 2010 - 05:28 .