1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Skaden]

This

jbblue05 wrote...

Rogues being able to wield two full-sized weapons and a warrior not being able to is completely stupid.

Duel-wielding two longswords is a warrior trait not a rogue trait.

Rogues are a tactical class while warrior is a combat class by taking away half of thier fighting styles your dumbing down the class. Buffing up S&S and 2-hander doesn't make warrior class better.

Dual-wield
Warriors= Two full sized weapons  Rogues= Dual Dagger or full sized weapon and dagger.

Archery
Warriors= crossbowmen  Rogues= short/long bowmen

There are already distinctions between the two, those are what should be expanded upon. With this decision all their doing is severely limiting the warrior classes potential and not improving the rogue class based on its actual strengths. The promblem is that every1 always wants to apply to the rogue class with the same standards as the warrior class. It makes no sense to take away any combat style from the combat oriented class, it would be like taking away the rogues stealth ability and giving it to mages simply to make them more "distinct"

Modifié par Skaden, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:06 .

[Skaden]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Kiely wrote...
Okay I hear you, you're more objecting to the DW long weapons, which I can appreciate.

I'm not arguing about the DW warriors. In AD&D they allow high level warriors to dual wield 2-handed weapons. Perhaps adding that would be a better way to distinguish between a rogue DW and a warrior DW?

Rogue DW = one long sword + dagger.

Warrior DW = could eventually wield two 2-handed weapons (with a minimum STR requirement).

What, like dual wielding scythes? XD


This whole argument is a little silly, imo. The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise you could boil down any weapon as being suitable for any class. If my rogue puts a lot of points into STR then why can't she wield a 2 hander and use the 2 hander skills? Is there some strange lore reason why a rogue would not be able to spin in a circle with a 2 handed sword? Nope, but for gameplay the line has to be drawn somewhere unless they implement one open skill set and remove classes altogether.

Well then why should there be a line at all? Combat abilities should be open to all classes with their other skills and characteristics being what distinguishes them from eachother.

[biomag]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

biomag wrote...
Listen, if you just want to misunderstand my post, go on I won't even bother to respond. I never asked for a killing machine warrior and I wasn't talking about specialization either, neither was anyone else in this topic. So if you want to paint me as the demon on your wall, go ahead, but let me tell you, you are deliberately turning my words to make it fit something you can complain about. Others understood what I posted, so the problem ain't me.

Again, what am I misreading or misunderstanding?
You specifically said you only want warriors to have weapon based skills.
How am I misunderstanding that just by explaining what that means for every other character in the game.
No weapon skills = crap in a fight. period.

And no, not everyone else is fine with what you said because i'm not the only one saying you're wrong.
This is nothing personal. I'm not demonizing you, i'm disagreeing with you. There's a difference.

Ok, last time I try to explain what I meant:

Character vs random enemy:

Warrior attacks frontally. Strength are the weapon abilities depending on the fighting style used. "Cleanfighting" outpowering enemies. Like DA:O.

Mage uses spells or as arcane warrior can use any weapon combination supported by spells, getting no real abilities from his weapons but has additional means to keep on fighting when low on mana.

Rogue uses abilities to stun enemy or goes stealth. Attacks the enemy in its weak spot getting huge bonuses for such dirty techniques. Either uses poisons, gagdets or skills to avoid harm and to prevent getting to much attention and strikes where it hurts.

This would leave all classes the chance to use all weapon combinations, would let them have completely different playstyles and still be balanced. Simply giving rogues dw you solve nothing. It remains an offensive warrior with benefits. Just slightly different to a 2-handed warrior, but the difference is slim. Rather make their abilities completely different, based on different tactical approaches than fighting styles. Weapon skills make nearly no difference at all. No matter how entertaining the animations are. BioWare has to put more effort in it to make it something special.

I would prefer to see some rogue quests to. DA:O was a pure fighting game with dialog. I want a chance to see a real rogue and that's not just lock picking and backstabbing enemies.

[Kiely]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Kiely wrote...
Okay I hear you, you're more objecting to the DW long weapons, which I can appreciate.

I'm not arguing about the DW warriors. In AD&D they allow high level warriors to dual wield 2-handed weapons. Perhaps adding that would be a better way to distinguish between a rogue DW and a warrior DW?

Rogue DW = one long sword + dagger.

Warrior DW = could eventually wield two 2-handed weapons (with a minimum STR requirement).

What, like dual wielding scythes? XD


This whole argument is a little silly, imo. The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise you could boil down any weapon as being suitable for any class. If my rogue puts a lot of points into STR then why can't she wield a 2 hander and use the 2 hander skills? Is there some strange lore reason why a rogue would not be able to spin in a circle with a 2 handed sword? Nope, but for gameplay the line has to be drawn somewhere unless they implement one open skill set and remove classes altogether.

True, it is a game play mechanic more than anything, so yes you either accept the mechanic (and the lines it draws) or you go open skill tree and be done with it. But I think the doo-doo would really start flying if they suggested that... the end of classes certainly wouldn't be my preference.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Skaden wrote...
Well then why should there be a line at all? Combat abilities should be open to all classes with their other skills and characteristics being what distinguishes them from eachother.

That's what I said. You can have it that way, or you can have separate, distinct classes.

If the developer goes with separate classes then lines have to be drawn and some bits of "logic" have to be ignored in order for the classes to remain distinct.

Just because a warrior should have the strength and ability to hold 2 longswords, one in each hand, doesn't mean it has to be or should be included in every game's definition of "warrior".

[SDNcN]

MariSkep wrote...

Would this be such a bad thing?

No, not exactly.Though they would still need to seperate the Mage skills/spells from the other skill sets due to the setting.

[Faz432]

MariSkep wrote...

SDNcN wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

Would this be such a bad thing?

No, not exactly.Though they would still need to seperate the Mage skills/spells from the other skill sets due to the setting.

That's a perfectly valid reason, sort of like Dwarven resistance to hostile magic. I've nothing against limiting skills based on what your species itself can do.

Interesting, so like a shared skill pool/tree for non mages that you can develop as you choose??

Modifié par Faz432, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:27 .

[Jimmy Fury]

biomag wrote...
Ok, last time I try to explain what I meant:

Character vs random enemy:

Warrior attacks frontally. Strength are the weapon abilities depending on the fighting style used. "Cleanfighting" outpowering enemies. Like DA:O.

Mage uses spells or as arcane warrior can use any weapon combination supported by spells, getting no real abilities from his weapons but has additional means to keep on fighting when low on mana.

Rogue uses abilities to stun enemy or goes stealth. Attacks the enemy in its weak spot getting huge bonuses for such dirty techniques. Either uses poisons, gagdets or skills to avoid harm and to prevent getting to much attention and strikes where it hurts.

This would leave all classes the chance to use all weapon combinations, would let them have completely different playstyles and still be balanced. Simply giving rogues dw you solve nothing. It remains an offensive warrior with benefits. Just slightly different to a 2-handed warrior, but the difference is slim. Rather make their abilities completely different, based on different tactical approaches than fighting styles. Weapon skills make nearly no difference at all. No matter how entertaining the animations are. BioWare has to put more effort in it to make it something special.

I would prefer to see some rogue quests to. DA:O was a pure fighting game with dialog. I want a chance to see a real rogue and that's not just lock picking and backstabbing enemies.

But it wouldn't let all classes use all weapon combinations. That's the point I adamantly disagree on.
What you have described there is the Origins combat system except Rogues have no weapon skills at all.

Rogue still fight with weapons so they still need some weapon based abilities. That isn't balanced. You've just taken away the few activated attack abilities rogues had. They can no longer be effective archers and long-range assassin types because they can't fire off any archery abilities. If you run into a group of enemies you're screwed now because your rogue has to somehow stay behind all of them in order to be of any use. The minute 1 of them decides to go after the rogue instead of fighting the Warrior, the rogue is dead. He no longer has flurry, sweep, whirlwind, cripple, or riposte (the only activated abilities a rogue had) so what can he do against an enemy that's actually paying attention to him?

[Tirigon]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

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.

Dual Wielding Warrior was a terrible class anyway. I won't be losing any sleep over an improvement. If you're gonna dual wield, be a rogue.

Dual wield warrior was the most imba class in the game and anyone who disagrees proves to be a noob who can´t play.

Removing of dualwielding for warrior is a terrible idea, almost as bad as having no elf / dwarf characters.

Whenever I hear something new about DA2 it sucks more....

[ashwind]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

But it wouldn't let all classes use all weapon combinations. That's the point I adamantly disagree on.
What you have described there is the Origins combat system except Rogues have no weapon skills at all.

Rogue still fight with weapons so they still need some weapon based abilities. That isn't balanced. You've just taken away the few activated attack abilities rogues had. They can no longer be effective archers and long-range assassin types because they can't fire off any archery abilities. If you run into a group of enemies you're screwed now because your rogue has to somehow stay behind all of them in order to be of any use. The minute 1 of them decides to go after the rogue instead of fighting the Warrior, the rogue is dead. He no longer has flurry, sweep, whirlwind, cripple, or riposte (the only activated abilities a rogue had) so what can he do against an enemy that's actually paying attention to him?

Dirty Fighting - Backstab - Trash Talk - Combat Stealth

[Faz432]

MariSkep wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

SDNcN wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

Would this be such a bad thing?

No, not exactly.Though they would still need to seperate the Mage skills/spells from the other skill sets due to the setting.

That's a perfectly valid reason, sort of like Dwarven resistance to hostile magic. I've nothing against limiting skills based on what your species itself can do.

Interesting, so like a shared skill pool/tree for non mages that you can develop as you choose??

Exactly. It's the way they already do mages. They don't make you either a white mage or black mage like in other games. You're allowed to select which spells you want based on what that school of magic offers.

Has potential, I like it, just as long as you don't cut the amount of branches I think it would work.

[Jimmy Fury]

Lilacs wrote...
Agreed! It is all about one's race (only certain races can be rogues and or mages, for example)  and his/her abilities and or bonuses base on racial traits.

That would require all of Origins to be retconned though...

[Jimmy Fury]

Lilacs wrote...

Not really, just improve DA II, not streamlining a certain class, but improve classes that really need improvement, typically rogues. Give a warrior the ability to carry two two-handed weapons.

But the only racial limitation that existed in origins was that Dwarves couldn't be Mages. If you change that then you've have to retcon a bunch of characters from Origins. Humans and elves already came in all 3 flavors. Change the limitations and someone, somewhere, has to be retconned.

[ashwind]

Tirigon wrote...

Dual wield warrior was the most imba class in the game and anyone who disagrees proves to be a noob who can´t play.

Removing of dualwielding for warrior is a terrible idea, almost as bad as having no elf / dwarf characters.

Whenever I hear something new about DA2 it sucks more....

Powerful? Yes.
Fun to play? Yes.
Imba? No. Most imba? Not by far. That makes me a noob - I am certified.

[AdamNW]

EDIT: Confused dual wielding with Two-Handed.

Anyway...duh?

Modifié par AdamNW, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:55 .

[AlanC9]

Tirigon wrote...
Dual wield warrior was the most imba class in the game and anyone who disagrees proves to be a noob who can´t play.

Removing of dualwielding for warrior is a terrible idea, almost as bad as having no elf / dwarf characters.

Removing an imbalaced class is a bad thing?

What was imbalanced about DW warriors, anyway? I never bothered trying them since I used rogues and mages for my DPS.

[Jimmy Fury]

AlanC9 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
Dual wield warrior was the most imba class in the game and anyone who disagrees proves to be a noob who can´t play.

Removing of dualwielding for warrior is a terrible idea, almost as bad as having no elf / dwarf characters.

Removing an imbalaced class is a bad thing?

What was imbalanced about DW warriors, anyway? I never bothered trying them since I used rogues and mages for my DPS.

So imba does mean imbalanced? Oh good. I thought i was missing something.
Yeah, no, sorry, the title of most imbalanced belongs to level 20+ arcane warriors.
Aka the indestructable spell spamming walking doom machine.

[Ortaya Alevli]

I would expect them to leave dual-wielding warriors alone and get rid of dual-wielding rogues instead, giving them a single weapon style and restricting them to daggers and bows.

[Tirigon]

AlanC9 wrote...

What was imbalanced about DW warriors, anyway? I never bothered trying them since I used rogues and mages for my DPS.

They did the same, if not more, DPS like a rogue or DPS-mage, but with simple autoattack without the need of positioning for backstabs or using spells.

And with better survivability. In fact they were the best tanks, too, because they combined a warrior´s Hitpoints and Armor with a rogue´s high Defence score.