1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Yeah, no, sorry, the title of most imbalanced belongs to level 20+ arcane warriors.
Aka the indestructable spell spamming walking doom machine.

Sorry, but you´re wrong. I played Dualwieldwarrior, and directly afterwards AND directly before I played Arcane Warrior - once with focus on DPS and once with focus on tanking. My Dualwield-warrior however out-dpsed AND out-tanked both of my Arcane Warriors by far.

In fact, his DPS on Level 10 was as high as my AW´s on level 20.

[AdamNW]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

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.

Blood Mages > Arcane Warriors
Battlemage > Arcane Warrior

[Ortaya Alevli]

AdamNW wrote...

Blood Mages > Arcane Warriors
Battlemage > Arcane Warrior

I'm sure any enemy with an orange name would love to discuss this with you extensively.

[Akka le Vil]

Dynamomark wrote...

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.

Hu... Yeah, there was dual-wielding for warriors in DAO, with animations and all, but we are supposed to accept "well, we couldn't be bothered to make animations we already did, so we just removed the specialisation" ? This is a joke, right ?

Dave of Canada wrote...

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

Oh, you mean the game where the SPECIFICALLY DUAL-WIELDING WARRIOR TREE (the fury one) is THE MOST PLAYED among all the warriors ?
Sure, go ahead, but I'm not sure it exactly helps your point.

[Jimmy Fury]

AdamNW wrote...
Blood Mages > Arcane Warriors
Battlemage > Arcane Warrior

Blood mages are useless. Battlemage i'll give you though. I had forgotten about them.

Perhaps I defined imbalanced differently though?
I don't consider High DPS to mean imbalanced, just high dps...
Imbalanced, to me at least, is when you can pour all of your attribute points into 1 stat (magic) and get the benefit of high strength, high dex*, and high consitution at the same time. Thus, Combat Magic throws arcane warriors completely off balance.
More so thanks to the respec ability in awakenings...

edit: *in the form of fade shroud providing automatic ability to avoid attacks which would normally come from high dexterity.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 05 septembre 2010 - 07:11 .

[ashwind]

Tirigon wrote...
Sorry, but you´re wrong. I played Dualwieldwarrior, and directly afterwards AND directly before I played Arcane Warrior - once with focus on DPS and once with focus on tanking. My Dualwield-warrior however out-dpsed AND out-tanked both of my Arcane Warriors by far.

In fact, his DPS on Level 10 was as high as my AW´s on level 20.

Out DPS - yes.

Out tank? I think soloing the Nightmare mode Flemeth/High Dragon without potions using a DW warrior would be very fun to see.

[kraidy1117]

This is very sad.....

[ashwind]

Speaking of removing imba classes... this is why DW should be for Warriors and not Rogues.... they are IMBA!

[hangmans tree]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

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.

exactly my thought...add nasty backstab and cripple + ninja dissapear/confuse  and we're fine.

[biomag]

ashwind wrote...

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

And that is exactly the point. If those rogue abilities are made well, you don't need weapon skills to kill. If its all about weapon skills than you can trash every class and just play warriors just call them differently... that's the curse DA:2 seems to be going.

DA:O forced you to play a DW or archer rogue as the other skills didn't do the trick. That's why there were just 2 kinds of rogues. The specializations were nice, but a good dw or archery specialization was mandatory first. So what about that is different to a regular warrior dw? Just less strength and some bonuses for daggers based on cunning... that's poor...

[AlanC9]

Tirigon wrote...
Sorry, but you´re wrong. I played Dualwieldwarrior, and directly afterwards AND directly before I played Arcane Warrior - once with focus on DPS and once with focus on tanking. My Dualwield-warrior however out-dpsed AND out-tanked both of my Arcane Warriors by far.

In fact, his DPS on Level 10 was as high as my AW´s on level 20.

How did he out-tank the second AW? I can understand out-DPSing since AWs aren't all that great at DPS 

Do you have any numbers handy?

[Jimmy Fury]

hangmans tree wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

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.

exactly my thought...add nasty backstab and cripple + ninja dissapear/confuse  and we're fine.

cripple is a DW ability.

I still don't understand the logic of stripping rogues down to nothing. Isn't that more limiting than simply seperating combat styles?

[biomag]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

hangmans tree wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

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.

exactly my thought...add nasty backstab and cripple + ninja dissapear/confuse  and we're fine.

cripple is a DW ability.

I still don't understand the logic of stripping rogues down to nothing. Isn't that more limiting than simply seperating combat styles?

The skills won't stay the same, they are completely revamping the combat system. Were just calling out names and the basic feature of the ability, we ain't expecting them to be as bad as they were at DA:O.

[Mirander]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Dynamomark wrote...

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.

Hu... Yeah, there was dual-wielding for warriors in DAO, with animations and all, but we are supposed to accept "well, we couldn't be bothered to make animations we already did, so we just removed the specialisation" ? This is a joke, right ?

And if they were reusing DAO's animations, that would mean something.  But since the only dual wield animations in DA2 involve the character hopping around like a ninja, then warrior dual wielding would require a second set of animations made from scrap; and hell, probably an entirely separate dual wield skill tree, as I'm willing to bet that the current one has been revamped to make it more roguey.  

It would probably be like creating a fifth entirely separate weapon style, rather than just copy/pasting it from one class to another.

If they were to go to all that trouble, I'd rather they actually make a new type of weapon (spears, whatever) than trying to convert one classes weapon style to another class.

[Jimmy Fury]

biomag wrote...
The skills won't stay the same, they are completely revamping the combat system.

That's what some of us have been trying to point out.

Taking away DW from warriors does not mean they're going to be stuck with the few S+S and 2H abilities from Origins.
They'll be getting new stuff too. And the DW will be changing to be rogue specific.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

hangmans tree wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

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.

exactly my thought...add nasty backstab and cripple + ninja dissapear/confuse  and we're fine.

cripple is a DW ability.

I still don't understand the logic of stripping rogues down to nothing. Isn't that more limiting than simply seperating combat styles?

If that's about replacing dual wielding with single weapon style, I wouldn't consider it stripping rogues down to nothing. To me, a single dagger sounds more suitable for backstabbing and elegant face-to-face combat style of rogues. It also goes better with Dueling, assuming this specialization will make it into DA2. As for restricting them to daggers, the image of a rogue with an axe in hand trying to look nimble and going all acrobatic boggles my mind, never mind two axes. I never understood "rogues" donning the Warden Commander armor and wielding two longswords, and that whole Legionnaire Scout thing didn't help one bit.

[Akka le Vil]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

cripple is a DW ability.

I still don't understand the logic of stripping rogues down to nothing. Isn't that more limiting than simply seperating combat styles?

Nobody wants to strip rogues down to nothing. It's the WARRIORS who are being stripped down, if you notice.
Nobody wants to gut rogues, we're simply showing how pathetic Bioware's excuse about this stupid design decision is : they pretend it's for class distinction, and we point that they chose the MOST WARRIOR-LIKE of all the rogue's ability to give a "rogue character" to the rogue class. This is pretty dumb and only ends up in gutting warriors, NOT making rogues more "rogues".

As it was pointed several times (if only people bothered to read...), it's much more efficient, much more logical, and much less irritating, to make rogues a separate and useful class by actually making "roguish" abilities better, than removing "warriorish" ability from warriors and making them exclusive to rogues.

[boohead]

rogues are being buffed, and the opposite of stripped down from everything i've read.

Unique DW tree and abilities, most acrobatic "roguish" combat, archery while running...

Yes please.

Modifié par boohead, 05 septembre 2010 - 07:36 .

[Ayanko]

[Skaden]

Mirander wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Dynamomark wrote...

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.

Hu... Yeah, there was dual-wielding for warriors in DAO, with animations and all, but we are supposed to accept "well, we couldn't be bothered to make animations we already did, so we just removed the specialisation" ? This is a joke, right ?

And if they were reusing DAO's animations, that would mean something.  But since the only dual wield animations in DA2 involve the character hopping around like a ninja, then warrior dual wielding would require a second set of animations made from scrap; and hell, probably an entirely separate dual wield skill tree, as I'm willing to bet that the current one has been revamped to make it more roguey.  

It would probably be like creating a fifth entirely separate weapon style, rather than just copy/pasting it from one class to another.

If they were to go to all that trouble, I'd rather they actually make a new type of weapon (spears, whatever) than trying to convert one classes weapon style to another class.

They take away the most unique and potentially deadly fighting technique from DAO and you'd rather they replace them with spears? Really? Besides if they're so worried about it not making sense for guys in full armour to be doing acrobatics then how do they explain the most combat oriented class not being able to comprehend fighting with 2 weapons? Or how the Qunari in the trailer was dual wielding, your telling me he was a rogue?

[Ayanko]

Skaden wrote...

Mirander wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Dynamomark wrote...

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.

Hu... Yeah, there was dual-wielding for warriors in DAO, with animations and all, but we are supposed to accept "well, we couldn't be bothered to make animations we already did, so we just removed the specialisation" ? This is a joke, right ?

And if they were reusing DAO's animations, that would mean something.  But since the only dual wield animations in DA2 involve the character hopping around like a ninja, then warrior dual wielding would require a second set of animations made from scrap; and hell, probably an entirely separate dual wield skill tree, as I'm willing to bet that the current one has been revamped to make it more roguey.  

It would probably be like creating a fifth entirely separate weapon style, rather than just copy/pasting it from one class to another.

If they were to go to all that trouble, I'd rather they actually make a new type of weapon (spears, whatever) than trying to convert one classes weapon style to another class.

They take away the most unique and potentially deadly fighting technique from DAO and you'd rather they replace them with spears? Really? Besides if they're so worried about it not making sense for guys in full armour to be doing acrobatics then how do they explain the most combat oriented class not being able to comprehend fighting with 2 weapons? Or how the Qunari in the trailer was dual wielding, your telling me he was a rogue?

That was a Branch off the 2handed talents for warrior I Believe, the blades the qunari had were both 2handed.

[kraidy1117]

I agree. A DW warrior was without a doubt one of the strongest technique in the game, it's a shame they are taking it out, I am not a fan of sword and board or two handed sword, so I see no point to play as a warrior anymore.

[Jimmy Fury]

Akka le Vil wrote...
Nobody wants to strip rogues down to nothing. It's the WARRIORS who are being stripped down, if you notice.
Nobody wants to gut rogues.

I'm sorry but i have to call bull. Half the "better ideas" on here involve taking abilities away from rogues, restricting them to a single weapon, cutting back on their ability to go face-to-face with an enemy, or some other cut back to what they can already do while simultaneously complaining that it's wrong to take anything away from warriors.

None of that balances anything. It makes rogues crap in a fight.
Balance is giving rogues speed over power while giving warriors power over speed. 
Dual-wielding should be about speed. Having 2 blades is useless if you can't move them fast enough to get around someones defenses.

That's what it sounds like Bioware is going for. Rogues = speed and dexterity while Warriors= strength and defense. That does not mean warriors will just be brutes or walls, they can be skilled too, just not as fast.

Like i said earlier, lacking a DW skill tree doesn't stop Arcane warriors from using 2 blades, just stops them from having the special attacks. Moving a speed-based tree won't stop warriors from using 2 blades, just take away their ability to use the special attacks.