1380 réponses à ce sujet

[biomag]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

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.

That's not the same thing. You won't get a warrior skill tree that works with any weapon combination and even if, it won't prevent you from using abilities for s&s and 2-handed... and thus we're back at DA:O. You are going to play just warriors with 2-handed weapons or s&s as if you don't do it, you are limiting your characters skills in battle.

Its going to be the same situation that the rogue had at DA:O. Show me a serious rogue built that doesn't use dw or archery for DA:O. And they have a lot of skills they can take instead for a rogue.

The worst part will be that not only the warrior will be reduced to two weapon combinations, but the rogues too as even if they have alternative skills to develop they get bonus skills for using bows or dw, so who is going to take any other weapons? Using shields, single weapons or 2-handed swords leaves them without weapon skills. Keeping the balance they won't give them both 1st class weapon skills and great skills that don't need special weapons or rogue are going to be overpowered (and we haven't seen anything like this in DA:O).

[Skaden]

Ayanko wrote...

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.

That makes even less sense than if they had just directly contradicted themselves by showing the Qunari with 2 normal sized weapons. Dual wielding 2handers= oxymoron. Overall, I adamantly think this was a very stupid design decision.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Dual wielding two handers goes slightly into anime territory. No, wait. Hentai territory.

[Ayanko]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

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.

I actually Agree with this, I made my Warden use duel weilding talents as a test run, the result? He was over powered and Moved so fast each fight was a cake walk, Sure this is good. But just seems unrealistic when your players wearing massive armour. Either way the fact warriors should be able to duel wield with "Claymores" or "BattleAxes"

Modifié par Ayanko, 05 septembre 2010 - 07:50 .

[hangmans tree]

I GIVE UP. I thought most of the interlocutors would understand what are we talking about.



DW should not be rogue class specialisation (only). Its warriors domain. I love playing rogues, I'm pnp rpg'ing this class most of the time. But I can see the hindrance behind DW removal from W class. Its obstructing and the logic behind doing so is weak.

[graavigala85]

well that sucks...

[biomag]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

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.

Now
its getting funny. You of all claim that weapon skills are the only
thing that counts. We haven't seen any real skill sofar that made a
warrior stand a chance against any enemy if not using he specialized
weapon set. And now you say, that a warrior still may use 2 weapon just
without special attacks and that is going to be fair? We at least
offered you some rogue abilities that could make up for the lack of
special attacks.

I am done. You just want to see a more powerful
rogue as you ain't liking the warrior class being the only melee class
in the game. So go on with your lobbing. If you want to play with 2
warrior classes and a mage class, enjoy it.

Modifié par biomag, 05 septembre 2010 - 07:52 .

[EmonFett]

You would think in an sequel they would be adding more abilities not removing...Hopefully DA2 will be modifiable and someone can add DW back to warrior where it should respectfully stay for reasons of it being removed from warrior is just silly.

[hangmans tree]

And can anyone tell me why rogues should match warriors in a fight? THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WEAK IN HAND TO HAND/MELEE COMBAT...

[biomag]

hangmans tree wrote...

And can anyone tell me why rogues should match warriors in a fight? THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WEAK IN HAND TO HAND/MELEE COMBAT...

I don't want the rogues to be helpless. I want them to be forced to play dirty to beat a melee-specialist.

Warriors are by defenitions fighting specialist. Rogue are jack-of-all-trades (except magic). So they can do more things to get a fight even, but not by running blindly into a warrior of the same "level".

[Skaden]

[/quote]

(I actually Agree with this, I made my Warden use duel weilding talents as a test run, the result? He was over powered and Moved so fast each fight was a cake walk, Sure this is good. But just seems unrealistic when your players wearing massive armour. Either way the fact warriors should be able to duel wield with "Claymores" or "BattleAxes")

[/quote]

Kind of like how warriors are supposed to be masters at combat yet will not be able to comprehend fighting with a weapon in each hand? Or how the Qunari in the trailer is somehow dual wielding 2handers? Besides if it was in origins I don't think the world of DA's logic somehow changed between the 1st and 2nd games and suddenly no warriors know how to dual wield (except apparently the Qunari)

Edit* apologies my computers being screwy

Modifié par Skaden, 05 septembre 2010 - 08:13 .

[Akka le Vil]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

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.

They are simply suggestions about what would better give a "roguish" approach. Nobody created a thread saying "deprive rogues from DW !" until we learned that warriors were, and were told it was because somehow, completely arbitrarily, dual-wielding became something very roguish when we weren't looking.
I don't ask for removing dual-wields from rogues. At most, I say that if the reason given is "rogues are lithe and acrobatics", it would make sense to restrjcts DW rogues to daggers and DW warriors to swords, so that the first are using finesse and the second power. Does that look "gutting rogues" to you ?

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.

Rogues are more defined by guile, dirty fighting and backstab than figthing in a flurry. In fact, I see "machinegunning with a sword" much more as a warrior kind. Rogues feel more like making precision strikes (preferably from behind). This is balance too. Balance requires only that both approaches work, it's not restricted to "one have speed and the other power". Plenty of other differences can be balanced too.
Notice that, again, I do NOT say that rogue should lose DW. I just say that warriors shouldn't even more.

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.

That's not the problem. The problem is that, again and again and again, Bioware is using a completely backward way of differenciating the classes, by taking a VERY WARRIOR-LIKE ability in order to make rogues feel "rogue-like". This deprives warriors from a very popular specialisation (DW warriors are usually the most popular spec for warriors in fact), while NOT doing what it was supposed to do (making rogues feel more rogues).

In other words : it is useless AND upset many people. Way to be counter-productive !

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 05 septembre 2010 - 08:03 .

[EmonFett]

Why are people bringing up realism in a video game? you can use magic their are giant dragons etc realism argument doesn't work in video games such as dragon age.

Modifié par EmonFett, 05 septembre 2010 - 08:01 .

[kraidy1117]

If they had to get rid of DW, they should have got rid of it for Rogues, or at least make it only two daggers, not two swords. This is kinda bullcrap. It's like BW wants people to not play warrior anymore.

[Jimmy Fury]

biomag wrote...
I am done. You just want to see a more powerful rogue as you ain't liking the warrior class being the only melee class in the game. So go on with your lobbing. If you want to play with 2 warrior classes and a mage class, enjoy it.

Way to ignore everything i said.
Incidentally I'm not all that vested in how warriors or rogues end up, I prefer mages. I just have a problem with the arguments being made. They lack logic.

Most of these arguments work on faulty premises. We know 1 thing yet almost every conclusion has been drawn from the addition of 2 or 3 assumptions that have no been confirmed anywhere.
Watch. This argument was made at least a dozen times. When it's broken down into basic premise and conclusion it stops making sense:

Premise: Warriors will no longer have a Dual-Wield skill tree.
Conclusion: Warriros will not be able to hold 2 weapons at once.

Or how about...
Premise: Warriors will no longer have a dual-wield skill tree.
Conclusion: Warriors won't be able to fight anymore.

The premise doesn't equal the conclusion. It's illogical. There are plenty of other faults in them too, like the one I've been focusing on about rogues needing some weapons skills. Taking weapon skills away from rogues is just as stupid and frustrating and illogical as taking them away from warriors. Mages are the only ones who can hold their own without a weapon. Rogues still need something.

But, as has been pointed out. There was a balance problem with the DW tree. Whether someone thinks it was that DW warriors were overpowered or that DW rogues were is irrelivant, something somewhere was broken.

So Bioware aimed to fix it. If, as i suspect, that fix involves making Rogues a speed class then it brings balance. The DW skills will be different, they won't be something that would make sense for a warrior. It doesn't exclude or prevent warriors from dual wielding, it just doesn't let them use a speed based skill set when their focus is strength.

Honestly, i get where you guys are coming from. I just think you're assuming way too much based off of 1 change. That's why i'm arguing with you. I'm trying to show you that the assumptions aren't neccesarily correct. Taking a skill tree away from warriors doesn't mean they can't be masters-at-arms or epic fighters or anything, it just means those special abilities won't be available to them anymore.

edit:

kraidy1117 wrote...
If they had to get rid of DW, they
should have got rid of it for Rogues, or at least make it only two
daggers, not two swords. This is kinda bullcrap. It's like BW wants
people to not play warrior anymore.

Who says they didn't.
Nothing anywhere said rogues will be dual-wielding full sized swords. Again, an assumption is being made with no actual premise to base it on. All we know is that the DW tree got moved, we have no idea what other restrictions might come along with that.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 05 septembre 2010 - 08:05 .

[Skaden]

I've said this before, but they keep saying the game has plenty of choices and yet...

1 Fixed race

2 No origins

3 Now apparently they're placing more limitations than we had in origins as well as removing the fighting style that was 1 of the most popular

Choice? anyone...? Bueller?

Modifié par Skaden, 05 septembre 2010 - 08:11 .

[biomag]

EmonFett wrote...

Why are people bringing up realism in a video game? you can use magic their are giant dragons etc realism argument doesn't work in video games such as dragon age.

So a sword strike doesn't kill?


Ingame logic doesn't mean there is no real world logic at all.

[hangmans tree]

it is being said DW isss removed from the warrior class alltogether.....clear?

[Rogue Unit]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

biomag wrote...
I am done. You just want to see a more powerful rogue as you ain't liking the warrior class being the only melee class in the game. So go on with your lobbing. If you want to play with 2 warrior classes and a mage class, enjoy it.

Way to ignore everything i said.
Incidentally I'm not all that vested in how warriors or rogues end up, I prefer mages. I just have a problem with the arguments being made. They lack logic.

Most of these arguments work on faulty premises. We know 1 thing yet almost every conclusion has been drawn from the addition of 2 or 3 assumptions that have no been confirmed anywhere.
Watch. This argument was made at least a dozen times. When it's broken down into basic premise and conclusion it stops making sense:

Premise: Warriors will no longer have a Dual-Wield skill tree.
Conclusion: Warriros will not be able to hold 2 weapons at once.

Or how about...
Premise: Warriors will no longer have a dual-wield skill tree.
Conclusion: Warriors won't be able to fight anymore.

The premise doesn't equal the conclusion. It's illogical. There are plenty of other faults in them too, like the one I've been focusing on about rogues needing some weapons skills. Taking weapon skills away from rogues is just as stupid and frustrating and illogical as taking them away from warriors. Mages are the only ones who can hold their own without a weapon. Rogues still need something.

But, as has been pointed out. There was a balance problem with the DW tree. Whether someone thinks it was that DW warriors were overpowered or that DW rogues were is irrelivant, something somewhere was broken.

So Bioware aimed to fix it. If, as i suspect, that fix involves making Rogues a speed class then it brings balance. The DW skills will be different, they won't be something that would make sense for a warrior. It doesn't exclude or prevent warriors from dual wielding, it just doesn't let them use a speed based skill set when their focus is strength.

Honestly, i get where you guys are coming from. I just think you're assuming way too much based off of 1 change. That's why i'm arguing with you. I'm trying to show you that the assumptions aren't neccesarily correct. Taking a skill tree away from warriors doesn't mean they can't be masters-at-arms or epic fighters or anything, it just means those special abilities won't be available to them anymore.

edit:

kraidy1117 wrote...
If they had to get rid of DW, they
should have got rid of it for Rogues, or at least make it only two
daggers, not two swords. This is kinda bullcrap. It's like BW wants
people to not play warrior anymore.

Who says they didn't.
Nothing anywhere said rogues will be dual-wielding full sized swords. Again, an assumption is being made with no actual premise to base it on. All we know is that the DW tree got moved, we have no idea what other restrictions might come along with that.

I think I smell logic in this post.

[notadisplayname]

It personally doesn't bother me a whole lot that they've decided to remove DW for warriors, even though my current character is a DW warrior. However, I can see why people are upset about it. It does seem like BioWare is taking the ME2 route with DA2, which isn't much of a surprise to be honest. I still enjoyed ME2 immensely, but during the first half hour or so I did laugh to myself about how they removed so many things. I figure I'll just wait until they release more info about classes and gameplay before I decided whether or not this'll be a first day purchase

[biomag]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

[...]

I said I am 100% sure that warriors will be able to use 2 weapons at once, like mages did at DA:O. But a class that's based on its weapon skills and its special attacks, can't work without it. A rogue might have a chance thanks to other abilities, but look at DA:O how the skill-trees look. Warriors have 4 weapon tree, making about 85% of their skills. Rogues without dw and archery have still 50% of their abilities left.

[naledgeborn]

What they should have done was restrict dual-wield to light and medium armor instead of making it a rogue only weapon tree.