1380 réponses à ce sujet

[SDNcN]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

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 it was mentioned by someone who played at Pax that her LadyHawk rogue used dual short swords.

[silentassassin264]

You know, I am okay with this.

[Siven80]

I too am OK with this.



It helps give the rogue class more identity. Rogues and wsrriors in DAO were far too similar and shared too many of the same abilities.

[Boombox]

Damn. That's the most disappointing thing I've heard about DA2 so far. I agree with whoever said that DW swords should be Warrior only, DW daggers for hopping and jumping rogues.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I played two Rogues through DAO, and neither one used dual-wield.

Given that, I don't see how DW is the thing that makes Rogues distinct from Warriors.

[Skaden]

If they wanted to add to the rogue class they should actually be adding things instead of taking things away from another class. And 2 the people that say they're ok with this ill bet 4/5 of u don't play as dw warriors and if u do, well have fun losing options. The more i hear about DA2 the less it sounds like DA

[tmp7704]

SDNcN wrote...

I think it was mentioned by someone who played at Pax that her LadyHawk rogue used dual short swords.

You can see on screenshots and/or stream these are regular, basic daggers from DAO, the kind starting rogues get. They may look like "short swords" simply because DA weapons are oversized in silly manner.

[Malanek]

I think the way the rogue and warrior DWers should be unique from each other is through the combinations between their class talents/skills and the DW talents. In Origins the warrior combined things like death blow(especially), beserk, bravery, etc with the dual wield talents. The rogue combined things like innate backstab, assassin talents etc with them. The two classes played in a completely different manner. I don't understand why people think they are too similar.

This is a little disapointing. The dual wield warrior was probably my favourite class. What I hope it means is that the rogue class is diversifying and doesn't get an innate backstab so you can build a rogue like a DW rogue or a DW warrior from DA:O.

[Jimmy Fury]

biomag 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.

It can work if something is added to replace it.
And If your point is that the existing warrior base sucks because it only gives you 8 abilities then i absolutely agree.
Thats why I pointed out the potential for more base abilities in exchange for the DW and archery slots.

Personally I think the best way to even them out would be to seperate weapons proficiency from fighting style. Give Rogues DW and Archer (not archerY) as styles and give Warriors the ability to increase their proficiency in weapon types.
(There's a mod that does something like this)

That way warriors can still USE 2 swords and use them well because they gain proficiency (AKA damage bonuses etc) in the weapons they just can't do the fancy speedy stuff that Rogues can.
Conversely rogues can still hold their own in a fight if they have to they just HAVE to focus on form and speed over raw power.

[Akka le Vil]

Siven80 wrote...

I too am OK with this.

It helps give the rogue class more identity. Rogues and wsrriors in DAO were far too similar and shared too many of the same abilities.

You realize that the VERY POINT many people make is precisely that dual-wielding is NOT giving identity to rogues ?

[Chaos-fusion]

My favourite character in DA:O was a dual-wielding warrior. So this is dissapointing.

[Niarviel]

Why are people so pissed over this? I can understand the point of DW with a warrior, but people seem to be forgetting archery was taken out aswell. Honestly i like this change but people are angry cause it "forces" you to choose a class rather than make one bad ass person.

And if you are so POed over no DW warrior just wait, there will probably be a mod for it! Remember we CAN mod this game, they have stated that they will release a update for the DA:O modder so i can mod DA2, i remember seeing this somewhere...Anyway.



Warrior in my opinion was a Strength and Constitution focus, Rogue was Dex and Cunning, Mage was mostly Magic and Willpower. The DW was a Dex hungry class set as was Archery, i was confused as to why i could choose them for the warrior when he is supposed to be the tank. Warrior = Tank, Rogue = Sneaky specialist, Mage = Support.



On a final note, THERE WILL BE MODS, so stop complaining and wait for a mod that lets you DW as a warrior!

[JointVW]

I loved my DW warrior and i find removing that option almost game breaking for me. Sword and shield is to basic in my eyes nothing special just the tank. And i have no realy love for 2 handers, i rather like the dual wield because it is something more special and not everyday.

And with rogues i always have more the feeling of daggers or rapier type weapons but no way longsword dual wielding.

[Akka le Vil]

Niarviel wrote...

Why are people so pissed over this?

I'm pretty sure you would know if you actually had paid attention about what people said during the last 25 pages.

[jbblue05]

Someone said this earlier that stealing traps and poisons should be  rogue-only talents
Rogues are already more diverse then warriors in DA1 now they are even more diverse then warriors

Rogues had plenty of ways to approach combat:
Backstabber-  CRITICAL MACHINE
Duelist- high dexterity impossible to hit
Legionaire Scout- Tank spell & damage resistance
Ranger- summon an extra meatshield
Stealty Assasin- Sneak up on enemies and disable traps
Poisoner/Disabler- Weaken enemies to make battles one sided
Bomber- sit back and launch bombs  or engage and launch bombs
Trapper/Ambusher- slaughter a group of enemies without giving them a chance to fight back
Archer-  pick enemies off while tanks holds aggro
Bard/Play Possum- Team buffer  use distraction and feign death to make enemies lose interest when your engaged
Acrobats- Add to their defense even more

Now in  DA2  warriors are-

S&S- hold aggro defense tank 
2-hander- sacrifice defense for raw power
Berserker-DPS boost
Templar- mental resistance ranged attack holy smile
Champion- Team-buffer
Spirit Warrior-DPS boost
Reaver- DPS boost  mage-equivalent of drain life and horror
Guardian-Team buffer


Rogues are clearly more diverse fighters while warriors already lacking diversity in DA1 lose more diversity in DA 2
New animations and making S&S and 2-handers more powerful doesn't make warrior improved upon

Pikes and spears are long daggers not a new fighting style since they would likely be paired with a shield or consider two-handed weapons with different animations.

 Why create all these acrobatic animations for duel-wielding rogues when you can use the same animation from DA1 and just make duel-wielding rogue only.

It just seems they want to overpower and glorify rogues and dumb-down the warrior class

[Dynamomark]

Niarviel wrote...

On a final note, THERE WILL BE MODS, so stop complaining and wait for a mod that lets you DW as a warrior!

There will be mods if they release the toolset. I dout we'll see it on the day of the release though, if ever.

[tmp7704]

Dynamomark wrote...

Niarviel wrote...

On a final note, THERE WILL BE MODS, so stop complaining and wait for a mod that lets you DW as a warrior!

There will be mods if they release the toolset. I dout we'll see it on the day of the release though, if ever.

Not to mention there won't be mods for the console version of the game, so that's not exactly helpful for these cases...

[MaaZeus]

I can understand their decision. Rogue is better dualwielder anyway. When it comes to being a warrior, Tanking is expected, not agile and swift movement of dual-wield fighter. Dualwielding job is better suited for "rogues" who hone his speed, dexterity and agility to the max, AND finds the weakspots of the enemy to compensate the lack of raw strength.

If you take a rogue just as a thief then yes, limiting DW to him is quite wierd. But Rogue doesnt need to be a thief, it can be a warrior who concentrates for agility, speed and precision, your Drizzt Do'Urden wannabe if you will. DW rogue can be a fearsome opponent who delivers devastating attacks and is borderline impossible to hit.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 05 septembre 2010 - 09:58 .

[Malanek]

jbblue05 wrote...
Now in  DA2  warriors are-

Although I agree with everything else you said we don't know the full story about DA2 yet. What you said would apply to DA1 if they took out the DW warrior talents and left everything else the same. Although at the same time you certainly could be correct.

[jbblue05]

JointVW wrote...

I loved my DW warrior and i find removing that option almost game breaking for me. Sword and shield is to basic in my eyes nothing special just the tank. And i have no realy love for 2 handers, i rather like the dual wield because it is something more special and not everyday.
And with rogues i always have more the feeling of daggers or rapier type weapons but no way longsword dual wielding.

This

Duel wielding longswords gave me the legendary warrior feel
I disliked S&S since 90% of warriors in DA1 used it  I am not a defense-oriented fighter
2-hander are too slow and I hate winding up for each attack

[Siven80]

Bioware will have their reasons for the changes and we only have 1 side of the story regarding those changes and the decisions behind the changes.



Im just gonna sit back and trust them and if it doesnt work at release we can tell them then.

[Akka le Vil]

MaaZeus wrote...

I can understand their decision. Rogue is better dualwielder anyway. When it comes to being a warrior, Tanking is expected, not agile and swift movement of dual-wield fighter.

Who do you think created the martial arts (both western and eastern) ? Warrior on the battlefield, or street thugs ?

If you take a rogue just as a thief then yes, limiting DW to him is quite wierd. But Rogue doesnt need to be a thief, it can be a warrior who concentrates for agility, speed and precision

So a rogue is a warrior ?
Thanks for proving that the idea of making class differenciation between warriors and rogues through DW is a completely bogus idea that doesn't work. That's exactly the point we were making, and you prove us right !

Siven80 wrote...

Bioware will have their reasons for the
changes and we only have 1 side of the story regarding those changes and
the decisions behind the changes.

Im just gonna sit back and trust them and if it doesnt work at release we can tell them then.

The side of the story we have is the one from a developer. I don't really see how much more sides you need.
And telling designers that their idea sucks once it has been released is A TAD late, you know...

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 05 septembre 2010 - 10:07 .

[Skaden]

JointVW wrote...

I loved my DW warrior and i find removing that option almost game breaking for me. Sword and shield is to basic in my eyes nothing special just the tank. And i have no realy love for 2 handers, i rather like the dual wield because it is something more special and not everyday.
And with rogues i always have more the feeling of daggers or rapier type weapons but no way longsword dual wielding.

This

[MaaZeus]

Akka le Vil wrote...

MaaZeus wrote...

I can understand their decision. Rogue is better dualwielder anyway. When it comes to being a warrior, Tanking is expected, not agile and swift movement of dual-wield fighter.

Who do you think created the martial arts (both western and eastern) ? Warrior on the battlefield, or street thugs ?

If you take a rogue just as a thief then yes, limiting DW to him is quite wierd. But Rogue doesnt need to be a thief, it can be a warrior who concentrates for agility, speed and precision

So a rogue is a warrior ?
Thanks for proving that the idea of making class differenciation between warriors and rogues through DW is a completely bogus idea that doesn't work. That's exactly the point we were making, and you prove us right !

Not sure if I understand your point completely. But remember that even DA1 had specialization classes. Like *drumrolls* DUELIST! A rogue subclass who IS NOT A THIEF but a FIGHTER who aims for speed, dexterity and precision over raw power.

So again, Rogue can be a warrior if you so please. Just a different type of warrior.


But to OP, if you wish to be heavily armored tank with two weapons, then rogue definetly cannot be that. If that is the kind of character you wish to be, then its sad to see DW warrior go. I personally never took this approach as heavily armored DW never made sense to me.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 05 septembre 2010 - 10:19 .