1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

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.

This

[Ortaya Alevli]

Morroian 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.

Yeah but then rogues would suck.

Mileage may vary and all, you know. If DA:O had a single dagger specialization for rogues, I'd pick it over dual-wielding any day.

Besides, rogues had lockpicking, (combat) stealth, a handful for an eye, ballbreaker, backstabbing... oh damn, how can someone backstab people in the face and suck at the same time?

[Morroian]

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, 

2 handers were poor because they were so slow but Mike Laidlaw has said this will be changed in DA2.

[Morroian]

jbblue05 wrote...

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-

Why would you think Rogues would retain all those skills? Based on the logic used to remove DW from warriors I imagine skills such as Legionaire Scout would be removed from rogues as it brought them too close to being warriors. 

Modifié par Morroian, 06 septembre 2010 - 12:01 .

[joriandrake]

Morroian wrote...

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, 

2 handers were poor because they were so slow but Mike Laidlaw has said this will be changed in DA2.

that doesn't change the fact that majority of us would pick a DW warrior over a 2H one any day

[Morroian]

Xerthil wrote...

I can understand Dual Wielding going to Rogues.. But.. What about Archery? Archery is the most basic, both Rogues and Warriors should know about it... Unless they're going to add Rogue specific animations to Archery too?

I'd be happy with rogues having bows and warriors having crossbows.

[Faz432]

dude below me, unquote me I'm re uping a smaller file, it's far too big atm

Modifié par Faz432, 06 septembre 2010 - 12:20 .

[joriandrake]

Faz432 wrote...

this just reminded me how avesome a DW warrior looked like when activating some auras and other skills

[jbblue05]

Morroian wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

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-

Why would you think Rogues would retain all those skills? Based on the logic used to remove DW from warriors I imagine skills such as Legionaire Scout would be removed from rogues as it brought them too close to being warriors. 

All those skills are very rogue-like except for legionaire scout and bioware hasn't confirmed if legionaire scout will or will not be a rogue talent.

I still don't get how some people can think duel-wielding rogue makes perfect sense while a duel wielding warrior is impossible or illogical.
Duel-wielding is a mark of a master swordsman. Which is more likely a trained warrior or a fighter off the street achieving master swordsmanship?
Rogues are wannabe warriors whom make up for their lack of combat skills by using dirty tactics.
I'm pretty sure warriors started duel-wielding then some random thug or street fighter.

A lot of peole are taking the approach "it doesn't effect me I don't play duel wield warrior, not my problem

Modifié par jbblue05, 06 septembre 2010 - 12:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Everybody needs to stop accepting BioWare's line that the classes needed to be more distinct.  What does that even mean?  How distinct is distinct enough?

This is crazy.  There was no reason to make the classes more distinct.  Each class had its fans, so clearly they appealed to people as they were.

[Dave of Canada]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is crazy.  There was no reason to make the classes more distinct.  Each class had its fans, so clearly they appealed to people as they were.

Rogues tend to not have as many fans as others, more often than not when a thread asks if somebody should make a dual-wield character they just go "Make a warrior." and that's the end of that. A rogue was just a less armored version of a warrior, the playstyle was exactly the same for both sides.

Warriors have two distinct playstyles unique for  them, sword and board / s&s.
The entire mage playstyle is unique to them alone.
Rogues had what... pick lock, stealth and dirty fighting that was unique to them?

[Faz432]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is crazy.  There was no reason to make the classes more distinct.  Each class had its fans, so clearly they appealed to people as they were.

Rogues tend to not have as many fans as others, more often than not when a thread asks if somebody should make a dual-wield character they just go "Make a warrior." and that's the end of that. A rogue was just a less armored version of a warrior, the playstyle was exactly the same for both sides.

Warriors have two distinct playstyles unique for  them, sword and board / s&s.
The entire mage playstyle is unique to them alone.
Rogues had what... pick lock, stealth and dirty fighting that was unique to them?

If what you say is true, isn't there a danger now of them just making 2 classes that many don't like instead of just 1?

Modifié par Faz432, 06 septembre 2010 - 12:33 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Rogues tend to not have as many fans as others, more often than not when a thread asks if somebody should make a dual-wield character they just go "Make a warrior." and that's the end of that.

Did they?  I think that would have been terrible advice.

A rogue was just a less armored version of a warrior, the playstyle was exactly the same for both sides.

Except a Rogue could wear the same armour.  A DW Warrior was a Rogue without all the stuns and without Stealth and without backstabs.  A DW Warrior was a pale imitation of a Rogue.

[Patriciachr34]

The assassin/dual wield combo with medium armor is pretty darn effective. This is especially true as you get to use your cunning instead of strength for modifiers. Then, if you go true stealth, you get the Shadow Spec, or if going warrior spec, Legionnaire, a rogue can be quite powerful and very diverse.

[Dave of Canada]

Faz432 wrote...

If what you say is true, isn't there a danger now of them just making 2 classes that many don't like instead of just 1?

How so? They are completely recreating the abilities and such, it's not like we're keeping the exact same thing going into DA2.

[Faz432]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

If what you say is true, isn't there a danger now of them just making 2 classes that many don't like instead of just 1?

How so? They are completely recreating the abilities and such, it's not like we're keeping the exact same thing going into DA2.

Yeah hopefully they'll revamp the 2h and SS specs,

It would be interesting to get an idea of out of all those who chose to play warrior how many went for DW, 2h and SS...I would of though DW would be the most popular.

[Dave of Canada]

Faz432 wrote...

Yeah hopefully they'll revamp the 2h and SS specs,

It would be interesting to get an idea of out of all those who chose to play warrior how many went for DW, 2h and SS...I would of though DW would be the most popular.

When they announced they were removing archery / dual wielding on the Q&A, my following question was if they changed 2h to feel less clunky and slow and they said it was the first thing they worked on and such. I forget the exact wording (I mentioned it earlier in the thread) but overall they said it was a better experience.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 06 septembre 2010 - 12:49 .

[wwwwowwww]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Rogues tend to not have as many fans as others, more often than not when a thread asks if somebody should make a dual-wield character they just go "Make a warrior." and that's the end of that. A rogue was just a less armored version of a warrior, the playstyle was exactly the same for both sides.

I'd really like to see your evidence supporting this statement. Rogues have a ton of fans, may people play only rogues, just as some only play mages and or warriors. To say one has more fans than the other is quite a statement and I'd love to see proof of that.

As for playstyle maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and I apologize in advance if I am, but I play my rogues nothing like I play my warriors. I don't bother trying to sneak around to get into a certain position with my warriors like I do my rogues, my rogues rely heavily on things like dirty fighting, stealth, backstabbing, poisons, coup de grace and what not. Things my warriors could never utilize.

[Sylvius the Mad]

What I find funny about them removing archery is that, the way archery talents worked in DAO, that would make Rogues the superior heavily armoured archer.

[Dynamomark]

Alistair, Sten, and Shale, all three, were taking tanking lessons from my rogue archer.

[NoahDuffy]

rouges should have more abilities whereas warriors should have more weapons

[AlanC9]

We seem to all read the same board and come away with completely different opinions. The impression I've come away with is that non-tank warriors are worthless, since a rogue can do everything they do and rogue stuff as well. Of course, on this reading removing DW warriors makes no sense since they weren't any good in the first place.

[Morroian]

jbblue05 wrote...
I still don't get how some people can think duel-wielding rogue makes perfect sense while a duel wielding warrior is impossible or illogical.
Duel-wielding is a mark of a master swordsman. Which is more likely a trained warrior or a fighter off the street achieving master swordsmanship?
Rogues are wannabe warriors whom make up for their lack of combat skills by using dirty tactics.

You're still thinking of a typical rogue and not how its been implemented in DA. In DA a rogue is a highly trained fighter if you use the DW and duellist skills.

[NoahDuffy]

saying they are changing does not mean any of this just rouges can flip and go invisible warriors can not look at the trailer the qunari is a dual wielding warrior..... boom

[wwwwowwww]

jbblue05 wrote...
I still don't get how some people can think duel-wielding rogue makes perfect sense while a duel wielding warrior is impossible or illogical.
Duel-wielding is a mark of a master swordsman. Which is more likely a trained warrior or a fighter off the street achieving master swordsmanship?
Rogues are wannabe warriors whom make up for their lack of combat skills by using dirty tactics.

Dual wielding makes perfect sense for a rogue. In fact if you think
about it keeping extra weapons hidden on them to pull out unsuspectingly
when someone is focused on the right hand they strike swiftly and
precisely with the left (very cunning tactic). Not to mention the
imediate backstabbing effects of putting 1 through the back while at the
same time taking one across the unsuspecting slobs neck killing him
swiftly and quietly as to not garner suspicion.

A duel wielding warrior makes sense also, but only if in light armor, anything else then they are just slow and clunky. Seeing how most people want to put their warriors in the heaviest of armors to be the tanks dual wielding isn't very practical.