1380 réponses à ce sujet

[RyuAzai]

Any word on how they are handling two handed weapons? I usually did Sword and Shield, or DW but I always wanted to tackled two handed. It just never worked out for me because it was way to slow.



I know all the talk is about the Dual wielding, but since I missed all the U-Stream I was wondering if they talked about two-handed weapons.

[jbblue05]

wwwwowwww wrote...

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.

Using your logic two handed swords and S&S are totally impractical with heaier armors also
Warriors are trained to endure long battles wear heavy armor wield heavy shields and huge swords.
If any class should be able to endure dual-wielding its the warrior class

[Morroian]

RyuAzai wrote...

Any word on how they are handling two handed weapons? I usually did Sword and Shield, or DW but I always wanted to tackled two handed. It just never worked out for me because it was way to slow.

I know all the talk is about the Dual wielding, but since I missed all the U-Stream I was wondering if they talked about two-handed weapons.

Nothing specifically confirmed but from the sound of it 2 handed weapons will be faster and more responsive. 

[wwwwowwww]

jbblue05 wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

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.

Using your logic two handed swords and S&S are totally impractical with heaier armors also
Warriors are trained to endure long battles wear heavy armor wield heavy shields and huge swords.
If any class should be able to endure dual-wielding its the warrior class

Using two swords together and effectively requires a lot of dexterity, which is severly limited as the armor gets heavier.
Same concept in football, the quarterback does not wear the same shoulder pads as everyone else because heavier bulkier shoulder pads limit his range of motion thus making it harder to throw the ball effectively.

Using a two handed weapen your moving both arms in the same direction in the same manner with the same movements, the arms are not independent of each other trying to perform different direction movements. It's still slower, but a lot easier to accomplish. A shields movement is very limited mainly guarding a set area, and the swords are only as big as one can effectively weild one handed.

[BW326]

Faz432 wrote...



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

What armor is that youre wearing?

[Faz432]

BW326 wrote...


What armor is that youre wearing?

Runic armor, here you go - www.dragonagenexus.com/downloads/file.php

Modifié par Faz432, 06 septembre 2010 - 02:15 .

[SDNcN]

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?

I think part of the problem is expectation that warriors are the 'best' at direct combat, because that is what people believe defines the archetype. If a rogue can go toe-to-toe with an enemy just as well as a warrior, then players of
warriors will feel that the rogue is infringing on their class. Even more so when rogues also have the ability to stealth and what not. A solution for this would be to make the rogues inferior to the warrior in combat. So this:

jbblue05
wrote...

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.

Playing as 'wannabe warrior' or an 'fighter off the street', doesn't sound too appealing for most people. Rogues need to be skilled at something, just not direct combat as not to infringe upon the warrior class.

So rogues gain exclusive abilities like backstabbing, lock picking, trap disarming, stealing, and sneaking. Which are great for players who actively use those abilities. For others it means bringing a rogue along as a 'skill monkey' or ignoring rogues all together in favor of mages or warriors.

There were a number of people who complained that they felt like they had to bring along Leliana or Zevran because they were the only characters who could lock pick. So I don't think the way to make rogues more attractive would have been to just make even more skills exclusive to the class.

It looks what makes a rogue skilled is being changed to include being a mobile fighter favoring acrobatics and agility, not just stealing stuff and opening locks. Which may work for them because it is an indirect way of fighting and doesn't overlap with what makes a warrior a warrior.

It means rogues are now closer to the stereotype of that class, which is fine I think, considering a number of people here who are using stereotypes of the warrior class to support their arguments. Like the "Master of Combat" “Master of Arms” thing. I don't see why Bioware can't do the same.

Modifié par SDNcN, 06 septembre 2010 - 02:28 .

[jbblue05]

wwwwowwww wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

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.

Using your logic two handed swords and S&S are totally impractical with heaier armors also
Warriors are trained to endure long battles wear heavy armor wield heavy shields and huge swords.
If any class should be able to endure dual-wielding its the warrior class

Using two swords together and effectively requires a lot of dexterity, which is severly limited as the armor gets heavier.
Same concept in football, the quarterback does not wear the same shoulder pads as everyone else because heavier bulkier shoulder pads limit his range of motion thus making it harder to throw the ball effectively.

Using a two handed weapen your moving both arms in the same direction in the same manner with the same movements, the arms are not independent of each other trying to perform different direction movements. It's still slower, but a lot easier to accomplish. A shields movement is very limited mainly guarding a set area, and the swords are only as big as one can effectively weild one handed.

Wielding two weapons of the same size and weight would lead to more fluid attacks and helps conserve more stamina
Two-handed weaapons require a lot of strength and exerting a tremendous amount of force behind each swing thus draining stamina faster
S&S in each hand don't have similar size & weight meaning attacks aren't as fluid. S&S requires dexterity to be able to deflect and  counterattack incoming attacks.

heavier armors may not be as nimble and agile as lighter armorw but it doesn't mean they can't be dextrous or be lighter on the joints to improve endurance.
Warriors are about enduring long battles if heavy armors were so draining why would they even wear them..

[Deathispink]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
As for the whole making things more unique- if thats the intent, then why are we giving mages melee attacks if they're supposed to be the field artillery?

Because holding your staff at your armpit and going "pew pew" is not cool. At least, I sure don't think it is.

No one said that mage melee attacks were particularly good, just that you don't look lame while you do them.

Not to mention it gets sort of frustrating to have a Hurloc beating you down and you just can't bash it with your staff<---#1 reason why Arcane Warrior is awesome

[wwwwowwww]

jbblue05 wrote...

Wielding two weapons of the same size and weight would lead to more fluid attacks and helps conserve more stamina
Two-handed weaapons require a lot of strength and exerting a tremendous amount of force behind each swing thus draining stamina faster
S&S in each hand don't have similar size & weight meaning attacks aren't as fluid. S&S requires dexterity to be able to deflect and  counterattack incoming attacks.

heavier armors may not be as nimble and agile as lighter armorw but it doesn't mean they can't be dextrous or be lighter on the joints to improve endurance.
Warriors are about enduring long battles if heavy armors were so draining why would they even wear them..

When did stamina come into this conversation? It really has no bearing on this convo

[SDNcN]

jbblue05 wrote...

Warriors are about enduring long battles if heavy armors were so draining why would they even wear them..

Because this is a fantasy game and heavily armored warriors look cool, so realism takes a back seat.

[wwwwowwww]

SDNcN wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Warriors are about enduring long battles if heavy armors were so draining why would they even wear them..

Because this is a fantasy game and heavily armored warriors look cool, so realism takes a back seat.

Not to mention the point of learning to fight is about ending it as quickly as possible, nobody is trying to battle for hours. It's about ending it fast and if that's not possible just being in better shape than your opponent. Long one on one battles often had reprieves.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dynamomark wrote...

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

I made Sten an archer.

He was awesome.

While I found that DW Rogues were far more effective than DW Warriors, I found that Archer Warriors were vastly superior to Archer Rogues.

I'm actually more annoyed - from a gameplay standpoint - to lose the archer talents.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 06 septembre 2010 - 02:55 .

[RyuAzai]

Morroian wrote...

RyuAzai wrote...

Any word on how they are handling two handed weapons? I usually did Sword and Shield, or DW but I always wanted to tackled two handed. It just never worked out for me because it was way to slow.

I know all the talk is about the Dual wielding, but since I missed all the U-Stream I was wondering if they talked about two-handed weapons.

Nothing specifically confirmed but from the sound of it 2 handed weapons will be faster and more responsive. 

Thank you!

If that sound is correct I'll more then likely be wielding 2 handed weapons.  While their design of two handed weapons being great swords, and huge axes...

Wielding a weapon two handed makes you have -a lot- more control, speed, and power to that weapon.  I could understand the sense of making them slower because the weapons was really heavily... But I like the idea of wielding my longsword with two hands for the advantage that would provide.

[jbblue05]

wwwwowwww wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Wielding two weapons of the same size and weight would lead to more fluid attacks and helps conserve more stamina
Two-handed weaapons require a lot of strength and exerting a tremendous amount of force behind each swing thus draining stamina faster
S&S in each hand don't have similar size & weight meaning attacks aren't as fluid. S&S requires dexterity to be able to deflect and  counterattack incoming attacks.

heavier armors may not be as nimble and agile as lighter armorw but it doesn't mean they can't be dextrous or be lighter on the joints to improve endurance.
Warriors are about enduring long battles if heavy armors were so draining why would they even wear them..

When did stamina come into this conversation? It really has no bearing on this convo

Weren't you the one talking about how dual-wielding  is ineffective with heavy armor ecause its draining
You can't expect every battle to be a small skirmish some battles are going to test your endurance.
Warriors are more enduring and resilient then rogues 

[Skaden]

This is a foolish design decision, if they have to make the rogue class more distinct they should focus on adding and improving the skills unique to the class instead of cutting the combat potential of another class in half. Really I don't see how they need to be any more distinct anyway, if you play on each classes strengths they handle very differently, even when using the same fighting style. Besides if they were truly having a problem selling 1 class its bad business to dumb down another and thus risk 2 classes and for what? Really the only net change here is warriors losing a very powerful, valuable and popular option. They keep going on about how DA2 has plenty of choice yet so far all ive seen is new limitations

Modifié par Skaden, 06 septembre 2010 - 04:40 .

[wwwwowwww]

jbblue05 wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Wielding two weapons of the same size and weight would lead to more fluid attacks and helps conserve more stamina
Two-handed weaapons require a lot of strength and exerting a tremendous amount of force behind each swing thus draining stamina faster
S&S in each hand don't have similar size & weight meaning attacks aren't as fluid. S&S requires dexterity to be able to deflect and  counterattack incoming attacks.

heavier armors may not be as nimble and agile as lighter armorw but it doesn't mean they can't be dextrous or be lighter on the joints to improve endurance.
Warriors are about enduring long battles if heavy armors were so draining why would they even wear them..

When did stamina come into this conversation? It really has no bearing on this convo

Weren't you the one talking about how dual-wielding  is ineffective with heavy armor ecause its draining
You can't expect every battle to be a small skirmish some battles are going to test your endurance.
Warriors are more enduring and resilient then rogues 

Perhaps you should go back and read what I said again, because I never mentioned that.

[ashwind]

 http://www.megavideo.com/?v=S4O6B93Y

Acrobatic Warrior Ninja Locksmith (aka Bioware Rogues) takes Warrior (Real Warriors) face on.... 

I wont feel very warriorish if I cant DW and cant do this too 

[Faelvir]

man........and i liked my dual wielding warrior

[FDrage]

bah ... taking away 1 of my 2 favourite classes and my favourite character (my DW warrior grew on me more then I initially expected and so far I had the most fun with) would, under DA2, be an impossibility . Don't really like S & S and 2-handed weapon as much on my player characters . Ah well ... I guess time to adjust ...

Granted I never tried out an Archer warrior as I tended to have a rogue in that roll, either myself (I like archery) or Liliana / Nathaniel.

Modifié par FDrage, 06 septembre 2010 - 08:09 .

[Akka le Vil]

wwwwowwww wrote...

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).

Except that is not really DW, it's more of a "stealth attack" or "dirty trick". It's not a "combat mode", it's a "special ability", which is covered by, well, ability.
Using two weapons to fight is not "using one weapon to fight and then surprising your opponent by punctunring him with a hidden weapon".
Using two weapons to fight is martial, not roguish, which is the point that is proven - and ignored by biased people - again and again and again...

This is a foolish design decision, if they have to make the rogue class
more distinct they should focus on adding and improving the skills
unique to the class instead of cutting the combat potential of another
class in half.

This is so true and so simple, that it seems half of the people are simply unable to get it...
And the sad point is, the DESIGNERS are among this half...

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 06 septembre 2010 - 09:04 .

[Akka le Vil]

SDNcN wrote...

Because this is a fantasy game and heavily armored warriors look cool, so realism takes a back seat.

You think people wore armour in the middle-age because it "looked cool" ?
/facepalm

[Pzykozis]

Akka le Vil wrote...
Except that is not really DW, it's more of a "stealth attack" or "dirty trick". It's not a "combat mode", it's a "special ability", which is covered by, well, ability.
Using two weapons to fight is not "using one weapon to fight and then surprising your opponent by punctunring him with a hidden weapon".
Using two weapons to fight is martial, not roguish, which is the point that is proven - and ignored by biased people - again and again and again..

But you're ignoring that your own definition of what rogues are in the DA world is wrong. Rogues have been described as dexterity fighters (not as thiefs or ninjas) and dual wielding requires more dexterity than it does pure strength, which what warriors are, strength based fighters.

Martial arts in the general sense apply to both the rogue and the warrior, the rogue isn't some random street thug who only uses a knife every now and then, they're trained fighters that use speed / agility and dexterity, sure ninja's could be a subset using more cunning and tricks, likewise a street tough / heavy could be a subset of warrior that relies less on martial skill and just on strength. That doesn't mean however that ninjas and toughs are what encompass the entirety of those two classes.

[Tirigon]

ashwind wrote...

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.

I admit I can´t do this.

But then, my Arcane Warrior dies with a single grab on Nightmare, so it doesn´t matter, because he can´t solo them either.

[Tirigon]

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

Exact numbers not, but I can explain:

Firstly, he had more HP. Mages gain 4 HP per level, warriors gain 6, and they start with more ----> about 40% (maybe even 50%) more HP with the same constitution.

Secondly, AW had like 25 dex, my warrior about 50, and again, warrior start with more defense ----> much higher defense.

Thirdly, due to the higher DPS the enemy dies faster and has less time to do damage -----> Less damage taken.

Lastly, Reaver spec gives a selfheal and Berserker spec gives increased Life Regeneration.