1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Vandrayke]

Actually I think the "whiners" provide necessary feedback to BioWare, and I think they change their mind more than you might expect.



But I still agree with the idea of eliminating DW warriors based on the reasons they gave. If I had to make a similar decision, I'd make the same one.

[Akka le Vil]

Aradace wrote...

No, usually when people start these whiny threads they do it so that they can try and changes BW's mind.  And the point still stands:  If BW wants to do it the same way in DA3, they're going to regardless of what you or anyone else wants them to or not....Just like those STILL complaining about Hawke being voiced....If BW wants to go that route again in DA3, it's their business.  Only people that are complaining about these changes are the one's who are too set against change to even give it a fair chance.

Actually, the whole point of the forums is to collect feedback, and most of the game design decisions are made with feedback taken into consideration, so you're simply entirely wrong.

Not that complaining on the forum will AUTOMATICALLY mean that our wishes will be granted later. But that's part of the feedback, and it is taken into account.

[Aradace]

Vandrayke wrote...

Actually I think the "whiners" provide necessary feedback to BioWare, and I think they change their mind more than you might expect.

But I still agree with the idea of eliminating DW warriors based on the reasons they gave. If I had to make a similar decision, I'd make the same one.

Really? Seems to me that Hawke is STILL going to be voiced and STILL only human lol.  Given, they do change their minds from time to time based on feedback but I seriously doubt on something like this or Hawke, that they're going to.

[Aradace]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Aradace wrote...

No, usually when people start these whiny threads they do it so that they can try and changes BW's mind.  And the point still stands:  If BW wants to do it the same way in DA3, they're going to regardless of what you or anyone else wants them to or not....Just like those STILL complaining about Hawke being voiced....If BW wants to go that route again in DA3, it's their business.  Only people that are complaining about these changes are the one's who are too set against change to even give it a fair chance.

Actually, the whole point of the forums is to collect feedback, and most of the game design decisions are made with feedback taken into consideration, so you're simply entirely wrong.

Not that complaining on the forum will AUTOMATICALLY mean that our wishes will be granted later. But that's part of the feedback, and it is taken into account.

Let me know how that works out for you when DA2 comes out and you're STILL not happy with it lol.

[Vandrayke]

Aradace wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...

Actually I think the "whiners" provide necessary feedback to BioWare, and I think they change their mind more than you might expect.

But I still agree with the idea of eliminating DW warriors based on the reasons they gave. If I had to make a similar decision, I'd make the same one.

Really? Seems to me that Hawke is STILL going to be voiced and STILL only human lol.  Given, they do change their minds from time to time based on feedback but I seriously doubt on something like this or Hawke, that they're going to.

oh obviously they don't change their mind on stuff like that and have to make changes that lots of people won't like and will just have to deal with.  

I'm just saying that they consider all information when making decisions, and that if the cost of implementing an idea is low and they might please a few more fans with it, they might implement it.  And if they don't this time, they might next time when they can start the entire process with a few more ends in mind.  

[Akka le Vil]

Aradace wrote...

Let me know how that works out for you when DA2 comes out and you're STILL not happy with it lol.

Do you even understand what's you're reading, seriously ?
I provide feedback. I explain why it's stupid to remove DW from warrior.
I point myself that it's not because I complain and that Bioware notice the feedback that they will change their mind, and that I don't expect my wishes to be automatically granted.

So what the heck is your answer about ? Plain trolling ?

[Vandrayke]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Aradace wrote...

No, usually when people start these whiny threads they do it so that they can try and changes BW's mind.  And the point still stands:  If BW wants to do it the same way in DA3, they're going to regardless of what you or anyone else wants them to or not....Just like those STILL complaining about Hawke being voiced....If BW wants to go that route again in DA3, it's their business.  Only people that are complaining about these changes are the one's who are too set against change to even give it a fair chance.

Actually, the whole point of the forums is to collect feedback, and most of the game design decisions are made with feedback taken into consideration, so you're simply entirely wrong.

Not that complaining on the forum will AUTOMATICALLY mean that our wishes will be granted later. But that's part of the feedback, and it is taken into account.

werd

I mean that's part of why they release one or two pieces of info at a time and then let the forums beat them to death for a week.  It's kind of a pre-release study where they can identify some stuff that they might want to change.  Obviously they won't change critical elements that have a lot of impact like voiceovers, artistic design, and stuff like that.  But they might change an armor style or add a skill or something.  

[Marbazoid]

I think the problem is the way they have tied the talent trees to specific weapons, and named the trees as such.



The reasons given make sense to me, as it killed two birds with one stone (removes the talent overlap with the rogue and more animations cost money). For future installments, it would make sense for the warrior to have a dual-weapon talent tree of their own.



The logical solution for future games would be to include a warrior specific set of dual-weapon animations focused on using full sized one-handed weapons, and tie this to a unique warrior only duel wield tree.



They would probably need to change the names of the talent trees do distinguish them better if that were the case. For example; the warrior dual-weapon tree could be "Destroyer" and the rogue dual-weapon tree could be "Assassin".



If this were done, I would like to see the rogue get their own unique talent tree for two-handed weapons, accompanied with rogue specific animations. The warrior and rogue would then have an even number of weapon talent trees, and still have zero talent overlap with each-other.

[Vandrayke]

I think that classes should be scrapped completely except for magic user vs non magic user

And then you simply go after the skills you want to be the kind of character you want. But obviously the skill choices will be limited and sometimes exclusive so you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Modifié par Vandrayke, 06 septembre 2010 - 01:44 .

[Jimmy Fury]

Marbazoid wrote...
The logical solution for future games would be to include a warrior specific set of dual-weapon animations focused on using full sized one-handed weapons, and tie this to a unique warrior only duel wield tree.

They would probably need to change the names of the talent trees do distinguish them better if that were the case. For example; the warrior dual-weapon tree could be "Destroyer" and the rogue dual-weapon tree could be "Assassin".

If this were done, I would like to see the rogue get their own unique talent tree for two-handed weapons, accompanied with rogue specific animations. The warrior and rogue would then have an even number of weapon talent trees, and still have zero talent overlap with each-other.

You know...  theoretically they could have done just that.
Despite some of the assumptions that have been made, Laidlaw never said they hadn't replaced DW with something else for warriors that used 2 weapons. Just that the existing DW abilities didn't quite fit a warrior.

[jbblue05]

Some people's perception on warriors is highly distorted. warriors are not just brutes with huge armor and huge swords. Warriors are cunning,, precise, dextrous, powerful, and graceful fighters.

Archery and melee styles are skills of a warrior not a rogue

Rogues steal fighting styles of a warrior.
Only difference is that warriors are highly trained while rogues are not which is why they use dirty tactics.

Front-line soldiers would never wear massive armor since it was given to more highly trained warriors.(Massive armor isn't cheap)
Spartans the most feared warriors in history they didn't wear huge bulky armor and use brute strength to win battles. They were quick, precise, cunning, dextrous, and superior warriors then their enemies.

Dual-wielding is not a trait of a rogue it will always be one of a warrior.  Traits of a rogue are traps, stealth, backstabbinng, and poisons. Warriors are honorable fighter they wouldn't resort to such tactics

Rogues= Half Warrior Half Dirty tactics

DA1 got it right with fighting styles  DA2 well I don't know what they are thinking

[Akka le Vil]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

You know...  theoretically they could have done just that.
Despite some of the assumptions that have been made, Laidlaw never said they hadn't replaced DW with something else for warriors that used 2 weapons. Just that the existing DW abilities didn't quite fit a warrior.

That's a lot of very weird thinking here...
It would really require something very twisted to have them say that warriors can't DW, to reveal that they can after all.

(the only somehow logical context I can imagine allowing that is them "testing the waters" about scrapping DW for warriors, and saying "ok it really upset people so we will use the last skill tree as a DW in the end", but I don't really believe in it, it's far too stretched)

[AlanC9]

Marbazoid wrote...
The logical solution for future games would be to include a warrior specific set of dual-weapon animations focused on using full sized one-handed weapons, and tie this to a unique warrior only duel wield tree. 

I dunno  -- dual-wielding full-size weapons is something you only see in video games. But as long as they don't have NPCs with the style I wouldn't be bothered that it exists.

[Blessed Silence]

SDNcN wrote...

First bad new I've heard about DA:2. Sebastian Hanlon just confirmed on the live-chat that dual-wielding will be restricted to rogues (I think he said Archery is as well). Goodbye armored eviscerators.

And I'm all for it. As a warrior I don't want to dump points into DEX!

[Akka le Vil]

And I'm all for it. As a warrior I don't want to dump points into DEX!

Because you're somehow FORCED to use your skill tree even if they don't interest you ?
/facepalm

[Mehow_pwn]

This is a sad news.. and a good news.. It makes rouges more vaulable...



BUT



It makes the game more limted.. like boaring limted where my character can hold 2 swords.. but He cant learn any skill with them..(annoying)

[Jimmy Fury]

Akka le Vil wrote...

That's a lot of very weird thinking here...
It would really require something very twisted to have them say that warriors can't DW, to reveal that they can after all.

(the only somehow logical context I can imagine allowing that is them "testing the waters" about scrapping DW for warriors, and saying "ok it really upset people so we will use the last skill tree as a DW in the end", but I don't really believe in it, it's far too stretched)

If that's the only logical context you can imagine then you haven't paid much attention to what the devs have been saying all along.
As I mentioned ages ago, they've been playing with informational slight of hand. Saying things that are true under certain conditions then pointing out they never said all conditions. Saying something will happen then later, when something contradictory is confirmed, saying "well we never said the other thing couldn't happen."

Dual Weapon Talents are the specific name of a specific tree. If that tree is moved to Rogues and a new tree, with a different name and different abilities, is created for Warriors then every single thing Laidlaw said remains 100% true. The Dual Weapon Tree, as we knew it in Origins with attacks like whirlwind and riposte, is now exclusive to rogues. He never once said they haven't replaced it with something specific to warriors.

Heck, Priestly recently got called out for alluding a bit too much to something that wasn't entirely true.  It was true under very very specific circumstances, but his wording got too close to sounding like all circumstances and he had to correct himself.
They've been screwing with us a bit. They're building hype and keeping us interested. And, for the most part, a lot of people are falling for it by taking brief literal statements and snowballing them into something else entirely.

[Elanareon]

Blessed Silence wrote...

SDNcN wrote...

First bad new I've heard about DA:2. Sebastian Hanlon just confirmed on the live-chat that dual-wielding will be restricted to rogues (I think he said Archery is as well). Goodbye armored eviscerators.

And I'm all for it. As a warrior I don't want to dump points into DEX!

So just dump em all to str? Veryyyyy typical...

No one is forcing you to dump them all to dex anyway...

[Akka le Vil]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

If that's the only logical context you can imagine then you haven't paid much attention to what the devs have been saying all along.
As I mentioned ages ago, they've been playing with informational slight of hand. Saying things that are true under certain conditions then pointing out they never said all conditions. Saying something will happen then later, when something contradictory is confirmed, saying "well we never said the other thing couldn't happen."

Well, I'm probably too straight-minded for that
Still, I have a hard time imagining that they could just play on the specific name of the talent tree to say that warriors can't dual-wield, but can use the "two-weapons fighting tree". Note that I'll be overjoyed if it happens, but that's far too stretched for me to believe. Especially as they were talking about the animations and that they didn't made them for warriors, so really again that feels more wishful thinking than anything.

They've been screwing with us a bit. They're building hype and keeping us interested. And, for the most part, a lot of people are falling for it by taking brief literal statements and snowballing them into something else entirely.

Well, for now it doesn't do a great work at keeping me interested. If anything, this has been the final dealbreaker for me, and I don't feel like paying for a game that prevent me to play my favourite setting for such ridiculous reasons.
(I can accept no dual-wielding warriors in many cases, but the reasons given are just downright stupid and counter-productive, and moreover the spec was available in the previous game, so I don't feel like being lenient here)

[tmp7704]

Aradace wrote...

I actually LIKE the idea that rogues are the only ones getting to DW now.  In DnD Rogues and Rangers were USUALLY the ONLY ones you saw DW'ing.  I always found it kind of silly that someone in Massive armor was able to run around with two blades just cutting a swathe through everything (Hence why none of my Heavy Armor wearing characters never did it.). 

And yet you didn't find it silly that the same character in the same massive armour is able to run around with sword and quite heavier shield, actively using both to bash enemies in the teeth and to loop heads off? Physical effort involved in such active style is at least as large as when wielding two weapons but somehow people accept that without second thought.

[Blastback]

Well, I have to say this is really dissapointing. Dual wielding warrior was my favorite class.

[ForTheWynne]

Blastback wrote...

Well, I have to say this is really dissapointing. Dual wielding warrior was my favorite class.

Easily my favorite warrior class.  This makes it more likely that I'll play as a rogue on one of my first playthroughs. 

[Akka le Vil]

ForTheWynne wrote...

Easily my favorite warrior class.  This makes it more likely that I'll play as a rogue on one of my first playthrough.

I hope they did some decent leather armours this time then...
That was what stopped my rogue dead in her track. Couldn't immerse myself in the deadly assassin concept when I looked like a S&M **** with a ridiculous hat.

[Niarviel]

On a off topic note, i am semi hoping we will NEED to craft more, i personally never used it except in awakening when i needed runes to enchant weapons. Just like i never used the poison coatings and such.



On Topic note, Perhaps the warriors or rogues get a talent tree for the little exploding vials? Or perhaps a sort of poison dart for rogues instead of the whole "I throw sand in your face! You stunned!" move they have. Just a thought.