1380 réponses à ce sujet

[SeanAuditore]

Well, that qunari in the trailer must have not been a warrior

Anyway, I think this is a good change. The idea of a "Warrior" class is someone who fights with strength, skill and endurance, stereotypically like a spartan, while dual-wielders are stereotypically more nimble, more agile, something that can relate to a rogue more easily.

[nightcobra]

SeanAuditore wrote...

Well, that qunari in the trailer must have not been a warrior

Anyway, I think this is a good change. The idea of a "Warrior" class is someone who fights with strength, skill and endurance, stereotypically like a spartan, while dual-wielders are stereotypically more nimble, more agile, something that can relate to a rogue more easily.

a rogue dualwielding 2h weapons? doubt it 

[jonluke93]

This thread makes me want to make a duel wielding warrior when I finally decide to do my Human Noble playthrough (I'm probably the only one who has never done one)

[sreaction]

Judging by the number of responses to this post Id say that DW Warriors are wildly popular.

I find the ease of transitioning from on class to another kind of a cool aspect the game. Abeit an adjustment since I am used to being told: rogues stand here, warriors stand there etc.

In a party type combat situation fluidity and freedom of action makes sense. There would be nothing stopping a warrior from using a bow, two weapons or a stick that he found on the side of the road. And it should be entirely his choice to adust his weaponry to fit his taste.

It is not a militaristic game were classes need to be defined i.e. bowman, swordsman, horseman etc. The characters should not be  forbidden to expore other paths, even mages have the opportunity to be and arcane warrior if they so choose. In party there is no need for such rigidity. Each member fights according to his preference.

The reasons given for editing DW from DAII are:

a) more work & time
b)The need to define roque and warrior classes so "class choice to have a much more significant impact this time around." (that statement can be interpreted in any number of ways)
c) To add a sense of realism, i.e. omit heavily armored characters from performing acrobatic moves that only a lightly armored rogue could do.

I understand the reasoning behind the move but:

a) would it really take that much more time and effort to include dual wielding for both classes?
its already been pointed out that animation for both a dual warrior and a rogue is an option, therby eliminating the crux of the heavily armored warrior performing insane acrobatics.
c) if dual wielding warriors are wildly popular why not give the people what they want?

I dont like the decision one bit.

[Blastback]

Part of what made the dual wielding warrior so cool was that I could use 2 weapons and wear heavy armor.  Will I be able to do that as a rogue? 

[sreaction]

I am thinking the days of the rogue wearing heavy armor are over given that the devs want to "define" the classes. I am bummed about that too. I liked having that option.

[Uzzy]

So basically, Bioware don't have the time, resources or ability to make the rogue a distinct character class without restricting basic options for other classes? What an idiotic decision.

[RosaAquafire]

Aw, it's a shame that warriors can't be archers anymore. I had a lot of fun with my archery and dexterity based warrior in DA:O, she was my "main" Warden. It was cool because most games force you to be a sneaky backstabber if you want to shoot arrows, but I liked being staltwart protector for a change.



I guess my Hawke will be a mage.

[Aradace]

jonluke93 wrote...

This thread makes me want to make a duel wielding warrior when I finally decide to do my Human Noble playthrough (I'm probably the only one who has never done one)

Nope...Ive NEVER done a DW warrior because all of mine either used 2 handers or Sword and Board.  I read the article, and their reasons are pretty just....As just as they can be given the circumstances.  Now, if they would just not allow Mages to wear heavy armor all would be right with the world.  Mage with heavy armor is just......blasphemous IMO 

[jonluke93]

Aradace wrote...

jonluke93 wrote...

This thread makes me want to make a duel wielding warrior when I finally decide to do my Human Noble playthrough (I'm probably the only one who has never done one)

Nope...Ive NEVER done a DW warrior because all of mine either used 2 handers or Sword and Board.  I read the article, and their reasons are pretty just....As just as they can be given the circumstances.  Now, if they would just not allow Mages to wear heavy armor all would be right with the world.  Mage with heavy armor is just......blasphemous IMO 

Actually I meant Human Noble.

[Davasar]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Indeed, most of you are right in your suppositions.

Removing dual wield specialization from warriors allowed us to not only make the classes more distinct, but to make the dual wield attacks all distinctly rogue-ish. A warrior in plate mail being fast with two daggers I could handle, but flipping and rolling into attacks? That didn't make sense. So, we could either have boring, vanilla dual-wield anims, or we could make them for rogues and deliver lithe, acrobatic combat for a class that should be just that.

Or....

You could have made dual wielding for a warrior and dual wielding for a rogue distinct by making different moves for dual wield based off the class and thus, made more options for each class.


You guys have been doing the following:

Improvement and expansion of exsisting features?  No. 

Removing features or changing them completely?  Yes.


Hey it's your game.   You have every right to continue to make changes and slash features because EA wants you to in the name of release speed.

Everyone with any gaming knowledge history knows the EA modis operandi. 

It doesnt mean that sales will be better though.

If by some miracle they are, it wont last.

Remember that.

[Davasar]

sreaction wrote...


c) if dual wielding warriors are wildly popular why not give the people what they want?

I dont like the decision one bit.

Because they've said that if you dont like what they are doing with the game:  Get lost.

Oh, it was fairly polite, but the message is clear:

It's their game.  They'll do what EA tells them to do, and if you dont like it, then they dont care.

[Blastback]

tmp7704 wrote...

MaaZeus wrote...

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.

Kinda makes you wonder what's the point of trying to split that into two separate classes, isn't it. Maybe they should just merge these two and make archer a separate class if it's so desperately needed to have more than two of them at all...

But will I be able to equip heavy armor? I like being a heavily armored juggurnaut sweeping enemies aside with two weapons.

[Danjaru]

So, they're going to take away dual wield and probably archery from Warriors? I didn't know making rogues and warriors "more distinct" meant simply taking stuff away from the classes. I was naive enough to think they actually meant they'd add stuff to the classes.

I hope Warriors and Rogues get additional things so they can be costumized a little more in other aspects (As in more warrior tree's that don't have to do with weapons).

Modifié par Danjaru, 06 septembre 2010 - 10:50 .

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

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.

Sigh. All the news seems to be less of everything of significance but more snazzy graphics.

[tomcruisejr]

but more snazzy graphics.

The graphics we've seen so far are worse than DAO1 on highest settings.



the word is more snazzy combat, which it is incredibly improved.

[wwwwowwww]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

You're forgetting about the fact that DW is a dexterity based skill and not strength based, therefore the rogue which in the DA universe is a dexterity based fighter (in some regards sure it has some old staple thief skills) suits it better than a warrior (which uses its strength to overwhelm its foes).

It's neither dexterity nor strength based, it's skill/training based. Samurai weren't acrobats, and real fencers don't do jumps and the like - only in Hollywood.
The difficulty from dual-wielding comes from mastery of the weapon, not from requiring to be nimble and lithe.

The fact that rogues are shown as "dexterity-based warriors" is precisely why I say that the argument from Bioware "we removed DW from warriors to make more distinction between the classes" is completely bogus. Making rogues "dex-based WARRIORS" isn't making them a different class. As it was said several times, they should differentiate the classes by playing on their "essence" and their strength, not by putting arbitrary and counter-productive restrictions.

Make the rogue use more guile, more surprise attacks, more crippling strikes, more backstabs and the like. THAT is "roguish".
Make the warrior specialize in all manner of direct hand to hand fighting, be it light or heavy, DW or two-handers, etc. THAT is "warriorish".

But reducing the martial abilities of warriors, and making rogue more of a frontline fighter than a backstabing assassin ? No, that's not really giving the class more personality, ON THE CONTRARY, that's weakening their CORE PRINCIPLES.

I'd use that retort against the fact that you were advocating removing weapon skills from rogues in general and making them have their own 'rogue abilities'.

Then I'd retort that you should learn to read, because I stated SEVERAL TIMES that I didn't ask for removing weapon skills or abilities.

DW is very much a dexterity based skill, and it requires a lot of training. Being able to use both arms equally, both hands equally, and be able to make them work in unison effectively requires Dexterity and training, not just training. Hence the reason many of the DW talents require a dex min to get. If you don't get that then I'm sorry.

[DarkSpiral]

wwwwowwww wrote...

DW is very much a dexterity based skill, and it requires a lot of training. Being able to use both arms equally, both hands equally, and be able to make them work in unison effectively requires Dexterity and training, not just training. Hence the reason many of the DW talents require a dex min to get. If you don't get that then I'm sorry.

Seconded.  I'm not really happy about the removal of DW talents from warriors either.  I get their reasoning, and can't really argue with the time/effort one, but the I loved making Ohgren a dual-axe wielding engine of destruction, and I'll miss it.  Regardless of wether or not I'll miss the option, however, DW is very much a dex based set of skills, both in a game and in real life.

To be honest, there is a reason that any real person that could wield two weapons in combat in RL used small weapons.  Using two longsword isn't out of the question, but it's hard and requires a level of coordination and training that is very different (if no less diffucult to attain) than mastering a massive weapon like a claymore or maul, or coordinating a sheild and single-hand weapon.

Modifié par DarkSpiral, 07 septembre 2010 - 01:12 .

[wwwwowwww]

Lilacs wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

You're forgetting about the fact that DW is a dexterity based skill and not strength based, therefore the rogue which in the DA universe is a dexterity based fighter (in some regards sure it has some old staple thief skills) suits it better than a warrior (which uses its strength to overwhelm its foes).

It's neither dexterity nor strength based, it's skill/training based. Samurai weren't acrobats, and real fencers don't do jumps and the like - only in Hollywood.
The difficulty from dual-wielding comes from mastery of the weapon, not from requiring to be nimble and lithe.

The fact that rogues are shown as "dexterity-based warriors" is precisely why I say that the argument from Bioware "we removed DW from warriors to make more distinction between the classes" is completely bogus. Making rogues "dex-based WARRIORS" isn't making them a different class. As it was said several times, they should differentiate the classes by playing on their "essence" and their strength, not by putting arbitrary and counter-productive restrictions.

Make the rogue use more guile, more surprise attacks, more crippling strikes, more backstabs and the like. THAT is "roguish".
Make the warrior specialize in all manner of direct hand to hand fighting, be it light or heavy, DW or two-handers, etc. THAT is "warriorish".

But reducing the martial abilities of warriors, and making rogue more of a frontline fighter than a backstabing assassin ? No, that's not really giving the class more personality, ON THE CONTRARY, that's weakening their CORE PRINCIPLES.

I'd use that retort against the fact that you were advocating removing weapon skills from rogues in general and making them have their own 'rogue abilities'.

Then I'd retort that you should learn to read, because I stated SEVERAL TIMES that I didn't ask for removing weapon skills or abilities.

DW is very much a dexterity based skill, and it requires a lot of training. Being able to use both arms equally, both hands equally, and be able to make them work in unison effectively requires Dexterity and training, not just training. Hence the reason many of the DW talents require a dex min to get. If you don't get that then I'm sorry.

As the main character, going to the "Fade", gives you extra skills points that you can add to your base stats, and they are permanent.  It is feasible to be a dual-wield warrior, and it has been done.   My main Warden is a level 34 "kick butt" dual-wield warrior, and she is an adept tank.  She has "high dexterity and strength."  They are items in the game that you can buy to augment your character stats such as "books" that add skills and or talent points to your base stats, and they are other items such as "belts",  rings and armor that will also add skill points to your base stats, thereby increasing your original base skills stats (redundancy here for the sake of clarification).

So, by this explanation above, a person can create a dual-wield warrior as it stands currently in DAO and DAO: Awakening, plus DLC's.  Try it, it is fun, truly.

I'm not saying you can't be a DW warrior, in fact the only thing I've ever said against DW warriors is it doesn't work or make sense to have a DW warrior wearing anything heavier than light armor. It would be very difficult, very draining and you would move very slow.

[DarkSpiral]

Lilacs wrote...

Well, this a "Role Playing Game" after all.  We do things that we would not ordinarily do in real life.

Quite true, and I admit my prefernces on certain topics veer more towards realism, and on others I tend to prefer more fantasy.  In the case of weapons, armor, and who can use them, I prefer slightly more realism than fantasy.  Only slightly though.

***edited for spelling***

Modifié par DarkSpiral, 07 septembre 2010 - 01:40 .