1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica83]

No dual for warriors? But yes for rougues? An that only too keep class distinct!?

you can find many better ways to make class distinct.. Remove Dual at warriors.. its so stupid...

No offence.. But...You can make different class in many other ways... I Can understeand if a mage can't use big sword because its a mage and don't use a lot strenght or dextrity but other things....

Why i a warrior that learned to be fast and use dextrity and no strange.. Can't use dual weapons like dagger or short sword? I'm sorry but i dont see any Logical reason to change it..

Im a rouge! i can use dual weapons you are a warrior then no! Its soo stupid

[RexAnthony]

Monica83 wrote...

No dual for warriors? But yes for rougues? An that only too keep class distinct!?
you can find many better ways to make class distinct.. Remove Dual at warriors.. its so stupid...
No offence.. But...You can make different class in many other ways... I Can understeand if a mage can't use big sword because its a mage and don't use a lot strenght or dextrity but other things....
Why i a warrior that learned to be fast and use dextrity and no strange.. Can't use dual weapons like dagger or short sword? I'm sorry but i dont see any Logical reason to change it..
Im a rouge! i can use dual weapons you are a warrior then no! Its soo stupid

I love you

[wwwwowwww]

Monica83 wrote...

No dual for warriors? But yes for rougues? An that only too keep class distinct!?
you can find many better ways to make class distinct.. Remove Dual at warriors.. its so stupid...
No offence.. But...You can make different class in many other ways... I Can understeand if a mage can't use big sword because its a mage and don't use a lot strenght or dextrity but other things....
Why i a warrior that learned to be fast and use dextrity and no strange.. Can't use dual weapons like dagger or short sword? I'm sorry but i dont see any Logical reason to change it..
Im a rouge! i can use dual weapons you are a warrior then no! Its soo stupid

Yep you should be allowed to as long as you don't go for that big fancy heavy armor

[sreaction]

Davasar wrote...


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.

When did they say to figuratively "get lost"? Id like to read/listen to/watch  that bit of media (really I am interested). On that EA note I have bought four games since DAO, zero of them have been from EA.

[Wishpig]

Add me to the approves list! The more different they feel and play the better. Just so long as I can make my rogue character feel soldierly and not criminal'ish I'm happy. (like the scout class in awakening as opposed to some coin stealing/lock picking thug.

[Tempest]

Warriors in DA:O can specialize in Shields, Great Weapons, Archery AND Dual Wielding.



Rogues can specialize in Duel Wielding and Archery Only.



And you have the fortitude to believe that the Warriors are getting shafted? Wow, I mean wow, as if the Rogue wasn't lacking enough, sure he had his specializations, but so did the warrior. I'm "sure" the warrior may feel lesser losing 1 of 4 weapon specializations compared to the rogues only having 2.

[Monica83]

Thanks to all! lol



Anyways ok if a warrior with dual must wear a medium of a light armor.. But remove the opportunity of a warrior to use dual sword don't have any sense... You Sayd "Distinct" i say "Static" if i want build a character i want build it with different option... If i want make a Warrior Based of Dextrity i don't see for what reason i must be a ROGUE!... No offence bioware guys but this choice is logical like grab the flying mario coins.. Do you want keep classes distinct? Good.. Add thing...



For example you can add attack for rougue thar use the weak point of the opponent.. Or other weapons that hits the target like.. Trowing Knife... mmmh... Poisoned darts... and others cool things..

Since be restricted to be a rougue to know how to use dual weapons.. Its very very very stupid.. Use your fantasy guys.. Its possible you can't see another way to keep class distinct?..

[wwwwowwww]

Monica83 wrote...

Thanks to all! lol

Anyways ok if a warrior with dual must wear a medium of a light armor.. But remove the opportunity of a warrior to use dual sword don't have any sense... You Sayd "Distinct" i say "Static" if i want build a character i want build it with different option... If i want make a Warrior Based of Dextrity i don't see for what reason i must be a ROGUE!... No offence bioware guys but this choice is logical like grab the flying mario coins.. Do you want keep classes distinct? Good.. Add thing...

For example you can add attack for rougue thar use the weak point of the opponent.. Or other weapons that hits the target like.. Trowing Knife... mmmh... Poisoned darts... and others cool things..
Since be restricted to be a rougue to know how to use dual weapons.. Its very very very stupid.. Use your fantasy guys.. Its possible you can't see another way to keep class distinct?..

I would have loved to see them add a throwing knife/dagger combat tier for Rogues, that would have been epic in my opinion.

[Monica83]

And i add another thing...

For example in D&D 3.5 a rougue can have many many more feature to keep the class "Distinct" now this is dragon age and its right...But you expect that i believe is that the only solution to make class "Distinct"? You can add most skill at a rougue whitout touch the weapons of the other classes... Its logical believe that all Arciers in dragon age or all dual fighters are rougue?... How you explain that?.. In the dark corner of the city where live the most dangerous criminal an army chose some rougue to make some arciers for the kingdoom? Lol im sorry but this is really stupid sounds like a choice maked only for gameplay whitout only logic sense for the world of game... Are you sure you are making an rpg?

[wwwwowwww]

Monica83 wrote...

And i add another thing...
For example in D&D 3.5 a rougue can have many many more feature to keep the class "Distinct" now this is dragon age and its right...But you expect that i believe is that the only solution to make class "Distinct"? You can add most skill at a rougue whitout touch the weapons of the other classes... Its logical believe that all Arciers in dragon age or all dual fighters are rougue?... How you explain that?.. In the dark corner of the city where live the most dangerous criminal an army chose some rougue to make some arciers for the kingdoom? Lol im sorry but this is really stupid sounds like a choice maked only for gameplay whitout only logic sense for the world of game... Are you sure you are making an rpg?

Only argument I see for this, and I tend to agree with you, is DA rogues are not your A typical rpg rogue. Really the only thing they get that is very typical of other RPG rogues are backstab, open locks and stealth. Everything else is open to every class.

[Monica83]

Ok but it make no sense... All Archers and dual fighter in dragon age are rougue?.. Come onnn

How many rougue at the battle of ostangar! lol



If they want keep class distinct they can add more features like i sayd: Trowin knife.. Poisoned Dart.. Poisoned Weapons.. More unseen weapons like: the fencing ones.. They have 1000 ways to improved the thief.. Why cut a warrior logical alternative to paste it only to a rougue... Its stupid and it's not logic whit the world of game.. This is an rpg right? So the world of game is important.. If you begin to cut thing here and paste other things here whitout any logical sense only for gameplay you ruin all..



Example i don't want be a rougue DAO gived me the opportunity to make a warrior dextrity based with dual weapons and light armor.. Now with DA2 this is not possibile you want know to use a bow? you want know how to use a dual weapon? you must be a rougue..

So if you see someone around with a bow or two blades RUN! before your pocket disappear..

Blaah

[SDNcN]

Monica83 wrote...

And i add another thing...
For example in D&D 3.5 a rougue can have many many more feature to keep the class "Distinct" now this is dragon age and its right...But you expect that i believe is that the only solution to make class "Distinct"? You can add most skill at a rougue whitout touch the weapons of the other classes...

In 3.5 characters don't gain attack abilites based on their weapon, or at least not in the same way as Origins. That is probably one of the reasons Dragon Age has fewer weapon types avaliable than Neverwinter Nights.

Its logical believe that all Arciers in dragon age or all dual fighters are rougue?... How you explain that?.. In the dark corner of the city where live the most dangerous criminal an army chose some rougue to make some arciers for the kingdoom?

I've actually given npc soldiers levels in rogue when designing encounters for DnD.
In Origins you could make a Cousland PC a rogue. Were the Couslands dangerous criminals living in the darkest corners of the city?

Modifié par SDNcN, 07 septembre 2010 - 04:23 .

[wwwwowwww]

Monica83 wrote...

Ok but it make no sense... All Archers and dual fighter in dragon age are rougue?.. Come onnn
How many rougue at the battle of ostangar! lol

If they want keep class distinct they can add more features like i sayd: Trowin knife.. Poisoned Dart.. Poisoned Weapons.. More unseen weapons like: the fencing ones.. They have 1000 ways to improved the thief.. Why cut a warrior logical alternative to paste it only to a rougue... Its stupid and it's not logic whit the world of game.. This is an rpg right? So the world of game is important.. If you begin to cut thing here and paste other things here whitout any logical sense only for gameplay you ruin all..

Example i don't want be a rougue DAO gived me the opportunity to make a warrior dextrity based with dual weapons and light armor.. Now with DA2 this is not possibile you want know to use a bow? you want know how to use a dual weapon? you must be a rougue..
So if you see someone around with a bow or two blades RUN! before your pocket disappear..
Blaah

For all we know 1/2 the force at Ostagar could have been rogues. Don't think numbers are anywhere to be found

[SeanAuditore]

It doesn't say that you can't dual wield, you just can't specialize in it. Dual wield all you want. You still can use the warrior skills.

Yes a warrior can be well trained, but a warrior is not going to have finesse to manipulate dual weapons well compared to a rogue. Kind of like legolas in LOTR compared to Gimli, you know.

Certain games do indeed have dual-wielding warriors that actually look like they make sense e.g Barbarian from Diablo, but what BioWare is doing here is creating more unique classes. There is indeed a trade off to pump DEX into a warrior for dual-wielding in DAO, but if a rogue does the same thing they are more or less the same class when you enter combat.

A warrior is supposed to be balanced and deal less damage while being able to take more, and a rogue is supposed to deal more damage while being able to take less. The dual wielding tree made the roles of warrior and rogue overlap. That's all they are trying to fix.

As I said earlier, warriors stereotypically fight like spartans - with strength and endurance, while rogues are stereotypically like nimble, agile dual wielding duelists with a sly edge.

P.S You still can use your bow or dual wield as a warrior, you just can't specialize in it, that's all.

Modifié par SeanAuditore, 07 septembre 2010 - 04:28 .

[Monica83]

That's not the point Sdn

The point is isn't logical as a choice.. A warrior is someone specialized to use weapons and in the battle.. Now cut valid alternatives for warrior only to improve the rougue is vrong

1) for the worl of game this don't have any logical explanation

2)For the gameplay warrior now can only be only strenght based character so.. Sword and shield.. Big weapons only

3) Rougue in dao can use archery and dual weapons like warriors and more little useful skill why don't add unique others skills or items for rougue?



It's stupid cut off the opportunity to made a different type of warrior and for what? for keep the class distinct? You can add many other things to rougues to keep class distinct..

The question is why a warrior in dragon age world can't use a dual weapon or a bow and be dextrity based?.. Only for a gameplay stupid choice?

How you explain this change in term of gameworld? you can't simple isn't logical



So this is not "distinct" this is "static"

[tmp7704]

Tempest wrote...

Warriors in DA:O can specialize in Shields, Great Weapons, Archery AND Dual Wielding.

Rogues can specialize in Duel Wielding and Archery Only.

And you have the fortitude to believe that the Warriors are getting shafted?

Considering Warriors are going from 4 possible specializations to 2 while Rogues remain with the same amount they had in DAO i'd say yes, it's rather clear which of these two classes is getting more limited in their options compared to the first game. Hint: it's not rogues.

You can have a point about both of these classes now having the same amount of options, but i really don't see it as positive move to trim things down to the least common denominator rather than expand the ones who are lacking. Perhaps mages should also be given the same treatment and limited just to two specs -- healing and nuking? Otherwise they are getting more options than both melee classes combined...

[SeanAuditore]

If a warrior could specialize in dual wielding and archery, you wouldn't NEED a rogue in your party for all that. They are in fact, encouraging tactical choice of party members.

Modifié par SeanAuditore, 07 septembre 2010 - 04:33 .

[tmp7704]

SeanAuditore wrote...

If a warrior could specialize in dual wielding and archery, you wouldn't NEED a rogue in your party for all that. They are in fact, encouraging tactical choice of party members.

If you read the feedback on rogues from the first game, the concept of making a class something you NEED to bring along for certain functionality only annoys people. It works quite better to have some redundancy and let them play with setups they want to play with.

Want example? Ensure that people NEED to bring along a healer too, by removing the heal pots. See how well that flies.

[Monica83]

No you need it..

Because a warrior don't know how disarm traps it' don't have backstap attack him can't use traps so never change.. The problem was they maded a stupid not logical choice.. Why cut warriors ability when you can add some abilityes and new weapons and item for the rougue? My party in DAO was:

Me:warrior dual weapons light armor

Alistar: The tank

Leliana: Rougue skills Archers and bard skills

Morrigan: Mage smashing evrything



And leliana was very usefull in the team..for her ability of rougue.. like use traps lockpicking hide...

So i dont see this lack of difference of classes.. Ok the rougue is weak then add some others ability o specific weapons don't cut the opportunity to make a different type of warrior..

[wwwwowwww]

tmp7704 wrote...

SeanAuditore wrote...

If a warrior could specialize in dual wielding and archery, you wouldn't NEED a rogue in your party for all that. They are in fact, encouraging tactical choice of party members.

If you read the feedback on rogues from the first game, the concept of making a class something you NEED to bring along for certain functionality only annoys people. It works quite better to have some redundancy and let them play with setups they want to play with.

Want example? Ensure that people NEED to bring along a healer too, by removing the heal pots. See how well that flies.

And yet it's ok, to make it so I have to bring a warrior along to survive? 

[HTTP 404]

ah well, good riddance, hopefully with that door closed, a new one opens. Halbreds and spears here we come!

[tmp7704]

wwwwowwww wrote...

And yet it's ok, to make it so I have to bring a warrior along to survive? 

Who says you need warrior to survive? Rogues and mages can get through entire game on their own more than well.