1380 réponses à ce sujet

[jbblue05]

wwwwowwww wrote...

ashwind wrote...

Darthnemesis2 wrote...

ashwind wrote...

Darthnemesis2 wrote...

Dude, are you serious? A rogue couldn't do a straight up fight at all, that's why we have backstabs, stealth, etc.

I am serious - Rogues can go str and use Massive Armor and hold 2 long swords, or use dagger with super high dex that nearly never gets hit. 

Think about it... what is the difference between a Rogue and a Warrior if both takes DW talent tree? They spam the same weapon talents. Backstab and stealth just makes them even better. 

Ok, except that a rogue can't get into backstabbing position if he's the only one there, especially when you consider the fact that he'll be outnumbered in every encounter. Plus a warrior gets bunuses from his warrior talents, such as powerful and death blow, that will keep his stamina up even while wearing massive armor. A rogue can't spam weapon talents if he's out of stamina and can't backstab if he can't stealth because he's out of stamina. Even if you're going with the high dex "you can't hit me" rogue any blow that does land will cause a lot of damage due to him wearing light armor.

I personally find the Warrior Talent bonus to be pitiful... maybe tis just me.

I rarely try/need to backstab, frontal assault works well for me. Stamina is never a problem, I am in massive armor with Momentum always activated - rarely need to "spam" talents. In light armor, combat stealth is the panic button that again works great for me.

I trick you not, in DA - a Rogue is every bit as as deadly as a Warrior fighting enemies head on.

Rogues shouldn't be wearing massive armor, and anyone wearing anything heavier than light armor should not be able to DW, this is a big oversight and error on Bioware's part.

Is it just your personal opinion that you have to have light armor to dual wield? I don't see why a warrior can't duel-wield in heavy chainmail or armor. The only plus wearing light armor is to be able to do flips jumps splits and various acrobats.
Duel-wielding is not just a dexterity build its a STRENGTH AND DEXTERITY build.

Duel wielding isn't a common fighting style it requires lots of training and can't be easily wielded just because you wear light armor/

[tmp7704]

Darthnemesis2 wrote...

But again, if you're outnumbered, even if you're scoring backstabs against a stunned opponent you'll be taking so much damage from other you'll still be killed quickly.

Unless you wear heavy/massive armour just like warrior. Or stack defense making these multiple enemies deal much less damage. Honestly, isn't it bit pointless to argue that rogue cannot survive straight-on combat when people do solo nightmare playthroughs with them?

Only through spec, we're talking rogue/dw vs warrior/dw. If you wanna start bringing specs into this I can give a whole new list of reasons why warrior will outlast rogue in a fight.

I consider specs part of the character build so i don't see why it should be separate (other than it's convenient for promoting the warrior)

Evasion is the only rogue talent that does this and while it is useful it doesn't help lower the damage a rogue takes in the event he gets hit.

I was including specializations into it. And avoiding 1 hit out of 5 is 20% reduction of overall incoming damage, no matter how you look at it. Quite significant amount.

[Darthnemesis2]

tmp7704 wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

So you mean a two hander style for rogue then?

Adding something like dagger/knife throwing would make more sense.

Why would it make more sense when people spent half of this thread making argument rogues can't wear heavy armour because they are supposed to be all about sneak and "like a ninja" ... and japanese swords were very much 2-hand fighting style? That'd fit such "ninja-like rogue" quite well, flipping out animations et all.

... Katanas were used by Samurai not ninja. Samurai did not flip.

I believe what you are reffering to is a ninjato, which was similar to a Katana except much shorter and able to be wielded with one hand.

[wwwwowwww]

Darthnemesis2 wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

So you mean a two hander style for rogue then?

Adding something like dagger/knife throwing would make more sense.

Why would it make more sense when people spent half of this thread making argument rogues can't wear heavy armour because they are supposed to be all about sneak and "like a ninja" ... and japanese swords were very much 2-hand fighting style? That'd fit such "ninja-like rogue" quite well, flipping out animations et all.

... Katanas were used by Samurai not ninja. Samurai did not flip.

I believe what you are reffering to is a ninjato, which was similar to a Katana except much shorter and able to be wielded with one hand.

Exactly a ninjato is much shorter than a Katana, and the Katana was a Samurai weapon.

I'm not arguing that they can't wear heavy armor because they are to be ninja like, I argue they can't because Rogues are dexterity based and the more and  heavier equipments you wear the worse your dexterity becomes. The less range of motion you have, and the slower you move. It's just a proven fact is all. Hence why NFL quarterbacks do not wear the same types of pads as everyone else, bigger bulkier pads limit their range of motion thus making it harder to throw the ball.

[RexAnthony]

Ninjas usually use katana and dart. Have you ever played Tenchu?
DA lacks of Bastard sword and Kukri !

Modifié par RexAnthony, 07 septembre 2010 - 06:31 .

[crimsontotem]

This seriously sucks Dual wielding warrior was the definition of epicness... every other rpg game has that! what made you guys think this is a right decision? distinguishable??? why can't you guys make different skill trees for dual wielding warrior and rouge? too lazy for that?

I am going for a mage hawke anyway so it doesn't matter but still...

Modifié par crimsontotem, 07 septembre 2010 - 06:32 .

[tmp7704]

Darthnemesis2 wrote...

... Katanas were used by Samurai not ninja. Samurai did not flip.

I believe what you are reffering to is a ninjato, which was similar to a Katana except much shorter and able to be wielded with one hand.

I'm referring to iconic image of ninja as portrayed in movies and games. like this guy here:



and yes, the way the sword is used varies between single and two-handed depending on situation but that's, i believe, part of the point. It's a style which involved two-hand grip while still remaining something different from western 2-handers.

[jbblue05]

Darthnemesis2 wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

So you mean a two hander style for rogue then?

Adding something like dagger/knife throwing would make more sense.

Why would it make more sense when people spent half of this thread making argument rogues can't wear heavy armour because they are supposed to be all about sneak and "like a ninja" ... and japanese swords were very much 2-hand fighting style? That'd fit such "ninja-like rogue" quite well, flipping out animations et all.

... Katanas were used by Samurai not ninja. Samurai did not flip.

I believe what you are reffering to is a ninjato, which was similar to a Katana except much shorter and able to be wielded with one hand.

I believe Ninjatos varied in isize some were the size of katana or wakizashi.

Ninjatos could be wielded like katanas to fool samurai.
Either way katanas are fast quick and precise a "rogue like weapon"

[Darthnemesis2]

tmp7704 wrote...

Darthnemesis2 wrote...

But again, if you're outnumbered, even if you're scoring backstabs against a stunned opponent you'll be taking so much damage from other you'll still be killed quickly.

Unless you wear heavy/massive armour just like warrior. Or stack defense making these multiple enemies deal much less damage. Honestly, isn't it bit pointless to argue that rogue cannot survive straight-on combat when people do solo nightmare playthroughs with them?

Only through spec, we're talking rogue/dw vs warrior/dw. If you wanna start bringing specs into this I can give a whole new list of reasons why warrior will outlast rogue in a fight.

I consider specs part of the character build so i don't see why it should be separate (other than it's convenient for promoting the warrior)

If we're talking other specs/talents outside of the base warrior/rogue talent lines (I just looked back at the other page, it wasn't you who said the only difference between dw rogue and dw warrior was stealth/backstab) Warriors have the ability to knockback enemies with the champion line, plus defenses from the spirit healer line which work similarly to evasion. Not to mention if he starts taking talents from the other weapon talents he can be immune to knockdowns and stuns, which will keep him in the fight longer.

Evasion is the only rogue talent that does this and while it is useful it doesn't help lower the damage a rogue takes in the event he gets hit.

I was including specializations into it. And avoiding 1 hit out of 5 is 20% reduction of overall incoming damage, no matter how you look at it. Quite significant amount.

Even if a rogue is dodging one of five attacks , if he has the dex to get evasion *and* the str to wear the massive armor, he will have no con for health or wil for stamina, whereas a warrior naturally has more str and con and can wear massive armor more effectively due to his talents, reducing stamina loss.

[Darthnemesis2]

jbblue05 wrote...

Darthnemesis2 wrote...

... Katanas were used by Samurai not ninja. Samurai did not flip.

I believe what you are reffering to is a ninjato, which was similar to a Katana except much shorter and able to be wielded with one hand.

I believe Ninjatos varied in isize some were the size of katana or wakizashi.

Ninjatos could be wielded like katanas to fool samurai.
Either way katanas are fast quick and precise a "rogue like weapon"

Ninjato were used to fool samurai because they were smaller = quicker draw time to cut samurai open before he had finished drawing his katana. While a katana may have been quicker than a longsword used in the west, that was more due to the different way it was used. Katanas were slashing weapons, not good against plate armor. And even then, they still weren't what you see in movies/video games.

[tmp7704]

Darthnemesis2 wrote...

If we're talking other specs/talents outside of the base warrior/rogue talent lines (I just looked back at the other page, it wasn't you who said the only difference between dw rogue and dw warrior was stealth/backstab) Warriors have the ability to knockback enemies with the champion line, plus defenses from the spirit healer line which work similarly to evasion. Not to mention if he starts taking talents from the other weapon talents he can be immune to knockdowns and stuns, which will keep him in the fight longer.

Yes, which basically says warriors also have tools to survive quite well in a fight. I really don't think there's point in arguing the rogues can't do that when it has been done. This is even more true for Awakening where you can combine traits like increased stamina regen from Bard line and the toggle which turns incoming damage into "stamina damage" instead from Scout line, effectively giving yourself an equivalent of heal-over-time quite stronger than what regular health regen in combat would allow.

Even if a rogue is dodging one of five attacks , if he has the dex to get evasion *and* the str to wear the massive armor, he will have no con for health or wil for stamina, whereas a warrior naturally has more str and con and can wear massive armor more effectively due to his talents, reducing stamina loss.

Yes, a character (i'm not saying warrior because it applies to both warrior and rogue alike) who focuses on strength and constitution will do so at expense of other attributes, like in this case agility. Meaning such character will be hit more often and themselves miss more frequent. I suspect it pretty much evens out in the long run.

Again, the point isn't rogues are better in straight-on combat than warriors. But if they specifically focus on it they can perform comparably, imo.

[wwwwowwww]

Darthnemesis2 wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Darthnemesis2 wrote...

... Katanas were used by Samurai not ninja. Samurai did not flip.

I believe what you are reffering to is a ninjato, which was similar to a Katana except much shorter and able to be wielded with one hand.

I believe Ninjatos varied in isize some were the size of katana or wakizashi.

Ninjatos could be wielded like katanas to fool samurai.
Either way katanas are fast quick and precise a "rogue like weapon"

Ninjato were used to fool samurai because they were smaller = quicker draw time to cut samurai open before he had finished drawing his katana. While a katana may have been quicker than a longsword used in the west, that was more due to the different way it was used. Katanas were slashing weapons, not good against plate armor. And even then, they still weren't what you see in movies/video games.

I'd like to add that their sheaths may have appeared to be the same length at times because often the bottome of the ninja sheath could be pulled out  with another blade attatche, or to reveal a hallow compartment in which they kept powder they would swing across to blind their opponents.

[tmp7704]

Lilacs wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

True enough, but counter-point to that is, this doesn't mean success must in 100% depend on rigid setup of having specific combination of certain classes and everything else resulting in automatic failure no matter what you do. It may very well be instead put on utilizing what you have to the best effect, working around shortcomings and using the strenghts.

Amazingly, yes, like I said, a combination of those classes (Like I posted in the post previous to this one): Warrior, Rogue, Mage (Damager), Mage healer and or different combinations of those).   So, you are ireiterating my previous post.

Uhh, i'm sorry but no. you are talking of situation with certain, rigid combination of classes each with their own skills and claim that having party composition differ from that makes things "impossible". What i'm talking of is taking *any* combination of classes and using the skills they have to achieve that "impossible" and to work around their shortcomings. That may mean for example increased damage output or healing output of the party to make up for lack of crowd control abilities (in situation where the party doesn't have character with such abilities but instead includes additional warrior or healer) and other things like that. Or in drastic situations focus on one aspect when another is entirely lacking.

Modifié par tmp7704, 07 septembre 2010 - 07:04 .

[wwwwowwww]

I do think they should have just restricted weapons, instead of the combat talents.

[Mehow_pwn]

Davasar wrote...

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.

Execly I hate that too because removeing existing features is really stupid..and not improving the existing once esspesialy in a RPG 

I think it's a pandemic since the Fable 3 guys are doing execly the same thing.. they are trying to compare uncharted 2 to fable 3 I mean wtf!

The only left that are still knowing what people want in a RPG are Bethesda, Blizzard,SCE Japan Studio the guys who made Demon souls and Bioware Kotor guys that make the new MMO (maybe not entirely but they still keep the good RPG stuff)

Modifié par Mehow_pwn, 07 septembre 2010 - 07:14 .

[Akka le Vil]

wwwwowwww wrote...

Rogues shouldn't be wearing massive
armor, and anyone wearing anything heavier than light armor should not
be able to DW, this is a big oversight and error on Bioware's part.

You're repeating like a mantra that DW is based on dexterity and impossible to use in heavy armour. Doesn't make it true. Don't want to rain on your parade, but samurais used often DW, and they wore lamellar armor, which is quite heavy.
There is nothing preventing DW with heavy armour, except your misrepresentation of things.

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Have they said that warriors won't be able to use bows or dual-wield weapons? I mean, that it's not just the talent trees that are limited to rogues? That would make little sense, but if warriors still can dual-wield and use ranged weapons, just not specialize in them, I don't see the problem.

Have they said that they aren't adding anything to the warrior class? I sure hope they do; the warriors weren't perfect in Origins. There's a lot of room for improvement.

I like the idea of making the classes more distinct. By the end of just Origins, and not even having played awakening yet, my rogue feels more like a warrior than, well ... a rogue. As long as they do equally much to make the warrior class more distinct, I don't see how this will ruin the gameplay.

It makes more sense that warriors can't specialize in DW than it does that companions can't take the coercion skill, that you can't have the companions talk for you all the same, that some weapons are restricted to the warrior class (keening blade, for instance), that certain items are restricted to specific characters, that mages can't learn how to pick up a sword and fight and learn a few sword talents ...

Sooo... Rogues already look too much like warriors, and so in order to makes classes more distinct, you say it's a good idea to make a typically warrior ability, a rogue core one ?
Hu, don't feel you're contradicting yourself here ?

[Telum101]

Why does everyone here seem to think that reality has to play a huge part in this? Obviously the gameplay itself should be realistic to a degree, but why are we considering whether or not ninjas and samurais used what weapon and did what with them when this is about a medieval fantasy game?!



Also, a lot of you also seem to think that dual wielding must be restricted to quick movements, flips and spins and whatever other anime crap we can think of.

As I said in my previous post (which was unfortunately buried by that fight between Aradace and Akka Le Vil), I much prefer the idea of a DW warrior, because they give me the feeling that they can fight head to head, taking a few hits and giving some back, relying on strength and almost brute force, which to me seems nearly the opposite to a traditional rogue, planning their attacks, striking quickly by surprise etc. etc.



Either way, I don't buy the whole 'differing classes' thing. It's just simply lazy when they could implement a DW tree specific to the warrior, accompanied with some tweaked animations.

Hell, I could come up with a different skill tree myself in a less than a day. Why can't a professional game company do it in a year?

[jsachun]

Well it just means Bioware's warrior in DA 2 is less versatile than a Warrior created by other devs. Don't sweat over it, if you must DW as a warrior buy another game or create a mod.

[Akka le Vil]

Telum101 wrote...

Why does everyone here seem to think that reality has to play a huge part in this? Obviously the gameplay itself should be realistic to a degree, but why are we considering whether or not ninjas and samurais used what weapon and did what with them when this is about a medieval fantasy game?!

Because the pretext used by Bioware is "class distinction". As such it stands to reason that they are supposed to differenciate the classes by using "typical" abilities and style, one being more "martial" (warriors), one being more "roguish" (rogues). I mean, that's more or less the POINT, right ?

Archetypes exist because of expectation we have, and these expectation exist because of what actually happened in reality.
For example, soldiers on the battlefield used heavy armour, so we're exepecting warriors to be the guys who can use heavy armours.
Rogues, scoundrels and the like were more cutthroats, who didn't need as much sparring weapons than weapons being able to be concealed and used to backstab, so we're expecting rogues to use daggers and being able to backstab.
Etc.

As such, showing that such style was typically used by people that we can classify as "warrior", and not by shadowy characters, helps to indicates that Bioware completely dropped the ball when it came to characterization, as they use a "warrior-like" ability in attempting to give personnality to the "rogue" class.
It's a bit (though not AS MUCH) like giving a chain lightning spell to the warrior class and making it exclusive to it, preventing the mages to specialize in it, and saying "well, it makes the warrior more unique".

Also, a lot of you also seem to think that dual wielding must be restricted to quick movements, flips and spins and whatever other anime crap we can think of.
As I said in my previous post (which was unfortunately buried by that fight between Aradace and Akka Le Vil), I much prefer the idea of a DW warrior, because they give me the feeling that they can fight head to head, taking a few hits and giving some back, relying on strength and almost brute force, which to me seems nearly the opposite to a traditional rogue, planning their attacks, striking quickly by surprise etc. etc.

Either way, I don't buy the whole 'differing classes' thing. It's just simply lazy when they could implement a DW tree specific to the warrior, accompanied with some tweaked animations.

I completely agree here, that was my main point too.
I'm especially resentful because of their crappy argument trying to present the choice between "boring, vanilla DW animations or exciting acrobatic ones !". I don't see at all why the regular DW animations are "boring", it's just a weak attempt to put bias into the description in order to make us think it's better, while it's worse.