Aller au contenu

Photo

R.I.P. Dual-wielding Warrior


1380 réponses à ce sujet

#976
Akka le Vil

Akka le Vil
  • Members
  • 1 466 messages

AlanC9 wrote...

I thought that was exactly what J_F was saying.

So, what's exactly the point of coming to ask for argument all the while considering they are all invalid from the start ?

That's how it goes. People start using a word in a new way, and the lexicographers come in afterward and certify the new usage. Proper usage is whatever the guys at the O.E.D. say it is, but they determine what goes into the next edition of the O.E.D. by looking at what's happening out there ITRW.

Meaning may change with time and use, but that's QUITE a different thing than just ignoring the common sense of a word and redefine it at will.

#977
Morroian

Morroian
  • Members
  • 6 396 messages

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

I would argue that it makes little sense, based on personality and preference of a character, that their "class" would restrict their combat style.


I'd argue that class is more for the player than an actual designation in game. You could build a rogue that is a warrior in all but name.

#978
Mecha Tengu

Mecha Tengu
  • Members
  • 1 823 messages
u knoe what I want



a crossbow dedicated warrior.



I hate being forced to become a rogue if I want to be an archer.

#979
nos_astra

nos_astra
  • Members
  • 5 048 messages

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
Though, honestly I don't see why a mage can't learn to pick a lock or sneak either. If a mage is an apostate, that would be all the reason in the world to learn how to sneak around unless they are incredibly naive.

Absolutely.

#980
Morroian

Morroian
  • Members
  • 6 396 messages
[deleted] double post what is with the forum today.

Modifié par Morroian, 07 septembre 2010 - 11:44 .


#981
Ryllen Laerth Kriel

Ryllen Laerth Kriel
  • Members
  • 3 001 messages

Morroian wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

I would argue that it makes little sense, based on personality and preference of a character, that their "class" would restrict their combat style.


I'd argue that class is more for the player than an actual designation in game. You could build a rogue that is a warrior in all but name.


I would counter-argue that class is a designation in the game if they use it in dialogue, refering to your character as a mage, warrior, ect. It is both really, in character and out of character as a game mechanic and as a plot device. It can be used effectively as a plot device to carry out the story but really it's seldom it makes a difference. As far as class being for the player, sure it tells them the bonus skill sets or perks the character can have. But this shouldn't limit a person's choice as to simple things. Why could an agile rogue-like character not learn to use a shield and hide or use lockpicks? There is no in game reason. Balance isn't an issue for the classes OOC because it's not a multiplayer game, balance never was an issue in DA:O because mages were like gods and balance shouldn't really be an issue for DA unless the franchise goes multiplayer. I don't see how fighting styles should determine class distinction or see why there even is class distinction in such mundane tasks as stealth or lockpicking.

#982
Morroian

Morroian
  • Members
  • 6 396 messages

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
I would counter-argue that class is a designation in the game if they use it in dialogue, refering to your character as a mage, warrior, ect.


I can't remember my human noble rogue ever being called a rogue in game.

#983
Davasar

Davasar
  • Members
  • 510 messages
Guys.



All this debate has highlighted one thing that I've said from the beginning, even though I was scoffed for it at the time:



They are taking out game features in order to "streamline" (read: being lazy and rushing the game out) it as a whole.



Anyone who knows EA's history knows this is how they operate.



It's nice to see I was right all along.

#984
jsachun

jsachun
  • Members
  • 1 335 messages

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...
You still don't understand that what makes people mad is that warriors won't be able to DW anymore ?
I mean, that's the whole point of the thread, that's the TITLE OF THE THREAD, and you still don't get it ?

Ah yes, I disagree therefore I don't get it and can't read. <_<

Of course I understand that people are upset because warriors can't DW anymore. But no, honestly, I can't for the life of me figure out why because nobody has formed a single logical argument for it with a premise based entirely on verifiable fact and a conclusion that stems directly from that premise. AKA a logical argument. There haven't been any.
Every single rant about why it sucks uses 3 things.
1: WoW classes as "proof" that something belongs entirely to one class.
-Invalid because this is DA not WoW-
2: Some "standard definition" of a rogue or a warrior.
-Invalid because Bioware is not using those definitions for its classes.-
3: assumptions that exclude logical possibilities.

So no, I don't get it. I don't get why "we moved the DW specialization" seems to mean "warriors can't pick up a second weapon" to some people. I don't get absurd leaps in logic or unsound arguments that say a = b  therefore a = c + pi + nugbombs + doom. I don't get why people take Laidlaw's statement to mean Warriors won't have any fighting ability anymore. I don't get why people can't comprehend the difference between a strength based class and a dexterity based class. I don't get why me and every other person who has pointed this out gets accused of being illiterate just because we think you're jumping to unfounded conclusions.

AND what does that have to do with giving rogues new abilities then? If I can't bring up giving warriors new abilities because it's not in line with the threads title; then why so much focus on how to change rogues?
What does "R.I.P. Dual-wielding warrior" have to do with giving rogues throwing knives?
If those who agree with you can bring up the subject of handing out new abilities then so can those of us who disagree.

Not to mention that you just proved my point. Instead of acknowledging the possiblity of warriors getting new abilities you claimed, yet again, that I'm not reading what people are writing.
Yes, I know, people are mad. My point is that they shouldn't be because we don't know the whole story. Are you reading what i'm writing now?

-edited for clarity and typos weeeeee =]-


So what is your justification for DW & Archery being a trait of the rogue class only? I don't see any logical explanation or fact justifying this either. How is a form of combat being available a to all classes of combatants an illogical explanation? Rogue has the ability use poison, stealth & lockpicking. Rogue learns the art of combat of a warrior to protect himself is the way of DA:O and I see no improvement in DA 2 by eliminating this factor. It doesn't take a form of combat to assasinate, nor infillitrate. It's purely for self defence while carrying out these acts. And yes, all forms of combat is of the warrior class.

Modifié par jsachun, 08 septembre 2010 - 10:09 .


#985
Monica83

Monica83
  • Members
  • 1 849 messages
Soooo.. it's seems many many people don't like this change... No we see if bioware take care of their costumer :P



Guys add new weapons class restricted or new ability but please donìt broke nothing

You don't make class Distinct.. but Static

#986
Blastback

Blastback
  • Members
  • 2 723 messages

Monica83 wrote...

Soooo.. it's seems many many people don't like this change... No we see if bioware take care of their costumer :P

Guys add new weapons class restricted or new ability but please donìt broke nothing
You don't make class Distinct.. but Static

Well, its to late to change this for DA2, thats been confirmed.  We can at best hope to see DW warriors make a return in 3.

#987
Monica83

Monica83
  • Members
  • 1 849 messages
Ill hope they don't turn dragon age in another casual gamer game

#988
Kastlefeer

Kastlefeer
  • Members
  • 137 messages
I must say that my Templar/Champion maul wielder had a lot of crowd control and was really good on bosses. My dagger wielding warrior that could hit like a truck with a bow if he wanted and was unhittable at higher levels, also had enough armor to survive overwhelms and grabs ... and ultimately finished the game solo. Rogues ... *sigh, too much work positioning... ah but that is part of the charm.

I guess my point is that while 2hander builds are fine, losing choices is a tough metric to swallow. I'm sure there's lots they want to "reveal" down the road but with such a short development cycle meh, it better be wowee zowee ...

... 14 years later ... http://younggodrecor...tail.asp?C=2343

#989
Siven80

Siven80
  • Members
  • 1 505 messages
If you havent read the new sticky Q&A thread yet social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/4715441   do it.

It's well worth reading and has a lot of info on things like this and some changes to classes which imo all make sense. You can ask gameplay questions and they may be answered but the thread is only for Q&A, discussions are preferred in threads like this.

#990
TMZuk

TMZuk
  • Members
  • 1 066 messages

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.:crying:


Yes, obviously. More and more adventure-game, less and less roleplaying game. :? Dumb it down, by restricting our choises. Well, I shouldn't care, I have given up on DA2.

Modifié par TMZuk, 08 septembre 2010 - 01:37 .


#991
Akka le Vil

Akka le Vil
  • Members
  • 1 466 messages

Siven80 wrote...

If you havent read the new sticky Q&A thread yet social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/4715441   do it.

It's well worth reading and has a lot of info on things like this and some changes to classes which imo all make sense. You can ask gameplay questions and they may be answered but the thread is only for Q&A, discussions are preferred in threads like this.

Actually it doesn't as much "make sense" as highligth they chose to take a direction, but simply made a bad design when trying to follow it.

#992
TMZuk

TMZuk
  • Members
  • 1 066 messages
OMG.... Twohanders hits more than one opponent with each swing........ This truly just became TO stupid for words!

#993
Monica83

Monica83
  • Members
  • 1 849 messages
We must pray to modder to fix it.... if they release a toolset....

#994
Jimmy Fury

Jimmy Fury
  • Members
  • 1 486 messages

jsachun wrote...
So what is your justification for DW & Archery being a trait of the rogue class only? I don't see any logical explanation or fact justifying this either.

Because Bioware wants to differentiate between them based on one being a strength based class (Warriors) and the other being a dexterity based class (Rogues).
Since the DW and Archery trees are both dexterity based in Dragon Age, moving them to the dexterity based class helps solidify the distinction between the two.

How is a form of combat being available a to all classes of combatants an illogical explanation?

It's not. Hence some of us pointing out that removing the dexterity-based DW skill tree does not exclude the possibility of including a strength based skill tree that can be used with two weapons.

But, conversely, there is no precedent in dragon age for all forms of combat to be available to all combatants. Mages never had any physical combat skills at all (even AW didn't provide any actual physical attacks), Rogues never had S+S or 2H combat skills, and Warriors never had underhanded combat skills.
Theoretically they should all be available to everyone because there's really no logical reason a mage can't be good with a Bow, a rogue can't learn how to handle a shield, and a warrior can't kick dirt in someone's face.
But that's not how the game works and it never was.
The limitation already existed where Mages were restricted to Magic based attacks and rogues were restricted to dexterity based attacks. This change simply extends that policy to limit Warriors to Strength based attacks.

Rogue has the ability use poison, stealth & lockpicking. Rogue learns the art of combat of a warrior to protect himself is the way of DA:O and I see no improvement in DA 2 by eliminating this factor. It doesn't take a form of combat to assasinate, nor infillitrate. It's purely for self defence while carrying out these acts. And yes, all forms of combat is of the warrior class.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it but it's not a fact.
Again, DA's rogues are not just assassins and infiltrators. They're also duelists and scouts and rangers. From a character-based perspective there is an equal chance of a rogue being a dwarven criminal, a dalish hunter, a human noble, or a dwarven noble. Nothing we have seen in Origins backs up the claim that rogues are all scoundrels, thieves, and assassins. Nor that they all learned combat purely for self-defense.


Personally, as I said many pages ago, I'd like to see them give the fighting style aspects of DW to Rogues and replace that branch in the Warrior Talents with weapons proficiency in blades.
To me (and this is my opinion), the existing DW tree was a fighting style not a weapons proficiency. Riposte, whirlwind, flurry, etc. had less to do with being good with a specific type of weapon and more to do with a specific style of fighting. Yet the 2H and Shield trees were about being good with a specific piece of equipment.
I saw the DW tree fitting better with a duelist than any other character at all because the duelist was about form, balance, and speed and those attacks were as well.
(I also found it silly that you could use those talents with an ax as your main-hand weapon. Jabbing with an ax seems... ineffective... :?)

Plus I don't think warriors should be limited to special moves in order to
deal a decent amount of damage. If they're supposed to be the front line and masters-at-arms (as other people have claimed) they should gain increases with all weapons not just some and they should be able to fight well all the time not just when they toss out a special move.
So, on that note... I think it would be nice if Warriors instead had something like a "Blade Mastery" tree that increased their attack rating, increased their DPS, and provided a few basic attacks that can be performed with any bladed weapon in whatever combination we choose.
In fact I'd like to see them replace all 4 existing trees with mastery trees dedicated to a type of equipment. Shield Mastery, Blade Mastery, Bludgeon Mastery (for hammers and the like) and Crossbow Mastery. Thus eliminating the DW, S+S, and 2H trees completely in favor of a system that increases overall proficiency depending on the preferred weapon type.
Of course, that's never going to happen but I still think it would be nice.

#995
Monica83

Monica83
  • Members
  • 1 849 messages
Mage are mages... They are not fighters they use spells they don't use weapons but magic this is why is logic for them to don't use swords mace staff...Learning magic takes time and a mage don't have time to encrease weapons ability like a warrior..



But a warrior is a fighter specialized in combat and in direct conflict its not logic remove for they hte opportunity to be different like a dextrity warrior with dual weapons or an arcier in terms of Roleplay.. Because this is a Roleplay game.. And classes are not simple a name of specialization they are the core the way of life of your character.. They cut warriors ability to use it only for rougue this is not logic!!! In terms of roleplay why a warrior don't know to use a bow then a rougue yes? No logic in this.. only a bad choice to keep class distinct.. But in this way they make classes also Static.. So someone like me that want be a female warrior is forced to make a spartan type one based on strenght and in terms of roleplay i don't want be a rogue and i don't want be a sort of she hulk muscolar woman! A rogue is also a way of life isn't only a stupid or a title for one class.. Choice should be taken in respect of the world background and not onlòy for gameplay this is not a beat em up this is not an action game or a stupid MMO this is a Rpg,, Open the dictionary and see what means rogue..

#996
TMZuk

TMZuk
  • Members
  • 1 066 messages

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.


Not making sense?! You did NOT just write that. :blink: It makes sense that your character can spout flames from your fingertips, make his eyes glow omniously, slaugher a hundred enemies at the time, hit all his opponents with one swing, stand up and say -ouch-, after having been mauled by a dragon, but not that he could flip and roll into attacks in plate-mail?

That is a RICH excuse from depriving people of yet more choise.

What is becoming blatantly clear is that this game will be all about combat, and nothing else. All you ever talk about in interviews and pre-views is how -great- the combat will be. Cool anaimations, voiced and fixed protagonist, silly weapon-restrictions: Welcome to Dragon Effect!

Modifié par TMZuk, 08 septembre 2010 - 03:27 .


#997
DPB

DPB
  • Members
  • 906 messages

TMZuk wrote...
What is becoming blatantly clear is that this game will be all about combat, and nothing else. All you ever talk about in interviews and pre-views is how -great- the combat will be. Cool anaimations, voiced and fixed protagonist, silly weapon-restrictions: Welcome to Dragon Effect!


That's an extreme exaggeration, they talk about the narrative style frequently.

#998
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 719 messages

Akka le Vil wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I thought that was exactly what J_F was saying.

So, what's exactly the point of coming to ask for argument all the while considering they are all invalid from the start ?


You got me. Ask J_F. I can understand posting once to say that everyone else is making worthless arguments, but more than that? Maybe every fifth page or so

Meaning may change with time and use, but that's QUITE a different thing than just ignoring the common sense of a word and redefine it at will.


I didn't see anyone doing that. It's not like Bio invented the idea of rogues wearing light armor and dual-wielding out of whole cloth. Looks to me like they stole it from D&D 3.0. It's just that they didn't bring rangers over while they were at it.

#999
Monica83

Monica83
  • Members
  • 1 849 messages
yes they did it... they mass effectively dragon age.. not in total but in many choice yes.. This is bad.. I remember great titles like BG BG2 Icerind dale 1 e 2 Nwn.. All beautyfull titles with great storyes far from perfect but masterpiece and now in those times.. First they release a nice title like DAO and later the made an action oriented sequel improved on animation but with less freedoom to build our character.. Forcing us to play with a partial premade one restrict our roleplay to be an human and limit classes ability to keep it distinct "static".. Im disappointed.. I dont know if i puchase dragon age 2 first i will try it if it statisfate me i puchase it..

#1000
Jimmy Fury

Jimmy Fury
  • Members
  • 1 486 messages

AlanC9 wrote...
You got me. Ask J_F. I can understand posting once to say that everyone else is making worthless arguments, but more than that? Maybe every fifth page or so


I think he's pretending i'm not here now :happy:.