1380 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkSpiral]

distinguetraces wrote...

Yes, my hope is that this clarification of roles will allow non-combat skills like lockpicking to be separated from the Rogue class.

On the other hand, I think it would be cool if traps were made a rogue-specific talent line (and much more powerful than their Origins incarnation).

I'll second that.  I tried to play a trapmaster, I really did.  But the oomph just wasn't there.  Haven't really bothered with them since, and my plathroughs haven't suffered for their lack.  It'd be cool if they were made relevant.  Failing that, I think they should be removed.  The only thing that skill line was good for was the increase to trap-detection range, and that could be built into some other line of skills.  A general-purpose tree, or something.

Anyway: Dual Wielding.  I'm of the opnion that the separation of Warrior/Rogue is suppsoed to be a matter of style rather than an actual occupation.  Where as mages are....y'know...obviously mages, warriors and rogues were "soldiers" or "bandits" etc.  Their class was less a matter of what they were as how they did their job.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that NPCs don't ever reffer to you by class.  Well, except for mages.

My point is that the separation doesn't really bother me.  It's kind of like in 4th Edtion D&D (Yes, I know.  DA is not D&D.  But it's one of the oldest examples, and is for th emost part the origin of most of the RPG archetypes) where if I want to play an archer, I pick the ranger class.  It doesn't automatically follow that I liek animals, the woods, or am an expert tracker.  The skillset I want is in that class, therefore I pick that class.  In DA2, if I want to play a dual-wielding warrior, I'll pick the rogue class.

Of course, if anyone in Kirkwall begins reffering to Hawke as "a rogue" my entire concept goes out the window.  We'll see in about six months, won't we.

[hottkarl4lyf]

I don't understand why everybody is so up in arms about warriors loosing the ability to duel-wield. I can understand the argument from a lore based perspective, i.e. warriors are Masters-at-Arms, and should be able to use ANY weapon. But at the same time, being a "master-at-arms" should be about using weapons that are the most effective, right? From what I have read in certain other forums, a warrior using a big 2 hander hits multiple enemies in one regular swing. If that is the case and I havent mis-read anything, that is insanely super awesome. Why would a warrior want to use two smaller weapons on one target at a time when he could use a big sweep of a huge broad sword to hit them all at once? That would be the most effective thing to do as a warrior, who I think that everyone can agree shouldnt be able to backstab or what not, right?

Also, I'm seeing this trend on here that goes something like "Well my warrior in DA:O was a Duel-Wielder!"
....So? So was mine....but that is because duel-wield warriors were awesome....in DA:O. I used a duel-wielder simply because the two handed style had one move that hit everybody around him, and it was on a terribly long cool down, and it was super slow. So unless the enemies were standing still and not moving to another party member or simply running away, it wouldn't connect at all. Duel-Wielders were faster and with two handed sweep and whirlwind, I got to hit alot of people at once. But it sounds like Bioware is fixing this. Rogues will be single target DPS and be able to do cool ninja flips and be all super speedy in combat and s*#t, and warriors will be able to F*#k S*#t up while be surrounded by multiple assailants, which, to me at least, is the core ingrediant for a warrior bathed in the fires of bad-assery, right?

All in all, I think that this game will be one for the ages, regaurdless of little tweaks here and there that make some people be like "LOLWUTROFLCOPTERPWNEDBBQSAUCE thats a TERRIBLE IDEA!" I bet these same people will be back posting "OMFGTIHS****ROXORS!" when the game actually comes out. It's always happened like that in previous Bioware installments, and I think that this is no exception.

[HTTP 404]

hottkarl4lyf wrote...

I don't understand why everybody is so up in arms about warriors loosing the ability to duel-wield. I can understand the argument from a lore based perspective, i.e. warriors are Masters-at-Arms, and should be able to use ANY weapon. But at the same time, being a "master-at-arms" should be about using weapons that are the most effective, right? From what I have read in certain other forums, a warrior using a big 2 hander hits multiple enemies in one regular swing. If that is the case and I havent mis-read anything, that is insanely super awesome. Why would a warrior want to use two smaller weapons on one target at a time when he could use a big sweep of a huge broad sword to hit them all at once? That would be the most effective thing to do as a warrior, who I think that everyone can agree shouldnt be able to backstab or what not, right?

Also, I'm seeing this trend on here that goes something like "Well my warrior in DA:O was a Duel-Wielder!"
....So? So was mine....but that is because duel-wield warriors were awesome....in DA:O. I used a duel-wielder simply because the two handed style had one move that hit everybody around him, and it was on a terribly long cool down, and it was super slow. So unless the enemies were standing still and not moving to another party member or simply running away, it wouldn't connect at all. Duel-Wielders were faster and with two handed sweep and whirlwind, I got to hit alot of people at once. But it sounds like Bioware is fixing this. Rogues will be single target DPS and be able to do cool ninja flips and be all super speedy in combat and s*#t, and warriors will be able to F*#k S*#t up while be surrounded by multiple assailants, which, to me at least, is the core ingrediant for a warrior bathed in the fires of bad-assery, right?

All in all, I think that this game will be one for the ages, regaurdless of little tweaks here and there that make some people be like "LOLWUTROFLCOPTERPWNEDBBQSAUCE thats a TERRIBLE IDEA!" I bet these same people will be back posting "OMFGTIHS****ROXORS!" when the game actually comes out. It's always happened like that in previous Bioware installments, and I think that this is no exception.

I agree but not as passionate as you.  change is difficult.  I actually think the simplification is refreshing, what concerns me is the skill tree they put in place very curious to see what it looks like.  If it looks like Old Republic trees, that may look promising.  Granted I never saw OLd republic skill tree in practice just a snapshot of it.

Also the argument really isn that the Warrior loses duel weapon ability or bow abilities its that people are losing options.

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

Anyway, all this making classes more distinct is stupid because playing a rogue itself is completely different already. I micro-manage my Rogue all the time for stealth and backstabs. Unless Bioware is making things more simple here with the Rogue flinging both their arms and rushing into battles with the warriors(which in turn made Rogues more like Warriors now). I don't know.

[nisallik]

It is obvious why they did this. Other than stealth, backstab, and opening locks... the warrior class could do everything rogues could plus two additional paths. I'm sure they will make the 2-handed/shield+sword warrior a lot more enjoyable, wait until we see it all in action before coming to a conclusion.

[Anarchosyn]

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. It is both really, in character and out of character as a game mechanic and as a plot device..

And I'd counter your counter-argument by reminding you that NOT ONCE did anybody make a verbal distinction between warriors and rogues in the original DA. 

I played a rogue -- nobody ever made even the slightest peep. 

Why should a fighting style be tied to a class? Why should anything be tied to a class? Well, because .. that's kind of the definition of a class: something with ascribed traits (and in this case those ascribed traits are fighting styles).  

[Addai]

Anarchosyn wrote...

And I'd counter your counter-argument by reminding you that NOT ONCE did anybody make a verbal distinction between warriors and rogues in the original DA. 

I played a rogue -- nobody ever made even the slightest peep. 

Why should a fighting style be tied to a class? Why should anything be tied to a class? Well, because .. that's kind of the definition of a class: something with ascribed traits (and in this case those ascribed traits are fighting styles).  

Sometimes they did in the origin stories, e.g. Howe in the HN origin makes a different comment about a rogue than about a warrior, you have a different option with the father in the CE origin.  It mattered when it came to unlocking specializations.  Isabela would comment on whether or not you looked apt to be a duelist, for instance.  Otherwise there's not much reason for anyone to comment, no?

[DarkSpiral]

Addai67 wrote...
Sometimes they did in the origin stories, e.g. Howe in the HN origin makes a different comment about a rogue than about a warrior, you have a different option with the father in the CE origin.  It mattered when it came to unlocking specializations.  Isabela would comment on whether or not you looked apt to be a duelist, for instance.  Otherwise there's not much reason for anyone to comment, no?

True, but none of them referred to you as a rogue.  They reffered to the style of combat you used.  Brawn vs Agility, at the risk of oversimplifying.

Actually, I can't recall what Cyrion said anymore.  I've only ever plaued one CE.  But Howe and Isabella remark on your fighting style, they never actually name you a rogue.  If they did, well, that would be different.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Anarchosyn wrote...

And I'd counter your counter-argument by reminding you that NOT ONCE did anybody make a verbal distinction between warriors and rogues in the original DA. 

I played a rogue -- nobody ever made even the slightest peep. 

Why should a fighting style be tied to a class? Why should anything be tied to a class? Well, because .. that's kind of the definition of a class: something with ascribed traits (and in this case those ascribed traits are fighting styles).  

That was Bioware's time constraints/not thinking along those lines really that they didn't include something plot-wise to seperate rogues and warriors. They did include a certain set of missions for thieves in Denerim but allowed warriors with pick pocket skills to pick them up. There also was the occaisional dialogue choice that hinted at a different reaction but I can only think of a couple off the top of my head. I also didn't understand why they let us unlock specialization classes with characters that weren't even in that class. In some situations it made sense, in others it didn't. I wish more was done overall with adding the occaisional side quest for rogues or warriors.

I'm all for tying certain skill perks to a class, but basic fighting styles in the examples given make absolutely no sense. Sure, some of the perks should be about fighting to spice things up. Maybe it could just be how the combat animations play out between classes but there are flashy fighters and non-flashy fighters (ditto for rogues). Not allowing a rogue to pick up a shield and learn how to use it or not allow a warrior to pick up dual weapons and learn advanced techniques is kind of goofy, there's no sense behind it. If the only reason is to distinguish the classes, that just sounds plain lazy and takes away another freedom from the player for creativity in customizing their character.

I just don't enjoy being stuck playing a deadended, nonsensically limited fantasy architype of a class with little customization. I'm hoping the class features will show so creativity and hearing that there are now limitations of fighting styles for classes BECAUSE that is supposed to introduce creativity to said classes seems a bit backwards to me. The best thing that could happen at this point is to toss out all classes (yep...all 3!) and just let players drop points in stats to earn skills. Then you could make a pure mage, pure fighter, pure rogue or any combination of the three, crossovers an open option if the correct stats are met on leveling.

[DarkSpiral]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

That was Bioware's time constraints/not thinking along those lines really that they didn't include something plot-wise to seperate rogues and warriors.

I realize that is only one sentence out of your post, but I would like you to clarify something, if you don't mind.  You are suggesting that the lack of any NPC refferring to you as a "rogue" is an example of laziness, or that they simply failed to realize they shoudl do such a thing?  Or did I misunderstand you?

[TMZuk]

hottkarl4lyf wrote...

I don't understand why everybody is so up in arms about warriors loosing the ability to duel-wield. I can understand the argument from a lore based perspective, i.e. warriors are Masters-at-Arms, and should be able to use ANY weapon....

Because, damn it,  I want to be able to CHOOSE an ineffective build, and use WHATEVER weapon that comes to mind. It's not a shooter-game, it's an RPG, or so they say! So allow me to do as I please, instead of restricting me, in terms of race, background, and now also in choise of weapon! DROP it already, Bioware, it's a rotten descision!

[DarkSpiral]

TMZuk wrote...
Because, damn it,  I want to be able to CHOOSE an ineffective build, and use WHATEVER weapon that comes to mind. It's not a shooter-game, it's an RPG, or so they say! So allow me to do as I please, instead of restricting me, in terms of race, background, and now also in choise of weapon! DROP it already, Bioware, it's a rotten descision!

Well, they aren't going to.  We know this, right?  We also know that hottkarl4lyf isn't a Bioware dev, so screaming at Bioware over his comment makes you look overly dramatic.

Also, I can count on one hand the number of RPG games I've played that did not have class or race restrictions on weapons and armor.  The Elder Scrolls series makes up the majority of those.  So, weapon restcitions are something of an RPG staple.  I don't really care for them, m ind you, but they've predictably been a convention of the genre for many years, in multiple mediums.  Therefore I am not sure why you mention it.  And as there aren't any guns or cover rules DA2 is still not a shooter.  No matter how many times people scream about the use of the dialogue wheel or the recorded voice work for Hawke, neither of which have anything to do with combat mechanics in the first place.

[Elanareon]

Because they are slowly removing things that makes their games wonderful... They are like stripping off their games with its components! Soon they'll be making movies... Maybe that isn't a bad idea, they have awesome trailers!

[nightcobra]

i have no problem in letting the rogues be the only ones to double wield, now i want to see is the steal skill exclusive to rogues and turn the lockpick skill available to all classes

[Onix Sunstone]

I love DW wars or Champions, there is no logic to not having them its just silly choice so they can have the ninja moves but why not have a rogue jumping around with dagger DW setup & war on there own DW big weapon tree without the jumping about or make that more an armor class restriction. Even using a bow should be fine for a war Bioware should do the seperation with skill trees not restritions on choice, e.g War uses long bows for slower but powerfull hitting & the rouge short bows but much faster firing & maybe even wile moving with the higher skill.



Also agree on the giving everyone lock picking skills this was realy annoying gameplay wise in DAO & even in WH DLC were you might never have a rouge they had locked chests so annying having something left unchecked even tho its oftern junk.



Since they got all there DAO/DLC poeple on DA2 as well now a few more annimations shouldnt be a big deal

[TMZuk]

DarkSpiral wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
Because, damn it,  I want to be able to CHOOSE an ineffective build, and use WHATEVER weapon that comes to mind. It's not a shooter-game, it's an RPG, or so they say! So allow me to do as I please, instead of restricting me, in terms of race, background, and now also in choise of weapon! DROP it already, Bioware, it's a rotten descision!

Well, they aren't going to.  We know this, right?  We also know that hottkarl4lyf isn't a Bioware dev, so screaming at Bioware over his comment makes you look overly dramatic.

Also, I can count on one hand the number of RPG games I've played that did not have class or race restrictions on weapons and armor.  The Elder Scrolls series makes up the majority of those.  So, weapon restcitions are something of an RPG staple.  I don't really care for them, m ind you, but they've predictably been a convention of the genre for many years, in multiple mediums.  Therefore I am not sure why you mention it.  And as there aren't any guns or cover rules DA2 is still not a shooter.  No matter how many times people scream about the use of the dialogue wheel or the recorded voice work for Hawke, neither of which have anything to do with combat mechanics in the first place.

I am well aware they won't. But I am sick and tired of people asking: "Why are you upset that they remove options and choises?" Options and choises are one of the main ingridients of an RPG. And just because that Bioware have always embraced classes is no reason they should continue to do so, and certainly it's no reason they should make these classes even more restrictive.

And when the reason they remove the DW option for warriors is because of animations, I am just speechless. Animations... wauw. Now, there is an important part of a good RPG! *Deep sarcasm here.*

Modifié par TMZuk, 12 septembre 2010 - 12:07 .

[Elanareon]

Yeah why remove DW? They can make Warriors do longswords DW, rogues Daggers DW. Warrior slow archery Rogue fast archery. Warriors focuses on skills having more stamina, rogues on fast auto attack, "jumping around" (restrict jumps for heavy armors and heavier weapons?), poisons, traps, backstabs (have em do double backstabs with double daggers). There is so much can be done than removing a viable way of playing warriors...

[M8DMAN]

This reminds me of ME2, Bioware makes a gameplay tweak i dont like. And then they tell me to just deal with it.

Whats next bioware? You gonna restrict warriors to Two handed weapons only. Way to go bioware taking the choice out of an RPG.

Bioware when did you get so lazy?

Modifié par M8DMAN, 12 septembre 2010 - 12:41 .

[Steingrimur Steingrimsson]

Kratos does not approve...

[M8DMAN]

Tirigon wrote...

Dynamomark wrote...
those aren't the only reasons

The ones he gave suck.

What is this "its to late to change" Bullcrap? The game comes out in march, that's 7 month's away. 

That should be  plenty of time to add a few Dual wielding warrior animations.

Modifié par M8DMAN, 12 septembre 2010 - 12:48 .

[Morroian]

I've been supporting BW is this particular debate but I'm turned around on it now. I'm replaying DAO with a DW warrior build to try it cause I've only had a DW rogue before and I now think it does play quite differently from a rogue and it is a pity not be able to play as one in DA2. Mind you I do still understand BW's decision but I think they should have gone the way some have suggested in merging warriors and rogues into 1 fighter class. They could still vary the number of skills a character gets say on their cunning stat.

[jsachun]

hottkarl4lyf wrote...

I don't understand why everybody is so up in arms about warriors loosing the ability to duel-wield. I can understand the argument from a lore based perspective, i.e. warriors are Masters-at-Arms, and should be able to use ANY weapon. But at the same time, being a "master-at-arms" should be about using weapons that are the most effective, right? From what I have read in certain other forums, a warrior using a big 2 hander hits multiple enemies in one regular swing. If that is the case and I havent mis-read anything, that is insanely super awesome. Why would a warrior want to use two smaller weapons on one target at a time when he could use a big sweep of a huge broad sword to hit them all at once? That would be the most effective thing to do as a warrior, who I think that everyone can agree shouldnt be able to backstab or what not, right?

It looks more like their doing warrior mage type of character judging by the trailer. And the question still remains how is this making classes more distinctive?

Anyway whirlwind plus duel hand sweep with two lonswords wipes all enemies close by, so I don't see how DW is less effective than a two hander at dealing with crowds. I think people should get the misconception of DW combat being a dagger specific out of their heads before they can see what the arguement is all about.

Modifié par jsachun, 12 septembre 2010 - 01:15 .

[Wishpig]

All I gotta say is I'm shocked to see so many people saying DW warrior wasn't a good class (although some also beg to differ like me). I thought DW warrior was fantastic. He generally seemed more efficient at killing than my two-handed warrior. Plus he stayed alive much longer thanks to high dex.



That said, I can totally see why bioware is ditching the DW warrior for DA2. Makes sense for many reasons... all mentioned 10 times over at this point.

[jsachun]

M8DMAN wrote...

This reminds me of ME2, Bioware makes a gameplay tweak i dont like. And then they tell me to just deal with it.

Whats next bioware? You gonna restrict warriors to Two handed weapons only. Way to go bioware taking the choice out of an RPG.

Bioware when did you get so lazy?

Well at least in ME2 all combat weapons are still available to the soldier class. I think DA2 warriors will end up with talents such as stamina clash that will end up doing stupid amounts of damage like manaclsah did, but you'll not be able to DW & Archery. Simply because your a pathetic Massive Armour Wearing Tank that just there to take hits for everyone. 

Modifié par jsachun, 12 septembre 2010 - 01:54 .