1380 réponses à ce sujet

[biomag]

jsachun wrote...

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. 

I am expecting the same BS... funny enough, I never used real tanks or DPS rogues at DA:O... each and every member of my part was an offensive build, but now Bioware is forcing me more and more in the same roles everyone else is playing...

Thanks again BW... individuality really hurts RPGs...

[Wishpig]

biomag wrote...

jsachun wrote...

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. 

I am expecting the same BS... funny enough, I never used real tanks or DPS rogues at DA:O... each and every member of my part was an offensive build, but now Bioware is forcing me more and more in the same roles everyone else is playing...

Thanks again BW... individuality really hurts RPGs...

Wow... thats a whole lot of presumption based on little fact. How the hell do you know you can't play an DPS based warrior? A two-handed warrior was JUST as offensive as a DW warrior in DA:O... they served pretty much the same damn role.

Compared to the warrior, I always felt the rogues weapon based talents were very very very very lacking. Now that only THEY can use DW, they'll stand out from the warrior's shadow.

But I think the major thing bioware needs to do here is allow rogue characters to feel as much like soldiers as they could criminals. What do I mean by this?

Take the legonare scout in awakening, it was an official, respectible, military like class for your rogue. So you don't have to feel like your playing a criminal like class.

Hard to explain, but hopefully some people get it.

Modifié par Wishpig, 12 septembre 2010 - 03:16 .

[Loc'n'lol]

Wishpig wrote...

A two-handed warrior was JUST as offensive as a DW warrior in DA:O... they served pretty much the same damn role.

Nah, they treaded a fine line between crowd-control based tanking and single-target damage with a bit of aoe damage and were overall pretty underwhelming and lacking a well-defined role (not to say it was impossible to make a good two-hander warrior, but it certainly was more challenging than other styles).

This new limitation should ensure they are well-suited to at least one role. and of course there will still be options to be able to do more stuff on the side, it was pretty much confirmed that all classes would have crowd-control and party support abilities, regardless of the weapon style they use.

[biomag]

1. A two-handed warrior wasn't a DPS character at DA:O. He was more a crowd control guy. The DW was the 1 vs 1 guy... the same as they announced for DA:2.



2. I never used them that restricted in those roles. My "tank" wasn't a specialized tank, but a guy using shield and sword to kill. My party didn't need a tactic were everyone jumped on the tank, while the others killed. Yes, Alistair was the guy who could withstand a few enemies at once, but so could others. With other words, my tanks wasn't based on endurance and dexterity to take as much attacks as possible. Neither were my rogues left with no endurance/strength, as they didn't need it.



3. I said I am expecting it and no wonder I am... they already made sure we understand that you can't arm your people the way you want but just with "class" weapon combinations. That is a huge restriction. Now, to make the classes more distinct the weapon styles must also make more difference (and they already said that the warrior won't be the best 1 vs 1, but the rogue). And now add my comment: The characters will be more and more the same builds. Yes, because you can either play a warrior with s&s (= defensive variant) or with 2-hander (= offensive variant). Same with archer and dw rogue build. So what big difference will be left? 4 main character styles + mages.

[Wishpig]

biomag wrote...

1. A two-handed warrior wasn't a DPS character at DA:O. He was more a crowd control guy. The DW was the 1 vs 1 guy... the same as they announced for DA:2.

2. I never used them that restricted in those roles. My "tank" wasn't a specialized tank, but a guy using shield and sword to kill. My party didn't need a tactic were everyone jumped on the tank, while the others killed. Yes, Alistair was the guy who could withstand a few enemies at once, but so could others. With other words, my tanks wasn't based on endurance and dexterity to take as much attacks as possible. Neither were my rogues left with no endurance/strength, as they didn't need it.

3. I said I am expecting it and no wonder I am... they already made sure we understand that you can't arm your people the way you want but just with "class" weapon combinations. That is a huge restriction. Now, to make the classes more distinct the weapon styles must also make more difference (and they already said that the warrior won't be the best 1 vs 1, but the rogue). And now add my comment: The characters will be more and more the same builds. Yes, because you can either play a warrior with s&s (= defensive variant) or with 2-hander (= offensive variant). Same with archer and dw rogue build. So what big difference will be left? 4 main character styles + mages.

Well, my wto-handed warrior was a beserker/reaver... so he was a 1v1 kind of guy.

Anyways, fair enough... good points one and all.

Don't totally presume the worst though. The combat/class system is being heavily revamped, we know you can't be a DW warrior true, BUT we have no idea the other changes in store for the warrior/rogue class. Nor do we have any idea what speclizations there will be.

It could be taking a more restrictive path, but then agian, there may be things that offset that restrictive path.

[biomag]

Now, I am sure I will enjoy the game as classes and combat are nice, but story keeps me to a game in the end. The only reason why I am pissed, is because Bioware is heading the wrong direction. Yes, a story could be based on a certain race, but either you make a prefixed main character or give the players real freedom to develop them. Right now, it sounds like a horrible cliche system they are implementing and its for sure a huge step back. No matter how good it turns out, it would be by far better if they did the same improvements by keeping a freedom to choose your combat style.

class restrictions are some of the worst things you can do in a rpg reducing characters to cliches.



Edit: I ain't talking about specializations right now. We know nothing about them in DA:2 and they come late in the game anyhow (normally). Its just about the basic ideas that dominate a combat/character development system.

Modifié par biomag, 12 septembre 2010 - 03:57 .

[Synnworld]

ErichHartmann wrote...

Why would they want to limit our character building options?  <_<  Makes no sense.....  

Or maybe he was opening up the warrior for something new and to create an actual difference between warrior and rogue set up. I won't be crying over this, because I'd be happy to see a spear line for the warrior.

[Wishpig]

biomag wrote...
Edit: I ain't talking about specializations right now. We know nothing about them in DA:2 and they come late in the game anyhow (normally). Its just about the basic ideas that dominate a combat/character development system.

I know your not talking about specialzations, but you should be as they adress my point, it's just far to early to predict warriors are being more and more forced into a tank role and less of a DPS role.

First off you get your first specilization in DA:O really freakin early on. I normally got my second spec slighty before or after mid-game. Thats not late in the game by anymeans...

Second off, they can drastically change how your character plays. Take two-handed warriors for example. You said the two-handed warrior wasn't a 1v1 fighter, but more crowd control. Well, with Beserker and Reaver he was more 1v1 and really felt like he filled the same role as my DW warrior.

[Akka le Vil]

Synnworld wrote...

Or maybe he was opening up the warrior for something new and to create an actual difference between warrior and rogue set up. I won't be crying over this, because I'd be happy to see a spear line for the warrior.

Let's say it again : how exactly taking a typically "warrior" technique, and making "rogue" simply a "dex-based fighter", are making both classes more distinct and unique ?

[Wulfram]

So long as the other specialisations are good, I don't think I'll miss fighter dual wielding that much.



Not being able to use a bow will hurt though. This is one reason I don't tend to keep Dog in the party for long.

[1varangian]

While I understand the reasoning behind restricting options I hope they will leave it open to add more versatility to the classes later. I would like to see:



- Rogues using a single dagger or a single longsword/scimitar class weapon two handed. This should be more common than dual wield imo.

- Warriors getting access to dual wield and archery talents that are not "roguelike"

- Mages getting access to basic weapon talents if they meet the requirements



I just don't see the need to tie class abilities with weapon styles, at least not all of them. There could be a finesse dual weapon tree for Rogues and a heavy dual weapon tree for Warriors. Restricting archery for warriors I cant understand at all.



Likewise forcing all mages to wield a staff is very cliche and annoying. Other games have cool stuff like Orbs for wizards now. They shouldn't be forced to carry a stick.

[Bullets McDeath]

This thread is depressing. For... all kinds of reasons. It has left me questioning my purpose in life. But it doesn't seem to bode very well at all... the developer explanations can basically be boiled down to "we are running low on money AND ideas, so... we just moved some sh*te around. Look, it's new and different".



Flippy ninja rogue animations aside, the idea of removing DW warriors seems to be born out of... ineptitude... for lack of a more polite word, and not any real purpose.

[Synnworld]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Synnworld wrote...

Or maybe he was opening up the warrior for something new and to create an actual difference between warrior and rogue set up. I won't be crying over this, because I'd be happy to see a spear line for the warrior.

Let's say it again : how exactly taking a typically "warrior" technique, and making "rogue" simply a "dex-based fighter", are making both classes more distinct and unique ?

How is combining a cloisture of skills making it more unique, yet alone useful? All I found was trying to make hybrids in this game a waste of points when each character can be given a role in the game and stickwith it. One reason II prefer a mage, its versatile but still old the role as a game.... until I shapeshift into a ogre, dragon, or pride demon, or high dragon then companions become obsolete.

[tmp7704]

Morroian wrote...

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.

Yeah; the dual-wield talent group itself lends pretty well to creation of two disctinct fighter styles -- one is a rogue without full sized weapon talent (so generally fighting with daggers) and the flurry/whirlwind talent line, the other is a warrior with full sized weapon talent (using two swords and whatnot) and the dual-striking/punisher talent line. That gives you one guy being all about rapidly stabbing people in the back with the toothpicks and another being all about brutal in-your-face hits and counters.

[tmp7704]

Synnworld wrote...

Or maybe he was opening up the warrior for something new and to create an actual difference between warrior and rogue set up. I won't be crying over this, because I'd be happy to see a spear line for the warrior.

There's no new weapon styles coming for the warrior. You get two-hand weapon or weapon+shield. And that's it.

[DarkSpiral]

biomag wrote...
3. I said I am expecting it and no wonder I am... they already made sure we understand that you can't arm your people the way you want but just with "class" weapon combinations. That is a huge restriction. Now, to make the classes more distinct the weapon styles must also make more difference (and they already said that the warrior won't be the best 1 vs 1, but the rogue). And now add my comment: The characters will be more and more the same builds. Yes, because you can either play a warrior with s&s (= defensive variant) or with 2-hander (= offensive variant). Same with archer and dw rogue build. So what big difference will be left? 4 main character styles + mages.

Good points.  I'd like to add that Peter Thomas has mentioned several times, in his excellent Q&A thread, that specializations have almost as many skill trees as base classes themselves do.  This leads me to thinking that the specializations will be far, far mor esignificant than they were in DA:O.  Tenplar or Champion added a few small stat bumps and maybe one or two extra abilties.  They didn't really change how the class felt.  If, and I stress ifbecause right now there isn't much info to go on, the specialization are that much larger, then they will have a significantly larger effect on your build.  Suppostion?  Yes.  But so is any discussion about the talent trees at this point, as we have little hard info.

[DarkSpiral]

Synnworld wrote...

How is combining a cloisture of skills making it more unique, yet alone useful? All I found was trying to make hybrids in this game a waste of points when each character can be given a role in the game and stickwith it. One reason II prefer a mage, its versatile but still old the role as a game.... until I shapeshift into a ogre, dragon, or pride demon, or high dragon then companions become obsolete.

Synn, if you really shapeshifted into a demon or a dragon, then you were using mods, in which case you've fundementally altered the way the works in the first place, and therefore your comment has no real bearing on the situation anymore.

[tmp7704]

DarkSpiral wrote...

I'd like to add that Peter Thomas has mentioned several times, in his excellent Q&A thread, that specializations have almost as many skill trees as base classes themselves do.  This leads me to thinking that the specializations will be far, far mor esignificant than they were in DA:O.

I think it's more accurate to expect the main skill lines to be trimmed down in size, than the specializations to be significantly expanded -- it's said in that other thread that you're going to spend up to 10 points per skill line or specialization, which means, with some active abilities accepting additional points to upgrade their effects, you're probably looking at 5-7 items in a tree total, ~half of them likely to be passives.

[DarkSpiral]

tmp7704 wrote...
I think it's more accurate to expect the main skill lines to be trimmed down in size, than the specializations to be significantly expanded -- it's said in that other thread that you're going to spend up to 10 points per skill line or specialization, which means, with some active abilities accepting additional points to upgrade their effects, you're probably looking at 5-7 items in a tree total, ~half of them likely to be passives.

Some of column "A," some of the Column "B," I imagine.

The key words he used were "trees."  Plural.  Specializations in DA:O were one tree.  That wording suggests they now have at least two.  Which is %100 more impact on your build than they had in DA:O.

[M8DMAN]

The DW warrior's was my favorite class in DA:O.   I mean with the right skill management  you had the perfect crowd controller.

Bioware dont make DA2 more generic by removing DW warriors, some of us want the Dual wielding to stay.

Modifié par M8DMAN, 13 septembre 2010 - 09:40 .

[jsachun]

I still don't understand how peolpe believe a DW warrior can't deal with crowds or are just there to handle 1vs1.

Check out my DW warrior in action against crowds on nightmare mode. 

[Milana_Saros]

So not only am I forced to stick with insanely boring 2H weapons in WoW Arms Warrior PvP but now I have to do it in DA2 as well...



*deep sigh*



*holds thumbs up for GW2*



At least make 2H warriors that REALLY do smash faces.

[tmp7704]

DarkSpiral wrote...

Some of column "A," some of the Column "B," I imagine.

The key words he used were "trees."  Plural.  Specializations in DA:O were one tree.  That wording suggests they now have at least two.  Which is %100 more impact on your build than they had in DA:O.

Well, the talents for mage are visible in gameplay video here: 
 at around 6:30 sec mark. Each appears to hav 6-7 options so looks i was quite close.

Regarding specializations i believe you're mistaken. There's post in the dev thread which states it pretty clear:

http://social.biowar.../6&lf=8#4732429

Peter Thomas wrote...

I can't comment on the nature of specializations or how/when you get them. Each specialization would be a single talent tree of regular size.

[Wishpig]

There seems to be two major reasons people are upset over this.

1. The appearance and customization aspect. Dual wielding warriors look cool, and it's another way to make your character stand out. I know I main'ed a dual wielding warrior simply because I planned to have Oghren and Alistair in my group... having another two-hander or shield warrior would, well, be kind of boring.

2. Fear of warriors as a whole moving away from having offense potential towards being mainly meat shields. I know my dual wielding warrior was an f*in beast on the battlefield. Actually felt almost as deadly as my DPS based Morrigan (albeit on a 1v1 level).

Well here are my two answers.

1. Yes, this is true. Not much to really do about this one. But hopefully we'll have multiple weapon types this time around, like spears, flails, and something more exiting then maces, swords, daggers, and axes to offset this. Plus, archery kind of sucked in DA:O, if warriors can be archers and crossbows are still strength based and are actually GOOD, then it will open up a whole new path!

2. This could end up being the case, but at the same time it may not be. We don't know enough about the warrior class nor anything about specilzations. An offense warrior could still be very viable.

Modifié par Wishpig, 13 septembre 2010 - 04:21 .

[Addai]

Wishpig wrote...

1. Yes, this is true. Not much to really do about this one. But hopefully we'll have multiple weapon types this time around, like spears, flails, and something more exiting then maces, swords, daggers, and axes to offset this. Plus, archery kind of sucked in DA:O, if warriors can be archers and crossbows are still strength based and are actually GOOD, then it will open up a whole new path!

2. This could end up being the case, but at the same time it may not be. We don't know enough about the warrior class nor anything about specilzations. An offense warrior could still be very viable.

Yeah, it all depends on what changes they make in the warrior class that will hopefully make it a) more exciting, sexier, c) with DPS possibilities.

I mainly used the DW warrior spec on Alistair.  He is a beast as a DW warrior- I could just sit back and watch him, fangirl that I am.   It also allows you to combine the idea of a tank (I use him to taunt so my rogue can get  backstabs, or on a mage PC so that she can use aggro-inducing spells like Fireball and Miasma without getting killed) with high-DPS killing machine.  I was thinking that it would be a shame having your NPC warrior followers be more limited.  But as long as the more restricted classes can still serve the same functions, it would be ok.

And then there are always the modders to save the day... assuming a toolset, of course...

Modifié par Addai67, 13 septembre 2010 - 04:33 .