1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Count Viceroy]

I think we should wait until we see the new stuff in action before we cry foul



shocking suggestion I know.

[Dave of Canada]

I played a DW Warrior and DW Rogue and unless I was going for dagger builds, the class felt exactly the same with the rogue just having better DW specs.

[soundchaser721]

To me its another example of how DA2 is having less customizable options than Origins, sure the idea of more specialized classes seems cool, but the way its being handled calls for less options. If your a warrior its either tank or two hander. I personally liked how they gave more options to warriors in origins it made them balanced and not nearly as restricted as they seem to be in DA2.

[dislye]

Elanareon 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.

That doesn't make sense at all... first of all DW warrios hold 2 on handed swords... The problem with what you are saying is your daggers look like swords that's why they look the same! If you fixed that you would have different  animations for Daggers and Swords... Daggers should be making thrusting movements while swords making slashing movements...

I dunno this move really dissapoints me im sorry...

 Actually, what Mike said made perfect sense. Now on the other hand what YOU said........

[boohead]

soundchaser721 wrote...

To me its another example of how DA2 is having less customizable options than Origins, sure the idea of more specialized classes seems cool, but the way its being handled calls for less options. If your a warrior its either tank or two hander. I personally liked how they gave more options to warriors in origins it made them balanced and not nearly as restricted as they seem to be in DA2.

i'd rather tanking and 2hander be far more fleshed out , rather than having a cloned rogue spec 

[Zhijn]

Lilacs wrote...

That truly sucks! Warriors do dual-wield and is a masrter of arms. Why would they take that away? Let's hope this is just a hype!

Its not a hype, a dev actually confirmed it! Heh. =P

[Dr. wonderful]

From what I can tell



Rogue are faster and tricky, more cunning then a hungry mouse.



Warriors: Fast but not Rogue level: They are like Raging Bulls that see red wth the charge.



Mage quicker then a warrior (Why not? Templers are warriors and mages are outrunning Templers) but slower then the rogue. It by what I can see the most DANGEROUS class.

[Dave of Canada]

boohead wrote...

i'd rather tanking and 2hander be far more fleshed out , rather than having a cloned rogue spec 

Pretty much this. When they create class specific specs, they can go wild and make sure it fits the class' role and stereotype while giving it to two classes makes it so you need to balance the feel for both (and in the end it loses it's awesome).

[nightcobra]

if a warrior needs to strike at long range. do we have skills to compensate the lack of the archery tree on the warrior?

[Faz432]

I suppose if they've added a lot of polish to the 2h then it's not too bad...but still..

Modifié par Faz432, 05 septembre 2010 - 01:35 .

[hexaligned]

boohead wrote...

soundchaser721 wrote...

To me its another example of how DA2 is having less customizable options than Origins, sure the idea of more specialized classes seems cool, but the way its being handled calls for less options. If your a warrior its either tank or two hander. I personally liked how they gave more options to warriors in origins it made them balanced and not nearly as restricted as they seem to be in DA2.

i'd rather tanking and 2hander be far more fleshed out , rather than having a cloned rogue spec 

Well that would be nice if it were true.  Based on the "streaminging" philosiphy the game is going for, it's pure supposition that is in conflict with every thing that has been revealed, at least in terms of gameplay.

[Heavenblade]

two-handed weapons looked awesome enough in the stream, for sure. I'm eager to see staff/magic combat now.

[Count Viceroy]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

if a warrior needs to strike at long range. do we have skills to compensate the lack of the archery tree on the warrior?

We'll do a captain America and throw our shield

[Dave of Canada]

relhart wrote...

Well that would be nice if it were true.  Based on the "streaminging" philosiphy the game is going for, it's pure supposition that is in conflict with every thing that has been revealed, at least in terms of gameplay.

They've admit they put a lot more work in each spec, though. They wanted each class to feel like those individual classes and that's why they've put archery / DW into rogues-only. They'd be able to tune it more for the agile fighter instead of trying to make both warriors and rogues do the same thing.

[nightcobra]

or jump at mach 1 only to land with the sword on the enemy's face

[tmp7704]

boohead wrote...

i'd rather tanking and 2hander be far more fleshed out , rather than having a cloned rogue spec 

You know, it's not really a "this or that" choice. Dual-wielding was already copy&pasted into both classes. Keeping it this way doesn't prevent the devs from taking a look at 2-handers and improving things there.

Similarly, improving dual-wielding for rogues doesn't mean the warriors couldn't keep the old version of it for themselves. It would actually make the dual-wielding look different for each class. I.e. address the very reason it got removed in the first place.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 septembre 2010 - 01:41 .

[nightcobra]

MariSkep wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

if a warrior needs to strike at long range. do we have skills to compensate the lack of the archery tree on the warrior?

no.

you're there to tank and swing your sword.

the other 2 classes have both melee and ranged attacks, why can't warriors?

[SDNcN]

Count Viceroy wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

if a warrior needs to strike at long range. do we have skills to compensate the lack of the archery tree on the warrior?

We'll do a captain America and throw our shield

if this is not in-game, it should be.

[thegreateski]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

if a warrior needs to strike at long range. do we have skills to compensate the lack of the archery tree on the warrior?

no.

you're there to tank and swing your sword.

the other 2 classes have both melee and ranged attacks, why can't warriors?

Because they're warriors?



I would not ask the milkman to deliver mail.

[Brockololly]

I just liked DW warrior as it was different than your stereotypical sword and board or huge two hander. Again, I don't think the solution to making the classes more unique was to just get rid of choice and classes like the warrior archer or DW. Rather make the DW warrior distinct from a DW rogue- not just parsing things down. I'm sympathetic to the fact they're working with limited resources and all, but I don't care for this choice.

The whole axing of choice and features reeks of ME2 style "streamlining" to me, but I'll of course wait and see what this all looks like whenever we get some gameplay video.

Modifié par Brockololly, 05 septembre 2010 - 01:43 .

[Dave of Canada]

Lilacs wrote...

How will they improve it for rogues? Rogues in this game suck big time, while they excel in the World of Warcraft.

Oh yes, they possibly haven't changed the class at all since Origins. I mean, those extra abilities where they move extremely fast and leap over enemies sucks.