1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Russalka]

If you want the warrior dual-spec to rest in peace, why still beat it like the dead horse it is?

[JointVW]

I only have a problem with 1 statement. Namely the one in reply on why we aren't getting the 2 years worth of dlc . They replied that the development of DA2 was so far ahead that they decided to release it sooner than originally thought. This goes directly against the other statement i read about why DW warrior was removed as it was done bc it would take to much time.



Anyone else finds this strange reasoning??

[Haexpane]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

The most [...] in this discussion.

I wasn't giving my opinion on this point (I like both classes and class-less system, actually), I was just pointing some facts - that classes aren't necessarily considered a big positive, and for many it's actually a negative.

Your rant is unwarranted, less knee-jerk reaction please.

And your second rant on the "overpoweredness" of DW warrior is not convincing, as everything you listed could actually be done by a rogue, with all the perks and utilities of a rogue AND also backstab.

1.  If you are going to use negative descriptors to my post, like  "knee jerk" and "unwarranted" at least actually provide some exemples.

2. Hand waving over a detailed post with "not convincing" and then proving ZERO rebuttal is worthless, don't bother rebutting unless you are actually going to post some content.

[Haexpane]

tmp7704 wrote...
 

How does having more people (who combined deal more damage meaning they mow the enemies down faster) "slow you down"?

Pausing.  If the party dies off, you can stop worrying about pausing and assigning tactics.  you can just Real Time mow down most battles, pause to chug pots

tmp7704 wrote...
  I don't really like the potion spam since it basically grants everyone unlimited health + mana which well, removes any kind of challenge the game could be posing otherwise.

then we agree!

tmp7704 wrote...
 
CC = crowd control. And i see. It starts to seem that everything the classes can do in the game is either "too powerful" or "too much". Even abilities which add +5 or so to characters defense/attack? Really, now.

crow control = CC of course! Sorry been a few years since I played a MMO i've lost the acronyms.

Not just the +5 abilities, how about abilities that nuke all green mobs and knock everyone down?
 

tmp7704 wrote...
Considering arithmetic is branch of math that's like saying "it's not a fruit, it's a banana"   And i was talking specifically of what you said in your earlier posts -- yes, the warriors can do more things than just two but you were talking of just two of them (soaking damage and dealing damage) and claimed that was too much and the character should be forced to choose.

Yeah it's like a joke, the "that's not math it's arit..." is not my invention.

Yes, a warrior should have to choose, do you want to be a sponge or a meat grinder.  Absolutely, being both is indeed over powerd. If you can soak dmg and dish dmg, you don't need help. 

 

[Haexpane]

Tirigon wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Name me a game in recent memory with No class system?

I'm starting to believe most of the people who "hate being forced to use a class" have never even played such a game, it's one of those "the game in my head that I will never make and no one will ever make is better than this AAA software in front of me" delusions

PnP does not count in this discussion.

Oblivion with the mod that allows you to distribute your attribute points as you want, no matter which skills you levelled.

Vanilla only, mods inserts too many variables. 

Oblivion is a class based system.  You pick a class to start the game.   It's not a "classic" class system.
Even if we consider Oblivion class-free.  That is 1 game..

[Lokanaiya]

Well, if we're going to go with a classless system or a less-strict class-based system, DA2 would be the time to do it. It takes place over 10 years, yes? Well, why not make it so that over the course of, say, a year or two, Hawke could learn different weapons, possibly by hiring trainers (Depending on how early he comes to power) or even from certain party members. Why should you be restricted for 10 years by what you chose at the beginning? Maybe make a DW warrior a learnable tree, as in not at first available, but after being trained for a time. Naturally, it would take a while to get profecient at it, but that's what training dummies and teachers are for, am I right?

[Haexpane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

PnP does not count in this discussion.

Why not?

1 context. - we're talking about videogames
2. 100000x easier to work with, you don't ever have to write any code or develop art assets.   Someone could create a new PnP RPG tomorrow, no multi million dollar investments needed

It would be like comparing DAO writing to Blade Runner.  2 diff mediums

[Haexpane]

Jacks Smirking Revenge wrote...

 since it is an ability spammer style.  .

Nial on the head.  Spamming abilities is indeed one of the over powered aspects of DWW.  My toon almost never runs out of stamina not to mention you get the benefits of Gem slots x2 weapons

[Haexpane]

 sorry, friggin formatting sux, cut and pasted fromBW community page

Addai67 wrote...

 

Haexpane wrote...

 

tmp7704 wrote...

 

Are these AoE attacks, like
i specifically asked about? Or to put it simpler -- can your DW warrior do the
same aoe attack/cc spells your mage can?

 

Not sure what CC is (cubic
centimeters?)  but YES A WARRIOR HAS MANY
AOE ATTACKS!  In fact some of the more
powerful warrior abilities are AoE.  I
forget the names but there are abilities like "Nuke greens" and
"weaken everyone" 
"strengthen your party" 
"taunt everyone" 

Those are buffs.  Hardly AoE attacks.

 

Some warrior abilities hit
multiple targets or knock them back, and warriors can get Poison skills.  That's the only AoE I can think of.

 

DW warrior can

DPS

Soak Damage

AoE

Debuff

Buff

Crowd Control

Range DPS / effects

In close DPS / effects

Heal self

poison

fire

freeze

lightning

that's more than 2!  ANd your 'math' up there suggests
2-1=[1]or[0]   OR?{smilie}

So now you're adding runes
as a warrior attack?  WTH?

You're really reaching.

 

 

Ooops I dun goofed on
poison, my mistake as I have the DLC poisoned blade, which is 10000x more
powerful than the Rogue's poison skill.

 

yes, I'm adding runes.  Because 
DWW gets extra runes compared to 2H or Shield.  Is that really unfair?  It's one of the main reasons I went DWW
playthrough x2, I figured, Mo betta runes yes?

 

I'ts been a couple of weeks,
but I thought my level 30_+ DWW had some handy AOE attacks.

I've tombed him from SPirit,
Champion, Templar, Beserker and a few Blood abilities so I can't quite remember
which skill in which subclass, but it sure looks and feels like AOE to me.

 

At any rate here are the
stats for my DWW lvl 31

Stats

Last updated 2010-07-29
19:05:05

Strength61+19

Dexterity54+5

Willpower44+13

Magic12+3

Cunning14+4

Constitution20+32

Heroic Stats

Kills:1500

Damage dealt:463885

Friendly-fire damage dealt:268

Greatest damage dealt:684

Contribution to party
damage:46

Hit rate:98

Most powerful foe slain:Archdemon

Injuries:11

 



VS 2 Handed level 32

Stats

Last updated 2010-03-22
16:25:17



Strength83+19

Dexterity31+5

Willpower30

+7

Magic13+7



Cunning18+6

Constitution32+34



Heroic Stats

Kills:1030

Damage dealt:335130

Friendly-fire damage dealt:1442

Greatest damage dealt:363

Contribution to party
damage:33

 Hit rate:90



Most powerful foe slain:High
Dragon Injuries:4





 DWW has better hit rate and
better GDD and DD, both toons have maxed trees ... both toons have 'maxed"
gear altough 2H was before some of the later DLC

Modifié par Haexpane, 17 septembre 2010 - 09:10 .

[TransientNomad]

Addai67 wrote...

We don't know that, and in fact the argument that rogues need to be able to fancy flippy moves that they couldn't do in heavy armor suggests that rogues are going to be restricted in what they can do and equip, too.

So, problem not solved.

Its solved if they use the method of DAO.  Also, seeing as how they have stated that the other members of your party will be class based as well, it seems odd they would change it, in less they are going to ME2 route where NPCs have predefined appearances.  But they have confirmed inventory and they have confirmed that they won't be changing the core gameplay too much.  Also, look at the destiny trailer.  The Default Hawke is obviously a Mage, and he is wearing medium armour.  More evidence suggests they are going the same route as the original. 

But lets say your right.  All armour is class specific, and "rogues" are relegated to "Medium" and "Light" armour.  So what?  Is it really that big of a deal?  Why whine?

[Haexpane]

TransientNomad wrote...
 

But lets say your right.  All armour is class specific, and "rogues" are relegated to "Medium" and "Light" armour.  So what?  Is it really that big of a deal?  Why whine?

class specific armor would be a big deal, in a good way!  More "classic" RPG IMO and that's one of the things I love about DAO.  It's one of the few RPGs out there trying to maintain some sense of classic feel.

[Haexpane]

AlanC9 wrote...
 

How would the 99% of users get their god class? Either by mastering the system or by reading build threads on a discussion board. Are you really saying that 99% of users do either of those for an SP game? I can see doing it in MP because you need to be competitive.

Anyway, I'm not sure it matters. Can you name an RPG that actually failed because it was too easy?

1. How would everyone get their god class? The same way they do it today.  You don't need to read a msg board, you can figure out balance just by playing a game. 9/10 when someone posts a tip on how to glitch, or be over powered, most users have already done it themselves.

This is nothing new and has nothing to do with SP vs. MP.  People have been finding the easy road in RPGs for decades.

I never said easy game would "fail" so IDK why you are asking me that.

But I will say "it matters".  What is the number 1 complaint people have about Fallout 3?  It's too easy.  Bethesda listened and made it harder w/ the Broken Steel expansion.  (although because of VATs they could only address real time, it's still too easy in VATS)

[Haexpane]

AlanC9 wrote...
 

Honestly, I can't remember a hard RPG since maybe Ultima V.

Two Worlds on medium
Demon's Souls
Disgaea
-------
Everquest classic  (back in the old days of 2001)
Morrowind levels 1-15
Baldur's Gate 2

I'm sure others have more examples, I never played ultima

[Haexpane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
 

Even ME2, which is effectively just shooter combat, isn't that challenging for those of us who choose to pause incessantly. I'm terrible at shooters, and I might get killed once every three missions in ME2.

ME2 you don't even need to pause, you can just crouch behind a crate and let the AI BIotic everything.  You can literally win by hiding.

[Haexpane]

 

TMZuk wrote...
 

If I want to play the game with three guys and girls who are all fighter/rogue/mages.... why can't I? Why do I have to be forced wasting my time "optimizing" my partymembers? What has that to do with roleplaying? I have never chosen partymembers from who the "best" one was. I have chosen them for whom the funniest was, the scariest, the most interesting, the sexiest... bringing Shale with my Warden  to the Deep Roads wasn't the "best" choise tactically, I am certain, but it sure as h*** was the only sensible choise from a roleplay persepective, from my characters viewpoint.

 

With a class based system you are still free to make any party you want.   Where are you seeing a restriction on who you can have in your party?  Just because your warrior can no longer be DPS and Damage sponge does not mean you are *required* to optimize.  

In fact in MMOs people make " non standard groups" all the time.  In fact unbalanced class abilities is what drives these groups.  Dependin on the MMO patch,   peeps would make "Necros only!" groups or "Pet classes only!" or "All rogues!" etc...

In MMOs it's easy to see that happening and quickly patch in some balance.  In SP games it's much harder to track and trend

[Haexpane]

Monica83 wrote...

I Agree also...
  An we have not valid roleplay reason to explain why a warrior can't use a bow or two blades.. .

Well that's pretty easy.  Most people train in combat, specialize in a weapon.  Using 2 weapons at once is pure flash and wishful thinking.  In practice dual wielding is ineffective for offense, and classicly dual wielding really was about having a parrying blade in the off hand.  

In the movies and animation and such Dual Wielding is everywhere, but the truth is, it's impractical and only the most dextrous and skilled individuals can do it.  When you think, uber dex you think.. Rogues I hope?

[Haexpane]

Aradace wrote...
 

If BioWare was in 100% control of things still, Im sure that they'd probably make the game completely the way the fans want it I guess. But EA now gets to call some of the shots and we all know EA's checkered past with what was it, Westwood studios?

Bioware has ALREADY refuted this point, many times.  They don't make games at EA's direction, nor the fan's direction. They have always, and continue to make the games they want to make, fan and EA INPUT is considered, but not the directive.

[Haexpane]

tmp7704 wrote...

 
You know, you're contradicting yourself here. If "the majority of gamers want a game that is challenging" then why would "99% of users play a god class" if given such option?

 
I am not contradicting myself at all.  This is human nature.  Players want the challenge, but can not resist going after the most powerful toon.  

Balance would be, allowing the player to go after the most powerful toon/gear/spells but matching those with enemies of equal or greater power.  (greater because of AI restrictions)

So we want a powerful toon, not to be a god, but to fight powerful enemies.

If you have the choice between a wooden stick and a magic sword, 9/10 you will pick the magic sword.  no one except the most hard core Role Players would say "no my character only uses wood sticks"

Look at how people play DAO, they want the best gear, and they play on nightmare.  There is absolutely no contradiction.

[AlanC9]

shootist70 wrote...

True. In Europe, when people started fighting in the sort of armour we see in DAO then one-handed swords start disappearing from the battlefield. Armour piercing/concussion was the order of the day, and knights were more often using two-handed swords, or just as often using big maces, morning stars, warhammers, glaives etc. It all gets pretty big and brutal - these weapons were huge, often 4-7 feet long with large spikes (and that's not including the polearms), and there's really no room for the sort of dual-wielding finesse we see in DAO. It looks pretty much out of place with the armour that's in the game.

Well, historically. we also don't see people who intend to engage in melee combat preferring to wear light or medium armor over heavy armor. The leather-armored rogue standing next to a plate-armored warrior doesn't have any historical parallel that I can think of -- at least, with forces that could afford good equipment.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 septembre 2010 - 09:35 .

[Haexpane]

Damar Stiehl wrote...

Fewer options is always bad. No ifs or buts about it. Less options = less freedom.

Jerry Seinfield would disagree.  He recently said it nicely on a Stern show interview, that you don't want to be that rich guy who surrounds himself with a million "man toys", otherwise you become a spoiled child, surrounded by man toys, over stimulated and unable to decide what to do, bored.

This was his explanation for his relavitley modest lifestyle.  He gets up, goes to his office, does work for a bit, has lunch w/ Mathew Broderick, hits the gym, then hangs out w/ his wife.

Compare that to Crazy Russian Nets Billionaire owner who makes high budget movies of himself jet skiiing, and then has framed pix of himself decorating his house.  I guarantee you this guy is way more bored than Seinfield, and is constantly "chasing the dragon" so to speak.   Seinfield on the other hand seems rather content and happy.

In short, sometimes too much choice can be paralyzing. 

Even tho I'm actually a big fan of very deep RPGs options and choices, I am also "pro restricted class" because IMO it improves balance, and replay value.

For instance in Oblivion, my toon can do anything.  There is no reason to make another toon, I can already cast spells or fight like a warrior or use a bow, or be a thief, or a paladin etc...   But it's not party based so I kind of need that flexibility.

in DAO my DWW doesn't need help, ever.  Potions and gear is all he needs.

[shootist70]

AlanC9 wrote...

[The leather-armored rogue standing next to a plate-armored warrior doesn't have any historical parallel that I can think of -- at least, with forces that could afford good equipment.

Actually, it does, and there's quite an iconic example: English longbowmen, who fought 'alongside' plate-wearing warriors in set-piece battles, were well known for employing backstabbing dagger tactics and the use of weapons such as the maul when forced into melee combat. They practiced group tactics that would allow them to confront armoured aggressors and then withdraw to ranged distance.

[AlanC9]

Haexpane wrote...

1. How would everyone get their god class? The same way they do it today.  You don't need to read a msg board, you can figure out balance just by playing a game. 9/10 when someone posts a tip on how to glitch, or be over powered, most users have already done it themselves.

I don't check you on that. We had tons of really awful DAO build advice floating around on these boards for months after release, and I've seen some really bizarre BG2 gameplay advice recently. And since most players don't play an RPG more than once, they never learn the system all that well anyway.

But let's assume you're right. If 99% of users really can design optimized builds, then how can there be a difficulty problem? Except for the 1% who can't figure out the game, and who gives a damn about 1%. Build freedom only causes problems if only some people get the optimized builds

I never said easy game would "fail" so IDK why you are asking me that.

But I will say "it matters".  What is the number 1 complaint people have about Fallout 3?  It's too easy.  Bethesda listened and made it harder w/ the Broken Steel expansion.  (although because of VATs they could only address real time, it's still too easy in VATS)

I'm saying there's no evidence that making a game too easy hurts the publisher. You probably optimize revenue by publishing an easy game and publishing a harder expansion for whoever cares about that.

[bsbcaer]

TMZuk wrote...

But to restrict a RPG character, who's "adventuring", explores dungeons and all the other stuff you do in RPG's to either sword shield, or two-handed, to restrict rogues to only DW or bows.. is just so.... bah, I have no words to express my disgust. Please, allow me to design my own character, thank you very much, and keep your restrictions to yourself.

Alright then, lets look at the background of the character in question...He's not a rich guy living in a village.  From what we know, as a warrior he would most likely be trained by the Bann to be part of the Bann's armed forces when needed.  Most likely, he would have been trained with a sword and board or a two handed weapon, not trained to dual wield or as an archer.  Therefore, as a warrior, it wouldnt make much sense for the character to have any knowledge of those two styles

Now from a gameplay standpoint, you're going from 16 specific skills in four categories (in DA:O) to 20 specific skills in 2 categories (Peter Thomas mentioned that each category is going to have 10 slots/levels rather than the 4 in the orignal game), so while you may be feeling "limited" by only using a sword and shield or two-handed weapon, you're actually getting expanded and more specialised skills

[AlanC9]

shootist70 wrote...
Actually, it does, and there's quite an iconic example: English longbowmen, who fought 'alongside' plate-wearing warriors in set-piece battles, were well known for employing backstabbing dagger tactics and the use of weapons such as the maul when forced into melee combat. They practiced group tactics that would allow them to confront armoured aggressors and then withdraw to ranged distance.

But that wasn't their preferred mode of combat. Melee combat was something that they would do when forced into it or when a target of opportunity presented itself.

I don't think that's really applicable to a DAO melee rogue.

[bsbcaer]

Addai67 wrote...

We don't know that, and in fact the argument that rogues need to be able to fancy flippy moves that they couldn't do in heavy armor suggests that rogues are going to be restricted in what they can do and equip, too.

So, problem not solved.

Peter Thomas discussed some of these concerns in his thread on gameplay