1380 réponses à ce sujet

[FDrage]

CLime wrote...

DW warriors suffered because there was no reason to use one over a rogue in combat or exploration.  Both classes could wear the same armor and use the same equipment, but rogues blew warriors away because a) rogues could backstab,  rogue talents and specs added much more to DW builds than the warrior equivalents, and c) rogues brought more utility to the party in the form of lockpicking, added skill points, stuns, and stealth.

There is plenty of reason as not everything is down to min/max ...
That is why I always had a ranged rogue with me .. because DW rogues where cumbersome and (for me boring) and too tradidtional. I never played a DW rogue myself (compared to a DW warrior, Arcane Warrior, ranged rogue, and at present 2h dwraven warrior). Adn the only DW rogue I ever had in my party for any extent of time was Sigurn and that was not because she was DW, but because I liked her character

[NoAngel89]

well I think its the right decision, that class (and rogues in games as usually) was overpowered, plus being a warrior, and can wear armor, not only were you a tank with critical strikes, were you a freakin plow machine, plowing away the enemy without mercy XD. lol at that point, you're pretty much godlike, and you have no kryptonite XD. Well other then you run out of  out of stamina like a engine out of burning hell. If you wanted serious killing damage, you don't get double handed heavy sword guy, you get a dual wielding armor XD. Now that its gone, the game should be more even. If you can inflict double/critical damage, you better be easy to kill to even out the dynamics of the game. But I don't think I ever encountered another dual weilding warrior npc in the game, other then the main hero. Maybe, but not to many, and for good reason.

Modifié par NoAngel89, 20 septembre 2010 - 08:28 .

[NoAngel89]

lol I don't want to be mean, but why is david gaider on this particular forum XD. I mean hes not a game developer, and idk he just writes the stories. Plus whenever he does posts, its as if hes out for blood, he has a metal killing plow, and I'm just trying to get away before, hes cuts me in half . But yeah.... I understand he responds regarding stories, but I haven't seen a post of him being respectful towards fans while being analytical, usually about his work. Its usually "I'm right, and shut-up now, you're wrong and jump into a ditch." Not trying to say make david be babyish/settler for us. I'm just asking if you ask tell him to clam the hell down XD. I mean seriously he treats every critism/negative review towards any story/character, as if its a dagger to the heart of his career. I don't think he should take these things way to seriously. Most of the time fans just ranting/venting. In a sense, isn't that what fans do anyway, to let you know what you think, and possibly use it, if it seem valueable to change/better the game. But usually ranting is just ranting, in a sense it doesn't mean alot or anything a matter of fact, than... and I don't know.... well if you want a forest fire, just get gaider XD. Thats the dev/fan dynamic with that dev. This is sad because he doesn't have to be that way, I mean he is just a professional/great writter, and he doesn't have to do that, to me he doesn't have to prove anything, mainly because the story shows his ablilites as a fantastic writter. So why would need to fight over, idk something thats not even spilled milk. Plus gaider, if you're reading this, I think you're books were amazing, and to me the stories just offer more insight in the game, but I usually don't think of it as apart of a game, when it comes to mechanics. Kinda like seperate universes, kinda. Anyway can't wait to see what you come up with in DOA2. I'll be in that line;)

[Hulk Hsieh]

FDrage wrote...
There is plenty of reason as not everything is down to min/max ...
That is why I always had a ranged rogue with me .. because DW rogues where cumbersome and (for me boring) and too tradidtional. I never played a DW rogue myself (compared to a DW warrior, Arcane Warrior, ranged rogue, and at present 2h dwraven warrior). Adn the only DW rogue I ever had in my party for any extent of time was Sigurn and that was not because she was DW, but because I liked her character

While we can choose not to min/max in DA:O, it doesn't mean the system in DA:O is OK.

Archery doesn't have synergy with Warrior/Rogue talents.
One talent in Archery is better than all other talents adding up.
Debuff talents in 2-hand tree out DPS the big blow talents.
Rune/Flaming weapon/Berserk in dual dagger build provides too high DPS compared to other builds.


The character/weapon system in DA:O is quite broken and I think it is very hard to fix it without changing too much.
Maybe cutting things is a compromise that they can make what left at least half decent.

[jsachun]

FDrage wrote...

CLime wrote...

DW warriors suffered because there was no reason to use one over a rogue in combat or exploration.  Both classes could wear the same armor and use the same equipment, but rogues blew warriors away because a) rogues could backstab,  rogue talents and specs added much more to DW builds than the warrior equivalents, and c) rogues brought more utility to the party in the form of lockpicking, added skill points, stuns, and stealth.

There is plenty of reason as not everything is down to min/max ...
That is why I always had a ranged rogue with me .. because DW rogues where cumbersome and (for me boring) and too tradidtional. I never played a DW rogue myself (compared to a DW warrior, Arcane Warrior, ranged rogue, and at present 2h dwraven warrior). Adn the only DW rogue I ever had in my party for any extent of time was Sigurn and that was not because she was DW, but because I liked her character

Hang on, weren't you guys arguing that the Legionaire scout brought about a DW Tank that was better than a DW warrior. You guys are looking at this from a perspective that a DW rogue or a DW warrior is purely a comapnion.

What if you had to play? I'd prefer to play a DW warrior than a rogue when I build a scraper or a Damager, purely because they do more DPS than a rogue.

Also why is everyone assuming that DA:O & DA:A specs are going to be available in DA2?

And from the responses even just in this forum, it looks like a lot of people play DW warrior & find it very interesting.

Besides, I don't see what warrior talents besides warrior specs such as champion or templar brings to the party. I don't see any sustained talents from the two hander or shield & weapon talents that contribute to the party as a whole. And neither does any DW rogue talents.

DW is purely a combat skill & should be available to the warrior class. What Bioware should've done is made TH & SW comabat skills also available to the roogue class in DA 2 as oppose to stripping the warrior class of it's combat skills that are righfully theirs to begin with.

Modifié par jsachun, 20 septembre 2010 - 10:50 .

[tmp7704]

CLime wrote...

The real defintion of RPG, at least before the term was corrupted by misapplication and overuse, hinged on an ability to define your character, to make choices that would impact the narrative.  FF7 and games like it don't allow for such decisions.  JRPGs are to real RPGs what railshooters are to normal FPSs.  The story and characters follow the same track independant of the player's choices, with the player's only real responsibility being getting through combat.

I'd perhaps put it slightly different -- the JRPGs put the player through fixed series of defined objectives and yes, the decisions are limited to character builds and combat tactics. Western RPGs on the other hand do the "make plot-related decisions" part, but this part seems to be getting continually smaller and the decisions you can make have less and less impact on actual game. Or to put it differently, JRPGs are akin to pen and paper game lead by a GM who has the plot all planned out and will only let you go through it in the a, b, c, d, e order he's envisioned, while western RPGs are slightly more flexible and will allow you to do the b, c, d part in any order but in the end the overall plot isn't effectively that much different from what playing with the other guy gets you.

At the same time if the focus is on the branching storyline and player's decision having impact on the plot, then the western RPGs are generally inferior to different sub-genre of japanese games, so-called "dating games". These are more of interactive novels, and can have literally dozens of possible paths and multiple endings, to the point where there's barely any plot overleap between some playthroughs.

[Haexpane]

AlanC9 wrote...
 

You thought BG2 was hard?

 

Harder than Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age Origins, Fallout 3 ... That's what we are talking about yes? Recent RPGs and how hard they are compared to XYZ?

[Haexpane]

tmp7704 wrote...

 

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)

That's not balance, that's treadmill. Or as the Incredibles put it, "when everyone is super then no one is". And it's also something players loathe -- consider level scaling the way Oblivion did it and how popular that feature was. Yet it does exactly what you suggest here.

Nope not at all.  I did not suggest scaling, nor did I suggest Oblivion type scaling (common mobs get uber buffed and fitted in uber gear)

Stop reading into what is posted and instead look at what is actually written.  Giving HIGH LEVEL ENEMIES HIGH LEVEL ABILITIES is not scaling.  Scaling is having enemies levels scale in line w/ your leveling.  

2 completely different things.

 

 
 

[Haexpane]

tmp7704 wrote...
 
So you are in fact advocating that characters should do no more than one thing proper -- doing two is "over powered".

Nope, again not what I said.  You only want to comment on what you read into, not what is posted.

, instead of relying on the dumb "warrior taunts everyone and tanks, healer heals and dpser does damage" artificial nonsense.

and here, we finally have your true opinion.  You don't like class restrictions, you don't like the idea of Tanks and Healers.  That's ok to have that opinion guy, no need to retrofit your argument against classes in an off topic way, shoe horned against my quotes.

[Haexpane]

CLime wrote...
 

Without getting to existential, it's not contradictory to powergame while desiring difficult games.  A well-executed game will provide a challenge to the player while allowing the player to take advantage of all the tools offered. 

Exactly.  It's absurd that we have to defend this truism on this thread.  This is a known given,  the fact that "class restrictions stink" crowd argues against this is dodging the issue.

 

 

Scaling with equipment, on the other hand, I agree is a bad idea.  It's fine to take the equipment a player is expected to have into account at a given level, but enemies shouldn't get weaker if you're fighting nude.

Who wants scaling equipment?  I don't

[Haexpane]

CLime wrote...
 

To get back on topic: DW warriors were inferior to DW rogues in every significant metric. Confirm/deny.

I would say - depends on the sub classes.  My DW Warrior is industructable at this point.  The DW rogue in Golems add on content, has died a few times.
Spirit Warrior/Champion/Beserker + Dual wield + 3 gem slotted plate,  he hardly takes damage anymore.

DW in general is far more powerful than Shield or 2Handed.  But I don't have a main toon rogue, only party rogues.  They don't tank as well as my Warrior so I'd still say DW W is more powerful overall.  Great offense, great tanking, good support, doesnt need healing.

Rogue has better offense, but can't tank bosses

[Haexpane]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...
 
While we can choose not to min/max in DA:O, it doesn't mean the system in DA:O is OK.

• Archery doesn't have synergy with Warrior/Rogue talents.
• One talent in Archery is better than all other talents adding up.
• Debuff talents in 2-hand tree out DPS the big blow talents.
• Rune/Flaming weapon/Berserk in dual dagger build provides too high DPS compared to other builds.

 

True points, and good ones.   Although DAO does not have talent trees (no branches) more like talent lines.

Sad but yeah, you only need 1 skill in Archery.

[tmp7704]

Haexpane wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

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)

That's not balance, that's treadmill. Or as the Incredibles put it, "when everyone is super then no one is". And it's also something players loathe -- consider level scaling the way Oblivion did it and how popular that feature was. Yet it does exactly what you suggest here.

Nope not at all.  I did not suggest scaling, nor did I suggest Oblivion type scaling (common mobs get uber buffed and fitted in uber gear)

Stop reading into what is posted and instead look at what is actually written. 

Well, maybe put a little more effort in your writing then, and start wording things so that they can't be easily read in multiple ways? It's not exactly easy to guess you didn't mean scaling if one isn't mind reader -- scaling is "matching with enemies of equal or greater power" which is what you wrote.

Giving HIGH LEVEL ENEMIES HIGH LEVEL ABILITIES is not scaling.  Scaling is having enemies levels scale in line w/ your leveling.  

2 completely different things.

Cool. So instead of dynamic scaling you suggest fixed enemies with power high enough to match the player in most advanced gear and with the most powerful abilities.

What then about the players who don't get that most powerful gear and abilities? Their game is going to be considerably harder because they'll effectively face enemies intended for much better equipped team. Why exactly do you focus on the min-maxers and munchkins as the baseline to which you do your balancing, rather than average players?

Modifié par tmp7704, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:58 .

[tmp7704]

Haexpane wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
 
So you are in fact advocating that characters should do no more than one thing proper -- doing two is "over powered".

Nope, again not what I said.  You only want to comment on what you read into, not what is posted.

Honestly, we've been over what you've said two times already. I have yet to read explanation from you how your saying that a character capable of doing two things well is "overpowered and should be forced to choose" isn't saying that character should only be allowed to do less than two things well. Less than two being well, one.

Since i have clearly trouble understanding your thought process, care to explain what exactly is it" what you said"?

and here, we finally have your true opinion.  You don't like class restrictions, you don't like the idea of Tanks and Healers. 

Ehh, i've been speaking negatively about making restricted classes though this entire thread. The point of this thread is pretty much people are complaining about making such pointless --in their eyes-- restriction for the warrior class. I suppose it's nice you have finally noticed but it's by no means a revelation.

Modifié par tmp7704, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:49 .

[Haexpane]

tmp7704 wrote...

 
Well, maybe put a little more effort in your writing then, and start wording things so that they can't be easily read in multiple ways? It's not exactly easy to guess you didn't mean scaling if one isn't mind reader -- scaling is "matching with enemies of equal or greater power" which is what you wrote.

Did I use the term scaling?  No

Are you still trolling by debating semantics, and straw man attacking me in this thread? Yes

Is what you wrote the definition of scaling?  No

Scaling is enemy levels changing based on the player's level.  I never wrote anything about that.

I wrote that high level enemies should have power matching or greater than the player.  That has nothing to do w/ scaling.  It has to do w/ balancing high end enemies, designing encounters.

Scaling already has a 400 page thread, please lets keep it there.

Cool. So instead of dynamic scaling you suggest fixed enemies with power high enough to match the player in most advanced gear and with the most powerful abilities.

What then about the players who don't get that most powerful gear and abilities? Their game is going to be considerably harder because they'll effectively face enemies intended for much better equipped team. Why exactly do you focus on the min-maxers and munchkins as the baseline to which you do your balancing, rather than average players?

I never got into exactly how each encounter would be balanced.  Doing "game design - detailed specs" in a thread is not productive.

In general, the better your gear, the easier the high end encounter.  By how much?  Depends on the game/encounter/gear/level and a million other factors.

Lets please attempt to keep this thread on toppic, AKA  Dual Wield Warrior

[Haexpane]

tmp7704 wrote...
 
  I have yet to read explanation from you how


your saying that a character capable of doing two things well is "overpowered and should be forced to choose"


 isn't saying that character should only be allowed to do less than two things well. Less than two being well, one.

.

The problem is, *I never said that* you did.  I didn't list 2 things  DWW does well, I listed like 9 things.

I did say that yes, being DPS and Tank at the same time is overpowered.  But that is hardly the only 2 things a DWW can do.

Are we really going to argue that being DPS and Tank is not overpowered?  If you can do both, you don't need any other toons.

the DWW can do those 2, and 5 other things so well, they don't need any other characters.  That is the quick version.

Someone else listed a few nice specifics about abilities, and their over powered nature, and more importantly, how tricky it is to balance those.   We understand that balance is a subtle thing and Bioware has worked hard on balance.

But the system is simply not there, the game gets more and more unbalanced the higher level you get.

Invulnerable DW Warriors are a reality.

[tmp7704]

Haexpane wrote...

The problem is, *I never said that* you did.  I didn't list 2 things  DWW does well, I listed like 9 things.

I did say that yes, being DPS and Tank at the same time is overpowered.  But that is hardly the only 2 things a DWW can do.

Are we really going to argue that being DPS and Tank is not overpowered?  If you can do both, you don't need any other toons.

Interesting. If having these two particular abilities is supposed to be overpowered to the point where "you don't need any other toons" what is then the purpose of these other 7 abilities of the warrior you have listed? (other than function as red herring in this particular argument, apparently) Ater all, supposedly you need just tanking and dps to be entirely self-sufficient?

Second, you have chosen not to answer my earlier question which was why exactly having such independent characters is supposed to be thing so bad that it must be prevented. You went instead on the pointless "oh you don't like classes" tripe but maybe you could provide reasoning why your preference should be the only one allowed by the game?

[tmp7704]

Haexpane wrote...

Did I use the term scaling?  No

Are you still trolling by debating semantics, and straw man attacking me in this thread? Yes

Is what you wrote the definition of scaling?  No

Scaling is enemy levels changing based on the player's level.  I never wrote anything about that.

I wrote that high level enemies should have power matching or greater than the player.  That has nothing to do w/ scaling.  It has to do w/ balancing high end enemies, designing encounters.

Think for a second and you will realize that "changing level of enemies based on the player's level" is "matching the player's power" and the very purpose of scaling. Hence what you wrote was definition of scaling. Whether you realized that or not is another matter entirely and not really my problem.

I never got into exactly how each encounter would be balanced.

You know, this has nothing to do with my question. But fine, since you seem to have no idea how to actually implement the things you're asking for without breaking the game in the process (which reduces the whole thing to wishful thinking aka "it can work if only done right") we may as well drop it.

[Addai]

Haexpane wrote...

Invulnerable DW Warriors are a reality.

So are invulnerable mages.  By Awakening, everyone is a god.  And in your hyperbole you're neglecting to mention that DWW has weaknesses, too, such as high fatigue cost and no resistance to knockdown.  Just ask my poor DW Alistair when I send him to duel Loghain.

Modifié par Addai67, 20 septembre 2010 - 07:58 .

[CLime]

tmp7704 wrote...
Think for a second and you will realize that "changing level of enemies based on the player's level" is "matching the player's power" and the very purpose of scaling. Hence what you wrote was definition of scaling. Whether you realized that or not is another matter entirely and not really my problem.

Now you're just being thick.  It's obvious that the scaling in question here is not the natural progression of low leveled enemies in low leveled areas and high level enemies in high level areas that's been used in every RPG with a leveling system since the dawn of the genre.  What's being discussed is the scaling that actively calibrates enemy strength to the player's progress. It's the difference between an enemy with 100 health an an enemy with [20 + 8*PClvl] health.  One is static across all characters and playthroughs, the other is not.

Haexpane wrote...

Are we really going to argue that being DPS and Tank is not overpowered?  If you can do both, you don't need any other toons.

the DWW can do those 2, and 5 other things so well, they don't need any other characters.  That is the quick version.

Someone
else listed a few nice specifics about abilities, and their over
powered nature, and more importantly, how tricky it is to balance
those.   We understand that balance is a subtle thing and Bioware has
worked hard on balance.

But the system is simply not there, the game gets more and more unbalanced the higher level you get.

Invulnerable DW Warriors are a reality.

DW Warriors may be overpowered relative to the environment, but not the other classes.  It's not terribly difficult to build a rogue that's completely unhittable from the front.  The only advantage DW warriors have is that they can do decent damage with decent survivability.  A rogue spec'd for damage and a rogue spec'd for defense will both surpass a warrior in the area of their choice.  The 20% dodge from Evasion is more than any warrior talent provides.

Warriors just cannot keep up with backstab damage.  While a warrior is doing 200% weapon damage each strike with Dual Striking, a rogue with no added bonuses is doing 250% with each backstab.  With Origins equipment, rogues can surpass 300%.  With Awakening, a rogue can do 575% weapon damage with each backstab.  DW Warriors can only dream of damage like that.

In the end, kinda-tank, kinda-damagy is a niche shared by DW and twohander warriors.

[Haexpane]

tmp7704 wrote...
 
 was why exactly having such independent characters is supposed to be thing so bad that it must be prevented.  ?

The only non attacking line in your entire post guy.  I've already answered that, and many others have as well.   Why is having a character that does not need other characters not suitable for a Party Based CRPG?  Do I really need to spell that out?

[Haexpane]

tmp7704 wrote...
Think for a second and you will realize that

Do you realize that this posting style makes you an unlikable troll?

tmp7704 wrote...


 
 Hence what you wrote was definition of scaling.

Do we really need to spell out the basics of RPG design?  Really?   You are going to spend time looking for semantics in the "meaning of scaling"

   LEVEL SCALING not = slotting abilities for high level mobs.
Just stop, back up, relearn the basics of RPGs and terminology, and stop trying to turn every post into an argument

tmp7704 wrote... Whether you realized that or not is another matter entirely and not really my problem.

Here is another example of you simply trolling and being a giant dbag.

[Haexpane]

Addai67 wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Invulnerable DW Warriors are a reality.

So are invulnerable mages.  By Awakening, everyone is a god.  And in your hyperbole you're neglecting to mention that DWW has weaknesses, too, such as high fatigue cost and no resistance to knockdown.  Just ask my poor DW Alistair when I send him to duel Loghain.

 You won't find any arguments here, it's been well established that the leveling scaling in DAO and DAO A is broken, unbalanced, and too easy at the high end.

So yeah, it's difficult to find a Build that is truly gimped.  But the fact is, w/ a DWW you don't need any  help.  Can you say the same for Arcane WArriors?  Sure, but that's not what this thread is about.

AW being over powered is something that was discussed many moons ago.

[Haexpane]

CLime wrote...

 

DW Warriors may be overpowered relative to the environment, but not the other classes.  It's not terribly difficult to build a rogue that's completely unhittable from the front.  The only advantage DW warriors have is that they can do decent damage with decent survivability.  A rogue spec'd for damage and a rogue spec'd for defense will both surpass a warrior in the area of their choice.  The 20% dodge from Evasion is more than any warrior talent provides.

Warriors just cannot keep up with backstab damage.  While a warrior is doing 200% weapon damage each strike with Dual Striking, a rogue with no added bonuses is doing 250% with each backstab.  With Origins equipment, rogues can surpass 300%.  With Awakening, a rogue can do 575% weapon damage with each backstab.  DW Warriors can only dream of damage like that.

In the end, kinda-tank, kinda-damagy is a niche shared by DW and twohander warriors.

I only have companion rogues.   DOn't have a main toon Rogues.  But if Rogues are way overpowered now (even w/ Dex glitch?)  then so be it.  I  won't argue that they aren't.

I will argue tho, that a DWW is far superior to a 2H warrior, or a Shield warrrior.   Not to mention the idea of DW is really a "rogue/ranger/bard" type thing from classic RPGs

So it sounds like we all agree?  DWW needs to go, and combat balance is too far gone in DAO, we hope it's better in DA2?

[Wishpig]

In my current playthrough my Warden is a DW warrior and for the first time I'm brining Zevran with me (now also a duelest along with assassin). I've speced Zevran to pretty much be a strait up offensive character with no rogue'ish abilities short of lock picking and a few points in the scatter shot archery line.

I have to say, the two now playing side by side, makes the argument sound really silly. Niether feels that diffrent then one another. My warden can take a few more hits (duh) and Zevran does more damage (double duh).

Now say I could transfer the Legion specilization from awakening to Origins and give Zevran it... the two would have the same damn role.

Incase you didn't know, one reason they removed DW warrior is because they didn't want too make a totally seperate line of animations for a DW warrior vs DW rogue. Which makes total sense, even more so now that they two classes feel so damn similar in Origins.