1380 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Haexpane wrote...

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?

I'll take it you have skipped http://social.biowar...3576/51#4825736 which had anticipated this very answer, in the last paragraph. So yes, if would be helpful if you "spelt that out" and addressed the counter-argument while at it.

Additionally, why does "party based" have to mean "the party is obligatory"? Does having option to go through the game without that party take away something from the experience of person who does play it with the party? This rule feels almost religious in nature in the sense it has no actual reasoning behind it other than strong personal conviction "it should be this way and onyl this way".

[tmp7704]

Haexpane wrote...

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

Pot, kettle, black. Do you realize you've switched to posting mostly ad hominem attacks on last couple of pages rather than actual arguments, and my tone is response in kind? If you can't take what you dish out, keep it civil.

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"

No, not really. It could be much simpler to admit the way you worded your post made it in fact possible to interpret it in more than one way. Sometimes people don't use technical terms (like "scaling" in context of rpg design) but put things in layman terms. I presumed that was the case, turns out it wasn't, hardly a deal worth this hissy fit.

[Hulk Hsieh]

Haexpane wrote...

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.

And that's why it is acceptable to me they cut dual-weapon for warriors in DA2.
They don't have a solid base to build things on. The have a shaky base and need to tear down some of it and to rebuild and play safe.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

They don't have a solid base to build things on. The have a shaky base and need to tear down some of it and to rebuild and play safe.

On archery I'll certainly agree with that.  The extent to which spec-powers didn't work with archery was appalling (and undocumented).

But the rebuild should have taken into account some sepmblance of sense within the world.  Not allowing non-rogues even to carry a bow is horribly short-sighted.

[DarkSpiral]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

They don't have a solid base to build things on. The have a shaky base and need to tear down some of it and to rebuild and play safe.

On archery I'll certainly agree with that.  The extent to which spec-powers didn't work with archery was appalling (and undocumented).

But the rebuild should have taken into account some sepmblance of sense within the world.  Not allowing non-rogues even to carry a bow is horribly short-sighted.

I didn't have abig problem with the removal of DW from warriors, as I've posted elsewhere, but I'll admit the fact you can't even equip a bow if you don't have access to the skill line surpasses even my forgiving nature.  Two years ago my nephew, who was 4 at the time, figured out how to use his toy bow and suction cup arrows in under 5 seconds.

[Wittand25]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

They don't have a solid base to build things on. The have a shaky base and need to tear down some of it and to rebuild and play safe.

On archery I'll certainly agree with that.  The extent to which spec-powers didn't work with archery was appalling (and undocumented).

But the rebuild should have taken into account some sepmblance of sense within the world.  Not allowing non-rogues even to carry a bow is horribly short-sighted.

Is this going to happen, or just rumor? In DA:O everyone even mages can equip a bow,two meele weapons or a shield, they are just not effective with the equippment because they lack skills to use it to full extent. As far as I am aware what will happen in DA2 is that the skills will get limited to the classes not the ability to use the weapons.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wittand25 wrote...

Is this going to happen, or just rumor? In DA:O everyone even mages can equip a bow,two meele weapons or a shield, they are just not effective with the equippment because they lack skills to use it to full extent. As far as I am aware what will happen in DA2 is that the skills will get limited to the classes not the ability to use the weapons.

This is going to happen.  Peter Thomas comfirmed it in his Q&A thread.

No character can equip any weapon for which he doesn't have access to a relevant talent tree.  Mages cannot equip melee weapons or bows.  Warriors cannot equip bows or a second weapon.  Rogues cannot equip 2-handed weapons or shields.

What isn't clear is whether each weapon is associated only with one tree.  Can Rogues and Warriors both equip longswords?  Can Warriors equip daggers?  I loved my dagger+shield dwarf noble in DAO.  Given the defensive benefits of dexterity, using a weapon that used dexterity as a damage modifier made for better DPS on a dex-tank.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 21 septembre 2010 - 07:58 .

[DarkSpiral]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What isn't clear is whether each weapon is associated only with one tree.  Can Rogues and Warriors both equip longswords?  Can Warriors equip daggers?  I loved my dagger+shield dwarf noble in DAO.  Given the defensive benefits of dexterity, using a weapon that used dexterity as a damage modifier made for better DPS on a dex-tank.

I could go back and look the thread over, but I'm pretty sure Peter touched on this.  Longswords, for example,  are considered a sword/shield weapon and won't be able to be equipped by a character without access to the sword/sheild skill tree.

Like I said, that goes beyond my tolerances, and my tolerances are pretty high.  It literally makes no sense, and I genuinely love an explanation as to why this happened.  At this point I assume it has something to do with the mechanical side of things.  Frankly, I hope that level of restriction is removed.  I'll get over it, but it's ridiculous.

[Wittand25]

That is ridiculous. I don't mind if you can not use a certain bow because your dexterity is to low, or if certain high level bows would require a certain level of archery skill, but every bow requiring the skill is stupid and with shields or melee weapons it is even sillier. I really hope that Bioware will reconsider that and change it before the release of the game.

[M8DMAN]

Wittand25 wrote...

That is ridiculous. I don't mind if you can not use a certain bow because your dexterity is to low, or if certain high level bows would require a certain level of archery skill, but every bow requiring the skill is stupid and with shields or melee weapons it is even sillier. I really hope that Bioware will reconsider that and change it before the release of the game.

Same here.

[Addai]

Haexpane wrote...

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?

Nope, of course we don't all agree.  Nice way to round up "consensus," I suppose.

And I don't agree that DWW is "far superior" to the other warrior types.  Each have their strengths and weaknesses, as they are supposed to.  DWW has no ranged defense, no knockdown immunity, and high fatigue cost (though the latter might be said of all warriors).

[HTTP 404]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

They don't have a solid base to build things on. The have a shaky base and need to tear down some of it and to rebuild and play safe.

On archery I'll certainly agree with that.  The extent to which spec-powers didn't work with archery was appalling (and undocumented).

But the rebuild should have taken into account some sepmblance of sense within the world.  Not allowing non-rogues even to carry a bow is horribly short-sighted.

not if the combat got arcade-like.  then it makes perfect sense

[Bullets McDeath]

I'll say it once again because it bears repeating.



This thread depresses the living hell out of me.



This is total regression and I'd love to see someone or a dev try and show me why it is not.



"Budget" cannot be your excuse for every game design decision. Characters literally being unable to pick up a weapon because of their "class" (an abritary, out-of-game-world distinction) is meh on so many levels.



FAIL.



Bah.



Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, etc. Seriously, though, if Bioware were my dog I would be switching it back to dry food now.

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

I share all of your pain on this. Bad move, Bioware.

[Russalka]

Is there anyone else who feels that fighting with two weapons seems rather pointless and unrealistic when we have a warrior in full plate armour?

Doesn't it require mobility and isn't it absolutely rudimentary when we have a warrior with such strength, who could just use a sword/shield or greatsword for fighting?

Proper armoured knights didn't even use dual weapons, and those who would use sword/dagger combination were rarely anything more but ruffians, or fighters in light armour.

Am just wondering, don't shoot me. Dual-wielding on a strong, disciplined warrior just seems off. Any thoughts?

Modifié par Russalka, 21 septembre 2010 - 06:54 .

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

Well, I'll wear light armor then. What you spoke of isn't the point here, ser.

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

And I'll be happy to just equip myself with two short swords. I refuse to call them daggers.

[Addai]

Russalka wrote...

Is there anyone else who feels that fighting with two weapons seems rather pointless and unrealistic when we have a warrior in full plate armour?

Doesn't it require mobility and isn't it absolutely rudimentary when we have a warrior with such strength, who could just use a sword/shield or greatsword for fighting?

Proper armoured knights didn't even use dual weapons, and those who would use sword/dagger combination were rarely anything more but ruffians, or fighters in light armour.

Am just wondering, don't shoot me. Dual-wielding on a strong, disciplined warrior just seems off. Any thoughts?

I'm no expert, either, but as I understand it, dual wield was historically rare regardless of setup and that plate armor was more flexible and light than is often pictured.  In the game, however, if mobility is as limited as you say, a warrior shouldn't be able to do fancy shield maneuvers and finishing moves, either.

As far as game lore, in The Calling Maric is said to be wearing silverite plate but that it is remarkably light, and as far as I can tell he wields only a longsword, neither shield nor dagger.  And if I caught it right, in a PAX interview David Gaider said that he was a rogue.  Even in the DA2 trailer, the Qunari is shown dual wielding.  These are two examples of either heavy hitting rogues or roguish warrior types.  So whatever the reason for these changes, it appears to be in mechanics, not in lore.

Modifié par Addai67, 21 septembre 2010 - 07:44 .

[Wittand25]

The only excuse that is somewhat acceptable is that they wanted to make the animations fit better. A rogue backstabbing with a longsword or beheading the opponent with two daggers does look weird. with the restriction to weapon types at least such things can be avoided.

Personally as long as warriors can still use crossbows, the change does not affect me that much. Because I never played dual-wielding or archery warriors and my rogues usually restrict themselves to daggers, but still it does seem such an odd and random restriction.

[Blastback]

Haexpane wrote...

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?

Just because a Dual wield warrior was overpowered in Origins doesn't mean that it had to be in futeure games.  They could have redesigned it so that warriors could still duel wield while being no more efficent than oter warrior varients. 

[Lokanaiya]

Wittand25 wrote...

The only excuse that is somewhat acceptable is that they wanted to make the animations fit better. A rogue backstabbing with a longsword or beheading the opponent with two daggers does look weird. with the restriction to weapon types at least such things can be avoided.
Personally as long as warriors can still use crossbows, the change does not affect me that much. Because I never played dual-wielding or archery warriors and my rogues usually restrict themselves to daggers, but still it does seem such an odd and random restriction.

Um... Archery is any ranged weapon, last I checked. So, just my guess, but no ranged attack AT ALL for warriors.<_<

[GulfWarVet]

Lokanaiya wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

The only excuse that is somewhat acceptable is that they wanted to make the animations fit better. A rogue backstabbing with a longsword or beheading the opponent with two daggers does look weird. with the restriction to weapon types at least such things can be avoided.
Personally as long as warriors can still use crossbows, the change does not affect me that much. Because I never played dual-wielding or archery warriors and my rogues usually restrict themselves to daggers, but still it does seem such an odd and random restriction.

Um... Archery is any ranged weapon, last I checked. So, just my guess, but no ranged attack AT ALL for warriors.<_<

So if I pick hawke as a warrior his only option is to Tank? pretty much rules out that class for me then.

[Nerevar-as]

Lokanaiya wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

The only excuse that is somewhat acceptable is that they wanted to make the animations fit better. A rogue backstabbing with a longsword or beheading the opponent with two daggers does look weird. with the restriction to weapon types at least such things can be avoided.
Personally as long as warriors can still use crossbows, the change does not affect me that much. Because I never played dual-wielding or archery warriors and my rogues usually restrict themselves to daggers, but still it does seem such an odd and random restriction.

Um... Archery is any ranged weapon, last I checked. So, just my guess, but no ranged attack AT ALL for warriors.<_<

That´s just stupid. Even if they were a lot worse with the weapon, they should still be able to use it. Though a lot here should mean a lot  if getting to be a good archer is as hard as I´ve read.

They are clearly trying to make classes more dfferent, but they way they are going about it doesn´t seem right. In ME2 I didn´t get the feeling classes differences were forced where weapons where involved. Probably because the SMG compensated the AR. And in Origins I never played a DW warrior and rogue the same. They have different focus and strenghts. 

[CaisLaochach]

GulfWarVet wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

The only excuse that is somewhat acceptable is that they wanted to make the animations fit better. A rogue backstabbing with a longsword or beheading the opponent with two daggers does look weird. with the restriction to weapon types at least such things can be avoided.
Personally as long as warriors can still use crossbows, the change does not affect me that much. Because I never played dual-wielding or archery warriors and my rogues usually restrict themselves to daggers, but still it does seem such an odd and random restriction.

Um... Archery is any ranged weapon, last I checked. So, just my guess, but no ranged attack AT ALL for warriors.<_<

So if I pick hawke as a warrior his only option is to Tank? pretty much rules out that class for me then.

Or use a 2H weapon.

A viable 2H weapon tree would be nice.

[DarkSpiral]

ClaomhScathach wrote...

Or use a 2H weapon.

A viable 2H weapon tree would be nice.

According to Peter, both variants AoE melee damage; 2H does more of it, Sw/Sh has more survivability and crowd control.  We'll see.  He couldn't go into as much detail as many would hace liked, some of which was due to the systems still be worked on.