1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Count Viceroy]

Lilacs wrote...

I know this. But don't say that rogues are fine in Dragon Age. I play them in many games; but they are worst in DA.

You're comparing apples and oranges here <_<

[errant_knight]

tmp7704 wrote...

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.

Well, this is just an excellent point!

[Faz432]

Immovable Force wrote...

Lol... haha... People dont do that as much anymore.

This topic begs the real question that if DW is out for warriors is there a third tree or just the two we know now?

From what was said on the stream I get the feeling that it'll be either DW or Archer for Rogues and 2h or sheild for Warrior


...just as long as I can still be a AW I'll be happy

[tmp7704]

Lilacs wrote...

HECK yes, in WoW! Ditto here, too, I have a lvl 80 and loving it. In DAO, rogues suck!

50 more levels worth of extra abilities and class becomes more fun to play. Who would've thought?

[thegreateski]

Count Viceroy wrote...

Lilacs wrote...

Lol! Really? Try and play a rogue in WoW, then you will see what you are missing. Then comeback and tell me if you still think rogues are "fine" in DAO.

They aren't even comparable, since they are two separate games, balance from one has no bearing on the other <_<

Shut up you! I won't let you bring logic into this thread!

[Arttis]

Faz432 wrote...

Immovable Force wrote...

Lol... haha... People dont do that as much anymore.

This topic begs the real question that if DW is out for warriors is there a third tree or just the two we know now?

From what was said on the stream I get the feeling that it'll be either DW or Archer for Rogues and 2h or sheild for Warrior


...just as long as I can still be a AW I'll be happy

They probably expanded on those abilities to compensate.

[Avilia]

Oh, I see....I think is the first thing that really makes me go "meh" to DA2.



But I'm a fair woman, I'll wait and see...I suppose.

[thegreateski]

Arttis wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

Immovable Force wrote...

Lol... haha... People dont do that as much anymore.

This topic begs the real question that if DW is out for warriors is there a third tree or just the two we know now?

From what was said on the stream I get the feeling that it'll be either DW or Archer for Rogues and 2h or sheild for Warrior


...just as long as I can still be a AW I'll be happy

They probably expanded on those abilities to compensate.

Third spec: shield and spear.

First ability you recieve for the tree is a shout attack called THISISSPARTA

[Shevy]

DW warrior style has nothing to do with this flipping, jumping , rolling ninja crap what rogues are associated with. You are swinging two long swords/  battle axes/ maces and devastate your lines of enemys while parrying and tanking theirs hits with your heavy armor.
If the two-handed warrior wont be really amazing, I think i'll skip this game. I love warriors, but not these "please hit me" tanks with a weapon and shield.

[NKKKK]

Maybe in DA3 they'll make true DW warriors.

[Balvale]

EmonCousland wrote...

Dynamomark wrote...

did he give a reason?

The epicness would be to much for Hawke to handle <_<

Hawke has no time for crappy builds. Hence why he has chosen mage right out of the gate.

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

Were't dual rogues already the deadliest DPS in DA ? Bow rogues comes a close second.

Modifié par Merlin Dawnweaver, 05 septembre 2010 - 02:06 .

[thenemesis77]

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.

So the more we hear the more is taken out. I don't see anything good being put in to offset what they are taking out. I can see now why they could make this game so fast, we still have a long way to go, so I bet more will be taken out.  Nice..

[Addai]

I love my DW builds, so hopefully you can make a robust rogue like in Awakening and I'll say goodbye to warrior class forever. For those who do play warriors, I hope for your sake that you a) get a ranged attack and get to attack faster than in Origins. I could get a cup of coffee in the time it took an Origins warrior to wind up and maybe- maybe- hit the target.

Modifié par Addai67, 05 septembre 2010 - 02:09 .

[Lord Gremlin]

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

Were't dual rogues already the deadliest DPS in DA ? Bow rogues comes a close second.

Yes... BTW in Awakening you get Heartseeker which deals 2000-3000 damage easily, and sometimes you can get 6000 and more.

Edit: my first character was a dual-wielding warrior. Now that I remembered it I feel sad:crying:

Modifié par Lord Gremlin, 05 septembre 2010 - 02:12 .

[TiaraBlade]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

SDNcN wrote...

First bad new I've heard about DA:2. Sebastian Hanlon just confirmed on the live-chat that dual-wielding will be restricted to rogues (I think he said Archery is as well). Goodbye armored eviscerators.

Dual Wielding Warrior was a terrible class anyway. I won't be losing any sleep over an improvement. If you're gonna dual wield, be a rogue.

Why? There is no reason why a warrior can not dual wield and Bioware should not be attempting to shoe horn us into rogue just because we want to dual wield. It makes ZERO sense!

Dual Wielding Warriors were certainly not a terrible class btw but actually pretty popular with some, myself included.

[hexaligned]

I'm glad to see it, I would be perfectly happy to see armor restrictions put on rogues too. There wasn't enough give and take in DAO's classes, it was way way too easy to become both indestructible and a dps powerhouse.

Modifié par relhart, 05 septembre 2010 - 02:13 .

[wwwwowwww]

I don't mind, actually kind of like it.



Still haven't heard as to why Archery is limited.

[TiaraBlade]

simfamSP wrote...

I think it will make classes more unique. What's the point on having a rouge dual wielding if your warrior can too?

Because it would be fun to be able to chose?

Heck why let a mage wield a weapon or let a rogue use armor at all? Let's make them REALLY different!

*eyeroll*

Bioware can do much better than state, "no dual wielding for warriors" to distinguish between rogues and warriors. All it does is say that a warrior, who is trained for battle, is less skilled in weapon use than a rogue and that makes ZERO sense!

[thenemesis77]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
As for the whole making things more unique- if thats the intent, then why are we giving mages melee attacks if they're supposed to be the field artillery?

Because holding your staff at your armpit and going "pew pew" is not cool. At least, I sure don't think it is.

No one said that mage melee attacks were particularly good, just that you don't look lame while you do them.

No, it just puts more strain on the team when your mage pulls up to melee and has that cloth armor on and get killed in two hits, wow, thats why mages stay in the back, last I had seen a tank/mage was Ultma or your pen and papper D@D.
So I hope that at some point I still have a mage to help heal me when  I am the tank and not having to worry about keeping them alive because they pull up to be heros and get powned.  I guess all mages can be tanks too?  LIke Hawke is, hes the best of both worlds..thats rich.

[TiaraBlade]

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.

Or we could have regular, more skill based dual wielding for warriors and the acrobatics for the rogues. No need to remove dw for warriors.

Again, people are not making sense here but tossing out words to justify a bad decision that people are not going to like and the devs need to hear this.

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

Like I said in the last page, I think they should give warrior a throwing weapon tree that allow them to chug axes, spears or even half a chair at their enemies.

[thegreateski]

TiaraBlade wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

I think it will make classes more unique. What's the point on having a rouge dual wielding if your warrior can too?

Because it would be fun to be able to chose?

Heck why let a mage wield a weapon or let a rogue use armor at all? Let's make them REALLY different!

*eyeroll*

Bioware can do much better than state, "no dual wielding for warriors" to distinguish between rogues and warriors. All it does is say that a warrior, who is trained for battle, is less skilled in weapon use than a rogue and that makes ZERO sense!

It makes perfect sense. A warrior would understand that it's just darn stupid to wield two weapons at the same time. Instead you can wield a weapon and a shield and just hold onto the other weapon that you would have dual wielded as a backup in case your first one breaks.

also, shields are viable weapons capable of cracking a mans skull with ease.

Modifié par thegreateski, 05 septembre 2010 - 02:19 .