1380 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Lilacs wrote...

Rogues are fun to play no matter your level in other games.  It has nothing to do with more levels unless you are providing an excuse why Bioware should keep rogues the way they are or giving them an excuse to streamline their already, class deficient game. 

It's not excuse, but pretty simple and obvious factor -- if you have 20-30 additional abilities on the class, there's bigger chance you will like some of them and find the class enjoyable. I remember playing lvl.20 rogue in WoW and the experience wasn't really very different from what you get in DA -- there was stealth, basic poisons you could put on the weapons, positional damage if i'm not mistaken (it was in open beta so quite few years ago) basic stuns and stealing. So i'm not really sure why you'd find such early level rogue "fun to play" in WoW but consider functionally the same class to "suck" in DA but hey, opinions etc.

[hexaligned]

TiaraBlade 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.

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.

Some people hate every desicion they make.  They are used to it I'm sure.

[Bryy_Miller]

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.

I don't see why this is so bad. It makes sense in the context of differing the classes more. DW warriors always, to me, felt weird. I played one, but it always felt like the game was biased towards that style of play. The team never felt rounded.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 05 septembre 2010 - 02:20 .

[TiaraBlade]

AntiChri5 wrote...

So now Warriors can only be big hulking thug types?

Exactly!

If the rogues can be just as skilled in melee, I might give this a pass since I see my warriors as being lithe and skilled but I have a hard time believing this will be the case and instead I'll be trying to stealh and backstab all the time.

Yeah, i'm blowing up the board before but this is a bad move and I'm gonna whine about it as much as I want!

[MelRedux]

*cries, violently sobs* I'll always love you DW warrior!! I'LL NEVER FORGET!

[UberDuber]

Why is Bioware changing so much?? They are taking out most of the stuff I loved about Origins...seriously if DA2 flops they just killed DA completely.

I can't see myself loving this game like Origins...it's disapointing that DA is going down this way, I just hope they do a better job in DA3 (If there is one) 

Modifié par UberDuber, 05 septembre 2010 - 02:28 .

[Shevy]

relhart wrote...

TiaraBlade 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.

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.

Some people hate every desicion they make.  They are used to it I'm sure.

Nope, it's the first decision I really dont like, call it hate. A DW warrior makes more sense than a two-handed warrior. You can parry attacks with one weapon and strike back with the other. Between the swingtimes a two-handed warrior had in DA:O, you could kill him ten times. DW warrior style is heavy based on weapon mastery and less on acrobatics like rogues does. And that's what a warrior is, a master with weapons.

[tmp7704]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

I don't see why this is so bad. It makes sense in the context of differing the classes more. DW warriors always, to me, felt weird. I played one, but it always felt like the game was biased towards that style of play. The team never felt rounded.

I have great idea how to push further in this direction -- take out Arcane Warrior spec. It blurries the line between mages and warriors and wtf, we can't have that.

And let's just ignore that the "iconic" trailer Hawke is a weapon-wielding mage in decent armour, rather than any of these classes which have to be completely distinctive... uhm wait, why exactly do they have to be distinctive when it apparently doesn't even make such narrowly specialized class worthy to be shown in game trailer?

edit: oh and incidentally, the qunari warrior in the trailer dual-wields, too. But oh wait, perhaps he's a rogue. Vaulting over opponents and flickering all over the field. He just chooses not to show that and take his opponent head-on, literally.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 septembre 2010 - 02:32 .

[Chris Readman]

I really wonder why they can't have both dual-wielding warriors and rogues. I mean, for the sake of differentiation, you don't just take something away, you give something new to one of them.



Since rogues are described as mobile with the dual-wielding talents, can't they make warriors who use more brute force in their dual-wielding trees?

[Arttis]

I thought DW axes was more for warriors than rogues?

[Pritos]

UberDuber wrote...

Why is Bioware changing so much?? They are taking out most of the stuff I loved about Origins...seriously if DA2 flops they just killed DA completely.

I can't see myself loving this game like Origins...it's disapointing that DA is going down this way, I just hope they do a better job in DA3 (If there is one) 

Do you realize there is still 6 month 'till DA2 gets released? It's a bit early to dream with DA3, I don't expect to see anything about it until end of 2012.

[The Wild Turkey]

Ayanko wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

 A warrior in plate mail being fast with two daggers I could handle, but flipping and rolling into attacks? That didn't make sense.

You know, there *are* videos on youtube of people doing this sort of acrobatics in plate mail   Our common expectations in that regard are quite off since they're based generally on second hand info from people who had no clue themselves, having lived some hundreds of years after that stuff was actually in use.

Can you actually imagine a warrior in Massive Heavy Plate Jumping into Battle Using Helicopter skill, I forgot what the skills called so I renamed it Helicopter. Either way he's going to look like a Ballerena.

And?  If someone has invested in the strength and skills to do so, why not? 

Mr Laidlaw, you do realise that medieval knights could do cartwheels in their field plate armour?  Flipping and rolling makes perfect sense to me.  You might be thinking of those hulking monstrosities they wore when jousting.  That stuff was intended to keep them safe when they rammed each other lances, not for wearing into battle where they did actually need to move around quite quickly.

I'm going to miss DW warriors, I liked have flexibility in my character design.

[Logabob]

Quote Whiny Complainer:

"OMG! There is fewer options! The game is so worse!"



No it's not. More, redundant options are not better than fewer, better implemented ones.

[TiaraBlade]

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 

Why do Warriors have to be a clone rogue spec? Why wouldn't the rogues be a clone warrior spec?

Anyway, as I said, let's just remove all weapons from mages- otherwise they are just a cloned warrior spec. Remove armor from rogues as well- too much like warriors. Yeah, that sounds just as workable. Honestly, that's the best Bioware can do to make rogues and warriors different- remove options? Epic failure.

[Bruddajakka]

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.

How about instead of being lazy you just do different animations for the classes depending on the weapons their using.

[Faz432]

tmp7704 wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

I don't see why this is so bad. It makes sense in the context of differing the classes more. DW warriors always, to me, felt weird. I played one, but it always felt like the game was biased towards that style of play. The team never felt rounded.

I have great idea how to push further in this direction -- take out Arcane Warrior spec. It blurries the line between mages and warriors and wtf, we can't have that.

Dude please, don't even joke

Modifié par Faz432, 05 septembre 2010 - 02:36 .

[TiaraBlade]

thegreateski wrote...

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.

Horrible analogy. Warriors are master of arms- to deny them the most skill with weapons, both ranged and not, is idiotic.

[Rubbish Hero]

Warrior dmg need nerf.

[tmp7704]

Logabob wrote...

No it's not. More, redundant options are not better than fewer, better implemented ones.

What about non-redundant, well implemented multiple options?

[Yona Ti]

They can take out dual weilding for warriors as long as they put in polearms as a replacement. Thought they might put it under two handed weapons.