1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Pritos]

Faz432 wrote...

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

Warriors and Mages are already very different, there is no motive to enlarge the distance between them. Which is not the case with Warriors and Rogues, hence why they took this decision and it makes sense.

[wwwwowwww]

Well to me it was either take it away so that ea. class had two distinct combat tiers or leave it as and try to find another tier for Rogues, only think I could remotely imagine is adding something along the lines of throwing daggers, but don't think it would work for DA.

[biomag]

... hmm... first thing I don't like, but I hated it already at DA:O, BG,... weapon restrictions for classes. One of the most horrible ideas developer had throughout rpg-history.



Truth is, 2 weapon fighting relies heavier on dexterity than sword and shield or 2 two-handed weapons, but still I felt that warriors fitted the role pretty well... at least now I am forced to have a character that can lock pick to fight with two weapons and I will always have a rogue in my squad.

[thegreateski]

TiaraBlade wrote...

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.

Alright then. What is the difference between a warrior and a rogue? Aside from different combat preferences?

If I'm following what you're saying correctly . . .

Some warriors are rogues but rogues are not warriors.

[Schwadragon]

thenemesis77 wrote...

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.

Um, there's nothing there that said that mages would be tanks, or would rush up to enemies and attack; he said that IF mages get into a fight in melee range THEN they will use their staff as a melee weapon.

[Brockololly]

Chris Readman wrote...

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?

Bah! That would make too much sense! Adding features to a sequel? Actually expanding the content and not going the ME2 streamline by deletion route? What madness is this you speak?

[Addai]

Pritos wrote...

Warriors and Mages are already very different, there is no motive to enlarge the distance between them. Which is not the case with Warriors and Rogues, hence why they took this decision and it makes sense.

An Arcane Warrior can act exactly as a warrior.

Not that I'm complaining.  My hate for mage robes knows no bounds, so a battle mage class is welcome.  And since it seems there won't be any polearms or spears, by the looks of things you can make a mage if you like that sort of weapon.

[Shevy]

Pritos wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

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

Warriors and Mages are already very different, there is no motive to enlarge the distance between them. Which is not the case with Warriors and Rogues, hence why they took this decision and it makes sense.

It makes no sense for this reason. Warriors and rogues , who fight with two weapons have only one thing in common, they fight with two weapons. The style and even the weapons are completely different. To follow this reason, you HAVE to remove arcane warriors and rogues with mail armor.

[Logabob]

tmp7704 wrote...

What about non-redundant, well implemented multiple options?

The more non-redundant well implemented options the better! In fact, I'm all for having as many as possible. 

Really what I mean is that I'd happily settle for fewer options if it meant a lot less redundancy/poorly implemented choices.

[Dynamomark]

Let's hope all these changes--less talents more "depth"--won't mean that we all be running around with the same warrior builds in the game.

[Dynamomark]

Logabob wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

What about non-redundant, well implemented multiple options?

The more non-redundant well implemented options the better! In fact, I'm all for having as many as possible. 

Really what I mean is that I'd happily settle for fewer options if it meant a lot less redundancy/poorly implemented choices.

The whole thread is about taking away DW talents from warriors. Those are not at all redudant with other warrior talents.

[2papercuts]

Brockololly wrote...

Chris Readman wrote...

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?

Bah! That would make too much sense! Adding features to a sequel? Actually expanding the content and not going the ME2 streamline by deletion route? What madness is this you speak?

yeah im with Brockololly on this one i don't want more customizable characters i just want more explosion and blood and legs that dont know there dead yet

[TiaraBlade]

thegreateski wrote...

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.

So a warrior would understand it's damn stupid but not a cunning rogue?

Why is it stupid for a warrior to dw but not a rogue?

Why not have a third weapon so if one of my dual wielding blades break, I have that extra you are referring to? OMG, what if my shield breaks? Now I have no back up.

Why are you even arguing against dual wielding? If some of us want to, let us! It doesn't hurt your sword and single tank or two hander warrior one bit!

Feel free to reply but please make some sense this time.

[tmp7704]

Logabob wrote...

The more non-redundant well implemented options the better! In fact, I'm all for having as many as possible. 

Really what I mean is that I'd happily settle for fewer options if it meant a lot less redundancy/poorly implemented choices.

Yup but see that's the thing, introducing "new, improved" dual-wielding for rogues doesn't mean the warriors couldn't retain previous version of dual-wielding as 'theirs'. This could create two options that'd be quite different and no more redundant than it is redundant to allow both the warriors and the rogues to equip either daggers, or swords, or axes or whatever instead of restricting each class only to certain weapons. Or allowing both classes wear all types of armour if they actually want to.

[Shevy]

2papercuts wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Chris Readman wrote...

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?

Bah! That would make too much sense! Adding features to a sequel? Actually expanding the content and not going the ME2 streamline by deletion route? What madness is this you speak?

yeah im with Brockololly on this one i don't want more customizable characters i just want more explosion and blood and legs that dont know there dead yet

Watch out! In the end they take this serious. *afraid*

[TiaraBlade]

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.

Again, another foolish retort. I've actually defended Bioware's decision to make some changes like using voice work for the main character.

Seriously, the weak responses I am getting shows to me just how silly this decision was.

[TiaraBlade]

Mel_Redux wrote...

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

LOL!!!

You need to drop to your knees, cradling the DW warrior, and call out to the sky. "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

[2papercuts]

Shevy_001 wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Chris Readman wrote...

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?

Bah! That would make too much sense! Adding features to a sequel? Actually expanding the content and not going the ME2 streamline by deletion route? What madness is this you speak?

yeah im with Brockololly on this one i don't want more customizable characters i just want more explosion and blood and legs that dont know there dead yet

Watch out! In the end they take this serious. *afraid*

what

[Faz432]

Brockololly wrote...

Chris Readman wrote...

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?

Bah! That would make too much sense! Adding features to a sequel? Actually expanding the content and not going the ME2 streamline by deletion route? What madness is this you speak?

Good point,

Genuine question, have we been told anything they're adding to DA2?

I mean they've taken away different races, game length and now a class.

I've not heard about anything they're adding...maybe it's too early??

Modifié par Faz432, 05 septembre 2010 - 02:56 .

[hexaligned]

Faz432 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Chris Readman wrote...

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?

Bah! That would make too much sense! Adding features to a sequel? Actually expanding the content and not going the ME2 streamline by deletion route? What madness is this you speak?

Good point,

Genuine question, have we been told anything they're adding to DA2?

I mean they've taken away different races, game length and now a class.

I've not heard about anything they're adding...maybe it's too early??

Well they are adding a voiced protagonist, and a dialogue wheel, if you consider those things a plus.

[Shevy]

Faz432 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Chris Readman wrote...

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?

Bah! That would make too much sense! Adding features to a sequel? Actually expanding the content and not going the ME2 streamline by deletion route? What madness is this you speak?

Good point,

Genuine question, have we been told anything they're adding to DA2?

I mean they've taken away different races, game length and now a class.

I've not heard about anything they're adding...maybe it's too early??

More blood and gore, cutting enemy's into pieces. All a good RPG needs *rolleyes*
Im really upset about this decision.

[tmp7704]

I think it bears repeating because it's funny enough...

... for all this designer talk how dual-wielding is restricted to rogues so it can be made looking all kinds of awesome...

... the enemy featured in the game's official trailer isn't such all-awesome rogue vaulting over targets. or some new-and-improved and equally super-awesome sword-and-shield warrior. or a guy with two-hander.

... no, it's that supposedly not cool enough dual-wielding warrior that the game is no longer going to have, in attempt to become better

[Bryy_Miller]

Faz432 wrote...

Genuine question, have we been told anything they're adding to DA2?

Graphics are different, locations are different, companions are different. Story is different. You import your save files. 

I mean they've taken away different races, game length and now a class.

1) They've explained both game length and races
2) They have not taken away any class.

[Faz432]

relhart wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Chris Readman wrote...

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?

Bah! That would make too much sense! Adding features to a sequel? Actually expanding the content and not going the ME2 streamline by deletion route? What madness is this you speak?

Good point,

Genuine question, have we been told anything they're adding to DA2?

I mean they've taken away different races, game length and now a class.

I've not heard about anything they're adding...maybe it's too early??

Well they are adding a voiced protagonist, and a dialogue wheel, if you consider those things a plus.

Oh yeah they've taken away my voice as well