139 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

In the no DW for Warriors thread, Mike wrote:

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

If removing DW talents from Warriors was done to prevent all those flippy animations from looking silly on characters wearing heavy armour, does this mean that Rogues - which do get the new DW talents - can't wear heavy armour?

If this is another completely arbitrary restriction to make the classes more distinct (since when is that a useful objective, anyway - what value does distinctiveness have?), I'm going to point it out.  A lot.  For months.

[B3taMaxxx]

Good question, though I always used light armor with my rogues, but I would like to have the customization option.



As to your "distinctiveness" gripe; Would you have no classes?

[Zjarcal]

I never used anything but light armor on rogues. I mean, the idea of being a rogue is to be sneaky and fast. Heavy armor might make that a bit harder.



Still, I see your point, it's nice to have the option. I won't complain if rogues can't wear heavy armor but I'll understand if people get upset about it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

Good question, though I always used light armor with my rogues, but I would like to have the customization option.

As to your "distinctiveness" gripe; Would you have no classes?

I want to know how distinctive they need to satisfy this supposed concern about distinctiveness.

Rogues and Warriors were certainly different from each other in DAO.  Apparently Mike things those diffierences weren't big enough.  Why not?  How big do the differences need to be?

I don't particularly see the need for classes, no, though I understand they do make it easier to balance the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zjarcal wrote...

I never used anything but light armor on rogues. I mean, the idea of being a rogue is to be sneaky and fast. Heavy armor might make that a bit harder.

Depends on the Rogue.  A Thug wouldn't necessarily wear light armour.

[B3taMaxxx]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

B3taMaxxx wrote...

Good question, though I always used light armor with my rogues, but I would like to have the customization option.

As to your "distinctiveness" gripe; Would you have no classes?

I don't particularly see the need for classes, no, though I understand they do make it easier to balance the game.

 Some people may say (yeah, I'm going there) that having seperate classes is one of the key elements that define a RPG.

 That out of the way, I'm hoping this will create a better, more unique warrior, as I thought in DA: Origins they were extremely................lackluster.
 

[Brockololly]

If we're going down the dreaded ME2 streamlining route, I'd imagine we no longer have light, medium, heavy or massive armor and now instead have mage armor, rogue armor and warrior armor. Ugh.

[B3taMaxxx]

Brockololly wrote...

If we're going down the dreaded ME2 streamlining route, I'd imagine we no longer have light, medium, heavy or massive armor and now instead have mage armor, rogue armor and warrior armor. Ugh.

 Yes, this would be bad.

[Arttis]

I do not see why they would restrict it.

I imagine its just encouraged you do not wear it.

[errant_knight]

Brockololly wrote...

If we're going down the dreaded ME2 streamlining route, I'd imagine we no longer have light, medium, heavy or massive armor and now instead have mage armor, rogue armor and warrior armor. Ugh.

That's a bit of a leap. Like tmp said, I don't see why they had to take the current duel wield away from warriors in order to add new stuff to rogues, but nothing was said about removing gear from the game.

Modifié par errant_knight, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:47 .

[ashwind]

They can simply bring back ideas like:

Heavy / Massive Armor = insane penalty to sneak/stealth because enemies can hear you coming from miles away.



Heavy / Massive Armor = Penalty to dex check - ie: 120 dex = 60/40 dex when used to determine damage and attack.



That way, rogues will go for light / medium armor and Warrior will take Str instead of Dex...



**Just examples please dont take the figures literally >.<"

[errant_knight]

Zjarcal wrote...

I never used anything but light armor on rogues. I mean, the idea of being a rogue is to be sneaky and fast. Heavy armor might make that a bit harder.

Still, I see your point, it's nice to have the option. I won't complain if rogues can't wear heavy armor but I'll understand if people get upset about it.

Well, I put my rogues in medium armor because I didn't care for the light armor. Especially females. Uncovered chests in armor is just silly.  From what we've seen of females in DA2 so far, I expect I'm going to wish I could put them in full plate.

[javierabegazo]

I think Rogues SHOULD be excluded from Heavy Plate armor. Heavy Plate armor is the antithesis of what it is to be a rogue. Rogues have agility, stealth, and lethal fast strikes, but they're fragile, to balance out their high DPS



Warriors are tanks, heavy hitting, can take a beating, and to balance it out, slower than a rogue.

[errant_knight]

ashwind wrote...

They can simply bring back ideas like:
Heavy / Massive Armor = insane penalty to sneak/stealth because enemies can hear you coming from miles away.

Heavy / Massive Armor = Penalty to dex check - ie: 120 dex = 60/40 dex when used to determine damage and attack.

That way, rogues will go for light / medium armor and Warrior will take Str instead of Dex...

**Just examples please dont take the figures literally >.

I'd hate to see that, because I liked having all the attributes make a difference. It meant that you could build characters of the same class who functioned very differently. Generally I kept my warrior's dexterity almost as high as strength, and liked being able to do that.

[Arttis]

javierabegazo wrote...

I think Rogues SHOULD be excluded from Heavy Plate armor. Heavy Plate armor is the antithesis of what it is to be a rogue. Rogues have agility, stealth, and lethal fast strikes, but they're fragile, to balance out their high DPS

Warriors are tanks, heavy hitting, can take a beating, and to balance it out, slower than a rogue.

But then people lose more options!
Testing builds with specific armore was sort of what some people did.

[ashwind]

errant_knight wrote...

ashwind wrote...

They can simply bring back ideas like:
Heavy / Massive Armor = insane penalty to sneak/stealth because enemies can hear you coming from miles away.

Heavy / Massive Armor = Penalty to dex check - ie: 120 dex = 60/40 dex when used to determine damage and attack.

That way, rogues will go for light / medium armor and Warrior will take Str instead of Dex...

**Just examples please dont take the figures literally >.

I'd hate to see that, because I liked having all the attributes make a difference. It meant that you could build characters of the same class who functioned very differently. Generally I kept my warrior's dexterity almost as high as strength, and liked being able to do that.

You can still do that with your warrior, you just do not want to use Heavy/Massive Armor... I mean.. heavy/massive armors are not like uniforms for warriors right? Many warriors in history dont use heavy massive armors... I wont say that Spartans are using massive armor, not strictly heavy too because they only use a bronze helmet and a bronze breastplate - maybe medium.

something like: Medium armored Spartan warriors vs Massive armored french knights

[javierabegazo]

Arttis wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

I think Rogues SHOULD be excluded from Heavy Plate armor. Heavy Plate armor is the antithesis of what it is to be a rogue. Rogues have agility, stealth, and lethal fast strikes, but they're fragile, to balance out their high DPS

Warriors are tanks, heavy hitting, can take a beating, and to balance it out, slower than a rogue.

But then people lose more options!
Testing builds with specific armore was sort of what some people did.

Then the classes become less defined, less memorable and it's more of a "create your own class" which I understand that's what alot of you want, but personally I feel that makes characters just look near identical. with only minor flaws with only minor advantages. By playing a rogue in DAO, I felt it was infinitely superior to the warrior, because all I had to do was get more STR to get the same armor a warrior had, and then the Warrior class felt practically obsolete. It felt like a slow hitting, durable but boring Rogue.

a bit off topic but still near to it, with ME1, I really didn't feel there was a tangible difference with gameplay concerning the Sentinel and the Vanguard, but then ME2 came along and I found myself, despite having beaten the game 3 times, starting another playthrough just to enjoy the difference in playstyles with other classes. Each class felt well defined, and each with their drawbacks, but with great perks to make the drawbacks acceptable.

Balance was felt as a whole across the classes, where as in DAO, warriors and rogues really didn't feel that different at all. To this day I can't justify myself playing a Warrior in DAO, 

[StonerMkII]

Would be awesome if they still could. Ive had plenty of Strength-based Rogues that donned Full Plate & Scimitar/w shield in NWN. Guess thats why i love NWN so much, anything is possible with the classes in that game. The Fighter class can be as dexterous and acrobatic as a Rogue, and a Rogue can be a defensive powerhouse with Full Plate, like the Fighter.

[B3taMaxxx]

An easy way to differ between classes is to give advantages. Stat advantages for choosing a paticualr class or race was non-existent in DA: Origins.

[tmp7704]

javierabegazo wrote...

Then the classes become less defined, less memorable and it's more of a "create your own class" which I understand that's what alot of you want, but personally I feel that makes characters just look near identical. with only minor flaws with only minor advantages.

It's probably very much matter of perspective.

If you look at it from another angle, by limiting options available to each class fo bare minimum, what is going to make one warrior not "look near identical" from another warrior, and one rogue from another rogue? Aside from minor flaws and/or advantages?

At the same time, a rogue in heavy plate can be to some much more memorable than the common rogue stereotype precisely because they aren't like that common stereotype.

That's two opposite viewpoints on the same matter, but i don't think it can be said one is any more valid than the other.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 septembre 2010 - 07:14 .

[Daerog]

If warriors are tanks and whatnot on the field and rogues are the lithe acrobats on the field, who wears the medium armor? Archers? Well, I guess that works for both as both can be archers or crossbow people. Unless they have limited archery for some reason.

Also, what if you wanted a balance between a rogue and warrior? A warrior wearing light armor or medium armor in order to be able to have more stamina and less fatigue to do your abilities was something I could do and have fun with in DA:O. Be like a barbarian. That would suck to lose.

Also, is everyone forgetting the specials that are unique to the classes? I mean, warrior had that "Tough" or whatever talent that lowered fatigue which made heavier armor not as bad on them than a rogue and had taunting abilities, so calling a warrior obsolete is a little ridiculous, even if rogues could wear the same equipment. Rogues had more aggro removing abilities and warriors had aggro gaining abilities, that is pretty distinct. If anything, a warrior was more versatile than a rogue, as you could go dps and/or tank, and a rogue couldn't tank very well, so a rogue is just a more boring warrior who can pick locks.

Just thoughts, I'm not sharpenning any pitchfork over here. BioWare's game, they do as they will, although I am saddened that I can't be a duel axe wielding berzerker/champion. However, I have yet to see the specializations or any specifics, I could just end up being a strength rogue that has a similar berzerker/champion feel, maybe call it "barbarian warlord" or something.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 05 septembre 2010 - 07:39 .

[Telum101]

I hope rogues are allowed to wear heavy armour, and I also hope that they aren't completely removing dual wielding from the warrior class. Out of 3+1/2 playthroughs, my favourite would definitely be my plate armoured DW warrior.



You can't market the game saying "you get to be your own character" and then force us to choose between a generic acrobatic rogue, tank warrior, and squishy mage.

[Zjarcal]

errant_knight wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

I never used anything but light armor on rogues. I mean, the idea of being a rogue is to be sneaky and fast. Heavy armor might make that a bit harder.

Still, I see your point, it's nice to have the option. I won't complain if rogues can't wear heavy armor but I'll understand if people get upset about it.

Well, I put my rogues in medium armor because I didn't care for the light armor. Especially females. Uncovered chests in armor is just silly.  From what we've seen of females in DA2 so far, I expect I'm going to wish I could put them in full plate.

Oh, I know what you mean. The design for light armors in Origins was the worst of the bunch. Especially the dalish "armor".

[Aradace]

Gods I hope rogues cant wear any kind of heavy armor this time around. That's the whole POINT of being a rogue (well, aside from being sneaky and back stabby lol.) is wearing leather or chain armor. A rogue in Massive or Heavy is just plain rediculous.

[boohead]

seems like worthless nitpicking, most rpgs dont allow rogues to wear heavy armor. and for good reasons.