143 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

St. Victorious wrote...

A mage whose never used a mace in his life isn't too likely to pick up a blunt object on a whim.

Why would no mage ever never used a mace in their life? Far more practical in tight spaces than trying to cast a fireball there, unless you feel suicidal. Not to mention people discover affinity for magic at various points in life, and they do have some skills they've learnt before it happened.

[St. Victorious]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

St. Victorious wrote...

A mage whose never used a mace in his life isn't too likely to pick up a blunt object on a whim. It's just a way of trimming the fat.

What fat?  Again, unless they have different animation rigs there's no development cost to allowing anyone to equip any weapon.

Let's throw you a real-life example to explain. A soldier that's proficient with an M-4 rifle isn't going to decide that he needs to add a shotgun and 25 shotgun shells to his combat load "in case he needs it". He's only ever been trained with the rifle and probably wouldn't be able to apply it tactically off the get-go.

It's the same thing as a mage deciding he's going to carry a mace, or a thief going to pick up a clumsy battle-axe. Them being able to equip said equipment is just unnecessary..

[wwwwowwww]

Morroian wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But restricting the ability even to equip the weapons - that's too far.

100% agreement.

So you just want to wear it and dont' care if you can use it? cuz that's what it sounds like

[Sylvius the Mad]

St. Victorious wrote...

It's the same thing as a mage deciding he's going to carry a mace, or a thief going to pick up a clumsy battle-axe. Them being able to equip said equipment is just unnecessary..

It's the restriction is unnecessary.

There are no weapon talents for the mage staff (per Peter in the other thread).  A mage won't be able to use the staff any better than he would any other weapon.

Your example would be more closel analgous if you were talking about a random guy who'd never held a firearm before, and you say that he would never pick up that shotgun because he has some arbitrary affinity for an assault rifle.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wwwwowwww wrote...

So you just want to wear it and dont' care if you can use it? cuz that's what it sounds like

He could auto-attack with it.

Just like a Rogue in DAO with a 2H sword, or a Mage with a crossbow.  All they could do was auto-attack, but they could auto-attack.

[St. Victorious]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Your example would be more closel analgous if you were talking about a random guy who'd never held a firearm before, and you say that he would never pick up that shotgun because he has some arbitrary affinity for an assault rifle.

I'd have to disagree there. You see, like the mage or rogue, the soldier has a form of train; he's a rifleman. Maybe I should of used a Muay Thai fighter as an example instead?

The point is that it makes the classes go with what the devs have dubbed as more complimentary weapon styles and cut the ability for other classes to use those weapons based on it being not practical.

[elfdwarf]

sound fair

warriors melee- shield and different weapon, two hand weapon

rogue range and melee- dual weapons , archery

mage range- magic

[wwwwowwww]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

So you just want to wear it and dont' care if you can use it? cuz that's what it sounds like

He could auto-attack with it.

Just like a Rogue in DAO with a 2H sword, or a Mage with a crossbow.  All they could do was auto-attack, but they could auto-attack.

and that would defeat the point of restricting it wouldn't it?

Sorry but it makes sense to me to restrict them.

[lv12medic]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

From Peter's excellent Q&A thread:

Peter Thomas wrote...

Weapons can only be equipped if you know the style that weapon pertains to.

This strikes me as an unnecessary and wholly arbitrary restriction.

But that can't be it.  There must be some other reason.  So what is it?

Do the classes all have different animation rigs?  This is literally the only possibility that has occurred to me.

I doubt it's the classes that have different animation rigs, its more likely each weapon style has its own animation set.  Since they're going for distinct class identities ie:
"Rogue class" is now equivalent to "Light and Fast" play and animation styles
"Warrior class" is now equivalent to a "Dish and Take Damage" play and animation style
And mage class is well... magic...

Anyways, so it may make sense for a Warrior to be able to equip any weapon (DA:O style) but it doesn't make sense for a "Dish and Take Damage" person (DA2).

I think people are viewing the class names and seeing them as to what they sound like (like a Warrior is someone who knows how to fight, martial skill and practice, etc.).  The way I think DA2 is being set up is that Warrior doesn't really mean anything like that anymore.  Its just means just the Heavy fighting guy/gal; while Rogue just means the fast and dexterous guy/gal. And the mage just means... mage... doing magic stuff.

Maybe I'm just rambling too much.  I dunno.  Hopefully that made some sense?  *crosses fingers* 

[wwwwowwww]

lv12medic wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

From Peter's excellent Q&A thread:

Peter Thomas wrote...

Weapons can only be equipped if you know the style that weapon pertains to.

This strikes me as an unnecessary and wholly arbitrary restriction.

But that can't be it.  There must be some other reason.  So what is it?

Do the classes all have different animation rigs?  This is literally the only possibility that has occurred to me.

I doubt it's the classes that have different animation rigs, its more likely each weapon style has its own animation set.  Since they're going for distinct class identities ie:
"Rogue class" is now equivalent to "Light and Fast" play and animation styles
"Warrior class" is now equivalent to a "Dish and Take Damage" play and animation style
And mage class is well... magic...

Anyways, so it may make sense for a Warrior to be able to equip any weapon (DA:O style) but it doesn't make sense for a "Dish and Take Damage" person (DA2).

I think people are viewing the class names and seeing them as to what they sound like (like a Warrior is someone who knows how to fight, martial skill and practice, etc.).  The way I think DA2 is being set up is that Warrior doesn't really mean anything like that anymore.  Its just means just the Heavy fighting guy/gal; while Rogue just means the fast and dexterous guy/gal. And the mage just means... mage... doing magic stuff.

Maybe I'm just rambling too much.  I dunno.  Hopefully that made some sense?  *crosses fingers* 

I quite like your rambling actually:wizard:

[Morroian]

lv12medic wrote...
I think people are viewing the class names and seeing them as to what they sound like (like a Warrior is someone who knows how to fight, martial skill and practice, etc.).  The way I think DA2 is being set up is that Warrior doesn't really mean anything like that anymore.  Its just means just the Heavy fighting guy/gal; while Rogue just means the fast and dexterous guy/gal. And the mage just means... mage... doing magic stuff.

Maybe I'm just rambling too much.  I dunno.  Hopefully that made some sense?  *crosses fingers* 

It makes sense in terms of removing the talent trees and its the reason why I don't mind dual wield talents being removed from warriors. However it doesn't make sense to completely remove the ability to equip a weapon. That should be based on strength, ie if you can pick it up you can use it. Plus there's the AW issue which is my favourite class.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wwwwowwww wrote...

and that would defeat the point of restricting it wouldn't it?

Not at all.  It's the weapon talents that make the style (particularly graphically, which they've mentioned explicitly as part of teh reason they restricted DW to Rogues).

Sorry but it makes sense to me to restrict them.

It makes no sense within the setting.  Therefore, it's a terrible idea.

I declared, rather boldy, during DAO's development that I would never give my mages staves because I'd rather they carried melee weapons (it didn't work out that way because the weapons were comically oversized and thus they looked stupid).

[DarkSpiral]

I can see Sylvius' point. It doesn't male sense within the setting, but then the idea doesn't reall ymake sense in any setting.  Weapon restrictions have never made any realistic sense. They are artificial limitiations imposed on characters in the names of play balance and diversification. Because they are artificial, however, means that arguing about their existence based on realism itself makes no sense.  The separations are, necessarily, intended to be realistic in the first place.  They bend to expectations of the target demographic, and limitations of the game engine, not wether or not a person could pick up and swing a specific kind of weapon in real life.

Actually, the classes make little sense in that light, either. They are also artificial limitations to diversify and balance the way a given player character works. Fortunately, I'm fairly sure that NPCs in the game don't really refer to you by the name of your class. Or, at least not in the case of a rogue or warrior. Obviously they do refer to you as a mage.

However, ultimately the game runs on rules, not on realism, and this particular decision is based as much on time, money, and the management thereof, rather than strictly on diversification and balance.

Modifié par DarkSpiral, 08 septembre 2010 - 09:14 .

[Wyndham711]

I guess BioWare is trying to protect players from themselves. After all, you can't really build a broken character if you can't equip a "wrong kind of" weapon, and if your primary stat is made so absolutely vital and obvious that disregarding it would make the character almost impossible to play in any effective way.

Modifié par Wyndham711, 08 septembre 2010 - 10:10 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Maybe it's because it would be highly illogical for, say, a mage to even be able to lift a two-handed sword, much less equip it. And if, by some miracle, a mage were able to pull that off, I'd expect him/her to immediately drop the aforementioned two-hander and accidentally hack off a limb in the process (note: I'm not counting arcane warriors who should be at least competent with a longsword, etc.).

I'd really rather not have my main character bleed to death due to unintentional self-mutilation and accidental limb removal. Even if you drop-kick logic out the window, how on earth would the ability to equip a totally ineffectual weapon add to the game in terms of fun? Sure, being able to do it would definitely add freedom of choice, but that doesn't mean it somehow makes things more enjoyable - unless whiffing on mobs and getting the stuffing beat out of your main character is your idea of fun anyway.

In Fallout 3, you can basically equip anything you want, regardless of your skill level. Being sensible however, I've always stuck with specific weapons that I had training for. When facing down a bunch of supermutants and having to choose between a plasma rifle that I know how to use and am effective with versus using a baseball bat that I can't even hit a bloatfly with, I go with the plasma rifle every time (and keep plenty of ammo on me - for the record, I tend to go small arms & energy weapons  ).

Freedom of choice is great and all, but if it adds nothing to your gaming experience (and potentially detracts from it), is it that big of an issue? However, I can at least agree that the new weapons restrictions on warriors seem a bit daft. As many have pointed out, they should be masters of arms, so in their case I would expect them to have access to the greatest number of weapons. Perhaps a FO3/Oblivion-type skill system is more to your tastes, but it's just not what we're getting in DA2.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 08 septembre 2010 - 10:43 .

[Gerudan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that can't be it.  There must be some other reason.  So what is it?

They want to make the classes more distinct and I think it makes sense, that a mage wouldn't know how to wield a two-hand sword. 

[AlexXIV]

I still like to see a good reason why warriors cannot use 2 weapons.

You have skill trees in DA:O already. You can't be using two-handed and dual wield at the same time since you lack the points. So there is the decision. I don't mind that mages can't use swords or daggers, even though even that is kinda dumb already. And arcane warriors can also use swords and daggers.

Honestly making classes more distinct is nothing but making them less customizable, so they could as well scratch attributes and skill trees and just say here you get to choose of 3 classes and that's it. Every new information about DA2 only reads: We cut here, restricted there, this won't be in. I don't get it really, unless their only plan is to minimize costs/effort in order to get a better profit since people will probably even buy a half game just because of the DA:O hype.

[Lumikki]

Because hole game is very heavy class based, not freedom to do what you want. Meaning you can't suck lolipop if it's not define it's your class skill.

My point is that for player it would be better allow use wrong stuff but have negative effect because it. Like you use weapon what you don't know, it means you have hard time to hit anything with it or do damage. if you wear armor what ins't really for you it has also side effects. It would be better than say, don't use this, because it just doesn't feel right.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 septembre 2010 - 11:04 .

[Danjaru]

Seems more and more that Bioware is making us play the classes as They want and not the way we could make them like in Origins. Unless we see a better customization in other aspects to make your character unique (I know about the whole evolved tree thing, but we havn't seen it yet) I don't think this game will have as much of a replay value when using the same class.

[Monica83]

As i writed in the last post.. This sort of limitation's don't have any sense.. Ok a mage is focused in intellect and in magic it's natural if him can't use well melee weapons and its logical too... But a Warrior a man skilled in battle that must know to use his weapons a trained one because in Origins if you make a warrior in the story (for example the city elf) you father specific that your mother trained you to be one.. Now this choice to keep de class "static" ops "distinct" and broke a warrior specialization only to add them to rougue it's a terrible idea and don't have any sense.. Why i warrior can't learn to use dextrity and not strenght to fight?

If i want make a worrior woman why i will be forced to be a sort of she hulk and scream THIS IS SPARTAAAAAW!

Its roleplay ...

And this is a roleplay game... All archers in DA world are Rogue? classes can't be only a name classes reflect the way you live the game as a character in a world..And when you make an Rpg all must be builded in the world background... If a warrior can't use dual weapons and can't use the bow you find a logic roleplay explanation for that? if not.. its a choice only maded for gameplay then not for an rpg but for a videgame only... And im looking for an Rpg when i puchase dragonage..

[fall_ark]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Maybe it's because it would be highly illogical for, say, a mage to even be able to lift a two-handed sword, much less equip it. And if, by some miracle, a mage were able to pull that off, I'd expect him/her to immediately drop the aforementioned two-hander and accidentally hack off a limb in the process (note: I'm not counting arcane warriors who should be at least competent with a longsword, etc.).

How about a club/mace, then? And a warrior can't wave a wooden staff around, or only rogues can aim with a crossbow. Makes total sense, yeah.

Those commoners could be a good class choice you know, they can hold a knife without holding another or a shield in the off-hand....

I'd really rather not have my main character bleed to death due to unintentional self-mutilation and accidental limb removal. Even if you drop-kick logic out the window, how on earth would the ability to equip a totally ineffectual weapon add to the game in terms of fun? Sure, being able to do it would definitely add freedom of choice, but that doesn't mean it somehow makes things more enjoyable - unless whiffing on mobs and getting the stuffing beat out of your main character is your idea of fun anyway.

Role-playing isn't always about efficiency. Hell it isn't about efficiency at all. 

In Fallout 3, you can basically equip anything you want, regardless of your skill level. Being sensible however, I've always stuck with specific weapons that I had training for. When facing down a bunch of supermutants and having to choose between a plasma rifle that I know how to use and am effective with versus using a baseball bat that I can't even hit a bloatfly with, I go with the plasma rifle every time (and keep plenty of ammo on me - for the record, I tend to go small arms & energy weapons  ).

Freedom of choice is great and all, but if it adds nothing to your gaming experience (and potentially detracts from it), is it that big of an issue? However, I can at least agree that the new weapons restrictions on warriors seem a bit daft. As many have pointed out, they should be masters of arms, so in their case I would expect them to have access to the greatest number of weapons. Perhaps a FO3/Oblivion-type skill system is more to your tastes, but it's just not what we're getting in DA2.

Yes that's exactly the kind of freedom lacking in DA2 concerning the choice of weapon. How about we apply the same train of thought to other parts of the game, say, negotiation in dialogues? Only warriors can intimidate, only rogues can persuade, and only mages can use mind-control! 


It wouldn't be that much of a problem for PC gamers though...just download a all-weapon/talent mod or something.

[Akka le Vil]

tmp7704 wrote...

Mr.Thomas said (can't be bothered to find the exact post but it's pretty long explanation near the current end of the thread) that they debated either merging the classes or making each of them distinct and made decision to go with the latter. It just seems to be one of consequences of this choice.

Considering how crappy most of their decisions about distinction have been, they really should have taken the other option.

[Monica83]

In the modders Chantry:

Warrior 1: Modders help us in the time of need

Warrior 2: Modders forgive all us

[Pzykozis]

Monica83 wrote...

As i writed in the last post.. This sort of limitation's don't have any sense.. Ok a mage is focused in intellect and in magic it's natural if him can't use well melee weapons and its logical too... But a Warrior a man skilled in battle that must know to use his weapons a trained one because in Origins if you make a warrior in the story (for example the city elf) you father specific that your mother trained you to be one.. Now this choice to keep de class "static" ops "distinct" and broke a warrior specialization only to add them to rougue it's a terrible idea and don't have any sense.. Why i warrior can't learn to use dextrity and not strenght to fight?
If i want make a worrior woman why i will be forced to be a sort of she hulk and scream THIS IS SPARTAAAAAW!
Its roleplay ...
And this is a roleplay game... All archers in DA world are Rogue? classes can't be only a name classes reflect the way you live the game as a character in a world..And when you make an Rpg all must be builded in the world background... If a warrior can't use dual weapons and can't use the bow you find a logic roleplay explanation for that? if not.. its a choice only maded for gameplay then not for an rpg but for a videgame only... And im looking for an Rpg when i puchase dragonage..

Personally I see it in the opposite way, instead of a rogue defining what styles you are restrticted to, weapon styles define your choice of class, now that might not make much sense at first, but when you consider both a warrior and rogue as FIGHTERS instead of two different pre-concieved ideals that aren't even true in the DA universe, it makes more sense.

Effectively rogues are fighters that specialise in the dexterous arts of war, warriors are the fighters that specialise in the strength based arts of war, they're both subsets of the fighter.

Also if you choose rogue you don't have to roleplay some gutter rat nor if you're a warrior do you have to roleplay a knight, they're self imposed constraints on your characters not imposed by the game.

From my point on a non game perspective it helps accessibility and defines what each class is, if you want to go dexterity you go for the dexterity fighter (which in DA2's case is a rogue) if you want to be about strength you go for warrior, and it does make sense in a broad sense (for rogues and warriors atleast) because noone in the game world refers to you as a warrior or rogue, they'd just say you're a good swordsman. It's effectively like having rogues and warriors two sides of the same coin.

I can't really argue mages though, their restriction is abit weird it's not like you can say havea  mage who's quick on his feet vs the type who stands there blowing stuff up, which is kind of the distinction between the two fighter classes. Perhaps we'll see specialisations have a bigger effect for them, though the mage restriction could just be so that it's coherent throughout the universe rather than restrictions for fighters and non for mages.

[Akka le Vil]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Maybe it's because it would be highly illogical for, say, a mage to even be able to lift a two-handed sword, much less equip it.

A two-handed sword weight usually between 2,5 and 3,5 Kg. Someone who can't lift that is not an untrained mage, but a crippled and disabled person.