143 réponses à ce sujet

[Blastback]

Niarviel wrote...

They restricted weapons to classes to make each class more distinct, which is why they took out the DW. What is the point of having warrior and rogue if they can learn the same moves? Sure it sucks for alot of people who wanted a DW warrior, but sadly your going to have to get used to a normal Warrior.

Then again they can probably change their mind about this, who knows.

Only for the next game, we lost this fight for DA2 before we even knew that it was taking place.

Idealy there could be two seperate dual wield skill trees, one for rogues that focuesed on lots of damage to a single opponent, one for warriors to take on multiple enemies. 

[Phoenixblight]

Blastback wrote...

Niarviel wrote...

They restricted weapons to classes to make each class more distinct, which is why they took out the DW. What is the point of having warrior and rogue if they can learn the same moves? Sure it sucks for alot of people who wanted a DW warrior, but sadly your going to have to get used to a normal Warrior.

Then again they can probably change their mind about this, who knows.

Only for the next game, we lost this fight for DA2 before we even knew that it was taking place.

Idealy there could be two seperate dual wield skill trees, one for rogues that focuesed on lots of damage to a single opponent, one for warriors to take on multiple enemies. 

Coulda,Shoulda, WOulda, But there isn't and they didn't. Want to DW play a rogue, want to have a 2h play a warrior. This is something they decided upon and we can't judge until we see or play it. 

[Blastback]

Phoenixblight wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Niarviel wrote...

They restricted weapons to classes to make each class more distinct, which is why they took out the DW. What is the point of having warrior and rogue if they can learn the same moves? Sure it sucks for alot of people who wanted a DW warrior, but sadly your going to have to get used to a normal Warrior.

Then again they can probably change their mind about this, who knows.

Only for the next game, we lost this fight for DA2 before we even knew that it was taking place.

Idealy there could be two seperate dual wield skill trees, one for rogues that focuesed on lots of damage to a single opponent, one for warriors to take on multiple enemies. 

Coulda,Shoulda, WOulda, But there isn't and they didn't. Want to DW play a rogue, want to have a 2h play a warrior. This is something they decided upon and we can't judge until we see or play it. 

We can and will whine though.

[Rake21]

Here's a question that may stop the argument.



Has it been confirmed that there are going to be only 4 weapon sepecilizations (Shield, DW, 2H, and archery), or is it possible that they have a few new weapon types that they haven't revealed yet (like polearms and morning stars) and everyone is jumping the gun?

[Blastback]

Rake21 wrote...

Here's a question that may stop the argument.

Has it been confirmed that there are going to be only 4 weapon sepecilizations (Shield, DW, 2H, and archery), or is it possible that they have a few new weapon types that they haven't revealed yet (like polearms and morning stars) and everyone is jumping the gun?

It was confirmed that there would only be archery, dual wielding, staff for mages, 2 handed and sword and shield. I ask i we were getting anything else, got a no.

[Phoenixblight]

Rake21 wrote...

Here's a question that may stop the argument.

Has it been confirmed that there are going to be only 4 weapon sepecilizations (Shield, DW, 2H, and archery), or is it possible that they have a few new weapon types that they haven't revealed yet (like polearms and morning stars) and everyone is jumping the gun?

Yes they did say there are no Polearms. And the topic about gameplay talks about each class have 6 talent trees, 2 for warriors for sword and board, 2h, and rogues having archery and dw. 

[Marionetten]

And I thought the preset talent we got in Origins was dumbing it down.

It is rather funny to see BioWare bash Japanese roleplaying games only to move towards them more and more.

Modifié par Marionetten, 08 septembre 2010 - 05:25 .

[Rake21]

Phoenixblight wrote...

Rake21 wrote...

Here's a question that may stop the argument.

Has it been confirmed that there are going to be only 4 weapon sepecilizations (Shield, DW, 2H, and archery), or is it possible that they have a few new weapon types that they haven't revealed yet (like polearms and morning stars) and everyone is jumping the gun?

Yes they did say there are no Polearms. And the topic about gameplay talks about each class have 6 talent trees, 2 for warriors for sword and board, 2h, and rogues having archery and dw. 

I did not know that.  Ah well, everyone can go back to arguing now

[Blastback]

Rake21 wrote...

Phoenixblight wrote...

Rake21 wrote...

Here's a question that may stop the argument.

Has it been confirmed that there are going to be only 4 weapon sepecilizations (Shield, DW, 2H, and archery), or is it possible that they have a few new weapon types that they haven't revealed yet (like polearms and morning stars) and everyone is jumping the gun?

Yes they did say there are no Polearms. And the topic about gameplay talks about each class have 6 talent trees, 2 for warriors for sword and board, 2h, and rogues having archery and dw. 

I did not know that.  Ah well, everyone can go back to arguing now

Nice try man.

[AlanC9]

tmp7704 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Except for game-balance reasons, of course -- AWs are bad enough without letting them get Shield line talents too.

Since it's single-player game the "balance" is quite a secondary concern, imo -- i realize some people can go "wtf why would anyone play X when Y is much stronger, make them even!" but i'd view such disparity as both source of rp and an additional difficulty gradient allowing one to finetune their experience. Which can add another dimension to the game.

Hmmm...... so it's OK to have overwhelmingly powerful classes and combinations in the game? Players can choose how many exploits they want to use?

Maybe so. Doesn't really matter anyway; DAO was so crammed with exploits that one or two more wouldn't have made any difference. I still haven't been able to bring myself to Force Field my own tank yet.

As for the topic, I'm having a tough time getting worked up about it. Maybe it's because I expect this sort of thing in any system that has classes in the first place..

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 septembre 2010 - 05:48 .

[maxernst]

AlanC9 wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Except for game-balance reasons, of course -- AWs are bad enough without letting them get Shield line talents too.

Since it's single-player game the "balance" is quite a secondary concern, imo -- i realize some people can go "wtf why would anyone play X when Y is much stronger, make them even!" but i'd view such disparity as both source of rp and an additional difficulty gradient allowing one to finetune their experience. Which can add another dimension to the game.

Hmmm...... so it's OK to have overwhelmingly powerful classes and combinations in the game? Players can choose how many exploits they want to use?

Maybe so. Doesn't really matter anyway; DAO was so crammed with exploits that one or two more wouldn't have made any difference. I still haven't been able to bring myself to Force Field my own tank yet.

As for the topic, I'm having a tough time getting worked up about it. Maybe it's because I expect this sort of thing in any system that has classes in the first place..

Yes...classes exist in games for a reason, particularly in games that are designed for parties.  classically, RPG's were designed so that every party needed a balance of different characters with different skills, and the class sytems forced that upon you.  It's a design choice.  It's also one that I can respect because logically, people don't acquire the skills they have in a vacuum.  They presumably go through years of training and I don't find it hard to believe that an apprentice thief gets trained in different weapons than a knight's squire.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Niarviel wrote...

They restricted weapons to classes to make each class more distinct, which is why they took out the DW.

They could do that just by restricting the weapon talents, not the weapons themselves.

That's now DAO worked.

What is the point of having warrior and rogue if they can learn the same moves?

I agree.  And that's why I'm not suggesting they should be able to learn the same moves.  I'm suggesting they should be able to equip weapons as the player sees fit, without regard for what skills those classes can learn.

[the_one_54321]

Akka le Vil wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Yeah, I don't get why people care about this.

Mmh... Let's say... Because :

Sure, it would make more sense and be more realistic

Guess you answered your own question ?

Great job leaving out everything that actually mattered. "When I can't argue with the point, chane the context so I don't look like an idiot" is a nice mantra, huh? 
<_<
Everything that you didn't quote was about how they would accomplish very little or nothing by not restricting weapons, and possibly have to expend further resources on it.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 08 septembre 2010 - 06:25 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yeah, I don't get why people care about this.

Let's check.

Sure, it would make more sense and be more realistic if there were no restrictions at all, and the classes just sucked at the things they weren't trained for.

This.

But then no one would use them anyway and later people would be complaining about how superfluous and pointless it is.

If no one used them, there would be no complaints.

As an addition to the game it would be useless and a waste or resources on BioWare's part.

What resources?  Just remove the weapon restrictions.  Again, unless the classes have their own animation rigs there's zero cost development cost associated with letting any character equip any weapon type.

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Niarviel wrote...

They restricted weapons to classes to make each class more distinct, which is why they took out the DW.

They could do that just by restricting the weapon talents, not the weapons themselves.

That's now DAO worked.

What is the point of having warrior and rogue if they can learn the same moves?

I agree.  And that's why I'm not suggesting they should be able to learn the same moves.  I'm suggesting they should be able to equip weapons as the player sees fit, without regard for what skills those classes can learn.

Shouldn't this development thrill all those people who moan about how DA was supposed to be the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

maxernst wrote...

Shouldn't this development thrill all those people who moan about how DA was supposed to be the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate? 

Anyone who thought everything Baldur's Gate did was perfect should like this, yes.  BG also had nonsensical weapon restrictions (completely in violation of the AD&D rules).

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Shouldn't this development thrill all those people who moan about how DA was supposed to be the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate? 

Anyone who thought everything Baldur's Gate did was perfect should like this, yes.  BG also had nonsensical weapon restrictions (completely in violation of the AD&D rules).

Hmm?  I'm not that familiar with 2nd edition rules, but it seemed to me the weapon restrictions in BG were similar, though not identical, to 1st edition rules.  Not that that made them any less nonsensical; AD&D was full of nonsensical rules.

[AtreiyaN7]

Akka le Vil wrote...

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.

Hmm, apparently no one in this thread has a sense of humor. Bit of a dour bunch, eh? That post was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but that aside, I don't seriously believe that someone without a fair amount of skill in handling swords (like a mage) would reasonably be expected to do so with much success. As for the restrictions, the base classes are effectively taken straight from D&D - warrior, mage, rogue. They've always had class-based weapons restrictions in pencil-and-paper games - it's not anything new.

You might have more choices in P&P games, even being allowed to wield certain items like a mace despite the fact that your character sucks at it, but this isn't a P&P game, nor is it a sandbox game in which one might reasonably expect a great amount of freedom in terms of exploration and weapons. I remember class-based weapons restrictions in older D&D type CRPG games. What they've done doesn't seem out of line when compared to those games (although as I said, I think the restrictions on warriors this time are a bit silly).

Maybe the devs don't want to waste time and effort in creating special animations showing your character fumbling with a mace or a bow. And yes, I'm joking about that, as I'm sure they could just use some lame default attack animation or whatever and show numbers indicating that you're whiffing. And now, back to work - just had to write an angryish e-mail in response to another in a long line of poets who doesn't understand that a 6x9 page size is smaller than an 8.5x11 page size and that their epic poems will no longer fit on a single page (because, you know, it's smaller...I hate poets who don't know how to use rulers).

*** Edited to remove a redundant phrase.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 08 septembre 2010 - 11:51 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Yeah, I don't get why people care about this.

Let's check.

Sure, it would make more sense and be more realistic if there were no restrictions at all, and the classes just sucked at the things they weren't trained for.

This.

But then no one would use them anyway and later people would be complaining about how superfluous and pointless it is.

If no one used them, there would be no complaints.

As an addition to the game it would be useless and a waste or resources on BioWare's part.

What resources?  Just remove the weapon restrictions.  Again, unless the classes have their own animation rigs there's zero cost development cost associated with letting any character equip any weapon type.

History dictates that superfluos features are widely complained about. Too many mage spells, useless crossbows, etc.
It takes coding to make all classes function for all weapons along with sutable penalties. Coding takes people. Removing weapons restrictions would take additional resources.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It takes coding to make all classes function for all weapons along with sutable penalties. Coding takes people. Removing weapons restrictions would take additional resources.

They had coding already that worked in DAO.  They needed to spend zots changing it.

I didn't suggest any penalities.  Just the weapons without talents.

[Sylvius the Mad]

maxernst wrote...

Hmm?  I'm not that familiar with 2nd edition rules, but it seemed to me the weapon restrictions in BG were similar, though not identical, to 1st edition rules.

Yes.

And in both, a mage can carry and weild a sword.  He'd have a -6 to hit with it, but he could still use it.

It only gets complicated if you let a Cleric use an edged weapon or let a dual-classed character use a weapon from his earlier class.

[the_one_54321]

The implication of being a "warrior" is that the character has spent the necessary effort to become that. Same for mage, and so on. If any character can use any weapon free of any penalties, that would be mind numbingly stupid. You can't hand anyone a gun and expect them to be able to use it. You can't hand anyone a sword or a shield and expect them to be able to use it. You cant hand anyone a staff that shoots magic bolts and expect them to be able to use it.

Either restrict them, or heavily penalize them. Free use would be even stupider than restriction.

Spending zots is a use of resources.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The implication of being a "warrior" is that the character has spent the necessary effort to become that. Same for mage, and so on. If any character can use any weapon free of any penalties, that would be mind numbingly stupid.

Did you complain about it in DAO?  Because that's how DAO worked.

I don't recall anyone complaining about it.  So clearly it doesn't cause the widespread consternation about which you're concerned.

[bzombo]

i think not allowing all to wield any weapon is a bad idea. it's not a deal breaker since almost every game uses this stupid limitation, but i don't like it. there should just be heavy penalties for using something you have no clue how to use properly. having the inability to place a weapon in your hand is just silly.

[the_one_54321]

Really?

I kind of just assumed that putting a sword on my Wyne had her operating at a disadvantage. If she could, in fact use that sword with no more trouble than my rogue had, well that was really stupid. I was unaware of it, and being now aware I view the mechanics of the game in a slightly lower light. I would, of course, complain about it given the proper oportunity.