143 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

We were told during development that our mages could use melee weapons.  Many people playing the game talked about how they put 2H weapons on their rogues (nice backstab damage).

[the_one_54321]

I didn't pay attention to anything during development. I have not visited any character build threads. However, being able to use and being able to use with no penalties are two different things. I know a mage can use melee weapons. I know a rogue can use any weapon. But are there penalties to it? That's the bigger question. I assumed there were penalties.

[Hollingdale]

I support this, stats should determine what equipment you wield, not class.

[Wyndham711]

This is indeed an inexplicable change, if this is the way they end up going. Feels like they are removing options just for the heck of it, without any gain. Or if the supposed gain is in making the game somehow easier to understand or make it less possible for the player to make mistakes, then I can't help but feel an uncomfortable amount of patronization in the air.

[Pzykozis]

I think the lack of usage ties into the new animation sets for weapons, the rogue seems to really dance around more and strike really fast when it dual wields, this wouldn't suit someone who has high strength (warrior) and even less so a mage, likewise the 2h will probably have more emphasis on the strength being used in each swing, which makes very little sense for a mage and rogue.



My main thing is that if you don't have skills to use a weapon it should clearly be inferior to the point where either you're trying to exploit a flaw in the system (2h backstab) or you're artificially just equipping the weapon because you can both of which are not really that great a reason for being able to wield the weapons.



Also restricting weapons should allow for tighter tweaking on item design and anmations etc.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pzykozis wrote...

I think the lack of usage ties into the new animation sets for weapons, the rogue seems to really dance around more and strike really fast when it dual wields, this wouldn't suit someone who has high strength (warrior) and even less so a mage, likewise the 2h will probably have more emphasis on the strength being used in each swing, which makes very little sense for a mage and rogue.

That was the explanation they gave for restricting the talents.  If the same is true for the auto-attack animations that would make some sense.

I'd like to hear about it, though.

[bzombo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

the limitation is the skills. as a mage, you can not dual wield and use any special abilities. all you do is just a normal attack. the skill trees have passive abilities that make you better with your chosen weapon(s) that differentiate them. instead of a penalty system, bioware used a bonus system. if you used what related to your class, there were passive skills that made you even better at it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

bzombo wrote...

the limitation is the skills. as a mage, you can not dual wield and use any special abilities. all you do is just a normal attack. the skill trees have passive abilities that make you better with your chosen weapon(s) that differentiate them. instead of a penalty system, bioware used a bonus system. if you used what related to your class, there were passive skills that made you even better at it.

Also stats - Mages tended to have lower Strength and Dexterity scores, so they'd be less effective with weapons.  Plus, each class had a fixed attack score progression by level, and the Mages' progression was terrible.

[bzombo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

bzombo wrote...

the limitation is the skills. as a mage, you can not dual wield and use any special abilities. all you do is just a normal attack. the skill trees have passive abilities that make you better with your chosen weapon(s) that differentiate them. instead of a penalty system, bioware used a bonus system. if you used what related to your class, there were passive skills that made you even better at it.

Also stats - Mages tended to have lower Strength and Dexterity scores, so they'd be less effective with weapons.  Plus, each class had a fixed attack score progression by level, and the Mages' progression was terrible.

yes, that as well. i like that system better than just arbitrarily locking certain items out from classes "just because".

[the_one_54321]

bzombo wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

bzombo wrote...
the limitation is the skills. as a mage, you can not dual wield and use any special abilities. all you do is just a normal attack. the skill trees have passive abilities that make you better with your chosen weapon(s) that differentiate them. instead of a penalty system, bioware used a bonus system. if you used what related to your class, there were passive skills that made you even better at it.

Also stats - Mages tended to have lower Strength and Dexterity scores, so they'd be less effective with weapons.  Plus, each class had a fixed attack score progression by level, and the Mages' progression was terrible.

yes, that as well. i like that system better than just arbitrarily locking certain items out from classes "just because".

That works for me. So long as they don't get to just freely use weapons they have no reason for knowing how to use.

[Wulfram]

Warriors not being able to use ranged weapons is disappointing, since it reduces their tactical options.



Not too bothered about the rest.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

That works for me. So long as they don't get to just freely use weapons they have no reason for knowing how to use.

This is how DAO worked.

I'd like DA2 to work the same way.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
That works for me. So long as they don't get to just freely use weapons they have no reason for knowing how to use.

This is how DAO worked.
I'd like DA2 to work the same way.

It's a fair request. But I don't mind the restrictions either.

[nuclearpengu1nn]

to make classes feel original/disticinct as Mike Laidlaw said

[Akka le Vil]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Sorry you take it like that, but the point is exactly the same, even including the part I left out (and I left it out not because I ignored it, but simply to make the relevant part stick out more, because it still answer the question).

People like what makes sense and what makes playing fun. Arbitrary and non-justified restriction goes against both. As such, people do care. I don't see how the rest of your message actually counter that.

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Hmm, apparently no one in this thread
no one has a sense of humor. Bit of a dour bunch, eh? That post was a
bit tongue-in-cheek

Sorry, I didn't thought you were actually joking.
It's a VERY COMMON misconception that two-handers were actually ultra-heavy weapons that weighted easily 10 to 15 Kg and had all their weight concentrated on the head, requiring to be a superman to even lift.
And it's the Internet. We can never know if even the most outrageously stupid things are not said in all seriousness. There is still people arguing that Earth is 6000 years old after all.

So well, yes, I plead guilty, but I have serious extenuating circumstances

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.

The weapon restrictions they are using are nevertheless in direct contradiction with ADD, so it's not the best of argumentation

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 08 septembre 2010 - 08:53 .

[TMZuk]

ErichHartmann wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

It's not much different than it's always been in every RPG I've ever played

Yes it is!

It is so much b******! It's a leftover from D&D, which isn't used in most RPG's anymore. It's like the thing that warriors can no longer dual-wield... I mean, WTF??? What has gotten into Bioware???

First they take our origins away and forces us to play humans.

Now they take away our choise in which sort of weapons we want  to use, and how.

This game is six months from release and already it SUCKS so badly, that I'm at a loss for words. RPG my a**! A dumb adventure game for twelve year olds.

So you are an authority on RPGs?  Have you ever played The Witcher?  A strong storyline trumps a million different class/specialization combinations and multiple races.  But if you feel this strongly don't bother posting here anymore.              

Yes I am an authority on RPG's having played them for the better part of my life.

Yes, I have played the Witcher, and I find it very difficult to truly get into it, because Geralt isn't my character.

And I certainly don't need you to tell me wether I should post here or not, thank you very much.

[the_one_54321]

Akka le Vil wrote...
People like what makes sense and what makes playing fun. Arbitrary and non-justified restriction goes against both. As such, people do care. I don't see how the rest of your message actually counter that.

As I said to Sylvius, history dictates that players complain about fetures in games that are superfluous. Just about all of the complaints in DA:O have been about either bugs or things that were viewed as surperfluous/useless.

[Akka le Vil]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...
People like what makes sense and what makes playing fun. Arbitrary and non-justified restriction goes against both. As such, people do care. I don't see how the rest of your message actually counter that.

As I said to Sylvius, history dictates that players complain about fetures in games that are superfluous. Just about all of the complaints in DA:O have been about either bugs or things that were viewed as surperfluous/useless.

No, people don't complain about superfluous things. People complain about imbalancing or illogical things. "fluff" is not what brings complaints, features that break the flow of the game are.

Nobody will complain if a mage can lift a sword and use it but be totally inept. 
But people will probably complain if a mage can wear and be perfectly proficient with a full plate armour.

That's not a point of being superfluous, that's a point of not making sense and making some choices excessively better than others.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

As I said to Sylvius, history dictates that players complain about fetures in games that are superfluous. Just about all of the complaints in DA:O have been about either bugs or things that were viewed as surperfluous/useless.

And again, they didn't complain about it in DAO, so either it wasn't superfluous, or your hypothesis is incorrect.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
As I said to Sylvius, history dictates that players complain about fetures in games that are superfluous. Just about all of the complaints in DA:O have been about either bugs or things that were viewed as surperfluous/useless.

And again, they didn't complain about it in DAO, so either it wasn't superfluous, or your hypothesis is incorrect.

They most certainly complained about crossbows.

[Yionel]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Knight Templar wrote...

Maybe it's a balance issue.

But the classes already can't learn the weapon talents for those styles, so they're not going to be effective with them anyway.

Thats true..whats the point in the OP then?

[Vaeliorin]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
As I said to Sylvius, history dictates that players complain about fetures in games that are superfluous. Just about all of the complaints in DA:O have been about either bugs or things that were viewed as surperfluous/useless.

And again, they didn't complain about it in DAO, so either it wasn't superfluous, or your hypothesis is incorrect.

They most certainly complained about crossbows.

The problem with crossbows wasn't that they were superfluous.  The problem with crossbows was that there was no way to use them effectively.  No matter how you statted/specced your character, crossbows sucked.

Sylvius isn't asking for weapons that suck.  He's asking for characters to be able to use weapons that they might not be particularly proficient with, and I, for one, agree with him.  I'd like my warrior to be able to have some sort of ranged attack, even if he's not particularly skilled with a bow.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I'd like my warrior to be able to have some sort of ranged attack, even if he's not particularly skilled with a bow.

He could pull with it.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
I'd like my warrior to be able to have some sort of ranged attack, even if he's not particularly skilled with a bow.

He could pull with it.

Yup.  Also, nice to be able to soften up enemies with ranged attacks before they get to melee range.  However, sounds like there won't be any way for warriors to make ranged attacks, which is kind of absurd.

[AtreiyaN7]

Akka le Vil wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Hmm, apparently no one in this thread no one has a sense of humor. Bit of a dour bunch, eh? That post was a
bit tongue-in-cheek

Sorry, I didn't thought you were actually joking.
It's a VERY COMMON misconception that two-handers were actually ultra-heavy weapons that weighted easily 10 to 15 Kg and had all their weight concentrated on the head, requiring to be a superman to even lift.
And it's the Internet. We can never know if even the most outrageously stupid things are not said in all seriousness. There is still people arguing that Earth is 6000 years old after all.

So well, yes, I plead guilty, but I have serious extenuating circumstances

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.

The weapon restrictions they are using are nevertheless in direct contradiction with ADD, so it's not the best of argumentation

Well, I did kind of say this:

<--- Atreiya

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).

I'm only trying to point out that P&P games can have some fairly arbitrary restrictions. I'm not trying to quote specific rules/restrictions that exist now in AD&D, that's for sure. God knows I stopped following D&D/AD&D rule changes and whatnot a long time ago. However, I do remember things like clerics/priests being limited to maces & whatnot because of religion, etc. and would consider that a fairly arbitrary decision by the original designer(s).

CRPGs have always had similar restrictions because the older ones (like Pools of Radiance and Planescape: Torment, etc.  ) were based on specific P&P properties/systems. I'm not saying that the new restrictions make the best of sense. All I am saying is that having class-based restrictions is something that has existed for a long time and that having such restrictions is not something that the devs just sprung on us all of a sudden. And for the third time in the thread: I do not believe that imposing weapons restrictions on the warriors was the wisest decision ever.

Ack, I need to edit out that redundant "no one" in my previous post - HORRORS! I shouldn't try to post and write e-mails to author reps at the same time. *facepalm* Ahem, even if they implemented the ability for any character to use any weapon (even badly), how does that truly add anything to the game? It only means you have seven-ten extra ways you can whiff with a sword, mace, or cricket bat. How many people would actually choose to gimp themselves? I don't believe they did this because they're protecting us from ourselves. I can accept that they wanted to make classes operate in a distinctly different manner on a visual level (combat moves, etc.), and that they probably didn't want to spend more (in terms of time and money) on specific animations to differentiate a DW warrior from a DW rogue, or what-have-you.

I don't like the warrior restrictions (there, said it again even though I said in a previous paragarph that I wouldn't mention it again!), especially since I have a DW warrior. However, I don't consider it soul-destroying and will probably take a spin as a warrior just to see what they did and how it works (mages are my favorite class however, heh, so I'll be a mage first again). More choice is always better, but I wouldn't let something like this be the sole determining factor in judging the game. Now if the story and gameplay end up sucking, then I'll have a bone to pick with BioWare.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 08 septembre 2010 - 11:52 .