143 réponses à ce sujet

[foodstuffs]

"I would pick up a butter knife to kill someone if it were all I had access to while trying to escape a dungeon, alas I am not a chef and thus cannot use one."



What?

[Gill Kaiser]

I think it's simple idiotproofing, and I don't really agree with it.

[Maconbar]

If this game were made in the U.S.A. then we would all be allowed to use any weapon we wanted.

[Vicious]

Because Mass Effect 2 had it.

[St. Victorious]

foodstuffs wrote...

"I would pick up a butter knife to kill someone if it were all I had access to while trying to escape a dungeon, alas I am not a chef and thus cannot use one."

What?

You're pretty good if you can end someone with a butter knife. Too bad that's not the point entirely.

The point of not being able to equip a weapon is that it's something you're character are going to have the skills to use effectively. A mage can pick up a sword, but a killing swing with it is not like a swing with a baseball bat. It forces you to make sound decisions based upon a class. Yes, it's an idiot proof; but a logical one nonetheless.

[The Way of Peace]

I got to the second page and couldn't stand reading any more posts by people completely missing the point or nature of OPs objection. But I'd like to go on the record as saying I agree. Being absolute garbage with a weapon should be all the restriction you need for the sake of game balance. I hate arbitrary restrictions like this. DA1 and ME1 did it right. ME2 was a great game but I was annoyed by that same back-slide. So what if my sniper is a terrible shot with a shotgun? He should at least be able to figure out which end to point at the bad guys.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

I don't like melee combat.  I think getting hit is stupid.  It's a much more intelligent approach, I think, to avoid getting hit.

It looks like more Mage + Rogue Archer parties for me.

[foodstuffs]

And if you do get hit in melee, and all you have access to is a butter knife, you should be permitted to use it, even if not a chef.

[Sylvius the Mad]

foodstuffs wrote...

And if you do get hit in melee, and all you have access to is a butter knife, you should be permitted to use it, even if not a chef.

It sounds like we might have default weapons that can't be taken away from us.  We certainly have default second weapons and default shields that can't be taken away from us.

I told people that the default unselectable arrows* were the thin end of a wedge, but no one listened.  And now look what we got.

*And actually, the default arrows in DAO were selectable under some circumstances, and equipping them produced some really strange results (melee fighters appearing with a quiver but no weapon, but still fighting as if they had a melee weapon equipped (which they did on the inventory screen, but it just wasn't rendered).

[TMZuk]

The Way of Peace wrote...

I got to the second page and couldn't stand reading any more posts by people completely missing the point or nature of OPs objection. But I'd like to go on the record as saying I agree. Being absolute garbage with a weapon should be all the restriction you need for the sake of game balance. I hate arbitrary restrictions like this. DA1 and ME1 did it right. ME2 was a great game but I was annoyed by that same back-slide. So what if my sniper is a terrible shot with a shotgun? He should at least be able to figure out which end to point at the bad guys.

QFT!

[biomag]

Why there are weapon restrictions? Because Bioware choose them lame and lazy path many RPG developer choose. Sacrificing logic and realism for the sake of making "balance" and "distinctive" classes easier to accomplish. I hate this development. Even worse with the "auto equip fitting weapon"... you don't need to find 2 daggers, your rogue will always have them as soon as you switch to melee combat. Same BS with every other weapon combination... found a great 1-handed sword for your warrior who used 2-hander so far? Perfect, as you will get a shield automatically equipped as soon as you put the new sword into his hands... great...



New slogan: Restrictions - to prevent creative designs!

[Loc'n'lol]

Ultimately, same reason there aren't horses in the game : do it right or don't do it at all.
I guess I can accept that.
Though I'm convinced a different dual wield would have fitted the warrior class to a T.

Modifié par _Loc_N_lol_, 09 septembre 2010 - 03:05 .

[FDrage]

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.

the "Effectiveness" with certain wepaons comes with the set of feats (aka feat tree) not with the possibility to just equip it. Therefore locking the feat tree down to classes (while I personally don't completly like it ... but can live with it) ensures that the don't know how to use it properly and effectively but theyt still can hold it and used it (pull the trigger, let loose and arrow or hold a sword). Heck my Arcane Warrior was running around with 2 sets (1st: Aracan Warrior Sword & Shield (looked awesome) -- 2nd set: a staff) , while not terrible effective my mage could

[Sylvius the Mad]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Ultimately, same reason there aren't horses in the game : do it right or don't do it at all.
I guess I can accept that.

I can accept that if they correctly identify what it is to "do it right"

And here they haven't.

[FDrage]

The question for me at the moment would rather be, if the weapons (aka styles) you can use are restricted by class, why aren't the armour as well? Or could you do flips and all those nice & cool things in a massive as well as light armour ?

A Rogue in massive armour might be very ineffective as the rogue might need to put too many points into "not quite as helpful" attributes (or so) and therefore has less points available for Dexterity (in case that the armour restriction might ened up being reliant on some specific strength value ... who knows if it is).

Modifié par FDrage, 10 septembre 2010 - 10:45 .

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

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.

Makes sense, don't you think?

However if that means my warrior can't use bow at all, that doesn't. Maybe make Warriors invest some points on Archery. Afterall, all weapons need training for one to be good at. Same goes for other weapons.

Modifié par The Hardest Thing In The World, 10 septembre 2010 - 05:53 .

[Bruddajakka]

It's Laziness. Pure, and simple.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's not laziness. It wouldn't take any work at all to allow it.

[Akka le Vil]

It's bad design. It's up to you to decide which is worse.