197 réponses à ce sujet

[Leonia]

filaminstrel wrote...

I wouldn't mind a warrior ability/spec like what Steiner does in FFIX, where if a mage is in the party he can use elemental-enchanted attacks that draw from the mage's power. Which would be in keeping with their idea of having more cross class "combo" moves.

I *really* like that idea. Cross-classing amongst party members would add a nice dynamic.

[Morroian]

Archereon wrote...

Arcane warrior hardly felt like playing a warrior or a rogue.  At all.  And that's the one I want back THE MOST.

Agreed, ultimately while I theoretically support the idea of more differentation I don't think the implementation has been all that good. There seems to be far less scope for making more unique character builds within classes. The 2 most uniquely different specs will probably be in the warrior class with S&S being a tank and 2H being DPS.

I think it comes down to that with the greater class differentation they needed to make more specialisations within classes, and they haven't. I've got 5 different characters from DAO, with DA2 I can see myself doing 3 at most. 

[Ziggeh]

Maria Caliban wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

What class is the sword wielding, fireball casting dude in the trailer?

Blood mage. It's not a sword, it's a 'sword staff,' which means it's exactly like a sword only you get to do ranged attacks with it as well.

Right, right, and I'm presuming it's meant for melee oriented mage spec of some kind? Or do we think it's just a staff with a pointy bit?

[Revan312]

Meltemph wrote...

Now most probably didn't nerd out like I did on creating a backstory beyond that of the origin, but it still restricts more than defines imo..

Building distinct class mechanics that they can build on with future iterations is much preferable to me. In the long run, I would much rather have less now, but have a better system.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.

And all that jazz.

And that quote is the reason gaming is becoming simplified, rehash, sequel pumping garbage.. Not that I'm saying DA2 is going to be like that, but that's my feelings about gaming in general..

"Streamlining", "defining", "balance through removal" in most cases are just excuses to make the game simpler and more accesable to people with attention spans the length of a nat's.

My favorite fantasy game ever was Ultima Online because you could have any build with the restriction being that of 7 maxed skills.. You can balance a game, make each skill/class feel unique and still have the choices wide open.

[Helena Tylena]

andar91 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Archereon wrote...

(mage tanking=win)

Agrughpeuth.

You're right, it is win. It is also fail. A mage should not be able to wear massive armor without investing in strength. A mage should not have a single talent that is better than wielding a shield.

Why is there no warrior talent tree that lets you flame enchant your weapon, toss fireballs, and do AOE damage spells based on strength that are better than what the mages get?

BECAUSE IT WOULD BE FAIL.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

What class is the sword wielding, fireball casting dude in the trailer?

Blood mage. It's not a sword, it's a 'sword staff,' which means it's exactly like a sword only you get to do ranged attacks with it as well.

Very well put. 

I think that, ironically, AW was waaay overpowered and Shapeshifter was a let-down, but they both tried to do the same thing; allow your mage to tackle problems from a differnt perspective than usual; which is cool.  But I think Shapeshifter is much more fair; when you were in that form (which had its own strengths and weaknesses), you were in that form.  AW's problem was that you could wear heavy armor and wield a two-handed hammer AND cast fireball all at the same time.  It would be different if your other spells were locked out if Combat Magic was active or something.

I never used a shapeshifter form. The casting time took too long for it to be worth to sacrifice my mages' abilities (including any form of healing) for a few generic melee ones. Being able to instantly switch into a bear with more health and armour when you have aggro is useful, but not three seconds after the fact.

[Silent 1]

leonia42 wrote...

Don't forget staves can do melee attacks now as well.

Oh I didn't know that cool, mage character here I come
.

[hexaligned]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

What class is the sword wielding, fireball casting dude in the trailer?

Blood mage. It's not a sword, it's a 'sword staff,' which means it's exactly like a sword only you get to do ranged attacks with it as well.

Right, right, and I'm presuming it's meant for melee oriented mage spec of some kind? Or do we think it's just a staff with a pointy bit?

I don't know about you, but I fully intend to create a staff fighter mage PC, most likely as my first character.  I'm sure it will be crap min/max wise as they don't seem to be putting anything in to support that playstyle (at least going off of the reveals), but if the difficulty of DAO is a good thing to go off of, I shouldn't need to worry about min/maxing at all.

[andar91]

Helena Tylena wrote...

andar91 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Archereon wrote...

(mage tanking=win)

Agrughpeuth.

You're right, it is win. It is also fail. A mage should not be able to wear massive armor without investing in strength. A mage should not have a single talent that is better than wielding a shield.

Why is there no warrior talent tree that lets you flame enchant your weapon, toss fireballs, and do AOE damage spells based on strength that are better than what the mages get?

BECAUSE IT WOULD BE FAIL.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

What class is the sword wielding, fireball casting dude in the trailer?

Blood mage. It's not a sword, it's a 'sword staff,' which means it's exactly like a sword only you get to do ranged attacks with it as well.

Very well put. 

I think that, ironically, AW was waaay overpowered and Shapeshifter was a let-down, but they both tried to do the same thing; allow your mage to tackle problems from a differnt perspective than usual; which is cool.  But I think Shapeshifter is much more fair; when you were in that form (which had its own strengths and weaknesses), you were in that form.  AW's problem was that you could wear heavy armor and wield a two-handed hammer AND cast fireball all at the same time.  It would be different if your other spells were locked out if Combat Magic was active or something.

I never used a shapeshifter form. The casting time took too long for it to be worth to sacrifice my mages' abilities (including any form of healing) for a few generic melee ones. Being able to instantly switch into a bear with more health and armour when you have aggro is useful, but not three seconds after the fact.

Oh yeah, I was the same way.  I just mean that both of the specializations allow the mage to enter melee, but I think Shapeshifter (in theory) is fairer since you have to give up your other spells.  I think Shapeshifter is a great concept, to be honest, I just think they need to implement it better.  If they listened to the feedback (and they usually do), I'll be happy to see it return.  Arcane Warrior?  Not so much.

[Ziggeh]

relhart wrote...

I don't know about you, but I fully intend to create a staff fighter mage PC, most likely as my first character.  I'm sure it will be crap min/max wise as they don't seem to be putting anything in to support that playstyle (at least going off of the reveals), but if the difficulty of DAO is a good thing to go off of, I shouldn't need to worry about min/maxing at all.

Despite my question being pretty leading, I honestly don't know if it's viable or even possible, it's a straight question. But as they've put a dude wearing heavy armour and rocking a melee weapon that doubles as a magical shooter in both of the trailers, the fact that its not called "arcane warrior" seems to be the only bone of contention.

I'm confused. Which in fairness is not an uncommon experience.

[Morroian]

Revan312 wrote...

If you want to wait 1000 years to deal out the damage needed to kill everything.. AW is unkillable essentially but lacks dps so badly it's a chore to fight things with that build..

Which is why you cast spells at the beginning of a battle until your mana is low then go melee. I made my AW using all entropy spells which debiliate and paralyse all opponents which then render them dead meat for the melee attacks.

[abat223]

Did you not notice that there are mage staves that have a 4 foot long blade on the end?

[Maverick827]

I loved my Sword and Shield AW, but if I could do the same thing while using the cool new staff animations instead, I would in a heartbeat.

[hexaligned]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

relhart wrote...

I don't know about you, but I fully intend to create a staff fighter mage PC, most likely as my first character.  I'm sure it will be crap min/max wise as they don't seem to be putting anything in to support that playstyle (at least going off of the reveals), but if the difficulty of DAO is a good thing to go off of, I shouldn't need to worry about min/maxing at all.

Despite my question being pretty leading, I honestly don't know if it's viable or even possible, it's a straight question. But as they've put a dude wearing heavy armour and rocking a melee weapon that doubles as a magical shooter in both of the trailers, the fact that its not called "arcane warrior" seems to be the only bone of contention.

I'm confused. Which in fairness is not an uncommon experience.

Well as far as possible, mages have a melee attack, and they presumably still have buff/debuff spells (which is how I built my AW in DAO, and really every game that had a "spellsword" type of class) so yes, I'd say so.  As far as viable... DAO was so easy I doubt you could build a character that straight up failed if you tried.  Maybe it's not a good thing to assume DA2 will be the same way, but everything I've seen doesn't move me into thiniking this game is going to be more hardcore than the first one was.

Here's hoping melee staff damage scales off of str (or better yet hit/damage off of different stats) or something though, AW's were a one stat wonder in DAO, I'd like to actually have to turn my brain on for bit when the level up screen comes up.

[Dave of Canada]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Right, right, and I'm presuming it's meant for melee oriented mage spec of some kind? Or do we think it's just a staff with a pointy bit?

There's no melee oriented mage spec, or so we've been lead to believe.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 novembre 2010 - 10:00 .

[Revan312]

Morroian wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

If you want to wait 1000 years to deal out the damage needed to kill everything.. AW is unkillable essentially but lacks dps so badly it's a chore to fight things with that build..

Which is why you cast spells at the beginning of a battle until your mana is low then go melee. I made my AW using all entropy spells which debiliate and paralyse all opponents which then render them dead meat for the melee attacks.

Just having combat magic on sets your fatigue to an insanly high number, stack on armor and it's even higher..  Unless you keep CM off until after you've debilitated the enemies, then turn it on and rush in, about two spells drains you to the bottom, if you do wait to turn it on, it will take a while to get there, turning it on and all, by then the enemies are unparalyzed etc. Plus the shield in AW drains mana a ton, so if your mana is low you'll run out quickly and be left as a mage with a sword, no mana and no passives..

I don't know, through my experience with AW, soloing nightmare is an absolute pain as you have no melee abilities beyond simple auto attack and casting spells before you rush in puts you in a position for toggle death..

It's by no means balanced as you are essentially unkillable, but it's understandable by being extremely slow on dps..  I eventually gave it up as fights took ages to finish unless you had the rest of your team, which then there was no point to AW as you couldn't hold aggro because of the dps of your team members.. *shrug* it was just a poorley implemented concept imo..

Modifié par Revan312, 10 novembre 2010 - 10:04 .

[Barrendall]

Archereon wrote...

It really seems like Bioware has, in making the classes "more unique" taken away ALL of my favorite builds.


Mages can ONLY use staves, no swords/maces/axes for them, meaning your just gonna be that squishy guy in the dress for the whole game if your mage, no AW spec (inferred by the rather compelling fact that its been confirmed that mages cannot learn any weapons but staves), which was by far my favorite (mage tanking=win)

Warriors lost archery and dual wielding...While the first was pretty useless, the second was kind of fun.

Rogues can only use daggers and bows, which sucks.  That means NO axes, no maces, and no other weapons...Dual axe rogues were cool, if not particularly useful.

Now I knew Warrior's lost DW but they can't use bows anymore?  Ugh I had Alistair use a bow to pull mobs all the time. It was a great tool to gain initial aggro.

[Ziggeh]

Dave of Canada wrote...

There's no melee oriented mage spec, or so we've been lead to believe.

That would certainly make their advertising pretty wierd. As relhart said, I think the presence of a swordstaff is a decent indication that something along those lines is probably feasible, if not actively supported (which I tend to find a lot funnier than the other way around)

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 10 novembre 2010 - 10:04 .

[Maria Caliban]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

What class is the sword wielding, fireball casting dude in the trailer?

Blood mage. It's not a sword, it's a 'sword staff,' which means it's exactly like a sword only you get to do ranged attacks with it as well.

Right, right, and I'm presuming it's meant for melee oriented mage spec of some kind? Or do we think it's just a staff with a pointy bit?

As far as I know, it's just a staff with a pointy bit. You don't need any specialization to use it.

[Dave of Canada]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

That would certainly make their advertising pretty wierd. As relhart said, I think the presence of a swordstaff is a decent indication that something along those lines is probably viable, if not actively supported (which I tend to find a lot funnier than the other way around)

CGI advertising is always weird. Though it'll probably be viable, I'm probably going to do a challenge for it but I don't see any support for it (I've asked a few times if there was support for it) and anybody who does it will most likely be picking up all defensive spells.

[Ziggeh]

Dave of Canada wrote...

CGI advertising is always weird.

Yeah, but choosing an unplayable role as your poster boy? That almost sounds like trolling.

Dave of Canada wrote...
Though it'll probably be viable, I'm probably going to do a challenge for it but I don't see any support for it (I've asked a few times if there was support for it) and anybody who does it will most likely be picking up all defensive spells.

I played a "blapper" in city of heroes and a shadow priest in vanilla wow, the less support you have for an oblique spec, the more fun it usually is.

[Ziggeh]

GamerM wrote...

Im done also DAO 2 has taken a direction which Im not liking, Good Luck everyone!

fangs for lettuce gnomes

[Dave of Canada]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Yeah, but choosing an unplayable role as your poster boy? That almost sounds like trolling.

It's not unplayable. If you're a mage and you have an enemy in your face, you switch to the fighting style of the trailer (though probably less awesome and less effective, just like how (the) Warden / Sten / Leliana / Morrigan were less effective ingame than the trailer).

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 novembre 2010 - 10:13 .

[Malanek]

Saibh wrote...

I don't know if rogues can only use daggers--the differences between swords or axes or mauls was purely cosmetic. There'd be no tactical disadvantage to using either.

I suppose the question is rather do they consider axes, mauls, or maces a sword or dagger equivalent? If they're in the game, that is.

In any case, the classes becoming more distinct is a vast improvement. There was little difference between a warrior or rogue archer or dual-wielder. This coming from a primarily DW warrior.

I dunno, I actually thought a DW warrior played very differently to a DW rogue. The warrior seemed orientated around deathblow, strength, beserk, and activated abilities while the rogue was orientated around momentum, dexterity, cunning and backstabbing.

There was a pretty big difference between swords, axes, maces and daggers.

I agree thart classes do need to feel distinct but in DA:O I felt they were distinct enough and could have been made more so with more combinations between the weapon talents and the class talents.

Still, having said that, it doesn't mean that DA2 will have worse game mechanics, will have to play it first and see.

[AtreiyaN7]

Dave of Canada wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Yeah, but choosing an unplayable role as your poster boy? That almost sounds like trolling.

It's not unplayable. If you're a mage and you have an enemy in your face, you switch to the fighting style of the trailer (though probably less awesome and less effective, just like how (the) Warden / Sten / Leliana / Morrigan were less effective ingame than the trailer).

True, we do get to bop people over their head with our staves or go stabbity-stab/sla****y-slash depending on what the mage melee animations are. Mages do get melee attacks - it's just that we're not going to be our old OP AW selves presumably.