197 réponses à ce sujet

[Archereon]

Urazz wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'd much rather have each class being a unique play experience rather than playing a class that feels identical to another with small differences.

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

It doesn't matter that staves can melee now.  It does the same damage, which, if DA:O is any indicator, will be crap.  Plus, swords are just cooler.

Now if they took some inspiration from WoW Death Knights (minus the cheese of bonus levels and undisepllable DoTs)...

Sword and shield mage tank and sword and board warrior tank= Awesome.
2 handed mage tank vs sword and board warrior tank= Awesome AND differentiated.

The Arcane Warrior felt more like a mage wearing plate and could melee well.  If they keep an arcane warrior type of spec then it'll be with the staff and the damage will be improved but you'll not be able to wear armor so you'll have less of a defense compared to the Arcane Warrior in Origins.

If we can't where armor, what's the point in meleeing?

Your going to get creamed doing that if there's more tactical depth in this game than, say, Mass Effect 2 (where every combo is viable, no matter how seemingly absurd they are, since its a TPS (no offense, by TPS, I'm refering to a "skill based" game rather than a tactical strategy based combat system, no anything about TPS or FPS players)

[LexXxich]

Archereon wrote...

LexXxich wrote...

Indeed, even when staffs are used by mages in melee, the whole mechanic behind it is the same as in range combat. Only difference is in animation.
All this feature-cutting doesn't sit well with me. Sure, there might have been an overlap in rogue's and warrior's weapon proficiencies. But why make a warrior *less* a master of arms when the problem was in warrior's class talents being mostly passives?

Technically the shield tree was a warrior only thing.

I don't see a connection. Yes it was, and it continues to be. Simply because warrior's idea was "battlefield", and rogue's "out of harm's way".
Again, solution would be to give warriors in general more flavour, not reduce their ability to use every weapon.

[Martanek]

Bioware supposedly wanted to differentiate the existing classes and make them more fun and "unique". Apparently, they are doing what they can to make them more restrictive. Congrats Bioware, another step in a wrong direction.

[Martanek]

... plus this concept will inevitably result in a limited replayability, which is a shame with a Dragon Age game.

[Hardin4188]

A dual wielding warrior was different than a dual wielding rouge. I don't like tanking. I was a warrior that did a lot of damage like a rouge, but wasn't sneaky and couldn't pick locks. It also limits the roleplaying. My rouge characters were less honest than the rest of my characters. All this will do is to restrict the classes and limit replayability like Martanek said. It's a singleplayer game we don't have to worry about "balancing" because no one else is hurt if you decide to have an arcane warrior.

Modifié par Hardin4188, 11 novembre 2010 - 04:35 .

[Aermas]

LexXxich wrote...

Archereon wrote...

LexXxich wrote...

Indeed, even when staffs are used by mages in melee, the whole mechanic behind it is the same as in range combat. Only difference is in animation.
All this feature-cutting doesn't sit well with me. Sure, there might have been an overlap in rogue's and warrior's weapon proficiencies. But why make a warrior *less* a master of arms when the problem was in warrior's class talents being mostly passives?

Technically the shield tree was a warrior only thing.

I don't see a connection. Yes it was, and it continues to be. Simply because warrior's idea was "battlefield", and rogue's "out of harm's way".
Again, solution would be to give warriors in general more flavour, not reduce their ability to use every weapon.

What says "out of harm's way" more than a shield?

[Hardin4188]

I think one playthrough I actually had Leliana use a shield just to amuse me.

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

What says "out of harm's way" more than a shield?

Not planning on being hit to the extent you'd gear yourself for defence rather than attack?

[Knal1991]

FDrage wrote...

Knal1991 wrote...

But does that immediatly mean you can't be an arcane warrior?

Maybe sword staff is a weapon in game usable by mages, (like stronger melee weaker magic or something like that)....

and the arcane warrior (or just another mage talent) could give us the option to wear heavy armor....

I really hope I can wear heavy armor as a mage and be effective, and use that sword staff.... (this how I wanna roleplay it), so it probably is gonna affect my decion of purchase....(oh and be a blood mage simultaniously)

Well as far as I know we have been told that there is no "staff" skill tree ... so all the staff does is that it uses a melee attack when you are in melee range and a ranged attack when you are sufficient away from the target.

If Bioware allows for an AW, personally I would find that inconsequent as they said they want to make each class more desdinct and less blurry. AW was similar "blurry" to a warrior as a DW and Archer Warrior was to the rogues.  As both of the later have been removed from the warrior class, it would mean that they should remove the AW as well. Regardless of how much I like the AW or DW warrior.

This is seriously moving into the no buy direction for me, Not that I'm petty about not having arcane warrior, it's more the fact of not being able to create trailer Hawke, which I personally really liked..... Hawk as he appears will probably look ridiculous with mage robes, yet I cannot look at hawke without magic as well....

And judging from the first response atleast sword staves are in? or did I misread that.....

Mage is always my starting class and always has been, so the whole cool the hero is intended to be an arcane blood mage really got to me, great advertising trick I admit, but I wish it was more then that >_>

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

What says "out of harm's way" more than a shield?

Not planning on being hit to the extent you'd gear yourself for defence rather than attack?

If you have to jump out of the way of every attack you are going to get tired really fast. With a shield you can just stand there. Plus a shield is a weapon capable of breaking bones, & with a few spikes it turns into a deadly device of defense & offense.

[upsettingshorts]

What I learned from this thread: Way more people than I ever would have expected really like playing the DW warrior.

[Addai]

The trailer does make playing a mage look very cool. Though it is Hawke's magic and not his melee attack that wins the fight, so in that respect they aren't really promising you'll be an arcane warrior. Which is too bad, as I liked having that option. This game seems to be less about options than Origins was, however.

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

If you have to jump out of the way of every attack you are going to get tired really fast. With a shield you can just stand there. Plus a shield is a weapon capable of breaking bones, & with a few spikes it turns into a deadly device of defense & offense.

You're confusing reality with fiction, where the perception of the term shield isn't just something one might hold.

If it was me in an actual fight, I would definitely prefer something I could hide behind (preferably large numbers of other people), but that has nothing to do with the game based symbolism. Whether or not a shield would be a good weapon doesn't matter, what does is the perception that it would be at odds with the glass cannon/all out attack/dexterity based fighter archetype that is "rogue".

[Aermas]

If the made the Battle Mage spec, & expanded it to include bits of Arcane Warrior & Spirit Warrior, I think it would turn out alright

[Leonia]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

What I learned from this thread: Way more people than I ever would have expected really like playing the DW warrior.

It is surprising, isn't it? I always associated dual-wielding with stealthy, agile types.. like rogues or thieves. I can't think of many examples of heavy-armour wearing dual-wielders..well, conqueror in AOC maybe but aside from that..it'd be really tough to wear all that armour and be dexterous enough to handle two weapons. Perhaps if one weapon is larger than the other, like say, a rapier and a dagger but even then..your mobility would be very limited. But here I go bringing realism into a fantasy setting and we know that won't end well so instead I'll just take myself to bed now.

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

If you have to jump out of the way of every attack you are going to get tired really fast. With a shield you can just stand there. Plus a shield is a weapon capable of breaking bones, & with a few spikes it turns into a deadly device of defense & offense.

You're confusing reality with fiction, where the perception of the term shield isn't just something one might hold.

If it was me in an actual fight, I would definitely prefer something I could hide behind (preferably large numbers of other people), but that has nothing to do with the game based symbolism. Whether or not a shield would be a good weapon doesn't matter, what does is the perception that it would be at odds with the glass cannon/all out attack/dexterity based fighter archetype that is "rogue".

The "perceptions" of the Rogue have changed from a light armored, skilled, pseudo-fighters, into ninja/assassin/thieves which is just the tip of the iceberg of good role-playing builds that they could have. Rogues used to wield Rapiers & Bucklers in battle, now they wield to itty-bitty daggers. This is not a good evolution in my eyes.

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

What I learned from this thread: Way more people than I ever would have expected really like playing the DW warrior.

I prefered it to rogue, but only because of the talents. I liked Perfect Striking a lot. Less concessions to utility. but it's not like it was a unique and interesting experience in comparison. It was just the odd different button to press.

[Quercus]

I just hope that some RPG turns up with a rogue that isn't a ninja.
I much rather play a rogue with dirty fighting styles (throwing sand in the eyes) and then smack them with a two-handed hammer - aka Rogue Thug.

I liked the DAO rogue enough because I could wield 2 axes and maces, or a combi.
But since the DA2 rogue = ninja, I'm planning to make a warrior instead with high cunning and imagine him a rogue.

Modifié par Shiroukai, 11 novembre 2010 - 05:54 .

[Aermas]

Shiroukai wrote...

I just hope that some RPG turns up with a rogue that isn't a ninja.
I much rather play a rogue with dirty fighting styles (throwing sand in the eyes) and then smack them with a two-handed hammer - aka Rogue Thug.

I liked the DAO rogue enough because I could wield 2 axes and maces, or a combi.
But since the DA2 rogue = ninja, I'm planning to make a warrior instead with high cunning and imagine him a rogue.

Me too, but we still won't be able to pick locks:crying:

[Wulfram]

I wouldn't have minded losing DWW in DA:O - the rogue could do the offensive dex based fighter thing pretty well. I don't like losing it in DA2, because the rogue seems to be so firmly pigeonholed as weird flippy ninja thing.

[lv12medic]

I think I said this a while ago in some long forgotten thread.

The classes in DA2 are trying to break away from being something that defines your character to just what type of weapons you want to use/role in combat you want to play.  I think Bioware, in DA2, is trying to move what defines your character from what class you are to what choices you make in the game (hence the whole personality icons and adaptive personality stuff that was briefly talked about in the past).  Warrior just means you use sword and shield or two-hander.  Rogue means you use dual weapons and ranged weapons.  Mages just means you use mage staffs and use spells.  And then you can refine that more later on with Specializations.

Of course the whole counter to my own argument is that it was mentioned people will treat you different based off class, which means there is some sort of pre-conception of your character involving your class unless they just distinguish between Mage and lump both the Warrior and Rogue together.

Brain rambling for the win?  Fail?  You decide. 

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

The "perceptions" of the Rogue have changed from a light armored, skilled, pseudo-fighters, into ninja/assassin/thieves which is just the tip of the iceberg of good role-playing builds that they could have. Rogues used to wield Rapiers & Bucklers in battle, now they wield to itty-bitty daggers. This is not a good evolution in my eyes.

It's about imagery. Archetypes (not in a gaming sense, in a Campbell/Jungian one).

The more one archetype borrows from another (mages borrowing all out physical defense for example) the less defined the image becomes, for both of them. You could argue that concessions to imagery (which is storytelling, in a game built around storytelling) is limiting options to the player, but then why stop at cross class abilities, why have classes at all?

They're asking you to pick a defined experience for that playthrough, and you're asking for less definition.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 11 novembre 2010 - 06:12 .

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

The "perceptions" of the Rogue have changed from a light armored, skilled, pseudo-fighters, into ninja/assassin/thieves which is just the tip of the iceberg of good role-playing builds that they could have. Rogues used to wield Rapiers & Bucklers in battle, now they wield to itty-bitty daggers. This is not a good evolution in my eyes.

It's about imagery. Archetypes (not in a gaming sense, in a Campbell/Jungian one).

The more one archetype borrows from another (mages borrowing all out physical defense for example) the less defined the image becomes, for both of them. You could argue that concessions to imagery (which is storytelling, in a game built around storytelling) is limiting options to the player, but then why stop at cross class abilities, why have classes at all?

They're asking you to pick a defined experience for that playthrough, and you're asking for less definition.

That is only correct if you assume Rogues shouldn't use shields. I am not asking for less definition I am asking for more options in weapon sets. Just because I'm a rogue doesn't mean I should have to be an archer or dual wielder. I should have the option to put on a shield. That isn't a class matter it is a weapon preference matter.

[b09boy]

I agree that there needed to be a change, but this was not how they should have done it. You don't make changes by just saying "Scrap this. Alright, done." And make no mistake, that is very basically what has been done.



What would have been good is, instead of limiting styles to classes, they instead changed up the talents available to those styles. So dual wielding as a rogue doesn't feel like dual wielding as a warrior and such. And yes, AW needed to be nerfed. The spell simply allowing basic armor wearing and minor melee abilities would have been just fine instead of giving the player enormous unreal armor bonuses and the like. But again, instead of tweaking, they remove. Because of this some of my favorite builds have been wiped clean from the game.



-Dual wielding viking berserker type who takes as well as he gives

-Armored archer who can safely stand in a fray without as much worry

-Guts-like two-hander wielder with a crossbow backup

-Spell warrior



This is on top of the beloved spear build which Origins took out. So now I'm left with three beloved builds in tact, the most vanilla of them all. A glass cannon spell slinger, lithe fighter/assassin (though no elf available), and a sword and shield tank (though no dwarf available).



Yeah, this all looks to be a real joy now. Oh goody, the three vanilla classes will actually play different now. Thank the heavens. Count me among those who'll pick this up off a bargain bin and hopes Bioware realizes taking the easy way out and simply cutting features instead of tweaking them does not a happy return customer make by the time they begin work on DA3.