197 réponses à ce sujet

[FedericoV]

Archereon wrote...


So warriors can no longer DPS!?  That's even worse!

That's the whole point of removing DW and Ranged tree from warriors.

Lets see, you got your tanking S&B build, and your two handed "useless" AOE damage (since its not DPS, what the hell is it!?) spec.  (Or did you mean that Both 2h and S&B are tanking specs that have AOE aggro?  That's just as bad)

Why useless? It means that instead of being specialized in doing damage to single targets, you are specialized in doing damage to groups and controlling large mobs. I imagine that S&B tree will be more defensive and the 2H one will be more offensive. But they will both be tank builds.

Now everyone has only one spec.

Mages are going to be healers with a bit of DPS capability, rogues are going to be either ranged DPS, or they'll be FAAST melee DPSs, and warriors are S&B tanks.

Why?  Because apparently its been confirmed 2h warrior is useless in addition to mages having no significantly differentiated builds, so it stands to reason that rogues won't be getting preferential treatment (either melee or ranged will be SUPREME cookie cutter)

There are still specialization to customize your charachter and min/max as you like.

But as I said in another thread, it seems to me that most of you have problems with the concept of class based system itself. Fun=having strategical limits and live with them. The fun part of class based system is not flexibility. The fun part is that each class has a defined role in the group. If everyone is good at everything, the whole concept of defined classes comes down and you have to play with a broken and unbalanced system like DA:O's one.

If we want flexibility, we should ask Bioware to develop a classless DA. Or at least to merge the rogue and warrior class. Are you ready for that step? I'm ready but it seems to me that most of DA's fans would not like the idea.

[FedericoV]

Martanek wrote...

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.

The concept of class is restrictive in itself.

It seems to me that you want all the good of having a class but do not want the limitation and implication of it...

[nightcobra]

FedericoV wrote...

Martanek wrote...

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.

The concept of class is restrictive in itself.

It seems to me that you want all the good of having a class but do not want the limitation and implication of it...

i'm liking the direction DA2 is taking, although i wouldn't object to having a classless main character (party members defined though). it would be an interesting take on it.

[Aermas]

But weapon preference has no basis on class. Let them have a handful of abilities that deal with class related skills, & then let them have access to all weapon styles. Sword & Board, Zweihander, Einhander, Dual Wield, & Archery

[FedericoV]

Hardin4188 wrote...

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.

I don't see any kind of relation between roleplaying and the class you choose. I don't see any kind of restriction if you are talking of roleplaying and not about min/maxing. You are still able to take any morality path you want and that's not restricted by classes.

And class balance is important because it's connected to level of challenge in a game. If the argument is that we do not want any kind of challenge... well, I can't agree with that. Why having classes if a mage turns to be a better tank than a warrior? What's the point if there are builds (not even so sofisticated) that turns the game in a walk in the park?

[b09boy]

FedericoV wrote...

But as I said in another thread, it seems to me that most of you have problems with the concept of class based system itself. Fun=having strategical limits and live with them. The fun part of class based system is not flexibility. The fun part is that each class has a defined role in the group. If everyone is good at everything, the whole concept of defined classes comes down and you have to play with a broken and unbalanced system like DA:O's one.

You can have a flexible class base system and still have unique builds.  For example, you take AW to give your mage some defense.  Now you can't spend that spec elsewhere and are one spell talent less, just so you can wear armor.  Or dual wielding.  The first rogue talent allows faster speed, the first warrior talent allows you to attack multiple target.  Rogues get a flurry of five quick attacks, warriors get an impale attack which causes a critical with each weapon if they hit.  Stuff like that.  Give the classes a defining aspect and then allow players the ability to reach for the aspects of other classes, but never quite get there and always at a cost.  This allows for defined, unique builds while allowing players to create whatever they want.

[FedericoV]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i'm liking the direction DA2 is taking, although i wouldn't object to having a classless main character (party members defined though). it would be an interesting take on it.

I would love a classless system for DA3 too. But I do not know if it could work for a party based tactical game.Maybe, a system with two classes (mage and fighter) would be the best solution.

Aermas wrote...

But weapon preference has no basis on
class. Let them have a handful of abilities that deal with class related
skills, & then let them have access to all weapon styles. Sword
& Board, Zweihander, Einhander, Dual Wield, & Archery

There are many system where class defines weapon preferences (for example, cleric in AD&D could not use swords, fighter could ot backstab, and so on). And in video games there is also a problem of animation that are not cheap. If I get it correctly, infact, the main problem was graphical. For each weapon/skill combo, they have to realize a single animation.

Unfortunately, DA2 has a budget .

[Aermas]

FedericoV wrote...

Aermas wrote...

But weapon preference has no basis on
class. Let them have a handful of abilities that deal with class related
skills, & then let them have access to all weapon styles. Sword
& Board, Zweihander, Einhander, Dual Wield, & Archery

There are many system where class defines weapon preferences (for example, cleric in AD&D could not use swords, fighter could ot backstab, and so on). And in video games there is also a problem of animation that are not cheap. If I get it correctly, infact, the main problem was graphical. For each weapon/skill combo, they have to realize a single animation.

Unfortunately, DA2 has a budget .

Clerics cannot use martial weapons but they can take a feat to learn how, also they could use swords if they followed Heironeous. Backstab is a class ability not a weapon preference

[FedericoV]

b09boy wrote...

You can have a flexible class base system and still have unique builds.  For example, you take AW to give your mage some defense.  Now you can't spend that spec elsewhere and are one spell talent less, just so you can wear armor.  Or dual wielding.  The first rogue talent allows faster speed, the first warrior talent allows you to attack multiple target.  Rogues get a flurry of five quick attacks, warriors get an impale attack which causes a critical with each weapon if they hit.  Stuff like that.  Give the classes a defining aspect and then allow players the ability to reach for the aspects of other classes, but never quite get there and always at a cost.  This allows for defined, unique builds while allowing players to create whatever they want.

That it's DA:O's system again (mind, with some very fine improvement but the final result would be the same imho: bland classes and broken builds). I must repeat my self (I seem like a broken record) there is not point in having classes if players reject the idea of having limitation because of the class you choose. Especially in a party based/tactical game.

Having said that, there is also the graphic/budget problem I mentioned in the previous post (wich I suppose was equally important in the decsion process).

And I think that even DA2 will grant a lot of uniqueness in terms of builds with specialization and such. I think that we should wait for that piece of info before saying that the game won't allow unique builds, especially for the main charachter.

[FedericoV]

Aermas wrote...
Clerics cannot use martial weapons but they can take a feat to learn how, also they could use swords if they followed Heironeous. Backstab is a class ability not a weapon preference

No feats in AD&D :happy:! Ahhhhh, those youngster .

Modifié par FedericoV, 11 novembre 2010 - 06:59 .

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

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.

I'm not getting this across it seems.

In the bottom right of my computer screen is a small green shield. It is there to represent the protection of my system. Shields are so well defined as an item of protection that they're literally used as icons to that effect. They are synonymous with defence.

Rogues, in the world of Thedas, are an "attack" archetype. They are the stereotype of light weight, glass cannon melee combat. A symbol of protection whether you believe it would actively help them attack or not dilutes that image.

Imagine a sports car. Something red, lightweight, low to the ground. It's been designed purely with speed in mind. Now attach a mobile home to the back of it. Suddenly it doesn't say "speed" or "power", it says "mid life crisis".

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 11 novembre 2010 - 07:01 .

[Aermas]

FedericoV wrote...

b09boy wrote...

You can have a flexible class base system and still have unique builds.  For example, you take AW to give your mage some defense.  Now you can't spend that spec elsewhere and are one spell talent less, just so you can wear armor.  Or dual wielding.  The first rogue talent allows faster speed, the first warrior talent allows you to attack multiple target.  Rogues get a flurry of five quick attacks, warriors get an impale attack which causes a critical with each weapon if they hit.  Stuff like that.  Give the classes a defining aspect and then allow players the ability to reach for the aspects of other classes, but never quite get there and always at a cost.  This allows for defined, unique builds while allowing players to create whatever they want.

That it's DA:O's system again (mind, with some very fine improvement but the final result would be the same imho: bland classes and broken builds). I must repeat my self (I seem like a broken record) there is not point in having classes if players reject the idea of having limitation because of the class you choose. Especially in a party based/tactical game.

Having said that, there is also the graphic/budget problem I mentioned in the previous post (wich I suppose was equally important in the decsion process).

And I think that even DA2 will grant a lot of uniqueness in terms of builds with specialization and such. I think that we should wait for that piece of info before saying that the game won't allow unique builds, especially for the main charachter.

They could still have class abilities but they could include more weapon styles per class. How does Hawke Warrior with two swords look different than Hawke Rogue with two swords???

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

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.

I'm not getting this across it seems.

In the bottom right of my computer screen is a small green shield. It is there to represent the protection of my system. Shields are so well defined as an item of protection that they're literally used as icons to that effect. They are synonymous with defence.

Rogues, in the world of Thedas, are an "attack" archetype. They are the stereotype of light weight, glass cannon melee combat. A symbol of protection whether you believe it would actively help them attack or not dilutes that image.

Imagine a sports car. Something red, lightweight, low to the ground. It's been designed purely with speed in mind. Now attach a mobile home to the back of it. Suddenly it doesn't say "speed" or "power", it says "mid life crisis".

You are still restricting yourself to one very limited view of what something is. As for your sports car reference. Imagine a nascar, now imagine a nascar without the roll-cage & safety features, it's now faster & lighter weight but if you drive it you'll probably die.

[Hardin4188]

FedericoV wrote...

Hardin4188 wrote...

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.

I don't see any kind of relation between roleplaying and the class you choose. I don't see any kind of restriction if you are talking of roleplaying and not about min/maxing. You are still able to take any morality path you want and that's not restricted by classes.

And class balance is important because it's connected to level of challenge in a game. If the argument is that we do not want any kind of challenge... well, I can't agree with that. Why having classes if a mage turns to be a better tank than a warrior? What's the point if there are builds (not even so sofisticated) that turns the game in a walk in the park?

I've beaten the game 5 times now and I've never had a walk in the park. I've done all kinds of class combinations and none of them were insanely overpowered. Maybe it's different on the console version. 

I'm not talking about the character's morality. I'm talking about the same kind of background that you create for your character. Like the guy with the Captain Kirk avatar was talking about earlier. He had a warrior who was a archer because that is what he always wanted to be, but his parents wanted him to be knight who wore heavy armor. 

You can still have classes and have flexibility. They don't have to be as flexible as Morrowind but the class systems in DA:O reminded me of wow in a way. Where each tree has certain pros and cons. Warriors can be tanks or dps. I believe at one point in wow a rouge tank was common. Limiting the classes to only one archetype does limit diversity and that is not necessary. All classes are useful in da:o.

Modifié par Hardin4188, 11 novembre 2010 - 07:16 .

[LexXxich]

About "how class choice restrict/refine roleplaying".

By choosing a class one choose skills his/her character learned willingly previously.

Rogues can pick locks right at the start, and do more damage from behind. This implies that Rogue character is mischievous and adventurous type since s/he practised those skills and obviously planned on using them.

Warriors are much more straightforward. They can't hide or ambush or use dirty tricks because they didn't decide to learn those skills.

Mages are more freely defined by spells they decided to master, so they are less bound by class.

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

You are still restricting yourself to one very limited view of what something is.

[mumbles something in yiddish]...it is not my limited view. It is a cultural perception. It is called semiotics. It's a visual language that is built from decades of visual media. I'm not saying "I don't want shields because I think that's wrong", I'm explaining why it would be counter to the image that the rogue archetype in DA:O is trying to potray. They're not "limiting options" because they're sadistic bastards, they're attempting to create more clearly defined imagery.

[silentassassin264]

Yeah, I would be for a classless main character. In fact, it would be really appropriate with Hawke because that way you could emphasize the apostate lineage even if you didn't want to play as a mage.

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

You are still restricting yourself to one very limited view of what something is.

[mumbles something in yiddish]...it is not my limited view. It is a cultural perception. It is called semiotics. It's a visual language that is built from decades of visual media. I'm not saying "I don't want shields because I think that's wrong", I'm explaining why it would be counter to the image that the rogue archetype in DA:O is trying to potray. They're not "limiting options" because they're sadistic bastards, they're attempting to create more clearly defined imagery.

If they focus so much on imagery it stops being a roleplaying game & turns in to God of War

[FedericoV]

Aermas wrote...

They could still have class abilities but they could include more weapon styles per class. How does Hawke Warrior with two swords look different than Hawke Rogue with two swords???

In one world? Skill animations.

[atheelogos]

Can anyone give me a link to the source that says mages can no longer use swords?

[FedericoV]

Hardin4188 wrote...

I've beaten the game 5 times now and I've never had a walk in the park. I've done all kinds of class combinations and none of them were insanely overpowered. Maybe it's different on the console version.

I've played on PC on hard with a S&B warrior. Finished only once since the game looked very easy to me (and I have to restric myself with "home rules" to feel some kind of challenge: like no more than one mage in the party, allow potions only in boss fights, etc.). I've tested some power builds just for curiosity and they were completely broken and turned the game in something trivial.

I'm not talking about the character's morality. I'm talking about the same kind of background that you create for your character. Like the guy with the Captain Kirk avatar was talking about earlier. He had a warrior who was a archer because that is what he always wanted to be, but his parents wanted him to be knight who wore heavy armor.

I understand why the kirk guy wanted such a charachter... he liked the idea of an archer but without limitations in terms of armour .

You can still have classes and have flexibility. They don't have to be as flexible as Morrowind but the class systems in DA:O reminded me of wow in a way. Where each tree has certain pros and cons. Warriors can be tanks or dps. I believe at one point in wow a rouge tank was common. Limiting the classes to only one archetype does limit diversity and that is not necessary. All classes are useful in da:o.

The point was that allowing warrior to be good dps fighter, completely removed the need for rogues if not for traps and lockpick. Not a case that there was not a single DW warrior NPC. And it's pretty unbalanced to dps like a rogue with a tank armour...

Modifié par FedericoV, 11 novembre 2010 - 07:45 .

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

If they focus so much on imagery it stops being a roleplaying game & turns in to God of War

And if they up the tempo of the music it becomes Parappa the Rapper.

Does not follow.

[Hardin4188]

No it did not remove dps rogues. Backstabs do a lot of damage that warriors don't have. The advantage of the dual wielding warrior is that he has armor because warriors generate more threat than rogues. I don't play these games for the ultimate builds. I play the builds that I think would be fun or interesting.



I look at this game from the roleplaying perspective and I think that is what Revan312 was doing with his archer warrior. He had a pretty good back story I thought. If you think it's because he just wanted a archer with armor then we obviously have very different ideas about how to play these games and we have no middle ground.

[FedericoV]

Hardin4188 wrote...

No it did not remove dps rogues. Backstabs do a lot of damage that warriors don't have. The advantage of the dual wielding warrior is that he has armor because warriors generate more threat than rogues. I don't play these games for the ultimate builds. I play the builds that I think would be fun or interesting.

The point for me is that limitations adds challenge, adds choices and consequences and then make the game more fun and interesting to play. For me level of challenge equates replaybility. I've played BGI&II something like 10 times but I never feel the urge to replay DA:O.

Mind, I agree that DA2's weapon limitation are artificial. I only have a different solution since I do not like DA:O's confused and unbalanced approach: merge warriors and rogues. I would like a single fighter class with more customization options. Easier to balance, easier to animate and with more depth.

I look at this game from the roleplaying perspective and I think that is what Revan312 was doing with his archer warrior. He had a pretty good back story I thought. If you think it's because he just wanted a archer with armor then we obviously have very different ideas about how to play these games and we have no middle ground.

I play those game for RPG too even if I like some kind of challenge in combat since we spend 80% of those games in that mode. I simply do not see class and weapon choices as something really relevant in terms of pure roleplaying.

[Zhijn]

Hm, "rogues can only use daggers now", what about short swords and such?.

/scratchs head, this is news to me!.

Sooo, its back to the mainstream rpg class's where a warrior is slow but sturdie in health & armor ect?.