197 réponses à ce sujet

[Blastback]

I'd like to see warriors retain dual wielding and archery, but have diffrent skills with them than rogues. Like rogues use them to be acrobatic, evasive, and hit one enemy really hard, warriors use them to engage multiple enemies and be less flippy. But I always loved using heavier armor and multiple weapons. I'll be all right if rogues can use at least medium armor, but I want to play a dual wielder in something tougher than leather.



I'd also love to see roges have a more traditional duelist style, one weapon and a buckler or something.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I would like to see a game where the game designers actually consulted or at least pretended to consult historical combat specialists who know what works and what doesn't. classes should never be defined by combat style. If you have any experience in martial training, you realize attributes define which techniques work for that individual but that attributes don't define occupation. Occupational skills should be seperate from combat skills, it makes no damn sense but so many gaming companies are stuck to this concept because it makes things easier.

Why can't a rogue learn to use a shield, why can't a warrior dual wield, why can't a mage use certain weapons even if he/she meets the attribute requirements? Hopefully some company will go beyond the formulae that everyone is used to because it makes not freakin' sense.

Modifié par Ryllen Laerth Kriel, 11 novembre 2010 - 10:34 .

[Aermas]

FedericoV wrote...

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.

No they do not. The only animations that have you doing anything with a weapon are the weapon skills themselves; therefore if a rogue used a shield he would use the same animations as a warrior using a shield.

[Aermas]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

I would like to see a game where the game designers actually consulted or at least pretended to consult historical combat specialists who know what works and what doesn't. classes should never be defined by combat style. If you have any experience in martial training, you realize attributes define which techniques work for that individual but that attributes don't define occupation. Occupational skills should be seperate from combat skills, it makes no damn sense but so many gaming companies are stuck to this concept because it makes things easier.

Why can't a rogue learn to use a shield, why can't a warrior dual wield, why can't a mage use certain weapons even if he/she meets the attribute requirements? Hopefully some company will go beyond the formulae that everyone is used to because it makes not freakin' sense.

Thumbs Up^_^

[b09boy]

FedericoV wrote...

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.

This is a very narrow-minded view.  You bring up a classless system yet believe my version of how classes should work is broken?  That's a complete joke.

There are limitations to the method I'd prefer.  A Mage or Rogue would still never be able to take a hit like a Warrior.  A Rogue and Warrior would never be able to use spells like a Mage.  And a Mage and Warrior would never have the utility of a Rogue.  But you could still potentially have Mages use better armor so a soft breeze doesn't kill them.  You could still equip Warriors and Rogues in whatever you want and have them be different.

Very basically, having equipment define a class doesn't work if there are only three classes available.  It works in ME or D&D because there are enough classes which mix things up enough to allow your build of choice.  It doesn't work with three classes where the basic functions are simply Spellcaster, Tank, and DPS.

Modifié par b09boy, 12 novembre 2010 - 02:26 .

[SpideyKnight]

Ah, the speed at which misinformation spirals into ALL OUT PANIC is, as always, intriguing. Calm down.



For warriors the core mechanics are:



Tank and Melee AOE DPS. Meaning that warriors either tank or do damage to large swathes of enemies all at once. That doesn't mean they can't single target, it just isn't their specialty. Expect them to have more AOE abilities than single target abilities. The warrior will do the most damage when he has more than one enemy to hit. As far as melee is concerned.



For Rogues the core mechanics are:



Melee single target dps and Ranged single target dps(with limited AOE). Meaning that a rogue does all his damage to one person. So naturally he does more damage to one person. At ranged it has been said that the rogue will have a limited number of aoe attacks, think multishot. In melee though they will have no aoe's(or at least none of have been announced) meaning that all their damage is focused on one person, you get him down then move on. The rogue will likely do more single target dps than either mage or warrior. This is balanced since they will both be doing far more damage the vast majority of the game since bosses are a very small portion of the game. This isn't raiding in WoW.



Mage core mechanics are:



Ranged AOE damage and support. Much like Origins the mage will have a bevy of support abilities like Fire, Ice, Telekinetic weapons, healing, etc...Along with AOE abilities. Expect most of their damage abilities to be AOE. They will likely have a few single target as well, Where the Archer has some AOE abilities expect the mage to be the opposite and to have a plethora of AOE and a few single target. I'd expect them to have more single target abilites than Archers have AOE abilites.



That's about the extent of what we know and can reasonably guess. Go wild, but at least base your wild accusations somewhat on what we know to be true.

[Aermas]

You can strip down the class to Mage has spells/ Warrior wears heavy armor, & has aggro control/ Rogues have the most skills & evasion abilities, THEN YOU CAN HAVE WHATEVER WEAPON SETS AVAILABLE TO ALL classES (with the exception of possibly mage, but the Arcane Warrior/Battle Mage Spec would handle that)

[Meltemph]

They probably do it to create a visual distinction between classes... Weapons can be a very recognizable distinction among characters. Lots of people like class distinction(most loot based games do this) and it probably is as simple as that as to why they do it.

[Aermas]

 There's no emote to grit teeth... I need one.

[FedericoV]

b09boy wrote...

This is a very narrow-minded view.  You bring
up a classless system yet believe my version of how classes should work is
broken?  That's a complete joke.

No, I'm not narrow minded even
if I understand why you see my opinion that way. My
view is based on my experience with many CRPGs and  pen&paper RPGs rule
system.Your improvements sound fine on paper and I'm not saying that they
are broken becuase obviously we should see them in a game to judge. So,
maybe I'm not explaining myself and I apologize because of that but my opinion
is that the more you allow players to mix class roles with their builds, the
more you open the system to abuses, exploits and game balance issues that brings
all kind of whinings and negative complaints. 

There are limitations to the method I'd prefer.  A Mage or Rogue
would still never be able to take a hit like a Warrior.  A Rogue and Warrior
would never be able to use spells like a Mage.  And a Mage and Warrior would
never have the utility of a Rogue.  But you could still potentially have Mages
use better armor so a soft breeze doesn't kill them.  You could still equip
Warriors and Rogues in whatever you want and have them be
different.

 
See above in term of class rules design. While speaking about equipment, I
think that statistically we will still be able to reach the same results. Imho,
the problems here are only graphics and budget.

Very basically, having equipment define a class doesn't work if
there are only three classes available.  It works in ME or D&D because there
are enough classes which mix things up enough to allow your build of choice. 

 
I do not like weapons restriction too because they are very artificial. But
I must repeat my self, the problem is that the general distinction between
rogues and warriors is very artificial in DA:O (and probably even in DA2). In
pen&paper RPG you can compensate the different level of expertise in combat
with skills, utilities and so on. It's harder with videogames. Utilities are not
that usefull and most of the times designer seem to create situation ad hoc to
give some recognition to rogues skills. I understand why many person are fond of
the idea of rogues but without a deep and rewarding skill system (wich is
difficult to obtain in a combat oriented game since the focus is elsewhere) they
will allways be just a different kind of warriors. So, Bioware's solution might
be artificial but at least it's effective.
 

It doesn't work with three classes where the basic functions are simply
Spellcaster, Tank, and DPS.

 
Well, I insist that we should wait the avaible specializations before
jumping to conclusions that could be proven wrong. I don't see problem in
restricting class to combat roles if the game still allow us to have different
and unique version of that role in terms of tactic and builds.

[M8DMAN]

Wait! Arcane warrior is gone! WHY WAS I NOT INFORMED?!

[Aermas]

FedericoV wrote...
*snip

You are being narrow minded in so far that we can only have one playstyle & that is based on class. This is BS in D&D you can make an Archer more effectively as a fighter than as a Ranger, the same goes for dual wielding. Rogues are not restricted to dual wielding & archery, archery isn't as effective as a rogue because of the sneak attack restrictions. & if you lump Clerics/Paladins & Wizards/Sorcerers together there are several ways you can get them to wield weapon & armor in fact Clerics/Paladins get it to start with. I shouldn't have to mention Duskblades.

[FedericoV]

Aermas wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
*snip

You are being narrow minded in so far that we can only have one playstyle & that is based on class. This is BS in D&D you can make an Archer more effectively as a fighter than as a Ranger, the same goes for dual wielding. Rogues are not restricted to dual wielding & archery, archery isn't as effective as a rogue because of the sneak attack restrictions. & if you lump Clerics/Paladins & Wizards/Sorcerers together there are several ways you can get them to wield weapon & armor in fact Clerics/Paladins get it to start with. I shouldn't have to mention Duskblades.

1) DA:O is not D&D. D&D has an history made of 30 years of playtesting.
2) Nonetheless, I do not consider D&D the epithome of good game design. So, if D&D allow some features, it does not mean that they are right or good for DA:O.
3) In D&D there have allways been a lot of problem of balance between classes nonetheless. Every edition has overpowered or nerfed classes.
4) Even in D&D 4th classes have been restricted to roles in many significant ways.
5) D&D is a Pen&Paper system. Adjustement can be made on the fly. The DM can change things and raise/lower difficulty at will. A broken feature in a CRPG is hard to correct.
5) In D&D there are no limits in term of party composition. In DA:O there are 4 party members.
6) I repeat that we are talking without knowing how specialization works. So, we could be wrong on those issues and maybe we are assuming too much.

Call me narrow minded as you will, but my ideas are the result of years of gaming (too many maybe) and a lot of experiences with many different CRPGs and RPGs. I prefer class-less systems. But if I have to play a class based system I prefer one where class roles are clear. I do not think that is good game design to allow players to have the advantage of playing a certain class, without suffering some kind of limitations because of it. Choices and consequences.

Modifié par FedericoV, 13 novembre 2010 - 12:53 .

[lunarknightmage]

the only class I want to play as............whatever class Trailer Hawke is...........lol

[ElvaliaRavenHart]

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.

What, they took away Arcane Warrior!  One of my favorite specs to give to my mages.  Morrigan and Wynne both did very well with this spec.  I enjoyed watching Wynne and Morrigan both fighting with sword and shield.  I set their tactics to bring out the melee weapons if they were being attacked with melee.    When I play as a mage I want Arcane Warrior.  

Eh gads!  All of my rogues use one longsword and one dagger.   Well crap.   Didn't one of the game tips say to have your party prepared for anything even ranged.  So why take away archery from warriors? 

One thing that I have noticed is that the mage will be played similar to Dante's Inferno.  I hate the game Dante's Inferno which is an EA title.  I couldn't believe we wasted money on that game. 

Modifié par ElvaliaRavenHart, 12 novembre 2010 - 07:15 .

[upsettingshorts]

It's speculation based on the fact that all mages can engage in some form of melee-auto attack combat with a fair amount of effectiveness, thus rendering at least one aspect of the Arcane Warrior specialization redundant.

[Cazlee]

I think with more defined roles, combat should require better tactics/strategy, which will make fighting much more engaging.

[bsbcaer]

With respect to the Arcane Warrior spec being gone....think about it for a second and think about how you originally got the specialization in DA:O anyway.

[lunarknightmage]

bsbcaer wrote...

With respect to the Arcane Warrior spec being gone....think about it for a second and think about how you originally got the specialization in DA:O anyway.

that doesn't make any difference............

for all we know, there could be a few other AWs wandering around the world.  Hawke meets one, trains under that person, and becomes an AW herself.

And even if the exact spec of Arcane Warrior is gone, I just want some kind of "warrior mage" spec that will, at the very least, become a close quarter combat specialist with my bladed staff.

[bsbcaer]

Seeing how they've put in melee animations for mages (and the fact that they had two similar specializations in DA:O and DA:A), I think it's probably a fair assumption that they will have some sort of specialization that will allow you to get close and hurt something (although not as effectively as a Rogue or Warrior who are trained to get in close and hurt something).

[Apollo Starflare]

I would be very surprised if there aren't certain staves (or other items/talents) which improve a Mage's close combat ability considering the new animations they have designed for melee staff use. Add to that the staff of Parlathan and it looks likely there will at least be some stat boosting gear that improves a Mage's survivability in melee.

Somewhat ninja'd.

Modifié par Apollo Starflare, 12 novembre 2010 - 07:46 .

[lunarknightmage]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

I would be very surprised if there aren't certain staves (or other items/talents) which improve a Mage's close combat ability considering the new animations they have designed for melee staff use. Add to that the staff of Parlathan and it looks likely there will at least be some stat boosting gear that improves a Mage's survivability in melee.

Somewhat ninja'd.

hopefully..........

not to mention that the "poster boy" for DA2 is a mage, but not the traditional robe-wearing, stand-in-the-back, caster type mage.  But a mage who wears warrior-like armor, carries a bladed staff, twirls said staff like a martial artist, and rushes into battle to attack.

they've certainly teased us with a melee-oriented mage, let's just hope we get that in the actual game.

I mean, look at some of the warrior talents.  Charge, Whirlwind, Knockback........

A mage melee fighting with a staff could have similar moves, because they actually lend quite well to staff fighting..........

[Archereon]

lunarknightmage wrote...

the only class I want to play as............whatever class Trailer Hawke is...........lol

That's an AW (or something like that)/Blood Mage.

One of which isn't playable in DA2...