197 réponses à ce sujet

[lunarknightmage]

Archereon wrote...

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...

we don't know for sure until the specs are released..............

[LexXxich]

Unless I'm missing something, it was already stated that mage's melee attack is absolutely the same in terms of mechanics as ranged one. Just different animation.

[TMZuk]

Aermas wrote...

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^_^

QFT!

[Archereon]

lunarknightmage wrote...

Archereon wrote...

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...

we don't know for sure until the specs are released..............

Barring the possibility of a Battle Mage spec that givesus access to swords or an absurd boost to staff melee damage.

[jhawke]

I hope we hear more about the specs for all the classes before the end of the year, and especially before the 1/11/11 deadline to preorder the Signature Edition.



I'm sure there are others here who feel the same way, but I am actually holding off on preordering until I can get a better picture on how I can build my character.



As a warrior player, I want to know if I can still be a Spirit Warrior AND a Templar.



If they say, no to Spirit Warrior and no to Arcane Warrior because they "blur" the class lines, I will be extremely disappointed.



It would be just another thing to add to the list of restrictions that they have placed on us in DA2, as compared to DAO and Awakening........

[Archereon]

jhawke wrote...

I hope we hear more about the specs for all the classes before the end of the year, and especially before the 1/11/11 deadline to preorder the Signature Edition.

I'm sure there are others here who feel the same way, but I am actually holding off on preordering until I can get a better picture on how I can build my character.

As a warrior player, I want to know if I can still be a Spirit Warrior AND a Templar.

If they say, no to Spirit Warrior and no to Arcane Warrior because they "blur" the class lines, I will be extremely disappointed.

It would be just another thing to add to the list of restrictions that they have placed on us in DA2, as compared to DAO and Awakening........

Likewise, to an extent though.  I'd prefer to see the different specs differentiated, have Arcane warriors tank in a way that's distinct from warriors.  A good example of this done well is Death Knights in WoW, believe it or not, they tank with a 2h, and use A LOT of magical abilities, many of which are ranged, up to and inculding their taunt spell.

What I'd suggest

-Give Battle Mages a very effective, long ranged, but single target taunt spell.
-Make their aggro holding depend on doing very high damage every hit, making 2h a favorable build.
-To offset that, give them all of their INSANE protection spells that make them hard to hit.
-To balance that, make sure their health isn't all that high and their protection spells are dependent on mana, meaning they can't spam Crushing Prison, Fireball, or all the other spells that made AW a massive cheese.

[Mr_Steph]

I admit I will miss my DW warriors

It was just so awesome jumping into combat with 2 longswords dealing some pain! Total badassery.

Modifié par Mr_Steph, 13 novembre 2010 - 01:26 .

[Virginian]

A rogue who can't use a sword is just retarded. Daggers are for stealth assassinations not combat.

[Archereon]

Virginian wrote...

A rogue who can't use a sword is just retarded. Daggers are for stealth assassinations not combat.

Exactly, that's yet another element of semi-realism (of elements that are supposed to reflect things that explicitly aren't magical) lost.  In DA1, daggers were more like short swords, in DA2: Little stab stab kill kill muahahahaha instruments of roflcopter stomping.  (See Isabella's mind boggling spin launch of a Qunari into space during the Rise To Power trailer, warning: Not for those who have basic understandings of physics.  It makes no sense...)

[Aermas]

TMZuk wrote...

Aermas wrote...

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^_^

QFT!

What? Can you please elaborate?

[AlanC9]

He's agreeing with you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

My favourite Rogue PC in DAO did use a shield for the vast majority of the game.

[GodWood]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
My favourite Rogue PC in DAO did use a shield for the vast majority of the game.

What skills/talents did you focus on?

[Sylvius the Mad]

GodWood wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
My favourite Rogue PC in DAO did use a shield for the vast majority of the game.

What skills/talents did you focus on?

Non-combat ones, mostly.

And poisons, bombs, stealth, debuffs (Assassin).

He was a coward who didn't like to fight.  He spent the majority of most battles "getting into position", which mostly meant stalling while the rest of the party did the work.

[Vaeliorin]

GodWood wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
My favourite Rogue PC in DAO did use a shield for the vast majority of the game.

What skills/talents did you focus on?

The character I'm currently playing could reasonably be using a shield (he's not, but there's little to no reason for him not to be other than the fact I think it looks weird.)  I only have 1 rank in combat training, and that's because I started with it.  I've been spending talent points in rogue skills and the duelist specialization (only level 11 so far.)  Skill points are in coercion, traps and poisons.  I wanted to make a trap/bomb rogue, and it's working out okay.

[AlanC9]

I guess since everyone else is looking at this post, I might as well

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.

Few gamers know anything about actual historical combat. A fair number of the rest think they do without actually knowing much of anything. I'll assume you're in the first group; I'm in neither. So can you explain what would be fun about a game based on real historical combat for someone who doesn't know anything about real historical combat?

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.

Once we've gone that far, why have any classes at all?

[GodWood]

I did try a shield rogue that focused on bombs, debuffs and what not but I never completed the playthrough.

Should do that before DA2 comes around.

[ChickenDownUnder]

 If the borders between classes in Origins were considered blurry, well then just make it more so and allow the player to decide what skills they want their Hawke to use... instead of of going restriction crazy.  Would have balanced out the whole forcing the player to play as only one background and race.

But I'll hold off final judgement for when more in-game show and tell is revealed.

Modifié par ChickenDownUnder, 13 novembre 2010 - 12:06 .

[TMZuk]

Aermas wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

Aermas wrote...

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^_^

QFT!

What? Can you please elaborate?

Quoted For Truth.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[M-Taylor]

leonia42 wrote...

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

This ^^

Which kinda translates into, there's still hope for melee-ing mages! When ever I made an Arcane Warrior, I always sort of wanted to use my staff as a melee weapon. You know, like Morrigan in the Sacred Ashes trailer?

So yeah.. There's still hope. Although the warrior losing alot of warrior-related skills is disheartning. Why WOULDN'T a warrior be able to dual weild, exactly? ¬_¬'

[Aermas]

AlanC9 wrote...

I guess since everyone else is looking at this post, I might as well

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.

Few gamers know anything about actual historical combat. A fair number of the rest think they do without actually knowing much of anything. I'll assume you're in the first group; I'm in neither. So can you explain what would be fun about a game based on real historical combat for someone who doesn't know anything about real historical combat?

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.

Once we've gone that far, why have any classes at all?

So what would you think would be verifiable proof that one has knowledge of combat techniques & armor usages, & properties?

[Ryzaki]

M-Taylor wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

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

This ^^

Which kinda translates into, there's still hope for melee-ing mages! When ever I made an Arcane Warrior, I always sort of wanted to use my staff as a melee weapon. You know, like Morrigan in the Sacred Ashes trailer?

So yeah.. There's still hope. Although the warrior losing alot of warrior-related skills is disheartning. Why WOULDN'T a warrior be able to dual weild, exactly? ¬_¬'

Because apparently a warrior is less capable of using weapons than a rogue. <_<

They can't use bows either which was a real wallbanger.

[Aermas]

Did you know that it took an entire life time to learn to use a longbow? It's not something I'd imagine a rogue would pick up. Most people today cannot pull the draw on bows that children were supposed to use in the Middle Ages.