197 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...
They were combat effective, but not combat necesary. You need mages for healing, and warriors for tanks. But warriors could also dps, and mages could dps, meaning the one thing rogues can do in combat can be done just as well (actually better) by other classes. That's why they get out of combat utility. Because otherwise people would just do one tank with three mages cone of cold-ing everything into submission. Battle makes the other two classes needed. Out of combat stuff makes the rogues needed. It all balances out.

Rogues are combat effective in DA2 NOW! So your arguments is defenestrated.

They were combat effective in Origins too (though I'm loving the word defenstrated), so it's not a change in position, but that doesn't change the debate even if it was.

I still don't see why you're seperating combat utility from non combat utility. Both are serving the same function. From your OP: "making it a good idea to always have one on your team."

But assuming you can support that notion, your position is one of fairness. That it's unfair for one class to have the best dps, best crowd control and healing. In a single player party game, I'm not sure "fair" is that big of a deal, but I'd be happy to be convinced!

[Aermas]

It's unfair to have it better as a rogue as that makes the devs lean further & further from making good reasons for playing warriors if you can do all that & more as a rogue. They force the rogue on to your team but they do not force any other classes on to your team. (In theory if you have good tactics & gear you don't need a healer. & rogues can fill in for warriors)

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

It's unfair to have it better as a rogue as that makes the devs lean further & further from making good reasons for playing warriors if you can do all that & more as a rogue. They force the rogue on to your team but they do not force any other classes on to your team. (In theory if you have good tactics & gear you don't need a healer. & rogues can fill in for warriors)

You can do without a tank and a healer sure, but you can do without some additional loot, the occasional shortcut and even the XP too.

And I admit that it doesn't give you much incentive to play a dual wielding warrior, but that's not much of an issue now. Two handed or boarding it are different playstyles, which is an incentive in itself, no? It's also worth mentioning that as part of a party you can bring any class you like and never "play" them.

[Aermas]

You can't get the full experience of the game with a warrior or mage, for that you need to play a rogue & open all the chest & get the special Rogue only quests.

[Ziggeh]

The quests are to do with those the game makes available, so aren't really the same point, and the chests issue is solved by simply having a rogue companion.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 19 novembre 2010 - 07:03 .

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

The quests are to do with those the game makes available, so aren't really the same point, and the chests issue is solved by simply having a rogue companion.

If you bring companions into this than you invalidate your argument about single player RPGs

& brings back my other point of the game forcing a companion on you.

Modifié par Aermas, 19 novembre 2010 - 07:10 .

[Ashaman X]

I've only played the game fully with a mage, working on warrior now. I've always wondered why an absurldy powerful mage or warrior simply couldn't bash or spell most chests or doors open. That unique skill sets the rogue slightly apart, but that is about it. The other non combat skills are open to everyone, though something like Coercion is only applicable to the player, as he/she is the only one who does all the talking and makes the choices.



Having a rogue companion isn't really a train smash, and if the character is well written and enjoyable, then it's no burden. DA was meant to be party based, unlike Oblivion where you are the single master of the universe.

[Ortaya Alevli]

I do understand (yet not totally agree with) the original poster's concerns about individual balance, however one must keep in mind that this is a party-based game and focus in party-based games is generally on creating an overall balanced party capable of handling each and every situation by virtue of including specialists (individuals excel at some areas and are less effective in others). Different than, say, ME2 where your character is theoretically able to take care of anything and everything they come across without the help of squadmates.

Soloing the game is not the focus. Teamwork is. At least it has been that way in party-based BioWare games so far. And the concept of specialization brings mundane tasks to the table.

A move I would personally disapprove is revamping the rogue class so that they are as efficient as warriors in combat. We will see how this new class diversity approach works out in Dragon Age 2.

[Aermas]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

A move I would personally disapprove is revamping the rogue class so that they are as efficient as warriors in combat. We will see how this new class diversity approach works out in Dragon Age 2.

This is what I'm talking about, since Rogues are getting upgraded, warriors should be too.

[Lord Gremlin]

Aermas wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

A move I would personally disapprove is revamping the rogue class so that they are as efficient as warriors in combat. We will see how this new class diversity approach works out in Dragon Age 2.

This is what I'm talking about, since Rogues are getting upgraded, warriors should be too.

Warriors and rogues should have been merged into single class which you're free to develop as you see fit.

[Xewaka]

Aermas wrote...


This is what we know.

The warrior's combat role is (AOE) and Damage Soaking
The Rogue's combat role is (High single target DPS)

They are fairly equal in combat effectiveness, but the Warrior has a dual role in combat to the rogue's single role

The warrior's non-combat role (nothing)
The Rogue's non-combat role (finding traps, opening chests, special quests)

Do you see the problem?

Notice the italiced additions. Warrior has two combat roles. Rogue has one combat role and one utility role. So no, I don't see the problem.

Modifié par Xewaka, 19 novembre 2010 - 11:54 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Xewaka wrote...

Aermas wrote...


This is what we know.

The warrior's combat role is (AOE) and Damage Soaking
The Rogue's combat role is (High single target DPS)

They are fairly equal in combat effectiveness, but the Warrior has a dual role in combat to the rogue's single role

The warrior's non-combat role (nothing)
The Rogue's non-combat role (finding traps, opening chests, special quests)

Do you see the problem?

Notice the italiced additions. Warrior has two combat roles. Rogue has one combat role and one utility role. So no, I don't see the problem.

Let's put it this way: Warriors can fight and kill. Mages can fight and kill. Rogues can fight and kill.

Warriors cannot handle mundane tasks. Mages cannot handle mundane tasks. Rogues can handle mundane tasks.

Rogues have the versatility other classes lack. Which is the original poster's very concern, if I'm not misinterpreting.

I'd tone down rogues' combat capabilities and focus them on mundane tasks, but I'm no BioWare developer.

[Vena_86]

I agree that each class should have some kind of benefit outside of combat, while simply exploring the world. This just improves the party synergy, further promoting each characters unique skills for the benefit of the whole group.

[Xewaka]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Let's put it this way: Warriors can fight and kill. Mages can fight and kill. Rogues can fight and kill.

Warriors cannot handle mundane tasks. Mages cannot handle mundane tasks. Rogues can handle mundane tasks.

Rogues have the versatility other classes lack. Which is the original poster's very concern, if I'm not misinterpreting.

I'd tone down rogues' combat capabilities and focus them on mundane tasks, but I'm no BioWare developer.

If, to make your point, you have to ignore the dual role in combat of Warriors and Mages compared to the single role of Rogues in combat, then I'm sorry, but it is not a valid point.

[Selene Moonsong]

I kind of figured that this topic would end up another discussion on Rogue Talents and Skills, which is already being discussed in this topic.

So, I would suggest following the hint I provided on the first page at that reads :

The question would be, what kind of non-combat Talents and Skills other than what the Rogue has?

Because, if this is going to devolve into the same discussion, I will close this one as a duplicate.

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 19 novembre 2010 - 12:20 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Xewaka wrote...

If, to make your point, you have to ignore the dual role in combat of Warriors and Mages compared to the single role of Rogues in combat, then I'm sorry, but it is not a valid point.

No matter how they handle the fighting, their roles are still restricted to combat. Hard to compare rogues' all around versatility to others' versatility in battle and only in battle.

[Xewaka]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

If, to make your point, you have to ignore the dual role in combat of Warriors and Mages compared to the single role of Rogues in combat, then I'm sorry, but it is not a valid point.

No matter how they handle the fighting, their roles are still restricted to combat. Hard to compare rogues' all around versatility to others' versatility in battle and only in battle.

They have versatility all around because they lack the other classes' versatility in combat. Utility is there to balance, not to be balanced.

[nightcobra]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

I kind of figured that this topic would end up another discussion on Rogue Talents and Skills, which is already being discussed in this topic.

So, I would suggest following the hint I provided on the first page at that reads :

The question would be, what kind of non-combat Talents and Skills other than what the Rogue has?

Because, if this is going to devolve into the same discussion, I will close this one as a duplicate.

how about like someone already said, lifting rubble or other heavy obstruction that a warrior can lift or destroy to pass and dispelling magical barriers/locks for the mages.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Xewaka wrote...

They have versatility all around because they lack the other classes' versatility in combat. Utility is there to balance, not to be balanced.

If warriors and mages had a way to loot a locked chest while rogues had two ways to do it, what you said would have merit.

Rogue has a means to win a fight. Warriors and mages do not have any means to unlock doors. All they can do is fight. Them having multiple ways to do the same thing doesn't change that fact.

[Selene Moonsong]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

how about like someone already said, lifting rubble or other heavy obstruction that a warrior can lift or destroy to pass and dispelling magical barriers/locks for the mages.

I agree that this is a good point to make, such as some 'bashing' ability in general for Warriors and the ability to dispel some magical barriers. But not all barriers should be overcome by brute force or magic.

[Xewaka]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

If warriors and mages had a way to loot a locked chest while rogues had two ways to do it, what you said would have merit.

Rogue has a means to win a fight. Warriors and mages do not have any means to unlock doors. All they can do is fight. Them having multiple ways to do the same thing doesn't change that fact.

If rogues had no utility, why would you bring them to an adventuring party when the other two classes can do what rogues can do, and more, in combat?

Modifié par Xewaka, 19 novembre 2010 - 12:36 .

[0rz0]

Then how about more recognition in the dialogue to balance it out?



e.g. That lady can be persuaded just from mage companions, the lad there yonder will offer a discount to his childhood village hero adventuring warrior party of awesomeness and the kid at the corner will tell a secret about his aunt with a big nose and pointy hat only if there's no scary people arrund.

[nightcobra]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

how about like someone already said, lifting rubble or other heavy obstruction that a warrior can lift or destroy to pass and dispelling magical barriers/locks for the mages.

I agree that this is a good point to make, such as some 'bashing' ability in general for Warriors and the ability to dispel some magical barriers. But not all barriers should be overcome by brute force or magic.

not all, i agree, but on instances where the player is forced to take another route due to a large obstruction like a big toppled statue. if a warrior has enough points in the strength stat he/she could lift it or cleave it so the team can pass or access an area with treasure (much like how the golem worked in the fade towards heavy doors). 

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 19 novembre 2010 - 12:42 .

[Xewaka]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

not all, i agree, but on instances where the player is forced to take another route due to a large obstruction like a big toppled statue. a warrior could lift it or cleave it so the team can pass or access an area with treasure (much like how the golem worked in the fade towards heavy doors). 

Assuming they give this kind of utility to Warriors and Mages, what secondary combat utility would you add to rogues to compensate?

[nightcobra]

Xewaka wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

not all, i agree, but on instances where the player is forced to take another route due to a large obstruction like a big toppled statue. a warrior could lift it or cleave it so the team can pass or access an area with treasure (much like how the golem worked in the fade towards heavy doors). 

Assuming they give this kind of utility to Warriors and Mages, what secondary combat utility would you add to rogues to compensate?

a special rogue recipy:

smoke bombs (as a rogue talent, not item), allowing the rogue to get even more of a chance to not get hit by the opponent.