411 réponses à ce sujet

[Leonia]

crimzontearz wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

yes but think about it. Charge would
work only for groups of enemies for a warrior, the moment enemies are
spread you are pretty much in the same situation as before gettign
drilled while you pummel someone...... which a Rogue will do better than
a warrior anyway with the whole flicker ability and whatnot. JUST
charge would not cut it

And that's where your mage and rogue come into keep the rest of the enemies pinned down/pre-occupied while your warrior is focusing on demolishing them, one at a time (actually I seem to recall warriors getting some AOE abilities too). You just use your charge skill on the weakest/easiest to take out target or (if it's more beneficial to do so) keep the warrior on the hardest mob while your party takes down the easier mobs. Charge is an excellent way to keep a mob focused on your tank/warrior.

not the point, I'm talking about something to counterbalance something that was ripped out of the warrior class.......ranged attacks

We don't know that ALL ranged attacks have been denied to warriors yet. And even if they are, this is a PARTY BASED RPG. You have a PARTY, utilise it.

Modifié par leonia42, 12 décembre 2010 - 04:23 .

[upsettingshorts]

Well, lets say it was Age of Conan with its aggro mechanics. If I'm the soldier, I immediately target the biggest bad and charge. This builds aggro. I taunt, then turn him away from the DPSers and get to work. If I'm a Dark Templar (my favorite class) I have more than enough micromanagement abilities to keep myself alive without heals or support for a while (because I was good at my class, darnit). The rest of my team cleans up the mooks, as mooks aren't really that dangerous, dropping crowd control and debuffs. Then when that's done, they get to me. If one of them gets in trouble and my charge is back up since I've built myself up some aggro with the big bad, I can break off and intercept the mook damaging a teammate (and the big bad I aggro'd would simply follow me).

Basically, charges worked in PVE as a form of time management. Get into the fight quickly and violently and you build aggro quicker. A teammate gets into trouble and you're a Charge/Goad (a taunt that resets the aggro table) away from successfully offtanking.

In PVP... the uses would require a whole thread that depended on how and when to use your charge against a particular class. But there wasn't a single one it wasn't incredibly useful against.

Edit: All that being said, I can count the times I seriously used ranged attacks with my soldier in DA:O - including the times I did it for lulz - on one hand and still have fingers left over. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 décembre 2010 - 04:26 .

[Maria Caliban]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

I have no idea how you can complain about whether the warrior has gotten enough cool stuff ™

I can do so as easily as you complain about... whatever it is you're complaining about. Someone being interested in a game aspect that doesn't really interest you and doing so in a way in which you don't approve?

Of course, I haven't complained about warriors in this thread, or even commented on what cool stuff they may or may not have gotten, so perhaps you're just using the general 'you' when you hit the quote button and respond to me.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 12 décembre 2010 - 04:26 .

[Ryzaki]

I hope the AI is smart enough to automatically attack the mages/healers/squishy members first.

[Leonia]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Edit: All that being said, I can count the times I seriously used ranged attacks with my soldier in DA:O - including the times I did it for lulz - on one hand and still have fingers left over. 

The only time I used ranged attacks was when I'd let Alistair pull mobs with smite (because my aforementioned squishy rogue could sometimes die while pulling mobs while the rest of the party was shuffling about). I've never used a bow or even a crossbow with any of my warrior characters (PC or companions) and never felt like I needed to.

[crimzontearz]

leonia42 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

yes but think about it. Charge would
work only for groups of enemies for a warrior, the moment enemies are
spread you are pretty much in the same situation as before gettign
drilled while you pummel someone...... which a Rogue will do better than
a warrior anyway with the whole flicker ability and whatnot. JUST
charge would not cut it

And that's where your mage and rogue come into keep the rest of the enemies pinned down/pre-occupied while your warrior is focusing on demolishing them, one at a time (actually I seem to recall warriors getting some AOE abilities too). You just use your charge skill on the weakest/easiest to take out target or (if it's more beneficial to do so) keep the warrior on the hardest mob while your party takes down the easier mobs. Charge is an excellent way to keep a mob focused on your tank/warrior.

not the point, I'm talking about something to counterbalance something that was ripped out of the warrior class.......ranged attacks

We don't know that ALL ranged attacks have been denied to warriors yet. And even if they are, this is a PARTY BASED RPG. You have a PARTY, utilise it.

yes, ok........let's go with this one then. Remove any sort of close range attack (nothign works if the enemy gets in melee range) from the mages and then be told "use your party to compensate WITHOUT anything to make up for what was taken out".......sounds like an intelligent move to you?

[upsettingshorts]

crimzontearz wrote...

yes, ok........let's go with this one then. Remove any sort of close range attack (nothign works if the enemy gets in melee range) from the mages and then be told "use your party to compensate WITHOUT anything to make up for what was taken out".......sounds like an intelligent move to you?

Silly argument is silly.  You're talking to people - myself included - who almost never saw the need to use bows or crossbows as a soldier.

[Leonia]

You don't know that nothing has been added to compensate for the warrior's lack of bow useage.

[Apollo Starflare]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i do experiment with all the classes, but deep down like maria... i'm a warrior at heart.


sometimes it pains me to see that a good number of people (not saying in this forum) see the warrior class as the stereotypical unintelligent meat for brains that goes hit, hit, smashy, smashy, bashy, bashy.

Yeah it does get reduced to that a lot of the time doesn't it? A shame because obviously there is a lot more to being a warrior than smashing things. But then the class system in games like this doesn't tend to help matters, often making certain classes really good at the sort of thing they are stereotyped for (strength, wisdom etc.). The truth is, of course, that any class can have just about any personality and still make sense.

It's funny I was originally going to post that I'm a rogue at heart as I do favour them, but when I started listing the games I'd played ala Maria's post, I just found that a bunch of my characters don't fit that mold at all (an Entertainer in SWG, a Guardian in LotRO and a Paladin in WoW stand out in particular.)

I guess I just think there is a difference to supporting your class and wanting the best for it and getting worked up about another class having a cool or useful skill. I have never found a well made game that hasn't given equally good skills to the class I wanted to play.

[crimzontearz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

yes, ok........let's go with this one then. Remove any sort of close range attack (nothign works if the enemy gets in melee range) from the mages and then be told "use your party to compensate WITHOUT anything to make up for what was taken out".......sounds like an intelligent move to you?

Silly argument is silly.  You're talking to people - myself included - who almost never saw the need to use bows or crossbows as a soldier.

that's you, others could very well have enjoyed it. regardless of "enjoyment" it is potential that has been removed which should be replaced with something equally useful and with  the same amount of potential

leonia42 wrote...

You don't know that nothing has been added to compensate for the warrior's lack of bow useage.

and the lack of suck knowledge is why some people who like warriors are starting to feel screwed

[upsettingshorts]

crimzontearz wrote...

that's you, others could very well have enjoyed it. regardless of "enjoyment" it is potential that has been removed which should be replaced with something equally useful and with  the same amount of potential

What I meant was, "Youre going to have to explain in detail what we're missing or we're simply not gonna get where you're coming from."

And my favorite Warden was my 2H warrior.  He never touched a bow or crossbow once.  

[Crimson Invictus]

I played a warrior who used both a bow and a sword and shield, mostly because at least it gave me a slight amount of variation and took a little more concentration.

It was painfully dull to simply follow the sword and shield route alone.

Modifié par Liana Nighthawk, 12 décembre 2010 - 04:41 .

[Leonia]

crimzontearz wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

yes, ok........let's go with this one then. Remove any sort of close range attack (nothign works if the enemy gets in melee range) from the mages and then be told "use your party to compensate WITHOUT anything to make up for what was taken out".......sounds like an intelligent move to you?

Silly argument is silly.  You're talking to people - myself included - who almost never saw the need to use bows or crossbows as a soldier.

that's you, others could very well have enjoyed it. regardless of "enjoyment" it is potential that has been removed which should be replaced with something equally useful and with  the same amount of potential

leonia42 wrote...

You don't know that nothing has been added to compensate for the warrior's lack of bow useage.

and the lack of suck knowledge is why some people who like warriors are starting to feel screwed

It has little to do with enjoyment, I cannot really see how bows were USEFUL for warriors in Origins so I don't see why people are freaking out about bows are not included on warriors in DA 2.  Maybe they should remove shapeshifting, that had so much potential right?  Oh wait, it wasn't overly useful either. What a waste of resources to make something "could have been useful" into "still could be useful but isn't really that useful".

And sure, all the presumptous warrior-lovers are feeling screwed now but that's hardly Bioware's fault. They're the ones jumping the gun and leaping to outlandish conclusions.

I'm not anti-warrior or anything (I appreciate all classes except the mage mostly and that's simply because I find mage boring on a personal level) but people should really chill out until they put that gameplay footage out.

[crimzontearz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

that's you, others could very well have enjoyed it. regardless of "enjoyment" it is potential that has been removed which should be replaced with something equally useful and with  the same amount of potential

What I meant was, "Youre going to have to explain in detail what we're missing or we're simply not gonna get where you're coming from."

And my favorite Warden was my 2H warrior.  He never touched a bow or crossbow once.  

what I'll miss is nothing (myself)...because my wardens are 2 handers as well. What the "warrior class" will miss is the potential to deal good damage at a distance which as far as we know was ripped from it altogether. People can say we do not know yet but we know they will not be able to use bows and DAO did not have any other effective means to deal damage at a distance for non mages . Such potential needs to be replaced with some other potential.....in my opinion a charge akin to the vanguard charge in ME2 would be good (ok...without the whole turning yourself into a mini mass relay bit but you get the idea)

[upsettingshorts]

I don't see it like that, I get what they mean with their whole "distinction" angle - if you want to deal damage at range, play a rogue. That potential still exists, it's just with a different class.



What is it about specifically playing a warrior with ranged abilities that makes it some potential squandered? That's what I don't understand.

[Blacklash93]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...
So the roll exists but it's just for battlefield positioning? If it's not evasive, does that lead to the same sort of scenario where your enemy starts swinging and you roll 20 feet away and then you take critical damage from the hit and die?

Nah. That would suck.

Evade is a rogue ability. It can be used with reasonable frequency and the rogue flips backwards about...er...10ish feet from his or her current target. If the enemy was using a big attack, like an ogre raising its hands to do an AOE ground pound, then we evaluate the damage on the "impact event." If you're not there when that event fires, you don't take damage. Easy peasy.

So it's evasive. It's just not an active dodge by my definition, since you can't do it over and over, and it consumes stamina, as opposed to being a core ability.

So can you actively choose the direction a rouge backflips or is it always the opposite way of the current target (or the direction the rouge is facing)?

Also, do rouges move faster than the other classes in combat in terms of just running around?

Modifié par Blacklash93, 12 décembre 2010 - 04:43 .

[Apollo Starflare]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

I have no idea how you can complain about whether the warrior has gotten enough cool stuff ™

I can do so as easily as you complain about... whatever it is you're complaining about. Someone being interested in a game aspect that doesn't really interest you and doing so in a way in which you don't approve?

Of course, I haven't complained about warriors in this thread, or even commented on what cool stuff they may or may not have gotten, so perhaps you're just using the general 'you' when you hit the quote button and respond to me.

Well you are choosing selective quoting there for a start, I actually said 'seeing as we havn't seen what stuff they have yet' which is quite different. And no I wasn't complaining, if you can read my post and see that as a complaint even I'm not sure what I'm complaining about. All I did was ask the poster why they thought the rouge kept 'getting things' and they answered me? I added the extra bit at the end because I don't see how we can make a reasoned argument that any class is not getting enough of anything short of write ups by the press (the poor Mage class).

I never mentioned approving or disapproving of anything either, nor have I said I wasn't interested in any specific game aspect. I have a warrior character and as I have said earlier I play warrior type characters in other games. And yes I was using the general 'you', sorry for any missunderstanding but seeing as where this conversation started I thought it was pretty obvious at the time.

To be honest looking back on the replies I was still responding based upon my initial reply to Ryzaki, which was all about wanting warriors to have something because rogues have evade. I have now lost all track of where this is going or, in fact, has gone.

[crimzontearz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I don't see it like that, I get what they mean with their whole "distinction" angle - if you want to deal damage at range, play a rogue. That potential still exists, it's just with a different class.

What is it about specifically playing a warrior with ranged abilities that makes it some potential squandered? That's what I don't understand.

the fact that you COULD....
that it was a possible route that is not there anymore just like you cannot be a single enemy DPSer anymore because that too is now part of the Rogue's class skillset...warriors are now either sword and shield tanks OR AOE DPSers.
Before you had the potential to deal grear damage from afar and be a 1 target focused DPSer.......and now you do not hence that potential is gone. I do not know how to make this more simple

Modifié par crimzontearz, 12 décembre 2010 - 04:47 .

[Allison W]

If warriors can whip a hatchet into someone's forehead at twenty yards this time around, I can forgive BioWare for telling them "Bows are for rogues, silly meatshield!"

[upsettingshorts]

crimzontearz wrote...

 I do not know how to make this more simple

So something you could have done but didn't do is a bad thing to remove because you could have done it, and needs to be replaced with something you might do?

[crimzontearz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

 I do not know how to make this more simple

So something you could have done but didn't do is a bad thing to remove because you could have done it, and needs to be replaced with something you might do?

that's the whole idea of "potential" is it not? something you COULD do? unless it has a different meaning in the english language. Just because I decide to follow another path does not mean others did not make a different decision and picked up on a different potential

[Leonia]

crimzontearz wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I don't see it like that, I get what they mean with their whole "distinction" angle - if you want to deal damage at range, play a rogue. That potential still exists, it's just with a different class.

What is it about specifically playing a warrior with ranged abilities that makes it some potential squandered? That's what I don't understand.

the fact that you COULD....
that it was a possible route that is not there anymore just like you cannot be a single enemy DPSer anymore because that too is now part of the Rogue's class skillset...warriors are now either sword and shield tanks OR AOE DPSers.
Before you had the potential to deal grear damage from afar and be a 1 target focused DPSer.......and now you do not hence that potential is gone. I do not know how to make this more simple

Options for the sake of options? Customisation for the sake of customisation? Freedom of choice for the sake of having freedom of choice.. I see those arguments all the time on these forums and if I could add them into my profile drinking game (I have already hit the character limit) then I would because they are weak arguments.

[upsettingshorts]

Potential doesn't have inherent value if it simply isn't fulfilled.

[Leonia]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Potential doesn't have inherent value if it simply isn't fulfilled.

That's signature-worthy.

[crimzontearz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Potential doesn't have inherent value if it simply isn't fulfilled.

many people fulfilled the role of long range DPSer as warriors in DAO, there are entire FAQs about it