398 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

matt654321 wrote...

No, people are complaining because now it makes absolutely no sense to do so, and they've returned nothing to keep the archetype viable.

The archetype didn't make a lot of sense within the setting.

[HighMoon]

Well, mages can now use their staff in combat, so I suppose that's something.

[Maria Caliban]

matt654321 wrote...

The problem is that there's absolutely no reason to do so. You can always do stupid things, but it usually doesn't lead to a good play experience unless the developers do something to make it work out. And to pre-empt, that doesn't mean I'm asking for anything overpowered. I'd settle for an underpowered, mediocre specialization that makes it work, but instead:

How does putting points into strength to wear heavier armor 'not work?'

You wouldn't has as large a mana pool as a regular mage, but you'd have better survivability in melee. That seems like a fair trade-off.

What do you imagine the Arcane Warrior specialization doing that's balanced and thematically appropriate?

[Ziggeh]

matt654321 wrote...
No, people are complaining because now it makes absolutely no sense to do so,

No reason you're seeing. We can possibly help with that, but if you've decided it's because bioware are lazy or whatever, we won't get far.

matt654321 wrote...
and they've returned nothing to keep the archetype viable.

Presumably because they're not concerned with it being viable.

matt654321 wrote...
The skill trees were exactly the same, and making them exclusive to a particular class makes sense because of how much overlap there was. Deleting an entire archetype is not the same, at all.

What weapon set would they be using? One from the others, or a whole new set specifically for them? Given they've removed not just the spec, but the ability to even wield other weapons from each class one assumes they're more serious about class distinction than merely playing differently overall.

[Ziggeh]

matt654321 wrote...

The problem is that there's absolutely no reason to do so.

There are 3 reasons in this thread alone.

Balance, say what you like, the self sustaining mage-warrior is a problem lots of games have due to the offense/defense sliding scale of character balance. Unless you want a warrior with a different name or a caster who just happens to be in plate, hard to balance. Specialisation, falling outside of the mage archtype and encrouching on melee, despite the efforts to increase the distinctiveness of each class, presumably for the purposes of: Synergy, having a self sufficient class doesn't fit the "weaknesses covered by companions" model that is found in almost all party games, and again, something they've made an effort to increase.

And I even doubt that's all the reasoning. Is it worth the price increased choice? Depends on where you stand, but not personally agreeing with the reasons doesn't stop them being valid.

[matt654321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

matt654321 wrote...

The
problem is that there's absolutely no reason to do so. You can always
do stupid things, but it usually doesn't lead to a good play experience
unless the developers do something to make it work out. And to
pre-empt, that doesn't mean I'm asking for anything overpowered. I'd
settle for an underpowered, mediocre specialization that makes it work,
but instead:

How does putting points into strength to wear heavier armor 'not work?'

You
wouldn't has as large a mana pool as a regular mage, but you'd have
better survivability in melee. That seems like a fair trade-off.

What do you imagine the Arcane Warrior specialization doing that's balanced and thematically appropriate?

It ends up being too large of a tradeoff. You could do it in DA:O, but the payoff was way too small. You're hurting your character far too much by doing so.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

matt654321 wrote...
No, people are complaining because now it makes absolutely no sense to do so,

No
reason you're seeing. We can possibly help with that, but if you've
decided it's because bioware are lazy or whatever, we won't get far.

matt654321 wrote...
and they've returned nothing to keep the archetype viable.

Presumably because they're not concerned with it being viable.

You need to read what I said and stop being so defensive. I never said bioware was lazy, or even that it made a mistake. I only sad that in absence of being able to build this archetype, I can't bring myself to purchase the game.

And them not being concerned with making it viable is the entire point.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

matt654321 wrote...

The problem is that there's absolutely no reason to do so.

There are 3 reasons in this thread alone.

Balance, say what you like, the self sustaining mage-warrior is a problem lots of games have due to the offense/defense sliding scale of character balance. Unless you want a warrior with a different name or a caster who just happens to be in plate, hard to balance. Specialisation, falling outside of the mage archtype and encrouching on melee, despite the efforts to increase the distinctiveness of each class, presumably for the purposes of: Synergy, having a self sufficient class doesn't fit the "weaknesses covered by companions" model that is found in almost all party games, and again, something they've made an effort to increase.

And I even doubt that's all the reasoning. Is it worth the price increased choice? Depends on where you stand, but not personally agreeing with the reasons doesn't stop them being valid.

It's far from impossible, and other games have done it. It doesn't need to be eliminated completely. And as I said, I'd settle for underpowered.

You're really putting words in my mouth at this point. You're so overreactive about anyone possibly not liking an aspect of the game that you take every point of criticism as a personal attack on yourself or bioware. If you found yourself suddenly totally unable to create anything even remotely similar to the type of character you wanted to play, you'd be singing a different tune.

[Wicked 702]

I liked AW. Reminded me of my cleric from NWN. Heavily armored and magic-a-blastin'!

Inferno even reminded me of Flame Strike a bit...bummer.

[Maria Caliban]

matt654321 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

You wouldn't has as large a mana pool as a regular mage, but you'd have better survivability in melee. That seems like a fair trade-off.

What do you imagine the Arcane Warrior specialization doing that's balanced and thematically appropriate?

It ends up being too large of a tradeoff. You could do it in DA:O, but the payoff was way too small. You're hurting your character far too much by doing so.

But you just said you were willing to have an underwhelming specialization. And you couldn't do it in DA because not only did it lower your mana pool, there was the fatigue penalty, and you couldn't cast spells while in melee. That's been removed from DA 2.

Again, what do you want out of this specialization that's balanced and thematically appropriate?

[matt654321]

There were spells in melee, and fatigue was a global issue.



I said I'm ok with a bit underpowered, but not something that is obviously detracting from my character in a significant way. I already said, it's not the same as the developers giving a nod and allowing it to at least make sense to some extent within the game.

[Ayanko]

Question is there attack power coming from their magic stat or Str? Because Oh boy if it's str.

[Ziggeh]

matt654321 wrote...

It's far from impossible, and other games have done it. It doesn't need to be eliminated completely. And as I said, I'd settle for underpowered.

Did I say it was impossible? Didn't you just say something about words in mouth?

matt654321 wrote...
You're really putting words in my mouth at this point. You're so overreactive about anyone possibly not liking an aspect of the game that you take every point of criticism as a personal attack on yourself or bioware.

To the ad hominem mobile! Personally I find that once people start making the "yeah, well, you're
just a fanboy" argument, their point has lost any real credibility.

If I have an agenda here it's that I believe that if criticisms can't stand up to reasonable debate they weren't worth making to begin with. This way, real criticisms, that would help the developers both get discussed and get to shine.

This however is all really an excuse to act like a massive pedant.

matt654321 wrote...
If you found yourself suddenly totally unable to create anything even remotely similar to the type of character you wanted to play, you'd be singing a different tune.

If I found that my experience was defined solely by my expectations of the game rather than the game itself, I'd like to think I would just not buy it, but in reality I would probably play through it, enjoy it anyway, and then moan about it wasn't as good as some other game I'd played and how they don't make them like that anymore.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 22 décembre 2010 - 02:00 .

[matt654321]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Did I say it was impossible? Didn't you just say something about words in mouth?

No, but you insinuated that it was the reason it's not in. That's not a viable reason, because it's possible and has been done before.

ziggehunderslash wrote...
To the ad hominem mobile! Personally I find that once people start making the "yeah, well, you're
just a fanboy" argument, their point has lost any real credibility.

If I have an agenda here it's that I believe that if criticisms can't stand up to reasonable debate they weren't worth making to begin with. This way, real criticisms, that would help the developers both get discussed and get to shine.

This however is all really an excuse to act like a massive pedant.

You said that I said that bioware was being lazy by not implement it. I made no such accusation. That's the reason I don't want to play this game, and why you take offense to that is beyond me.

And no, I'm not making any value judgments on this game, at all. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. All that I'm saying is that this isn't a game that I personally want to play.

ziggehunderslash wrote...
If I found that my experience was defined solely by my expectations of the game rather than the game itself, I'd like to think I would just not buy it, but in reality I would probably play through it, enjoy it anyway, and then moan about it wasn't as good as some other game I'd played and how they don't make them like that anymore.

That's all well and good for you, but I'd rather not blow 60 dollars on a game that I know is unlikely to entertain me because it does not cater to my preferences. 

Why this could bother anyone so much doesn't make any sense, which is why I can only presume that you're misreading what I'm saying and taking it as an attack on bioware or yourself. For all I know, removing arcane warrior might be better for the game as a whole, but I'm not confortable with playing a game that does not support the character type I like to play. As such, I'll avoid it. Is that OK with you?

[Ziggeh]

matt654321 wrote...

No, but you insinuated that it was the reason it's not in.

I did nothing of the sort. I said there are multiple reasons.

matt654321 wrote...
You said that I said that bioware was being lazy by not implement it. I made no such accusation.

Hence the use of "or whatever".

matt654321 wrote...
That's the reason I don't want to play this game, and why you take offense to that is beyond me.

I take no offense at all. I'm not entirely sure where you're reading that from. Other than the fact that I'm engaging you in debate. Do people usually do that with a grimace on their face and a roar in their throat? Maybe I should work on that.

Your opinion is entirely valid. Your argument was pretty flawed though, and I mentioned the whole pedantry thing. You've adapted it now though to one that is entirely reasonable. And thus my purpose served,  I away to correct someones use of punctuation or something.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 22 décembre 2010 - 03:00 .

[Thicos]

No Keeper?



I want nature magic

[TheCreeper]

Having Arcane Warrior is kind of silly when Mages have melee weapons already in this game.

[Aermas]

TheCreeper wrote...

Having Arcane Warrior is kind of silly when Mages have melee weapons already in this game.

Wielding a weapon does not mean skill in a weapon.

[MindRaven]

the way they could have compensated for the loss of AW is to simply give mages staff talents, just like warriors and rogues get talents for each of their weapon styles.



also, passive talents that boost the mages melee fighting prowess, just like warriors and rogues got passive talents that boost their fighting style ( they did in DAO, at least ).



the way this would balance, of course, is that the more talent points you invest in the "staff tree" or passive melee-boosting talents, the less you get to spend on spells. But, at least the option is there, and the player is free to build the character the way he/she wants to build.



what good is giving mages a staff, and bladed staves too, if all they can do melee-wise is the simple, basic whack attack.............

[crimzontearz]

and THAT is why I believe ME2 handled hybrid classes with grace. Hybrids in that game are not the sum of the multilated parts of their parent classes but something more. If DA2 handled hybrid classes the same way (yet not under a system point of view) it would be awesome

[matt654321]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

matt654321 wrote...

No, but you insinuated that it was the reason it's not in.

I did nothing of the sort. I said there are multiple reasons.

matt654321 wrote...
You said that I said that bioware was being lazy by not implement it. I made no such accusation.

Hence the use of "or whatever".

matt654321 wrote...
That's the reason I don't want to play this game, and why you take offense to that is beyond me.

I take no offense at all. I'm not entirely sure where you're reading that from. Other than the fact that I'm engaging you in debate. Do people usually do that with a grimace on their face and a roar in their throat? Maybe I should work on that.

Your opinion is entirely valid. Your argument was pretty flawed though, and I mentioned the whole pedantry thing. You've adapted it now though to one that is entirely reasonable. And thus my purpose served,  I away to correct someones use of punctuation or something.

It's not flawed, it's based wholly on my own preference. I'd prefer to play an archetype, I cannot. That's all there is to it. The only way you can even respond to that is having the misconception I described earlier.

All you've done is misconstrue what I've been saying and putting words in my mouth. You really have no argument at all; you just bring up totally tangential topics and pretend as if I'm saying them. If you agree that I never made those claims, then everything you've said is a straw man. Either way, you seem to be just stirring things up just to stir them up. Maybe you want to rethink that.

[jwraith95]

Its sad that the Arcane Warrior specialization isn't in DA2(it was way too overpowered but the main reason i liked it was i could equip massive armor instead of those dull robes,but maybe we'll get to see it again in a later game

[Ziggeh]

matt654321 wrote...
It's not flawed, it's based wholly on my own preference. I'd prefer to
play an archetype, I cannot. That's all there is to it. The only way you
can even respond to that is having the misconception I described
earlier.

And that's not what I was questioning.

The intial pointe I quoted: "Removing the entire concept because they got it wrong before is a cop-out.", my argument was that this was not the reason. You later clarified: "For all I know, removing arcane warrior might be better for the game as a whole", which agreed with my position.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 22 décembre 2010 - 03:52 .

[Eldragon]

Well I always suspected Arcane Warrior is dead, but now it really depends on if Force Mage turns out to be something interesting that can do the Melee Mage archetype. So I'm not totally disheartened yet. 

I'm just not interested in playing another RPG where every class is pigeon-holed into being played in a particular manner. DA:O allowed the player to make something unique out of each class. DA2? Not so much.

[matt654321]

Actually your original response was this.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

As I understand it, armour has no class limits, just strength ones. And mages start cracking stuff with the old wizard stick if things get close. So, assuming I'm not mistaken (which is a shakey gaurantee at best) you can pretty much do all the same things, you'd just be fairly bad at them due to overinvestment in unrelated stats.

You really didn't ever have a coherent argument at any point in time, you just attacked everything I said. I can keep quoting how your argument totally deviated from your claim, or how it totally failed to address what I was saying, but at this point it's painfully clear, so I won't waste onlookers' time or space in this thread.

[Ziggeh]

matt654321 wrote...

Actually your original response was this.

Which was on a different point altogether, and not so much a point of debate as a statement about the state of the largely unsupported but still existent melee mage. I'm at a loss as to how you've combined them.

matt654321 wrote...
You really didn't ever have a coherent argument at any point in time, you just attacked everything I said.I can keep quoting how your argument totally deviated from your claim, or how it totally failed to address what I was saying, but at this point it's painfully clear, so I won't waste onlookers' time or space in this thread.

Really, is this nessacary? I'm often pretty facetious and flippant in my responses, but are these (rather ironic) amendments to each post really anything other than outright ad hominem?

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 22 décembre 2010 - 04:27 .

[matt654321]

ziggehunderslash wrote...


The intial pointe I quoted: "Removing the entire concept because they got it wrong before is a cop-out."

I just quoted your initial point, it had nothing in it.

Outright ad-hominem only attacks the person. I've addressed your 'arguments,' or what you're trying to pass off for them

At this point, it's clear that your intention is just to get a rise out of other posters. Ignore time.