470 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

Charge in, charge out, shift left

And then a step to the right . With your hands on your hips, you bring your knees in tight.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 22 décembre 2010 - 07:48 .

[Winter Wraith]

Ziggeh wrote...
And then a step to the right . With your hands on your hips, you bring your knees in tight.

I'm glad you stopped there. The last thing we need is him doing that.

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

We must have been playing very different games with respect to DA:O then....I played a strong and fast sword and shield fighter just fine.

Although, you still haven't defined what you mean by "mobility" and "fast"...you have to be less vague and more specific because your argument just really isn't holding water.

Moving in & out of combat fast & effectively, & the ability to drop aggro & to outflank opponents. I have said this at least four times by now.

And about four times now, we've said that you can do this in the original game (at least I could) and that. as far as we know, you can do this in the new game.  Taking out the "drop aggro and outflank opponents" part of it for a second (again, we can do that in the original and as far as we know, we can do this in the new game), what do you mean by moving in and out "fast and effectively"?  Do you want a sword and shield fighter flipping around the battlefield like a monkey on crack?  In the original game, I didn't really have much problem (shuffling  my sword and shield character from bashing one enemy to thwacking a second  before yelling at a third (or group of enemies)

Charge in, charge out, shift left redirect, charge in, charge out. No backflipping needed.

Well, from what we've seen with the closing attacks (long, mid, short), you can do just that....

Edit:  not sure about the "charge out" but you can charge to a different target.  Also, that being said, Fighters don't really "charge out" of combat, they tend to (in a non-modern context) have a small cone of focus with respect to enemies

Modifié par bsbcaer, 22 décembre 2010 - 07:55 .

[bsbcaer]

Ziggeh wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Charge in, charge out, shift left

And then a step to the right . With your hands on your hips, you bring your knees in tight.

But it's the pelvic thrust that really drives them insaaaaaane

[Maria Caliban]

grregg wrote...


Hmm... I am not sure whether I understand you.

Stamina shouldn't feature in this discussion if my understanding is correct. If a warrior can perform a single superhuman strike against the ground, perhaps exhausting his stamina in the act, he should be able to do the same against other targets. I think. I wasn't proposing that EVERY hit is comparable to Tremor ability if that's what you are objecting about. But assuming that your info about Tremor is correct, a warrior can do an insanely powerful strike (subject to stamina limitations) but ONLY if it aimed at the ground.

To me, your reasoning appears to be this:
P. Tremor is a massive blow aimed at the ground.
P. ???
C. Tremor is the only massive blow available to warriors

This is my reasoning:
P. In DA:O, a warrior could use stamina to create a massive blow to a single enemy
P. In DA 2, a warrior can use stamina to create a massive blow to the ground.
P. Warriors in DA 2 will have access to a number of new and old abilities
C. In DA 2, Tremor will be one of many talents where a warrior uses Stamina to create a sudden burst of strength.

And while engine limitations explain why it would be impossible to punch holes in walls, surely DA2 engine supports opening doors? Right? So given the force it takes to shake the ground, forcing doors open should be a piece of cake.

That has nothing to do with superhuman strength, however. A person in the real world can kick open a door.

If you're asking "Why can't warriors bash open locked doors or mages burn them down with a fireball?" the answer is "Because locked doors are opened through lockpicking or finding a key."

Is it realistic? No. But it isn't attempting to be realistic.

[Aermas]

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

We must have been playing very different games with respect to DA:O then....I played a strong and fast sword and shield fighter just fine.

Although, you still haven't defined what you mean by "mobility" and "fast"...you have to be less vague and more specific because your argument just really isn't holding water.

Moving in & out of combat fast & effectively, & the ability to drop aggro & to outflank opponents. I have said this at least four times by now.

And about four times now, we've said that you can do this in the original game (at least I could) and that. as far as we know, you can do this in the new game.  Taking out the "drop aggro and outflank opponents" part of it for a second (again, we can do that in the original and as far as we know, we can do this in the new game), what do you mean by moving in and out "fast and effectively"?  Do you want a sword and shield fighter flipping around the battlefield like a monkey on crack?  In the original game, I didn't really have much problem (shuffling  my sword and shield character from bashing one enemy to thwacking a second  before yelling at a third (or group of enemies)

Charge in, charge out, shift left redirect, charge in, charge out. No backflipping needed.

Well, from what we've seen with the closing attacks (long, mid, short), you can do just that....

Edit:  not sure about the "charge out" but you can charge to a different target.  Also, that being said, Fighters don't really "charge out" of combat, they tend to (in a non-modern context) have a small cone of focus with respect to enemies

Anyone can run into melee, it's the getting out that is hard, & as far as I know only the Rogue as Rush, so therein lies by problem with the classes. It is far too restrictive

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

Anyone can run into melee, it's the getting out that is hard, & as far as I know only the Rogue as Rush, so therein lies by problem with the classes. It is far too restrictive

You can use the direction keys. Or click on the ground with the mouse.

[andar91]

Rogues have an evade ability, and Warriors have a Charge ability. So warriors do have some mobility, but as stated previously, it's not a trait of warriors in DA2.

[grregg]

Maria Caliban wrote...

grregg wrote...


Hmm... I am not sure whether I understand you.

Stamina shouldn't feature in this discussion if my understanding is correct. If a warrior can perform a single superhuman strike against the ground, perhaps exhausting his stamina in the act, he should be able to do the same against other targets. I think. I wasn't proposing that EVERY hit is comparable to Tremor ability if that's what you are objecting about. But assuming that your info about Tremor is correct, a warrior can do an insanely powerful strike (subject to stamina limitations) but ONLY if it aimed at the ground.

To me, your reasoning appears to be this:
P. Tremor is a massive blow aimed at the ground.
P. ???
C. Tremor is the only massive blow available to warriors

This is my reasoning:
P. In DA:O, a warrior could use stamina to create a massive blow to a single enemy
P. In DA 2, a warrior can use stamina to create a massive blow to the ground.
P. Warriors in DA 2 will have access to a number of new and old abilities
C. In DA 2, Tremor will be one of many talents where a warrior uses Stamina to create a sudden burst of strength.

And while engine limitations explain why it would be impossible to punch holes in walls, surely DA2 engine supports opening doors? Right? So given the force it takes to shake the ground, forcing doors open should be a piece of cake.

That has nothing to do with superhuman strength, however. A person in the real world can kick open a door.

If you're asking "Why can't warriors bash open locked doors or mages burn them down with a fireball?" the answer is "Because locked doors are opened through lockpicking or finding a key."

Is it realistic? No. But it isn't attempting to be realistic.

Ah, now I get it.

My reasoning was more along the lines of:

1. Tremor is a massive blow aimed at the ground that creates a tremor powerful enough to throw people off balance.

2. Given the assumed properties of the ground, momentum required for the aforementioned effect is absolutely massive, orders of magnitude over anything seen in DA:O

3. If a warrior can perform a strike of that magnitude, why doesn't he perform it against other targets?

In other words, the burst of strength (and the exception to the laws of physics) required for Tremor to work is totally incomparable to what Mighty Blow, Pommel Strike and similar require. It easier for me to accept that a warrior capable of Pommel Strike cannot bash doors or smash containers. A warrior able to create earthquakes should be able to serve as a battering ram for castle walls. :happy:

Modifié par grregg, 22 décembre 2010 - 08:11 .

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Charge in, charge out, shift left redirect, charge in, charge out. No backflipping needed.

Well, from what we've seen with the closing attacks (long, mid, short), you can do just that....

Edit:  not sure about the "charge out" but you can charge to a different target.  Also, that being said, Fighters don't really "charge out" of combat, they tend to (in a non-modern context) have a small cone of focus with respect to enemies

Anyone can run into melee, it's the getting out that is hard, & as far as I know only the Rogue as Rush, so therein lies by problem with the classes. It is far too restrictive

Remember, we know next to nothing about the skills or abilities of either rogues or fighters, so you're kind of jumping to conclusions here (regarding restrictiveness).  Once again, it seems like you're going back to the argument that you want a classless system (where everyone has access to everything...except for mages/magic) and that's not the system used in the universe.  How do you expect a fighter to get out of melee combat outside of an enemy running/dying?  I've already mentioned that we have the closing attacks that make it easier for fighters to switch and do damage on different targets....

[Aermas]

andar91 wrote...

Rogues have an evade ability, and Warriors have a Charge ability. So warriors do have some mobility, but as stated previously, it's not a trait of warriors in DA2.

& that is why I started this discussion by asking what everyone thought a warrior was. Sadly according to many, a warrior is just a tank

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...
Sadly according to many, a warrior is just a tank

I'm not sure anyone has said that.

[Aermas]

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Charge in, charge out, shift left redirect, charge in, charge out. No backflipping needed.

Well, from what we've seen with the closing attacks (long, mid, short), you can do just that....

Edit:  not sure about the "charge out" but you can charge to a different target.  Also, that being said, Fighters don't really "charge out" of combat, they tend to (in a non-modern context) have a small cone of focus with respect to enemies

Anyone can run into melee, it's the getting out that is hard, & as far as I know only the Rogue as Rush, so therein lies by problem with the classes. It is far too restrictive

Remember, we know next to nothing about the skills or abilities of either rogues or fighters, so you're kind of jumping to conclusions here (regarding restrictiveness).  Once again, it seems like you're going back to the argument that you want a classless system (where everyone has access to everything...except for mages/magic) and that's not the system used in the universe.  How do you expect a fighter to get out of melee combat outside of an enemy running/dying?  I've already mentioned that we have the closing attacks that make it easier for fighters to switch and do damage on different targets....

I expect them to be able to charge the thick of a group of enemies, trade blows a few times & then GTFO as quick as they can, then shift to on side or another change their angle, then charge in again. Think of it as Bee/Hornet tactics. Hey wait... Isn't this a game that is supposed to support tactics?

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

Anyone can run into melee, it's the getting out that is hard, & as far as I know only the Rogue as Rush, so therein lies by problem with the classes. It is far too restrictive

What you don't seem to understand is that is the entire point of a 3+ class party system.  classes are distinct and they have strengths and weaknesses in combat.  Other classes have different strengths and weaknesses.  They compliment each other.

If you don't like that, you should be arguing for a 2 class system (mage and fighter) or a classless system.  There is no point to having a class system that isnt restrictive and forces strengths and weaknesses onto its classes because a class system that gives you to the freedom to create a character that has no weaknesses or makes another class pointless by comparrison is just a class system in name only.  Meaning utterly pointless, and would have been much better off going the 2 class system or classless system route.

[errant_knight]

grregg wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

grregg wrote...


Hmm... I am not sure whether I understand you.

Stamina shouldn't feature in this discussion if my understanding is correct. If a warrior can perform a single superhuman strike against the ground, perhaps exhausting his stamina in the act, he should be able to do the same against other targets. I think. I wasn't proposing that EVERY hit is comparable to Tremor ability if that's what you are objecting about. But assuming that your info about Tremor is correct, a warrior can do an insanely powerful strike (subject to stamina limitations) but ONLY if it aimed at the ground.

To me, your reasoning appears to be this:
P. Tremor is a massive blow aimed at the ground.
P. ???
C. Tremor is the only massive blow available to warriors

This is my reasoning:
P. In DA:O, a warrior could use stamina to create a massive blow to a single enemy
P. In DA 2, a warrior can use stamina to create a massive blow to the ground.
P. Warriors in DA 2 will have access to a number of new and old abilities
C. In DA 2, Tremor will be one of many talents where a warrior uses Stamina to create a sudden burst of strength.

And while engine limitations explain why it would be impossible to punch holes in walls, surely DA2 engine supports opening doors? Right? So given the force it takes to shake the ground, forcing doors open should be a piece of cake.

That has nothing to do with superhuman strength, however. A person in the real world can kick open a door.

If you're asking "Why can't warriors bash open locked doors or mages burn them down with a fireball?" the answer is "Because locked doors are opened through lockpicking or finding a key."

Is it realistic? No. But it isn't attempting to be realistic.

Ah, now I get it.

My reasoning was more along the lines of:

1. Tremor is a massive blow aimed at the ground that creates a tremor powerful enough to throw people off balance.

2. Given the assumed properties of the ground, momentum required for the aforementioned effect is absolutely massive, orders of magnitude over anything seen in DA:O

3. If a warrior can perform a strike of that magnitude, why doesn't he perform it against other targets?

In other words, the burst of strength (and the exception to the laws of physics) required for Tremor to work is totally incomparable to what Mighty Blow, Pommel Strike and similar require. It easier for me to accept that a warrior capable of Pommel Strike cannot bash doors or smash containers. A warrior able to create earthquakes should be able to serve as a battering ram for castle walls. :happy:

This is how I see it too. Maybe I should just let Grregg talk for me. He seems to do it better.

[In Exile]

Aermas wrote..
& that is why I started this discussion by asking what everyone thought a warrior was. Sadly according to many, a warrior is just a tank

In a game, this is what a warrior is reduced to. The problem is HP. Actual combat is between very vulnerable people that survive largely through skill & luck. RPG combat is about pulling down the numbers with no loss in efficiency until death. That's the source of the problem.

[Winter Wraith]

Aermas wrote...
I expect them to be able to charge the thick of a group of enemies, trade blows a few times & then GTFO as quick as they can, then shift to on side or another change their angle, then charge in again. Think of it as Bee/Hornet tactics. Hey wait... Isn't this a game that is supposed to support tactics?

Your DPS will sink to the briny depths of the ocean messing around like that.

Modifié par Winter Wraith, 22 décembre 2010 - 08:19 .

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Charge in, charge out, shift left redirect, charge in, charge out. No backflipping needed.

Well, from what we've seen with the closing attacks (long, mid, short), you can do just that....

Edit:  not sure about the "charge out" but you can charge to a different target.  Also, that being said, Fighters don't really "charge out" of combat, they tend to (in a non-modern context) have a small cone of focus with respect to enemies

Anyone can run into melee, it's the getting out that is hard, & as far as I know only the Rogue as Rush, so therein lies by problem with the classes. It is far too restrictive

Remember, we know next to nothing about the skills or abilities of either rogues or fighters, so you're kind of jumping to conclusions here (regarding restrictiveness).  Once again, it seems like you're going back to the argument that you want a classless system (where everyone has access to everything...except for mages/magic) and that's not the system used in the universe.  How do you expect a fighter to get out of melee combat outside of an enemy running/dying?  I've already mentioned that we have the closing attacks that make it easier for fighters to switch and do damage on different targets....

I expect them to be able to charge the thick of a group of enemies, trade blows a few times & then GTFO as quick as they can, then shift to on side or another change their angle, then charge in again. Think of it as Bee/Hornet tactics. Hey wait... Isn't this a game that is supposed to support tactics?

Ok, you have to decide which side of the coin you want to be on dude...do you want combat for Fighters/Rogues to be more realistic or more fantastical?  Any sword/shield fighter who charges into the thick of a group of enemies, trades a couple of blows with them, and then attempts to get the frack out as quick as possible is probably going to be one that is not long for this world.  You can get out slowly, but safely by backing out and protecting your butt with your shield (in that case, enemies would press their attack), or you can get out quickly, which would involve likely turning your back to the enemy which would likely result in blades/arrows/other painful impliments being lodged into your back.

[In Exile]

grregg wrote...
In other words, the burst of strength (and the exception to the laws of physics) required for Tremor to work is totally incomparable to what Mighty Blow, Pommel Strike and similar require. It easier for me to accept that a warrior capable of Pommel Strike cannot bash doors or smash containers. A warrior able to create earthquakes should be able to serve as a battering ram for castle walls. :happy:

This is no different than the apparent break of the law of conservation of energy that is magic.

I suppose your objection is that it appears that the warrior isn't using such an ability consistently. As for that, we don't actually know what other physics violating abilities the warrior has. Might be that blows of this sort are the norm.

[Aermas]

Piecake wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Anyone can run into melee, it's the getting out that is hard, & as far as I know only the Rogue as Rush, so therein lies by problem with the classes. It is far too restrictive

What you don't seem to understand is that is the entire point of a 3+ class party system.  classes are distinct and they have strengths and weaknesses in combat.  Other classes have different strengths and weaknesses.  They compliment each other.

If you don't like that, you should be arguing for a 2 class system (mage and fighter) or a classless system.  There is no point to having a class system that isnt restrictive and forces strengths and weaknesses onto its classes because a class system that gives you to the freedom to create a character that has no weaknesses or makes another class pointless by comparrison is just a class system in name only.  Meaning utterly pointless, and would have been much better off going the 2 class system or classless system route.

This archetype? I'm proposing isn't without weakness. it cannot open locks, it cannot stun large amounts of foes, it cannot do overabundant damage. etc

[grregg]

errant_knight wrote...

(...)

This is how I see it too. Maybe I should just let Grregg talk for me. He seems to do it better.

Absolutely. Every knight-errant needs a spokesman... err... I meant bard to talk about their deeds, right?

[Aermas]

bsbcaer wrote...


Ok, you have to decide which side of the coin you want to be on dude...do you want combat for Fighters/Rogues to be more realistic or more fantastical?  Any sword/shield fighter who charges into the thick of a group of enemies, trades a couple of blows with them, and then attempts to get the frack out as quick as possible is probably going to be one that is not long for this world.  You can get out slowly, but safely by backing out and protecting your butt with your shield (in that case, enemies would press their attack), or you can get out quickly, which would involve likely turning your back to the enemy which would likely result in blades/arrows/other painful impliments being lodged into your back.

It is not fantastical, it is a legitimate tactic, charge in & do as much damage as you can, never staying long enough to break momentum so that you can charge out again. It's how you break up an opponents defenses

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

Piecake wrote...

What you don't seem to understand is that is the entire point of a 3+ class party system.  classes are distinct and they have strengths and weaknesses in combat.  Other classes have different strengths and weaknesses.  They compliment each other.

If you don't like that, you should be arguing for a 2 class system (mage and fighter) or a classless system.  There is no point to having a class system that isnt restrictive and forces strengths and weaknesses onto its classes because a class system that gives you to the freedom to create a character that has no weaknesses or makes another class pointless by comparrison is just a class system in name only.  Meaning utterly pointless, and would have been much better off going the 2 class system or classless system route.

This archetype? I'm proposing isn't without weakness. it cannot open locks, it cannot stun large amounts of foes, it cannot do overabundant damage. etc

Im assuming you're talking about the warrior archetype (correct me if Im wrong).  So, you want him to do damage, but not too much damage; be able to engage a crowd, but not stun them; not have any non-combat skills, but be able to use each and every weapon with skill?

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

Piecake wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Anyone can run into melee, it's the getting out that is hard, & as far as I know only the Rogue as Rush, so therein lies by problem with the classes. It is far too restrictive

What you don't seem to understand is that is the entire point of a 3+ class party system.  classes are distinct and they have strengths and weaknesses in combat.  Other classes have different strengths and weaknesses.  They compliment each other.

If you don't like that, you should be arguing for a 2 class system (mage and fighter) or a classless system.  There is no point to having a class system that isnt restrictive and forces strengths and weaknesses onto its classes because a class system that gives you to the freedom to create a character that has no weaknesses or makes another class pointless by comparrison is just a class system in name only.  Meaning utterly pointless, and would have been much better off going the 2 class system or classless system route.

This archetype? I'm proposing isn't without weakness. it cannot open locks, it cannot stun large amounts of foes, it cannot do overabundant damage. etc

Can't open locks isnt a combat weakness, only mages can stun large amount of foes so is pointless to our melee/fighter discussion, you'd have the warrior always doing the most melee damage, so yes, they would be doing an overabundant amout of damage.