470 réponses à ce sujet

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

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

I don't disagree with the tactic (keeping multiple enemies off kilter), but the issue Im having is the "charge out".  Outside of the word "charge," you don't really describe/explain how you would disengage from combat.

[grregg]

In Exile wrote...

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.

Broadly yes. The thing is that mages walk around with a sign on their collective back saying "Different Rules Apply". Warriors didn't. Or at least the sign was smaller and I didn't notice.

And again, yes. I like consistency. If you declare that warriors can now juggle elephants, fine, I can live with that. But I would also expect them to be able to juggle hippos. After all, they're lighter, right?

Modifié par grregg, 22 décembre 2010 - 08:35 .

[Aermas]

Piecake wrote...

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.

Rogues can stun groups of enemies with Miasmic Flask, a rogue ability. Lockpicking is still a class only skill & there for subject to being weighed in terms of strengths & weaknesses. & it is the rogues that are DPS not warriors

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

Rogues can stun groups of enemies with Miasmic Flask, a rogue ability. Lockpicking is still a class only skill & there for subject to being weighed in terms of strengths & weaknesses. & it is the rogues that are DPS not warriors

You do know that, in this very thread, there was discussion of a Fighter ability that stuns groups of enemies right?  Also, I have to ask...why do you assume that because we saw on ability in one class (in this case the Miasmic flask/poinson) that the other class automatically cannot, or does not have an ability that can, do the same.  Why don't you wait and see what sort of skills/abilities/talents that fighters actually have rather than jump to assumptions?

[Aermas]

[quote]bsbcaer wrote...

[quote]Aermas wrote...

[quote]bsbcaer wrote...

I don't disagree with the tactic (keeping multiple enemies off kilter), but the issue Im having is the "charge out".  Outside of the word "charge," you don't really describe/explain how you would disengage from combat.[/quote]

At most you fight eight or so enemies, so imagine eight or so enemies in a group, you charge them, those on the side (at least half their number in not more) cannot attack you, because they would have to bypass their allies, & the few in front are now having to deal with you charging, the ones behind them do not know what you are doing until you break the front line & they have less time & room to maneuver than the ones on the front lines. Then as long as you haven't broken your momentum you break free of the rear line. When your enemies are recovering you shift your angle of entry & come around again for another attack.

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...
Rogues can stun groups of enemies with Miasmic Flask, a rogue ability. Lockpicking is still a class only skill & there for subject to being weighed in terms of strengths & weaknesses. & it is the rogues that are DPS not warriors

I thought miasmic flask was simply an item, and not a class ability. 

As for lockpicking, NO!, its not a combat strength or weakness so it doesnt apply to the most important dynamic of the class party system - combat strength and weaknesses and classes complimenting each other in combat!. 

As for warriors not being able to dps, are you being purposefully dim?  Numerous people have stated that warriors can wield a two-handed sword and dps

[Aermas]

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Rogues can stun groups of enemies with Miasmic Flask, a rogue ability. Lockpicking is still a class only skill & there for subject to being weighed in terms of strengths & weaknesses. & it is the rogues that are DPS not warriors

You do know that, in this very thread, there was discussion of a Fighter ability that stuns groups of enemies right?  Also, I have to ask...why do you assume that because we saw on ability in one class (in this case the Miasmic flask/poinson) that the other class automatically cannot, or does not have an ability that can, do the same.  Why don't you wait and see what sort of skills/abilities/talents that fighters actually have rather than jump to assumptions?

I was replying specifically to someone else who was in the line of thinking that a strong fast warrior has no weakness, in which I replied with the following.

[errant_knight]

grregg wrote...

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?

Lol!  Things would certainly go better if that was assured.

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

I don't disagree with the tactic (keeping multiple enemies off kilter), but the issue Im having is the "charge out".  Outside of the word "charge," you don't really describe/explain how you would disengage from combat.

At most you fight eight or so enemies, so imagine eight or so enemies in a group, you charge them, those on the side (at least half their number in not more) cannot attack you, because they would have to bypass their allies, & the few in front are now having to deal with you charging, the ones behind them do not know what you are doing until you break the front line & they have less time & room to maneuver than the ones on the front lines. Then as long as you haven't broken your momentum you break free of the rear line. When your enemies are recovering you shift your angle of entry & come around again for another attack.

And after doing all of that, everyone would be gasping for breath and recovering (even you).  You seem to assume that the enemies would cluster (and seem to be confined on the flanks in your example?), which isn't necessarily the case (as we saw in the combat video, you have a group of about 5-6, but they're not in rank and file so everyone could attack you).  Anyways, it seems to me that the what you're describing is more of an offensive charge/chaining together attacks, so you don't really "charge out" of combat, but rather you break through. 

From what very very little we know, I don't see how you could not do that in DA2

[Aermas]

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

I don't disagree with the tactic (keeping multiple enemies off kilter), but the issue Im having is the "charge out".  Outside of the word "charge," you don't really describe/explain how you would disengage from combat.

At most you fight eight or so enemies, so imagine eight or so enemies in a group, you charge them, those on the side (at least half their number in not more) cannot attack you, because they would have to bypass their allies, & the few in front are now having to deal with you charging, the ones behind them do not know what you are doing until you break the front line & they have less time & room to maneuver than the ones on the front lines. Then as long as you haven't broken your momentum you break free of the rear line. When your enemies are recovering you shift your angle of entry & come around again for another attack.

And after doing all of that, everyone would be gasping for breath and recovering (even you).  You seem to assume that the enemies would cluster (and seem to be confined on the flanks in your example?), which isn't necessarily the case (as we saw in the combat video, you have a group of about 5-6, but they're not in rank and file so everyone could attack you).  Anyways, it seems to me that the what you're describing is more of an offensive charge/chaining together attacks, so you don't really "charge out" of combat, but rather you break through. 

From what very very little we know, I don't see how you could not do that in DA2

& that is why even in modern days of rubber soled shoes & gas powered cars, soldiers are trained to run a minimum of 2miles in under 15 minutes. Even if they are not rank & file, it can quickly move from one enemy to another & drop them quickly, or run down the flanks of the enemy & grind them down slowly

[TMZuk]

Aermas wrote...

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

You can keep realism out of this. Charging in to a group of enemies by your self is not a tactic in the real world, it is suicide. Anyone who has done just a bit of swordplay can tell you that. Unlike fantasy-games you are not able to withstand dozens of blows, all it takes is one.

The OP's question is: How do we perceive a warrior? IMO, as stated earlier, you cannot generalize a warrior, anyone who fights in battles are a warrrior. You can argue for or against a restricted class system. Some people like restricted classes, thinking it is fun to have them  compliment each-other. Me, I hate it. I always play hybrids in class systems, only there were only a few in DA:O/DA:A, and it seems as if there's none in DA2.

In DA:O, at least, it was possible to elvolve a rogue into a decent melee fighter, while in DA2, apparantly, they are either ninjas or archers. Some people seems to find that cool, I find it deplorable.

[errant_knight]

TMZuk wrote...

You can keep realism out of this. Charging in to a group of enemies by your self is not a tactic in the real world, it is suicide. Anyone who has done just a bit of swordplay can tell you that. Unlike fantasy-games you are not able to withstand dozens of blows, all it takes is one.

The OP's question is: How do we perceive a warrior? IMO, as stated earlier, you cannot generalize a warrior, anyone who fights in battles are a warrrior. You can argue for or against a restricted class system. Some people like restricted classes, thinking it is fun to have them  compliment each-other. Me, I hate it. I always play hybrids in class systems, only there were only a few in DA:O/DA:A, and it seems as if there's none in DA2.

In DA:O, at least, it was possible to elvolve a rogue into a decent melee fighter, while in DA2, apparantly, they are either ninjas or archers. Some people seems to find that cool, I find it deplorable.

So if I make my rogues archers they wont do the backflip, disappearing stuff? I get why you might not like the lack of choice, but given how much I don't care for the rogue fighting animations, it feels like good news to me. It sounds like I may be able to avoid most of the stuff I don't like--maybe even the jaggy armor if the brief glimpse of Aveline's armor turns out to be as I thought.

[In Exile]

grregg wrote...
Broadly yes. The thing is that mages walk around with a sign on their collective back saying "Different Rules Apply". Warriors didn't. Or at least the sign was smaller and I didn't notice.

I suppose. I think a major difference between us is that I happen to dislike the faux sort of realism a game tries to provide. I think DA2 is simply better for having dropped any pretense of this sort of realism.

Put another way - let's look at 2handers in DA:O. They swign their weapon like a baseball bat. It's an insane way of fighting. They expose their entire body. If they were actually fighting without an HP bar, they'd get gutted in minutes.

That's so much more reality breaking that the weapon twirling or whatever. At least for me.

And again, yes. I like consistency. If you declare that warriors can now juggle elephants, fine, I can live with that. But I would also expect them to be able to juggle hippos. After all, they're lighter, right?

I grew on JRPGs, so I suppose I made my piece with the gameplay/story segregation idea.

[Pzykozis]

grregg wrote...

And again, yes. I like consistency. If you declare that warriors can now juggle elephants, fine, I can live with that. But I would also expect them to be able to juggle hippos. After all, they're lighter, right?

I'm definately for consistency I think that DA2 is however moving towards a more over the top approach from what we've seen so far anyway so this will fit.

I'm reminded of a certain fight from the malazan book of the fallen with this though, where my most hated character not through his personality or anything just that effectively the very premise is annoying his chapters are terrible and his character is effectively a mary sue of sorts good old Karsa. Anyway he stamps on the floor to knock a fighter off balance.. this character kind of regularly breaks the rules of the world or not breaks the rules as such as kills things that the most powerful people in the world would struggle with and they are basically demi gods, but this was just one step too far, you can't stamp on the floor and cause a tremor it's absurd. Gah, now I remember why I stopped reading the series.

[AlanC9]

TMZuk wrote...
In DA:O, at least, it was possible to elvolve a rogue into a decent melee fighter, while in DA2, apparantly, they are either ninjas or archers. Some people seems to find that cool, I find it deplorable. 

Ninjas aren't "decent melee fighters"? What's your definition of "decent melee fighter"?

[Aermas]

TMZuk wrote...

Aermas wrote...

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

You can keep realism out of this. Charging in to a group of enemies by your self is not a tactic in the real world, it is suicide. Anyone who has done just a bit of swordplay can tell you that. Unlike fantasy-games you are not able to withstand dozens of blows, all it takes is one.

Hence the use of armor, & I would want a companion to accompany me. & the build has more than one use, I detailed them above, I was only stating one use of it. The build is a barbarian type that would fit the Ash Warrior fluff of the game.

[Aermas]

AlanC9 wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
In DA:O, at least, it was possible to elvolve a rogue into a decent melee fighter, while in DA2, apparantly, they are either ninjas or archers. Some people seems to find that cool, I find it deplorable. 

Ninjas aren't "decent melee fighters"? What's your definition of "decent melee fighter"?

Ninjas were assassins that fled from melee combat. If you run away screaming from your enemies, that kind of makes you a bad melee fighter

[AlanC9]

Aermas wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
In DA:O, at least, it was possible to elvolve a rogue into a decent melee fighter, while in DA2, apparantly, they are either ninjas or archers. Some people seems to find that cool, I find it deplorable. 

Ninjas aren't "decent melee fighters"? What's your definition of "decent melee fighter"?

Ninjas were assassins that fled from melee combat. If you run away screaming from your enemies, that kind of makes you a bad melee fighter

Is your name TMZuk?

But yeah, TMZuk's ninja metaphor was even less clear than his "decent melee fighter" category. I should have queried both

[Aermas]

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
[/quote]

Is your name TMZuk?

[/quote]
No, that is hard to pronounce.

[In Exile]

Aermas wrote...
Ninjas were assassins that fled from melee combat. If you run away screaming from your enemies, that kind of makes you a bad melee fighter

They were assasins, sure, but they weren't fighters. They were much more likely to poison your soup as a cook than try and stab you.

It's a pretty bad secret killing if everyone knows you died by 'accidental disembowlment from many swords'.

[Maconbar]

Aermas wrote...

Piecake wrote...

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.

Rogues can stun groups of enemies with Miasmic Flask, a rogue ability. Lockpicking is still a class only skill & there for subject to being weighed in terms of strengths & weaknesses. & it is the rogues that are DPS not warriors

Why are you claiming that warriors aren't dps?

Warriors can clearly spec for aoe dps.

[Doyle41]

I say read the definitions of the words if you want to know what they mean. I've read on this thread ninjas were bad melee fighters, and rogues were agile crafty fighters. I would assume that ninjas were like today's navy seals. quick, agile, stealthy, but could fight close quarters or melee if need be. I would think of a warrior as a soldier or somebody trained to fight. warriors to me should use any or all weapons. rogues should be pick pockets, backstabbers, and thieves.

Modifié par Doyle41, 23 décembre 2010 - 12:22 .

[Ziggeh]

Doyle41 wrote...

I say read the definitions of the words if you want to know what they mean.

That's pretty much gauranteed to give you an inappropriate meaning. It's use here is part of a vocabulary specific to gaming and not any common or academic usage.

[Doyle41]

Ziggeh wrote...

Doyle41 wrote...

I say read the definitions of the words if you want to know what they mean.

That's pretty much gauranteed to give you an inappropriate meaning. It's use here is part of a vocabulary specific to gaming and not any common or academic usage.

 perhaps "Knight" would be more appropriate for this class instead of "warrior". knights are generally associated with heavy armor, shields and swords, 2h swords.

warrior should be a more versatile soldier. i think since the dragon age universe has eliminated the subcatagories, there will be more confusion. rogues generally have never been the greater fighters. stealthy, yes. deadly, sure. rougues generally, like i stated were pickpockets/ lockpickers, assassin, and trap disarmers. what has happened now, instead of having rangers, scouts, rogues, duelist, dual wielding, they are all in the rogue catagory now. I don't think rogue is necessarily the best title for this class of warrior.

i am interested to see what da 2 is going to do to make me want to play the warrior class though. mage seems to be the default story and most fitting class to the story. rogue seems to be the most played and reviewed class. it is also the most versatile as far as weapon selection and animation changes.

unless there is a shortage of warrior class party members, kinda seems like a dull choice now.

[Ziggeh]

Doyle41 wrote...
 what has happened now, instead of having rangers, scouts, rogues, duelist, dual wielding, they are all in the rogue catagory now. I don't think rogue is necessarily the best title for this class of warrior.

Yeah, that's a fair point.

The same is true of DA2's use of the word "dagger". Something like "bladed weapons" would be more appropriate, but less in line with genre expectations. Warrior, Mage and Different Kind Of Warrior has less of a ring to it.