470 réponses à ce sujet

[White_Buffalo94]

Hawksblud wrote...

Aermas wrote...

 I'd like to ask what you think a warrior is, & if you think Bioware does a good job fulfilling that definition.

Yes. But I don't think, in Origins, that there was enough differentiation between Rogue and Warrior. There was a lot of overlap, and if Rogue is to be a class of its own, it should be as different from Warrior as Mage is.

I agree the only thing that I saw different between the two was that the rogue can pick locks, backstab, and throw sand/go invisible. The rogue should not overlap with the warrior at all IMO

[TMZuk]

White_Buffalo94 wrote...

Hawksblud wrote...

Aermas wrote...

 I'd like to ask what you think a warrior is, & if you think Bioware does a good job fulfilling that definition.

Yes. But I don't think, in Origins, that there was enough differentiation between Rogue and Warrior. There was a lot of overlap, and if Rogue is to be a class of its own, it should be as different from Warrior as Mage is.

I agree the only thing that I saw different between the two was that the rogue can pick locks, backstab, and throw sand/go invisible. The rogue should not overlap with the warrior at all IMO

Then you should make a rogue that fits your definition, and leave me to play what I like to play. I would like to play a warrior with some rogueskills, who fights in a manner that is if not realistic, then immersive and believable.
As it is now, I'm forced to play the way you like it... or not play at all, which I fear is the only feasible solution to the dilemma.

I'll miss the story, and the NPC's, I am sure, but being forced to play one of these three archetypes, even more stereo-typical than those of DA:O, AND have to look at the ridiculous animations on top of that, is simply an unbearable thought.

I know, I know, I could just stop following the game. Ascribe it to nostalgia and the bitter tears wept from dissapointment.

[Xewaka]

Since the mage and cleric have already been fused in a single class, warrior and rogue should be given the same treatment. Otherwise, we have a class that is twice the others.

[errant_knight]

Xewaka wrote...

Since the mage and cleric have already been fused in a single class, warrior and rogue should be given the same treatment. Otherwise, we have a class that is twice the others.

They're different enough that I can like playing one, and dislike playing the other, so I'd say that makes them different enough to keep separate. I may be wrong, but aren't cleric abilities sort of divided between Templars and mages? Not sure about that, because I never played much D&D, but it kind of seems like that to me. If so, I wouldn't say that the cleric class was merged with mages so much as divided between two areas where there was overlap. I'm not deeing much overlap between rogue and warrior to begin with, and there's far less now.

[Xewaka]

errant_knight wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Since the mage and cleric have already been fused in a single class, warrior and rogue should be given the same treatment. Otherwise, we have a class that is twice the others.

They're different enough that I can like playing one, and dislike playing the other, so I'd say that makes them different enough to keep separate. I may be wrong, but aren't cleric abilities sort of divided between Templars and mages? Not sure about that, because I never played much D&D, but it kind of seems like that to me. If so, I wouldn't say that the cleric class was merged with mages so much as divided between two areas where there was overlap. I'm not deeing much overlap between rogue and warrior to begin with, and there's far less now.

I enjoy playing clerics and hate mages with a passion. To play a healing and group enhancing class in Dragon Age, I have to play mage.
Besides, it is much easier to keep the flavor of the rogue within a martial class than it is to keep the flavor of the cleric within a mage class. It would still allow people to play dual axe wielding bersekers and finesse cloack and dagger fellas. The style would come from passive and sustained skills, enhancing finesse or raw power.

Modifié par Xewaka, 26 décembre 2010 - 12:13 .

[soteria]

AlanC9 wrote...

Are you saying that any of these work? The advantage over "thief" is that it describes a stereotypical personality rather than specific criminal actions, but there's no way you get to the character's combat role from here.

If you pull the definition from the urban dictionary (his "tank" definition can be found in the same place, verbatim), you find:

"An unconventional and devious fighter." A rogues main goal in combat is to use any means necessary to inflict the most possible damage to his opponent. They are converse of disciplined frontline tank warriors, who's brute strength and defense helps them excel in face to face combat. A Rogue's speed and agility combined with his light armor makes him extremely mobile and stealthy, allowing him to sneak into range of an opponent and ambush it in a fury of strikes, often killing it before it can even react.

Works for me. Incidentally, the definition of "tank" he posted doesn't anywhere suggest that a tank is slow, stupid, or poor at dealing damage.

[Doyle41]

Niberts wrote...

I have a question Aermas....you seem to spend alot of time talking about history.....but i'm kinda confused as to what historical warrior you're trying to draw upon when you talk about a 'mobile' sword and board character...because as far as i'm aware ....they don't exist...not in the context you want.

Spartans fought in giant blocks covering each others backs Knights certainly weren't mobile. Feel free to point out a warrior who counteracts this but i don't remember any. In real life (without aggro) you try and move away from a guy without killing him...he'll stab you in the back...the sort of mobile warriors you seem to want....are horse mounted warriors who are made mobile by horses.

Also you're assumption that rogues wouldn't be 'trained' is ridiculous. Both Zevran (he was raised from childhood to be a killer) AND Leliana from the previous game were 'trained'. Ninjas were 'trained' and modern rogues like the KGB or the CIA field operatives are also 'trained'. All this people are trained in killing and hand to hand combat. You could also argue a navy seal or the SAS (English or otherwise) are modern 'rogues' (sure they fight but they also have stealth missions or espionage missions) and I DARE you to go tell them they're not properly 'trained'.

If on the other hand, you're just focused on gameplay your point is kinda just superfluous (I want to play this EXACT kind of character) and if you REALLY are that determined that's what modding is for. Btw there is a reason games deal in archetypes of characters and that is recognition, you build a character based on assumptions. Consequently games are designed to have instantly recognizable classes that allow you to make informed choices. Not a perfect system, but a pretty good one.

It seems as though people arguing against leaving the class system as it was in DA:O, didn't enjoy the game or thought it was flawed. To me, this doesn't make sense. If you want "your" warrior to be a warrior, you had that choice. If I wanted "my" warrior to be a hybrid type character, I could. No harm, no foul. Everybody said, "but they overlapped skills."  Hmmm...........didn't you select there skills and specializations? If they overlapped skills, then you obviously denied your rogue the opportunity to be a rogue.

As far as mobile warriors that wore armor, rode horseback, used bow and arrows, spears, swords, were flexible, trained in martial arts..............there were a group of warriors that were known as Samurai.
 They may have battled mostly in units, are largly at times on horseback, However, it isn't unrealistic to believe that one person can cover the skill tree as far as multiple fighting styles or weapon use though.

Funny, you mentioned modding. As far as that is concerned, console players don't have access to that option. Personally, my duel weapon, bow using, spirit warrior would like to make a return.

[AlanC9]

soteria wrote...
If you pull the definition from the urban dictionary (his "tank" definition can be found in the same place, verbatim), you find:

"An unconventional and devious fighter." A rogues main goal in combat is to use any means necessary to inflict the most possible damage to his opponent. They are converse of disciplined frontline tank warriors, who's brute strength and defense helps them excel in face to face combat. A Rogue's speed and agility combined with his light armor makes him extremely mobile and stealthy, allowing him to sneak into range of an opponent and ambush it in a fury of strikes, often killing it before it can even react.

Works for me. Incidentally, the definition of "tank" he posted doesn't anywhere suggest that a tank is slow, stupid, or poor at dealing damage.

Works for me too. Though now I'm confused -- is that a gaming definition, or is it just that the gaming definition has seeped into the real world? I don't know what happens if I say "rogue" to a non-gamer anymore.

Anyway, it sounds like Aermas wants to play a rogue but doesn't want to be called a rogue. Sucks to be him.

[White_Buffalo94]

TMZuk wrote...

White_Buffalo94 wrote...

Hawksblud wrote...

Aermas wrote...

 I'd like to ask what you think a warrior is, & if you think Bioware does a good job fulfilling that definition.

Yes. But I don't think, in Origins, that there was enough differentiation between Rogue and Warrior. There was a lot of overlap, and if Rogue is to be a class of its own, it should be as different from Warrior as Mage is.

I agree the only thing that I saw different between the two was that the rogue can pick locks, backstab, and throw sand/go invisible. The rogue should not overlap with the warrior at all IMO

Then you should make a rogue that fits your definition, and leave me to play what I like to play. I would like to play a warrior with some rogueskills, who fights in a manner that is if not realistic, then immersive and believable.
As it is now, I'm forced to play the way you like it... or not play at all, which I fear is the only feasible solution to the dilemma.

I'll miss the story, and the NPC's, I am sure, but being forced to play one of these three archetypes, even more stereo-typical than those of DA:O, AND have to look at the ridiculous animations on top of that, is simply an unbearable thought.

I know, I know, I could just stop following the game. Ascribe it to nostalgia and the bitter tears wept from dissapointment.

Not what I meant, I am just saying there should be a point to select a certain class. I for one didn't care whether or not I played rogue or warrior, as I said, they seemed too similar. In conclusion, I'm just hoping the rogues get a natural boost to attack speed, very agile, etc. and the warriors are treated as such: an armored combatant used to deal big damage and take some too.

[Aermas]

AlanC9: I love how you make a logical fallacy & then perpetrate it as fact. You continue to view classes as a combat role; they are not. Tanking is a combat role, Rogue is not. Rogue is a class. & no, I do not want to play a rogue because I want to A) use a sword & shield, & not use underhanded moves & C) wear heavier armor, using strength as a main stat & dex as a secondary.

Are you always this wrong? Sucks to be you.

Modifié par Aermas, 26 décembre 2010 - 08:56 .

[AlanC9]

Aermas wrote...

 You continue to view classes as a combat role; they are not.

You have a different view of what classes should be, but that's not relevant when discussing DA2. In DA2 the design is about classes having specific combat roles. You don't seem to like this either, but that is also not relevant.

Now, if you want to go back to discussing  D&D, I'll rephrase. You can't get a class from any of those dictionary meanings of "rogue." Of course, even phrasing it this way invites intellectual confusion, since this has the causality backwards. We're looking for a word to fit the class, not designing a class around the word "rogue." So it's clunkier, but let me rephrase again to say that "none of the dictionary meanings of "rogue" point to the D&D class."

Happy now?

& no, I do not want to play a rogue because I want to A) use a sword & shield, & not use underhanded moves & C) wear heavier armor, using strength as a main stat & dex as a secondary.

Are you always this wrong? Sucks to be you.

"Rogue" as defined in DA2 nevertheless comes closer to what you want the character to do than "warrior" does. Of course, I conclude that by making a possibly unwarranted assumption; namely,  that you still believe what you said a page ago: "He would fulfill the role of line-breaker & battle-charger, throwing the enemies defenses into disarray, & running down the Mages & archers in the back."

In DA2, that's a rogue, because rogues have the mobility and stunning moves. Though arguably warriors will be able to do line-breaking with their AOE moves, so warriors may not be completely out the question for you.

Unless there's been a change or I badly misread earlier comments, there's nothing preventing a rogue from pumping STR and going for heavier armor. So what you've lost is the ability to use sword and shield and possibly some efficiency at high levels when you might have to take talents for  "underhanded moves" on your rogue because you've used up all other talents.

But yeah, neither class is going to work all that well for you. Them's the breaks with a class system. Sometimes your preferred style works with the class designs, sometimes it doesn't

[TMZuk]

Only, in DA2 the warrior-class is forced into the tank-role. Being deprived of any ranged attacks, and having utterly unbelieavble ability to do arc-damge, you are forced to rush into the thick of the enemies if you play a warrior. So, in DA2, Bioware is basicly saying: "You want to play a warrior, you either rush in, or you do nothing at all."



Sucks to be me, then, as I hate that sort of "tactics". It's just so wonderful that if I am going to play DA2, I am forced into playing my favourite class in a manner I dislike, or I have to play a rogue with movements even more silly than the warrior. I sure wish someone from Bioware could explain to me how that is going to enhance my enjoyment of the game.

[AlanC9]

 Your enjoyment? It won't. You and Aermas just lose this time around, and that's all there is to it. 

[Aermas]

TMZuk wrote...

Only, in DA2 the warrior-class is forced into the tank-role. Being deprived of any ranged attacks, and having utterly unbelieavble ability to do arc-damge, you are forced to rush into the thick of the enemies if you play a warrior. So, in DA2, Bioware is basicly saying: "You want to play a warrior, you either rush in, or you do nothing at all."

Sucks to be me, then, as I hate that sort of "tactics". It's just so wonderful that if I am going to play DA2, I am forced into playing my favourite class in a manner I dislike, or I have to play a rogue with movements even more silly than the warrior. I sure wish someone from Bioware could explain to me how that is going to enhance my enjoyment of the game.

That is a good point, if they would stop making invented "tactics" like tanking & DPS, they could possibly expand the game & include actual tactics.

[Aermas]

I'd like to call the Rogue a Specialist. It sounds professional, & focused, with a touch of exclusiveness. Plus you can add lib what kind you are; Assassin Specialist, Thief Specialist, Trap/Dungeon Specialist. etc.

[Bryy_Miller]

Then do that. Nobody is stopping you. Not even the game. No, seriously, go on and do that. Because right now, you just are complaining about a feature that's not going to change because it's a part of the game's foundation.

[AlanC9]

I don't have a huge problem with "specialist" myself, but I'm pretty sure a bunch of people would howl if a medieval game used a term that modern-sounding.

Some time ago we had a similar debate, with some folks pushing for "maven" instead. It doesn't sound modern, but the problem was that not too many people use the word, so it just sounds weird to a lot of people.

It doesn't matter. The use of "rogue" as DAO and DA2 use it has been accepted in gaming for a decade. It's not changing anytime soon.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
Some time ago we had a similar debate, with some folks pushing for "maven" instead. It doesn't sound modern, but the problem was that not too many people use the word, so it just sounds weird to a lot of people.

If someone looking at the class goes ''This is stupid,'' the name is doing something wrong.

The problem with rogue is that it's a class that can't make up its mind as to what it is.

[soteria]

In Exile wrote...

The problem with rogue is that it's a class that can't make up its mind as to what it is.

Can you elaborate?

[In Exile]

soteria wrote..
Can you elaborate?

Certainly. Keep in mind I am not criticizing the class (after playing DA:O again with a rogue, I realized they are very powerful) but rather the name.

In DA:O, we really have 3 rogues - utility, backstab and archery. Since skills are generally separable from talents (aside from stealth + lockpicking) you can have a little bit of both worlds, but that involves a trade-off of tactics with skills like tracking, poison and traps.

Archery doesn't take advantage of rogue talents at all (save stealth, partially, but you can easily have a 40% critical rate with bard + aim and a cunning build). You're fundamentally a warrior without the warrior talents (which aren't very useful for archery anyway).

That leaves dual-wield backstab, which is quite powerful. You can also try to build a non-backstab dual wield rogue, but that just gives you an inferior warrior.

I think these aren't really well unified by the class.

Whereas with a warrior, you just have 4 weapon talent trees. That fits the theme much better, at least IMO.

In a sense, a rogue is like the mage, where you can get many different builds out of the same talent tree, but the name isn't really fitting.

[jsachun]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Aermas wrote...

So you do not think they can be agile?
Spartans were the consummate warriors, strong quick & cunning.
Every warrior training in history taught there warriors to be quick & not just strong & dumb.

'Reality' is not 'class archetype.'

If you want agile fighter, there's this class called the rogue you might be interested in.

Warrior -> Strength and stamina
Rogue -> Dexterity and wit
Mage -> Intelligence

I think you mean this,

Tank -> Strength and stamina
Damage Dealer -> Dexterity and wit
Support-> Intelligence

Really all classes should be able to fulfill that role.

[jsachun]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Some time ago we had a similar debate, with some folks pushing for "maven" instead. It doesn't sound modern, but the problem was that not too many people use the word, so it just sounds weird to a lot of people.

If someone looking at the class goes ''This is stupid,'' the name is doing something wrong.

The problem with rogue is that it's a class that can't make up its mind as to what it is.

Apparently in DA2 rogues are an acrobatic warrior. It has enough strength to manage aerial sommersaults but not enough strength to wield heavy weapons. I think a class type of Assasins, Infiltrators, or scouts would be much more fitting description for the so called class of rogues that Bioware is producing. 

[soteria]

In Exile wrote...
In DA:O, we really have 3 rogues - utility, backstab and archery. Since skills are generally separable from talents (aside from stealth + lockpicking) you can have a little bit of both worlds, but that involves a trade-off of tactics with skills like tracking, poison and traps.

So to put it another way, the rogue class encompasses the thief, the assassin, and the scout/ranger, and that those three sub-classes are more distinct than the sub-classes you can get from warrior and mage talents? Possibly so. There's really only two ways to build a warrior--for damage or for toughness--with shades of variance, and mages can be killers, controllers, or healers, but since they can cherry-pick talents it doesn't matter as much, at least from a gameplay perspective. I imagine the new direction they're taking with the various talent trees will mitigate that some.

One thing that disappointed me in Origins was that specializations had nothing to do with specializing.  They were more of an addendum.  The implementation was decent, but they were nothing like what I expected from the name.

Modifié par soteria, 27 décembre 2010 - 04:19 .

[Ziggeh]

Does it matter what it's called? Really? I mean, unless you're afraid of vowels the only difference is in the connotations you bring to the word, and really to "correct" that issue you just have to remember there are a barrel full of others that make the term a fairly vague umbrella term that can be applied anyone who might like a bit of flair with their violence in the morning, who might be a bit on the sly or a combination of the two.

They're using Rogue because it's one of the major fantasy archetype, not because it defines what the class should be, that would be impossible because due to the lack of definition.

[Ziggeh]

TMZuk wrote...
or I have to play a rogue with movements even more silly than the warrior.

You mentioned something about warriors not being able to use range, so you would be forced to move in? Looks like rogues can shoot arrows and such. The animations for that aren't quite as extreme. Sounds ideal?