470 réponses à ce sujet

[jsachun]

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

I like the diversity that DA:O brought to each class with specialisation, however are not in favour of further limitations on each class DA2 is bringing. Perhaps they should have added traits to classes that limit the builds of each character for further customisation or create more classes to begin with. This could have substituted for the lack of choice of race in DA2 for added replay value.
Or even by adding more rogue combat skills rather than limiting the combat skills of a warrior for further distinction. For example dagger or poisoned dart throwing. Chained whips & so forth.

Modifié par jsachun, 27 décembre 2010 - 04:47 .

[TMZuk]

Ziggeh wrote...

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?

Not at all!

I still have to look at whomever there is in the party as warrior charging in like an idiot, with ridiculous haymaker-moves.

I still have to look at other rogues doing backflips in the middle of combat, and magically conjuring a second knife, even though I specificly only equip them with one.

In short, I have to put up with Biowares extremely narrow and Over the Top approach to these three classes. Skyrim sounds more tempting by the second.

[Ziggeh]

jsachun wrote...

I like the diversity that DA:O brought to each class with specialisation, however are not in favour of further limitations on each class DA2 is bringing.

I thought the rogue and warrior specialisations did a fairly poor job of changing the way you played that specific character, in the way that the mage specs do. Unless you were a captivating song bard. But I can't say I experienced that enough to comment.

In terms of available options, I think it'd be better to compare the number of distinct playstyles than anything to do with weapons and names and such, and that's not a comparison we can make right now.

(This assumes said options are "better" than the potential benefits of limited choice, again, not something we can say. Unless you value choice over everything.)

[Ziggeh]

TMZuk wrote...
I still have to look at whomever there is in the party as warrior charging in like an idiot, with ridiculous haymaker-moves.

I thought said haymaker was forcing your warrior to be a tank? Admittedly they're charging in too, but that's sort of a given for the threatening punch bag style.

TMZuk wrote...
I still have to look at other rogues doing backflips in the middle of combat, and magically conjuring a second knife, even though I specificly only equip them with one.

You could not use that kind of rogue? I mean, you gotta take four dudes, bound to be a way to only take a tank and then a mix of archers and mages.

[Maria Caliban]

jsachun wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

'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.

'Strength and stamina' aren't roles. They're attributes.

Moreover, what you said doesn't fit Dragon Age at all. The biggest damage dealers are mages, but you don't see them pumping dex and wit.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:18 .

[soteria]

TMZuk wrote...
I still have to look at whomever there is in the party as warrior charging in like an idiot, with ridiculous haymaker-moves.

I still have to look at other rogues doing backflips in the middle of combat, and magically conjuring a second knife, even though I specificly only equip them with one.

I hear if you close your eyes and just imagine that they're the DA:O animations, you can hardly tell the difference.  Under the hood... /shrug.

Modifié par soteria, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:25 .

[In Exile]

Ziggeh wrote...

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,

I have a paralyzing and psychotic fear of "gue".

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.

There's just no good name for it. Which is why we should abandon classes altoghether for a skill system.

[In Exile]

soteria wrote...
I hear if you close your eyes and just imagine that they're the DA:O animations, you can hardly tell the difference.  Under the hood... /shrug.

I have little sympathy for this view. I had to tolerate ugly and unappealing animations for, well, years. That other people have to suffer so I can appreciate combat I find aesthetically pleasing, frankly, is just peachy.

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...

I have a paralyzing and psychotic fear of "gue".

haha, yes, that is unsettling.

In Exile wrote...
There's just no good name for it. Which is why we should abandon classes altoghether for a skill system.

I dunno, lines itself up neatly with the other two big name fantasy archtypes and covers everything that happens within it's borders, even if only roughly.

I've not had a good deal of exposure to skill systems, outside of bethesda games that is. Is there a model that promotes the same kind of "synergy of specialists" within a group that a class system can? Or by nature do they allow generality?

I assume there isn't as every mmo and his pack horse uses classes to force you to talk to folk. I suppose it depends if you see that party dynamic as important in a single player. I do personally, so I think class is the way to go and indeed stay here.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:40 .

[jsachun]

Maria Caliban wrote...

jsachun wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

'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.

'Strength and stamina' aren't roles. They're attributes.

Moreover, what you said doesn't fit Dragon Age at all. The biggest damage dealers are mages, but you don't see them pumping dex and wit.

That's only from a pure number point of view. Take Manaclash out that just scores massive damage against mages and are pretty much useless against any other classes, then mages are pretty useless interms of damage.

Besides how long is a tank with no dex going to last agains a mace, maul, or a mornig star. Not very long at all. As armor is not an effectve defense against blunt weapons that do shattering damage. 

Modifié par jsachun, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:47 .

[Maria Caliban]

Ziggeh wrote...

I've not had a good deal of exposure to skill systems, outside of bethesda games that is. Is there a model that promotes the same kind of "synergy of specialists" within a group that a class system can? Or by nature do they allow generality?

In my experience, good skill based systems that assume a group of players always have pseudo-classes and reward you with specializing.

An example is Exalted, a fantasy RPG from White Wolf, where there are five castes that embody a idealized aspect of humanity. You get a discount to your five caste aligned skills and powers, but you can pick five non-caste skills, and get a discount for them as well.

For example, if I play a Twilight caste, I get Craft, Investigation, Lore, Medicine, and Occult as caste abilities. I can then tag melee (from Dawn), dodge (from Night), integrity and presence (from Zenith), and linguistics (from Eclipse) as my favorite skills.

I get your scholar/mage archetype, but also combat skills and a bit of social presence.

I played games where there is no class or psudeo class, but inevitably the GM will come up with challenges that we don't have the skills to overcome or people will overlap and start to compete with one another.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:54 .

[In Exile]

Ziggeh wrote...
haha, yes, that is unsettling.

I run screaming each time. The level up screen terrifies me to this day.

I dunno, lines itself up neatly with the other two big name fantasy archtypes and covers everything that happens within it's borders, even if only roughly.

I was being facetious. I just like skill based systems.

I've not had a good deal of exposure to skill systems, outside of bethesda games that is. Is there a model that promotes the same kind of "synergy of specialists" within a group that a class system can? Or by nature do they allow generality?

The basic premise to a skill system is that all traits & talents are open to all characters & you can pick whatever abilities you want. I personally haven't seen a good skill system either. But I think it works better. The issue is implementation. I have ideas.

I assume there isn't as every mmo and his pack horse uses classes to force you to talk to folk. I suppose it depends if you see that party dynamic as important in a single player. I do personally, so I think class is the way to go and indeed stay here.

I don't play MMOs, at all (I've never played one), so I'm not really sure how it works. Personally, this is precisely the reason I avoid MMOs. I don't want to put it up other people's bs. That's the reason I play video-games in the first place.

Modifié par In Exile, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:52 .

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...

The basic premise to a skill system is that all traits & talents are open to all characters & you can pick whatever abilities you want. I personally haven't seen a good skill system either. But I think it works better. The issue is implementation. I have ideas.

I'd say in isolation I prefer skill systems, but I think the class one has advantages for bioware games generally, certainly while party based. It could get unwieldy across that many characters for one.

[JoltDealer]

Name our target and it shall die. That's what I hope a DA2 warrior is.

[orpheus333]

 I think they should be able to use archery. Instead making rogues singular dexterous warrior which seems to be the case at the moment they should ahve extended the rogues ability to lay traps, and create poisons and booms. I do like the 'teleport/shadow walking' abilities i've seen in the combat trailer and rogues should have more abilities to move around the battlefield. 

[AlanC9]

Ziggeh wrote...

I've not had a good deal of exposure to skill systems, outside of bethesda games that is. Is there a model that promotes the same kind of "synergy of specialists" within a group that a class system can? Or by nature do they allow generality?

I assume there isn't as every mmo and his pack horse uses classes to force you to talk to folk. I suppose it depends if you see that party dynamic as important in a single player. I do personally, so I think class is the way to go and indeed stay here.

From what I've seen, PnP skill-based systems tend to promote specialization. Unless the system is deliberately designed around diminishing returns, players tend to put everything into whatever their character does best in combat. The real competition in a multiplayer game is between the players, in a sense -- nobody wants to be the guy who didn't pull his weight in the last combat. Being the guy with the second-most-powerful fire attack will guarantee that you won't be effective, because the GM must scale enemies' fire defenses to the character with the most powerful fire attack. So you want to throw your points into something that the Fire guy isn't doing.

I believe the reason MMOs haven't gone this route is that pure skill systems generate unpredictable synergies. And when builds are unpredictable you can't balance the combats.

[soteria]

I believe the reason MMOs haven't gone this route is that pure skill systems generate unpredictable synergies. And when builds are unpredictable you can't balance the combats.

Well, it would work, but what's the point? Once everyone figured out what the best two or three builds for each role were, the developers would balance fights around those "cookie-cutter" builds. Expanding the number of viable options is anathema to the kind of tightly balanced and tuned endgame that attracts a number of dedicated players.

[Ziggeh]

soteria wrote...
Expanding the number of viable options is anathema to the kind of tightly balanced and tuned endgame that attracts a number of dedicated players.

Indeed, with essentially one "difficulty" setting it's a very fine line to tread. I can see it working in a party based single player, but the system would, I believe, need to not just promote specialisation, but encourage weaknesses, possibly even impose. Maybe that's a simplistic view of group cohesion, but without making each character in some way dependant upon the party, I think it loses a lot of appeal.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 27 décembre 2010 - 09:32 .

[Thibax]

Warriors with me are Spirit Warrior, Guardian and Templar with Sword/Shield

But I want an archer specialization too , exchange with templar.

[AlanC9]

Ziggeh wrote...

Indeed, with essentially one "difficulty" setting it's a very fine line to tread. I can see it working in a party based single player, but the system would, I believe, need to not just promote specialisation, but encourage weaknesses, possibly even impose. Maybe that's a simplistic view of group cohesion, but without making each character in some way dependant upon the party, I think it loses a lot of appeal.

That can be a problem depending on how the GM runs things. If players don't feel the need to keep pumping their primary abilities, they have an incentive to start covering up weaknesses with the points instead. 

[M8DMAN]

I want some more badass looking WarHammers this time around. HAWKE SMASH!

[Aermas]

What is all this talk about builds? Should not a build reflect your Roleplaying & not be a separate piece?

[PrinceOfFallout13]

for all that is worth in this video carver has a battlemaster specialization (i guess)

[bsbcaer]

With respect to builds, it certainly depends on the player. Some choose to build their class/character around how they roleplay, while others tend to experiment with different ways of building their class/character to tailor the way that they're playing the way combat-wise, while even others try to make what they feel is the best possible build for any class/character.



On a side note, based on that (old) video from another thread - - one of the specializations could be Battlemaster. Of course, that could have been removed and/or changed since the Russian E3

[Thicos]

who is this bald character in that video?