470 réponses à ce sujet

[bsbcaer]

Thicos wrote...

who is this bald character in that video?

the player's self-created Hawke

[Thicos]

OH horrible creation hahahaahha

[The Bard From Hell]

I think the Battlemaster is the name the Warrior tree (or Web) is getting. Remember how in Origins they were called Warrior, all those things like Taunt, threaten, etc., but sinse now each class has unique webs, dosn't makes sense to call that web Warrior, sinse all are Warrior-only, so it was renamed Battlemaster. At least that's what I got from it.

[Aermas]

The Bard From Hell wrote...

I think the Battlemaster is the name the Warrior tree (or Web) is getting. Remember how in Origins they were called Warrior, all those things like Taunt, threaten, etc., but sinse now each class has unique webs, dosn't makes sense to call that web Warrior, sinse all are Warrior-only, so it was renamed Battlemaster. At least that's what I got from it.

Yes, I believe I heard something to that extent, Battlemaster is a tree, in which the warrior controls the battlefield in the way of Aggro Control & maybe even buffs.

[jpbreon]

I always think of a warrior much as a Legion soldier, or part of a phalanx. The idea of "tanking" had a large role in ancient warfare.



For example, the longer an enemy was penetrate an opposing line, the longer the calvary units (quick, lightly armored) had to flank the formation and do considerable damage. This is, in fact, tanking, since the phalanx was nothing if not a shield wall. A good example of this is the infamous "Battle of Carthage" scene from Gladiator, where the chariots were distracted while the javelin throwers and shield-less men waited for an opportunity to attack.

[Aermas]

jpbreon wrote...

I always think of a warrior much as a Legion soldier, or part of a phalanx. The idea of "tanking" had a large role in ancient warfare.

For example, the longer an enemy was penetrate an opposing line, the longer the calvary units (quick, lightly armored) had to flank the formation and do considerable damage. This is, in fact, tanking, since the phalanx was nothing if not a shield wall. A good example of this is the infamous "Battle of Carthage" scene from Gladiator, where the chariots were distracted while the javelin throwers and shield-less men waited for an opportunity to attack.

One man cannot keep the attention of a mass of angry things. No matter how he "taunts"

[Ryzaki]

Aermas wrote...
One man cannot keep the attention of a mass of angry things. No matter how he "taunts"

This I agree with. No amount of taunting should cause the amount of aggro that taking out a large amount of enemies will. Mages should by default have a lot of aggro.

[upsettingshorts]

Aermas wrote...

One man cannot keep the attention of a mass of angry things. No matter how he "taunts"

One unit or part of the formation can, if they occupy a tactically advantageous position.  But we're translating battlefield tactics to small unit, cRPG tactics - a better example of a "tank" in a real world scenario would be someone providing covering fire.

The covering soldier occupies the target.  The maneuvering soldiers exploit the fact that the target is occupied by the suppressing fire to move into a more advantageous position and then DPS (shoot, throw grenade, stab in face) the target.

A tank's role is - at its core - drawing the subject's attention.  How it does it is a matter for game mechanics to decide.  As is how it manages to survive being the subject's focus.

Ryzaki wrote...

This I agree with. No amount of taunting should cause the amount of aggro that taking out a large amount of enemies will. Mages should by default have a lot of aggro.

I like the way Conan handled it.  Though I'm biased - I was exclusively a DPS player up until then, and the way tanking worked in that game made me fall in love with it. 

Granted, the detached nature of tactical cRPGs means I couldn't really enjoy it in DAO or DA2. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 décembre 2010 - 05:24 .

[Aermas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Aermas wrote...

One man cannot keep the attention of a mass of angry things. No matter how he "taunts"

One unit or part of the formation can, if they occupy a tactically advantageous position.  But we're translating battlefield tactics to small unit, cRPG tactics - a better example of a "tank" in a real world scenario would be someone providing covering fire.

The covering soldier occupies the target.  The maneuvering soldiers exploit the fact that the target is occupied by the suppressing fire to move into a more advantageous position and then DPS (shoot, throw grenade, stab in face) the target.

A tank's role is - at its core - drawing the subject's attention.  How it does it is a matter for game mechanics to decide.  As is how it manages to survive being the subject's focus.

Ryzaki wrote...

This I agree with. No amount of taunting should cause the amount of aggro that taking out a large amount of enemies will. Mages should by default have a lot of aggro.

I like the way Conan handled it.  Though I'm biased - I was exclusively a DPS player up until then, and the way tanking worked in that game made me fall in love with it. 

Granted, the detached nature of tactical cRPGs means I couldn't really enjoy it in DAO or DA2. 

Are you seriously going to arguing two conflicting arguments at the same time?

[Ziggeh]

Ryzaki wrote...
This I agree with. No amount of taunting should cause the amount of aggro that taking out a large amount of enemies will. Mages should by default have a lot of aggro.

While I agree taunting is and always has been a bit on the silly side, it's essentially managing an entirely unreal element within the fight system. I'm not sure we can really ask for it to be realistic.

[upsettingshorts]

My first response was to the idea that in real life there are situations where one soldier or one unit can occupy the attention of the enemy. I gave an example of how it works.

My second response was to say that I liked tanking in Conan but implied that the things I liked about it are impossible to duplicate in DAO and DA2, so I'm basically indifferent to it in those games.

Not seeing the conflict.  "Taunting" itself is a bit silly, but like I said ultimately the role of the "tank" is to occupy the attention of the target and survive.  Covering fire accomplishes this by putting the fear of being shot into the target and (presumably) being behind cover while doing it.  

Taunting, and making tanks more survivable in terms of HP, or armor, or defense - those are gameplay mechanics that implement that idea:  Occupy attention and survive.  But it isn't the only possible way to do it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 décembre 2010 - 05:33 .

[Ryzaki]

Ziggeh wrote...


While I agree taunting is and always has been a bit on the silly side, it's essentially managing an entirely unreal element within the fight system. I'm not sure we can really ask for it to be realistic.

I don't mind it not being realistic I just find it ridculous.

Because honestly between the guy with the longsword and the guy who can blow everyone on your squad to bits you're going to take the latter guy out first.

@upsettingshorts: I've never played Conan how did it work exactly?

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 décembre 2010 - 05:35 .

[Aermas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

My first response was to the idea that in real life there are situations where one soldier or one unit can occupy the attention of the enemy. I gave an example of how it works.

My second response was to say that I liked tanking in Conan but implied that the things I liked about it are impossible to duplicate in DAO and DA2, so I'm basically indifferent to it in those games.

Not seeing the conflict.  "Taunting" itself is a bit silly, but like I said ultimately the role of the "tank" is to occupy the attention of the target and survive.  Covering fire accomplishes this by putting the fear of being shot into the target and (presumably) being behind cover while doing it.  

Taunting, and making tanks more survivable in terms of HP, or armor, or defense - those are gameplay mechanics that implement that idea:  Occupy attention and survive.  But it isn't the only possible way to do it.

No, I was talking about your post in the Tactics thread. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...

@upsettingshorts: I've never played Conan how did it work exactly?

I'll PM you.

Aermas wrote...
No, I was talking about your post in the Tactics thread. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Not seeing the conflict with that either.  All I did there was dispute that Clausewitz-like tactics had any use in a cRPG. 

[Ziggeh]

Ryzaki wrote...

I don't mind it not being realistic I just find it ridculous.

Because honestly between the guy with the longsword and the guy who can blow everyone on your squad to bits you're going to take the latter guy out first.

Indeed, but that's the concept of "threat" for you. You have to defenstrate tanking and damage input management to get rid of that.

[Aermas]

The argument you posed about how the large scale does not translate into small scale, & then saying that one warrior is the small scale equivalent of a phalanx platoon.

[upsettingshorts]

Aermas wrote...

The argument you posed about how the large scale does not translate into small scale, & then saying that one warrior is the small scale equivalent of a phalanx platoon.

In some cases there are parallels.  I would absolutely argue against it being a coherent universal principle however.

Unless of course such tactics are reduced to the point of no longer having any use to anyone, which is what I expect will happen in an attempt to prove otherwise.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 décembre 2010 - 05:44 .

[Aermas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Aermas wrote...

The argument you posed about how the large scale does not translate into small scale, & then saying that one warrior is the small scale equivalent of a phalanx platoon.

In some cases there are parallels.  I would absolutely argue against it being a coherent universal principle however.

Unless of course such tactics are reduced to the point of no longer having any use to anyone, which is what I expect will happen in an attempt to prove otherwise.

The tactics would be acceptable if the characters were more equal, instead of one being a tank & one doing tons of damage even if they are wielding nothing but a dagger... & such.

[upsettingshorts]

It's a different system with different rules that call for different tactics. Using your tank to hold aggro while a DPSer does damage, and a healer heals is a tactic. It isn't one with a particularly good real-life parallel, but it is a tactic nonetheless.

So are things like aggro swapping (switching between two tanks, or several nontanks - deliberately), or stacking buffs, or kiting, etc.

I get the appeal for moving away from the RPG trinity - I'm a fan of skill based systems - but cRPGs, despite their tank/healer/DPS dynamic has tactics of its own as well.

[Aermas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's a different system with different rules that call for different tactics. Using your tank to hold aggro while a DPSer does damage, and a healer heals is a tactic. It isn't one with a particularly good real-life parallel, but it is a tactic nonetheless.
So are things like aggro swapping (switching between two tanks, or several nontanks - deliberately), or stacking buffs, or kiting, etc.
I get the appeal for moving away from the RPG trinity - I'm a fan of skill based systems - but cRPGs, despite their tank/healer/DPS dynamic has tactics of its own as well.

Yes, any combat system will have "tactics" but even Rock-Paper-Scissors has "tactics".

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

Yes, any combat system will have "tactics" but even Rock-Paper-Scissors has "tactics".

That's an argument against the term as a useful description of anything, not an argument against a specific application.