470 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Aermas wrote...

Yet the Rogue forces me to be a smoke bomb dropping dirty fighter, & the warrior forces me to be a tank. There is no support for a Strong/Fast fighter

Two-handed warrior?

[Hawksblud]

Herr Uhl wrote...

I'm talking about in effect. You can still make use of the defensive boosts of the duelist spec with a strength/dex-build. And I don't think evading blows is making cheap-shots or low-blows. Sub-optimal? Yes, but still workable.

I was actually agreeing with you. =) Sorry if that wasn't clear. 

[Herr Uhl]

Hawksblud wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

I'm talking about in effect. You can still make use of the defensive boosts of the duelist spec with a strength/dex-build. And I don't think evading blows is making cheap-shots or low-blows. Sub-optimal? Yes, but still workable.

I was actually agreeing with you. =) Sorry if that wasn't clear. 

Ah, good. Thought you meant that the wit-part didn't fit.

[Aermas]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Yet the Rogue forces me to be a smoke bomb dropping dirty fighter, & the warrior forces me to be a tank. There is no support for a Strong/Fast fighter

Two-handed warrior?

That may be a possibility, but I believe that many warrior abilities will focus on tanking, instead of mobility, no?

[Herr Uhl]

Aermas wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Yet the Rogue forces me to be a smoke bomb dropping dirty fighter, & the warrior forces me to be a tank. There is no support for a Strong/Fast fighter

Two-handed warrior?

That may be a possibility, but I believe that many warrior abilities will focus on tanking, instead of mobility, no?

What kind of mobility do you want? Do you want a talent that says "you move faster", "you dodge better" or "you hit faster"?

[Dave of Canada]

I'm thinking he wants to be a rogue and a warrior at the same time.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 décembre 2010 - 02:56 .

[Aermas]

Moving faster, & away from & into combat, the saying "Leaf on the wind" comes to mind

[Hawksblud]

Aermas wrote...

That may be a possibility, but I believe that many warrior abilities will focus on tanking, instead of mobility, no?

From the Destructoid Interview (http://www.destructo...-2-189549.phtml):

"Dual-wielding rogues and warriors will find these types of movement-based skills especially useful, allowing them to close down gaps between enemies and allies. Another useful addition along those same lines is that characters can now turn and attack in the same animation. The result in a more kinetic and spatial experience built on top of Dragon Age's RPG foundations."

[...]

"Several familiar abilities make the cut from Origins, but the new focus on spatial relationships calls for new skills to take advantage of them. The new skills -- in conjunction with melee options for ranged attackers -- make, for example, a rogue archer build is useful for the first time. There are also warrior skills that, for example, get stronger when your tank is surrounded by enemies. It's obvious that BioWare took time looking at different builds and playing to their strengths.

I also particularly like the new skill trees because they're so much more flexible than the Origins tables. Very few of the skills have prerequisites, and you can choose to spend points improving your useful skills -- make them faster, or cost less -- instead of wasting them on skills that don't fit into your build or play style."

[Edited for formatting.]

Modifié par Hawksblud, 22 décembre 2010 - 02:58 .

[Aermas]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'm thinking he wants to be a rogue and a warrior at the same time.

I would be fine with a rogue if they had any non-assassin/thief specs & abilities.

[Herr Uhl]

Aermas wrote...

Moving faster, & away from & into combat, the saying "Leaf on the wind" comes to mind

The talent that gets rid of aggro could be useful (if implemented) and I think there has been stated that there is a talent for charging.

Edit: While the de-aggro one is technically a tanking ability, the only other way I can see "away from combat" being implemented besides just running is the rogue backflip or stealth.

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 22 décembre 2010 - 03:01 .

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

I would be fine with a rogue if they had any non-assassin/thief specs & abilities.

Like duelist.

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

I would be fine with a rogue if they had any non-assassin/thief specs & abilities.

Like duelist.

Which has nothing to do with strength, & in fact is supposed to work against those with high strength. As Herr Uhl said though, it may be suboptimal but at least it's there

[blothulfur]

Scout/skirmisher?

[Hawksblud]

From interview quoted above, though, we know there will be movement based skills, which should put some fears to rest.

[crimzontearz]

the warrior is the class that takes combat as a direct physical approach out strength-ing, our DPSing and out lasting its opponents



the Rogue is the class that takes combat at an angle out manouvering, out smarting and out ranging its opponents



two fighters but one is warrior and the other is rogue



strenght and speed are not the defining qualities but simply a necessary byproducts of their archetipes

[Aermas]

blothulfur wrote...

Scout/skirmisher?

Yes.

People get it into there heads that Warriors MUST be Strength/Stamina fighters & Rogues are Agile/Smart fighters, & will not accept anything different.

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

Yet the Rogue forces me to be a smoke bomb dropping dirty fighter, & the warrior forces me to be a tank. There is no support for a Strong/Fast fighter

What you're trying to argue is that there is no flexibility amongst the classes, that because you choose class A, you MUST play in this way.  Fact is, we simply do not know.  We don't know what the abilities are (in fact, looking at some recent screenshots, we KNOW that some of the rogue abilities focuses specifically on damage dealing, which goes against your "smoke bomb dropping dirty fighter" archetype) and if you look at the Peter Thomas thread from a while back (check the first page of "what we know"), you can see a developer (who's focused on the combat by the way) telling us that there are different ways to build your different classes.  There isn't enough information right now to say that choosing class A means playing way Y (similar to choosing a class in "Gauntlet"...maybe a little too old school for you guys

[Dave of Canada]

Aermas wrote...

People get it into there heads that Warriors MUST be Strength/Stamina fighters & Rogues are Agile/Smart fighters, & will not accept anything different.

Because those are the game tropes, that's the invoked trope in almost every single game out there and if you want to do otherwise then what's it to the game designer? Some warriors put points in Magic because they want to be different, should there be magic attacks for the warrior?

We're not attending to reality where somebody can do everything they want to, in a game each class has to scale on a stat and use different mechanics. If you want to be a strength rogue, go do it. Just don't expect it to work out wonderfully.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 décembre 2010 - 03:10 .

[Aermas]

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Yet the Rogue forces me to be a smoke bomb dropping dirty fighter, & the warrior forces me to be a tank. There is no support for a Strong/Fast fighter

What you're trying to argue is that there is no flexibility amongst the classes, that because you choose class A, you MUST play in this way.  Fact is, we simply do not know.  We don't know what the abilities are (in fact, looking at some recent screenshots, we KNOW that some of the rogue abilities focuses specifically on damage dealing, which goes against your "smoke bomb dropping dirty fighter" archetype) and if you look at the Peter Thomas thread from a while back (check the first page of "what we know"), you can see a developer (who's focused on the combat by the way) telling us that there are different ways to build your different classes.  There isn't enough information right now to say that choosing class A means playing way Y (similar to choosing a class in "Gauntlet"...maybe a little too old school for you guys

look at the Rogue's specs. Only one isn't an assassin/thief type class

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Yet the Rogue forces me to be a smoke bomb dropping dirty fighter, & the warrior forces me to be a tank. There is no support for a Strong/Fast fighter

What you're trying to argue is that there is no flexibility amongst the classes, that because you choose class A, you MUST play in this way.  Fact is, we simply do not know.  We don't know what the abilities are (in fact, looking at some recent screenshots, we KNOW that some of the rogue abilities focuses specifically on damage dealing, which goes against your "smoke bomb dropping dirty fighter" archetype) and if you look at the Peter Thomas thread from a while back (check the first page of "what we know"), you can see a developer (who's focused on the combat by the way) telling us that there are different ways to build your different classes.  There isn't enough information right now to say that choosing class A means playing way Y (similar to choosing a class in "Gauntlet"...maybe a little too old school for you guys

look at the Rogue's specs. Only one isn't an assassin/thief type class

But we're not talking about SPECIALIZATIONS, we're talking about ABILITIES/TALENTS.  We have no idea what the ABILITIES are and, in fact, if you look at some of the screenshots we have had in the past couple of days, there are abilities that DIRECTLY COUNTER your claim that "oh my god, I must play like a sneaky bugger if I choose rogue."

Once again, check out the Peter Thomas thread (that I directed you to earlier) and, if you look at the destructoid preview, you can see an abilitiy that isn't "smoke dropping" or "dirty fighting" -- http://www.destructo...-2-189549.phtml

[Aermas]

I didn't find anything useful in the Peter Thomas thread, & it's three months old & any information in it may be irrelevant. & the "explosive" strike is a weapon tree ability not a rogue class ability

[Dave of Canada]

Well, that's wonderful because weapon trees are unique amongst classes!

[Aermas]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Well, that's wonderful because weapon trees are unique amongst classes!

I meant that you are not likely to find the "dirty fighting" skills in the list of Weapon Abilities.

[Dave of Canada]

Then what do you want, exactly?

You don't want anything to do with "dirty fighting", there's options that ignore them but you point at them and say "there's dirty fighting elsewhere in the class!".

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 décembre 2010 - 04:12 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Aermas wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...
 "Patton was clearly a mage".

& I can no longer take you seriously.

I don't know whether you actually want to discuss anything, or just act like you are smarter than everyone.