195 réponses à ce sujet

[State_Of_Danile]

 I love this genre of games, and Dragon Age is by far my favorite. I have an affinity for warriors as well. I like the idea of being a an ironclad battlemaster charging into battle and destroying my enemies. So as you can probably guess, i played as a warrior. I had a dual wield warrior and it was amazing, but we can't have that this time around, but i understand and accept this decision fully (Though i'd be lying if i said I wasn't a little sad"

Although my dual wield warrior was my pride and joy, my first...bastard child...was a sword and board tank. I love the shield sword combo but my only problem is that it forced me to be a tank(which i get cause it makes sense for the guy with the big metal wall in his hands to take the hits). What i really didn't like is the fact that i felt weak on the offense. I figured my warden is supposed to be a leader and a great hero but the whiny crazy redhead is doing more damage than i am with a kitchen knife.

I guess the focal point of what i'm saying here is, could tanks be stacked up a little more in the offense department? Don't get me wrong, im not saying they should be able to compete in damage with rogues and mages, but i don't see how playing a character who just takes hit and doesn't do any serious damage is fun. If I could have a shield warrior that could not neccessarily compete with but at least keep up with the other classes, I would be happy. 

If not, i guess i could always learn to like 2handers and just smash everything with my sword.

[hexaligned]

You aren't playing a character in combat, you are playing a group of people that have strengths and weaknesses that compliment one another. (at least that's the idea behind it anyways, how successfully it was actually implemented is another story) If anything I thought "tank" damage was way too high in DAO as it was.

[Isaidlunch]

It's possible, mechanics like Vengeance in WoW made tanks do respectable damage. I'm sure if they really wanted to they could implement something similar in DA.

[TJPags]

I hate the concept of a tank. It makes no sense to me.



I like all my PC's and companions to do damage - and I bulld them with that in mind, and set their tactics accordingly.

[hexaligned]

Building them to do damage, (which implies skimping on tanking stats and gear) is one thing, having them be both invincible and high damage dealers is another.

[Harid]

TJPags wrote...

I hate the concept of a tank. It makes no sense to me.

I like all my PC's and companions to do damage - and I bulld them with that in mind, and set their tactics accordingly.

Pretty much this.  Nothing in DA required a tank anyway.

But even if I made a 'tank', I would look to optimize his damage in that role anyway.  Best defense is a great offense as they say.

You can't really have a high damage dealer and great tank, though, because if you did, you might as well roll 4 of those and run through everything.  It's part of made Arcane Warrior Broken.

Modifié par Harid, 29 décembre 2010 - 04:22 .

[Amagoi]

I'm sure there's a middle ground with the weapons groups. Like a Two-hander that has better defense? The best example I know of is WAR, where some of the tank classes are more offensive-minded.

Though ultimately I wouldn't get my hopes up on doing a good amont of damage, maybe respectable. Rogues seem to be the big DPSers this time around.

[Harid]

Amagoi wrote...

I'm sure there's a middle ground with the weapons groups. Like a Two-hander that has better defense? The best example I know of is WAR, where some of the tank classes are more offensive-minded.

Though ultimately I wouldn't get my hopes up on doing a good amont of damage, maybe respectable. Rogues seem to be the big DPSers this time around.

As long as mobs are still squishy enough for mages to wipe them out with 1-2 spells, mages will still reign supreme in Dragon Age.

[Ortaya Alevli]

What we miss in Dragon Age is illusion magic. Decoys, simulacrums, mirror images and the like. That way you don't have to send one of the party members to stand there and soak up blows. I always feel sorry for Alistair, Loghain and Shale. Poor sods.

[Boss Fog]

I like the idea of a tank using his/her shield for offense just as much as defense. However, a tank with too much dps just isn't balanced; if anything tanks should be about control and survivability more so than dps, but that's just my opinion.

[TJPags]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

I like the idea of a tank using his/her shield for offense just as much as defense. However, a tank with too much dps just isn't balanced; if anything tanks should be about control and survivability more so than dps, but that's just my opinion.

See, that's the thing - why have a tank?

Just build the characters to do damage . . 4 people doing damage is better than 2 doing damage, one being a human target, and the fourth keeping the target alive, no?

[hexaligned]

TJPags wrote...

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

I like the idea of a tank using his/her shield for offense just as much as defense. However, a tank with too much dps just isn't balanced; if anything tanks should be about control and survivability more so than dps, but that's just my opinion.

See, that's the thing - why have a tank?

Just build the characters to do damage . . 4 people doing damage is better than 2 doing damage, one being a human target, and the fourth keeping the target alive, no?

That worked perfectly fine for DAO yes, arguably even better.  That was because of poor encounter and AI design though, not something I'd choose to encourage or advocate myself.

Modifié par relhart, 29 décembre 2010 - 04:42 .

[TJPags]

relhart wrote...

TJPags wrote...

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

I like the idea of a tank using his/her shield for offense just as much as defense. However, a tank with too much dps just isn't balanced; if anything tanks should be about control and survivability more so than dps, but that's just my opinion.

See, that's the thing - why have a tank?

Just build the characters to do damage . . 4 people doing damage is better than 2 doing damage, one being a human target, and the fourth keeping the target alive, no?

That worked perfectly fine is DAO yes, arguably even better.  That was because of poor encounter and AI design though, not something I'd choose to encourage or advocate myself.

Ehhh, maybe one day I'll find a need for a tank.  Doubt it, though.

[Thiefy]

yes, tanks can be other things, they just won't be as good as the character type meant for that job.

[Boss Fog]

TJPags wrote...

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

I like the idea of a tank using his/her shield for offense just as much as defense. However, a tank with too much dps just isn't balanced; if anything tanks should be about control and survivability more so than dps, but that's just my opinion.

See, that's the thing - why have a tank?

Just build the characters to do damage . . 4 people doing damage is better than 2 doing damage, one being a human target, and the fourth keeping the target alive, no?

Assuming that DA2 is built in a way that allows a 4 dps team for the majority of the fights, then yes a tank wouldn't really be necessary.  I truly hope that's not the case however since most RPGs that are party based pretty much require a tank.  I'm hope the call for tanks will be more prominent in DA2 and I assume they will since many of the mage spells are being wiped meaning there won't be nearly as much control.  The only reason there wasn't a use for tanks in much of DA:O was because mages just made everything so damn easy.

[soteria]

TJPags wrote...

See, that's the thing - why have a tank?

Just build the characters to do damage . . 4 people doing damage is better than 2 doing damage, one being a human target, and the fourth keeping the target alive, no?

Because if every combat problem can be solved by four people bashing it with swords, combat probably isn't very thoughtful, tactical, or interesting.

[lv12medic]

I think Tanks should be effective at dealing with lots of little enemies. As in the little guys get taunted into fighting them and the tank just takes them down quickly and doesn't take much damage doing it. I also think they should have a more difficult time dealing with single tough opponents.

And the way DA2 is shaping up, it may be close to that with Warrior AoE melee attacks.

[Winter Wraith]

soteria wrote...
Because if every combat problem can be solved by four people bashing it with swords, combat probably isn't very thoughtful, tactical, or interesting.

To be fair, if combat can be solved by one person shouting while everybody else does whatever they feel like doing because they have no agro, combat probably isn't very thoughtful, tactical, or interesting either.

[TJPags]

soteria wrote...

TJPags wrote...
See, that's the thing - why have a tank?
Just build the characters to do damage . . 4 people doing damage is better than 2 doing damage, one being a human target, and the fourth keeping the target alive, no?

Because if every combat problem can be solved by four people bashing it with swords, combat probably isn't very thoughtful, tactical, or interesting.

How does having one person stand there and get slammed the whole fight make it tactical?

Having 4 characters whose job is to kill enemies, without one being a living target, does make for a tactical game.  You need to create complimentary characters, whose skills actually work well together, in order to kill your enemies before being killed.  You need to focus on protecting one another, and helping one another, rather than just positioning yourself to beat on the guys beating on your meatshield.

Combat is about more than managing aggro - it's about doing effective damage.

[Winter Wraith]

Not using a tank makes playing a healer/buff mage far more interesting.

[Aermas]

I support this. I still have a thread or two on the subject.

[soteria]

Winter Wraith wrote...

soteria wrote...
Because if every combat problem can be solved by four people bashing it with swords, combat probably isn't very thoughtful, tactical, or interesting.

To be fair, if combat can be solved by one person shouting while everybody else does whatever they feel like doing because they have no agro, combat probably isn't very thoughtful, tactical, or interesting either.

Taunt was pretty broken in Origins, wasn't it?  In any case, I have my doubts that Bioware is willing (or, perhaps, able) to make combat difficult enough in DA2 that real tactics will be necessary.  Barring mods or intentional handicaps, of course.
For the people saying they've never used a tank and don't think they ever will:  it's really not that hard to design a fight that requires one.  Really what I think you're saying is that you wouldn't play a game that requires it.

[BTCentral]

That depends on how you define a tank I guess.

During my (DA:O/DA:OA) warrior play throughs, my character ended up a tank - I actually spec'd the character out for maximum DPS, however add some good armour to it and you'll generally find it easily doubles up as a tank too.

Modifié par BTCentral, 29 décembre 2010 - 05:16 .

[Ken555]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

I like the idea of a tank using his/her shield for offense just as much as defense. However, a tank with too much dps just isn't balanced; if anything tanks should be about control and survivability more so than dps, but that's just my opinion.

True, but the balance they have for DA2 seems reasonably balanced.

[soteria]

TJPags wrote...

How does having one person stand there and get slammed the whole fight make it tactical?

Having 4 characters whose job is to kill enemies, without one being a living target, does make for a tactical game. You need to create complimentary characters, whose skills actually work well together, in order to kill your enemies before being killed. You need to focus on protecting one another, and helping one another, rather than just positioning yourself to beat on the guys beating on your meatshield.

Combat is about more than managing aggro - it's about doing effective damage.

None of that has anything to do with vanilla Origins. "Protect and help each other"? Why, when, and how? "Complimentary skills"? What, like speccing every warrior into Champion and every rogue into Bard and having them use their (stackable) buffs? None of that has anything to do with tactics. You're just talking about building characters properly.