195 réponses à ce sujet

[Boss Fog]

How does controlling the battlefield w/ one mage make the game more tactical than using a tank? Tossing out massive AOEs which can control five enemies at once is no more tactical than diverting attention away from your damage dealers/healers towards your tank.

[AlanC9]

TJPags wrote...
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.

You're setting up false dichotomies -- or maybe just responding to one. A tank/dps/healer system is a system of "complimentary characters, whose skills actually work well together."

[Aermas]

soteria wrote...

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.

OR

Have one character that does can cluster the enemy so that the mage can AoE it,
OR lure an enemy into position for the Rogue to flank it.
OR have the mage grease the exposed flank of your group as to stop them from flanking you.

Just to name a few^_^

[Ryzaki]

Yes the whole warrior stands there and soaks up damage bores me. Honestly Warriors should have high DPS. Not as high as mages but they should be on par with rogues.

[Schneidend]

Warriors can deal damage with two-handed swords or tank with weapon and shield, in theory. In either case, though, their damage will be substantial if they are facing multiple enemies, since each swing of their weapon hits in an arc.



If the sword and shield talents are anything like they were in DAO, however, a "tank" should be able to do some significant damage with them. The multi-hit shield attacks were quite powerful.

[D.Kain]

Won't warrior damage or tanking just depend on the difference of stat investment? I remember in Dragon age my Allistar wasn't much of a tank even with a shield, because I invested a lot more in str than con for him.

[Peter Thomas]

In general, a Warrior will be suited to a tanking type role. They have heavier armor by default (reducing physical damage) and, because their attacks are pretty much all melee, will be within the striking range of the enemy continuously. A Weapon and Shield Warrior is particularly well suited to tanking because they have the additional armor provided by their Shield.



The vast majority of talents (which can push a character towards DPS or tanking or elsewhere) can be used regardless of your type of weapon. You can choose talents to make a Two-Handed tank, or a Weapon and Shield DPS Warrior if you want. The key to dealing damage as a Warrior is to take advantage of their AoE attack radius. Both styles of Warrior weapon inflict the same approximate DPS to a single target, but because a Two-Handed weapon affects a wider arc with each attack, it is much more likely that it will hit multiple enemies than a Weapon and Shield weapon. This makes a Two-Handed Warrior inherently better at dealing damage (as a Weapon and Shield Warrior is inherently better at tanking). Though they may have an advantage one way or another, you can build a Warrior of either style any direction you want.



In terms of raw DPS, a Rogue is best against a single target. The damage numbers have been calculated in such a way, though, that a Warrior who hits about 2.5 enemies per swing (subject to balancing) will inflict more damage than a Rogue overall. By manipulating the positions and targets of your enemies, a Warrior can easily be one of the main DPSers in your party. The drawback is that a Warrior will take more damage (before armor absorption) in the process, since each individual enemy/source of damage takes longer to kill.



On the role of a tank in combat, basically it comes down to the fact that enemies attack and do damage as a result. The party, to survive an encounter, has to reduce that damage to a manageable level. One of the simplest ways to deal with that is to reduce their damage by having it go to the person who can absorb it best (the tank). That isn't the only way, though. Reducing the damage enemies do (before absorption) and reducing their rate of attack (either slowing or disabling crowd control effects) are also methods. Because of ability costs and cooldowns, as well as variations in how enemies approach the battle, those other methods are harder to use, requiring a lot more micromanagement. Additionally, to prevent locking with CC effects, tougher enemies are more resistant to those effects than weaker ones. Sure you can lock down critters with your abilities, but a boss? You'd have to be much more careful there.





TL;DR - Tanks are nice, but not essential. Warriors can have higher effective DPS than Rogues if you use them right.

[Amyntas]

Ryzaki wrote...

Yes the whole warrior stands there and soaks up damage bores me.

Tanking can be more than just standing there. Some games give tanks reactive abilities that become available when your character or the boss performs certain actions (e.g. your character parries and gets a chance for a riposte). If designed well, tanking can be a lot of fun.

Modifié par Amyntas, 29 décembre 2010 - 08:10 .

[Graunt]

Ninjawaffle23 wrote...

 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.

The problem with both Origins and Awakening was that even on Nightmare, it was very rare that you ever needed a shield for anything.  In most cases you were a better "tank" by simply wearing plate DPS gear with maybe some tanking rings, belt and a neck while dual-wielding.  Sword and Board was just so utterly useless and all you neeed was Threaten and Taunt.  

Also, this whole "tank" mentality didn't even exist until multiplayer CRPG games came around.  It makes absolutely zero sense to have this in a single player game.  I don't know why EverQuest or World of Warcraft paradigms now have to bleed into single player games.  In PnP RPGs there was no such thing as a "tank".  Yes, you had a Warrior in massive armor if they were strong enough, but they also did great damage.  It wasn't any of this "activate shield wall and become 99% immune to damage for an hour but do half of the damage of a wet paper bag!".  The way the "tank" is being portrayed is how a Cavalier would be played.  So why not just call them that instead of Warriors?

I really have no issue with a "protector" or "tank" type of character if they actually do what they are supposed to do in the game. The problem with DA:O and DA:A is that the AI is so horrible that you had to almost always be in control of the character.  Sure, you can set it up to "acceptable" levels, but if the character can't actually keep multiple enemies on them long enough for the rest of your party to kill them, what use are they?  Killing them faster is better than them beating on your Mage.  I also don't like having to slow down the speed of every single fight by "sending in the tank first for ten minutes to gain threat" because it makes every fight tedious.

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.

DA wasn't tactical, no matter how many people claim that it was.  The combat was extremely simplistic with terrible AI.  The best way to end any fight was almost always to just hit every fly with a rocket launcher.

The multi-hit shield attacks were quite powerful.

And slow, and consumed too much stamina to use more than 1-2 until much higher levels if you wanted to use any other abilities.  They were also so slow that you couldn't recover in time to actually swing your weapon at the enemy you just knocked on the ground before they got back up.  Not sure why anyone is seriously suggesting a Warrior with a shield did "too much damage" when they were dead last.  Maybe if you play on easy - normal they were "ok" since they could probably use one special attack to kill a single trash mob, but whoopie.  They were still dead last in terms of damage.

Modifié par Graunt, 29 décembre 2010 - 09:25 .

[Altima Darkspells]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

How does controlling the battlefield w/ one mage make the game more tactical than using a tank? Tossing out massive AOEs which can control five enemies at once is no more tactical than diverting attention away from your damage dealers/healers towards your tank.

Because you can actually (generally) control how mages work, whereas tanking in DAO was more along the lines of astrology or witch-craft.

Basically, you just had Taunt and prayed your actual mages didn't ****** off the mobs too badly.

Fact of the matter is that Mages could control aggression better than a tank (Blood Wound and other spells causing massive hate, mind blast clearing said aggression, forcefield for invincy tanking, etc).  And that's in addition to their crowd control spells.  This is part of the reason Arcane Warriors are such potent tanks.

[Schneidend]

Graunt wrote...

Also, this whole "tank" mentality didn't even exist until multiplayer CRPG games came around.  It makes absolutely zero sense to have this in a single player game.  I don't know why EverQuest or World of Warcraft paradigms now have to bleed into single player games.  In PnP RPGs there was no such thing as a "tank".

This paragraph is full of amusing assertions. How does limiting incoming damage by having only one or two characters take the damage so it can mitigated/healed "make zero sense" to include in a single player game? It's just good strategy to enable your healing units to cast as few instances of healing as possible. I've been doing it in single player games since Baldur's Gate.

In PnP there most certainly is such thing as a tank. See above, it's just good strategy to minimize how many heals need to be cast.

And slow, and consumed too much stamina to use more than 1-2 until much higher levels if you wanted to use any other abilities.  They were also so slow that you couldn't recover in time to actually swing your weapon at the enemy you just knocked on the ground before they got back up.  Not sure why anyone is seriously suggesting a Warrior with a shield did "too much damage" when they were dead last.  Maybe if you play on easy - normal they were "ok" since they could probably use one special attack to kill a single trash mob, but whoopie.  They were still dead last in terms of damage.

I never said anything about "too much damage." Further, I've had Allistair land two attacks after a Shield Bash.

[soteria]

DA wasn't tactical, no matter how many people claim that it was. The combat was extremely simplistic with terrible AI. The best way to end any fight was almost always to just hit every fly with a rocket launcher.

Isn't that pretty much what I just said?

And slow, and consumed too much stamina to use more than 1-2 until much higher levels if you wanted to use any other abilities. They were also so slow that you couldn't recover in time to actually swing your weapon at the enemy you just knocked on the ground before they got back up. Not sure why anyone is seriously suggesting a Warrior with a shield did "too much damage" when they were dead last. Maybe if you play on easy - normal they were "ok" since they could probably use one special attack to kill a single trash mob, but whoopie. They were still dead last in terms of damage.

I can't believe I'm taking this side of the argument, but you're grossly exaggerating how bad SnS is. It's really not that far behind 2h. If you're just autoattacking, SnS can actually beat 2h.

[soteria]

Because you can actually (generally) control how mages work, whereas tanking in DAO was more along the lines of astrology or witch-craft.

Basically, you just had Taunt and prayed your actual mages didn't ****** off the mobs too badly.

Fact of the matter is that Mages could control aggression better than a tank (Blood Wound and other spells causing massive hate, mind blast clearing said aggression, forcefield for invincy tanking, etc). And that's in addition to their crowd control spells. This is part of the reason Arcane Warriors are such potent tanks.

Actually, those aren't facts so much as fiction. Taunt instantly generates 200 points of threat, or 300 with frightening appearance. That means that for most of the game, a taunted mob will keep attacking the warrior until it's dead. Unlesss you just completely fail at getting in range before taunting, it's pretty foolproof.

[Maria Caliban]

Schneidend wrote...

In PnP there most certainly is such thing as a tank. See above, it's just good strategy to minimize how many heals need to be cast.

I'd suggest that warriors in earlier games acted as meat shields instead of tanks. That is, they were expected to provide a buffer between the enemies and the more squishy party members, but didn't have many tools to do so. It wasn't until the concept of 'tanking' became popular that games began giving warriors a range of abilities and powers to manage aggro, automatically defend a companion, punish an opponent for not attacking them, etc.

[Schneidend]

This is true, PnP didn't really have many "aggro" mechanics until recent years. I think the first time I saw such a thing was the Knight class in 3.5 D&D.

Modifié par Schneidend, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:08 .

[Graunt]

Schneidend wrote...

Graunt wrote...

Also, this whole "tank" mentality didn't even exist until multiplayer CRPG games came around.  It makes absolutely zero sense to have this in a single player game.  I don't know why EverQuest or World of Warcraft paradigms now have to bleed into single player games.  In PnP RPGs there was no such thing as a "tank".

This paragraph is full of amusing assertions. How does limiting incoming damage by having only one or two characters take the damage so it can mitigated/healed "make zero sense" to include in a single player game? It's just good strategy to enable your healing units to cast as few instances of healing as possible. I've been doing it in single player games since Baldur's Gate.

In PnP there most certainly is such thing as a tank. See above, it's just good strategy to minimize how many heals need to be cast.

And slow, and consumed too much stamina to use more than 1-2 until much higher levels if you wanted to use any other abilities.  They were also so slow that you couldn't recover in time to actually swing your weapon at the enemy you just knocked on the ground before they got back up.  Not sure why anyone is seriously suggesting a Warrior with a shield did "too much damage" when they were dead last.  Maybe if you play on easy - normal they were "ok" since they could probably use one special attack to kill a single trash mob, but whoopie.  They were still dead last in terms of damage.

I never said anything about "too much damage." Further, I've had Allistair land two attacks after a Shield Bash.

You're taking "tanking" way out of context.  The way "tanks" perform in multiplayer CRPGs are nothing like how they "should" be due to "balance" issues.  They are nothing like a Warrior in full plate from classic AD&D or many other similar PnP games.  That is why there's always a trade off of damage for damage mitigation/absorbtion.  And I didn't say that you specifically said anything about tanks doing too much damage, other people did say that however and it was just a blanketed reply.

I can't believe I'm taking this side of the argument, but you're
grossly exaggerating how bad SnS is. It's really not that far behind
2h. If you're just autoattacking, SnS can actually beat 2h.

For quick bursts on single targets yes, for groups as small as 2-3 units no.  Beyond 2-3 there's no comparison.  I'm not even sure why you are using 2h as the base comparison anyway when everyone knows that 2h on average was garbage and it's not a matter of sword and shield being too strong, it's that 2h was just bad in general. If you were going to do damage as a Warrior you would go dual-wielding.   Instead of fixing either the Rogue or the Warrior though, Bioware took the Blizzard approach and just gutted what was great about one class so another "shines".

Isn't that pretty much what I just said?

You aren't the only person to reply in this thread, and it's also been repeated time and time again by others how "deep and tactical" this game is.  Makes me laugh a little each time I see that.

Modifié par Graunt, 30 décembre 2010 - 12:58 .

[TJPags]

AlanC9 wrote...

TJPags wrote...
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.

You're setting up false dichotomies -- or maybe just responding to one. A tank/dps/healer system is a system of "complimentary characters, whose skills actually work well together."

Well, okay, this is true.

However, I see the "tank" as essentially being skill-less - unless we want to count standing there and saying "nah-nah-nah" while people beat him to death as a skill.

[Yrkoon]

Ninjawaffle23 wrote...
If not, i guess i could always learn to like 2handers and just smash everything with my sword.

Well, I don't know how you guys are defining "tank", exactly, but in Origins, my 2-handed warriors made great tanks.  They're strength based, so that means they  easily wore the heaviest armor in the game--which allowed them to absorb more damage and draw more aggro than anyone else.   And that's to say nothing of their immunities to stun and knockdown


Also, one more thing.  I don't see how  the addition of a shield  makes a warrior a better tank.  In  Origins, Shields don't improve your armor rating, they improve your defense (by a very small amount, and perhaps your missile deflection, again, by a very  small amount)

Modifié par Yrkoon, 30 décembre 2010 - 01:05 .

[Kail Ashton]

So unles you specificly build a charecter to tank, you never have to play as one, the AI does it for you....you're free to simply play tactfully and do consecutive damage & buffing and most of that is done by the AI for you as well



So...yeah...there's that. I'm honestly amazed this hasn't broken down to "ugh why do i evenb have to turn the game on to be effective! damn you bioware! make'n me do...stuff! i hate you!!...when's the next dlc come out?"

[Graunt]

Yrkoon wrote...

Ninjawaffle23 wrote...
If not, i guess i could always learn to like 2handers and just smash everything with my sword.

Well, I don't know how you guys are defining "tank", exactly, but in Origins, my 2-handed warriors made great tanks.  They're strength based, so that means they  easily wore the heaviest armor in the game--which allowed them to absorb more damage and draw more aggro than anyone else.   And that's to say nothing of their immunities to stun and knockdown


Also, one more thing.  I don't see how  the addition of a shield  makes a warrior a better tank.  In  Origins, Shields don't improve your armor rating, they improve your defense (by a very small amount, and perhaps your missile deflection, again, by a very  small amount)

Absorbtion of damage through armor and avoidance of damage from defense are both a part of tanking.  You can have a tank without one or the other, but I don't know why you would assume only one of those attributes  constitutes actual tanking.  Both are reductions of damage.  Shields helped your "tank" die a little less, which was kind of the point.  It was mostly unnecessary though.  Some of the shield talents increased your defense or armor too, which you couldn't get without a shield, but the increases were not earth-shattering.

Modifié par Graunt, 30 décembre 2010 - 01:22 .

[Maria Caliban]

I'm going to bring out DnD 4e as it's my favorite class based system.

In DnD 4e, you have combat roles and you have power sources. The roles are Defender, Controller, Leader, and Striker. The power sources are melee, arcane, and divine (PHP1).

If BioWare ever retools it's class system, I think they should break it down based on power source and role.

You could four base classes: Strength melee (Defender and Leader), Dexterity melee (Striker and Controller), Intelligence Arcane (Striker and Leader), and Charisma Arcane (Defender and Controller).

If you wanted to tank, you could do so with your Strength melee or Charisma arcane. If you wanted to be a damage dealer, you could do so with your Dex melee or your Int arcane. If you wanted to focus on battlefield control, there's the Dex melee and Charisma arcane, while Str melee and Int arcane would be good at supporting their allies through buffs.

[Graunt]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'm going to bring out DnD 4e as it's my favorite class based system.

In DnD 4e, you have combat roles and you have power sources. The roles are Defender, Controller, Leader, and Striker. The power sources are melee, arcane, and divine (PHP1).

If BioWare ever retools it's class system, I think they should break it down based on power source and role.

You could four base classes: Strength melee (Defender and Leader), Dexterity melee (Striker and Controller), Intelligence Arcane (Striker and Leader), and Charisma Arcane (Defender and Controller).

If you wanted to tank, you could do so with your Strength melee or Charisma arcane. If you wanted to be a damage dealer, you could do so with your Dex melee or your Int arcane. If you wanted to focus on battlefield control, there's the Dex melee and Charisma arcane, while Str melee and Int arcane would be good at supporting their allies through buffs.

Yeah, never played 4th edition.  I kind of stopped caring after 3rd with how much TSR/Wizards changed the rules.  Up to 3rd is what I consider "classic" D&D.  What you're describing sounds like an entirely different game.

Modifié par Graunt, 30 décembre 2010 - 01:25 .

[bsbcaer]

Yrkoon wrote...

Ninjawaffle23 wrote...

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

Well, I don't know how you guys are defining "tank", exactly, but in Origins, my 2-handed warriors made great tanks.  They're strength based, so that means they  easily wore the heaviest armor in the game--which allowed them to absorb more damage and draw more aggro than anyone else.   And that's to say nothing of their immunities to stun and knockdown

Also, one more thing.  I don't see how  the addition of a shield  makes a warrior a better tank.  In  Origins, Shields don't improve your armor rating, they improve your defense (by a very small amount, and perhaps your missile deflection, again, by a very  small amount)

If I remember correctly (and if Peter is lurking in the thread, I hope he could correct me), but shields are used differently this time around with the fighter able to adopt different shield stances (for lack of a better word) to be more aggressive/offensive or defensive as the case may merit...

[HolyAvenger]

My DA:O parties were always set up to have the tanks do the most damage. My S&S PC had like 33% of the entire party damage, Alistair had like 27% and Leli (archer) and Wynne (healer/magekiller) had much, much less.



Its all about your tactics and how you use them.

[Graunt]

bsbcaer wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Ninjawaffle23 wrote...

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

Well, I don't know how you guys are defining "tank", exactly, but in Origins, my 2-handed warriors made great tanks.  They're strength based, so that means they  easily wore the heaviest armor in the game--which allowed them to absorb more damage and draw more aggro than anyone else.   And that's to say nothing of their immunities to stun and knockdown

Also, one more thing.  I don't see how  the addition of a shield  makes a warrior a better tank.  In  Origins, Shields don't improve your armor rating, they improve your defense (by a very small amount, and perhaps your missile deflection, again, by a very  small amount)

If I remember correctly (and if Peter is lurking in the thread, I hope he could correct me), but shields are used differently this time around with the fighter able to adopt different shield stances (for lack of a better word) to be more aggressive/offensive or defensive as the case may merit...

Sigh.  In theory this could be good, but it will probably turn out to be something as simple as -50% damage for +50% defense +20% AC or +20% damage for -10% defense/AC.  I want to see shield spikes or even Captain America shield tosses.

HolyAvenger said...My DA:O parties were always set up to have the tanks do the most damage.
My S&S PC had like 33% of the entire party damage, Alistair had
like 27% and Leli (archer) and Wynne (healer/magekiller) had much, much
less.



Its all about your tactics and how you use them.

That's not really proving anything.  You purposely setup your group so that everyone but the tank did mediocre damage.  I could do the same thing with my healer if I simply had everyone on hold while I let the healer nuke everything.  The companion damage is also almost always going to be much less if you aren't manually controlling their actions.

Modifié par Graunt, 30 décembre 2010 - 01:34 .