195 réponses à ce sujet

[rodgerage]

I make a weird type of tank who has a lot of stregnth and and constitution and is pretty beast

[Graunt]

Yrkoon wrote...

Graunt wrote...
 Maybe the misunderstanding is where I said it was garbage on average when all I meant was the closer to a single target you get it gets much worse.  Because for single target damage, 2h was garbage and any denying that isn't just a matter of opinion.  

Not to derail the topic completely, but you're stating an opinion as fact here.  What, exactly, makes you think 2-handers are garbage vs. single targets?    I ask because this  opinion of yours is so far from the truth, that it almost sounds like sarcasm.  2-handers are the only  melee class that can stun lock a single target while chaining criticals.   And once that happens, any discussion about  'who does more damage?'  becomes pointless, because  any  correctly built 2 hander will succeed in bringing that single target down to 0 health during  the aforementioned stun lock.

Talking about damage here, and damage only.  Doesn't matter if a 2h build can successfully bring something down without taking damage if something else can bring it down faster, even if they take a little damage in the process (which is then quickly ignored after the fight is over).  Dual-Wielding has talents that stun as well in case you missed that.

Soteria said...
If we want to talk about facts, no, SnS is not "dead last." Source.
With "full buffs," SnS autoattack is better than 2h autoattack. Ugh, why did you make me say that? Pummel and Overpower have about slightly lower DPS than Sunder. Before taking Momentum into account, SnS strength with Veshaille is almost as good as DW strength with Starfang/Veshaille. Of course, Momentum was bugged...

It's quite clear you didn't read what I wrote at all and you're also taking liberties with the link you provided.  Yeah actually, sword and shield *is* dead last if you're understanding what the author said and what the test is being done on, but it's not that far behind 2h for "auto attacks combined with activated abilities".  Who cares if sword and shield auto attack is better?  Of course a top tier one handed weapon with damage runes is going to outclass a 2h for auto attacking...on a single target.  The point of 2h is for activated abilities and against multiple enemies.

Notice I was saying 2h was trash on single target and I also said it was better than sword and shield when you consider multiples at once, over the course of the game -- which make up the majority of the fights.  Those numbers also clearly show how far ahead a dual-wield build is compared to the other two.  Thanks for proving my point I guess?  Not once did I say anyone was wrong for playing a specific way, I just said if you wanted to do damage you would go dual-wielding, but maybe I should have said "if you want to do the best damage".

Also...

It could even be argued that this build makes for an effective 'Tank'
(if your'e into that), compensating somewhat for it's lack of stun /
knowndown immunity with the ability to kill stuff real fast.

Which is what I was arguing all along as were others.  Not only is sword and shield redundant, it was not needed and did less damage for a very minor boost to survivability.

Modifié par Graunt, 30 décembre 2010 - 01:57 .

[soteria]

Graunt wrote...
...Thanks for proving my point I guess?

One of the main and most surprising conclusions we drew from the thread I linked was that SnS can deal respectable damage, so I'm not sure how referencing it in that context is "taking liberties." The data Random70 collected showed that in some circumstances SnS can actually outdamage 2h. I don't call that dead last.

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what relevance DW being far ahead of other builds has to do with tanks being able to do more than just tank in DA2. If you want to debate DA:O builds, feel free to start a thread in the gameplay or character build forums and I'll be happy to discuss that there.

The claim that got us started down this trail was that SnS warriors dealt too much damage compared to their mitigation in DA:O. I can't entirely agree, because a SnS built for damage doesn't have *that* great of mitigation, but I guess it could be argued that an unhittable, magic immune warrior with 40 armor does too much damage by default. Regardless, the point is that I have no interest in examining damage in isolation (in this thread). A 2h warrior's ability to stunlock an enemy to death while remaining immune to CC is relevant in a discussion about tanking while dealing damage. A DW warrior's ability to do more damage.... /shrug. Ok? Thanks for pointing out the obvious, I guess. 

Which is what I was arguing all along as were others.  Not only is
sword and shield redundant, it was not needed and did less damage for a
very minor boost to survivability.

Nice edit. 
If you want to discuss that thread, post in that thread.  I have no interest in discussing it here and it really has nothing to do with DA:O.

Modifié par soteria, 30 décembre 2010 - 02:15 .

[Alchemist02]

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

Because you know... Robes/leather cant protect you from someone with a man sized axe with the pure intention to split you in half? 

Or that dragon thats hungry and wants to eat you and your merry little band of friends? (not that they didnt do that anyway, cheap 1 shot kill moves)

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

No totallly makes no sense what-so-ever... Lets just have the mobs run and kill anyone in the party at any time, i mean its not like theres bosses or monsters in-game that can 1 shot a mage? or lightly armored rogue right? and wipe the party before they can do any damage? RIGHT?! 

[Yrkoon]

Graunt wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Graunt wrote...
 Maybe the misunderstanding is where I said it was garbage on average when all I meant was the closer to a single target you get it gets much worse.  Because for single target damage, 2h was garbage and any denying that isn't just a matter of opinion.  

Not to derail the topic completely, but you're stating an opinion as fact here.  What, exactly, makes you think 2-handers are garbage vs. single targets?    I ask because this  opinion of yours is so far from the truth, that it almost sounds like sarcasm.  2-handers are the only  melee class that can stun lock a single target while chaining criticals.   And once that happens, any discussion about  'who does more damage?'  becomes pointless, because  any  correctly built 2 hander will succeed in bringing that single target down to 0 health during  the aforementioned stun lock.

Talking about damage here, and damage only.  

Then you have no case.   If  we discard all other factors,  a well built Dual-wielder does not out-damage a well built  2-hander.

Graunt wrote...
 Doesn't matter if a 2h build can successfully bring something down without taking damage if something else can bring it down faster

Faster?  So this is about DPS specifically?   How convenient.     Perhaps you should have made that more clear, instead of  just spouting such all-encompassing  claims of "X is garbage when it comes to single target  damage". 

Graunt wrote...

Dual-Wielding has talents that stun as well in case you missed that.

 A talent.    One.   Riposte.   Though I don't see  why anyone focussed on DPS would bother to even mention it.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 30 décembre 2010 - 02:55 .

[soteria]

Yrkoon wrote...

Faster? So this is about DPS specifically? How convenient. Perhaps you should have made that more clear, instead of just spouting such all-encompassing claims of "X is garbage when it comes to damage".

If he had just said, "DW does the most damage per second, followed by 2h and SnS," I wouldn't have even responded. Silly of me to think we were talking about more than JUST damage in a thread about tanking, eh?

[TMZuk]

*wince*

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.

I would pay money to see anyone in Bioware pick up a sword and try to hit two and a half person per swing.



It is so bloody ridiculous! Kid-stuff. Dark and gritty my a**! Why, why, WHY? Oh, never mind. This game is ruined totally and utterly for me.

[soteria]

TMZuk wrote...

I would pay money to see anyone in Bioware pick up a sword and try to hit two and a half person per swing.

If I can pick the two and a half persons, I'll give it a shot.

I don't care if it's realistic--it sounds like fun. My concern is more that it will be unbalanced than that it's not dark and gritty enough.

Fighting dozens of enemies hand-to-hand without stopping to take a break has always been realistic... or we could talk about a few dozen other unrealistic features even the realism folks don't usually complain about.

[Yrkoon]

Like waving a staff in the air and  suddenly engulfing a creature  in a  spirit damage-inflicting, spectral  cage.  I always found that one slightly  beyond the  scope of realism.  I'd never complain about it though, because it's awesome.  Especially  against Darkspawn,  Dragons.  walking corpses and other real things..

Modifié par Yrkoon, 30 décembre 2010 - 03:25 .

[Maria Caliban]

soteria wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
Faster? So this is about DPS specifically? How convenient. Perhaps you should have made that more clear, instead of just spouting such all-encompassing claims of "X is garbage when it comes to damage".

If he had just said, "DW does the most damage per second, followed by 2h and SnS," I wouldn't have even responded. Silly of me to think we were talking about more than JUST damage in a thread about tanking, eh?

Can you tank with a DW warrior?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 30 décembre 2010 - 03:31 .

[Collider]

I hope tanks can be more than tanks.

Actually, I seem to recall Alistair being pretty high on the DPS list when I played DA:O. And I used him as a tank.

[soteria]

Maria wrote...
Can you tank with a DW warrior?

Sure. Sorta. They do suffer from not having any kind of CC immunity--one knockdown and they lose all that defense from dexterity--but a dex dagger build will have high defense near the end of the game. They can't get what I consider acceptable Defense until their high teens--Rally, War Cry, and Miasma can all help.

SnS and Archer and arguably even 2h builds have easier ways to boost their defenses. The good thing (I guess) is that you can equip some amazing armors that turn pretty much anyone into a tank.  DLC gear, in particular Cailan's Armor, is amazingly good, and a party of four has a number of oft-overlooked ways of boosting Defense.  I suppose the short version is that any warrior can make an acceptable tank in DA:O.  The difference is that some builds can become virtually indestructable not long after level 12 or so.

Your smiley makes me suspicious. Are you heckling me? >_>  Why am I talking about DA:O again?

Modifié par soteria, 30 décembre 2010 - 03:56 .

[Maria Caliban]

Archer warriors are better tanks than DW and 2h? Seriously?



I don't know why you're talking about DA:O. I'm sure the fact that I asked you has nothing to do with it.

[Loc'n'lol]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Archer warriors are better tanks than DW and 2h? Seriously? 

Defensive fire is like the best sustainable accessible to a warrior in raw defense. Of course mages can do much better. Makes you wonder what they were thinking...

[Ziggeh]

TMZuk wrote...

I would pay money to see anyone in Bioware pick up a sword and try to hit two and a half person per swing.

I'd pay to see them launch fire from their fingertips. No, really, I would.

TMZuk wrote...
It is so bloody ridiculous! Kid-stuff. Dark and gritty my a**! Why, why, WHY? Oh, never mind. This game is ruined totally and utterly for me.

You have very, very wierd standards. You're making the claim that non real elements in an entirely non real system have somehow ruined the game for you. "There is mincemeat in my mince pie! Unconscionable!"

[soteria]

Maria wrote...
Archer warriors are better tanks than DW and 2h? Seriously?

Defensive Fire with Master Archer is +30 defense, and with the right pieces of heavy armor an archer can break 40 armor rating.   Additionally, Scattershot + Threaten is a really good tool for getting everything's attention. One thing I'm glad to see they've fixed in DA2 is that SnS warriors will have at least limited AOE capacity. Also, Taunt is now a threat transfer instead of a threat producer, so maybe they've taken a further look at their aggro system and refined it some more.

My complaint about talking about DA:O came out after I realized that answering your question about DW tanking could also have served for a response to Graunt's claim that DW warriors make a SnS tank redundant--a claim I responded to saying "we can discuss DA:O somewhere else."  /shrug.  I guess you asked more nicely.

Modifié par soteria, 30 décembre 2010 - 04:45 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Hanz54321 wrote...

Because in the other game, there were no choices. Must have tank, must have healer. It was weaksauce and not fun to have little option in how the other game was played.

Erm, what "other" game was this?

[PsychoBlonde]

soteria wrote...
Also, Taunt is now a threat transfer instead of a threat producer, so maybe they've taken a further look at their aggro system and refined it some more.

I still like how DDO does tanking much better than Origins.  Granted, the way they do it in DDO is kind of freakish from what I understand.  There is a standard threat-generation method, which is called "hate tanking", and then there's the intimidate tank, which doesn't use numerical threat at all: you simply intimidate the mob, and you have their aggro for six seconds IF the skill is successful.  I primarily like this because it makes being a tank a job of skill and timing.

I've messed around with the tanking a fair bit in Origins, and I can't say that I've yet to see any real use for it.  It doesn't work *at all* in a lot of the situations where I'd really like it to work.

[Dave of Canada]

My tank wants to be more than a tank, he wants to be a supermodel.

[soteria]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

I still like how DDO does tanking much better than Origins. Granted, the way they do it in DDO is kind of freakish from what I understand. There is a standard threat-generation method, which is called "hate tanking", and then there's the intimidate tank, which doesn't use numerical threat at all: you simply intimidate the mob, and you have their aggro for six seconds IF the skill is successful. I primarily like this because it makes being a tank a job of skill and timing.

Maybe I should give DDO a trial run sometime or another. What's the cooldown on intimidate? I didn't care for the aggro mechanics in DA:O, either. Threaten is almost useless and taunt is way too powerful.

[TJPags]

BrotherShepherd wrote...

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

Because you know... Robes/leather cant protect you from someone with a man sized axe with the pure intention to split you in half? 

Or that dragon thats hungry and wants to eat you and your merry little band of friends? (not that they didnt do that anyway, cheap 1 shot kill moves)

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

No totallly makes no sense what-so-ever... Lets just have the mobs run and kill anyone in the party at any time, i mean its not like theres bosses or monsters in-game that can 1 shot a mage? or lightly armored rogue right? and wipe the party before they can do any damage? RIGHT?! 

Yea, right, because, you know, it's not like I can set my party to, say, ranged or passive so that they, you know, stay away from melee enemies.  And it's not like I can't put my warriors in front of my archer and/or mage, so that melee attackers are intercepted on their way to my archer and/or mage.  It's not like my mages don't have spells like sleep, that put enemies to, you know, sleep.  Nor does my archer have pinning shot, which, you know, slows enemies down.  And it's not like my mages don't have a spell called mind blast, which stuns nearby melee attackers.  Or stone fist, which stops them and/or knocks them down and/or knocks them back.  Or winters grasp or cone of cold which freeze them.  My archer also doesn't have dirty fighting, which stuns an opponent. 

So, no, you're right - the ONLY way to keep melee enemies away from my mage and/or archer is to have one character stand there and say "nah nah nah" while enemies beat him to death.

Silly me.

[Schneidend]

Some people like having a bulwark of metal and flesh to hold their enemies at bay, TJ. And, I don't really so much use a "tank" to keep people away from my ranged units as I do to keep heals and enemies consolidated.



If everybody is focused on Aveline, who will be giving as good as she gets and not simply being "beat to death," all the easier for my Hawke and his big ol' sword to maneuver into a position where each of his swings hit a majority of the enemies.

[KyleOrdrum]

This debate seems to be quickly turning into near flaming. That being said, lets see if we can look at this logically for a moment. And yes, I'm going to use DA:O for my examples because well, none of us have played DA2 as a finished project, so anything as such, whether confirmed or not is only speculation, as something that has been "confirmed" can end up being changed (see original plot for Batman 3).

Was a tank truly necessary in the current sense of a meatshield who absorbed all the damage for the party?  No, the game could be solo'd on nightmare with a non AW mage, or a stealth based rogue.  Could a tank be good at dps? Yes, it's called building the con insanely, hitting aura of pain, and using war cry so that all of the white enemies are at half health or less by the time they stand up.

Could a sns deal good damage? Yes, build the strength to a fair amount, and you're 1-shotting white enemies and 2-shotting yellow enemies with activated abilities, thus allowing for a more versatile warrior build, who can tank if needed, but can also dps as needed.

Could a 2h deal more total damage on average than a sns? Yes, because again they have activated abilities, and don't really need a dex score, so it could all go into str.  They were however much less versatile and needed a party to function well (ignoring a couple of odd solo examples). 

Could a dw warrior do more dps than the other 2? Yes, but due to needing a high dex, this made it hard to go for some of the more versatile abilities available for warriors.  And as someone said, since dw isn't an option for warriors in DA2 (maybe?) then this may be a bit of a moot point.

In reference to 2h vs. sns, it comes down to personal preferance, tactical style, and party composition, and due to the required aspect of these considerations, makes the argument a rather moot point.  Neither was truly better than the other, simply different.  As such, my playing style favoring a sns may differ from yours which could obviously favor a 2h.  Thus being said, can we please drop this insanity and get back to the original question?

Modifié par KyleOrdrum, 30 décembre 2010 - 11:11 .