195 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

Schneidend wrote...

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.

I'm not at all arguing that people should not use tanks.  I'm not even arguing that, in some games, using a tank makes sense.

All I'm saying is that there are ways to fight that don't use tanks.  There are other ways to keep weaker characters safe.  There are other ways to spec your party than to set one up as a human target.  There are tactics available that make the idea of a tank unnecessary in this game.

I don't understand why people seem to have such a problem with that.

[In Exile]

One other thing to keep in mind re: 2-handed warrior DPS and general combat utility in DA:O is that it was a class that required either careful micromangament or well-built tactics to ensure that abilities were always going off. A 2-handed warrior that doesn't rely on abilities but rather auto-attack is doing it wrong, in essence.

[Ziggeh]

TJPags wrote...

I don't understand why people seem to have such a problem with that.

I don't think anyones refuting that, rather your characterisation of damage mitigation (as opposed to avoidance) as skilless and untactical.

[Schneidend]

TJPags wrote...
I don't understand why people seem to have such a problem with that.

People tend to react violently if they're told a mechanic/feature they like/want is "unnecessary." You should see the frothing rages that erupted when people were told crouching in Mass Effect 2 wasn't necessary.

[TJPags]

Ziggeh wrote...

TJPags wrote...

I don't understand why people seem to have such a problem with that.

I don't think anyones refuting that, rather your characterisation of damage mitigation (as opposed to avoidance) as skilless and untactical.

If I offended anyone, I apologize.  I did mis-speak when I said it wasn't tactical.  It is, just not my personal preference on tactics.
However, I don't understand how tanking requires skills.  And by that, I don't mean for the player, I mean the character.  The tank needs good, heavy or massive armor, high health, and needs to be appropriately buffed.  The "skill" they are using is taunt, or the equivelant.  I just don't see it as skillful, in that regard.  Useful, perhaps, but skillful?  Not for that character.

Schneidend wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I don't understand why people seem to have such a problem with that.

People tend to react violently if they're told a mechanic/feature they like/want is "unnecessary." You should see the frothing rages that erupted when people were told crouching in Mass Effect 2 wasn't necessary.

This, I don't apologize for.  It is unnecessary.  Necessarty means you have to use it to succeed.  You don't.  I don't use it, and I have successfuly played Origins, Awakening, and a variety of DLC's (all except LS and DSC) without using it.  I have played many other games without using it, successfuly.  So it isn't necessary.

However, again, anyone is free to play the game however they like.

[Ziggeh]

TJPags wrote...

However, I don't understand how tanking requires skills.  And by that, I don't mean for the player, I mean the character.  The tank needs good, heavy or massive armor, high health, and needs to be appropriately buffed.  The "skill" they are using is taunt, or the equivelant.  I just don't see it as skillful, in that regard.  Useful, perhaps, but skillful?  Not for that character.

True, but every role could be reduced to a small set of basic principles, which is how the tactical scripting allows the AI to take up the role (to at least a functional extent) if you don't want to engage in it.

I suppose in terms or "in character" skill it would be something like "making attacks that appear more threatening than the guy behind you reducing your number of limbs while trying not to be stabbed by the six guys waving sharp metal in his direction", but it's hard to quantify as much of the role is decidedly non realist, while sticking pointy things into the other people is a recognisable real life skill.

[AlanC9]

TJPags wrote...
However, I don't understand how tanking requires skills.  And by that, I don't mean for the player, I mean the character.  The tank needs good, heavy or massive armor, high health, and needs to be appropriately buffed.  The "skill" they are using is taunt, or the equivelant.  I just don't see it as skillful, in that regard.  Useful, perhaps, but skillful?  Not for that character.

You're forgetting the damage mitigation Talents for someone on the Shield track. Unless you're saying that those aren't "skills"? (Quotes because skill is a term used in DAO's system, but not for this kind of ability)

[Schneidend]

TJPags wrote...

However, I don't understand how tanking requires skills.  And by that, I don't mean for the player, I mean the character.  The tank needs good, heavy or massive armor, high health, and needs to be appropriately buffed.  The "skill" they are using is taunt, or the equivelant.  I just don't see it as skillful, in that regard.  Useful, perhaps, but skillful?  Not for that character.

Being able to competently fight with a sword, utilize a shield, and do both at the same time are certainly things that require skill/technique. Threaten also helps generate threat, in addition to taunt. And some kind of knockdown immunity is nigh essential for tanks that aren't Shale.

TJPags wrote...

This, I don't apologize for.  It is unnecessary.  Necessarty means you have to use it to succeed.  You don't.  I don't use it, and I have successfuly played Origins, Awakening, and a variety of DLC's (all except LS and DSC) without using it.  I have played many other games without using it, successfuly.  So it isn't necessary.

However, again, anyone is free to play the game however they like.

The ways you play the game aren't necessary either, keep in mind. But, regardless, I'm not making a case for how vital tanking is, only that people aren't going to be happy when you say it isn't necessary. It's just a fact that I am stating.

[Osena109]

 i hope tanks can be more well rounded

[Marixus99.9]

Tanks aren't tactical, it's AI manipulation using aggro control. If there was another player controlling the enemy, the healer will always be the first target. The npc should first kill the healer, then the fragile dps mages and rogues, and finally let the lone tank die it's slow death. Things rarely change so there will be tanks I guess ...

Edit: Bah I should stop posting in threads I haven't fully read. Back to lurking i go.

Modifié par Marixus99.9, 31 décembre 2010 - 03:04 .

[AlanC9]

Marixus99.9 wrote...

Tanks aren't tactical, it's AI manipulation using aggro control. 

Depends on your definition of "tactical," of course.

[Ziggeh]

Marixus99.9 wrote...

Tanks aren't tactical, it's AI manipulation using aggro control.

Well, no, because the AI's aggro is an in game variable. It's not a tactical element with a real life counterpart, but neither is much of it.

[TJPags]

Okay, okay.



Yes, I know there is more to setting a tank tactics than just hitting "taunt" and pumping up it's strength to wear massive armor. I was simplifying - or streamlining, if you will.



I have nothing against people using a tank, At all. I, personally, don't like to do so. And when I say it's not necessary, I mean what I said in a previous post - you can easily beat the game without using one. Of course, you can also do so using one.



It's a choice, not a need. I have mine. Everyone else can have theirs.



Moving on now? Yes? Good.

[AlanC9]

I'm OK with moving on -- but to where?

[TJPags]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm OK with moving on -- but to where?

Well, we can . . . .create wild speculation about characters that haven't been revealed yet?

Or something . . . .

[Maria Caliban]

I wonder if there will be any more companions that you get/keep based on class.

[Graunt]

soteria wrote...

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.

Because I don't look at what a class/build does against a stationary, single, low-life target as being an even remotely accurate metric for their overall contribution across the entire game.  When building a group, I think overall contribution matters more than specific scenarios that may favor one setup over another.  Notice what I underlined in your quote.  I don't care about "some circumstances" and I'm not even arguing against that.  This thread was about tanking, and right off the bat Relhart made the claim that tanks did too much damage in Origins when they didn't.  This of course going under the assumption that he's specifically talking about sword and shield.  Maybe he wasn't /shrug.

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.  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.

It's relevant to this thread because you wanted to refute my claim that 2h was inferior as the damage spec (which it is on single targets and lower numbered packs) and that sword and shield was dead last in terms of damage -- which it is if you are looking at the big picture, not just microcosmic incidences.  You then proceed to link numbers that actually agree with my assessment and then "scratch your head" on why certain things are being discussed, when I thought it had been established we were talking about why sword and shield "tanks" did too much damage?

It's not even about builds necessarily either, it's about tanks doing more than tanking which they already could, and that was specifically brought up in this thread; tanking and the necessity, or lack thereof using a shield and alternative ways to "tank" and the effectiveness of those methods.  Yes, the whole "DPS" debate was slightly off track, but it's still relevant in regards to how said alternate methods are played.  

Most of this is irrelevant to how tanking may actually be done in DA2 because no one really knows yet, and as it's already been stated, dual-wielding for the Warrior is out anyway.  That doesn't mean people aren't allowed to voice their concerns, and the only way to do that is to make comparisons with what they do know.

Modifié par Graunt, 31 décembre 2010 - 07:21 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I wonder to what degree non-Warriors can serve as effective tanks.

[Dhiro]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I wonder to what degree non-Warriors can serve as effective tanks.

I'm almost sure someone in this forum said that Leliana could be a good tank. Can't remember who, sadly.

[Sharn01]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I wonder to what degree non-Warriors can serve as effective tanks.

Well, according to screenshots a dex specialized rogue Hawke at level 15 has a 5% chance to dodge, and in the combat video his HP went from full to near death in little more then an instant, so I am guessing not at all.

[Maria Caliban]

Dhiro wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I wonder to what degree non-Warriors can serve as effective tanks.

I'm almost sure someone in this forum said that Leliana could be a good tank. Can't remember who, sadly.

Are you taunting Sylvius? Because I chuckled.

[Feroxalit696]

Tanks as a concept arose as a response to the simplistic World of Warcraft "all monsters attack the one with the highest Aggro" combat. What with dodging around targets while paused, switching targets between two characters, anticipating the next step after, tactical withdrawls, and so much more, make the concept of tank even more distracting and divisive in DrA than it originally was in WoW, and more than less appropriate.

[Sharn01]

Everquest laid the foundation of the tank, dps and healer trio for modern mmo's. Wow just did the same thing much later.

[Dhiro]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Dhiro wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I wonder to what degree non-Warriors can serve as effective tanks.

I'm almost sure someone in this forum said that Leliana could be a good tank. Can't remember who, sadly.

Are you taunting Sylvius? Because I chuckled.

Now, don't be silly.

[snackrat]

Ehh, the main thing about sword/shield that annoyed me was that there was absolutely no AoE moves to help you cut through clustered mooks... you just have to overkill them one at a time with your powerful but seriously slow blows.

Case in point: darkspawn at the final battle. Assuming you built up your dexterity for shield-work (and defence scores), you're seriously better off switching to a bow and shooting them down in one or two shots. Factoring in how s-l-o-w-ly your character runs up to targets - especially if they are running away from you - just to hit them with unecessarily strong force? (...and slow force, too!) Why wouldn't you switch to a bow?

Even the two-handed weapon tree eventually got an AoE move, and dual-wielding had a forward-facing one right off the bat and a full-circle one further up the trees, as well.

I do like the dual-wielding warrior though, I mainly focus on DPS but can work as a substitute/backup tank. I feel your pain - I'm sad it's being removed.

Dhiro wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I wonder to what degree non-Warriors can serve as effective tanks.

I'm almost sure someone in this forum said that Leliana could be a good tank. Can't remember who, sadly.

Oh, I can understand that - if you put up dexterity (and therefore defense) characters are better at dodgin blows completely. Constitution doesn't really compare. And of course, as an archer, dexterity is THE main stat for Leli, so she's pretty good at the dodging thing. If you can keep the pressure on her, you can kite too, to preserve her longer still.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 31 décembre 2010 - 11:51 .