1044 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I really hope there isn't a situation where our party needs to do ranged damage like the Arch Demon at the end of DA:O. I can see the comedic situation now...





Hawke: Isabela, snap out of it! You have no cause to fear, pick up a bow and shoot!



Isabela: I...I...can't!!!



Hawke: Use your bow now!



Isabela: I told you I can't do it you idiot! Bioware won't let me use bows as a weapon, I have to wait till it comes over here!





I would wonder why Isabela wouldn't use a bow...she used to be a pirate right? I would think in boarding other ships she would be used to the idea of taking a ranged weapon along and she would be far more proficient at hitting moving targets than most with the rolling seas rocking bother her and her target.

[AlexXIV]

Russalka wrote...

What is this thread about?

Everything apparently.

[AlexXIV]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I mean from acharacter point of view. All mechanics of the game aside. Leliana was an accomplished archer even before she met the Warden and had trained her marksmanship for a long time. Isabela havn't and thus she can't use a bow for combat as she wouldn't be effective.

Well she does have 10 years to train.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The other is that all of the "passive story-receptive players" are passive. As I mentioned to you earlier, some of them need to be forced or else they wont experience it. And so they want to be forced. BioWare is not catering to passive players. BioWare is catering to players that want/need to be forced. 

And I don't think those people really exist in any large number, as demonstrated by how many people didn't every bother changing the default weapon preferences of the DAO companions.

AlanC9 wrote...

Not that easy. You have to not only get her in a position where she can't get at the ranged attacker, but also a position from which she can neither escape altogether nor find cover.

You're ignoring the possibility of traps, persistant AoE spells, or the presence of more distant enemies from which you don't want to draw aggro.

Closing with an opponent (rather than having that opponent close with you, or simply having the encounter take place at range) has extensive tactical costs, and we're not always willing to pay those costs.

In DAO, there are many examples of encounters like this just in the Korcari Wilds.  Just past the flower to cure the Mabari, there are some Genlock archers on a hill.  If you close with them, you'll attract a group of Hurlocks that are behind them.  But if you attack from range, the Genlocks have to either fight you at range or close with you themselves (and if the Hurlocks do get attracted, they have to run quite a way to get to you, during which time you can do damage to them or use a crowd-control spell or any number of things.  But sacrificing distance is usually a terrible idea unless you get something out of it.

I usually play games like these trying to avoid melee combat entirely (because getting hit isn't fun, so why would anyone do it if they didn't have to?), and that's going to be difficult if we have a limited number of party members with any ranged capability at all.  Losing just the warriors was significant, but now losing a Rogue as well is a big deal.

Uomoz1987 wrote...

You're assuming you're going to play a DA:O or BG like game. That's your assumption and by no means should be the truth. DAII will probably be more like a movie or a book experience (definitely a book because Varrick is reading some sort of diary in the official trailers), and that is achieved by telling a story with defined characters, in RPG elements (voice acting, dialogue, interactions) and ofcourse in combat elements (combat style, characteristic moves and powers).

There is only one "RPG element", and that is roleplaying.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why should she learn to use a bow in thsoe 10 years? The Prince guy and Varric is the party's archers. There is no reason for her to learn to use the bow, when she can do her job perfectly fine with knives.

Because there are potential circumstances wherein she can't do her job with knives.  And because the player says so.

Isabela's a toy.  Why make the toy less useful?

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

We aren't talking about crossbows. Crossbows and handcannons could be used effectively with just a few hours of training (they may not hit targets, but they would be able to fire a volley). A bow took years of practice and conditioning to be able to shoot effectively.

But a crossbow also took forever to reload.  Clearly Thedas doesn't follow the same rules as our world does, so there's no reason to believe that learning a bow takes years of practice there, either.

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm pretty sure they expected you to dual Imoen to mage from the start.

Prior to BG2's release, it never occurred to me to dual-class Imoen.

It should have, though.  Then I could have had even more wizards.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 janvier 2011 - 09:20 .

[Heimdall]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]Lord Aesir wrote...

It is, because ranged weapons having nothing to do with the duelist, so why should she have anything to do with them?[/quote]
Why shouldn't she?  Why can't she?

I'm not saying she should, so you asking me to justify that position makes no sense.  I'm asking why she can't. [/quote]  Because Isabella does not use bows, that is part of her character.  As I've said many times, she isn't your character to design.
[quote]
[quote]I have not been trying to say that.  Don't try to tell me what I'm arguing.  I'm saying it makes more sense.  You just want the option to act irrationally and control a character you aren't playing as in the same way you would control your PC's actions.  Why is that nonsensical option mandatory to have?[/quote]
Ignoring your baseless claims that the option would be nonsensical, including the option would carry almost no cost, and it would expand the audience for the game.  That's why it's a good idea. [/quote] And the restriction expands the audience of the game that prefer to have well defined characters rather than mutable ones.  The lose some fans and get new ones.

Your right, it would be cheap to remove all predefined personality from the characters so you cold fill in the blanks yourself and use them all interchangably as the party lead depending on which you designed as the party leader.  And then they would lose the droves of fans who love bioware for their well written characters.

[quote]This is what I do:

*turn off roleplaying switch*
*Defeat the enemy or bring back my PC as quickly as possible*
*Turn back on roleplaying switch*[/quote]
So, by your own admission, the way the game is designed now it forces you out of the game, requiring you to metagame around it.

My approach doesn't require that.  I don't need to stop roleplaying ever.[/quote]  Your point?  I've never considered combat strictly part of the roleplaying part of roleplaying games. I just consider them the game part.  I don't really roleplay during battle in general regardless of the game's design, it isn't forcing me to do anything. I reserve the roleplaying for character interaction.
[quote]
[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Swashbuckler is a web unique to Isabela. Every companion gets a spec unique to them. At least that's what I heard last.[/quote]
Does Hawke get a unique web?  If not, why not?  Why does Hawke get shortchanged?  How is it that everyone else in the world has a unique skill and Hawke doesn't?
[quote]Il Divo wrote...

But that's the problem with the 'all or nothing' approach. What benefit is there to you (the player) taking control of the entire party?[/quote]
Narrative coherence.  Now the party is more able to behave in a sensical manner. [/quote]  Except you can't manipulate the party's place in the narrative except for the one in your own mind or their choices in it beyond haveing your PC decide which to take with them.
[quote]
[quote]Isabella is intended as an individual person with a personality independent of what I (player or character) may think of her.[/quote]
That's where you're wrong.  She's an individual person independent of what your player character thinks of her, but that does not require she have a personality independent of what the player thinks of her.

You're needlessly conflating the player and his character.
[/quote]  Frankly you're just wrong here.  You have absolutely no control over Isabella's personality or her reactions to the PC's decisions on screnn beyond whatever rationalizations you try to make up in your head to try and edge around it, so how can you say she is not meant to be an induividual?
[quote]
[quote]Bioware giving us less control over her weapons/outfits is a step forward in this direction. It gets us closer to the idea that you are not your party which I think is necessary.[/quote]
But that introduces now problems.  If I control only one member of the party, and that member isn't a suitable leader for that party, what happens then?  Either the game needs to wrest control for me, or the party no longer makes any sense.

Neither of those solutions is a good one. 

Letting the player control the whole party, though, eliminates that problem. [/quote]  Most people won't trap themselves in creating such a character.  You've created the problem yourself.  You're assuming that one of the other characters is leadership material.  To make this work all the time you'd have to control the whole party in the same manner you control the PC currently and define their personality, even change it to suit what you want.  That isn't what most players I've encountered want.  They want to interact with interesting character the writers have crafted, something that just isn't possible if you have to effectively make all the characters yourself.
[quote]
[quote]If Bioware wants to let you impact how your companions equip themselves, a far better method is through conversation; force the PC to persuade Isabella to equip a bow, which then impacts the narrative. But as it is, simply equipping Isabella with any rogue weapon does contrast the tone of her character. [/quote]
That's only true if you presuppose that Isabela's character has an established tone over which you, the player, has no control.

Once again, you're presupposing your conclusion.[/quote]  She is meant to have such a personality, that is why they've taken away your ability to clothe her however you wish.  They didn't put all this time into designing the character and writing her dialogue for you to ignore it and make her do things Isabella would not do.  They haven't done it perfectly, I know, but it's a step in the right direction, just not your direction.
[quote]Lord Aesir wrote...

You know he's just going to either ignore or dismiss this right?
Does it matter whether he knows that?[/quote] I'm not sure why you bothered to respond to this.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 19 janvier 2011 - 09:46 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

AlexXIV wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I mean from acharacter point of view. All mechanics of the game aside. Leliana was an accomplished archer even before she met the Warden and had trained her marksmanship for a long time. Isabela havn't and thus she can't use a bow for combat as she wouldn't be effective.

Well she does have 10 years to train.

But why would she train in bow use, when your party also includes Varric and/or the Prince fella, who can fulfill the job you are deadset on having Isabela do?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why should she learn to use a bow in thsoe 10 years? The Prince guy and Varric is the party's archers. There is no reason for her to learn to use the bow, when she can do her job perfectly fine with knives.

Because there are potential circumstances wherein she can't do her job with knives.  And because the player says so.

Isabela's a toy.  Why make the toy less useful?

Isabela is a character in a story. Why cheapen her character by un-defining her?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

We aren't talking about crossbows. Crossbows and handcannons could be used effectively with just a few hours of training (they may not hit targets, but they would be able to fire a volley). A bow took years of practice and conditioning to be able to shoot effectively.

But a crossbow also took forever to reload.  Clearly Thedas doesn't follow the same rules as our world does, so there's no reason to believe that learning a bow takes years of practice there, either.

That depends on what kind of crossbow we are talking. Some took around two minutes to reload, others took 10seconds. Some could even shoot a magazine of 20bolts before having to reload.

[AlexXIV]

I agree she doesn't have a good reason unless she wanted. I find it better anyway that the npcs train the weapons they like without having controlfreak Hawke looking over their shoulders all the time. In DA:O you could customize your companions as you wished, but it is not like it makes sense. For example getting Sten to be archer or sword and board warrior seems something totally impossible. Well but any class that doesn't have any ranged ability is sort of 'handicapped'. I mean Isa could at least throw daggers or something.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

There's a difference between Isabela "not being able to use a bow well" and Isabela "not being able to use a bow at all." Hopefully she can AT LEAST equip a bow in dire circumstances when a ranged attack is needed.



I still think a pirate refusing to use ranged weapons is goofy. Some type of ranged weapon use would be required to board another ship if you were on a raiding dinghy or even closing on the prize ship with your own (which is pretty foolish). Even if you are a poor shot, you would want some of the boarding party to be firing some type of projectiles to cause chaos and keep their heads down because others surely would be firing back. No one would just wait for the melee that is to come.



It's fine if she simply prefers melee weapons, but if she can't use ranged weapons, that makes little sense.

[Heimdall]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

There's a difference between Isabela "not being able to use a bow well" and Isabela "not being able to use a bow at all." Hopefully she can AT LEAST equip a bow in dire circumstances when a ranged attack is needed.

I still think a pirate refusing to use ranged weapons is goofy. Some type of ranged weapon use would be required to board another ship if you were on a raiding dinghy or even closing on the prize ship with your own (which is pretty foolish). Even if you are a poor shot, you would want some of the boarding party to be firing some type of projectiles to cause chaos and keep their heads down because others surely would be firing back. No one would just wait for the melee that is to come.

It's fine if she simply prefers melee weapons, but if she can't use ranged weapons, that makes little sense.

  She does have an entire crew to use range weapons you know.  I don't see why it'd be necesary.

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Personal experience? No. Historical records? Yes.

Lets take the Enligh Longbow. The amount of force needed to shoot its arrow at "killing force" (target won't neccesarily die, but at least get hurt) is around 670-900n (newton), which is around 200pounds, pulled back 70-80cm with just two fingers. This is extremely hard on the body to do repeatedly (I doubt any of us can manage even half of that without any training), and studies on English Bowmen's skeletons has actually revealed that they had over-dveloped arm musculature, brought on by the sustained stress on their body through years of bow-use.

Now, the main purpose of the bow in combat was to fire in vollies at the enemy (ie. at no particular targets), but that situations is hardly relevant in DA2. It could also be used at particular targets, but as anyone who have ever used a weapon of any kind can tell you, shooting at a moving target is hard, add to that a target which shoots back and you've just made it harder.

So no, you got no idea at all, and you most certainly could NOT teach Isabela anything about a bow.

So, now you went totally ridiculous and like that would not be enough, you fell on ad hominem arguments. In other words, you just failed miserably. This naturally means we don't discuss anything anymore as long as I remember who you are, and I will help myself to remember it by blocking you.

But for last time for argument's sake.

There are other type of bows than English Longbows. There are shortbows and crossbows, the latter being used to penetrate plate armour. Crossbows need much strenght?

I have no idea from where you pulled that 200 pounds which is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS to say that much power would be needed from the bow for killing blow. It seems you don't have even the slightest clue how powerful some typical 50lbs bow is, in which you do it *totally* wrong if you use your arm muscles only to pull the string. 50lbs is absolute killing weapon combined with proper type of hunting head in arrow.

I did some Googling and found that your source obviously for that information you randomly picked was Wikipedia (wanted to see what kind of idiot site states 200lbs longbow is needed for lethal hit). So what you did was some googling and then after reading wikipedia (and which you failed to understand) you came here and posed as an expert of combat archery. You failed to understand that wikipedia's longbow article was focused on England and large scale warfare, and you failed to mention that in the same article it was said even elephants can be killed with bows. You failed to understand *why* longbows were used in large scale warfare as you just pulled out from your hat that "killing force" would be 200lbs.

HAHAHAHAHAHA, I haven't seen in ages anything that ridiculous. Much less is needed to kill, much much less. I could kill you with 25lbs bow without any problems even if you would be Chuck Norris. Longbows were used in England because it was a good idea to make archers keep as much distance to the enemy as possible. In DA ranges are from point blank to something (average easily could be  5 meters) and you don't need those overkill English Longbows, which naturally are hard to use effectively from long ranges unless an army of archers are shooting. In DA there is very small scale tactical combat, and that makes things completely different. The shorter the range, the easier it is to hit the target even if the target would move, and the lethality of arrows increases as the range decreases.

Surprisingly enough you admittet in your posting that late medieval large scale archery tactics can't be used as an argument in DA, yet you did it. That indicates you were just trolling, like many here and of which I don't care, or you just wanted to begin to insult me and tried to cover it with some random data. Failed attempt.

The only thing I agree with you is that I would not be able to teach
Isabella anything about the bow because I can't believe she can't use bows. Anyway GL in understanding wikipedia articles better in the future. I wont miss discussions with you.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

  She does have an entire crew to use range weapons you know.  I don't see why it'd be necesary.

She's obviously not going to row the boat or bother with the rigging. So she's just going to sit there with her swords out, waiting till she can use them? Just out of a sense of self preservation I would imagine most people would fight back instead of just being a target. Isabela hardly seems the sort to think bows would be somehow "beneath her station."

Modifié par Ryllen Laerth Kriel, 19 janvier 2011 - 09:55 .

[Heimdall]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

  She does have an entire crew to use range weapons you know.  I don't see why it'd be necesary.

She's obviously not going to row the boat or bother with the rigging. So she's just going to sit there with her swords out, waiting till she can use them? Just out of a sense of self preservation I would imagine most people would fight back instead of just being a target. Isabela hardly seems the sort to think bows would be somehow "beneath her station."

  I'm say she has plenty to do it for her, allowing her to focus on the knives she prefers and focus on giving orders.

[AlanC9]

Xewaka wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
If you mean that D&D had different class restrictions from DA2, sure. But it was quite restricted in its own way.

But the restrictions were applied consistently across all characters. DA 2 is inconsistent in its restrictions. Why can rogue "a" wield a certain type of weapon that rogue "b" can't and viceversa? Aren't both the same class? Why the arbitrary and inconsistent restriction compared to rogue "c" that can wield both?
A gaming system, any gaming system, must have a consistent set of game rules. Arbitrary restrictions that have no gameplay reason are not healthy for a game system.

Sure. I think I posted something to that effect myself a couple pages back. Isabela isn't a rogue, she's an Isabela.

Yet she is clearly reffered as a rogue by more official sources.

Including the levelup screen, yep. I'm just talking about what she really is, rather than what Bio says she is.

It's not actually clear at this stage whether Isabela or Hawke is an exception to DA2 rogue rules. We'll have to see how run-of-the-mill rogues work.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

  She does have an entire crew to use range weapons you know.  I don't see why it'd be necesary.

She's obviously not going to row the boat or bother with the rigging. So she's just going to sit there with her swords out, waiting till she can use them? Just out of a sense of self preservation I would imagine most people would fight back instead of just being a target. Isabela hardly seems the sort to think bows would be somehow "beneath her station."

  I'm say she has plenty to do it for her, allowing her to focus on the knives she prefers and focus on giving orders.

I understand what you are saying. What I am trying to illustrate is the rather bizarre idea that in her years of being a pirate, she would simply refuse to use a bow despite all the pratical uses it has in her occupational field. I would think she would of picked one up once or twice and at least be proficient with the concept. She wasn't always a pirate captain, she had to start somewhere in the lower rankings. I'm not suggesting she would be an expert bowman. If she prefers close quarters combat, that's one issue but if she refuses to use a bow when it is necessary out of some snobbish principle, that's rediculous to me.

[Heimdall]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

  She does have an entire crew to use range weapons you know.  I don't see why it'd be necesary.

She's obviously not going to row the boat or bother with the rigging. So she's just going to sit there with her swords out, waiting till she can use them? Just out of a sense of self preservation I would imagine most people would fight back instead of just being a target. Isabela hardly seems the sort to think bows would be somehow "beneath her station."

  I'm say she has plenty to do it for her, allowing her to focus on the knives she prefers and focus on giving orders.

I understand what you are saying. What I am trying to illustrate is the rather bizarre idea that in her years of being a pirate, she would simply refuse to use a bow despite all the pratical uses it has in her occupational field. I would think she would of picked one up once or twice and at least be proficient with the concept. She wasn't always a pirate captain, she had to start somewhere in the lower rankings. I'm not suggesting she would be an expert bowman. If she prefers close quarters combat, that's one issue but if she refuses to use a bow when it is necessary out of some snobbish principle, that's rediculous to me.

  Well I don't think she has any phobia or hatred for bows, but just prefers not to use them.  She shouldn't need to use a bow unless you go out of your way to put her in that situation.

Oh, and according to her conversation with Zevran, she was the daughter of a pirate captain, and inherited the ship and crew after Zevran killed him.  So that might put her in a somewhat unique situation.

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I mean from acharacter point of view. All mechanics of the game aside. Leliana was an accomplished archer even before she met the Warden and had trained her marksmanship for a long time. Isabela havn't and thus she can't use a bow for combat as she wouldn't be effective.

What you are saying now is that if you would be in melee combat wearing a plate armour I would not be able to dance around you and score a hit on you with arrow each time I try to shoot. And when you would deny me shooting you by beginning to chase me the melee dude you fought would begin to smash your back with some good free hits.*

Well, but I have seen how little you know of anything, and I have seen how you can't even draw any reasonable conclusions, and with every post I check now I see just very stupid wishful thinking make-believe blabbering.


* Actually he would put a weapon or feet over your feet and make you fall down on the ground. Or just grab you when you turn your back and make you fall down, after which I would do point blank headshots.

You understand absolutely nothing of anything.

Modifié par moilami, 19 janvier 2011 - 10:15 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Oh noes I got blocked....



While I can agree I might have used poor wording. I wouldn't call "Warfare through the Ages" (translated title) Wikipedia exactly. Its on wikipedia because it is MATH, which isn't subject to interpretation. Killing Force should have been Maximum of course. And no you wouldn't be able to kill me with a 25lbs shot unless it was a head- or heartshot or any other "freakshot" and would hardly even incapacitate me, If I wore armor, it wouldn't even hurt me. A 200lbs shot WILL incapacitate no matter where you are hit (again baring freakshots), even if you wear armor.

And crossbows aren't bows per say....

...

Why am I even bothering the man blcoked(!!!!!11oneone) me. I need to go cope with this tragic loss.

[axa89]

I don't know if it's already been mentioned, but I think looking at Varric would offer a much better insight to why companions have access to only one weapon tree. Varric is a merchant. One who prefers to stay out the thick of the action. Hence why he's a ranged rogue. Can you imagine Varric jumping around the battlefield (like a mêlée rogue)?

One can make the argument of creating different animations for different characters, but that, evidently, is out of budget for da2.

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh noes I got blocked....

While I can agree I might have used poor wording. I wouldn't call "Warfare through the Ages" (translated title) Wikipedia exactly. Its on wikipedia because it is MATH, which isn't subject to interpretation. Killing Force should have been Maximum of course. And no you wouldn't be able to kill me with a 25lbs shot unless it was a head- or heartshot or any other "freakshot" and would hardly even incapacitate me, If I wore armor, it wouldn't even hurt me. A 200lbs shot WILL incapacitate no matter where you are hit (again baring freakshots), even if you wear armor.
And crossbows aren't bows per say....
...
Why am I even bothering the man blcoked(!!!!!11oneone) me. I need to go cope with this tragic loss.

'


HAHAHAHAHA, like I said, you ridiculate yourself so badly with each post you make that I find this hard to be true.

You should seriously get at least some clue and read what is the actual "system shock" lethal effect arrows make. But I am very sure you would be unable to understand it.


Edit: I can help you a little by posting a picture which would help anyone with average intelligence understand why 200lbs mega overkill bows are not needed to kill even bears.



Just think how those blades would do to you if they penetrate you.

Modifié par moilami, 19 janvier 2011 - 10:23 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Lord Aesir wrote...

  Well I don't think she has any phobia or hatred for bows, but just prefers not to use them.  She shouldn't need to use a bow unless you go out of your way to put her in that situation.

Oh, and according to her conversation with Zevran, she was the daughter of a pirate captain, and inherited the ship and crew after Zevran killed him.  So that might put her in a somewhat unique situation.

That's all great as far as I'm concerned. I never mind a character expressing a preference for a weapon type, that adds a little touch of personality to the character sometimes. I can imagine several situations where firing a bow would be useful. Just in closing with any enemy for example in any battle. Even if the character is terrible at ranged combat, even if Isabela hates it to the extreme, the chance that one or two arrows would hit home and give her an advantage before she closed with the enemy to melee them. From her appearance in Origins, she certainly seems to be an opportunist, I doubt Isabela would argue against firing off a shot while running into combat if she can't sneak up and do some stabbing. Hopefully it will be handled as a penalty to attack if she does have to use one. It just think it would be bizarre to have her restricted completely to only using her daggers. I kind of dislike the entire concept of class weapon restrictions unless there is lore behind it.

Blah..now I'm coming back to my elimination of set class theme. I really wish skills would be learned based on player usage. Practicing with a bow should lead to bow proficiency. But everyone should have the potential to at least pick up and fire a bow and arrow, regardless of their "class."

[EmperorSahlertz]

moilami wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh noes I got blocked....

While I can agree I might have used poor wording. I wouldn't call "Warfare through the Ages" (translated title) Wikipedia exactly. Its on wikipedia because it is MATH, which isn't subject to interpretation. Killing Force should have been Maximum of course. And no you wouldn't be able to kill me with a 25lbs shot unless it was a head- or heartshot or any other "freakshot" and would hardly even incapacitate me, If I wore armor, it wouldn't even hurt me. A 200lbs shot WILL incapacitate no matter where you are hit (again baring freakshots), even if you wear armor.
And crossbows aren't bows per say....
...
Why am I even bothering the man blcoked(!!!!!11oneone) me. I need to go cope with this tragic loss.

'


HAHAHAHAHA, like I said, you ridiculate yourself so badly with each post you make that I find this hard to be true.

You should seriously get at least some clue and read what is the actual "system shock" lethal effect arrows make. But I am very sure you would be unable to understand it.


Edit: I can help you a little by posting a picture which would help anyone with average intelligence understand why 200lbs mega overkill bows are not needed to kill even bears.
Just think how those blades would do to you if they penetrate you.

Then let me show you a little something:

THAT is a medieval arrowhead. Granted, it is worn by time, but you can see the shape and (hopefully) imagine what it would appear like in mint condition. THAT arrowhead is the reason you didn't shoot bears with one arrow back then, but many. You should get a clue.

[Blastback]

Can't we all just agree to disagree? This conversaiton is getting rather unpleasant, on both sides.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Blastback wrote...

Can't we all just agree to disagree? This conversaiton is getting rather unpleasant, on both sides.

Stop being so damn diplomatic! You make the rest of us look bad

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Lord Aesir wrote...

Because Isabella does not use bows, that is part of her character.  As I've said many times, she isn't your character to design.[/quote]
You're presupposing your conclusion again.  Why isn't she my character to design?  Allowing me to alter aspects of her design has no bearing on the ability of other players not to do that.
[quote]And the restriction expands the audience of the game that prefer to have well defined characters rather than mutable ones.[/quote]
If the player doesn't change the character, then she remains well-defined (by your definition).

There's nothing gained by requiring that of all players.
[quote]Your right, it would be cheap to remove all predefined personality from the characters so you cold fill in the blanks yourself and use them all interchangably as the party lead depending on which you designed as the party leader.  And then they would lose the droves of fans who love bioware for their well written characters.[/quote]
I'm not advocating that.  I agree that would be stupid.
[quote]Your point?  I've never considered combat strictly part of the roleplaying part of roleplaying games. I just consider them the game part.  I don't really roleplay during battle in general regardless of the game's design, it isn't forcing me to do anything. I reserve the roleplaying for character interaction.[/quote]
But you don't have to.  At least, you didn't have to before now.

Now you do.  Does being forced to play that way actually benefit you in any way?
[quote]Except you can't manipulate the party's place in the narrative except for the one in your own mind[/quote]
Obviously. BioWare can't foresee our roleplaying choices.
[quote]Frankly you're just wrong here.  You have absolutely no control over Isabella's personality or her reactions to the PC's decisions on screnn beyond whatever rationalizations you try to make up in your head to try and edge around it, so how can you say she is not meant to be an induividual?[/quote]
Because she's not a person.  She's just a toy.

She's only a person from the point of view of the characters within the game, and thus from their point of view I agree that she should appear to be an individual with her own mind and preferences.

But she could be that even if that mind and those preferences were different, as determined by the player, each time the game was played.
[quote]Most people won't trap themselves in creating such a character.  You've created the problem yourself.  You're assuming that one of the other characters is leadership material.[/quote]
Not at all.  I'm assuming that one of the characters in the party is the best candidate for leader among the set of party members.  And unless some are exactly equivalent, this is guaranteed to be true.
[quote]To make this work all the time you'd have to control the whole party in the same manner you control the PC currently and define their personality, even change it to suit what you want.[/quote]
No we wouldn't.  We would just need that personality to be subservient to the collective will of the party as long as she was within it.

BG did this.
[quote] That isn't what most players I've encountered want.  They want to interact with interesting character the writers have crafted, something that just isn't possible if you have to effectively make all the characters yourself.
[/quote]
And as I've just explained, you can have both.
[quote]She is meant to have such a personality, that is why they've taken away your ability to clothe her however you wish.[/quote]
We're discussing whether that's necessary.  If you just jump to the end we may as well just stop now.
[quote]They didn't put all this time into designing the character and writing her dialogue for you to ignore it and make her do things Isabella would not do.[/quote]
Isabela voluntarily joined the party.  If the party asks he to do something (like learn a talent, or kill a bandit), she does it.  Is it any more of a stretch to have her ask an NPC some questions, or learn a slightly different talent?

The changes I'm asking for are small, incremental changes.
[quote]I'm not sure why you bothered to respond to this.[/quote]
To make you wrong.

If I weaken your confidence in your own conclusions, then maybe we can actually get somewhere.
[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Isabela is a character in a story. Why cheapen her character by un-defining her?[/quote]
I'm not undefining her.  I'm redefining her.

The player can define a character's characteristics just as BioWare can.  It happens all the time with the PC.  Why must the companions be any different?
[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

I'm just talking about what she really is, rather than what Bio says she is.[/quote]
This is an important distinction.  Thank you for making it.

It's possible that each companion can be best described as a member of his own class.  If that is true, however, one wonders why Hawke isn't offered a similarly focused class.

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

moilami wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh noes I got blocked....

While I can agree I might have used poor wording. I wouldn't call "Warfare through the Ages" (translated title) Wikipedia exactly. Its on wikipedia because it is MATH, which isn't subject to interpretation. Killing Force should have been Maximum of course. And no you wouldn't be able to kill me with a 25lbs shot unless it was a head- or heartshot or any other "freakshot" and would hardly even incapacitate me, If I wore armor, it wouldn't even hurt me. A 200lbs shot WILL incapacitate no matter where you are hit (again baring freakshots), even if you wear armor.
And crossbows aren't bows per say....
...
Why am I even bothering the man blcoked(!!!!!11oneone) me. I need to go cope with this tragic loss.

'


HAHAHAHAHA, like I said, you ridiculate yourself so badly with each post you make that I find this hard to be true.

You should seriously get at least some clue and read what is the actual "system shock" lethal effect arrows make. But I am very sure you would be unable to understand it.


Edit: I can help you a little by posting a picture which would help anyone with average intelligence understand why 200lbs mega overkill bows are not needed to kill even bears.
Just think how those blades would do to you if they penetrate you.

Then let me show you a little something:

THAT is a medieval arrowhead. Granted, it is worn by time, but you can see the shape and (hopefully) imagine what it would appear like in mint condition. THAT arrowhead is the reason you didn't shoot bears with one arrow back then, but many. You should get a clue.

OMG, this can't be true. I know in advance what you answer and how you ridiculate yourself just more and more. But don't still say to me that kind of arrow would be no probs when it penetrates anything of you? We don't even have to begin to argue would arrows in DA2 be more lethal than in your picture since your arrow is nasty enough. It is not some little needle you get from nurse. And you don't need 200lbs mega overkill bow to shoot it from, say, 5 meter average range in DA2, and you really don't need any skill to shoot something from 5 meters.