279 réponses à ce sujet

[Arkalezth]

Agreed with the OP. 2-handed was my favourite warrior type in Origins, but they look pretty weak in the demo.

Good to know Stanley felt the same, though.

Modifié par Arkalezth, 24 février 2011 - 10:01 .

[Wulfram]

Two handed warrior seems weak if he gets bogged down fighting a tough opponent one on one. Fighting bunches of mooks they do well.

[marcusgs221]

Wulfram wrote...

Two handed warrior seems weak if he gets bogged down fighting a tough opponent one on one. Fighting bunches of mooks they do well.

its not designed for single combat, its designed for multiple enemies up close. a rogue would have the same problems with three or four as the THW has with one. if every class did the same thing whats the point of multi-class system?

[tmp7704]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Our QA lead min-maxed a two-handed warrior into doing ridiculously massive damage to the point of one-shotting boss creatures.

Wouldn't that mean the whole concept of "making each stat useful in DA2" pretty much failed?

[soteria]

tmp7704 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Our QA lead min-maxed a two-handed warrior into doing ridiculously massive damage to the point of one-shotting boss creatures.

Wouldn't that mean the whole concept of "making each stat useful in DA2" pretty much failed?

You're assuming he min/maxed by pumping a single stat.  He could have done it by selecting certain talents or even possibly raising cunning (increasing critical damage) in conjunction with strength.  I think it takes two points of strength to raise damage by one, so I don't think that by itself would result in one-shotting a boss.

Modifié par soteria, 24 février 2011 - 10:14 .

[tmp7704]

soteria wrote...

You're assuming he min/maxed by pumping a single stat.  He could have done it by selecting certain talents or even possibly raising cunning (increasing critical damage) in conjunction with strength.  I think it takes two points of strength to raise damage by one, so I don't think that by itself would result in one-shotting a boss.

I'm assuming min-maxing means what it typically means   I.e. combination of pumping up selected stats and picking certain combinations of talents, which effectively means what i referred to -- that despite the stated goal of making "all stats useful" in the end some stats are determined unimportant and actually investing in them makes the character less effective.

Even in the demo you can see it to some extent -- examine the automatic builds of characters in the Kirkwall part, and you will see that even at lvl.6 they have points put in pretty much just their "important" stat, with everything else left at default.

Modifié par tmp7704, 24 février 2011 - 10:22 .

[Homebound]

is it just me or does the 2-hander cleave through multiple enemies caught in the sword-swing's arc?

[Adhin]

Yeah warrior (Shield and Weapon, or Two-handed) both go through multiple enemies at once. The sustained defensive ability for SnW removes that, and lowers base dmg so it only hits 1 target at a time.

But yeah basically Warrior always hits multiple targets as a base feature, rogue do it to singles.

[Beovuk]

Why are some people crying weak when:

1) Demo is based on a limited old build and you don't even have your VANGUARD tree....

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6090138

2) You even had a Bioware QA on page two say they buffed 2H's and that should have ended it right there.

Wouldn't that mean the whole concept of "making each stat useful in DA2" pretty much failed?

Not at all, imo it just confirms that if you do everything right Nightmare will be easy as it was in DA:O by mid lvls.

Modifié par Beovuk, 24 février 2011 - 10:29 .

[Zhel_Ryn]

Min-maxing is usually designed towards a specific purpose while forgoing any other ability/role. In these cases, yeah, some stats will be useless, as without making them all do the same, you won't be building for anything beyond the purpose (TH high damage).

If you're not min-maxing to that degree though, most stats do have benefits for everyone. I can't see what use strength has for a mage, beyond gear requirements and maybe fortitude, but there's a good amount of more uses from the stats than there were in DA:O.

The demo I can't say much on, for whatever reason they decided on force statting your Hawke, it seems pretty simplified on how it was done. As you said, all unspent points go into the 'attack' stat, and your talents are all spent on whichever tree has the most abilities already taken. Don't think it's meant to be read into. =P

Hellbound555 wrote...

is it just me or does the 2-hander cleave through multiple enemies caught in the sword-swing's arc?

Which part? Graphically, I assume there's no collision for the swing animation, so it's going through them. Mechanically, the warrior's melee attacks all have a conal effect in front of them, and will hit all enemies in the area. Two hander's range is pretty large, enough to squeeze 3-4 enemies side by side, and 1-2 more behind the center target, and this is before Giant's Reach that adds another 1m to the range.

[Cassidon]

Difficult to get an accurate idea in early levels.



THW sucked early game in DAO but became beasts later on.



The improvement curve is not linear but more exponential and I think youll see the effect more pronounced in THW if it plays out similar to DAO.

[Zhel_Ryn]

Beovuk wrote...

Why are some people crying weak when:

Probably cause not all of them are reading the dev posts, let alone all the posts here besides the OP, and only go by what they can see/play. =P

Doesn't help that we keep bumping this thread answering all these replies with the math and the carnage and the 'wth' answers lol.

[marcusgs221]

any class if built right will be great at what they are supposed to do. people have problems when they



A- dont know how to spend talent and skill points.



B- try tomake a class do something its not designed to do.



If your build is right and you use it how its supposed to be used it doesnt matter what class it is they will do their job for the team very well. this isnt a single char game, the whole point is to build an effective team.

[tmp7704]

Zhel_Ryn wrote...

Min-maxing is usually designed towards a specific purpose while forgoing any other ability/role. In these cases, yeah, some stats will be useless, as without making them all do the same, you won't be building for anything beyond the purpose (TH high damage).

I think this (some stats being deemed "useless") would be mostly a result of having certain purpose (in this case, damage) being tied to just one-two stats out of the whole bunch. Which effectively brings us back to the question i asked -- if this is the end effect (some stats can be safely written off as useless and the character performs on level that makes the other roles it could fill pretty much obsolete) then perhaps the implementation didn't quite match the intended goal.

The demo I can't say much on, for whatever reason they decided on force statting your Hawke, it seems pretty simplified on how it was done. As you said, all unspent points go into the 'attack' stat, and your talents are all spent on whichever tree has the most abilities already taken. Don't think it's meant to be read into. =P

What i read into it is, the stats other than primary were deemed unimportant to the point not investing in them wouldn't gimp the character to a point where it could become a concern. It caught my eye mainly because it's somewhat different from the auto-level tables of DAO, and as such i can only conclude this was a conscious change (it's not like the game is lacking ability to define more balanced point spread for the auto-levelling character)

Modifié par tmp7704, 24 février 2011 - 10:54 .

[marcusgs221]

tmp7704 wrote...

Zhel_Ryn wrote...

Min-maxing is usually designed towards a specific purpose while forgoing any other ability/role. In these cases, yeah, some stats will be useless, as without making them all do the same, you won't be building for anything beyond the purpose (TH high damage).

I think this (some stats being deemed "useless") would be mostly a result of having certain purpose (in this case, damage) being tied to just one-two stats out of the whole bunch. Which effectively brings us back to the question i asked -- if this is the end effect (some stats can be safely written off as useless and the character performs on level that makes the other roles it could fill pretty much obsolete) then perhaps the implementation didn't quite match the intended goal.

The char is supposed to fill a single role, what is the point of having four team members who can all do the everything sub-par when you can have each of them do one thing very well. in my experience if you want to get off normal setting your group has to work together.

[Murdario]

let me get this straight. if im a fighting a dragon, or some other huge boss creature, a rogue with daggers will do more damage to it than a warrior with a big sword? really? and this is supposedly balanced by having a warrior be more effective against herds of rats or goblins or whatever? REALLY?

[tmp7704]

marcusgs221 wrote...

The char is supposed to fill a single role, what is the point of having four team members who can all do the everything sub-par when you can have each of them do one thing very well.

That's two different things. To my knowledge the devs never said they're intending for every character to perform all roles. It was however said that there's intention to make every stat useful for every character (supposedly, no matter what single role that character was supposed to perform) I'm just noting that particular goal seems to have failed.

[Zhel_Ryn]

tmp7704 wrote...

Zhel_Ryn wrote...

Min-maxing is usually designed towards a specific purpose while forgoing any other ability/role. In these cases, yeah, some stats will be useless, as without making them all do the same, you won't be building for anything beyond the purpose (TH high damage).

I think this (some stats being deemed "useless") would be mostly a result of having certain purpose (in this case, damage) being tied to just one-two stats out of the whole bunch. Which effectively brings us back to the question i asked -- if this is the end effect (some stats can be safely written off as useless and the character performs on level that makes the other roles it could fill pretty much obsolete) then perhaps the implementation didn't quite match the intended goal.

Good point on the end effect in this case (one shotting a boss). I do see improvements on this compared to DA:O. In this case (and how the demo plays for us), they could have placed points into Strength (attack/damage), Dexterity (crit chance), and Cunning (crit damage) and still be aiming purely for top damage. 50% of the stats being useful isn't too terrible I suppose.

Not sure where the statement for all stats to be useful no matter the role came from, but I guess they did fail if they meant that for very specific builds like this. On topic, TH is not weaksauce, it just may or may not have the gear or talents avaible to make it seem otherwise to the mass.

Modifié par Zhel_Ryn, 24 février 2011 - 11:03 .

[tmp7704]

Murdario wrote...

let me get this straight. if im a fighting a dragon, or some other huge boss creature, a rogue with daggers will do more damage to it than a warrior with a big sword? really? and this is supposedly balanced by having a warrior be more effective against herds of rats or goblins or whatever? REALLY?

Yes.

Rogues are supposed to be the source of highest single-target DPS in DA2. Warriors are supposed to be source of AoE melee dps, in situations where they can attack more than two targets like others mentioned earliler. Mages are supposed to be ranged equivalent of warriors, with similar condition.

[soteria]

tmp7704 wrote...

soteria wrote...

You're assuming he min/maxed by pumping a single stat.  He could have done it by selecting certain talents or even possibly raising cunning (increasing critical damage) in conjunction with strength.  I think it takes two points of strength to raise damage by one, so I don't think that by itself would result in one-shotting a boss.

I'm assuming min-maxing means what it typically means   I.e. combination of pumping up selected stats and picking certain combinations of talents, which effectively means what i referred to -- that despite the stated goal of making "all stats useful" in the end some stats are determined unimportant and actually investing in them makes the character less effective.

Even in the demo you can see it to some extent -- examine the automatic builds of characters in the Kirkwall part, and you will see that even at lvl.6 they have points put in pretty much just their "important" stat, with everything else left at default.

Mmmm, ok.  But there's a difference between saying you can min/max a 2h warrior to be able to one-shot boss enemies and saying that some stats are useless.  I hate to even argue either side of this given how little we know, but we can imagine that there's a way to min/max a character to be awesome at one thing, and another way to make a character awesome at something else.  Those two ways might not necessarily involve the same stats.

That is, it's possible that all stats are useful to every class, but not necessarily for every build of every class.  Disclaimer:  I never believed that every stat could or will be useful in the first place.  Magic for rogues, for example, or strength for mages--I just don't see it.

[marcusgs221]

tmp7704 wrote...

marcusgs221 wrote...

The char is supposed to fill a single role, what is the point of having four team members who can all do the everything sub-par when you can have each of them do one thing very well.

That's two different things. To my knowledge the devs never said they're intending for every character to perform all roles. It was however said that there's intention to make every stat useful for every character (supposedly, no matter what single role that character was supposed to perform) I'm just noting that particular goal seems to have failed.

ok i understand what you ment. but why do i need my crit/ backstab damage high when im never doing that. i like their idea i dont see it working very well.

[Osena109]

 Yeah the THW was weaksause as S&B is epicsause  i have allways favored the S&B warrior that is the only type of warrior i played DAO

[Felfenix]

In the demo, I wasn't sure if my greatsword warrior's damage arc was smaller than I expected, or if I was just doing poor damage with the basic attack. I'm pretty sure it was the latter. Greatsword warrior's activated abilities were great and fun, but the basic attack felt underwhelming. I'm glad they're taking feedback and fine-tuning things. I gotta say though, I'm surprised so many loved the shield warrior. I didn't really see anything it had over greatsword in anything but survivability, but the actual playstyle felt like less.

Modifié par Felfenix, 24 février 2011 - 11:06 .

[Yrkoon]

Hellbound555 wrote...

is it just me or does the 2-hander cleave through multiple enemies caught in the sword-swing's arc?

That's the   Giant's Reach passive.  A Passive.  This *alone* leads me to believe that 2-handers will eventually become  insanely more  powerful than people here think.  Can you imagine how much carnage you'll be doing as a result of this passive, once you get a good weapon and start raising your strength?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 24 février 2011 - 11:07 .

[Adhin]

@marcusgs221: you don't, but Cunning (critical hit damage, backstab is a talent now) also increases your Defense Rating. Peter Thomas has stated a few times that in one of his builds he built Aveline for a tank and had nearly equal Str, Cun, and Con. Cunning was for the Defense rating (aka, chance enemies don't hit you). There's a whole thread around here detailing out how all the stats work now. And they're all pretty straight forward in there usefulness.

It's just a matter of 'do I want to up magic for Magic Resistance' as a non-mage. Which I doubt many warriors will but if your making a Templar whos all about killing mages, I can see it being a 100% viable option over Cunning.

Modifié par Adhin, 24 février 2011 - 11:19 .