523 réponses à ce sujet

[Lennonkun]

Buffy-Summers wrote...
In DAO i could use alister, shale, sten, odgen as a tank with almost equal success

It looks like in DA2 that 1 companion will be so much better at that then others it would be idiocy to pick anyone else

I hate Avelline and have no desire to have her in my party. Shes the only logical tank though.

Quite frustrating being forced into using a party member I hate.

[wulf3n]

Link3521 wrote...
I'll give you that one, but my point is that this new icon system was developed to help aleviate this problem while still keeping the awesomeness/lameness (take your pick) of the convo wheel

I don't disagree that this is the best wheel to date, and without good/bad points may be quite bearable, it's just feels to limiting for my tastes.

It reminds me of a Mass Effect quote from the developers, (annoyingly i can't find a link) where they said that in Mass Effect you're not playing the role you want your playing Shepard, and I feel like the same philosophy is being applied here. It's not you're character doing all these things it's Hawke, you merely get to make some choices for him. It's just a big shift from the design of Origins. 

[Esoj16]

Lennonkun wrote...

Buffy-Summers wrote...
In DAO i could use alister, shale, sten, odgen as a tank with almost equal success

It looks like in DA2 that 1 companion will be so much better at that then others it would be idiocy to pick anyone else

I hate Avelline and have no desire to have her in my party. Shes the only logical tank though.

Quite frustrating being forced into using a party member I hate.

I'm sure you can tank with fenris/carver effectively on normal and maybe on hard, but for nightmare I think it will either have to be Avelline or Hawke and imo that's perfectly fine, nightmare should be for the min/maxers and sometimes if you want to min/max you have to lose out on some part of the story or on a favorite skill, it's just the nature of the beast.

[Infaela]

I don't buy that anyone who hasn't played the full game yet knows what must be done to make a party balanced enough to succeed. Without actual experience playing, beyond the demo, it seems a pretty big assumption to say that any one character is going to be absolutely essential to a successful play-through.

[Felene]

Lennonkun wrote...

Buffy-Summers wrote...
In DAO i could use alister, shale, sten, odgen as a tank with almost equal success

It looks like in DA2 that 1 companion will be so much better at that then others it would be idiocy to pick anyone else

I hate Avelline and have no desire to have her in my party. Shes the only logical tank though.

Quite frustrating being forced into using a party member I hate.

Is it just me or it seems people who thinks the game has been dumb down only have themselves to blame.

I respect anyone try to convince them otherwise.

[Esoj16]

wulf3n wrote...

Link3521 wrote...
I'll give you that one, but my point is that this new icon system was developed to help aleviate this problem while still keeping the awesomeness/lameness (take your pick) of the convo wheel

I don't disagree that this is the best wheel to date, and without good/bad points may be quite bearable, it's just feels to limiting for my tastes.

It reminds me of a Mass Effect quote from the developers, (annoyingly i can't find a link) where they said that in Mass Effect you're not playing the role you want your playing Shepard, and I feel like the same philosophy is being applied here. It's not you're character doing all these things it's Hawke, you merely get to make some choices for him. It's just a big shift from the design of Origins. 

Can't believe they actually said that   I hope that was not part of the design for DA2.  I agree with you mostly, I enjoyed the system in origins and thought it gives more freedom than the ME system but I don't mind the wheel too much, and judging from the demo it'll be a good enough system.

[Maria Caliban]

I recall Peter's Nightmare run was an archer, a DW, and two mages. I don't think you need Aveline unless your only tactic is tank and spank.

[wulf3n]

Link3521 wrote...
Can't believe they actually said that   I hope that was not part of the design for DA2.

They may not have said it, i can't find a link, so i may have just imagined it. 

[Berkilak]

Lennonkun wrote...

Buffy-Summers wrote...
In DAO i could use alister, shale, sten, odgen as a tank with almost equal success

It looks like in DA2 that 1 companion will be so much better at that then others it would be idiocy to pick anyone else

I hate Avelline and have no desire to have her in my party. Shes the only logical tank though.

Quite frustrating being forced into using a party member I hate.

Sword and board does not equate to tank. There are other talent trees (ie. Defender) for that. Unless you're a min/maxer going for the most mathematically perfect team (and in that case, only Alistair could have served as tank if not your Warden since all other Warriors were pre-levelled), there's a LOT of leeway.

[Nashiktal]

Less control over companions fighting style? Someone didn't pick up a partymember in the late game during DA.

[Xewaka]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I recall Peter's Nightmare run was an archer, a DW, and two mages. I don't think you need Aveline unless your only tactic is tank and spank.

It was rogue Hawke (archer-dual wield as per situation needs), Aveline as tank, Varric/Merrill (depending on specific quest) as secondary DPS, and Anders as support.

Modifié par Xewaka, 27 février 2011 - 06:34 .

[Cyr8]

I feel that Bioware shot itself in the foot with this demo. I think the bare levels, uninteresting characters, and combat all worked in a negative way to make some people want to cancel.

[Buffy-Summers]

Morroian wrote:

That just means its a more tightly focussed story not that its dumbed down.

Or that they did not want to create many areas to rush the game to Gold

Or that its just one single boring dull city

It could mean anything but variety is the spice of life, is a maxim for a reason
Morroian wrote:

To balance the classes not to dumb down.

Less does not balance, you can balance by adding more, by removing options you have by all definitions removed options, that is less, that is dumb down

Morroian wrote

So fitting the armour that you personally think looks the best is an intellectual endeavour.


It has nothing to do with look it has everything to do with +healing + hostility + armor + attack speed

So your saying you would rather Bioware determine your armor for your companions over your own picks? Your strategy is less then theirs? I like putting specific gear on specific people

Morroian wrote:

Giving characters more personality does not translate to being dumbed down. It widens the characterisation. Plus it should lead the more characters being used depending on the situation which is actually more strategic.

Giving a PLAYER less imput and the game company MORE imput is dumbed down. They are doing more for you and you do less for yourself.

Morroian wrote:

Those of us who are prepared to use have just as many role playing options as in DAO.


Some of us like to actually know what we are saying not guessing what the person will say when you say something vague and general

Morroian wrote

If you re-specced them with S&S yes you could. With the defender tree ww have the coice of Fenris, Aveline or Hawke.

Yes but each class has a specialization that you cant give the other, Avelines might be way better for tank then say Fenris or Carver who may have a specialization that is better at something else

The spec books wont change the specific class specializations

Link3521 wrote:

2. You may need to count again, 60 spells for mages, 60 skilles for warriors, 60 skills for rogues, that's more than origins and that's not even counting the specializations.

Mages had 68 spells in origins without any spec
Mages have 38 non spec spells and some that upgrade these 38 to the origins originals

The only thing that the upgrade does to winter's grasp is making it back to the original origin spell

Some of the origin spells have been cut in half so they could be "upgraded" to what they originally were in origins

[Lennonkun]

Berkilak wrote...
Sword and board does not equate to tank. There are other talent trees (ie. Defender) for that. Unless you're a min/maxer going for the most mathematically perfect team (and in that case, only Alistair could have served as tank if not your Warden since all other Warriors were pre-levelled), there's a LOT of leeway.

Sorry but... yes it does. The additional Defense from a shield keeps the tank alive longer, which is their purpose.

To use DnD analogy, a fighter with a shield, and a 2h fighter is a difference of 4 AC. That's A LOT.

Also Shale and Alistair were the only viable tanks in DA:O but on the plus side Shale was easily the best char in the game for dialogue, even if Alistair did pull ahead in the tanking effectivness.

[Maria Caliban]

Xewaka wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
I recall Peter's Nightmare run was an archer, a DW, and two mages. I don't think you need Aveline unless your only tactic is tank and spank.

It was rogue Hawke (archer-dual wield as per situation needs), Aveline as tank, Varric/Merrill (depending on specific quest) as secondary DPS, and Anders as support.

There goes my point.

For the highest difficulty, you probably will need Aveline or a PC S+B.

[Morroian]

Buffy-Summers wrote...


Morroian wrote:

Use quote tags please, your message is an incomprehensible mess.

Modifié par Morroian, 27 février 2011 - 06:50 .

[Berkilak]

Lennonkun wrote...

Berkilak wrote...
Sword and board does not equate to tank. There are other talent trees (ie. Defender) for that. Unless you're a min/maxer going for the most mathematically perfect team (and in that case, only Alistair could have served as tank if not your Warden since all other Warriors were pre-levelled), there's a LOT of leeway.

Sorry but... yes it does. The additional Defense from a shield keeps the tank alive longer, which is their purpose.

To use DnD analogy, a fighter with a shield, and a 2h fighter is a difference of 4 AC. That's A LOT.

Also Shale and Alistair were the only viable tanks in DA:O but on the plus side Shale was easily the best char in the game for dialogue, even if Alistair did pull ahead in the tanking effectivness.

You're not using a D&D analogy, you're equating the skills in DA2 to your preconceived notions from other RPGs and rulesets. The sword and board skillset is better for CC, the two-hander for AoE. There's a tank-based aura in the S&B tree, but you can grab it and use it with a two hander. The tank-focussed skill trees are Defender and Warmonger, and both S&B and 2H Warriors can tank just as effectively if you build well. To argue otherwise is blind.

Edit: Also, you're admitting to min-maxing, thus invalidating your point that there's less flexibility - there's just as much for you.

Modifié par Berkilak, 27 février 2011 - 06:47 .

[Infaela]

Lennonkun wrote...

To use DnD analogy, a fighter with a shield, and a 2h fighter is a difference of 4 AC. That's A LOT.

Er, yes, in DnD that is a lot.  But we don't know how the math will work out in DA2 (at least I don't) and there is such a thing as alternate tactics.  Until we have more experience with the game no one here can really say definitively what will work best.  Or even what will work acceptably.  If I don't want someone in my party I just alter my tactics to work with what I have.  I doubt the game will be so poorly balanced that we have to use any one character just to survive.

[Xewaka]

Berkilak wrote...
You're not using a D&D analogy, you're equating the skills in DA2 to your preconceived notions from other RPGs and rulesets. The sword and board skillset is better for CC, the two-hander for AoE. There's a tank-based aura in the S&B tree, but you can grab it and use it with a two hander. The tank-focussed skill trees are Defender and Warmonger, and both S&B and 2H Warriors can tank just as effectively if you build well. To argue otherwise is blind.

From a pure statistical point of view, sword and shield has increased damage soaking capabilities compared to two hand weapon: therefore, sword and shield, due to the nature of the equipment, is better suited for tanking.

[Berkilak]

Xewaka wrote...

Berkilak wrote...
You're not using a D&D analogy, you're equating the skills in DA2 to your preconceived notions from other RPGs and rulesets. The sword and board skillset is better for CC, the two-hander for AoE. There's a tank-based aura in the S&B tree, but you can grab it and use it with a two hander. The tank-focussed skill trees are Defender and Warmonger, and both S&B and 2H Warriors can tank just as effectively if you build well. To argue otherwise is blind.

From a pure statistical point of view, sword and shield has increased damage soaking capabilities compared to two hand weapon: therefore, sword and shield, due to the nature of the equipment, is better suited for tanking.

Better suited, but not solely-suited.

[Infaela]

Xewaka wrote...

Berkilak wrote...
You're not using a D&D analogy, you're equating the skills in DA2 to your preconceived notions from other RPGs and rulesets. The sword and board skillset is better for CC, the two-hander for AoE. There's a tank-based aura in the S&B tree, but you can grab it and use it with a two hander. The tank-focussed skill trees are Defender and Warmonger, and both S&B and 2H Warriors can tank just as effectively if you build well. To argue otherwise is blind.

From a pure statistical point of view, sword and shield has increased damage soaking capabilities compared to two hand weapon: therefore, sword and shield, due to the nature of the equipment, is better suited for tanking.

Better suited for the taking damage part of tanking, but tanking is about controlling the battlefield too.  A tank that can't take as much hurt can be balanced by better healing, DPS, or crowd control.  The complaint that one character in particular might be absolutely necessary in a party whether they're wanted or not, and that this lack of choice is vile and wicked and awful, hinges on the assumption that there will be no other successful way to play.  There just isn't any reason to believe that, yet.

[borelocin]

Berkilak wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Berkilak wrote...
You're not using a D&D analogy, you're equating the skills in DA2 to your preconceived notions from other RPGs and rulesets. The sword and board skillset is better for CC, the two-hander for AoE. There's a tank-based aura in the S&B tree, but you can grab it and use it with a two hander. The tank-focussed skill trees are Defender and Warmonger, and both S&B and 2H Warriors can tank just as effectively if you build well. To argue otherwise is blind.

From a pure statistical point of view, sword and shield has increased damage soaking capabilities compared to two hand weapon: therefore, sword and shield, due to the nature of the equipment, is better suited for tanking.

Better suited, but not solely-suited.

Sword+ Board = Tank. Zweihander = more durable, low-range DPS.

Modifié par borelocin, 27 février 2011 - 06:55 .

[Thullon]

So the tank debate comes down to min/min maxing vs what is viable... well that's a dead end debate!

[mesmerizedish]

borelocin wrote...

Sword+ Board = Tank. Zweihander = durable DPS.

Optimally, yes. But you can tank with a two-hander, and you can DPS as S&S. You just won't be as good. You may need to play your role optimally on nightmare, but even on hard I'll bet Fenris can tank and Aveline can DPS if you build them right.

[Morroian]

Infaela wrote...

Better suited for the taking damage part of tanking, but tanking is about controlling the battlefield too.  A tank that can't take as much hurt can be balanced by better healing, DPS, or crowd control.  The complaint that one character in particular might be absolutely necessary in a party whether they're wanted or not, and that this lack of choice is vile and wicked and awful, hinges on the assumption that there will be no other successful way to play.  There just isn't any reason to believe that, yet.

In fact it is dumber to mindlessly just pick a sword and shield character to tank when there are pother options. DA2 is actually is better strategically in this regard.