124 réponses à ce sujet

[uly]

No, not really.  Just that... am I the only one who thinks that there are too many dual wielders in DAO?

In real life and most fantasy fictions, dual wielders are relatively rare.  And for good reason, too: dual wielding is inherently unintuitive and inefficient, and a dual weapons fighting techniques invariably require more training to master.  Of course, there are schools that specialise in dual weapon fighting, but even then the actual dual weapon fighting part are often reserved for advanced practitioners.

That said, I personally love dual wielding.  I just think that it's too depreciated in DAO.  In D&D and some other rules, dual wielding is appropriately reserved for certain martial classes and require more investment than other fighting styles.  But in DAO, about one third of all warriors and every other rogue is a dual-wielder, it's just very awkward.

I think there definitely should have been a single weapon fighting style, so that melee rogues have at least an alternative to dual wielding.  Dual wielding talents should also provide less benefits on lower tiers, only give out significant bonuses at maybe tier 3 or 4.  An amateur dual wielder should be at a disadvantage relative to other styles.

[rahlcepx516]

If your saying a single weapon in one hand (like a ninja sword?), that is not a two-handed weapon, would do more damage than two single hand weapons, I don't understand your theory. I can't possible think what a rogue would do with a free hand standing behind an enemy, besides pouring a bottle of poison into the wound, which the blade already achieves. The only thing I can think of is to incorporate more CC to the class, to allow for maces to bash the enemies brain in, and making stealth more efficient. Warriors are natural dual wielders. They SHOULD be able to DW two handers, they are obviously not as efficient or fast as a rogue carrying two daggers obviously, which is the BIG difference that everyone needs to realize. Just because you can dual wield, does not mean that it will be the same as the rogue, or warrior, or other class that can DW.



The only thing I SOMEWHAT disagree with is battle mages dual wielding without having any true talent tree for it. But I can't criticize since that was my first character play through. =P

[Beertastic]

Two words: Game balance. Bioware has to sacrifice some realism for the sake of giving more options and making them work equally well.



to rhalcepx516: He's referring to real life swordsmanship. Dual wielding in real life is not practical, and a easy way to get yourself killed (not that we use melee weapons anymore anyway).

[Haexpane]

Yes, REAL LIFE dual wielding is a pipe dream.

HK action movies - every **** has dual uzis.



Since then every nerd has demanded dual wielding in every game, shooter or RPG even tho it's the most unrealistic and nonsense feature around.

[rahlcepx516]

Haha, ok, sorry about dragging on then.

[BluesMan1956]

If we want realism, let's get rid of the magic...and the darkspawn...and the dragons and other mythical creatures. Heck, let's just toss this and play CSI....

[Skemte]

I personally think Two handers are awful compared to what dual wielders get.

[Zibon]

Yea, when I saw that there is a Duelist specialization I thought it would be like in D&D and they would specialize in using a single weapon. Unfortunately that's not the case.

[Zibon]

BluesMan1956 wrote...

If we want realism, let's get rid of the magic...and the darkspawn...and the dragons and other mythical creatures. Heck, let's just toss this and play CSI....

Those are the fantastical elements that are added to the realistic elements and make it a fantasy setting.  Once you strip the fantasy the rest should be realistic since it is based on the recognition of our own reality.

Modifié par Zibon, 16 novembre 2009 - 11:27 .

[BluesMan1956]

Zibon wrote...

BluesMan1956 wrote...

If we want realism, let's get rid of the magic...and the darkspawn...and the dragons and other mythical creatures. Heck, let's just toss this and play CSI....

Those are the fantastical elements that are added to the realistic elements and make it a fantasy setting.  Once you strip the fantasy the rest should be realistic since it is based on the recognition of our own reality.

[Bluto Blutarskyx]

uly wrote...

No, not really.  Just that... am I the only one who thinks that there are too many dual wielders in DAO?

In real life and most fantasy fictions, dual wielders are relatively rare.  And for good reason, too: dual wielding is inherently unintuitive and inefficient, and a dual weapons fighting techniques invariably require more training to master.  Of course, there are schools that specialise in dual weapon fighting, but even then the actual dual weapon fighting part are often reserved for advanced practitioners.

actually, when used properly, duel weapons or dual hand use or use of weapon and sheild are ALL counter intuitive, for that matter so is basic sword or movement with any weapon-

thats why its the only form of martial arts that doing kata/flurr\\ies is not inherently inefficient. but i digress.

use of "dual" weapon is common depending on the period and culture in question, use of a rapier and buckler, rapiear and dagger or rapier and cloack are all dual weilded-

early sword manuals such as the I:33 show use of the single handed longsword and buclker and the two are used and attack as one-

how a shield is meant to be used to complement and cover strikes- not a static guard as fantasy fiction movies typically depict. 

even george silver in his "paradoxes of defence" and "brief instructions on paradoxes of defence" recomends off hand weapon length.

NO QUESTION- people are overzealous about dual weilding in this game- quite honestly, they have to be, the game forces you to be- the rouge's only combat option aside from a mish mash collection of "dirty tricks" is in fact dual weilding or bow- so you have no other options to be a melee oriented rouge.

warrior characters who chose dual weild in dao ore more likely to be a fan of the fantasy use.

and given its popularity, thats the reason for it-

personally, i DON'T like it. i don't see why the benefits or something cant be built around sword and buckler as well or include spears or some other such in the game.

the main reason for the off hand in reailty is not the difficulty and use of it, there is much difficulty in two handed longsword grip as well since the pressure and winden (the bind) becomes even more important and is a whole different aspect that opens up deeper options, none of them really "natural" feeling and all learned.

- the thing is, that to carry around two swords, is not going to be as effective, as a sword and shield, or not deliver the natural power, range and leverage of a two handed longsword or greatsword (forget true zweihanders thats a totally different use entirely that has an even further distinction).

the problme here is that people just prefer this as a fantasy fiction favorite since it translates easily to game terms-

as far as two handed, they naturally focus on the laymen's idea of 2h = more power, thats generally true, but not for the reason a tyipical game developer would understand, its not an "i smash you more now", its an "i have more control to manipulate the leverage of a larger bigger ranged weapon"

- i think i went off on at least 5 tangents here- but basically whats real is not going to be whats in this game, otherwise we would see MUCH more detailed combat to the point of it ibeing as detail oriented as fight night 4, which would lose the attention of the vast majority of fandom out there who have no interest in the difference between pfluge, vom tag, ochs or alber guards. (as i'm sure your head is spinning now).

but just that dual weapon is a popular style among fans- personally i wish the rouge had more options, just like the warrior, so what if they are similar, maybe just cut out one line or make them less efficient (they are pretty close) in combat or make certain techniques in weapon and shield for example, relate to a buckler but deal damage with increased defence but still based on a main hand weapon attack-

i don't know- its just that what they did is very basic, and IMO it kind of has to be: dual weild = finesse, weapon and shield = defence, two handed = more damage- works for game terms, as much as i hate the oversimplification- it works.

[Skemte]

I personally would have gone two handers.. If it were not for the fact of the slow speed they are and how often they seem to miss with the said slow speed.

[Oliver Sudden]

To the OP: Thanks!



I thought I was the only one who didn't "get" this recent obsession with dual wielding. It's bad enough that we have it all, but I was pretty unhappy to see how big a role it plays in this game. It's like it's being forced on my rogue since it's the only way to do great damage.



I'd much rather have the chance to awesomely advance one-handed weapons in one hand. That seems to me much more natural. I can't imagine anyone running around waving two swords to fight, and it looks cartoony when my rogue does it.



And yet, as the OP points out, if it's not in the game everyone asks for it. I just don't understand it.

[RedShft]

This is a fantasy game. It is also a computer game. Anything that detracts from the fun, as in this, and realism has no place in a fantasy computer game.



Computer games, especially those of the fantasy genre, are not meant to be simulations of life or even have realistic traits such as the one you are describing.

[Houkka]

Zibon wrote...

BluesMan1956 wrote...

If we want realism, let's get rid of the magic...and the darkspawn...and the dragons and other mythical creatures. Heck, let's just toss this and play CSI....

Those are the fantastical elements that are added to the realistic elements and make it a fantasy setting.  Once you strip the fantasy the rest should be realistic since it is based on the recognition of our own reality.

Yes, once you strip the fantasy. In which case we don't have a game anymore, since everything about the game is fantasy. Great going, now we don't have a game anymore. Thanks a lot. 

There's just not much point in stripping the fantasy off a fantasy game. And yes, in a sense it is based on our recognition of our own reality, but at the same time it's a game about a DIFFERENT reality in which some things might be DIFFERENT. I don't quite follow the logic of your argument.

[Zibon]

Houkka wrote...

Yes, once you strip the fantasy. In which case we don't have a game anymore, since everything about the game is fantasy. Great going, now we don't have a game anymore. Thanks a lot. 

There's just not much point in stripping the fantasy off a fantasy game. And yes, in a sense it is based on our recognition of our own reality, but at the same time it's a game about a DIFFERENT reality in which some things might be DIFFERENT. I don't quite follow the logic of your argument.

The point is that the difficulty of weapon training has nothing to do with the fantastical elements.  Not "everything" about the game is fantasy.

Also using a single weapon can have its own advantages over a dual weapon style.  It's not as if it would have to be completely boring.

Modifié par Zibon, 16 novembre 2009 - 11:42 .

[Yevgenii]

Bluto Blutarskyx wrote...


how a shield is meant to be used to complement and cover strikes- not a static guard as fantasy fiction movies typically depict.

Completely wrong. The way a shield is meant to be used depends on what kind of soldier youre talking about, and the culture. ever heard of a phalanx? spartan hoplites would use their large round shields to cover their left and the right side of the warrior to their left, making a literal wall of static protection. Same with the Romans, although their phalanx was a copy of the Spartan/Macedonian phalanx, just with Tower shields.

Some western european armies, however, had troops outfitted with heaters (essentially a buckler, sometimes with a spike) so that you can use the shield to bash someone, throwing them off-balance, so that you can finish them off with the blade.

There is no one way to use a shield, it all depends on the style of combat.

Modifié par Yevgenii, 16 novembre 2009 - 11:43 .

[Oliver Sudden]

RedShft wrote...

... Anything that detracts from the fun, as in this, ...has no place in a fantasy computer game.

 

I could say that having dual wielding play such a prominent role in the game detracts from my fun.

But it's reassuring to see all the reality arguments again.

[RedShft]

If it detracts from your fun and you are motivated enough I am sure you could make a modification to the game that makes dual wielding a lot more rare.

[Oliver Sudden]

RedShft wrote...

If it detracts from your fun and you are motivated enough I am sure you could make a modification to the game that makes dual wielding a lot more rare.

Hah! I wish I could do stuff like that!
May you have many enjoyable battles!

[Gabo]

For most people, "reality" regarding sword combat is based on what they see in movies. Since most of the stuff in movie is only loosely based on real life and has a lot of fanciful choreography added to make it look cool, the "reality" presented in Dragon Age should also be easy to accept for most people.



While the part of what we wanted to get across with the weapon styles was that it looked humanly feasable, we also wanted it to look cool and we also wanted people to see it a lot since it does indeed look quite cool.

[Inarai]

Yevgenii wrote...

Bluto Blutarskyx wrote...


how a shield is meant to be used to complement and cover strikes- not a static guard as fantasy fiction movies typically depict.

Completely wrong. The way a shield is meant to be used depends on what kind of soldier youre talking about, and the culture. ever heard of a phalanx? spartan hoplites would use their large round shields to cover their left and the right side of the warrior to their left, making a literal wall of static protection. Same with the Romans, although their phalanx was a copy of the Spartan/Macedonian phalanx, just with Tower shields.

Some western european armies, however, had troops outfitted with heaters (essentially a buckler, sometimes with a spike) so that you can use the shield to bash someone, throwing them off-balance, so that you can finish them off with the blade.

There is no one way to use a shield, it all depends on the style of combat.

And further still, I've come across an Indian martial art in the past which literally used a small round sheild as a second weapon.

But we should all keep in mind:  What may be an esoteric fighting style in reality might not be in Ferelden, which has in its recent history had very little peace.

[1000yardkill]

It all started with The Grey Mouser, but I doubt many of you whipper-snappers even know who that is.

[menasure]

i'd say dual wielding is a specialized technique to raise your chance to hit in real life because it's a whole lot harder to block 2 weapons at once. it's more like adding an extra chance to wound an opponent which matters a lot in real life for outcomes of fights but a lot less in computer games where you just do the same actions with 1 health point left.



the downside is that you can not put your full strength into the blows (that's what 2H weapons are for in real life, besides the additional range). you're unlikely to hit with both weapons at once unless the opponent is already wounded and you can hardly block efficient because you're basically out of balance (especially when using 2 heavy weapons). i'd say that last part is handled rather well in game because of the additional 'specialist' training required to make dual wielding more efficient but a lot depends on the weapons itself.

it's not unthinkable to use an additional dagger in the off hand when you're used to a main hand technique and oriental fighting techniques used shorter less heavy weapons for dual wielding, which is not the same as wielding two long swords for example but i'd say you see these things in martial arts demonstrations, games and movies more for the show element than for their proven efficiency in history.

[addiction21]

1000yardkill wrote...

It all started with The Grey Mouser, but I doubt many of you whipper-snappers even know who that is.

I thought it was gray?