193 réponses à ce sujet

[Eternal Phoenix]

Sabotin wrote...

Where in the game does it state that two handed warriors deal more damage than all classes, I can't find that?

And actually they do indeed make the most damage, just not the highest. Remember they can hit 4+ targets at once, while a rogue or mage just 1. If you add that up, mages and rogues don't come close.

Depends. If you're playing a high difficulty, then the mage's spells will do damage to allies. If you're playing on the normal or casual difficulties, then the mage's spells which do area damage do more damage to more enemies than the warrior could ever dream of hitting. The rogue kills boss like enemies within two critical strikes (and when you've got 100% chance of dealing them, enemies fall quickly) and thus can strike more enemies faster than the warrior.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Amioran wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
Read my last post and check your game. The game clearly states two handed warriors deal more damage than all classes but like another user above you stated - mages and rogues are more powerful.

Ok, good to know you clearly avoided all I've said, and totally missed the point.

Sorry but with someone that doesn't want to hear no word will suffice.

Oh, and, btw, 38 damage (2handed) vs 4 targets at once (minimum), is more damage than 110 (bow, highest damage weapon) vs one target only. Math it's not your greatest trait it seems, as it is not comprehension nor knowledge. The game tooltips are correct, in fact, it is only you that don't understand how things works.

I leave you to your great IQ.

"Try to talk sense in a fool and he will think you foolish" - Discorides.

I am in anger at your post. You call me foolish but you claim 38 damage + 4 targets at once is good? Well genius - 200 fire ball damage + 10 targets at once = 2000 damage. Your own logic suggests mages are more powerful yet you claim the warrior class is better? So because I have an opinion about the warrior class (that no one has disproven) that makes me an idiot who deserves to be insulted? What an idiot you are. EVEN a sword and shield warrior does weak damage even though they focus on one enemy. So if you want to keep thinking the warrior class is better than the mage class, be my guess. You've destroy your own argument by your foolish argument you have used. 38 damage + 4 targets = more than 110? No. Damage doesn't mutiple based on the enemies around the warrior. A sword and shield warrior is meant for defense and should have weaker attacks, a two handed warrior should have stronger attacks (because he's using two hands) AND reach more enemies like with Origins. Or are you a Biodrone (like many of the others here) who just can't accept their are flaws in this game?

Nice end quote, you predicted what I would say. Here's mine:

Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 29 avril 2011 - 05:57 .

[Amioran]

Elton John is dead wrote...
I am in anger at your post. You call me foolish but you claim 38 damage + 4 targets at once is good? Well genius - 200 fire ball damage + 10 targets at once = 2000 damage. Your own logic suggests mages are more powerful yet you claim the warrior class is better? 

Weren't you speaking about attacks and not using abilities (in fact you said at beginning that you don't want to take passives/abilities to increased damage and were all angry and whatnot that you simply couldn't equip a 2handed sword with high strength and massacre everything just by this)? Changing point all the time just to have one, i see.

Sorry to say that to you but mages are meant to have abilities that do the most AoE damage, but they don't have AoE attacks.

2handed warriors have both, while they have less area of effect for abilities in respect to mages and they have less.

Elton John is dead wrote...
Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

Blake: "if the fool would continue with his folly he would become sage".

Maybe if you insist...

Modifié par Amioran, 29 avril 2011 - 06:15 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

2 handed warriors do AoE attacks but the game clearly states they do the most damage as well. 2 handed warriors have less defense than a sword and shield warrior but their damage makes up for that - at least the game states that, yet I've proven their damage is low and all of your defenses for this is that it's because of the AoE attacks despite the game claiming otherwise. If I swing my sword - focusing on the enemy in front of me, he should take the most damage because I focused my attack on him while the others around me (who I didn't focus the attack on) should take less. Instead, they all take the same equal damage. Play any RPG with AoE attacks with a sword and it doesn't work like this. Upset I pointed out a flaw in the warrior class? Does that make me a fool?



Again, check the class selection screen or are you going to call me a fool again for directing you to what the game itself states?

And no, I'm not the only one with this view about the two handed warrior:

http://news.softpedi...rior-191269.pdf

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 29 avril 2011 - 06:05 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Oh and Stanley Woo even states the 2 handed warrior being more weaker. I guess he (and the people in the thread who agree with the OP about the 2 handed class being weak) are fools too. That was after people noticed how weak the 2 handed warrior was in the demo and don't claim things have been changed, they remain the same. The only thing which makes a two handed warrior good are the abilities.

http://social.biowar...index/6182904/2

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 29 avril 2011 - 06:13 .

[Amioran]

Elton John is dead wrote...

2 handed warriors do AoE attacks but the game clearly states they do the most damage as well. 2 handed warriors have less defense than a sword and shield warrior but their damage makes up for that - at least the game states that, yet I've proven their damage is low and all of your defenses for this is that it's because of the AoE attacks despite the game claiming otherwise.

You have only proven that: A) you cannot comprehend either the most basic thing, you don't know how to read, C) you insist on the two same points also when you have been proven wrong one time after another.

I repeat: WARRIORS DO THE MOST DAMAGE BECAUSE YOU MUST ACCOUNT FOR THE AOE. IT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE THAT THEIR WEAPONS WOULD DO MORE DAMAGE THAT THOSE THAT AFFECT ONLY A TARGET. It is not a difficult concept to understand yet you don't get it. I still don't understand if you are truly so stupid to don't get either this basic concept or you just do it to try to have a point.

Elton John is dead wrote...
Again, check the class selection screen or are you going to call me a fool again for directing you to what the game itself states?

And again, I've already proven to you that they DO more damage since they attack in AoE. Debating also math now? Probably you should start a discussion on how 4x10 is inferior to 25, you would have the same general consensus, i.e. none.

Elton John is dead wrote...
And no, I'm not the only one with this view about the two handed warrior:

http://news.softpedi...rior-191269.pdf

You should read a little better what you quote. You continue to do a bad figure after another.

A) They are talking about the demo.
They are saying that they acknowledged it and in the full game 2handed are much stronger.
C) They also stated that warriors require more time to become good (this on account to the fact that they need both passives and abilities that increase the range to acquire that strength).

I'm becoming bored.

Modifié par Amioran, 29 avril 2011 - 06:24 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Ha. I don't know how to read? Check the article again:

"This becomes very annoying at the end of the second act, when you get to fight the Qunari
Arishok. You can choose to either defend your honor through a regular duel, or deny him
that pleasure and fight alongside your team of companions.

Seeing as how honor was essential to my version of Hawke, the hero of the game, I choseto duel, meaning we would face off in a small arena. I knew he'd be a tough enemy to defeat, but the ensuing battle was ridiculous, to say theleast. My attacks barely made any dent in his health bar, while he unleashed a wide array ofattacks as soon as I got near him.

Hopefully, for those who also choose to play as such warriors, BioWare will try to balance things out in future patches, as the fun factor dies quickly when you can barely damageenemies, even on the easiest difficult setting."

Not the demo. The full game. It also sounds like the reviewer played on all difficulties judging by the last sentance.

Come back when you've read everything. Warriors with sword and shield who focus on one enemy still do poor attack damage and it's funny how you ignored Stanley's Woo's view on the 2 handed warrior.

/Done with you.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 29 avril 2011 - 06:32 .

[ezrafetch]

Elton John is dead wrote...
And no, I'm not the only one with this view about the two handed warrior:

http://news.softpedi...rior-191269.pdf

Everything in that "journal" is "I'm lazy and I don't want to work to efficiently play the game."  Hate to say it, but that entry reeks of L2P.  Nightmare is a tough cookie.  It's supposed to be.  Deal with it.  And yes, the Arishok is tough for a Warrior, but it's supposed to be a tough battle: it's the end of the Act boss...it should be expected.

Modifié par ezrafetch, 29 avril 2011 - 06:34 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

ezrafetch wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Oh and Stanley Woo even states the 2 handed warrior being more weaker. I guess he (and the people in the thread who agree with the OP about the 2 handed class being weak) are fools too. That was after people noticed how weak the 2 handed warrior was in the demo and don't claim things have been changed, they remain the same. The only thing which makes a two handed warrior good are the abilities.

http://social.biowar...index/6182904/2

Everything in that "journal" is "I'm lazy and I don't want to work to efficiently play the game."  Hate to say it, but that entry reeks of L2P.  Nightmare is a tough cookie.  It's supposed to be.  Deal with it.  And yes, the Arishok is tough for a Warrior, but it's supposed to be a tough battle: it's the end of the Act boss...it should be expected.

Wasn't tough for my rogue or mage and it was tough for my warrior because I had potions I used but as my mage and rogue, I used no potions because I didn't need to and the review even has the same opinion. Saying the reviewer didn't play the game correctly is not a good argument.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 29 avril 2011 - 06:36 .

[Amioran]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Ha. I don't know how to read? Check the article again:

[i]"This becomes very annoying at the end of the second act, when you get to fight the Qunari
Arishok. You can choose to either defend your honor through a regular duel, or deny him
that pleasure and fight alongside your team of companions.

Are you truly so incapable of understanding?

The arishock is A SINGLE ENEMY. For God's sake, what part of THEY ARE STRONG FOR THEIR AOE CAPABILITY don't you get? What part of 4x38 didn't you get? What part of they should be less strong against single targets because they have AoE capabilities (just as mages) you don't understand? What part of "it would not make sense for them to have more or equal base damage from the weapon against single targets since they willl be too powerful" you didn't understand?

Are you dumb or what? I already explained all of this to you, included the difference between 2handed DAo and 2handed DA2. You didn't understand anything at all, it seems. Good, I'm starting to think you are just a troll.

I would pray you are done with me, problem is that I know you aren't.

Modifié par Amioran, 29 avril 2011 - 06:39 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Amioran wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Ha. I don't know how to read? Check the article again:

[i]"This becomes very annoying at the end of the second act, when you get to fight the Qunari
Arishok. You can choose to either defend your honor through a regular duel, or deny him
that pleasure and fight alongside your team of companions.

Are you truly so incapable of understanding?

The arishock is A SINGLE ENEMY. For God's sake, what part of THEY ARE STRONG FOR THEIR AOE CAPABILITY don't you get? What part of 4x38 didn't you get? What part of they should be less strong against single targets because they have AoE capabilities (just as mages) you don't understand?

Are you dumb or what?

I would pray you are done with me, problem is that I know you aren't.

I am done with you, I shall leave you with this quote:

"A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back." -- Proverbs 29:11

Keeping raging. Your argument is dead and everything that comes out of your mouth is opinion and backed by no in game-evidence. 

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 29 avril 2011 - 06:39 .

[Amioran]

Elton John is dead wrote...
Keeping raging. Your argument is dead and everything that comes out of your mouth is opinion and backed by no in game-evidence. 

LOL, so now how 2handed actually works, in gameplay, it is not "in-game evidence". Good to know. Probably rogues have become great AoE damagers now, and mages masters assassins of single targets.

I've encountered many people with little brains in all my life but you are seriously one of the primarily examples of this neverending species.

Modifié par Amioran, 29 avril 2011 - 06:43 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Whatever Amioran. You clearly don't know what someone with no brains is like. Be thankful you weren't born disabled. People like you deserve to have their brains taken away. Insulting me - because I've pointed out a major flaw in the game where even Stanley Woo is calling the 2 handed weaker than before - is just pathetic. Grow up kid. All I see is crying and opinion. Guess what? No gives a damn.

/Waiting for your next insult. You make me lol Biodrone.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 29 avril 2011 - 06:45 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Amioran wrote...

[Amioran]

Elton John is dead wrote...
Whatever Amioran. You clearly don't know what someone with no brains is like. Insulting me - because I've pointed out a major flaw in the game where even Stanley Woo is calling the 2 handed weaker than before - is just pathetic. Grow up kid. All I see is crying and opinion. Guess what? No gives a damn.

A) Quote me where Stanley says that 2handed is weaker than before, in general.
What you've pointed is only your incomprehension. You want 2handed to do more damage to single enemies and at the same time be the most damaging in AoE. This DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, nor from a gameplay perspective, nor from a balancing one.
C) I insulted you just because you continue to deny either evidence to have a point. You never reply directly to what others wrote (because you have nothing to reply, since you are proven wrong by FACTS) and you just repeat the same two things as if your word would mean anything against, again, FACTS and how the game works.
D) You continue to say you are done but you insist on replying to me to have the last word (that, however, is either worser than the one before). Who is truly childish?

Now have your last word. Continue denying evidence and whatnot. I would write a book on how Copernico was completely wrong and gravity is just an impression of idiots if I were you.

[ezrafetch]

Elton John is dead wrote...
Wasn't tough for my rogue or mage and it was tough for my warrior because I had potions I used but as my mage and rogue, I used no potions because I didn't need to and the review even has the same opinion. Saying the reviewer didn't play the game correctly is not a good argument.

Warriors are designed for a different purpose than one-on-one dueling: to expect them to excel in the Arishok duel scenario is to promote imbalance in the game.  Hence, L2P.  They should understand the strengths and weaknesses of each class and adjust their play accordingly.  Warriors will excel in different scenarios than mages and rogues, which is expected.  Plus, regardless of that to trivialize the Arishok for ANY character all you need are some poisons and grenades.  There's the poison (I think it's Crow Venom?  Or Fell Venom, one of the two) that provides Nature Damage (which Qunari are super weak to), and Tar Bombs will lock the Arishok down completely.  It just...takes time.

Then, unless you are severely OCD and refuse to do anything but duel the Arishok, you can group duel the Arishok, which takes the 2H warrior back to a normal scenario where they excel.  I don't even think duel vs. group fight registers a plot flag so it's not like refusing the duel severely changes anything (on 360, but from the way it's narrated to duel or not doesn't imply that a plot flag is created).

Modifié par ezrafetch, 29 avril 2011 - 06:53 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Amioran wrote...

SOMEONE DOESN'T AGREE WITH MY OPINION!

A) Check my comments above. I give the link, here's his quote:

Link

Maria, I can sympathize with you. It wasn't too too long ago that the QA content team was doing playthroughs and combat balance testing. I was playing as a 2-handed warrior and felt much the same way you do, that 2-handed warriors are hardy enough and don't do enough damage and don't feel powerful enough. Several discussions were held with combat-specialized QA and bugs were filed. After more discussion, some changes were made to make the 2-handed warrior a more viable and fun class earlier in the game.

Now, while 2-handed warrior takes a little getting used to, as it's not the traditional superbad 2-handed warrior that you'd find in other games, it is far more useful early in the game, and warrior players have many options for speccing. Our QA lead min-maxed a two-handed warrior into doing ridiculously massive damage to the point of one-shotting boss creatures.*

It is still a bit of a slow-starter class, though, as it doesn't have the shininess of mages or the speed of rogues.

*Looks like your AoE sh*t theory is destroyed here. Warriors are capable of doing heavy damage but as Stan points out before - they're still weaker. Argument pwned. Next please.

A answers this. It appears that the 2-hander was indeed weak and "not powerful enough" but like all classes - has bonuses but it still weak when compared to the rogue or mage but just fun earlier on. Whereas a rogue class ealier on can get killed easily but later on - scores big critical hits.

C) You insulted me because you're a troll who doesn't think about anyone else but himself. You're what people call an internet tough guy. Speak like that in real life and see where it gets you.

D) You are the childish one for using insults because I've given factual evidence like the Stanley Woo quote. They even added bonuses to the 2 handed warrior because they felt how weak it was.

/Argument over.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 29 avril 2011 - 07:57 .

[Stardusk78]

All I can say is: Reaver.

When you are at 25% health and have everything upgraded, use Cleave and Sacrificial frenzy, your Aura of Pain even becomes insane, doing almost 200 damage per pulse...

[Shep309]

Sooo this thread is based solely on a warrior being weaker than a rogue or mage and that's it?

I'll bite... I've never looked at warriors like a source of dps anyway in any rpg I've played. Warriors to me have always been characters who can take punishment, do decent spike damage to draw aggro and hold it, while the more vulnerable classes (ie mages, rogues etc) dps down the target.

[Sabotin]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Sabotin wrote...

Where in the game does it state that two handed warriors deal more damage than all classes, I can't find that?

And actually they do indeed make the most damage, just not the highest. Remember they can hit 4+ targets at once, while a rogue or mage just 1. If you add that up, mages and rogues don't come close.

Depends. If you're playing a high difficulty, then the mage's spells will do damage to allies. If you're playing on the normal or casual difficulties, then the mage's spells which do area damage do more damage to more enemies than the warrior could ever dream of hitting. The rogue kills boss like enemies within two critical strikes (and when you've got 100% chance of dealing them, enemies fall quickly) and thus can strike more enemies faster than the warrior.

You said without skills. Mage will hit 1 target.

[Sallul]

Elton John is dead wrote...
Maria, I can sympathize with you. It wasn't too too long ago that the QA content team was doing playthroughs and combat balance testing. I was playing as a 2-handed warrior and felt much the same way you do, that 2-handed warriors are hardy enough and don't do enough damage and don't feel powerful enough. Several discussions were held with combat-specialized QA and bugs were filed. After more discussion, some changes were made to make the 2-handed warrior a more viable and fun class earlier in the game.

Now, while 2-handed warrior takes a little getting used to, as it's not the traditional superbad 2-handed warrior that you'd find in other games, it is far more useful early in the game, and warrior players have many options for speccing. Our QA lead min-maxed a two-handed warrior into doing ridiculously massive damage to the point of one-shotting boss creatures.*

It is still a bit of a slow-starter class, though, as it doesn't have the shininess of mages or the speed of rogues.

CREATED 2 MONTHS AGO. YOU ****ING IDIOT. timestamps are a **** huh

/arguement

Modifié par Sallul, 30 avril 2011 - 02:12 .

[Sallul]

Sabotin wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Sabotin wrote...

Where in the game does it state that two handed warriors deal more damage than all classes, I can't find that?

And actually they do indeed make the most damage, just not the highest. Remember they can hit 4+ targets at once, while a rogue or mage just 1. If you add that up, mages and rogues don't come close.

Depends. If you're playing a high difficulty, then the mage's spells will do damage to allies. If you're playing on the normal or casual difficulties, then the mage's spells which do area damage do more damage to more enemies than the warrior could ever dream of hitting. The rogue kills boss like enemies within two critical strikes (and when you've got 100% chance of dealing them, enemies fall quickly) and thus can strike more enemies faster than the warrior.

You said without skills. Mage will hit 1 target.

It only applies if it makes his point valid. Warriors are weak because they must rely on abilities to be strong. But mages are strong becaues of their abilities. Get with the program.

[Amioran]

Weren't you done?

Elton John is dead wrote...
[i]Maria, I can sympathize with you. It wasn't too too long ago that the QA content team was doing playthroughs and combat balance testing. I was playing as a 2-handed warrior and felt much the same way you do, that 2-handed warriors are hardy enough and don't do enough damage and don't feel powerful enough. Several discussions were held with combat-specialized QA and bugs were filed. After more discussion, some changes were made to make the 2-handed warrior a more viable and fun class earlier in the game.

Now, while 2-handed warrior takes a little getting used to, as it's not the traditional superbad 2-handed warrior that you'd find in other games, it is far more useful early in the game, and warrior players have many options for speccing. Our QA lead min-maxed a two-handed warrior into doing ridiculously massive damage to the point of one-shotting boss creatures.*

AGAIN, THAT IS FROM DEMO TIME,  I ALREADY TOLD YOU. YOU ARE TRULY HOPELESS.

You cannot either read correctly what you quoted, not put it in the right context.

Elton John is dead wrote...
*Looks like your AoE sh*t theory is destroyed here. Warriors are capable of doing heavy damage but as Stan points out before - they're still weaker. Argument pwned. Next please.

It's not destroyed idiot. Another instance where your abysimal lack of knowledge shows.  The arishosk duel is a particular instance because: A) you have not a party, you have not enough stamina to chain abilities since warriors replenish it via killing targets, C) at the time you don't have elemental weapons and the Arishock has a LOT of armor.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, and it shows. Just shut up, do a favor to the world. You have done another bad figure, as if it wasn't already enough.

Elton John is dead wrote...
A answers this. It appears that the 2-hander was indeed weak and "not powerful enough" but like all classes - has bonuses but it still weak when compared to the rogue or mage but just fun earlier on. Whereas a rogue class ealier on can get killed easily but later on - scores big critical hits.

I already replied to this. You clearly cannot comprehend either basic things. You neither comprehend what it is written in the quote you mentioned.

THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DEMO. He clearly states that they reworked the class to be more powerful. It is written there, didn't you see? Do you want some glasses?

Elton John is dead wrote...
C) You insulted me because you're a troll who doesn't think about anyone else but himself. You're what people call an internet tough guy. Speak like that in real life and see where it gets you.

You are a troll, and you have either a so low IQ to ashame an aomeba. It's impossible to don't insult people as you because you just cannot grasp neither simple concepts yet you act as if you are a genius. It's like having a pig to speak about quantic physics. If someone would kill the pig humanity would be just grateful.

You couldn't either read correctly the quote you mentioned.

Elton John is dead wrote...
D) You are the childish one for using insults because I've given factual evidence like the Stanley Woo quote. They even added bonuses to the 2 handed warrior because they felt how weak it was.
/Argument over.

LOL. You continue doing one bad figure after another. You post pictures like a child to try to have a point. You repeat the two same things over and over like you are a broken record. You couldn't either read properly the quote you used to "evidence" your point, in fact: A) Woo was talking about the demo when referring to the "weakness",  he clearly states the contrary of what you are saying in the end, so contradicting the point you are trying to make here.

Good job, really. You can become someone in life with your level of comprehension and your great IQ.

Modifié par Amioran, 30 avril 2011 - 06:46 .

[mr_afk]

Am I too late to join in this discussion?! This looks like fun!
I skimmed through the thread but all I saw were lots of capital letters and baby pictures?
how odd. Anyway, i'll just address the idea that strength doesn't do anything and that warriors are weaker than rogues and mages:


Dear Reader,

From my research, hours of number crunching and in-game experience, I've deduced that the game mechanics are lying to us. Strength does nothing. In fact, that whole concept of strength increasing base damage by 0.5 like the base stat does in every single other class is incorrect. The idea that strength also increases fortitude such that warriors do not get knocked-back all the time like rogues and mages is also pure fallacy. Fortitude serves no real function! It's a conspiracy.

They promised that warriors should have the highest damage as the manual says they are "frontline fighters - the backbone of any party under assault" and everybody knows the best defence is a strong offense! Nevermind that rogues are "particularly adept at tearing down individual opponents" and mages can "deal immense amounts of damage when protected by the party" - Warriors should be able to deal the most damage and take the most damage, because as it is the game just doesn't feel balanced!

Screw been able to hit several opponents at once with every basic attack (which makes up the majority of dps for any class), and who needs talents that increase that damage to higher amounts? What we need is one or two aoe attacks which can hit several enemies at once then have a huge cool-down period! It is utterly unfair.

Even despite the obvious bias against warrior, I have managed to overcome these shortcomings and create a warrior of unparalleled damage. I've seen all those videos and laughed at their pitiful attempts at speedruns (which somehow have very similar times to those done by rogues and mages). I've managed to achieve damages that would blow everyones mind! - and without pumping any strength mind you, as strength is useless and does nothing to your damage potential. Heck, even the glancing blows I deal 99% of the time deal more damage than all those silly strength builds. But even still, I think that warriors are weak. Because my rogue can somehow deal better single target damage and my mage can deal huuuge damages (from one or two of its spells with really large cool-downs)! Really, despite been able to tank massive amounts of damage, my warrior should be able to do more- I deserve more!


Yours Sincerely,
Sarcasm

Modifié par mr_afk, 30 avril 2011 - 08:37 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Sallul wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
Maria, I can sympathize with you. It wasn't too too long ago that the QA content team was doing playthroughs and combat balance testing. I was playing as a 2-handed warrior and felt much the same way you do, that 2-handed warriors are hardy enough and don't do enough damage and don't feel powerful enough. Several discussions were held with combat-specialized QA and bugs were filed. After more discussion, some changes were made to make the 2-handed warrior a more viable and fun class earlier in the game.

Now, while 2-handed warrior takes a little getting used to, as it's not the traditional superbad 2-handed warrior that you'd find in other games, it is far more useful early in the game, and warrior players have many options for speccing. Our QA lead min-maxed a two-handed warrior into doing ridiculously massive damage to the point of one-shotting boss creatures.*

It is still a bit of a slow-starter class, though, as it doesn't have the shininess of mages or the speed of rogues.

Wrong you idiot. If you think the full game was improved upon release, then you're a bigger Biodrone than I expected. Keep crying. That's all I see with your CAPS lock posts.

Amioran wrote...

They also said many changes had been made to the full game as well and that included the prologue, but the full game was EXACLY the same you stubborn fool. The prologue remained the same too which shows that the 2 handed class is still as weak and weaker than the 2 handed warrior in previous Bioware games and other games and they noted that which is why they gave a few bonuses to it. They even claim that later on it gets harder. Did they say the same about the rogue or mage class? No. Exactly idiot.

/Done with you. Keep insulting my intelligence if you wish. You're the one with no intelligence. You're just an annoying Biodrone who can't accept that the warrior class is rubbish and even when someone who works for Bioware says the same, you still deny it and spew out random sh*t which is baseless and only supported by your opinion. Everyone knows the 2 handed is still the same as it was in the demo. The only things that were probably given to it to make it useful were a few abilities but that still didn't stop the class from being weaker as pointed out in that post.

You're losing your temper while I still retain mine. Keep raging. It doesn't support your argument. You know what people say about those who lose their temper right? It's just a game. Calm down kid or GTFO.

Amioran wrote...

Yeah. Whatever. Come back. You make me lol.

Sallul wrote...

Calm down bro. Did I run over your cat or something?

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 30 avril 2011 - 01:15 .