116 réponses à ce sujet

[Skemte]

I agree, two hander warriors are lacking.. Indomitable isn't very useful imo, execept a select few fights, and early on.. Mid to late game you will have enough physical resistance that you will be able to resist the majority of things.. Furthermore the aoe's for dual wielding is far better.. Not to mention on top of fast attack speed you get a haste.. Atm my dwarf warrior (which is a berserker and champion).. With his rally on he has a defense over 100, 121 attk, and also has like 30 armor.. With the heavy (not plate) wades dragon armor.. Which gives him a fatigure of -8%.. Thats right I don't even get fatigue from the armor, only when I put on my upkeep abilities..

[JHorwath]

In one party I use, I have a dwarf warrior that uses a sword and shield. Sten is the other character. I like the two handed weapons knock down abilities and a passive stun chance per hit. Plus, when used with cone of cold Sten (the two handed warrior) shatters the enemies. The two handed fighter compliments my sword and shield wielding fighter fairly well.

[F-C]

Discobird wrote...

Look, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you on this.  This is a separate reason to say that min/maxers are playing the wrong game.  I'm just saying that the fact min/maxing isn't necessary to play the game doesn't mean min/maxers should play something else, and nothing you just said changes that.

I'm not just being nitpicky here, it's an important point because you sound like you're claiming the dev's authority when in fact what he said doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

really you are just arguing because you are trying to take what i said out of the context of what i meant.

ive already told you that and i cant fix stupid.

if you want to say i should have went into more detail or phrased it better, ok ill conceide to that, but otherwise i think you are just being an angry troll.

[Aussenseiter]

Why is it every time there is one of these topics it ends up that someone has to come in and try to argue "the devs say this so clearly I am right"?



I do not care if you guys think 2 handed is good as it is, that's cool.

But if you are citing the devs saying it is fine as the REASON it is fine... I don't know. Don't be afraid to form your own opinions, guys...

[Rylor Tormtor]

boohead wrote...

i know it may feel powerful, but i am not dicussing Opinions, so leave that out of this.


The dps is factually a fraction of DW warr and rogues. DPS can be calculated. 2h wep swing time is simply WAY too long.

I find it funny you say you don't want opinions when your so-called evidence is ancedotal at best.

Show your work.

2hander needs another PBAE ability IMO. The slow attacks really make
this skillset suffer against zergs where your target is often dead
before your blow connects.

Combined with a full champion line, my 2 handed warrior could keep half a dozen enemies at bay, doing signifigant damage, while my party took care of their last slivers of health.

Modifié par Rylor Tormtor, 20 novembre 2009 - 05:03 .

[Rainen89]

Personally on nightmare I had an easier time playing my two handed warrior dwarf than I did my mage. He hits like a @*@#ng truck, 90-120 damage topping (120 being crits of course but both styles are pretty much always crits.) Tons of crowd control with two tempars having righteous strike. Up with morrigans CC honestly nothing can kill em. Granted I couldn't use this character to solo nightmare I'm aware but they're hardly lacking. They're still pretty @#*@#ng powerful. However for some reason the PC one always does better than sten I swear, I don't know where they lose it but sten has 20-30 less strength than the PC. (At level 21 at 70 some strength.) I haven't devoted too much time to rogue, yet. However, stop saying they're weak.



Dwarven especially is practically immune to spells with appropriate gear. Has just as much health as a tank and can control groups of mobs fairly well. I just wish aura of pain was actually...useful le sigh 6 damage.

[F-C]

Aussenseiter wrote...

Why is it every time there is one of these topics it ends up that someone has to come in and try to argue "the devs say this so clearly I am right"?

I do not care if you guys think 2 handed is good as it is, that's cool.
But if you are citing the devs saying it is fine as the REASON it is fine... I don't know. Don't be afraid to form your own opinions, guys...

really ive been arguing with someone who is just being obtuse about taking something out of context.

as far as the dev comment it was more directed at the people who think a class is useless because it doesnt fit into their personal min/max model of what they think it should be, or cry for nerfs, or whatever else.

its also pretty much the bottom line in my opinion because its the developers game and what they say about an issue is pretty much final. weather i agree with it or not is pretty irrelevent because its not my game.

after you hit the bottom line on a subject and its obvious the developers arnt going to change the game to suit your personal wishes, then your only option is to use the toolkit and mod it for yourself.

which i also dont see a problem with if people dont like something.

its one of the reasons they supplied it for you.

[Skemte]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

boohead wrote...

i know it may feel powerful, but i am not dicussing Opinions, so leave that out of this.


The dps is factually a fraction of DW warr and rogues. DPS can be calculated. 2h wep swing time is simply WAY too long.

I find it funny you say you don't want opinions when your so-called evidence is ancedotal at best.

Show your work.

.. Its pretty common sense if you actually play the game and watch..  When one auto attack comes in for the 2hander lets say its a nice 100 dmg..  During that time the dual wielder is hitting easilly numerous times for 40+ to 50+ dmg a hit depending on crits and what not..   Furthermore the destroyer feature imo is weak, there are numerous ways you can bypass armor..   I am sorry but I would take the stuff dual wielding has any day over 2hander any day.. Unfortunately 2handers are just too fragile imo..  They will have low defense, low armor..  When my dual wield warrior has over 100 defense...  IMO they need to do some tweaking.. Either make attacks faster.. Or change around some abilities.

[Raxxman]

F-C wrote...

Lowlander wrote...
Hide the numbers and say it's a single player game, balance doesn't matter. That is certainly a lot easier than balancing an RPG system.

the 9 months they spent on balancing the game disagrees with you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OMG F-C you're hilarious, really I LOLed at you.

The fact that you're trying to argue that the game is even remotely balanced. It's just tragic.

And TBH it's distrubing that after 9 months of balancing this is the best they can come up with.

[Discobird]

F-C wrote...
really you are just arguing because you are trying to take what i said out of the context of what i meant.

I'm not taking you out of context. Just the opposite. I'm saying Georg's post doesn't fit the context you tried to put it in.

[F-C]

Raxxman wrote...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OMG F-C you're hilarious, really I LOLed at you.

The fact that you're trying to argue that the game is even remotely balanced. It's just tragic.

And TBH it's distrubing that after 9 months of balancing this is the best they can come up with.

the game is balanced around tactical group combat.

it is not balanced around class vs class, ability vs ability, per say, although each class has a role they do better than anyone else, so they always have a use and a place in a group.

just because you dont like their balance scheme doesnt make it broken or disturbing, it simply means it doesnt suit your personal preferences.

as Georg stated in another thread "from all critical reviews the combat system is quite good unless you wanted this to be a different game" or something along those lines, thats not exact word for word because i dont feel like searching for the post.

Modifié par F-C, 20 novembre 2009 - 05:14 .

[Rainen89]

[
[/quote]

.. Its..   Furthermore the destroyer feature imo is weak, there are numerous ways you can bypass armor..   I am sorry but I would take the stuff dual wielding has any day over 2hander any day.. Unfortunately 2handers are just too fragile imo..  They will have low defense, low armor..  When my dual wield warrior has over 100 defense...  IMO they need to do some tweaking.. Either make attacks faster.. Or change around some abilities.
[/quote]

While I completely agree with the destroyer line I find it absolutely useless if you're permanently running indominatable your attack speed really is not that slow. Mind you in the beginning it's pretty grueling but in the end not as bad as you're making it seem. They're not the best choice but they're still viable either way.

[F-C]

Discobird wrote...

F-C wrote...
really you are just arguing because you are trying to take what i said out of the context of what i meant.

I'm not taking you out of context. Just the opposite. I'm saying Georg's post doesn't fit the context you tried to put it in.

if you want to say i should have phrased it better or explained what i meant in more detail, ill conceide to that, but i have since done so in the posts following it.

beyond that you are just trolling.

[Loc'n'lol]

Solmyr2000 wrote...

Well, IF there were haste potions like in BG...

Swift salve ?

[Cozarkian]

Tyrax Lightning wrote...

One thing the devs shoulda done with 2Hers was to have it (& maybe all weapons) swing faster with higher Str. I think it makes sense, seems how if ya got more muscle, you not only handle & control the bulk of the weapon better, but also impart more force on the swing which should make it accelerate faster than a less muscular person could manage. A 90 Str warrior should not still be swinging a 2H as slowly as a 30 Str Warrior. It makes no sense.

Agree or disagree?

I agree with a modification...

2H tree should have a talent with a high strength requirement that increases swing speed.

[Solmyr2000]

Lowlander wrote...
Or noticed that crossbows get no attribute bonus to damage at all?  and are thus completely useless.

Crossbows are supposed to get no attribute bonus. You really can't make crossbow deal more damage than it deals.
Useless as primary weapon, but as secondary... You forgot about bows dex requrements?

Or that daggers get no bonus damage from dexterity at all despite claims.

Well THAT is bad.

Swift salve ?

So they exist? Niiice, but I never ever saw them.

Modifié par Solmyr2000, 20 novembre 2009 - 05:20 .

[jerms510]

DW warriors seem to need too many different stats to be really viable. As mentioned before, 2h you just need tons of str, and some willpower/con to taste. DW you need str for armor and weapons, dex for talents, willpower for stamina, and then whatever is left over (nothing) towards con for hp. and god help you if you want to use coercion (which I try to never leave home without, its so damn useful)

[Solmyr2000]

jerms510 wrote...
DW warriors seem to need too many different stats to be really viable.

You just raise your dex until you get all skills, and then you put 1 point/level in willpower and everything other to strength. Const is useless because you need just to immediately kill half of the enemies and die after that. Berserker + DW deal more damage than primal mages and doing it 10x faster. But dying in almost every combat...

[Raxxman]

F-C wrote...

Raxxman wrote...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OMG F-C you're hilarious, really I LOLed at you.

The fact that you're trying to argue that the game is even remotely balanced. It's just tragic.

And TBH it's distrubing that after 9 months of balancing this is the best they can come up with.

the game is balanced around tactical group combat.

it is not balanced around class vs class, ability vs ability, per say, although each class has a role they do better than anyone else, so they always have a use and a place in a group.

just because you dont like their balance scheme doesnt make it broken or disturbing, it simply means it doesnt suit your personal preferences.

as Georg stated in another thread "from all critical reviews the combat system is quite good unless you wanted this to be a different game" or something along those lines, thats not exact word for word because i dont feel like searching for the post.

Yeah yeah yeah. Those would be the same critics who put Dragons Ages visuals on par with Assasins Creeds 2 and Modern Warfare 2.

Best Tank, Mage
Best healer, Mage
Best single target dps, Mage
Best AoE dps, Mage
Best CC/agro managment, Mage
Cutest accent, Rogue.

I don't like their balance scheme because its not balanced, and it is disturbing that people are apparently thick headed enough not only to not notice but to actually try and tell us that the reason the game appears horribly broken is beause we're looking at in a semi scientific, objective way, instead of rose tinted fanyboy specs.

The combat is distinictly the single worst part of this game by a country mile. There is nothing done in the combat engine that hasn't been done before better.

[Solmyr2000]

Best Tank, Mage
Best healer, Mage
Best single target dps, Mage
Best AoE dps, Mage
Best CC/agro managment, Mage
Cutest accent, Rogue.

Don't use force field. It ruins ur balance.
Best thing to do with force field is raise it's cost so much that you won't want to use it in non-critical situations. I think there's only one balance epic fail - it's last line in spirit spells.

Modifié par Solmyr2000, 20 novembre 2009 - 05:56 .

[F-C]

Raxxman wrote...

I don't like their balance scheme because its not balanced, and it is disturbing that people are apparently thick headed enough not only to not notice but to actually try and tell us that the reason the game appears horribly broken is beause we're looking at in a semi scientific, objective way, instead of rose tinted fanyboy specs.

The combat is distinictly the single worst part of this game by a country mile. There is nothing done in the combat engine that hasn't been done before better.

then i get flamed for telling people they are playing the wrong game.

/facepalm

[Demonbox1]

Solmyr2000 wrote...
You just raise your dex until you get all skills, and then you put 1 point/level in willpower and everything other to strength. Const is useless because you need just to immediately kill half of the enemies and die after that. Berserker + DW deal more damage than primal mages and doing it 10x faster. But dying in almost every combat...

uhm call me dumb, but what's the point in dying at every combat?
the goal wasn't supposed to be to stay alive and beat dwn to pulp yr enemies?
About 2h style, well ok i do not like the idea of crappy Alistair "steal" my kills, but if the party wins the fight i go there and pat on his shoulder
Yes 2h style is slow, so what? if you don't like it you have plenty of alternatives to play, 2wield, shields or simply go and choose another class.
The fact that someone doesn't like how 2h styles work, and some other people like them, proves that the game is "well balanced" , i mean it takes into consideration both way of thinking, that's what i call balance in a single player game.
Besides, if what you'r after is "every specialization of every class in every race, deals the same amount of dps", what's the point in having so many of them?

i agree that there r some "bugs" in the game, but the one we'r speaking of isn't one fo them, imho
cya

[Solmyr2000]

Demonbox1 wrote...

uhm call me dumb, but what's the point in dying at every combat?

Not every, almost every. And if you are playing on normal or easy (never ever played, so can't say, because even hard is too easy for me) then you will maybe rarely die. I meant nightmare.

And another bad thing about 2h: you have NO starting origin with 1 skill in 2h. That's so bad. You get a s&s if dwarf noble or numan noble, bow if dalish elf and DW if city elf or dwarf commoner.

Modifié par Solmyr2000, 20 novembre 2009 - 06:19 .

[Fluffykeith]

Reading this thread leads me to think I'm doing something wrong, or at least unusual, somewhere. I restarted and picked a 2-hander after playing dual wield for 9 levels. And im loving it. I did it primarily because dual wield was boring me, and I think that has to do with the reason why lots of people rate DW over 2H.
Damage.
DW is clearly the damage spec, all its abilities seem to be focused on churning out damage. Problem is that I found that pretty dull, because thats ALL it could do. When I switched to 2H I got access to knockdowns and debuffs, as well as some nice hard hitting abilities like Mighty Blow. I immediatly found 2H to be more fun to play, certainly more interesting, and its feels more usefull too. With DW all I could do was chip away at an opponent until it died...that was the extent of what I could do...with 2H my warrior is all over the fight, a knockdown here, a debuff there, a one-shot on the mage...and so on. I might not be churning out the same amount of damage as I might with a DW character, but i have more utility and flexibility, and im not doing too badly on the damage front, either. 2h hit hard.

So I have to ask, whats so useless about having access to a knockdown, a passive chance on hit stun, a AOE knockdown, 2 debuffs (that dont interrupt autoattack so you get 2 swings for the price of one, sort of), a passive per hit armour debuff, immune to stuns and knockdowns, and boosted damage?

This is just a thought so please dont leap down my throat, but maybe its to do with players either expecting, or trying to make, 2h function in a manner other than its designed to? Trying to make it act like pure dps rather than utility+dps? Its not going to out dps a DW, and maybe its not intended to, maybe its got all of those "disruption" abilities for that reason?