280 réponses à ce sujet

[mastorofpuppetz]

TileToad wrote...

daem3an wrote...

Just a thought (directed at no one in particular): why not learn how to play this game by the rules the creators have set, or change it yourself, instead of demanding the game be changed to fit how you're playing it?

It would be nice (for some) to be able to use abilities willy-nilly without worrying about stamina at all, but that isn't how the game works. In some other games, when you get a new ability you can just use it as much as you want. A big part of this game is about figuring out different builds, and learning how to use each of them efficiently in combat. It's a challenge and that's by design. Take that away and it's a different game.

I couldn't imagine trying to play a sport with this attitude. The net's too small. Why can't I bounce the ball more before shooting? There should be more home bases. The goalie is overpowered...

I would have a much bigger problem if all character builds were essentially equal. Some are way more challenging than others, some are just fun and powerful, creating more options and ways to mix your party up. A character with high Willpower/Mana can spam a lot of low-cost abilities, and vice-versa. Either way the less properly balanced a certain character is with the rest of the party, the greater the challenge, and some people like that too. Fun is purely subjective, but these are the rules of the game.

Perhaps because RPG's are more than just games a la Tetris. Instead of limiting the players possibilities with rigid rules these type of games should be at the forefront of flexibility. Immersion is one of the key elements of RPG's, after all, and anything that deters from that is a potential nagging point for players. I know it can be unpleasant if people keep nagging and complaining, about apparent silly things, but it is a way to see improvements in future products. Or would you rather things never progressed in life?

WRONG, Role playign games are about role playing, the fact that each class, and origin plays differently, is what makes games like this great, whats the point of devauing your Character if he can be whatever he wants in opne play through? This is not the rubbish that was Oblivion, this is a True Role playign game, maybe your not a RPG gamer, because everything you are saying points to 'Waaan, Waaan, i cannot do everything with my one PC, so i am gonna whine about it. Typical modern day gamer, wouldnt know a rpg if it bite them in the face.

RPG's have actually regressed the last 5-10 years ina  bad way, DAo is the first true rpg in a long time, the rest have been hybrid shooters, action games with lite RPG elements. Maybe yourt idea of progression is anothers poor mans RPG.

Modifié par mastorofpuppetz, 20 novembre 2009 - 07:02 .

[F-C]

surrealitycheck wrote...

So the move punisher is not meant to do more damage than autoattack?

What about flurry?

Or deadly strike?

I'm sorry, but I do not think you have correctly divined their intentions at all. The reason special moves are bad is NOTHING to do with design, as George Zoller says:

Simply time. By the time we got around to implement the elemental

benefits, there was no more time to deal with the balancing

implications and QA of adding them to special attacks. I'd imagine

that's something they'll look at that again in the future, it's not

terribly hard to do.

most attack moves have a secondary affect attached to them, such as knocking the opponent down, lowering their armor, giving you an automatic critical hit, and things like that which should be used tactically.

if a move sole purpose is damage alone, and it is not increasing your damage at all, then yes i would say it would need to be looked at, but there are only few moves that actually fall into that category. also its hard to track actual dps in this game as you dont have a combat log so most evidence is anecdotal at best. like using flurry which is a triple hit of normal damage on each hit. on a per hit basis it wouldnt look any better than auto attack at all, but you cant get a definitive dps read-out to know for a fact its not better. if its not, then sure it may need a look at.

im not saying its a justification or that i like it, but even mages have to deal with picking up some bad spells at times in order to get to the one they really want to use that is good. so some of it could be by design, but again im not saying thats really a good design, just putting it out there as a possibility.




also that quote from Georg is about elemental benefits, not the special attacks themselves, you are reaching pretty far with that quote.

Modifié par F-C, 20 novembre 2009 - 07:17 .

[Mork_ba]

Rejuvenation spells from mages, stamina regen gear if needed, willpower(yes, if you wanna spam skills you'll need some) will pretty much solve the problem, really... I've only finished the game twice up to now and both times with a balanced group and never found any kind of problems with stamina.



Mass rejuvenation affects the whole party. That is stamina users as well. Rejuvenation is useful to be cast on anyone that needs it, don't be afraid to cast it on your rogue for an extra stun or assassin's mark or something. As for willpower, well, if you build around active skills you'll want to up it some, really. I get a feeling it also raises your regen too.



Btw, for melee damage dealer's it's obvious you don't want to wear heavy armour. Both rogues and damage dealing(dual wield/two handed) warriors are better off in leather. That gets them less aggro(enemies are more likeley to target the heavy armoured guy) and so less incoming hits, and less fatigue which is what really causes problems with stamina.





Get your warrior a set of dalish leather(well, there are better items out there, but that one's good) or some chainmail(has 5 or 10% bonus to fatigue I think) and you'll see...





Read item descriptions for set bonuses...

[TileToad]

daem3an wrote...

Not at all. I actually think DAO is a huge positive step forward and offers a ton of flexibility compared to similar games, but that's just how I see it, others will disagree. As I said, people should feel free to look for and work on community mods that can personalize the game to how they like to play it. There are things I've already modded on mine, and I'll likely mod more. But the game as released was meant to be the way it is. Apart from a few bugs, in the eyes of the creators it isn't broken. It's working as intended.

Considering the several hundred thousand and growing number of people that paid to play this game, it's pretty short-sighted (to say it politely) to expect the game to conform to what a few people want, especially considering those few people posting here can't even agree on what that is.

I was talking about changes in general, not just about this particular stamina issue, so I really don't see how that can be considered short-sided. Whether the amount of people who are satisfied/dissatisfied about certain elements in the game is big or small I can not say (and neither can you). Perhaps they are merely spokespeople for a large silent crowd. Though, the loudest mouths are usually heard better. Also, the amount of purchases don't say much about the level of satisfied customers, just that it was marketed well.

All that said, I never claimed DA:O was a bad (RPG) game. Not really sure why you would think that. I enjoy it very much (flaws and all). However, like all games out there, it's definitely not perfect.

[Pocketgb]

F-C wrote...

a certain level of micro management is fun and acceptable, and a certain level is overboard.

Then if that's the case, use tactics, it'll cut down on micro a *lot*. If they don't even want to do that they can just stick their war and rogues to continue auto-attacking. But making micro-intensive decisions shouldn't be discouraged, it should be rewarded. If someone wants to put a bit more effort into the game then the effectiveness of the character they're using should recognize that. Like you said, it's single-player, and easily work-aroundable.

F-C wrote...

considering they have spent 9 months on balance before release, and have stated they arnt going to do any major class rebalancing, i just dont see it as a possibility.

Two (three?) words: Dexterity Hotfix, developed by none other than Georg Zoeller himself.

What the dex hotfix shows two things: 1. The devs are responsive to and act on player feedback (the feedback in question being "wow, archery sucks!"), and 2. No one is perfect, and even the godly Bioware can make a mistake here and there. TF2 is another good example: that game was in development for like 8 years, and they're *still* releasing patches for it.

And yeah, we *could* have fixed it ourselves, but Georg didn't want that. With him releasing the fix that's a message to the playerbase and everyone else saying "this is how it should be". And knowing that he does want other classes to be more in-line with each other is simply awesome.

[Galooba]

Mork_ba wrote...


Btw, for melee damage dealer's it's obvious you don't want to wear heavy armour. Both rogues and damage dealing(dual wield/two handed) warriors are better off in leather. That gets them less aggro(enemies are more likeley to target the heavy armoured guy) and so less incoming hits, and less fatigue which is what really causes problems with stamina.


Get your warrior a set of dalish leather(well, there are better items out there, but that one's good) or some chainmail(has 5 or 10% bonus to fatigue I think) and you'll see...


Read item descriptions for set bonuses...

I really like this system actually, it gives benefits for choosing lighter armor rather than just using the biggest stuff you can find. Though I have not tested exactly how much effect fatigue has, so it may be negligible.

[F-C]

Pocketgb wrote...

Two (three?) words: Dexterity Hotfix, developed by none other than Georg Zoeller himself.

What the dex hotfix shows two things: 1. The devs are responsive to and act on player feedback (the feedback in question being "wow, archery sucks!"), and 2. No one is perfect, and even the godly Bioware can make a mistake here and there. TF2 is another good example: that game was in development for like 8 years, and they're *still* releasing patches for it.

And yeah, we *could* have fixed it ourselves, but Georg didn't want that. With him releasing the fix that's a message to the playerbase and everyone else saying "this is how it should be". And knowing that he does want other classes to be more in-line with each other is simply awesome.

using an example where something was obviously broken and not functioning as a reason to say they will do major class rebalancing after they have already told you they arnt going to is pretty lame.

i mean if strength was failing to increase your damage i would expect that to get fixed yes, but because you just dont like how they made melee classes, i really doubt it.

i guess people will reach for any straws they can though.

[TileToad]

mastorofpuppetz wrote...

WRONG, Role playign games are about role playing, the fact that each class, and origin plays differently, is what makes games like this great, whats the point of devauing your Character if he can be whatever he wants in opne play through? This is not the rubbish that was Oblivion, this is a True Role playign game, maybe your not a RPG gamer, because everything you are saying points to 'Waaan, Waaan, i cannot do everything with my one PC, so i am gonna whine about it. Typical modern day gamer, wouldnt know a rpg if it bite them in the face.

RPG's have actually regressed the last 5-10 years ina  bad way, DAo is the first true rpg in a long time, the rest have been hybrid shooters, action games with lite RPG elements. Maybe yourt idea of progression is anothers poor mans RPG.

First of all.. calm down, dude. Where not discussing the world poverty here.
As for your idea that RPG characters should stay their class, I agree. I also don't see how anything I said took away from that principle. What I do say however is that within the game world, and specific classes, I'd like as much flexibility as is technically possible. Saying you don't want that, or enjoy invicible walls blocking your path seems silly to me, from a roleplaying perspective. Then again, perhaps we differ a lot. Maybe you're capable of roleplaying a dog whereas I could never do that.

Oh, and I hated Oblivion btw. Did Like Morrowind however.

[daem3an]

TileToad wrote...
I was talking about changes in general, not just about this particular stamina issue, so I really don't see how that can be considered short-sided. Whether the amount of people who are satisfied/dissatisfied about certain elements in the game is big or small I can not say (and neither can you). Perhaps they are merely spokespeople for a large silent crowd. Though, the loudest mouths are usually heard better. Also, the amount of purchases don't say much about the level of satisfied customers, just that it was marketed well.

All that said, I never claimed DA:O was a bad (RPG) game. Not really sure why you would think that. I enjoy it very much (flaws and all). However, like all games out there, it's definitely not perfect.

Going back to something I mentioned in the previous post, I wasn't and I'm still not directing my comments at you or anyone in particular, just generalizing.

I do think the expectation and sense of entitlement displayed here daily, by individuals that think fundamentals of the game should be changed to suit their individual taste, is short-sighted without first seeking proper discussion and consensus. A community poll would be a good place to start. That tool is available here on this site, but how often have you seen it used in this situation? I see many more people who would rather rant and demand changes than discuss a constructive way to implement the solution they're looking for in their game, regardless of how it affects those (who knows how many, but you can bet it's a lot) who are enjoying said feature the way it is.

This is what the toolset is for, and it's great for Bioware to give this to the community. Hopefully console companies will eventually get on board as well. Considering what's involved in making sweeping changes to a post-release game that has been in development and QA for several years, and the amount of those changes that are requested here daily, a community mod is a much more rational, attainable, and less selfish goal.

When I said the game 'isn't broken' I was referring to the OP's title 'Dear Bioware, Stamina Sucks', not you. As I said above, I like the game but I don't think it's perfect either. I've already modded some things I don't like, and I'm looking forward to modding more.

Edit: to be clear, there's nothing wrong with asking questions, voicing concerns and finding out if things are indeed working as intended (see post below). It's the demands I have a problem with.

Modifié par daem3an, 20 novembre 2009 - 08:01 .

[Pocketgb]

F-C wrote...

using an example where something was obviously broken and not functioning as a reason to say they will do major class rebalancing after they have already told you they arnt going to is pretty lame.

Let's look at the page of the hotfix:

Georg Zoeller, BioWare wrote...


Experimental hot fix for the following issues:


Daggers now get the shared damage bonus from Dexterity and Strength as intended, not just Strength alone.

Ranged Weapon hit rate increased.


Bow range has been increased by 10m on all ranged weapons (not staff), reducing the penalties for ranged shots in most most combat scenarios.

All bows and crossbows now grant a +5 inherit Attack bonus. Note that this bonus is shown on the weapon, it does not factor into the characters Attack displayed score on the character sheet.[/list]

Short bow being useless.


Short bows now get full attribute bonus from Dexterity instead of shared from Strength. This makes them a natural choice for Dexterity focused character builds.

Base Armor Penetration for Shortbows has been increased by 1. [/list]

• 
  Ranged weapon damage has been increased:
  
• 
  Damage range on all ranged weapons has been increase from 150% to 160%.
• 
  Critical chance bonus on all ranged weapons has been increased by 4%.

Damage bonus from attributes has been increased from 100% to 100/105% for bows and 110% for crossbows.

The portions not in bold are the obvious "not working as intended" *fixes*. The rest are straight-up buffs to Archery. Anything is subject to change, 9 months of balancing doesn't disprove that.

[TileToad]

daem3an wrote...

This is what the toolset is for, and it's great for Bioware to give this to the community. Hopefully console companies will eventually get on board as well. Considering what's involved in making sweeping changes to a post-release game that has been in development and QA for several years, and the amount of those changes that are requested here daily, a community mod is a much more rational, and less selfish goal.

Yup, I definitely agree with you that the toolset is an awesome addition to the game.
I'm sure that those of us who are perpetually dissatisfied with certain elements of the game might, at least, find some solace there.

Modifié par TileToad, 20 novembre 2009 - 08:03 .

[F-C]

Pocketgb wrote...

Let's look at the page of the hotfix:

Georg Zoeller, BioWare wrote...


Experimental hot fix for the following issues:


Daggers now get the shared damage bonus from Dexterity and Strength as intended, not just Strength alone.

Ranged Weapon hit rate increased.


Bow range has been increased by 10m on all ranged weapons (not staff), reducing the penalties for ranged shots in most most combat scenarios.

All bows and crossbows now grant a +5 inherit Attack bonus. Note that this bonus is shown on the weapon, it does not factor into the characters Attack displayed score on the character sheet.[/list]

Short bow being useless.


Short bows now get full attribute bonus from Dexterity instead of shared from Strength. This makes them a natural choice for Dexterity focused character builds.

Base Armor Penetration for Shortbows has been increased by 1. [/list]

• 
  Ranged weapon damage has been increased:
  
  
• 
  Damage range on all ranged weapons has been increase from 150% to 160%.
  
• 
  Critical chance bonus on all ranged weapons has been increased by 4%.

Damage bonus from attributes has been increased from 100% to 100/105% for bows and 110% for crossbows.

The portions not in bold are the obvious "not working as intended" *fixes*. The rest are straight-up buffs to Archery. Anything is subject to change, 9 months of balancing doesn't disprove that.

they still didnt any major class rebalancing as some people are wanting in this thread which was my point. archery was obviously broken and not functioning properly, doing abysmal damage and being extremly poor. melee classes arnt having this problem at all, they just want it to play differently. if you cant see the difference in that i guess you just want something to argue about and are still reaching for straws.

[Osprey39]

Tattercloak wrote...

Osprey39 wrote...
Uh, I just finished the game last night on hard difficulty and I bought every lyrium potion off of every vendor I found plus I crafted as many as I could too and I maybe had 80 in total THROUGHOUT THE GAME and never more than 10 on me at once.  Most of those were minor potions which gave me enough mana to cast maybe 2 more spells.   Mana was an issue for me throughout the whole game.

Errr...you can buy an infinite amount of Lyrium dust at the tower and an infinite number of flasks at any tavern.  To be fair, you can also buy an infinite amount of Elfroot from the Dalish so healing potions should never be an issue either.

Well damn, I guess that's what I get for trying to figure out everything on my own.  You're bound to overlook some stuff.  Honestly, I'm glad I didn't know that because many of the fights I had to sweat it out on would've been easy with no mana worries.

[Pocketgb]

F-C wrote...


they still didnt any major class rebalancing as some people are wanting in this thread which was my point.

 
And my point was that they decided to buff a class even after 9 months of balancing. You've made your point, I've made mine.

F-C wrote...

archery was obviously broken and not functioning properly, doing abysmal damage and being extremly poor. melee classes arnt having this problem at all, they just want it to play differently. if you cant see the difference in that i guess you just want something to argue about and are still reaching for straws.

2H'ers are currently having quite a big problem. Sure it's fun, sure it's effective in its certain situations, but overall it just doesn't compare to DW.

Granted I admit: wanting to require all classes to be just as interesting and interactive as one another is a bit of a selfish goal, and if Bioware doesn't feel it's necessary to change the way melee works I certainly won't argue against that. There's still plenty of room to make them effective, and that's what Bio needs to focus on at this point.

[F-C]

Pocketgb wrote...

F-C wrote...


they still didnt any major class rebalancing as some people are wanting in this thread which was my point.

 
And my point was that they decided to buff a class even after 9 months of balancing. You've made your point, I've made mine.

im sure if anything is performing as badly as archery was it would get a buff, can you name anything else?

2H'ers are currently having quite a big problem. Sure it's fun, sure it's effective in its certain situations, but overall it just doesn't compare to DW.

Granted I admit: wanting to require all classes to be just as interesting and interactive as one another is a bit of a selfish goal, and if Bioware doesn't feel it's necessary to change the way melee works I certainly won't argue against that. There's still plenty of room to make them effective, and that's what Bio needs to focus on at this point.

i disagree that 2hd is as gimped as a few people want to allude to. on heavily armored targets such as dragons it is quite superior, and i think a lot of this is coming down to people who are not always building their character correctly. many people are having great success with 2hd warrior while some are saying its awful which can only mean the issue lies between the chair and the keyboard.

its much the same as with rogues. for about a week we heard people whine about how terrible they were, and then some people figured out how to build them properly and now they are considered one of the best damage classes in the game.

you cannot account for players inability to make characters well then blame it on bioware.

(this is also why there are so many complaints about mages, they are hard to make wrong, so people with bad builds on their other characters think zomg mages own, everything else sucks!! when in reality its their own fault, but they want to blame bioware)




anyways this thread is about how people want stamina changed, want to be able to spam attacks with little to no cooldown, have stamina potions, and things like that.

all of that would take major rebalancing of the classes to adjust for this newfound power from where they are now, simply reducing the cooldown on moves and slapping stamina potions in the game would stilt the game in an extreme direction towards melee classes.

it would require major class rebalancing and countless hours of development time.

if you think thats really realistic at this point over working on more DLC and things like that, well enjoy fantasy land.

Modifié par F-C, 20 novembre 2009 - 08:28 .

[Amioran]

Pocketgb wrote...

And my point was that they decided to buff a class even after 9 months of balancing. You've made your point, I've made mine.

A shame that your "point" is wrong because archery was actually bugged and the fix is not a "rebalancing" issue as you say.

Archery was planned to have damage of a longbow on par with that of a longsword, but after some changes that increased damage on the melee weapons they mistakengly didn't increase the damage also on bows and so archery shipped underpowered. Crossbows, then, didn't get attributes increase for damage, a clear bug as the one of daggers.

Georg clearly stated these point very well in the discussion thread of the hotfix. Archery is bugged and the hotfix is not a rebalancing of the same, but, as the name implies, a fix to a thing that doesn't work as it was planned it should have been.

[Periodiko]

GrrARRRar THIS EXCEL SPREADSHEET I MADE IS MAKING ME SO ANGRRRY

[Pocketgb]

F-C wrote...

i disagree that 2hd is as gimped as a few people want to allude to. on heavily armored targets such as dragons it is quite superior, and i think a lot of this is coming down to people who are not always building their character correctly. many people are having great success with 2hd warrior while some are saying its awful which can only mean the issue lies between the chair and the keyboard.

Tons of people also said Archery was great pre-buff. Little comes out of a simple statement. We don't know what people were comparing their damage to, didn't know how far they progressed in the game, didn't know their difficulty setting. A lot of people here are making A-to-B statements here, and we can't base balance off of personal opinion.

2h when compared to DW simply makes its effectiveness pale: DW gets double the rune benefits (2H can get some pretty decent weapon buffs from time to time, though ), it's less situational, relies on Dex (a very happy stat), and has much better sustains (although Indominabtle is pretty awesome, but I'd trade that any day for Momentum!). 2h can only hope to be as on par by stacking sustains and occassionaly using abilities, otherwise it's total DPS sees a major drop-off. The attack speed, stamina costs, lackluster abilities, and overall amount of inflexibility of the class point to clear signs of needing a buff. As much as Archery? Certainly not, but given how little a Warrior can choose from already it's hard to argue against a buff. The boost against dragons and high-armored targets isn't too bad at all, but that's only one of a few pros that 2h has in its many seas of cons.

Of course this *could* all be changed if someone was actually able to make a solid build. Given how strict the tree is, though, kind of kills my hope of that happening, hence why I personally have had trouble with it. Still fun to use, however, much more aesthetically appealing than DW - at least for me.

F-C wrote...

if you think thats really realistic at this point over working on more DLC and things like that...

I don't. But I said that in a different thread so I can understand you missing that.

My points have never been to say that balancing should be a priority, but it should be something to keep in mind. I've also mainly been in response to people who claim to think that nothing is imba in this game when there are quite evident issues. But yes, I'd much rather have Return to Ostagar than a balancing patch.

Granting I'm helping in making this thread a bit off topic, so far that I apologize, mods. All discussion regarding 2h will take place in the corresponding thread.

Amioran wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

And my point was that they decided to buff a class even after 9 months of balancing. You've made your point, I've made mine.

A shame that your "point" is wrong because archery was actually bugged and the fix is not a "rebalancing" issue as you say.

Archery was planned to have damage of a longbow on par with that of a longsword, but after some changes that increased damage on the melee weapons they mistakengly didn't increase the damage also on bows and so archery shipped underpowered. Crossbows, then, didn't get attributes increase for damage, a clear bug as the one of daggers.

Georg clearly stated these point very well in the discussion thread of the hotfix. Archery is bugged and the hotfix is not a rebalancing of the same, but, as the name implies, a fix to a thing that doesn't work as it was planned it should have been.

I sure hope it's not the devs intention to have 2h be overally lackluster, then.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 20 novembre 2009 - 08:54 .

[Dvergar]

I have a level 22 dwarf hard mode, never had any problems with using too much stamina or with stamina regen.  By the time my skills CD is overwith I have the stamina required to use them again.
Mind you I am a SS tank, 25 points in Willpower... maybe two handed talents just cost more?
I know that I typically dont even have enough time to use all of my abilities before the battle is over... if I could just keep using them over and over again it would be very OP.

[Georg Zoeller]

Thank you, you just summed up my day!

Periodiko wrote...

GrrARRRar THIS EXCEL SPREADSHEET I MADE IS MAKING ME SO ANGRRRY

[Luralene]

I craft mana and health potions. Stamina potions should be craftable too. I play a mage just so I can micro-manage more effectively, crowd control is necessary.

[surrealitycheck]

also that quote from Georg is about elemental benefits, not the special attacks themselves, you are reaching pretty far with that quote.

No, it's about elemental benefits being not applied to special attacks.

This is the problem with special attacks scaling (and remember this is not just a problem of special attacks being utterly crap in all situations - they aren't - it's that they go from being really good to really bad. Now, unless you believe that was their design intention (which would be weird as all hell), then you have to admit that the current implementation of special attacks is lacking. It's really that simple.

[Loc'n'lol]

Dvergar wrote...

I have a level 22 dwarf hard mode, never had any problems with using too much stamina or with stamina regen.  By the time my skills CD is overwith I have the stamina required to use them again.
Mind you I am a SS tank, 25 points in Willpower... maybe two handed talents just cost more?
I know that I typically dont even have enough time to use all of my abilities before the battle is over... if I could just keep using them over and over again it would be very OP.

The weapon and shield tree only has 4 active abilities and the stamina cost of all of its abilities is somewhat low.
I think it is the best balanced of all 4 weapon styles. All abilities have a clear purpose, the entire style is based on improving the durability of your character with a few extra abilities that let you incapacitate one target at a time. The perfect choice for the tank, protector of the party.
The only one I think is bad is assault. Hit the target 4 times and do reduced damage ? Yeah well, I might as well save myself the trouble and the stamina and just attack. If it's not going to stun, knockdown, debuff or do other nasty things to someone, it's not worth it.

Dual wield talents cost a ****load of stamina. This cost can be reduced at high level with dual weapon mastery, but I think this is where things are wrong : essentially, in early levels, you don't have a whole lot of talents to use, so the stamina is irrelevant, then hard fights kick in and you run out of stamina all the time. Especially if you use momentum, aka the stamina drainer (it's well worth it from a pure dps perspective, but you can leave your character on autopilot then). Then you get dual weapon mastery and start geting equipment that gives stamina regeneration and things start getting better. Well, unless you continue to leave momentum on all the time. It will eventually drain you of your stamina regardless.

I think they did things right with the shield style and shouldn't have strayed too far away from this formula with the other trees. The "mastery" talent should give additional benefits to other talents, reducing the stamina cost doesn't seem all that interesting because it makes the stamina costs too high by default.
Momentum should probably have a different penalty. Reduced defense seems like a good idea : if you're in a position where you can attack and not be attacked (enemy is focussed on the tank), you use momentum to dish out damage as fast as you can, if the enemy turns against you though, you will pay dearly, or you will have to deactivate momentum to survive. Sounds like a more fair deal and it requires the player to adapt to the situation, not just always leave momentum on 'cause it's the ****.

As for the 2-handed talents. Well...
Pommel strike gets the job done, nice first tier talent, on par with shield bash.
Indomitable is a no brainer. There is no reason not to use this. It has a high upkeep, but the only fights where you would not benefit from it are the fights you could win without spending any stamina at all.
Critical Strike sounds like it should have been the melee equivalent of arrow of slaying : a slow but sure-way 1 hit kill. It doesn't. It's just an autocrit. For a tier-4 talent that's incredibly lame.
The middle tree is a serie of situational single target debuffs and passive boosts. Not bad but not terribly interesting imo. Considering the prerequisites for destroyer it could have been something a little more exciting (look at punisher for example : Triple hit + autocrit + debuff + knockdown. Wow. Now THAT screams "DO WANT").
Mighty blow = autocrit + debuff. That's fine for a tier-1 talent. Combo with cone of cold ftw. More reason to think Critical strike is not working as intended.
Powerful swings sounds like what I would have liked to see done with momentum. I don't use it because I have used my 2 handed chars as (sub-par) 'tanks' so far, so this would gimp my warriors as I use them. I have no idea how good the damage bonus is. AFAIK, this might be what makes the difference between a lame damage 2 handed warrior (as claimed by some) and a great damage 2 handed warrior (as claimed by others).
Two handed sweep = aoe + knockdown = good. Too bad it comes so late, because warriors need more abilities like that considerning the number of enemies you have to fight at a time.

and I don't feel like commenting on archery right now.
It also has its ups and its downs.

[Loc'n'lol]

On an unrelated not, I just realized we're not in the gameplay forum. What the ?

[F-C]

surrealitycheck wrote...

also that quote from Georg is about elemental benefits, not the special attacks themselves, you are reaching pretty far with that quote.

No, it's about elemental benefits being not applied to special attacks.

ive read this over and over and i guess this one is just going right over my head.