410 réponses à ce sujet

[Yrkoon]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


Regarding Alistair, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Could you elaborate further?

You have to have him.  Can't kill him till the landsmeet.  And even if you decide not to use him,  you still have to house him in your camp  until then

IIRC,  He  and Morrigan are the only  party members in the game that fall under this  "but thou must!" plot shoe-horning mechanic.  You can choose to  do away with everyone else.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 17 mars 2012 - 11:13 .

[seraphymon]

i always thought one of the better ways to deal with seperating the rogue and warrior class, was not to strip them away of certain playstyles. but to give the mdifferent abilities. So a warrior that says goes archery would have access to different abilities than if say a rogue does, and or its playstyle is a bit different. Same for other areas, such as dual wield.

[TEWR]

You have to have him. Can't kill him. And even if you decide not to use him, you still have to house him in your camp for the entire game.

IIRC, He and Morrigan are the only 'plot essential' party members in the game. You can do away with everyone else

Well, you can get rid of him by sparing Loghain. Possibly even have him executed by Anora's orders -- though this is done offscreen, if it even happened at all. Along with having him make the US if you refused to do the DR.

But yes, he is required for the narrative up until the Landsmeet. Just as Morrigan is required up until she proposes the DR.

I'd also add Dog for a Human Noble. Though I doubt anyone wants to get rid of Dog. He's just that awesome.

I can see how that might irk some people, even if I'm not bothered by it myself. But Flemeth did send Morrigan with you and you know the former is incredibly powerful. Refusing her aid might be a bad idea in the future, just as telling the only other Grey Warden to beat it might also be a bad idea.

Though it should be noted that Morrigan can leave. You just need to call her a heartless shrew and tell her to leave. Or so the DA wiki says. Whether you actually can get rid of her that way I don't know.

seraphymon wrote...

i always thought one of the better ways to deal with seperating the rogue and warrior class, was not to strip them away of certain playstyles. but to give the mdifferent abilities. So a warrior that says goes archery would have access to different abilities than if say a rogue does, and or its playstyle is a bit different. Same for other areas, such as dual wield.

That's not a bad idea, if it could be pulled off without sacrificing other game elements in the process.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 17 mars 2012 - 11:26 .

[seraphymon]

I cant imagine being too big of a deal seeing how already certain party members have a talent tree that others dont have, even if some are just hybrids of certain specs.

As for Morrigan, i think it requires the directors cut morrigan mod. In which allows her to leave, or try turning her to the templars. and her running away. She still shows up to ask the dark ritual. Which makes her lines "its only me" fit right in, since at that point, it would be a surprise to see her, insteadof already knowing shes there because shes been in your party.

Modifié par seraphymon, 17 mars 2012 - 11:29 .

[jbrand2002uk]

Well there is a logical reason why only rogues were given archery they lack brute power in melee which warriors have in spades because the rogues sacrifice brute power for speed giving them exclusive use of archery allows them to soften up the enemies from a distance before you send in your tank warrior to mop up

[seraphymon]

yeah thats why rogues do more dmg up close to a single enemy , and also 1 dagger is already has more dps and higher dmg than a two hander, and a rogue has 2 of them? Yeah thats a real lack of brute power.

[Yrkoon]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Well there is a logical reason why only rogues were given archery they lack brute power in melee which warriors have in spades because the rogues sacrifice brute power for speed giving them exclusive use of archery allows them to soften up the enemies from a distance before you send in your tank warrior to mop up

Say what?

You seem to be  operating under the strange premise that Archery constitutes some sort of manifestation of "speed" in combat, as opposed to, say,  firing a projectile from a staff  (mage only)  or using a sword & shield   (warrior only), even though Staves and sword & shield are  faster attacks than Archery in DA2.


Perhaps what you're trying to say is that Archery requires dexterity,  which is a Rogue's primary stat, while 2-h swords require strength, which is a Warrior's  primary stat.  And that's fine.  Logical even...  right up until someone asks:  Well, why can't my warrior pump level-up  points into Dexterity?  Answer:  he certainly  Can.  The game allows it.   So... why can't  a Warrior with 99 dexterity  (the dex cap in DA2) Wield a bow, but a Rogue with 15 dexterity can?

Answer:  Just cuz.  And suddenly it's clear that there's no Logic  at all  behind Bioware's decision to limit Archery to Rogues.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 18 mars 2012 - 12:55 .

[Pasquale1234]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Well there is a logical reason why only rogues were given archery they lack brute power in melee which warriors have in spades because the rogues sacrifice brute power for speed giving them exclusive use of archery allows them to soften up the enemies from a distance before you send in your tank warrior to mop up

Once again, your "logical" conclusion does not follow from your argument.

Your argument might support the reason why it is desirable for rogues to have archery available, but does nothing to prove your conclusion that warriors should not be allowed archery.

Warriors are fighters, and serve no other purpose in the party.  They do not cast spells, pick locks, or disarm traps.  There is no legitimate reason to deny them the use of bows and crossbows.

[TEWR]

I agree with what the posters above me said.

One of my favorite things to do in Dragon Age: Origins was to give Sten the Whitewood Bow. A Qunari weapon engraved with the Qunari saying With strength, become steel. That to me was just something that felt right, and not solely because Sten is a Qunari.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Well there is a logical reason why only rogues were given archery they lack brute power in melee which warriors have in spades because the rogues sacrifice brute power for speed giving them exclusive use of archery allows them to soften up the enemies from a distance before you send in your tank warrior to mop up

Check the data files.  Daggers have the highest base damage in the entire game.

Rogues have the most brute power.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 mars 2012 - 05:01 .

[Rorschachinstein]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Well there is a logical reason why only rogues were given archery they lack brute power in melee which warriors have in spades because the rogues sacrifice brute power for speed giving them exclusive use of archery allows them to soften up the enemies from a distance before you send in your tank warrior to mop up

Check the data files.  Daggers have the highest base damage in the entire game.

Rogues have the most brute power.

Daggers usually have low physical push

[Das Tentakel]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Well there is a logical reason why only rogues were given archery they lack brute power in melee which warriors have in spades because the rogues sacrifice brute power for speed giving them exclusive use of archery allows them to soften up the enemies from a distance before you send in your tank warrior to mop up

Once again, your "logical" conclusion does not follow from your argument.

Your argument might support the reason why it is desirable for rogues to have archery available, but does nothing to prove your conclusion that warriors should not be allowed archery.

Warriors are fighters, and serve no other purpose in the party.  They do not cast spells, pick locks, or disarm traps.  There is no legitimate reason to deny them the use of bows and crossbows.

Maybe it has something to do with scripting encounters and forcing the player into forming very specific tactical combinations. I noticed in DA:O a certain overlap between rogues and warriors, with the main difference being the lighter armour of the rogues. But I used both wielding shields, bows etc. if I wanted to.
It also somewhat added to 'homogenizing' the characters' looks (itself the result of relatively poor and unvaried equipment design, but there you go).

It's an awful approach which I entirely reject, but I think I can understand why they did it. Iconic looks and easier encounter design. The price is the loss of a bit of player agency, as well as adding to the erosion of 'suspension of disbelief'.

EDIT: Perhaps a solution would be to allow characters to wear and use everything, provided they have the stats, but change the way you increase your abilities. What I am thinking of is buying new points in a character's primary abilities at 'normal' cost, and other abilities at 'double cost'. For instance, you get 2 points to spend at each new level, and can buy 2 Strength or 1 Dexterity point as a warrior. It means you are encouraged to 'reinforce' the specialisation of your character, but you have the possibility to customize if you want. It could also be combined with something like a 'maximum' score for your abilities, with spending points on Dex and other abilities late in the game becoming a feasible option. This would have to be balanced, of course, it should not result in characters becoming the same, rather, that they gain added capability in addition to their primary tactical function.

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 18 mars 2012 - 10:41 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I can see Bioware completely stripping out stats in DA3, using a steady increase in health/mana every level and skill points, a la Mass Effect.

I don't LIKE it... but I can see it.

In addition, I could also see them enact some version of the Fatigue element in DAO and the Weight element in Mass Effect 3. A character could wear heavy plate male armor and carry a twenty foot long axe that does good damage with its regular attack... but either your skills cooldown time or your mana/stamina will regenerate at such a slow rate, you'll only be able to use your skills once a battle.

But I suppose this is getting a little off-topic, is it not? The problem with having warrior archers is that you can have a character with the requisite stats to equip total plate armor, making them a tank, but then use a powerful bow and also gain every advantage of being a long-range damage dealer, essentially making your team a mobile missile silo.

This could be circumspect with thoughtful design mechanisms, realistic equipment limitations and/or attack speed modifiers... but since we are talking about DA2, we should realize they went with the easiest popssible fix of "Mage/Rogue/Warrior - never shall the two overlap" and just ask for better in DA3.

[Morroian]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I can see Bioware completely stripping out stats in DA3, using a steady increase in health/mana every level and skill points, a la Mass Effect.

I can't, I can see the fan reaction now and so should BW be able to. They may as well give up on the franchise now if they go that route.

[Das Tentakel]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I can see Bioware completely stripping out stats in DA3, using a steady increase in health/mana every level and skill points, a la Mass Effect.

I don't LIKE it... but I can see it.

The problem with having warrior archers is that you can have a character with the requisite stats to equip total plate armor, making them a tank, but then use a powerful bow and also gain every advantage of being a long-range damage dealer, essentially making your team a mobile missile silo.

This could be circumspect with thoughtful design mechanisms, realistic equipment limitations and/or attack speed modifiers...

Given the fact that DA's engine appears to be severely limited, clunky and archaic in terms of actual results from the player's POV (perhaps in contrast to what may be relatively fast and easy development from the devs' POV) I don't have much hope to be honest.  I doubt they're going to do anything resembling CDProjekt's heavy tweaking of the engine in The Witcher I, or develop a really powerful new one as for The Witcher II.

The easiest way to prevent heavily armoured archers is simply forbidding the use of bows or crossbows while wearing full plate, and perhaps noticeably lowering the firing rate while wearing partial plate or elaborate scale/chainmail combinations. But apart from the programming side of things, the more complex the mechanics, the less accessible the game becomes. There are probably ways around it - I remember buying a big heavy sword in Fable I, then laughing out loud when my character couldn't wield it and had to drag it after him - but that kind of direct, enjoyable and immediately understandable feedback also takes work.
Still...it would be nice if, say, Leliana would refuse wearing full plate, complaining that she wouldn't be able to move, breathe or shoot arrows in the damn thing, stuff like that. Or Sten in full plate using his irritated voice commenting that he can't load or shoot a bow while in full plate.

Am I hallucinating, or did we shift from 'Dragon Age 2 hate' to actually engaging in constructive criticism?

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 18 mars 2012 - 12:15 .

[Yrkoon]

Yeah, stop that already! lol

Anyway, I don't see why they have to impose any such limitations where the armor you're wearing affects the weapon you're using, or whatever you guys are suggesting. These skills should be class based. Rogues and Warriors should both be able to use Bows, but give rogues their own archery talent tree and warriors their own archery talent tree.   Problem solved.  And if we just *have* to have some arbitrary 'balancing' rule, then simply make the Rogue's archery tree feature faster projectile fires/higher dps

Or here's a crazy thought: Make Archery Dex based and heavy armor Strength based, thus forcing warriors to choose between being able to equip the best heavy armor vs. being able to use the best bows and acquire the highest tier archery talents. Oh wait.... what am I thinking. They did that for DA:O... that old crap game of theirs that bombed with the critics and didn't sell worth a damn....

Modifié par Yrkoon, 18 mars 2012 - 12:47 .

[jbrand2002uk]

While I enjoy DAO I Still find very little difference between the DW Warrior and the Rogue so I actually prefer the Distinction between the Warrior and Rogue classes in DA2 its clearly not to everyone's taste so YMMV

[TEWR]

Morroian wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I can see Bioware completely stripping out stats in DA3, using a steady increase in health/mana every level and skill points, a la Mass Effect.

I can't, I can see the fan reaction now and so should BW be able to. They may as well give up on the franchise now if they go that route.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a system where upon level up, the health and mana/stamina does automatically upgrade -- like in FFXII -- but the player can still invest points in Constitution or Willpower or whatever else they want. Of course, Willpower and Constitution would have to give more bonuses then just +5

Part of my problem with DA2's combat is that I have 300 health -- give or take -- but everyone else has a few thousand points of health. I like how the enemies have more health in battle, but I despise how unbalanced it is. Compounded by reports of what happens on Nightmare where you can one-shot your entire party, which seemed like a cheap way to try and make combat "tactical" IMO.

Never mind how the combat itself is handled, as I've discussed that one too often.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 mars 2012 - 02:28 .

[SinnSly]

I love it, I enjoy replaying it, while I really hate Origins, I cannot stnad that game, heck I even gave my copy of it away

[Pasquale1234]

Yrkoon wrote...

Yeah, stop that already! lol

Anyway, I don't see why they have to impose any such limitations where the armor you're wearing affects the weapon you're using, or whatever you guys are suggesting. These skills should be class based. Rogues and Warriors should both be able to use Bows, but give rogues their own archery talent tree and warriors their own archery talent tree.   Problem solved.  And if we just *have* to have some arbitrary 'balancing' rule, then simply make the Rogue's archery tree feature faster projectile fires/higher dps

Or here's a crazy thought: Make Archery Dex based and heavy armor Strength based, thus forcing warriors to choose between being able to equip the best heavy armor vs. being able to use the best bows and acquire the highest tier archery talents. Oh wait.... what am I thinking. They did that for DA:O... that old crap game of theirs that bombed with the critics and didn't sell worth a damn....

And higher-level armor also pulled threat.  IIRC, crossbows in DAO were more strength-based and regular bows had higher dexterity requirements.  Made sense to me.

I remember one battle in particular from DAO, in the warehouse by Denerim, where you had to enter a room that had ranged enemies (archers and mages) lined up on the far walls.  Whenever I tried to send even a S&S warrior with massive armor and shield defenses activated across that room to attack the ranged enemies, they would never make it.  After multiple attempts trying different approaches, I finally found that if I picked off the few I could target from outside the room using a crossbow, I could then charge in and win that battle.  IIRC, there was also a room there with multiple entries, where you could split up your party and have them enter from different doors.

Strategic battles... multiple weapon sets that you could switch from the radial menu... special, enchanted arrows and bolts... truly memorable non-boss battles...who'd a thunk it?

I'm currently trying a DA2 rogue with both archery and dw skills, although I have to use the inventory screen to switch when I want to (the game automatically switches to a dagger when a rogue carrying a bow is attacked in melee).  It's been... interesting... thus far.

jbrand2002uk wrote...

While I enjoy DAO I Still find very little difference between the DW Warrior and the Rogue so I actually prefer the Distinction between the Warrior and Rogue classes in DA2 its clearly not to everyone's taste so YMMV

One of the nice things about player agency is that you *can* have personal restrictions if you so choose.  One small example: I won't use Maker's Sigh, I just live with my build choices throughout the game.  My choice.

And really, since PC players can open up all of the skill trees with cheats, it is the console players who end up having to live with the restrictions imposed by the game.

Leliana was the same character with the same personality and tastes whether I equipped her with a pair of daggers or a bow, left her in chantry robes or equipped her with light or even medium armor.  I understand that Isabela loves to duel with daggers, and don't object if her personal skill tree focuses on that, but I also think that a character with high dexterity and cunning ought to be able to use a bow.  It isn't rocket science, and considering that she is a sea captain, she ought to be pretty well-versed in ranged combat, too.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 18 mars 2012 - 04:16 .

[schalafi]

I love DA2, and have played it multiple times, and am still playing it. I've tried going back to Origins, but now I find it too slow, and the character creator isn't nearly as good as DA2's. As for the obvious flaws everyone mentions, I just have gotten used to them and ignore them. Origins had lots of flaws too, which didn't bother me at the time. I've played every Bioware (and Black Isle, and Obsidian) game since Baldur's gate came out, and in all my 9 years visiting the forums, I've never seen such an uproar over one game. Are players getting too sophisticated to remember this is a fantasy game, not a real life tragedy, or just becoming jaded?

[TEWR]

The funny thing about Isabela is that she was wielding a longsword -- along with a dagger -- in DAO when you first meet her. So she's obviously capable of wielding it and the game just decides to say "LOL nope".

I'm currently trying a DA2 rogue with both archery and dw skills, although I have to use the inventory screen to switch when I want to (the game automatically switches to a dagger when a rogue carrying a bow is attacked in melee). It's been... interesting... thus far.

That was another thing I detested about DAII's equipment. I couldn't have an easy way to switch between the two like in Origins. I have to equip daggers, go to the equipment screen, remove the daggers, and then equip the bow.

I much preferred DAO's way where I had two sets. Bow on the back and weapons in hand, where I could easily switch between the two by just pressing one button.

[Davillo]

SETTING SETTING SETTING - If Kirkwall was really made out to be grand and huge like it is shown in the pictures when you chose which part of Kirkwall to go to maybe it would have been better and they would have been forced to make a couple more different environment and rooms. Right now walking across the whole High Town feels like walking 5 city blocks in Chicago literally... The city environments should have been allot bigger and there should be more of them.

[Davillo]

The game was not designed in mind with having semi hybrids like: Origins dual wield warriors who could instantly switch to a bow and dish out good damage. Or rogues who were archers and could always switch and daggers in when enemy got to close and still own with the daggers even though they were archers. The encounter design in this game just does not need you to switch weapons except in nightmare..... Did they really want us to freaking switch our staves and elemental weapons manually through the inventory screen every single time we fight something that has resistances? Almost every enemy has them so switching stave's and weapons later on when u get the ice and fire and spirit 2 handers is freaking ridiculous.

[Mike_Neel]

Sorry for just jumping into your conversation midway but I've seen other games give warriors an archery skill. But instead of drawstring bows it's crossbows. I know they removed crossbows in DAII for some reason but they could bring them back for DAIII and make them warrior only archery class.

Crossbows wouldn't need high dexterity class and they would focus on armor piercing and knockback stat wise over the traditional drawstring bow which is about speed and overwhelming shots.

That's just how I'd do it but I doubt it'll work out that way in the end.