42 réponses à ce sujet

[cJohnOne]

In DAO your Sword and Shield warrior was your tank.  It was build for tanking.  The enemies attacked your tank because of his high armor.

In DA2 I still used one warrior but it wasn't the same.


What are your thoughts on tanking and the warrior's role?

[Zeralos]

I think the tank role its really perfect for warrior, due to his heavy armor he got the highest threat generation, more mobs attacking him, more armor required and what happens when you are fully equipped with heavy armor and want more? you equip a big awesome shield! Let the rogue and the mage kill the mobs, you just stand there, take damage, and enjoy the view of your falling enemies!

[Vandicus]

I'm not a big fan of the concept of tanking personally. Many of the enemies we fight in DA are intelligent beings. It would make sense for them to go after the mages and archers. The game would be more tactical if there was a reasonable focus on trying to keep enemies from going after those targets(besides the "taunt"-like mechanics). With body collision and bonus damage for distracted/facing wrong direction enemies and such I think it could be done.

[wsandista]

I don't think that the Warrior(or any class for that matter) should be restricted to just one role. I think that the Warrior should be able to do quite a bit of things. One of the things I hated the most about DA2 was that Warriors were no longer an optimal choice to deal out damage, and was instead relegated almost exclusively to the role of "tank"(which I believe is a ridiculous role for role-playing).

[HopHazzard]

I don't think that tanking should be the warrior's only role. Both DA games made it possible to build damage dealing warriors. It was possible to build a reasonable damage dealer even if you were using sword and shield in DA:O, not so much in DA2. I'm hoping they change that. I prefer the look of sword and shield, but playing a tank is a bit dull for me.

[Wulfram]

You could certainly build warriors as tanks in DA2.

I'm generally not a fan of threat based mechanics, but I liked having Aveline using Battle Synergy + Isabela + Dual Wield Hawke.

[cJohnOne]

Wulfram wrote...

You could certainly build warriors as tanks in DA2.

I'm generally not a fan of threat based mechanics, but I liked having Aveline using Battle Synergy + Isabela + Dual Wield Hawke.

I'll admit it.  I've never used Battle Synergy.  It adds defense to all party members?

[Shevy]

Warriors felt a little weak compared to rogues and mages in DA II. I never used two of them, except being a warrior myself and doing Fenris/Aveline quests.
Twohander-warrior wasn't a fun to play, while my sword&shield warrior with an offensive build/equipment had his moments.
In Origins the dual wield warrior was my favourite spec by far. I want to see them return.

[cJohnOne]

Shevy_001 wrote...

Warriors felt a little weak compared to rogues and mages in DA II. I never used two of them, except being a warrior myself and doing Fenris/Aveline quests.
Twohander-warrior wasn't a fun to play, while my sword&shield warrior with an offensive build/equipment had his moments.
In Origins the dual wield warrior was my favourite spec by far. I want to see them return.

Dual-wielding warrior is kind of redundant unless you love warriors like I do.  I just don't think they're going to bring that back.

[Wulfram]

cJohnOne wrote...

I'll admit it.  I've never used Battle Synergy.  It adds defense to all party members?

All the party members in a fairly small radius, but the most important part from a tanking point of view is the upgrade that makes the warrior take half the threat generated by those characters.

[Volus Warlord]

No.

[Gileadan]

"Tanking" is a silly concept that requires a predictable enemy AI to work. I understand its place in MMOs, but I think it has no place in single player games.

I'm so waiting for a RPG to change this worn-out formula. One that has clever enemies that go for your most vulnerable party members first (assuming the enemy in question belongs to an intelligent species - it's fine if zombies just nom on the nearest living). Where warriors are the most capable killers in a toe-to-toe fight - after all, training from a master-at-arms represents generations of combat experience few people have access to. Where rogues get cool stuff to do like killing guards silently and opening a gate for the rest of the team.

But chances are I'll get more single-player-MMOs.

[Milan92]

I want to be able to dual wield again as a warrior. I dislike beign a tank.

[redBadger14]

I think Sword and Shield Warriors should be able to effectively spec tank or DPS, depending on the player's choice. In DA2 you could technically spec DPS, but it sucked. BioWare should make it better in DA3 should S&S players want to DPS, but not so much that it out-DPS's two-handed warriors, mages, or rogues.

[Paul E Dangerously]

wsandista wrote...

I don't think that the Warrior(or any class for that matter) should be restricted to just one role. I think that the Warrior should be able to do quite a bit of things. One of the things I hated the most about DA2 was that Warriors were no longer an optimal choice to deal out damage, and was instead relegated almost exclusively to the role of "tank"(which I believe is a ridiculous role for role-playing).

Pretty much this. I hate this MMO-style pigeonholing of classes into the narrow defined roles instead of how they were handled previously. Take a look at BG2 - or even DAO - where your Warrior could be the heavily armored person on the frontline with sword and shield, or a nimble lightly armored fighter with dual weapons, or an expert at ranged combat.

Give classes that broad range back and let the player choose which role to play, other than forcing them into a role. Particular classes can be better at some things, but that should be an option.

[Volus Warlord]

1.) A companion that is designed to be a tank is fine. Even encouraged.

2.) If I pick a melee class and I am pigeonholed into being the group meatball.. I will not be happy.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I wish the classic roles (tank/healer/DPS) disappeared. It's not required to design a good game with fun combat. A party of all warriors, all rogues or all mages should have the same chance in combat.

[Renmiri1]

Love the tank role. I tanked fine in DA2 but when I rolled mage or rogue my AI tank was weak. Need better AI for it

[bleetman]

Not necessarily, but I do want taunt to remain. For no other reason than because I loved the whistle noise it made.

[DeathScepter]

to AFW, as long as the hybrids are viable and equipment is good. I do think it is a good idea to slowly decrease a pure roles and more flexiblity.

[JR1911]

No, I hate games forcing different classes into specific roles.

[saMoorai]

Personally, I'd like Archery back for Warriors and try my hand at being a Ranged Tank.