42 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

DeathScepter wrote...

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.

Hybrids? That assumes that one needs those roles. And that's simply not true. GW1 had them. GW2 abandoned them. I don't miss them. In fact I can play the class that I like now, wihout being punished for missing a conventional trait.

[Wotannanow]

cJohnOne wrote...
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.

That what I call a flaw in tactics. Smart tacticians go for the weaker targets that generate the greatest damage output first. A smart AI would go for the mages and healers first.

[filetemo]

Wotannanow wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...
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.

That what I call a flaw in tactics. Smart tacticians go for the weaker targets that generate the greatest damage output first. A smart AI would go for the mages and healers first.

The classic RPG roles (tank-DPS-healer) work because we play against an AI. In real world a mage would get blasted with arrows in sight.
If the AI does not follow those rules (at least on Normal difficulty) the roles aren't worth a crap and building DPS'ers and tanks would be useless.

"Hey I'm the tank! give me all the aggro while my fellow rogue kills you"
"Enemy: hum, not really, thanks (goes kill the rogue and mage)"

[redBadger14]

Renmiri1 wrote...

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

I don't see how. Aveline was the only AI tank in DA2 and she was amazing. If you spec her right, in the latter portions of the game on Hard, Aveline is virtually unkillable. Did she require some player management though? Yes.

I think the problem with Taunt though is that its AoE, with the Warrior being the center of the AoE, as opposed to usually being a targeted (enemy) ability in most MMO's. With the AoE, you could have the Tactics for Aveline set correctly for Taunt, but it wouldn't necesscarily work the way you want because there's no guarantee that the enemy you want being drawn to Aveline would be nearby to be affected by Taunt. I think changing Taunt to a targeted ability would make the AI more effective at drawing the aggro of the tougher enemies. Then possibly even change how Taunt works now to a new sustained ability that causes nearby enemies to focus their attention on the Warrior.

[CaptainBlackGold]

As others have stated, can we please get rid of this horrible, immersion breaking MMO concept for a single player game?

Mages should be glass cannons, powerful but easy to kill. Rogues should be sneaky skill monkeys. And warriors, should be WARRIORS! You know the people who have devoted their entire lives to combat, can dish out enormous amounts of damage with sword, pike, spear, bow or whatever, and because they are either highly dextrous or wear massive armor, can survive in the most difficult combat circumstances.

To balance this, they should be susceptible to magic attacks and unable to use speech skills, and ineffective at disarming traps and disabling locks. This requires the game itself to offer multiple ways to achieve goals, not just combat. The game needs some stealth opportunities, many speech persuasion options, deadly traps (not just annoying ones), etc.

Gimme back my two weapon warrior who can use a bow when he wants to. Make rogues terrible at anything other than sneaky combat and skill checks. Please do not force me to use a system designed for multiplayer.

I want my warrior to be the expert of making war - not standing there like a dumb idiot while everyone else pounds on him.

[cJohnOne]

filetemo wrote...

Wotannanow wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...
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.

That what I call a flaw in tactics. Smart tacticians go for the weaker targets that generate the greatest damage output first. A smart AI would go for the mages and healers first.

The classic RPG roles (tank-DPS-healer) work because we play against an AI. In real world a mage would get blasted with arrows in sight.
If the AI does not follow those rules (at least on Normal difficulty) the roles aren't worth a crap and building DPS'ers and tanks would be useless.

"Hey I'm the tank! give me all the aggro while my fellow rogue kills you"
"Enemy: hum, not really, thanks (goes kill the rogue and mage)"

Good point but it depends on how much Damage the Mage or Rogue is actually doing.  If the Mage is just casting barrior and teleporting around then he's a lower priority and if the Rogue didn't have Assassinate he'd be a lower priority too.

[Realmzmaster]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

As others have stated, can we please get rid of this horrible, immersion breaking MMO concept for a single player game?

Mages should be glass cannons, powerful but easy to kill. Rogues should be sneaky skill monkeys. And warriors, should be WARRIORS! You know the people who have devoted their entire lives to combat, can dish out enormous amounts of damage with sword, pike, spear, bow or whatever, and because they are either highly dextrous or wear massive armor, can survive in the most difficult combat circumstances.

To balance this, they should be susceptible to magic attacks and unable to use speech skills, and ineffective at disarming traps and disabling locks. This requires the game itself to offer multiple ways to achieve goals, not just combat. The game needs some stealth opportunities, many speech persuasion options, deadly traps (not just annoying ones), etc.

Gimme back my two weapon warrior who can use a bow when he wants to. Make rogues terrible at anything other than sneaky combat and skill checks. Please do not force me to use a system designed for multiplayer.

I want my warrior to be the expert of making war - not standing there like a dumb idiot while everyone else pounds on him.

Why should mages be glass cannons? Why should  rogues just be sneaky skill monkeys or warriors just warriors? That is pigeonholing that is just as bad as the MMO's. 

[Wulfram]

filetemo wrote...

The classic RPG roles (tank-DPS-healer) work because we play against an AI. In real world a mage would get blasted with arrows in sight.
If the AI does not follow those rules (at least on Normal difficulty) the roles aren't worth a crap and building DPS'ers and tanks would be useless.

"Hey I'm the tank! give me all the aggro while my fellow rogue kills you"
"Enemy: hum, not really, thanks (goes kill the rogue and mage)"

You can use other methods than threat to achieve similar things.  Give the tanks abilities that restrict enemy movement.  Give the DPS good mobility and/or range.  Give the tanks abilities that make them dangerous to neglect.

[philippe willaume]

hello
I would yes we do need a tank role.
it is can be used to control choke points on the map.
and it the talent are well design he can control enemy movements.
IE a guy/lass with a two hander is not that easy to by pass in a corridor.


Generating aggro ie taunt is a way of doing it though it is harder to rationalise.
as an other poster said, Yo villains i am the daddy,
villain ‘well lads leave that bugger alone, do the squeeshies’

as redBadger14 said in any case aggro generation is area of effect so like choke point it is a matter of positioning.
as well to be fair it seems that DA:2 had a some sort of damage over period of time I the target value generation so a certain type of char may get more attention despite the aggro.

well defined role works fine when you play a party like in Icewindale, but when you play a main character it is not that cool to be stuck in a single role, doing always the same thing.
(which was the case in DA:2)
I think like in da:0 classes could have more that one functions. so I think all classes should have a modicum of tanking control abilities.
In DAA the keeper abilities of Valeema could be use to same if not better effect than a tank proper.

Phile

[SafetyShattered]

JR1911 wrote...

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

Same here. If I want to be a warrior that uses a bow or dual daggers why can't I?

[Realmzmaster]

Tanks have their uses especially when fighting big creatures like dragons or holding choke points. If the dual wield warrior or warrior that uses an a bow can keep the dragon's attention while the other companions whittle away at its life points or hold a choke point that is fine. Unfortunately that is no always the case.

I think the warrior should be able to use those weapons or armor, but the limitations that come with it also has to be accepted.

[cJohnOne]

Half the fun of playing warrior is getting better and better equpment for your tank so he becomes a better tank.

[corkey sweet]

cJohnOne wrote...

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?

i want the sword and shield build to be way better than it was in DA2. it was almost pointless to have Hawke be s&b in that game because Aviline did it better because of her exclusive skill tree. hopefully s&b is more viable in DA3

[cJohnOne]

Didn't Aveline have indomitable or something like that? Yeah that was a good skill.

[Remmirath]

No. I do think that you should be able to build your warrior into doing this, more or less, but certainly don't force them to be. If I want to play a warrior who avoids getting hit as much as they can and uses a bow or dual-wields swords or what, I think I should be able to. Sword and shield, though, yeah, that's a bit more of a 'tank' kind of thing...

... Though I'm really not fond of the whole 'tank' thing in general, because 'I'll stand there and soak damage!' is really not a valid fighting style.

[corkey sweet]

cJohnOne wrote...

Didn't Aveline have indomitable or something like that? Yeah that was a good skill.

She was a way better tank than Hawke could be because of her special skill tree. All i ask for DA3 is, the main character should be a viable tank unlike Hawke, who was better suited as 2h warrior

[DeathScepter]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

DeathScepter wrote...

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.

Hybrids? That assumes that one needs those roles. And that's simply not true. GW1 had them. GW2 abandoned them. I don't miss them. In fact I can play the class that I like now, wihout being punished for missing a conventional trait.

More True flexiblity , Think More of Morrowind.