50 réponses à ce sujet

[Doctoglethorpe]

Atemeus wrote...

Dual Swordsman is a must. I despised Dragon Age 2 for the lack of it. Daggers are for wimps, if you're going to dual wield you better use full sized weapons exclusively or just get out.

Its not the size of the blades that count, but how you use them. 

[philippe willaume]

did not play it but if some pole wan't it. that has my support.

It is a role playing game not a build playing game, for me the most important is that people can play the role they want. and that that role is viable and if possible offers a fair amount of tactical options.

The way DA:0 was is the right direction.
Phil
ps @ doctor moustache
especially when those dagger have a greater damage base than a two handed sword.

[Patchwork]

Duel wielding should be given back to warriors along with archery and in return rogues should get rapiers and a decent poisons, bombs and traps spec.

[Shevy]

Dw warriors should return, but their fighting style with two weapons should be through brute force while the rogue dw should define itself through agility and using the right position towards the enemy.

With the lack of dw warriors in DA II the warrior class, normally my favourite in RPG's, was boring as hell. Twohander's base damage was way too low and due to very limited active skills, it was a chore to play. So I ended up with a tank dps spec, but it was nowhere near the fun I had with dw warriors in Origins.

Modifié par Shevy_001, 28 octobre 2012 - 12:08 .

[GipsyDangeresque]

I just can't see how Plate-Wearing, Full Sized Sword and Axe swinging dual wield Warriors could be perceived as overlapping with the dagger slinging, teleporting Rogues that we got in Dragon Age 2.

You could make an argument for them being too similar to greatsword using Warriors party-role wise (mobile, carnage inducing plate DPS,) maybe. But the overlap certainly wouldn't be with Rogues if the spec came back in DA3.

It'd give Warriors the ability to perhaps focus on mobility or single target damage dealing, as opposed to large area damage (GS) or defensive (Sword Board.)

In return, I'd probably expect to see Rogue to get either an area of effect fighting style (a primarily active ability using bomb and trap specialist) or a defensive, evasion tanky fighting style (fighting einhander, the single sword parrying duelist approach.)

Modifié par Atemeus, 28 octobre 2012 - 12:08 .

[Ridwan]

Yeah that kinda sucked in DA 2, dual wielding swords looks awesome and fits a berserker warrior.

[Bob Garbage]

In all honesty, the game better have more varied weapon/fighting specializations than DA2 or I will be pissed. Use your god damn imagination a touch bioware!

[TheJediSaint]

Eh, if I feel like using both hands for fighting, I'll use a two handed weapon.

[Aulis Vaara]

WhiteThunder wrote...

so it was slightly patronizing when the developers kept insisting that reducing my options was the best way at drawing class distinctions.

Why do we need class distinctions anyway? It's more fun to play the game the way I want than the way Bioware wants me to.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Yes, I want dual wielding and archery to return to warriors too. Without the accessibility to all those weapons, I think warriors are my least favourite to play.

[Kail Ashton]

I'm going to assume DW means "dynasty warriors" in which case, yes it is a decent series, one oif the few button mashers that still keeps me entertained each incarnation, which is odd as they story can't change much due to being based on a classic novel, though i also love the source material "romance of the three kingdoms" novel, so that helps as well

But at least the latest game brought in the Jin kingdom to freshen things up, though it does take creative liberties each game which is good and adds to an already enjoyibly simple combat system each with each version they release, i'd say the Empires spin offs are my fav ones as it mixes the action with stratergy conquest systems nicely, oh and i......wait....DW warrior....? duel wield warrior? well that's just stupid

[CaptainBlackGold]

I hope that as they develop DA3 Bioware re-thinks this whole class distinction concept. First, they need to drop the MMO idea of warriors as "tanks." Warriors are WARRIORS (not shouting, just emphasizing here). When it comes to melee combat, they should reign supreme doing the most damage and being the best protected. Whenever a rogue goes one on one with a warrior, he ought to be creamed, immediately.

Mages can continue to be "glass cannons" with great AOE abilities; powerful but fragile. And the game then needs to make rogues actually useful by littering combat areas with traps, locks, etc. They should also have a stealth ability to scout out areas ahead of time, and either disarm or disable traps as needed. As others have mentioned, they can also be allowed them to use poisons and such.

I would also like to see rogues get a rapier style weapon and maybe a specification that allows them to use a dagger, not a short sword, in the off hand for a little more DPS.

It broke my verisimilitude to no end to see a rogue out damage a warrior, that a warrior cannot use a bow (or even a cross bow) and to be on topic, not be able to dual wield.

I keep hearing the argument that DA2's approach made the classes more "distinct." But I just to do not see why that is a good thing if it makes no sense. Rogues in traditional fantasy are not ninjas - they have a vital role to play if the developer designs the game around their special abilities. But it is easier just to make them into acrobatic fighters than to create encounters where the rogues traditional skills are necessary - you know disarming traps that kill rather than just take off a few health points...

So yes, please give us back our two weapon warriors, let them use bows (dexterity has almost nothing to do with using a bow well but strength certainly does) or at least crossbows, and let rogues be rogues; sneaky, back-stabbing, poison using little pains in the neck.

[KristofCoulson]

Atemeus wrote...

Dual Swordsman is a must. I despised Dragon Age 2 for the lack of it. Daggers are for wimps, if you're going to dual wield you better use full sized weapons exclusively or just get out.

To be fair the citizens of Thedas only have one dagger or knife. The Murder Knife.

Other 'dagger's are actually short swords and longswords are battery swords. Two handed swords are... well yeah, I can't bring myself to use them because I don't like them. Maybe if they reduce the size of the greatswords in DA3 I will give it a go. My Inquisitor Kristof will want to use a battery sword. (or hand and a half sword).

[Vilegrim]

deuce985 wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

I want DW Warriors back but give them a unique tree exclusive to Warriors. That way they can stay different from Rogues. Doesn't make sense to see a Warrior with the same DW skills.

I don't see how it doesn't make sense. I think the skills in Origins worked just fine for both.

In any case, I'd certainly want them back. I like Dual Wielding, but I don't like playing as a rogue. And I liked DAO's clas/talent/skill system better, anyway.

I say that because I want them to differentiate between the class. That keeps them unique and opens up even more options on how you want to play. DA2 did a better job allowing the classes to differentiate than DAO. But it was at the expense of losing things like DW Warriors or Arcane Warrior Mages. I want them to keep what DA2 did but also bring back what DAO did. Merge them together.

How di removing longsword rogues and DW warriors 'expand options' rogues became daggers or bows, and warriors became 2h (a horrible anime version of that) or sword and board.. that's fewer options by my count.

[WhiteThunder]

Reptillius wrote...

With my rogues. Stuns, paralyzes and knockdowns were often part of my party build. Not hard to get the ability that let's you backstab a stunned guy in the face. So I backstabbed and took the guy out from the front.

why were my playstyles supposed to be different?

I'm either stacking strength and dex or I'm stacking cunning and dex. and Rogues come built in with an ability that makes cunning work like strength for them in many ways. And with enough stamina both could plow through a drawn out battle like an automated cheese slicer through a block of cheese. maybe I'm odd but I found use for all of the DW abilities on both characters.

Why would you put that much into stamina for rogues when you could just be backstabbing instead of using talents? Why would you choose to deal less damage by using a talent instead of a backstab?  Did you use swords for your warrior?  The DPS warriors did came from base damage and talents, meaning that longswords were the ideal weapon.  The dps rogues did came from rapid attacks and bonuses to backstab damage, making daggers the ideal weapon.  

Every point you put into a DW Rogue's willpower was a point that could be going into his cunning and thus his backstab damage bonus.  

Warriors used talents to be AoE specialists, Rogues used autoattack to be critical hit machines.

[Knight of Dane]

Oh i loved Dual Wield Warrior as well D:

[Reptillius]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

I hope that as they develop DA3 Bioware re-thinks this whole class distinction concept. First, they need to drop the MMO idea of warriors as "tanks." Warriors are WARRIORS (not shouting, just emphasizing here). When it comes to melee combat, they should reign supreme doing the most damage and being the best protected. Whenever a rogue goes one on one with a warrior, he ought to be creamed, immediately.

Mages can continue to be "glass cannons" with great AOE abilities; powerful but fragile. And the game then needs to make rogues actually useful by littering combat areas with traps, locks, etc. They should also have a stealth ability to scout out areas ahead of time, and either disarm or disable traps as needed. As others have mentioned, they can also be allowed them to use poisons and such.

I would also like to see rogues get a rapier style weapon and maybe a specification that allows them to use a dagger, not a short sword, in the off hand for a little more DPS.

The system your describing came about before MMO's came to be. At least in any sense that we know and describe them today. They were in computer games before that. Baldur's Gate being just one of them. It was part of adding a tactical element to party based games from almost as long as party based games have been in existance.  MMO's are just the ones most prevelant these days. Specially since it's actually several players making up the party and working together and not just one tactically controlling several characters.

Rogue's can use poisons it's just that with the current system most don't bother to.  Also in DAII Rogues had some pretty powerful tricks that were often ignored in the sabotage tree. such as the ability to make the enemies fight each other and a mass stun.  Which were often over looked for more damage dealing rather than more crowd control and utility.

There is actually nothing stating that warriors have to be the best at combat. they are just the ones the least likely to have to choose when and how they engage one or even several enemies at a time.  They can just go in and start swinging and they are the best prepared when the battle changes and goes in a new direction where rogues may have to try and retreat a bit and get a more favorable position again.

Rogues on the other hand are meant to be more tactical and take advantage of the strikes they do make.  Also while your complaining about Stealth Rogues had that capability in both trees.  The Problem in DAII was that it wasn't as useful in the second game as in the first. In the first if you were good enough in stealth you could use traps or such without unstealthing yourself.  It was also potentially possiblem, If hard, to actually restealth yourself in the first game.  In the second you could use it to scout a bit if you bothered to take utility abilities instead of all combat but you couldn't lay traps and such.

[Reptillius]

Nizaris1 wrote...

in my head, there is no DW Rogue, because Rogues in my head is using dagger and very small shield, or just a dagger.

To use two weapons need a lot of training, and only warriors do that, not rogues. Only warriors are trained to fight, rogues do not. Rogues are not front line fighters at all, so why use two weapon?

So bring back DW Warrior and eliminate DW Rogue

Ok. I am a light individual that actually has done a little fighting with two weapons. helps that I'm ambidextrous.  Why am I going to take the aditional effort to learn how to protect myself propperly with a shield when I already understand the dagger or the short sword and it's merely a matterof learning how to apply what I know to my off hand or even both hands instead? Far less work. Just adapting my current skills instead of learning a whole new set to block and fight like a warrior does.  I'm too lazy to ever learn to wield a shield propperly. even a small one.

[Eternal Phoenix]

MillKill wrote...

No. I'd rather that the classes remained different and development resources went to including a new weapon styles for both, such as rapier-wielding swashbuckler rogues and polearm warriors.

I'd take more differentiated classes that any day over Origins, where DW warriors and rogues felt exactly the same.

So you'll take DA2's limited customizable classes over Origins' highly customizable classes? At least the classes in Origins had more variety in terms of how they could be customized. So yes I would like to see dual wielding return.

[Reofeir]

Nizaris1 wrote...

in my head, there is no DW Rogue, because Rogues in my head is using dagger and very small shield, or just a dagger.

To use two weapons need a lot of training, and only warriors do that, not rogues. Only warriors are trained to fight, rogues do not. Rogues are not front line fighters at all, so why use two weapon?

So bring back DW Warrior and eliminate DW Rogue

Haha, no. I want to have two daggers as a Rogue.
Though yeah, two swords or axes or what have you should be a warrior trait. 

[Reptillius]

WhiteThunder wrote...

Reptillius wrote...

With my rogues. Stuns, paralyzes and knockdowns were often part of my party build. Not hard to get the ability that let's you backstab a stunned guy in the face. So I backstabbed and took the guy out from the front.

why were my playstyles supposed to be different?

I'm either stacking strength and dex or I'm stacking cunning and dex. and Rogues come built in with an ability that makes cunning work like strength for them in many ways. And with enough stamina both could plow through a drawn out battle like an automated cheese slicer through a block of cheese. maybe I'm odd but I found use for all of the DW abilities on both characters.

Why would you put that much into stamina for rogues when you could just be backstabbing instead of using talents? Why would you choose to deal less damage by using a talent instead of a backstab?  Did you use swords for your warrior?  The DPS warriors did came from base damage and talents, meaning that longswords were the ideal weapon.  The dps rogues did came from rapid attacks and bonuses to backstab damage, making daggers the ideal weapon.  

Every point you put into a DW Rogue's willpower was a point that could be going into his cunning and thus his backstab damage bonus.  

Warriors used talents to be AoE specialists, Rogues used autoattack to be critical hit machines.

Actually I only ever had to put a little extra into it. took to somewhere midgame to get all my dual wielding stuff anyway. Not hard to pick up Coup De Grace after combat movement. it also added another crit percent to my attacks... And several rapid crit backstabs can be done to the face of your target instead of from behind. Apparantly you didn't try it much. With a little extra stamina, some swift fast attacks, and a pair of crossed glyphs my rogue often took out several enemies just after the mage glyphs before the rest of my party could really show up to engage them.  So you may be min-maxing your damage. i'm maxing out utility which served to let me do slightly smaller hits but more of them.   The obvious numbers are not always the winners.  So i lose say 5 cunning points over the course of the game. it's not hurting me if I can make more hits and came in handy against some bosses.  Specially since I got tired after a certain point of making stamina potions.

[WhiteThunder]

@Reptillius I only used riposte to shatter frozen enemies, but I always felt like I should be using it more, haha.

But still, DW Warriors were better AoE than 2H. DW Sweep AND Whirlwind? And then Low Blow in Awakening? Punisher and Flurry were just gravy.

[Doctoglethorpe]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

I hope that as they develop DA3 Bioware re-thinks this whole class distinction concept. First, they need to drop the MMO idea of warriors as "tanks." Warriors are WARRIORS (not shouting, just emphasizing here). When it comes to melee combat, they should reign supreme doing the most damage and being the best protected. Whenever a rogue goes one on one with a warrior, he ought to be creamed, immediately.

Um, no.  The only reason an equal rogue would ever fall to a warrior is if it just stood face to face grinding auto-attack. 

Think of it in real life.  Who's going to likely win, the man lumbering in heavy armor with the slower but powerful attacks, unable to do any real dodging and fast movements as a sacrifice for the armor keeping most of his body safe?  Or the rogue, unencumbored and able to dodge the warriors slow fatigued attacks to get around behind him and slip blades into the small openings in his armor? 

Answer is obvious.