62 réponses à ce sujet

[Liamv2]

AshenShug4r wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

While I loved the two handed rouge and warriors in DA:O but I can understand why Bioware's decesion to give the two-handed ability to the rouge and make the rouge use daggers only. Every time I played DA:O it was as a rouge basically for the lock picking abilities and I after I maxed out the lock picking abilities I played the rouge more as a warrior that as a rouge I had some Wardens that were stronger and more powerful than any  "tank" warrior characters like Stern, Shale, Alistair, and Oghren. 

This made warriors and rouge way to similar and since the rouge could extra XP by lock picking, springing traps, pickpocketing, and etc. I had no incentive to play as a warrior and come to think of it I don't think I ever finished a playthrough of DA:O as a warrior.  

By giving two handed daggers excuslively to the rouges and I perfer swords to daggers I actually had a reason to play as a warrior in DA2 although I did beat DA2 as a warrior I didn't enjoy it as much as playing as a rouge.

rogue! rogue, rogue, rogue, rogue, rogue.

Rouge warrier maeg

[Swagger7]

I hope they either bring back the sword and dagger rogue or the dual wielding warrior. Actually, why not both? Rogues could start with two daggers. Then you could progress to sword and dagger later on (or just keep daggers if that's your preference). Dual wielding warriors could use two swords from the beginning.

[Marbazoid]

I would like to see the warrior and rogue class merged, and the mage class expanded. That way you would be choosing martial or magical at character creation.

I can understand the mage needing to be its own class because of the setting, but I just can't cope with this "rogue" nonsense. Any rogue archetype should just be a martial character with a certain set of skills, not a whole class.

[Fiddzz]

batlin wrote...

Restricting weapons to classes is stupid. All it serves to do is limit the player in what they can do.

Hawke: "Hey Isabela, want to use this sword?"

Isabela: "No, I can only hold things shorter than 12 inches"

George Takei: "Oh myyy."

lol'd hard at my desk when i got to the takei quote!

[TEWR]

batlin wrote...

batlin wrote...

Restricting weapons to classes is stupid. All it serves to do is limit the player in what they can do.

Hawke: "Hey Isabela, want to use this sword?"

Isabela: "No, I can only hold things shorter than 12 inches"

George Takei: "Oh myyy."

lol Nicely done.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 03 décembre 2012 - 11:45 .

[lokisjoke13]

Firstly, pretty sure those words would never come out of Isabella's mouth lol. As for the topic, I would like to see an option for piercing swords like rapiers, ideally with a different animation

[Reznik23]

batlin wrote...

Restricting weapons to classes is stupid. All it serves to do is limit the player in what they can do.

Hawke: "Hey Isabela, want to use this sword?"

Isabela: "No, I can only hold things shorter than 12 inches"

George Takei: "Oh myyy."

hehehe - absolutely love it!

[Firky]

I want warriors with at least one ranged option. My warriors in DA2 spent a fair bit of time hanging around.

[Fawx9]

I will be sorely disappointed if my warrior can't DW and pull out a horribly leveled bow to try and shot things with the odd fight. This is actually how I beat the high dragon, it just took for ever but I was happy that I did it.

And no the 'real' questions aren't why did you feel the need to use a bow? How can we make a warrior in melee better? I did it because I wanted to.

Restrictions aren't fun. Stop it.

[Firky]

I think the answer to "How can they make a warrior in melee better?" is allow opportunities for the warrior not to participate in melee. (Give them a bow.) But that's probably, "How to make combat better."

[CaptainBlackGold]

lokisjoke13 wrote...

Firstly, pretty sure those words would never come out of Isabella's mouth lol. As for the topic, I would like to see an option for piercing swords like rapiers, ideally with a different animation

No comment on the Isabella quote...

But as far as rapiers go, I agree that these weapons (as well as apprpriate "thrusting" animations) seems especially appropriate for DA3. Orlais appears to be the perfect environment for a rapier weilding /duelist/swashbuckler type character- almost a three musketeer type.

And if such a character could weild a real dagger (not short sword) in the off hand, why that would be just incredible. And while I am dreaming, I would love to have the off hand dagger (not short word) used to block or deflect blows.

Not demanding anything, here - just wistfully, and maybe naievely putting it out there in case anyone with any input into design decisions wants to run with it.

Modifié par CaptainBlackGold, 04 décembre 2012 - 02:35 .

[ShaggyWolf]

I suppose it really depends. On one hand, DA2's style limited player choice in the sense that rogues could either dual wield daggers or shoot a bow, and warriors lost the option to do either. On the other hand, DA2's style gave each weapon type and class a unique combat identity+role that was more or less missing from certain builds in DA:O, which, imo, is more important.

I'm not opposed to there being more weapon options for every class, but they should behave differently. If they just copy paste talents and abilities from one class to another (like archery and DW for warriors in DA:O) I would prefer they simply not do it, and stick with DA:2's approach, where rogues and warriors never fight in a similar fashion.

[Absafraginlootly]

What I miss is warriors using bows, in DA:O I could make all my characters attack from range if I didn't think closing into melee was a good idea, for whatever reason. I didn't tend to put many points (if any) into the archery skill tree for my warriors, so they weren't particularly GOOD with their bows, but they could do something. But in DA2 if I wanted to attack only from range my warriors were reduced to just standing there doing nothing while others attacked, and that was annoying.

I'm okay with Weapon Style Ability Trees being restricted to class, but I wish they could still use the basic weapon attacks from the bows, if they have the stat necessary to use them. Rogues who have only ever invested points into duel wielding and never into archery can still use a bow, so why not warriors? And why shouldn't a mage be able to pick a sword if the have the strength to lift it? even if they don't have talent trees available to use it well.

[Zelto]

The ability in DA:O to mix the traditional class set up was a major possitive for me. I liked warriors using duel swords or daggers. I liked that mages could uses a dagger or sword if they were physically strong enough. As for rogues or warriors using swords and daggers there isnt exactly a huge difference between them as far as combat style goes so its silly that a rogue is physically incapable of using a sword. If they want to try and push people towards the steriotypical weapons they should use some sort of expertise rating with each weapon to make them less or more effective not bar them outright.

Plus warriors can shoot bows! so please allow them too.

[Conduit0]

Personally I'd like to see warriors and rogues remain two distinctly different classes. That said, I really would like to see more fighting style options. Bring back dual wielding for warriors, and a sword and dagger style for rogues. Warrior dual wield would replace two-handed as the melee aoe style, while sword and dagger would be an Errol Flynn-esque swashbuckler style.

[TheDon81]

I agree with the majority. We should have control over the characters. If we want our mage to wield a sword (battlemage), we should be allowed. It will "waste"some attribute points on strength, but if we think it's worth it, we should be allowed.

Please don't restrict the gamepley.

[Solas]

In DA2 I missed dual-wielding warriors.

[deatharmonic]

YES, DA2's system felt very very stale, ordinary and basic. It felt like they were going backwards, I haven't played an rpg in a while that restricts you as much as that system does (skyrim, dragons dogma, KoA). Give us that control back.

[Uccio]

The way I see it is that if you do not want to play with dual wielding rogue (sword/sword or sword/dagger), then don't. But let us do who want.

[Anny78]

Carbon-based wrote...

In DA2 I missed dual-wielding warriors.

This!!!

[Dutchess]

Carbon-based wrote...

In DA2 I missed dual-wielding warriors.

Very. I've always thought that dual-wielding would have suited Fenris very well.

[philippe willaume]

Valadras21 wrote...

I suppose it really depends. On one hand, DA2's style limited player choice in the sense that rogues could either dual wield daggers or shoot a bow, and warriors lost the option to do either. On the other hand, DA2's style gave each weapon type and class a unique combat identity+role that was more or less missing from certain builds in DA:O, which, imo, is more important.

I'm not opposed to there being more weapon options for every class, but they should behave differently. If they just copy paste talents and abilities from one class to another (like archery and DW for warriors in DA:O) I would prefer they simply not do it, and stick with DA:2's approach, where rogues and warriors never fight in a similar fashion.

the problem with the restiction of weapons, you limit the tactical, strategical game play as well as role playing.
in DA:2 i ended up doing always the same thing over and over again and that was boring and tedious.

I am all for class typing and yes a rogue should behave differnetly from a warrior but weapons linitation a la DA2 is not really the way to go.

phil

[terdferguson123]

I think what they wanted to do was to make each individual class feel more unique so that there would be more replay value (ex: You are playing a rogue but you find some awesome one handed swords that you want to use, instead you end up making a second playthrough as a warrior to use those swords).

But I think there plan backfired a bit, it just made people angry because it limited options at the expense of replay value. Replay value should be added without having major downsides such as this.

[BubbleDncr]

terdferguson123 wrote...

I think what they wanted to do was to make each individual class feel more unique so that there would be more replay value (ex: You are playing a rogue but you find some awesome one handed swords that you want to use, instead you end up making a second playthrough as a warrior to use those swords).

But I think there plan backfired a bit, it just made people angry because it limited options at the expense of replay value. Replay value should be added without having major downsides such as this.

As someone who played a dual weilding rogue as my first DA:O playthrough, I have never wanted to play a dual weilding warrior because it seems too much of the same and I want my warrior to be different. Otherwise, why not just do another rogue playthrough so I can open chests and doors myself?

But at the same time, there's probably plenty of people who made a warrior first, and picked dual weilding because they thought it was the coolest option. And they clearly like dual weilding rogues and have differing opions than me on how they're more fun to play than a dual weidling rogue.

I don't think those people shouldn't have the freedom to do play the class/style they like, but I personally understand and agree with Bioware's logic at the same time. I don't see the harm in letting both classes dual weild, unless it makes the game a lot harder to make. Which it actually probably does.

[Annihilator27]

I miss using swords.