58 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

In DA2 you can defeat Arishok (arguably strongest boss in game, with biggest hp and damage) with nothing but simple bow.

Nothing simple about the bows in DA2, mate. 1 shot into the cheilling makes 500 arrows rain down on your enemy.

[thats1evildude]

Rawgrim wrote...

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

In DA2 you can defeat Arishok (arguably strongest boss in game, with biggest hp and damage) with nothing but simple bow.

Nothing simple about the bows in DA2, mate. 1 shot into the cheilling makes 500 arrows rain down on your enemy.

Rain of Arrows was introduced in Awakening. And in my mind, it's still more realistic than Scattershot.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 14 décembre 2012 - 09:02 .

[abaris]

Nothing realistic about bows in any game.

In reality, one shot if aimed right, kills it's target.

[Rawgrim]

abaris wrote...

Nothing realistic about bows in any game.

In reality, one shot if aimed right, kills it's target.

Like in Baldur`s Gate 1-2, icewind Dale 1-2, Ultima 1.7, Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim?

[Uccio]

I allways thought they were underpowered. In rl if someone shoot you with a longbow to the chest it usually means one shot kill for everyone, even someone wearing armour.

[Imp of the Perverse]

Ukki wrote...

I allways thought they were underpowered. In rl if someone shoot you with a longbow to the chest it usually means one shot kill for everyone, even someone wearing armour.

The OP's talking more about the fact that you could easily take down some of DAO's bosses by just taking along a bunch of bows and standing out of harms way. In regular fights they weren't any more damaging than anything else - in DA2, a rogue's damage stats looked higher than a warrior's, but rogues dealth single target damage versus the warrior's AOE. Dual wielders dealt more damage than archers, archers could jump to new targets faster though.

[llandwynwyn]

So people still think bows sucked in DAO...lol

And, no. Now that I don't have the fate of a character tied to my class, I plan to play an archer rogue all day, ev'ry day,

[mickey111]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Some fighting removed.

You seem to have a fairly loose definition of fighting.

I'll repeat myself: anyone who thinks that any of the three classes in DAO were neccessary ot game changing in a big way do not know how to play, and should have RTFM, because there were no bad classes, just bad players. Same goes for people who thought that archers were useless.

[Sylvanpyxie]

Same goes for people who thought that archers were useless.

Not useless, just sub-standard.

In Origins Mages, Dual Wields, Two Handers and even Tanks could put out more damage than Archers and they could also sustain it for longer. Doesn't make Archery bad, not even the worst thing in the game (that's Shapeshifter), but it does make it less viable.

It was better overall in Dragon Age 2. Though I still believe the ability damage of Archers was sub-standard when compared to other forms of DPS, Archers were still good overall.

Archers have definitely been overpowered in previous Bioware games - Baldur's Gate 2 Archers were insane - but they're not as overpowered in Dragon Age as they have been previously.

/Opinions.

[Rawgrim]

Ukki wrote...

I allways thought they were underpowered. In rl if someone shoot you with a longbow to the chest it usually means one shot kill for everyone, even someone wearing armour.

The same goes for getting an axe in the face, or a sword stabbed into your chest, i would think.

[Rawgrim]

i am quite sure archery didn`t suck in DA:O, I just never used ranged weapons much in that game. i kept finding so many cool swords and daggers. Ended up having Leliana and Zevran dual-wield stuff instead.

[Bob Garbage]

Archery took longer to be 'worth while' in DA:O, especially on hard difficulties, but once you're a bit beyond level 10 or so you become quite powerful. My Dalish Archer was by far my most useful Warden out of all of them.

[Darth Death]

Was never an archer before- made me feel like a sissy. I prefer giant engulfing fireballs instead.

[Rawgrim]

Truth be told, not every fightingstyle has to be fantastic when it comes to damage. Its fun to just use different stuff for pure variety too. I remember creating a dwarven fighter i BG 1-2, wich specialized in slings. Great fun. He didn`t do half as much damage as he would with a flail or whatever other weapons that were available, but going for something different was fun.

[Abraham_uk]

I played Dragon Age Origins with bows.

Honestly. You see this white guy with brown hear and the massive nose?

He slaughtered enemies with his bow. As for that arrow of slaying. It lived up to it's name.
In Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 archery was also really powerful.

[BubbleDncr]

I never felt inclined to play as an archer. Or have them in my party, for that matter. I prefer mages for my ranged attacks.

That said, in DA;O, I did always have a bow/crossbow equipped as all my melee people's second weapon, and even tho they had no point in archery, used it a fair amount in certain battles, like the dragons and such that the OP mentioned. Never bothered with that in DA2.

[yfullman]

To be fair in real life bows are overpowered.

[LinksOcarina]

Rawgrim wrote...

Truth be told, not every fightingstyle has to be fantastic when it comes to damage. Its fun to just use different stuff for pure variety too. I remember creating a dwarven fighter i BG 1-2, wich specialized in slings. Great fun. He didn`t do half as much damage as he would with a flail or whatever other weapons that were available, but going for something different was fun.

There is a push right now to make most fighting styles equal in strength, to some degree, so that they are viable options for power gamers across the board.  So even if you are using daggers in a fight, many RPG's would compensate the lower damage by giving you quicker strikes, or faster movement with them, or so forth.

It allows variety without crippling characters. I hope to see more of this in games because it then opens up more avenues of play vs doing a fun run with a sling. Now the sling can be as powerful as a sword in the right hands with the right skillsets. 

[BubbleDncr]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Truth be told, not every fightingstyle has to be fantastic when it comes to damage. Its fun to just use different stuff for pure variety too. I remember creating a dwarven fighter i BG 1-2, wich specialized in slings. Great fun. He didn`t do half as much damage as he would with a flail or whatever other weapons that were available, but going for something different was fun.

There is a push right now to make most fighting styles equal in strength, to some degree, so that they are viable options for power gamers across the board.  So even if you are using daggers in a fight, many RPG's would compensate the lower damage by giving you quicker strikes, or faster movement with them, or so forth.

It allows variety without crippling characters. I hope to see more of this in games because it then opens up more avenues of play vs doing a fun run with a sling. Now the sling can be as powerful as a sword in the right hands with the right skillsets. 

Part of me thinks though, that if certain fighting styles were known to be weaker than others, that people would feel a sense pride and accomplishment for being able to beat the game with a weaker style.

That's why I've never really understood balancing single player games. I know that the DA:O mage is OP - which makes me look forwardly to being awesome if I play as a mage, but I feel more accomplished and skilled when I use my rogue. And that's part of the fun of re-playing through as different classes.

[LinksOcarina]

BubbleDncr wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Truth be told, not every fightingstyle has to be fantastic when it comes to damage. Its fun to just use different stuff for pure variety too. I remember creating a dwarven fighter i BG 1-2, wich specialized in slings. Great fun. He didn`t do half as much damage as he would with a flail or whatever other weapons that were available, but going for something different was fun.

There is a push right now to make most fighting styles equal in strength, to some degree, so that they are viable options for power gamers across the board.  So even if you are using daggers in a fight, many RPG's would compensate the lower damage by giving you quicker strikes, or faster movement with them, or so forth.

It allows variety without crippling characters. I hope to see more of this in games because it then opens up more avenues of play vs doing a fun run with a sling. Now the sling can be as powerful as a sword in the right hands with the right skillsets. 

Part of me thinks though, that if certain fighting styles were known to be weaker than others, that people would feel a sense pride and accomplishment for being able to beat the game with a weaker style.

That's why I've never really understood balancing single player games. I know that the DA:O mage is OP - which makes me look forwardly to being awesome if I play as a mage, but I feel more accomplished and skilled when I use my rogue. And that's part of the fun of re-playing through as different classes.

That depends on what drives you. If you tried to play say a rogue in a more numbers driven game like WoW, as a random example. You would die. In a single player game it doesn't matter much, but everyone always goes for the optimal builds to get through. Skyrim is emblematic of this, almost everyone I know played it the same, Smithing skill goes up first so you get the best armor, then enchanting and destruction magic, followed by the weapon of choice and a few other trees.

Or Dishonored, where you can beat the game on any difficulty just by using detective mode and blinking. For me the imbalancing makes the game less fun when you have a tier of whats good and whats not to follow. It makes the game about math vs a sense of accomplishment.

A lot of people don't role-play like that, they look for the optimized builds to win. This is why I prefer balance, nothing can cancel each other out and everyone can use what they want to good effect. It makes playing the game less tedious. 

[State_Of_Danile]

Adugan wrote...

In DAO bows sucked because of the slow weapon speed

They were slow, boring, and actually pretty work. Sure, a dragons easy when you're fighting just him and the tank has him occupied. but what about when theres a horde of enemies? what happens if theres two ogres and one runs off from the tank? or when your tank dies?

DAO bows were horrible. in fact the only reason i brought Lelianna anywhere was because
A) My warden is all about dem redheads and
 MUTHA****** BEAR SUMMONING!

[mickey111]

Contrary to popular belief, there are more things to consider than speed and damage. Bows can shoot like twice as far the typical mage spell. Everyone can use bows, and even an untrained bow user can use them better than the darkspawn archers So you can basically kill a mage or two before the battle really begins. Mages bosses and mini bosses use a hell of a lot of area of effect attacks, and they can hit really hard. But, they only focus on whoever is nearest and it's much easier to heal and protect one character from the hard hitting dragons, undead and blood mage packs than it is four. So basically I see a lot of ignorance in this thread from people with little in depth understanding of how tactics work.

[llandwynwyn]

Ninjawaffle23 wrote...
 but what about when theres a horde of enemies? what happens if theres two ogres and one runs off from the tank? or when your tank dies?

Scattershot, dude. Also, Arrow of Slaying (we need it back!) takes care of anything easily.

 A full team of archers was OP. Man, archer!Zev/Leliana/Alistair was cheating the game. Oh, and soloing DAO with an archer (rogue) was a fun, easy game.