Holy crap guys, came to Scuttlebut for news to find someone necro'd this? I made this over a year ago. At this point most of the points in it are either yay or nay and its too late to change them.
I won't lie though, I'm a sucker for AoE auto. Very disappointed that DAE's dual wielding was just 'stab this one guy, TWICE'.
Have you ever seen an archer in plate armor?
Actually yes. The thing is that by the time full plate was commonplace, archers lost their edge. They were reduced to harass and suppression, cause the force needed for an arrow to pierce plate armor is too high so the casualties were minor but they could kill horses and slow the advance of troops. Cavalry archers of the East used very heavy arrows and they would fire them from a distance of a few meters to actually do some damage.
On the other hand, an archer fighting in close range and shooting at targets engaged with his allies is at best unrealistic, at worst the dumbest thing ever. So history is irrelevant. Talking battlefield tactics, heavier armored archers would make more sense, since the enemy fighters would be fatigued by having to walk distances with closed visors and in close formation and the archers would switch to close quarters fighting with the obvious advantage of being fresh.
In the game, since archers go close quarters and are threatened by weapons that plate armor was made to counter, it would make way more sense to actually use plate instead of leather. The only limiting factor of full plate in archery are the gloves.
Actually yes. The thing is that by the time full plate was commonplace, archers lost their edge. They were reduced to harass and suppression, cause the force needed for an arrow to pierce plate armor is too high so the casualties were minor but they could kill horses and slow the advance of troops. Cavalry archers of the East used very heavy arrows and they would fire them from a distance of a few meters to actually do some damage.
On the other hand, an archer fighting in close range and shooting at targets engaged with his allies is at best unrealistic, at worst the dumbest thing ever. So history is irrelevant. Talking battlefield tactics, heavier armored archers would make more sense, since the enemy fighters would be fatigued by having to walk distances with closed visors and in close formation and the archers would switch to close quarters fighting with the obvious advantage of being fresh.
In the game, since archers go close quarters and are threatened by weapons that plate armor was made to counter, it would make way more sense to actually use plate instead of leather. The only limiting factor of full plate in archery are the gloves.
The Longbow of the British Isles was capable of easily piercing plate armor. the recurve bow could do it. the reason why these bows lost favor is that it took a significant amount of training to be able to properly use them.
OK nuke time. Is drizzt a rogue or a warrior?
I thought Drizzt was a ranger.
The Longbow of the British Isles was capable of easily piercing plate armor. the recurve bow could do it. the reason why these bows lost favor is that it took a significant amount of training to be able to properly use them.
"Easily". At 10 meters with a 90 degree hit it could cause wounds. But easily penetrate it? Doubtful. There is a lot of disagreement about the effectiveness of archers in the battlefield and there are the technological gaps to take into account. But honestly I don't find anything easy about penetrating plate armor with a bow.
I like that info which no one cares about keep leaking and the single thing i am interested to know prior to launch is ignored by the developers. Maybe i should ask more convenient questions....
.. Is the game open world ? Do we run a whole inquisition ? I bet my ass if anyone asks on twitter these questions, he will get an answer in no time. I wonder if Bioware, took their time, to make sure some dev visits this forum.
I like that info which no one cares about keep leaking and the single thing i am interested to know prior to launch is ignored by the developers. Maybe i should ask more convenient questions....
.. Is the game open world ? Do we run a whole inquisition ? I bet my ass if anyone asks on twitter these questions, he will get an answer in no time. I wonder if Bioware, took their time, to make sure some dev visits this forum.
You think no one cares if the game is open world or if we run the whole Inquisition?
No one cares because everyone that heard of the game already know that. But they gladly will answer these question 100 times, rather than some inconvenient ones.
But on the other hand, i understand why are they doing it though. Announcing that there is no dual wielding of big weapons such as swords and axes will certainly lose them some unknown quantity of this - $. If they do not announce it they will avoid these losses. The number probably will not be huge, but money is all everyone cares about these days. In their place i would probably do the same.
I wonder if Bioware, took their time, to make sure some dev visits this forum.
They don't and won't. Since the community became so volatile, people demanding answer to questions the devs were not ready to talk about, like romances for ME 2 the Devs haven't been around as much as they used to be. To often when people got an answer they flew off the handle if they didn't like it. I don't mean leaving the forums, I mean name calling, threats and worse. So with all that, I see no reason for Devs to spend any more time on the forum than they want too.
No one cares because everyone that heard of the game already know that. But they gladly will answer these question 100 times, rather than some inconvenient ones.
Lots of people haven't heard about the game, or clearly only heard about it for the first time. Besides that, Mike Laidlaw directly answered this question months ago: dual wielding trees are something that they're looking into but it's a stretch goal, which means that it's likely it won't be implemented in DA:I unless development goes very smoothly.
Given that every second post you have is mostly flinging insults at the developers, it's little wonder they don't want to speak to you specifically.
They don't and won't since the community became to volatile, people demanding answer to questions the devs were not ready to talk about, like romances for ME 2. Then when people got their answer they flew off the handle if they didn't like ithem. I don't mean leaving the forums, I mean name calling, threats and worse. So with all that, I see no reason for Devs to spend any more time on the forum than they want too.
Dude, let us follow some events that already happened or will likely happen in the future:
- Dragon Age Inquisition will probably release in 7.10.14 ( they announce collectors edition, pre orders available, trailer...etc)
- Today is 15.5.14 we are 4.5 months away from the release of the game
- I am no expert, but in my mind, during those 4 months there is no way they start including the dual wielding warrior, balancing it etc......
- During these months, they will probably focus on polishing already existent features, doing the voice acting, editing some lines, balancing the already set skill trees, talents, playtest for bugs and optimise the game
- Therefore they already know very well that dual wielding is not going to happen, but keep ignoring people who ask the inconvenient questions, because they will lose some money. Maybe a small or maybe a bigger number. The fact that they do not come out and say it "Yes, Dual Wielding Warriors are back" means that it is 99% sure DW warriors will remain only in DAO for now. I am asking them to come clear and give the 100% answer that there is no such feature and be done with it.
@Exile what in my post is an insult. That they ignore this particular question ? That they avoid the inconvenient questions and answer the most trivial ones ? I asked politely many times and got ignored, now i am asking straight forward.( and will be probably be ignored again, knowing their pattern of doing things)
- Therefore they already know very well that dual wielding is not going to happen, but keep ignoring people who ask the inconvenient questions, because they will lose some money. Maybe a small or maybe a bigger number. The fact that they do not come out and say it "Yes, Dual Wielding Warriors are back" means that it is 99% sure DW warriors will remain only in DAO for now. I am asking them to come clear and give the 100% answer that there is no such feature and be done with it.
As I've told you before, they'll answer it when they are ready and where they feel it will be appropriate.
As I've told you before, they'll answer it when they are ready and where they feel it will be appropriate.
At best, there will be a quick mention in some video 10 days prior to release that it wont happen. They will choose time and place where they will lose the least. It is all about the money, money, money......
But till then, i have 4 months to ask as i please....Ignoring small chunk of people now in May, could turn in barely handeling huge demanding crowd in August 
My question is, when you say DW warrior, you mean having the skillset of DAO? Or just dual wielding but having the same skills? After all, if we are to accept that a wide horizontal swing with 2 weapons is an effective blow, then we can accept that a pommel strike with an arming sword is valid as well. After all running around with a greatsword is as dumb as dualwielding in the battlefield. Greatswords are specialized weapons. The default 2hand weapon that medieval warriors used were longswords. Rpgs tend to get this wrong and call arming swords longswords and longswords greatswords.
On the other hand if you want the skillset of DAO, I can tell you without official confirmation that it's not gonna happen. Classes are totally different than DAO because the combat system is different and there are only a few skills that actually transfered from DAO to DA2, Probably less will transfer to DAI.
I really hope they could make a compromise, like allowing warriors to dual wield but have the same skills (perhaps with different names) and animations to match. EVERYONE likes DW Warriors and I think it would be a good thing for them but I don't know the costs for the animations etc.
I thought Drizzt was a ranger.
he is... and a few other things.
I thought Drizzt was a ranger.
Perfect example. Drizzt was a Dex based Warrior, around before the time Rogues started to cannibalise the position for themselves because rogues had no function in action games. Now we would call him a rogue.
"Easily". At 10 meters with a 90 degree hit it could cause wounds. But easily penetrate it? Doubtful. There is a lot of disagreement about the effectiveness of archers in the battlefield and there are the technological gaps to take into account. But honestly I don't find anything easy about penetrating plate armor with a bow.
Well you have to take into account that the average English/welsh long bow (5-6 feet) was a foot or two longer than the standard 4 foot European bow. and the average draw strength for the longbow is estimated at 90-110 but there are examples of English longbows reaching upto 150+ pounds of draw weight. With the proper arrow head it would be fairly simple to penetrate armor at around 50-60 feet. granted it wouldn't do much damage at that distance but they could fire those things fairly fast.
Perfect example. Drizzt was a Dex based Warrior, around before the time Rogues started to cannibalise the position for themselves because rogues had no function in action games. Now we would call him a rogue.
no he is a ranger, with at least one level in barbarian.
and I think he should have a level of wizard, not that he doesn't do anything with it... oh well dumb drow.
no he is a ranger, with at least one level in barbarian.
and I think he should have a level of wizard, not that he doesn't do anything with it... oh well dumb drow.
A Ranger in D&D is a Dex based Light Armor Warrior, so is a Barbarian.
Hey Bioware, i dont know if already asked you but......Are there dual wielding warriors in Inquisition ?
Hey Bioware, i dont know if already asked you but......Are there dual wielding warriors in Inquisition ?
You can ask the question, but try and be civil enough not to mock them while you do it.
The result is the same regardless. Smaller development studios are dying for such an attention or being asked a question or two about their game. They are dreaming of the day when people will be so interested that they will follow them on twitter and asking stuff about their products. Shame that Bioware is no longer such a studio.
All they talk about this past week is the collectors edition. They already are speaking of prices, bonus merchandise, retail stores etc......Shame they do not take the time to speak to the people who are interested in the actual game.
Perfect example. Drizzt was a Dex based Warrior, around before the time Rogues started to cannibalise the position for themselves because rogues had no function in action games. Now we would call him a rogue.
Is that a problem?
Nothing wrong with rogues, the problem is why should they limit so narrowly each class when they have got only 3 ? Its not like diablo where you can choose from 7-10 classes. And even there, they have the dual wielding barbarian.
Its clearly not the approach of Skyrim either, because Elder Scrolls let you play the way you like. Including dual wielding big weapons and spears (after modding). And those games are 3+ years older, on worse enginges, probably developed with less money. I continue to do not understand how less money, inferior engine> more money, superior engine ? This is a true paradox.
Or maybe talk about Assassins Creed Black Flag where completely new studio developed the game with limited time and still did bigger weapon variety. Dual Wielding is default, but you could pick any weapon and start fighting with it. Not to mention pistols, bombs etc...
They understood their mistake in the past with the enviroments, level design.....etc.. Maybe for DA4 they will actually see my point and start comprehending it.
The result is the same regardless.
So because you’re not getting the answer you want right now, you’ve chosen to be rude? Noted.
All they talk about this past week is the collectors edition. They already are speaking of prices, bonus merchandise, retail stores etc......Shame they do not take the time to speak to the people who are interested in the actual game.
Okay that dosen’t even make sense. You just stated that Bioware is discussing the price, potential bonus merchandise and where people can get the game…..but then you imply that information is of no interest to people who are considering buying the game……
Nothing wrong with rogues, the problem is why should they limit so narrowly each class when they have got only 3 ? Its not like diablo where you can choose from 7-10 classes. And even there, they have the dual wielding barbarian.
Its clearly not the approach of Skyrim either, because Elder Scrolls let you play the way you like. Including dual wielding big weapons and spears (after modding). And those games are 3+ years older, on worse enginges, probably developed with less money. I continue to do not understand how less money, inferior engine> more money, superior engine ? This is a true paradox.
Or maybe talk about Assassins Creed Black Flag where completely new studio developed the game with limited time and still did bigger weapon variety. Dual Wielding is default, but you could pick any weapon and start fighting with it. Not to mention pistols, bombs etc..
Absolutly none of those games are a party based RPG like Dragon age. There’s no comparison here.
Maybe for DA4 they will actually see my point and start comprehending it.
If you’d stopped at ‘See my point’ I likely would’ve let this last statement go…but the final part is so arrogant, condescending and rude. If you want to ask a question or argue for a feature fine, but don’t act like the devs can’t understand your arguments
Retour en haut