89 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

Filament wrote...

Does convergent evolution make marsupials less distinct from placental mammals? I'm not in favor of a situation where classes simply share talent trees, but I'm not averse to classes having superficially or even functionally similar abilities under any circumstances if it helps flesh out the individual class and stop it from being as one-dimensional. I'm not saying the DAO classes are necessarily less so, but since this is the argument that often is used against the idea of dual wielding warriors, it's worth addressing.

What's wrong with dual wielding warriors?

[andy6915]

I remember a couple posts a made a long way back on dual wielding warriors.

andy69156915 wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

And for the topic, I want to see dual-wieling longswords again. I don't like the implication that my...weapon master, agile fighter, whatever, can't use two at once.

renjility wrote...

Dual-wielding warriors should return. There was another thread about that specifically some time ago, in which it was suggested that dual-wielding warriors focused more on damaging multiple enemies simultaneously as opposed to rogues' high single-target damage.

I agree with you both, and I think your ideas combined would be best.

Warrior dual wielders should not be able to use daggers, just as rogues can't use swords. So a dual wield warrior should use daul swords instead of daul daggers. And thanks to the extra reach of swords compared to daggers, their skills and attacks should be able to hit multiple enemies at once, but with less damage to individual targets (like two-handed weapons with how they do less damage per hit to individual enemies then sword-and-sheild weapons in DA2).

andy69156915 wrote...
Now the question about what the point was in dual-wield warriors? That's a different matter. Their "role" was
filled much better by rogues, and a warrior using that weapon type was a warrior trying to do a rogues job... And not doing a very good job of  it. DW warriors honestly had no real role, and the role they had rogues
did far better. Also, they made rogues feel less unique because warriors could steal their only melee weapon style and imitate them. Bioware agreed, which is why they took that weapon type out of the warrior class. If they bring that weapon type back for warriors in a future DA, they need to somehow make it distinct from rogue dual wielding.

I still think that. Dual wielding warriors should come back, but they should be distinct from rogue dual wielders.

Modifié par andy69156915, 05 août 2013 - 12:44 .

[AresKeith]

Filament wrote...

That's what I was saying.

I meant what were the complaints/arguments against it

Edit: mvn 

Modifié par AresKeith, 05 août 2013 - 12:46 .

[Hilarystamp]

The game is based during a time of all out war! Between mages, chantry, Templars, and well the world and darkness falling from the sky. This would be the perfect time to see new mages, warriors, ect. New combat styles. Anything other than just basic talent trees. Yes in the circle mages were not allowed to learn physical combat styles, but they are no longer part of the circle and the war would be going on well before the start of our play through. Throughout that time it's all about survival, I'm positive not every single Mage resorted to blood magic. So a Mage learning to wield a blade is not far fetched, same with a warrior or rogue learning new ways to survive.

[AresKeith]

Hilarystamp wrote...

The game is based during a time of all out war! Between mages, chantry, Templars, and well the world and darkness falling from the sky. This would be the perfect time to see new mages, warriors, ect. New combat styles. Anything other than just basic talent trees. Yes in the circle mages were not allowed to learn physical combat styles, but they are no longer part of the circle and the war would be going on well before the start of our play through. Throughout that time it's all about survival, I'm positive not every single Mage resorted to blood magic. So a Mage learning to wield a blade is not far fetched, same with a warrior or rogue learning new ways to survive.

Templars would probably be the same but with different outfits lol 

[Hilarystamp]

AresKeith wrote...

Hilarystamp wrote...

The game is based during a time of all out war! Between mages, chantry, Templars, and well the world and darkness falling from the sky. This would be the perfect time to see new mages, warriors, ect. New combat styles. Anything other than just basic talent trees. Yes in the circle mages were not allowed to learn physical combat styles, but they are no longer part of the circle and the war would be going on well before the start of our play through. Throughout that time it's all about survival, I'm positive not every single Mage resorted to blood magic. So a Mage learning to wield a blade is not far fetched, same with a warrior or rogue learning new ways to survive.

Templars would probably be the same but with different outfits lol 

what, no more dresses! 

[AresKeith]

Hilarystamp wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Hilarystamp wrote...

The game is based during a time of all out war! Between mages, chantry, Templars, and well the world and darkness falling from the sky. This would be the perfect time to see new mages, warriors, ect. New combat styles. Anything other than just basic talent trees. Yes in the circle mages were not allowed to learn physical combat styles, but they are no longer part of the circle and the war would be going on well before the start of our play through. Throughout that time it's all about survival, I'm positive not every single Mage resorted to blood magic. So a Mage learning to wield a blade is not far fetched, same with a warrior or rogue learning new ways to survive.

Templars would probably be the same but with different outfits lol 

what, no more dresses! 

They'll need more functionality lol 

But yea I hope to see a handful of Arcane Warriors among the Mages, now is pretty much a good excuse to add more 

[Rolling Flame]

Mages are already overpowered as it is. They do need weaknesses, and melee should really be one of them.

[Ziggeh]

cjones91 wrote...

How does restricting weapons and builds make classes more destinct and defined?If a Warrior can't use all of the weapon types then you just have a gimped class,same thing with rogues and mages if you remove certain builds then you are basically gimping all the classes.

Surely you aren't asking how not allowing them to do the same things makes them less the same.

And they're only "gimped" at the roles that are filled by other classes. That's what I meant by defined.

And I suppose they're gimped at providing a certain amount of creative control over the character, but that's the cost, I'm explaining the benefit.

[Zazzerka]

Rolling Flame wrote...

Mages are already overpowered as it is. They do need weaknesses, and melee should really be one of them.

This.

>implying 'Cone of Cold' is less effective in close-quarters than a dagger

[Ziggeh]

Filament wrote...

Does convergent evolution make marsupials less distinct from placental mammals?

Almost by definition, yes. There are still distinctions, but less of them.

Filament wrote...
 I'm not in favor of a situation where classes simply share talent trees, but I'm not averse to classes having superficially or even functionally similar abilities under any circumstances if it helps flesh out the individual class and stop it from being as one-dimensional. I'm not saying the DAO classes are necessarily less so, but since this is the argument that often is used against the idea of dual wielding warriors, it's worth addressing.

It's a design choice that comes down (as many do) to game versus simulation. People on the forum tend to be making cases based purely on the simulation aspect, when in this case the choice has been made largely in isolation of it.

Personally I think it caused a "game" problem in reducing flexibility and thus your ability to choose characters based on story (or pure character preference).

[Ziggeh]

andy69156915 wrote...

I still think that. Dual wielding warriors should come back, but they should be distinct from rogue dual wielders

The trouble is that they'd want them to be distinct not just in play style, but in role - neither single target melee dps or pbaoe dps.

Not that DA2 didn't make concessions; There was a fair amount of crossover between ranged rogues and mages.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 05 août 2013 - 09:53 .

[Wulfram]

I'm not against Warrior's getting their own dual wielding tree, I'd just rather they get pole arms or some sort of ranged tree first.

[Boycott Bioware]

To make any class not overpowered is by focusing the game mechanic into synergy system. The class will not become overpowered by it's own.

Synergy means in context a skill is better used with other skills and/or with party members skills. Meaning any class cannot become god-like because to fully accomplish the skills are by using other skills

There are two types of synergy, forced synergy and dynamic synergy

Force synergy are mostly passive skills such as "A skill become better by upgrading D skill", so just simply upgrading the other skill the A skill become a better skill. The other skill usually unlocked at higher level.

Dynamic synergy is a skill that working better by using other skills in certain manner or combos. Example, Bash + Stun + Damage or in complex one Sacrifice own life for buff + Drain Life + whatever magic. Each skills by each own are not as good, it is only good when it is used in harmony.

Then come to party member mechanic, it is not just Tank/DPS/nuker/healer but many more, each skills of party members working with other skills of other party members. Not just simple taunt, backstab, fireball and heal then rinse and repeat...A character disable enemy magic, B character trap in electromagnetic field, C character give finishing blow...or A character reveal hidden enemy using a skill, B character stun them, C character freeze, D character nuke them...

That what make tactical combat interesting...each character skills can be simple stun, bash, disable, freeze without damage...but most skills templates today are damage, damage, damage and damage...almost every class can be a damage dealer, it's boring

Edit : Also make some spells only effect certain types of enemies such as A spell only effect demons, B spell only effect animal, C spell only effect darkspawn, D spell only effect mechanical, E spell only effect in the night, F spell only effect in the day, G spell only effect undead....that makes the character will not become overpowered

Modifié par Qistina, 05 août 2013 - 01:51 .