721 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

Ieolus wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
nOt many mages are at a high enough level to cast storm of the century.

Not many warriors are high enough level to break gates.

No need for it anyway, since it only takes 2 jabs with a shield to break a gate. 

Nope! They didn't get the NPC to teach them the specialization and all non-protagonists are stuck at level one, so we just solved the entire problem using your own logic from above. 

Spending hours breaking down a gate sounds more plausible than spending 2 seconds, don`t you agree?

Nope. Fireball burns golems alive, it can burn walls. It was part of DA:O, and we know that sets the standard for the entire series, so I'm dissapointed in how unrealistic DA:I is being, since we can't set the keep on fire like we could Shale. 

Reductio ad absurdum at its finest.

Arguing for the sake of arguing, really.

[In Exile]

Rawgrim wrote..
The golems do t burn, they simply fall over.

Nope, they burn. Take damage from it and everything. Even see the beautiful little red numbers.

Doesn`t say anywhere that its a specialization. Nor do we know if Cassandra is level 1 when she does it. Frankly it looks like the shield bash talent, and you get that one early.

So, you mean, your entire complain is irrelevant without more knowledge, and you'd be 100% ok with it if came at level 10? Well, good to know the realism complaint only goes that far. 

Arguing for the sake of arguing, really.

Given that the only thing I initially had to say on this point was (i) there's no such thing as an objective standard for when combat looks realistic and (ii) it's completely arbitrary to complain about the animations and not about how damage is dealt with, and the pushback has been massive on how both points are wrong, it's just a tad dishonest to say I'm arguing for the sake of arguing. 

Modifié par In Exile, 22 septembre 2013 - 06:17 .

[TEWR]

In Exile wrote...

You mean the absolute crap armour sold for the lowest possible price is fire resistant? And lightning resistant?

Not what I said.

If you're personally enchanting your armor to be fire resistant, that's reasoning for fire not burning you alive. If you're buying reasonably pricy armor that's fire resistant, again... it's fine.

And the bolded and underlined point is exactly the issue. There "must be" concessions? You mean, we have to draw a completely arbitrary line in the sand to justify certain completely unrealistic mechanics as just being part of the genre, and if you have a problem with it, too bad?

Considering health bars have been a staple of video games for about as long as... ever, sure! Christ, even Mario had a health bar variant. You eat a mushroom, then get hit, you're weakened. Get hit again, you die.

What, you wanna remove health bars and have every hit be fatal? That's realistic, sure, but it's also tedious as all hell.

How about we have the armour melt into the NPCs flesh, having them flay around and wail? 

Or how about we have the first few cuts in a battle field get infected while the NPCs are rolling around in mud and who knows what else, with a whole amputation mini-game?

Oh ho ho ho, you made a funny.

Look, if your issue is how there are certain unrealistic elements in DA and video games as a whole, that's fine. I'm not going to sit here and say I'm fine with enemies not showing some form of realism in regards to fire hitting them.

Introducing a burn mechanic that, if it landed, would cause the enemy agonizing pain (and I mean they're covered in fire, not just burnt skin. hell, have 'em scream in pain!) and either roll around to try to quell it or keep on fighting -- to their peril -- would be the first step in making fire damage have a sense of realism to combat.

And applying the same potential for damage to the enemies would be grand as well.

You mean, how a single mage has already rendered all fortification irrelevant? A storm of the century inside a holdfast would kill every living then in there.

Assuming A) people don't flee inside and you can actually see where you're casting.

That's something I liked about Skyrim. You actually had to have room to do these spells. They couldn't just pass through barriers.

And, for the record, that's precisely how magic lorewise works in Thedas IIRC. That gameplay hasn't caught up to it is sad, but that doesn't mean it should be accepted.

But it's not good enough for you that the cutscenes establish that warfare is not rendered pointless? Right, that would be applying the same standard to two similar things, and we know that's not OK at all.

In regards to DAO where the gameplay didn't break warfare's point so flagrantly, yes it was fine. DAO's combat was unrealistic, yes, but it didn't violate warfare as much as you're trying to say it did. Thus the cutscenes helped reinforce that warfare still had a place.

DA:I isn't even trying to keep warfare realistic if it's having Battering Ram Cassandra.

They were everywhere for about a hundred years. There's a whole codex entry on it! The Tevinter Imperium built an empire using mages that could burn every single person alive inside their fortification.

Really, a mage can just sit outside and know the exact location of people through walls of stone and wood and burn 'em alive?

Even if this was a setting where every single person could become a battering ram, the entire concept of a fortification was already rendered irrelevant by mages, who could firebomb buildings at will. Hell, firestorm is just an airstrike that you can't even stop with a SAM site!

So then, if my recollection above is inaccurate, add a simple "Mage must have clear line-of-sight to be able to do X.

Given how adept a fireball is at killing golems made out of stone, that's just wrong.

Also something I disliked, but it is what it is. Having Golems be resistant to fire would be nice.

And metal? Seriously? You mean the substance that turns into molten liquid at high temperatures isn't undone by fire? 

I didn't realize we knew the exact temperature of a fireball! I also didn't realize the fireballs stick around and don't dissolve into thin air upon impact.

For the metal to burn, the fireball would have to be at a high enough temperature -- which varies for each type of metal -- and stick around for a prolonged period of time.

WHICH COSTS A MAGE A GREAT DEAL OF MANA. DAO established that a Mage can control the fire, but also established that the more powerful a spell -- which this is -- the more mana must be exerted.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 22 septembre 2013 - 06:26 .

[Rawgrim]

In Exile wrote...

Rawgrim wrote..
The golems do t burn, they simply fall over.

Nope, they burn. Take damage from it and everything. Even see the beautiful little red numbers.

Doesn`t say anywhere that its a specialization. Nor do we know if Cassandra is level 1 when she does it. Frankly it looks like the shield bash talent, and you get that one early.

So, you mean, your entire complain is irrelevant without more knowledge, and you'd be 100% ok with it if came at level 10? Well, good to know the realism complaint only goes that far. 

Doesn`t matter what level she is when she does it. Its too far out there. I was just replying to your comment. No need to nitpick.

[Shadow Fox]

Rawgrim wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I do not believe Plantiff is trying to invalidate anything. Plaintiff is pointing out the silliness began with DAO. In fact a certain amount of silliness appears in all crpgs. DAO had Scattershot, Shattering shot, Sunder arms, Sunder armor, Destroyer, Feast of the Fallen, War Cry (with Superiority), Ranger Summons, Frightening appearance etc. I will not even get started with the Awakening expansion and it upping the silliness scale.

So when someone says dial the silliness back to what the original silliness level or to the level of silliness a particular poster wants or does not want?

So Bioware is suppose to ignore the gamers who have no problem with the pre-alpha footage combat animations and change it to satisfy those who did not like it?

If that is the case I prefer the combat system to be more like Mount & Blade, or the multiplayer games Chivalry and War of the Roses..

I can answer that, since I said 'dial back' on the silliness.

DA:Origins was the first game in the series.  Can we all agree on that at the least?

Now, having played Origins, a certain expectation was set as to how any sequels would play.  Even if you did not like aspects of its combat, this is not something you can argue with.

So yes, as I said way back in this thread, DA:Origins would be the baseline (for silliness, if you want to call it that).

Is BioWare supposed to ignore the gamers who like the pre-alpha footage of the combat animations?  I don't know.  Should BioWare ignore the people who dislike it and were huge fans of DA:Origins?  Maybe it comes down to which is a bigger group and do some business calculations, I don't know.  Which game sold more?  Which game had a huge outcry after it came out?  Is that even fair for me to ask?  I don't know.. its now 1am and I'm rambling.

By that logic gaming should have never moved past the 8 bit era.
You're assuming the combat system was what caused DA2 to under-perform.

People were execting something similar to the first gam. Wich is perfectly understandable. Instead they got a game with a very simplified combat systen, no tactics required, and completely over the top animations. I am sure that is one of the reasons why it underperformed.

It seems more like they wanted a clone to me honestly.
And more efficient imo,This has been proven wrong numerous times and even if it weren't need I remind you Origins was soloable on Nightmare?subjective,Or it could be things like the linear story and reused environments had more of an impact. 

[Rawgrim]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I do not believe Plantiff is trying to invalidate anything. Plaintiff is pointing out the silliness began with DAO. In fact a certain amount of silliness appears in all crpgs. DAO had Scattershot, Shattering shot, Sunder arms, Sunder armor, Destroyer, Feast of the Fallen, War Cry (with Superiority), Ranger Summons, Frightening appearance etc. I will not even get started with the Awakening expansion and it upping the silliness scale.

So when someone says dial the silliness back to what the original silliness level or to the level of silliness a particular poster wants or does not want?

So Bioware is suppose to ignore the gamers who have no problem with the pre-alpha footage combat animations and change it to satisfy those who did not like it?

If that is the case I prefer the combat system to be more like Mount & Blade, or the multiplayer games Chivalry and War of the Roses..

I can answer that, since I said 'dial back' on the silliness.

DA:Origins was the first game in the series.  Can we all agree on that at the least?

Now, having played Origins, a certain expectation was set as to how any sequels would play.  Even if you did not like aspects of its combat, this is not something you can argue with.

So yes, as I said way back in this thread, DA:Origins would be the baseline (for silliness, if you want to call it that).

Is BioWare supposed to ignore the gamers who like the pre-alpha footage of the combat animations?  I don't know.  Should BioWare ignore the people who dislike it and were huge fans of DA:Origins?  Maybe it comes down to which is a bigger group and do some business calculations, I don't know.  Which game sold more?  Which game had a huge outcry after it came out?  Is that even fair for me to ask?  I don't know.. its now 1am and I'm rambling.

By that logic gaming should have never moved past the 8 bit era.
You're assuming the combat system was what caused DA2 to under-perform.

People were execting something similar to the first gam. Wich is perfectly understandable. Instead they got a game with a very simplified combat systen, no tactics required, and completely over the top animations. I am sure that is one of the reasons why it underperformed.

It seems more like they wanted a clone to me honestly.
And more efficient imo,This has been proven wrong numerous times and even if it weren't need I remind you Origins was soloable on Nightmare?subjective,Or it could be things like the linear story and reused environments had more of an impact. 

Those also had an impact, sure. Lack of choice as well.

DA:O can be soloed, yes. Can do it by exploiting game mechanics and spamming potions. Means the system is severely flawed.

[In Exile]

[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Not what I said. [/quote]

You said that fire resistant armour could explain why people burn alive. We know that's not true. There's no armour in DA:O that ever protects you like that from fire, unless we're talking about the one made from the bones of a dragon. And I'm convicted that one isn't the scale that every man-at-arms is wearing.

[quote]If you're personally enchanting your armor to be fire resistant, that's reasoning for fire not burning you alive. If you're buying reasonably pricy armor that's fire resistant, again... it's fine.[/quote]

So the darkspawn all have fire resistant armour? And every thief in Denerim? And all the mages, their robes are fire resistant? And the bears got fire resistant fur from the same merchant? 

[quote]Considering health bars have been a staple of video games for about as long as... ever, sure! Christ, even Mario had a health bar variant. You eat a mushroom, then get hit, you're weakened. Get hit again, you die. [/quote]

And they're totally unrealistic. I'm glad we agree. 

Now, why should the combat animations that relate to this entirely absurd and unrealistic form of dealing damage - which you previously acknowledged is entirely divorced from the in-game lore and reality via cutcenes - should somehow be "realistic"?

[quote]Look, if your issue is how there are certain unrealistic elements in DA and video games as a whole, that's fine. I'm not going to sit here and say I'm fine with enemies not showing some form of realism in regards to fire hitting them. [/quote]

But you are sitting here and saying just that when you say that the combat animations are somehow a special case.

[quote]Assuming A) people don't flee inside and you can actually see where you're casting. [/quote]

You don't need to see where you're casting. DA:O shows us we can cast throw walls! And DA:O sets the realism standard for the entire series, we've already established that. A firestorm can be cast through walls! Burn them all in their rooms. Create a storm of the century there to boot! It damages through walls. And again, we know that the DA:O gameplay is a 100% true and accurate representation of the entire world.

[quote]And, for the record, that's precisely how magic lorewise works in Thedas IIRC. That gameplay hasn't caught up to it is sad, but that doesn't mean it should be accepted. [/quote]

You mean, it rendered all fortifications irrelevant, meaning that DA:I is breaking the lore completely by showing fortifications?

[quote]In regards to DAO where the gameplay didn't break warfare's point so flagrantly, yes it was fine. [/quote]

You mean the game where no horses existed, and people charged footsolider lines on foot? The entire cutscene at Ostagar was absurd without horses.

[quote]Really, a mage can just sit outside and know the exact location of people through walls of stone and wood and burn 'em alive? [/quote]

Yes. DA:O lets you do that in gameplay, so it's a 100% true representation of how the world works. 

[quote]So then, if my recollection above is inaccurate, add a simple "Mage must have clear line-of-sight to be able to do X. [/quote]Nope. Just set the entire keep on fire! Have that burn at 600 Kelvin, and you've rendered all forms of seige irrelevant because everyone melts to scrap.[quote]Also something I disliked, but it is what it is. Having Golems be resistant to fire would be nice.[/quote]But they're not. DA:O sets the standard for reality, so we can burn stone. And since we can burn stone, mages just rendered fortifications irrelevant.

Except, if I need to spell it out further, this entire argument is silly. And it's stupid because the game completely divorces gameplay from story, and every RPG has done that since Final Fantasy I. Pretending like the combat animations are the arbiter of what reality is like for the characters is what I'm driving at as being absurd, and I seem to not be able to convey the ridiculousness of that idea.

[quote]I didn't realize we knew the exact temperature of a fireball! I also didn't realize the fireballs stick around and don't dissolve into thin air upon impact. [/quote]

Given that they set stone on fire, they clearly don't dissolve into anything. And we don't need fireballs. An Inferno is good enough! Since we can burn stone, again, that thing must be hotter than the core of a star. 

[In Exile]

Filament wrote...
Sooo this is all a bitter man's revenge for a battle you lost a long time ago? All us hypocrites just don't appreciate realism like you do.

I know! It's almost like I was complaining about a feature that was probably locked down. But that would be silly, because who would create an entire thread about that, and then repeatedly post in it? 

[Rawgrim]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Not what I said. [/quote]

You said that fire resistant armour could explain why people burn alive. We know that's not true. There's no armour in DA:O that ever protects you like that from fire, unless we're talking about the one made from the bones of a dragon. And I'm convicted that one isn't the scale that every man-at-arms is wearing.

[quote]If you're personally enchanting your armor to be fire resistant, that's reasoning for fire not burning you alive. If you're buying reasonably pricy armor that's fire resistant, again... it's fine.[/quote]

So the darkspawn all have fire resistant armour? And every thief in Denerim? And all the mages, their robes are fire resistant? And the bears got fire resistant fur from the same merchant? 

[quote]Considering health bars have been a staple of video games for about as long as... ever, sure! Christ, even Mario had a health bar variant. You eat a mushroom, then get hit, you're weakened. Get hit again, you die. [/quote]

And they're totally unrealistic. I'm glad we agree. 

Now, why should the combat animations that relate to this entirely absurd and unrealistic form of dealing damage - which you previously acknowledged is entirely divorced from the in-game lore and reality via cutcenes - should somehow be "realistic"?

[quote]Look, if your issue is how there are certain unrealistic elements in DA and video games as a whole, that's fine. I'm not going to sit here and say I'm fine with enemies not showing some form of realism in regards to fire hitting them. [/quote]

But you are sitting here and saying just that when you say that the combat animations are somehow a special case.

[quote]Assuming A) people don't flee inside and you can actually see where you're casting. [/quote]

You don't need to see where you're casting. DA:O shows us we can cast throw walls! And DA:O sets the realism standard for the entire series, we've already established that. A firestorm can be cast through walls! Burn them all in their rooms. Create a storm of the century there to boot! It damages through walls. And again, we know that the DA:O gameplay is a 100% true and accurate representation of the entire world.

[quote]And, for the record, that's precisely how magic lorewise works in Thedas IIRC. That gameplay hasn't caught up to it is sad, but that doesn't mean it should be accepted. [/quote]

You mean, it rendered all fortifications irrelevant, meaning that DA:I is breaking the lore completely by showing fortifications?

[quote]In regards to DAO where the gameplay didn't break warfare's point so flagrantly, yes it was fine. [/quote]

You mean the game where no horses existed, and people charged footsolider lines on foot? The entire cutscene at Ostagar was absurd without horses.

[quote]Really, a mage can just sit outside and know the exact location of people through walls of stone and wood and burn 'em alive? [/quote]

Yes. DA:O lets you do that in gameplay, so it's a 100% true representation of how the world works. 

[quote]So then, if my recollection above is inaccurate, add a simple "Mage must have clear line-of-sight to be able to do X. [/quote]Nope. Just set the entire keep on fire! Have that burn at 600 Kelvin, and you've rendered all forms of seige irrelevant because everyone melts to scrap.[quote]Also something I disliked, but it is what it is. Having Golems be resistant to fire would be nice.[/quote]But they're not. DA:O sets the standard for reality, so we can burn stone. And since we can burn stone, mages just rendered fortifications irrelevant.

Except, if I need to spell it out further, this entire argument is silly. And it's stupid because the game completely divorces gameplay from story, and every RPG has done that since Final Fantasy I. Pretending like the combat animations are the arbiter of what reality is like for the characters is what I'm driving at as being absurd, and I seem to not be able to convey the ridiculousness of that idea.

[quote]I didn't realize we knew the exact temperature of a fireball! I also didn't realize the fireballs stick around and don't dissolve into thin air upon impact. [/quote]

Given that they set stone on fire, they clearly don't dissolve into anything. And we don't need fireballs. An Inferno is good enough! Since we can burn stone, again, that thing must be hotter than the core of a star. 
[/quote]

A bugged combat system in previous games doesn`t excuse adding shields being able to just jab down castle gates.

[In Exile]

Rawgrim wrote...
A bugged combat system in previous games doesn`t excuse adding shields being able to just jab down castle gates.

So you agree with me? You're ready to complain about how all RPG damage dealing is unrealistic and Bioware should design combat animations and a ruleset that actually accounts for what injuries should follow from weapons and magic? 

[TEWR]

So if your logic is "DAO had a ****ed-up combat system, this excuses the future games from even trying to fix it" what in the hell would please you, In Exile?

Because I'm at a loss. I've said I'm for improving combat as a whole, I've said DAO had problems in combat and realism (understatement), and I'm trying to give a few ideas that would maybe... maybe grant a foundation for games to work off of.

But your snide attitude is actually kinda irritating.

[Rawgrim]

In Exile wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
A bugged combat system in previous games doesn`t excuse adding shields being able to just jab down castle gates.

So you agree with me? You're ready to complain about how all RPG damage dealing is unrealistic and Bioware should design combat animations and a ruleset that actually accounts for what injuries should follow from weapons and magic? 

Where did I complain about all rpg damage dealing being unrealistic? Now you are just making things up.

[Rawgrim]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

So if your logic is "DAO had a ****ed-up combat system, this excuses the future games from even trying to fix it" what in the hell would please you, In Exile?

Because I'm at a loss. I've said I'm for improving combat as a whole, I've said DAO had problems in combat and realism (understatement), and I'm trying to give a few ideas that would maybe... maybe grant a foundation for games to work off of.

But your snide attitude is actually kinda irritating.

He is trolling. Nothing more.

[Shadow Fox]

I think In Exile's issue is people being subjective in regards to their want for realism.

Ergo they want melee combat to be realistic but are fine with the other elements being fantastical.

[TEWR]

I wouldn't say he's trolling. I think he has a rigid philosophy for RPGs and combat that should either be adhered to or not complained about when it fails.

But I'm not him, so I won't speak for him.

[Rawgrim]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

I think In Exile's issue is people being subjective in regards to their want for realism.

Ergo they want melee combat to be realistic but are fine with the other elements being fantastical.

Actually we have all pointed out things we felt were silly in DA:O as well. Not our fault if he brings up examples, constantly, that we have mostly agreed with several times in this thread.

[Ieolus]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

I think In Exile's issue is people being subjective in regards to their want for realism.

Ergo they want melee combat to be realistic but are fine with the other elements being fantastical.

Wait,  why would that be bad?  Does it violate the all too subjective "rule of cool" that I'd never heard of before DA2?

[In Exile]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

So if your logic is "DAO had a ****ed-up combat system, this excuses the future games from even trying to fix it" what in the hell would please you, In Exile?

I'm going to stop being snarky. I had hoped that someone would draw the (to me) obvious inference, but that wasn't the case. 

The issue of combat damage can be dealt through animations. Instead of having a fireball explode head on, in one example, a warrior could use a shield to block it, have the thing catch fire, and then stop-drop and roll. That would be a "more" realistic way of dealing with this, and we can say that we abstract away things like the burns based on the nature of the fire.

With combat blows, the entire HP bar could be tied to parrying. 

Bioware could spend months designing unique combat grabbling animations, parrying animations for every weapons, dodging and reaction animations for every type of spell imaginable....

... and if I asked for that, I would be speaking the language of this thread, which is ostensibly about "combat animations". 

The reality is that this gate has some HP bar which so happens that, game-wise, it can be pierced by a warrior. We can say that's an abstraction of lots of things for resource purposes, like creating a battering ram escort mission with unique animations for each type of gate and keep in DA:I. 

We all have to learn to live with it because that's the name of the game and setting.

Because I'm at a loss. I've said I'm for improving combat as a whole, I've said DAO had problems in combat and realism (understatement), and I'm trying to give a few ideas that would maybe... maybe grant a foundation for games to work off of.

My position is pretty simple: there's no way to make an RPG realistic without either changing the combat entirely or wasting an absurd about of money designing combat animations and a ruleset to achieve it. 

And all you get for this tremendous effort of manpower and money is... a slightly different aesthetitic to the game to help with our sensibilities. That's not worth.

So I accept the other solution: to stylize the combat entirely, and stop pretending like the gameplay is tied to the story. It's just purely segregated, it runs on rule of cool, and when a cutscene starts we just all pretend that the keep was stormed by a huge army with a battering ram because that's the precondition to playing the game. 

That's the serious answer to this thread. 

Edit:

And other people have their own idiosyncratic preference. But I'd like if it people at least said that it was their idiosyncratic preference as opposed to acting as if there was natural and objective divison - as if it was decided by some divine law - that combat animations, limited exclusively to how certain characters use weapons and a small class of things they interact with, are the arbiter of realism in a game or the most important priority to fix. 

Modifié par In Exile, 22 septembre 2013 - 06:44 .

[In Exile]

Ieolus wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

I think In Exile's issue is people being subjective in regards to their want for realism.

Ergo they want melee combat to be realistic but are fine with the other elements being fantastical.

Wait,  why would that be bad?  Does it violate the all too subjective "rule of cool" that I'd never heard of before DA2?

I never said it was bad, in this regard. I just said that people should admit that they're being subjective when they're doing it instead of trying to make it about some sort of objective realism. 

[Ieolus]

Of course it's all subjective, because it is all about what one prefers to see and play in-game! Realism is just the word used to describe that.

Origins was more "realistic" only because no one was teleporting all over the battlefield and stuff. Others tried to use other terms up-thread.

Btw, I appreciate the serious tone way more.

[thats1evildude]

I have to agree with In Exile to a point, though I don't feel we need an entirely new system of injuries and the like. That we argue that "teh animations are unrealistic" is absurd, because the whole combat system is built on a foundation of deliberate absurdity. It has been since Origins.

And that's fine.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 22 septembre 2013 - 06:52 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

NWN 2's combat animations is too extreme (specially magics), some times you can't see what's going on around and what foes are doing!

Does anyone like it?

[Shadow Fox]

Ieolus wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

I think In Exile's issue is people being subjective in regards to their want for realism.

Ergo they want melee combat to be realistic but are fine with the other elements being fantastical.

Wait,  why would that be bad?  Does it violate the all too subjective "rule of cool" that I'd never heard of before DA2?

It's bad because it's only being applied to one class and could potentially gimp them and penaltize melee players I'd prefer avoiding the class imbalance of previous games if that includes giving warriors supermoves to deal with ranged fighters so be it.

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 22 septembre 2013 - 06:53 .