335 réponses à ce sujet

[snackrat]

If so, they'll need to change how they built classes. In DA:Exodus, your class affected your AP, technically with all weapons. If you removed weapon restrictions and your warrior equipped a staff, it does damage based on their STR.

If two classes are sharing weapon types (such as daggers), then they need to redo that to actually scale to weapon type instead. And if they're not, there doesn't seem to be much point.

[Ryzaki]

Wulfram wrote...

I find it difficult to see a clearly distinct niche for a dual wielding warrior when compared to DW rogues and the other types of warriors. I mean, I don't have anything hugely against them, but I don't think they'd add a great amount to the game. Give me warrior archery instead, please, I hate having characters who can't fight at range if the situation calls for it.

From an aesthetic point of view I'd rather have a rogue melee option that wasn't dual wielding. I dislike dual wielding being quite so ubiquitous.

Fair enough.

But agreed on the archery. That dragon fight in DA2 was so annoying on my warrior. "Oh yay he flew out of range. I shall stand here staring while he throws fireballs in my face because for reasonz I can't use a bow."

[Mr.House]

Ryzaki wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I find it difficult to see a clearly distinct niche for a dual wielding warrior when compared to DW rogues and the other types of warriors. I mean, I don't have anything hugely against them, but I don't think they'd add a great amount to the game. Give me warrior archery instead, please, I hate having characters who can't fight at range if the situation calls for it.

From an aesthetic point of view I'd rather have a rogue melee option that wasn't dual wielding. I dislike dual wielding being quite so ubiquitous.

Fair enough.

But agreed on the archery. That dragon fight in DA2 was so annoying on my warrior. "Oh yay he flew out of range. I shall stand here staring while he throws fireballs in my face because for reasonz I can't use a bow."

Aveline and Isabela where just hugging my Hawke while she healedt hem and had Varric shooting bolts at the dragon. Why I could not have Aveline use at least a crossbow makes no sense.

[sandalisthemaker]

 Rogues are better than warrors. Obviously. 
Deal peeps.

[David7204]

If you want a game with classes, then you're going to have to accept that not every class can do everything. So demanding classes and then whining that certain classes not being able to use certain weapons 'makes no sense' is really very silly.

[Azaron Nightblade]

Plaintiff wrote...

"It's totally lame that warriors can't dual-wield, but it's fine to lock rogues out of sword/shield and two-handed weapons. Logic!"

I don't want warriors to have dual-wielding. It was totally ****ty in Origins when Rogues had less skills than every other class and two thirds of their skills were co-opted by warriors.

I want as little overlap between all of the classes as possible.

I've never been a fan of the arguement "nerf one to balance the other".
IMO it would be better to expand on the rogue tree and make it more unique rather than slap a silly restriction on the other class - give rogues some more acrobatic skills to add to their arsenal, or even a different set of dual wielding abilities that support their fighting styles more - give them some abilities like the Demon Hunter in Diablo 3, where you roll by an enemy and during the motion flick several throwing knives into your enemy (might as well make them poisoned too).

[Mr.House]

David7204 wrote...

If you want a game with classes, then you're going to have to accept that not every class can do everything. So demanding classes and then whining that certain classes not being able to use certain weapons 'makes no sense' is really very silly.

Play DAO, you would know this was not an issue at all before DA2.

[Ryzaki]

Mr.House wrote...
Aveline and Isabela where just hugging my Hawke while she healedt hem and had Varric shooting bolts at the dragon. Why I could not have Aveline use at least a crossbow makes no sense.

I can kind of see why the companions can't use ranged weapons for the whole "well they never trained with it yadda yadda" (even if it makes no sense that a solider like aveline is incapable of using a ranged weapon even if it's horribly and with no bonuses) but there's no excuse for a PC warrior being stuck with only melee weapons.

[Ryzaki]

Mr.House wrote...

David7204 wrote...

If you want a game with classes, then you're going to have to accept that not every class can do everything. So demanding classes and then whining that certain classes not being able to use certain weapons 'makes no sense' is really very silly.

Play DAO, you would know this was not an issue at all before DA2.

Oh yay here's David commenting on a game series he hasn't played again.

What else is new.

I have to wonder if we're stuck with the warrior melee only garbage again how are those nice dragon fights going to go. The dragon just nicely lands for the PC? Or will it fly away again and come back for reasons after a set of time? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:27 .

[David7204]

This is really very basic logic. Or would you like to explain to me how exactly classes are supposed to work when every class can do everything for the sake of 'making sense,' as you claim?

Modifié par David7204, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:27 .

[Mr.House]

Ryzaki wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
Aveline and Isabela where just hugging my Hawke while she healedt hem and had Varric shooting bolts at the dragon. Why I could not have Aveline use at least a crossbow makes no sense.

I can kind of see why the companions can't use ranged weapons for the whole "well they never trained with it yadda yadda" (even if it makes no sense that a solider like aveline is incapable of using a ranged weapon even if it's horribly and with no bonuses) but there's no excuse for a PC warrior being stuck with only melee weapons.

They explained it for Isabela which is fine, it's a good excuse, Cleary it was made to adress why she can't use bows thoguh after the game came out. Aveline simply has no reason, she knows we will probaly fight a dragon. Honey, your sword and hsield will not be usefull dear.

[Ryzaki]

David7204 wrote...

This is really very basic logic. Or would you like to explain to me how exactly classes are supposed to work when every class can do everything?

Being able to fight both melee and ranged combat isn't doing everything David. You do realize every single class of Shep can fight in both melee and ranged combat? Even if certain Sheps are better at one than the other?

Mr.House wrote...

They explained it for Isabela which is
fine, it's a good excuse, Cleary it was made to adress why she can't use
bows thoguh after the game came out. Aveline simply has no reason, she
knows we will probaly fight a dragon. Honey, your sword and hsield will
not be usefull dear.

True.

I just don't know
why they'd design a fight where the enemy runs out of melee range
knowing they have a class that can't fight ranged.

Just...why would you do that when you added a stupid melee only restriction to a class? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:30 .

[David7204]

Entirely irrelevant. Dragon Age is not Mass Effect. Combat between the two is entirely different and can't be compared.

[Mr.House]

David7204 wrote...

This is really very basic logic. Or would you like to explain to me how exactly classes are supposed to work when every class can do everything for the sake of 'making sense,' as you claim?

Play DAO and you will have your answer. You have not played either of them so why are you even here talking about matters you don't understand. Go talk in the ME forums and go talk about heroism.

Better yet, GO PLAY DAO AND DA2 so you don't look like a fool when you post here.

Modifié par Mr.House, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:36 .

[Plaintiff]

Ryzaki wrote...

@Plantiff: How on EARTH did DA2 make things fair? It took everything away from warriors and kept them with rogues. That's not fair in the least bit.

It did nothing of the kind, it took away two skill trees and gave them like, five new ones.

Every class had an equal number of skill trees, every class had an equal number of skills. That is absolutely and demonstrably more fair than the situation in Origins, where warriors had five skill categories, mages had four, and rogues got three, two of which they had to share.

Warriors and rogues were almost equal in DAO. Rogues are superior in DA2. That's not fair in the least bit.

In one extremely minor way, they were superior. For about five minutes, until the discrepancy was rendered irrelevent when the game gave you other rogue party members to perform those functions.

Except they never had additional functions from rogues. They had nearly the same functions. (Except rogues did better damage thanks to stuns and backstabbing). How horrible.

They got two whole extra skill trees. How many times do I have to say this?

And why should warriors be forced into melee while rogues get both melee and ranged choices?

Why should rogues be forced into the roles that they're forced into? Why should a rogue be unable to tank?

How is that equal?

They have the same number of development choices is how it's equal. Whether or not you personally like those choices doesn't have any bearing on that.

Oh noes warriors have dual wielding and archery. I suppose the rogues stealth, backstabs, grenades and trap skills mean nothing.

Obviously those skill trees must be utterly worthless, since you're apparently allowed to completely disregard all of the other warrior skill trees available in DA2, purely because you can't equip the weapons you want.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:35 .

[Ryzaki]

David7204 wrote...

Entirely irrelevant. Dragon Age is not Mass Effect. Combat between the two is entirely different and can't be compared.

Says the person who hasn't even played DAO yet insists on discussing game mecahnics in the forum discussing it like he/she has.

[David7204]

By the way, if you're talking about 'realism,' I should point out that archery was and is notorious for being a very difficult skill to learn, requiring great amounts of practice and training. There's the old saying about 'If you want to make a good archer, start with his grandfather.'

So the idea that characters can 'realistically' just pick up a bow and kick butt is laughable. Those 'reasonz' commented sarcastically on earlier are actually quite solid.

Modifié par David7204, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:32 .

[Mr.House]

Ryzaki wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Entirely irrelevant. Dragon Age is not Mass Effect. Combat between the two is entirely different and can't be compared.

Says the person who hasn't even played DAO yet insists on discussing game mecahnics in the forum discussing it like he/she has.

David is never wrong!

[IndomitusRex]

How about instead of taking away from Warriors we add to Rogues? I can see the annoyance that in DAO Rogues had less to set them apart, but then again the tree system was a lot simpler in that game. The multiple skill trees in DA2 I thought could allow for a great deal of customization, and give Rogues access to a lot of unique skills to set them apart from Warriors.

I think part of the problem though was that you had to dedicate skill points to things like stealth or smoke bombs, which meant you couldn't spend those points on increasing your damage. So how about this? Give Rogues more skill points than Warriors, so they can afford to purchase things like threat redirection or reactive stealth, but not fall behind Warriors in the damage department. Maybe give Rogues an extra skill point every 2 or 3 levels, or whatever feels right.

Rogues could also get a third style themselves. Maybe they could have a sword and buckler weapon style. They'd wield a proper one-handed weapon in their main hand, but in the off-hand they'd wield both a buckler strapped to their arm and a dagger (in reverse stabby grip).

Or perhaps they could get some skill trees dedicated to throwing weapons (knives, hatchets, etc.). This would probably be more distinct than the sword and buckler combo, as the throwing skill trees could provide rapid fire mid-range damage with lots of cone AoE options. I've always felt throwing weapons were under-represented in fantasy games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

By the way, if you're talking about 'realism,' I should point out that archery was and is notorious for being a very difficult skill to learn, requiring great amounts of practice and training.

For longbows, sure.

Horsebows, not so much.

[AresKeith]

Tbh, I always felt rogue should get a third weapon skill after warriros get DW and archery/crossbows back

[Ryzaki]

Plaintiff wrote...
It did nothing of the kind, it took away two skill trees and gave them like, five new ones.

Every class had an equal number of skill trees, every class had an equal number of skills. That is absolutely and demonstrably more fair than the situation in Origins, where warriors had five skill categories, mages and four, and rogues got three, two of which they had to share.

What new skill trees do warriors have? The vanguard ones? You do realize rogues have new skill tress as well right? That they can also control aggro now thanks to the Armistice and Goad abilities?

In one extremely minor way, they were suprior. For about five minutes, until the discrepancy was rendered irrelevent when the game gave you other rogue party members to perform those functions.

And you don't think that applies with warrior companions? 

They got two whole extra skill trees. How many times do I have to say this?

In DAO I assume? You do realize rogues got an extra skill tree as well right? Hell more than one I'm looking at the wiki. They have an equal amount if you're disregarding weapon trees. Edit: **** they have more. They have deft hands which warriors don't  Edit: Unless you mean in DA2 in which case warriors are missing two skill trees (or weapon trees rather).

Why should rogues be forced into the roles that they're forced into? Why should a rogue be able to tank?

Really? You're saying that a warrior has to be melee only (despite the fact that being melee only is a clear disadvantage in some fights making said character USELESS for a certain time?). If we're using the why can't a rogue tank arguement why can't a warrior stealth and backstab? 

They have the same number of development choices is how it's equal. Whether or not you personally like the choices doesn't have any bearing on that.Oh noes warriors have dual wielding and archery.

Uh...that's not equal. Rogues can still stealth, and detect, disarm traps.

Obviously those skill trees must be utterly worthless, since you're apparently allowed to completely disregard all of the other warrior skill trees available in DA2, purely because you can't equip the weapons you want.

All the warrior trees are directly combat related.

Unless you care to show me a non combat related DA2 tree?

Modifié par Ryzaki, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:40 .

[Mr.House]

I would in fact love a one handed skill tree personally.

[Snook]

AresKeith wrote...

Tbh, I always felt rogue should get a third weapon skill after warriros get DW and archery/crossbows back

Perhaps just make Duelist a base Rogue skill tree but tune it for...well, dueling. One handed weapon in one hand, nothing in the other.

EDIT: Rah, ninja.

Modifié par SergeantSnookie, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:37 .