335 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Mr.House wrote...

Archery was way too OP in DA2.

I honestly didn't mind that too much because I dragged either Varric or Seb around so the OP worked in my favor

Least there wasn't enemies spamming shattershot again. God that was annoying in DAO.

[Plaintiff]

Ryzaki wrote...
And how exactly is it when DA2 has one class forced into melee only while the other gets its pick and can detect traps and disarm them along with chests (and get bonus xp for doing so)?

All the characters get that bonus xp. You are not being locked out of xp, because you are given rogue characters to take with you.

How? 

You can still stealth, you can still disarm and open traps, you can still use sword and sheild (you just don't get any skills attached to it) The only thing they can't do is tank. (Just like warriors can't heal or stealth).

Jesus Christ, you are not reading a single word I say. The specifics of what a rogue can do are irrelevent. They get less skills, they get less skills, they get less skills. That is what makes the classes unequal. Nothing else, just that.

Stealth is not a "bonus" that rogues get given, it's part of their already lacking skill trees. Every class in DA:O can disarm traps, so it doesn't damn well count. If you can't develop the skills for using a sword and shield, then it's not really an option at all.

The fact that you would say "you just can't learn the skills for it" shows that my extremely simple argument has gone completely over your head. The fact that rogues in DA:O have less skills than everyone else is my exact problem.

I do not give even half a damn which class gets which particular options, as long as every class has the same number of options.

And they had stealth to accomdate for that.

It doesn't 'accomodate' for anything. STEALTH IS NOT A FREE BONUS. It is part of their skill trees, which are already lacking. Having stealth does not make up for having practically nothing else.

As well as a boost for their lockpicking that warriors didn't get.

You mean like how warriors get class-specific stat boosts that rogues do not?

Also they still dealt more damage.

And warriors get equivalent benefits that you are deliberately downplaying.

You seem to have the impression that I *care* if rogues could use shields. I don't.

You seem to be under the impression that I care if warriors get dual-wielding or archery. I don't. I care about all the classes having an equal number of viable development paths. What those paths are makes no difference to me, but they should overlap as little as possible, or else they should scrap classes completely.

Which means your whole "their equal" is just garbage. They're not.

I never said they were equal, but if you actually read my posts, you'd know that. I said it was more fair than previously.

If Warrior gets twenty candies and Rogue gets ten, then that is unfair. If Rogue gets ten candies but Warrior only gets nine, that is still unfair, but much, much less so than previously.

Rogues have a out of combat benefit that warriors do not have. Whether you want it or not it's still there. As well as a combat benefit of being able to switch between melee or ranged combat at will.

Now if you don't mind that's one thing but saying it's more equal is garbage.

It is more equal. Having the same number of viable paths for skill development is obviously more equal than not.

Fair enough.

Yet they're still there and still provide a rogue with a benefit a warrior does not have.

Except they're already misbalanced. Rogues can have both melee or ranged combat. Warriors can not. Being able to knock down rocks will not fix that.

It makes up for being able to lockpick, which is the only discrepancy that actually exists.

Warriors and Rogues have the same number of development options. Whether or not you personally like the development options for a particular class doesn't signify in the least.

What you're complaining about at this point is that they didn't tailor-make a class specifically for you.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 septembre 2013 - 12:23 .

[Steelcan]

Plantiff, feel free to complain about equality in an area that's a bit more important, like LI's.

This is just ridiculous

[ScarMK]

Steelcan wrote...

Plantiff, feel free to complain about equality in an area that's a bit more important, like LI's.

This is just ridiculous

Someone obviously hasn't checked their privledge.

[Steelcan]

ScarMK wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Plantiff, feel free to complain about equality in an area that's a bit more important, like LI's.

This is just ridiculous

Someone obviously hasn't checked their privledge.

Everything became much more enterteining after I embraced it.

[Plaintiff]

Steelcan wrote...
Why?

Why not?

Warriors should be able to specialize more, there are more branches to the possibilities that a warrior can do.  Sword and Shield, 2h, one sword, double, archery.  It would make sense for them to have more options.

No it does not make sense. 'Class' is an arbitrary, metagame label. There's absolutely no reason why a "rogue" should not be able to learn the same skills as a "warrior", or vice-versa. Only mages have any sort of lore distinction.

For that matter, characters in DA:O and DA2 have identical build and musculature, regardless of class. If Fenris can swing a two-handed sword around with his chicken arms, then there's absolutely no reason why Mage or Rogue Hawke should not be able to.

So either reinforce the class dinstinction by giving every class access to specific weapons, or remove all weapon restrictions and let every class equip and learn the associated skills for anything they want.

[AresKeith]

Steelcan wrote...

Plantiff, feel free to complain about equality in an area that's a bit more important, like LI's.

This is just ridiculous

No, everything must be equal

[Ryzaki]

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
All the characters get that bonus xp. You are not being loked out of xp, because you are given rogue characters to take with you.[/quote]

I could make that same arguement about warrior and tanking you realize?

[quote]
Jesus fuking Christ, you are not reading a single word I say. The specifics of what a rogue can do are irrelevent. They get less skills, they get less skills, they get less skills. That is what matters. [/quote]

They lack the S&S and 2HD weapon trees. That's it. They have stealth and trap detection. You don't think that's equivelent?

[quote]Stealth is not a "bonus" that rogues get given, it's part of their already lacking skill trees. Every class in DA:O can disarm traps, so it doesn't damn well count. If you can't develop the skills for using a sword and shield, then it's not really an option at all. [/quote]

How the hell does it not count when warriors can't do that crap in DA2 where I'm saying there's a disrepency.

Also rogues can STEALTH in DAO. And they get bonuses to their traps and lockpicking in their rogue trees and no that's not innate (not in DAO originally anyway).

[quote]

The fact that you would say "you just can't learn the skills for it" shows that my extremely simple argument has gone completely over your head. The fact that rogues in DA:O have less skills than everyone else is my exact problem.

I do not give even half a damn which class gets which particular options, as long as every class has the same number of options. [/quote]

They lack 2 weapon trees. You're saying this as though they don't have unique skills out of combat to accomdate for this.

Why should they have the same number of options? Mages don't have the same amount of options as rogues and warriors. They're stuck with staves. They get different spell trees but that's it.

[quote]
It doesn't 'accomodate' for anything. STEALTH IS NOT A FREE BONUS. It is part of their skill trees, which are already lacking. Having stealth does not make up for having practically nothing else. [/quote]

They had dual wielding and archery and stealth.

What nothing else did they have? 

[quote]
You mean like how warriors get class-specific stat boosts that rogues do not? [/quote]

What class specific stat boots did warriors get to non combat skills? Because if you REALLY wanna do the combat skills arguement I'm pretty sure rogues have better combat skills than warriors.

[quote]
And warriors get equivalent benefits that you are deliberately downplaying. [/quote]

What equivelent? THEY CAN TANK. And **** they're not even unique in controlling aggro in DA2 anymore!

[quote]
You seem to be under the impression that I care if warriors get dual-wielding or archery. I don't. I care about all the classes having an equal number of viable development paths. [/quote]

Which they don't so hurrah.

[quote]
Which means your whole "their equal" is just garbage. They're not.[/quote]
I never said they were equal, but if you actually read my posts, you'd know that. I said it was more fair than previously. [/quote]

Considering it was pretty equal to begin with (Rogues did more damage and had stealth to make up for the lack of a tanking tree (not to mention the dex tank rogue in DAO) as well as bonuses to trappicking and suck.

[quote]

If Warrior gets twenty candies and Rogue gets ten, then that is unfair. If Rogue gets ten candies but Warrior only gets nine, that is still unfair, but much, much less so than previously. [/quote]

Except that's not the case. It's more like the warrior got 20 and rogue got 18 and now the rogue has 20 and warrior has about 10.

[quote]
It is more equal. Having the same number of viable paths for skill development is obviously more equal than not. [/quote]

Except they don't. Warriors can tank true. But the main job of a tank is to manage aggro. Something hilariously rogues can almost do better thanks to DA2. (Really why did ANYONE think giving rogues aggro controlling skills on top of taking archery/dual wielding away from warriors was a good idea).

[quote]
It makes up for being able to lockpick, which is the only discrepancy that actually exists. [/quote]

I suppose the higher damage, stealth is also not a discrepency? If you wanna complain about tanking I should be able to complain about rogues having a much higher damage output.

[quote]
Warriors and Rogues have the same number of development options. Whether or not you personally like the development options for a particular class doesn't signify in the least.

What you're complaining about at this point is that they didn't tailor-make a class specifically for you.
[/quote]

Except they don't.

Nah I'm complaining that it's bullocks that rogues get melee and ranged weapons, stealth, out of combat utility, the ability to control aggro while warrior gets archery and dual wielding taken away.

[Steelcan]

Plaintiff wrote...

So either reinforce the class dinstinction by giving every class access to specific weapons, or remove all weapon restrictions and let every class equip and learn the associated skills for anything they want.

So what if Rogues could use dual wield daggers/sword and dagger or a bow, and warriors could use 2h, sword and shield, just a sword, and a bow.

Is that too unequal?  Even though it seems logical

[Ryzaki]

ScarMK wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Plantiff, feel free to complain about equality in an area that's a bit more important, like LI's.

This is just ridiculous

Someone obviously hasn't checked their privledge.

I just choked on my spit. Thanks for that.

[Plaintiff]

Steelcan wrote...

Plantiff, feel free to complain about equality in an area that's a bit more important, like LI's.

This is just ridiculous

When I discuss those topics, you **** and moan and criticize me (and others) for posting about topics that "don't matter" instead of focussing on the really important stuff, which is this bull****.

Make up your ****ing mind.

[Steelcan]

AresKeith wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Plantiff, feel free to complain about equality in an area that's a bit more important, like LI's.

This is just ridiculous

No, everything must be equal

Plantiff, I have a suggestion for your next avi

[Steelcan]

Plaintiff wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Plantiff, feel free to complain about equality in an area that's a bit more important, like LI's.

This is just ridiculous

When I discuss those topics, you **** and moan and criticize me (and others) for posting about topics that "don't matter" instead of focussing on the really important stuff, which is this bull****.

Make up your ****ing mind.

Incorrect, I don't understand the desire for all LI's to be availible for everyone, but that's neither here nor there.

[Ryzaki]

Plus there is a distinction between rogues and warriors in game. Ask Isabela to teach you duelist as a warrior she flat out says you lack finesee or grace or something.

Meanwhile with Alistair and a rogue he'll say you lack the discipline. (Forgot what Oghren tells a rogue).

[Steelcan]

Ryzaki wrote...

 (Forgot what Oghren tells a rogue).

Like he is sober enough to tell the difference

[Cainhurst Crow]

Warriors should have access to the most diverse arsenal in the game, all weapon and armor types are open for their use, and they can use them all to a efficient degree. As a trade off though, their progression tree should be smaller than other classes, but still allow their diverse range of weapons to more than compensate for difficulties and allow them to complete things strategically.

Rogues should have a more limited arsenal, medium or light armors, no heavy weapons like greatswords or shields, but instead have more skills with these weapons, more expertise, along with having non-weapon abilities. Basically, at the cost of a more robust selection of equipment, they gain more diversity in their skill range and what they can do with those weapons.

Mages will have pretty much a different system all together. They can be a jack of all trades, but at a cost. Rather than divide their skills by traditional trees, their skills will be set for battlefield roles. Want to be a tank? Theres a dedicated tree for tanking. Want to be a healer? there's a dedicated tree for healing. Want to have high dps? There's a dps tree for that. The cost would be that at most, you can have 2 and a half trees worth of points to invest how you want, not counting specialization. Each tree's first ability will give you a small sort of beginners selection of abilities so you can essentially invest your points in all the trees and have a little of everything, but not be very good at any of it, if you want to.

[Ryzaki]

Steelcan wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

 (Forgot what Oghren tells a rogue).

Like he is sober enough to tell the difference

stop it man this is gross.

Second time I choked on my spit today. XD

Honestly though I'll be happy enough with warriors just getting archery. It's pretty dumb how they're forced into melee.  The get over here ability at least solves some distance problems.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 septembre 2013 - 12:47 .

[Plaintiff]

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...
I could make that same arguement about warrior and tanking you realize?[/quote]
And you'd be right!

Except I don't care about Rogues being locked out of tanking specifically. I care about them having less options over all. Which I have said a million freaking times.

[quote]
They lack the S&S and 2HD weapon trees. That's it.[/quote]
That's a total of 32 individual skills.

[quote]They have stealth and trap detection. You don't think that's equivelent?[/quote]
Does 'stealth' encompass 32 individual skills? No it does not.

And every single class in DA:O has the ability to detect traps.

[quote]How the hell does it not count when warriors can't do that crap in DA2 where I'm saying there's a disrepency.[/quote]
There is no discrepancy. Warriors in DA2 have exactly the same number of skills as Rogues do, you just don't like what those skills are.

[quote]They lack 2 weapon trees. You're saying this as though they don't have unique skills out of combat to accomdate for this.[/quote]
It doesn't accomodate for the discrepancy. Not even slightly. There are sixteen skills in each weapon tree, that is a difference of 32 individual skills.

Having one skill (stealth) that can be upgraded four times, is not the same. Even if I count each rank of stealth as an individual skill, that's still only four skills.

[quote]Why should they have the same number of options?[/quote]
So that all the classes are equally fun to develop and play.

[quote]Mages don't have the same amount of options as rogues and warriors.[/quote]
And that's lame.

[quote]They're stuck with staves.[/quote]
Which is fine, as long as they have the same number of skills total.

[quote]They get different spell trees but that's it.[/quote]
Which is fine, as long as those spell trees add up to the same number of total skills as other classes get.


[quote]They had dual wielding and archery and stealth.[/quote]
Warriors got duel-wielding and archery, so it doesn't count.

Rogues in DA:O get 16 unique skills in their rogue-specific tree. Warriors get 32 unique skills in their two extra weapon trees. And another 8 on top of that in their warrior-specific tree. That's a total of 40 unique skills.


[quote]
What class specific stat boots did warriors get to non combat skills? Because if you REALLY wanna do the combat skills arguement I'm pretty sure rogues have better combat skills than warriors. [/quote]
Whether the boosts are to combat or non-combat skills is irrelevent. The nature of the class roles is not where the inequality exists in DA:O. It exists in the sheer number of gameplay options that warriors get which rogues are denied.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 septembre 2013 - 12:52 .

[Steelcan]

Seriously Plantiff, either that or perhaps

[Ryzaki]

So basically to you because warriors have 2HD weapons and S&S that excuses rogues having dual wielding and archery, having aggro control abilities, stealth and lockpicking/trap disarming in DA2? alright then so I know further discussion is pointless.

You're just counting skills and ignoring what those skills actually allow you to do and calling it even.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 septembre 2013 - 12:54 .

[Plaintiff]

Ryzaki wrote...

Plus there is a distinction between rogues and warriors in game. Ask Isabela to teach you duelist as a warrior she flat out says you lack finesee or grace or something.

Meanwhile with Alistair and a rogue he'll say you lack the discipline. (Forgot what Oghren tells a rogue).

That's not actually an acknowledgement of your class. It's how they clumsily step around the fact that the specialization limitations make no sense.

[Ryzaki]

Plaintiff wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Plus there is a distinction between rogues and warriors in game. Ask Isabela to teach you duelist as a warrior she flat out says you lack finesee or grace or something.

Meanwhile with Alistair and a rogue he'll say you lack the discipline. (Forgot what Oghren tells a rogue).

That's not actually an acknowledgement of your class. It's how they clumsily step around the fact that the specialization limitations make no sense.

So...them saying you lack the grace to learn a specialization is not acknowledging that you're not the class that can learn said specialization? 

[Plaintiff]

Ryzaki wrote...

So basically to you because warriors have 2HD weapons and S&S that excuses rogues having dual wielding and archery, having aggro control abilities, stealth and lockpicking/trap disarming in DA2? alright then so I know further discussion is pointless.

You're just counting skills and ignoring what those skills actually allow you to do and calling it even.

Yes, that was always my argument. What they allow you to do doesn't matter.

All four stealth skills in DA:O combined give the Rogue the ability to do one thing. Go into stealth mode.

Meanwhile, any branch from the warrior's extra weapon trees gives them four distinct abilities.

Warriors in DA:O get more variety, period.

[Ghaleon]

Let warriors dual wield the two handed swords/polearms, rogues the daggers and 1 handed swords/axes.