106 réponses à ce sujet

[Vilegrim]

Il Divo wrote...

Iolcos wrote...

Off the top of my head at least 3 Italian fencing masters (Giganti, Fabris, and Capoferro) included instructions on how to fight with sword(rapier) and dagger in their manuals and considered it a good option for dueling. That could fit a rogue fairly well. I think, but can't say for sure, that the earlier more cut heavy styles preffered a buckler to a dagger but could have used a dagger if the person was willing to exchange some defense for offense. 

I don't know of any source for Long and short sword but if they are in the right proportions it could work similarly to sword and dagger.  In my limited experience two longswords seems unlikely since the blades would either be useless for defense or run signifigant risk of being knocked or swung into eachother. 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that dual wielding was non-existent, just as that it's nowhere near as widespread as Vilegrim makes it out to be, especially with regard to the bow comparison.

I've seen a few sources which have mentioned (as you do above) its utility in one on one/dueling scenarios, but that makes up the minority of your typical Dragon Age encounter and would more likely see the Warden/Hawke impaled by arrows.

Personally, I don't think dual wielding needs to change to fit an accurate historical depiction, which would probably emphasize the off-hand weapon's defensive/parrying aspects over being a second attack. But given that some are using an argument to history, dual wielding as seen in games is nothing even remotely similar, based on what I'm finding.

No weapon animations in DA:I that we have seen so far bear any resemblence to how weapons are actually used, and it is a massive problem I have with the game so far.   I do not want another ninja rolling twitch game o'ground explody..had quite enough of that thank you, and disliked dark souls for the same reason (twitch bsed ninja rolling awefulness) 

[Magdalena11]

Vilegrim wrote...



No weapon animations in DA:I that we have seen so far bear any resemblence to how weapons are actually used, and it is a massive problem I have with the game so far.   I do not want another ninja rolling twitch game o'ground explody..had quite enough of that thank you, and disliked dark souls for the same reason (twitch bsed ninja rolling awefulness) 

I can see why the OTT combat animations weren't to your taste and to each his own.  I liked them, especially the DW rogue when Anders cast haste.   DAI is supposed to be a hybrid of the two so we can both cross our fingers.

[Akka le Vil]

Il Divo wrote...

Then I'm curious about your sources. I certainly don't consider myself even a martial arts novice, let alone a weapon expert, but pretty much every search I'm turning up indicates that dual wielding is a joke as depicted in media, especially the dual long sword variety as seen in DnD/Rpgs.

Dual wielding was typically vastly inferior to sword + shield, so in situation where the latter was used (line of battle in culture using shields), it was not used.

But in shieldless cultures (like Japan) and/or situation where you wouldn't use a shield (duel for example), using two weapons was often much better than using one - in fact, it was rather typical to use a dagger in the left hand (called a "main gauche", i.e. "left hand", precisely because of that) to parry attacks from your enemy, while trying to skew him with your own rapier.

[Shadow Fox]

Vilegrim wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Iolcos wrote...

Off the top of my head at least 3 Italian fencing masters (Giganti, Fabris, and Capoferro) included instructions on how to fight with sword(rapier) and dagger in their manuals and considered it a good option for dueling. That could fit a rogue fairly well. I think, but can't say for sure, that the earlier more cut heavy styles preffered a buckler to a dagger but could have used a dagger if the person was willing to exchange some defense for offense. 

I don't know of any source for Long and short sword but if they are in the right proportions it could work similarly to sword and dagger.  In my limited experience two longswords seems unlikely since the blades would either be useless for defense or run signifigant risk of being knocked or swung into eachother. 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that dual wielding was non-existent, just as that it's nowhere near as widespread as Vilegrim makes it out to be, especially with regard to the bow comparison.

I've seen a few sources which have mentioned (as you do above) its utility in one on one/dueling scenarios, but that makes up the minority of your typical Dragon Age encounter and would more likely see the Warden/Hawke impaled by arrows.

Personally, I don't think dual wielding needs to change to fit an accurate historical depiction, which would probably emphasize the off-hand weapon's defensive/parrying aspects over being a second attack. But given that some are using an argument to history, dual wielding as seen in games is nothing even remotely similar, based on what I'm finding.

No weapon animations in DA:I that we have seen so far bear any resemblence to how weapons are actually used, and it is a massive problem I have with the game so far.   I do not want another ninja rolling twitch game o'ground explody..had quite enough of that thank you, and disliked dark souls for the same reason (twitch bsed ninja rolling awefulness) 

Neither was Origins' ethier.

[Il Divo]

Vilegrim wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Iolcos wrote...

Off the top of my head at least 3 Italian fencing masters (Giganti, Fabris, and Capoferro) included instructions on how to fight with sword(rapier) and dagger in their manuals and considered it a good option for dueling. That could fit a rogue fairly well. I think, but can't say for sure, that the earlier more cut heavy styles preffered a buckler to a dagger but could have used a dagger if the person was willing to exchange some defense for offense. 

I don't know of any source for Long and short sword but if they are in the right proportions it could work similarly to sword and dagger.  In my limited experience two longswords seems unlikely since the blades would either be useless for defense or run signifigant risk of being knocked or swung into eachother. 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that dual wielding was non-existent, just as that it's nowhere near as widespread as Vilegrim makes it out to be, especially with regard to the bow comparison.

I've seen a few sources which have mentioned (as you do above) its utility in one on one/dueling scenarios, but that makes up the minority of your typical Dragon Age encounter and would more likely see the Warden/Hawke impaled by arrows.

Personally, I don't think dual wielding needs to change to fit an accurate historical depiction, which would probably emphasize the off-hand weapon's defensive/parrying aspects over being a second attack. But given that some are using an argument to history, dual wielding as seen in games is nothing even remotely similar, based on what I'm finding.

No weapon animations in DA:I that we have seen so far bear any resemblence to how weapons are actually used, and it is a massive problem I have with the game so far.   I do not want another ninja rolling twitch game o'ground explody..had quite enough of that thank you, and disliked dark souls for the same reason (twitch bsed ninja rolling awefulness) 

I disagree. Rolling animations aside, I'd say Dark Souls' animations do a much better job of conveying the idea that weapons (and armor) have weight than anything Bioware has released. Hell, Dark Souls (in general) does a better job depicting dual wielding, since when used the off-hand is mainly employed for parrying daggers.

That aside, I'm still not sure where are all these games with great depictions of dual wielding are. It's certainly not DA2, with its ninja stab flips. But then, DA:O fares little better with abilities like whirlwind and dual strike. Why should we think that DA:I would choose to depict anything other than standard fare DnD?

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 décembre 2013 - 09:23 .

[Il Divo]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Then I'm curious about your sources. I certainly don't consider myself even a martial arts novice, let alone a weapon expert, but pretty much every search I'm turning up indicates that dual wielding is a joke as depicted in media, especially the dual long sword variety as seen in DnD/Rpgs.

Dual wielding was typically vastly inferior to sword + shield, so in situation where the latter was used (line of battle in culture using shields), it was not used.

But in shieldless cultures (like Japan) and/or situation where you wouldn't use a shield (duel for example), using two weapons was often much better than using one - in fact, it was rather typical to use a dagger in the left hand (called a "main gauche", i.e. "left hand", precisely because of that) to parry attacks from your enemy, while trying to skew him with your own rapier.

Fair point. And I can appreciate those scenarios. But as a whole, is this applicable to Dragon Age's style of combat? We know Thedas is not a shieldless culture and instances of actual 1v1 dueling are incredibly rare. If dual wielding's most promising scenarios are those in which shields are prohibited or unavailable, I don't think that really speaks to the effectiveness of the combat style.

But just to reiterate, I still think dual wielding is insanely fun.

[deuce985]

They probably want more builds that separate themselves from other classes. They want them distinctive. By pushing them to specific distinctive styles, it not only allows them to feel very different from other classes but also fill specific roles. Maybe that's their intention. Also, I suspect it's easier on balance than giving the player a million different variations to work with and none of them feeling refined/polished. It has positives and negatives to restricting dual wield builds for warriors. Another issue could be development and resources. If you restrict what weapon types a class has then that's less 3D models/animations they have to do for the class and allows them to focus more on what they're able to wield. While it sucks to lose some control from the player, it makes sense from a development perspective and isn't all negative for the player.

Of course, it's speculation on my part and I'm sure Bioware can do a better job explaining since I don't have access to the project. I'm just using common sense.

Modifié par deuce985, 11 décembre 2013 - 09:38 .

[Akka le Vil]

Il Divo wrote...

Fair point. And I can appreciate those scenarios. But as a whole, is this applicable to Dragon Age's style of combat? We know Thedas is not a shieldless culture and instances of actual 1v1 dueling are incredibly rare. If dual wielding's most promising scenarios are those in which shields are prohibited or unavailable, I don't think that really speaks to the effectiveness of the combat style.

But just to reiterate, I still think dual wielding is insanely fun.

Dual-wielding warrior is my favourite role in all games it's possible to play one - I played DAO nearly only as such.

But my points made in favour of defending it is just as much about internal consistency and pseudo-realism than it is about personnal preferences.

If we're going to say that, realistically, dual-wielding is at a disadvantage against sword-and-shield opponents, it pays to mention that using two-handers is actually just as unrealistic. Big, two-handed weapons mainly appeared on battlefields to pierce heavy armour. Using it against a non-armoured opponent is more or less counter-productive.


Above all, I'm annoyed at the arbitrary and rather shallow differenciation made between warriors and rogues.
Furthering differenciation (which was admitedly very thin in DAO) is good.
Making the cornerstone of this differencation as what kind of weapons are used is stupid. It's not really "rogues and warriors", it's "light warriors vs heavy warriors".
I'd prefer to see no artificial, contrived, arbitrary and pointless restriction on gear usable, and rather more distinction on the ESSENTIAL CONCEPT of the classes : one being about striking from the back, tricking, deceiving and using guile, the other being about fighting toe-to-toe, using martial techniques and intimidation.

I'd prefer to see SKILLS and ABILITIES differenciating them, changing the entire approach of fighting (one relying on ambush and misdirection, the other on raw power and technical skill) rather than simply see "only rogue know how to use a bow, only warriors how to put a big board between them and a blow", which are, again, very very stupid restrictions.

[theflyingzamboni]

MisterJB wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Screw dual wielding I want Triple wielding.

Septuple wielding!

IT'S NOT ENOUGH! OCTUPLE WIELDING!

Modifié par Led Guardian, 12 décembre 2013 - 02:59 .

[theflyingzamboni]

I have no idea if this whole thing is a technical issue, or a design preference on their part, but I don't really understand it if it's the latter. I can understand the logic behind "make the classes distinct playing experiences," but it seems to me that it's better to just leave more customization options then restricting them. Give the player free reign, and you'll ultimately wind up with greater play-style diversity than you otherwise could, because people will think of ways to use characters the designers didn't. A better choice would be to let everyone dual wield, but employ it differently for different classes. Maybe rogues can only use small weapons and more finesse-oriented abilities, while warriors would be more brute-force with it. Meh, just an idea that I haven't bothered to think out any further.

[Fallstar]

http://social.biowar...oup/4269/#group

Made this ages ago.

REALLY hope they come back.

Like, really really. You might even go so far as to say, really.

Now really's done that thing where it looks weird.

[BobZilla84]

I wouldn't mind getting Dual Wielding Warriors back but if not Bioware give us the ability to dual wield long Swords as Rogues I hated playing as a Rogue in DA2 because the Dagger fighting animations just looked silly in my opinion and when I did play as a Rogue I always played as an Archer.

So I would be fine if its brought back but if not at least give us the ability to dual wield longswords again in DAI as Rogues.

[Anomaly-]

deuce985 wrote...

They probably want more builds that separate themselves from other classes. They want them distinctive. By pushing them to specific distinctive styles, it not only allows them to feel very different from other classes but also fill specific roles.

If they want classes to be distinctive, they should be differentiated by their gameplay. I felt the experience in DA2 was pretty much the same with a Rogue and a Warrior. There is no reason a Rogue should only fill the role of dealing damage, or a Warrior should only fill the role of taking it. You can allow each class more options while still keeping their playstyle completely different. Restricting weapon types does nothing but reduce options. In DA2, it would have made no difference if the Rogue was wielding daggers or a sword if all they're doing is flipping around the battlefield mashing buttons and watching cooldowns.

[Sidney]

DAO the dual wielders played the same other than armor. No idea how they felt different to you. DA2 there was nothing similar at all about warriors and rogues. Rogues played like your blender set to kill and warriors well sorta sucked honestly. My sword and shield build in DA2 was the worst play through of anything I have done.

The problem isn't dual wielding vs single weapon nor rogues versus warriors. It is that the combat that is 85%+ trash mob killing. First, you don't need tactics in most of those things so what a rogue allegedly is - a flanking machine, killing by surprise - functionally doesn't matter much. Second, given how little precise control you have over positioning and how many mobsters are around you restricting your actual movement you usually can't do that (here I assume we will get the pause combat every nanosecond types telling us how great they are at doing this).

[In Exile]

Sidney wrote...

DAO the dual wielders played the same other than armor. No idea how they felt different to you. DA2 there was nothing similar at all about warriors and rogues. Rogues played like your blender set to kill and warriors well sorta sucked honestly. My sword and shield build in DA2 was the worst play through of anything I have done.

The problem isn't dual wielding vs single weapon nor rogues versus warriors. It is that the combat that is 85%+ trash mob killing. First, you don't need tactics in most of those things so what a rogue allegedly is - a flanking machine, killing by surprise - functionally doesn't matter much. Second, given how little precise control you have over positioning and how many mobsters are around you restricting your actual movement you usually can't do that (here I assume we will get the pause combat every nanosecond types telling us how great they are at doing this).

I can say as one of those types that I hated nothing more than the rogue, which I found to be the most garbage class in DA:O (as a dual wielder) because the actual cost of trying to micromanage the rogue meant being pretty much unable t
to properly utilize the rest of the party. Unless I actually paused every single second. 

[Vilegrim]

Il Divo wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Then I'm curious about your sources. I certainly don't consider myself even a martial arts novice, let alone a weapon expert, but pretty much every search I'm turning up indicates that dual wielding is a joke as depicted in media, especially the dual long sword variety as seen in DnD/Rpgs.

Dual wielding was typically vastly inferior to sword + shield, so in situation where the latter was used (line of battle in culture using shields), it was not used.

But in shieldless cultures (like Japan) and/or situation where you wouldn't use a shield (duel for example), using two weapons was often much better than using one - in fact, it was rather typical to use a dagger in the left hand (called a "main gauche", i.e. "left hand", precisely because of that) to parry attacks from your enemy, while trying to skew him with your own rapier.

Fair point. And I can appreciate those scenarios. But as a whole, is this applicable to Dragon Age's style of combat? We know Thedas is not a shieldless culture and instances of actual 1v1 dueling are incredibly rare. If dual wielding's most promising scenarios are those in which shields are prohibited or unavailable, I don't think that really speaks to the effectiveness of the combat style.

But just to reiterate, I still think dual wielding is insanely fun.

DA:O didn't do dual weilding that well, but it was less egriously bad than DA2, and in all honesty, the motion animations to make any thing as flowing and athletic as duel weilding, half swording, and all the other fun of the HEMA dirty tricks box work hasn't really been their (the closest in spirit if not in style was the way the KOTOR games captured Light Saber combat, proving that not every blow has to land to make combat look fun and interesting, and making HP mechanics make a kind of sense as a 'luck pool', even then it broke with all specials landing as the traget stared, dead eyed at the spinning 'sonic the jedi' of a power attack)

[Anomaly-]

Sidney wrote...

DAO the dual wielders played the same other than armor. No idea how they felt different to you.

Rogues relied more on utility skills to gain position, while a Warrior was a more frontal assault style that tended to use more stance modals. There was still plenty of difference between the two while using the same weapon type. Rogues had to manage distance and positioning and prioritize targets as such. In addition, they could utilize various alternative approaches to combat, like stealth, poisons and traps.

DA2 there was nothing similar at all about warriors and rogues.

In DA2, a Rogue can leap across the battlefield or even instantly teleport behind an enemy's back, making distance and positioning irrelevant. Poisons were available to anyone from a shop, and there were no more traps. Rogues and Warriors both pretty much boiled down to hack and slash. It just differed visually, because Warriors were bodybuilders while Rogues were circus gymnasts.

The problem isn't dual wielding vs single weapon nor rogues versus warriors. It is that the combat that is 85%+ trash mob killing. First, you don't need tactics in most of those things so what a rogue allegedly is - a flanking machine, killing by surprise - functionally doesn't matter much.

I found it mattered a lot in DA:O. People like to hate on the pace, but at least with that pace it was usually worthwhile to get an advantageous positioning as a Rogue. In DA2, the time it would take to sneak around the back of an enemy was the same time it would take to hit them 10 times. Or you could just teleport there, as I said, which makes no difference to the gameplay.

Second, given how little precise control you have over positioning and how many mobsters are around you restricting your actual movement you usually can't do that (here I assume we will get the pause combat every nanosecond types telling us how great they are at doing this).

I never had much difficulty with it, unless at a choke point which makes sense. The pathfinding and collision detection could have been better, but I would expect that to improve with the new technology.

In Exile wrote...
I can say as one of those types that I hated nothing more than the rogue, which I found to be the most garbage class in DA:O (as a dual wielder) because the actual cost of trying to micromanage the rogue meant being pretty much unable to properly utilize the rest of the party. Unless I actually paused every single second. 

Improve tactics/ai and problem solved.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 14 décembre 2013 - 12:37 .

[Addai]

I always spec'ed Alistair to a dual wield warrior. *smoking* Also very much enjoyed my dual-axe-wielding female Aeducan. The difference to rogue is that it's frontal assault and drawing aggro versus precision and positioning, and my rogue PCs used daggers for speed.  With DW warrior I also concentrated on the "power" moves like Punisher whereas with my rogues I let them do fast work using Momentum and Whirlwind.

I think warrior dual wielding and warrior archer should come back. Give players the freedom and tools to create their own builds.

Modifié par Addai67, 14 décembre 2013 - 01:57 .

[Sidney]

Anomaly- wrote...

I found it mattered a lot in DA:O. People like to hate on the pace, but at least with that pace it was usually worthwhile to get an advantageous positioning as a Rogue.

Seriously? You needed to use tactics? I am honestly flabbergasted. DAO's combat is a total mess of nothing. I ran the last half of the game with 2 tactics on every party member for all non-boss fights:

1. Heal Health < 25%
2. Attack Target > Warden (nearest for the Warden)

For mages I added one line:

1a. Nearest Mage > Mana Clash

Oh just for grins I'd roll out a spell or power once in awhile when I wanted to feel like I was involved in the comat process but mostly I didn't need to.

Even with the slower pacing by the time you could move your rogue about, shuffle them over, reset their feet 18 times because your backstabby target moved a nanometer anything they were trying to stab should be dead.

Really even beyond need in so many places - Arl Howe's estate or really any interior location for example there wasn't room to manuever for backstabs because the rooms and halls were so small.

[In Exile]

Anomaly- wrote...
In DA2, a Rogue can leap across the battlefield or even instantly teleport behind an enemy's back, making distance and positioning irrelevant. Poisons were available to anyone from a shop, and there were no more traps. Rogues and Warriors both pretty much boiled down to hack and slash. It just differed visually, because Warriors were bodybuilders while Rogues were circus gymnasts.

Even if that's true, in DA:O rogues were such unyielding garbage compared to a warrior in terms of how much effort it took to get value out of them that having one around (even properly built) just mean taking up space that you could have for a (probably) mage to steamroll the game.

The biggest limit on the party's power in DA:O was the fact you couldn't level your own companions from the start. One game is all it takes to break the game; with two, nightmare turns into causal. With three, you're just in lolwutdifficulty territory.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Unless I actually paused every single second. 

Something I do in every combat encounter anyway, so the DAO Rogue worked just fine for me.

I found the DA2 classes (all of them) left me without enough to do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The biggest limit on the party's power in DA:O was the fact you couldn't level your own companions from the start.

A feature I intensely disliked, and modded out as soon as I was able.

[Blackrising]

I don't know, I always found warriors running around and swinging two long swords kinda impractical. It seems like a style you'd need agility and mobility for.
I'm fine letting rogues have that ability.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Blackrising wrote...

I don't know, I always found warriors running around and swinging two long swords kinda impractical. It seems like a style you'd need agility and mobility for.
I'm fine letting rogues have that ability.

Why do they need to be long swords?  Why not just two daggers?

What explanation can there possibly be within Thedas that prevents a Warrior from picking up a dagger, or a Rogue from picking up an axe?

[Wulfram]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What explanation can there possibly be within Thedas that prevents a Warrior from picking up a dagger, or a Rogue from picking up an axe?

They're trained and skilled warriors, so they're too sensible to use a weapon they're ineffective with in battle.

(Of course they can use the murder knife)

Modifié par Wulfram, 14 décembre 2013 - 11:37 .