164 réponses à ce sujet

[Mirrman70]

because unless they have a hand free I don't see how they will accomplish this. I doubt they will have a one hander/no shield spec.

[n7stormrunner]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Mirrman70 wrote...

its more realistic than a chain coming out of nowhere. my point is why give a close combat class the ability to physically pull enemies closer? it seems to me that they are only trying to make it easier for players who rarely play a warrior class. just like how I felt that arcane warrior was a way to make it easier for people who don't play as mages often. if they are going to give a warrior options outside of close combat than I want them to allow warriors to be a fully capable ranged spec again. gimme that crossbow.

But that makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't a warrior, which are close-ranged specialiosts, have a tool to bring their enemies into their range? 

actually for once the not being realistic group is right, gameplaywise it makes sense of couse. but far as it actually working, it needs some explaining.  that being said it is a fantasy game. it should get a pass on small stuff let that, when people can call up firestorms ot of thin air.

[Mirrman70]

magic from mages is understandable but allowing chains to be called out of hammerspace are a big nono for me.

[CybAnt1]

Ehhh, I gotta say, when warriors don't have ranged weapons, I prefer mechanics that help them close the distance between them and distant adversaries (i.e. 'rushes'), then ones that bring the distant ones closer.

Maybe they should have wonder woman's magic lariat, too, and as they're pulling them closer, they also have to tell the truth. And the cool thing is, when people shoot bullets at her, it's always at points on her body her bracelets can cover.

And isn't it awful weird for people watching her fly through the air in a plane no one can see?

But I digress. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 24 janvier 2014 - 06:32 .

[Sjofn]

polearms plz

Just add it to the 2h list and bam. Happy Sjofn.

[Wolf]

Mirrman70 wrote...

magic from mages is understandable but allowing chains to be called out of hammerspace are a big nono for me.

There likely isn't an explanation for your character having the chain on them, but I very much doubt it's description is anything like this:

"Harpoon - The warrior calls a spiked chain out of the Void(read: his butt) and uses it to bring enemies in closer for devastating follow-up attacks"

And besides, it's not like everything needs to be absolutely shown on your character in order for you to rationalize taht they are carrying it on their person.

[Wolf]

n7stormrunner wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Mirrman70 wrote...

its more realistic than a chain coming out of nowhere. my point is why give a close combat class the ability to physically pull enemies closer? it seems to me that they are only trying to make it easier for players who rarely play a warrior class. just like how I felt that arcane warrior was a way to make it easier for people who don't play as mages often. if they are going to give a warrior options outside of close combat than I want them to allow warriors to be a fully capable ranged spec again. gimme that crossbow.

But that makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't a warrior, which are close-ranged specialiosts, have a tool to bring their enemies into their range? 

actually for once the not being realistic group is right, gameplaywise it makes sense of couse. but far as it actually working, it needs some explaining.  that being said it is a fantasy game. it should get a pass on small stuff let that, when people can call up firestorms ot of thin air.

Certain things should be taken into account for immersion's sake, like floating weapons (I know it's not a big deal but it bothers me a lot, personally) or equipment wear, which is actually a thing now, so huzzah on the immersion front.


I will agree, however that warriors should have a sort of ranged option again. Maybe something that focuses on raw strength for damage and respectively powerful weapon instead of the speed and critical damage of rogues?

With variations based on player input in regards to stats and abilities, of course.

Modifié par Gaiden96, 24 janvier 2014 - 08:36 .

[Ferretinabun]

It's an interesting issue. I am RIDICULOUSLY anal about things making logical sense in my DA games - people referencing things they shouldn't know about or which haven't happened yet drive me insane, and I have to reload and do the conversation again.

And yet somehow my precious immersion doesn't really extend to combat. Possibly because I know it's a complete lost cause. I mean, Scattershot? Hail of Arrows? Tremor? War Cry? Backstab (in DA2)? Goad? The mages I can give a pass to because, y'know, *magic*. But I think I've resigned myself to the fact that the combat is a logic black-hole. I mean yes I would LIKE the combat to make sense, but it has never even approached it before.

[oberst2]

am going to be flamed to death but am what musket rifle with bajonet or better more like model 1873 winchester repeating rifle or scattergun,revolver with knife combo

[n7stormrunner]

oberst2 wrote...

am going to be flamed to death but am what musket rifle with bajonet or better more like model 1873 winchester repeating rifle or scattergun,revolver with knife combo

wrong game for those... and wrong age too maybe if there is a gun age. 

[oberst2]

n7stormrunner wrote...

oberst2 wrote...

am going to be flamed to death but am what musket rifle with bajonet or better more like model 1873 winchester repeating rifle or scattergun,revolver with knife combo

wrong game for those... and wrong age too maybe if there is a gun age. 

am can dream
at least am did not aske for m16 or ak74 

Modifié par oberst2, 24 janvier 2014 - 10:04 .

[Wolf]

Ferretinabun wrote...

It's an interesting issue. I am RIDICULOUSLY anal about things making logical sense in my DA games - people referencing things they shouldn't know about or which haven't happened yet drive me insane, and I have to reload and do the conversation again.

And yet somehow my precious immersion doesn't really extend to combat. Possibly because I know it's a complete lost cause. I mean, Scattershot? Hail of Arrows? Tremor? War Cry? Backstab (in DA2)? Goad? The mages I can give a pass to because, y'know, *magic*. But I think I've resigned myself to the fact that the combat is a logic black-hole. I mean yes I would LIKE the combat to make sense, but it has never even approached it before.

I am forgiving of those things because I want combat to still be fun and have *some* visual flair to it. Origin's combat bored me to tears after finishing the main game. Although I played on Xbox so maybe I'm biased.

At any rate, my need for immersion extends to things like sheathes, and minute details like them, mostly. 

[CybAnt1]

Hail of Arrows is what happens when people insist that non-mages also have an AoE attack.

At least in other games, it could make some sense because they are not stuck in DA's game world convention that (unless they are red or blue templars, possessed by spirits or demons, or injected with adamantium, errr lyrium) non-mages cannot do magic.

I mean, a WoW hunter has other magical abilities, I figure magic explains their AoE.

But yes, I'll absolutely agree if you have the flair for realism, the idea that archers without magic can shoot dozens of arrows into the air in a few seconds and have them all come down in a small area, without even once looking up, and have this ability indoors, well, yes, it is pretty funny.

I'd say warriors and rogues should not have any AoEs, but then the whining about class balance begins.

It was also pretty cool to have my DA2 warrior scythe attack 5 enemies at once. Logically impossible, but tactically lovable.

[CybAnt1]

oberst2 wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

oberst2 wrote...

am going to be flamed to death but am what musket rifle with bajonet or better more like model 1873 winchester repeating rifle or scattergun,revolver with knife combo

wrong game for those... and wrong age too maybe if there is a gun age. 

am can dream
at least am did not aske for m16 or ak74 

If they're going to do this, I just want the Inquisitor to **** n load his weapon loudly, walk into the room, and say "Say hello to my little qunari friend." 

[WonderNubs23]

 I would really like my rogue to have throwing knives, as a secondary weapon or a talent. Say you're in a battle, and you have two targets across the battlefield from each other; you're attacking one, but the other is about to attack your healer. Here's where the throwing knives come in, you can either:

A) (with the daggers as a secondary weapon) Open your menu, switch to throwing knives, select your target, and fire. You would have a finite number of daggers that could be crafted, or purchased in bunches like arrows.

(as a talent)Select the talent, then select both targets--first, select the one you want to engage (or it will auto-select your current target); second, select the target you wish to attack with daggers. Your rogue would then execute a backstab on the first target, using them as a human shield, then they would use the throwing daggers to severely injure (possibly stagger the target) or outright kill them, depending on level/health. It would do more damage based on dexterity and could be a talent in the duelist family. I'd call it The 7-10 Split:ph34r:. With this option, you wouldn't necessarily have to buy or craft daggers, they could just be included in the talent.

Modifié par WonderNubs23, 24 janvier 2014 - 04:47 .

[LinksOcarina]

Mirrman70 wrote...

chakrams don't really work the way they do in Amalur. they are more of a "flying Frisbee of death" kind of thing. I would like crossbows to return as possibly a ranged warrior spec, I like they idea of being a human Panzer.

This for sure.

Polearms would be a good choice, especially if were on horseback now. 

I would think warrior-based characters would benefit the most from a larger arsenal of weapons, mainly because they are stereotypically the class who can wield them. Giving mages some staff powers would be fair too, maybe bring battle mage back without Arcane Warrior, and just give bonuses with one handed weapons. 

[Nuloen]

Sjofn wrote...

polearms plz

Just add it to the 2h list and bam. Happy Sjofn.

but it needs new animation
you cant fight with spear like with greatsword

Modifié par Nuloen, 24 janvier 2014 - 07:36 .

[Wothen]

No single dev put a spear in their rpg game
I love spears and they just dont get any love =/

[durasteel]

One of the worst things about class design in games generally is the marriage of certain mechanics (not always combat related) to particular weapons. For example, there is no reason whatsoever that stealth should be the exclusive provenance of dual wielders and archers. One cool thing about Age of Conan was the barbarian, a rogue-type character that could use two-handed weapons.

One of the biggest turn-offs (for me) of the class structure in SWTOR, by contrast, was that the Shadow/Assassin class was stuck with the (in my opinion) completely stupid double-ended lightsaber, or saberstaff. I like everything about the Shadow as a class (stealth mechanics, class roles) but for some reason BioWare Austin decided that every class in the game would be limited to a single type of weapon. Hence, you cannot ever use a rifle or blaster canon as a Bounty Hunter--the Powertech is limited to one pistol, while the Mercenary is required to use dual pistols.

A character class should determine the character’s combat role and non-combat abilities. The weapon a character uses should be a separate choice, and should be limited only where necessary. Weapons should be diverse enough to allow characters to not only specialize with the weapon of the player’s choice, but to carry and use more than one type. For example, a character built to maximize strength could carry and use a broadsword or a battle axe along with a crossbow, (both would scale damage according to strength,) while dexterity-based character could carry a rapier or daggers along with a bow (which would scale damage with dex.)

In the alternative, if you’re just dead-set on linking each class with a particular weapon, then the other abilities should be class-agnostic. Stealth, picking pockets, taunts, disarming traps, etc. should join persuasion and poisons under the skills category, not class abilities.

[Nuloen]

oberst2 wrote...

am going to be flamed to death but am what musket rifle with bajonet or better more like model 1873 winchester repeating rifle or scattergun,revolve with knife combo

in the late middle age cannons were constructed from various metals,leather, and from elder tree logs
becouse these logs can be easialy hollowed out and used as cannon barrel

you can see on this picture that there is no wood in the center
and its wood is very light but still flexible so its good for polearms
(and any other kind of weapon)

idea:if you will find it in game, you can decide if you will be harvest its berries for magic potions or cut it down and craft cannon out of its log

Modifié par Nuloen, 24 janvier 2014 - 09:11 .

[LinksOcarina]

durasteel wrote...

One of the worst things about class design in games generally is the marriage of certain mechanics (not always combat related) to particular weapons. For example, there is no reason whatsoever that stealth should be the exclusive provenance of dual wielders and archers. One cool thing about Age of Conan was the barbarian, a rogue-type character that could use two-handed weapons.

One of the biggest turn-offs (for me) of the class structure in SWTOR, by contrast, was that the Shadow/Assassin class was stuck with the (in my opinion) completely stupid double-ended lightsaber, or saberstaff. I like everything about the Shadow as a class (stealth mechanics, class roles) but for some reason BioWare Austin decided that every class in the game would be limited to a single type of weapon. Hence, you cannot ever use a rifle or blaster canon as a Bounty Hunter--the Powertech is limited to one pistol, while the Mercenary is required to use dual pistols.

A character class should determine the character’s combat role and non-combat abilities. The weapon a character uses should be a separate choice, and should be limited only where necessary. Weapons should be diverse enough to allow characters to not only specialize with the weapon of the player’s choice, but to carry and use more than one type. For example, a character built to maximize strength could carry and use a broadsword or a battle axe along with a crossbow, (both would scale damage according to strength,) while dexterity-based character could carry a rapier or daggers along with a bow (which would scale damage with dex.)

In the alternative, if you’re just dead-set on linking each class with a particular weapon, then the other abilities should be class-agnostic. Stealth, picking pockets, taunts, disarming traps, etc. should join persuasion and poisons under the skills category, not class abilities.

 Pidgen-holding the specifics of a characters class to role and abilities is the same thing as giving them specific preferences for a weapon, it is presuming your choice of class will follow the troped structure that has been adhered to since the early days of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.

That is pretty much why rogues favor dual-wielding knives and bows and all of that stuff. BioWare is following the rather popular trend in RPG's that use/ class-based systems, which tie right into specific weaponry to on a mechanical level. Keep in mind, they always did this too until recently, with Mass Effect 3 essentially bucking the trend and saying **** it, you can use each weapon if you want, but it will slow you down considerably.

The only game that bucks this trend fully to what you're talking about  is Skyrim, where you can dual-wield axes while using conjuration spells and heavy armor if you really wanted to. Even then its not a perfect transition because some of the skill trees have poor synergy with each other when creating a class build. Previous Elder Scrolls Games had little to no synergy; you pretty much had to adhere to some semblence of class formation.

I guess my point is that class-based systems, like it or not, are always tied to mechanics of play. People simply expect certain things from their class, weapon of choice included in that.  Your way is a lot more appealing personally, but its not how typical RPG design is done, and I honestly doubt Inquisition will follow suit with this because of how rigid the three classes are in-game. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

 Pidgen-holding the specifics of a characters class to role and abilities is the same thing as giving them specific preferences for a weapon, it is presuming your choice of class will follow the troped structure that has been adhered to since the early days of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.

That is pretty much why rogues favor dual-wielding knives and bows and all of that stuff. BioWare is following the rather popular trend in RPG's that use/ class-based systems, which tie right into specific weaponry to on a mechanical level. Keep in mind, they always did this too until recently, with Mass Effect 3 essentially bucking the trend and saying **** it, you can use each weapon if you want, but it will slow you down considerably.

The only game that bucks this trend fully to what you're talking about  is Skyrim, where you can dual-wield axes while using conjuration spells and heavy armor if you really wanted to. Even then its not a perfect transition because some of the skill trees have poor synergy with each other when creating a class build. Previous Elder Scrolls Games had little to no synergy; you pretty much had to adhere to some semblence of class formation.

I guess my point is that class-based systems, like it or not, are always tied to mechanics of play. People simply expect certain things from their class, weapon of choice included in that.  Your way is a lot more appealing personally, but its not how typical RPG design is done, and I honestly doubt Inquisition will follow suit with this because of how rigid the three classes are in-game.

Most class-based games don't restrict you from using other weapons.  They just penalise you for doing it.

Even D&D didn't prevent you from picking up a weapon and swinging it around.  The later editions had big penaties to hit while using non-class weapons, while AD&D used XP penalties.

Moreover, the weapon categories tended to be additive.  Fighters could use any non-magical weapon.  There was no arbitrary restriction that said they couldn't use bows, or daggers.  Those choices might, under some circimstances, have been discouraged by the mechanics, but they weren't outright forbidden.

And it wasn't just ME3.  ME1 also allowed any weapon to be used by any class.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 janvier 2014 - 09:46 .

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

 Pidgen-holding the specifics of a characters class to role and abilities is the same thing as giving them specific preferences for a weapon, it is presuming your choice of class will follow the troped structure that has been adhered to since the early days of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.

That is pretty much why rogues favor dual-wielding knives and bows and all of that stuff. BioWare is following the rather popular trend in RPG's that use/ class-based systems, which tie right into specific weaponry to on a mechanical level. Keep in mind, they always did this too until recently, with Mass Effect 3 essentially bucking the trend and saying **** it, you can use each weapon if you want, but it will slow you down considerably.

The only game that bucks this trend fully to what you're talking about  is Skyrim, where you can dual-wield axes while using conjuration spells and heavy armor if you really wanted to. Even then its not a perfect transition because some of the skill trees have poor synergy with each other when creating a class build. Previous Elder Scrolls Games had little to no synergy; you pretty much had to adhere to some semblence of class formation.

I guess my point is that class-based systems, like it or not, are always tied to mechanics of play. People simply expect certain things from their class, weapon of choice included in that.  Your way is a lot more appealing personally, but its not how typical RPG design is done, and I honestly doubt Inquisition will follow suit with this because of how rigid the three classes are in-game.

Most class-based games don't restrict you from using other weapons.  They just penalise you for doing it.

Even D&D didn't prevent you from picking up a weapon and swinging it around.  The later editions had big penaties to hit while using non-class weapons, while AD&D used XP penalties.

Moreover, the weapon categories tended to be additive.  Fighters could use any non-magical weapon.  There was no arbitrary restriction that said they couldn't use bows, or daggers.  Those choices might, under some circimstances, have been discouraged by the mechanics, but they weren't outright forbidden.

And it wasn't just ME3.  ME1 also allowed any weapon to be used by any class.

Penalisation via training or not is the same thing as restrictions. There is simply no reason to use an axe if you are playing a thief, for example, Mass Effect was the same thing really because of this, why should you snipe without the training?

That is a restriction. The difference between that and say, Mass Effect 2 was simply dropping the choice because it was a meaningless one in terms of the mechanics. Since the mechanics dictate behavior, restricting the player through penalties is restricting how people play classes, which is the point to begin with.

Or to put it another way, if the mechanics discourage you from doing it, that is because the designers don't want you to do it. 

Just because you can pick up a tree trunk and thrash it around as a wizard means you should, since it serves little purpose outside of a situational position, but thats a tabletop game scenario, not a video game scenario, which will let you do it without penalty if it serves a story purpose, like the murder knife. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 24 janvier 2014 - 10:03 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Penalisation via training or not is the same thing as restrictions. There is simply no reason to use an axe if you are playing a thief, for example, Mass Effect was the same thing really because of this, why should you snipe without the training?

Because it does the most damage in a single shot, and you're at close enough range that you're going to hit it anyway.

Or maybe your character is just a lunatic.

Also, ME1 did let any character learn any weapon - they just didn't all know every weapon from the start.  My Engineer was an excellent sniper.

That is a restriction. The difference between that and say, Mass Effect 2 was simply dropping the choice because it was a meaningless one in terms of the mechanics. Since the mechanics dictate behavior, restricting the player through penalties is restricting how people play classes, which is the point to begin with.

Roleplaying dictates behaviour.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Penalisation via training or not is the same thing as restrictions. There is simply no reason to use an axe if you are playing a thief, for example, Mass Effect was the same thing really because of this, why should you snipe without the training?

Because it does the most damage in a single shot, and you're at close enough range that you're going to hit it anyway.

Or maybe your character is just a lunatic.

Also, ME1 did let any character learn any weapon - they just didn't all know every weapon from the start.  My Engineer was an excellent sniper.

That is a restriction. The difference between that and say, Mass Effect 2 was simply dropping the choice because it was a meaningless one in terms of the mechanics. Since the mechanics dictate behavior, restricting the player through penalties is restricting how people play classes, which is the point to begin with.

Roleplaying dictates behaviour.

Behavior is dictated by mechanics. Otherwise you wouldn't need a book to tell you how to roleplay.

What you describe in Mass effect is duping the mechanics to your advantage, really. Like the dex-warrior with the daggar and shield, its power gaming. That is again something the mechanics allow because you found a way to exploit it. It also has little to do with roleplaying. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 24 janvier 2014 - 10:09 .