102 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow Fox]

Sadly you can't.

 

For some strange reason someone at bioware thinks a dual wielding warrior who uses one handed swords and stands toe to toe in the front line of combat like a ...warrior while using quick sustain dmg is too "similar" to a rogue, who uses stealth and quick-burst dmg with tiny daggers.

 

Even though to me they are completely and utterly "different" in terms of playstyle, about a smuch as any other "class" can be.

 

It was my favorite class from DA:O too, and I HATE "rogues" in rpgs, all squishy, can't toe tot oe fight well and they are nothing like what "rogues" used to be (IE A fencer type of swashbuckler, which to me is far more interesting as a rogue then this crap that passes for rogues in rpgs these days).

 

Not to mention rogues get detecting traps, lockpicking, what the heck do warriors get? How much more DIFFERENT can they be from warriors to not allow warriors to dual wield because it's too "similar" to a rogue? I just don't see how that is a valid excuse like I've seen thrown around.

 

It's not enough to get me to pass up DA:I, it looks great to me and I can't wait for it, but I seriously just don't see any "class" that fits the playstyle I liked with the warrior, two handed is just so dang slow.

My rogues in both DAO and DA2 had no problem "standing toe to toe in front line combat"

 

Because those aren't combat mechanics and warriors get crowd control and aoes that don't suck.

 

combat wise dual wield warriors and dual wield rogues played identically the only difference was rogues used Cun/Dex and warriors used Str/Dex as their primary stats.

[vertigomez]

My rogues in both DAO and DA2 had no problem "standing toe to toe in front line combat"
 
Because those aren't combat mechanics and warriors get crowd control and aoes that don't suck.
 
combat wise dual wield warriors and dual wield rogues played identically the only difference was rogues used Cun/Dex and warriors used Str/Dex as their primary stats.

This. I've never had a problem being right in the action as a DW rogue... I'm completely baffled by the obsession with DW warriors. You don't see rogue players crying that they can't have shields.

[GipsyDangeresque]

This. I've never had a problem being right in the action as a DW rogue... I'm completely baffled by the obsession with DW warriors. You don't see rogue players crying that they can't have shields.

 

Are swords not different than daggers?

 

It seems pretty clear to me that swords are different than daggers.

 

DW Warriors aren't asking for daggers, so that analogy doesn't really work does it?

[Darkly Tranquil]

I'm another that misses Dual Wield Warrior, but alas the devs don't seem to share our enthusiasm for crazed double axe wielding berserkers.

[Shadow Fox]

Are swords not different than daggers?

 

It seems pretty clear to me that swords are different than daggers.

 

DW Warriors aren't asking for daggers, so that analogy doesn't really work does it?

Yes considering daggers can actually be dual wielded unlike longswords.

 

And most of DA's daggers are more accurately short swords due to their size regardless.

[Skaden]

This. I've never had a problem being right in the action as a DW rogue... I'm completely baffled by the obsession with DW warriors. You don't see rogue players crying that they can't have shields.

 

Rogue weapon options are naturally more limited because they are not the combat focused class that warriors are, instead they have stealth, lock-picking and versatile skills. Having access to all weapon styles was what set warriors apart. Besides how would rogue players like losing archery because its focus on ranged damage  is "too similar" to the ranged spell-casting of mages? Because that makes about as much sense as this "dw warriors and rogues play too similar" argument

[Stiler]

My rogues in both DAO and DA2 had no problem "standing toe to toe in front line combat"

 

Because those aren't combat mechanics and warriors get crowd control and aoes that don't suck.

 

combat wise dual wield warriors and dual wield rogues played identically the only difference was rogues used Cun/Dex and warriors used Str/Dex as their primary stats.

 

So you're telling me, that my Dual wield Berserker/Reaver Warrior, who relied on good CC with his AOE reaver abilties and speed/heavy hits from Berserker tree while wearing plate armor plays "the same" as a dual wielding rogue?

 

The ONLY way they are even remotely similar is if you ignored all class talents, specializations, and stuck a rogue in plate (not nearly as useful on them as a warrior). Did your rogue not use stealth? or any rogue talents/specs?

 

Apart from the "shared" dual wield tree they weren't that similar.

 

With Rogues being restricted to daggers it would be even more different in DA:I if warriors could dual wield.

[NoForgiveness]

This obsession baffles me... just play the dw rogue. It's the same thing or at least it was in dao.

If you're complaining about the lack of 2 swords(or axes) I might agree. But if you just want the warrior to get the same dw tree and weapons as the rogue then that's absolutely pointless.

[Skaden]

Yes considering daggers can actually be dual wielded unlike longswords.

 

 

Arguments against dual wielding swords on the grounds of realism are irrelevant because:

 

a) DA:O already set the lore precedent that this was perfectly viable within the DA world

 

b)Comparisons to what is possible in the real world mean nothing, real people can't throw fireballs either

[Stiler]

This. I've never had a problem being right in the action as a DW rogue... I'm completely baffled by the obsession with DW warriors. You don't see rogue players crying that they can't have shields.

 

Rogues get stealth, they get archery, they get detect traps, they get disarm, they get dual wield.

 

Warriors get one hand/shield, two handed......

 

Rogues have FAR m ore "utility" then warriors.

 

Lots of people, like me, who liked Warriors do not like rogues, we do not want to play rogues, because they aren't anything like warriors, we don't want to be "squishy" we don't want to stealth and backstab, we want a well armoured flurry of a fighting machien who isn't afraid to get into the thick of battle at the front lines.

[Skaden]

This obsession baffles me... just play the dw rogue. It's the same thing or at least it was in dao.

If you're complaining about the lack of 2 swords(or axes) I might agree. But if you just want the warrior to get the same dw tree and weapons as the rogue then that's absolutely pointless.

 

I'd be somewhat content if rogue's could at least dw still dual wield swords, but they can't. And I don't understand this assumption that because dw warriors and rogues used the same tree that they played the same way, as this simply isn't the case.

[Shadow Fox]

Rogue weapon options are naturally more limited because they are not the combat focused class that warriors are, instead they have stealth, lock-picking and versatile skills. Having access to all weapon styles was what set warriors apart. Besides how would rogue players like losing archery because its focus on ranged damage  is "too similar" to the ranged spell-casting of mages? Because that makes about as much sense as this "dw warriors and rogues play too similar" argument

And no properly trained warrior in his right mind would use dual wielding due to it's impracticability.

 

My rogues never or in DA2 hardly used stealth and again lockpicking isn't a combat mechanic.

 

I for one wouldn't mind if warriors got crossbows provided the rogue gained another skill set as well.

 

archers and mages didn't share the exact same skill set and animations.so naturally that'd be a silly argument.

[NoForgiveness]

I'd be somewhat content if rogue's could at least dw still dual wield swords, but they can't. And I don't understand this assumption that because dw warriors and rogues used the same tree that they played the same way, as this simply isn't the case.

I mean ya you can argue back stabs vs tanking(or whatever) but really when you're actually playing, both classes are going to stand there using the same attacks. It ends up feeling the same. At least for me.

[Parkimus]

This. I've never had a problem being right in the action as a DW rogue... I'm completely baffled by the obsession with DW warriors. You don't see rogue players crying that they can't have shields.

 

While I think this thread should be in the Feedback section of the forums, I wouldn't classify wanting/asking (politely) for the return of DW Warriors as "crying". The reason you don't see rogue players not "crying" is because they don't want it (and thus have rarely/never asked for it), so I don't think you can equate the two. If they did ask for shield-bearing rogues, I certainly wouldn't call it "crying" or an "obsession".

 

That being said, I would like to see rogues being able to use one single-handed weapon (like a sword) as if fencing, and for mages to be able to hold a dagger or a spellbook with their off-hand.

 

This obsession baffles me... just play the dw rogue. It's the same thing or at least it was in dao.

If you're complaining about the lack of 2 swords(or axes) I might agree. But if you just want the warrior to get the same dw tree and weapons as the rogue then that's absolutely pointless.

 

I don't think anyone wants the DW Warrior to have the same talents or animations as the DW Rogue, or for them to fulfil the same role. I at least want the option to dual-wield as a warrior with different talents/animations than the DW rogue; I'm not asking for them to be the same.

 

And no properly trained warrior in his right mind would use dual wielding due to it's impracticability.

 

My rogues never or in DA2 hardly used stealth and again lockpicking isn't a combat mechanic.

 

I for one wouldn't mind if warriors got crossbows provided the rogue gained another skill set as well.

 

I want all three classes to get more options (I've briefly detailed above).

 

What a "properly trained warrior" would or would not do is irrelevant (fantasy game), and I don't really think that's a good counterargument either. I could just as easily say (since you claim to have rarely or never used stealth as a rogue) that a "proper rogue in his/her right mind would use stealth due to its practicability" but it's no better a point than yours. 

[Skaden]

And no properly trained warrior in his right mind would use dual wielding due to it's impracticability.

 

My rogues never or in DA2 hardly used stealth and again lockpicking isn't a combat mechanic.

 

I for one wouldn't mind if warriors got crossbows provided the rogue gained another skill set as well.

 

archers and mages didn't share the exact same skill set and animations.so naturally that'd be a silly argument.

 

Arguing against the impracticality of dual wielding is irrelevant when DA:O already set the precedent that this was in fact a viable style within the context of DA

 

My point about lock-picking was that rogues shouldn't have as many combat mechanics/options as warriors because they also have other useful skills outside combat whereas warriors focus exclusively on various forms of combat so naturally should have more options when engaging in it, because that's all they have to offer. Thus, why should rogues gain yet another style in exchange for warriors regaining crossbows (a combat option that was ripped from them in DA2 and replaced with...nothing)

 

Archers and mages share a similar ranged combat role and so one could argue that these roles are "too similar" in their net effect, the role the classes play is probably more relevant than simply sharing animations, as a dw stealth-focused assassin would have a very different role than a dw front-line heavy armored warrior.

[Shadow Fox]

So you're telling me, that my Dual wield Berserker/Reaver Warrior, who relied on good CC with his AOE reaver abilties and speed/heavy hits from Berserker tree while wearing plate armor plays "the same" as a dual wielding rogue?

 

The ONLY way they are even remotely similar is if you ignored all class talents, specializations, and stuck a rogue in plate (not nearly as useful on them as a warrior). Did your rogue not use stealth? or any rogue talents/specs?

 

Apart from the "shared" dual wield tree they weren't that similar.

 

With Rogues being restricted to daggers it would be even more different in DA:I if warriors could dual wield.

Activate Song of Courage x2 > Activate Dueling > Activate Momentum > Activate Tainted Blade > Activate Haste > Activate Rally> set companions on hold position= Make a warrior cry with envy as you solo an entire battlefield.

 

No the only way they played differently is if you actually played them differently by not using half the skill tree as a rogue mechanics and animations wise they are identical.

 

Only if they didn't share the same skills,animations and mechanics.

[Mirrman70]

Arguing against the impracticality of dual wielding is irrelevant when DA:O already set the precedent that this was in fact a viable style within the context of DA

 

Have you ever heard of the term retcon?

[vertigomez]

While I think this thread should be in the Feedback section of the forums, I wouldn't classify wanting/asking (politely) for the return of DW Warriors as "crying". The reason you don't see rogue players not "crying" is because they don't want it (and thus have rarely/never asked for it), so I don't think you can equate the two. If they did ask for shield-bearing rogues, I certainly wouldn't call it "crying" or an "obsession".

It's not that nobody's asking politely - it just comes up so incredibly often and proponents are SO adamant about it even though the devs have said no, they want to keep the classes distinct. I look at a warrior dual-wielding longswords and think, "Bro's about to whack himself in the face." I get that some people look at it and go, "Wow, that's totally badass!" I just don't see the point. If I want to cast spells at people, I play a mage. If I want to DW, I play a rogue. *shrugs*

If folks made as many threads asking for shield-bearing rogues as they have DW warriors, then... yeah. I would still roll my eyes.

It's not like I can't sympathize. I liked being a warrior archer in DAO! But the devs have said their piece.

[Skaden]

Have you ever heard of the term retcon?

 

Yeah, cause everyone knows how much people love those 

 

Besides it's a fantasy game, and the Arishok dual wielding 2handers in DA2 didn't exactly suggest that dw non-dagger weapons had been removed due to their lack of practicality

[Sirmalek]

And no properly trained warrior in his right mind would use dual wielding due to it's impracticability.

 

 

Impracticality or as you used the word impraticability how?     A properly trained beserker could easily be taught from young to wield 2 heavy axes in each hand or a nimble warrior to use 2 swords.... shall we go through lore on this one?

 

DA:O to start had many dual wielded warriors,  Dungeons and Dragons that started a lot of this type of fantasy game genre with its table top definitly had dual wielding warriors.  Heck, making a dual axe dwarven beserker was almost standard and that includes all these newer editions.  Everquest had them, World of warcraft has them, Diablo has them, Im pretty sure in our actual real world history you could find many examples of guys considered warriors that dual wielded medium to heavy weapons.  Go to an ancient war museum and I know the local one I has shows examples of heavy armor combatants using 2 weapons.  So where is the idea that a properly trained warrior would never use 2 weapons?

 

That aside it does come down options and if ME 3 again says anything about Bioware's dedication to MP its that Kits will come as wide and varied as the ideas of the programmers themselves.

[In Exile]

Yeah, cause everyone knows how much people love those 

 

Besides it's a fantasy game, and the Arishok dual wielding 2handers in DA2 didn't exactly suggest that dw non-dagger weapons had been removed due to their lack of practicality

 

There's no such thing as a class in DA:O in the same way as in D&D. It's all a gameplay contrivance. If DA4 doesn't allow you to be a rogue it doesn't mean suddenly everyone forgot to pick locks. 

[Skaden]

There's no such thing as a class in DA:O in the same way as in D&D. It's all a gameplay contrivance. If DA4 doesn't allow you to be a rogue it doesn't mean suddenly everyone forgot to pick locks. 

 

And I'm arguing against the particular gameplay contrivance that creates rigid and arbitrary weapon restrictions which have become significantly more prominent since DA:O, and have limited the scope of player agency within combat.

[Paul E Dangerously]

And I'm arguing against the particular gameplay contrivance that creates rigid and arbitrary weapon restrictions which have become significantly more prominent since DA:O, and have limited the scope of player agency within combat.

 

DA2/DAI in that regard is basically "Want to break the stereotype? Want to get out of the box? Too bad. Get back in the box.".

[The Night Haunter]

I agree, unrestricted weapons was awesome in DAO, but it isn't in DAI and won't be no matter what we do now, so arguing it seems rather pointless. Save up for the arguments for after it ships and the devs begin watching for feedback for DA4/DAI Expansion.

[Lebanese Dude]

To keep with your understanding of the term, how many people with second or third world problems do you believe are going to bother with the latest, fanciest WRPG? Of bloody course it would be a problem for only those with enough disposable income. In relation to that? Do you complain about holes in your roof? First world problem!

<~~~~~~

I don't appreciate being stereotyped though. Its not always about money either.