141 réponses à ce sujet

[AntiChri5]

No. Then the only thing separating classes is one special ability.

[Cody]

AntiChri5 wrote...

No. Then the only thing separating classes is one special ability.

How do you figure? Do adepts or vanguards get disruptor ammo? Or concussive shot? Do they get as many damage bonus's as soldiers do? Or speed bonus's? Or Health increases? Do Infiltrators have warp? Do Vanguards have Overload? You really think that the special ability is the only unique thing about the class? Let me tell you, it's not.

[AntiChri5]

There are three things that set classes apart. You want to remove one of them.



I am perfectly happy with limited weapons for the caster classes.



What would be the point of being a Vangaurd if an adept could use weapons just as well?

[Aradace]

CodyMelch wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

No. Then the only thing separating classes is one special ability.

How do you figure? Do adepts or vanguards get disruptor ammo? Or concussive shot? Do they get as many damage bonus's as soldiers do? Or speed bonus's? Or Health increases? Do Infiltrators have warp? Do Vanguards have Overload? You really think that the special ability is the only unique thing about the class? Let me tell you, it's not.

If you're so hung up on the weapons thing, why not just play a soldier? Sure, there are ways of playing "outside the box" on every class but that shouldnt include every single class being able to use every single weapon equally.  That's like saying for an example, with me being ex-military that every single one of my squadmates or platoon mates could shoot as good as I could just because we were all trained in assault rifles.  It's different but at the same time, the same.

Every recruit receives assault rifle training in boot camp.  Infantry end up being better at it though than say, someone becoming an Engineer or Doctor?  Why? Because the schooling is different.  Docs and Engineers dont recieve the same extensive rifle training that 11 bravos do (infantry).  So, who's to say that that the six "classes" arent the same way? 

Meaning that you go to the same "boot camp" durning your training for all six classes, but have different specializations later on?  Where a Soldier goes on to focus and drill more on rifles and weapons in general, an Enginner or Adept goes to an "A school" to focus further on their tech skills or biotics.  And who's to say that they receive their "weapon" training in basic boot camp?  Who's to say that each "school" doesnt focus on the best "weapon" suited for each "jobs" abilities?  We can't say for certain because this game is a work of fiction and the creators can say whatever they want to fill the gaps.

My point is that more information is needed before we can go off screaming "Why can't he uses a rifle as an Adept zomg!!!"  Just because he's a "marine" doesnt mean that he received that training.  Everyone may have gone to the same "boot camp" but went off to different "speciality schools" after say, 9 weeks or so and receieved their actual weapon and "class" training there which may or may not include the same weapon training as other classes.

[Cody]

AntiChri5 wrote...

There are three things that set classes apart. You want to remove one of them.

I am perfectly happy with limited weapons for the caster classes.

What would be the point of being a Vangaurd if an adept could use weapons just as well?

To being able to charge while having ammo powers, as well as more weapon damage boosts(stat wise). Adepts will have their biotic abilities but don't have many weapon damage bonus's(if any). So their you go. Can an adept use a biotic charge? No, Can they do have much weapon damage? No, do they have any ammo powers? No, can they take as many hits? Again no. So there you go.

Modifié par CodyMelch, 10 mai 2010 - 03:44 .

[AntiChri5]

Every time i make an adept they have warp ammo.



A ten or twenty percent difference in weapon damage will not change the way a class plays.



So the only difference is charge.



With all weapons for all classes, why play as anything other then sentinal?

[Aradace]

CodyMelch wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

There are three things that set classes apart. You want to remove one of them.

I am perfectly happy with limited weapons for the caster classes.

What would be the point of being a Vangaurd if an adept could use weapons just as well?

To being able to charge while having ammo powers, as well as more weapon damage boosts(stat wise). Adepts will have their biotic abilities but don't have many weapon damage bonus's(if any). So their you go. Can an adept use a biotic charge? No, Can they do have much weapon damage? No, do they have any ammo powers? No, can they take as many hits? Again no. So there you go.

That's the point of an Adept...seriously, read the discription.  It even says it in there that they are the best class at taking down targets WITHOUT FIRING A SINGLE SHOT.  Again, you're assuming each class receieves the same "weapon training" as the next.  Just because they're marines, doesnt mean they have the same focus on weapons. 

[Cody]

Aradace wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

No. Then the only thing separating classes is one special ability.

How do you figure? Do adepts or vanguards get disruptor ammo? Or concussive shot? Do they get as many damage bonus's as soldiers do? Or speed bonus's? Or Health increases? Do Infiltrators have warp? Do Vanguards have Overload? You really think that the special ability is the only unique thing about the class? Let me tell you, it's not.

If you're so hung up on the weapons thing, why not just play a soldier? Sure, there are ways of playing "outside the box" on every class but that shouldnt include every single class being able to use every single weapon equally.  That's like saying for an example, with me being ex-military that every single one of my squadmates or platoon mates could shoot as good as I could just because we were all trained in assault rifles.  It's different but at the same time, the same.

Every recruit receives assault rifle training in boot camp.  Infantry end up being better at it though than say, someone becoming an Engineer or Doctor?  Why? Because the schooling is different.  Docs and Engineers dont recieve the same extensive rifle training that 11 bravos do (infantry).  So, who's to say that that the six "classes" arent the same way? 

Meaning that you go to the same "boot camp" durning your training for all six classes, but have different specializations later on?  Where a Soldier goes on to focus and drill more on rifles and weapons in general, an Enginner or Adept goes to an "A school" to focus further on their tech skills or biotics.  And who's to say that they receive their "weapon" training in basic boot camp?  Who's to say that each "school" doesnt focus on the best "weapon" suited for each "jobs" abilities?  We can't say for certain because this game is a work of fiction and the creators can say whatever they want to fill the gaps.

My point is that more information is needed before we can go off screaming "Why can't he uses a rifle as an Adept zomg!!!"  Just because he's a "marine" doesnt mean that he received that training.  Everyone may have gone to the same "boot camp" but went off to different "speciality schools" after say, 9 weeks or so and receieved their actual weapon and "class" training there which may or may not include the same weapon training as other classes.

You make a good point, but again I am not "hung up" about adept being able to use the assault rifle, this has nothing to do with that(not even my favourite class and I prefer the sniper rifle). I am just saying this on realism. How hard is it to use an assault rifle? Of course an adept,Vanguard,engineer(etc) would not be as good using an assult rifle like a Soldier would, nowhere near as good. But that doesn't mean they can't use the weapon. I mean if you have a weapon, why not use it? just brining a pistol and to face an army of collectors isn't a smart thing to do, even if your a biotic. I am trying to get realism here. I am not complaing that an adept can't use a rifle. I am just stating that if you had access to a rifle would you not use it if your are going into battle?  Also as moser said before, if an adept doesn't receive any training in a certain weapon, that how come they can easily use a sniper,shotgun, or an AR on the collector ship if they pick it up? If they can easily use it then, why not always be equiped with it? It would mean they are trained with it after all.

[Cody]

Aradace wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

There are three things that set classes apart. You want to remove one of them.

I am perfectly happy with limited weapons for the caster classes.

What would be the point of being a Vangaurd if an adept could use weapons just as well?

To being able to charge while having ammo powers, as well as more weapon damage boosts(stat wise). Adepts will have their biotic abilities but don't have many weapon damage bonus's(if any). So their you go. Can an adept use a biotic charge? No, Can they do have much weapon damage? No, do they have any ammo powers? No, can they take as many hits? Again no. So there you go.

That's the point of an Adept...seriously, read the discription.  It even says it in there that they are the best class at taking down targets WITHOUT FIRING A SINGLE SHOT.  Again, you're assuming each class receieves the same "weapon training" as the next.  Just because they're marines, doesnt mean they have the same focus on weapons. 

and yet they can so easily use an assault rifle,sniper rifle or a shotgun on the collector ship? How hard is it to fire a gun? Plus if they had no training with it then how come they can use it so easily on the collector ship?

[Mykel54]

It´s about gameplay, not realism. They basically give each class a few weapons so that you use that weapon mostly, and that weapon have been thought over to match with the other class abilities (like the shotgun with the vanguard charge). If you want to play with all weapons, there is the soldier class. Hell, you can even unlock additional training if you want very badly certain class of weapon. Lastly by making each class different (by powers, talents, the weapons they use etc.) the game is more varied and gains a lot of replayability.

[Aradace]

CodyMelch wrote...

Aradace wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

There are three things that set classes apart. You want to remove one of them.

I am perfectly happy with limited weapons for the caster classes.

What would be the point of being a Vangaurd if an adept could use weapons just as well?

To being able to charge while having ammo powers, as well as more weapon damage boosts(stat wise). Adepts will have their biotic abilities but don't have many weapon damage bonus's(if any). So their you go. Can an adept use a biotic charge? No, Can they do have much weapon damage? No, do they have any ammo powers? No, can they take as many hits? Again no. So there you go.

That's the point of an Adept...seriously, read the discription.  It even says it in there that they are the best class at taking down targets WITHOUT FIRING A SINGLE SHOT.  Again, you're assuming each class receieves the same "weapon training" as the next.  Just because they're marines, doesnt mean they have the same focus on weapons. 

 How hard is it to fire a gun?

Spoken like someone with absolutely NO real world experience in firing a weapon lol.  It's one thing to fire a weapon sir...It is a completely different matter to actually be GOOD with it.  There are people in this world who can shoot far better than I, but I am damn good in my own right.  It takes skill to wield a firearm, not just "Oh, I have to point this end toward the bad guy and shoot...."

[Cody]

Mykel54 wrote...

It´s about gameplay, not realism. They basically give each class a few weapons so that you use that weapon mostly, and that weapon have been thought over to match with the other class abilities (like the shotgun with the vanguard charge). If you want to play with all weapons, there is the soldier class. Hell, you can even unlock additional training if you want very badly certain class of weapon. Lastly by making each class different (by powers, talents, the weapons they use etc.) the game is more varied and gains a lot of replayability.

I know this, it just doesn't make sense that they aren't equiped with other weapons though, they were in ME1, and besides theres penalties that they can add(like in ME1) and what really defines the class anyway is the skills,talents and attributes. Not the weapons or armor.

[AntiChri5]

class differentiation is very important.

[Aradace]

AntiChri5 wrote...

class differentiation is very important.

It boils down to this in the end....They dont have to have an explanation as to why or why not a certain class can or cannot use a weapon.  In the end, you have to accept the fact that you ARE going to have some restrictions.  If that's not something you can deal with, then perhaps Oblivion or Fallout are more your style of game.

[Cody]

Aradace wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

Aradace wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

There are three things that set classes apart. You want to remove one of them.

I am perfectly happy with limited weapons for the caster classes.

What would be the point of being a Vangaurd if an adept could use weapons just as well?

To being able to charge while having ammo powers, as well as more weapon damage boosts(stat wise). Adepts will have their biotic abilities but don't have many weapon damage bonus's(if any). So their you go. Can an adept use a biotic charge? No, Can they do have much weapon damage? No, do they have any ammo powers? No, can they take as many hits? Again no. So there you go.

That's the point of an Adept...seriously, read the discription.  It even says it in there that they are the best class at taking down targets WITHOUT FIRING A SINGLE SHOT.  Again, you're assuming each class receieves the same "weapon training" as the next.  Just because they're marines, doesnt mean they have the same focus on weapons. 

 How hard is it to fire a gun?

Spoken like someone with absolutely NO real world experience in firing a weapon lol.  It's one thing to fire a weapon sir...It is a completely different matter to actually be GOOD with it.  There are people in this world who can shoot far better than I, but I am damn good in my own right.  It takes skill to wield a firearm, not just "Oh, I have to point this end toward the bad guy and shoot...."

and yet gangs can use them to kill people so well, even without military training. Same goes for children, their has been instances when a child has shot someone because they found a gun from somewhere in their house, and again gang members that have guns use them to kill eachother and others. Do they receive training? What about hunters? Soldiers may receive advanced training, but Adepts can just receive the basic training, thus not being anywhere as effecient.

[Aradace]

Again, see mine and Antis last posts....That's what it boils down to

[Cody]

Aradace wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

class differentiation is very important.

It boils down to this in the end....They dont have to have an explanation as to why or why not a certain class can or cannot use a weapon.  In the end, you have to accept the fact that you ARE going to have some restrictions.  If that's not something you can deal with, then perhaps Oblivion or Fallout are more your style of game.

I'm fine with restrictions, but really, in Me1 we can use all the weapons, but for each class their is a restriction to training. If you don't have training in an assault then you aren't good with the gun untill you get the spectre gun which was really accurate, You still could not aim as well or do as much damage but it had it's uses, this can still be done in ME3.

[Cody]

Aradace wrote...

Again, see mine and Antis last posts....That's what it boils down to

again, what defines the class is their skill set and attributes. If an adept had an assult rifle in ME2 do you really think they would be able to do as much damage as a soldier?

Like I said it's not that big of a deal to have these restrictions. But to see an adept to using a rifle in cutscenes or being able to so easily use it on the collector ship, if picked up, then why not at the begginning? In otherwords if they use it later, why not now? I mean they show it off in cutscenes after all.

Modifié par CodyMelch, 10 mai 2010 - 04:18 .

[AntiChri5]

All guns except pistols were USELESS without training in ME 1. I am playing it right now.

[Aradace]

You're comparing the system in ME1 to ME2 which is your first mistake...It's like comparing apples and oranges. You are aware of the plot hole as far as the ammo system goes right? No explanation at all what so ever as to why the shift in terms of the codex (at least Ive yet to find an entry on it.) ME1 aside, you just have to accept it. As great of a game as it was, ME1 is in the past and it very improbable (spelling?) (but not entirely impossible) that all classes wielding all weaopns will make a combat in ME3. It's already been hinted at that the core system for ME3 is going to be very similar to ME2 which is why they are going to be able to produces as quickly as they are.



At the very most, I can see an "encumberance" system of sorts like in this thread being implemented but even then, that's a bit of a stretch.

[Cody]

AntiChri5 wrote...

All guns except pistols were USELESS without training in ME 1. I am playing it right now.

Even with Spectre Mark X weapons and with accuracy upgrades? It's been a while since I played anyother class than a soldier to try it.

Besides it shows though that the soldier is still top dog with the use of weapons. More training. Mor useful. The other classes would have the weapons but won't be anywhere near as good as a soldier with them. Again they use them fine later on when you pick a weapon up on the collector ship. So that just shows that they have weapon training with them. Makes no sense not to use the weapons if you have the training with them.

[Cody]

Aradace wrote...

You're comparing the system in ME1 to ME2 which is your first mistake...It's like comparing apples and oranges. You are aware of the plot hole as far as the ammo system goes right? No explanation at all what so ever as to why the shift in terms of the codex (at least Ive yet to find an entry on it.) ME1 aside, you just have to accept it. As great of a game as it was, ME1 is in the past and it very improbable (spelling?) (but not entirely impossible) that all classes wielding all weaopns will make a combat in ME3. It's already been hinted at that the core system for ME3 is going to be very similar to ME2 which is why they are going to be able to produces as quickly as they are.

At the very most, I can see an "encumberance" system of sorts like in this thread being implemented but even then, that's a bit of a stretch.

Tbh, I prefer the combat system of ME2's over ME1's(with the exception of the biotic system). I just don't understand why theres restrictions in the first place if any class can just pick up a shotgun,AR or SR later on in the game and use it just fine.

[Aradace]

CodyMelch wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Again, see mine and Antis last posts....That's what it boils down to

again, what defines the class is their skill set and attributes. If an adept had an assult rifle in ME2 do you really think they would be able to do as much damage as a soldier?

Like I said it's not that big of a deal to have tehse restrictions. But to see an adept to using a rifle in cutscenes or being able to so easily use it on the collector ship, if picked up, then why not at the begginning? In otherwords if they use it later, why not now? I mean they show it off in cutscenes after all.

That is a fair argument I suppose....Instead of waiting until the collector ship to give you your "bonus weapon" why not just allow you to pick it from the beginning.  To which, I can see why they did it the way the did it....But at the same time, I do find myself wondering this very same thing at times.  As far as the having Assault Rifles in CS goes....I find it rather....disturbing....myself that my Infiltrator isnt holding up his Sniper Rifle instead in these instances...IMO on that issue, BW should implement some sort of "class identification" system in ME3 that takes care of this rather than being the generic jackasses that they are and going the cheap route.

[Mister V10L473R]

why not this. At charecter generation each class  chooses their weapons. Keeeping with the mechanics of the game it would be like this

Vanguard, Infiltrator= 3 weapons
Sentinel, Adept, Engineer= 2 weapons
Soldiers= 4 weapons

It allows for the bonus weapon in the collector ship, keeps the feel of the class, and since Shep is your creation, why shouldn't you be able to choose your loadout? I'd have my vantard with a the shotgun (duh), heavy pistol and AR, I won't have the ranged shield stripping ability of the SMG, but the accruacy and penetration of the AR replaces it.

[Aradace]

That's a pretty cool idea too.