141 réponses à ce sujet

[jwalker]

CodyMelch wrote...
Also do you really think military personal would not take out a whole bunch of guns with them if they could

There are two different things there. One, the actual ability of a man or woman of carrying such a ludicrous amount of weapons and ammo. The other, whether the army would take advantage of such ability in the battlefield. A positive answer on the second one doesn't make the first one more realistic. There's a gigantic "if" in between.

I did read Cru1al's reply.
If some aspects of the game are to be realistic, they should be bound to similar rules as they are in real life. I don't believe with only some sort of "explanation", good or bad, is enough to make things "realistic". If it does, "realism" means absolutley nothing.
Shepard is a marine. Marines have training in many weapons. True. But also, marines don't carry all those guns into the battlefield.
I'm fine with the current weapons restrictions. But if BioWare decides to change the whole thing, it's ok too. I only hope they do that to improve gameplay and balance, nothing more.

[JaegerBane]

BristowJ wrote...
You forgot concussive shot too.  I didn't mention AR because its a class specfic power like tactical cloak or biotic charge.

So?  Having all the guns is like the main attraction to the solider class.

But you don't get all the guns. No class gets all the guns. It isn't even physically possible with modding to allow any class to do it. That's the issue here. The Soldier is simply better at taking targets down with gunfire... the fact that he has a wider choice of guns doesn't really make that much difference, particularly later on in the game where many Soldier sheps end up just using the Revenant and the Viper.

Hell, the ammo powers alone render the need to choose the right gun for the right situation much less important than it otherwise would be.

And I don't really understand why you leave out AR. For someone talking about main attractions of the class, it's a bit weird that you ignore the only truely unique ability of the class.

[JaegerBane]

jwalker wrote...
If some aspects of the game are to be realistic, they should be bound to similar rules as they are in real life. I don't believe with only some sort of "explanation", good or bad, is enough to make things "realistic". If it does, "realism" means absolutley nothing.
Shepard is a marine. Marines have training in many weapons. True. But also, marines don't carry all those guns into the battlefield.
I'm fine with the current weapons restrictions. But if BioWare decides to change the whole thing, it's ok too. I only hope they do that to improve gameplay and balance, nothing more.

The problem is you're applying realism in the sense of today's tech to a game set 200 years in the future.

A sniper rifle in real life is a heavy, unwieldly weapon requiring set up time, is inflexible, and requires very large rounds, all of which limit how deployable it is. In the ME universe a sniper rifle can collapse into a block of metal and plastic 40 cms long, artificially lightened by mass effect fields and has ammo the size of grains of sand. It just wouldn't require the same kind of consideration a weapon filling the same role today would. The only reason to not carry one is if you couldn't find a use for it or couldn't afford it.

Ultimately the realism argument centers on what Shep can clearly do in ME but does not. It's got nothing to do with current day stuff.

[Fiery Phoenix]

^ Well said.

[jwalker]

JaegerBane wrote...

The problem is you're applying realism in the sense of today's tech to a game set 200 years in the future.

It is a problem, 'cause you can't get a sense of realism from an imaginary world that takes place 200 years from now. That would be something else.
Like I said before, the game has to set up some rules and those rules have to work in the game, not much more than that.

Maybe we just have different definitions of the word "realism"

[cruc1al]

jwalker wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

The problem is you're applying realism in the sense of today's tech to a game set 200 years in the future.

It is a problem, 'cause you can't get a sense of realism from an imaginary world that takes place 200 years from now. That would be something else.

Can you get a sense of realism from historical events?

The whole point of making the future of ME seem realistic is in order to make it seem more like reality, and less like imaginary.

[vadrillan]

Well I think ME2 is at least an improvement over ME1; I mean, forcing you to lug around ALL weapons and then not letting you even aim them properly



I agree, let all weapons be used by all classes to some degree. Maybe not have all classes use them to their fullest potential, but at least let us have the choice of using them. Choice is a good thing, and there are many ways of balancing "casters" having all weapons, even if you don't subscribe to the OP's opinion that it's the class-specific skills that do that..

[JaegerBane]

jwalker wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

The problem is you're applying realism in the sense of today's tech to a game set 200 years in the future.

It is a problem, 'cause you can't get a sense of realism from an imaginary world that takes place 200 years from now. That would be something else.
Like I said before, the game has to set up some rules and those rules have to work in the game, not much more than that.

Maybe we just have different definitions of the word "realism"

Realism relates to plausibility. You don't need to to set something in present day for it to have a sense of realism to it. This isn't 'my' definition (whatever that is supposed to mean), it is the meaning of the term. As Cruc1al said, it makes no more sense to claim that realism only relates to modern day stuff than it does to claim that historical accounts are 'unrealistic'.

To a certain extent, it's also common sense. If your rifle collapses down to a third of it's size, uses ammo the size of pin heads and is lightened then clearly, the traditional disadvantages largely evaporate. Unless you consider it 'realistic' that soldiers in the future will still stick to procedures despite the fact that they bear no relevance to their equipment.

Besides, they have established rules in the game. The issue people are having is that the idea of Shepard carrying more than just a pair of pistols is fully supported by the by the 'rules' in the game, he just doesn't.

[Athenau]

Let all classes take all weapons but bring back ME1's weapon special abilities (overkill, marksman, carnage) and make them class specific.  While they're at it, bring back the heat system but actually take the time to balance it properly.

Modifié par Athenau, 12 mai 2010 - 11:01 .

[Katya Nadanova]

JaegerBane wrote...

BristowJ wrote...
You forgot concussive shot too.  I didn't mention AR because its a class specfic power like tactical cloak or biotic charge.

So?  Having all the guns is like the main attraction to the solider class.

But you don't get all the guns. No class gets all the guns. It isn't even physically possible with modding to allow any class to do it. That's the issue here. The Soldier is simply better at taking targets down with gunfire... the fact that he has a wider choice of guns doesn't really make that much difference, particularly later on in the game where many Soldier sheps end up just using the Revenant and the Viper.

Hell, the ammo powers alone render the need to choose the right gun for the right situation much less important than it otherwise would be.

And I don't really understand why you leave out AR. For someone talking about main attractions of the class, it's a bit weird that you ignore the only truely unique ability of the class.

For starters, the SMG and AR fill the same roll.  Both fire rapidly, if you have one you don't need the other.  

Yes and no with the ammo powers.  It is less important but the different guns still have their own advantages aganist the different defences. 

I didn't mention it because its a class specific power.  All classes have them.  Are the unique class specific abilities the main reason why people play a certain class?  Maybe, maybe not.  Some people play a specific class for the overall appeal of that class.  They pick it because it best fits their play style.

[Cody]

BristowJ wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

BristowJ wrote...
You forgot concussive shot too.  I didn't mention AR because its a class specfic power like tactical cloak or biotic charge.

So?  Having all the guns is like the main attraction to the solider class.

But you don't get all the guns. No class gets all the guns. It isn't even physically possible with modding to allow any class to do it. That's the issue here. The Soldier is simply better at taking targets down with gunfire... the fact that he has a wider choice of guns doesn't really make that much difference, particularly later on in the game where many Soldier sheps end up just using the Revenant and the Viper.

Hell, the ammo powers alone render the need to choose the right gun for the right situation much less important than it otherwise would be.

And I don't really understand why you leave out AR. For someone talking about main attractions of the class, it's a bit weird that you ignore the only truely unique ability of the class.

For starters, the SMG and AR fill the same roll.  Both fire rapidly, if you have one you don't need the other.  

No you don't, SMG's take out shields while are ineffective at taking out armor compared to an AR. That and they are only good for short range. AR is good for all ranges and against all protection types.

[Katya Nadanova]

CodyMelch wrote...

BristowJ wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

BristowJ wrote...
You forgot concussive shot too.  I didn't mention AR because its a class specfic power like tactical cloak or biotic charge.

So?  Having all the guns is like the main attraction to the solider class.

But you don't get all the guns. No class gets all the guns. It isn't even physically possible with modding to allow any class to do it. That's the issue here. The Soldier is simply better at taking targets down with gunfire... the fact that he has a wider choice of guns doesn't really make that much difference, particularly later on in the game where many Soldier sheps end up just using the Revenant and the Viper.

Hell, the ammo powers alone render the need to choose the right gun for the right situation much less important than it otherwise would be.

And I don't really understand why you leave out AR. For someone talking about main attractions of the class, it's a bit weird that you ignore the only truely unique ability of the class.

For starters, the SMG and AR fill the same roll.  Both fire rapidly, if you have one you don't need the other.  

No you don't, SMG's take out shields while are ineffective at taking out armor compared to an AR. That and they are only good for short range. AR is good for all ranges and against all protection types.

If you want to get real technical, it all depends on which AR/SMG your using as to the damage to different defences.

http://masseffect.wi...onry_Comparison

[Daforth]

I think pistols, SMGs and shotguns should be used by every classes, these three weapons are so basic. These three should be the basic three weapon for any class. Then AR for Soldiers and  Sniper rifle for Infiltrator as base additional weapons. AR as bonus weapon proficiency for Sentinels and Vanguards, Heavy weapons as bonus for Soldiers. For Engineer and Adept no bonus weapon proficiency at all, stay with the basic three.

Modifié par Daforth, 13 mai 2010 - 01:13 .

[Bullet Jesus]

hmm....

[JaegerBane]

BristowJ wrote...
For starters, the SMG and AR fill the same roll.  Both fire rapidly, if you have one you don't need the other.  

That's absolute nonsense. You might as well as claim shotguns and sniper rifles fill the same role on account of their low fire rates.

SMGs are used differently depending on the class, but effectively function as a shield killer and a primary short-range weapon of specialist classes while vanguards and Infils employ it as a short-range suppressive weapon in addition.

Assault rifles are all-round weapons that have wide effective ranges and are equally effective against all defences.

They do not fill the same role, not by a long shot. Look at Samara's weapon choice.

Yes and no with the ammo powers.  It is less important but the different guns still have their own advantages aganist the different defences. 

It's not just less important. It has such an impact that a soldier doesn't even need to change from using the Rev unless his opponent is at long range. It almost replaces the need for lots of weapons.

I didn't mention it because its a class specific power.  All classes have them.  Are the unique class specific abilities the main reason why people play a certain class?  Maybe, maybe not.  Some people play a specific class for the overall appeal of that class.  They pick it because it best fits their play style.

I can understand that for someone talking about the Vanguard, for instance, whose ability doesn't help their previous combat/caster role one bit, but for a soldier - the class all about shooting - AR helps every aspect of it. To ignore it on the basis that you prefer the 'overall appeal' doesn't make any sense, as it directly serves the overall appeal.

To be honest Bristow, I don't think you're actually thinking through your own point here.

[Katya Nadanova]

JaegerBane wrote...

BristowJ wrote...
For starters, the SMG and AR fill the same roll.  Both fire rapidly, if you have one you don't need the other.  

That's absolute nonsense. You might as well as claim shotguns and sniper rifles fill the same role on account of their low fire rates.

SMGs are used differently depending on the class, but effectively function as a shield killer and a primary short-range weapon of specialist classes while vanguards and Infils employ it as a short-range suppressive weapon in addition.

Assault rifles are all-round weapons that have wide effective ranges and are equally effective against all defences.

They do not fill the same role, not by a long shot. Look at Samara's weapon choice.

Yes and no with the ammo powers.  It is less important but the different guns still have their own advantages aganist the different defences. 

It's not just less important. It has such an impact that a soldier doesn't even need to change from using the Rev unless his opponent is at long range. It almost replaces the need for lots of weapons.

I didn't mention it because its a class specific power.  All classes have them.  Are the unique class specific abilities the main reason why people play a certain class?  Maybe, maybe not.  Some people play a specific class for the overall appeal of that class.  They pick it because it best fits their play style.

I can understand that for someone talking about the Vanguard, for instance, whose ability doesn't help their previous combat/caster role one bit, but for a soldier - the class all about shooting - AR helps every aspect of it. To ignore it on the basis that you prefer the 'overall appeal' doesn't make any sense, as it directly serves the overall appeal.

To be honest Bristow, I don't think you're actually thinking through your own point here.

By "filling the same roll" I meant they are good at stripping sheilds and barriers.  Even the loading screen tips in the game say, "Slow firing weapons are best used aganist armor".  And a different one says "Rapid fire weapons are good aganist sheilds and barriers."  I am almost 100% certain that's what they say.  I should have made it clear that is what I meant.  The only real difference between AR and SMG is that the AR has more range.  Excludung the Revenant, all SMGs and ARs have comparable damage output.

I can't disagree with that.  But not everybody picks the Rev, not everybody likes the Rev.  The other guns, besides the AR, still have their advantages.

All of the class specific talents help each class play differently.  Biotic charge helps the Vanguard because they are the up close and personal class.  AR helps the solider because they are the run and gun class.  Its just more about how the different classes play.  The class talents are their to distinguish one class from another.  The class power doesn't always serve the overall appeal if the player chooses not to use it.  They may just like what weapons the class has, what other talents the class has.

*sighs*  Honestly, I wasn't expecting 3 or 4 different people to poke holes in my side of this discussion.  But you see, when I think of the different classes, specfic things come to mind.  With a solider its all the guns.  Infiltrator, its cloak and best class with the sniper.  Adept, biotics.  Engineer, tech abilites.  Vanguard, close combat class, best with shotguns.  Sentinel, the indecisive class.  Which is what my original point was, regarding all the classes being able to use all the guns, or at least that is what I wanted my original point to convey to the reader.

[Master Smurf]

I think all classes should be able to use pistol, smg, assault rifle and shotgun.

Infiltrator - Pistol and Sniper Rifle Bonus

Vanguard - Shotgun and choice of Pistol/Assault Rifle Bonus

Soldier - 2nd level Assault Rifle Bonus and Pistol, SMG, Shotgun Bonus.

Other classes - No weapon bonus with mid game choice for Bonus on one weapon.



This is all independent of Ammo Powers which I think should be removed - they should be weapon components similar to ME (without all the levels)