153 réponses à ce sujet

[Turian Antiquarian]

Kosmiker wrote...

As far as guns and ammo powers go (and gun upgrades and so on..) I always wanted something like this:

Weapon modding menu in the armory?

YES PLEASE!!!

Great job with the menu!

Modifié par Turian Antiquarian, 14 septembre 2010 - 11:48 .

[Terror_K]

While being able to level-up your weapons to a degree would be kind of neat and add depth, I don't think being able to level up ammo types really fits and would be good. They work best as mods you have to pick and choose rather than as powers or as something you can have in a gun like that.



Unless of course you mean that if said ammo mod (or power) is being used, then the gun's skill in said ammo type determines how effective it is. That could work. But a gun should never be able to max out all those things and be able to just shoot cryo and incendary and any other types simultaneously.

[kalle90]

catabuca wrote...
Now, this might not mean anything in the grand scheme of things, but considering her role in the game's development, I'm quietly confident that some kind of minor re-write to that mechanic will be introduced into ME3, whether it be actual stats next to the weapons, or some kind of physical change to the weapons once you've researched an upgrade. Heck, we might, just might, even get some proper mods we can apply in the armoury.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with inventories. Our current armoury is an inventory.

Definitely. I can live without ME1 style always-available-and-cluttered inventory, but the inventory of ME2 is also dull. Everyone in team automatically upgrades to the latest (best for the most part) so there aren't many choices to be made. And there are very few upgrades that do something other than +10% improvement

Besides the new skill system this is a reason why ME1 offers tons more variety between characters. Even 2 soldiers can be completely different in ME1 but in ME2 they all end up with the same weapons and nearly identical powers.

[Terror_K]

kalle90 wrote...
Definitely. I can live without ME1 style always-available-and-cluttered inventory, but the inventory of ME2 is also dull. Everyone in team automatically upgrades to the latest (best for the most part) so there aren't many choices to be made. And there are very few upgrades that do something other than +10% improvement

Besides the new skill system this is a reason why ME1 offers tons more variety between characters. Even 2 soldiers can be completely different in ME1 but in ME2 they all end up with the same weapons and nearly identical powers.

^ This.

[Christmas Ape]

Yeah, +20% assault rifle damage vs. +16% assault rifle damage is vastly more character-differentiating than, say, Revenant vs. Vindicator.

[kalle90]

Christmas Ape wrote...

Yeah, +20% assault rifle damage vs. +16% assault rifle damage is vastly more character-differentiating than, say, Revenant vs. Vindicator.

ME3 should feature battle rifles, SMGs, heavy weapons, grenades...

ME1 wasn't perfect, but if I have to grab this, some of my soldiers focus on shield bypassing snipers and force increasing shotguns while others use toxic assault rifles. Plus they have different skills and powers at different levels. In the end of ME1 they're much more different than they are in ME2. Not to mention any soldier can pick any of the weapons anytime and be just as good with it as any other soldier

1 weapon < 10+ mods/skill points

Like I once said: IMO perfection would be if there were 3 assault rifle brands (Lets say Lancer, Banshee and Avenger) with 5 clearly improved grades (I, II, III, IV, V in ME1). Lancer focuses on firerate being fully automatic with less accuracy and power, Banshee is a powerful and accurate single shot cannon while Avenger is burst fire medium. On top of that you have various and different weapon mods to equip

[Turian Antiquarian]

kalle90 wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...

Yeah, +20% assault rifle damage vs. +16% assault rifle damage is vastly more character-differentiating than, say, Revenant vs. Vindicator.

ME3 should feature battle rifles, SMGs, heavy weapons, grenades...

ME1 wasn't perfect, but if I have to grab this, some of my soldiers focus on shield bypassing snipers and force increasing shotguns while others use toxic assault rifles. Plus they have different skills and powers at different levels. In the end of ME1 they're much more different than they are in ME2.

They just ended up shooting rocks/your shields anyway. Even now the AI is far from contributing on the tactical level, like Xmas Ape said 5-7 posts ago.

kalle90 wrote...

Not to mention any soldier can pick any of the weapons anytime and be just as good with it as any other soldier

That part was horrible!

Didn't you just applaud the diversity of each Hench?
I don't understand any of this...

Modifié par Turian Antiquarian, 14 septembre 2010 - 12:43 .

[kalle90]

Turian Antiquarian wrote...

kalle90 wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...

Yeah, +20% assault rifle damage vs. +16% assault rifle damage is vastly more character-differentiating than, say, Revenant vs. Vindicator.

ME3 should feature battle rifles, SMGs, heavy weapons, grenades...

ME1 wasn't perfect, but if I have to grab this, some of my soldiers focus on shield bypassing snipers and force increasing shotguns while others use toxic assault rifles. Plus they have different skills and powers at different levels. In the end of ME1 they're much more different than they are in ME2.

They just ended up shooting rocks/your shields anyway. Even now the AI is far from contributing on the tactical level, like Xmas Ape said 5-7 posts ago.

Now I'm the one not understanding anything. Who was shooting my shields? What does AI have to do with this? I thought Xmas Ape talked about how the weapons weren't much different

Edit: Ok, I guess you meant the post about 15 posts ago. I agree with that teammates should be a lot smarter but it doesn't really have anything to do with what I said

kalle90 wrote...

Not to mention any soldier can pick any of the weapons anytime and be just as good with it as any other soldier

That part was horrible!

Didn't you just applaud the diversity of each Hench?
I don't understand any of this...

Here I was talking about ME2. Any of my soldiers can go just pick Vindicator or Revenant from the armoury and then they're all the same.

Modifié par kalle90, 14 septembre 2010 - 01:01 .

[kregano]

Personally, I like having the ammo on the power wheel, since it allows me to adapt to changing battlefield conditions on the fly. However, I don't like the arbitrary selections most classes get; I would prefer being able to choose which ammo types I want prior to a mission, sort of like how you can select guns in ME2.



As for the upgrade system in ME3, I would definitely love to see visual modifications to the guns as they upgrade. However, it should apply to mods as well, just so the customization is apparent. They did a pretty good job with that in the Armor Locker, so they should be able to pull it off (although it might be harder due to the gun collapsing animations).

[kstarler]

kalle90 wrote...

Like I once said: IMO perfection would be if there were 3 assault rifle brands (Lets say Lancer, Banshee and Avenger) with 5 clearly improved grades (I, II, III, IV, V in ME1). Lancer focuses on firerate being fully automatic with less accuracy and power, Banshee is a powerful and accurate single shot cannon while Avenger is burst fire medium. On top of that you have various and different weapon mods to equip

To my mind, you are describing the Avenger/Geth Rifle/Revenant, Mattock, and Vindicator from ME2, minus the mods, which I would support. Granted, the Mattock is a DLC that you have to buy, but they still fit your description. And the I-V levels could be easily defined as the weapon upgrades through the game.

Personally, I'm pleased by the earlier poster's comment that the developers would like to improve upon the ME2 system, which I agree is imperfect, but in my opinion is better than the ME1 system.

Modifié par kstarler, 14 septembre 2010 - 06:24 .

[Marbazoid]

Your not actually loosing any choice, all the options are still there, just not in the form of a traditional inventory. I would go as far to say that ME2 offers MORE weapon options. Would everyone be happy if they just put back in a truckload of each weapon to pick up, that each vary only slightly in appearance and stats?



Since when did anyone like the ME1 inventory? I thought it was just as popular as the mako.

[durasteel]

The ME1 inventory was horrible. I never want to deal with that garbage dump ever again.

I think the only thing that really needs to be changed is that most of the team need to have "casual" and "armor" just like Shepard.

The "Alternate Appearance Pack" DLC was a definite step in the right direction. There should be "Cycle Appearance" options that are unlocked within the game for multiple squaddies. I would be happy to see the same armor and casual sliders that Shepard enjoyed apply to each team member.

[Aedan_Cousland]

The inventory system from ME1 was a mess. I'd sometmes turn on the game and spend 15 - 20 minutes in inventory management or selling unwanted equipment, before I could even get on with the actual game. It was tedious and boring.

Overall I liked ME2's system better though it was far from perfect. I missed the lack of customization with squadmates that was there in ME1. Each squadmate has two or three outfits and that is it, and some of them seem poorly suited for a few of the enviroments you fight in.

In ME3 I think they should stick with ME2's system but just ad a greater degreee of customization for the squadmates and a lot more options as far as armor goes. Like Shepard they should have 'casual' outfits and combat armor. They should probably also had in a feature where some outfits are better suited for certain things. For example the more casual outfits might grant greater speed or accuracy and might be preferable for certain missions in cities, whereas your combat suit grants greater damage protection and the ability to breathe on alien worlds or in the vacuum, and might be required for missions on uncharted worlds.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 14 septembre 2010 - 07:11 .

[Quething]

durasteel wrote...

The "Alternate Appearance Pack" DLC was a definite step in the right direction. There should be "Cycle Appearance" options that are unlocked within the game for multiple squaddies. I would be happy to see the same armor and casual sliders that Shepard enjoyed apply to each team member.

I think that Normandy/hub area outfits vs actual combat armor is a distinction that needs to be made for every squadmate, yes, but I don't consider that a visual issue alone - in fact despite the perpetual wrath of both my inner scientist and my inner feminist against Samara's costuming, the visual aspect is maybe even not the most important.

I will not argue for a second that the weapon system we have now is not an improvement over the "untrained or Spectre X" "choice" that existed in ME1. I think specialized ammo as powers instead of mods is inane and wrongheaded, but that's fairly minor against the genuine gameplay difference between Viper and Widow or Vindicator and Revenant.

But what about everything else besides weapons? Where are the gameplay distinctions, not just the visual distinctions, between different armor types? Why do Zaeed and Garrus die just as quick as Tali and Miranda, and why is my engineer just as tanky and brutal in melee as my vanguard or soldier? Why don't I feel an actual difference between strapping on the massive bulk of Kestrel armor and running around in the slimmer, more balanced default N7? Why can't I install flame-resistant seals on my armor before fighting Blood Pack mercs, and then swap them out for mass field stabilizers that reduce Warp damage from Eclipse vanguards?

In ME1, if I knew there were rachni or threshers ahead, everybody got Colossus and toxin resistance mods. If I knew there were geth, we went Predator instead. When I went to rescue Chairman Burns or clear out Sirta, I actually swapped Ashley down to medium armor for better biotic protection. On level 2+ hazard worlds I'd toss someone some Devlon or do an additem x_armor_pressseals to save the out-of-Mako hassle. Even on lower difficulties like Veteran, the difference in team survivability and the amount of and baby-sitting and medigel required due to smart armor and mod management was dramatic.

In ME2, I just slap whatever combo on Shep I think looks best and run that for the whole game, because any given class's "ideal" setup is equally effective in every conceivable situation* and even "OP" armors like Kestrel genuinely make no noticable difference, and nothing you can equip to yourself or your squad has any kind of tactical influence on your raw survivability or defense. This is a major step down in gameplay.

(I mean, obviously the ME1 system was pretty broken by the time you hit level 50 and you're picking up Medical Exos and have no reason to ever want anything else, but that was a balance and scaling problem, not a conceptual or design error. Huge difference.)


* Not true for the well-designed weapon system, you'll notice; Claymore for Collectors, GPS for geth.

Modifié par Quething, 14 septembre 2010 - 07:59 .

[kstarler]

Quething wrote...

durasteel wrote...

The "Alternate Appearance Pack" DLC was a definite step in the right direction. There should be "Cycle Appearance" options that are unlocked within the game for multiple squaddies. I would be happy to see the same armor and casual sliders that Shepard enjoyed apply to each team member.

I think that Normandy/hub area outfits vs actual combat armor is a distinction that needs to be made for every squadmate, yes, but I don't consider that a visual issue alone - in fact despite the perpetual wrath of both my inner scientist and my inner feminist against Samara's costuming, the visual aspect is maybe even not the most important.

I will not argue for a second that the weapon system we have now is not an improvement over the "untrained or Spectre X" "choice" that existed in ME1. I think specialized ammo as powers instead of mods is inane and wrongheaded, but that's fairly minor against the genuine gameplay difference between Viper and Widow or Vindicator and Revenant.

But what about everything else besides weapons? Where are the gameplay distinctions, not just the visual distinctions, between different armor types? Why do Zaeed and Garrus die just as quick as Tali and Miranda, and why is my engineer just as tanky and brutal in melee as my vanguard or soldier? Why don't I feel an actual difference between strapping on the massive bulk of Kestrel armor and running around in the slimmer, more balanced default N7? Why can't I install flame-resistant seals on my armor before fighting Blood Pack mercs, and then swap them out for mass field stabilizers that reduce Warp damage from Eclipse vanguards?

In ME1, if I knew there were rachni or threshers ahead, everybody got Colossus and toxin resistance mods. If I knew there were geth, we went Predator instead. When I went to rescue Chairman Burns or clear out Sirta, I actually swapped Ashley down to medium armor for better biotic protection. On level 2+ hazard worlds I'd toss someone some Devlon or do an additem x_armor_pressseals to save the out-of-Mako hassle. Even on lower difficulties like Veteran, the difference in team survivability and the amount of and baby-sitting and medigel required due to smart armor and mod management was dramatic.

In ME2, I just slap whatever combo on Shep I think looks best and run that for the whole game, because any given class's "ideal" setup is equally effective in every conceivable situation* and even "OP" armors like Kestrel genuinely make no noticable difference, and nothing you can equip to yourself or your squad has any kind of tactical influence on your raw survivability or defense. This is a major step down in gameplay.

(I mean, obviously the ME1 system was pretty broken by the time you hit level 50 and you're picking up Medical Exos and have no reason to ever want anything else, but that was a balance and scaling problem, not a conceptual or design error. Huge difference.)


* Not true for the well-designed weapon system, you'll notice; Claymore for Collectors, GPS for geth.

I agree with almost everything in your post. You don't specify, but I'm assuming that your armor suggestions are in relation to Harcore/Insanity difficulty. I'm certainly fine with the Casual/Normal player being able to simply slap together what looks best and run through the game without too much hinderance. With that said, it would be nice to be rewarded for customizing an armor setup before each mission, though there would have to be a mechanic change from only being able to access armor on the Normandy via the commander's cabin, and not being able to return once a mission is started. Perhaps armor could be added to the initial mission configuration, in the same way that weapons can be configured. This would also work well if armor for squad mates were implemented to match Shepard's menu.

Modifié par kstarler, 14 septembre 2010 - 08:26 .

[durasteel]

Quething wrote...
... Why do Zaeed and Garrus die just as quick as Tali and Miranda, and why is my engineer just as tanky and brutal in melee as my vanguard or soldier? Why don't I feel an actual difference between strapping on the massive bulk of Kestrel armor and running around in the slimmer, more balanced default N7? Why can't I install flame-resistant seals on my armor before fighting Blood Pack mercs, and then swap them out for mass field stabilizers that reduce Warp damage from Eclipse vanguards?

Oh, hell yes.  This is an outstanding point.

I'm not that crazy about the ide of having to re-mod my armor on a regular basis for situational protection, but I do believe that the armored Zaeed should be able to soak up a lot more hurt than the naked Jack.  When you click that "cycle appearance" button for Jack (after the "Alernate Appearance Pack" and she <ahem> puts her guns away and you see the glowie kinetic barrier projectors on her combat vest, she should get a boost to defense, maybe offset by a longer recharge for her biotics.

Armor should matter.  It should, you know... protect something.

Of course, my biggest complaint with the ME2 gameplay was that cover was over-emphasised.  Still haven't played a Vangard, I've heard that's a little different.

[Pocketgb]

Quething wrote...
*snippet*
In ME2, I just slap whatever combo on Shep I think looks best and run that for the whole game, because any given class's "ideal" setup is equally effective in every conceivable situation* and even "OP" armors like Kestrel genuinely make no noticable difference, and nothing you can equip to yourself or your squad has any kind of tactical influence on your raw survivability or defense. This is a major step down in gameplay.

And how isn't this so for most of Bioware's catalog? The combat in a Bioware game is largely forgiving, overall, especially in ME1's case. I'd say it'd be the least for DA's case but that's due to different design flaws.

[Pedrak]

ME's inventory system was flawed, but getting rid of it wasn't a good solution.



Just like the physics of the Mako sucked, but jettisoning it altogether and reducing planet exploration didn't work for me (good thing they gave us a new vehicle later...)

[Urazz]

Sure Bioware scrapping the inventory system in ME1 for the lack of one we got now in ME2 wasn't the best decision but it was a big improvement regardless of if you like it or not.



Personally, I hope we keep the current system but improve upon it. I.E. give all squadmates armor for when in combat and give us a couple of choices as well.

[Crackseed]

I do agree the lack of annoying inventory was nice but I think we need to have a middle ground for ME3. We definitely could use more armor for Shep AND the squad - weaponry wise we're at a nice point but I'd like to see maybe a bit more creativity even on the standard weapon types. What I DO think we need back is the upgrade system combined with modding - the mods in ME1 were the one reason I did slog through the inventory system.

If they manage to do that w/o saddling us with an awful inventory while letting us armor up more, including the squaddies? Oh baby I'm there

Modifié par crackseed, 14 septembre 2010 - 11:21 .

[StargazerUK]

Played Mass Effect on the PC only.

I personally liked the interventory on ME1 and found it a no brainer and so simple and i liked the addon customisations slots that made you choose the add on items.

I liked the fact you could chose your squad weapons and had and not so restricted like in ME2 to just a few weapons. ME1 had more choice and each member had one pistol, sniper rifle, rifle and shotgun each.

I liked the fact you could choose your armor and squad armor (some restrictions were there) and choose to show to either show your helmet on the suits or not. ME2 had sweet FA in terms of customisations in this area Mostly a loyal custom and an alternate pack if your willing to buy it.

I liked the fact that you had to find or buy items to upgrade your weapons and armor with certain things and had to choose carfully with your upgrades rather then then given a load.

One thing that bugged me was when browsing the the inventory was seeing multipule of the same Item.

What would of been better I personally think is if the loot collected was if they stacked instead of displayed individually it had (e.g Edge II x3 in pistol section instead of seeing it listed 3 times.)

Modifié par StargazerUK, 15 septembre 2010 - 12:11 .

[TekFanX]

kregano wrote...

TekFanX wrote...
But imo every RPG needs an inventory.
Managing the space in the inventory and the room every item takes inside was some kind of economy. Also you could sell stuff you didn't need.

The problem with this is that in the Mass Effect universe, this is the sort of thing that's handled by a VI. And if you're going around scanning things on the battlefield, you have nothing to sell unless you manufactured it yourself, which is a waste of resources. On the other hand, selling off excess minerals is fine by me, because that stuff has an inherent value and cannot be mass produced, unlike guns or armor.

And with the scanning of ME2 and the omni-gel of ME1 we have the perfect combination for a lot of costumizing-fun!
Your inventory is the memory of your omni-tool. You can size up your inventory by upgrading your omni-tool with additional memory or archiving-algorithms that compress the data.
Each item you find is just scanned.
Each class has a certain ammount of omni-gel (engineer>infiltrator/sentinel>soldier/vanguard/adept) in the field(maybe you can find omni-gel in the field).
The soldier/vanguard/adept has at least enough omni-gel for one new armor-suit.

If you want to make room for a scan, while your memory is full, you can "materialize" complex things with omni-gel. Complex parts take more memory, large parts more omni-gel.

Why wouldn't you just dump the omnitool scans into the Normandy's computers everytime you got back from a mission? That makes more sense than going around hauling every scan you've made so far and then having to make something in order to free HDD space.

On the first thing: In ME2 information is a powerful and precious tool. A scan of a rare weapon would probably be worth a lot.
On the seconf thing: I think it was obvious that you would dump your scanned data into the normandy-database, so I didn't mention it.
I was assuming a lot of data-loot in each mission.

[Terror_K]

Marbazoid wrote...

Your not actually loosing any choice, all the options are still there, just not in the form of a traditional inventory. I would go as far to say that ME2 offers MORE weapon options. Would everyone be happy if they just put back in a truckload of each weapon to pick up, that each vary only slightly in appearance and stats?

Yes, actually... I would prefer that. It's better than ME2's completely linear, uncustomisable and shallow weapons system.

Since when did anyone like the ME1 inventory? I thought it was just as popular as the mako.

Where does this misconception come from that an inventory system in a Mass Effect game has to either be like the system in ME1 or the stripped down, shallow system of ME2? Haven't there been enough other games released in the last 30 years to illustrate that there are other ways of doing things? Isn't the possibility of a middle-fround possible?  Why is everything so black and white, and how come anybody who complains about ME2's inventory (or lack thereof) gets auto-labeled as an "ME1 Inventory Lover" suddenly?

Yes... ME1's inventory was flawed. You'll be hard pressed to find somebody who disagrees with that. But ME2's replacement system is hardly any better, and in some cases far worse. Both have issues, but they're almost completely opposite issues. ME1's inventory was too needlessly complex, with too many items, too much junk and poor balancing. ME2's system was too simple and lacking, with too few items, a terribly linear system, and no real customisation.

And it's a misconception that The Mako itself is hated... sadly one that BioWare believes. Most people will, if pressed on the subject, fully admit that it was more the worlds you landed on and the lack of variety that was the problem, and not The Mako itself. And many believe that The Hammerhead is by far a worse vehicle.

[Sidney]

Terror_K wrote...

Where does this misconception come from that an inventory system in a Mass Effect game has to either be like the system in ME1 or the stripped down, shallow system of ME2? Haven't there been enough other games released in the last 30 years to illustrate that there are other ways of doing things? Isn't the possibility of a middle-fround possible?  Why is everything so black and white, and how come anybody who complains about ME2's inventory (or lack thereof) gets auto-labeled as an "ME1 Inventory Lover" suddenly?

There's nothing shallow about the inventory system, It has a lot of choice and a lot of variety it just doesn't happen to fit the template of what you might want inventory to be.

You'd be perfectly happy if instead of having 6 components to swap on the same base armor they had 50 sets of armor that contained the just some of the different combos you can now create. A "Foo Super XIII" style of armor feels like "inventory" to you despite the fact that the current system gives you a lot more ways to customize what you are wearing. The fact that with the materials, colors and patterns you can create more looks than the 50 also doesn't seem to much matter to the people whining about styles of armor.

You've got different choices of weapons. The Hand Cannon and base pistol play differently - I use the latter since I'm a bad shot for example. The Locust and Shiruken are different weapons for sure. I think having some of the more interesting weapons - Mattock, Locust and such as DLC was a mistake. The reality is that the guns are differnet among and between classes that the variety is there.

You can talk about "good" inventory systems but if you look at games from the old BG's, to the old FO's, to things with a heavy inventory element like XCOM or JA to more modern efforts like DAO or the new FO all those systems stink like 3 day old fish because they require a major inventestment in time and energy to get marginal gains and you have to have some way to add and remove and inevitably sell stuff. Some people enjoy that - some people enjoying accounting too but both people are wrong. There was nothing fun, or all that challeneging, about looking at the stats on the weapons in ME1 or DAO and trying to figure out the marginal gains of one weapon/armor over the other.