528 réponses à ce sujet

[david-esp]

sinosleep wrote...

Mr.Kusy wrote...

I don't consider this a bad thing... maybee it's less newbie friendly but also more rewarding.

It drove me bat**** crazy more for lore reasons than for gameplay reasons. Even before the game begins Shepard is an extremely accomplished special operations soldier. Applying the starts weak and becomes strong rpg archetype to the gunplay makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, I wasn't anything remotely resembling a special ops soldier, but I was qualified in an m16, an m249, the 50 cal machine gun, and m203 grenade launcher attachment while being familiar with although not officially qualified for using shotguns and Mk 19 semi automatic grenade launcher. And that was working in communications for crying out loud. So lvl 1 shep being a HORRENDOUS shot totally took me out of the game. If you had started out as a fresh recruit it wouldn't have been so jarring, but Shep is a highly decorated, experienced, spec ops killing machine at lvl 1.

By that logic, Shepard should also be good at biotics or engineering, depending on the class selected.

[Lumikki]

david-esp wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

Mr.Kusy wrote...

I don't consider this a bad thing... maybee it's less newbie friendly but also more rewarding.

It drove me bat**** crazy more for lore reasons than for gameplay reasons. Even before the game begins Shepard is an extremely accomplished special operations soldier. Applying the starts weak and becomes strong rpg archetype to the gunplay makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, I wasn't anything remotely resembling a special ops soldier, but I was qualified in an m16, an m249, the 50 cal machine gun, and m203 grenade launcher attachment while being familiar with although not officially qualified for using shotguns and Mk 19 semi automatic grenade launcher. And that was working in communications for crying out loud. So lvl 1 shep being a HORRENDOUS shot totally took me out of the game. If you had started out as a fresh recruit it wouldn't have been so jarring, but Shep is a highly decorated, experienced, spec ops killing machine at lvl 1.

By that logic, Shepard should also be good at biotics or engineering, depending on the class selected.

Yes, of course. This doesn't how ever mean that there is no room for improve your abilities, it just mean you are not some rookie. Meaning any class should use they abilities fine even in beging.

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 septembre 2010 - 03:29 .

[david-esp]

But then, you could also improve your gun skills.

To be clear, I'm not saying that Shepard has to be like ME1 with very few gun skill. But maybe for ME3 they could add some gun skill, because in ME2 it is strange that Shepard is a perfect shooter but seems to have forgotten how to use his biotics or tech powers.

What I was complaining is that some people seems to be uncomfortable with the idea of "Shepard can't almost use a weapon he has been trained" but has no problem with "Shepard can't almost use a biotic tech power he has been trained".

Modifié par david-esp, 26 septembre 2010 - 03:51 .

[Lumikki]

david-esp wrote...

But then, you could also improve your gun skills.

*snip*
 
What I was complaining is that some people seems to be uncomfortable with the idea of "Shepard can't almost use a weapon he has been trained" but has no problem with "Shepard can't almost use a biotic tech power he has been trained".

I know what you mean. In my opinion all bionic, weapon skills and so on should be open and usefull from start. If you have possibility improve them some way that's fine too, but all of those should be usefull from start. Also improving doesn't allways mean same for different abilities. Some can improve trough skill while some trough gear.

[kalle90]

I always think it would make sense that the 1st skill point is the biggest one with any skill. It works like that with biotic and tech skills where 0 points means you can't do it but just 1 point gives you a rather useful skill.



So:

0 Pistol skill = Has no experience with the gun whatsoever. Horrible shot

1 Pistol skill = Has the basic training and skill. Decent

After that the difference wouldn't be major, depending on how many total skill points each skill can have. I'd be fine if every weapon skill had 5 points.

[termokanden]

Actually that is how it worked in ME1. You got the biggest boost out of the first point



That said, you weren't actually that great at something just because you had one point in it.

[kalle90]

termokanden wrote...

Actually that is how it worked in ME1. You got the biggest boost out of the first point

That said, you weren't actually that great at something just because you had one point in it.

True, but it was still only 10% accuracy improvement. IMO it should be a lot more. After basic training you can atleast hit the board so something like 30% or even more sounds viable

Though the system itself was weird as the last point gave you 30% accuracy increase which makes you damn near perfect shot. So the whole system would have to be tweaked to something like
0 points = 0% accuracy (A total noob)
1 point = 33% accuracy (Basic training)
2 points = 66% accuracy (Advanced training)
3 points = 99% accuracy (Weapon mastery)
Plus some firerate/reload/cooldown and such small improvements. I'd guess the powers like Marksman and Assassination should also improve a bit on each step or just stay out

Modifié par kalle90, 26 septembre 2010 - 04:19 .

[sinosleep]

david-esp wrote...

By that logic, Shepard should also be good at biotics or engineering, depending on the class selected.

Not really. Yes, you can get better at shooting a gun, but once you can hit a target at 300 meters you can hit a target at 300 meters, and you can do so coming straight out of bootcamp. When it comes to your actual vocation though, you learn new things the entire time you are in. Hell, my job even changed while I was in since the equipment I worked with was upgraded and they made a new MOS to run it, which I was then retrained as. There are no new techniques to learn as far as shooting a gun. They all revolve around the same things, steady breathing, smooth trigger pull. That is applied to smgs, machine guns, assault rifles, and practically anything else you fire off. You could hand me an AK 47, an assault rifle I've never used, and I'm sure I'd be able to handle it just fine because the the principles are all the same. If I'm used to working in windows or osx and you throw a linux machine at me I'm going to have trouble trying to fix it. That's why don't have an issue leveling biotics or tech but leveling weapons makes no sense to me. He's a marine first and foremost, he should be a weapons expert regardless of class. Thankfully ME 2 sees things the same way.

That's why I don't consider them to be the same thing. I can see Shep learning new biotic or tech skills as the times change, but he should have always been a weapons expert. He's a spec ops soldier or crying out loud.

Modifié par sinosleep, 26 septembre 2010 - 04:40 .

[Lumikki]

Anyone who has done special military training, doesn't anymore need ANY basic weapon skill training for noobs.There is nothing basic training for Shepard left, he/she got it all allready. So, forget the noob, basic and start directly from advance training.

sinosleep wrote...

That's why I don't consider them to be
the same thing. I can see Shep learning new biotic or tech skills as the
times change, but he should have always been a weapons expert. He's a
spec ops soldier or crying out loud.

I disagree. What ever training Spehard has got, it doens't matter what kind of it is, he/she is specialist in it. Is it bionic, weapons or enegenering, he/she is specialist allready in it. So, all of those shoudl be treated equal and consider that Shepard knows them well and can use them well. If there is some advance traning left after that, that's seperate thing, but Sheapard knows all the basic stuff.

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 septembre 2010 - 04:47 .

[termokanden]

Shepard starts with no gun skills and no biotics/tech skills even if Shepard is supposedly a biotics/tech expert. I don't see how it's different.



I find it very plausible that Shepard's special training could have been mainly biotics for example.



I also know that you might learn new things, but I doubt you're going to forget how to use biotics entirely.

[sinosleep]

It's different because of everything I've told you termokanden. I was a communications expert. So lets say in game terms I was a engineer. Guess what I was trained in first, before I read a single tech manual? Weapons. And I managed to become qualified with 4 of them and familiar with another 3 in my 5 1/2 years in. While I only received truly extensive training during bootcamp it stuck with me and so in requalifications and new qualifications with weapons I hand't used before I never had any issues. Cause that's simply not how guns work. They all revolve around the same principle so once you know how to use one you pretty much know how to use them all.

Meanwhile, I actually had to get completely retrained as a tech when my equipment was upgraded because that was my vocation. It's not the same thing at all. ALL soldiers, regardless of vocation, are marksmen first.

Modifié par sinosleep, 26 septembre 2010 - 04:45 .

[termokanden]

I agree that no version of Shepard should have no gun training. But I also think it's silly that engineer shepard starts out knowing nothing about tech. I know that tech evolves, but has it really all been completely replaced over the course of a few years?

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's silly. But it's not just the part about the guns.

Hehe, perhaps Shepard got a new omnitool and hasn't read the manual yet.

Modifié par termokanden, 26 septembre 2010 - 04:50 .

[Lumikki]

You do know that all eletronics is based same principle of how basic components works. Meaning when you know the basic it's just matter of using those skills. I assume same stuff can be used to even bionics. It may not be so fast and easy to learn as it's to use of weapons, but after you know the basic, there isn't much difference.

Also when you go in military some special training, you get basic training using weapons, but rest of time you are learning you speciality what you will master. If that speciality was weapons, that's that's you training, but it could be communication or transport, vechiles and so on..

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 septembre 2010 - 04:59 .

[Kronner]

lol no knowledge in tech? It is a freaking GAME. Nothing else. So obviously game mechanics are more important than realism.

Modifié par Kronner, 26 septembre 2010 - 04:56 .

[termokanden]

Kronner wrote...

lol no knowledge in tech? It is a freaking GAME. Nothing else. So obviously game mechanics are more important than realism.

That's not really what we're discussing right now. I just can't help but comment that it's the whole idea of Shepard starting out with no skills at all that's silly and not just the part where Shepard doesn't know how to fire a gun. It's not particularly important, I will admit that

We're probably getting awfully far from the unlimited ammo too.

Modifié par termokanden, 26 septembre 2010 - 05:00 .

[sinosleep]

I'll drop it then and if anyone wants to continue the discussion about it you can PM me. At the end o the day it's moot anyway since it was an ME 1 problem that ME 2 fixed.

[Lumikki]

I'm not sure this is unrelated to unlimited ammo discussion, little bit but it's also some way related to it. People seem to be hapid to pick only subjects they like and they can use same reason to support something what they like, while what they don't like they don't accept those same reasons anymore. Example many time people say it's because impression is better. Let me explain.

Romance, because it exist in real life too, it feels better when impression is better. It's about reality as what's real and what not. Now can someone then come in other subject the reality doesn't matter, it's just game. So, how come it matters in one place and not in other. Of cause we all understand that too realistic isn't allways fine, but how we judge others liking it sertain ways, because it's more realistic to them. If we say it's just game, then the matter isn't realy that important to them as it is for others.

So, when we talk about unlimited ammos it's also between what realistic and what's not. It's compromise between fun and playability. How ever, here's the problem, to whom it's compromise, when some people don't care so much about it as others. In my opinion unlimited ammos is one of those issues, it does affect gameplay, making it more unrealistic or realistic, because caring about running out of ammos can be part of game. Some people like it, some don't. It's like micromanagent of inventory, some likes it some don't.

We all do this, even me all the time, we use same reasons to what we like and what we don't like they aren't anymore good enough to be reasonable. Having ammo limits is more realistic and it does affect players gameplay. Is picking ammos from ground realistic? No, but if they where in bodies, yes it would be.

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 septembre 2010 - 05:22 .

[Embrosil]

sinosleep wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Yes, hybrid system would be good. I would even be ok with an ammo system, if impelemented logicaly. But the current status of impelementing is so lame, especially considering the fact that the call it an improvement. Show me any military, which would willingly change an unlimited ammo for a limited one....
The problem is that they call ammo a heatsink. And heat simply goes away by time, unless you are in a hotter environment. Hmm, anyone has seen We were soldiers? The scene where they pee to cool down mortars as they run out of water? By the logic of Bioware's new system, they should swith to a different weapon when they do not have more heatsinks...

Christ it was a MOVIE! I was actually in the military, there is a reason m249 and m60 gunners carry EXTRA BARRELS and not extra water. When something overheats as much as weapons barrels do you don't simply wait for them to cool off. You swap out the hot for the cool one, and more often then not that hot barrled has been permanently warped and rendered unsuseable.

Christ this is a game! Your point being?

[Lumikki]

MysticMage44 wrote...

I definitely like the unlimited ammo better in ME1 then the heat clips in ME2. I thought it was unique, compared to all the other shooters out there. I also found it more fun, and no less challenging than me2.

There is nothing unique to have clips or unlimited ammos. Both of them has used in 100's of games before.

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 septembre 2010 - 05:26 .

[sinosleep]

Embrosil wrote...

Christ this is a game! Your point being?

Are you serious dude? Did you not read your own words, which are included in that quote? You tried to talk about realism, while basing your entire arguement on something you saw in a movie. I corrected you by providing you with the facts of what actually happens and as such is actually realistic.

The point is, don't talk about things you have no knowledge of.

Modifié par sinosleep, 26 septembre 2010 - 05:27 .

[Embrosil]

Lumikki wrote...

I'm not sure this is unrelated to unlimited ammo discussion, little bit but it's also some way related to it. People seem to be hapid to pick only subjects they like and they can use same reason to support something what they like, while what they don't like they don't accept those same reasons anymore. Example many time people say it's because impression is better. Let me explain.

Romance, because it exist in real life too, it feels better when impression is better. It's about reality as what's real and what not. Now can someone then come in other subject the reality doesn't matter, it's just game. So, how come it matters in one place and not in other. Of cause we all understand that too realistic isn't allways fine, but how we judge others liking it sertain ways, because it's more realistic to them. If we say it's just game, then the matter isn't realy that important to them as it is for others.

So, when we talk about unlimited ammos it's also between what realistic and what's not. It's compromise between fun and playability. How ever, here's the problem, to whom it's compromise, when some people don't care so much about it as others. In my opinion unlimited ammos is one of those issues, it does affect gameplay, making it more unrealistic or realistic, because caring about running out of ammos can be part of game. Some people like it, some don't. It's like micromanagent of inventory, some likes it some don't.

We all do this, even me all the time, we use same reasons to what we like and what we don't like they aren't anymore good enough to be reasonable. Having ammo limits is more realistic and it does affect players gameplay. Is picking ammos from ground realistic? No, but if they where in bodies, yes it would be.

I see your point. But try to take a look from the other side. How many science fiction RPGs or shooters you know have an unlimited ammo. I do not remeber seeing any (that does not mean there are not any though). In this, ME1 is unique. You can not talk about realism in a science fiction game. That is a contradiction. If I wanted a realistic game, I would install Arma II again. But having something unique is imho alway better than to have something more realistic. The unlimited ammo was part of the lore. In ME universe, soldiers are simply allowed to fire almost indifinitely. That is the part of being a science fiction game. If the ammo system was in ME1 I doubt anyone would complain. But we complain that they took away something unique, something that made the game a science fiction and replaced it with a trivial system hundrets of other games have. And I hope that you will agree that the way they implemented and explained it is really, really lame. And when talking about a compromise. The easiest solution would be the hybrid system. The ammo would slowly (and it could even be set up how fast - easy difficulty fast vs. insanity slow) regenerate as the weapon would cool down. And instead of overheating, you would eject a thermal clip. And once out of thermal clips, you could freely (read the game would not force you to) decide if you switch to another weapon or will fire the current one with a low rate of fire. 

Modifié par Embrosil, 26 septembre 2010 - 05:40 .

[kalle90]

Lumikki wrote...

Anyone who has done special military training, doesn't anymore need ANY basic weapon skill training for noobs.There is nothing basic training for Shepard left, he/she got it all allready. So, forget the noob, basic and start directly from advance training.

Which means there wouldn't be much to learn, which means less skills. Plus Shepard should know atleast basic tech skills (oh wait ME2) and atleast adepts should know tons of biotic powers from the start as well.

Like said it's game mechanics mostly. When you can choose what this kind of chosen hope specializes in someone would ask why is this game a RPG in the first place? At best you're basically Master Chief, Master Jedi and some master tech expert combined. Are you supposed to be all that?

On the other hand I don't assume my adepts learned how to use guns. That's roleplaying for you.
 
The kind of skill system I suggested would allow people to customize their Shepard more, but the little number of points needed to master the skill would make it quite easy to max everything. In my eyes it's a win-win situation

[JaegerBane]

MysticMage44 wrote...

I definitely like the unlimited ammo better in ME1 then the heat clips in ME2. I thought it was unique, compared to all the other shooters out there. I also found it more fun, and no less challenging than me2.

I found the unlimited ammo concept in ME1 quite an interesting way of demonstrating how weapons technology had advanced in the future. Most sci-fi either depicts future guns as using some radically different directed-energy concept (like Babylon 5 or the Terminator) or they function the same way they do today, and it's explained away as simply being an example of a mature tech (like Avatar or the Starship Troopers movie).

ME1, however, went with the idea that future firearms used the same basic idea of accelerating a projectile towards the target, but were revolutionised by advancing tech so that bullets were the size of sand grains - they effectively provided the same performance, just without having to reload.

That said, I did think ME2's rationalisation of it made sense - at the end of the day, if a firearm has unlimted ammo, it kills a lot of it's purpose if that unlimited ammo can only be fired in portions at a time. All you're actually gaining is that you have to carry less clips - your firepower actually decreases thanks to having to wait for it to cool as oppose to popping the clip and reloading.

I would actually prefer it if they'd gone with a hybrid of both systems - guns cool over time but you can reload as and when needed.

[Lumikki]

JaegerBane wrote...

I would actually prefer it if they'd gone with a hybrid of both systems - guns cool over time but you can reload as and when needed.

Yes, but this has absolute Zero meaning, is it cooldown or reload. Because both does same, create short break to shooting what has no real meaning any way. The real meaning of gameplay related, it's between limited ammos or unlimited. Because this affects what weapons you will use and how the combat feels in the battlefield.

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 septembre 2010 - 07:17 .