528 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Yeah, ME2 has only more on the surface, not at it's core. At it's core it's weak, linear and shallow. The only thing the system has got for it beyond the elimination of junk items is the fact that every weapon is different, and that's pretty much where it ends. Take that away and you'd notice that the system is far more lacking than ME1's. No customisation, no randomness, complete linearity. Even some full-on shooters have a deeper, more fully-realised system than ME2 does.

[sinosleep]

What's more linear than save money buy spectre gear?

[AdamNW]

Terror_K wrote...

Yeah, ME2 has only more on the surface, not at it's core. At it's core it's weak, linear and shallow. The only thing the system has got for it beyond the elimination of junk items is the fact that every weapon is different, and that's pretty much where it ends. Take that away and you'd notice that the system is far more lacking than ME1's. No customisation, no randomness, complete linearity. Even some full-on shooters have a deeper, more fully-realised system than ME2 does.

I wasn't aware that 19 very distinct guns is more linear than four.

And weapon mods in ME1 make no more difference than ammo powers in ME2 did.

[Terror_K]

sinosleep wrote...

What's more linear than save money buy spectre gear?

Play the game and have every weapon and upgrade fall into your lap without even trying. That is more linear.

[sinosleep]

Saving money and buying spectre gear is trying?

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

Yeah, ME2 has only more on the surface, not at it's core. At it's core it's weak, linear and shallow. The only thing the system has got for it beyond the elimination of junk items is the fact that every weapon is different, and that's pretty much where it ends. Take that away and you'd notice that the system is far more lacking than ME1's. No customisation, no randomness, complete linearity. Even some full-on shooters have a deeper, more fully-realised system than ME2 does.

Thats a good thing? Reloading many times over so that you get the rage X armor is good?
Thats better than what me1 had, there was no point to every using any other weapon apart spectre weapons.

I want more RPG elements (I am an RPG fan) for me3 however I want high quality RPG elements, that are well implemented not just there for RPG sake, I rather not have any in that case. This is not just against me1 or 2 but RPGs in general. If we bring back planet exploration in me3, lets explore the great unknown not just land on a planet and got to point A, B, C. Lets bring back mods, but make the majority useful and also verifiable. Inferno Rounds should decrease enenmy accuracy is that verifiable?Will the enemy sniper hit anything? Is there any point in not taking a medical interface as at least one armor slot?

Thats of thing I don't like about hardcore RPG these days, it seems to be a how much RPG elements you can mix together rather but rather how they all fit together.
 

[Glory71]

Bioware better read this thread. So much INPUT in just 13 threads (so far). They better make us "beta testers" for the up-coming ME3 eh?. And the "lo and behold"...the argument is civil! Impressive!

[Mister Mida]

I don't understand why people act like the heating/clips system is related to the uniqueness of the weapons. You can have unique weapons like in ME2 while sticking to the overheating system.

[sinosleep]

Mister Mida wrote...

I don't understand why people act like the heating/clips system is related to the uniqueness of the weapons. You can have unique weapons like in ME2 while sticking to the overheating system.

And who is acting like that? This thread has gone from a strictly overheating/ammo thread to comparing ME 2 to ME 1 wholesale. People are comparing the entirety of everything weapons related in the two games which is where the differences between the weapons is coming in.

[kalle90]

Epic777 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Yeah, ME2 has only more on the surface, not at it's core. At it's core it's weak, linear and shallow. The only thing the system has got for it beyond the elimination of junk items is the fact that every weapon is different, and that's pretty much where it ends. Take that away and you'd notice that the system is far more lacking than ME1's. No customisation, no randomness, complete linearity. Even some full-on shooters have a deeper, more fully-realised system than ME2 does.

Thats a good thing? Reloading many times over so that you get the rage X armor is good?
Thats better than what me1 had, there was no point to every using any other weapon apart spectre weapons.

I want more RPG elements (I am an RPG fan) for me3 however I want high quality RPG elements, that are well implemented not just there for RPG sake, I rather not have any in that case. This is not just against me1 or 2 but RPGs in general. If we bring back planet exploration in me3, lets explore the great unknown not just land on a planet and got to point A, B, C. Lets bring back mods, but make the majority useful and also verifiable. Inferno Rounds should decrease enenmy accuracy is that verifiable?Will the enemy sniper hit anything? Is there any point in not taking a medical interface as at least one armor slot?

Thats of thing I don't like about hardcore RPG these days, it seems to be a how much RPG elements you can mix together rather but rather how they all fit together.
 

I never did that. I just used what I got and was happy with it.
The spectre gear was never forced on me, and I couldn't even get them for free. Only 1 of my characters has spectre gear.

Even though the RPG elements of ME1 left something to hope for, I much preferred it over this near complete linearity. I feel even Gears or Halo has more freedom as I can use completely different weapons to complete a level while ME2 only gives 2 or 3 completely different combinations. I'm more of a shooter person, yet I liked ME1 more because of all the complexity and freedom. All my characters are more different than they are in ME2

But it's amazing how different views people can have and obvious this doesn't go anywhere, and in the end past is past, so I just conclude with my hopes for future:
Clips: Thermal clips actually drain heat like heatsinks that cool down slowly when not firing. As a result I have unlimited ammo but as the weapon heats up it loses power, accuracy and rate of fire (a bit like Plasma Repeater in Halo Reach). This means that switching (reloading mechanic) the clip at the right time is highly useful. Additionally letting the weapon overheat completely might overload the clip and make it unusable. Heavy weapons still use power cells that can run out

Weapons: ME1 weapons revolved around 3 things: power, accuracy and shots before overheat (rate of fire) and also had better/worse stages of them. ME3 should revolve around these while removing the huge amount of redunancy. ME2 was a bit like it but not quite. ME3 should have 3 weapon brands (ie Banshee, Vindicator, Avenger) of each weapon class (rifles, shotguns, pistols etc.) with each focusing on 1 stat, and 3-5 clearly improved stages (I, II, III, IV, V) of each. For example:
- Banshee I (Pow=5, Acc=10, ROF=2), II (Pow=10, Acc=20, ROF=4), III (Pow=15, Acc=30, ROF=6), single shot
- Vindicator I (Pow=8, Acc=5, ROF=4), II (Pow=16, Acc=10, ROF=8), III (Pow=24, Acc=15, ROF=12), burst fire
- Avenger I (Pow=4, Acc=3, ROF=10), II (Pow=8, Acc=6, ROF=20), III (Pow=12, Acc=9, ROF=30), fully automatic
Plus naturally have some dozen unique mods with a few stages too. This is all IMO of course

[sinosleep]

Didn't do a single story mission, earned enough money to buy spectre gear, and even with crap upgrades the weapon fires for a ludicrously long time without overheating.

Modifié par sinosleep, 29 septembre 2010 - 07:54 .

[Heldelance]

sinosleep: You're still referring to the base argument for the ME1 weapons vs. the ME2 weapons. The ME1 mechanics people have conceded to the fact and do very much admit that it requires more balancing. Yes ME1 did feel VERY unbalanced, especially when you gain access to the Spectre Gear but it could easily have been solved if they did more testing and balancing.



What I propose is a meshing of both systems, one that COULD satisfy lore (unless the person is rainman like in nitpickiness) and gameplay.



Basically, you have unlimited ammo for standard weapons, much like ME1, they have a thermal gauge that climbs as you fire. Depending on what upgrades or ammo you have, it may rise slower or faster (Of course careful balancing will need to be done here. Please take heed of that, you can no longer use the argument "But they fire forever! TOTALLY UNBALANCED!!!" because even the ME1 proponents ACCEPT and ACKNOWLEDGE the requirement for balancing the weapons)

Now, as the weapon overheats, you've got an option, a) let it cool off, depending on certain factors (weapon, mods, ammo, etc) it will either take as long as ME 1 when someone uses Overload, or vent rapidly enough that the weapon will allow you to take a few snapshots.

Eject the heat sink. You're in a heated battle, the 3 seconds it takes to eject and replace the heat sink is preferable to the 10-15 seconds for it to cool off.



Mods & Ammo: Again, the ME1 mods and ammo were pretty damned unbalanced, stop using it as an argument against the original system because the ME1 supporters already realize that fact and would have it changed.



(ME1 & 2 system combined, example)

Say you load the shotgun with Scram Xs and Hammerhead or HE-X. Yes it does overheat in a heartbeat. You can wait the cooldown time, or use tactically precious heatsinks to cool them instantly.



Now you're posed with a tactical dilemma, switch to another gun while you wait for it to cool down (this gun may hit just as hard and heat as quickly, or it could just be a suppressing weapon, low damage, low heat, high rate of fire). You could use several heat sinks to kill more guys and end the battle quickly but, what happens if you meet even more enemies who may or may not be tougher, a little later? This time, you don't have any (or you only have a couple left) heat sinks left. The battle thus becomes more protracted and requires that you manage your heat carefully lest the enemy realize you've overheated and this time, flank or charge you.



If properly balanced, heat sinks won't be lying around in such a way that one would think a cargo ship carrying them exploded over your battlefield. This makes the HSs much more scarce and valuable, like in ME2, you can only carry a limited amount in the beginning, as you upgrade, you can carry more, of course it would still not be an insane amount.

With AI, the enemy should take more advantage of when you overheat or 'reload'. So if you fire for a while, overheat, the enemy would realize this and would then try to perform flanking manoeuvres or in the case of dumber (of tougher ones), straight up and charge at you.



Mind you, ME2 was just as bad as ME1. 'How?' you might ask, it had a lot to do with AI and game difficulty. (Yes we are detracting from the weapons argument) Sure you had the ammo mechanism and all those fancy things, but was the game ANY harder than ME1? Even on the tougher difficulties, it was still a relative cake-walk. Sure the enemy uses more cover and doesn't rush you as much, but it's just as pointless if you're in a bad position and all they do is take cover and send 1 or 2 guys at you.



(Back to topic)



Point is, both systems were flawed and could use a major overhaul. It would be woefully idiotic to develop a totally new system like what ME2 did to ME1. It would make far more sense, and be much easier whilst meeting lore and gameplay, if they melded and modified the ME1 and 2 system as I've outlined. (No, I'm not asking them to copy what I suggested verbatim. It would require tweaking and modifying to make it better.)

[Lumikki]

Problem here is that you people try to fix ME1 system so that it would work. You missed the point, it's allready fixed in ME2. You want replace clips with overheat, sure, it has ZERO affect to the game. Only really important changes where weapon balance and that weapons feeled different, the correct way. It has absolute nothing to do that small break to shooting, what changing clips or overheat causes. Weapon balance was done by creating limited ammo based weapons efficiency. This also allowed bigger differences between weapons, like one shot sniper rifles with limited ammos. How ever, differences could have been arrived other ways too, but not as big differences. Balance isn't so easy to arrive. Unlimited ammos support medium based balance where it cause very easyly one weapon become better than others, unless they are very same kind. Controlling ammos, allowed bigger differences and one more way to try to balance weapons. When no weapon is superior to others, it allows player better select weapon they like to use and what fits in situations better.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 septembre 2010 - 09:59 .

[PsyrenY]

Terror_K wrote...

Yeah, ME2 has only more on the surface, not at it's core. At it's core it's weak, linear and shallow. The only thing the system has got for it beyond the elimination of junk items is the fact that every weapon is different, and that's pretty much where it ends. Take that away and you'd notice that the system is far more lacking than ME1's. No customisation, no randomness, complete linearity. Even some full-on shooters have a deeper, more fully-realised system than ME2 does.

Couldn't disagree more. ME1 has exactly four weapons. That is not depth.

"Randomness" is not this mythical and universally desirable trait either.

[Mecha Tengu]

ME2 combat was "more awezomer" because many shooterfans were quite happy to see that pressing r to reload had been intergrated.

[sinosleep]

@Heldelance

I will reply to your post in depth but I wanted to focus on this first,

he ME1 mechanics people have conceded to the fact and do very much admit that it requires more balancing. Yes ME1 did feel VERY unbalanced, especially when you gain access to the Spectre Gear but it could easily have been solved if they did more testing and balancing.

The problem is that many of the fans of the ME 1 method have REPEATEDLY blamed it entirely on mods or played down just how early in the game you can get spectre gear. Which is precisely why I slapped on garbage mods like heat sink 3 in the video and precisely why I showed the journal proving I had not done a single post citadel story mission. You can get spectre gear early in the game and it's wildly unbalanced even when using crap early game mods.

Modifié par sinosleep, 29 septembre 2010 - 10:01 .

[Miths]

Has anyone had the audacity to point out to the original poster, that if he wants to show off with fancy words like "verisimilitude", he could at least have made sure he got the spelling right? 

[Siegdrifa]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

ME2 combat was "more awezomer" because many shooterfans were quite happy to see that pressing r to reload had been intergrated.

The "reload" serve to design more than just "reload".

Yes, "reload" is an very important part of "what kind of things need to be observed when using a weapon"

But, it is actualy a "breaker motion" from shooting, helping to keep balance, and also an important motion to the scene while you are fighting. You can watch a action movies and look how they use the "reload", for important kill a "breaker animation" is never far, like reload or aiming or using 2 actions instead of one with a six shot gun.
After this animation, you have a "strong" feeling of "ready at 100% to use / to kill" from your weapon / character, and this is not so linked to the number of amunition, because i think, everybody use the "reload" animation when they have opportunity and not because the weapon is empty, people are looking (sometimes without noticing) for "weapon at the most murdering capacity".

If in ME1 they used a "breaker animation" when the weapon was overheated, with animated weapon and effect when they cool down, it would had a better impact on player.
Instead, it feels like plastic toy pew pew pew pew pew ....

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 30 septembre 2010 - 12:41 .

[Zurcior]

Heldelance wrote...

sinosleep: You're still referring to the base argument for the ME1 weapons vs. the ME2 weapons. The ME1 mechanics people have conceded to the fact and do very much admit that it requires more balancing. Yes ME1 did feel VERY unbalanced, especially when you gain access to the Spectre Gear but it could easily have been solved if they did more testing and balancing.

What I propose is a meshing of both systems, one that COULD satisfy lore (unless the person is rainman like in nitpickiness) and gameplay.

Basically, you have unlimited ammo for standard weapons, much like ME1, they have a thermal gauge that climbs as you fire. Depending on what upgrades or ammo you have, it may rise slower or faster (Of course careful balancing will need to be done here. Please take heed of that, you can no longer use the argument "But they fire forever! TOTALLY UNBALANCED!!!" because even the ME1 proponents ACCEPT and ACKNOWLEDGE the requirement for balancing the weapons)
Now, as the weapon overheats, you've got an option, a) let it cool off, depending on certain factors (weapon, mods, ammo, etc) it will either take as long as ME 1 when someone uses Overload, or vent rapidly enough that the weapon will allow you to take a few snapshots.
Eject the heat sink. You're in a heated battle, the 3 seconds it takes to eject and replace the heat sink is preferable to the 10-15 seconds for it to cool off.

Mods & Ammo: Again, the ME1 mods and ammo were pretty damned unbalanced, stop using it as an argument against the original system because the ME1 supporters already realize that fact and would have it changed.

(ME1 & 2 system combined, example)
Say you load the shotgun with Scram Xs and Hammerhead or HE-X. Yes it does overheat in a heartbeat. You can wait the cooldown time, or use tactically precious heatsinks to cool them instantly.

Now you're posed with a tactical dilemma, switch to another gun while you wait for it to cool down (this gun may hit just as hard and heat as quickly, or it could just be a suppressing weapon, low damage, low heat, high rate of fire). You could use several heat sinks to kill more guys and end the battle quickly but, what happens if you meet even more enemies who may or may not be tougher, a little later? This time, you don't have any (or you only have a couple left) heat sinks left. The battle thus becomes more protracted and requires that you manage your heat carefully lest the enemy realize you've overheated and this time, flank or charge you.

If properly balanced, heat sinks won't be lying around in such a way that one would think a cargo ship carrying them exploded over your battlefield. This makes the HSs much more scarce and valuable, like in ME2, you can only carry a limited amount in the beginning, as you upgrade, you can carry more, of course it would still not be an insane amount.
With AI, the enemy should take more advantage of when you overheat or 'reload'. So if you fire for a while, overheat, the enemy would realize this and would then try to perform flanking manoeuvres or in the case of dumber (of tougher ones), straight up and charge at you.

Mind you, ME2 was just as bad as ME1. 'How?' you might ask, it had a lot to do with AI and game difficulty. (Yes we are detracting from the weapons argument) Sure you had the ammo mechanism and all those fancy things, but was the game ANY harder than ME1? Even on the tougher difficulties, it was still a relative cake-walk. Sure the enemy uses more cover and doesn't rush you as much, but it's just as pointless if you're in a bad position and all they do is take cover and send 1 or 2 guys at you.

(Back to topic)

Point is, both systems were flawed and could use a major overhaul. It would be woefully idiotic to develop a totally new system like what ME2 did to ME1. It would make far more sense, and be much easier whilst meeting lore and gameplay, if they melded and modified the ME1 and 2 system as I've outlined. (No, I'm not asking them to copy what I suggested verbatim. It would require tweaking and modifying to make it better.)

No. When you try to please everybody, you end up pleasing no one. I'm sure someone will find a way to complain about this.

[sinosleep]

Heldelance wrote...

Mind you, ME2 was just as bad as ME1. 'How?' you might ask, it had a lot to do with AI and game difficulty. (Yes we are detracting from the weapons argument) Sure you had the ammo mechanism and all those fancy things, but was the game ANY harder than ME1? Even on the tougher difficulties, it was still a relative cake-walk. Sure the enemy uses more cover and doesn't rush you as much, but it's just as pointless if you're in a bad position and all they do is take cover and send 1 or 2 guys at you.

Point is, both systems were flawed and could use a major overhaul. It would be woefully idiotic to develop a totally new system like what ME2 did to ME1. It would make far more sense, and be much easier whilst meeting lore and gameplay, if they melded and modified the ME1 and 2 system as I've outlined. (No, I'm not asking them to copy what I suggested verbatim. It would require tweaking and modifying to make it better.)

There's nothing inherently flawed about thermal clips or limited ammo with regards to gameplay that requires a major gameplay overhaul, it's biggest sin is clashing with some of the lore. I know there's not because the two have been staples of some of the mostly highly decorated games of this generation, none of which get any flack for using them and all of which ME 2 was designed to emulate as far as combat is concerned.

I think there's probably a good chance weapon mods will make a return in ME 3, there's also a good chance there will be more weapons, what I don't think they're going to do is change thermal clips or ammo because it goes against their mission statement.

Have you read through Christina Norman's (lead gameplay designer) presentation "where did my inventory go" . They very clearly came out and said (paraphrasing but you can look it up, it's not like I'm lying) shooters aren't our specialty, we're an RPG company. So what we're going to do is look at what successful shooters have incorporated into their games and try to emulate that while maintaining our strong rpg and narrative foundation. Reloading, limited ammo, regenrating health, and a stronger emphasis on playing in real time are ALL a part of that. All of which are features included in practically every big shooter of this generation whether it be Gears, COD, Uncharted (which btw, is what a shooter with dialogue is (Uncharted has recieved monumental amounts of praise for it's witty dialogue, believable characters, and beautiful cut scenes) ME 2 is a shooter with SELECTABLE dialogue, classes, skill trees, resource gathering, exploration, AKA an RPG), or Halo.

I highly doubt they're going to junk any of the stuff they added specifically to shore up the shooter portion of the game. Like I said earlier though, that doesn't prevent them from bringing back weapon mods, adding more of them, and other similar things that people want but that don't DIRECTLY affect the shooter aspect of the game.

[kalle90]

Lumikki wrote...

Problem here is that you people try to fix ME1 system so that it would work. You missed the point, it's allready fixed in ME2. You want replace clips with overheat, sure, it has ZERO affect to the game. Only really important changes where weapon balance and that weapons feeled different, the correct way. It has absolute nothing to do that small break to shooting, what changing clips or overheat causes. Weapon balance was done by creating limited ammo based weapons efficiency. This also allowed bigger differences between weapons, like one shot sniper rifles with limited ammos. How ever, differences could have been arrived other ways too, but not as big differences. Balance isn't so easy to arrive. Unlimited ammos support medium based balance where it cause very easyly one weapon become better than others, unless they are very same kind. Controlling ammos, allowed bigger differences and one more way to try to balance weapons. When no weapon is superior to others, it allows player better select weapon they like to use and what fits in situations better.

There are many ways to "fix" stuff (Like Bioware mostly just cut off and completely changed stuff that "didn't work" in ME1 instead of trying to improve them). Thing is that a huge number of people still aren't happy with what ME2 did.

Helcealances idea is similiar than mine and would be a great fusion between ME1 and 2 systems. To me it seems like you're only skeptic about Bioware being able to balance it all. I believe all ME2 weapons could have changed to use overheat system (Mantis overheats after 1 shot without mods and Viper after 8 or however many bullets it has) and it wouldn't be any worse, better actually as it allows more customization

[Lumikki]

kalle90 wrote...

There are many ways to "fix" stuff (Like Bioware mostly just cut off and completely changed stuff that "didn't work" in ME1 instead of trying to improve them). Thing is that a huge number of people still aren't happy with what ME2 did.

Helcealances idea is similiar than mine and would be a great fusion between ME1 and 2 systems. To me it seems like you're only skeptic about Bioware being able to balance it all. I believe all ME2 weapons could have changed to use overheat system (Mantis overheats after 1 shot without mods and Viper after 8 or however many bullets it has) and it wouldn't be any worse, better actually as it allows more customization

Yeah, but ME2's weapon combat system doesn't need fixing, it may only need expanding, the base is solid. There isn't any major gameplay problems in ME2 weapon system. Why are you trying to replace ME2's weapon combat system with other (ME1's) what is allready broken and then try to fix the broken system, when you allready have good working system?

It doesn't make any sense, unless you want totally different kind of combat system.

Modifié par Lumikki, 30 septembre 2010 - 05:31 .

[kalle90]

Lumikki wrote...
It doesn't make any sense, unless you want totally different kind of combat system.

Exactly. Although I guess you could reach the same result in 2 ways: Improve ME1 system or change ME2 system