528 réponses à ce sujet

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
It's all about balance and providing freedom in the right areas as well as restricting players in the right areas.

I'd ask what went into deciding who is "right" but I need only look at the Disappointment thread to find my answer.
And there is none.

Terror_K wrote...
Oblivion fails because it allows a player to essentiall become a Fighter-Mage-Thief and everything else in between with no restrictions and thus allows them to become a God-character and master of all trades.

Then you're not playing it for the right reasons. I don't play Gran Turismo and complain about its lack of RTS elements.


As to why I always respond to your posts? Probably because I'm so bothered in how you dress them.

[Siegdrifa]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't find them that different honestly, but then I haven't tried them all in ME2 yet (I actually find the game hard to get into and stick with, while with ME1 I could play it dozens of times). In a sense the classes are more defined and different from each other and don't crossover as much as they did in ME1. But at the same time they are all pretty much about the same thing, and as I said earlier non-combat skills are basically non-existent now. And while there may be more variation between classes, there's less within the classes themselves. BioWare needed to actually keep the amount of skills about the same when they halfed the level, rather than more-than halving the skills as well. They also needed the branching off of talents to occur part-way through the skill tree rather than only at the end, and to make it more differentiated than always being a case of "the same, but either more damage or wider damage" and "the same, but either more damage or quicker cooldown", etc.

Yeah, some of the support were mixed with offensive skill, like overheating weapon with overload, i find it not too bad made in ME2 so i don't complain about it, there is a good side and bad side (bad side is reducing number of skill, good side is, since your skill are on cd to forbide the player to chain everything, it give you the choice to use it as a defence or as a offence).
The problem "not enough variation" between class in ME2 depend of the way you are using them.
For exemple, with my first infiltrator playthrough, i used a lot the snipe and tactical cloak. In my second playthrough, i kept my widow for emergency need and my tactical cloak to find a good spot. In the end i beat the game  nearly using gun / smg / skill, it was nearly the same as my sentinel, but it's my fault, i should have used more often the infiltrator attribute for offence and not keeping it for my defence.

Terror_K wrote...

I think you're misunderstanding me here. I won't want a shotgun to be able to take out a long-distance enemy. What I want is to be able to play a character who specialises in close-range combat in one playthrough, one that specialises in mid-to-long range combat in another and then maybe one that mixes it up in a third. By forcing me to use weapons I have no desire to, it limits me to only playing that third option. I don't expect the weapons to be able to handle every situation, but instead I want to be able to play differently in the same situations, rather than be forced to play it the same way with the same style in every playthrough. That's why in DAO I create one fighter who uses sword and shield, one who uses a big two-handed axe and one who has a long-bow. I don't just have one fighter who uses all these things.

The problem here is that ME2 don't offer enough short range weapon.
There is only one real short range weapon, the shotgun, after you can use the carnifex and the first smg since it work like the mattock, you can have a great burst at short range.
Middle-long range offer more diversity, but It would be nice to get back some customisation in ME3 to change some property of the weapon.
I like dridge of cerberus and the weapon customisation, you could build your own set of weapon for the way you play.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 25 septembre 2010 - 12:31 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

you should regenerate clips (heatsinks cooldown your rifle or whatever right? it's not really ammo it's heat, even in me2, it's just functionally ammo) if you stay in cover long enough your gun can naturally regenerate a single clip's worth of ammo.

[JRKnight]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

none of us are video game designers

Not getting anywhere near this.  Just posting something.

"Where did my inventory go?" by Christina Norman, Published: March 16, 2010
http://prezi.com/6xe...y-inventory-go/

Mass Effect 2 Weapons System
108 tuning variables

Compared too

Mass Effect 1 Weapons System
Maybe a couple dozen tuning variables

On a more serious note:  Any suggested hybrid of the Thermal Clips and Overheat systems, in my strong opinon, would add needless complexity to the combat system.  Which would probably only take away from the player expeirence, rather then instead improving it.

Modifié par JRKnight, 11 octobre 2010 - 12:34 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
It's all about balance and providing freedom in the right areas as well as restricting players in the right areas.

I'd ask what went into deciding who is "right" but I need only look at the Disappointment thread to find my answer.
And there is none.

I find this incredibly ironic on your part considering you're the one who is always going on about how unbalanced BioWare gameplay, and yet you continuously defend ME2 despite the fact that it has more unbalanced gameplay issues when it comes to choice than any of BioWare's previous titles.

How many other RPGs have you played that specifically force you into using a particular weapon? Sure, most of them narrow down the options depending on your class, but they generally don't force it upon you. That's bad game design that limits freedom to a player where freedom should exist.

On the other side we have an upgrade system that allows players to completely God-mod their weapons, armour and abilities without even thinking just by clicking buttons on a screen and with no limits or restrictions beyond their own mineral collection, which is pretty damn easy to obtain. This gives players too much freedom and rather than forcing them to pick and choose which boosts they want at the sacrifice of others. It's the in-game equivalent to a modder creating a weapon that does 100 points of every form of damage, stuns an enemy, knocks back an enemy, poisons an enemy and heals the player while restoring their mana and/or fatigue as well. Sure... Spectre weapons in ME1 were too good adn easy to obtain, but it's perfectly find to essentially do the same thing through an upgrade system in ME2.

Other RPGs generally know where to give players freedom and where not to, but ME2 is just a skewed mess in this department. So if you want an answer then look to where most other RPGs did it. Look at Dragon Age Origins, a game you yourself keep stating as being horribly balanced, to see how it's done better. It knows where to restrict a player and where to give them freedom.

Then you're not playing it for the right reasons. I don't play Gran Turismo and complain about its lack of RTS elements.

What... so I'm playing a game designed to be an RPG as an RPG, and I'm playing it wrong? Okay...

Overall though, all I'm asking is the ability to either choose to leave a weapon behind or replace it with another that I'm cabable of using. How does having that option take anything away from those who actually want to be able to use all weapons at their disposal? It's my own fault if I choose to only take a shotgun and get massacred by long-range enemies as a result, but it should still be my choice. As it stands I've got two more Vanguards I played through ME1 with that have no real need to be taken into ME2 any more, because they'll just be played the same way as the first.

[Felene]

Don't understand the hate with unlimited ammo, you still need to reload, so its not just "bullet-spree".

If there is no reload, then that's a problem.

Modifié par Felene, 25 septembre 2010 - 12:37 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
How many other RPGs have you played that specifically force you into using a particular weapon?

Dragon Age. Example: Warrior skill trees and how the stances and other bonuses are only applicable and usable with the weapon associated with them.

I *used* to complain about this until I appreciated the fact that it's one of the few things Bioware got right in regards to balancing.

Terror_K wrote...
What... so I'm playing a game designed to be an RPG as an RPG, and I'm playing it wrong?

You don't play Mario Kart the same way you'd play Gran Turismo, you wouldn't play Starcraft the same way you play Civilization, you wouldn't play Morrowind the same way you play Baldur's Gate.

Elder Scrolls games fall under the label of being an "RPG", but differ greatly from DnD games. Hence why you hate them.

For the rest? Check your inbox.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 25 septembre 2010 - 12:50 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
How many other RPGs have you played that specifically force you into using a particular weapon?

Dragon Age. Example: Warrior skill trees and how the stances and other bonuses are only applicable and usable with the weapon associated with them.

I *used* to complain about this until I appreciated the fact that it's one of the few things Bioware got right in regards to balancing.

Um... that's not even the same at all. That's not forcing you to use a weapon, that's just related to talents assosciated with that weapon. And why would you be spending points in skills that you would never use? I know some crossover with more general skills not related to the more specific talent trees, but still... it's never actually forcing you to use a weapon.

DAO does it right. It encourages you to create different builds of the same class who specialise in different weapons and thus encourages more ways of playing and more ways of roleplaying. ME2 restricts a class into using all weapons available to that class and discourages multiple ways of playing and roleplaying.

You don't play Mario Kart the same way you'd play Gran Turismo, you wouldn't play Starcraft the same way you play Civilization, you wouldn't play Morrowind the same way you play Baldur's Gate.

Elder Scrolls games fall under the label of being an "RPG", but differ greatly from DnD games. Hence why you hate them.

I don't hate the Elder Scrolls series. I loved Morrowind, and while Oblivion was flawed it was also a lot of open world fun and I've put hundreds of hours into it. But it was just too easy to become great at everything without restriction, and thus I only created one character that played for 200+ hours rather than multiple characters who did things differently. Just like DAO encourages multiple playthroughs with its six independent origin stories, Oblivion should have encouraged multiple playthroughs with more varied options and more restrictions. Fallout 3 at least got this right, but then it was mostly based on Fallout 1 & 2's systems, which one could even consider to be overly restrictive.

[Iosev]

I personally do not want to see unlimited ammo return in Mass Effect. I'm currently replaying the first game so that I can import a male renegade save, and I'm at the point where my soldier has upgrades where I can literally hold down the trigger throughout most fights. I don't take cover, hell, I don't even really try to aim as my teammates will kill the enemies that I miss (with Immunity basically making me immortal). I basically hold the trigger and run around like an idiot until everything is dead.



There are some things that I want back from the first game (such as a little more variety with armor and weapon upgrades, more character banter on side missions, prestige or advanced classes, etc.), but unlimited ammo is certainly not one of them.



In Mass Effect 2 the combat feels much more tactical; I have to choose when to take cover, when to conserve ammo, when to use powers, and so on. And honestly, there's usually enough ammo clips lying around that having limited ammo never really seems like a problem, even with weapons with small ammunition capacities (such as shotguns).

[Destructo-Bot]

And that makes the POWERS and MODS that allow such overpowered... it doesn't make the concept of COOLDOWN itself overpowered.



Immunity + double heatsinks are the problem and adjusting them is the solution, not scrapping something only tangentially related.

[Jagri]

Its just so much more a shallow experiance as far as inventory, weapon, and armor management goes. You can make any arguement or point across but with the first game I was able to control ever aspect of what my squad would bring to the fight.



Yes the weapon/armor models were limited but dang it by the end of a battle I could stick a cigar in my mouth and say proudly "I love it when a plan comes together."

[Iosev]

Destructo-Bot wrote...

And that makes the POWERS and MODS that allow such overpowered... it doesn't make the concept of COOLDOWN itself overpowered.

Immunity
+ double heatsinks are the problem and adjusting them is the solution,
not scrapping something only tangentially related.

I'd agree with you, if I felt like limited ammo was negatively impacting the second game, which I don't think is true at all. I almost never feel like I'm out of ammo in ME 2. Even in long gun fights, using some quick crowd control and sprinting to pick up some ammo before taking cover isn't difficult at all.

Limited ammo forces people to utilize their powers (and their teammates' powers), instead of just shooting.

Are people constantly running out of ammo in ME 2? Because I've already beaten the game with 5 classes, and I just have never seen it as a problem.

Like I said, I do want more customization options in the third game, but I really feel that bringing back unlimited ammo would just cause too many complications (retweaking all of the powers and upgrades so that mindless shooting doesn't come back) when limited ammo works just fine.

Modifié par arcelonious, 25 septembre 2010 - 01:58 .

[PWENER]

Ammo rules.



I hated ME1's unlimited ammo thing. Made me feel stupid to keep shooting like a mad man not caring if I miss.



BW took the right path with ME2. Hope they keep it for ME3.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
Um... that's not even the same at all. That's not forcing you to use a weapon, that's just related to talents assosciated with that weapon.

Why can't I get a two-handed power and use it while equipping a one-hander? Why can't I acquire a defensive power from the sword-and-board tree while using a two-handed weapon? Those are the restrictions I'm talking about it, and for better or worse it makes playing a Warrior much more restricted as opposed to a Mage.

So why is this done? I'd argue that those restrictions are in place to prevent imbalance and/or crazy mechanics from taking place. I'd say the same for ME2, really.

I don't hate the Elder Scrolls series. I loved Morrowind, and while Oblivion was flawed it was also a lot of open world fun and I've put hundreds of hours into it. But it was just too easy to become great at everything without restriction, and thus I only created one character that played for 200+ hours rather than multiple characters who did things differently.

True, but that's still not what I'm attempting to high-light. I'll emphasize in the PM.

[Lumikki]

arcelonious wrote...

Are people constantly running out of ammo in ME 2? Because I've already beaten the game with 5 classes, and I just have never seen it as a problem.

If player picks ammos from ground and use most weapons what character has they will never run out of ammos at least allmost never. How ever, some people here thinks player should be fine with just using one kind of weapon to every situations. I don't agree with that. It creates uber weapon gameplay, where player is trying to solve every situation with same weapon, even if it doesn't fit the situation where they are. It's like some primitive RPG game systems where hole point is just to find best weapon. In shooters it's not about one weapon only, but actually change weapons based situation where players character is.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 septembre 2010 - 02:34 .

[termokanden]

arcelonious wrote...

Limited ammo forces people to utilize their powers (and their teammates' powers), instead of just shooting.

Are people constantly running out of ammo in ME 2? Because I've already beaten the game with 5 classes, and I just have never seen it as a problem.

Isn't there a contradiction here. You are saying (and I agree very much with this statement!) that you are very unlikely to ever run out of ammo in ME2. Yet it forces us to utilize powers instead of just shooting?

I think the problem here is not the ammo in itself. I liked the idea of the overheating AND mod system. However, it was not balanced. This could be fixed. Now instead we don't even have a mod system at all.

Like I've also said earlier, you can (if you really want to) sit behind cover in ME2 and just spam covers until everything's dead. Powers do not require ammo. So I very sincerely doubt that the hypothetical situation with someone sitting behind cover with infinite ammo cheesing their way through the game is of any importance.

At this point, I'll just be happy if they reintroduce the mod system in some form. Doesn't make THAT big of a difference whether you have to pick up ammo or not.

I don't agree with that. It creates uber weapon gameplay, where player is trying to solve every situation with same weapon, even if it doesn't fit the situation where they are. It's like some primitive RPG game systems where hole point is just to find best weapon. In shooters it's not about one weapon only, but actually change weapons based situation where players character is.

This works just as well with infinite ammo as without it. You will get the best results if you use the weapon that's best suited for each situation.

If some players choose to handicap themselves by using one weapon for everything, why not let them?

Modifié par termokanden, 25 septembre 2010 - 02:49 .

[Iosev]

Lumikki wrote...

arcelonious wrote...

Are people constantly running out of ammo in ME 2? Because I've already beaten the game with 5 classes, and I just have never seen it as a problem.

If player picks ammos from ground and use most weapons what character has they will never run out of ammos at least allmost never. How ever, some people here thinks player should be fine with just using one kind of weapon to every situations. I don't agree with that. It creates uber weapon gameplay, where player is trying to solve every situation with same weapon, even if it doesn't fit the situation where they are. It's like some primitive RPG game systems where hole point is just to find best weapon. In shooters it's not about one weapon only, but actually change weapons based situation where players character is.

I agree, and that's esentially how I play the game in Mass Effect 2.  For instance, in my vanguard run, I'd often start combat with the SMG, to survey the battlefield while I reduce enemy forces.  Once I know I can safely charge in, I switch to my shotgun and then charge in and pick off further enemies.  Against heavy machinery (such as helicopters and mechs), I use the hand cannon to take down armor.

Overall, I just feel like the ammo and combat in ME 2 works out rather nicely, and I never feel restrained from limited ammo, because encounters are designed to use various weapons and powers.  In the first game, when I played as a vanguard, I used the shotgun in every occasion, whether it was close-range, mid-range, or long-range, which resulted in very boring combat in my opinion.

[Iosev]

termokanden wrote...

Isn't there a contradiction here. You are saying (and I agree very much with this statement!) that you are very unlikely to ever run out of ammo in ME2. Yet it forces us to utilize powers instead of just shooting?

What I mean is, if you are alternating between all of your powers and weapons, you will rarely be out of ammunition.

edit: sorry for the double post.

Modifié par arcelonious, 25 septembre 2010 - 02:46 .

[brfritos]

I don't want to spoil the fun, but why this claim that "limited ammo provides more strategic balance" and "ME1 system is broken"?

Ammunition is hardly a matter in ME2, there's abundance of it everywhere. Yes, I can't shot the walls like a moron, but I don't need to hold my trigger and line up every shot either, you can waste A LOT of ammo without any significant impact.
If this "strategic" crap was really accounted for, the player should pass a few hard times unable to find ammo and there isn't a single moment of this in the game.

Also, the state that you can keep shooting without trouble in ME1 is not entirelly accurate.
You can do this after you pick the Spectre gear and only with level X, if you try do this with level VII equipment you will need two Frictionless Materials upgrades and this will handicap the weapons upgrades you can use, specially accuracy.
A level VII spectre gear overheat just like any other weapon, only slower, is the level X gear equipped with Frictionless Materials VIII and above that allow you to shot without consequence.

If the system in the first game wasn't good, the one in ME2 isn't better, unless I really have to be concerned with ammo.
Wich I don't.

PS: Please, don't nitpick: ammo means heatsinks.
PS 2: Sometimes the amount of heatsinks you can pick in a level reminds me...Doom!

Modifié par brfritos, 25 septembre 2010 - 02:51 .

[Epic777]

tonnactus wrote...

Kronner wrote...

No, the gameplay needs it. The ammo efficiency is important. Imagine Mattock or Viper with unlimited ammo.

Viper? I could do entire fights using just this weapon. Its easy to balance,high damaging weapons produce more heat
then those with lower damage.And the difference between the mattock and the revenant are not that big...
The revenant is basicly a mattock with unlimited ammo when it comes to damage alone.(or the mattock is a revenant with limited ammo for other classes then the soldier)

The mattock is high damage, high accuracy and low recoil but very low ammo size the revenant is high damage, low accuracy, high recoil, big ammo size. While both are effective they are NOT the same weapon.

[termokanden]

arcelonious wrote...

termokanden wrote...

Isn't there a contradiction here. You are saying (and I agree very much with this statement!) that you are very unlikely to ever run out of ammo in ME2. Yet it forces us to utilize powers instead of just shooting?

What I mean is, if you are alternating between all of your powers and weapons, you will rarely be out of ammunition.

I think there's plenty of ammo even if you don't use powers. That has been my experience at least, on normal as well as insanity.

In the first game, when I played as a vanguard, I used the shotgun in every occasion, whether it was close-range, mid-range, or long-range, which resulted in very boring combat in my opinion.

I think that's also because you spend a lot of points on weapons training in ME1 so most classes are only really good with a single type of weapon. When I played a soldier, I switched weapons a lot for fun, but that's because I had the points to max out several weapons.

Modifié par termokanden, 25 septembre 2010 - 02:54 .

[brfritos]

termokanden wrote...

arcelonious wrote...

termokanden wrote...

Isn't there a contradiction here. You are saying (and I agree very much with this statement!) that you are very unlikely to ever run out of ammo in ME2. Yet it forces us to utilize powers instead of just shooting?

What I mean is, if you are alternating between all of your powers and weapons, you will rarely be out of ammunition.

I think there's plenty of ammo even if you don't use powers. That has been my experience at least, on normal as well as insanity.

You are not wrong, ammo is hardly a issue in ME2.

[Iosev]

termokanden wrote...

arcelonious wrote...

termokanden wrote...

Isn't there a contradiction here. You are saying (and I agree very much with this statement!) that you are very unlikely to ever run out of ammo in ME2. Yet it forces us to utilize powers instead of just shooting?

What I mean is, if you are alternating between all of your powers and weapons, you will rarely be out of ammunition.

I think there's plenty of ammo even if you don't use powers. That has been my experience at least, on normal as well as insanity.

Generally yes, which is why I don't really see limited ammo as being a problem.  I will say that limited ammo has made the infiltrator class much more fun to play.  Thermal clips replenish sniper rifle ammo at a much slower pace, resulting in combat where you have to make each shot count, whereas in the first game, if you miss a shot with the sniper rifle, it is no big deal at all.  On insanity with my infiltrator is where I felt the effect of limited ammo the most, but it created a much more fulfilling experience, as opposed to when I played an infiltrator in ME 1.

[Lumikki]

termokanden wrote...

I think that's also because you spend a lot of points on weapons training in ME1 so most classes are only really good with a single type of weapon. When I played a soldier, I switched weapons a lot for fun, but that's because I had the points to max out several weapons.

Yes, but question is why did you switch weapons in ME1?

[OneDrunkMonk]

In ME1 you had to keep your gun from overheating so there was intelligent use there. In ME2 you have to worry about no more heat sinks but really I rarely ran out no matter how much I unloaded. I think with the overheating issue you had to be a lot smarter in combat because waiting for your gun to cool could mean losing a squadmate. But this topic has been done to death.