528 réponses à ce sujet

[termokanden]

Lumikki wrote...

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?

1. For fun.
2. To suit the situation. My soldier would use sniper rifles mostly outdoors, assault rifles indoors and shotguns up close.

Anything wrong with that?

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

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.

How does forcing you to use a particular weapon "prevent imbalance and/or crazy mechanics from taking place" exactly? The DAO examples make sense because fighting with a two-handed greatsword is very much different from fighting with a sword and shield, so using a two-handed weapon talent while wielding a sword and shield makes about as much sense as using the talent dual-wielding daggers or using a bow. The restrictions above make logical sense and suit the mechanic.

ME2's problem comes from the fact I'm not even allowed to restrict myself and am forced to use everything. I wasn't forced to use a shotgun with my Vanguard in ME1... in fact, I had to spend points if I wanted to use it well; points that could be better spent on other talents since I didn't want to use a shotgun anyway. In ME2 the Adept doesn't even get the shotgun option by default, so it that class suddenly imbalanced and does it suffer from "crazy mechanics" at all? For the most part I can thankfully avoid the Shotgun in ME2, but not always (and on top of it all, it being in my selection gets in the way of changing between weapons).

So, overall, I fail to see exactly how forcing me to use a weapon I have no interest in using is improving gameplay or preventing it from suffering. Forcing a weapon on a player is not the same as restricting a player from using certain talents because they're not using the weapon type that needs them (a mechanic ME1 had as well, as abilities would be greyed out if the needed weapon wasn't currently being wielded). It's a shooter mechanic related to ammo that clashes with the RPG foundations that ME2 is built upon. And that's saying something considering the amount of shooters that don't force you to take a particular weapon type and let you often choose your loadout (e.g. allowing you to carry a limited amount of weapons, but you can choose what those weapons are. You can take a couple of semi-automatic weapons, a semi and a shotgun, or two shotguns, etc.).

Also, there's a difference between pure restriction and forcing something. Sometimes they can cross over, but restriction is largely the inability to use or do something. That's different from being forced into using or doing something. And, ironically, what I actually want is more restriction via more choice: I want to restrict myself from needing to use a weapon by the game giving me the choice to not choose it.

[Lumikki]

OneDrunkMonk wrote...

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.

Waiting to gun cooldown or waiting to change of ammo clips. No difference there. Also in ME1 you could bypass the overheating with mods, we all know it. So, later there was zero waiting.

[raven_corrino]

I would use the Cain indoors if it had unlimited ammo

[raven_corrino]

Double post.. My bad..

Modifié par raven_corrino, 25 septembre 2010 - 03:02 .

[Lumikki]

termokanden wrote...

1. For fun.
2. To suit the situation. My soldier would use sniper rifles mostly outdoors, assault rifles indoors and shotguns up close.

Anything wrong with that?

Nope, that has been my point all the time. Changing weapon based situation where you are, is what makes combat more fun. How ever, some people here think it's restricting roleplaying if they can't just use one weapon, like pistol to everyting as well different weapons would be. Because having handycap to use wrong weapon to wrong situation, should not exists.

[termokanden]

I would use the Cain indoors if it had unlimited ammo

Heavy weapons are a special case. Even in ME2 they require special ammo.

Also in ME1 you could bypass the overheating with mods, we all know it. So, later there was zero waiting.

Yep, the mod system was unbalanced. Doesn't mean it could never work.



This whole ammo discussion actually ends up looking rather funny after spending the whole night killing zombies in Dead Rising 2. Now there's a game where you are low on ammo. And orange juice, always need more orange juice.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Nope, that has been my point all the time. Changing weapon based situation where you are, is what makes combat more fun. How ever, some people here think it's restricting roleplaying if they can't just use one weapon, like pistol to everyting as well different weapons would be. Because having handycap to use wrong weapon to wrong situation, should not exists.

No, the handicap should exist. That's the whole point. Different weapons have different strengths and weaknesses and that's the way it should be. If I can handle every situation the same way with no problem in every playthrough, then where is the challenge and variations in the next playthrough?

I want to take one character through with only a pistol because I want to face the situation before me that way, and then another character through with a shotgun to deal with it in another way. This presents two completely different ways of playing the game and thus adds variation, while if I can just easily chop and change to deal with the situation in the optimal way it hampers my want and need to play it again.

If played DAO and could be the perfect tank, the perfect archer and the perfect DPS fighter all with one character, then there'd be no need to go through again with another and try something different. And if I have no interest in using a particular weapon, then why should I be forced to use it, especially if it clashes with the intended playstyle I'm going for?

Before ME2 was even first revealed at all I had created several different characters of the same class with different concepts, planning to take them through all three games. Amongst these were a Vanguard I literally considered my "Pistol Vanguard" suited to mid-range combat, and a completely seperate "Shotgun Vanguard" suited to close range. But now because of the way ME2 has gone about things these two concepts and builds are completely ruined, because they've melded everything together and forced me into playing them both essentially the same way. And that is how it's restricted roleplaying and character building for me.

Modifié par Terror_K, 25 septembre 2010 - 03:15 .

[Lumikki]

If you run out of ammos in ME2 with any weapon, you are using those weapons in wrong situations. So are you saying you want to use right weapons in right situation or wrong weapons in wrong situation?

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 septembre 2010 - 03:21 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

If you run out of ammos in ME2 with any weapon, you are using those weapons in wrong situations. So are you saying you want to use right weapons in right situation or wrong weapons in wrong situation?

Both. I'm saying I want to be able to specialise in a particular weapon and stick with it, whether it's the right situation for it or not. The best weapon for taking out a long distance enemy is the sniper rifle, but not every class gets the sniper rifle, let alone will choose to use it. If I run out of ammo it doesn't necessarily mean I'm using the wrong gun, it can simply mean I'm constantly using the gun I want to use. I'm saying I want to play the same class in different ways using different weapons rather than being forced to use both, just like when I play DAO and I purposefully created a dual-wielding fighter, and a sword+shield wielding fighter and a greatsword wielding fighter: so I can have different builds of the same class and try things out differently.

I'm not saying the option shouldn't be there to mix and match weapons, but I'm saying that the player shouldn't be forced into it if they don't want to. ME2's combat is boring and repetitive enough without it needing to restrict me into dealing with everything in the same way every time. If I only use the pistol I'll have an easy time in some cases and a hard time in others, and if I only use the shotgun I'll have an easy time in different places and a hard time in other different cases. I built my characters to perform different roles in different ways, and now the second game is forcing me into making them the same.

[Lumikki]

So, what you say is that you want to use any weapon you like in any situation without any consequences?
(Example of consequence could be lost of weapon balance)

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 septembre 2010 - 03:50 .

[Weiser_Cain]

If I, Weiser (Mr Cain if you're nasty), were in the ME universe I would just use two guns with limitless ammo either dual wielding or swapping between the guns when one overheats. You get the supposed effect of more damage down field and you don't have to worry about running out of ammo with weapons you specialize in using and have invested so much money in.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

So, what you say is that you want to use any weapon you like in any situation without any consequences?
(Example of consequence could be lost of weapon balance)

No. Where the hell did you get that from? Besides, can't the Soldier pretty much do that anyway? They have a far greater selection of weapons than any other class.

What I'm saying is that the weapons should still be class restricted as they are, but that I should be able to choose within that class what I want and do not want to use. Y'know... like most RPGs do.

Me not using the shotgun in ME1 didn't unbalance things. I fail to see how me deciding not to use a weapon in ME2 is going to.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
How does forcing you to use a particular weapon "prevent imbalance and/or crazy mechanics from taking place" exactly? The DAO examples make sense because fighting with a two-handed greatsword is very much different from fighting with a sword and shield, so using a two-handed weapon talent while wielding a sword and shield makes about as much sense as using the talent dual-wielding daggers or using a bow. The restrictions above make logical sense and suit the mechanic.

Except why can't I use a two-handed weapon defensively? Likewise, why can't I use a sword-and-board offensively?

If I want to be a defensive warrior, I'm forced into going sword-and-board. If I want to be offensive, I'm forced to choose between two-handed and duel-wielding. This brings us to another tasty little dilemma: Are we only applying the term 'force' in such a negative tone because the game isn't allowing us what we want to do, regardless of what the game's trying to achieve?

Terror_K wrote...
So, overall, I fail to see exactly how forcing me to use a weapon I have no interest in using is improving gameplay or preventing it from suffering.

Imagine if the Cain never ran out of ammo, and that's more-or-less what Bioware is attempting to do with the ammo system.

[Iosev]

Just because vanguards excel with shotguns in Mass Effect 2 doesn't mean that you can't play the class differently. My brother hated close-range combat, so instead of putting points into Biotic Charge, he focused on using Shockwave and Pull, and primarily used his SMG. There is a lot more flexibility in the combat in Mass Effect 2 than people are giving credit to. I've done an insanity run with a CQC infiltrator (selecting shotgun specialization instead of the Widow).

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

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.

How does forcing you to use a particular weapon "prevent imbalance and/or crazy mechanics from taking place" exactly? The DAO examples make sense because fighting with a two-handed greatsword is very much different from fighting with a sword and shield, so using a two-handed weapon talent while wielding a sword and shield makes about as much sense as using the talent dual-wielding daggers or using a bow. The restrictions above make logical sense and suit the mechanic.

ME2's problem comes from the fact I'm not even allowed to restrict myself and am forced to use everything. I wasn't forced to use a shotgun with my Vanguard in ME1... in fact, I had to spend points if I wanted to use it well; points that could be better spent on other talents since I didn't want to use a shotgun anyway. In ME2 the Adept doesn't even get the shotgun option by default, so it that class suddenly imbalanced and does it suffer from "crazy mechanics" at all? For the most part I can thankfully avoid the Shotgun in ME2, but not always (and on top of it all, it being in my selection gets in the way of changing between weapons).

So, overall, I fail to see exactly how forcing me to use a weapon I have no interest in using is improving gameplay or preventing it from suffering. Forcing a weapon on a player is not the same as restricting a player from using certain talents because they're not using the weapon type that needs them (a mechanic ME1 had as well, as abilities would be greyed out if the needed weapon wasn't currently being wielded). It's a shooter mechanic related to ammo that clashes with the RPG foundations that ME2 is built upon. And that's saying something considering the amount of shooters that don't force you to take a particular weapon type and let you often choose your loadout (e.g. allowing you to carry a limited amount of weapons, but you can choose what those weapons are. You can take a couple of semi-automatic weapons, a semi and a shotgun, or two shotguns, etc.).

Also, there's a difference between pure restriction and forcing something. Sometimes they can cross over, but restriction is largely the inability to use or do something. That's different from being forced into using or doing something. And, ironically, what I actually want is more restriction via more choice: I want to restrict myself from needing to use a weapon by the game giving me the choice to not choose it.

I agree and disagree. I agree me1 you could have classes use their non class weapons but I don't think thats a good thing. Non class weapons in me1 don't even have the zoom function, eliminating any practical use, i.e useless. Why is it a good thing? If thats a complaint, why can't my soldier use biotics?Why must be restricted to weapons only? In combat there is no restrictions on the weapons you have, want to go pistol only?You can do that. me2 will not throw a snipe only firefight at you. One last thing shooters would throw you in situations were one weapon is better than the other.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
How does forcing you to use a particular weapon "prevent imbalance and/or crazy mechanics from taking place" exactly? The DAO examples make sense because fighting with a two-handed greatsword is very much different from fighting with a sword and shield, so using a two-handed weapon talent while wielding a sword and shield makes about as much sense as using the talent dual-wielding daggers or using a bow. The restrictions above make logical sense and suit the mechanic.

Except why can't I use a two-handed weapon defensively? Likewise, why can't I use a sword-and-board offensively?

If I want to be a defensive warrior, I'm forced into going sword-and-board. If I want to be offensive, I'm forced to choose between two-handed and duel-wielding. This brings us to another tasty little dilemma: Are we only applying the term 'force' in such a negative tone because the game isn't allowing us what we want to do, regardless of what the game's trying to achieve?

Because that's the role of those builds. A defender uses the shield, and an offensive build uses either one big sword or dual-wields. You may as well be asking "if I build an offensive mage, why do I have to take offensive powers? Can't I take some defensive/support powers and attack with them? Why can't my heal spell damage the enemy?" That's what defines the roles within the same class, just like in ME1 I
defined my roles within the Vanguard class by giving me different builds
and options. ME2 takes that away and essentially just has the one
Vanguard type now who does both, stopping me from exploring the gameplay
in two different ways. Now instead of being able to choose to be the sword-and-board defender or the two-handed attacker I'm forced to being a hybrid of both thanks to the mechanics.

Imagine if the Cain never ran out of ammo, and that's more-or-less what Bioware is attempting to do with the ammo system.

That analogy isn't even apt at all. The Cain is a heavy weapon that's not only essentially a God item akin to UT's Redeemer or Fallout 3's Fat Man, but it's useful in almost every situation. The main selection of Mass Effect weapon classes are all varied and all have their own strengths and weaknesses. There is no one single weapon that has the overall advantage and is good at everything. The weapons aren't tiered (i.e. assault rifle dones't trump sniper which trumps pistol which trumps shotgun, etc.), they're all on about even ground when you compare them.

If giving me the choice to not have shotguns is so unbalancing and game-ruining, then by that logic the Adept tips the game completely off kilter. Is there really so much difference between the Vanguard and Adept that not being forced to use a shotgun with the former would tear the entire balance of the game asunder?

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
Because that's the role of those builds.

I know it is, but that's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is how gamebreaking would it be if I was instead using a two-hander while also using many of the defensive stances/abilities granted by the sword-and-board tree? How gamebreaking would it be if I was able to use my two-handed skills with a sword and board?

I think you'd be surprised how much are claims had in common if we switched places here.

Terror_K wrote...
ME2 takes that away and essentially just has the one Vanguard type now who does both, stopping me from exploring the gameplay in two different ways.

Eh, I can't agree there. One of my ME2 playthroughs was playing the in-your-face Vanguard using the shotgun as much as possible. My goal was to charge at the most opportune moment, clear the enemies in the cover, and then rinse and repeat. Risky but fun as hell.

Then, since I was favoring the Vanguard at this point, I played a bit more defensively. I focused on keeping my distance with pistols and later assault rifles while throwing the occasional biotics here and there. I was surprised at how satisfying it also was.

I can definitely agree that the classes are mostly different this time around, but I don't think there's any less variety in defining the class as you see fit. In fact I'd say that there's more, especially since the bonus powers this time around aren't just a common skill already in use by another class.

Crap, all this talk about ME2 makes me wish my computer was busted to bajeesus and back...

Terror_K wrote...
That analogy isn't even apt at all....

My bad, it wasn't terribly evident to not take that at face value. Essentially it was to highlight that an ammo count exists as a means to balance weapons. It also wasn't a well thought out comment and didn't relate too much to what you were saying. It's getting late where I'm at

Also, hell yeah Marauders! I loved this class in Warhammer Online! Too bad they drove it into the ground of mediocrity...

[Terror_K]

I don't care too much about the ammo count... at least not for gameplay reasons. My reasons for disliking it are pretty much all lore and logic related.

My main issue here is that the "ammo" (despite being supposedly universal) being limited forces me into using guns I don't want to, mainly because I wanted to explore them with another build. The Vanguard type you described above using charge and the shotgun was the other build I wanted to do, but I have no desire to now because my main Vanguard --the pistol one-- keeps getting forced into using the shotgun when I run out anyway.

All I want is something very simple... changing this:-

Pistol = Chosen Pistol
SMG = Chosen SMG
Shotgun = Chosen Shotgun

...to this:-

Pistol = Chosen Pistol
SMG = Chosen SMG
Shotgun = NONE

That's it! That's ALL I want! is that too much to ask? Is that so gamebreaking? Ideally I would actually like you to be able to carry a set number of weapons on you and you could choose which ones and what type, as long as they were available to your class. That would be great. But I'd be more than happy with just that "None" option, even if it meant the remaining thermal clips were wasted rather than distributed to the other weapons.

Modifié par Terror_K, 25 septembre 2010 - 04:57 .

[Epic777]

^^ Then do not ever use a shotgun, besides in me1 you had to have a shotgun, pistol, AR and snipers rifle no matter what class and correct me if I am wrong you could not avoid equipping those weapons?

Modifié par Epic777, 25 septembre 2010 - 05:37 .

[PWENER]

I have an Adept with AR. I play in hardcore too. NEVER RUN OUT OF AMMO.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't care too much about the ammo count... at least not for gameplay reasons. My reasons for disliking it are pretty much all lore and logic related.

Welp, can't argue there. I could think of something 500% better for the lore right on the spot.

Terror_K wrote...
That's it! That's ALL I want! is that too much to ask?

Nope. I actually forced it for the PC version by modifying the colesced (and is it even possible doing that on the 360? I haven't checked the modding thread for it). I didn't find the heavy weapons too fun and I don't like using sniper rifles too much (much, much more satisfying sniping with the Predator!). Please it makes Shep's back so much more pleasing to look at. At least we're no longer stuck with unusable weapons on our backs, though.

Whether it gets implemented or not would be interesting to see, and it could be pretty cool to receive bonuses for ditching a weapon slot when disembarking for a mission.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 25 septembre 2010 - 05:54 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

So, what you say is that you want to use any weapon you like in any situation without any consequences?
(Example of consequence could be lost of weapon balance)

No. Where the hell did you get that from? Besides, can't the Soldier pretty much do that anyway? They have a far greater selection of weapons than any other class.

What I'm saying is that the weapons should still be class restricted as they are, but that I should be able to choose within that class what I want and do not want to use. Y'know... like most RPGs do.

Me not using the shotgun in ME1 didn't unbalance things. I fail to see how me deciding not to use a weapon in ME2 is going to.

Okey, I try to explain this better. Of course you could choose not to take some weapon with you. I'm not agaist that. But I''m agaist that you can play your class fine without using those weapons what you did not choose. That's why I sayed you want your self limit you choise of weapons, but same time you don't accept the consequences what comes with it.  Meaning you gimp you class gameplay. Now here's my problem with it. You want limit you weapons, but you still want full possibility play the game without consequences what comes with those limits.

Of course the situation what you say doesn't exist in ME1, because ME1 was build so that there is no need of multible weapons. It was one uber weapon game. I played Infiltrator in ME1 and I never needed anything else than pistol.  That's not good combat system for shooter, because the weapons system where totally unbalanced.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 septembre 2010 - 06:27 .

[jolly_rog]

My two cents; ammunition as a game mechanic is here to stay. Although the explanation in the fluff could have been done better.



"I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then. " - Lewis Carroll



For all you know, ME3 might see mass accelerators replaced by pulse lasers and ammunition in the form of battery packs.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Okey, I try to explain this better. Of course you could choose not to take some weapon with you. I'm not agaist that. But I''m agaist that you can play your class fine without using those weapons what you did not choose. That's why I sayed you want your self limit you choise of weapons, but same time you don't accept the consequences what comes with it.  Meaning you gimp you class gameplay. Now here's my problem with it. You want limit you weapons, but you still want full possibility play the game without consequences what comes with those limits.

No, I fully accept the consequences of those limits. I actually embrace them, because it helps add an extra challenge there. It's not like the game becomes impossible when you limit yourself, just a little harder in some areas. In the case that most annoys me, the only time that even really comes close to needing a shotgun as a Vanguard is when you're getting swarmed by husks, and even then you can fall back on Shockwave to help yourself get them off your back.

Forcing you to switch weapons due to clips can also put you into situations where you're not in the ideal situation. If I run out of thermal clips in the middle of a firefight that best suits long range combat and only the shotgun is left, then it kind of screws me and forces me to use a weapon that doesn't suit the situation. Add to that that these so-called univeral clips can't be put into a weapon better suited to the circumstances and you've got a frustrating situation. It's great to say that being able to switch weapons to suit the situation is a good thing, but forcing me to use a weapon that doesn't rather than giving me the tactical ability to loadout and distribute the clips to more suit the situation isn't.

Of course the situation what you say doesn't exist in ME1, because ME1 was build so that there is no need of multible weapons. It was one uber weapon game. I played Infiltrator in ME1 and I never needed anything else than pistol.  That's not good combat system for shooter, because the weapons system where totally unbalanced.

The weapons in ME2 aren't that different though, and all essentially act the same. The pistol isn't quite as good at it once was in ME1, and the other limits are generally now thermal clip related. Beyond that each weapon can hold its own in most situations, it just sometimes requires different tactics. A sniper will be able to take out a character from distance easily, while a shotgun user will need to close the range first, for instance.