83 réponses à ce sujet

[AntiChri5]

Why should barrier have it's own cooldown?

[Oblarg]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Why should barrier have it's own cooldown?

Because it's completely ****ing useless otherwise.

Who wants to kill 12 seconds of ability usage to absorb three extra shots?

That said, there shouldn't be a global cooldown at all, because the game should not try to be Gears of War.

Modifié par Oblarg, 30 octobre 2010 - 07:58 .

[Ch40sFox]

I really personally felt that the tech powers were a bit useless as well.



They took the tech, out of tech, and simply made pretty much only one tech ability truly useful, incinerate.



I remember my engineer being able to walk into a room, alone, and disable pretty much everyone in the room, followed by my squadmates who would simply destroy all of them in mere seconds.



I personally feel that powers were ALOT better in the first, if a bit, unrefined.

[AntiChri5]

I don't think you know what tactical means.

In ME 1 all you had to do was turn on Immunity or constantly keep barrier on while you held down the trigger and your never ending assault rifle shot for hours uninterupted.

In ME1 there was no cost for using the wrong power at the wrong time.

All this changed for ME 2. The game now requires some measure of tactics.

Because it's completely ****ing useless otherwise.



Who wants to kill 12 seconds of ability usage to absorb three extra shots?



That said, there shouldn't be a global cooldown at all, because the game should not try to be Gears of War.

Barrier is pretty good actually. It isn't godly or great and it's effectiveness suffers somewhat on higher difficulties but it is still fine.

And have you

played

Gears of War?

[Siegdrifa]

Oblarg wrote...

Global cooldown needs to be removed entirely. It's a bad solution to a problem which wasn't all that terrible.

I'm sure the combat design in ME1 was never meant to be : power / power / power / shot / shot / shot / shot /shot

Thanks to global cd, it flows better : power / shot / shot / power / shot / shot / power

Global cool down force you also to make a choice, will you use it for attack ? will you keep it for defence ?


But i think they should introduce an extra specific power to achieve a combo, let the player do sometimes: shot / shot / power / extra power   in some very special case.
I think it would put some more dynamic in power use.
In ME2 it would be useless since power combat are made via your squad mate, but even if it looks smart and effective, it's not a spectacular action made by the hero itself that make you think "wouaaa, this Shep is a pure beast in  the battle field".

[Ch40sFox]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Oblarg wrote...

Global cooldown needs to be removed entirely. It's a bad solution to a problem which wasn't all that terrible.

I'm sure the combat design in ME1 was never meant to be : power / power / power / shot / shot / shot / shot /shot

Thanks to global cd, it flows better : power / shot / shot / power / shot / shot / power

Global cool down force you also to make a choice, will you use it for attack ? will you keep it for defence ?


But i think they should introduce an extra specific power to achieve a combo, let the player do sometimes: shot / shot / power / extra power   in some very special case.
I think it would put some more dynamic in power use.
In ME2 it would be useless since power combat are made via your squad mate, but even if it looks smart and effective, it's not a spectacular action made by the hero itself that make you think "wouaaa, this Shep is a pure beast in  the battle field".

I really dont think it should be, "Wow, Shep's team is awesome."

It should be more, "FEAR ME!"

Thats how ME1 felt, while ME2 felt, "CRAP, RUN AWAY."

Not a good shift if you ask me.

[Oblarg]

AntiChri5 wrote...

I don't think you know what tactical means.

In ME 1 all you had to do was turn on Immunity or constantly keep barrier on while you held down the trigger and your never ending assault rifle shot for hours uninterupted.
In ME1 there was no cost for using the wrong power at the wrong time.
All this changed for ME 2. The game now requires some measure of tactics.

Because it's completely ****ing useless otherwise.

Who wants to kill 12 seconds of ability usage to absorb three extra shots?

That said, there shouldn't be a global cooldown at all, because the game should not try to be Gears of War.

Barrier is pretty good actually. It isn't godly or great and it's effectiveness suffers somewhat on higher difficulties but it is still fine.
And have you

played

Gears of War?

Christ, I have to rewrite this entire ****ing post because the forums dropped the first one.  BioWare needs to fix this crap.  =\\

Here's the abridged version, at any rate:

To a rough approximation (obviously you can't quantify "tacticalness") how tactical a game is varies inversely with the pace of gameplay.

An easy way to demonstrate this would be comparing a turn based RPG (all tactics, no reflex) to, say, Gears of War (all reflex, no tactics).  In the former, the difficulty of any given encounter is entirely based on carefully planning each turn to optimize your ability usage.  In the latter, it's based purely on reflex and twitch aiming.  The two are somewhat incompatible - the more you have of one, the less you'll have of the other.  Think of it this way:  The faster paced a game is, the less time you have to plan each "turn," (they're not actually turns once it becomes real-time, but you get my point), and thus the skill shifts from tactical planning to reflex.

On this spectrum between a turn-based RPG and a fast-paced shooter, ME2 clearly falls nearer to Gears of War than ME1 does.  There's a very, very notable shift in focus between the two games, which the devs made very clear in all the pre-release material.

So, directly following this logic, the use of a universal shorter cooldown instead of individual larger cooldowns overall increases the pace of the game, and thus decreases how tactical it is.  Another way to think about it is that it de-emphasizes individual abilities.  The focus has shifted from landing that single throw at the perfect moment because you won't be able to use it for a while afterwards to hitting the right button every time the cooldown finishes.  That's a very different approach, and one which is based in reflex, not tactics.

Modifié par Oblarg, 30 octobre 2010 - 08:24 .

[AntiChri5]

I don't see that at all.

More then 90% of fights in ME 1 could be won with a single Singularity. A soldier or Infiltrator can turn on Immunity and you cannot die. A Vanguard can chain Barrier so that it never runs out. An Engineer can disable every enemies gun with one power.

And on the subject of guns, all you needed was a spectre rifle and heat sinks + rail extension and you can literally NEVER stop firing. All you need is Hammerhead rounds and one heat sink in a spectre shotgun and you have a gun that can neber stop firing and also knocks every enemy it hits down every time.



Where is the tactics in any of that?

[Oblarg]

AntiChri5 wrote...

I don't see that at all.
More then 90% of fights in ME 1 could be won with a single Singularity. A soldier or Infiltrator can turn on Immunity and you cannot die. A Vanguard can chain Barrier so that it never runs out. An Engineer can disable every enemies gun with one power.
And on the subject of guns, all you needed was a spectre rifle and heat sinks + rail extension and you can literally NEVER stop firing. All you need is Hammerhead rounds and one heat sink in a spectre shotgun and you have a gun that can neber stop firing and also knocks every enemy it hits down every time.

Where is the tactics in any of that?

You're conflating execution with overarching design, which is a really bad mistake.  The fact that ME1 was not balanced properly does not mean that ME2's game design was more tactical.   Not even close.

The overall framework of ME1's gameplay was much more tactical.  The balance, however, was awful.

The overall framework of ME2's gameplay is inherently much less tactical, but the balance is quite a bit better.

What I'd like to see in ME3 is a return to the ME1 approach to combat, except with better balance.  I already presented a possible way to balance biotics on the front page, if you had bothered to read it.

[AntiChri5]

And you never answered my question.

Have you played Gears of War?

[Oblarg]

AntiChri5 wrote...

And you never answered my question.
Have you played Gears of War?

I did answer it, actually, but the evil BioWare boards gobbled that version of the post.

Yes, both 1 and 2.  They were enjoyable.  They were not tactical.  They were not what I wanted to play when I picked up ME2, yet I found that the emphasis had certainly shifted in that direction.

Overall, I did enjoy ME2's combat, but it's not what I wanted it to be.  What I wanted was ME1 with better balance.  What I got was Gears of War with ability ranks.

Modifié par Oblarg, 30 octobre 2010 - 08:37 .

[AntiChri5]

I still dont see how it was tactical. In ME 1 there is still no penelty for using warp when lift was more suitable. In ME 2, using the wrong weapon, the wrong power, the wrong tactic will get you killed. The protection system demands you use different weapons, powers and strategies to take out different protections.

Not to mention that in ME 1 every enemy acted the same. In ME 2 Loki mechs will NOT stop advancing. They keep at you relentlessly, with no regard for their own safety. You have to take them down quick. Compare this to Blue Suns. They take cover. They pop out to take shots at you when you focus on heir comrades. It is a battle of attrition. I have conpleted ME 1 on Insanity with all classes, and ME 2 on Insanity with all classes but Sentinel (half way through). I feel the combat in ME 2 is far more tactical.



And i always read what i respond to. Can we keep the Ad hominem attacks out of it?



I played both Gears games for a week each then returned them. I have played ME 2 an absurd amount of times. Clearly, i have found a big difference.

[Oblarg]

AntiChri5 wrote...

I still dont see how it was tactical. In ME 1 there is still no penelty for using warp when lift was more suitable. In ME 2, using the wrong weapon, the wrong power, the wrong tactic will get you killed. The protection system demands you use different weapons, powers and strategies to take out different protections.
Not to mention that in ME 1 every enemy acted the same. In ME 2 Loki mechs will NOT stop advancing. They keep at you relentlessly, with no regard for their own safety. You have to take them down quick. Compare this to Blue Suns. They take cover. They pop out to take shots at you when you focus on heir comrades. It is a battle of attrition. I have conpleted ME 1 on Insanity with all classes, and ME 2 on Insanity with all classes but Sentinel (half way through). I feel the combat in ME 2 is far more tactical.

And i always read what i respond to. Can we keep the Ad hominem attacks out of it?

I played both Gears games for a week each then returned them. I have played ME 2 an absurd amount of times. Clearly, i have found a big difference.

There was no ad-hominem in that post, all I did was point out that my original response was eaten by a message board glitch...

Regardless, you're still conflating bad balance with bad design.  The two are not equivalent.  ME1 would have been a load more tactical if they had rebalanced many of the abilities, yes.  What they did for ME2 may have resulted in a more tactical experience (I'd actually disagree, but I don't think that particular point is worth arguing), but that was due to improved balance, not due to a more tactical game design.  ME1's combat is still based around a system which is innately more based on tactics than that of ME2 - whether or not that was actually the case was marred by poor implementation and balance.

Edit:  Think of it this way - (I hope) no one would argue against the fact that a turn-based game is innately more based on tactics than a shooter, yet if that turn-based game were unbalanced such that every fight could be won using only one ability (Golden Sun had this problem towards the end game, for example), one could correctly say that the result isn't particularly tactical.  This is exactly the problem ME1 had.  Fair enough?

Modifié par Oblarg, 30 octobre 2010 - 09:02 .

[Oblarg]

Blah, I hate the layout of these forums.  Disregard the doublepost.

Modifié par Oblarg, 30 octobre 2010 - 09:01 .

[Shadowomega23]

Actually the orginal Posters Idea for mid ground isn't half bad if the game play sticks to the way it is in ME2, being that Biotics and tech powers are useless to shielded targets. But ME1 did play out alot better could have been better balanced maybe by having a little more resistance to each type of power/ reduced damage from power due to having shielding/armor/barrier. Most the time I played my biotic in ME1 I would toss a couple enemies away so I could pistol down the closest threats. But later levels with the other ablities it just felt more over powering due to the fact there wasn't some form of damage reduction.

In ME2 I really couldn't get into either an Adept or Engineer because their power just seems to suck way to much. Push/Throw/Shockwave/Singulariy/slam are pretty useless in the harder dificulties, and not all that usefull in the easy mod ones as well because weapons pretty much can deal with threats at that point with a few well placed hits. The most used biotic ablies would have to be Warp due to its ablity to destroy armor and barriers, Reave, because it works on shields as well. Recently with my vanguard Charge seems likely the best biotic ablity as it puts you close enough to just about one shot some enemies with some of the Evisorator and Claymore.

As for engineers Cryoblast, and AI hacking are pretty useless. AI hacked suffered two fold, lack of AI types mobs to use it on, and when they got to the point of being hacked they where likely to be dead before the ablity hit, did also notice that half the targets I actually used it on successfully just stood there doing nothing at all, and didn't even draw the fire of the enemies that where closer to it, then when it was no longer hacked it now attacked me and now had a better shield on it then it started the fight with.

Modifié par Shadowomega23, 30 octobre 2010 - 09:02 .

[ashwind]

Oblarg wrote...

An easy way to demonstrate this would be comparing a turn based RPG (all tactics, no reflex) to, say, Gears of War (all reflex, no tactics).  In the former, the difficulty of any given encounter is entirely based on carefully planning each turn to optimize your ability usage.  In the latter, it's based purely on reflex and twitch aiming.  The two are somewhat incompatible - the more you have of one, the less you'll have of the other.  Think of it this way:  The faster paced a game is, the less time you have to plan each "turn," (they're not actually turns once it becomes real-time, but you get my point), and thus the skill shifts from tactical planning to reflex.

On this spectrum between a turn-based RPG and a fast-paced shooter, ME2 clearly falls nearer to Gears of War than ME1 does.  There's a very, very notable shift in focus between the two games, which the devs made very clear in all the pre-release material.

So, directly following this logic, the use of a universal shorter cooldown instead of individual larger cooldowns overall increases the pace of the game, and thus decreases how tactical it is.  Another way to think about it is that it de-emphasizes individual abilities.  The focus has shifted from landing that single throw at the perfect moment because you won't be able to use it for a while afterwards to hitting the right button every time the cooldown finishes.  That's a very different approach, and one which is based in reflex, not tactics.

So in ME2, you have less time to make tactical decisions (unless of course you hit pause - which you can). That does not mean it is less tactical, you just have to have the reflexes to execute your tactics (if you dont pause).

As mentioned, different power works on different defenses. So, you have to tactically choose which to use - unlike ME1. A well place warp bomb can stagger enemies, push them off edges and create an opening to reposition the squad, move to different location, execute follow up tactics etc.

While powers cooldown relatively fast in ME2, that 4-5 seconds is more than enough for Harbinger to BBQ you if you just wasted your power on a lesser foe.

I personally think that ME2 is actually more tactical, it may just happens that you might need some reflex to execute them (but there is always the pause button).

[AntiChri5]

The ad hominem was in response to you asking if i read your post.

My understanding of your point is: Big powers used rarely with other powers available is more tactical then lesser powers used more frequently but only one at a time.

Correct?

If so i disagree. The global cooldown really makes you pay for using the wrong ability. Use pull when you should have warped and it could easily cost your life. Use the scimiatar when you should have used the Carnifex and you will suffer. This wasnt so in ME 1. If you used warp in stead of throw, you werent penalised at all. You simply use throw less then a second later.



My point is the global cooldown makes it more tactical by making you only use one power, it forces you to think about which is the best one for that situation. It makes that choice matter.

[Oblarg]

ashwind wrote...

Oblarg wrote...

An easy way to demonstrate this would be comparing a turn based RPG (all tactics, no reflex) to, say, Gears of War (all reflex, no tactics).  In the former, the difficulty of any given encounter is entirely based on carefully planning each turn to optimize your ability usage.  In the latter, it's based purely on reflex and twitch aiming.  The two are somewhat incompatible - the more you have of one, the less you'll have of the other.  Think of it this way:  The faster paced a game is, the less time you have to plan each "turn," (they're not actually turns once it becomes real-time, but you get my point), and thus the skill shifts from tactical planning to reflex.

On this spectrum between a turn-based RPG and a fast-paced shooter, ME2 clearly falls nearer to Gears of War than ME1 does.  There's a very, very notable shift in focus between the two games, which the devs made very clear in all the pre-release material.

So, directly following this logic, the use of a universal shorter cooldown instead of individual larger cooldowns overall increases the pace of the game, and thus decreases how tactical it is.  Another way to think about it is that it de-emphasizes individual abilities.  The focus has shifted from landing that single throw at the perfect moment because you won't be able to use it for a while afterwards to hitting the right button every time the cooldown finishes.  That's a very different approach, and one which is based in reflex, not tactics.

So in ME2, you have less time to make tactical decisions (unless of course you hit pause - which you can). That does not mean it is less tactical, you just have to have the reflexes to execute your tactics (if you dont pause).

As mentioned, different power works on different defenses. So, you have to tactically choose which to use - unlike ME1. A well place warp bomb can stagger enemies, push them off edges and create an opening to reposition the squad, move to different location, execute follow up tactics etc.

While powers cooldown relatively fast in ME2, that 4-5 seconds is more than enough for Harbinger to BBQ you if you just wasted your power on a lesser foe.

I personally think that ME2 is actually more tactical, it may just happens that you might need some reflex to execute them (but there is always the pause button).

The pause button is there, which is a valid point, but the inverse relation between pace and tactics still remains.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I used to term "strategic" instead of "tactical," but it's the same difference between how you play a game of StarCraft and how you play a game of chess.

[Oblarg]

AntiChri5 wrote...

The ad hominem was in response to you asking if i read your post.
My understanding of your point is: Big powers used rarely with other powers available is more tactical then lesser powers used more frequently but only one at a time.
Correct?
If so i disagree. The global cooldown really makes you pay for using the wrong ability. Use pull when you should have warped and it could easily cost your life. Use the scimiatar when you should have used the Carnifex and you will suffer. This wasnt so in ME 1. If you used warp in stead of throw, you werent penalised at all. You simply use throw less then a second later.

My point is the global cooldown makes it more tactical by making you only use one power, it forces you to think about which is the best one for that situation. It makes that choice matter.

Not when the cooldown is so short - the increase of frequency of abilities vastly outweighs the fact that you have to choose which to use based on the situation, especially when the logic of choosing which ability to use is as binary as it is in ME2.  It comes down to a relatively simple decision every 3-6 seconds instead of a relatively complicated decision every 20-30 seconds - the latter is unambiguously more tactical, and the former is unambiguously more reflex-based.

Though, as I admitted before, ME1 did not exactly do this properly because the abilties were horribly balanced.

[AntiChri5]

How was deciding which power to use in ME 1 more tactical?

If it wasnt effective all you had to do was go to the next power, then the next, then the next.

In ME 2 you may only have to wait 3 seconds but that is long enough to die as you are much more vulnerable.

Too fast paced for you? Pause in midcombat to analyse the battlefield and make your decisions.

[Siegdrifa]

Ch40sFox wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

Oblarg wrote...

Global cooldown needs to be removed entirely. It's a bad solution to a problem which wasn't all that terrible.

I'm sure the combat design in ME1 was never meant to be : power / power / power / shot / shot / shot / shot /shot

Thanks to global cd, it flows better : power / shot / shot / power / shot / shot / power

Global cool down force you also to make a choice, will you use it for attack ? will you keep it for defence ?


But i think they should introduce an extra specific power to achieve a combo, let the player do sometimes: shot / shot / power / extra power   in some very special case.
I think it would put some more dynamic in power use.
In ME2 it would be useless since power combat are made via your squad mate, but even if it looks smart and effective, it's not a spectacular action made by the hero itself that make you think "wouaaa, this Shep is a pure beast in  the battle field".

I really dont think it should be, "Wow, Shep's team is awesome."

I think so too, that's why i said Shep should be allowed to do an extra power in certain situation to perform his own great combo, he/she would look more "special" as a hero in battle field.

It should be more, "FEAR ME!"

Thats how ME1 felt, while ME2 felt, "CRAP, RUN AWAY."

Not a good shift if you ask me.

In ME1 i don't feel much, because there is no skill in multi CC everybody then shooting armless target

In ME2 i feel more rewarded by my tactic choice to strip ennemi's defence using specific weapon and power, then head-shooting them with this good old carnifex.
Well, i never felt "run away" when i play ME2, especialy with the adpet, it's more "can't get near me, can't escape from me, can't hide from me".

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 30 octobre 2010 - 10:34 .

[Louis_Cypher]

AntiChri5 wrote...
If it wasnt effective all you had to do was go to the next power, then the next, then the next.

And then do nothing for 40 seconds?  Whereas if you waste a power in ME2, you're good to go in under 10, often under 5.
The tactical decisions in ME1 weren't about which power to use, but when and how to use each power to maximum effect.
Both systems have downsides, a "trap" of non-tactical use that people can fall into.  ME1 can lead to throwing all your powers at once, then doing nothing but shoot for a while, then mass spam, repeat.  ME2 can lead to doing nothing but spam your "best" power (or a 1-2 warp explosion pattern) over and over, instead of picking the right power for the given situation.

Ideally, a mixed solution could be found that avoids both problems.

[Oblarg]

Louis_Cypher wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...
If it wasnt effective all you had to do was go to the next power, then the next, then the next.

And then do nothing for 40 seconds?  Whereas if you waste a power in ME2, you're good to go in under 10, often under 5.
The tactical decisions in ME1 weren't about which power to use, but when and how to use each power to maximum effect.
Both systems have downsides, a "trap" of non-tactical use that people can fall into.  ME1 can lead to throwing all your powers at once, then doing nothing but shoot for a while, then mass spam, repeat.  ME2 can lead to doing nothing but spam your "best" power (or a 1-2 warp explosion pattern) over and over, instead of picking the right power for the given situation.

Ideally, a mixed solution could be found that avoids both problems.

And we have a winner.

In addition to this, I'd simply like to be able to have the biotics feel powerful once in a while.  Not as absurdly overpowered as they were in the first game, but powerful enough to feel satisfied when you throw a group of enemies, even if you can only do that once every few minutes.  I've said this about a million times, but it's true - balance and tactics aside, the biotics were simply more visceral and fun to use in ME1.

Modifié par Oblarg, 30 octobre 2010 - 05:56 .

[kalle90]

Oblarg wrote...
Global cooldown needs to be removed entirely. It's a bad solution to a problem which wasn't all that terrible.

This IMO. The OPs system would just make biotics less useful

[Louis_Cypher]

Oblarg wrote...
In addition to this, I'd simply like to be able to have the biotics feel powerful once in a while.  Not as absurdly overpowered as they were in the first game, but powerful enough to feel satisfied when you throw a group of enemies, even if you can only do that once every few minutes.  I've said this about a million times, but it's true - balance and tactics aside, the biotics were simply more visceral and fun to use in ME1.

I think this would be good, but a few things to add:

1) Make sure tech powers and combat powers are buffed up sufficiently to match.  If player skills are balanced and buffed appropriately, it's simply a matter of balancing the enemies.  Tech powers were rather underwhelming in ME1, compared to biotics, especially against organics.  Combat powers were certainly powerful enough (cough, Immunity, cough), but had other problems.  Other problems like:
2) Powerful is not the same as visceral or interesting.  A moderate amount of power may be required, but it doesn't automatically work that way.  The worst offender of this was ME1 Immunity.  It made you essentially invincible at higher levels, and it was entirely possible to have 100% uptime with the right equipment and skills.  But it was the opposite of exciting: it changed the most important aspect of survival from cover and tactics to a chore of maintaining uptime.