411 réponses à ce sujet

[ThePatriot101]

While I like the idea, I would err on the side of a few things:

Firstly, no weapon should be able to trump all. ME1 you could become a sniper with a shotgun as a Vanguard. ME2 did good making weapons to select from but each had enough benefits and costs that kept any one from being truly on top (even the Locust SMG has some disadvantages). So long as the weapons can't be upgraded to the Best of All class I'm fine with it.

Secondly I would err AGAINST putting in a lot of numbers and stats. The bar-level way of showing a weapon's stats I approve because it's simple and it tells you what you need to know and all that you need to know. Turning a simple weapon selection into a ton of stats and number crunching is excruciating and frustrating. In those situations you can almost be scared to pick one weapon over another simply because a bunch of numbers claim it's not as good. I can tell you the differences between using an M-16 versus an AK-47 but I would never assign number stats when I can summarize it in simple terms.

Additionally for mods they should be useful but practical like with Modern Warfare 2 or Black Ops. But they should fit in-universe, too.

Modifié par ThePatriot101, 01 décembre 2010 - 06:04 .

[wizardryforever]

The thing with removing ammo powers is that you leave the soldier (as well as the vanguard and infiltrator, to a lesser extent) with almost no powers.  It leaves the soldier with Adrenaline Rush, Concussive Shot, and the passive, and that's it.  Since they thankfully took out the "weapon" skills from ME1, they needed to give something to the combat classes that fit the theme, and ammo powers certainly do that.  I don't see everyone's problem with ammo powers anyway.  They let a combat focused class modify their weapons (with which they are infinitely familiar) to be more effective in some way.  This manual modification is something that is learned, and not some do-dad that you can stick onto your weapon.  I think it is fine the way it is.

What exactly does "RPG elements" mean anyway?  That's a term that people throw around a lot on these boards.  Does it mean "elements that are necessary for RPGs" or does it mean "elements that are common in RPGs?"  If it's the former, I don't agree that ME2 is lacking any RPG elements.  All that is required for a game to be an RPG is a plot driven story, a main character whose actions ar customizable, and the chance for those actions to influence the story and its outcome.  As for the latter, why do we need to follow the mold?  What's wrong with changing some things up so they don't fit some arbitrary RPG recipe?  Why must every RPG have a bulky inventory and stats out the wazoo?  I fail to see the necessity in these things.  I've played quite a few (western) RPGs including D&D, and those things are fine in those worlds, but honestly, I don't see why they are needed in the sci-fi world of Mass Effect.  I find the simplicity of ME2's inventory refreshing (it DOES have an inventory) and I don't miss the tiny percent increases with each skill point invested, nor do I miss the persuasion skill.  I can get behind reforming/refining the current mechanic, but a persuasion skill is the wrong idea IMO. 

As for stats, isn't there already a passive stat on every character?  Why do we need more passive stats exactly?

[Gleym]

I like how some people use the reasoning of 'I'm aiming right at it so obviously I should hit perfectly', despite the reality that in real life you can have a clear aim and still screw up too because your lack of skill in handling the weapon. That's what the stats are for in ME1 - you're a soldier, yes. You're a seasoned one at that, yes. But you are NOT someone who is a perfect specialist who is perfect and super-special-epic-awesome at everything right away and without any sort of effort at all. Anyone who thinks Shepard is that much of a Mary Sue has little to no imagination whatsoever. The point of ME1 is that yes, you are already a seasoned soldier - that's why you're the only one who freaking SURVIVED Eden Prime. It does NOT however mean you're the ultimate epic soldier who can take on everything right away. That's what the stats and leveling up is for.

[kregano]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Hmm, this little thread put my brain to work on how to redesign a customizable weapon system that would essentially allow the same gun to have multiple ways of developing. I am going to have to play around with this after. Thanks TC. As for your suggestions, I am rather intrigued primarily because any implementing feature that bolsters RPG elements is a move in the correct direction in my mind.

If you need some inspiration, here's an old blog thing I did to show off my ideas for a weapon customization system.

Gleym wrote...

I like how some people use the reasoning of
'I'm aiming right at it so obviously I should hit perfectly', despite
the reality that in real life you can have a clear aim and still screw
up too because your lack of skill in handling the weapon. That's what
the stats are for in ME1 - you're a soldier, yes. You're a seasoned one
at that, yes. But you are NOT someone who is a perfect specialist who is
perfect and super-special-epic-awesome at everything right away and
without any sort of effort at all. Anyone who thinks Shepard is that
much of a Mary Sue has little to no imagination whatsoever. The point of
ME1 is that yes, you are already a seasoned soldier - that's why you're
the only one who freaking SURVIVED Eden Prime. It does NOT however mean
you're the ultimate epic soldier who can take on everything right away.
That's what the stats and leveling up is for.

Yeah, but we're taking over the character at a point where they should already have those skills and be proficient with their weapons. It strains suspension of disbelief to think that an N7 soldier/vanguard/.... would've gotten to be N7 if they couldn't display competence with firearms in training. Yes, in real life people can mess up with a clear aim, but in a game, would you rather that be something you can overcome yourself by playing more and becoming more familiar with the guns in the game, or by adding points to a useless stat that only exists to make you more likely to miss?

Modifié par kregano, 01 décembre 2010 - 06:54 .

[Gleym]

I'd rather have both. And the stat isn't 'useless'. That's your OPINION. And it's your OPINION that Shepard should be this spectacular epic 'can do anything' character. You're taking over Shepard as a seasoned soldier who is ELIGIBLE to be initiated into the elite force known as the Spectres. That means he has the POTENTIAL for it, not that he already IS some kind of super being. Even after he's been initiated, he's still actually a Rookie Spectre. And even then, a Spectre has things that he or she is good at and things that he or she isn't good at. Stop assuming that because Shepard is a seasoned soldier that he can magically wield every single weapon and every single power and ability with 100% perfect precision and capability, simply because you love Shooters and have played Call of Duty to the point of wizard-like capability. If that were the case Shepard wouldn't be considered for initiation into the Spectres - he'd be a one-man-army all unto himself acting on his own freaking rank and status. Except, oh wait, Shepard ISN'T a one-man-army. In fact, Shepard goes through the entire series with back-up, and even with backup other Spectres can give him a hard time.

So keep your puerile opinion that a statistic that makes perfect sense for a game that is an RPG-Shooter hybrid, and not JUST a Shooter, is somehow useless just because you have it out for RPGs. It's funny, no less, how the Shooter base always acts like the RPG features are something that should be tossed out at their convenience when you don't ever see us from the RPG crowd saying "God, this Shooter function is utter SH*T! Just remove the whole shooter system cause I hate Shooters in general." You know why? Because the game is a HYBRID. It's supposed to utilize BOTH features, not just the one that you like best.

Modifié par Gleym, 01 décembre 2010 - 08:16 .

[catabuca]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Hmm, this little thread put my brain to work on how to redesign a customizable weapon system that would essentially allow the same gun to have multiple ways of developing. I am going to have to play around with this after. Thanks TC. As for your suggestions, I am rather intrigued primarily because any implementing feature that bolsters RPG elements is a move in the correct direction in my mind.

I've suggested a system similar to the armour locker in Shep's cabin. We had a weapons locker in the armoury that was utterly redundant, since you got to choose your load-out before each mission anyway. The weapon could get selected, and then you get sliders for each 'slot' (magazine, barrel, sights - or their futuristic sci-fi equivalent etc.) that allow you to choose which mod you want to use. Sure, there are plenty of other ways the same can be achieved, but it keeps to the familar and simplified design already in ME2 and just brings it to another area of the game. There could be a couple of 'base model' weapons of each type, that are upgradable via mods, and then some truly unique weapons that have in-built mods that can't be changed (just as the current armour system works). That gives players who like modding the option to, and those who just want to grab an awesome gun and go that option too.

I agree more information on what the mods/weapons/armour actually does (i.e.stats) is sorely needed as well. A simple graphic on the left of the screen or at the bottom underneath the weapon description is all that's needed in that regard.

Rather going back to having 10 versions of the same type of mod, each only slightly better than the previous, each mod could be unique, with different properties, and the fun comes in choosing which combinations to use together on each weapon. It could be coupled with an upgrade system similar to the one we already have that somehow improves a weapon's overall performance in stages throughout the game (to avoid the possibility of resorting to grinding in order to get all the good mods early on, thereby upgrading your weapon to its absolute best before you're even 1/4 way through the game). I'm not sure that would work in practice though (I've no experience whatsoever in designing for rpgs). Perhaps the overall performance could still be handled in the weapon locker rather than the science upgrade facility.

[Ahglock]

kregano wrote...
Yeah, but we're taking over the character at a point where they should already have those skills and be proficient with their weapons. It strains suspension of disbelief to think that an N7 soldier/vanguard/.... would've gotten to be N7 if they couldn't display competence with firearms in training. Yes, in real life people can mess up with a clear aim, but in a game, would you rather that be something you can overcome yourself by playing more and becoming more familiar with the guns in the game, or by adding points to a useless stat that only exists to make you more likely to miss?

Real life ammo used to hit ratio's would indicate even trained competant types miss a lot in combat situations. 
Be that as it may I do think ME1 errored to far on the side of initial incompetence. 

Personally since they are merging shooter and RPG the shooting should be as accurate as the player.  I'd have abilties/traits that provide a damage multiplier as your character skill side.  You can call it accuracy if you want, but it really is just a flat +x% damage with the weapons you are trained with. 

Certain classes like the adept or engineer might not even get the skill and only have access to base damage which is tolerable.  On the other hand a soldier would and should do signifigantly more damage with a SMG due to his/her increased skill with guns.  While I think ammo powers are lame, I don't think a load of weapon boosting passives are bad in themselves.  Just the method of delivery via ammo, since anybody should be able to use different ammo.  Still soldier smight be trained in basic damage boosting with weapons and the ability to piece all defenses.  Thw vanguard might have damage and shields piercing, the infiltrator damage and armor piercing etc. 

I'd probably narrow it down a bit so someone like the soldier isn't just a pile of passives, they should have cool active use powers as well.  Like maybe a suppresion fire move, where an area gets unloaded on and targets out of cover are hit and targets in cover stay pinned down behind cover. 

[Gleym]

Accuracy can easily be counted into things as a stat. It would be feasible to be utilized as a means of reducing spread-of-fire and increasing the hit ratio. Precision and scoring more hits = More total damage for the same damage rating. Rather than the same lack of accuracy and bullets flying everywhere just with more damage behind it.

Modifié par Gleym, 01 décembre 2010 - 08:21 .

[Phaedon]

Persuasion shouldn't come back.



You are playing a role, if you are persuasive, then Shepard will be as well. What we need are more dialogue options. Death to all stats !

[Gleym]

So if 'Death to All Stats' I take it that means you want to get rid of Paragon/Renegade too, right? Seeing as how that's just a convoluted God-mode version of the Persuasion stat gone horribly wrong.

Although, hey, if you're getting rid of all stats at least that means I'll never have to see ME2's horrible excuse for a skill-tree again, so it can't be all bad. Nothing more inane and retarded than a series of skill-stats that all amount to 'I hit it for more damage/I can get hit more often'.

Modifié par Gleym, 01 décembre 2010 - 08:32 .

[Phaedon]

I was partially kidding, but the morality systems needs to be redesigned. More 'neutral' choices should be rewarding as well.

[Gleym]

The problem is that Persuasion isn't really a bad thing to have as a stat. Let's put it this way, you can seperate it into two or three categories fitting for the Good (Persuasion), the Bad (Intimidation), and the Comfortably Abstaining (Diplomacy). Have each of these somehow affect the Paragon/Renegade bar, rather than having that annoying self-sustaining crap where picking Paragon choices gives feeds your Paragon rank and vice versa with Renegade. Make it so that these three choices can all affect your Paragon/Renegade meter, rather than just be 'I picked Persuade so now I get Paragon points! Yay!' Rather make it so that depending on what you're persuading them to do, you might get Paragon OR Renegade. Same for the others, and there you go: Neutral, morally gray dialog selection.

Modifié par Gleym, 01 décembre 2010 - 08:38 .

[Phaedon]

But how does this help with immersion ?



I would prefer Fallout's RPG elements over ME1's any day (aka Accuse [50% Science])



But they are still not good enough. When trying to persuade someone it should be a matter of dialogue choices, which would in turn reward you with Paragon, Renegade and perhaps Neutral points. You don't need to be a professional negotiator to make it work, but it works much better than picking a choice for points, or using the obsolete Persuasion stat.

[Gleym]

So in other words you just want to be able to do something with the push of a button, rather than work for it in even the remotest fashion. And that's where the RPG crowd differs from the Shooter crowd. We LIKE being able to customize and polish our characters to our own liking.

By the way, Fallout has an Accuracy stat. And a Persuasion one. It even has a Speech skill that you can add points to. So when you say you'd prefer Fallout's RPG elements (which, given that FO1/FO2 were completely cRPG games, I must assume by that term of phrasing you must mean the abomination known as FO3 - which is trash, but even then, guess what, the Accuracy score affects your ability to hit things with a gun. Even in New Vegas where they've added ironsights now, your Accuracy score STILL affects your ability to hit) over what I just said you're kind of contradicting yourself.

Modifié par Gleym, 01 décembre 2010 - 08:49 .

[Phaedon]

Having played FO2, I can say that I preferred FO3, but that's another story.

And, well, 'shooter crowd' ? How did you deduce that ?
I am going to surprise you here, and remind you of how CRPGs started. Board games. And why do stats exist today ? Because there was no other way to play as your character back then.

Working hard for something ? Grinding.
Does that make you feel like playing as Shepard. Or to put it otherwise, does it require any intelligence ? So there, the Shooter games that you seem to dislike don't require much either.

Having to work your way around problems and find for the most diplomatic solution is what makes you Shepard. I suggest that you play some of these games, I think that you'll find them quite challenging and enjoyable.

Modifié par Phaedon, 01 décembre 2010 - 08:56 .

[Khayness]

Character stats doesn't suit the game well, but I'm all in for bringing back weapon stats.

[Gleym]

And I'm going to remind you that Mass Effect is a HYBRID. That means both sides of the field need to be played, not just the Shooter ones, and then whatever features that Shooter fans think would work best (i.e. entirely combat-oriented skill trees and stats). And guess what, working hard for something =/= Grinding. Know what grinding is? Grinding is a tedious amount of meaningless, futile quests with no end for the sole purpose of harvesting experience in a game that has no end to it, i.e. an MMORPG.



ME1 worked just fine with experience being gained throughout the course of your gameplay, as opposed to AFTER a mission, and it distributed skill points adequately too. I never felt like I was grinding in ME1. I guess I just have more patience in that case. As for intelligence? Actually, I like to think planning and having enough foresight to consider which things I want to focus on makes me more intelligent than the person shrieking 'I hate this! Just let me do more damage so I can kill things!!'



So, what, your definition of having to work your way around a problem means 'Ooh, I have a dialog option here that solves everything and all that I have to do is press it' then? Sounds riveting.

[catabuca]

Ugh, this thread had the chance to offer some interesting additions to enhance gameplay, but it's become the usual 'my type of games are better than your type of games' wankfest.

I predict lock-down in 3...2...1......

[Phaedon]

As I said, I am against Paragon/Renegade options in 'persuasion' dillemas, as in, there should be no 'blue' or 'red' text.



Instead, different 'white' options that lead to different results. Some give you paragon points in the end, other renegade, and some both.

[Omega-202]

Gleym wrote...
By the way, Fallout has an Accuracy stat. And a Persuasion one. It even has a Speech skill that you can add points to. So when you say you'd prefer Fallout's RPG elements (which, given that FO1/FO2 were completely cRPG games, I must assume by that term of phrasing you must mean the abomination known as FO3 - which is trash, but even then, guess what, the Accuracy score affects your ability to hit things with a gun. Even in New Vegas where they've added ironsights now, your Accuracy score STILL affects your ability to hit) over what I just said you're kind of contradicting yourself.

Outside of VATS, that's completely not true for FO3.  Spread on all weapons is defined by the weapon itself when manual fired.  Adding Small Guns skill points only increases damage (in both modes) and accuracy in VATS despite what anybody says.  


I don't know how it works in FO:NV.

You really are stuck on the old breed mentality though.  It's not worth fighting you on this because the fact is that "accuracy" stats aren't going to be coming back for ME3.  BioWare isn't going to make that mistake and they obviously had their reasons for removing it.  

And despite your cockamamie arguments of "Shepard isn't a one man army" and "he may be a soldier but not a super soldier", you're patently wrong.  At the start of ME1, you're playing as the highest proficiency special operations soldier the entire Alliance has.  

I direct you to this: http://prezi.com/6xe...y-inventory-go/

This is the holy gospel according to BioWare.  They agree with the need for more RPG elements, but THEIR SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of an element that made no sense was the accuracy issue.  

When Christina Norman says you're wrong, well then, you're wrong.   

[Jebel Krong]

Vena_86 wrote...
*sigh*
How is this a carbon copy of every other RPG? This is just splitting up the unrelated values that ME2 combines into one "power", which is totally pointless. Why do you oppose the option to play the game differently, when nothing would really change for you if you where happy with ME2? This was the whole point. Keeping it simple so that nothing changes for those who don't appreaciate roleplaying games, but other atleast have the option to go deeper (yeah lulz).
I am certainly not in the RPG-only-crowd. I have seen the birth of the shooter genre and played pretty much every bigger titles since then. I have played ut2k3 and ut2k4 for years in some top instagib (iCTF, iBR) clans and even founded a very successfull one my self. RPGs have been a much later passion.
I put some thought into what are the most basic things you need to support the most common playstyles without turning into number crunching.
Other than you I am open towards different genres and only want the best mix, the best balance for most people for Mass Effect 3, without forcing anything on anyone. Personally I would like to see more depth and something along the lines of what Escael is suggesting, but I know that BioWare (and EA) are trying to keep things as simple as possible.

Actually I get the impression that you just skimmed over the suggestion and put it into the RPG-elitist box, without even wasting a thought on how something like this would change your game. Because actually it would not change at all if you don't want it to. 

It really sucks when you make the effort of putting things into pictures, because many people can't be bothered to read anymore, but still, wrong and over the top assumptions are made by some trolls.

why is it the rpg guys always want to shout about their "shooter credentials" the moment you bring up their distinctive point of view? the point is: an unnecessary second set of skills certainly would affect gameplay for everyone and you certainly would notice a change in your control behaviour/responsiveness/performance/accuracy/whatever. the aiming system was tried in me1 - it failed so where's the logic in spreading it to other mechanics? ecael's thread does have some good suggestions, and non-one should be second-guessing biowares (or EAs) motives either - there are many facets to the mass effect experience and many ways depth can be added to said experience, in general i would prefer they try new ideas, even at the risk of failure than just include some wish-fulfilment features for a subsect of their audience (you).

[Jebel Krong]

Gleym wrote...

ME1 worked just fine with experience being gained throughout the course of your gameplay, as opposed to AFTER a mission, and it distributed skill points adequately too. I never felt like I was grinding in ME1. I guess I just have more patience in that case. As for intelligence? Actually, I like to think planning and having enough foresight to consider which things I want to focus on makes me more intelligent than the person shrieking 'I hate this! Just let me do more damage so I can kill things!!'

So, what, your definition of having to work your way around a problem means 'Ooh, I have a dialog option here that solves everything and all that I have to do is press it' then? Sounds riveting.

because worrying about what xp you're getting for each tedious little act or conversation detracts from the immersiveness and storytelling and experiencing the actual joy of playing the game. it was changed for the better (with the sole exception of the "mission complete" screens).

[MisterDyslexo]

Phaedon wrote...

As I said, I am against Paragon/Renegade options in 'persuasion' dillemas, as in, there should be no 'blue' or 'red' text.

Instead, different 'white' options that lead to different results. Some give you paragon points in the end, other renegade, and some both.

But, but, but we're too stupid to read and understand the annotation of what we're going to say. Thats how we always get stuck in ninjamances

Seriously though, this could work, but those annotations of what you're going to say aren't always clear enough. Such examples are ending the annotations with a question mark. Example: The consort's quest. You receive a pendant as a reward. You can say "A trinket?", which can be perceived as "A trinket? Is that it? Thats my lousy reward?"

True though it would be nice in some ways to get rid of red/blue text, because that way the game makes some decisions clearly paragon or renegade, when they're really neither. The geth rewrite is a nice example. They said "Oooh, its brainwashing sentients. Its better to kill them than do that", so you destroy the heretics. And you get renegade points-WTF?

[Cra5y Pineapple]

I'm commander Shepard, and this is my favourite skill suggestion on the citadel.
As long as you don't have to be super renegade to intimidate or super paragon to charm.

Modifié par Cra5y Pineapple, 01 décembre 2010 - 10:30 .