224 réponses à ce sujet

[adam_grif]

So this claim that there are SOOOOOOOOO many enemies that don't wilt like flowers in the heat is, once again, a falsity.

MISSING THE POINT. Not everyone is:



- Apparently one of the best players of the game like you

- Playing on PC with mouse aim (Much harder to get all headshots with a gorram pad, I'd know, I'm playing the 360 version)

- Knows the "optimal" way to play the character and invest skills to kill everybody in 0.2 seconds flat



How long does it take you to kill those Heavy / Boom squad mercs that you can't charge to? Because when I was playing my insanity vanguard, it took fricken ages, ESPECIALLY if my squadmates were dead and I didn't want to waste medigel so they can speed up me killing the last 2 enemies on the map. Watching your video, I have never in my life seen Centurions / Legionaires die so fast on insanity. Ever.



But go ahead, post another video of you playing your A-game that 99% of us on the forum will never be good enough to play, then continue to say we're "wrong" because enemies die "so fast". YOU do not represent the average.

[sinosleep]

See that's the thing, I believe I do represent the average. Ever since I started posting vids I've encouraged others to do the same and guess what, PLENTY of others have matched or surpassed anything I've done in any of my videos. I've never tried to pass myself off as some kind of ME 2 God. Look up Kronner, RamsenC, SabreSandiego, Jwalker, Hukbenstien, Oniganon, Stardusk, hell, just swing by the strategy forums every once in a while. There are NEW people posting NEW videos all the time doing all kinds of cool stuff that's on the same level as anything I post or better.

If you haven't seen the kind of things I do replicated on youtube then you simply haven't been looking. It's not that hard, so yeah, I will continue to post videos to the contrary when people tell me X enemy can't be killed in a reasonable amount of time.

About the only enemies that take any kind of time at all to take out are a) the thresher mall b)YMIR mechs if for whatever reason you decide to not use heavy weapons c) Vasir.

You don't have to be a spectacular player to take down most anything else in no time flat.

Modifié par sinosleep, 20 décembre 2010 - 03:08 .

[adam_grif]

I'm actively laughing if you think "people who post ME2 insanity videos on youtube" are a representative sample of the gaming population.

I've never tried to pass myself off as some kind of ME 2 God.

You're obviously top tier, I'm a shooter veteran going back to the '90s and I can't even start to touch what you're doing in your videos. Admittedly part of that is the gamepad being generally sucky for aiming, but...

b)YMIR mechs if for whatever reason you decide to not use heavy weapons

I never use heavy weapon ammo unless I literally cannot get through an encounter without them; I prefer the extra credits you get and only use it on the toughest fights.

You don't have to be a spectacular player to take down most anything else in no time flat.

It really, really depends. If it's a blue suns at close range I gun them down very quickly, but if it's long range I can't justify wasting Widow ammo on regular joes unless I'm in danger of being swarmed. Mordin's loyalty mission recently with the constant Krogan charging still took 3-4 widow shots to the face to kill, despite getting all headshots, maxed out assassin cloak, maxed out operative/morphed into whatever the one is called that gives you extra damage, full rank Tungsten ammo and 30% sniper damage upgrades incl AP sniper.

Sure, I can kill one of them quickly if I focus fire incinerate / warp from my squadies and then finish them off, but there's several of them + Varren.

Average engagements take time, because I sit in cover and pop everyone one at a time. Collector ship with husks involves me running away like a madman because the damn things are all armored and there's like 5000000 of them. It's pretty ammusing when concentrated SMG w/ tungsten ammo fire is taking the better part of a magazine to bring a husk down.

[sinosleep]

All I was getting at is that I really do feel the average player can replicate most anything I've ever put in a video. I mean, no one starts out as "people who post ME2 insanity videos on youtube" . I started out as your average gamer who happened to be on the forums at a time when everyone was absolutely TRASHING my favorite class, favorite weapon class, and my favorite skill in the game. Vanguards, shotguns, and charge specifically. Since people refused to believe my posts when I said they all functioned fine and dandy on insanity I started making videos. So what's the conclusion to be drawn there? That I counted as an average gamer before I started making videos but now I don't because I do? Most other people that post videos now started out the same way. Heck, I saw some of the people I mentioned get started in those very first threads I was talking about where I was posting videos. Average guys who started making vids to try and use video evidence where talk had failed and going from average gamers to "people who post ME2 insanity videos on youtube" overnight.

As far as heavy weapons go, self restricting heavy weapon use runs counter to having issues with not killing certain enemies quickly enough. Although you're certainly not the first I've heard of doing it. Personally though, if I want to get through X battle quickly I just use the Cain, it's there for a reason.

And with infiltrators I originally played the same way you did but then I realized that grunts are PRECISELY who you should be using the widow against. It's ALWAYS going to kill standard mobs in one blast, while failing to kill guys like Krogan so why not use it where it excels instead of trying to force it into a role it doesn't embrace? These days I kill mooks with the widow and go power crazy focus fire on the big guys. That way the mooks are killed in no time flat and the slightly tedious guys remain slightly tedious.

And when it comes to husks, if you're relying on gun fire to take em out you're pretty much doing it wrong. Anything that takes a husk off their feet INSTANTLY kills them. Cryo ammo, cryo blast, neural shock, stasis, pull, throw, singularity, shockwave, flashbang, concussive shot etc, literally any skill that would normally take an enemy off their feet once defenses are gone will result in an instant husk death. So guns for getting rid of armor is good, although aoe anti-armor is better, and then switch to one of the insta-killers or if you are hell bent on using guns use a gun with cryo-ammo.

Modifié par sinosleep, 20 décembre 2010 - 03:56 .

[Rahzar]

I basically just agree with the OP here.  Here's what I wrote in my blog (link is in my sig) about enemy AI, etc.

As the game difficulty is increased, enemies should become smarter (i.e. more advanced tactics) in addition to a less drastic increase to defenses and damage.  I say "less drastic increase" because a tiny spray of assault rifle fire from an enemy on Insanity in ME2 should not decimate Shepard's shields (or the Hammerhead's shields, for that matter).  Likewise, it shouldn't take endless loads of Shepard's rockets, shotgun blasts, sniper shots, etc. to kill a Krogan leader on Insanity difficulty, who is effectively as unintelligent as his hirelings on Normal difficulty.  

I really feel like I should stress this - enemies need to be smarter.  I shouldn't be able to sit in one spot and safely take out hordes of enemies on harder difficulties.  They should use tactics such as charging in a group (rather than 1 or 2 alone), flanking, etc. instead of what they generally do in ME2 - several stay back and aim at Shepard with Assault Rifles while 1 or 2 charge straight thru the middle of the fight with Shotguns.

[lazuli]

adam_grif wrote...

 Not everyone is:

- Apparently one of the best players of the game like you
- Playing on PC with mouse aim (Much harder to get all headshots with a gorram pad, I'd know, I'm playing the 360 version)
- Knows the "optimal" way to play the character and invest skills to kill everybody in 0.2 seconds flat
 

But defenses aren't really a problem on Normal difficulty.  If you're playing on higher difficulties the challenge should obviously be greater.

[kstarler]

I'm an average gamer myself, and I do want to chime in that I vastly prefer the ME2 layer system to the ME1 system. Sure, it was much harder to do Insanity the first and second time around, but with patience, practice, and a good bit of reading up on weapon specifics, class abilities, and bonus abilities, I now have a solid handle on how to play effectively with any class on insanity. I'll readily admit that it takes some getting used to, and a pretty big change in play style (ME2 insanity rewards aggressive play much more than defensive play), but it is also much more rewarding to master, and once mastered, isn't nearly as tedious as ME1's insanity was.

[nocbl2]

I hate the layers. If they keep it, their should at least be waaaaaaaay more powers to deal with all the shields and armor and barriers...

[Lvl20DM]

People were a little too quick to dismiss the earlier post about ammo for powers, I think. If some engineer powers (incinerate, cryoblast, drone) used omnigel, then they could practically eliminate cool-downs and significantly boost damage/effects. That said, it wouldn't work for everything, and biotics don't use omnigel. So maybe not perfect, but still not a horrible idea.

[Homey C-Dawg]

Lvl20DM wrote...

People were a little too quick to dismiss the earlier post about ammo for powers, I think. If some engineer powers (incinerate, cryoblast, drone) used omnigel, then they could practically eliminate cool-downs and significantly boost damage/effects. That said, it wouldn't work for everything, and biotics don't use omnigel. So maybe not perfect, but still not a horrible idea.

Well it's a valid suggestion as any other, but as far as I'm concerned I do NOT want ammo for powers... at all. I'll take unlimited power ammo with cooldowns any day of the week.

Modifié par Homey C-Dawg, 20 décembre 2010 - 08:32 .

[JrayM16]

Layers are fine as long as there is only one or two per enemy. For instance, no single enemy should ever have had barrier, armor, and shields. There also should have been more effective ways around in a rock paper scissors like system. Maybe biotics gets rid of armor, tech gets shield, and bullets get barriers. That way, adepts aren't totally screwed in tough firefights.



Ammo should also be removed I think. Instead have it that if a gun overheats you can "reload" at the price of one thermal clip, but can just let the bar go down to zero if you're out of clips.



Biotics and tech should be more useful in boss battles, the balancers seemed to rely on heavy weapons as a crutch to deal with boss battles that could only be feasibly won by soldiers and the soldier/other class combos.



Apart from all that, theres not much I'd change.

[vargatom]

Unfortunately we can't make smart AI, certainly not for games.



Any shooter that seems to have smart enemies solves the problem by investing a lot of work in building up the encounters themselves. The levels are filled with invisible navigation nodes marking every possible bit of cover, and other tactical positions. It is not the enemies' intelligence, but that of the level designer, that recognizes and marks these areas of importance. It also relies on continuous testing of the level to see what tactics the players generally employ and if there are too easy or too difficult encounters.



The designer then utilizes a lot of scripting to drive the AI around the level, based on the player's position and any other condition (for example in Halo enemies start to retreat after a certain percentage of casualties). The AI itself only does sensory perception and simple condition driven decision making between the currently available actions.

Extra bonuses can include realistic sight (can't detect a hidden player), simple memory (player was last seen here), simple awareness of surroundings, and communicating its mental state through speech or body language. These generally make the AI appear to be smarter even though it is not.



So the price for smart AI is a lot of level designer work, which is incidentally one of the reasons why most FPS games today are so short.



As for the defense layer system, I like it and agree with most of its supporters. My only complaint is that large groups of husks are still damn hard to deal with, at least for me; armor generally keeps CC powers uneffective, and stripping it from a large group takes time. But I'm still only on my third playthrough

[lazuli]

JrayM16 wrote...

Layers are fine as long as there is only one or two per enemy. For instance, no single enemy should ever have had barrier, armor, and shields.

No enemies have both shields and barrier.  The most layers of defense any enemy can have is two.

Edit: Thank you, vargatom, for providing some more perspective on the nuances of enemy "AI."

Modifié par lazuli, 21 décembre 2010 - 03:12 .

[BattleRaptor]

You know.... Xcom Apocalyse while not the best game.....



Had adaptive AI... if you would hole up on some maps and wait for the enemy... they would end up refusing to come down the kill corridor you used... throw grenades down it.... send lots of brain suckers down it...

THe levels were 3d.. and that game ran in DOS MODE...



Bioware has massive ammounts of data ON how people played me2.. you cant tell me they cant write an adaptive AI.

Hell even just giving the AI grenades to throw when they are losing and forcing you to disloge would help in me2.



Example... you enter a room and jump behind cover.. you take out a few aliens and they throw a grenade or 2 behind your box.. well you need to move it buddy....

So you run back behind the door you came though.. and they throw a follow up grenade there... and quickly rush up to the box you were using as cover and use it themselves...



So many ways for the AI to be improved that shouldnt be that hard to write...

[Jebel Krong]

return the bullets to proper representative speeds (even under sniper focus) and get rid of the nasty corner glitch (where you glitch up and left/right when aiming), that's about it - apart from the usual, more animations and make entering/moving/leaving cover smoother.

[Pyrate_d]

You make it sound easy, and your example with the grenades doesn't really sound like a sophisticated or interesting change. Frankly, I think the ME2 AI is pretty solid as these games go. It's not terribly smart, but it keeps things interesting and generally tries to flank you.



Writing an AI based on common player tactics is risky, since it can reward unpredictable and "stupid" tactics. This is actually the case in ME2 imo. On higher difficulties, the game is very challenging if you play defensively and stay back. However, when you play as aggressively as possible, with lots of close range combat and melee attacks, the enemies just get overwhelmed.



The soldiers in the first Half-life game had the most impressive AI I've seen. Second would probably go to enemies in Far Cry.

[sirandar]

I couldn't agree more ..... thats why I only never ever play any game more than 1 or 2 levels above normal ..... the tedium becomes unbearible and the game becomes an un-fun waste of time.  If there were new enemies, tactics and weapons then it would be worth it, but gimping and just giving enemies more health, shield and numbers is a ticket to tedium and it also breaks the flow of the game.

Also,  repeated death is by far the most immersion breaking problem of any game. It ruins the experience and the game becomes a series of obsticles and bosses to beat instead of a free flowing expierience. Especially when death is impossible to avoid and random.

The other huge immsersion breaking problem with games is when you need to know the layout, every enemy present and where every ammo pack is beforehand to avoid death.  A properly designed level allows you to progress the very first time if you understand the situation and act appropriately.

That said, the ME avoids these problems for the most part and that it a tribute to the devs.


Lastly ...... the thermal clip system was just a lazy method of controlling the situation and the difficulty.  I thought it was a step backwards, but it made life far easier for the devs as they could use scarcity of ammo to increase difficulty and a nice ammo pack to reduce dificulty when needed.   It was about them not us. The sheer rediculousness of Shep going into battle with an empty heavy weapon hoping to find ammo highlights the immersion breaking drawbacks of this method of control.  They simply didn't want you firing it when the devs didn't want you to.

ME1 was a much free-er flowing game than ME2 with much much more freedom in many ways.   I hated serving Cerebus and had to break my Shep to do.   Bioware could have save this situation by allowing a clean break with Cerebus 1/2 way though the game, buy winning over most of the crew, freeing the ship AI ..... and sticking it the the elusive man.  Even the levels in ME2 were mostly on rails.  They were good rails though ....

revengeance wrote...



I just feel that for any game the enemy should stay realisticly even with you in things that they naturally would be, give or take a little of course a boss would be a little stronger health and armor wise, probably damage as well. But for the most part the main portion of enemies you fight should only mainly get better intellectually.

I feel that instead of this system the A.I should be improved. The difficulty settings should affect enemy squad aggressiveness, cohesion, and overall teamwork. Let's say these factors are at 50% for normal, then they scale to 75% for the next difficulty and then 100% for insane. Sure a little better gear is fine maybe i take 4 shots to drop shield they take 6-7 but it should not feel like it takes all my squad together on one guy like 2 clips each to kill a grunt. The system basically encourages max Damage per second over dynamic teamwork and using your noggin.

I also feel that this makes the game far less fun for anyone who is not a soldier. Powers should not be negated by anything except maybe other powers. Sure they work, some are even tailored for specific layers. But generally most are made useless and any fun aspect of them gone. They may do a little damage or knock your enemy back but I never really feel that powerful. You should always feel that if you are smart you can get the upper hand, and as the main character are generally a lot more powerful than most enemies.

They have the advantage of number's, maybe some better gear, maybe some decent biotic capabilities. But i am sheppard and through my sheer fortitude, histoy, combat experience and generally my elite squad and raw skill, if we are smart we can nullify their advantages.

I think the whole layer system sucks, to be blunt.

Now understand!!! i do not have any trouble on any difficulty with any character class, This is about making it more fun! I just think we could make some easy improvements. If the ones i have posted above are not feasable to the Developers There are plenty of other things so please post your idea's below!!!!

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
IT is TEDIOUS!! and could be far more enjoyable, my hopes are that this arguement could make ME3 better for all of us.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Also This seems to be a heated debate when it comes to ME combat so i will voice my view. My opinion on the ME 1 heat system compared to the ME 2 thermal clip system is this,

I think the first system would be very feasible that far in the future with alien technologies around to boot. I would imagine we would have energy sources in the future that would never need replacing maybe only break periods to regenerate energy. Also I would never say the weapons were useless, they may have had a safety ( an automatic cut off) that stopped the gun from ever getting to a point where it would become useless or at all damaged and stopped it for a brief cooldown period.

I would much rather have a gun with infinite ammo and fire it in interavals that would never make it overheat than have limited ammo. And if i ever got in to trouble i have a sidearm or two to fall back on while my main weapon cools. I find it a far better option than having limited supplies and running the danger of not being able to defend myself period.

Who is to say in the future they would not have rediculous systems to cool these weapons with?

Also, i think the military would far rather have a weapon that never run's out of ammo! and when fired in a controlled manner would never even need to cool off. And at most they would never completely discontinue use of such a technology that has so many advantages in certain situations maybe they would use both.

My final verdict - A hybrid system should be used to appease everyone.

The ME2 TC system goes against the Lore of ME2 and i do not like it. that said, in the end it comes down to it being a decision made by the dev's to try make combat more interesting and tense.


``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

[sinosleep]

I'm sorry but this is hilarious. Complaining about ME 2's defense system is fine, but complaining about ME 2's defense system being tedious, while somehow putting ME 1's immunity spam on a pedestal is RIDICULOUS.



I mean, let me get this straight. ME 1 and ME 2 both give enemies extra health. ME 1 gives them a boost that can't be countered and as such IS A TIMESINK no matter what you do. ME 2 gives them a boost, but each boost has built in counters, MANY OF WHICH get rid of the boost INSTANTLY.



So again, for comparison's sake.



ME 1 = No counter, enemies WILL live for ages



ME 2= built in counters through 1.) ammo powers 2.) defense stripping powers 3.) each weapon class is keyed to at least one defense



but ME 2 is the more tedious of the two? Seriously?



Again, if you have a beef with how ME 2 decided to do things for their insanity difficulty that's all fine and dandy. But to claim that ME 1's system was some how less tedious when EVERY FACT RELEVANT TO BOTH SYSTEMS actually screams the exact opposite is hypocritical and outright ridiculous.

[sirandar]

Not sure you were talking about my post, but both games suffer from what you are talking about and I wouldn't play either much above normal.  Actually, except for the thermal clips obviously being there just to reguate difficulty, I liked ME2s combat better than ME1.  It was other things than made me like ME1 more.

Characters were also better developed for the most part than ME1 especially if you include DLCs.

But as for plot, the feeling of exploration, ME2 had very little and what was there didn't make much sense.

Also, as with any spam, it it your choice to do it or not.

sinosleep wrote...

I'm sorry but this is hilarious. Complaining about ME 2's defense system is fine, but complaining about ME 2's defense system being tedious, while somehow putting ME 1's immunity spam on a pedestal is RIDICULOUS.

I mean, let me get this straight. ME 1 and ME 2 both give enemies extra health. ME 1 gives them a boost that can't be countered and as such IS A TIMESINK no matter what you do. ME 2 gives them a boost, but each boost has built in counters, MANY OF WHICH get rid of the boost INSTANTLY.

So again, for comparison's sake.

ME 1 = No counter, enemies WILL live for ages

ME 2= built in counters through 1.) ammo powers 2.) defense stripping powers 3.) each weapon class is keyed to at least one defense

but ME 2 is the more tedious of the two? Seriously?

Again, if you have a beef with how ME 2 decided to do things for their insanity difficulty that's all fine and dandy. But to claim that ME 1's system was some how less tedious when EVERY FACT RELEVANT TO BOTH SYSTEMS actually screams the exact opposite is hypocritical and outright ridiculous.

[sinosleep]

sirandar wrote...

Not sure you were talking about my post, but both games suffer from what you are talking about and I wouldn't play either much above normal.  Actually, except for the thermal clips obviously being there just to reguate difficulty, I liked ME2s combat better than ME1.  It was other things than made me like ME1 more.

Characters were also better developed for the most part than ME1 especially if you include DLCs.

But as for plot, the feeling of exploration, ME2 had very little and what was there didn't make much sense.

Also, as with any spam, it it your choice to do it or not.

You made a bunch of claims in your first two paragraphs and then finished things off with ME 1 avoided most of these things. How is the reader supposed to know what you're talking about when you make a blanket statement like that? Since I didn't know, I figured you were talking about well, most everything you posted. Which would have made your post yet another

ME 2 = tedius
ME 1 = perfect

when ENEMY immunity spam is FAR more tedius than ANYTHING in ME 2 by virtue of the fact that NOTHING instantly removes that health boost while ME 2 health boosts ALL have instant counters and as such are OBJECTIVELY less time consuming/tedius. Not only that, but as I mentioned OSOK weapons remain as such regardless of difficulty level in ME 2, which was never the case in ME 1.

Most of that paragraph doesn't mean much to you though since you've now clarified that's not part of what you felt ME 1 didn't do.

Anything not difficulty related isn't really anything I've been debating in this thread so I'll leave that without reply.

[Razyx]

@sinosleep
Man, something that turns in a mechanic way to combat... drop a singularity, squadmates launch a warp, incinerate, a couple of shots and next power plz, till defense goes down over and over again, with a minimal possibility to change that approach is something tedious... I know people that loves that way to play, find "the path".. and it's perfect for them...

As in every thread is to discuss the OP (and not trying to derail it), you have your point, ok, but those who really likes a more coherent/logical approach, (I'm human with shields, you are X with shields, why on earth do I have to deplete 2 clips to kill you when you kill me with 2 shots?) always look for, or call, or think, about a better implementation either through a better A.I., balancing powers, more nº of enemies, etc..., that's the point, no if there's better or worse mechanism.. and indeed, at the end will be also repetitive, but not like (hopefully) a Street Fighter game, punch, down, upper kick..etc..and that happens "disabling" half of powers.
 

Modifié par Razyx, 22 décembre 2010 - 01:34 .

[BattleRaptor]

Pyrate_d

I dont think you understood..



THE AI SYSTEM... in Xcom 3 was adaptive... it REVIEWED what happend in the last map.. how it was defeated... and compared that to times before that.



If you played a specific way 3-4 times the next time the computer EXPECTED IT AND PLANED FOR IT.



It wasnt supersmart or anything.. you could still game it very easily.. but it ADAPTED.. to try to counter how play style forcing you to adapt to it.

[sirandar]

I am not the original poster dough head

sinosleep wrote...

sirandar wrote...

Not sure you were talking about my post, but both games suffer from what you are talking about and I wouldn't play either much above normal.  Actually, except for the thermal clips obviously being there just to reguate difficulty, I liked ME2s combat better than ME1.  It was other things than made me like ME1 more.

Characters were also better developed for the most part than ME1 especially if you include DLCs.

But as for plot, the feeling of exploration, ME2 had very little and what was there didn't make much sense.

Also, as with any spam, it it your choice to do it or not.

You made a bunch of claims in your first two paragraphs and then finished things off with ME 1 avoided most of these things. How is the reader supposed to know what you're talking about when you make a blanket statement like that? Since I didn't know, I figured you were talking about well, most everything you posted. Which would have made your post yet another

ME 2 = tedius
ME 1 = perfect

when ENEMY immunity spam is FAR more tedius than ANYTHING in ME 2 by virtue of the fact that NOTHING instantly removes that health boost while ME 2 health boosts ALL have instant counters and as such are OBJECTIVELY less time consuming/tedius. Not only that, but as I mentioned OSOK weapons remain as such regardless of difficulty level in ME 2, which was never the case in ME 1.

Most of that paragraph doesn't mean much to you though since you've now clarified that's not part of what you felt ME 1 didn't do.

Anything not difficulty related isn't really anything I've been debating in this thread so I'll leave that without reply.

[tonnactus]

The enemies in Mass Effect 2 are a joke except the Geth who tried to flank at least sometimes.(not only special units,even the common soldier who activate geth shield boost)

And even the special units like the vanguards are nothing more then warp spammers where biotics in the first game at least use also stasis and throw.And enemy engineers got all the powers shepardt got.

Mass Effect 2 combat is just boring and tedious.Then only exception is against Tela Vasir.In a Dlc.
All other bosses are not worth to be mentioned.

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 décembre 2010 - 08:25 .