holy crap! your right. why the hell am i using fuel, when im not actually flying anyways. im just looking at a holographic map.
you just blew my mind.
Constructive Criticism on ME2's Galaxy Map (and suggestions on how it can be improved for ME3)
Débuté par
-Skorpious-
, déc. 19 2010 06:14
Retour en haut
#102
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 05:35
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 650 messages
Sure, but if the ship isn't moving on the map, how do you want tomanage fuel usage?
Unless you want that to go away too.
Unless you want that to go away too.
#103
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 07:19
MrFob
-
- Members
- 5 413 messages
Just read the OP, not the entire thread so sorry if i am repeating stuff that has already been said.
I agree with the OP on most accounts. Two specific comments:
Fuel: Could be replaced with a system that is more in line with what we know grom ME1. Drive core discharge. While you are flying in between systems you build up charge in your drive core. Build up too much and the crew will cook alive inside the ship. You need to find a celestial body with a magnetic field in order to discharge (i.e. you can only travel so far outside a solar system). Now, you could allow the player to upgrade the ship with modules that allow more and more charge to build up before discharge is required, effectively allowing the ship to ravel further. This way, BW could even control the players movements a little, If they want to have a side quest that is not available until a certain point, just put it into a remote place, which the player can only reach until he has enough modules (if they want to do that or not is another question of course, they don't have to).
2. Mining: I am with the OP on the point that the individualized beautiful planets from ME1 should come bacl. Since it was a bit odd that in ME2 you could even mine colonized planets from orbit (steeling their resources as it were), why not confine mining to, say certain asteroids, hidden in belts like in ME1. For those the 3D view you fit better and would not look as ridiculous anyway. In that case, I'd like to see irregular asteroids btw, not just smaller brown colored spheres like in ME2.
That's it otherwise I think the OP made a fair point and I am happy to see the BW already took notice of this thread.
I agree with the OP on most accounts. Two specific comments:
Fuel: Could be replaced with a system that is more in line with what we know grom ME1. Drive core discharge. While you are flying in between systems you build up charge in your drive core. Build up too much and the crew will cook alive inside the ship. You need to find a celestial body with a magnetic field in order to discharge (i.e. you can only travel so far outside a solar system). Now, you could allow the player to upgrade the ship with modules that allow more and more charge to build up before discharge is required, effectively allowing the ship to ravel further. This way, BW could even control the players movements a little, If they want to have a side quest that is not available until a certain point, just put it into a remote place, which the player can only reach until he has enough modules (if they want to do that or not is another question of course, they don't have to).
2. Mining: I am with the OP on the point that the individualized beautiful planets from ME1 should come bacl. Since it was a bit odd that in ME2 you could even mine colonized planets from orbit (steeling their resources as it were), why not confine mining to, say certain asteroids, hidden in belts like in ME1. For those the 3D view you fit better and would not look as ridiculous anyway. In that case, I'd like to see irregular asteroids btw, not just smaller brown colored spheres like in ME2.
That's it otherwise I think the OP made a fair point and I am happy to see the BW already took notice of this thread.
#104
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 08:34
Terror_K
-
- Members
- 4 362 messages
MrFob wrote...
Fuel: Could be replaced with a system that is more in line with what we know grom ME1. Drive core discharge. While you are flying in between systems you build up charge in your drive core. Build up too much and the crew will cook alive inside the ship. You need to find a celestial body with a magnetic field in order to discharge (i.e. you can only travel so far outside a solar system). Now, you could allow the player to upgrade the ship with modules that allow more and more charge to build up before discharge is required, effectively allowing the ship to ravel further. This way, BW could even control the players movements a little, If they want to have a side quest that is not available until a certain point, just put it into a remote place, which the player can only reach until he has enough modules (if they want to do that or not is another question of course, they don't have to).
The funny thing was, I seem to recall that this is what BioWare initially claimed the whole "fuel" aspect to be in the first place when it first came up.
I seem to recall somewhere the term "fuel" coming up and a whole bunch of fans on the forums suddenly going, "Fuel? What the--?!" and a dev saying that it wasn't really fuel at all, and that they were simply using the term "fuel" because it was the best way of summing up what the basic concept was in one word since it sort of acted like fuel. What we were really doing was having to discharge our drive core every so often, but that you could upgrade to get a core cooling/heat capacity upgrades that could allow you to travel further without the need to discharge.
It seems somewhere along the line, due to probably either time issues or the concept not quite working out, rather than going with that concept it really did just become "fuel" in the end.
I should see if I can find the old posts for clarification actually.
#105
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 08:44
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 650 messages
My problem with the ME1 map is that clicking the "Survey" button takes you there and surveys the planet instantaneously, of course. I found this even more gamey than flying the little ship around in ME2; at least in ME2 the ship actually travels instead of having the gamemaster tell you that you traveled there, surveyed the planet, and found X. Going to a planet that you land on isn't so bad because the loadscreen shows the ship traveling.
#106
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 08:52
Terror_K
-
- Members
- 4 362 messages
Regarding finding an old post regarding the original concept of fuel in ME2, I found one of them on the old forums:-
Seems the concept did change at some point to simply being fuel, because note later on what Patrick says when asked if he can reveal any further details on how the system works in-game as far as increasing your maximum total distance, etc.:-
Link, btw:- meforums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html
Patrick Weekes wrote all the way back in July 2009...
"fuel" is really kind of a shorthand as i understand it. ships in me don't need gas, but build up heat/static that they have to discharge (or can roast in own ship). can discharge near large mass, like mass relay, so can always hop systems. but going off away from relays, where fun stuff is, requires expenditure if heat-sink like deals, or at least planning to get out to faraway planet.
saying "fuel" makes it something everyone understands intuitively, though.
Seems the concept did change at some point to simply being fuel, because note later on what Patrick says when asked if he can reveal any further details on how the system works in-game as far as increasing your maximum total distance, etc.:-
Patrick Weekes wrote slightly later in July 2009...
that i cannot tell you. sorry! not public, and still being tweaked enough that anything i tell you could be wrong.
Link, btw:- meforums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html
Modifié par Terror_K, 29 janvier 2011 - 08:58 .
#107
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 09:06
marshalleck
-
- Members
- 15 645 messages
Fuel or discharge, the difference is superficial. In one case the number slowly decreases, in another it slowly increases. When you reach a fuel or discharge station, the inverse applies. I don't see how it would make any substantive difference to gameplay--in either case, exploration is limited by the little gauge and some numbers.
#108
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 09:07
Mariquis
-
- Members
- 201 messages
I came into say this: This is an awesome topic and you should feel good.
I think it was already mentioned but the oddest part about the galaxy map for me was that I seemed to be actually controlling the Normandy. Shepard isn't a pilot or navigator, so it seemed strange to go from "picking which planet to go to on a map" to "flying there myself because apparently Shepard can fly the Normandy.. but not shuttles!" I would honestly prefer a return to the style seen in ME1, but if they managed to work with it in ME3 and actually gave it some sort of engaging strategic purpose, then.. maybe.
I can definitely get behind the 'less planets' but 'more detail.' I didn't see the codexes for over half of the planets in the game, they were too many and number and often generic. I did like the signal tracking though, felt a bit more realistic than magically dropping the mako in amongst the gathering of anomalies and hidden bases which were all /so conveniently/ within the mako's range.
Regarding the mining, I actually didn't mind. The first time I found it fairly pleasant. It was the replays that destroyed it for me. If they don't remove it entirely, I would like to see some sort of 'collection amplifier' for every playthrough after the first. So.. say second playthrough each probe collects 2x, third playthrough each probe collects 3x and so on. It wouldn't entirely remove the element for most people, but it would made it far more palatable for those of us who like replaying the game.
Something else that could be supplemented is a side quest if the mini-games were ditched altogether, whereupon.. well it could take any form. Maybe you rescue/earn the respect of a crew member who could do it for you. Maybe you save an armory and so they upgrade your weapons 'free of charge' once you've found the research.
Regarding the fuel. The Normandy isn't so large that you wouldn't use up 'fuel' when flying within a system, but you still use fuel when flying outside each system?. I don't think it was terrible per se in implementation but it certainly felt.. unnecessary. It worked fine for what it was but it didn't actually add anything to the game that the galaxy map in the first game didn't already do. As the OP said, it wasn't a challenge, it wasn't engaging, it was more of an annoyance.
I think it was already mentioned but the oddest part about the galaxy map for me was that I seemed to be actually controlling the Normandy. Shepard isn't a pilot or navigator, so it seemed strange to go from "picking which planet to go to on a map" to "flying there myself because apparently Shepard can fly the Normandy.. but not shuttles!" I would honestly prefer a return to the style seen in ME1, but if they managed to work with it in ME3 and actually gave it some sort of engaging strategic purpose, then.. maybe.
I can definitely get behind the 'less planets' but 'more detail.' I didn't see the codexes for over half of the planets in the game, they were too many and number and often generic. I did like the signal tracking though, felt a bit more realistic than magically dropping the mako in amongst the gathering of anomalies and hidden bases which were all /so conveniently/ within the mako's range.
Regarding the mining, I actually didn't mind. The first time I found it fairly pleasant. It was the replays that destroyed it for me. If they don't remove it entirely, I would like to see some sort of 'collection amplifier' for every playthrough after the first. So.. say second playthrough each probe collects 2x, third playthrough each probe collects 3x and so on. It wouldn't entirely remove the element for most people, but it would made it far more palatable for those of us who like replaying the game.
Something else that could be supplemented is a side quest if the mini-games were ditched altogether, whereupon.. well it could take any form. Maybe you rescue/earn the respect of a crew member who could do it for you. Maybe you save an armory and so they upgrade your weapons 'free of charge' once you've found the research.
Regarding the fuel. The Normandy isn't so large that you wouldn't use up 'fuel' when flying within a system, but you still use fuel when flying outside each system?. I don't think it was terrible per se in implementation but it certainly felt.. unnecessary. It worked fine for what it was but it didn't actually add anything to the game that the galaxy map in the first game didn't already do. As the OP said, it wasn't a challenge, it wasn't engaging, it was more of an annoyance.
#109
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 09:18
DJBare
-
- Members
- 6 510 messages
One cost money the other cost time, I prefer the latter, I could also see a situation where while the ship is discharging it's vunrable, a good time for a pirate attack, so Shep takes an armed shuttle to deal with them.marshalleck wrote...
Fuel or discharge, the difference is superficial. In one case the number slowly decreases, in another it slowly increases. When you reach a fuel or discharge station, the inverse applies. I don't see how it would make any substantive difference to gameplay--in either case, exploration is limited by the little gauge and some numbers.
#110
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 09:27
AntiChri5
-
- Members
- 7 965 messages
matt-bassist wrote...
ive only read the OPs post, so someone migh have posted this already. but i assume the reason they took away the cursor and replaced it with a mini ship you have to fly around was because using a console controller to move a mouse cursor around is annoying. so to appeal to the console crowd, they made you 'control' a little ship instead of moving a cursor and clicking.
Except that ME 1 was designed for the 360, and later ported to the PC while ME 2 was released on both simultaneously.
#111
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 09:40
CroGamer002
-
- Members
- 20 673 messages
All I want in ME3 that you control Normandy in Galaxy map with keyboard, not mouse.
It's just feels fake with mouse.
It's just feels fake with mouse.
#112
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 12:56
Tony_Knightcrawler
-
- Members
- 871 messages
Actually, I hate that fuel costs money. I want to see every planet and yeah, and the price of fuel can add up. What if I want to visit a solar system another time for some reason? That's money out, with no way of getting money back in. It's basically a credit sink when the entire game has a maximum total of money.
Personally, I'd like to see travel handled as it is described in the codex and books: what limits travel is finding a good place to discharge. It could be done rather simply, by allowing the player to mark solar systems that have discharge locations on the galaxy map. Maybe as you upgrade the ship, you can discharge at planets that were previously dangerous. High-gravity planets might require a better reactor (to pump more energy into the ship, lowering its mass, multiplying the force of the manuevering jets, etc.), planets with corrosive atmospheres might require special hull plating or risk taking damage, planets with high winds might require upgrading the retrothrusters to stabilize the Normandy, etc etc.. This is a good way to open up planets to exploration over time and encourage exploration.
It can also be done in a more complicated fashion, where planets have risks and rewards for discharging, and going into unexplored territory requires analysis of sensor data to find discharge locations ahead of time. However, this would be very difficult to pull off effectively in an RPG. So the first example is probably more practical.
Personally, I'd like to see travel handled as it is described in the codex and books: what limits travel is finding a good place to discharge. It could be done rather simply, by allowing the player to mark solar systems that have discharge locations on the galaxy map. Maybe as you upgrade the ship, you can discharge at planets that were previously dangerous. High-gravity planets might require a better reactor (to pump more energy into the ship, lowering its mass, multiplying the force of the manuevering jets, etc.), planets with corrosive atmospheres might require special hull plating or risk taking damage, planets with high winds might require upgrading the retrothrusters to stabilize the Normandy, etc etc.. This is a good way to open up planets to exploration over time and encourage exploration.
It can also be done in a more complicated fashion, where planets have risks and rewards for discharging, and going into unexplored territory requires analysis of sensor data to find discharge locations ahead of time. However, this would be very difficult to pull off effectively in an RPG. So the first example is probably more practical.
Modifié par Tony_Knightcrawler, 29 janvier 2011 - 01:01 .
#113
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 01:16
marshalleck
-
- Members
- 15 645 messages
DJBare wrote...
One cost money the other cost time, I prefer the latter, I could also see a situation where while the ship is discharging it's vunrable, a good time for a pirate attack, so Shep takes an armed shuttle to deal with them.marshalleck wrote...
Fuel or discharge, the difference is superficial. In one case the number slowly decreases, in another it slowly increases. When you reach a fuel or discharge station, the inverse applies. I don't see how it would make any substantive difference to gameplay--in either case, exploration is limited by the little gauge and some numbers.
Neither of which address my point that calling it fuel or discharge is simply masking the exact same core mechanic.
#114
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 01:49
spacehamsterZH
-
- Members
- 1 863 messages
I'm not usually one to cry about the superiority of ME1, but when it comes to the galaxy map, it's very clear to me what needs to be done - change it all back to the way it was in ME1. The end.
#115
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 02:54
Normandy30
-
- Members
- 112 messages
First awsome thread i totally agree with the fact that it took the feeling of being an actual CO (Commanding Officer) of a ship away. I could totally see shepard in the middle of the CIC playing with the Normandy, and Soereign ships sitting indian style making gun noises lol. I do have some things to add.
I have not seen the 06 map that everyone is talking about since i got into this game series late. But i will say the ME1 map actaully made it feel more real to me because i was pointing and tell the ship "I want to go there." I think we also need to bring back one system from the ME 1 map, and that was recieving side missions from exploring areas of space. You travel to one planet and all the sudden Joker Chimes in, or an emergency distress call comes in and you have the choice of going to help now, or coming back to it and staying on mission.
I think when (if they impliment it) having shot cinematics while recieving missions through the galaxy map would break the game up annd really make it fun. Your're traveling to a planet you come into the system and bam joker comes "Commander? we're picking up a distress call in the area its a transport ship they're under pirate attack." Shows a shot clip of some batarians trying to capture slavers you can either discard the missino, or accept it right there. When you start the mission shows a quick ship to ship docking procedure, and you start the mission.
I know BW is probably 70% complete on all their missions and probably getting ready to just make sure everything is fine tuned and tweek so i dunno how much of a possibility any of this is, but i hope they're listening to everyone here who has some positive constructive feedback for them. Keep up the good work BW!
I have not seen the 06 map that everyone is talking about since i got into this game series late. But i will say the ME1 map actaully made it feel more real to me because i was pointing and tell the ship "I want to go there." I think we also need to bring back one system from the ME 1 map, and that was recieving side missions from exploring areas of space. You travel to one planet and all the sudden Joker Chimes in, or an emergency distress call comes in and you have the choice of going to help now, or coming back to it and staying on mission.
I think when (if they impliment it) having shot cinematics while recieving missions through the galaxy map would break the game up annd really make it fun. Your're traveling to a planet you come into the system and bam joker comes "Commander? we're picking up a distress call in the area its a transport ship they're under pirate attack." Shows a shot clip of some batarians trying to capture slavers you can either discard the missino, or accept it right there. When you start the mission shows a quick ship to ship docking procedure, and you start the mission.
I know BW is probably 70% complete on all their missions and probably getting ready to just make sure everything is fine tuned and tweek so i dunno how much of a possibility any of this is, but i hope they're listening to everyone here who has some positive constructive feedback for them. Keep up the good work BW!
#116
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 03:27
TheCrakFox
-
- Members
- 743 messages
I'd like to be able to access the Journal from within the map browser, and have the option to turn the pop ups off, as when you have too many uncompleted missions they really get in the way.
#117
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 03:28
Brohammed
-
- Members
- 127 messages
To tell you the truth I don't mind the me2 galaxy map, reminds me of Star Control 2, so does the mining. What I do have a problem with is the empty systems that exist only for mining. Either make a TON more so it feels like I'm exploring empty space or restrict it to quest systems. What makes those systems so important that they stick out on the map and not the other billions of stars? They all have nothing but minerals also.
I really don't care wither way though.
I really don't care wither way though.
#118
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 03:30
habitat 67
-
- Members
- 1 584 messages
The Spamming Troll wrote...
holy crap! your right. why the hell am i using fuel, when im not actually flying anyways. im just looking at a holographic map.
you just blew my mind.
Mine too. I can't believe that never occured to me.
#119
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 03:39
Babli
-
- Members
- 1 316 messages
This.Zulu_DFA wrote...
ME2 Galaxy Map doesn't need constructive critisism. It needs to be destroyed with fire and replaced with the ME1 Galaxy Map.
#120
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 04:12
Shadedclan
-
- Members
- 422 messages
I completely agree. But I kinda like controlling the Normandy because I feel in control. Maybe a mini-game where you have to go to a planet(*cough*Earth*cough*) in time to save it.
#121
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 04:28
SpockLives
-
- Members
- 571 messages
Please, Bioware, no more fuel in ME3. Worrying about not having enough money to buy all my upgrades (pre-dlc) was the biggest immersion breaker for me.
Prior to Overlord and LOTSB, money was really tight, and I felt like I had to use the game guide to figure out which planets to explore so I wouldn't run out of money. Flipping pages in a book to know where to explore is way more meta-gaming than I want.
Prior to Overlord and LOTSB, money was really tight, and I felt like I had to use the game guide to figure out which planets to explore so I wouldn't run out of money. Flipping pages in a book to know where to explore is way more meta-gaming than I want.
#122
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 04:35
xlI ReFLeX lIx
-
- Members
- 1 383 messages
I actualy prefer ME2 galaxy map. ME1 map was boring and I wasnt a fan of pressing "A" and "B" all the time to get in and out of places. In ME2, I like the mini-SR2. It was fun to fly around the galaxy and a cool way to get to places.
And you cant complain about the gas that you had to buy cause everywhere theres a relay there was gas and if there was ever a time where you couldnt afford gas, you should be playing mass effect.
And you cant complain about the gas that you had to buy cause everywhere theres a relay there was gas and if there was ever a time where you couldnt afford gas, you should be playing mass effect.
#123
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 04:45
morrie23
-
- Members
- 1 231 messages
The only thing the ME2 map has going for it is the percentage explored labels it has. The rest of it is a step back from the ME1 map. The little Normandy is especially silly, watch me fly through a star! Oh I survived.
#124
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 04:53
rufeezo
-
- Members
- 15 messages
If the galaxy map comes back, which I think it will, I would love to see crazier solar systems. I want to see weird orbits like neptune circuling, binary star systems. I know there was a binary star system in ME2, but I want to see some crazy planetary orbits, asteroid belts, and comets and meteors. Let your creativity go nuts.
#125
Posté 29 janvier 2011 - 05:06
Capeo
-
- Members
- 1 712 messages
I really didn't like the fuel system. It was simply a credit sink. It also makes no sense in the scope of how the codex describes how ships work. I mean, what IS the fuel? In a game that has no economy using money sinks (fuel and probes) as way a to balance your money vs resources is very cheap. A better way would be to make resources the rarity, not the credits. Then resources can be made able to sell if you need to but the trade off would be that your selling something that's hard to get back. Also, it states in game that Cerebus has nearly unlimited resources. They can't supply me with probes?
More to the point of the OP, I also didn't like the toy Normandy effect. It just felt so arcadey in an otherwise cinematic game. As many people already said just pointing to where you want to go and telling the crew to get you there feels more in keeping with being a Commander. Point to where you want to go and then Joker can tell you if there are sufficient discharge sites to reach it. If there aren't upgrades later one could allow you to.
And the map itself? Visually? When you have a bunch of missions open, particularly with the DLC downloaded, the entire upper right side of the map is hidden under mission markers. They should have been able to be toggled on and off or the map should have been able to rotate.
Lasty, planet scanning. While kind of fun at first it becomes a drag after a while. I don't like being forced to play a minigame a million times just to make my character able to be sufficiently powerful later in the game. EDI should just be able to scan the planet in totality and tell you what's there. I'm the savior of the galaxy, not a friggin' miner. Focus on what's important BW. It also makes the whole point of mining colonies rather moot. I can deplete an entire planet from orbit in ten minutes.
Lastly, just a little gripe but it still annoyed the hell out of me. Do I really need to be told that R2 launches a probe after scanning my fiftieth planet? Really?
More to the point of the OP, I also didn't like the toy Normandy effect. It just felt so arcadey in an otherwise cinematic game. As many people already said just pointing to where you want to go and telling the crew to get you there feels more in keeping with being a Commander. Point to where you want to go and then Joker can tell you if there are sufficient discharge sites to reach it. If there aren't upgrades later one could allow you to.
And the map itself? Visually? When you have a bunch of missions open, particularly with the DLC downloaded, the entire upper right side of the map is hidden under mission markers. They should have been able to be toggled on and off or the map should have been able to rotate.
Lasty, planet scanning. While kind of fun at first it becomes a drag after a while. I don't like being forced to play a minigame a million times just to make my character able to be sufficiently powerful later in the game. EDI should just be able to scan the planet in totality and tell you what's there. I'm the savior of the galaxy, not a friggin' miner. Focus on what's important BW. It also makes the whole point of mining colonies rather moot. I can deplete an entire planet from orbit in ten minutes.
Lastly, just a little gripe but it still annoyed the hell out of me. Do I really need to be told that R2 launches a probe after scanning my fiftieth planet? Really?
