434 réponses à ce sujet

[Sparrow44]

Stardusk78 wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

snip.

We know that in ME3 Engineers can build turrets so...should be more tactical.

I'd take a more advanced Drone over a turret, would like to see both being used simultaneously.

Modifié par Sparroww, 21 avril 2011 - 02:19 .

[termokanden]

Waltzingbear wrote...

termokanden wrote...

Singularity is boring?

Science is never boring

Nah, some science is boring. For example, invent a new model to capture something nobody cares about and then reformulate known theorems in this new model and prove them again.

But Singularity (/singularities) isn't boring.

Modifié par termokanden, 21 avril 2011 - 02:18 .

[Bozorgmehr]

Kronner wrote...

It's not and it has never been in ME1 or 2. It is a shooter, not tactical game. Could it be? Sure, I wouldn't mind if done properly, but I do not think we will see such changes in ME3. I mean, I use pause only to switch weapons, I wouldn't miss that feature. Not many players even use it. This is why ME2 is not a tactical game, it is a shooter with some spice on top.

I have to disagree I'll get back to this one at the end of my reply.

Agreed. More RPG stuff would be great.

Why not, sounds good enough to me.

Yeah, this would be fine, but it can be achieved by means other than gimping/splitting Charge.

Ah, we're getting to some middle ground at last.

But you keep bringing up this 'gimping' nonsense No one wants to be gimped, but as it is, you're gimping yourself when you're trying to use something else (instead of Charge, for example). You said you like Slam-bombs, why is that? Are you gimping yourself whenever you use them? Does it gimp Charge in any way? Are you somehow forced to use Slam-bombs?

The answer to those questions is NO. Slam-bombs are not only cool, they are also effective - i.e. you're not gimping yourself in any way when you chose to use this option. Does this mean you have to use Slam-bombs? No it doesn't, you also could have Charged in (though a well-timed Slam-bomb can do more damage than Charge can in such a small time-frame - but you have to use squad to execute).

Having options that are (roughly) equally effective (as Charge) in certain situation is what I like to see improved in ME3 - preferably stuff that can be used, not only before the first Charge but also, while you're doing the Vanguard thing (which doesn't equals Charge btw, Vanguards are topnotch CQC fighters, Charge is only a powerful tool to help/improve CQC abilities). That's the point I'm trying to make all along.

Adepts are biotic CC specialist, they can chose to play like The Spamming Troll does (Sing-Warp-only); it's effective, but Adepts also have the choice to use Pull and Throw as well and using those two powers do not gimp Adepts at all - they have a couple of (roughly equally effective) options instead. No one forces anyone to use Pull & Throw - but one can use em AND still be a very effective Adept.

I generally like your ideas in that post, but most of them are a pipe-dream, I am afraid. The AI would have to be MUCH better to see even some of those ideas in the game.

Yes and no, any AI improvement is welcome, but a system similar to the one BW uses in DA works reasonably well - it's not something impossible imo.

I'm glad you do see some potential in a little more sophisticated form of teamwork. I'll keep it simple this time coz using concepts instead of a finished product does seem to confuse folks a little. I'm not a representative of the "Anti-One-Power-Spamming-Comite" or the "Let's-Gimp-Charge-Party":)

Let's say your Vanguard has teamed up with Jacob and Miranda. We're going to change Jacob's Barrier so it affects Shep instead of Jacob (you can use Jacob's Barrier on yourself). You Charge into a fight and things don't work out very well; a 'can't get a lock'-moment, for example. As it is, your Shep will probably die - but with the new and improved Barrier, you can press a button to get your barrier up instantly (thanks Jacob) and keep going. You also have Shep's cooldown ready, but since you already have your barrier up, you don't have to use Charge for regen which gives the option to use something else instead. Maybe you see 3 (clustered) enemies with one among them who has lost defense. You now have the option to detonate a Slam-bomb (with Miranda's help) to deal with those 3 enemies. Again, no one is forcing you to use Slambombs, you can also use Charge on those 3 enemies. Both options are (roughly equally effective) - no gimping whatsoever (and you can do it when you're deep into enemy lines).

Adepts are not build to withstand heavy fire yet it does not matter in ME2, whether you play CQC or hang back - the Adept will be losing its barrier all the time (and Adepts don't have powers to regen shields like Vanguards and Sentinels) - all enemies always shoot Shep. This limits to amount of casting (regular get into cover and wait for shield regen crap). This isn't right imo - Adepts should be weak, but they should not be treated like tanks by the enemy. With some small improvements / adjustments it should be possible to team up with Grunt and have him do most of the tanking (i.e. Grunt will be soaking up most damage / enemies will be shooting Grunt most of the time instead of Adept Shep) - basically the same thing as using Alistair in DA:O to draw the aggro away from your archers and mages.

This, again, does not force Adepts to use someone like Grunt to do some tanking - they can chose this option, but maybe going for a full CC squad (no tanks) can reduce enemy fire to make things manageable too (resulting in roughly the same level of effectiveness), or Jacob's Barrier can provide the extra protection you need/want.

The same strategy can be used by Vanguards; using a tank to distract enemies (and to reduce damage taken by Shep) will also reduce the need for constant (shield)regen which in turn frees time that can be used for other abilities (Slam-bombs and hopefully a lot more cool combos/abilities). Again, you don't have to use a tank if you don't like someone like Grunt - but without a tank you'll have to handle the extra damage. It also frees a squadmate-slot to bring another. One you do like and who provides different tools to get the job done (like Jacob in the previous example, extra CC, etc). I.e. there can be more than one road that leads to Rome.

The option to use something as simple as a tank will open all sorts of new options (for all classes). You could make the Vanguard specs more interesting for example. Choosing to be a Destroyer should greatly improve damage output but makes the Vanguard a little less durable (which isn't a real problem if you're using a tank anyway); the Champion spec should boost defenses (more health, more shields, better shield regen when using Charge, whatever) but damage will be 'normal' (less than a Destroyer). This gives player the choice between going high risk, high damage OR less risk, less damage, but better survivability.

Well implemented this should allow players to find their own balance between damage and defense. I would enjoy (and I think you will too) finding the best possible balance between damage and defense - how much risk are you willing to take to boost damage? What's the best you can do? Skill will be more important too, a less skilled Vanguard can start with high defense and when his/her skills improve (s)he can opt to increase the risk a little (and the reward will be faster kills).

Players can 'build' there own favorite Vanguard; someone who likes to spam Charge only can chose so - without any gimping. But another player can use a different build, less focused on Charge spamming but without having to abandon point blank shotgun range (something not possible in ME2). Options, choice and teamwork - no gimping

By the way, the bit about Mongols is a great read. I am a history fan as well. Thanks for sharing.

LOL, yeah history can be pretty cool. I used this battle to illustrate how a couple of simple principles can turn the tide. Basically all (major) battles have been decided by simple yet highly effective details like in the Mongol example. Basic tactics doesn't equal rocket-science though there have been only a select few commanders throughout history who truly mastered the art of war. The Mongol commander from the example (one of my personal favorites) is the only commander who lead a successfully winter campaign in Russia. His army took Moskow by surprise - the Russians believed no one could survive the extreme cold, but the Mongols were used to extreme temperatures and used the cold to gain the advantage - they simply rode into Moskow using the frozen Moskva river to bypass the city walls. 

These kind of small, fun, and potentially very effective details could make ME3 so much better. And to get back to "ME is a shooter, not a tactical game" - shooters can be tactical without ME powers. One of the things I liked most about Crysis was the freedom of movement. When an enemy base lay on your path you could chose to storm it head on, or simply move around it (though a bit boring). The large levels also allowed different routes to be taken; attack base form the south or east? Maybe the west offers the best route to sneak in unseen?

These kind of things are not that hard to implement and I would love em: Vanguard stumbles on enemy fortification, attacking from side A will expose the Vanguard to all enemies around > VG will take heavy fire using this side to attack. Attacking from side B provides additional 'cover' (like a high wall offering protection from one side) so VG will only be targetable by a limited number of enemies > much easier and probably a lot faster too (and 'tactical').

I don't believe major AI improvements (which are unlikely anyway) are needed to add a little tactical depth to the ME franchise; not too much though, we obviouly want to keep the fast-paced action. If I feel like commanding large armies I'll go and play Total War.

[Kronner]

Bozorgmehr wrote...
Ah, we're getting to some middle ground at last.

But you keep bringing up this 'gimping' nonsense No one wants to be gimped, but as it is, you're gimping yourself when you're trying to use something else (instead of Charge, for example). You said you like Slam-bombs, why is that? Are you gimping yourself whenever you use them? Does it gimp Charge in any way? Are you somehow forced to use Slam-bombs?

I just skimmed through your post - unfortunately, I do not have enough time to reply to the whole post at the moment, but I'll get back to it as soon as I can. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]

I assumed you still stuck to your proposals from the other thread (no shield boost for Charge etc.). I have no problems using other powers as long as my superpower is viable and more powerful than the rest of my powers (if used correctly, of course). I'd also welcome more RPG options - your Champion/Destroyer proposal is an excellent example of just that.

Modifié par Kronner, 21 avril 2011 - 06:59 .

[Waltzingbear]

I think I've seen this show before...














Oh Right...

Modifié par Waltzingbear, 21 avril 2011 - 07:02 .

[The Spamming Troll]

termokanden wrote...

Waltzingbear wrote...

termokanden wrote...

Singularity is boring?

Science is never boring

Nah, some science is boring. For example, invent a new model to capture something nobody cares about and then reformulate known theorems in this new model and prove them again.

But Singularity (/singularities) isn't boring.

singularity is somewhat boring in ME2. its a good ting the level designs are so linear or singularity would be pretty crappy.

[Waltzingbear]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Grump.. Grump.. Grump..

I've got one for you too.

[Ahglock]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

termokanden wrote...

Waltzingbear wrote...

termokanden wrote...

Singularity is boring?

Science is never boring

Nah, some science is boring. For example, invent a new model to capture something nobody cares about and then reformulate known theorems in this new model and prove them again.

But Singularity (/singularities) isn't boring.

singularity is somewhat boring in ME2. its a good ting the level designs are so linear or singularity would be pretty crappy.

While I don't think it is boring on higher difficulties it is useful in large part due to level design.  If there weren't so many choke points to block off with it, it would lose a lot of its effectiveness. If ME3 has a wider lever design with more flanking foes, it will need a serious upgrade.  

[The Spamming Troll]

sesmae street pictures???

really?

sesame street pictures.<_<

i wonder how much you weigh...

[Sparrow44]

Ahglock wrote...

While I don't think it is boring on higher difficulties it is useful in large part due to level design.  If there weren't so many choke points to block off with it, it would lose a lot of its effectiveness. If ME3 has a wider lever design with more flanking foes, it will need a serious upgrade.  

I'm very intrigued to see how they handle Singularity, if we're indeed getting 'big big levels' then it will definitely need a wider radius again if we have any chance of pulling more than one enemy into ragdoll.

Also curious as to how they handle the multiple evolutions of each power, I would love to see a version of Singularity that functions similar to the vortex fired from the Blackstorm HW; pulls enemies in closer and then after a couple of seconds explodes dealing decent damage and sending fools flying.

And seeing as I can't use the Blackstorm in ME2, I nominate Exploding Singularity as a power in ME3.

[RGFrog]

I like that idea, iOnlySignIn.

[Kronner]

Kronner wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...
Ah, we're getting to some middle ground at last.

But you keep bringing up this 'gimping' nonsense No one wants to be gimped, but as it is, you're gimping yourself when you're trying to use something else (instead of Charge, for example). You said you like Slam-bombs, why is that? Are you gimping yourself whenever you use them? Does it gimp Charge in any way? Are you somehow forced to use Slam-bombs?

I just skimmed through your post - unfortunately, I do not have enough time to reply to the whole post at the moment, but I'll get back to it as soon as I can. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]

I assumed you still stuck to your proposals from the other thread (no shield boost for Charge etc.). I have no problems using other powers as long as my superpower is viable and more powerful than the rest of my powers (if used correctly, of course). I'd also welcome more RPG options - your Champion/Destroyer proposal is an excellent example of just that.

Took me long enough I guess, but anyway:

Bozorgmehr wrote...
The answer to those questions is NO. Slam-bombs are not only cool, they are also effective - i.e. you're not gimping yourself in any way when you chose to use this option. Does this mean you have to use Slam-bombs? No it doesn't, you also could have Charged in (though a well-timed Slam-bomb can do more damage than Charge can in such a small time-frame - but you have to use squad to execute).

Having options that are (roughly) equally effective (as Charge) in certain situation is what I like to see improved in ME3 - preferably stuff that can be used, not only before the first Charge but also, while you're doing the Vanguard thing (which doesn't equals Charge btw, Vanguards are topnotch CQC fighters, Charge is only a powerful tool to
help/improve CQC abilities). That's the point I'm trying to make all along.

This is exactly what I proposed before - give us more options for building the Shepard - and people will use many different builds and whatnot.

Although, if I remember correctly, in the other thread, you claimed Charge is IWIN button and that you'd like to see it split into more powers or something like that. I completly disagree with that.

Bozorgmehr wrote...
Yes and no, any AI improvement is welcome, but a system similar to the one BW uses in DA works reasonably well - it's not something impossible imo.

DA2 is a PoS game; button = not awesome.
DAO is very different from ME1 or 2. In any case, the "teamwork" in DAO is ridiculous. You basically HAVE to bring mages if you want to be effective. DAO is a true RPG, the build is more important than player's ability. ME is the other way around.

Bozorgmehr wrote...
I'm glad you do see some potential in a little more sophisticated form of teamwork. I'll keep it simple this time coz using concepts instead of a finished product does seem to confuse folks a little. I'm not a representative of the "Anti-One-Power-Spamming-Comite" or the "Let's-Gimp-Charge-Party":)

Color me surprised, to me, it seemed you are member of both based on your posts in the other thread lol.

Bozorgmehr wrote...
Let's say your Vanguard has teamed up with Jacob and Miranda. We're going to change Jacob's Barrier so it
affects Shep instead of Jacob (you can use Jacob's Barrier on yourself). You Charge into a fight and things don't work out very well; a 'can't get a lock'-moment, for example. As it is, your Shep will probably die - but with the new and improved Barrier, you can press a button to get your barrier up instantly (thanks Jacob) and keep going. You also have Shep's cooldown ready, but since you already have your barrier up, you don't have to use Charge for regen which gives the option to use something else instead. Maybe you see 3 (clustered) enemies with one
among them who has lost defense. You now have the option to detonate a Slam-bomb (with Miranda's help) to deal with those 3 enemies. Again, no one is forcing you to use Slambombs, you can also use Charge on those 3
enemies. Both options are (roughly equally effective) - no gimping whatsoever (and you can do it when you're deep into enemy lines).

Sounds good. Though I am not sure if squadmate abilities that boost Sheps defense are a good idea.

Bozorgmehr wrote...
Adepts are not build to withstand heavy fire yet it does not matter in ME2, whether you play CQC or hang back - the Adept will be losing its barrier all the time (and Adepts don't have powers to regen shields like
Vanguards and Sentinels) - all enemies always shoot Shep. This limits to amount of casting (regular get into cover and wait for shield regen crap). This isn't right imo - Adepts should be weak, but they should not
be treated like tanks by the enemy. With some small improvements / adjustments it should be possible to team up with Grunt and have him do most of the tanking (i.e. Grunt will be soaking up most damage / enemies
will be shooting Grunt most of the time instead of Adept Shep) - basically the same thing as using Alistair in DA:O to draw the aggro away from your archers and mages.

This, again, does not force Adepts to use someone like Grunt to do some tanking - they can chose this option, but maybe going for a full CC squad (no tanks) can reduce enemy fire to make things manageable too
(resulting in roughly the same level of effectiveness), or Jacob's Barrier can provide the extra protection you need/want.

The same strategy can be used by Vanguards; using a tank to distract enemies (and to reduce damage taken by Shep) will also reduce the need for constant (shield)regen which in turn frees time that can be used for other abilities (Slam-bombs and hopefully a lot more cool combos/abilities). Again, you don't have to use a tank if you don't like someone like Grunt - but without a tank you'll have to handle the extra damage. It also frees a squadmate-slot to bring another. One you do like and who provides different tools to get the job done (like Jacob in the previous example, extra CC, etc). I.e. there can be more than one road that leads to Rome.

Sounds good in theory, Grunt would finally be a nigh invincible krogan who aggressively charges all enemies.
But there should be some penalties too, I mean if Grunt could tank by himself and you could easily nuke everyone from distance..where's the fun in that?

Bozorgmehr wrote...

The option to use something as simple as a tank will open all sorts of new options (for all classes).
You could make the Vanguard specs more interesting for example. Choosing to be a Destroyer should greatly improve damage output but makes the Vanguard a little less durable (which isn't a real problem if you're
using a tank anyway); the Champion spec should boost defenses (more health, more shields, better shield regen when using Charge, whatever) but damage will be 'normal' (less than a Destroyer). This gives player
the choice between going high risk, high damage OR less risk, less damage, but better survivability.

Well implemented this should allow players to find their own balance between damage and defense. I
would enjoy (and I think you will too) finding the best possible balance between damage and defense - how much risk are you willing to take to boost damage? What's the best you can do? Skill will be more important
too, a less skilled Vanguard can start with high defense and when his/her skills improve (s)he can opt to increase the risk a little (and the reward will be faster kills).

Players can 'build' there own favorite Vanguard; someone who likes to spam Charge only can chose so -
without any gimping. But another player can use a different build, less focused on Charge spamming but without having to abandon point blank shotgun range (something not possible in ME2). Options, choice and teamwork - no gimping

LOL, yeah history can be pretty cool. I used this battle to illustrate how a couple of simple principles can turn the tide. Basically all (major) battles have been decided by simple yet highly effective details like in the Mongol example. Basic tactics doesn't equal rocket-science though there have been only a select few commanders
throughout history who truly mastered the art of war. The Mongol commander from the example (one of my personal favorites) is the only commander who lead a successfully winter campaign in Russia. His army
took Moskow by surprise - the Russians believed no one could survive the extreme cold, but the Mongols were used to extreme temperatures and used the cold to gain the advantage - they simply rode into Moskow using
the frozen Moskva river to bypass the city walls. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

These kind of small, fun, and potentially very effective details could make ME3 so much better. And to get back to "ME is a shooter, not a tactical game" - shooters can be tactical without ME powers. One of the things I liked most about Crysis was the freedom of movement. When an enemy base lay on your path you could chose to storm it head on, or simply move around it (though a bit boring). The large levels also allowed different routes to be taken; attack base form the south or east? Maybe the west offers the best route to sneak in unseen?

These kind of things are not that hard to implement and I would love em: Vanguard stumbles on enemy fortification, attacking from side A will expose the Vanguard to all enemies around > VG will take heavy fire
using this side to attack. Attacking from side B provides additional 'cover' (like a high wall offering protection from one side) so VG will only be targetable by a limited number of enemies > much easier and probably a lot faster too (and 'tactical').

I don't believe major AI improvements (which are unlikely anyway) are needed to add a little tactical depth to the ME franchise; not too much though, we obviouly want to keep the fast-paced action. If I feel like commanding large armies I'll go and play Total War. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/cool.png[/smilie]

I pretty much agree with everything here Especially the Destroyer vs. Champion evolution example is awesome.

Modifié par Kronner, 24 avril 2011 - 10:53 .

[Alamar2078]

Kronner wrote...
Although, if I remember correctly, in the other thread, you claimed Charge is IWIN button and that you'd like to see it split into more powers or something like that. I completly disagree with that.

I won't address most of your or Boz's Thesis-posts.

I will say that Charge is very powerful and even in NG+ once you are fully upgraded it is pretty much an "I-Win-Quickly" button -- even someone without skillz can really abuse levels with this skill.  Of course I think AR is also an "I Win" button but that's neither here nor there

I'd rather have fewer "push button -> awesome happens" moments.  I'd rather have a more puzzle like experience in trying to figure out which tools in my bag would work best and how to manipulate the situation to where certain tools could be deadly.

[TevinterMagister]

Yeah, but not everyone will take kindly on having their awesome button sacrificed on the altar of diversity. No matter which class you play, using your class signature power is almost always a good thing. It appears that to some people this is a really bad thing and nerfing awesome button is the solution so that they don't fall to the temptation themselves. While this will solve their "problem", some people really enjoy awesome button and for them it makes the game fun. But this is deemed unacceptable as everyone should follow their rules on how to play despite the fact that they prefer class X and their grievance is with class Y.

[Kronner]

Alamar2078 wrote...

I will say that Charge is very powerful and even in NG+ once you are fully upgraded it is pretty much an "I-Win-Quickly" button -- even someone without skillz can really abuse levels with this skill.  Of course I think AR is also an "I Win" button but that's neither here nor there

Once you are fully upgraded, it no longer matters whether it is NG+ or not. The shield upgrades are by far the most important, once you get 3/6 + the special upgrade you unlock after that 3rd regular upgrade, you are pretty much unstoppable with any class. Yeah, Charge is powerful, but so are many other skills.

You nerf Charge and you gotta nerf Combat Drone, Tech Armor (the Assault evolution), Reave, Energy Drain, Adrenaline Rush, Neural Shock, Pull, Singularity, Cloak, Cryo Ammo, Inferno Ammo etc.
But they are all I-Win buttons I guess, right?

What I like about Charge is that it allows me to stay out of cover (I find staying in cover boring as hell) and it gets me killed when I frack up..not many other powers do that. Actually, no other power puts you in h.a.r.m.'s way.
Playing as an Engineer (for example) is easier (and slower) IMHO, but not nearly as much fun for me.

Maze of Torment wrote...

Yeah, but not everyone will take kindly on having their awesome button sacrificed on the altar of diversity. No matter which class you play, using your class signature power is almost always a good thing. It appears that to some people this is a really bad thing and nerfing awesome button is the solution so that they don't fall to the temptation themselves. While this will solve their "problem", some people really enjoy awesome button and for them it makes the game fun. But this is deemed unacceptable as everyone should follow their rules on how to play despite the fact that they prefer class X and their grievance is with class Y.

Yeah, this too.

Modifié par Kronner, 25 avril 2011 - 08:00 .

[kstarler]

I think changing Charge in any drastic way (removing shield regen, for example) is a bad idea. Charge is a the best risk vs. reward power in the game. You have to take a risk to use it on Insanity, and you have to have quick reflexes to keep from getting killed while it recharges (provided you're charging a group of enemies, which is most of the time in ME2). Remember, we're talking about a power that was deemed a suicide button by most when the game first came out. It was only after the more skilled folks in the community started showing others how to use it that it became such a popular ability. I'll be happy to see more abilities added for every class, Vanguard included, but I'll be dissatisfied if Charge is "nerfed" by removing/breaking up the shield regen and/or knock back ability.

EDIT: This is assuming that the global cool down and most of the current combat mechanics carry over to ME3.

Modifié par kstarler, 25 avril 2011 - 08:54 .

[Sailears]

In any case (and I'm sure it has been said), charge barrier makes sense anyway considering what is going on, and you can see that just by the visual effect.

I don't know, as long as there is enough variety between and within each class, allowing for a range of gameplay tactics, I'll be happy.

I'm not that fussed if certain powers seem overpowered compared to others - if I can build a viable strategy for any class, that requires the correct balance of brain power to make it rewarding
(too much and it becomes tedious micromanagement - like old school rpgs; the reward is dwarfed by the effort needed. Too little and it becomes a "press a button and something awesome happens"; minimal satisfaction because of lack of challenge),
and allows for many possibilities such that different people can find their niche, then it will be fantastic.

Modifié par Curunen, 25 avril 2011 - 09:30 .

[Alamar2078]

I think the problem is more of a design issue per-se. As long as there are signature and bonus powers it is likely that those will be [easily] the more powerful skills in the game. Then you don't have nearly as many options [if you want to be effective] then to choose whatever other skills synergize with your one or two "Uber" skills.

To me that sort of a design is boring and doesn't give us anything new.

I'd much rather see level designs [like some parts of LotSB] where PULL or SLAM are close to uber powers because of how the level is set up & the environment. That plus allowing more interaction with the environment [destructable environment] would give you a lot of interesting options.

More agressive AI scripting would also help keep things from being too "static" in certain fights. Add to that a few enemy powers that could be implemented but weren't [I.E. when we first see a YMIR we see a missle take a right angle to hit a Quarian ... what if the missles did that to you when you were in cover??]

Changes like that would be more interesting to me IMHO.

[Bozorgmehr]

Kronner wrote...

I assumed you still stuck to your proposals from the other thread (no shield boost for Charge etc.). I have no problems using other powers as long as my superpower is viable and more powerful than the rest of my powers (if used correctly, of course).

Although, if I remember correctly, in the other thread, you claimed Charge is IWIN button and that you'd like to see it split into more powers or something like that. I completely disagree with that.

You still don't get it We're communicating on a different frequency, dimension or whatever to call it

All this OP I WIN crap is completely irrelevant at this point. The most important rule when designing something is to ask the question what it is you're trying to accomplish. You got pretty close to the heart of playing a Vanguard in a previous post:

I want to use weapons (melee or close range) to kill enemies, so if I have one power something that puts me in a perfect position to shoot them in the face with a super shotgun, I am a happy guy (like, really happy).

I made a small yet crucial correction which might make more sense through a couple examples. Someone who's going to start designing a car is a fool. Nobody is interested in a car - they're interested to travel between point A and point B. One ought to look for ways to make traveling between points faster, easier, cheaper, more comfortable etc etc. - that's the problem which needs to be solved, that's the GOAL. I think it's fair to say that a miniature ME Mass Relay in every house and on every street corner would be the deathblow to the automotive industry
People don't want a lawn mower, people want to cut their crass. People don't buy a pc because it looks nice next to the telly, they buy it to communicate with friends or to play their favorite computer games.

I cannot stress this enough, it's the Holy Grail of Design. The second phase(s) of the (design) process basically is nothing more than brainstorming, experimenting and selecting the best and/or most promising ideas to get to the most ideal solution. Nature is constantly doing the exact same thing which we nowadays call Evolution.

When I think of Vanguards I thing about someone swiftly striking enemies like a top-notch predator planting its claws and fangs into the victim's flesh, crushing skulls and ripping out hearts. The Vanguard needs tools and/or equipment to allow him/her to behave predatory - Charge is only one out of many possible solutions, i.e. it's nothing more than what a car is to traveling, a lawn mower to cutting crass and a pc to playing computer games.

DA2 is a PoS game; button = not awesome.
DAO is very different from ME1 or 2. In any case, the "teamwork" in DAO is ridiculous. You basically HAVE to bring mages if you want to be effective. DAO is a true RPG, the build is more important than player's ability. ME is the other way around.

It's irrelevant what 'type' of games DA and ME are. It is relevant to note (which is all I did) they're both team-based games. I like some of the ideas (however poorly implemented is again irrelevant) of DA - which might improve the almost non-existent ME teamwork. It's like F1 racing teams who go shopping in the aerospace industry looking for stuff they can use to reduce the weight of their F1 cars which will make them go faster. Bottom line; it's pointless to try and design the Wheel yourself.

Sounds good. Though I am not sure if squadmate abilities that boost Sheps defense are a good idea.

Sounds good in theory, Grunt would finally be a nigh invincible krogan who aggressively charges all enemies.
But there should be some penalties too, I mean if Grunt could tank by himself and you could easily nuke everyone from distance..where's the fun in that?

Yeah, it always annoyed me to see (pure-blood) Grunt behave like a pusy compared to his brethren 

Obviously it isn't fun to have Grunt do all the killing, but it's still a concept which deserves getting looked into. Maybe it's too hard to implement, maybe not. It's all part of the brainstorming phase, throw in ideas which might (or not) be useful. Trial and error plus filtering will seperate the good from the bad later on.

I pretty much agree with everything here Especially the Destroyer vs. Champion evolution example is awesome.

Great! You agree on something

Seriously though, the problem is the Destroyer vs Champion stuff cannot be implemented in the current ME2 system due to the crappy HP system. Which brings us back to the beginning - first one has to determine which features are going to be implemented before designing the system around it, not the other way around.

Personally I believe Vanguards are all about the balance between durability and destructibility, but ME2's Charge doesn't allow any balancing or min-maxing (which is one of the problems I have with the power) - a Destroyer vs Champion system cannot exist without modifying either Charge, the HP-system or both (or more likely the whole system).

P.S. Christina has announced that Charge will be in ME3. I'd have prefer she said Vanguards will still be able to go berserk like they can in ME2 - would have increased my confidence a lot more than the Charge announcement

Modifié par Bozorgmehr, 26 avril 2011 - 06:31 .

[Sparrow44]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Seriously though, the problem is the Destroyer vs Champion stuff cannot be implemented in the current ME2 system due to the crappy HP system. Which brings us back to the beginning - first one has to determine which features are going to be implemented before designing the system around it, not the other way around.

Personally I believe Vanguards are all about the balance between durability and destructibility, but ME2's Charge doesn't allow any balancing or min-maxing (which is one of the problems I have with the power) - a Destroyer vs Champion system cannot exist without modifying either Charge, the HP-system or both (or more likely the whole system).

P.S. Christina has announced that Charge will be in ME3. I'd have prefer she said Vanguards will still be able to go berserk like they can in ME2 - would have increased my confidence a lot more than the Charge announcement

The Destroyer vs Champion idea is a good one Boz, as it stands the choice between them is cosmetic; which one sounds cooler?

As for Charge, it is quite likely that it will have some changes to it as will some of the other class powers. One thing to consider though is Christina's tweet which said Charge would return also said that 'they're not looking to take away things that players' love'.

This says to me that they're trying to find ways to add to the combat of ME3 not remove things and start over from scratch like they did for ME2.

As long there are people like Kronner who like to go on a berserking/charging frenzy using nothing other than a shotgun, and other players who might want to mix things up with some biotics then I think there should be a way that both playstyles are available without sacrificing what made the Vanguard a fun class to begin with.

[Kronner]

Bozorgmehr wrote...
You still don't get it We're communicating on a different frequency, dimension or whatever to call it

All this OP I WIN crap is completely irrelevant at this point. The most important rule when designing something is to ask the question what it is you're trying to accomplish. You got pretty close to the heart of playing a Vanguard in a previous post:

...

Well, I thought you still stood by your posts in that other thread..I did not like/agree with any of them. I had already said I'd welcome more options any day..as long as I can use the one I really like. This post of yours implies you think so too

It's irrelevant what 'type' of games DA and ME are. It is relevant to note (which is all I did) they're both team-based games. I like some of the ideas (however poorly implemented is again irrelevant) of DA - which might improve the almost non-existent ME teamwork. It's like F1 racing teams who go shopping in the aerospace industry looking for stuff they can use to reduce the weight of their F1 cars which will make them go faster. Bottom line; it's pointless to try and design the Wheel yourself.

It's not irrelevant. DAO was more about building the character, and player skill (as in reactions etc.) was not so important. ME is the other way around. DA2 is somewhere in between and it sucks.

I actually think there is a lot of available teamwork in ME2..more than in ME1. You have cross-class combos, you need a stripper (lol), CCer and nuker. Fortunately, not all classes need all this to be effective..which is only good IMHO, as it gives you more options.

Yeah, it always annoyed me to see (pure-blood) Grunt behave like a pusy compared to his brethren 

Obviously it isn't fun to have Grunt do all the killing, but it's still a concept which deserves getting looked into. Maybe it's too hard to implement, maybe not. It's all part of the brainstorming phase, throw in ideas which might (or not) be useful. Trial and error plus filtering will seperate the good from the bad later on.

krogans in general are way too weak in ME2, including Grunt. Compared to Wrex in ME1, they should be ashamed. Hopefully BioWare improve that.

Great! You agree on something

Seriously though, the problem is the Destroyer vs Champion stuff cannot be implemented in the current ME2 system due to the crappy HP system. Which brings us back to the beginning - first one has to determine which features are going to be implemented before designing the system around it, not the other way around.

Personally I believe Vanguards are all about the balance between durability and destructibility, but ME2's Charge doesn't allow any balancing or min-maxing (which is one of the problems I have with the power) - a Destroyer vs Champion system cannot exist without modifying either Charge, the HP-system or both (or more likely the whole system).

They could have done this in ME2 too.

(example only)*
Champion gets a great CD reduction (-40%), more shields (+15%) and health (+15%) and power duration (+20%), BUT a huge weapon damage penalty (minus cca 30% overall damage). Charge shield boost: 10%. Great for caster Vanguards.

Destroyer gets only a slight CD reduction (-10%), greater power damage (+25%) and weapon damage bonus (+20%), but has a penalty to shields or health. Charge shield boost: 50%. Great for Charge-heavy Berserker Vanguards.

Champion / Destroyer
Cooldown reduction: 40% / 10%
Power duration: 20% / 0%
Power damage: 0% / 20%
Weapon damage: -30% / 20%
Shields: 15% / -15%
Health: 15% / -15%
Charge shield boost: 10% / 50%

I think both should get the same P/R bonus. The problem in ME2 is, that the passive abilities are the same. If you run any mission in the game with A or B evolution, you won't be able to tell the difference. If something like *that was in the game, the playstyles would be very different.

P.S. Christina has announced that Charge will be in ME3. I'd have prefer she said Vanguards will still be able to go berserk like they can in ME2 - would have increased my confidence a lot more than the Charge announcement

She also tweeted they are building, not rebuilding this time around. And that Vanguard will be the same, only better. Let's hope she'll deliver on this.

Modifié par Kronner, 26 avril 2011 - 07:09 .

[Omega-202]

Boz: Are you seriously suggesting that Mass Effect use a "tank and spank" aggro mechanic? What's next, magic healers? Might as well give Grunt a "sword and board" while you're at it.

Leave ME combat alone. Its unique as an RPG/TPS hybrid and doesn't need weak mechanics like that.

In regards to Charge: Nerfing it would be a massive mistake. It needs tuning, but removing or weakening its shield regeneration or survival boosting facets would be crippling and would turn it into a VERY situational ability.

My suggestion would be to have an increased number of evolutions to it. Have it so we have our Area and Heavy versions essentially intact but add other flavors like "Rapid Charge".

Ex: Rapid Charge would function like Kasumi's Shadow Strike where if you execute a kill within a few seconds of activating Charge, you'd get your cooldown back, but in exchange it only recovers 20% of your shields/activation.
Add more tactical depth to Charge, don't remove what made it so popular in the first place.

Modifié par Omega-202, 26 avril 2011 - 07:06 .

[Bozorgmehr]

Kronner wrote...

Well, I thought you still stood by your posts in that other thread..I did not like/agree with any of them. I had already said I'd welcome more options any day..as long as I can use the one I really like. This post of yours implies you think so too

Indeed, though I'm more interested in what the relevant classes are capable of doing, how they accomplish that is up for debate.

It's not irrelevant. DAO was more about building the character, and player skill (as in reactions etc.) was not so important. ME is the other way around. DA2 is somewhere in between and it sucks.

I actually think there is a lot of available teamwork in ME2..more than in ME1. You have cross-class combos, you need a stripper (lol), CCer and nuker. Fortunately, not all classes need all this to be effective..which is only good IMHO, as it gives you more options.

Yeah, but one CCC (warp-bombs)? - I'd like to see a couple more combos and more specialized squadmates.

They could have done this in ME2 too.

(example only)*
Champion gets a great CD reduction (-40%), more shields (+15%) and health (+15%) and power duration (+20%), BUT a huge weapon damage penalty (minus cca 30% overall damage). Charge shield boost: 10%. Great for caster Vanguards.

Destroyer gets only a slight CD reduction (-10%), greater power damage (+25%) and weapon damage bonus (+20%), but has a penalty to shields or health. Charge shield boost: 50%. Great for Charge-heavy Berserker Vanguards.

Champion / Destroyer
Cooldown reduction: 40% / 10%
Power duration: 20% / 0%
Power damage: 0% / 20%
Weapon damage: -30% / 20%
Shields: 15% / -15%
Health: 15% / -15%
Charge shield boost: 10% / 50%

I think both should get the same P/R bonus. The problem in ME2 is, that the passive abilities are the same. If you run any mission in the game with A or B evolution, you won't be able to tell the difference. If something like *that was in the game, the playstyles would be very different.

I think this would help, but only a little. I think the problem is not how much shields you get back, it's the importance of having some shields up that really matters. The ME2 system is too focused on 'shield lost' moments of invincibility; having two 1-point shields is worth more than having one 200 point shield. This doesn't make any sense and it ruins powers like Barrier, Fortification, GSB (a 12 second cd adds like 0.12 seconds before shields pop when taking heavy fire - WTF?); it's also key to what makes TA (Assault specifically), Energy Drain and Charge so powerful.

Greatly reducing or completely removing those 'shields down' moments and replacing it by a system that's focused on how many health and shield points one has (without changing the time it takes for enemies to take Shep down) would be better imo. Then it actually matters if one receives a big shield boost instead of small one, it would also make passives, upgrades, armor and equipment boosting health and shields much more useful and interesting.

Remember this too is only a simple example, the real deal is not about shield-regen, cooldowns or whatever. It's about survivability. The whole health-shield thing is nothing more than a system or indicator that shows how long you have before getting killed. And to be more Vanguard specific; what matters is not if Charge does or doesn't have a shield-regen feature - what matters is that Vanguard have enough survivability to do the things they are meant to do.

She also tweeted they are building, not rebuilding this time around. And that Vanguard will be the same, only better. Let's hope she'll deliver on this.

Yeah, but tweaking something simple like the 'shields down' issue can have major impact on everything else. Bioware should know the core features of ME2 combat are great - a flued integration of shooter and rpg-abilities which has received lots of praise from both the community and critics alike. It's unlikely this will change drastically, but how they are going to implement everything remains unknown. We do know new mechanics like melee and rolling will be added, these things do have impact on gameplay, just like AI behavior and so on. A lot will change, all we can do is daydream and pray ME3 will be awesome