256 réponses à ce sujet

[DPSSOC]

dreman9999 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
No.  The answer to overpowered classes is not to pull them back, that's lazy and creates a massive disconnect especially in a series (as evidenced by this thread).  What you do is make enemies and other classes more powerful to compensate, so rather than being a god among insects you're now a god among other gods.

Example by the end of ME1 my Shep could lift a Collosus clear off the ground, in ME2 I can't even get a heavy mech airborne.  Similarly in ME1 the Soldier could be a tank, absorbing damage rather than avoiding it.  In ME2 this has been cut, all Sheps wear the same armor and a Soldier can't stand up to anymore firepower than an Adept.

Now I felt the classes in ME1 were fairly well balanced; Biotics were CC masters, Techs were Cripplers, and Combats were tanks.  In ME2 the different classes just feel like different flavours not different roles.  Can anyone here honestly say they're playstyle changes greatly based on the class they're playing?  Or is it just; get behind cover, strip the defenses, kill over and over with every class?

That not the salution ether. Give everyone a one hit kill just makes it so that the first one to use it wins. I like what the did with the class. (And yes, you can lift a heavy mech)

I can use the power on it and it is effected but it doesn't actually clear the ground; at least I haven't seen it maybe it dies to quick cause once you get through shields and armor and can actually use lift they might as well be made of tissue paper.

And I'm not saying make everything a one hit kill; I'm saying rather than making Shepard weaker you make his enemies more powerful (defensively and offensively).  If Biotic powers are ripping through enemies in ME1 give them better defenses in ME2; don't weaken the powers.  If Warp is killing enemies in one hit give the enemies more health, better damage reduction, better biotic/tech defense you do not reduce the base damage Warp does.

dreman9999 wrote...
Story wise ,it logical because if you have squad of solders you would want a way to stop a move that would kill every one in one move, you would pay anything. And if you knew and adept could do that, you would get any tech to make sure that that adept would not kill everyone on you team in one hit. Biotic powers from ME1 to ME2 is and example of tech evolving. It adds more to the lore. And to add on top of that you can do more damage now as an adept with your powers alown than  you could in ME1.

No because rather than saying, oh tech's gotten better and now shields offer better defense against biotics they just decided that biotics won't work on shields.  They didn't make shields any more effective they just made the powers less.  In ME1 biotics ignored shields and dealt strictly with armor and health; a reasonable step, a logical step, would be to say shields now function against biotics.  What we get is shields now void biotics.  I have no problem with shields reducing the damage biotics can do, but to say that shields make a target immune to the spontaneous creation of a Mass Effect field is ridiculous (Lift, Throw, Pull, Singularity).

The same can be said about armor and AI Hacking.  A shield makes sense, it's an energy field that disrupts attempts to wirelessly hack into the AI's core, but how does armor do that?

Wild tangent I hate how armor was handled in ME2.  In ME1 it was fine armor offers damage reduction.  It wasn't ok you've got 90 Armor points that need to be wittled down before they can get your health because that doesn't make sense.  You shoot through a shield the shield goes down, but if you shoot through armor the armor is still there.  You aren't blowing panels off the heavy mech to expose it's inner works.  It was much better when it was just armor absorbs the first x points of damage from every shot because that's what armor does it creates a buffer between you and the impact lessening the effect on you; it doesn't completely negate the effect until it magically stops working.

So how does armor, that doesn't actually go away, being damaged effect the ability to hack into the AI core?  I could see heavy mechs being resistant to hacking (thicker armor weakens the signal rendering the target inactive rather than turning it to your side) because of their armor but I don't see how having armor completely blocks hacking until suddenly it doesn't.

[Aumata]

Yeah I hope we see some changes for Mass Effect 3 in the caster classes. I can't even remember more than 4 people getting stuck in a pull field or a singularity. But I do remember catching a entire base in a singularity. This is just base on the highest feat I have ever done. Of course hearing that caster classes was the easiest class is odd for me considering that I found the Soldier class to be the easiest out of the Vanguard and Adept. I tank as a soldier, my little brother was in the tech field but he was freaking sadistic in shutting people down.

Finishing my engineer run earlier today, I kinda realize why I like the class so much. Engineer kinda reminded me of the Adept class in ME1. Well in versatility anyway, but at the same time it was pathetic because it was nothing like how my little brother play the tech classes in ME1. It played like a biotic, except using tech. I really hope ME3 is more in line with ME1 in the skills department than ME2. This was a insanity run by the way.

[dreman9999]

DPSSOC wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
No.  The answer to overpowered classes is not to pull them back, that's lazy and creates a massive disconnect especially in a series (as evidenced by this thread).  What you do is make enemies and other classes more powerful to compensate, so rather than being a god among insects you're now a god among other gods.

Example by the end of ME1 my Shep could lift a Collosus clear off the ground, in ME2 I can't even get a heavy mech airborne.  Similarly in ME1 the Soldier could be a tank, absorbing damage rather than avoiding it.  In ME2 this has been cut, all Sheps wear the same armor and a Soldier can't stand up to anymore firepower than an Adept.

Now I felt the classes in ME1 were fairly well balanced; Biotics were CC masters, Techs were Cripplers, and Combats were tanks.  In ME2 the different classes just feel like different flavours not different roles.  Can anyone here honestly say they're playstyle changes greatly based on the class they're playing?  Or is it just; get behind cover, strip the defenses, kill over and over with every class?

That not the salution ether. Give everyone a one hit kill just makes it so that the first one to use it wins. I like what the did with the class. (And yes, you can lift a heavy mech)

I can use the power on it and it is effected but it doesn't actually clear the ground; at least I haven't seen it maybe it dies to quick cause once you get through shields and armor and can actually use lift they might as well be made of tissue paper.

And I'm not saying make everything a one hit kill; I'm saying rather than making Shepard weaker you make his enemies more powerful (defensively and offensively).  If Biotic powers are ripping through enemies in ME1 give them better defenses in ME2; don't weaken the powers.  If Warp is killing enemies in one hit give the enemies more health, better damage reduction, better biotic/tech defense you do not reduce the base damage Warp does.

dreman9999 wrote...
Story wise ,it logical because if you have squad of solders you would want a way to stop a move that would kill every one in one move, you would pay anything. And if you knew and adept could do that, you would get any tech to make sure that that adept would not kill everyone on you team in one hit. Biotic powers from ME1 to ME2 is and example of tech evolving. It adds more to the lore. And to add on top of that you can do more damage now as an adept with your powers alown than  you could in ME1.

No because rather than saying, oh tech's gotten better and now shields offer better defense against biotics they just decided that biotics won't work on shields.  They didn't make shields any more effective they just made the powers less.  In ME1 biotics ignored shields and dealt strictly with armor and health; a reasonable step, a logical step, would be to say shields now function against biotics.  What we get is shields now void biotics.  I have no problem with shields reducing the damage biotics can do, but to say that shields make a target immune to the spontaneous creation of a Mass Effect field is ridiculous (Lift, Throw, Pull, Singularity).

The same can be said about armor and AI Hacking.  A shield makes sense, it's an energy field that disrupts attempts to wirelessly hack into the AI's core, but how does armor do that?

Wild tangent I hate how armor was handled in ME2.  In ME1 it was fine armor offers damage reduction.  It wasn't ok you've got 90 Armor points that need to be wittled down before they can get your health because that doesn't make sense.  You shoot through a shield the shield goes down, but if you shoot through armor the armor is still there.  You aren't blowing panels off the heavy mech to expose it's inner works.  It was much better when it was just armor absorbs the first x points of damage from every shot because that's what armor does it creates a buffer between you and the impact lessening the effect on you; it doesn't completely negate the effect until it magically stops working.

So how does armor, that doesn't actually go away, being damaged effect the ability to hack into the AI core?  I could see heavy mechs being resistant to hacking (thicker armor weakens the signal rendering the target inactive rather than turning it to your side) because of their armor but I don't see how having armor completely blocks hacking until suddenly it doesn't.

1. That would make insanity on ME1 ht norm in ME2. And even then it would be one hit kill.

2. Yes, itis logical lore wise. If you had an army and knew that one guy or on group of guy could take them out with one move  then you would do anything to stop that guy and his one move. Example nuklear missales and anti missial defences. And all this is based on immunity and hardeningfrom from mass effect 1 which preveted some powers from working on some eneimies.Now everyone has it to some degree. It's been impoved.

[mcsupersport]

More powerful defenses mean the powers don't work the same against them, ie they aren't as effective, or by another name, NERFED. You say one thing and then demand something else. The game as played in ME1 made the difficulty and shooter aspect BORING. They had to change it, and if you make everyone more powerful then the enemies are more powerful and the effect is to NERF the powerful class.

[aimlessgun]

Kabanya101 wrote...
Thank god someone has the same ideas as me. I had time to play as all classes in both MEs. And I felt that my soldier, which is my favorite class, was tremendously weak in ME2. Your right, all the sheps in ME2 were all weak, not only was the armor terribel, but the raw power was taken away from the character too. The armor did nothing in ME2, so there was barely any protection, even with all the upgrades, which made every fight the same.

No offense meant here man, but if you think the soldier was weak, that's on you, and there is plenty of room to improve your skills.

Using ME1 as a comparison point is ludicrous because that game was a joke with the right power/gear setup. You could literally walk through levels holding down the fire button and never going into cover on insanity. That is just...bad, bad gameplay. If you think it was good gameplay, I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but most people thought it was dumb.

[RedCaesar97]

I probably should not weigh in on this topic considering that other people are expressing their arguments very well, but I will anyway.

I do not think that the Adept class (or the Engineer class for that matter) were nerfed or gimped in anyway in Mass Effect 2, rather it was the underlying game mechanics that changed. I understand to some degree how some people dislike how the Adept was handled in ME2: they were looking forward to Mass Effect 1.5 and instead received Mass Effect 2. Some people really enjoyed playing as a "Biotic God" in Mass Effect 1 and are displeased that they are no longer godlike in Mass Effect 2.

In Mass Effect 1, biotic powers were used to disable enemies (Stasis, Throw, Lift, Singularity), debuff enemies (Warp), or provide better protection to the player (Barrier). On their own, Warp, Throw, Lift, and Singularity rarely killed anyone. In Mass Effect 2, biotic powers still disable enemies, but can now kill enemies (warp, warp bombs, throw off the map, pull off the map).

In Mass Effect 1, the typical gameplay went: power, power, power, power, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot some more, keep shooting, check to see if the powers have cooled down yet [no, not yet], keep shooting... Mass Effect 2 allows you to cast, shoot, cast, shoot, cast, shoot; or even, shoot, cast, cast, shoot, cast, shoot, cast, cast... it made for more integrated power+gunplay.

Now I will admit that the protection mechanic probably affects the Adept the most. While warp is extremely effective against both barriers and armor, it can only affect one protected enemy at time, unlike Overload and Incinerate which can affect multiple enemies at once. Not having an ability that can strip protections from multiple enemies at once can be a pain.

With Singularity, Pull, Throw, and Warp, I find killing unprotected enemies much easier with the Adept than with other classes. Between pistols, SMGs, and squadmates, the Adept has more than enough firepower to remove protections.

The Engineer and Adept are probably the best-designed classes in Mass Effect 2, in that they are team players. The other classes rely on squadmates much less (or not at all). The Sentinel should have been as equally squadmate-reliant as the Engineer and Adept but Tech Armor stops that from happening.

[The Spamming Troll]

i miss investing points in an ability, lets say 40 of my 51 points, and having those abilities cause more havoc then a half second stagger. i dont think its about ME1 players missing being a biotic-god. i think its about creating an effective character that does more then use one or two abilities effectively.

i compare playing an adept on insanity in ME2 to getting blue balls from my girlfriend. i keep using throw, and keep staggering an enemy. its like come on! just put him on his ASS already.

also, i totally agree with the people saying shepard SHOULD be over powered. shepard should be the most powerfull character in the game, really. harbinger is more powerfull then shepard, it shouldnt be that way. shepard went from biggest bad ass youd see, to a random merc. noone would compare sheaprd to master cheif, or the guy from srysis or the dude from duke nueken, becasue shepards a god damned ****. way to go bioware, you manufactured free ****.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 22 avril 2011 - 11:44 .

[DPSSOC]

mcsupersport wrote...

More powerful defenses mean the powers don't work the same against them, ie they aren't as effective, or by another name, NERFED. You say one thing and then demand something else. The game as played in ME1 made the difficulty and shooter aspect BORING. They had to change it, and if you make everyone more powerful then the enemies are more powerful and the effect is to NERF the powerful class.

No, it's nerfing when you dial a powerful class back to compensate for over powering them.  It's SCALING when you dial enemies up over time to compensate for the players increase in power.

For example taking Adept Shepard who could toss a Collossus around like a rag doll (end of ME1) and making him incapable of lifting even a Heavy Mech (beginning of ME2) is nerfing.  Increasing enemy weapon damage so Shepard can't take a direct shot from a Collossus and take no damage with full Immunity is scaling.

My issue isn't with the lack of effectiveness of powers, it's how generating that lack of effectiveness was handled.

dreman9999 wrote...
1. That would make insanity on ME1 ht norm in ME2. And even then it would be one hit kill.

No because when increasing difficulty the enemies get stronger but you don't (ideally).  On Casual there's a sizeable power gap between Shep and the things he's fighting, as you increase the difficulty the gap gets smaller until, IMO, you reach Insanity where it should be pretty much dead even.  What I'm suggesting is that rather than knocking Shep down because he's a god on Casual you bump the enemies up so that, starting ME2, the gap is about what it was at the start of ME1.

dreman9999 wrote...
2. Yes, itis logical lore wise. If you had an army and knew that one guy or on group of guy could take them out with one move  then you would do anything to stop that guy and his one move. Example nuklear missales and anti missial defences. And all this is based on immunity and hardeningfrom from mass effect 1 which preveted some powers from working on some eneimies.Now everyone has it to some degree. It's been impoved.

You're telling me that in two years they went from biotics bypassing shields to effect the target to both shields and armor stopping biotics dead?  That's logical to you?  Now it's been some time since I played ME1 but I don't recall Immunity stopping me from hurling Krogan around the room.  It stopped them from getting hurt by it but the effect stood.

Like I said I wouldn't have taken issue if shields/armor reduced the effectiveness and damage of biotic/tech abilities, my issue is it stops them dead wtih no explanation.  An incendiary attack is not moving fast enough to trigger shields, even if it was we have demonstrable evidence that shields do not protect from heat (Lazarus Facility), so how does a shield stop Incinerate?  How does armor stop concussive shot?  How does anything stop a spontaneously created mass altering field that happens to be around it?  It's arbitrary, it's non-sensical, and it has got to change. 

[TevinterMagister]

RedCaesar97 wrote...

The Engineer and Adept are probably the best-designed classes in Mass Effect 2, in that they are team players. The other classes rely on squadmates much less (or not at all). The Sentinel should have been as equally squadmate-reliant as the Engineer and Adept but Tech Armor stops that from happening.

That's funny, cause it's the opposite for me, guess we play different games. Let me explain, as a sentinel I can get things done on my own, but not as good as having the right squad at my back. I rely on them to grant me ammo powers, pull for warp bombs, defense stripping so I can go for throw/cryo directly or vice versa, I strip defense so they can pull/throw/incinerate/cryo etc etc. In return I am the tip of the spear soaking up the bullets that would otherwise kill them and reset their powers in the process.

[The Spamming Troll]

Maze of Torment wrote...

RedCaesar97 wrote...

The Engineer and Adept are probably the best-designed classes in Mass Effect 2, in that they are team players. The other classes rely on squadmates much less (or not at all). The Sentinel should have been as equally squadmate-reliant as the Engineer and Adept but Tech Armor stops that from happening.

That's funny, cause it's the opposite for me, guess we play different games. Let me explain, as a sentinel I can get things done on my own, but not as good as having the right squad at my back. I rely on them to grant me ammo powers, pull for warp bombs, defense stripping so I can go for throw/cryo directly or vice versa, I strip defense so they can pull/throw/incinerate/cryo etc etc. In return I am the tip of the spear soaking up the bullets that would otherwise kill them and reset their powers in the process.

i agree. one class being required to have something that another class entirely doesnt need, is NOT good class design. to play an adept, i need miranda and mordin. to play a vangaurd, all i need is charge.

not saying playing 1 of the 3 roles in the saqud is bad. i like squad play, but i dont like being forced to have one mage, one warrior and one rougue. altho i liked the sniper sentinel in ME1 becasue it really felt like i had alot of things to use for support.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 23 avril 2011 - 12:30 .

[aimlessgun]

The Spamming Troll wrote...
i agree. one class being required to have something that another class entirely doesnt need, is NOT good class design. to play an adept, i need miranda and mordin. to play a vangaurd, all i need is charge.

not saying playing 1 of the 3 roles in the saqud is bad. i like squad play, but i dont like being forced to have one mage, one warrior and one rougue. altho i liked the sniper sentinel in ME1 becasue it really felt like i had alot of things to use for support.

Hrm, my Adept squad was Zaeed/Garrus or Grunt/Samara, and I burned through insanity with absolute ease. Guess the squadmate flexibility isn't so tiny after all.

[mcsupersport]

DPSSOC wrote...

mcsupersport wrote...

More powerful defenses mean the powers don't work the same against them, ie they aren't as effective, or by another name, NERFED. You say one thing and then demand something else. The game as played in ME1 made the difficulty and shooter aspect BORING. They had to change it, and if you make everyone more powerful then the enemies are more powerful and the effect is to NERF the powerful class.

No, it's nerfing when you dial a powerful class back to compensate for over powering them.  It's SCALING when you dial enemies up over time to compensate for the players increase in power.

For example taking Adept Shepard who could toss a Collossus around like a rag doll (end of ME1) and making him incapable of lifting even a Heavy Mech (beginning of ME2) is nerfing.  Increasing enemy weapon damage so Shepard can't take a direct shot from a Collossus and take no damage with full Immunity is scaling.

My issue isn't with the lack of effectiveness of powers, it's how generating that lack of effectiveness was handled.

. 

Ok, you are in charge how would you make enemies more powerful and resistent to damage of an adept of ME1??
1)  More hitpoints??
2)  More of them??
3)  Defenses that protect them from powers??
4)  Skills that disable the use of your powers??
5)  Make them smarter and give them your powers??

My answers to the above questions:

1)  They did that in ME1 Insanity and it wasn't fun or particularly good play style.
2)  They did this in DA2 and trust me if you haven't played it, it stinks to have wave after wave after wave of low level mooks to stomp.
3)  They did this in ME2, they could have called it field X or some such but Armor Barrier and Shields are easily understood already without requiring another "Geth advance" ie thermal clips.
4)  Some of this was in ME1, but to have it effective would mean you wouldn't be playiing with your powers over half the game.
5)  How would whoever gets off the first power wins be a fun game?



They made the enemies stronger on defense, to balance the Adept, that is what you say they should have done but they should have done it different.  You say they should have made the enemies more powerful, well they did, and you hate it.  You want the biotic god you had in ME1, no ifs no ands and no buts.  They understood that having biotics like in ME1 would have been a terrible mistake in ME2, and while some tweeking would be nice, the Adept is still extremely powerful if you play them right.

Modifié par mcsupersport, 23 avril 2011 - 01:26 .

[The Spamming Troll]

aimlessgun wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...
i agree. one class being required to have something that another class entirely doesnt need, is NOT good class design. to play an adept, i need miranda and mordin. to play a vangaurd, all i need is charge.

not saying playing 1 of the 3 roles in the saqud is bad. i like squad play, but i dont like being forced to have one mage, one warrior and one rougue. altho i liked the sniper sentinel in ME1 becasue it really felt like i had alot of things to use for support.

Hrm, my Adept squad was Zaeed/Garrus or Grunt/Samara, and I burned through insanity with absolute ease. Guess the squadmate flexibility isn't so tiny after all.

im not impressed. this is because youve prolly played ME2 a handfull of times and you could beat it with only the melee button. there isnt alot of suprising things youll run into after you pay the game once or twice. i dont think there are alot of people whod agree with your statement their.

[DPSSOC]

mcsupersport wrote...
Ok, you are in charge how would you make enemies more powerful and resistent to damage of an adept of ME1??
1)  More hitpoints??
2)  More of them??
3)  Defenses that protect them from powers??
4)  Skills that disable the use of your powers??
5)  Make them smarter and give them your powers??

My answers to the above questions:

1)  They did that in ME1 Insanity and it wasn't fun or particularly good play style.
2)  They did this in DA2 and trust me if you haven't played it, it stinks to have wave after wave after wave of low level mooks to stomp.

Agree with you on both points.  I played Insanity exactly once in ME1 because it didn't make the game any harder just longer.  The enemies didn't do anymore damage (that I noticed) and the AI wasn't anymore sophisticated they just took longer to roll over and die.  I have played DA2 and I'd have to side with you.  This kind of mechanic wouldn't have been out of place in DA:O where you're regularly fighting an entity referred to as a horde, but when restricting your activites to one medieval city you eventually realize that with all the people you've killed there can't realistically be anyone left alive.  Also dull.

mcsupersport wrote...
3)  They did this in ME2, they could have called it field X or some such but Armor Barrier and Shields are easily understood already without requiring another "Geth advance" ie thermal clips.

Yes they did but they did it poorly (IMO).  They didn't make it that enemies now have a better defence so powers x, y, and z can no longer just bypass defences a, b, and c; they arbitrarily decided that x, y, and z would have no effect at all on a, b, and c.  Like I said certain nullifications make sense (AI Hacking and shield) but some don't (Concussive Shot and armor).  If they took the time to think them through and offer explanations for the changes I would not have an issue with biotics not just slipping past shields or similar balancing acts, but they didn't do either.

Here's what I would have done
Shields:
Biotics can no longer perfectly bypass shields and do x% less damage to armor/health when used on a shielded enemy.  I'm thinking 25% at 1, 20% at 2, 15% at 3, and either 10 or 5% at 4 depending on power evolution taken.
Tech powers like incinerate/cryo blast would function similarly because as pointed out kinetic barriers do not protect from temperatures so while the shield may stop the tech mine it's still generating a massive temperature change. 
Shields would be able to stop AI Hacking.
Armor:
If it must be a separate bar rather than a DR rating fine, enemies classified as heavy armor (those with an armor bar) are resistant to effects like pull, lift, singularity, slam, concussive shot, etc anything that attempts to force movement.  Powers must be 1 level higher to have an effect on an opponent of equivalent size (1 lifts a humanoid, 2 lifts an armored humanoid).
Barrier: Pretty much shields

I'm sure I haven't thought of everything but that's my take on how it could have been handled.

mcsupersport wrote...
4)  Some of this was in ME1, but to have it effective would mean you wouldn't be playiing with your powers over half the game.

Or make enemies with such capabilites uncommon.  Like the Geth Primer or Juggernaut in ME1 you don't see a lot of them but when you do they're a considerable problem.

mcsupersport wrote...
5)  How would whoever gets off the first power wins be a fun game?

Dragon Age didn't seem to have any problems giving enemies the exact same abilities you had.  Now maybe it's cause I grew up playing D&D (nerd of long standing) but I'm used to enemies having the same abilities as me, hell I'm used to dealing with enemies with abilities well beyond me, and for me it makes things interesting.

mcsupersport wrote...
They made the enemies stronger on defense, to balance the Adept, that is what you say they should have done but they should have done it different.

Pretty much.  Too far in the right direction you could say.

mcsupersport wrote...
You say they should have made the enemies more powerful, well they did, and you hate it.

Because they didn't, or at least they didn't sell it properly.  If they'd kept Shep where he was at 60 and upgraded the enemies I'd have gone, "Holy crap the bad guys have come a long way in two years."  Instead they knock Shep back down to 1.  That isn't making the enemies more powerful that's making the player weaker.

mcsupersport wrote...
You want the biotic god you had in ME1, no ifs no ands and no buts.  They understood that having biotics like in ME1 would have been a terrible mistake in ME2, and while some tweeking would be nice, the Adept is still extremely powerful if you play them right.

Yes having biotics as is from ME1 would have been a mistake, it would have made the game so remarkably one-sided as to be laughable and balance needed to be enforced, but there is a good way and a bad way to do that.  Upgrading enemies, giving them new weapons and defences, forcing the player to adapt to the fact that, while they're still as strong as they ever were the galaxy has caught up is a good way (IMO).  Knocking the player down to level 1 and arbitrarily deciding that power x won't work on defences a and b is not.

[Gill Kaiser]

IMO the Adept was nerfed too much in ME2. It was overpowered in ME1, but I think it could have been handled better in ME2.

If they made biotics work on shielded/armoured/barriered enemies but just made them less effective, I think that would be a nice middle ground.

[Aumata]

mcsupersport wrote...
5)  How would whoever gets off the first power wins be a fun game?

I would gladly take route number 5.  I'm still bothered by the fact that the Engineer plays like a adept.  If it meant I can have a different play style, and bring in different squad mates I can dig that.  ME1 had skills to handle biotics, not to mention armor upgrades.  I would also like to keep the ME2 Sentinel, Infiltrator, and Vanguard skills.  I more than hoping we see the combat more in line with ME1 in the skills usage than ME2.   Tech and Biotics should compliment the shooting aspect of the game.

Also **** the gimping of the teammates.  Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to weaken their attack, and give them longer cooldowns.   That isn't needed, the artificial difficulty isn't needed, also get rid of unlimted waves.  For a game that says to be aggresive it sure as hell makes it difficult when I do that and get shot at the back of my head, or even better people pop up out of no where.

[mcsupersport]

The entire issue you have with it from your above post is you don't like that they didn't "sell" it right in a codex entry. It would have been nice to be able to still do things to enemies who had protections, BUT there are a huge number of areas were once the guy floats, he dies because of drops(there are more than people realize).

The other issue is the game was designed for Normal level and balanced for that level, which honestly, there isn't a good balance even there for biotics or soldiers. The only levels you are really complaining about are Hardcore and Insanity both of which are designed to give a harder play, which they failed at with the Soldier and maybe Sentinel(who I don't play). Even the Adept can adapt and rule the battlefield on Insanity, it just takes a bit more thought than soldiers. If you miss the Biotic God mode, drop down to Veteran, and laugh at how easy the game is for a Hardcore/Insanity player, and realize that is how overpowered biotics would be without the limits put in by protections. I did a speed run on Veteran to get a Shotgun Adept up for an NG+ run and it was a cakewalk where fights were over faster than any other class I have seen, including Widow soldier or Claymore Vanguard. The enemies flew, blew up and generally were laughable resistance except for the odd boss with protections, so much that I didn't even need to worry who was in my squad.

IF it makes you feel better, just think they started putting element X in all armors and upgraded the Shields to protect you from environmental forces and biotics, done deal, you should be happy.

[The Spamming Troll]

DPSSOC wrote...

mcsupersport wrote...
3)  They did this in ME2, they could have called it field X or some such but Armor Barrier and Shields are easily understood already without requiring another "Geth advance" ie thermal clips.

Yes they did but they did it poorly (IMO).  They didn't make it that enemies now have a better defence so powers x, y, and z can no longer just bypass defences a, b, and c; they arbitrarily decided that x, y, and z would have no effect at all on a, b, and c.  Like I said certain nullifications make sense (AI Hacking and shield) but some don't (Concussive Shot and armor).  If they took the time to think them through and offer explanations for the changes I would not have an issue with biotics not just slipping past shields or similar balancing acts, but they didn't do either.

Here's what I would have done
Shields:
Biotics can no longer perfectly bypass shields and do x% less damage to armor/health when used on a shielded enemy.  I'm thinking 25% at 1, 20% at 2, 15% at 3, and either 10 or 5% at 4 depending on power evolution taken.
Tech powers like incinerate/cryo blast would function similarly because as pointed out kinetic barriers do not protect from temperatures so while the shield may stop the tech mine it's still generating a massive temperature change. 
Shields would be able to stop AI Hacking.
Armor:
If it must be a separate bar rather than a DR rating fine, enemies classified as heavy armor (those with an armor bar) are resistant to effects like pull, lift, singularity, slam, concussive shot, etc anything that attempts to force movement.  Powers must be 1 level higher to have an effect on an opponent of equivalent size (1 lifts a humanoid, 2 lifts an armored humanoid).
Barrier: Pretty much shields

I'm sure I haven't thought of everything but that's my take on how it could have been handled.

mcsupersport wrote...
You want the biotic god you had in ME1, no ifs no ands and no buts.  They understood that having biotics like in ME1 would have been a terrible mistake in ME2, and while some tweeking would be nice, the Adept is still extremely powerful if you play them right.

Yes having biotics as is from ME1 would have been a mistake, it would have made the game so remarkably one-sided as to be laughable and balance needed to be enforced, but there is a good way and a bad way to do that.  Upgrading enemies, giving them new weapons and defences, forcing the player to adapt to the fact that, while they're still as strong as they ever were the galaxy has caught up is a good way (IMO).  Knocking the player down to level 1 and arbitrarily deciding that power x won't work on defences a and b is not.

i wonder if my biggest dissapointment in ME2 is with the developers of the game. i dont think theres a sinlge peron that wouldnt want a type of game mechanic like youve brought up here with protections and abilities. id be embarrassed if random people could come up with much better ideas f how my own game should work. bioware should be embarrased with its whole difficulty system in ME2.

about the second part there.....i dont remember anyone complainging in ME1 that biotics were OP. i quite clearly remember everyone absolutely loving being a biotic monster. looking back at it in retrospec and thinking about how much your adept could controll a battlefield seems like it was very easy. but really, it wasnt. was there ever a complaint about biotics being too awesome? "this is too awesome, please make it worse."  that just seems rediculous to me.

[mcsupersport]

Aumata wrote...

mcsupersport wrote...
5)  How would whoever gets off the first power wins be a fun game?

I would gladly take route number 5.  I'm still bothered by the fact that the Engineer plays like a adept.  If it meant I can have a different play style, and bring in different squad mates I can dig that.  ME1 had skills to handle biotics, not to mention armor upgrades.  I would also like to keep the ME2 Sentinel, Infiltrator, and Vanguard skills.  I more than hoping we see the combat more in line with ME1 in the skills usage than ME2.   Tech and Biotics should compliment the shooting aspect of the game.

Also **** the gimping of the teammates.  Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to weaken their attack, and give them longer cooldowns.   That isn't needed, the artificial difficulty isn't needed, also get rid of unlimted waves.  For a game that says to be aggresive it sure as hell makes it difficult when I do that and get shot at the back of my head, or even better people pop up out of no where.

First part answer:

By first power wins, is if ME1 enemy biotics could have used your powers then whoever got off the lift first would win the fight, sort of like how in DA2 if an enemy mage gets off a spell you are going to lose probably half your party or have a reload.  In ME1, the biotics were so overpowered that if the enemies acutally used them, it would have been game over half or more of the time, that doesn't make for a fun game. 

Second part answer..

Gimping teammates is so the difficulty isn't required to be even harder or have even more HP to counter.  With proper teammates an adept can warp bomb around 3 times in 10 seconds, that isn't very gimped, and to have more would totally unbalance the game.  I do hate the spawns that are behind you as in Zaeed's loyalty in you enter a room, it is empty, turn around and exit only to have an enemy come out the door behind you and shoot you.  But as a side note there are very few unlimited spawns, only a handful in the entire game, most have a set max number of spawn before stopping.  Sometimes being ultra aggressive ISN'T the best strategy.

[CitizenSnips]

Make enemies more powerful and bring them up to Shep's level? Make Shep less powerful and bring him down to the enemies level? 0 + 1 = X. 2 - 1 = X. Either path nets the same gameplay Bioware is aiming for. This is just a perception issue.

[The Spamming Troll]

mcsupersport wrote...

Aumata wrote...

mcsupersport wrote...
5)  How would whoever gets off the first power wins be a fun game?

I would gladly take route number 5.  I'm still bothered by the fact that the Engineer plays like a adept.  If it meant I can have a different play style, and bring in different squad mates I can dig that.  ME1 had skills to handle biotics, not to mention armor upgrades.  I would also like to keep the ME2 Sentinel, Infiltrator, and Vanguard skills.  I more than hoping we see the combat more in line with ME1 in the skills usage than ME2.   Tech and Biotics should compliment the shooting aspect of the game.

Also **** the gimping of the teammates.  Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to weaken their attack, and give them longer cooldowns.   That isn't needed, the artificial difficulty isn't needed, also get rid of unlimted waves.  For a game that says to be aggresive it sure as hell makes it difficult when I do that and get shot at the back of my head, or even better people pop up out of no where.

First part answer:

By first power wins, is if ME1 enemy biotics could have used your powers then whoever got off the lift first would win the fight, sort of like how in DA2 if an enemy mage gets off a spell you are going to lose probably half your party or have a reload.  In ME1, the biotics were so overpowered that if the enemies acutally used them, it would have been game over half or more of the time, that doesn't make for a fun game. 

Second part answer..

Gimping teammates is so the difficulty isn't required to be even harder or have even more HP to counter.  With proper teammates an adept can warp bomb around 3 times in 10 seconds, that isn't very gimped, and to have more would totally unbalance the game.  I do hate the spawns that are behind you as in Zaeed's loyalty in you enter a room, it is empty, turn around and exit only to have an enemy come out the door behind you and shoot you.  But as a side note there are very few unlimited spawns, only a handful in the entire game, most have a set max number of spawn before stopping.  Sometimes being ultra aggressive ISN'T the best strategy.

i think this is precisely how you could make shepard seem like a much better soldier then the random mercs hes fighting against. enemies could be able to use throw and warp like in ME1 and also ME2s stasis wouldnt hurt either. insanity NEEDS enemies to use biotic and tech attacks against shepard. its not really the ME universe if shepard and squad are the only ones doing those things.

[mcsupersport]

The Spamming Troll wrote...



i wonder if my biggest dissapointment in ME2 is with the developers of the game. i dont think theres a sinlge peron that wouldnt want a type of game mechanic like youve brought up here with protections and abilities. id be embarrassed if random people could come up with much better ideas f how my own game should work. bioware should be embarrased with its whole difficulty system in ME2.

about the second part there.....i dont remember anyone complainging in ME1 that biotics were OP. i quite clearly remember everyone absolutely loving being a biotic monster. looking back at it in retrospec and thinking about how much your adept could controll a battlefield seems like it was very easy. but really, it wasnt. was there ever a complaint about biotics being too awesome? "this is too awesome, please make it worse."  that just seems rediculous to me.

Again, if you can float an enemy he is dead in a bunch of maps.  Collector maps, Grunt recruitment, Garrus recuritment, Thane Recruitment(more than just the bridge if you know where to look), Miranda loyalty, Bloodpack mission base destruction, Mordin's recruitment and loyalty, LotSB, Overlord, Zaeeds Loyalty(but not easy to use), and Kasumi loyalty all off the top of my head have 1 or more instant kill drop areas that would make them incredibly easy if you could float protected enemies.  The maps wold have to be all enclosed or the Adept would have t be otherwise limited to keep from trivilizing the game. 

If you didn't find Biotics overpowered and cheesy easy at higher levels in ME1, then you like playing a game that isn't a challenge or that doesn't threaten your character with death.  It is ok to play that way some, but to have the game so easy to beat ISN'T what most people want when they buy a game.  The biggest draw in ME1 wasn't the fighting or even power useage it was the story and characters.  Go back and play ME1 and get above 35 level and see how little you have to do to win when playing an adept.  It isn't hard, and after a time it gets boring, one of the reasons I started my Engineer run in ME1 was to play a "gimped" class to make it difficult after waltzing through with an Adept, turns out the Engineer is just as OP as Adept at higher levels, lol.

[mcsupersport]

mushoops86anjyl wrote...

Make enemies more powerful and bring them up to Shep's level? Make Shep less powerful and bring him down to the enemies level? 0 + 1 = X. 2 - 1 = X. Either path nets the same gameplay Bioware is aiming for. This is just a perception issue.

Exactly so, but they can't see that.

@ spamming troll
Having an enemy be able to lift and then warp bomb to a game over screen if you miss seeing the biotic enter the area isn't my idea of fun.  Heck, listen to the complaints of the flamethrowers stun locking you till you die and see how that would go over.  Heck it would be even worse than the Flamethrowers because they could do it at range and you wouldn't have a defense against it.  Having a game that the guy who uses the power first wins ISN'T FUN!!  It is a balance to make the game fun and playable without requiring 50 reloads just to complete the game because the enemies have insta kill with little or no warning.

[The Spamming Troll]

mcsupersport wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...



i wonder if my biggest dissapointment in ME2 is with the developers of the game. i dont think theres a sinlge peron that wouldnt want a type of game mechanic like youve brought up here with protections and abilities. id be embarrassed if random people could come up with much better ideas f how my own game should work. bioware should be embarrased with its whole difficulty system in ME2.

about the second part there.....i dont remember anyone complainging in ME1 that biotics were OP. i quite clearly remember everyone absolutely loving being a biotic monster. looking back at it in retrospec and thinking about how much your adept could controll a battlefield seems like it was very easy. but really, it wasnt. was there ever a complaint about biotics being too awesome? "this is too awesome, please make it worse."  that just seems rediculous to me.

Again, if you can float an enemy he is dead in a bunch of maps.  Collector maps, Grunt recruitment, Garrus recuritment, Thane Recruitment(more than just the bridge if you know where to look), Miranda loyalty, Bloodpack mission base destruction, Mordin's recruitment and loyalty, LotSB, Overlord, Zaeeds Loyalty(but not easy to use), and Kasumi loyalty all off the top of my head have 1 or more instant kill drop areas that would make them incredibly easy if you could float protected enemies.  The maps wold have to be all enclosed or the Adept would have t be otherwise limited to keep from trivilizing the game. 

If you didn't find Biotics overpowered and cheesy easy at higher levels in ME1, then you like playing a game that isn't a challenge or that doesn't threaten your character with death.  It is ok to play that way some, but to have the game so easy to beat ISN'T what most people want when they buy a game.  The biggest draw in ME1 wasn't the fighting or even power useage it was the story and characters.  Go back and play ME1 and get above 35 level and see how little you have to do to win when playing an adept.  It isn't hard, and after a time it gets boring, one of the reasons I started my Engineer run in ME1 was to play a "gimped" class to make it difficult after waltzing through with an Adept, turns out the Engineer is just as OP as Adept at higher levels, lol.

ofcorse some things would need to change if biotics were used more often. im not developing a game, just comlaining about the current one im playing.

i guess i never got bored with ME1 because i played that absolute balls out of it. unfortunaltey im done with ME2 after maybe 5 runs. i was done after 3 but my love of ME1 forced me to try playing ME2 more. the thing is, i gimped myself in both games. i wore duelist armor(the crappiest armor, but i liked its look), i never used allies abilities, i excluded spectre weapons, in ME2 i play veteran so i dont have to deal with enemy protections, but i dont upgrade my health or weapons. i gimp myself, becasue bioware doesnt know how to make apropriate difficulties. its kindof weird.

mcsupersport wrote...

mushoops86anjyl wrote...

Make
enemies more powerful and bring them up to Shep's level? Make Shep less
powerful and bring him down to the enemies level? 0 + 1 = X. 2 - 1 = X.
Either path nets the same gameplay Bioware is aiming for. This is just a
perception issue.

Exactly so, but they can't see that.

@ spamming troll
Having
an enemy be able to lift and then warp bomb to a game over screen if
you miss seeing the biotic enter the area isn't my idea of fun.  Heck,
listen to the complaints of the flamethrowers stun locking you till you
die and see how that would go over.  Heck it would be even worse than
the Flamethrowers because they could do it at range and you wouldn't
have a defense against it.  Having a game that the guy who uses the
power first wins ISN'T FUN!!  It is a balance to make the game fun and
playable without requiring 50 reloads just to complete the game because
the enemies have insta kill with little or no warning.

i dont think ANYONE would want what your assuming "we" want. ME1 enemies were limited to sabotage, damping, overload, throw and warp. its not like enemies were hittin shepard with singularity and its not like i want legion to get hacked and start attacking me.

simply put, nobody wants what your suggesting.

i feel like these conversations are very similar to the ones about the mako and the inventory from ME1......and we can see what happened there. bye bye mako, bye bye inventory. i really hope its not bye bye biotics in ME3.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 23 avril 2011 - 04:21 .

[Aumata]

mcsupersport wrote...

Aumata wrote...

mcsupersport wrote...
5)  How would whoever gets off the first power wins be a fun game?

I would gladly take route number 5.  I'm still bothered by the fact that the Engineer plays like a adept.  If it meant I can have a different play style, and bring in different squad mates I can dig that.  ME1 had skills to handle biotics, not to mention armor upgrades.  I would also like to keep the ME2 Sentinel, Infiltrator, and Vanguard skills.  I more than hoping we see the combat more in line with ME1 in the skills usage than ME2.   Tech and Biotics should compliment the shooting aspect of the game.

Also **** the gimping of the teammates.  Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to weaken their attack, and give them longer cooldowns.   That isn't needed, the artificial difficulty isn't needed, also get rid of unlimted waves.  For a game that says to be aggresive it sure as hell makes it difficult when I do that and get shot at the back of my head, or even better people pop up out of no where.

First part answer:

By first power wins, is if ME1 enemy biotics could have used your powers then whoever got off the lift first would win the fight, sort of like how in DA2 if an enemy mage gets off a spell you are going to lose probably half your party or have a reload.  In ME1, the biotics were so overpowered that if the enemies acutally used them, it would have been game over half or more of the time, that doesn't make for a fun game. 

Second part answer..

Gimping teammates is so the difficulty isn't required to be even harder or have even more HP to counter.  With proper teammates an adept can warp bomb around 3 times in 10 seconds, that isn't very gimped, and to have more would totally unbalance the game.  I do hate the spawns that are behind you as in Zaeed's loyalty in you enter a room, it is empty, turn around and exit only to have an enemy come out the door behind you and shoot you.  But as a side note there are very few unlimited spawns, only a handful in the entire game, most have a set max number of spawn before stopping.  Sometimes being ultra aggressive ISN'T the best strategy.

Usage of tech skills to damper them.  This can come into play with squad mates selection.  I remember the whole bar that shows whether your squad is combat, biotic, or tech focus.  You can use that as a way to boost tech, combat, or biotics skills from reduction in cooldowns, to increase damage in weapons.  You can also increase hardening of your armor and squad.  More ways to build your squad, and more skills sets that can counteract just about everything.  

The shooting mechanics is spot on, I do like the difference between the hyprid classes.  But  i feel that the caster classes kinda got screwed.  The engineer and the Adept play way to similar to the point that Engineers plays a damager for every situation with a bit of CC and Adept plays a CC with a bit of a damager.  I got the hang of both but they feel pretty damn samey.  Really just give a adept energy drain and they play the same way.  Engineers and Adept maybe casters but they shouldn't feel the same.