617 réponses à ce sujet

[streamlock]

dreman9999 wrote...

streamlock wrote...

Maybe I'm being a little dense here, but could someone give me some examples of meaningless non-combat stats from ME2?

(Beyond that one or two points you could'nt spend because the next highest skill upgrade was 3 points-that was always annoying.)

This eye piece adds 5% damage to head shots....... This Armour adds 10% sheilds..

Ok, I can deal with that.  I thought maybe they were talking about every ability the Adept class had in Hardcore mode. 

[AdmiralCheez]

streamlock wrote...

Maybe I'm being a little dense here, but could someone give me some examples of meaningless non-combat stats from ME2?

Armor parts only provide 10% increases.  Maximum health boosts upon fully leveling up were rarely over 25%.

Some math:

Let's say you rolled soldier and want to max your health.  I'm not sure what your base health is, but let's say 200 for sh*ts and giggles.  Since it's all percents, it shouldn't matter anyway, but whatevs.

You evolve your passive to Shock Trooper: + 40% health, 10 talent points

Equip N7 helmet: + 5%, no cost

Equip Aegis vest: + 5%, 1,666 credits with discount

Equip asymmetric defense layer: + 5%, 6,667 credits with discount

Equip N7 gauntlets: + 3%, no cost

Equip life support webbing: + 10%, 6,667 credits with discount

Level 7 Heavy Skin Weave (this is as high as you can get with DLC): + 70%, 150,000 credits with discounts and 37,500 palladium

I'm not sure how these all stack, so you get somewhere between 476 and 624 total health.  So, depending on how broken my maths are, it took you 10 talent points, 165,000 credits, and 37,500 palladium to either (roughly) double or triple your health.

[Iakus]

Chris Priestly wrote...

So directly saying that were enriching the role-playing mechanics and making stats meaningful in combat somehow also means we're making them worse?

I do not understand people sometimes.

I think the fear is that combat is all the game's gonna be about. 

Don't get me wrong, if a weapon says it's "good against armor" I'd love to know what that means exactly,  But I'd also love for Shepard to me more than a cyborg killing machine.

[Chuvvy]

They're just enhancing what was in ME2, they're not taking out anything. ME2's limited RPG mechanics were all combat related. Why they need to say no meaningless (though I'd argue that non combat stats aren't meaningless in an RPG) non-combat stats is beyond me, unless they were taking a shot at ME1. Which makes no sense.

Had they said meaningless combat stats it would have made more sense, sort of. It'd need clarification because allot of people would freak out. Anyway, the armor "bonuses" were meaningless. I never noticed a difference.

Modifié par Slidell505, 05 mai 2011 - 08:51 .

[Malanek]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

streamlock wrote...

Maybe I'm being a little dense here, but could someone give me some examples of meaningless non-combat stats from ME2?

Armor parts only provide 10% increases.  Maximum health boosts upon fully leveling up were rarely over 25%.

Some math:

Let's say you rolled soldier and want to max your health.  I'm not sure what your base health is, but let's say 200 for sh*ts and giggles.  Since it's all percents, it shouldn't matter anyway, but whatevs.

You evolve your passive to Shock Trooper: + 40% health, 10 talent points

Equip N7 helmet: + 5%, no cost

Equip Aegis vest: + 5%, 1,666 credits with discount

Equip asymmetric defense layer: + 5%, 6,667 credits with discount

Equip N7 gauntlets: + 3%, no cost

Equip life support webbing: + 10%, 6,667 credits with discount

Level 7 Heavy Skin Weave (this is as high as you can get with DLC): + 70%, 150,000 credits with discounts and 37,500 palladium

I'm not sure how these all stack, so you get somewhere between 476 and 624 total health.  So, depending on how broken my maths are, it took you 10 talent points, 165,000 credits, and 37,500 palladium to either (roughly) double or triple your health.

That is not meaningless!!!

Edit: An example of a stat that was not meaningful in combat in ME2 would be the difference between the two class evolutions in terms of Paragon/Renegade points.

Modifié par Malanek999, 05 mai 2011 - 08:48 .

[TheConfidenceMan]

Chris Priestly wrote...

So directly saying that were enriching the role-playing mechanics and making stats meaningful in combat somehow also means we're making them worse?

I do not understand people sometimes.

Well let's see, I would've hoped that Bioware's idea of "rich" role-playing mechanics would mean non-combat oriented statistics informing gameplay that allows for multiple (combat/non-combat) solutions to problems and enhanced roles of characters outside of combat (crafting, hacking). That's how it's been in your previous RPGs, at least up until recently. 

But clearly I'm the foolish one for assuming "richer RPG elements" means anything more to Bioware than evolving powers multiple times.

Modifié par TheConfidenceMan, 05 mai 2011 - 08:52 .

[Da Mecca]

Shooter first, RPG second.

[Varen Spectre]

Based on the last quote in the article, I also presume that it mostly refers to combat changes.

We got combat the way we wanted it for ME2, so you're going to feel right at home straight away. But there are so many subtle improvements that you'll miss them if you go back.

It is the last quote in the article , omitted in the OP, that makes me quite calm. So, just like many posters before me, for now I interpret it as ME 2's combat system with more and more impactul combat options... duh. Pretty optimistic, aren't I? 

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 05 mai 2011 - 08:52 .

[Saphara]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

So directly saying that were enriching the role-playing mechanics and making stats meaningful in combat somehow also means we're making them worse?

I do not understand people sometimes.

Well let's see, I would've hoped that Bioware's idea of "rich" role-playing mechanics would mean non-combat oriented statistics informing gameplay that allows for multiple (combat/non-combat) solutions to problems and enhanced roles of characters outside of combat (crafting, hacking). That's how it's been in your previous RPGs, at least up until recently. 

well, by meaningful, I'd imagine they;d make such skills only take, say, 5-7 rankups points and have a large jump between each, as opposed to ME1 where there was like 20-25 ranks with miniscule at best differences.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Funny as i play games, in this case Mass Effect, for the gameplay. Characters and story are a bonus.

Ah.  You might be better off with Call of Duty, then.  I hear the gameplay's really good.

Oh.  I went there.

Never played them as i prefer rpgs... you see shooting isn´t everything in games, ME offered what i like and is becoming what i don´t like.

Modifié par MoonChildTheUnholy, 05 mai 2011 - 08:53 .

[Malanek]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Based on the last quote in the article, I also presume that it mostly refers to combat changes.

We got combat the way we wanted it for ME2, so you're going to feel right at home straight away. But there are so many subtle improvements that you'll miss them if you go back.

It is the last quote in the article , omitted in the OP, that makes me quite calm. So, just like many posters before me, for now I interpret it as ME 2's combat system with more and more impactul combat options... duh. Pretty optimistic, aren't I? 

Maybe, but so am I. This is the logical way to build ME3 from a gameplay perspective.

[Saphara]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Funny as i play games, in this case Mass Effect, for the gameplay. Characters and story are a bonus.

Ah.  You might be better off with Call of Duty, then.  I hear the gameplay's really good.

Oh.  I went there.

Never played them as i prefer rpgs...

you prefer RPGS, but regard what makes a classic WRPG, story and character development according to the player's wishes, as a secondary bonus and gameplay as the most important?

I think you may want to do JRPGs instead...

[mcsupersport]

Remember in ME1 when you could up your singularity from 3.5 seconds to 4 seconds?
Remember in ME2 when you could up your singularity from 20 seconds to 25 and 2 meters to 3 meters and you couldn't see or really experience any real change until you got the Heavy or Wide versions???

That is probably what they meant by meaningless stats in combat. Pull lasting 6 seconds or 7 seconds is meaningless. Pull effecting one guy for 15 seconds or 5 for 10 seconds is meaningful stat change. I am sure my numbers are off a bit, but you get the idea, too many times in ME2 one point was enough or 10 points were required to really work, but everything in between was almost wasted or unnoticed.

[Malanek]

mcsupersport wrote...
Remember in ME2 when you could up your singularity from 20 seconds to 25 and 2 meters to 3 meters and you couldn't see or really experience any real change until you got the Heavy or Wide versions???

I know what you were saying in your post but just to play devils advocate here, I notice a big difference on every single rank of singularity, particularly when using it on shielded enemies.

[streamlock]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

streamlock wrote...

Maybe I'm being a little dense here, but could someone give me some examples of meaningless non-combat stats from ME2?

Armor parts only provide 10% increases.  Maximum health boosts upon fully leveling up were rarely over 25%.

Some math:

Let's say you rolled soldier and want to max your health.  I'm not sure what your base health is, but let's say 200 for sh*ts and giggles.  Since it's all percents, it shouldn't matter anyway, but whatevs.

You evolve your passive to Shock Trooper: + 40% health, 10 talent points

Equip N7 helmet: + 5%, no cost

Equip Aegis vest: + 5%, 1,666 credits with discount

Equip asymmetric defense layer: + 5%, 6,667 credits with discount

Equip N7 gauntlets: + 3%, no cost

Equip life support webbing: + 10%, 6,667 credits with discount

Level 7 Heavy Skin Weave (this is as high as you can get with DLC): + 70%, 150,000 credits with discounts and 37,500 palladium

I'm not sure how these all stack, so you get somewhere between 476 and 624 total health.  So, depending on how broken my maths are, it took you 10 talent points, 165,000 credits, and 37,500 palladium to either (roughly) double or triple your health.

Ok, I can see where your coming from.  But I was always under the belief that alot of the armor stats were underwhelming so as to allow a person to customize the look they wanted over effect-if they so chose to-without overly nerfing some vital combat ability.  Maybe I read to much into it though.

[AdmiralCheez]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Never played them as i prefer rpgs... you see shooting isn´t everything in games, ME offered what i like and is becoming what i don´t like.

Son, if you play RPGs just for the gameplay mechanics, you are doing it wrong.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Saphara wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Funny as i play games, in this case Mass Effect, for the gameplay. Characters and story are a bonus.

Ah.  You might be better off with Call of Duty, then.  I hear the gameplay's really good.

Oh.  I went there.

Never played them as i prefer rpgs...

you prefer RPGS, but regard what makes a classic WRPG, story and character development according to the player's wishes, as a secondary bonus and gameplay as the most important?

I think you may want to do JRPGs instead...

I don´t disregard story or development at all, but when i play an rpg it has to have options alot of them, not just about story and interaction but about gameplay too, thats what i mean when i put gameplay first because if challenge is not there then its not a game for me.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Never played them as i prefer rpgs... you see shooting isn´t everything in games, ME offered what i like and is becoming what i don´t like.

Son, if you play RPGs just for the gameplay mechanics, you are doing it wrong.

See but thats your opinion, to each his own i guess.

[Sentox6]

Chris Priestly wrote...

So directly saying that were enriching the role-playing mechanics and making stats meaningful in combat somehow also means we're making them worse?

I do not understand people sometimes.

We're all just a little nervous.

If you observe ME2 and DA2, then you can certainly identify the streamling of game mechanics (for better and for worse, imo). Until ME3 is actually released, some people are going to interpret any statements in a pessimistic light, whether that's fair or not.

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Never
played them as i prefer rpgs... you see shooting isn´t everything in
games, ME offered what i like and is becoming what i don´t like.

Son, if you play RPGs just for the gameplay mechanics, you are doing it wrong.

See but thats your opinion, to each his own i guess.

It's a pretty solid opinion. Playing RPGs solely for the gameplay mechanics is like using a motorcycle for cargo transportation.

Modifié par Sentox6, 05 mai 2011 - 09:03 .

[Schneidend]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Son, if you play RPGs just for the gameplay mechanics, you are doing it wrong.

A big part of the draw for JRPGs (and Japanese games in general) are the game mechanics, since the stories are often unimportant (fighting games) or largely non-interactive (Final Fantasy, Legend of Dragoon, etc.) Game mechanics can make or break a game. Now that I've played ME2, running through ME1 to make decisions for a new Shepard seems like a chore. Without strong gameplay in a combat heavy game like ME1, it can really kill the experience.

[Saphara]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Saphara wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Funny as i play games, in this case Mass Effect, for the gameplay. Characters and story are a bonus.

Ah.  You might be better off with Call of Duty, then.  I hear the gameplay's really good.

Oh.  I went there.

Never played them as i prefer rpgs...

you prefer RPGS, but regard what makes a classic WRPG, story and character development according to the player's wishes, as a secondary bonus and gameplay as the most important?

I think you may want to do JRPGs instead...

I don´t disregard story or development at all, but when i play an rpg it has to have options alot of them, not just about story and interaction but about gameplay too, thats what i mean when i put gameplay first because if challenge is not there then its not a game for me.

I didnt realize they were limiting options. Just making those options less tedious and miniscule. 10 options of .5 increases are NOT better than 5 options of 1-2.

[Saphara]

Schneidend wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Son, if you play RPGs just for the gameplay mechanics, you are doing it wrong.

A big part of the draw for JRPGs (and Japanese games in general) are the game mechanics, since the stories are often unimportant (fighting games) or largely non-interactive (Final Fantasy, Legend of Dragoon, etc.) Game mechanics can make or break a game. Now that I've played ME2, running through ME1 to make decisions for a new Shepard seems like a chore. Without strong gameplay in a combat heavy game like ME1, it can really kill the experience.

which is why i directed him toward JRPGS. WHat the discussion happening here is WRPGS, which tend to be more story and character focused.

[Chromie]

Chris Priestly wrote...

So directly saying that were enriching the role-playing mechanics and making stats meaningful in combat somehow also means we're making them worse?

I do not understand people sometimes.

Really? You thought people would process the article before jumping to conclusions?! That's insane

[Ixalmaris]

Saphara wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Son, if you play RPGs just for the gameplay mechanics, you are doing it wrong.

A big part of the draw for JRPGs (and Japanese games in general) are the game mechanics, since the stories are often unimportant (fighting games) or largely non-interactive (Final Fantasy, Legend of Dragoon, etc.) Game mechanics can make or break a game. Now that I've played ME2, running through ME1 to make decisions for a new Shepard seems like a chore. Without strong gameplay in a combat heavy game like ME1, it can really kill the experience.

which is why i directed him toward JRPGS. WHat the discussion happening here is WRPGS, which tend to be more story and character focused.

Western RPGs. Character driven...