I've seen a lot of talk about the power trees they've hinted at for ME3; more options, wider ranges of effects, changing gameplay, etc. Something I thought of that I think would be interesting would be non-mutually exlusive evolutions. For example, you could evolve tactical cloak to give a damage buff AND longer duration.
In order to do this, you'd have to follow the tree twice, putting points into both the damage and duration arm, but both could be applied to the cloak. For some powers this might not be possible, or would over-power them; maybe for these it would allow you to "carry" two evolutions of it. For example, you could have a wide singularity AND a heavy singularity. I think the devs would have to carefully decide how many points to give us, because this could lead to serious OP, but if we aren't able to max everything like we could in ME2, it would give a huge amount of choice to builds.
Thoughts?
ME3 Power Trees
Débuté par
dbndzb
, juin 01 2011 03:46
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 02 juin 2011 - 06:09
MASSter EFFECTer
-
- Members
- 18 messages
I like it.
I also think your idea will depend greatly on the cooldown system Bioware uses.
Say they go with independent cooldowns- I would then try and get as many powers available, each with one maxed evolution.
With global cooldowns your idea would be great, because you are squeezing as much power as you can out of your next cast. I don't think much balancing would be needed.
Say you had an adept with warp and singularity. 1 warp and 1 singularity spec is balanced, double speccing singularity is a cc build and double warp is dps.
Basically your idea gives you builds within builds- something any rpg fan wouldn't mind.
I also think your idea will depend greatly on the cooldown system Bioware uses.
Say they go with independent cooldowns- I would then try and get as many powers available, each with one maxed evolution.
With global cooldowns your idea would be great, because you are squeezing as much power as you can out of your next cast. I don't think much balancing would be needed.
Say you had an adept with warp and singularity. 1 warp and 1 singularity spec is balanced, double speccing singularity is a cc build and double warp is dps.
Basically your idea gives you builds within builds- something any rpg fan wouldn't mind.
#3
Posté 02 juin 2011 - 08:16
termokanden
-
- Members
- 5 818 messages
Your idea COULD work, but it really depends on the whole point system and how it all fits together.
You're certainly right about one thing though. You have to give players tough choices if you want there to be interesting different builds.
You're certainly right about one thing though. You have to give players tough choices if you want there to be interesting different builds.
#4
Posté 02 juin 2011 - 10:13
Kronner
-
- Members
- 6 249 messages
I am not a big fan of this. IMHO we should be able to choose one evolution, not 3 different ones.
#5
Posté 02 juin 2011 - 03:12
lazuli
-
- Members
- 3 995 messages
When both options are equally tempting or serve their purposes in several builds, I am a fan of mutually-exclusive power evolutions. Mass Effect 2 has some work to do in this area. For instance, why would you ever take Heavy Pull over Pull Field, or Heavy Neural Shock over Neural Shockwave (especially on Shepard)?
Still, I think the ME2 system has plenty of promise. When balanced properly, mutually-exclusive power evolutions lead to greater build diversity and replayability. No, I don't think I like your idea all that much.
Still, I think the ME2 system has plenty of promise. When balanced properly, mutually-exclusive power evolutions lead to greater build diversity and replayability. No, I don't think I like your idea all that much.
#6
Posté 02 juin 2011 - 03:15
Someone With Mass
-
- Members
- 38 560 messages
As long as the choice are making me think about the pros and cons for a while, and not just picking something because it's obviously better than the other one, I'm happy.
#7
Posté 02 juin 2011 - 07:46
Bozorgmehr
-
- Members
- 2 321 messages
From a gameplay point of perspective - assuming ME3 has global cd - improving powers should always be about choosing between one or the other evolution. If you can have all upgrades/evolutions everybody is likely going to create one or two super-powers b/c there is no point in having more yet weaker powers available. It would be pretty bad for gameplay imo.
#8
Posté 02 juin 2011 - 10:00
termokanden
-
- Members
- 5 818 messages
You're right about global cooldown getting in the way of this plan.
The way I understood the OP, there is a choice. But it's more like DA2 where you can buy all upgrades for one ability, but at the cost of not being able to get something else that could also be important. But with a global cooldown, you'd be better off focusing all your points on just a few good abilities instead of splitting them up and creating many different builds. Basically you'll create one (or two) trick ponies rather more interesting builds. But again, hard to say exactly without seeing the whole character development scheme.
The way I understood the OP, there is a choice. But it's more like DA2 where you can buy all upgrades for one ability, but at the cost of not being able to get something else that could also be important. But with a global cooldown, you'd be better off focusing all your points on just a few good abilities instead of splitting them up and creating many different builds. Basically you'll create one (or two) trick ponies rather more interesting builds. But again, hard to say exactly without seeing the whole character development scheme.
#9
Posté 03 juin 2011 - 08:11
Burnsbabe
-
- Members
- 15 messages
lazuli wrote...
For instance, why would you ever take Heavy Pull over Pull Field, or Heavy Neural Shock over Neural Shockwave (especially on Shepard)?
There are plenty of good ones, especially depending on difficulty level. I tended to lean toward Heavy over Area once I got above Vet difficulty. Area pull doesn't do much good if you have to spend time stripping the armor off three or four guys before you can use it. Just for example.
I for one am down for either approach. I think they could both provide balanced gameplay depending on how the CD is worked and exactly how the tech trees are laid out. Give Bioware some credit. They'll sort it out.
