116 réponses à ce sujet

[Locutus_of_BORG]

I would hate for pistols to become tier 1 weapons against anything. I don't want them to be more powerful overall than any of the other classes of gun, because that is just silly and there is no way I can suspend my disbelief for something like that. The only compromise to this that I can be happy with is to mix up the Pistol and SMG class into a single utility class of lightweight/bulk secondary weapons that specialize in filling different niches, albeit less effectively overall from their primary weapon counterparts..

[Burnsbabe]

I'm intrigued that some of you are not only suggesting that pistols are no good but that SMGs are also. My main weapon practically all game is the Tempest. That is, I'm a Vanguard and so don't have access to an AR (took the Sniper Rifle on the Collector Ship). Now that I've "discovered" the armor stripping powers of the hand cannons I'll switch up on tough guys with the armor (or husk mobs on hardcore/insanity).

Some of you are suggesting that there are better tools for that. Are you talking about pretty much ARs? Because if it's something else I've overlooked, I'd love to know about it. I typically run with the Camifex, Tempest, Scimitar, Viper, and either Collector Particle Beam or Rocket Launcher.

[Siegdrifa]

Burnsbabe wrote...

 So does anyone use their pistol (Carnifex or other) very much? I was completely ignoring it until I hit Hardcore mode and found it to be so much better at taking out armor (specifically Husk rushes) than the SMG I usually run. I'm playing as a Vanguard though I need to respec, so that could be some of my issue.

Anyway, has anyone else found a place in their arsonal for the pistol they carry? Or am I just making up for something I should be able to handle I could play better?

In ME2 i use pistol a lot because they usualy are my favorite weapon.
I use pistol as much as possible, to take down armor, to take down shield (grunt ennemy type, and when they are not in heavy number), i use pistole to take down ennemy's life.

With carnifex, i had often ammo problem, but thanks to the gun of the fire power pack dlc, i can enjoy my favorite type of weapon a lot more.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 03 juin 2011 - 10:56 .

[Onpoint17]

My use of the pistol depends on the character class I'm using. I used the Carniflex a lot as the Sentinel since I could stay out of cover with my tech armor and fire more often. Even though its very effective I don't like it for characters like the Infiltrator or Vanguard that need a more powerful weapon when out of cover for a quicker kill.

[Clonedzero]

on my vanguard sometimes ill throw cryo ammo on my carnifex, pop a guy, flash freeze then charge and he'll go flying and shatter. its pretty funny lol

but other than that, yeah, i throw on fire ammo and blast away at scions and such. other than that i just use anything else.

[termokanden]

I would actually like pistols to become tier 1 weapons, particularly if you are limited to some number of weapons in ME3. I want them to compete with the rest.

Pistols in the real world have an advantage over bigger weapons by being easier to carry and use (I'm just talking about mobility here, not aiming). This advantage is just not there in most computer games (though CoD tries to capture it). I think pistols should serve some purpose somehow, not just be a bad weapon you can use if you used up the ammo for all your other weapons (which skilled players usually never do anyway).

But I don't want pistols to dominate everything in terms of DPS like they did in ME1. That was silly.

Modifié par termokanden, 04 juin 2011 - 07:12 .

[Locutus_of_BORG]

^ME3 will no longer restrict weapon classes. At best, we might be limited by some sort of weight/bulk factor. Unlike in ME2, pistols will NOT need to compete with any other weapon type.

Again, like I'd said, I think Pistols and SMGs in ME3 could be bunched together to create a single class of lightweight, special purpose weapons, allowing non-Soldiers to possibly carry a larger range of guns than they'd normally be able to otherwise.

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 04 juin 2011 - 02:32 .

[Burnsbabe]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...
Again, like I'd said, I think Pistols and SMGs in ME3 could be bunched together to create a single class of lightweight, special purpose weapons, allowing non-Soldiers to possibly carry a larger range of guns than they'd normally be able to otherwise.

This sounds better the way you've phrased it this time than the last. You made it sound last tiime like you wanted to sort of drag SMGs down to the level of pistols resulting in all of them being considerably less useful than any of the other weapon classes except in very specific situations (which is where my Pistol use is in ME2). As long as the treatment doesn't make them essentially ignorable than I'm happy. I think anytime you have a class of weapons that you're equipped with, but can safely forget about, there's more you could do to balance gameplay.

[termokanden]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

^ME3 will no longer restrict weapon classes. At best, we might be limited by some sort of weight/bulk factor. Unlike in ME2, pistols will NOT need to compete with any other weapon type.

I don't understand this at all. From what I've read about it, you will have a number of weapon choices, with more being given to combat classes and soldiers in particular. So if pistols are subpar weapons, why would you ever use one of your weapon slots on them?

If there is a weight restriction instead, it might make sense, but I didn't think anything like that had been announced. And even if they do suddenly get that idea, with one type of ammo (thermal clips are universal) you might want to pick one good weapon instead of two mediocre ones.

On the other hand, pistols did not really need to compete in ME2 simply because every class has them.

Again, like I'd said, I think Pistols and SMGs in ME3 could be bunched together to create a single class of lightweight, special purpose weapons, allowing non-Soldiers to possibly carry a larger range of guns than they'd normally be able to otherwise.

We shall see. I just enjoy using pistols and therefore I hope it actually makes sense in terms of gameplay in ME3.

[Bozorgmehr]

termokanden wrote...

I don't understand this at all. From what I've read about it, you will have a number of weapon choices, with more being given to combat classes and soldiers in particular. So if pistols are subpar weapons, why would you ever use one of your weapon slots on them?

If there is a weight restriction instead, it might make sense, but I didn't think anything like that had been announced. And even if they do suddenly get that idea, with one type of ammo (thermal clips are universal) you might want to pick one good weapon instead of two mediocre ones.

On the other hand, pistols did not really need to compete in ME2 simply because every class has them.

From what I know there are no restrictions on weapons at all; the only difference is the combat classes have more weapon slots they can use. Weight restrictions would be a terrible idea, at least for the casters. They only have 2 slots (4 in ME2), if weight further reduces their weapon options ME3 will be much worse than ME2.

A much better way is to use ammo restrictions. Pistols and SMG will behave 'normally' (less powerful than SG, AR and SR) but come with a huge ammo supply - perfect allround weapons which can be used for an entire mission. SG, AR and SR are very powerful but come with low ammo; there's no way you can use one of em for an entire mission.

Casters can chose to take a SG and SR but doing so will cause ammo issues; taking a SG / SR and a HP / SMG combo might be a better option. It also makes the Soldier's 5 slots mean something. If ammo isn't an issue at all, it's completely pointless to be a portable weapon depot (there's no need to switch weapons if you can use them almost indefinitely). Soldiers are the only class that can ignore the weaker HP and SMG. They will be very useful for all the other classes though.

HP and/or SMG out-performing SG, SR, and/or AR is silly. This doesn't stop BW from making more powerful versions, but they will also come with less ammo to compensate/balance.

[Malanek]

Said it before, ME should have a carrying capacity which limits how many weapons each class can carry. Soldiers should have the highest, Adept, Engineer and Sentinel the lowest. Pistols can be "improved" by only consuming 1 carrying capacity while the bigger weapons are 2,3,4 etc. That way you could leave them in other regards close to what they are now. And make ammo more restrictive on higher levels so that you are forced to use your guns more wisely.

Edit: Another little tweak they could make to pistols is to give them a damage bonus against weak points since these are supposedly being used more often in ME3. Just to reflect the greater precision compared to shotguns, assault rifles and sub machine guns.

Modifié par Malanek999, 04 juin 2011 - 08:24 .

[termokanden]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

From what I know there are no restrictions on weapons at all; the only difference is the combat classes have more weapon slots they can use.

That's why I think weapon balance will be more important in the future.

Your idea basically makes SMGs and HPs more handy (which is exactly what their strength should be), but I'm thinking some people would't like it if for example assault rifles had too low of an ammo supply.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

Bozorgmehr wrote...
From what I know there are no restrictions on weapons at all; the only difference is the combat classes have more weapon slots they can use. Weight restrictions would be a terrible idea, at least for the casters. They only have 2 slots (4 in ME2), if weight further reduces their weapon options ME3 will be much worse than ME2.
...
A much better way is to use ammo restrictions. Pistols and SMG will behave 'normally' (less powerful than SG, AR and SR) but come with a huge ammo supply - perfect allround weapons which can be used for an entire mission. SG, AR and SR are very powerful but come with low ammo; there's no way you can use one of em for an entire mission.
...
HP and/or SMG out-performing SG, SR, and/or AR is silly. This doesn't stop BW from making more powerful versions, but they will also come with less ammo to compensate/balance.

All this might be true, but now there is also the new aspect of weapon drops. Shep & co. will apparently be able to pick weapons off dead enemies, so it really remains to be seen whether universal ammo will apply anymore. ME3 might go the route of some other shooters (Halo: Reach comes to mind) and force us to use all sorts of weapons by making the ammo supply for our chosen weapons very small.

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 05 juin 2011 - 12:54 .

[Alamar2078]

Burnsbabe wrote...

 So does anyone use their pistol (Carnifex or other) very much? I was completely ignoring it until I hit Hardcore mode and found it to be so much better at taking out armor (specifically Husk rushes) than the SMG I usually run. I'm playing as a Vanguard though I need to respec, so that could be some of my issue.

Anyway, has anyone else found a place in their arsonal for the pistol they carry? Or am I just making up for something I should be able to handle I could play better?

My caster classes go "pistol heavy" vs. armored targets or when they need long range precision [the locust is good for that too...]

My OSOK classes use a fair amount of pistols for ammo conservation on other weapons or to take out a guy that's hanging on by a thread of life.

The Phalanx [sp??] DLC pistol is also nice if someone isn't sticking out much ... that laser sight is deadly in those circumstances.

Modifié par Alamar2078, 05 juin 2011 - 03:13 .

[Raiil]

Up until this last playthrough, where I picked up the sniper rilfle ability, I used my heavy pistol exclusively (barring situations that called for the Cain). I can't speak for everyone, but for my adept and vanguard, they were perfectly strong enough to augment my biotics, which I tended to use more.

[Bozorgmehr]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

All this might be true, but now there is also the new aspect of weapon drops. Shep & co. will apparently be able to pick weapons off dead enemies, so it really remains to be seen whether universal ammo will apply anymore. ME3 might go the route of some other shooters (Halo: Reach comes to mind) and force us to use all sorts of weapons by making the ammo supply for our chosen weapons very small.

I wouldn't mind removing ammo drops completely. Just give weapons a default number of shots, gun empty, pick up another one (dropped by an enemy) which will have full ammo. So a shotgun which has 15 rounds can be fired 15 times, it will be useless next. A dropped shotgun will have 15 rounds also (assuming it's the same type/model).

I think it would improve gameplay if ammo becomes rare; I mean, what is the point in having multiple weapons if you can play the entire game using only one. In ME2 only pistols and, to a lesser extent, sniper rifles can cause ammo issues. One can easily complete the game using only an AR, SG, or SMG.

I'm also interested in which weapons you can take with you. Is it possible to carry more than one weapon of the same type, for example? Can you carry both the Claymore and the Scimitar; or the Viper and the Widow? Or are there still restrictions based on types (only one AR, one SG, and one SR per character). I hope you can use whatever weapon loadout, so Vanguards can still go berserk with shotguns all day long (they only have to use different shotties instead of only one - or get lucky if enemies drop their favorite type regularly), Infiltrators/Soldiers can go all out sniping carrying multiple sniper rifles if they chose so.

[termokanden]

I'm sorry to say it, but I really don't like that idea. Would hate to have to run around switching weapons all the time because you can't get more ammo.

Also kind of reminds me of CoD games in singleplayer where you start out with some cool weapon but at some point you can't find more ammo. Then you spend the rest of the mission using whatever the current type of enemy uses. Used the MP40 quite a bit that way

I prefer certain weapons and don't want the game to force me to switch and in the worst case even stop using my sniper rifle for example just because the current enemies are not snipers themselves.

I'm OK with having to switch between sniper rifles and other weapons for example so I can't snipe 100% of the time. But I'm not OK with leaving my beloved Widow on the floor because I can't find another one and there is no ammo to be found.

Modifié par termokanden, 05 juin 2011 - 10:17 .

[Bozorgmehr]

termokanden wrote...

I'm sorry to say it, but I really don't like that idea. Would hate to have to run around switching weapons all the time because you can't get more ammo.

Also kind of reminds me of CoD games in singleplayer where you start out with some cool weapon but at some point you can't find more ammo. Then you spend the rest of the mission using whatever the current type of enemy uses. Used the MP40 quite a bit that way

I prefer certain weapons and don't want the game to force me to switch and in the worst case even stop using my sniper rifle for example just because the current enemies are not snipers themselves.

I'm OK with having to switch between sniper rifles and other weapons for example so I can't snipe 100% of the time. But I'm not OK with leaving my beloved Widow on the floor because I can't find another one and there is no ammo to be found.

What's the point of having multiple weapons if switching is a luxury instead of a necessity?

Almost every game has cool and 'meh' weapons; usually the cool ones are also the most powerful. If one can use their favorite cool (and powerful) weapon all the time, why bother adding the 'meh' weapons in the first place. One of things that makes games fun are restrictions imo; although some weapons and powers don't look like much, it's still fun to figure out how to get the most out of em (which usually proves those 'meh' weapons are still deadly).

If you're OK with less than 100% (Widow) sniping; how far would you go? 90%, 80%, 50% or less?

I think it only adds to the game to force players into different approaches and tactics. What's wrong with an Infiltrator who has to use AR or SG during some missions?
I consider ME2's system in which the Infiltrator is supposed to be the designated sniper pretty poor; Infiltrators are about stealth and sabotage - check all the guides to see how well Infiltrators perform with other weapons to get the idea. Ammo restrictions will encourage players to look beyond the obvious and experiment with different tools and tactics. I think we agree playing sniper isn't the most thrilling and exciting way to play ME (taking enemies out at long range safely behind cover is pretty boring imo); using SG, AR and SMG is also very effective and a lot of fun. A system in which everyone can go full-time sniping only results in narrow minded gameplay > why try something new if the good old snipe the lot is always an (good) option?

Every single shooter I ever played and enjoyed forced the player to use multiple weapons, sometimes up to the point all other weapons are removed/lost so you have to advance with other stuff. Imagine HL2 without the need to use different weapons, why bother experimenting with the Gravity Gun if you could use the HMG all the time? Severely limiting ammo forces players to use the GG which is an awesome weapon once you figure out what it can do.

Having to try something new and/or adapting to changing circumstances is only a good thing in my book - a game which can be completed using only one trick, power, tactic, weapon etc is a poor game.

@ iOnlySignIn ; that's indeed one of the best Matrix scenes!

Modifié par Bozorgmehr, 05 juin 2011 - 12:21 .

[termokanden]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

What's the point of having multiple weapons if switching is a luxury instead of a necessity?

You can pick the one you need in every situation. With multiple weapons in each category, you can pick the one you like the most. But it's not like you'll be sniping with a shotgun just because you don't have to throw it away when you've spent the ammo.

Almost every game has cool and 'meh' weapons; usually the cool ones are also the most powerful. If one can use their favorite cool (and powerful) weapon all the time, why bother adding the 'meh' weapons in the first place.

Maybe there just shouldn't be "meh" weapons, or the cool weapons should be there as actual weapon upgrades (like the Widow upgrades the Mantis). Forcing me to use the Avenger in ME2 for example wouldn't make me any happier about it. It's still "meh" due to its low damage.

One of things that makes games fun are restrictions imo; although some weapons and powers don't look like much, it's still fun to figure out how to get the most out of em (which usually proves those 'meh' weapons are still deadly).

Sometimes restrictions are good. Taking away the weapons the player likes the most isn't going to make everyone happy.

I think it only adds to the game to force players into different approaches and tactics. What's wrong with an Infiltrator who has to use AR or SG during some missions?

Nothing at all. My infiltrators always switch between weapons quite a lot. But when I want to snipe something, it's not like I have to give it up because there haven't been any sniper rifle drops for a while. And when I use pistols, I can use my personal favorite because I haven't been forced to pick something else up because of ammo issues. But in a properly balanced game, my favorite pistol might not be the same as yours, and it could change over time or with the situation.

A system in which everyone can go full-time sniping only results in narrow minded gameplay > why try something new if the good old snipe the lot is always an (good) option?

We already have a system where you can't snipe full-time. Isn't that enough? Must we force players to use every crappy weapon out there through a draconian ammo restriction system?

Having to try something new and/or adapting to changing circumstances is only a good thing in my book - a game which can be completed using only one trick, power, tactic, weapon etc is a poor game.

You seem to be assuming that's what I want. It isn't. I want all weapons to be competetive somehow. Switching to the right one should give you an edge. But I DON'T want to be forced to use poorly balanced weapons just because they randomly drop from enemies.

But ultimately this is also a matter of personal preference. Mine is quite clear here. This system would make me enjoy the game a lot less. I've seen similar things in other games, and I didn't like it there either. I like different playstyles, but I don't want to be forced into one I don't like.

Modifié par termokanden, 05 juin 2011 - 01:09 .

[Locutus_of_BORG]

termokanden wrote...

I'm sorry to say it, but I really don't like that idea. Would hate to have to run around switching weapons all the time because you can't get more ammo.

Also kind of reminds me of CoD games in singleplayer where you start out with some cool weapon but at some point you can't find more ammo. Then you spend the rest of the mission using whatever the current type of enemy uses. Used the MP40 quite a bit that way

I prefer certain weapons and don't want the game to force me to switch and in the worst case even stop using my sniper rifle for example just because the current enemies are not snipers themselves.

I'm OK with having to switch between sniper rifles and other weapons for example so I can't snipe 100% of the time. But I'm not OK with leaving my beloved Widow on the floor because I can't find another one and there is no ammo to be found.

I have to admit, my foot's mostly in this camp too. While implementing this feature might add in a new tactical level (and maybe a bit more weapon balance), I hate it when it's done in a contrived manner.

CoD's not so bad with this, imo. The ammo drops are adequate and on single player, most of the weapons are too. What comes to mind for me is Halo: Reach (and a bit of HaloCE as well), where at least 1/2 the guns really suck (imo), all the decent guns never had any ammo and most enemies needed many many shots to kill... That game was just infuriating for me, on anything beyond Normal difficultly, just b/c of ammo.

[Alamar2078]

[The campaign of] Halo CE wasn't bad. IIRC the right weapons for fights were almost always right around the corner so it wasn't a big deal. You could finish off just about any enemy in the whole game with just a Plasma Pistol [easy to find from mooks] and the Human Heavy Pistol.

In addition to that Needlers were also effective against the right sorts of enemies. Rocket Launchers were effective against anything. Sniper Rifles ruled. Shotguns would stop a Flood rush dead. Add to that both Sticky & Frag grenades and you were golden.

Once you knew the maps, enemies, spawn points, etc. you would almost always have the right set of weapons handy for whatever enemies you were facing.

[Alamar2078]

Back on the topic of ME3 I would not want to have to scavange for weapons all the time ala Halo CE because the lore contradictions would break immersion for me.

I agree with some of Boz's points ... specifically if you have different weapon types why is it so trivial to finish the game with just one weapon? Shouldn't you have to change weapons around??

Instead of having [draconian?] ammo limits I think that weapons should be rebalanced to give each a specific purpose and utility. Then maps should be designed in a way / enemy scripting should be designed in a way where it is more effective to use the right weapon [or power] for a certain situation.

Example: Maybe you could say that the Pistol design lends itself well to making some sort of "silencer" for it. This could be your one shot stealth kill weapon. Something that doesn't alert guards from all over the whole map.

Maybe the Shotgun could be rebalanced so that they are so godly up close that even a Revvy on full auto couldn't match the DPI of a shotty up close.

Sniper Rifles already seem to have a clear and obvious role IMHO.

Assault Rifles could be good outside but maybe something in gameplay could be added to show that a full sized rifle isn't something you want to go CQC with.

SMG could be the answer for wanting an Assault Rifle but you're in too confined a space to make it work.

The above aren't necessarily great ideas but if something like that were done and maps / enemies were set up properly you'd be silly not to cycle through weapons to be effective.

[termokanden]

Alamar2078 wrote...

I agree with some of Boz's points ... specifically if you have different weapon types why is it so trivial to finish the game with just one weapon? Shouldn't you have to change weapons around??

You should. But there is another way to accomplish this: Give every weapon a purpose and don't just make some blatantly weaker than others. If pistols were truly best for some particular purpose then you'd want to switch to them at some point and not just use the usual weapons. You CAN use the usual weapons, but it's a disadvantage. For example, you can try to fight long-range with a shotgun, but you won't have much luck.

There could certainly be different pistols competing for the same role. But even now that actually works quite well. I use the Predator for general purposes and the Phalanx sometimes in Mordin's and Grunt's recruitment missions to snipe the rocket spammers. Some people prefer the Carnifex and others again really hate the Predator. My claim is this is actually a good situation. No pistol is really the clear winner.

I'm thinking it could work just fine with weapon slots and otherwise the same system as long as weapons are properly balanced and every one of them has a clear purpose.