3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Indeed. In the end of my GM'ing days, often I didn't even construct 'solutions' for situations, but relied on the players to figure out something that seemed plausible for me to go with and made it work on the fly. It only works if you got imaginative players, though.

Very true, and when your group was especially creative, the DM sometimes would even let us level up right on the spot. That was always a greatt feeling.

[SalsaDMA]

Il Divo wrote...

Mass Effect's failing is that every level up is not noticeable; it never becomes satisfying from a gameplay stand point. I level up...with 1% pistol damage. I level up again...1% pistol damage. I don't notice it. Now, take Incinerate, where the damage goes up by 20 points for every rank. I actually notice that in combat; my character feels substantially stronger as a result every time I kill a scion, for example. Mass Effect's system attempts a gradual progression, where nothing becomes gratifying.  

You do realize you just argued against ME2 as well, right?

You level up in ME2, realize you can't spend the point you got and NOTHING CHANGES for your character at that level up. Only thing that changed was a number in the lower right corner which has no impact on the game. This is especially problematic when you reeach end level and have points to spare, essentially making the last few levels meaningless and without any effect at all on the game.

[the_one_54321]

Immediate level up always made the most sense to me. But usually, awarding XP took to much time for players to know exactly when they leveled up, so most times it happened at the end of a session.

[SalsaDMA]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

[quote]SalsaDMA wrote...

Let's elaborate on your example, rather than take a simplified outlier.

When your GM tells you that a short sword +1 dropped, do you use that for all your fights instead of your longsword, or do your reserve your normal longsword for some, given that they perform differently? When you have a 'longsword +2, flametongue' do you replace it with the new 'longsword +3' you just found? Some would stick to the old, some would stick to the new and some would keep both and use them for different scenarios.

And if we go into AD&D 2nd edition which I played back then, weapon proficiencies/specializations start becoming important too for some classes/kits in wether or not you would use a 'new' weapon in favour of an old one. [/quote]

[/quote]

Mass Effect does not possess weapon proficiencies/specializations. Once I get a better assault rifle, there is no reason for me to use a weaker assault rifle.

If it did, the comparison would be relevant. It is a linear progression. In Mass Effect, I find a gun. The gun I pick up is likely either better than what I am holding, or much worse. If it's better, I take it and hand my old gun to someone else. If it's worse, the gun becomes omnigel. Often times, I don't even need to look at the actual numbers. The new weapon's stats will either be all yellow for 'better' or all red for 'worse'. Rare is it that I find a gun where this isn't the case.

That's why the longsword example works; you're dealing with two items of the exact same type, but one is clearly better. I can't think of an instance in DnD where I would use a weaker longsword, unless I had reason to believe the +1 might break. Likewise, in Mass Effect, I've never found a reason to use a gun with weaker stats.
 

[/quote]

You just ignored the first part of my comment to solely disagree with the second part.

[Il Divo]

[quote]SalsaDMA wrote...

You do realize you just argued against ME2 as well, right? [/quote]

You level up in ME2, realize you can't spend the point you got and NOTHING CHANGES for your character at that level up. Only thing that changed was a number in the lower right corner which has no impact on the game. This is especially problematic when you reeach end level and have points to spare, essentially making the last few levels meaningless and without any effect at all on the game.
[/quote]

Mass Effect 2 is not my ideal leveling system. Something closer to DA:O, KotOR, or even Alpha Protocol would be.

Mass Effect 2 is essentially Mass Effect's leveling system, only concentrated down.

ME: 12 ranks per skill, 3 ranks do something significant..

ME2: 4 ranks per skill, each rank does something significant.

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Mass Effect's failing is that every level up is not noticeable; it never becomes satisfying from a gameplay stand point. I level up...with 1% pistol damage. I level up again...1% pistol damage. I don't notice it. Now, take Incinerate, where the damage goes up by 20 points for every rank. I actually notice that in combat; my character feels substantially stronger as a result every time I kill a scion, for example. Mass Effect's system attempts a gradual progression, where nothing becomes gratifying.  

You do realize you just argued against ME2 as well, right?

You level up in ME2, realize you can't spend the point you got and NOTHING CHANGES for your character at that level up. Only thing that changed was a number in the lower right corner which has no impact on the game. This is especially problematic when you reeach end level and have points to spare, essentially making the last few levels meaningless and without any effect at all on the game.

I didn't think this was a problem until the endgame, myself. I know that those points are going to be of use to me in the future. Maybe it's because I'm used to Hero System (PnP), where you're always saving up points for a few sesssions until you can buy something useful.

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...
That's why the longsword example works; you're dealing with two items of the exact same type, but one is clearly better. I can't think of an instance in DnD where I would use a weaker longsword, unless I had reason to believe the +1 might break.

And even with elemental damage, it still just boils down to expected DPR.

Of course, things get complicated in 3.5  when you're taking into account things like resistances. But that just takes us to golf bag syndrome.

[Il Divo]

SalsaDMA wrote...

When your GM tells you that a short sword +1 dropped, do you use that for all your fights instead of your longsword, or do your reserve your normal longsword for some, given that they perform differently? When you have a 'longsword +2, flametongue' do you replace it with the new 'longsword +3' you just found? Some would stick to the old, some would stick to the new and some would keep both and use them for different scenarios.

You just ignored the first part of my comment to solely disagree with the second part.

Not at all. The shortsword/flametongue longsword examples simply are not applicable.

Mass Effect is almost entirely a linear progression in terms of weapons/armor. In other words, you can always know what weapon is best by looking at which has the larger number. In DnD, if your DM gives you a + 1 longsword while you are wielding a normal longsword, there's nothing to think about in terms of progression. You know what the better option will be, every time.

I am not saying that all DnD progression is linear. I am using a single, applicable example.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 juillet 2011 - 05:23 .

[SalsaDMA]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Immediate level up always made the most sense to me. But usually, awarding XP took to much time for players to know exactly when they leveled up, so most times it happened at the end of a session.

I think it depends.

Alot of things can be said about not gaining the revelations about what you have learned before you get time to sit and ponder on it outside of stress. I just used whatever system the game I was playing promoted. D&D and AD&D 2nd edition seemed to favour the 'instant gratification' of leveling up after an encounter or scene if the xps warranted it. Other games seemed to favour end of scenarios/sessions style leveling ups.

I know the one I eventually designed myself opted for the latter in as much as I wrote the tracking and fulfillment of progression of skills into being tracking during gameplay what was used, and progressed at end of scenario when people could reflect on what they had used of skills and learned from using them.

[Aimi]

SalsaDMA wrote...
You just ignored the first part of my comment to solely disagree with the second part.

Probably because the first part was a bad comparison.

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
That's why the longsword example works; you're dealing with two items of the exact same type, but one is clearly better. I can't think of an instance in DnD where I would use a weaker longsword, unless I had reason to believe the +1 might break.

And even with elemental damage, it still just boils down to expected DPR.

Of course, things get complicated in 3.5  when you're taking into account things like resistances. But that just takes us to golf bag syndrome.

Alternatively you can just have competent and team oriented arcane and divine casters, instead of the golf bag.

[SalsaDMA]

AlanC9 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
That's why the longsword example works; you're dealing with two items of the exact same type, but one is clearly better. I can't think of an instance in DnD where I would use a weaker longsword, unless I had reason to believe the +1 might break.

And even with elemental damage, it still just boils down to expected DPR.

Of course, things get complicated in 3.5  when you're taking into account things like resistances. But that just takes us to golf bag syndrome.

Eh... that wasn't my qoute.... That was Il Divo I think.

And it was still more varied than you suggest, as some monsters were vulnerable to certain effects or certain 'degrees' of magic level. So your +2,flame tongue sword might give more damage on paper, but be unable to affect certain targets the +3 could and the depending on your hit probabilities due to enemy AC, the difference of connecting a hit with a +3 compared to a +2 might also impact on which one you choose.

[The Spamming Troll]

i dont care to define what a game is, as long as i like it im happy. but id just like to say ME2 isnt an RPG. its no more an RPG then GTA4.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 05 juillet 2011 - 05:30 .

[SalsaDMA]

Il Divo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

When your GM tells you that a short sword +1 dropped, do you use that for all your fights instead of your longsword, or do your reserve your normal longsword for some, given that they perform differently? When you have a 'longsword +2, flametongue' do you replace it with the new 'longsword +3' you just found? Some would stick to the old, some would stick to the new and some would keep both and use them for different scenarios.

You just ignored the first part of my comment to solely disagree with the second part.

Not at all. The shortsword/flametongue longsword examples simply are not applicable.

Mass Effect is almost entirely a linear progression in terms of weapons/armor. In other words, you can always know what weapon is best by looking at which has the larger number. In DnD, if your DM gives you a + 1 longsword while you are wielding a normal longsword, there's nothing to think about in terms of progression. You know what the better option will be, every time.

I am not saying that all DnD progression is linear. I am using a single, applicable example.

Not really. It was linear in as much that version II was better than version I, and versino III was better yet again. But the different brands of weapons favoured different characteristics. I didn't start using sniper rifles that ditched precision for damage till I got more proficient in sniper rifle, for example, cause I wanted an easier time in actually connecting with my shots.

Spectre weapons broke the mold, ofc, but take those out the equation and ME1 actually had the grounds for a decent system where manufactorer brand determined weighting of stats of a given weapon.

[Crackseed]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

i dont care to define what a game is, as long as i like it im happy. but id just like to say ME2 isnt an RPG. its no more an RPG then GTA4.

It ends the exact same for everyone? Really? Last I checked my playthrough where I save my whole team and blow the base up isn't the same as person A who had Morinth in their squad, lost 3 members and gave the Illusive Man the base. Or where person B lost 2 squad members, gave Legion to Cerberus and also blew up the base.

By your logic, Mass Effect 1 was also a terrible RPG since it also pretty much ended the same way. Either the Council was dead or alive but we still beat Sovereign and it still lead into ME2 in the same way.

Honestly, is that all the ammo you've got to try and "troll" ME2's worth? Your argument needs more cowbell.

[The Spamming Troll]

crackseed wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

i dont care to define what a game is, as long as i like it im happy. but id just like to say ME2 isnt an RPG. its no more an RPG then GTA4.

It ends the exact same for everyone? Really? Last I checked my playthrough where I save my whole team and blow the base up isn't the same as person A who had Morinth in their squad, lost 3 members and gave the Illusive Man the base. Or where person B lost 2 squad members, gave Legion to Cerberus and also blew up the base.

By your logic, Mass Effect 1 was also a terrible RPG since it also pretty much ended the same way. Either the Council was dead or alive but we still beat Sovereign and it still lead into ME2 in the same way.

Honestly, is that all the ammo you've got to try and "troll" ME2's worth? Your argument needs more cowbell.

why is it my one sentance posts always attract the most heat? maybe this screen name wasnt a good idea.......

anyways, those things you mentioned are minor detials. the worlds not going to miss morinth anymore then its going to miss fist or helena blake from ME1, or the merc you tossed out the window in ME2. wrex has a huge following and can be considered a large roll in the MEuniverse but how much do you think the game is going to vary for those that killed wrex, or let wrex live?

destroy the base/save the base.....who cares! your full renegade will finish the game in the exact same way my full paragon would.

ME1 isnt so much an RPG either.

in GTA i choose my weapons, my clothes, i ocasionally pick what character lives or dies, im engaged in a good story.....i can say the same for ME2, the only thing more im doing in ME2 is leveling abilities. and leveling abilites in ME2 is pointless, we all level the abilites in the same way anyways, why not just give us throw, or pull at a certain level or point in the game like infamous for PS3.

[Il Divo]

SalsaDMA wrote...


Not really. It was linear in as much that version II was better than version I, and versino III was better yet again. But the different brands of weapons favoured different characteristics. I didn't start using sniper rifles that ditched precision for damage till I got more proficient in sniper rifle, for example, cause I wanted an easier time in actually connecting with my shots.

Spectre weapons broke the mold, ofc, but take those out the equation and ME1 actually had the grounds for a decent system where manufactorer brand determined weighting of stats of a given weapon.

Really? I'm looking at all the manufacturers now. Perhaps I'm just getting lost in all the numbers, but I'm seeing very few brands where there is a  significant difference in stats. I'm comparing all the Sniper Rifle arms, mind.

http://masseffect.wi...y:Manufacturers

I'll also list all the manufacturers I've gone through.

http://masseffect.wi...enkov_Materials
http://masseffect.wi...i/Haliat_Armory
http://masseffect.wi...ar_Shadow_Works
http://masseffect.wi.../Elkoss_Combine
http://masseffect.wi...ontrol_Services
http://masseffect.wi...ontrol_Services
http://masseffect.wi...vlon_Industries
http://masseffect.wi...i/Armax_Arsenal
http://masseffect.wi...ke_Technologies

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 juillet 2011 - 05:57 .

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
That's why the longsword example works; you're dealing with two items of the exact same type, but one is clearly better. I can't think of an instance in DnD where I would use a weaker longsword, unless I had reason to believe the +1 might break.

And even with elemental damage, it still just boils down to expected DPR.

Of course, things get complicated in 3.5  when you're taking into account things like resistances. But that just takes us to golf bag syndrome.

Alternatively you can just have competent and team oriented arcane and divine casters, instead of the golf bag.

Whatever my teammates can do or will do, I'm still going to want to have my character be as effective as possible in as many situations as possible.

Other factors being equal, that is. If trading in the golf bag weapons can give me a better primary weapon, I might be better off doing that. But the 3.5 item prices generally don't favor this.

Anyway, it's the DM's fault in the first place if he lets me fill that golf bag.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 juillet 2011 - 06:10 .

[AlanC9]

The Spamming Troll wrote...
i dont care to define what a game is, as long as i like it im happy. but id just like to say ME2 isnt an RPG. its no more an RPG then GTA4.

.....

why is it my one sentance posts always attract the most heat? maybe this screen name wasnt a good idea.......

Oh, please. You should know better by now. One-sentence posts that offer up personal opinion as absolute fact without any attempt to explain the reasoning? What do you expect?

[Phaelducan]

@AlanC9

Logic? On the internet?

[Googlesaurus]

Il Divo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...


Not really. It was linear in as much that version II was better than version I, and versino III was better yet again. But the different brands of weapons favoured different characteristics. I didn't start using sniper rifles that ditched precision for damage till I got more proficient in sniper rifle, for example, cause I wanted an easier time in actually connecting with my shots.

Spectre weapons broke the mold, ofc, but take those out the equation and ME1 actually had the grounds for a decent system where manufactorer brand determined weighting of stats of a given weapon.

Really? I'm looking at all the manufacturers now. Perhaps I'm just getting lost in all the numbers, but I'm seeing very few brands where there is a  significant difference in stats. I'm comparing all the Sniper Rifle arms, mind.

http://masseffect.wi...y:Manufacturers

I'll also list all the manufacturers I've gone through.

http://masseffect.wi...enkov_Materials
http://masseffect.wi...i/Haliat_Armory
http://masseffect.wi...ar_Shadow_Works
http://masseffect.wi.../Elkoss_Combine
http://masseffect.wi...ontrol_Services
http://masseffect.wi...ontrol_Services
http://masseffect.wi...vlon_Industries
http://masseffect.wi...i/Armax_Arsenal
http://masseffect.wi...ke_Technologies

Ah, if ME3 could make a good stats system for their weapons that would be exquisite.

[Crackseed]

@ Troll - to be fair, your post was longer then that initially but you modified it - so I responded to the longer post you initially made where you stated that ME2 had no variance and offered players no choice. So while the point you're making about ME2 not being a real RPG is pretty much opinion and subjective, just like my take on ME2 being an RPG is, the major point I wanted to contend with you was your statement that it offered no choice and the game ended the same for everyone.

[kregano]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...


Not really. It was linear in as much that version II was better than version I, and versino III was better yet again. But the different brands of weapons favoured different characteristics. I didn't start using sniper rifles that ditched precision for damage till I got more proficient in sniper rifle, for example, cause I wanted an easier time in actually connecting with my shots.

Spectre weapons broke the mold, ofc, but take those out the equation and ME1 actually had the grounds for a decent system where manufactorer brand determined weighting of stats of a given weapon.

Really? I'm looking at all the manufacturers now. Perhaps I'm just getting lost in all the numbers, but I'm seeing very few brands where there is a  significant difference in stats. I'm comparing all the Sniper Rifle arms, mind.

http://masseffect.wi...y:Manufacturers

-snip list-

Ah, if ME3 could make a good stats system for their weapons that would be exquisite.

Modifié par kregano, 05 juillet 2011 - 06:38 .

[Ahglock]

He said good.

Honestly what they showed is better than before, but I really do think you need numbers. A bar doesn't tell you enough information.

[SalsaDMA]

Il Divo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...


Not really. It was linear in as much that version II was better than version I, and versino III was better yet again. But the different brands of weapons favoured different characteristics. I didn't start using sniper rifles that ditched precision for damage till I got more proficient in sniper rifle, for example, cause I wanted an easier time in actually connecting with my shots.

Spectre weapons broke the mold, ofc, but take those out the equation and ME1 actually had the grounds for a decent system where manufactorer brand determined weighting of stats of a given weapon.

Really? I'm looking at all the manufacturers now. Perhaps I'm just getting lost in all the numbers, but I'm seeing very few brands where there is a  significant difference in stats. I'm comparing all the Sniper Rifle arms, mind.

http://masseffect.wi...y:Manufacturers

I'll also list all the manufacturers I've gone through.

http://masseffect.wi...enkov_Materials
http://masseffect.wi...i/Haliat_Armory
http://masseffect.wi...ar_Shadow_Works
http://masseffect.wi.../Elkoss_Combine
http://masseffect.wi...ontrol_Services
http://masseffect.wi...ontrol_Services
http://masseffect.wi...vlon_Industries
http://masseffect.wi...i/Armax_Arsenal
http://masseffect.wi...ke_Technologies

Hmm... that's odd. I can see your point of view by glancing at the list, but the problem is I can remember while playing the game being faced with the choice of using the precise sniper rifle or the damaging one very clearly.

Now you made me load up one of made saves to verify.

k. Found a early save with a sentinel I made just to check out some stuff. He's at citadel and got 3 sniper rifles on him. Avenger I, Hammer II and Reaper II. There is a distinction between those weapons as I mentioned, the avenger I even being the most precise of the lot while packing the least damage.