3223 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...

Taken in isolation, you might be right. Unfortunately, Mass Effect's inventory as a whole was so terrible that I consider its complete removal to be a positive.

The removal of forced loot alone would be enough to fix it.(because no one open lockers after having the best things)
In addition,a weight limit instead of a number of items,and it would be perfect.

[Phaedon]

tonnactus wrote...

Phaedon wrote...


This again? Descriptions present a suggested playstyle,

??

Rate of fire,damage.Only the wikia site show this information,but not the game itself.It doesnt help that the geth pulse rifle is good against shields when its base damage is so low...

Revenant:
Unleashes a storm of deadly high velocity slugs. Less accurate than an assault rifle, but has a high ammo capacity and deals much more damage. Effective against armor, shields and biotic barriers. Upgrades the Vindicator Battle Rifle.This custom-made machine gun features technology not widely available. Protected against replication by sophisticated Fabrication Rights Management (FRM) technology, only the richest and most powerful warlords can afford this weapon.

Vindicator:
A battle rifle favored by assassins and elite mercenaries that fires in highly accurate five [sic][/i]-round bursts and can be pulsed for rapid fire. Deadly at range, very accurate, and effective against armor, shields and biotic barriers. Upgrades the Avenger Assault Rifle.Manufactured by Elanus Risk Control Services for the Blue Suns mercenary group, the Vindicator is quickly gaining popularity in the Terminus Systems.

Avenger:
A common, versatile, military-grade assault rifle. Accurate when fired in burst shots, and deadly when fired on full auto. The Avenger is effective at penetrating shields, armor and biotic barriers. The modular design and inexpensive components of the Avenger make it a favorite of military groups and mercenaries alike. The Avenger has a reputation for being tough, reliable, easy to use, and easy to upgrade.Manufactured by the Elkoss Combine.

Modifié par Phaedon, 14 juillet 2011 - 06:29 .

[Phaedon]

[quote]Sarevok Synder wrote...
The amount of weapons wasn't what broke the inventory in ME1, it was the fact that choice was restricted to "worse weapon A" and "better weapon B".

You could remove the I-X versions and you would have fixed balance and wouldn't require space limit either.  You would still however, have weapons that play the same and are either better or worse.
[/quote]


So what? If they look slightly different and play the same; it will at least create the illusion of choice.[/quote]
Nope. If you reduced the amount of weapons in ME1, you would make the lack of choice even more obvious.

What you are trying to say is that if they managed to do what ME2 did, concerning stats, they'd create the illusion of choice.

And they would still look the same, and would still (mostly) play the same.

[tonnactus]

Great...But that the revenant had a higher multiplier against armor then any other assault rifle?What,if anything,make the geth pulse rifle better then the avenger? What is "much more damage" of the revenant compared with the vindicator?

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 juillet 2011 - 06:35 .

[Someone With Mass]

I don't need to carry 30 guns on me in ME3 if I'm already towing a few of my favorites, like the Avenger, Phalanx and the Eviscerator.

[Sarevok Synder]

Phaedon wrote...

Nope. If you reduced the amount of weapons in ME1, you would make the lack of choice even more obvious.

What you are trying to say is that if they managed to do what ME2 did, concerning stats, they'd create the illusion of choice.

And they would still look the same, and would still (mostly) play the same.

Who said anything about ME1? I'm talking about the lack of weapons in ME2. And instead of differing weapons which looked different and handled differently, all we got was a stupid upgrade system which said this weapon now does so much percent more damage than before.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 14 juillet 2011 - 06:42 .

[Phaedon]

tonnactus wrote...

Great...But that the revenant had a higher multiplier against armor then any other assault rifle?What,if anything,make the geth pulse rifle better then the avenger? What is "much more damage" of the revenant compared with the vindicator?

I linked to a video a few pages ago. Watch it.

The Revenant is absolutely hopeless in long range, but you can basically "spray and pray" with it, in short range. Because, even though it's accuracy is low, it's damage is very high, and so is the capacity of it's thermal clip. The first time you shoot, the accuracy stat goes insane.

The Avenger can reach long ranges if it is fired in burst shots, and when you manage to reach your enemy for some real CQC, you can start shooting at full auto. It's accuracy stat is not that impressive, but it allows you to actually hit your enemy at CQC, even at full auto. The thing is, you can't go Revenant with it, due to it's low thermal clip capacity and the low damage rate. When you fire an Avenger, you want every bullet to reach the target.

The Vindicator has a very good stat for providing "covering fire" from away without using the sniper rifle, and generally staying behind the scenes and taking a conservative approach. But it is essentially suicide in CQC, since it's RoF, which makes it conservative in the first place, will probably get you killed there.

I can't talk about the geth rifle, because I haven't used it that much, and I doubt that as much attention was given to it, concerning the conditions required for it's acquisition.

[AlanC9]

Bnol wrote...

What was bad about it was that it was linear and did not give any choice in terms of what you were going to research.  The only choice that you made was what upgrades at the stores you bought.

I agree that there was no choice. But should we have those choices? I never thought so. 

It's not so much "research " as it is reverse engineering an existing bit of tech to integrate it into our existing equipment. Obviously we can't reverse engineer tech that we haven't actually encountered yet.

Actually, I wanted even less choice in ME2, since buying tech in shops is intensely silly.

I'm probably in a minority position here, but incoherence like this makes an RPG much worse for me. I always have to put up with some, but I like it reduced whenever it can be.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 juillet 2011 - 06:57 .

[Someone With Mass]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Who said anything about ME1? I'm talking about the lack of weapons in ME2. And instead of differing weapons which looked different and handled differently, all we got was a stupid upgrade system which said this weapon now does so much percent more damage than before.

Lack of weapons? With all the DLCs, there's a total of 29 weapons. Most of them are very different, ranging from rate of fire to a great effect against certain protections.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 14 juillet 2011 - 06:45 .

[Phaedon]

Sarevok Synder wrote..

ho said anything about ME1? I'm talking about the lack of weapons in ME2. And instead of differing weapons which looked different and handled differently, all we got was a stupid upgrade system which said this weapon now does so much percent more damage than before.

...right.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nDA22JZV1Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThnAOC5u0pA&feature=related

Well, nope.avi or nope.mp4 if you prefer.

And take a look at the statistics that BioWare released on these boards, as well as the ones over at the wiki. Even Collector Ship weapons aren't absolutely better than the previous weapons. All have a different playstyle and different pros and cons.

[CitizenSnips]

I looked for a "Stat and Loot Game" genre on my favorite video game website but I couldn't find anything.

Anyway, Mass Effect 1's loot system was pretty awful. There was very little actual customization hidden behind a veil of thousands of the same weapon and ammo upgrades that only amounted to a handful of different choices. After you chose from that half-dozen, you would put it into your favorite Spectre Master Weapon X and Colossus X armor (or Predator L/M/H if you're feeling ballsy). ME2's inventory was certainly stripped too far but haven't they already stated that they plan on making ME3's loot system and customization options more robust? Did you know it's possible to enhance more than one aspect of a game?

Also, Dragon Age 2 has much bigger issues than stats or loot.

[tonnactus]

Phaedon wrote...


The Revenant is absolutely hopeless in long range, but you can basically "spray and pray" with it, in short range.

First,with adrenaline rush its quite accurate even at "long" range.(Mass Effect 2 has medium range at best,not really long ranges)
Second,sniper rifles exist for a reason.(or pistols work also at "long range").

[Sarevok Synder]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Who said anything about ME1? I'm talking about the lack of weapons in ME2. And instead of differing weapons which looked different and handled differently, all we got was a stupid upgrade system which said this weapon now does so much percent more damage than before.

Lack of weapons? With all the DLCs, there's a total of 29 weapons. Most of them are very different, ranging from rate of fire to a great effect against certain protections.

Oh yes, lets pay more for weapons which should have been there in the first. Then have them just appear in a weapons locker after you buy this DLC rather than even have to purchase them from a store in game, or better yet find; them in a mission. EA just love drones like you.

[Someone With Mass]

Phaedon wrote...
I can't talk about the geth rifle, because I haven't used it that much, and I doubt that as much attention was given to it, concerning the conditions required for it's acquisition.

It's more of a suppressing weapon, as it has the highest rate of fire of all rifles, and it's very effective when it comes to stacking ammo effects like the Incendiary Ammo's flame effect or the Cryo Ammo's freezing effect.

[tonnactus]

AlanC9 wrote...


I agree that there was no choice. But should we have those choices?

Yes. Especially because shepardt worked for cerberus...

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 juillet 2011 - 06:52 .

[Bnol]

tonnactus wrote...

Bnol wrote...
 Sure the first game didn't restrict your choices, but it still didn't give you meaningful choices either. 

So what is meaningfull? Does it matter that the widow allow one shoot kills when regarding damage per second the viper isnt really far behind?
Using two scram rails in a assault rifles or two advanced heat dampers for firing without overheating is as meaningfull as that.

Other than the damage number all ARs performed the same in ME1.  So the difference in weapons was not meaningful, which meant that having a ton of different weapon names with level from I-X didn't add to any choice.   Especially as soon as you get Spectre gear, then every other weapon is trash.  With the modifications the choice became very simple as you progressed, as you didn't need 2 heatsinks on a weapon, because even with just one you could fire continuously without worring about heat and once you maxed your weapon skill the accuracy mods didn't matter. 

Yes there were some meaningful choices in ME1 but they were really few and far between when compared with the absolute crap you had to deal with in between them.  The modifications they are adding in ME3 will introduce those choices, in addition to the ME2 choices, without all the crap to deal with in ME1.  I think that is good progression in design between the games.

[Someone With Mass]

Sarevok Synder wrote...
Oh yes, lets pay more for weapons which should have been there in the first. Then have them just appear in a weapons locker after you buy this DLC rather than even have to purchase them from a store in game, or better yet find; them in a mission. EA just love drones like you.

Why am I not surprised...

Let's just pretend that the weapons were done from the start, as all the other DLCs, and BioWare just sat on them to demand more cash.

Because that's how it works, right? 

And the price is sooooo high. It's almost the same amount of money I spend on my lunch break. EA will ruin my economy!

Pff...idiot.

[Phaedon]

tonnactus wrote...

Phaedon wrote...


The Revenant is absolutely hopeless in long range, but you can basically "spray and pray" with it, in short range.

First,with adrenaline rush its quite accurate even at "long" range.(Mass Effect 2 has medium range at best,not really long ranges)

Quite is not a word I would use, even with all of the upgrades and adrenaline rush, and firing in short bursts. 

Second,sniper rifles exist for a reason.(or pistols work also at "long range").

Exactly? You have to plan your inventory before going to a mission? However, there are several advantages to not using sniper rifles for semi-long range sniping. The fact that you have to zoom. Not very practical at several occassions.

And of course the rate of fire, when it comes to pistols. And the damage caused, 

[Sarevok Synder]

Phaedon wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote..

ho said anything about ME1? I'm talking about the lack of weapons in ME2. And instead of differing weapons which looked different and handled differently, all we got was a stupid upgrade system which said this weapon now does so much percent more damage than before.

...right.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nDA22JZV1Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThnAOC5u0pA&feature=related

Well, nope.avi or nope.mp4 if you prefer.

And take a look at the statistics that BioWare released on these boards, as well as the ones over at the wiki. Even Collector Ship weapons aren't absolutely better than the previous weapons. All have a different playstyle and different pros and cons.

I'm more of an assault rifle man myself. I think that left me with a choice of four total.  Look; if you prefer this system that's your business. This endless back and forth about who's opinion is "right" is pointless.

[Praetor Knight]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Oh yes, lets pay more for weapons which should have been there in the first. Then have them just appear in a weapons locker after you buy this DLC rather than even have to purchase them from a store in game, or better yet find; them in a mission. EA just love drones like you.

Ah, yes. EA. The domineering publisher and distributor allegedly preventing hard working developers from doing their jobs right. I think they have grown out of that phase...




Seriously, I dunno how EA is relevant here.

[Phaedon]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...
Oh yes, lets pay more for weapons which should have been there in the first. Then have them just appear in a weapons locker after you buy this DLC rather than even have to purchase them from a store in game, or better yet find; them in a mission. EA just love drones like you.

Why am I not surprised...

Let's just pretend that the weapons were done from the start, as all the other DLCs, and BioWare just sat on them to demand more cash.

Because that's how it works, right? 

And the price is sooooo high. It's almost the same amount of money I spend on my lunch break. EA will ruin my economy!

Pff...idiot.

That would still not mean that Bioware "should" have used these in-game, even if they were done.

A lot of resources go unused during the developent process. You don't know own what BioWare develops, you own what you buy.

BioWare never promised 29 weapons, so you should have considered that before buying the game in the first place.

[mainstreamsarcasm] Also, we are all sheep.  [/mainstreamsarcasm]

Modifié par Phaedon, 14 juillet 2011 - 06:59 .

[Phaedon]

Sarevok Synder wrote...
I'm more of an assault rifle man myself. I think that left me with a choice of four total.  Look; if you prefer this system that's your business. This endless back and forth about who's opinion is "right" is pointless. 

4 in total? That's 4 times the choice you had in ME1.

No weapons in ME1 are equal, every new weapon is clearly and statistically superior or inferior to the one you are equipped with.

And they all play, look and sound the same.

[tonnactus]

Bnol wrote...


Other than the damage number all ARs performed the same in ME1.  So the difference in weapons was not meaningful, which meant that having a ton of different weapon names with level from I-X didn't add to any choice.   Especially as soon as you get Spectre gear, then every other weapon is trash. 

That is wrong.Rosenkov had weapons that were better then spectre VIII weapons.

With the modifications the choice became very simple as you progressed, as you didn't need 2 heatsinks on a weapon, because even with just one you could fire continuously without worring about heat and once you maxed your weapon skill the accuracy mods didn't matter. 

The accuracy of a weapon was far more important then those percentages a player get from weapon.Then,if i used a secondary weapon when the main one was sabotaged,accuracy mods helped for sure,also teammembers like liara and kaidan really got decent pistol users with that.

[littlezack]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Oh yes, lets pay more for weapons which should have been there in the first. Then have them just appear in a weapons locker after you buy this DLC rather than even have to purchase them from a store in game, or better yet find; them in a mission. EA just love drones like you.

Ah, yes. EA. The domineering publisher and distributor allegedly preventing hard working developers from doing their jobs right. I think they have grown out of that phase...




Seriously, I dunno how EA is relevant here.

It's not, but every argument against Mass Effect 2 has to blame EA at some point. Because Mass Effect was perfect - PERFECT - before EA came along.

[Sarevok Synder]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...
Oh yes, lets pay more for weapons which should have been there in the first. Then have them just appear in a weapons locker after you buy this DLC rather than even have to purchase them from a store in game, or better yet find; them in a mission. EA just love drones like you.

Why am I not surprised...

Let's just pretend that the weapons were done from the start, as all the other DLCs, and BioWare just sat on them to demand more cash.

Because that's how it works, right? 

And the price is sooooo high. It's almost the same amount of money I spend on my lunch break. EA will ruin my economy!

Pff...idiot.

Price is not the issue. Charging extra for what should have been there from the beginning is. Yes, that's exactly what "EA" did. You call me an idiot, yet you keep coming crawling back to me every time I move on from you, so what does that make you?

Praetor Shepard wrote...
 Ah, yes. EA. The domineering publisher and distributor allegedly preventing hard working developers from doing their jobs right. I think they have grown out of that phase...

Seriously, I dunno how EA is relevant here.

Their most recent debacle was the C&C series. No, they haven’t grown out of that phase.  

littlezack wrote...
It's not, but every argument against Mass Effect 2 has to blame EA at some point. Because Mass Effect was perfect - PERFECT - before EA came along.

Strawman, nobody claimed ME1 was perfect. For EA’s most recent history see the C&C series.

Phaedon wrote...
Also, we are all sheep.

That’s the first honest thing you’ve said.
 

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 15 juillet 2011 - 01:59 .