167 réponses à ce sujet

[Nizzemancer]

Gatt9 wrote...

MasterShepardN7 wrote...

They're most likely going to stick with what works and what works is the system in ME2. I highly doubt they're going to go back to their roots THAT far back. I prefer the level up system in ME2.

1.  It doesn't work,  it's a strong contributer to why ME2 isn't an RPG.  It insures that no matter what,  everyone will be indentical in level.

2.  It kills the motivation for shooting opponents,  you get nothing out of it,  and ME2's AI was from the 1990's so it's not like it was challenging.  I spent half the game looting while I let my party members kill people,  'cause there wasn't a point to doing it myself.

3.  Now would be a really good time to notice that 4 years ago isn't "THAT far back".

4.  What "Level up system"?  You killed a YMIR at level 2,  and that was pretty much the hardest thing you'd face.  At level 2,  you could kill the biggest critter in the game.  The entire Leveling system was redundant and pointless.

5.  It fails to reward you relative to the challenge,  tactics,  or approach you took.  No matter what you do,  no matter how hard it is,  you'll always get the exact same thing.  Ironically,  you get more experience from the main missions in ME2 where you do very little,  than you do for difficult side missions.  It's obviously designed to insure that no matter what,  everyone's identical.  Which is hands-down horrible design,  and 10 years ago,  the gaming press would've called it like it is,  and given ME2 a 50% score at the very best.

The whole idea is ridiculous in an RPG.  It hamstrings character customization by insuring that no matter what you do,  you and the next guy are identical.  There's no difference between 2 ME2 characters,  maybe a level,  no matter if you do everything or just the main mission.

No, everyone is identical because we weren't given enough options to personalize our characters and skills, something they're apparently rectifying in this installation, time will tell if they get it right.

[Mr Powers94]

ME 1 system for the win

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I don't really care. I look at it this way. Shepard and crew are very experienced fighters at the start of ME3. This really should be like they did Hordes of the Underdark for NWN -- a high level character game. Start where you left off and add new skills.

I didn't kill every enemy in ME2, nor in ME1. On the Collector Cruiser for the last bunch of husks, I just ran by them, or vanguard charged the one furthest back. Cut scene. Same with Mordin's mission. Same with Archangel. In ME1 on the Mako, I just ran over a lot of Geth, and zipped past others.

I'd like to see skills you use a lot get auto leveled up and you get a couple points to put where ever you want, or save them.

[Bogsnot1]

Xp per kill is nerfed when it comes to Vanguards. Charge will often send the Vanguard over the "stop spawn" triggers.
Only way to balance gameplay so no class is either favoured, or penalised, is to have a set amount of XP awarded at the end of each mission.

[robarcool]

Gatt9 wrote...

MasterShepardN7 wrote...

They're most likely going to stick with what works and what works is the system in ME2. I highly doubt they're going to go back to their roots THAT far back. I prefer the level up system in ME2.

1.  It doesn't work,  it's a strong contributer to why ME2 isn't an RPG.  It insures that no matter what,  everyone will be indentical in level.

2.  It kills the motivation for shooting opponents,  you get nothing out of it,  and ME2's AI was from the 1990's so it's not like it was challenging.  I spent half the game looting while I let my party members kill people,  'cause there wasn't a point to doing it myself.

3.  Now would be a really good time to notice that 4 years ago isn't "THAT far back".

4.  What "Level up system"?  You killed a YMIR at level 2,  and that was pretty much the hardest thing you'd face.  At level 2,  you could kill the biggest critter in the game.  The entire Leveling system was redundant and pointless.

5.  It fails to reward you relative to the challenge,  tactics,  or approach you took.  No matter what you do,  no matter how hard it is,  you'll always get the exact same thing.  Ironically,  you get more experience from the main missions in ME2 where you do very little,  than you do for difficult side missions.  It's obviously designed to insure that no matter what,  everyone's identical.  Which is hands-down horrible design,  and 10 years ago,  the gaming press would've called it like it is,  and given ME2 a 50% score at the very best.

The whole idea is ridiculous in an RPG.  It hamstrings character customization by insuring that no matter what you do,  you and the next guy are identical.  There's no difference between 2 ME2 characters,  maybe a level,  no matter if you do everything or just the main mission.

You kill a YMIR at level 2, but the YMIR is also probably of lower level. When you reach level 30, the YMIR is probably of higher level, i.e. with higher health and shields. I am not sure of this because it is not stated or proven, but in RPGs, the same enemies can be of higher levels when player level goes up. Think Borderlands.

[Terror_K]

Recon64bit wrote...

I want them after. Makes it less gamey. Probably a poor reason.

I fail to see how having them after makes it "less gamey" when you get a "Mission Complete" screen thrown up suddenly.

If they can find a way of integrating it directly into the gameplay better, I'd be all for it though. Like if there was an optional post-mission briefing aboard The Normandy where the XP was dolled out as the mission was gone over.

[ryoldschool]

Gatt9 wrote...

MasterShepardN7 wrote...

They're most likely going to stick with what works and what works is the system in ME2. I highly doubt they're going to go back to their roots THAT far back. I prefer the level up system in ME2.

1.  It doesn't work,  it's a strong contributer to why ME2 isn't an RPG.  It insures that no matter what,  everyone will be indentical in level.

2.  It kills the motivation for shooting opponents,  you get nothing out of it,  and ME2's AI was from the 1990's so it's not like it was challenging.  I spent half the game looting while I let my party members kill people,  'cause there wasn't a point to doing it myself.

3.  Now would be a really good time to notice that 4 years ago isn't "THAT far back".

4.  What "Level up system"?  You killed a YMIR at level 2,  and that was pretty much the hardest thing you'd face.  At level 2,  you could kill the biggest critter in the game.  The entire Leveling system was redundant and pointless.

5.  It fails to reward you relative to the challenge,  tactics,  or approach you took.  No matter what you do,  no matter how hard it is,  you'll always get the exact same thing.  Ironically,  you get more experience from the main missions in ME2 where you do very little,  than you do for difficult side missions.  It's obviously designed to insure that no matter what,  everyone's identical.  Which is hands-down horrible design,  and 10 years ago,  the gaming press would've called it like it is,  and given ME2 a 50% score at the very best.

The whole idea is ridiculous in an RPG.  It hamstrings character customization by insuring that no matter what you do,  you and the next guy are identical.  There's no difference between 2 ME2 characters,  maybe a level,  no matter if you do everything or just the main mission.

(4) I don't know at what level you played ME2, but on Insanity the enemies scaled to your level and that YMIR that you beat @ level 2 is not close to as difficult at the one at level 25.  Same with all enemies. 

(2) The replay value of this game is high because there are a lot of different tactics you can use to defeat the levels and that is what makes it interesting.  I'd guess you wern't playing on a higher level because there is no way you can let your squad "kill everything while I loot".

IMO the gameplay was much better in ME2 than ME1.  If you play on casual then either ME combat is not difficult.

[ryoldschool]

robarcool wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

MasterShepardN7 wrote...

They're most likely going to stick with what works and what works is the system in ME2. I highly doubt they're going to go back to their roots THAT far back. I prefer the level up system in ME2.

1.  It doesn't work,  it's a strong contributer to why ME2 isn't an RPG.  It insures that no matter what,  everyone will be indentical in level.

2.  It kills the motivation for shooting opponents,  you get nothing out of it,  and ME2's AI was from the 1990's so it's not like it was challenging.  I spent half the game looting while I let my party members kill people,  'cause there wasn't a point to doing it myself.

3.  Now would be a really good time to notice that 4 years ago isn't "THAT far back".

4.  What "Level up system"?  You killed a YMIR at level 2,  and that was pretty much the hardest thing you'd face.  At level 2,  you could kill the biggest critter in the game.  The entire Leveling system was redundant and pointless.

5.  It fails to reward you relative to the challenge,  tactics,  or approach you took.  No matter what you do,  no matter how hard it is,  you'll always get the exact same thing.  Ironically,  you get more experience from the main missions in ME2 where you do very little,  than you do for difficult side missions.  It's obviously designed to insure that no matter what,  everyone's identical.  Which is hands-down horrible design,  and 10 years ago,  the gaming press would've called it like it is,  and given ME2 a 50% score at the very best.

The whole idea is ridiculous in an RPG.  It hamstrings character customization by insuring that no matter what you do,  you and the next guy are identical.  There's no difference between 2 ME2 characters,  maybe a level,  no matter if you do everything or just the main mission.

You kill a YMIR at level 2, but the YMIR is also probably of lower level. When you reach level 30, the YMIR is probably of higher level, i.e. with higher health and shields. I am not sure of this because it is not stated or proven, but in RPGs, the same enemies can be of higher levels when player level goes up. Think Borderlands.

You posted this before my last post.  On insanity this is true.  Krogan will full armor @ level 20 - claymore with 4 upgrades will blow through the armor after a charge.  That same full armor Krogan @ level 28 will take three point blank Claymore blasts to finish.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
2.  It kills the motivation for shooting opponents,  you get nothing out of it,  and ME2's AI was from the 1990's so it's not like it was challenging.  I spent half the game looting while I let my party members kill people,  'cause there wasn't a point to doing it myself.

You're drooling like Pavlov's dog here. If the only thing keeping you playing an RPG is the XP reward, you might as well go play Progress Quest.

And did you really let the AI companions take on the AI enemies, and did that actually work well? Or is this more rhetoric?

4.  What "Level up system"?  You killed a YMIR at level 2,  and that was pretty much the hardest thing you'd face.  At level 2,  you could kill the biggest critter in the game.  The entire Leveling system was redundant and pointless.

You kill a single YMIR under very favorable encounter conditions. Later in the game you face multiple YMIRs in less favorable terrain. Lately, even when you have a point you seem compelled to make a wild overstatement.

5.  It fails to reward you relative to the challenge,  tactics,  or approach you took.  No matter what you do,  no matter how hard it is,  you'll always get the exact same thing.  Ironically,  you get more experience from the main missions in ME2 where you do very little,  than you do for difficult side missions.  It's obviously designed to insure that no matter what,  everyone's identical.  Which is hands-down horrible design,  and 10 years ago,  the gaming press would've called it like it is,  and given ME2 a 50% score at the very best.

Don't be silly. Ten years ago the gaming press was liking Morrowind. You really think people who liked that game despite that mess of a leveling system would be bothered by ME2's XP awards? Yeah, I know.... more rhetoric.

As for making characters have nearly identical levels -- so what? This happens pretty damn often in RPGs with levels.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 juillet 2011 - 06:01 .

[RPGamer13]

You should definitely get experience during the mission so you make some progress.  It was boring for me in Mass Effect 2 because there was no sense of progress from the beginning of the mission.  I like to know that there's a reason for killing every enemy.

Also, If you're getting experience for completing missions and it doesn't matter how many enemies you kill, there's no point in killing all of them and it's frustrating to have to kill every enemy because you're forced to in order to advance.

[AlanC9]

You want to have XP motivation to kill enemies, but it's boring to kill enemies when it's necessary to complete the mission. Since completing the mission gives you XP, why isn't that the same thing for you?

[SkittlesKat96]

 XP during a mission is a little bit unnecessary but it gave a bit more incentive and enjoyment out of killing enemies.
ME 2 and ME 3 has waves of enemies though and most enemies through out the game are actually required to be killed to pass to the next area or finish a mission so it still unnecessary to have unless they change the gameplay (which they aren't doing.)

[Lumikki]

If possible, no exp at all would be best. Exp's has has no game world meaning, because exp's only reason exist is control progress of character through story and gameplay. If player needs exp for some other reasons, they are playing these games for wrong reasons. Treating ME serie like arcade shooter or grind fest power leveling RPG is just sad.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 juillet 2011 - 09:49 .

[CannotCompute]

XP gains for successful hacks and kills stimulate me to explore more thoroughly. That's why I prefer point gathering the way ME1 handled it.

Modifié par CannotCompute, 20 juillet 2011 - 09:57 .

[Nizzemancer]

Lumikki wrote...

If possible, no exp at all would be best. Exp's has has no game world meaning, because exp's only reason exist is control progress of character through story and gameplay. If player needs exp for some other reasons, they are playing these games for wrong reasons. Treating ME serie like arcade shooter or grind fest power leveling RPG is just sad.

Uhm...how about no?

If you want to play Halo nobody's stopping you...

[Lumikki]

Nizzemancer wrote...

Uhm...how about no?

If you want to play Halo nobody's stopping you...

I don't even have console and I don't like first person shooter games at all.
Odd suggestions.

[Jebel Krong]

xp at the end of missions promotes more immersive gameplay: you spend less time doing stuff just to get that, and can concentrate on enjoying playing the game (and if you're OCD, like me, you'll do all the exploration etc anyway). the "mission complete" screens were also negative and superflous though: should have been just a simple report you could see on the normandy's log, if you so choose, rather than a stupid "finished mission magically level up and teleport to base" thing.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 20 juillet 2011 - 10:13 .

[who would know]

CannotCompute wrote...

XP gains for successful hacks and kills stimulate me to explore more thoroughly. That's why I prefer point gathering the way ME1 handled it.

Yes, but there are problems with per-kill experience. Stealth, any tactic that skips enemies, would take a hit. These play styles should be just as valid as any.

[CannotCompute]

who would know wrote...

CannotCompute wrote...

XP gains for successful hacks and kills stimulate me to explore more thoroughly. That's why I prefer point gathering the way ME1 handled it.

Yes, but there are problems with per-kill experience. Stealth, any tactic that skips enemies, would take a hit. These play styles should be just as valid as any.

I doubt you will be able to stealth skip many encounters, mainly because of the short duration of the Cloak ability and the fact that you're (pretty much) always accompanied by 2 squadmates that will shoot at things. Also, a lot of times you have to kill enemies to be able to advance into another section of a level. Stealth kills (in ME2) are also pretty tempting to make, because of the damage multiplier.

So I personally don't think Infiltrators will be disadvantaged by implementing a XP per-kill/hack system.

Modifié par CannotCompute, 20 juillet 2011 - 11:18 .

[tomas2377]

I liked how you gained XP in ME1.

I want that XP system back. It also made me explore the maps more. I hope they raise the level cap back to 60 again.

ME1 was superior to ME2 in almost every way except for the improved combat mechanics. ME2 just can't get close to the awesomeness of ME1 imho.

[who would know]

Yeah, I guess this isn't MGS3.

But I do hope that ME3's design encourages more divergent styles of play.

Someone mentioned spawn blocking by charging into enemies pouring out of a doorway. Here, aggression would take the hit. You'd want to hold back and pick everybody off carefully instead of going all out.

[Kidd]

I prefer less game-y interruptions in the middle of my missions. Never actually got what was negative about the Mission Complete screens, to me it was just a nice ending (though game-y, yes) to let me wind down, go through the mission I had just completed in an out-of-character summary and go over whatever level ups I might've received.

It's very similar to how my groups tend to play D&D. XP is given out at the end of sessions or at the end of quests (depends on how fitting it feels atm), not after every battle. Keeps you focused on the game very in-character during the actual missions, only taking you out of the game when you've finished some kind of milestone.

[who would know]

Constant pop ups throughout a mission are definitely more distracting and immersion breaking than the mission summary screen. Not that there's much immersion to break in the first place. It's a game, and I don't easily forget that.

[Sidney]

tomas2377 wrote...

I liked how you gained XP in ME1.

I want that XP system back. It also made me explore the maps more. I hope they raise the level cap back to 60 again.

.

Seriously for all the numerous people who say this or variations of this go play grinding games. Please, that appears to be what you want because "XP makes me explore/kill enemies" is a sorry reason in a game to be doing things. The game already rewards exploration (money and tech) why you need XP on top of that is baffling.