351 réponses à ce sujet

[rt604]

Omega-202 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

111987 wrote...

Wait, what?

How exactly does ME1's combat allow a deeper immesion into lore and role-playing? It's the same as ME2's; you're just shooting/blasting a bunch of random mooks.

ME1 allows a wider variety of tactics.

ME1 allowed for a greater variety of contrived antics.  

Sure you could approach combat from absurd ways like camping a doorway and using a sniper rifle to plink away 3% of an enemy's health at a time until all enemies are cleared out of the warehouse because they're too stupid NOT to charge you.  Or you could spam all of your biotics then hide til they recharged and never fire your guns.

But in the end, those "options" were uninteresting.  And don't say that's a matter of choice.  They were.  Those are bad gameplay elements.  

What you're asking for is an acting simulator.  You want to choreograph combat as you see fit.  You're not interested in the challenge of combat or taking all of the tools given to you and trying to find a way to make them all fit in a time sensitive manner.  You're just looking for a fantasy fulfillment engine when it comes to the "combat".  

ME1 gave that to you.  You could turn the game down to Casual and play out the combat as if you were playing with action figures.  

ME2's combat was actually interesting on the other hand.  It made you think.  You didn't dictate the events.  You were given situations and you had to cope to overcome them.  That's what combat should be.

If you disagree with that, then go download some mods to fix it.  If not that, then don't buy the game.  

Don't agree, you as the player dictate the strategy of combat, the game shouldn't dictate it.  Bioware gave us powers and weapons so we can combine them in ways that allow the player to come up with whatever strategy the players see fit to overcome a situation.  They shouldn't create situations where there is only one strategy to overcome the challenge, then it becomes monotonous and boring, variety is the spice of life. That said, I'm fine with thermal clips.

Modifié par rt604, 18 septembre 2011 - 05:27 .

[rt604]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

rt604 wrote...

Sylvius I think by tactical options he meant for the same class you had more strategic options in ME1 as opposed to your example of having different strategic options based on your player type.

Obviously I think the latter is vastly more important.

This was meant for 111987.  What you meant is in ME1 there was more tactical options for each class of character, as opposed in ME2 where the tactical variety was based on your class.

[Kolgen1227]

ive got an idea, one metal block per game for those who want unlimited ammo, if they use all 1000-3000 shots they have no more ammo... period. from there on, they have to use abilities/powers and mele. that will have them asking for the TC in the second lv when they can no longer use their guns. LOL!!

[Sylvius the Mad]

rt604 wrote...

This was meant for 111987.

Then you phrased it quite badly.

What you meant is in ME1 there was more tactical options for each class of character, as opposed in ME2 where the tactical variety was based on your class.

You are correct.  ME1 allowed a wider variety of players to employ tactics they enjoy, while ME2 allowed a narrower pool of players to enjoy the application of tactics to a greater degree.

[rt604]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

rt604 wrote...

This was meant for 111987.

Then you phrased it quite badly.

What you meant is in ME1 there was more tactical options for each class of character, as opposed in ME2 where the tactical variety was based on your class.

You are correct.  ME1 allowed a wider variety of players to employ tactics they enjoy, while ME2 allowed a narrower pool of players to enjoy the application of tactics to a greater degree.

Yeah I did not phrase it correctly due to sleep deprivation. So I edited the original post.

Modifié par rt604, 18 septembre 2011 - 05:39 .

[Kolgen1227]

Gameplay difficulty is irrelevant in lore discussions.

wow, im mean really... WOW... do i ...i guess i do.... the topic of this thread is and i quote "NO MORE CLIPS, PLEASE!!!"... my word... its not a lore discussion.... its a gameplay discussion.... you are in the wrong thread....

she knew that right? she was just acting not smart right? right?? short bus come to kind?

**face palm**

[111987]

rt604 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

rt604 wrote...

Sylvius I think by tactical options he meant for the same class you had more strategic options in ME1 as opposed to your example of having different strategic options based on your player type.

Obviously I think the latter is vastly more important.

This was meant for 111987.  What you meant is in ME1 there was more tactical options for each class of character, as opposed in ME2 where the tactical variety was based on your class.

So what I'm understanding is that the major complaint of ME2 combat is that the levels weren't big enough for people to snipe from a kilometer away. That's the one thing about ME1 combat that is arguably better.

What does this have to do with thermal clips anyways?

in all honestly, i'd much rather have the wide variance of combat tactics unique to each class rather than having the option to snipe a few mooks in a few isolated incidents.

[rt604]

111987 wrote...

rt604 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

rt604 wrote...

Sylvius I think by tactical options he meant for the same class you had more strategic options in ME1 as opposed to your example of having different strategic options based on your player type.

Obviously I think the latter is vastly more important.

This was meant for 111987.  What you meant is in ME1 there was more tactical options for each class of character, as opposed in ME2 where the tactical variety was based on your class.

So what I'm understanding is that the major complaint of ME2 combat is that the levels weren't big enough for people to snipe from a kilometer away. That's the one thing about ME1 combat that is arguably better.

What does this have to do with thermal clips anyways?

in all honestly, i'd much rather have the wide variance of combat tactics unique to each class rather than having the option to snipe a few mooks in a few isolated incidents.

I'm not complaining, just trying to clarify Sylvius' point.  He wasn't referring to the combat level, he meant in ME1, as a soldier for instance, you could either snipe enemies you encountered or rush them, depending on the combination of equipment, squad and your abilities.  You had more tactical options viable in each class, as opposed to in ME2, where tactical viablity is based on the class your character was playing.  I for one am alright with ME2's combat mechanics, thermal clips included.

[Omega-202]

rt604 wrote...

I'm not complaining, just trying to clarify Sylvius' point.  He wasn't referring to the combat level, he meant in ME1, as a soldier for instance, you could either snipe enemies you encountered or rush them, depending on the combination of equipment, squad and your abilities.  You had more tactical options viable in each class, as opposed to in ME2, where tactical viablity is based on the class your character was playing.  I for one am alright with ME2's combat mechanics, thermal clips included.

That didn't disappear.  That same Soldier class in ME2 had those same options.  

Example: On Mordin's recruitment mission, there were split offs that took you to different paths depending on your preferred style.  Twice there were balconies you could access that gave you prime sniping position to pick off the Vorcha and Krogan (and in the one encounter, there were Blue Suns under the aforementioned balcony).  The balconies also came stocked with a nice stockpile of ammo so you had more than enough for the entire encounter.  Or, in these same encounters, you could storm right in AR and shotgun blazing on the ground level.  

There's also Garrus's famous balcony.  You could charge the bridge, defend from the ground level or stay up with Garrus in the lookout spot.  

Were those enemies a mile away and outside of retaliation distance like you described on the Uncharted Worlds of ME1?  No.  But that's by design.  Having an enemy that is incapable of retaliation is POOR GAME DESIGN.  Why don't we arm some enemies with nerf guns too?  We can stick some babies with candy in the game so you can steal it from them as well.  

I'm honestly baffled by what you're asking for.  You're not even making sense.  

[rt604]

Omega-202 wrote...

rt604 wrote...

I'm not complaining, just trying to clarify Sylvius' point.  He wasn't referring to the combat level, he meant in ME1, as a soldier for instance, you could either snipe enemies you encountered or rush them, depending on the combination of equipment, squad and your abilities.  You had more tactical options viable in each class, as opposed to in ME2, where tactical viablity is based on the class your character was playing.  I for one am alright with ME2's combat mechanics, thermal clips included.

That didn't disappear.  That same Soldier class in ME2 had those same options.  

Example: On Mordin's recruitment mission, there were split offs that took you to different paths depending on your preferred style.  Twice there were balconies you could access that gave you prime sniping position to pick off the Vorcha and Krogan (and in the one encounter, there were Blue Suns under the aforementioned balcony).  The balconies also came stocked with a nice stockpile of ammo so you had more than enough for the entire encounter.  Or, in these same encounters, you could storm right in AR and shotgun blazing on the ground level.  

There's also Garrus's famous balcony.  You could charge the bridge, defend from the ground level or stay up with Garrus in the lookout spot.  

Were those enemies a mile away and outside of retaliation distance like you described on the Uncharted Worlds of ME1?  No.  But that's by design.  Having an enemy that is incapable of retaliation is POOR GAME DESIGN.  Why don't we arm some enemies with nerf guns too?  We can stick some babies with candy in the game so you can steal it from them as well.  

I'm honestly baffled by what you're asking for.  You're not even making sense.  

Let me reiterate again, I'm not agreeing with Sylvius, just clarifying his point, so get your facts straight.  ME2, you could rush or lay back, but you have to be more tactical about rushing opposition in ME2, because on insanity they'll strip your shields and health so fast you'll be dead before you can say uncle.

Modifié par rt604, 18 septembre 2011 - 07:03 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

111987 wrote...

in all honestly, i'd much rather have the wide variance of combat tactics unique to each class rather than having the option to snipe a few mooks in a few isolated incidents.

I hate having combat roles determined by class.

I'd rather playstyle preferences determine combat roles, and class deterimine the implementation of that role.

That way, someone who likes steath-based gameplay, for example, can choose any class, but how stealth-based gameplay works will differ from class to class.  But the design you prefer forces players who prefer stealth to play Infiltrators.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 septembre 2011 - 07:35 .

[111987]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

111987 wrote...

in all honestly, i'd much rather have the wide variance of combat tactics unique to each class rather than having the option to snipe a few mooks in a few isolated incidents.

I hate having combat roles determined by class.

I'd rather playstyle preferences determine combat roles, and class deterimine the implementation of that role.

That way, someone who likes steath-based gameplay, for example, can choose any class, but how stealth-based gameplay works will differ from class to class.  But the design you prefer forces players who prefer stealth to play Infiltrators.

Play style prefence determines what class you choose. If you want to snipe, be an Infiltrator. You can still choose to play like a Soldier as an Infiltrator, but you can also snipe and use stealth.

[The Spamming Troll]

111987 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

111987 wrote...

in all honestly, i'd much rather have the wide variance of combat tactics unique to each class rather than having the option to snipe a few mooks in a few isolated incidents.

I hate having combat roles determined by class.

I'd rather playstyle preferences determine combat roles, and class deterimine the implementation of that role.

That way, someone who likes steath-based gameplay, for example, can choose any class, but how stealth-based gameplay works will differ from class to class.  But the design you prefer forces players who prefer stealth to play Infiltrators.

Play style prefence determines what class you choose. If you want to snipe, be an Infiltrator. You can still choose to play like a Soldier as an Infiltrator, but you can also snipe and use stealth.

thane is a biotic who happens to be the best sniper in the galaxy. what class is he? if i like snipeing and being stealthy, my only option shouldnt be infiltrator or bust.

id rather the class i picked wasnt defined by one ability. personally i think classes are pointless in ME3 by now. id gaurantee more casual players would play the game if they didnt have to pick one class at the begining of the game, and instead played a soldier and just picked what abilities theyd like to use.

[Someone With Mass]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

111987 wrote...

in all honestly, i'd much rather have the wide variance of combat tactics unique to each class rather than having the option to snipe a few mooks in a few isolated incidents.

I hate having combat roles determined by class.

I'd rather playstyle preferences determine combat roles, and class deterimine the implementation of that role.

That way, someone who likes steath-based gameplay, for example, can choose any class, but how stealth-based gameplay works will differ from class to class.  But the design you prefer forces players who prefer stealth to play Infiltrators.

Eh, Vanguard is anything but stealthy with its abilities. Same with the Sentinel.

If you want stealth, play as Infiltrator. Hence the name. You can be stealthy in ME3 if you so choose , but you'll have an easier time being so with Infiltrator.

It's like playing as a class that specializes in the use of shotguns and demand it to be just as efficient with sniper rifles.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:13 .

[111987]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

111987 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

111987 wrote...

in all honestly, i'd much rather have the wide variance of combat tactics unique to each class rather than having the option to snipe a few mooks in a few isolated incidents.

I hate having combat roles determined by class.

I'd rather playstyle preferences determine combat roles, and class deterimine the implementation of that role.

That way, someone who likes steath-based gameplay, for example, can choose any class, but how stealth-based gameplay works will differ from class to class.  But the design you prefer forces players who prefer stealth to play Infiltrators.

Play style prefence determines what class you choose. If you want to snipe, be an Infiltrator. You can still choose to play like a Soldier as an Infiltrator, but you can also snipe and use stealth.

thane is a biotic who happens to be the best sniper in the galaxy. what class is he? if i like snipeing and being stealthy, my only option shouldnt be infiltrator or bust.

id rather the class i picked wasnt defined by one ability. personally i think classes are pointless in ME3 by now. id gaurantee more casual players would play the game if they didnt have to pick one class at the begining of the game, and instead played a soldier and just picked what abilities theyd like to use.

Squad-mates don't really fall into specific classes, as your example with Thane shows.

If you want to snipe as an Adept, you can as asson as you do the Collector Ship mission.

[Sylvius the Mad]

111987 wrote...

Play style prefence determines what class you choose.

Roleplaying should determine what class I choose.

You're basically saying that I can roleplay or I can have my preferred playstyle, but I can't have both.  That makes for a pretty poor RPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

personally i think classes are pointless in ME3 by now. id gaurantee more casual players would play the game if they didnt have to pick one class at the begining of the game, and instead played a soldier and just picked what abilities theyd like to use.

I would wholeheartedly support that.  I've always preferred skill-based RPGs to class-based RPGs.

[The Interloper]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I hate having combat roles determined by class.

I'd rather playstyle preferences determine combat roles, and class deterimine the implementation of that role.

That way, someone who likes steath-based gameplay, for example, can choose any class, but how stealth-based gameplay works will differ from class to class.  But the design you prefer forces players who prefer stealth to play Infiltrators.

Erm, isn't it the point of classes to determine combat roles? And aren't classes a foundation of RPing?

So you basically want six stealth classes, six CQC classes, six spellcaster classes, etc. Look, not saying that wouldn't be nice (though you could argue that if all classes can be stealth then none are unique), but you have to be reasonable. Personally I think having six unique skill sets that run the traditional gamut is enough. To be fair those individual playstyles have strictly limited room for customization within them, but IMO having a customizable class doesn't count for much when there isn't much difference between the class playstyles in the first place, as it was in ME1. ME2's unique abilities alone had a far more greater effect on my playstyle then ME1's mass of common pool abilities.

Could ME2's skill system have allowed for more customization? Of course. But it was still all in all of more import then ME1's messy system, excessive streamlining or no, and as I said, you can already play as a stealth class. Is being able to play as a stealth class six+ ways really necessary for good gameplay? I can see why you'd want it, but that's a different issue.

Besides ME3 looks branching out a bit more. We'll see how it goes.

[111987]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

111987 wrote...

Play style prefence determines what class you choose.

Roleplaying should determine what class I choose.

You're basically saying that I can roleplay or I can have my preferred playstyle, but I can't have both.  That makes for a pretty poor RPG.

I don't understand what you're saying here. You said you wanted to snipe and be stealthy. I said be an Infiltrator. You don't want to be an Infiltrator? Okay, then be an Adept with a sniper rifle.

[LeVaughnX]

Sutle_Misou wrote...

i'm sure you've been getting a lot of these, but....
i hate, as i'm sure most people do,  limited ammo clips. it makes it a lot harder playing Insanity Level when you run out, and there NO spare clips laying around. can we get the over-heating/cooldown feature, and use augments to fix the weapon ourselfs, like in the first game?

Go back to Halo of Duty you little sh*t. I'd rather have a tactical combat style with reloadable guns / limited Mag's (like in real life) rather than have various guns but only use one that I can spam to death.

ME1 - You had tons of guns but all you needed is the Spectre X AR and you never need another gun again. In theory you could just hold the trigger down and not aim at all and still win. The combat was terrible; the layout was great but the combat was aweful.

ME2 - More tactical combat, you had to use your weapons wisely and conserve ammo. Very good! But the ally A.I. was sh*t.

[Fixers0]

Bluko wrote...

That's a tad disheartening. If there was one change I was hoping to see with TCs it'd be that they would share the same supply.

I'm pretty sure the reason each weapon has it's own pool is for "balance" reasons. All things considered I think it probably would have been easier to balance weapons if the munition supply for each was fixed. Then you really only need concern yourself with DPS/Potential DPS and munition usage. Some would say swapping weapons could make that problematic...

Well yes if you continue to use the herp derp individual bullet count. (I'm rather annoyed BF3 is doing this now as I get to look forward to CoD-esque Reloading in that as well...)

If there's one thing I must insist (or beg it seems these days) it's that you make clips function by clip and not individual bullet count. So something like this:


*I added 33 Clips as I was intending to make this image a case for a universal thermal clip supply. Obviously if you have individual pools this would be too much.

In essence whenever you reload you lose all the remainder of shots with the loaded clip as there is no way individual shots can or should be preserved from Thermal Clips as they ejected are onto the ground afterwards. It's really quite silly you allow this.

Also I would argue that by implementing such you would make the game a much deeper and or challenging experience. (But I suppose that would make it too hard then right?) You would actually have to think when you reload your gun. Right now in ME2 you're basically free to reload your weapon whenever you're not actively firing and given that most of combat is spent behind cover it makes the process of reloading almost completely trivial. If you guys were serious about adding "tension" you would make reloading work via clip, not by shot count. In this sense you do actually have to think about preserving ammunition. With ME2 you either have more then enough ammuntion or you don't. And otherwise the only thing this does is give you an incentive to not miss, which is kind of no-brainer cause if you do enemies will eventually kill you. (And this was just as true in ME1as enemies were very aggressive... you certainly couldn't afford to shoot bullet patterns into the walls.)

In conventional modern shooters it's forgiveable that there's individual bullet count as realistically you can add more bullets to a magazine or clip. It's enough of a minor detail that it can generally be overlooked. Though frankly I consider it very primitive as Castle Wolfenstein and the old FPS games operated the same way. The only innovation most current shooters have is that rather then ammo pool of 900 something bullets you now press a button to refill a smaller pool of 30 out of 900.

But this sort of thing has no place in Mass Effect. At least not with the way you guys chose to add ammuntion. I believe I remember a few Devs stating that TCs were implemented to make players swap weapons more then anything else. And how did ME1's overheating not accomplish this? Again the issues with ME1 in this regard could (and should IMO) have been rectified in ME2.


Also if you are keeping the individual ammo pools could players at least be given some option to which weapons get resupplied first? Why in the heck would Shepard restock his/her TC supply for a Sniper Rifle when Husks are literally swarming you and you need as many clips as possible for the Shotgun? Perhaps this could be resolved by having TCs only resupplying the equipped weapon? (Of course then everyone really hate picking up Thermal Clips.)

See this is the hole you dig yourself into by adding "ammo". Nevermind the fact that allies and enemies still have unlimited ammunition themselves. Which is basically another excuse for poor A.I. At least the playing field in ME1 was even. I don't much care for the A.I. having the ability to "cheat".

Just reposting this for the high amount of win.

[Someone With Mass]

I have never seen the point in making something like basic combat so overly complex.

"BUT THE LORE11!1!one??"

Needs to be reshaped for the sake of gameplay. You think it's just about the ammo? Everything in the combat are formed in another way than what the lore says.

Not just in ME2. For example: Personal shields aren't made to absorb hundreds and hundreds of bullets. They're there to give the wearer time to get to cover. Also, if the lore must be followed to such an extent, the player should literally be shredded the second the shields are down, and not just be able to shrug off some shotgun blasts or rifles shots.

Would that be fun without a proper movement system? To some, maybe. To the majority? I don't think so.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Fixers0 wrote...
Just reposting this for the high amount of win.

Not really, what Bluko posted has been around since people first invented guns for video games. The majority of games out there do not use realistic ammo clips, and the ones that do are mostly combat sims, and those are not fun. They are jerky, uninspired campfests where your enemy is so far away they're only a few pixels big, wasting the whole point of character design.

Conversely, if you want to talk about the "hole" BW digs, the overheat system begs the question: "Why don't gun manufacturers make guns with variable firing rates so you can set it at a lower RoF and never overheat?"

Both ammo ciips and overheating were there for gameplay purposes, not to satisfy nerd obessions. They changed it to ammo clips for a lot of reasons, mostly because overheating is a distraction.

If you think BW just 'slapped on a generic shooter' mechanic, consider: 1) shooting off a clip of your smg/pistol + reload roughly equals to a cooldown time of most of your powers 2) Activate cloak, CQC a goon and take over his cover, reload and switch to sniper rifle is exactly the same time your next power will be available. 3) use drone/singularity + 1 clip of your SMG = CC enemies 4) use pull/throw + guns to stop your target from attacking and strip defenses at the same time 5) Charge + shotgun + melee + shotgun, repeat. There are lots more power + gun combinations that I'm not going to get into just because some of you lazy/bad gamers are complaining about ammo clips. But the fact is, you can't pull off complext moves with the overheat system. Shooting length in ME2 is constant, just like power cooldowns are constant, and they deliberately designed them so both powers and guns can be used togther in a variety of ways. An overheating gun f*cks that up.

TLDR; just learn how to play games. You might even enjoy it.

Overheating just plain sucks. It screws up your rhythm, it prevents you from executing complex moves, and it prevents you from improving your game.

Realistic ammo clips will screw up your rhythm as well as you're forced into a choice of shooting off unwanted bullets that nets you poor results, and to compensate for prematurely ejecting clips, ammo wlll have to abundant so you won't worry about it as much, which defeats the purpose of limited ammo, which is to balance weapon choices.

[spacehamsterZH]

I like how introducing thermal clips constitutes "forcing a generic shooter mechanic into the game", but infinite ammo with overheat/cooldown, which is how basically 90% of turrets and heavy machine guns with infinite ammo in shooters work, that was, y'know, totally awesome RPG gameplay for people with brains. LOL-tastic.

I don't deny this was obviously a change made to make ME2's combat more familiar to shooter fans, and the fact that a lore-breaking change would be made for this reason is frustrating, but can we please stop acting like this is somehow a game-breaking change to the combat? It's almost entirely inconsequential.

[Epic777]

Thermal clips constitutes"Forcing a generic shooter mechanic into the game" is a farce. Ammo is the norm for shooters and RPGs. BG I+II, Arcanum, Icewind dale I +II, Deus Ex + IW + HR, System Shock I + II, Elder scrolls. <- They all have "ammo".

Its ME1 that was the odd one out.