136 réponses à ce sujet

[JaegerBane]

I like this idea. It seems to be much more about player choice and less about loading arbitrary obstacles on the player.

I can't honestly say how far I'll load up. I've always preferred 'intermediate' levels of weapons over these zen-monk-I-carry-nothing-but-a-pistol and rambo ideas. I think I'll take a look and see exactly how many extra guns I can carry without adversely impacting my cooldown... but this is *exactly* the kind of freedom I've been looking for, being left to make up my own mind rather than having the choice forced on me.

And seriously, wtf is all this about it being 'stupid'? Are any of these haters actually offering a better option, or is it just the munchkin brigade?

[Epsilon330]

As long as my trusty Revanant LMG is by my side, I won't need other weapons.
That said, I really can't see how a Soldier would benefit from less recharge time, except for Adrenaline Rush sprees. Perhaps that's why they'll be the "Gunslinger" class.

[Wulfram]

Spamming Adrenaline rush seems like enough reason. Or Marksman as a bonus power.

[Stardusk78]

Epsilon330 wrote...

As long as my trusty Revanant LMG is by my side, I won't need other weapons.
That said, I really can't see how a Soldier would benefit from less recharge time, except for Adrenaline Rush sprees. Perhaps that's why they'll be the "Gunslinger" class.

Revenant+Viper, really all you need as a Soldier...

[FeralEwok]

I support this option if I can make an Engineer of MacGyver proportions.

No pistols, no shotguns, no grenade launchers.

Paper clips, bubble gum, and string.

[Hathur]

FeralEwok wrote...

I support this option if I can make an Engineer of MacGyver proportions.

No pistols, no shotguns, no grenade launchers.

Paper clips, bubble gum, and string.

This is brilliant!  .... I'd make a man-shep that looked like Richard Dean Anderson <3 ... and save the universe with the power of math and a protractor!  

[harvestboygoobus]

CerberusSoldier wrote...

Its a load of crap we have to worry about stupid weapon weight in a video game but I am sure some on here like that stupid idea well it sucks. developers need to start making games the way they want to make it .

You know weapons actually do have weight, right? Not counting pistols, even the US Army's lightest rifles weigh 5-7 pounds. That doesn't seem like much, but carry it around for a few hours and your arms will get tired. Once you get into the heavier weapons--the machine guns, the snipers, the rocket launchers--the weight starts going up quite a bit. If I was walking around with a rifle in my hands, a pistol on my hip, a sniper slung over my back, a shotgun strapped to my chest, and a rocket launcher, I don't know, tied to my leg or something, I would be pretty weighed down. That's not even counting the forty or fifty pounds of ammo I would be having to carry to use all of those guns. There's a reason most soldiers usually carry just one, or, at most, two weapons at a time.

I'm not going to say the system is realistic, as, in reality, soldiers don't have special powers and abilities that need cooldowns, but I think it makes a lot of sense in the Mass Effect universe. But what do I know?

[Mr. MannlyMan]

This is probably one of my favourite additions too.

Can't wait to experiment with a light shotgun+sniper vanguard combo. Even if it means I won't get a cooldown bonus, I still want to see how a vanguard with both a long and short range solution fares. Should be pretty versatile, at least.

[Ender1221]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

This is probably one of my favourite additions too.

Can't wait to experiment with a light shotgun+sniper vanguard combo. Even if it means I won't get a cooldown bonus, I still want to see how a vanguard with both a long and short range solution fares. Should be pretty versatile, at least.

I run a shotty/sniper Vanguard in ME2 that is really awesome.  I'm just hoping one of the sniper rifles is light enough that I can still get at least some cooldown bonus.  Maybe the viper....

Modifié par Ender1221, 07 février 2012 - 10:41 .

[mjh417]

I assume you have to carry at least one weapon.

[DaJe]

CerberusSoldier wrote...

lightsnow13 wrote...

There are also evolutions in the passives tree that allow for MORE weight capacity. So you can still load up your weapons if you really feel the need to. Those evolutions also don't ONLY level up weight capacity. I think it also increased your influence and something else.

@cerberus how does this screw up gameplay? It allows for a variety of different ways to play. Or are you just mad you don't get all your weapons? In that case, level up your weight capacity. This is the kind of game that is better with more customization.

   


It screws up game play. so we are forced with weapon limits because a bunch of dress up loving freaks want that . weapon limits screws with player choice simple as that .  oh yeah playing dress up is all the rage why don't you get a bunch of barbie dolls and sit around play dress up .  this new weapon limit sh*t is a joke. oh yeah increase the weight limit so what less power useage in caster classes really while this game is loaded with dress up and garbage like that. oh me mad nah I am not mad . really yeah enjoy playing dress up my shepard like dress up little pony . if you think allows for that your crazy it restricts player choice when it comes to game play . take your dress up crap and shove it where the sun does not shine .

Go play your soldier and nothing will change. You can reduce the cooldowns if you want a more power heavy gameplay. And what weapon limit are you talking about? Now every weapon is available for everyone. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were much more limited!
The gameplay is not beeing damaged, it now has more options. You throw out the word restriction while this feature is the exact opposite. I repeat, nothing is being take away from you, but you are given more options and the weight system is there to make things balanced.
Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

[Ruud333]

tonnactus wrote...

Ruud333 wrote...


I'm not sure what the in game/lore reason is for this (or if there even is one), but it makes perfect sense in terms of gameplay and class balancing. 

Not even then.

Well we will have to disagree then because it makes perfect sense to me.

tonnactus wrote...

If there was no penalty to carrying all the weapons it would reduce the need/point of the Soldier class,

And i thought the point of soldier class is that they deal the most weapon damage and are the most durable combatants.
Not the amount of weapons they can care...(great packmules then,right?)

Wulfram wrote...

Ruud333 wrote...

I'm not sure what the in game/lore reason is for this (or if there even is one), but it makes perfect sense in terms of gameplay and class balancing. If there was no penalty to carrying all the weapons it would reduce the need/point of the Soldier class, and lead to the other classes being ridiculously over powered.

Not really. The actual gameplay benefit of having more than two weapons is pretty minor. More than three is almost pointless.

Are you guys serious?  You cannot see the benefit of being able to carry all weapons so you have close, medium and long* range covered?

As I said originally I think it would "reduce" the need for the Soldier class, not totally negate it.  I'm well aware there is more to the Soldier class than the ability to carry all weapons.

*EDIT: Not just the ranges that can be covered, but the effectiveness of each weapon against barriers, armour and shields (assuming of course that ME3 follows a similar system to ME2).

Modifié par Ruud333, 08 février 2012 - 01:21 .

[shumworld]

does carrying a "heavy weapon" count with the "cool down" modifier?

[Wulfram]

Ruud333 wrote...

Are you guys serious?  You cannot see the benefit of being able to carry all weapons so you have close, medium and long range covered?

You don't need all weapons to cover close, medium and long range.  Hell, most Assault Rifles can do that on their own.

[Ruud333]

Wulfram wrote...

Ruud333 wrote...

Are you guys serious?  You cannot see the benefit of being able to carry all weapons so you have close, medium and long range covered?

You don't need all weapons to cover close, medium and long range.  Hell, most Assault Rifles can do that on their own.

Hmmm...I don't disagree entirely.  An AR like the Avenger could cover all ranges quite well, but the Vindicator and Mattock were not so useful at close range due to their rate of fire.  And whilst the AR has bonuses against barriers, shields and armour, said bonuses are not as good as those (for example) of the sniper rifles vs amour.

I can see your point about the AR covering everything, but I think that if you have all the weapons you can actually excel at each range rather than just covering it.

[Nab20]

My soldier use a M-76 revenant for close-medium range and a sniper for long range. I never use my shotgun, heavy pistol and heavy weapon. So I'm glad we can choose to not carry them and gain recharge time bonus.

[Wulfram]

Ruud333 wrote...

Hmmm...I don't disagree entirely.  An AR like the Avenger could cover all ranges quite well, but the Vindicator and Mattock were not so useful at close range due to their rate of fire.  And whilst the AR has bonuses against barriers, shields and armour, said bonuses are not as good as those (for example) of the sniper rifles vs amour.

I can see your point about the AR covering everything, but I think that if you have all the weapons you can actually excel at each range rather than just covering it.

There's certainly a case for two weapons - like say Revenant(or SMG if you want to save weight)/Viper, or Shotgun/Vindicator

Three, I can see the theoretical case for.  In practice, I think there'll be more overlap than you need, particularly since you want to be shooting not switching weapons.

Modifié par Wulfram, 08 février 2012 - 01:55 .

[Ruud333]

Wulfram wrote...

There's certainly a case for two weapons - like say Revenant(or SMG if you want to save weight)/Viper, or Shotgun/Vindicator

Three, I can see the theoretical case for.  In practice, I think there'll be more overlap than you need, particularly since you want to be shooting not switching weapons.

That's a key point I guess; if you have time to plan and equip the appropriate weapon then a full arsenal is the way to go.  A lot of (probably most) the time you don't have that luxury*, so an AR will have you covered regardless of the situation.

*If an enemy is at long range then you should always have a chance to find cover and equip a sniper rilfe.  At short range...well you would have to be quick to switch to the shotgun

Modifié par Ruud333, 08 février 2012 - 02:03 .

[b09boy]

The system is good, in theory, but I think it's obvious that, from the numbers we've been shown, it's going to really screw with balance and push toward wanting less weapons, even as a Soldier. Over 100% bonus to cooldown timers which are only a few seconds long to begin with? That's far too much of an effect. Either a hard cap needs to be put in place or the scaling needs to retweaked so that it's legitimately difficult to reach that number even with very light weapons.

People already tend to like to depend on one weapon. Giving them a reason not to equip more is a step back among the many steps forward Bioware has made with weapons in this game.

[Firesteel]

Do we get some bonus other than just a cooldown, like extra ammo for your guns if you carry less? It would make sense, you can put the heatsinks you carry for the guns you would be carrying towards the fewer weapons you are carrying.

[b09boy]

Firesteel7 wrote...

Do we get some bonus other than just a cooldown, like extra ammo for your guns if you carry less? It would make sense, you can put the heatsinks you carry for the guns you would be carrying towards the fewer weapons you are carrying.

That would be utterly game-breaking.

[tonnactus]

Epic777 wrote...


True, but you had the extreme cases in ME1, at the start your elite soldier couldn't hot the broadside of a elephants backside, then by the end the same soldier could snipe insects a mile away.

I never had problems with the starter weapons. Crouch and burstfire,thats all that was needed. Like someone would use an assault rifle in "real life".
And even untrained it was possible to use the assault rifle this way.

The weight system is just dumb and not needed. There was a far better system in place in first game called armor slots. "Casters" put medical exoskleletons in the two slots that were available.

[tonnactus]

Ruud333 wrote...

Are you guys serious?  You cannot see the benefit of being able to carry all weapons so you have close, medium and long* range covered?

Were wasnt a long range in Mass Effect 2 and from what i saw from Mass Effect 3,there still isnt one.
People could even "snipe" with pistols and assault rifles as good as with snipers.

As I said originally I think it would "reduce" the need for the Soldier class, not totally negate it.

The biggest adavantages and reasons to play as a soldier is the damage output and durability. And access to all ammo "powers". Not the amount of weapons.I would bet most soldier player didnt used more then 2 weapons anyway.

*EDIT: Not just the ranges that can be covered, but the effectiveness of each weapon against barriers, armour and shields (assuming of course that ME3 follows a similar system to ME2).

Every class had weapons to cover all protection types.