348 réponses à ce sujet

[Candidate 88766]

Femlob wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The PLC wrote...

Alright, so if I keep away from MP, my GAW score gets cut in half at the end of the game. How much GAW score is required for the best ending then, and how much is available? Any word on that?

Not entirely sure if I'm allowed to post this, but from the spoiler group you need 5000 for the best ending, or 4000 if you do something beforehand. Don't know what that something is, but it seems to help a lot. 

If you only do SP, you'll need 8000 or 10,000 for the best ending. Chances are that 10,000 points will be impossible to achieve, so if you make the wrong choices and don't do whatever that something is then you probably won't see the best ending. I don't know for sure though. Maybe there are 10,000 points in the SP campaign.

That would, at the very least, imply that it's impossible to achieve the "best" ending in SP alone without metagaming.

If nothing else, it's a good way to sell more strategy guides.

You don't have to metagame ot make sensible choices. You know you're going to need as many allies as possible and, unlike the previous games, Shepard also knows this. In the previous ones, Shepard doesn't know whether he'll need the help of multiple species, but in ME3 he does. Knowing exactly how many points are needed is kind of metagaming, but bear in mind that I could be wrong, or Bioware could've changed it. Both the player and Shepard know that they're going to need as many War Assets as possible, so its not really metagaming.

[Femlob]

The PLC wrote...

<snip>

Meta gaming?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming

"In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions."

Candidate 88766 wrote...
You don't have to metagame ot make sensible choices. You know you're
going to need as many allies as possible and, unlike the previous games,
Shepard also knows this. In the previous ones, Shepard doesn't know
whether he'll need the help of multiple species, but in ME3 he does.
Knowing exactly how many points are needed is kind of metagaming, but
bear in mind that I could be wrong, or Bioware could've changed it. Both
the player and Shepard know that they're going to need as many War
Assets as possible, so its not really metagaming.

It's not so much about sensible choices as it is about making sure you max out your potential GAW gains by playing missions in a certain way and order and/or prioritizing some of them; if that's not metagaming, I don't know what is.

Modifié par Femlob, 19 février 2012 - 10:56 .

[JeffZero]

EDIT: Nevermind

Modifié par JeffZero, 19 février 2012 - 10:58 .

[Candidate 88766]

Femlob wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
You don't have to metagame ot make sensible choices. You know you're
going to need as many allies as possible and, unlike the previous games,
Shepard also knows this. In the previous ones, Shepard doesn't know
whether he'll need the help of multiple species, but in ME3 he does.
Knowing exactly how many points are needed is kind of metagaming, but
bear in mind that I could be wrong, or Bioware could've changed it. Both
the player and Shepard know that they're going to need as many War
Assets as possible, so its not really metagaming.

It's not so much about sensible choices as it is about making sure you max out your potential GAW gains by playing missions in a certain way and order and/or prioritizing some of them; if that's not metagaming, I don't know what is.

Surely Shepard would also be trying to maximise GAW assets? Its not out of game information if its also the goal of the player's character. Shepard would be trying to complete missions to ensure the maximum number of assets.

[Femlob]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Femlob wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
You don't have to metagame ot make sensible choices. You know you're
going to need as many allies as possible and, unlike the previous games,
Shepard also knows this. In the previous ones, Shepard doesn't know
whether he'll need the help of multiple species, but in ME3 he does.
Knowing exactly how many points are needed is kind of metagaming, but
bear in mind that I could be wrong, or Bioware could've changed it. Both
the player and Shepard know that they're going to need as many War
Assets as possible, so its not really metagaming.

It's not so much about sensible choices as it is about making sure you max out your potential GAW gains by playing missions in a certain way and order and/or prioritizing some of them; if that's not metagaming, I don't know what is.

Surely Shepard would also be trying to maximise GAW assets? Its not out of game information if its also the goal of the player's character. Shepard would be trying to complete missions to ensure the maximum number of assets.

I don't argue that he would - just that he wouldn't know the perfect order in which to accomplish things. And that, I suspect, will be necessary for the "best" ending in ME3 using only SP.

[Estel78]

Femlob wrote...

It's not so much about sensible choices as it is about making sure you max out your potential GAW gains by playing missions in a certain way and order and/or prioritizing some of them; if that's not metagaming, I don't know what is.

How's that different than in any other RPG? You have to play in a certain way to get the ending you desire. There are always numbers and "flags" (or states) in the background.

[MouseNo4]

Another nail in multiplayer's coffin for me.

[Candidate 88766]

Femlob wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Femlob wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
You don't have to metagame ot make sensible choices. You know you're
going to need as many allies as possible and, unlike the previous games,
Shepard also knows this. In the previous ones, Shepard doesn't know
whether he'll need the help of multiple species, but in ME3 he does.
Knowing exactly how many points are needed is kind of metagaming, but
bear in mind that I could be wrong, or Bioware could've changed it. Both
the player and Shepard know that they're going to need as many War
Assets as possible, so its not really metagaming.

It's not so much about sensible choices as it is about making sure you max out your potential GAW gains by playing missions in a certain way and order and/or prioritizing some of them; if that's not metagaming, I don't know what is.

Surely Shepard would also be trying to maximise GAW assets? Its not out of game information if its also the goal of the player's character. Shepard would be trying to complete missions to ensure the maximum number of assets.

I don't argue that he would - just that he wouldn't know the perfect order in which to accomplish things. And that, I suspect, will be necessary for the "best" ending in ME3 using only SP.

Ah, I see what you're getting it.

[TK EL_]

MouseNo4 wrote...

Another nail in multiplayer's coffin for me.

How? In what sense? Where are the first nails? I am aware you used the disclaimer 'for me' inciting the indestructible shield of 'My Opinion'. I just want to know your reasons

[JSLfromBx]

Well it seem our only hope lie with DLC, I am 99% sure that the DLC will introduce new war asset for us to collect making it easier to reach the 5000 point magical cap.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Sounds like a terrible, terrible system. There is nothing worse than a game on a time limit.

[JeffZero]

JSLfromBx wrote...

Well it seem our only hope lie with DLC, I am 99% sure that the DLC will introduce new war asset for us to collect making it easier to reach the 5000 point magical cap.

Yeah, I'd go with a 99% certainty tag as well. Seems highly, highly likely.

[Maeshone]

Ok, so as to try and make this as clear as possible in the way I've understood it:

There are two different factors that contribute to this score

One is Galaxy at War. This starts at zero points. 4000 and all the correct choices are needed to get the perfect ending, 5000 points will (apparently) start negating bad choices. Current speculation is that there is somewhere between 8000 and 10000 points to get by doing a perfect singleplayer run. THIS SCORE DOES NOT DECREASE WITH TIME!

The second score is Galactic Readiness. This starts at 50% and is then increased by doing optional side things like the iOS-games and multiplayer. Your Galaxy at War score is then multiplied by your Galactic Readiness percentage, which means that if you don't do any optional things your Galaxy at War score is effectively halved (necessecating the 8000/10000 points availible through singleplayer) THIS SCORE WILL DECREASE WITH ONE PERCENT (down to a minimum of 50%) EVERY REAL TIME DAY YOU DO NOT PLAY MULTIPLAYER/iOS-things

This is what I read it as, and as clear as I can put it. I hope this helped

Modifié par Maeshone, 19 février 2012 - 11:58 .

[LinksOcarina]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Sounds like a terrible, terrible system. There is nothing worse than a game on a time limit.

So Mass Effect 2 was bad?

[Gibb_Shepard]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Sounds like a terrible, terrible system. There is nothing worse than a game on a time limit.

So Mass Effect 2 was bad?

If you are talking about the Reaper IFF, that is measured in how many missions you complete, not based on the time it takes you to get there.

[JeffZero]

Maeshone wrote...

Ok, so as to try and make this as clear as possible in the way I've understood it:

There are two different factors that contribute to this score

One is Galaxy at War. This starts at zero points. 4000 and all the correct choices are needed to get the perfect ending, 5000 points will (apparently) start negating bad choices. Current speculation is that there is somewhere between 8000 and 10000 points to get by doing a perfect singleplayer run. THIS SCORE DOES NOT DECREASE WITH TIME!

The second score is Galactic Readiness. This starts at 50% and is then increased by doing optional side things like the iOS-games and multiplayer. Your Galaxy at War score is then multiplied by your Galactic Readiness percentage, which means that if you don't do any optional things your Galaxy at War score is effectively halved (necessecating the 8000/10000 points availible through singleplayer) THIS SCORE WILL DECREASE WITH ONE PERCENT (down to a minimum of 50%) EVERY REAL TIME DAY YOU DO NOT PLAY MULTIPLAYER/iOS-things

This is what I read it as, and as clear as I can put it. I hope this helped

Well, I still don't like the concept of it much at all, but I guess it's... nice to know folks like me who don't want perfect endings won't have to go as far out of our way to avoid them this time, like with ME2. Still, that's not exactly a fair tradeoff.

[LinksOcarina]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Sounds like a terrible, terrible system. There is nothing worse than a game on a time limit.

So Mass Effect 2 was bad?

If you are talking about the Reaper IFF, that is measured in how many missions you complete, not based on the time it takes you to get there.

Which is a measured system, just like this time system is a measured system, if its true.

Honestly though, this doesn't bother me that much, but it just seems to be more fodder for haters to hate.

[ReallyRue]

Interesting, though I still don't like the idea of GR decaying when if I don't play on MP. Once the game actually comes out, I will want to play on MP, but I don't want to be playing on it all the time when I'd rather be on SP.

[TK EL_]

I think its as apt a solution as can be presented to the issue that would arise from people who will play the MP a lot like myself having a galactic readiness of 100% permanently. Trying to demarcate the galactic readiness for different save files has already been stated as being too complicated to implement by the devs, so I think this is suitable middle ground

[JeffZero]

TK EL wrote...

I think its as apt a solution as can be presented to the issue that would arise from people who will play the MP a lot like myself having a galactic readiness of 100% permanently. Trying to demarcate the galactic readiness for different save files has already been stated as being too complicated to implement by the devs, so I think this is suitable middle ground

You know what? That's a fantastic point.

[Gibb_Shepard]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Sounds like a terrible, terrible system. There is nothing worse than a game on a time limit.

So Mass Effect 2 was bad?

If you are talking about the Reaper IFF, that is measured in how many missions you complete, not based on the time it takes you to get there.

Which is a measured system, just like this time system is a measured system, if its true.

Honestly though, this doesn't bother me that much, but it just seems to be more fodder for haters to hate.

So? Time measurement is completely different. Time mesaurement that affects your game WHILE your not playing it is not even in the same league as what hapenned in ME2.

The system honestly seems too stupid to be real. 

[Sith Reaper]

Double post.

Modifié par Sith Reaper, 20 février 2012 - 12:12 .

[Sith Reaper]

TK EL wrote...

I think its as apt a solution as can be presented to the issue that would arise from people who will play the MP a lot like myself having a galactic readiness of 100% permanently. Trying to demarcate the galactic readiness for different save files has already been stated as being too complicated to implement by the devs, so I think this is suitable middle ground

Right. I believe the percentage decay is to ensure that people don't stop playing multiplayer at 100%, as then a significant smaller population would continue with multiplayer. In this way, there is always reason to play it.

Modifié par Sith Reaper, 20 février 2012 - 12:12 .