257 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

Revrant wrote...

I love all these Bio-Drones not reading the topic, just "Nope" and sometimes a huge wall of rude text, he leaves the door open for other selections aside from our Reaper War forces, Merc groups come to mind, heck, we could even play as the bad guys against each other, there are a myriad of non-cooperative options that would be fun.

Stop equating adding content to something being "wrong" with the game, bring down your knee jerk defensiveness, I would applaud such an addition.

The problem is that nothing they can do would be very balanced and would just result in cries for even more nerfs, as well as cries whenever you buffed a class(from the players of other classes).

In all these threads about PvP, nobody has ever come up with a solution that would result in balanced PvP gameplay that would not sacrifice the spirit of the classes or of Mass Effect itself.

[scheherazade]

PVP would be fine L4D style - in which case I do support PVP 100%.

One team controlling the mobs, the other team is the usual characters.

Two rounds per map, each team getting a chance to control the mobs while the other team tries to go 11 rounds.

Then the winner is the team that makes it through more waves than the other (or does so faster).

No need for balance between mobs and normal characters. Each team gets its own shot to run 11 rounds.



If they just made PVP a typical arena style FFA slug fest, then I think this gameplay would be a bad fit.
But I'm not against having it as an option. I just don't think I'd play it much.


-scheherazade

Modifié par scheherazade, 17 avril 2012 - 08:49 .

[InstaShark]

Revrant wrote...

InstaShark wrote...

Revrant wrote...

I love all these Bio-Drones not reading the topic, just "Nope" and sometimes a huge wall of rude text, he leaves the door open for other selections aside from our Reaper War forces, Merc groups come to mind, heck, we could even play as the bad guys against each other, there are a myriad of non-cooperative options that would be fun.

Stop equating adding content to something being "wrong" with the game, bring down your knee jerk defensiveness, I would applaud such an addition.

Bioware has stated that they wouldn't do PvP in ME3.

So no.

Dial back your insufferable meter for a moment, they said it wouldn't be in the spirit of the game to have the races fighting against each other, they never said they wouldn't do PvP in any sense.

So no, wrong, again.

That's still in the technicality of "No PvP".








So no.

[GroverA125]

Might want to put some ice on your skin, blood boiling is not healthy.

No, it would be the worst, most idiotic, half-witted pawn move ever made.

You ever played Gears of War? (AKA the weapon camp/shotgun-fest game?) You're suggesting adding that to this game, and then giving people the ability to go invisible, absorb 40% damage, teleport across the map into you, pick you up and throw you across the map, freeze you, stasis you, or drain your shields to fill theirs. You sure that's a good idea? because I do believe that anyone with even a shred of sanity in their heads would understand that this would be the equivalent of giving Call of Duty a nuke gun that kills everyone and ends the game the moment you fire it. In other words, one of the worst ideas ever created, that only someone who has no idea what "balance" is would ever think is a good idea.

Don't even bother saying "they can balance it". They can't. Some things just aren't balancable, tac cloaks, stasis, vanguard charge, shield drain, krogans, cryo and every biotic ability there is are not in any way balancable. That's it, the end of the discussion, it would utterly destroy the multiplayer.

*End of Contribution*

[MonkeyLungs]

No thanks. Rebalancing the powers to work in PvP would make them less fun. I will play something else if they add PvP and change the way co-op works to accomodate PvP.

[Revrant]

XxI EpiK IxX wrote...

Lol. Damn OP that's the majority all right. 4 pages of no with one or two yes' sprinkled on top

Drones parroting what they think BioWare said will do that, I hope they ignore the parroting and read player suggestions over the chorus of "but that isn't true now so it could NEVER be true!"

[Revrant]

InstaShark wrote...

Revrant wrote...

InstaShark wrote...

Revrant wrote...

I love all these Bio-Drones not reading the topic, just "Nope" and sometimes a huge wall of rude text, he leaves the door open for other selections aside from our Reaper War forces, Merc groups come to mind, heck, we could even play as the bad guys against each other, there are a myriad of non-cooperative options that would be fun.

Stop equating adding content to something being "wrong" with the game, bring down your knee jerk defensiveness, I would applaud such an addition.

Bioware has stated that they wouldn't do PvP in ME3.

So no.

Dial back your insufferable meter for a moment, they said it wouldn't be in the spirit of the game to have the races fighting against each other, they never said they wouldn't do PvP in any sense.

So no, wrong, again.

That's still in the technicality of "No PvP".








So no.

That's not at all technically "No PvP" that's no standard races PvP.










So no.

[DedValve]

Remove half of the powers and nerf the other half to be near pointless then we'll talk.

[MissMinaethiel]

Erosuntzu wrote...

This game needs PvP,

Lol, no. PvP is not a need for this. Me3 was not made to account for the balance needed in PvP.

Lots of people want PvP. The gameplay just needs some touches. Those who do not want to PvP are the minority only bad players cry so much to not bring pvp.

Ok, show me a BSN group based on PvP with over 5k people and I'll consider this lots. Otherwise those who want PvP are a vocal minority. As for the second bolded part, you are so wrong it's comical. Majority doesn't want PvP. It's obvious in every single thread like this that pops up. As for "bad players" you obviously come from CoD or somewhere else because, last time I checked, PvE is not representitive of the skill of a person.

The machine always does the same thing is boring. I need you need we need PvP those who say no, they are indoctrinated.

So go play CoD, or BF3, or Reach, or some other PvP game on your platform that isn't boring to you instead of trying to make this game fit your needs. I don't need PvP, ME3 doesn't need PvP, most everybody doesn't need PvP.

Eclipse vs. Blue Sun vs. Blood pack vs Alliance vs Reaper vs BIOTIC VOLUS GOD they fight each other and have all races weee neeed PvP

So do you have a balanced, structured, and entertaining PvP scenario set up? How about the character models? Do you have those set up too? Seriously, PvP is a lot more work than you think. It just won't work with ME3

[Erosuntzu]

I said to reduce the damage a large percentage. People keep saying Infiltrator or Krogan can kill you quickly. People say the maps are very small. Why should we play the same maps in pvp? it solves making larger maps. A VERY IMPORTANT THING YOU WILL NOT BE ALONE people talk about what OP can be one class against another. each class has its advantages and disadvantages against other but some are more useful than others. Play Krogan in gold and tell me what OP is.

Modifié par Erosuntzu, 17 avril 2012 - 09:05 .

[InstaShark]

Revrant wrote...

That's not at all technically "No PvP" that's no standard races PvP.










So no.

That totally goes against the whole point of ME3, then. The devs barely bother listening to balancing suggestions, let alone PvP suggestions.




So no.

[Utopianus]

If we can somehow make the pvp combat similar to that of Guild Wars, then maybe yes. However, unlike Guild Wars, you cannot change your skills, only tweak variations of it. so there's not enough flexibility. So no, I don't think it'll work.

[Baraan]

Phatose wrote...

Traditional Symmetric PvP would be awful indeed.

But there are ways it could work. Two separate battlefields, each with say, 8 objectives to control. The number of objectives you control determines how many mobs spawn on your opponents battlefield. Perhaps with optional side objectives to boost your mobs - complete this hack objective and your opponents will be facing foes with double shields, ect.

And there's always the potential for a Left 4 Dead style asymmetry, where the monster players are fragile, but respawn. There's even ground in the lore for that kind of thing - "Assuming Direct Control"

Actually, a 1v4 "Harbinger Mode" could be pretty interesting.

No it wouldn´t. All boss mobs are too powerful, the only thing holding them back is the poor AI thats basically "run straight towards your target and shoot now and then if you can".
A player controlled phantom would be much to powerful. A banshee thats zipping from one cover to the next would be very hard to kill. Even an engineer that avoids combat but sets one turret after another... All boss mobs would have to be nerfed for this to work and that would make coop boring.

[TempoGTR]

....

Yeah, that's what we need. Infiltrators firing Harpoon guns for nearly 11k damage at one another...with a max of 1600 shields/health....

NO.

[The_mango55]

I think we will see a PVP Mass Effect, but it won't be THIS game.

[SmokePants]

I can't see how it would work. Would it be fun to have your shields stripped by a single glance from Energy Drain or Overload? And then getting caught in a Singularity or Pull. Or being slowed by Adrenaline Rush. And Vanguards.... I shudder at how annoying they would be to fight.

On top of that, the people who got better weapon draws would be at a supreme advantage. I mean, they already are -- they just outscore you, rather than kill you mercilessly.

[arial]

Utopianus wrote... However, unlike Guild Wars, you cannot change your skills

the "ANTI-MMO" that closely resembled an MMO (dont argue, the GW devs called it this on a fansite interview shortly after launch)...

no...No....NO!!
 

[Brownfinger]

Erosuntzu wrote...

This game needs PvP, Lots of people want PvP.

No.

You  want PVP. Plenty of games for that. You're not getting it in this one.

[Kronner]

I'd like PvP. But not made by BioWare.

[Erosuntzu]

Fans of a game can be the worst enemies. Here no one hears anything just they do not want. You can say a thousand ways as possible to pvp and they only are going to say no and only repeat what they know. I said it many ways as possible could be the PvP and still saying the same thing this is funny XD. I said to reduce the damage inflicted on another player in pvp and blah blah blah! And they keep saying the same thing. If you do not like pvp you do not have to play that does not affect you at all. is the same if I say I do not want gay relationships in this game because I do not like the game has gay relationships if you do not like just do not see that is called options if you do not like pvp not have to play

[jbadm04]

no

[WhySoeSerius]

Yay pvp

[The Shadow Broker]

everybody goes as cloacked infiltrators and spamming asari stasis. And noobs charge-Nova.. i think i will pass.
In games where all characters have same powers and are equal is ok, but some clases are overpowered.

No.

[BlazeShepard]

If there were to be a PvP Mass Effect game I'd prefer one set in the past during, say, the First Contact War or the Krogan Rebellions.  Also, certain powers would have to be either severly nerfed or removed altogether to prevent things from being unbalanced, or have such powers come with a penalty or caveat (EX. have Tactical Cloak allows you to be ALMOST invisible, but you can still be noticed by someone who's paying attention).

That being said, I don't like the idea too much. I'd greatly prefer creative co-op missions (whether campaign or separate)with a lot of replayable value to actual PvP similar to Halo or CoD or GoW.

Modifié par BlazeShepard, 18 avril 2012 - 12:15 .

[GiantSludgeMonster]

withneelandi wrote...

i.e over competative "bro" types.

I keep seeing this on BSN. When did bro become a negative thing to be?