130 réponses à ce sujet

[JaegerBane]

ArtGerhardt wrote...

The biggest issue with the scoped AR vs Sniper rifle is that there aren't really any LONG distance moments of the game. There are few with good distance, but nothing compared to a battlefield 3 map. I don't expect maps as big as full sized BF3 maps but for a battle with reapers it wold have been great to have some battlefields that were 500+ meters long. Maybe like 750. It would make snipers and scoped AR's fill different roles.

The multiplayer maps are rediculously small. Aside from a few select spots in a few maps, it's very cramped for snipers.

It's especially annoying that we already know the sheer size that maps can actually be within Mass Effect, thanks to its implementation of the Unreal Warfare engine. The fact that sniper rifles back in ME1 had variable power sights and now they don't is telling.

[Jog0907]

JaegerBane wrote...

ArtGerhardt wrote...

The biggest issue with the scoped AR vs Sniper rifle is that there aren't really any LONG distance moments of the game. There are few with good distance, but nothing compared to a battlefield 3 map. I don't expect maps as big as full sized BF3 maps but for a battle with reapers it wold have been great to have some battlefields that were 500+ meters long. Maybe like 750. It would make snipers and scoped AR's fill different roles.

The multiplayer maps are rediculously small. Aside from a few select spots in a few maps, it's very cramped for snipers.

It's especially annoying that we already know the sheer size that maps can actually be within Mass Effect, thanks to its implementation of the Unreal Warfare engine. The fact that sniper rifles back in ME1 had variable power sights and now they don't is telling.

You have to take into account class balance, huge maps designed for SR would be nice but they can't be done without punishing most classes. You need to balance size so the class system can work.

[zaku257]

 The problem is not the scope but the SIZE of maps.As many of you above said the game doesn't have any long range engaging/firing,especially in MP, where maps are either cramped or with too much obstacles or turnings(sorry poor english)I guess the max long range distance you get is lower than 200m.And take a look in the descriptions, AR scope is 4x zoom(EQV to real world's ACOG/similar things)Pistol and SMG scope is 2x(EQV to real world's red-dot or holographic scope)Where sniper equipped scope is about 6x-8x(Like real worlds 8x or above scope)Putting a 4x scope on an AR is VERY normalAnd pistols, SMGs usually use <4x in real world.
For SRs, 8x or higher is suitable for Bolt-actioned
For semi-autos, 6x-8x is OK
And that some ARs in ME aren't ARs but BRs(Battle rifles).Take Mattock, its real-life EQV is a semi-auto fired G3)
where they aren't created for CQB but mid-range fire fighting.
=================================================================You think that the scope is too useful? Blame the Engine used for the game.It can't create big-size map, Like BF3s Conquest Big maps, even the smallest one - Metro, is larger than all the MP maps in the games.Take in account that ME is third-person view, not first-person viewed.If it's FPS, scopes will be less useful(if you play BF3 you will know what I mean, even iron sights are good enough)And the maps is just too small as we mentioned, that in a case, the SRs do like more a Marksman Rifle(MR).Although MRs usually are not bolt-actioned, one-shot and reload things.
===================================================================
And in my way, each player can choose his/her playing style,just like soldiers can limited modding their rifles for different usage, so, removing them is unwise.

[Jog0907]

agreed with zaku, scopes and weapon ranges are fine its just that you never see a map large enough that you notice the difference of range between a SR and AR and a scoped pistol.

[JaegerBane]

zaku257 wrote...
You think that the scope is too useful?Blame the Engine used for the game.It can't create big-size map, Like BF3s Conquest Big maps, even the smallest one - Metro, is larger than all the MP maps in the games.

That's actually totally wrong. The engine itself can effectively render huge maps. In fact, on a balance between computing resources required and draw distance/LoD, pound for pound the Unreal Warfare (3.0?) engine is the best on the market.

The size of the maps in ME2 (except Overlord) and ME3 are a design decision, not a technical constraint.

[capn233]

Yeah bigger maps would go a ways towards making the SR's slightly more valuable. Issue is still AR's would need to have their damage and accuracy fixed, pistols would have to have their damage and accuracy reduced, and SMG's would need to have their damage and accuracy fixed.

Reintroducing damage multipliers for distance would also help separate the classes.

[JaegerBane]

capn233 wrote...

Yeah bigger maps would go a ways towards making the SR's slightly more valuable. Issue is still AR's would need to have their damage and accuracy fixed, pistols would have to have their damage and accuracy reduced, and SMG's would need to have their damage and accuracy fixed.

I'm actually less convinced that category-wide changes are required and more convinced that some weapons just need buffed.

I mean, the Hornet and the Hurricane don't need any changes. The Valiant and the Black Widow don't need any changes. It seems that there is just a deluge of filler weapons that aren't really worth using beyond the early stages of the game. I don't know whether that was intentional or whether it was just badly balanced, but we're not quite in a situation where whole categories are rendered useless.

I mean, to be honest, I'm not even sure redundant weapons are actually possible to avoid when you have such a large arsenal as ME3 does.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 08 mai 2012 - 05:17 .

[capn233]

JaegerBane wrote...

I'm actually less convinced that category-wide changes are required and more convinced that some weapons just need buffed...

Perhaps you have a point about the filler weapons.  But I think on a whole the classes could use a little more definition, which we could gain in a variety of ways.

As far as buffing goes, certainly some weapons don't need buffs and some do, but there are some cases of weapons that could do with damage or accuracy reduction.  Carnifex and Paladin come to mind, although I would probably increase their rate of fire.

The Hornet is a decent enough little weapon, even if muzzle climb is ridiculous.  It would be nice to fix the Shuriken so that it worked as it did in ME2.

Maybe if I want to blow a bunch of free time I will review all of the weapons and propose changes.  The filler aspect will make it tricky, you are right about that.

[StarcloudSWG]

"filler weapons that aren't worth using beyond early points in the game?" What?

I admit, I don't find much use for the Predator once the Phalanx becomes available, and I haven't used many shotguns, because they dont' fit with my playstyle, but that's just about it. *Every* weapon has its place. Juggling weight, firing characteristics, accuracy, damage, ammo capacity, is completely necessary if you want to use more than one weapon.

[Rolenka]

For the Paladin/Carnifex to do as much damage as they do, you should have to be staggered after every shot.

At least the scopes are weaker than the AR and sniper ones, right?

[StarcloudSWG]

Staggering isn't because of the impact. It's because of the reflexes of the person who's being hit. Sheer physical force strong enough to stagger a target would also stagger the person shooting; basic physics are still a part of the game. Further, force strong enough to stagger both shooter and target would throw the firearm out of the shooter's hands.

Yes, scopes for any weapon other than sniper scopes are weaker.

[JaegerBane]

capn233 wrote...
As far as buffing goes, certainly some weapons don't need buffs and some do, but there are some cases of weapons that could do with damage or accuracy reduction.  Carnifex and Paladin come to mind, although I would probably increase their rate of fire.

I dunno - any decrease to the Paladin's stats isn't very straightforward, as it was clearly intended to function as a baby sniper rifle for classes that don't want to carry an SR, much the same way the ME2 Phalanx was supposed to work.

The Carnifex, imho, ranks as one of my favourite weapons precisely because it is *the* quintessential heavy pistol, with a good balance of stats but orientated towards punch. Its a lot more balanced than the Paladin and I honestly don't see any need to change any of its stats.

[JaegerBane]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

"filler weapons that aren't worth using beyond early points in the game?" What?

I admit, I don't find much use for the Predator once the Phalanx becomes available, and I haven't used many shotguns, because they dont' fit with my playstyle, but that's just about it. *Every* weapon has its place. Juggling weight, firing characteristics, accuracy, damage, ammo capacity, is completely necessary if you want to use more than one weapon.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. There's at least one or two weapons in every class that realistically don't have any niche and basically just sit there as filler.

For example...

Heavy Pistols: Predator. basically a slower firing Eagle.
Shotguns: Katana. When you have the Eviscerator and the Spike Thrower on the stage, there is no more room for a 'standard' shotgun.
Assault Rifles: Argus. Seriously, What is the purpose behind this gun?
SMGs: Shuriken. No purpose whatsoever,
Sniper Rifles: Incisor..... Really?

[Rolenka]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Staggering isn't because of the impact. It's because of the reflexes of the person who's being hit. Sheer physical force strong enough to stagger a target would also stagger the person shooting; basic physics are still a part of the game. Further, force strong enough to stagger both shooter and target would throw the firearm out of the shooter's hands.

This is my point exactly. Though I was envisioning something like the player totally losing their aim/stance (in order to hold onto the weapon) and having to regain it.

I suppose we can't really make comparison's to reality's firearms of today, but it makes sense that a pistol with a sniper rifle's damage would have a sniper rifle's recoil, only without the stability of a sniper rifle.

[StarcloudSWG]

The Carnifex *doesn't* do a sniper rifle's damage. The reputation it has as a 'sniping' weapon comes from headshots. Many weapons that get a headshot will do a one-shot kill.

As for the argument that they're "modeled after real world weapons", no, not exactly.

You're dealing with mass accellerator weapons. There's no cartridge, there's no powder. What there is is a series of coils that generate a mass effect field which pushes a projectile down a barrel. The power of the coils, and the size and shape of the projectile, are responsible for the differences in damage and accuracy.

The Geth weapons go down a different branch of the tech tree; they still use mass effect fields, but fire different projectiles. And the particle rifle and arc pistol weapons are very distant outliers.

I can imagine that shooting a mass effect weapon would feel strange, as the balance of the weapon shifts with the mass effect field progressing down the barrel, accelerating the projectile.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 08 mai 2012 - 10:19 .

[capn233]

If we are technical, they are mass accelerators (railguns) supplemented with mass effect fields for more velocity.

Clearly there is supposed to be some amount of recoil, because it is in game. Granted, you can use mass effect technobabble to say that relative to the power of today's weapons, they would have a lot less recoil.

However, you still have an issue with the balance being off. It doesn't make sense that a smaller, lighter, weapon actually does comparable damage with less recoil than a large heavier one. Additionally, pistols are not as stable as a rifle anyway because you only have two points of contact to resist motion on a pistol, and if you are firing a long gun correctly you have four.

The Carnifex damage, for instance, is ~345 per shot upgraded, which is in fact greater than all the run of the mill SR's, but lower than the Mantis, Widow, Black Widow, Javelin, and slightly lower than the Valiant (396). But it is nearly as accurate, and it has hardly any effective recoil because the reticule bloom has settled before you can even take another shot.  That and the little bit of muzzle rise you get in between shots isn't all that hard to compensate for.

Of course they intended for these to be used by the non-weapon's classes as a poor man's rifle, but they are a little stronger than need be for that purpose. Adept's aren't going to be useless if you reduced the damage on these weapons and reduced the accuracy a bit, while making the recoil actually a practical consideration. Before anyone is too upset about that, I do think the Carni/Pali twins should have more rate of fire, and they would be pretty devastating up close, it's just that they wouldn't be quite as good at range. Which makes sense since they are a pistol after all.

Modifié par capn233, 08 mai 2012 - 11:37 .

[StarcloudSWG]

Really, the game balance complaints aren't about the scope. They're about the Carnifex/Paladin doing a little too much damage.

While I think it's a silly argument to make, I can understand why people feel Carnifex/Paladin envy and want to reduce its use in multi-player.

Removing the scope mod is not the way to go. If you're balancing a game, you work on the outliers, not fundamental systems. The Carnifex/Paladin does too much damage? Reduce their damage or their accuracy. Balance complete.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 09 mai 2012 - 01:44 .

[known_hero]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Really, the game balance complaints aren't about the scope. They're about the Carnifex/Paladin doing a little too much damage.

While I think it's a silly argument to make, I can understand why people feel Carnifex/Paladin envy and want to reduce its use in multi-player.

Removing the scope mod is not the way to go. If you're balancing a game, you work on the outliers, not fundamental systems. The Carnifex/Paladin does too much damage? Reduce their damage or their accuracy. Balance complete.

Wrong on so many levels.

This is a argument about capability overlap. I also compared the scoped mattock to the Raptor.

Envy? Really? I have the paladin, carnifex and the phalanx. Why would I want to reduce the use of pistols online? How does that benefit me?

My intentions aren't malicious in anyway shape or form, so stop instigating.

[StarcloudSWG]

Unlike you, I see no problems with "Capability overlap." Every weapon serves a purpose, and the general categories are not so rigid that weapon X must always be used like weapon Y just because they're in the same general category.

Diversity is good. Player agency is important. It gains you nothing to have scopes removed, but it removes choice from other players. That is fundamentally unsound game design.

Just for argument's sake, suppose you remove scopes from pistols. What would you replace the mod with?

Ideally, it should be an accuracy booster of some kind; replacing function with function.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 09 mai 2012 - 02:51 .

[alyxor]

Speaking of all the weapons you just name-dropped, I find that the Mattock, Raptor, and Phalanx do rather similar damage, and have comparable accuracy/fire rate, sans weapon mods.

Most of the characters I actually use cart around with a scoped Phalanx  as they trend towards power usage over weaponry. It doesn't make a dent in my recharge time, and I can toss out powers farther because I get just that little bit more 'look-through'. Also, on someone like the Salarian Engineer, his combat decoy doesn't get in the way of my shot when I'm looking down the scope. (It's not that I can't manage around it, but it is convenient).


And I feel like an albatross when I roll into a silver or gold match with my Salarian Infiltrator carting around a Raptor, of all things (better than the Incisor, I suppose), but he gets his damage bonuses, and when things get too close for zoom, but too far for melee, it won't particularly matter.


To be fair, there is very little reason to pick a low-tier sniper rifle over a relatively high-tier scoped pistol in bronze, but after basic introduction to the format of MP, bronze is really just meant to goof off and level up brand-new/promoted characters, anyway.

Modifié par alyxor, 09 mai 2012 - 03:57 .

[JaegerBane]

BrookNone wrote...

I understand what you are saying but the fact that the weapons in this game fire projectiles and are by all accounts patterned after real-world weapons, leads one to make such comparisons.

All weapons should have recoil based on the ballistics of the cartridge, weapon, etc. I come from a CoD MW background where I like and expect realistic presentation of firearms. However even in those games things are not completely accurate.

Not to mention that no one would ever fire the equivalent of the 50 BMG (or 338 Lapua, etc.) from a kneeling or standing position. Such rifles are always fired prone except in unusual circumstances.

Actually, this isn't the case - you've assumed they're pattenered after real world weapons, but that doesn't mean they actually are.

In reality, they're just patterned after video game archetypes - big calibre pistols, machine guns, etc. Hence, trying to equate weapons to real-world calibres isn't really something that has any point beyond trying to explain a gun to someone who hasn't used it yet.

I mean, this is a game where some of the ammo options include flechettes, superconducting toroids and bloomin' particle beams... this isn't a game to play if you're expecting, as you put it, a 'realistic presentation of firearms'. Hence, there isn't any expectation to see accurate depictions of cartridge behaviour. Hell, there are no cartridges, so why on earth would you expect to see the behaviour of them?

The reason I bring this up as I'm heasring a lot of balance arguments that seem to be based on 'this gun doesn't work like an x calibre and hence it isn't balanced', when in fact its irrelevant. A gun should be 'balanced' against the arsenal, not on the pre-conceptions of players who've come from playing totally different games.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 09 mai 2012 - 06:15 .

[capn233]

Most do fire projectiles though, which is pretty similar to our ballistic weapons today.

I don't know that pure analogues to each caliber is necessarily what people want, even if some people start posting analogies. They just want a system that seems logical and balanced.

We'll just ignore modern day analogues and focus on a theoretical future. In that future, why would anyone bother to produce larger heavier weapons that presumably have more cost, when a compact handheld weapon does the job equally well? It doesn't make sense that anyone would procure any other weapon in that setting. Why would they bother developing the Valiant, for instance, when the Paladin seems to do the same job?

[IamDanThaMan]

Well, in this theoretical future, weapons with longer barrels would still be more stable than a handgun and would presumably be able to hold a larger eezo core for more power. So in theoretical real life, the Paladin would not be able to snipe people as reliably from long distances as the Valiant, unlike in a video game, where you can hold any gun perfectly still while aiming.

[Nethershadow]

capn233 wrote...

Most do fire projectiles though, which is pretty similar to our ballistic weapons today.

I don't know that pure analogues to each caliber is necessarily what people want, even if some people start posting analogies. They just want a system that seems logical and balanced.

We'll just ignore modern day analogues and focus on a theoretical future. In that future, why would anyone bother to produce larger heavier weapons that presumably have more cost, when a compact handheld weapon does the job equally well? It doesn't make sense that anyone would procure any other weapon in that setting. Why would they bother developing the Valiant, for instance, when the Paladin seems to do the same job?

+1

This also applies to both story logic and game balance. 

The Pally and Canri are just too effective at sniping and thier stats rival or beat SR´s.

A couple posters said they arent concerned with overlap and redundancy, but then why even have categories in the first place? Why try to differentiate weapons at all instead of just having one category and you can choose to have x number of weapons?

Overlap destroys game balance and muddles the concept.  For eg.
Pally with scope greatly diminishes the need for SR´s which also weigh alot more.
Parallel to the many threads and comments about how class balance this time around is redundant and overlaps with all the biotic/tech combos removing the uniqueness of classes to a degree and making game play alot more simular between them. So basically you set up and detonate explosions as they all work the same.
If you dont agree with this playerbase opinion then this point is moot to you.

To much overlap makes things bland and some things pointless. So scopes either need to be removed from pistols or pistols need to do greatly less damage after short range. But then pistol overlaps with shottie.

I actually really liked the idea someone mentioned about damage multipliers for range, this would allow scoped pistols to work as is while reducing thier damage at long range to the point it is like using a pee shooter. I really like this idea and think it would bring a style for the pistol category to be effective at short range, ok at med range and weak at long but capable of inflicting damage.