45 réponses à ce sujet

[Locutus_of_BORG]

capn233 wrote...

They watered down combat mechanics overall and added more "flash." So it is improved for those that didn't really want to get to know the system. It is less balanced whether that be between classes, the weapons themselves, or between weapons and powers.

As for customization, there is a slight improvement.

+1  LoL @ ME3's combat being undisputedly better than ME2's.  Better controls? Yes.  Better movement and pacing? Yes.  More difficulty? No, you pull a random power combo out of your ass and every mook bends over for you.  More replayability? Hell no - it took me a year to master ME2 Insanity. ME3 Insanity, two PTs to learn and completely crush it.

If they'd kept ME2's combat mechanics (ie: universal protections, weapon niches, etc.) and paired it with ME3's gameplay speed (faster controls, AI, etc.) ... ME3 Insanity would've been something truly amazing.

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 07 mai 2012 - 10:33 .

[Athenau]

I don't see how the combat mechanics are "watered down". The only thing missing from ME3 is the dumb rock/paper/scissors weapon multiplier mechanic. Shield gate/armor flat DR is a much more elegant way to handle things, IMO.

Every problem with ME3's gameplay boils down to a numbers issue (weapon balance, power spam, game difficulty) which could have been solved with a couple more months of development effort.

[sharkboy421]

JunMadine wrote...

Combat is better no argument. I wish we could fight the old ME2 enemies with the new combats system. Think of how much more challenging Eclipse could be with ME3 AI.

Yeah. . .I was kind of disappointed to see shields and barriers disappear from basic enemies.  Even though in ME2 it became a bit of a moving shooting gallery, defense stripping added a bit of strategy to fights.  And the improved AI in ME3 would make the battles that much more challenging.  As it is now all the unshielded enemies are simply destroyed by biotics and makes insanity less challenging than it should be.

[capn233]

Athenau wrote...

I don't see how the combat mechanics are "watered down". The only thing missing from ME3 is the dumb rock/paper/scissors weapon multiplier mechanic. Shield gate/armor flat DR is a much more elegant way to handle things, IMO.

I suppose if you dismiss the complexity as dumb then they didn't water it down at all.

But if you want my answer then here it is.

Different protection types were more vulnerable to various weapons and powers.  In ME3 protections are equally vulnerable to all weapon types.  Some powers do extra damage to certain protections, but given how absurdly overpowered the power combos are, it is of little consequence.  It did require slightly more strategy to play optimally, even if you think it is dumb rock-paper-scissors stuff.  At least it isn't "me smash with rock!"

And of course that is really the biggest problem, how unbalanced and simple powers are.  Since they got rid of the protection mechanic, you can go back to using CC powers willy nilly like in ME1 to ragdoll all the basic units.  They allow basically every biotic (or tech) power to be involved in a combo so there is hardly any thinking about what power to use whatsover.  They rolled powers together (like Neural Shock into Overload) to make mashing a single button all the time feasible.  Why do both Overload and Energy Drain stun organics, let alone do damage to them?  Why does Disruptor Ammo now stun organics?

Shield gate really doesn't do much of anything except make you take an extra shot, or use a power first, which really isn't much different than in ME2.  The Widow was not typically one-shotting mid-tier enemies except with more builds that were sacrificing something for one-shot power.  And the Mantis didn't one-shot mid-tiers at all really.

Armor damage reduction is an interesting concept, but it isn't much of a change.  The high damage per shot weapons are still best against it, and they give you mods to get around it.

Modifié par capn233, 07 mai 2012 - 11:36 .

[FOZ289]

Technically you could probably find a way for Overload to make sense. It's a burst of electricity, you don't get hit by that and keep walking. Still overpowered as hell, especially in combos.

ME3 might be too easy, but I found ME2 just way too repetitive.  So many shared weapons and powers, at least half the classes feel much too similar for much too long.  And more fun builds like Shotgun Infiltrator don't even become available until more than halfway through the game.  It had problems, to say the least.

Modifié par FOZ289, 08 mai 2012 - 12:13 .

[Athenau]

Different protection types were more vulnerable to various weapons and powers.  In ME3 protections are equally vulnerable to all weapon types.  Some powers do extra damage to certain protections, but given how absurdly overpowered the power combos are, it is of little consequence.  It did require slightly more strategy to play optimally, even if you think it is dumb rock-paper-scissors stuff.  At least it isn't "me smash with rock!"

You're conflating power spam/overpowered powers with the multiplier system.  Fixing the first does not require bringing back the second.  The multiplier system is dumb because it doesn't add any mechanical depth.  You pick the weapon with the best combination of base dps and multiplier against the protection and there you go.   There's no real choice involved

And of course that is really the biggest problem, how unbalanced and simple powers are.  Since they got rid of the protection mechanic, you can go back to using CC powers willy nilly like in ME1 to ragdoll all the basic units.

This has nothing to do with the multiplier system and they didn't get rid of the protection mechanic, they decided that basic enemies shouldn't have protections at all.  Those are two different things, though I agree that it was a bad decision.

 They allow basically every biotic (or tech) power to be involved in a combo so there is hardly any thinking about what power to use whatsover.  They rolled powers together (like Neural Shock into Overload) to make mashing a single button all the time feasible.  Why do both Overload and Energy Drain stun organics, let alone do damage to them?  Why does Disruptor Ammo now stun organics?

I don't see a problem with energy drain or overload stunning, or for that matter disruptor ammo.   Versatile powers that can be used in multiple different ways and multiple situations are always better than an array of dumb hard counters.  It's not like you can kill organics efficiently by spamming overload/energy drain anyway.

Shield gate really doesn't do much of anything except make you take an extra shot, or use a power first, which really isn't much different than in ME2.  The Widow was not typically one-shotting mid-tier enemies except with more builds that were sacrificing something for one-shot power. 

You didn't really have to sacrifice anything to oneshot mid-tier enemies in ME2 with the Soldier or the Infiltrator, since +weapon damage was the optimal way to go anyawy.  Shield gate is a superior system for two reasons:
1)  Consistency.   Enemy protections now behave the same way Shepard's does.
2)  It provides an upper bound on the efficacy of the high damage per shot weapons while allowing ways to build around that limitation.

Armor damage reduction is an interesting concept, but it isn't much of a change.  The high damage per shot weapons are still best against it, and they give you mods to get around it.

It's better than a multiplier system because it provides multiple ways of dealing with the problem while ensuring that you _do_ have to deal with it.  In ME2 any weapon with sufficiently high dps worked fine.  Hell, no one gave a crap about the multipliers on the best weapon in the game (Mattock) because of its ludicrous dps.

In ME3 you could use a high damage per shot weapon, or you could take the piercing mod, or you could take AP/warp ammo, or you could rely on teammates with squad cryo, or you could use active powers like warp/cryo blast, or you could abuse explosive incendiary.  Each method has its tradeoffs, but all are viable.

[KotorEffect3]

Yeah I agree OP at first I thought ME 3 was ME 2 combat with a few improvements here and there but I didn't realize just how much they improved it in ME 3 until I went back to ME 2 the other day to work on my engineer. Wow

[capn233]

Athenau wrote...
You're conflating power spam/overpowered powers with the multiplier system.  Fixing the first does not require bringing back the second.  The multiplier system is dumb because it doesn't add any mechanical depth.  You pick the weapon with the best combination of base dps and multiplier against the protection and there you go.   There's no real choice involved

No I am not conflating anything.  Sure, you could fix the powers, but that leaves the weapon damage as still less complex than ME2.  And the whole point is practical complexity, not the number of irrelevant combat rules (in which case ME3 might actually have more).  The point is strategy and thinking required to play the game.

Claiming that the damage multipliers added no complexity whatsoever does not follow, even if you think it is a small amount of depth.  In ME3 you choose one weapon and that is it.  It works on everything.  Unless it is an SMG, then it is ****ty unless you have an overpowered ammo type on it.

This has nothing to do with the multiplier system and they didn't get rid of the protection mechanic, they decided that basic enemies shouldn't have protections at all.  Those are two different things, though I agree that it was a bad decision.

Scaling back on protections has to do with watered down combat mechanics.  You fight more basic enemies than protected enemies.  You are still hung up on the multiplier for some reason as if it was the only change that affected the complexity of the combat mechanics.  And as if my assertion was that only the weapon multipliers affected the complexity of combat.  I don't believe that.  Why do you think I am talking about other things?

I don't see a problem with energy drain or overload stunning, or for that matter disruptor ammo.   Versatile powers that can be used in multiple different ways and multiple situations are always better than an array of dumb hard counters.  It's not like you can kill organics efficiently by spamming overload/energy drain anyway.

These are your opinions.  I don't even mind if you prefer a game where there are all versatile powers.  That doesn't mean that changing it such that I can use Overload + Carnifex shots for every single mission and be wildly effective isn't less complex than ME2 was.

And it isn't as if am claiming Overload should be your only damage dealer.  But the fact of the matter is you could play Engineer with just Overload and be significantly more powerful in this game than one with that single power in ME2.  not only due to increased CC, but increased damage output from setting off Tech Bursts.  The same is true of the biotic classes.

You didn't really have to sacrifice anything to oneshot mid-tier enemies in ME2 with the Soldier or the Infiltrator, since +weapon damage was the optimal way to go anyawy.  Shield gate is a superior system for two reasons:
1)  Consistency.   Enemy protections now behave the same way Shepard's does.
2)  It provides an upper bound on the efficacy of the high damage per shot weapons while allowing ways to build around that limitation.

Maybe we are talking about different enemies.  Were you one-shotting Eclipse Vanguards with the Widow without the all the SR damage upgrades?  What stage of the game can you do that at on Insanity with Commando, Heightened AR with or without Warp Ammo?

But even I can admit this wasn't a bad idea.  However it is simple to work around, and in practice I do not agree that it really adds much complexity at all.

It's better than a multiplier system because it provides multiple ways of dealing with the problem while ensuring that you _do_ have to deal with it.  In ME2 any weapon with sufficiently high dps worked fine.  Hell, no one gave a crap about the multipliers on the best weapon in the game (Mattock) because of its ludicrous dps.

In ME3 you could use a high damage per shot weapon, or you could take the piercing mod, or you could take AP/warp ammo, or you could rely on teammates with squad cryo, or you could use active powers like warp/cryo blast, or you could abuse explosive incendiary.  Each method has its tradeoffs, but all are viable.

Which is partly the point.  Pretty much any combinations of powers, weapons, squad members works on anything in this game more effectively than it did in ME2 (where every combo could work, with relatively less efficacy).

It may be that if they rebalanced a significant portion of the powers and fixed the weapon system that ME3 would end up being more complex than ME2.  But practically speaking on the whole it isn't as complex to play whatsoever.

[Fixers0]

I Never like the Armor customisation post- mass effect 1,I actually both lauged and cried from inside when is saw Shepard, Vega and Ashley/Kaidan standing in the shuttle at the beginning of mars in all different coloured and shaped armored suit in sharp contrast to the Opening of Eden prime where Shepard, Jenkins and Kaiden were all were Onyx Armored suits, which felt i was more repersenative for a Military organisation.

[Kronner]

I prefer some elements of ME2 combat. Especially ME2 Vanguard is much better than ME3's version.

ME3's missions generally last from 4 to 8 minutes, on the hardest difficulty. ME3 is THE definition of corridor shooter. I don't see how useless fall down one level fools anyone. So no improvement here.

At least ME2 had a clear combat system in place. In ME3, you can randomly press buttons and still prevail.

The weight system is a joke too.

Modifié par Kronner, 08 mai 2012 - 07:11 .

[Catastrophy]

I have looked into ME1 and ME2 just recently. The UI is really more polished in ME2, I like the backgound soundscape more but ME3 combat is the best of all 3 parts. It caught me cold when I tried to spam powers in ME1 recently.

[Athenau]

capn233 wrote...
Claiming that the damage multipliers added no complexity whatsoever does not follow, even if you think it is a small amount of depth.  In ME3 you choose one weapon and that is it.  It works on everything.  Unless it is an SMG, then it is ****ty unless you have an overpowered ammo type on it.

False choice is not a choice.  The multiplier system does not add depth, only the illusion of depth.

Scaling back on protections has to do with watered down combat mechanics.  You fight more basic enemies than protected enemies.  You are still hung up on the multiplier for some reason as if it was the only change that affected the complexity of the combat mechanics.

It is the only major omission from ME3's system, so why wouldn't I talk about it?  You don't seem to understand what  a "mechanic" is.  Enemy composition is not a game mechanic.

These are your opinions.  I don't even mind if you prefer a game where there are all versatile powers.  That doesn't mean that changing it such that I can use Overload + Carnifex shots for every single mission and be wildly effective isn't less complex than ME2 was.

So what?  You could take the carnifex and any powerful CC or direct damage power and say the same.  That has more do to with bad weapon balance (specifically the carnifex being OP) and cooldowns that are too low rather than overload being able to stun.

And it isn't as if am claiming Overload should be your only damage dealer.  But the fact of the matter is you could play Engineer with just Overload and be significantly more powerful in this game than one with that single power in ME2.  not only due to increased CC, but increased damage output from setting off Tech Bursts.

Yes, you're more effective than ME2, but so what?  As long as it's not an optimal (or close to optimal) strategy it's fine.

Maybe we are talking about different enemies.  Were you one-shotting Eclipse Vanguards with the Widow without the all the SR damage upgrades?  What stage of the game can you do that at on Insanity with Commando, Heightened AR with or without Warp Ammo?

Once you got level3 upgrades, the sniper headshot damage upgrade and warp/disruptor ammo you could one shot pretty every mid-level enemy (centurions, vanguards, guardians/assassins).  More relevantly, at no point did you have to "sacrifice" anything to get that one-shot capability.  You always want upgrades and warp ammo was one of (if not the best) bonus powers for weapon using characters anyway.

But even I can admit this wasn't a bad idea.  However it is simple to work around, and in practice I do not agree that it really adds much complexity at all.

It doesn't have to add much complexity to be worthwhile.  For example, consider using energy drain on a soldier.  Energy drain + one headshot from a powerful weapon is enough to kill most mid-tier enemies.  If there are multiple shielded enemies it may be worthwhile to forego adrenaline rush entirely and rely on e-drain + heasdhots in a fight (because e-drain cycles much faster outside of AR). On the other other hand if there's just one shielded enemy with a bunch of grunts, then sticking to adrenaline rush is the way to go since one e-drain cast per rush cycle is sufficient.  Without shield gate preventing weapons from one shotting everything you'd never even have to think about what to use.  It would just be perma AR (or cloak) all day.

]Which is partly the point.  Pretty much any combinations of powers, weapons, squad members works on anything in this game more effectively than it did in ME2

Again, you're conflating two things that aren't the same.  General game difficulty does not (and should not) say anything about the viability of different approaches to playing the game.  You can have more difficulty without sacrificing diversity.

(where every combo could work, with relatively less efficacy).

You seem to be saying that having a wide gap between "optimal" and "viable" is somehow good?  Why?  Having multiple viable ways to attack a problem with no one option being clearly superior in all circumstances is just good game design.

It may be that if they rebalanced a significant portion of the powers and fixed the weapon system that ME3 would end up being more complex than ME2.  But practically speaking on the whole it isn't as complex to play whatsoever.

As I said, every issue with ME3's gameplay is a numbers problem.  Fixing the weapon balance and power spam is a matter of tweaking stats until it feels right.  Ditto for enemy damage/health/armor/shields.  The core mechanics are in every way better than ME2's.  Even the much maligned weight system had the potential to be good if they hadn't made the numbers so retarded (seriously, +/-200% cooldown bonus from weight alone, what we they thinking?).

Modifié par Athenau, 08 mai 2012 - 11:28 .

[known_hero]

Both Capn and Athenau make valid points but I do agree that the ultimate problem with this game is how the stats for pretty much everything are set up. Cooldowns are way too fast, grunts go down too easily, and I also agree with Kronner on the shortness of the missions. When you are finally getting into your groove, the mission is over. Nearly every mission in the game left me wanting more.

I liked the multiplier system because it gave each weapon purpose. Without that purpose, most SMGs are useless.

I still feel that ME2 was the more polished game.

Modifié par known_hero, 08 mai 2012 - 02:23 .

[goodventure]

I literally just imported my Shep from my complete ME2 run and I have to agree with IsaacShep.

though for vanguards I do miss Heavy Charge's little time dilation at the end... it made aiming the shotgun to the enemy's face a bit easier. I'm also really glad charge triggers biotic explosions this time.

[Soja57]

I prefer the rock/paper/scissors protections than shield gate and armor flat reduction, because it gave each weapon a more unique niche. Against grunt enemies, it didn't matter too much, but against elite enemies, the protection multiplier was extremely useful, especially with the corresponding upgrades. SMG's and Shotguns were deadly against shields, and Pistols/Sniper Rifles stripped armor quickly. AR's were highly versatile weapons, being able to handle most ranges and most protections, but limited availability to most classes until mid-game. This was pre-Firepower pack, before the [i]too[/i[ versatile Mattock was released.

That said, the shield gate and armor flat reduction are still good systems that encourage various builds, from armor reduction powers to shield stripping. The only part I dislike is how guns feel too similar and unbalanced. SMG's are heavily penalized from armor reduction, while powerful sniper rifles can still strip shields just as well (especially geth primes/Atlas/Banshees), opening up CC abilities to health or allowing snipers to chew on armor also.

[Apathy1989]

Combat is much better, no question. The lack of enemy diversity in ME3 is a problem though. I wish they kept all the enemies, even if they appeared just once (fighting mercs for example).

[Raizo]

It is a bit of an adjustment. I stared a brand new ME2 character shortly after I beat ME3 and one of the very first things that I noticed was that ME2 Shepard is a lot less agile than ME3 Shepard, he can't run for more than few metres before he gets winded and is forced to walk ( and that takes a while to recharge ) and he can't do swat turns/combat roles. I also missed Shepard's expanded skill set from ME3. Having said that once you get used to the obvious things being missing you kind of realise that the combat in ME2 isn't all that different from what it is in ME3.

[Seifer006]

nah man. I really agree with Kronner on this. ME2 vanguard is way better. You don't need Nova to enjoy the class. Infact I'm playing Vanguard right now on Insanity - and I don't use Nova. it requires more skills and discernment.

ME2 - Insanity outbeats ME3 by far. Being already Half way to Level 60 isn't what I call a challenge. In ME2 - doing an Import game was like doing a "Clean Playthrough." Meaning you're practically at Lvl 1 (starting afresh)

anyway - it's just IMO

[mybudgee]

The worst part of all is how the run animation is. Back in January I was all "What!? Shep runs like a robot with a corncob in his keister! Pre-oder cancelled!"
Now I am like "Why in ME2 did the screen have to vibrate just to jog across the room? Did I once actaully think this was cool??!"