269 réponses à ce sujet

[The Spamming Troll]

dreman9999 wrote...

words.

i disagree.

[The Spamming Troll]

AlanC9 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

2) "characters dieing isn't a big deal", in a primarily character based RPG? 

Compared to the fate of the entire galaxy, or even individual races? It isn't important. It just isn't.

liara > quarians

so now what?

[LucasShark]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The first is mechanical in nature: what exactly IS 1 unit of EMS? This makes no sense, it is comparing actual hardware, to troops, to scientists, to reporters. All of these things do work toward a total war style of strategy, but they aren't comperable on a uni-linier scale. How for instance is one reporter worth 1/15th of an N7 operative? And so forth. It's not just comparing apples to oranges here, it's comparing apples, to goldfish, to spanners, to pocket-change.

You're trying to apply a scientific explanation to a game mechanic when it doesn't need one.

Having loyalty as a game mechanic in ME2 didn't make much practical sense either, especially when you apply it to synthetics.

The number value behind EMS is no different than having radians represent a certain unit of a numbers. Both EMS and radians don't represent a tangible measurement. They just provide a means to compare numbers.

I disagree completely: when placed in a leadership position, morale and focus of the team under your command is a fairly logical factor in performance.

You are also wrong when it comes to the radian system: it doesn't have a "unit", but it does represent a definable mathematical concept.

Modifié par LucasShark, 21 septembre 2012 - 12:08 .

[Dubozz]

ops

Modifié par Dubozz, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:16 .

[corkey sweet]

LucasShark wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I find it rather fascinating how my group of multiplayer characters is somehow worth more than the entire turian, asari, and quarian militaries.

Combined.

Indeed, and if you think about it logically: every one of those N7 promotions is ONE guy (or girl, or intermediate, or robot), why doesn't Shepard just put on an eye-patch and form the ME universe avengers from this lot if they are that effective?

actaully the N7 promotion is a whole team of operatives. example, promoting the soldier class would be promoting all soldiers in the class

[LucasShark]

corkey sweet wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I find it rather fascinating how my group of multiplayer characters is somehow worth more than the entire turian, asari, and quarian militaries.

Combined.

Indeed, and if you think about it logically: every one of those N7 promotions is ONE guy (or girl, or intermediate, or robot), why doesn't Shepard just put on an eye-patch and form the ME universe avengers from this lot if they are that effective?

actaully the N7 promotion is a whole team of operatives. example, promoting the soldier class would be promoting all soldiers in the class

Except: in my first 2 infiltrators, there was 1 guy who made it to 20, and zero other started infiltrators, so one guy.

You only hit level 20 on one character by my estimation, and even if it does "promote all soldiers" how does that make any more sense?

[corkey sweet]

LucasShark wrote...

corkey sweet wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I find it rather fascinating how my group of multiplayer characters is somehow worth more than the entire turian, asari, and quarian militaries.

Combined.

Indeed, and if you think about it logically: every one of those N7 promotions is ONE guy (or girl, or intermediate, or robot), why doesn't Shepard just put on an eye-patch and form the ME universe avengers from this lot if they are that effective?

actaully the N7 promotion is a whole team of operatives. example, promoting the soldier class would be promoting all soldiers in the class

Except: in my first 2 infiltrators, there was 1 guy who made it to 20, and zero other started infiltrators, so one guy.

You only hit level 20 on one character by my estimation, and even if it does "promote all soldiers" how does that make any more sense?

doesn't matter, all characters from each class gets promoted. doesn't matter if you leveled 1 vanguard or 5. still shouldn't be worth that much regardless, i agree with that

Modifié par corkey sweet, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:25 .

[o Ventus]

corkey sweet wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

corkey sweet wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I find it rather fascinating how my group of multiplayer characters is somehow worth more than the entire turian, asari, and quarian militaries.

Combined.

Indeed, and if you think about it logically: every one of those N7 promotions is ONE guy (or girl, or intermediate, or robot), why doesn't Shepard just put on an eye-patch and form the ME universe avengers from this lot if they are that effective?

actaully the N7 promotion is a whole team of operatives. example, promoting the soldier class would be promoting all soldiers in the class

Except: in my first 2 infiltrators, there was 1 guy who made it to 20, and zero other started infiltrators, so one guy.

You only hit level 20 on one character by my estimation, and even if it does "promote all soldiers" how does that make any more sense?

doesn't matter, all characters from each class gets promoted. doesn't matter if you leveled 1 vanguard or 5. still shouldn't be worth that much regardless, i agree with that

Still, there's a problem when a platoon of infantrymen are more viable than an armada of frigates, cruisers, and dreadnoughts.

[MegaSovereign]

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The first is mechanical in nature: what exactly IS 1 unit of EMS? This makes no sense, it is comparing actual hardware, to troops, to scientists, to reporters. All of these things do work toward a total war style of strategy, but they aren't comperable on a uni-linier scale. How for instance is one reporter worth 1/15th of an N7 operative? And so forth. It's not just comparing apples to oranges here, it's comparing apples, to goldfish, to spanners, to pocket-change.

You're trying to apply a scientific explanation to a game mechanic when it doesn't need one.

Having loyalty as a game mechanic in ME2 didn't make much practical sense either, especially when you apply it to synthetics.

The number value behind EMS is no different than having radians represent a certain unit of a numbers. Both EMS and radians don't represent a tangible measurement. They just provide a means to compare numbers.

I disagree completely: when placed in a leadership position, morale and focus of the team under your command is a fairly logical factor in performance.

But that's not how it works in real life. The lack of closure in your life is what drives you to live another day.  Loyalty is completely based on tying up your teammates loose ends.

[LucasShark]

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The first is mechanical in nature: what exactly IS 1 unit of EMS? This makes no sense, it is comparing actual hardware, to troops, to scientists, to reporters. All of these things do work toward a total war style of strategy, but they aren't comperable on a uni-linier scale. How for instance is one reporter worth 1/15th of an N7 operative? And so forth. It's not just comparing apples to oranges here, it's comparing apples, to goldfish, to spanners, to pocket-change.

You're trying to apply a scientific explanation to a game mechanic when it doesn't need one.

Having loyalty as a game mechanic in ME2 didn't make much practical sense either, especially when you apply it to synthetics.

The number value behind EMS is no different than having radians represent a certain unit of a numbers. Both EMS and radians don't represent a tangible measurement. They just provide a means to compare numbers.

I disagree completely: when placed in a leadership position, morale and focus of the team under your command is a fairly logical factor in performance.

But that's not how it works in real life. The lack of closure in your life is what drives you to live another day.  Loyalty is completely based on tying up your teammates loose ends.

Then this is a disagreement on psycology, not on gameplay mechanics.

[MegaSovereign]

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The first is mechanical in nature: what exactly IS 1 unit of EMS? This makes no sense, it is comparing actual hardware, to troops, to scientists, to reporters. All of these things do work toward a total war style of strategy, but they aren't comperable on a uni-linier scale. How for instance is one reporter worth 1/15th of an N7 operative? And so forth. It's not just comparing apples to oranges here, it's comparing apples, to goldfish, to spanners, to pocket-change.

You're trying to apply a scientific explanation to a game mechanic when it doesn't need one.

Having loyalty as a game mechanic in ME2 didn't make much practical sense either, especially when you apply it to synthetics.

The number value behind EMS is no different than having radians represent a certain unit of a numbers. Both EMS and radians don't represent a tangible measurement. They just provide a means to compare numbers.

I disagree completely: when placed in a leadership position, morale and focus of the team under your command is a fairly logical factor in performance.

But that's not how it works in real life. The lack of closure in your life is what drives you to live another day.  Loyalty is completely based on tying up your teammates loose ends.

Then this is a disagreement on psycology, not on gameplay mechanics.

Well I never said it wasn't a good game mechanic.

I'm saying that it doesn't make much sense when you are applying it to real life. Much like how EMS numbers aren't a realistic measurement.

[LucasShark]

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The first is mechanical in nature: what exactly IS 1 unit of EMS? This makes no sense, it is comparing actual hardware, to troops, to scientists, to reporters. All of these things do work toward a total war style of strategy, but they aren't comperable on a uni-linier scale. How for instance is one reporter worth 1/15th of an N7 operative? And so forth. It's not just comparing apples to oranges here, it's comparing apples, to goldfish, to spanners, to pocket-change.

You're trying to apply a scientific explanation to a game mechanic when it doesn't need one.

Having loyalty as a game mechanic in ME2 didn't make much practical sense either, especially when you apply it to synthetics.

The number value behind EMS is no different than having radians represent a certain unit of a numbers. Both EMS and radians don't represent a tangible measurement. They just provide a means to compare numbers.

I disagree completely: when placed in a leadership position, morale and focus of the team under your command is a fairly logical factor in performance.

But that's not how it works in real life. The lack of closure in your life is what drives you to live another day.  Loyalty is completely based on tying up your teammates loose ends.

Then this is a disagreement on psycology, not on gameplay mechanics.

Well I never said it wasn't a good game mechanic.

I'm saying that it doesn't make much sense when you are applying it to real life. Much like how EMS numbers aren't a realistic measurement.

At least the loyalty system was a binary "on/off", are their personal issues cleared up switch.

EMS is based on a vacuous "strength" measurement, which is outright illogical in multiple instances.

In games as well as anywhere else, "strength" when it comes to a tactical sense isn't just "how much crap you have", end of story.

Modifié par LucasShark, 21 septembre 2012 - 12:18 .

[dreman9999]

ZombieGambit wrote...

The only real problem I see with EMS is that there is no real difference in playing one way or another. So I can trick the krogan and get salarian support or vice versa and the ending is exactly the same as long as I played MP a little to get my readiness up and if I didn't and my EMS is too low it's the same either way again.

There should be real consequences and a single "correct" way to get the best ending, like in ME2.

The entire point was they didn't want only one way to have the player get ems.

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The first is mechanical in nature: what exactly IS 1 unit of EMS? This makes no sense, it is comparing actual hardware, to troops, to scientists, to reporters. All of these things do work toward a total war style of strategy, but they aren't comperable on a uni-linier scale. How for instance is one reporter worth 1/15th of an N7 operative? And so forth. It's not just comparing apples to oranges here, it's comparing apples, to goldfish, to spanners, to pocket-change.

You're trying to apply a scientific explanation to a game mechanic when it doesn't need one.

Having loyalty as a game mechanic in ME2 didn't make much practical sense either, especially when you apply it to synthetics.

The number value behind EMS is no different than having radians represent a certain unit of a numbers. Both EMS and radians don't represent a tangible measurement. They just provide a means to compare numbers.

I disagree completely: when placed in a leadership position, morale and focus of the team under your command is a fairly logical factor in performance.

But that's not how it works in real life. The lack of closure in your life is what drives you to live another day.  Loyalty is completely based on tying up your teammates loose ends.

Then this is a disagreement on psycology, not on gameplay mechanics.

Well I never said it wasn't a good game mechanic.

I'm saying that it doesn't make much sense when you are applying it to real life. Much like how EMS numbers aren't a realistic measurement.

At least the loyalty system was a binary "on/off", are their personal issues cleared up switch.

EMS is based on a vacuous "strength" measurement, which is outright illogical in multiple instances.

In games as well as anywhere else, "strength" when it comes to a tactical sense isn't just "how much crap you have", end of story.

Arguing about that is like arguing why one gun is stronger then another. The entire issue is based on balancing and nothing more. That does not make the system bad.

[dreman9999]

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The first is mechanical in nature: what exactly IS 1 unit of EMS? This makes no sense, it is comparing actual hardware, to troops, to scientists, to reporters. All of these things do work toward a total war style of strategy, but they aren't comperable on a uni-linier scale. How for instance is one reporter worth 1/15th of an N7 operative? And so forth. It's not just comparing apples to oranges here, it's comparing apples, to goldfish, to spanners, to pocket-change.

You're trying to apply a scientific explanation to a game mechanic when it doesn't need one.

Having loyalty as a game mechanic in ME2 didn't make much practical sense either, especially when you apply it to synthetics.

The number value behind EMS is no different than having radians represent a certain unit of a numbers. Both EMS and radians don't represent a tangible measurement. They just provide a means to compare numbers.

I disagree completely: when placed in a leadership position, morale and focus of the team under your command is a fairly logical factor in performance.

But that's not how it works in real life. The lack of closure in your life is what drives you to live another day.  Loyalty is completely based on tying up your teammates loose ends.

Then this is a disagreement on psycology, not on gameplay mechanics.

Well I never said it wasn't a good game mechanic.

I'm saying that it doesn't make much sense when you are applying it to real life. Much like how EMS numbers aren't a realistic measurement.

Wars depend on stats and values. Of couse it would apply in real life.

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 septembre 2012 - 03:09 .

[MegaSovereign]

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The first is mechanical in nature: what exactly IS 1 unit of EMS? This makes no sense, it is comparing actual hardware, to troops, to scientists, to reporters. All of these things do work toward a total war style of strategy, but they aren't comperable on a uni-linier scale. How for instance is one reporter worth 1/15th of an N7 operative? And so forth. It's not just comparing apples to oranges here, it's comparing apples, to goldfish, to spanners, to pocket-change.

You're trying to apply a scientific explanation to a game mechanic when it doesn't need one.

Having loyalty as a game mechanic in ME2 didn't make much practical sense either, especially when you apply it to synthetics.

The number value behind EMS is no different than having radians represent a certain unit of a numbers. Both EMS and radians don't represent a tangible measurement. They just provide a means to compare numbers.

I disagree completely: when placed in a leadership position, morale and focus of the team under your command is a fairly logical factor in performance.

But that's not how it works in real life. The lack of closure in your life is what drives you to live another day.  Loyalty is completely based on tying up your teammates loose ends.

Then this is a disagreement on psycology, not on gameplay mechanics.

Well I never said it wasn't a good game mechanic.

I'm saying that it doesn't make much sense when you are applying it to real life. Much like how EMS numbers aren't a realistic measurement.

At least the loyalty system was a binary "on/off", are their personal issues cleared up switch.

EMS is based on a vacuous "strength" measurement, which is outright illogical in multiple instances.

In games as well as anywhere else, "strength" when it comes to a tactical sense isn't just "how much crap you have", end of story.

EMS representing strength is no less of a game mechanic than XP representing experience.

Game mechanics are not meant to be entirely logical even in the established lore of a certain universe.

[ZombieGambit]

dreman9999 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

The only real problem I see with EMS is that there is no real difference in playing one way or another. So I can trick the krogan and get salarian support or vice versa and the ending is exactly the same as long as I played MP a little to get my readiness up and if I didn't and my EMS is too low it's the same either way again.

There should be real consequences and a single "correct" way to get the best ending, like in ME2.

The entire point was they didn't want only one way to have the player get ems.

And that turned out badly since nothing you did mattered in the end.

If every road you take leads you to the same spot, what's the point in replaying, but if each road takes you someplace different it gives the game depth and replayability.

BioWare catered to new players and completely ruined the game. And this is coming from a "pro ender" or whatever.

[AlanC9]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

liara > quarians

so now what?

Hmm....I stop taking your posts seriously?  I guess that works.

[dreman9999]

ZombieGambit wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

The only real problem I see with EMS is that there is no real difference in playing one way or another. So I can trick the krogan and get salarian support or vice versa and the ending is exactly the same as long as I played MP a little to get my readiness up and if I didn't and my EMS is too low it's the same either way again.

There should be real consequences and a single "correct" way to get the best ending, like in ME2.

The entire point was they didn't want only one way to have the player get ems.

And that turned out badly since nothing you did mattered in the end.

If every road you take leads you to the same spot, what's the point in replaying, but if each road takes you someplace different it gives the game depth and replayability.

BioWare catered to new players and completely ruined the game. And this is coming from a "pro ender" or whatever.

Nothing you did mattered? So what happens in Low ems is exactly the same thing as what happens in High ems?

Add, how is it a system the lets you do less work to build it's meter based on importing from past games favoring new players?

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 septembre 2012 - 03:11 .

[AlanC9]

ZombieGambit wrote...

If every road you take leads you to the same spot, what's the point in replaying, but if each road takes you someplace different it gives the game depth and replayability.

Yep. The way ME1 is unreplayable because whatever you do, you end up in the same place. Oh, wait....

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 septembre 2012 - 03:10 .

[dreman9999]

AlanC9 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

If every road you take leads you to the same spot, what's the point in replaying, but if each road takes you someplace different it gives the game depth and replayability.

Yep. The way ME1 is unreplayable because whatever you do, you end up in the same place. Oh, wait....

Same consept of ME2 as well.

[ZombieGambit]

dreman9999 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

If every road you take leads you to the same spot, what's the point in replaying, but if each road takes you someplace different it gives the game depth and replayability.

Yep. The way ME1 is unreplayable because whatever you do, you end up in the same place. Oh, wait....

Same consept of ME2 as well.

A) I didn't say it's unreplayable, I said it ruins replayability and it does. You play through 2, maybe 3 times, and you've basically done and seen everything while getting the same ending.
ME2 is a lot more replayable than either ME1 or ME3 because you can not recruit some squad members, you can not do loyalty mission, and you can purposely get people killed. While the ending is pretty much the same, there is only one perfect ending, something only ME2 did.

ME1 - linear
ME2 - mostly linear with variations
ME3 - linear with the only differences being the choices and they're pretty much the same...

[dreman9999]

ZombieGambit wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

If every road you take leads you to the same spot, what's the point in replaying, but if each road takes you someplace different it gives the game depth and replayability.

Yep. The way ME1 is unreplayable because whatever you do, you end up in the same place. Oh, wait....

Same consept of ME2 as well.

A) I didn't say it's unreplayable, I said it ruins replayability and it does. You play through 2, maybe 3 times, and you've basically done and seen everything while getting the same ending.
ME2 is a lot more replayable than either ME1 or ME3 because you can not recruit some squad members, you can not do loyalty mission, and you can purposely get people killed. While the ending is pretty much the same, there is only one perfect ending, something only ME2 did.

ME1 - linear
ME2 - mostly linear with variations
ME3 - linear with the only differences being the choices and they're pretty much the same...

As I said before...
Nothing you did mattered? So what happens in Low ems is exactly the same thing as what happens in High ems?

Add, how is it a system the lets you do less work to build it's meter based on importing from past games favoring new players? 

Also to add. Play tuchancka with out the genophage cure, the coup with out Thane and rannoch with out legion or tali....Big differance.

[LucasShark]

And off the rails it goes... *sigh*

[AlanC9]

ZombieGambit wrote...

A) I didn't say it's unreplayable, I said it ruins replayability and it does. You play through 2, maybe 3 times, and you've basically done and seen everything while getting the same ending.

So replayability is ruined, but it's still replayable? Gotcha.

I could have mentioned KotOR there. Or NWN. Or the BG games. Most Bio games. Most TES games, too, since almost nothing has consequences.