6 réponses à ce sujet

[Thalamask]

As per the title. I've had this game pretty much since launch, and I've been watching the evolution of MP since about April when I decided to give it a go. Over that time, it's become increasingly clear that BW is pushing an in-your-face, run 'n gun combat style by actively penalising range and immobility. That's a pretty odd choice, given that Mass Effect is, ya know, a third-person, cover-based shooter and not an arcade-based UT-type shooter.

In support of my position:

• It's generally agreed that sniper rifles are substantially less useful than other weapon classes, particularly shotguns.
• Once you start to climb the difficulty ladder, most AR's are drastically underpowered. There are exceptions, but those are SO good at lower difficulties that they're perpetually under the damoclean-sword of the nerf-bat.
• As difficulty rises, damage increases and the ability to be "out of cover" drops. Which is fine. But that universally promotes high spike-damage weapons (like shotguns and sniper rifles... oh wait... not sniper rifles, 'cause they're not up to snuff, so just shotguns) and mobility so that you can keep right-cornering the stuff charging towards you.
• All enemies have units designed to force you into mobility. Banshees, Brutes, Pyro's (esp. post-buff!), Hunters, Phantoms, Dragoons, Scions and Praetorians.
• All enemy units that are designed to keep you IN cover (Atlas, Nemesis, Marauders, Ravagers, Rocket Troopers, Primes etc.) are usually better solved by mobility (moving out of their line of fire and ignoring them until you've got nothing better to do) than by actually using cover, which completely defeats the purpose.
• If you consider all the maps, there's a general trend towards short-range combat, or neutrality. There are almost no maps where short-range combat is a penalty. See map analysis below.
• Hazards that doesn't affect everybody equally (e.g. the reactor core) tend towards penalising long-ranged combat more than short-ranged. Even something like acid rain (which would tend to keep people inside, and therefore looks like a boost for long-range) will penalise long-range more than short-range. Given the enemy programming to bum-rush you, it's virtually guaranteed that they'll all be inside with you LONG before the wave is over, and short-range combat rules the roost again...

So yeah... I'd love for them to respond to this. I, for one, am not loving the direction MP is heading in, even if I do love some aspects of it.

• Dagger is good for long-range, but it twisty enough that you can short-range easily enough if you want to. 1/2 point to LR.
• Ghost has both long-range and short-range areas. No winner.
• Giant has both long- and short-range sections. No winner.
• Glacier is almost exclusively short-range. +1 SR.
• Reactor has some good LR sightlines, but it's so twisty that the second any short-range dudes run off, the enemy starts spawning behind you and SR can move and fight freely anyway. +1/2 SR.
• White (esp the new one!) is very much a close-range, indoor battle. You still have that long-range outside bit, but there are so many more ways to approach your position now that you can't concentrate and clear the enemies that way. +1 SR.
• Condor is pretty clearly a long-range map. SR can still succeed, but LR is generally more useful. +1 LR.
• Hydra looks like a strong LR contender but, given that it's SO open, you're generally taking too much fire to be really useful. If you're playing LR, you basically HAVE to have SR backup weapons, but if it's relatively easy for SR's to use the buildings to force the enemies to come to them. No winner.
• Goddess. +1 SR. Like I need to explain that.
• Jade is basically in the same boat as Hydra. Looks like a LR map, but when played basically comes out even. No winner.
• London is a nice LR map. Lack of choke-points makes SR backup vital. +1/2 LR.
• Rio is only an LR map if you're a loonie and playing on low difficulties.  For the rest of us, it's short-medium range. +1/2 SR.
• Vancouver has long, open sight-lines, but the abundance of cover generally makes a good, corner-humping shotgun far and away your best friend. +1/2 SR.
• Dagger Hazard, +1 SR.
• Reactor Hazard, +1/2 SR.

Final Scores:
Long-range - 2 points
Short-range - 5 1/2 points

[Jos Hendriks]

 On the levels side of things I'm going to disagree with you there. While certain levels are more suited for snipers while others are more suited for closer range combat to varying degrees (no level should be the same), pretty much every level has key locations for a sniper to do his/her thing.
The entire point of there being a bit of both in each level is that we cater to all play styles, and since this is a cooperative multiplayer experience for most, the idea is that those who aren't snipers in your squad cover the routes that would compromise the sniper.

• White has the exterior area.
• Giant has fairly long sightlines from top to lower floor, and from bunker to bunker across the level.
• Glacier has the exterior area and the diagonal through the labs.
• Ghost has several long sightlines in the courtyards.
• Dagger has long sightlines from the central interior room, and in several places on the catwalks outside.
• Reactor has long sightlines from the extraction to the core and side, and several specific spots throughout.
• Hydra was designed from the ground up to be a sniper level and it's almost hard to find spots that you can't snipe from.
• Condor has the high ground to low ground sightlines, and several other sightlines (from pipes to start location)
• Jade has the upper balcony looking down across the level, and the upper labs looking towards the stairs.
• Goddess has the lab corner looking down to central hall, central hall looking out, lab looking to exterior, and a couple smaller spots.
• London has the balcony. Yes it's not safe, but making that a safer spot than it is would've upset the level's balance negatively. Additionally London has plenty of long sightlines on the street level.
• Vancouver is filled with long sightlines from corner to corner of the map.
• Rio can easily be sniped if sticking to either the middle with backup or the open side while hanging back.

A quantitative comparison between short range and long range is not a very interesting approach to seeing how viable long range combat is in a game. As a player who plays almost exclusively as a Salarian Infiltrator with a Valiant X/Widow X (and have done for about a year and a half now) I can safely say that every level we've put out so far has had a sweet spot for snipers.
Making the comparison is rendered more moot by the fact that long range classes are far more restrictive than short range classes are. The range requirement for them automatically makes them less versatile than a short range combatant, regardless of what surrounding area you put them in. While snipers have relatively fewer spots in each level to do their thing, they usually are very effective in those spots.
Lastly, you are both correct and incorrect to say that hazards do not affect each class equally. Yes, the sandstorm will have a potentially bigger impact on snipers (though seeing as I helped set up the storm's density and I'm still fine as a sniper), they get treated equally. The sandstorm isn't more dense or less dense for any different player class. 

Considering I've worked on most of the DLC MP levels, mostly coming into them as a sniper myself first and foremost, I do not understand the argument being delivered as far as the level design is concerned. 

[Jos Hendriks]

Thalamask wrote...

While Jos makes some good points on the maps, he's still completely failed to address the original point - Why are so many changes being made with the express purpose of forcing players into aggressive, run 'n gun tactics (where it just happens that shotty's are usually better than ranged weapon... but ignore this bit!)?

Sorry, but saying I failed to address something implies I tried addressing it. I merely commented on the levels side of things, because that's my work.

[Jos Hendriks]

Hey Thalamask, keeping things friendly, but when your position has 2 arguments that directly refer to levels, I'd think that giving you the insight into how they get designed with long range in mind as much as short range (even moreso in fact because long range requires more thought than short range) would still count as arguments against the position you have which is per your thread title: "BioWare seems to hate ranged combat. Why?"

Just sayin'.

[Jos Hendriks]

Thalamask, 

So I've given your posts and initial argument more thought because I think it's a very interesting discussion to have, and wanted to respond in a more complete and serious fashion. In essence, I can see where you're coming from as far as a shift from long range to short range is concerned. There do seem to be plenty of classes that favour shorter range engagement with enemies, and with the way the enemy factions are designed they will not hang back but will instead come look for you. However, I disagree with you on this being bad design, or necessarily shifting away from long range. Let me explain why by outlining our goals for ME3 combat and how lessons from ME2 and approach to designing intelligent enemies factor into that.

I've covered levels in an earlier post, and I believe we're at least in agreement that the levels themselves provide options to those playing short range and to those playing long range alike. 

Sitting in a piece of cover for an extended period of time and not moving away from it has never been an intended element of ME3's combat. While long range players in other third person shooters may prefer that approach to cover usage, we never designed towards this, not for singleplayer, and not for multiplayer. To me personally, ME3 multiplayer's nature of allowing people to play together and coordinate together (something that does not necessarily happen in public games with random people) actually solidifies the long range player's role (mostly snipers) as one that comes to full realization when coordinated with other players. 

Based on some of the combat we did in Mass Effect 2 we found that players tended to get into the first piece of cover they could, and then proceeded to fight through an entire combat scenario without moving. This is a valid approach, but we felt that large areas of designed combat space would simply go unused because of this, and we wanted to approach things differently so that players would make more use of the entire combat space. This especially because we spend quite a bit of time on the level design side figuring out cool ways for people to move through combat spaces. Fast-forward to ME3 and you can start seeing the roots for the different enemy factions.

The enemy factions in the game all have been designed to have one or more units that could perform different roles. When combined, these would provide a constant but varied challenge. There are basic combat units, suppression units encouraging you to be in cover, slow pressure units that encourage you to not sit in one location (unless you coordinate to keep them at bay), and tank units. Combined, these units come across as aggressive and require immediate response, which incentivized players to make use of an entire area. 

Now, I can't comment on weapons, like I said, because my usual selection of weapons limits itself to the Widow, Valiant and occasionally the Harrier as a back-up for either of those. I do not know the current balance between weapon types or the precise way our gameplay designers aim to balance it, so I will have to defer to the many people in here who have a better understanding of it than I do.

All of that said, I feel that this approach may not be specifically what you would like it to be, but it is a solid approach, grounded in reason, discussion and lots of experimentation and iteration. It is primarily the way it is because we believe this to be fun, while still offering a variety of gameplay styles to use (and combine with other players' play styles!). If you feel that it is a "desperate attempt to pander to 14-yo, foul-mouthed, twitching, bigotted, CoD-stereotype demographic", that is of course entirely your right.

Hopefully this gives you a bit more clarification of why things are the way they are, even if you don't like all of it. 

[Jos Hendriks]

Trogdorx wrote...

On level design: So, basically, you looked at how people liked to play, decided that wasn't how you wanted them to play "because it wastes your hard work", and so designed the next game around making that playstyle difficult? What, out of spite? Yeah, how dare those players do something logical. We'd better put in units that have crazy accuracy with grenades, units that can move ridiculously quickly, and other nonsense, just so we can be sure everyone is running around the map like this is Halo or Quake and we feel like our level designers' work is being appreciated. I'd insert an emoticon here but this forum doesn't have one that expresses sufficient frustration.

We always look at how people play, different play styles and approaches. ME2's combat did not incentivize players to move, which meant players stuck to the first place they find. That is fine. For ME3, we wanted players to engage the combat spaces more as a matter of advancing the combat and to make things more active.
We set goals of what we'd like to accomplish with something, and we find out how that works out in practice. Level design informs gameplay. The biggest shift from ME2 to ME3 has been the composition of enemy types and their roles relative to the player. Level design needs to reflect this to really work, so we built around a more dynamic situation where people would advance or fall back rather than stay in one place. You can still stay in one place, but it comes with risks. 
Ultimately, I'm not here to spite or frustrate the player, I'm here to facilitate gameplay and make enjoyable and balanced layouts for you to play in. Halo and Quake are cool games, but they don't serve as inspiration for the way we deal with things. Being from an Unreal Tournament background myself as far as level design goes, I can tell you that the ME3 MP levels are very differently designed than any level I've ever designed for UT. 

As it is, all of the maps, singleplayer and multiplayer, are too small for sniper rifles to really have a fundamental purpose. I mean, you gave them a gameplay purpose, recent DLC notwithstanding, in providing units with abilities like tactical cloak that give slow-firing, big-damage weapons like sniper rifles a means of being effective. But that same class can also use that ability with shotguns which do the same thing at shorter ranges. So if you just take the sniper rifle on its own and say, where does this fit on the battlefield that no other gun does, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a situation that couldn't also be handled by an AR or pistol. The maps are simply too small. When I think sniper map, this is the size that comes to my mind:
http://www.mw2blog.c...-Map-Derail.jpg
That's Derail from COD: Modern Warfare 2. Note that even though it has a lot of open areas for sniping, it also has a lot of cover and buildings you can go into for close-range combat. This is the size of map I prefer, and wish I'd see more of, rather than the small maps we've been seeing lately in the ME3's, Crysis 2's, COD:BLOPS and so on.

I will have to disagree with you on this. Everyone approaches sniper rifles and other long range weapons differently, but the way we deal with them is consistent and I don't think that people with sniper rifles can't snipe in our levels. On top of that, comparing what weapon can be used in what situation is not particularly interesting. Sniper rifles are ranged weapons. The more range requirement you put on a weapon or power or anything, the more restricted that weapon is. It works that way for any game. Pistols and assault rifles are accurate in bursts and thus can also be used for longer ranges than their ideal short to medium range, but sniper rifles will still be more accurate at longer range. At the same time, you can use a sniper rifle against enemies that are 5-10 meters away as well instead of a pistol or assault rifle.  
Your level example from Modern Warfare 2 is nice, but that is a different game, with a different approach to weapons and gameplay than ME3 is. It's great that you like that kind of level, and I'll agree that it is enjoyable in the game it's in, but that's simply not what ME3 is. 

[Jos Hendriks]

Thalamask wrote...

My problem comes in the last half of this paragraph. In my opinion, good MP games do not assume that you're always working with a team of your friends. They allow for PUGs which, as you've noted, tend to be far less coordinated. Although public lobbies and voicechat exist, coordination still remains pretty spotty. It's the nature of PUGs.

What you've said (at least the way I read it) is that essentially, long-range combat really needs teamwork to be effective. That's fine as far as it goes, given that this is a coop based game, but that's really the sort of inequality I've been trying to point out.

Ideal or optimal, yes, but effective no. Long range combat can be effective just fine without shorter range teammates to back you up, whether those are your friends or random people in public games. We don't assume you're always working with a group of friends. Having played plenty of public matches myself with people I don't know or communicate much with beyond "I'm down" or "phantom by the stairs" I've not seen that being a detriment to being effective as a long range class.
I feel that I can be effective at long range by myself. It requires mobility, to be sure, and because the longer the range the more restrictive a class is inherently (this is for any game) setting up new positions requires more legwork, but that's what that class is.

If you want to play "sniper", you have to have a buddy watch your back. If you want to run around with a shotgun and shoot stuff in the face, you're aces even on your own. Having a guardian angel might be nice, but it's nowhere nearnecessary.

I disagree. Being in scoped zoom for any duration will decrease immediate situational awareness for nearby, but that's why you allow yourself pause in sniping frequently to make sure you're not compromised. If you're going to be in sniper zoom continuously for extended periods of time, yes, enemies will flank you or surprise you up close, but that's more because you're not playing smartly than. 

If a CQC dude runs off and mucks up the spawn positions, the defensive player (who, for this example, is not a sniper) will work to ensure the team doesn't get flanked. Unfortunately, very shortly, the aggressive, CQC player is going to be hitting the enemies you're fighting off (and slowly retreating from) from behind. Given the spawn system, that means the defensive dude (i.e. the one that stopped the CQC dude getting flanked and dying) is about to be flanked and killed by the dudes that are now spawning behind you. Net result : selfish lone-wolf - 1, teamplayer - 0.

It is a possibility, but the way spawns work deals in distance more than location. Enemies coming from different and new positions that you're not necessarily anticipating or expecting is not exactly a strike against long range play, or against teamplay. The spawn system setup isn't perfect, but it's not an advocate for lone players.

In PUG teams, the game design seems to support solo, lone-wolf play rather than any attempt at teamwork which is why I consider the design to be flawed. Although no game can (or should) force players to work together, well designed ones encourage players to work together by making them dependant on each other. No one person can do everything. For example, if there are 5 types of tasks, no player / class can do more than 3 of them. That's something I believe is missing from ME3 MP. My experience is that aggressive, CQC players can stand on their own, while less aggressive, or non-CQC players can't.

That brings me onto the second point. Even if we assume that everybody has friends to play with all the time (and I know that's a silly assumption), ME3 was published as an Origin exclusive. It means that, once my clanmates move off to another game, all the friends I've built up online outside the clan (on Steam, as it happens) won't help me either. Most of 'em won't use Origin (let's not go there, it's a stupid argument anyway). So if I want to do anything other than PUG, I now have to start setting up an entirely separate set of relationships. That doesn't even consider the issue that most of my playtime comes after my wife is asleep, so I can't use a mike much anyway. I'm reasonably sure that I'm not the only person in this sort of situation, nor am I even in a minority.

Good games encourage people to work together yes, but not necessarily by dependence. Because this is a game that people play in various degrees of cooperation, being able to stand on your own is not a flaw in my opinion. If you don't have friends to play with at any given moment but you want to play anyway, this should be possible. It will be more difficult just because you have nobody you can fall back on, but it is entirely possible because there is not some ultimate dependency you can't overcome. This works for short range and long range classes alike. I do not believe that the kind of dependency you describe is something that would benefit ME3's multiplayer. (honestly not entirely sure what your second point contributes more, the game doesn't depend on playing with friends)

I agree that sitting in once place all game isn't fun. Well... it probably is for some people, but not for me. Anyways, that's beside the point. I've got no problem with moving around during the battle. However, my experience indicates that you can't really fall back slowly, either.

A mad dash for the next piece of cover usually buys you about 10 seconds before you're swarmed again. That gives you enough time for your shields to regen and take a couple of potshots. That's fine for CQC, but not for longer ranged combat.

If you dash 4-5 pieces of cover back you'll buy yourself more time, but you'll often have lost LOS, given up your sight lines and be into the CQC portions of the map. You're also probably about to run into the other spawn that was busy trying to flank your position, leaving you with the option of a panicked rush through their lines so that you can reestablish some range. Even with a cloak, that usually doesn't work so well since they seem to have an uncanny ability to shoot you anyway. Without a cloak, well...

Again, getting appropriate range for a long range character is a defining characteristic of playing that way, and ultimately more restrictive by itself. I don't dispute that there is a higher barrier to entry for you to play a long range character effectively, but that is an inherent problem to the class in any game. 10 seconds to get a few shots off to mitigate immediate risk sounds fine to me and usually puts me in a situation where I get a bit more time to see what's next.

Absolutely agreed, and this sort of design is exactly how the game should be. Unfortunately, that's where theory and practice start to diverge.

As far as I can see, ranged combat comes in primarily two forms. Spike damage (SR's, Crusader, Saber etc.) and sustained damage (AR's, SMG's and maybe Indra and Incisor).

*snip*

Suppression units - now here's where the problem comes, imho. On the face of it, suppression units seem to be to be the ranged units natural prey while being a threat to CQC units because they can't fight back. It looks good on paper, but my experience indicates that it actually works completely the other way around.

CQC units already use tight quarters and right-facing advantage to limit the incoming fire. Step out, BLAM! a dude with your shotty, step back and reload. By and large, this renders them mostly immune to suppression units. Instead, the suppression units usually end up keeping the ranged dudes in cover. The sustained damage guys can't stay out long enough to do significant damage and, without a cloak, the spike damage guys will have trouble lining up a shot (or will be spending most of their time regenning their shields after having done so). Let's not even start on all the screen shake the CQC guys are putting out.

The problem here is that you're side-stepping the actual situation. With suppression enemies. Yes, close range characters can choose to duck away from the suppression type enemies by going into close range areas, but when in the open, the long range player will have the advantage to the close range player when dealing with suppression enemies. It's not so much that close range guys get hit by suppression units, it's that they cannot just freely roam in the open with suppression units around. Characters staying in cover when suppression units are around is exactly the point, and usually this puts the long range character in an advantageous position to deal with them.

Even right face advantage is more effective for CQC, because MATH! If you imagine a standard L shaped corridor, and the CQC dude is using that corner as cover. Without stepping into the open, he can see a 45^ angle. If he takes one step to the right, he'll open up another 15^, which might contain two enemies, and he's not exposed to too much return fire. If a ranged guy does uses right facing advantage, because of the greater distances involved, that single right step can potentially expose him to an entire spawn's worth of enemies, rendering it much less effective (it still works, just not as well).

That's where I think the imbalance is. CQC seems (as always, in my opinion) to work well against everything, even those things that they aren't supposed to, while ranged doesn't work as well, even where it's supposed to be better.

In the right facing advantage, both short range and long range classes expose themselves to enemy fire by leaning out of cover. Luckily, there aren't really any situations that fit the bill of description of a long range character opening themselves to an entire spawn's worth of enemies that makes the step that much less safe.
Again, I don't disagree that shorter range characters are a bit more flexible because they cover a wider range than long range characters do, but I don't agree that this somehow makes long range characters ineffective. 

On a side note, these posts are getting pretty long. Takes quite a bit of time to think on and write these up.