243 réponses à ce sujet

[PDHoops]

You can snipe on this game, you just dont have all the time in the world. You need to "quick scope" and reload cancel and get head shots (on gold) for one shot kills on shielded enemies. Yes it take some practice to aim and shoot pretty much instantaneously but the game is supposed to be quick paced and you dont need cover to snipe. I regularly use a QFI (just preference) and can top score on pugs against any faction using a Widow X. I roam and move around not stay in one spot.

Some maps are better than others but bottle neck maps like glacier you can also fill your boots given you can kill 2-3 soft troops in one shot.

[Cyonan]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Then you look at the way recent classes have been designed. They're mostly short or point blank ranged, whether support or combat.

The N7 Destroyer, who is best known for turning shotguns into sniper rifles, is clearly a short ranged fighter.

Or the N7 Destroyer who can play any range.

Or the N7 Slayer who can choose to sit back and Tech Burst all the things with Phase Disruptor or play a close range fighter if he so desires.

Even if you want to look at Retaliation characters, that's still not a true statement considering what we're going to be getting.

[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. 

[Auintus]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

 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.

 

One guy complains about MP combat, and I get tips on sniping. Thanks.

Modifié par Auintus, 11 octobre 2012 - 03:08 .

[78stonewobble]

I think very few people would like a game where you just hold everything any time.

But I, personally, dislike also constantly "rushing". You don't have to do that either but most people fall into this playstyle naturally in the game because it has advantages (less enemies spawn in objective waves and more credits per hour).

I would prefer some middle ground playstyle. Some times it would be advantageous to seek the enemy out and at others it would be good to bunker down.

Either extreme, holding a position continiously or rushing every enemy should be the hardest stuff.

Just my oppinion.

[Thalamask]

VectorSpace wrote...

Mandalore313 wrote...

Oh trust me, they hate melee combat as well.
Have you tried the turian havoc in a melee spec?
Don't.

I've seen people post on this. I wanted to try to prove this wrong, so I built pure melee Krogans, Batarians and Geth.  Sadly, anyone who wants to be a melee character will be pretty disappointed. I don't consider Shadow Strike to be melee even though BW calls it melee.  It's a skill.  Geth melee is AoE, which makes it much better even than the Krogan or Batarian melee.  Geth HM is very fast, staggers, won't miss, and can keep you out of the way of some mooks.  I've seen people take out 3 phantoms with Geth HM and a Prox mine debuff.  A Krogan, and someone in a thread wanted to nerf the Kroguard, can miss, unlike the Geth. No Krogan/Batarian will ever take out multiple phantoms at once. BW? Care to comment on this absurdity where Krogans are out-meleed by the Geth?

What I fail to understand is why BW devs even have melee as an option on the Fitness tree.  Since melee isn't very viable, BW should replace things like Martial Artist with a weapons damage buff.  

So, if you think BW hates ranged combat, it hates melee WAY more, which means BW despises close-up combat.

BW Devs... care to tell the community why you even have so many melee options when they're pretty pointless except in very specific situations?  I'm looking forward to a BW dev response, but I won't be surprised if any dev gets the courage to give us an answer.

PS I did try the Turian Havoc melee build.  I agree. Don't do it. Melee viability in Mass Effect 3 just sucks.

As I noted in my previous posts, I don't really consider melee to be a stand alone combat style.

Consider the universe we're playing in. With guns, flamethrowers, grenades, VI-aided accuracy etc. does it really seem reasonable that doing nothing but smashing stuff in the face should be viable? It certainly doesn't to me. If there's five enemy dudes there and I charge directly in and start hitting, I would expect to go down (except on Bronze/Silver as a Krogan ).

Personally, I consider melee to be a strong part of CQC. It's the AARGH-my-shotty's-dry-and-there's-still-one-dude-standing button. It's the AARGH-my-sniper-rifle-is-equipped-and-the-enemy's-right-here button.

I do agree with you about the skills though. There are lotsa classes that have absolutely no business being in melee and will never have that tree spec'd, unless the player is some sort of God-dude who's so good that weapons on Platinum are optional and he's looking for more challenge.   Most of the adepts are good examples.

I can understand why they made the design decision on the two passive trees. The class tree represents "training", so your weapons and powers do more damage, are more accurate etc. and the passive tree represents "physical", so you can smash stuff in the face better, or you can take more of a beating.

That said, I would probably have done the "physical" tree differently. Just like each class has it's own "training" tree, I'd have given different classes different "physical" trees.

Going back to our adepts, melee training makes no sense for the vast majority of them. If you're going to go past L3 Fitness, it's going into shields! I would have made the second branch relate to something completely different. If you want more shields, that's fine - but those shields need generators etc. so if you go the other tree, maybe you can run faster, recharge powers faster (allowing slightly heavier weapons) or get a little more Oomph behind your powers, adding 1m to all their radii.

Too late to change it now, but that's probably how I'd have done it.

[Lexa_D]

The way the healthgate and stomping work after the recent patch discourages close quarters significantly, so you're welcome, OP.

Modifié par Lexa_D, 11 octobre 2012 - 11:00 .

[PaperAlien]

If anything, I find close quarters classes are screwed over more by sync-kills, staggers and lag.

[DamonD7]

death_for_sale wrote...
I mean I could be English and basically be the little brother of the USA; waiting on their beck and call and still trying to hold on to the last remaining vestige of a great empire, whose primary export is fish. I can only assume that it is a face saving measure, "Look, we didn't lose ALL of the Americas. We still have the Falklands!"

Oh, thanks a bunch for that.

[ninemil]

PaperAlien wrote...

If anything, I find close quarters classes are screwed over more by sync-kills, staggers and lag.

This. Charging anything that can sync-kill off-host is now a massive gamble. I dodge-roll after every BE instinctively, and although that wasn't 100% effective in the last patch, (you really did have to pay attention to the mob's current position in their animation cycles to be completely safe,) you could be pretty certain about when to jump.

Now you're in the death-grip and dying before you've even completed the Charge animation. I've never used Shockwave so much since starting playing ^^

That being said, sure, there are faster moving, quieter mobs in this patch, but if the top percentile weren't sitting in one room, spamming doorways for cheap credits, this wouldn't have happened. There should never be one single 'I win all times!' tactic in any game, and all Bioware have done is shift the game balance to promote variation. That's a good thing, imo. The disparity between the top end of the manifest spectrum and everyone else must be insane now.

[Escocido]

Well, IRL snipers are supposed to be always on the move and change position constantly. Retreating is as important for a sniper as is shooting, that's why you have a tactical cloak.

I indeed have noticed a trend towards making short-range combat more powerful, but I guess it's part of the whole high-risk high-reward thing.

Also, melee makes sense in certain classes. This is a universe where powerful energy screens prevent bullets from reaching you. In this universe, being a Krogan with a power armor able to punch people's heads off, or having a monomolecular blade and the means to use it is a good thing. This was better represented in ME 1, where melee damaged health directly, which is what made Krogan very dangerous.

[TheLukerez]

Mandalore313 wrote...

Oh trust me, they hate melee combat as well.
Have you tried the turian havoc in a melee spec?
Don't.

Nah brah.  Hyrdaulic Joints V with Melee amp III, with a specced melee Havoc.  Delicious.  Stim-packs as well are oh so lovely.  Also, timing is essential.

[FlowCytometry]

I see both the OP and Jos' points. Both are correct to a degree, but I think the focus is wrong in them. Its not really the levels causing this extreme anti-camping trend, its much more so the enemies themselves and to a lesser extent the power of mods like smart choke for shottys. Really, the only level that very skewed against ranged is Glacier. The rest of the the maps may either disfavor or favor long range or are rel neutral, but are not extreme either way.

I luv running and gunning and usually dislike camping, but even I can tell when the scales have tipped too far against the ranged/sniper playstyle. SRs and scoped weapons are just too unwieldy to run and gun with, and the hipfire penalty reinforces that handicap.

Praetorians rush fast and are quite sturdy buggers, collector swarms are frequent and persistent rushers, many more units see through stealth and push one out of cover, and many more now lob grenades than ever before (dun get me started on corrupt scions- geezus christ they are overtuned). Dragoons are simply inhuman for being human units- they are even more bullheaded than a Phantom and behave like a kid w/ ADHD is controlling a hyperactive puppet than a more believable rusher character like a phantom. Even a phantom knows when to retreat and hide.

The other problem is that many of the new enemies are simply way way too quiet. Scions, Praes, Dragoons.. they just don't announce their presence or attacks much at all, and the scions seem barely animated at ranged for one to be able to anticipate their attacks (expect their melee ofc), and that just doesn't fit w/ how big and/or powerful they all are- at all. Its completely disparate a design when compared to the old units and I dun understand why that direction was taken.

Its also just more insult to injury that you are willing to make non-farmers/campers suffer by being so ardent in stopping farming (instead of improving the store or match search features) such that the geth are absolutely a pain and horrendous to fight now. Its not even a fun challenge like Collectors; they are an absolute chore and not enjoyable w/ their overt reliance on fake difficulty.

(Oh, and on topic of melee: why do the volus even *have* melee options in fitness? Say what you want about melee specs not being balanced well, its nonsensical to give volus heavy melee bonuses as is, given how you guys designed them)

Modifié par FlowCytometry, 11 octobre 2012 - 11:46 .

[78stonewobble]

Escocido wrote...

Well, IRL snipers are supposed to be always on the move and change position constantly. Retreating is as important for a sniper as is shooting, that's why you have a tactical cloak.

I indeed have noticed a trend towards making short-range combat more powerful, but I guess it's part of the whole high-risk high-reward thing.

Also, melee makes sense in certain classes. This is a universe where powerful energy screens prevent bullets from reaching you. In this universe, being a Krogan with a power armor able to punch people's heads off, or having a monomolecular blade and the means to use it is a good thing. This was better represented in ME 1, where melee damaged health directly, which is what made Krogan very dangerous.

There is also a point here though the abundance of guns in the me universe would suggest that they have quite a bit of merit.

[Thalamask]

Jos Hendriks wrote...
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.

Absolutely agreed. No single design element is really prejudiced one way or the other. However, in aggregate, I really do believe that aggressive, mobile combat is rewarded out of proportion to defensive, ranged combat.

Jos Hendriks wrote...
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.

No arguments here. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not really advocating (nor do I support) a "stay in one place all game" playstyle. As you've said, some people enjoy it, but I believe that it's only really appropriate for true milsims.

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.

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 near necessary.

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.

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.

Jos Hendriks wrote...
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.

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...

Jos Hendriks wrote...
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.

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).

Basic units are largely irrelevant. Cannon fodder for everybody. No issues here. Tank units also largely irrelevant. Slow to take down, but not particularly threatening if managed right. No issues here either. Pressure units are the natural prey of CQC players and headache for ranged players, exactly the way it should be.

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.

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.

[Thalamask]

FlowCytometry wrote...
(Oh, and on topic of melee: why do the volus even *have* melee options in fitness? Say what you want about melee specs not being balanced well, its nonsensical to give volus heavy melee bonuses as is, given how you guys designed them)

Pity they didn't give volus the Nova ability. It would be AWESOME!

We could call it "the beachball bounce"!

[DJ Airsurfer]

CQC is a **** if you don't use the right-hand advantage. Especially on Gold. Which in turn makes melee somewhat useless against bosses (unless they're focused on another player). Although, in my opinion, the only melee gold-viable class is the Shadow. And then your task is pretty much taking all the little guys out with SS.

[Escocido]

78stonewobble wrote...

Escocido wrote...

Well, IRL snipers are supposed to be always on the move and change position constantly. Retreating is as important for a sniper as is shooting, that's why you have a tactical cloak.

I indeed have noticed a trend towards making short-range combat more powerful, but I guess it's part of the whole high-risk high-reward thing.

Also, melee makes sense in certain classes. This is a universe where powerful energy screens prevent bullets from reaching you. In this universe, being a Krogan with a power armor able to punch people's heads off, or having a monomolecular blade and the means to use it is a good thing. This was better represented in ME 1, where melee damaged health directly, which is what made Krogan very dangerous.

There is also a point here though the abundance of guns in the me universe would suggest that they have quite a bit of merit.

Yes, of course, they are still the standard means of combat. What I mean is that people who are proficient in melee and have the means to close in on you without being shot down have the potential to deliver a whole lotta justice. But these guys are few and far between. My argument is against the argument that melee should not exist in a sci-fi setting. 

Think a Krogan with heavy armor and powerful shield generators, combined with their natural resilience enables a Krogan squad to charge an enemy position without being shot down, and once they are in melee range, your shields don't count for **** and they are free to break your neck. That is why Krogans are scary in the lore. Also, that is why they make wonderful pirates, a Krogan in the confined spaces of a spaceship is like an elephant in a china shop. 

That also applies to Vanguards that can charge and have swords, or to infiltrators with the inexplicable gift of teleportation. 

I'm diggressing too much, what I meant is that melee in ME is not exactly punching armored people in the face, and that is perfectly logical for melee attacks to be effective. 

[ElectroNeonPanda]

death_for_sale wrote...

I mean I could be English and basically be the little brother of the USA; waiting on their beck and call and still trying to hold on to the last remaining vestige of a great empire, whose primary export is fish. I can only assume that it is a face saving measure, "Look, we didn't lose ALL of the Americas. We still have the Falklands!"

Congratulations on demonstrating an astounding lack of knowledge there.

[Sinnerj117]

I am inclined to disagree with you, OP. I find that, in the right hands, a sniper rifle can be useful on ANY map. Saying that these maps aren't built for sniping only proves how inexperienced you are at sniping. I can use a sniper rifle (or a saber with a scope) on any map and still be efficient with it. I may not always top the scoreboards, but I never come in last place when using sniper rifles either.

Modifié par Sinnerj117, 11 octobre 2012 - 12:21 .

[Thalamask]

Sinnerj117 wrote...

I am inclined to disagree with you, OP. I find that, in the right hands, a sniper rifle can be useful on ANY map. Saying that these maps aren't built for sniping only proves how inexperienced you are at sniping. I can use a sniper rifle (or a saber with a scope) on any map and still be efficient with it. I may not always top the scoreboards, but I never come in last place when using sniper rifles either.

Please read the rest of the thread. It's not about "sniper rifles are bad", although many of them could certainly use a small buff. The real topic is about how certain playstyles appear (to me) to be penalised in a drive to push people into playing the same way.

Also, please hold off the personal comments. I can also do well with sniper rifles and I seldom bottom the charts with them either. I do better with shotguns (I can often top the charts with those). But just because I CAN, doesn't necessarily mean I like to.

To me, the game design appears to be pushing an aggressive, run 'n gun, ADAD-dance combat style while, at the same time, providing classes that (on the face) support other playstyles, e.g. Devastator, Demolisher, Turian Soldier, Snipefiltrators etc. But then those playstyles are penalised, forcing the listed classes to perform in the same way that others do. That's all I'm trying to get at.

One of the most powerful images in my mind is the kind of thing you see in the ME cutscenes, cinematics, trailers etc. The team slowly retreating under fire, while laying down a mass of heavy fire to cover their retreat. It's awesome and it could have been part of MP, but it isn't and that's what bothers me.

If you want to succeed (at another other than Bronze), ya gotta do the spastic-chicken dance and run away a lot! 

Modifié par Thalamask, 11 octobre 2012 - 12:37 .

[DBL_ZA]

Statement revoked by myself due to irrelevance.... Apologies guys 

Modifié par DBL_ZA, 11 octobre 2012 - 12:39 .

[Sinnerj117]

Thalamask wrote...

Sinnerj117 wrote...

I am inclined to disagree with you, OP. I find that, in the right hands, a sniper rifle can be useful on ANY map. Saying that these maps aren't built for sniping only proves how inexperienced you are at sniping. I can use a sniper rifle (or a saber with a scope) on any map and still be efficient with it. I may not always top the scoreboards, but I never come in last place when using sniper rifles either.

Please read the rest of the thread. It's not about "sniper rifles are bad", although many of them could certainly use a small buff. The real topic is about how certain playstyles appear (to me) to be penalised in a drive to push people into playing the same way.

Also, please hold off the personal comments. I can also do well with sniper rifles and I seldom bottom the charts with them either. I do better with shotguns (I can often top the charts with those). But just because I CAN, doesn't necessarily mean I like to.

To me, the game design appears to be pushing an aggressive, run 'n gun, ADAD-dance combat style while, at the same time, providing classes that (on the face) support other playstyles, e.g. Devastator, Demolisher, Turian Soldier, Snipefiltrators etc. But then those playstyles are penalised, forcing the listed classes to perform in the same way that others do. That's all I'm trying to get at.

I understand. I am pretty versatile with any weapon though. I just find that the maps aren't wholly close quarters and instead prefer long range. I may have approached that wrong (it is 7:30 AM so my vocabulary isn't up to par).

Modifié par Sinnerj117, 11 octobre 2012 - 12:38 .