Why were pistols so overpowered in this trilogy?
#26
Posté 03 janvier 2013 - 01:07
#27
Posté 09 janvier 2013 - 03:01
While what you say is true, I can't really thing of making mass effect work on much larger maps. One issue would be the targeting of biotics. The next would be accuracy in general and area effectsSoja57 wrote...
cdzander wrote...
Longer barreled weapons usually have a much greater range. In ME3 the ranges of most firefights are so close the advantage of full power rifles are wasted. With bigger maps in MP ARs and SRs would have a significant advantage over pistols/smgs.
Even in SP the enemies tend to be almost on top of you most of the time. You are either indoors or they show up only a few meters away, dropping from the sky practically on your head.
I agree. Longer range maps would allow weapons to fill different roles easier. Also, bigger maps mean more to explore, which is always welcome in my book.
Lets say you double or even tribble the "combat distance" accuracy, time dilitation would become much more important. Bigger, slower enemys would be easy to kill. For example an atlas would not pose a thread anymore. If he is a hundred meter away from you his rocket becomes useless and his shots will probably miss you while you will be able to empty whole clips without missing a shot. If biotic targeting range is increased and used "outdoors" without interfering objects (like it is the case in most shooter maps) they get really good. Add to that the fact, that your squad gets "instant hits" with powers...
In any case the game would need to become a lot more tactical. If you run into enemys you were supposed to easy dispose from long range...
#28
Posté 09 janvier 2013 - 08:46
That said trying to be a bit more to the point: one of the issues is that the usability/suitability of real life guns don't translate all that well to video games. Pistols are useful as concealed and/or easy to carry weapons, as well as being better suited to close quarter combat. Assault rifles, and especially snipers, are not well suited to that. This is hard to translate to video game worlds. You'd probably need barriers of some sort, either in the form of some "alarm" gauge, if concealment was the issue, or to wholly block you from bringing certain guns into certain areas (such as e.g. the battle on the Citadel in ME3, where if a gun fight happened in a simliar area in the real world, a hand gun would likely be a better option than an assault rifle and especially a sniper rifle).
In the Mass Effect universe (and most third person shooter/action games), they kinda have an analog to the suitability/useability, as snipers have a "sighting delay", meaning they are not as useful in close quarter combat, but work well in open areas, such as during the open world-ish planet missions in ME1 (and would be more useful had the Mako not had a canon on it's own). Assault rifles is a different issue, as they have a similar sight picture as pistols and SMGs. And so, some sort of balance needs to be struck depending on which guns you prefer to use. One way they could do this is make the assault rifles have the same sight picture as snipers, and pistols and smg's (and shotguns) as is, in third person, behind the shoulder. Some sort of useability balance would be struck, and the power balance between the different gun types could be adjusted thereafter.
A slighlty different angle is that you could make the argument that the Carnifex and the Paladin (and possibly the Phalanx in ME2) are the games equivalent to real world big bore revolvers (As ZombieGambit mentioned): powerful handguns with smaller ammo clips. Seeing as some people use big bore revolvers to hunt big game animals – partially, I guess, for the sport, but the caliber of such guns provide immense stopping power up to a certain range (and, as guns such as the hard hitting, high velocity S&W .460XVR can function as a powerful mini sniper of sorts), I don't have a problem viewing certain pistols in video games as having analog, if buffed, qualities that reflect those real life guns. Whether or not this idea transfers well to the ME universe is up for discussion, of course, but I've always considered the Paladin of this mould, and like it that way.
ZombieGambit
wrote...
BioWare should:
Makeall assault rifles, except the Harrier and Typhoon, do more damage
Make all SMGs, except the Hurricane, do more damage while increasing their weight a bit
Make all the hard-hitting pistols do less damage, but lower their weight and increase their ammo count and magazine size
I've no issue with the SMGs as they are myself (perhaps barring the weight issue). Real life SMGs use pistol calibers, usually no larger or more powerful than 9mm, if I'm not mistaken, and can be more unwieldy due to the rapid rate of fire than most pistols, and are therefore useful for different tasks, I'd imagine. Big bore revolvers (and some semi autos) would be more powerful ('though, it could be I read you wrong there, and you didn't mean they should be more powerful than the pistols as such, just more powerful in general). Then again, video games and fantasy and all that
Modifié par Shepard Drake Marston, 09 janvier 2013 - 09:03 .
#29
Posté 09 janvier 2013 - 10:55
Yes, but while you could say that the Paladin is something like a .500 Magnum, and Carnifex is maybe .460 Magnum there is the issue that neither have particularly penalizing recoil in this game. At least not compared to some of the AR's which have ridiculously poor accuracy and in some cases stability relative to their damage.Shepard Drake Marston wrote...
A slighlty different angle is that you could make the argument that the Carnifex and the Paladin (and possibly the Phalanx in ME2) are the games equivalent to real world big bore revolvers (As ZombieGambit mentioned): powerful handguns with smaller ammo clips. Seeing as some people use big bore revolvers to hunt big game animals – partially, I guess, for the sport, but the caliber of such guns provide immense stopping power up to a certain range (and, as guns such as the hard hitting, high velocity S&W .460XVR can function as a powerful mini sniper of sorts),
Yes, an SMG is chambered in a pistol caliber, but if you have one meant to be shoulder fired, it is going to be more stable than a pistol because there are more points of contact. It probably will have a longer barrel and longer sight radius than a service type pistol of the same caliber. All of which would tend to make it more accurate at comparible rates of fire. If you talk about something like a Glock 18, which is essentially an automatic Glock 17, then it is not going to be any more stable than the corresponding pistol (in this case the 17). Of course, basically nobody uses SMG's like this for serious tasks... it is basically all shoulder fired weapons like the MP5 or P90. Although in many cases they are supplanted by carbine length assault rifles (like the M4). Of course in game they handle SMGs like pistols, and none have any actual stock...I've no issue with the SMGs as they are myself (perhaps barring the weight issue). Real life SMGs use pistol calibers, usually no larger or more powerful than 9mm, if I'm not mistaken, and can be more unwieldy due to the rapid rate of fire than most pistols, and are therefore useful for different tasks, I'd imagine. Big bore revolvers (and some semi autos) would be more powerful ('though, it could be I read you wrong there, and you didn't mean they should be more powerful than the pistols as such, just more powerful in general). Then again, video games and fantasy and all that
#30
Posté 10 janvier 2013 - 01:49
Weapon balance in ME is pretty much a mess. ME2 got it the best; even the very best weapon in each class didn't really render another class moot, and pistols were, by late-game, sidearms and no more. ME1 was super whack, but it was forgivable because it wasn't really a shooter. ME3 is the worst offender of the three, because it is the purest TPS in the trilogy.
ME3 should have built on ME2's defense mechanics rather than abandon them. For one thing, Pistols and SGs wouldn't be so ridiculously dominant if they'd just kept the range modifier. Pistols would be very light, relatively strong versus armor but weak vs shields and suffer a moderate range penalty. SGs would generally be very strong against everything according to weight but subject to steep range penalty/cutoff. SMGs could remain relevant by being lighter than SGs but better vs shields/barriers than Pistols. ARs could remain jack-of-all trades by dealing moderate to heavy damage according to weight and not having a range penalty. SRs could remain long range weapons by having innate piercing but being subject to a reverse range penalty out to medium range. These general parameters in place is easy, while still giving room for wierdo weapons like the GPS, and really it's not a big step from what they already had in ME2. Since any Shepard could have 5 weapons and MP allows for 2 weapons anyway, this class system wouldn't have interfered with ME3's faster gameplay either.
I was never a violent hater of ME3 (really, I'm still here so I don't hate it at all) but there are so many things BW did in ME3 that frustrate me to no end.
#31
Posté 10 janvier 2013 - 02:38
Of course, they would still need to dial in damage versus weight
And it would have helped if shotguns did not gain anything from accuracy bonuses, outside of Smart Choke (admittedly, this is a bigger issue with MP balance than SP balance).
#32
Posté 10 janvier 2013 - 05:00
#33
Posté 10 janvier 2013 - 09:13
#34
Posté 10 janvier 2013 - 11:45
They are hand canons! (or heavy pistols) but in Mass effect 2, you get the Carnifex so early in the game, it's normal that you think they were way stronger then.
If you want to see a REAL difference, try the assault riffles from Mass Effect 1 compared with those of Mass effect 3 (only the Cerberus Harrier is descent in comparison)
#35
Posté 10 janvier 2013 - 12:07
I found SMGs quite good in Mass Effect 2 due to the fact that they can hold crazy ammounts of ammunition once upgraded.
True, a soldier does not care much about that, having a lot of weapons to shoot with...
#36
Posté 10 janvier 2013 - 01:03
Locutus_of_BORG wrote...
Why are pistols OP? Because lulz
Weapon balance in ME is pretty much a mess. ME2 got it the best; even the very best weapon in each class didn't really render another class moot, and pistols were, by late-game, sidearms and no more. ME1 was super whack, but it was forgivable because it wasn't really a shooter. ME3 is the worst offender of the three, because it is the purest TPS in the trilogy.
ME3 should have built on ME2's defense mechanics rather than abandon them. For one thing, Pistols and SGs wouldn't be so ridiculously dominant if they'd just kept the range modifier. Pistols would be very light, relatively strong versus armor but weak vs shields and suffer a moderate range penalty. SGs would generally be very strong against everything according to weight but subject to steep range penalty/cutoff. SMGs could remain relevant by being lighter than SGs but better vs shields/barriers than Pistols. ARs could remain jack-of-all trades by dealing moderate to heavy damage according to weight and not having a range penalty. SRs could remain long range weapons by having innate piercing but being subject to a reverse range penalty out to medium range. These general parameters in place is easy, while still giving room for wierdo weapons like the GPS, and really it's not a big step from what they already had in ME2. Since any Shepard could have 5 weapons and MP allows for 2 weapons anyway, this class system wouldn't have interfered with ME3's faster gameplay either.
I was never a violent hater of ME3 (really, I'm still here so I don't hate it at all) but there are so many things BW did in ME3 that frustrate me to no end.
Pretty much my thoughts. Still a good game, but so much unfulfilled potential.
#37
Posté 10 janvier 2013 - 01:44
I'd pick side arms every time.
Think about it.
N7 Hurricane is what I'd bring if I wanted an assault rifle.
Talon is what I'd bring if I wanted a shotgun.
Paladin with scope attachment is what I'd bring if I wanted a sniper rifle.
If I'm worried about running out of ammo, I'd bring the Collector SMG.
So I'd pick 2 of the above. 1 Pistol and 1 SMG.
This is so that I can run faster! Why carry a cumbersome weapon that only provides a slight advantage over sidearms?
Don't get me wrong, there are amazing shotguns and sniper rifles in Mass Effect 3. Assault rifles there are a few really good ones. But I'd be carrying very, very heavy weapons. I bet the armour that Shepard wears weighs a ton. So to carry those weapons would cause me to pass out (I am not fit enough to meet millitary requirements, so yes I would pass out and die carrying a sniper rifle, shotgun and assault rifle whilst wearing heavy armour for an extended period of time.
Modifié par Abraham_uk, 10 janvier 2013 - 01:47 .
#38
Posté 10 janvier 2013 - 04:18
Biglose wrote...
They need a weapon for all ranges against all foes. And can't afford to carry several side arms. I am already under the impression that assault rifle are the best pick for them.
Yes and no. The changes in ME3 make shotguns good at most of the ranges you'll be fighting at anyway, and since most weapons have no modifiers vs protections all weapons are more or less equal against all foes.
I do favor lighter ARs on my casters. Mattock, Phaeston, GPR, even the Avenger have been primaries for me. But that's honestly more because I find them fun than I think they're "the best."
Each weapon category has a few options that are light enough to make good caster weapons. In particular the Wraith is great if you want a shotgun. Disciple works, too. Mantis, Viper or Raptor if you want to keep some more distance, etc.
It really comes down to playstyle and what you like the feel of the most. Experiment a little and you'll find what you like.





Retour en haut






