187 réponses à ce sujet

[Stardusk]

Air Quotes wrote...

So in all of the ME games weapons never break down or degrade. And you never have to maintain them. And we could keep that for SP to prevent headaches. 

Reading weapon describtions such as the one of Avenger or Wraith or Paladin tells you that these are reliable, sturdy weapons. That implies that there are some unreliable ones.  


So for ME4 MP could we have weapons that are less reliable? Or maybe you have to maintain them more after missions and spend money to do that. For esxample the Reegar might be very powerful, but it could also be very flimsy and require you to spend like 50k to repair it. 

That would force tha players to pick other weapons, maybe even common ones who would be cheap to repair till they get more money. 

Because now once you get your Harrier X, you can use it all the time on all classes. But if it was expensive to maintain and lose damage if not repaired, maybe you will take that Vindicator next mission?  

What do you think? Now I understand that maintaining weapons can be a pain in the ass - like Fallout 3 or Far Cry 2 were they would break down o start to missfire, but for MP that could be a pretty good balancing factor and encourage players to vary weapons. 

You play Fallout too much...and are too young.

[Star fury]

Terrible idea. It's very EA-style actually, they implemented something similar in Real Racing 3, where your car decays and breaks while you can pay real money to repair it.

 So after 2-3 games your favourite and most used gun breaks and you will have to spend creds or real bucks to fix it. Sounds like something EA could do.

*Your Claymore is broken. 

You can spend
19 000 creds

or 

20 BioWare points to fix it.*

Modifié par Star fury, 03 mai 2013 - 11:51 .

[Dokteur Kill]

Annoying the hell out of your users instead of spending the time doing a proper job developing and balancing? Sounds like an excellent idea....

[Dokteur Kill]

Air Quotes wrote...
Annoying - maybe. Forcing them to freaking stop abusing same things might also be nice.

Weapon "abuse" is only a thing if the balance isn't there in the first place.

[Genprey]

Power classes would then be the master race.

[Ohnenick]

I would not discount the idea. With the plethora of weapons ME3 has, that would really go a way to allow additional balancing options.

EA being EA it will probably end in needing money somehow and randomly deciding which particular gun (out of a pool of say 5 broken ones) will actually get fixed and by how much.

The basic idea still sounds interesting though, imho.

[Genprey]

The fury and Phoenix dudes don't really need a gun. Depending on the build and weapon, the Collector rarely shoots. Almost any biotic or tech character that's paired with another biotic/tech character won't really be using a weapon. If anything, they'd shoot a few Acolyte shots for a Banshee or Phantom and just worry about managing that weapon.

Any mechanic that forces you to change characters is not very fun. In order to encourage more variety in characters/weapons, it's best to make the lacking ones more viable or interesting. Seeing all the negativity on the RNG store system, using credits for fixing weapons instead of progressing your manifest would not be a popular idea.

[Dokteur Kill]

Air Quotes wrote...
No game has balance. Not even PVP. Not COD, not Battlefield, not Unreal or CS. There are some better choices. And once you get them - you can roll with the indefinetely.

Balance doesn't need to be perfect. Just good enough that personal preference becomes what matters. And that's mostly a case of keeping the number of options reasonably limited and giving each option a useful niche or purpose. That's just a skill that the ME dev team will have to learn. Proposing that they fix mediocre balancing by tacking on a mechanism that forces players to vary their loadouts for no particularly good reason is just a good way of making the game worse.

ME3 MP suffers from a few poor decisions: By having too many weapons (and classes, for that matter), the dev team gave themselves too many variables to modify when working out the balance. And it also means that since every niche is pretty much filled, it's kind of hard to introduce a new item and make it interesting without making it a bit too powerful.

[MasterPeras]

No unessesery expenses please

[Kuato Livezz]

Air Quotes wrote...

So in all of the ME games weapons never break down or degrade. And you never have to maintain them. And we could keep that for SP to prevent headaches. 

Reading weapon descriptions such as the one of Avenger or Wraith or Paladin tells you that these are reliable, sturdy weapons. That implies that there are some unreliable ones.  


So for ME4 MP could we have weapons that are less reliable? Or maybe you have to maintain them more after missions and spend money to do that. For esxample the Reegar might be very powerful, but it could also be very flimsy and require you to spend like 50k to repair it. 

That would force tha players to pick other weapons, maybe even common ones who would be cheap to repair till they get more money. 

Because now once you get your Harrier X, you can use it all the time on all classes. But if it was expensive to maintain and lose damage if not repaired, maybe you will take that Vindicator next mission?  

What do you think? Now I understand that maintaining weapons can be a pain in the ass - like Fallout 3 or Far Cry 2 were they would break down o start to missfire, but for MP that could be a pretty good balancing factor and encourage players to vary weapons. 

I like it.  It helps users cycle through different weapons and prevents them from leaning on the same one game in game out.

[Ohnenick]

Wouldn't necessarily mean you can't use a weapon, as well. For example gun such and such makes x damage, gun such and such makes x+y damage, but tends to jam, if fired z times in a row. Gun such and such does x times 2 damage, but has a 10% chance of a misfire, period.

That would spice things up in game as well, as you have to be prepared for your gun not firing at any given time. Seems realistic to me. Might make caster classes unbearably op in comparison though.

Modifié par Ohnenick, 03 mai 2013 - 12:44 .

[Dokteur Kill]

Honestly, there are this many people who want even more random mechanisms to screw them over? 

Masochists, the lot of you.

Air Quotes wrote...
ME4 will have to have as many weapons as ME3 if not more or people will never stop complaining.

People will complain no matter what the devs do. That's no reason not to do things differently. You may lose some customers, but you'll probably also regain some that you've lost previously. And if the changes overall make the gameplay more varied (by making all of a smaller number of weapons and classes realistic options to pick, instead of making a small handful of choices obviously optimal), then the complaining will probably die down fairly quickly.

And there are PLENTY of niches to fill trust me.

Name a few.

[Kinom001]

Actually, I'm more of a fan of the CSMG, CSR, Lancer existing mechanic than I am having weapons break down. Hopefully manufacturing processes in the future can do a better job of developing weapons.

[Innocent Bystander]

Lemme put on my Shuriken and let's play some Platinum. Thank you but no, thank you. Adding expenses to maintain weapons that take hundreds of hours to even unlock is not the best idea.