187 réponses à ce sujet

[Kinom001]

Air Quotes wrote...

Kinom001 wrote...

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.

 

Oh hey. I though I saw you in my game. Thanks for posting. 

No problem. It was a fun game.

[donasdogamma]

I like the idea, it would give more of a RP feel to the multiplayer
And I want to be challenged

Modifié par donasdogamma, 03 mai 2013 - 01:11 .

[Dokteur Kill]

Air Quotes wrote...
Asari sniper rifle that shoots warp rounds like Acolyte ammo, but hitscan. 

Salarian sniper tazer rifle

Krogan nail gun sssault rifle that shoots smaller Graal spikes, but faster. 

You can have many interesting weapons with different properties. Doesn't matter if they have similar ROF or damage.

Just because a weapon looks like it might be mechanically different from what's already there doesn't mean that it'll fill a new niche. Not sure what a sniper tazer rifle is supposed to do, but staggering sniper rifle? We've already got that (the krysae). Shield-stripping sniper rifle... might be a niche, but to be honest most of the sniper rifles are already powerful enough that taking out shields isn't really a problem for them.

Projectile weapon hit detection is going to need some serious reworking before I want to see more of them. I think the adas demonstrates quite well why a rapid fire projectile weapon is not a good idea. Hopefully, FrostBite2 handles that better than UE3, but I'm not sure if it's practical to use FB's ballistics capabilities without having dedicated servers. Besides, I'm not quite sure what a spike-shooting assault rifle is going to do that other weapons don't, beyond being harder to hit with. There's nothing in the concept that couldn't be achieved by playing around with the defence damage multipliers on some of the existing weapons. If you want an anti-armour assault rifle, there are plenty of currently underpowered assault rifles that could be given that role.

Basically, you've got the five weapon categories, and the following weapon roles: shield stripping, anti-armour and explosive/staggering/crowd control. Most of the roles are already filled in all of the weapon categories in some form or another. Adding a new weapon that doesn't overlap with some other weapon is kinda tricky. And if you add new weapons that overlap with existing weapons, one of them is probably going to be more powerful than the other.

[SimulatedSnowman]

Air Quotes wrote...

We had the Falcon and they added the Striker. Why ?

We had a Reegar and Disruptor ammo and they added Acolyte.  Why?

Different things. ROF, weight, reload time, ramp up or not, 1 shot or many, charge or not, long range or short range, accurate or not really, staggers or not, has multipliers vs something or not. 

The possibilities are there. The asari sniper rifle could prime enemies for BE's, while doing little damage on it's own.  

Salarian sniper rifle could prime Tech bursts. 

Krogan assault rifle could be a Saber that shoots spikes and staggers with bleed effect. 

Also there could be weapons that slow down enemies to a crawl without using cryo ammo

I like this. This game already inspires a lot of fan made ideas on the "right" way to play. I myself feel intense shame when I use an Acolyte on a Krogan. In that vein, depending on the class used, some weapons are simply too good to pass up. Hurricane/Acolyte combo on a power user is perfect. Claymore or Reegar on a hard hitter is ideal. There's nothing wrong with "ideal" setups, but it does make a lot of aesthetically cool or lore weapons obsolete.

Adding race specific weapons that dovetail naturally with how particular races play not only encourages more creative ways to play the game, but would also eliminate a lot of the negative effect of picking one or two weapons and using them for all things. 

[Constipator369]

Star fury wrote...
Terrible idea.

Nuff said.

[Dokteur Kill]

Air Quotes wrote...
We had the Falcon and they added the Striker. Why ?

No idea, to be honest. It's a good example of what I'm talking about.

We had a Reegar and Disruptor ammo and they added Acolyte.  Why?

One is a shotgun, the other is a pistol. They also function very differently mechanically. Acolyte is in my opinion one of the more interesting weapons that they've added.

Different things. ROF, weight, reload time, ramp up or not, 1 shot or many, charge or not, long range or short range, accurate or not really, staggers or not, has multipliers vs something or not.

You can play around with these options, but that doesn't mean that you can balance them or make all of them interesting weapons. Once you start giving players a lot of weapons that fill the same role in slightly different ways, players are probably going to gravitate towards the one or two that are most effective in practice. You're basically proposing that they keep doing what they're already doing: creating a lot of weapons, without that much thought to making them realistic and attractive options.

The possibilities are there. The asari sniper rifle could prime enemies for BE's, while doing little damage on it's own.  

Salarian sniper rifle could prime Tech bursts.

You could do this, but it would make the ammo powers less useful, and I suspect it would make for a balancing nightmare. 

Krogan assault rifle could be a Saber that shoots spikes and staggers with bleed effect.

Basically a Kishock in assault rifle form, in other words? Sure, it could work. But is there any reason why you couldn't get rid of one of the existing weapons to make room for it? Do we really need both the GPR and the Phaeston, for example? There's no reason why they can't introduce new weapons that fill one of the few unfilled niches, while still cutting down on the overall number of weapons by getting rid of some of those that are a bit pointless.

Also there could be weapons that slow down enemies to a crawl without using cryo ammo

That's not really a niche of its own, though, it's just an alternative twist on the crowd control/staggering mechanism.

[CardboredSquare]

All they need to do is be smart when it comes to balancing other weapons. We don't need to have some weird mechanic fixing things.

Modifié par CardboredSquare, 03 mai 2013 - 01:46 .

[Boog_89]

Amazing idea, I wouldn't hesitate to buy DLC which slowed the rate of decay or super special pre order bonuses which gave you 5 free magic hammers to repair weapons.

[Fortack]

The point of weapons is to shoot stuff, not to repair, clean, or whatever. Forcing people to do something they don't want to do is not a good idea. Giving people plenty of viable options is. BW did a poor job balancing weapons and (to a lesser extent) kits. That's what needs to be improved first and foremost.

In ME2 all weapons were good. You could kill stuff just as fast with the Claymore or the Scimitar. In ME3 you have to empty like 5 Scimitar clips to do the same damage as a single Claymore round. That kind of nonsense is the damn problem.

[Dokteur Kill]

Fortack wrote...

The point of weapons is to shoot stuff, not to repair, clean, or whatever. Forcing people to do something they don't want to do is not a good idea. Giving people plenty of viable options is. BW did a poor job balancing weapons and (to a lesser extent) kits. That's what needs to be improved first and foremost.

In ME2 all weapons were good. You could kill stuff just as fast with the Claymore or the Scimitar. In ME3 you have to empty like 5 Scimitar clips to do the same damage as a single Claymore round. That kind of nonsense is the damn problem.

I like this Krogan. He understands.

[RoundedPlanet88]

Oh yes, what a GREAT idea. That way, that person with a lvl 6 avenger, and lvl 1 everything else will be forced to use other weapons, like their lvl 1 shuriken. AWESOME idea Airquotes.

In the beginning, nobody will have maxed manifests, this idea will hurt them more than anyone else. People WITH maxed manifests will simply rotate between roflstomp weapons/kits. Not like there aren't three or four.

[iOnlySignIn]

There really aren't enough bugs and glitches in the game. Let's make some new, intentional ones! How fun!

There aren't enough pointless things for the players to sink their virtual money into either. So we need more of those too!

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 03 mai 2013 - 01:59 .

[iOnlySignIn]

Actually, the proposed features already exist in ME3MP.

Whenever you or the host disconnect, or you're lagging, or an enemy becomes invincible, it's actually your weapon breaking down.

To properly maintain your weapon you need to regularly spend money in the RNG store to buy Headshot VI and Explosive Ammo.

There, mission accomplished.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 03 mai 2013 - 02:05 .

[CardboredSquare]

Air Quotes wrote...

CardboredSquare wrote...

All they need to do is be smart when it comes to balancing other weapons.

 

Yes. But the main idea is that a lot of weapons get forgotten. I mean once you get a Mattock you will never go back for Avenger and unless for ****s and giggles and once you get the Harrier, you forget the Mattock too.  

There needs to be something in place to make those "underpowered" weapons have an edge. 

I mean even today a lot of armies can have modern weapon, but many of them take the AK-47 and it's variants. Why? Cheap, easy to use, reliable and soldiers are used to it. And there's plenty of them. And plenty of ammo. Same for M4. It's just a shortened M-16 basically.

So basically what I said. Make it so that every weapon is usable on all difficulties. Since enemies get scaled up with difficulty maybe our weapons should too. The next Mass Effect MP should have their weapons designed so that's it's a matter of preferance/utility rather than firepower.

[Dokteur Kill]

Air Quotes wrote...
Yes. But the main idea is that a lot of weapons get forgotten. I mean once you get a Mattock you will never go back for Avenger and unless for ****s and giggles and once you get the Harrier, you forget the Mattock too.

And the proper way to fix that is to make the Avenger a desirable weapon, not to annoy you into using it because your better weapons fall apart. You don't keep people playing by irritating them.  

There needs to be something in place to make those "underpowered" weapons have an edge.

No, there just needs to be a reason to take them. Basically, they have to stop being underpowered. If the avenger had improved shield-stripping capabilities, then it would still be an attractive weapon for some classes even after you'd unlocked the Mattock and Phaeston.

I mean even today a lot of armies can have modern weapon, but many of them take the AK-47 and it's variants. Why? Cheap, easy to use, reliable and soldiers are used to it. And there's plenty of them. And plenty of ammo.

I don't think any army that has the resources to buy modern weapons will stick to the AK-47. That's not a voluntary choice, you stick with the old weapons because you can't afford the newer ones. I don't think any soldier who has access to a just as reliable but more effective weapon like the H&K G-36 would ever voluntarily use the AK-47. Maybe in a jungle scenario where the heavier round is less affected by foliage.

Same for M4. It's just a shortened M-16 basically.

...and, it's mostly replaced the M-16 in active service, because it's just as effective at the ranges firefights actually take place in, while being lighter and more compact.

Now, if we're talking about a choice between, say, an M-4 (or even better, an H&K-416 or G-36) and a weapon like the M-14 DMR, then it actually becomes an interesting choice. One is lighter and allows you to carry more spare ammo. The other is more effective at longer ranges. Which weapon you would prefer to carry depends on what kind of situation you're going into. For combat in populated areas, you'll probably prefer the 5.56 carbine. For patrolling in open, hilly terrain, the heavier marksman's weapon will probably be more useful.

Modifié par Dokteur Kill, 03 mai 2013 - 02:11 .

[RoundedPlanet88]

Air Quotes wrote...

RoundedPlanet88 wrote...

Oh yes, what a GREAT idea. That way, that person with a lvl 6 avenger, and lvl 1 everything else will be forced to use other weapons, like their lvl 1 shuriken. AWESOME idea Airquotes.

In the beginning, nobody will have maxed manifests, this idea will hurt them more than anyone else. People WITH maxed manifests will simply rotate between roflstomp weapons/kits. Not like there aren't three or four.

 

Well the whole manifest idea could be very well dumped for ME4.  

Also the Avenger could be very reliable or easy and cheap to repair and upgrade. Like it's description says. So new players will not get hurt. 

Except that won`t happen. And Like ionlysignin said, its ANOTHER money sink, and another thing to be horribly horribly glitched. AND, it kind of breaks the mold on Bioware games. Think about it, players have been consistently rewarded for playing through three separate games, with the SAME character. They are rewarded in MP for playing with the same weapons with consistent damage output.

Again, even if it`s "cheap and easy to fix", a begging player couldn`t afford even that. Combine that with making it a RNG chance to fix (which is what WOULD be implemented ), and it gets even worse. You`d essentially have ot unlock a weapon every time you wanted to use it. Which is probably the most retarded idea for a weapon system I`ve ever seen, or heard of. Even if the "repairs" i.e., repurchases, were cheaper, your still essentially re-buying the weapons. It`s a pretty much guaranteed way to kill the game.

So, long story short.
NO, you are bad and should feel bad.

[RoundedPlanet88]

Air Quotes wrote...

It was just an idea to discuss. If you feel it's bad - that's fine.  

Plus you don't know if they monetize it or make it buggy. New game - new stuff. 

Please, are you honestly naïve enough to believe that EA will change between now and then?

If you honestly believe that, I`ve got a lovely hurricane XXXXXXXXX that I`ll give you if you jump into the ocean.



And it is an idea. and I DID discuss it. The fact that you did not like my discussion of it is kinda irrelevant, If you only want people to agree with you, maybe you should add it to the OP, or maybe the title. That way, everyone who posts here will know better than to discuss how it could be bad, and points that you might consider before really suggesting it.

[mwh308]

Air Quotes wrote...
Plus you don't know if they monetize it or make it buggy. New game - new stuff. 

New game - new stuff, but that doesn't mean ANY new stuff or any new thing. This idea is horrible for a great many reasons...

1) It isn't fun. Pretty much no one likes it when their **** breaks. People hate item decay pretty much regardless of the game and its usually only put in as a money sink by developers.

2) It DOES NOT help balance. Adding additional mechanics to balance around does not make things easier to balance. This is self-evident. 

3) It takes away player choice. If a person likes playing with the same weapon all the time, they should be able to. There should not be mechanics that force them to change. 


So yes, you just brought this up for discussion. Great, fine, and we have found it wanting. Go back to the drawing board. This is a horrible idea.