187 réponses à ce sujet

[MaxShine]

LOL, pay for being cheap... This concept should be introduced into other games too... Like if someone camps in a corner for too long he has to pay rent...

[EVILFLUFFMONSTER]

I don't want to shoot your idea down, but I would much rather the games core mechanics altered so that the weapons themselves were more balanced. I myself suggested many changes which I believe would have changed ME3 for the better in terms of weapon and power balance.

Many of the faults with the existing system is that when you scale the difficulty, more and more weapons and powers get less and less useful, this is because the frequency of armored and higher health enemies grows substantially. On bronze, enemies die so fast you are actually more efficient at killing with high rof weapons as you can spary down a bunch of enemies in a row, while your claymore, widow, carnifex etc is taking much much longer to kill the same amount of mooks - its only when the boss units appear that the power weapons are more useful. The same goes for powers - The same ones are used for bosses, warp, reave etc but on bronze that singularity is really good at killing mooks, shockwave sends scores of enemies flying, overload stuns and sets up groups of enemies, tech armor actually can be used offensively, drones are not garbage and get plenty of kills etc.

So how would higher difficulties be made so that these other weapons and powers are still useful? Change the ENEMY BALANCE. Dont add more armored and less mooks, add more and more of everything - give the enemy more damage, more speed, higher frequency of casting powers and throwing grenades. Increase enemy numbers at a given time, make them spawn closer, make them attack more aggressively, more intelligently. This way the a soldier carrying a revenant would be just as useful as an infiltrator with a javelin, one takes out the mooks the other takes out the bosses. Sentry turrets would no longer be garbage as they would get plenty of kills too, all sorts of powers that get left behind would suddenly be viable and useful.

Overall, the variety of weapons, classes and powers viable for gold would be increased tenfold, at no expense to anyones fun. AR and SMG usage would be up too, and many classes would be taking along an extra weapon like a spare SMG on an infiltrator for mooks while he uses his sniper for bosses - you don't currently get this much as they are not currently useful on gold(apart from hurricane).

The new engine would be able to deliver this,and make the game much much more balanced - its not a perfect idea, but it illustrates the framework for something ultimately more balanced and fun don't you think?

[RoundedPlanet88]

Air Quotes wrote...

RoundedPlanet88 wrote...

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.

 

Did I say anything abouyt liking or disliking you. Or agreeding or disagreeing? Monetizing can be done in different non-forced ways. 

But that's not the question.  

So, I answered your question, you bring up "monetizing" . I answer that with EA, you answer with "that's not the question" THEN WHY WERE YOU USING IT AS A "justification" for your idea?

I already answered your question, along with several other people, we`ve even given you WHY. And while you never came out and disagreed with me, who was it that said:

***"plus, you don`t know if they monetize it or make it buggy. New game - new stuff. "***

In direct response to my point about it pretty much being guaranteed to be buggy, and monetized?



Are you going to say that you, yourself did not say that?
My compliments to your cat then, he`s an EXCELLENT typist.

It`s not a terrible idea if you don`t think about it. But if you think about it, and how it would be implemented, and the giant amounts of bugs that WOULD be inherent in a system of that nature,(there is no way  such a system could be 100% bug free, and it would be a system where pretty much any bugs would be extremely irritating, I`m basing that off the RNG store we have now.), and it starts to look like a terrible idea.

[DullahansXMark]

Avenger is OP, break it plz

[RakeWorm]

We aren't raiding in some MMO. Repair costs just aren't appropriate without a guild/raiding based game like MMOs.

[RoundedPlanet88]

RakeWorm wrote...

We aren't raiding in some MMO. Repair costs just aren't appropriate without a guild/raiding based game like MMOs.

Actually, I`m kinda surprised there haven't been any giant pushes (that I`ve seen obviously) for a Mass Effect MMO. I can easily see it, there`s so many factions, each with personal goals, that making an MMO in mass effect would make a lot of sense.

[RoundedPlanet88]

Air Quotes wrote...

RoundedPlanet88 wrote...

Air Quotes wrote...

RoundedPlanet88 wrote...

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.

 

Did I say anything abouyt liking or disliking you. Or agreeding or disagreeing? Monetizing can be done in different non-forced ways. 

But that's not the question.  

So, I answered your question, you bring up "monetizing" . I answer that with EA, you answer with "that's not the question" THEN WHY WERE YOU USING IT AS A "justification" for your idea?

I already answered your question, along with several other people, we`ve even given you WHY. And while you never came out and disagreed with me, who was it that said:

***"plus, you don`t know if they monetize it or make it buggy. New game - new stuff. "***

In direct response to my point about it pretty much being guaranteed to be buggy, and monetized?



Are you going to say that you, yourself did not say that?
My compliments to your cat then, he`s an EXCELLENT typist.

It`s not a terrible idea if you don`t think about it. But if you think about it, and how it would be implemented, and the giant amounts of bugs that WOULD be inherent in a system of that nature,(there is no way  such a system could be 100% bug free, and it would be a system where pretty much any bugs would be extremely irritating, I`m basing that off the RNG store we have now.), and it starts to look like a terrible idea.

 

Jumping to conclussions like all the BSN. As always.  

Like the weight mechanic was introduced for ME3, the reliability mechanic could be there for ME4. Period. 

So, who said:
***
"
Did I say anything abouyt liking or disliking you. Or agreeding or disagreeing? Monetizing can be done in different non-forced ways. 

But that's not the question.  
"
***



In answer:

I`VE GIVEN YOU MULTIPLE REASONS, NONE OF WHICH YOU HAVE COHERENTLY, REASONABLY ANSWERED.
therefore, since I have reasons that I`m gonna assume that you CANNOT dispute, (because if you COULD, why wouldn`t you in a DISCUSSION???), you say I`m "Jumping to conclusions".....................And dismiss MY discussion, simply because I disagree with you. WOW.

slowclap.gif

[Fortack]

Air Quotes wrote...

ME2 had like 3 weapons in all categories. And they got boring pretty fast. Viable - sure. Yet, still the DLC weapons were miles better. Once you took the Mattock, you were good to go.

Well, not much has changed then. There still are only a few viable weapons in each category. My point is that it's a lot easier to make most weapons worth your while instead of forcing people to use junk for whatever reason.

In the end this is a "does the end justify the means" kinda thing. I agree with your goal, but disagree how you think to accomplish it.

Like the weight mechanic was introduced for ME3, the reliability mechanic could be there for ME4. Period.

The weight mechanic is a decent idea, but very poorly implemented. The only thing it does is reduce weapon options while its intended purpose was to accomplish the opposite.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

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. 

I disagree. I think it should actually be the opposite. If there are going to be any upkeep or reliability mechanics in ME4, they should start from the SP experience before finding ways to integrating that into MP. SP is an environment where tweaking the way weapons feel has minimal impact on game balance. Also, an SP playthrough lasts many hours versus an MP match that only goes for maybe 20-30 minutes, so I know I'd rather tinker with my weapons first in SP before doing it in MP. 

This is just how I see it, from an RPG perspective.

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 03 mai 2013 - 02:53 .

[Dokteur Kill]

Fortack wrote...
The weight mechanic is a decent idea, but very poorly implemented. The only thing it does is reduce weapon options while its intended purpose was to accomplish the opposite.

I think the weight mechanic would have worked a lot better if powers were on individual cooldowns. 

[RakeWorm]

Air Quotes wrote...

My point mainly wa that common and uncommon weapons and a lot of rares even are grossly underutilized, because UR's beat them in every way. Reliability and maintenance costs COULD balance them out. 

Why do you think the Avengers and Shurikens and Predators are so common in the lore? Because they do have an edge. Cos they are cheap, they are easy to get, easy to upgrade and they work. But in MP they have none of that. And buffing them to XXX to Harrier levels doesn't make sense either, so don't give me that.  

Now you spend 20 mln credits to get a Lancer X. What if you could unlock a Lancer X right away, but then you would have to spend money to upkeep it? 

You have the weapon, but using it is not cheap. Like in real world. You can have that 50 cal rifle. Are you gonna use it much to shoot mooks, It's expensive to shoot. No, you would use a common 5.56. most of the time. 

The difficulty is keeping the "rarity" or sexy factor. People want to be able to run around with something a whole bunch of people don't have. If you could get Lancer X in 20 minutes, people would feel they aren't accomplishing anything.

EDIT: Also, you would have the issue of someone in a slump. If they have a long stretch of horrid games where they are wiping and their weapons are degrading, they could end up in a situation without the credits to repair them.

Modifié par RakeWorm, 03 mai 2013 - 02:58 .

[Dokteur Kill]

Air Quotes wrote...
My point mainly wa that common and uncommon weapons and a lot of rares even are grossly underutilized, because UR's beat them in every way. Reliability and maintenance costs COULD balance them out.

No. It couldn't balance them out. It might lead to them being used more, but it wouldn't balance them out. They'd still be absolute pants, and the players would probably resent being forced to use poor weapons when they've unlocked better ones. "Hey, you've finally unlocked that awesome weapon, that you've wanted for three months, but we're only going to let you use it one out of every ten matches". Yeah, that's going to prove popular. 

Why do you think the Avengers and Shurikens and Predators are so common in the lore? Because they do have an edge. Cos they are cheap, they are easy to get, easy to upgrade and they work. But in MP they have none of that.

Actually, they do. They are, after all, available in the cheaper packs, and can be fully unlocked quickly. Unlike the Harrier, Hurricane and Eagle.

Now you spend 20 mln credits to get a Lancer X. What if you could unlock a Lancer X right away, but then you would have to spend money to upkeep it?

I'd probably not play much multiplayer then. Because it's basically the same annoying mechanisms that make me loathe games like Battlefield Free2Play.

You have the weapon, but using it is not cheap. Like in real world. You can have that 50 cal rifle. Are you gonna use it much to shoot mooks, It's expensive to shoot. No, you would use a common 5.56. most of the time.

Actually, despite its somewhat dubious legality according to the Geneva convention, .50 BMG sniper rifles are regularly used against personell in war zones.

Soldiers generally prioritize survival. They don't really care about what it costs to kill the enemy. If a $100.000 guided artillery round can do the job from a safer distance, then that's a better option than getting close with a carbine. Let future generations of tax payers carry the cost.

[RakeWorm]

Air Quotes wrote...

RakeWorm wrote...

Air Quotes wrote...

My point mainly wa that common and uncommon weapons and a lot of rares even are grossly underutilized, because UR's beat them in every way. Reliability and maintenance costs COULD balance them out. 

Why do you think the Avengers and Shurikens and Predators are so common in the lore? Because they do have an edge. Cos they are cheap, they are easy to get, easy to upgrade and they work. But in MP they have none of that. And buffing them to XXX to Harrier levels doesn't make sense either, so don't give me that.  

Now you spend 20 mln credits to get a Lancer X. What if you could unlock a Lancer X right away, but then you would have to spend money to upkeep it? 

You have the weapon, but using it is not cheap. Like in real world. You can have that 50 cal rifle. Are you gonna use it much to shoot mooks, It's expensive to shoot. No, you would use a common 5.56. most of the time. 

The difficulty is keeping the "rarity" or sexy factor. People want to be able to run around with something a whole bunch of people don't have. If you could get Lancer X in 20 minutes, people would feel they aren't accomplishing anything.

EDIT: Also, you would have the issue of someone in a slump. If they have a long stretch of horrid games where they are wiping and their weapons are degrading, they could end up in a situation without the credits to repair them.

 

Avengers could be dirt cheap. There could be a "black market" store. You could sell stuff, if there was an option to loot during the MP games. Sell enemy artifacts. And so on. 

For a lot of gamers, the very fact that it is dreadful grinding is what makes it desirable. It provides the long-term drive. If you were to somehow stagger your system where a huge amount of guns are easily available, and then still leave a few that are extremely time-consuming to get - maybe that could work.

But the gaming community is orbits around bragging rights and time spent (how often do people quote their hours played to you?), there has to be an element of absurd grinding for gear.

And then there is just the practical aspect. The changes you are suggesting are massive. It would require an entire overhaul of the MP system and mechanics from the ground up. Not only unlikely, but it would suggest a movement away from a game primarily based around a storytelling SP that also has a fun MP. Again, this isn't an MMO. I personally enjoy the relative simplicity of the MP - it allows for a simple "pick up and play" mentality.

[EVILFLUFFMONSTER]

What do you think of my idea Airquotes? We have the same aim -diversity and weapon use balance.

[UnknownMercenary]

It was terrible in Far Cry 2 and the first Stalker.

Even with a repair mechanic I wouldn't want it in ME4.

[stysiaq]

The idea of a gun breaking or jamming is not a good one. Don't bring realism to Mass Effect, please.

All that needs to be done is cutting the gun poll in half, so we have a decent Vindicator instead of Vindicator, Valkyrie and Argus, or Revenant instead of all the "revenantish" guns. We keep the guns that are truly unique like Scorpion or PPR.

I mean, I don't know the next ME guns other than the Avenger, but I think the game would be better if the gun poll wouldn't be so bloated.

Besides, if someone really enjoys using Harrier on everything it's his right. I wouldn't force anyone to use guns he doesn't like.

Imagine that the future unlock system resembles the current one. I love, let's say, the Revenant mark V and it is the best weapon in my armory. But it breaks and I want to spend my money on packs (new guns) rather than weapon maintenance. So I'm forced to use my second best gun, the GPSMG III.

Frankly, I'm all for removing the 5678 consumables from the store. I'm still 38 URs short and I'm annoyed every time I need to buy packs for medigels and so on instead of buying myself Stabilisation Modules and Cryo Ammo IV.

[The fool you should have eaten]

Air Quotes wrote...

Or it could be done in a anoher way. Without using credits.

For exaple: you play a mission. Your PPR is broken and needs fixing. You have to play 1 mission without it till it gets replaced.

I think that this might have gotten missed by a lot of people.

I have recently taken to playing a flight simulator called Warthunder.  It is free to play, but whenever you lose a plane in combat, you must wait for a certain amount of time for it to be repaired, or you can spend in game credits to repair it instantly. 

I am a bit of a horder myself, so I always opt to wait for the free repair, and I can tell you that this model works fine.  Instead of getting tired of flying my Spitfire Mk I all of the time, I also try out my F2A-3 Buffalo and other planes, adding a good deal of variety to my game, while at the same time, not spending unneeded credits.

[The fool you should have eaten]

Air Quotes wrote...

stysiaq wrote...

The idea of a gun breaking or jamming is not a good one. Don't bring realism to Mass Effect, please.

All that needs to be done is cutting the gun poll in half, so we have a decent Vindicator instead of Vindicator, Valkyrie and Argus, or Revenant instead of all the "revenantish" guns. We keep the guns that are truly unique like Scorpion or PPR.

I mean, I don't know the next ME guns other than the Avenger, but I think the game would be better if the gun poll wouldn't be so bloated.

Besides, if someone really enjoys using Harrier on everything it's his right. I wouldn't force anyone to use guns he doesn't like.

Imagine that the future unlock system resembles the current one. I love, let's say, the Revenant mark V and it is the best weapon in my armory. But it breaks and I want to spend my money on packs (new guns) rather than weapon maintenance. So I'm forced to use my second best gun, the GPSMG III.

Frankly, I'm all for removing the 5678 consumables from the store. I'm still 38 URs short and I'm annoyed every time I need to buy packs for medigels and so on instead of buying myself Stabilisation Modules and Cryo Ammo IV.

 

I disagree. Cuting out the weapons is bad. One Vindicator to rule them all is not fun. I want my tons of weapons. This is freaking Mass Effect. A universe were all sorts of gadgets can exist. Weapons too.  

I just don't want to spend 1000 hours to get a Typhoon to X. 

But then you wind up with the issue of people not wanting for half (really it's more) of their inventory to become useless.  And that is a totally fair thing to want.