187 réponses à ce sujet

[hong]

The idea has merit.

For those saying that Bioware should balance better, they can ALWAYS balance better. There's no such thing as perfect balance; there's no game where people don't complain that things are overpowered or useless, no matter how much effort the devs put in. People will always judge differences relative to observed characteristics, not relative to a hypothetical scale.

Nor does it have to mean that you're screwed excessively. Some of the comments here make it sound like you'll get one use out of a gun, and then you're forced to use another. That would be an extreme case and not what AQ is talking about. The rate of deterioration is yet to be determined, and I seriously doubt we'd end up with literal glass cannons. Of course, if you're paranoid enough there's nothing to stop you believing that Bio would screw you over like that, but then there's no point in actually having a discussion.

[Dokteur Kill]

Air Quotes wrote...
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.

What's the point if a bunch of those weapons are basically the same weapon in a different wrapping? Ok, so your Vindicator breaks and you have to use your Valkyrie for a few games, which is basically the same weapon? Where's the point in that?

Or do you want to keep it as today, where a lot of weapons are functionally similar, but one is better than all the others? And then you have to gimp yourself occasionally by playing with one of the bad ones because the good one is broken? Are you sure, when you think about it, that you won't find that as annoying as I know I will find it?

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

And if there were only, say, six URs and half as many rares as there are today, you wouldn't have to.

[RakeWorm]

Air Quotes wrote...

ME4 will have to deliver. And this time they will have to make it with MP in mind from the start, not slap it in at the last moment. 

This is what concerns me the most. If MP were to get more MMOish, then I feel the focus on story will suffer. Most MMOs I've played have had heinous storylines, or at the very least worlds where you feel your actions have absolutely no effect on the world; because they frackin' don't. You see all these other "special" heros running around, doing the same things you are doing in a static world. Your actions mean nothing.

If you don't want the ME4 storyline to have the same issues as ME3, don't hope for an MP focus or MMO elements to be introduced.

[Dokteur Kill]

The fool you should have eaten wrote...
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.

I know the same thing has been proposed with regards to characters previously (possibly by air quotes, now that I think about it). Basically, if your character failed to extract, you'd have to play a few games with a different character.

I hated the idea then, and I hate it just as much if applied to weapons. Now, I like switching my game up. I like changing classes and weapons. But I like doing it when I feel like it. I don't want to be constantly changing loadouts, assigning powers from scratch etc. I'll play maybe 3-5 games with one character/weapon-combo and then I'll switch it around for variety. Being forced to waste time changing loadouts when I don't feel like it is just going to get on my ****** and make me more inclined to just stop playing.

[RakeWorm]

Dokteur Kill wrote...
 Being forced to waste time changing loadouts when I don't feel like it is just going to get on my ****** and make me more inclined to just stop playing.

^This^

[The fool you should have eaten]

Dokteur Kill wrote...

The fool you should have eaten wrote...
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.

I know the same thing has been proposed with regards to characters previously (possibly by air quotes, now that I think about it). Basically, if your character failed to extract, you'd have to play a few games with a different character.

I hated the idea then, and I hate it just as much if applied to weapons. Now, I like switching my game up. I like changing classes and weapons. But I like doing it when I feel like it. I don't want to be constantly changing loadouts, assigning powers from scratch etc. I'll play maybe 3-5 games with one character/weapon-combo and then I'll switch it around for variety. Being forced to waste time changing loadouts when I don't feel like it is just going to get on my ****** and make me more inclined to just stop playing.

That is precisely what I'm talking about.  I didn't like the idea at first either.  It seems totally unneeded.  But as you play and get used to it, you learn that there is some value to it.

That said, I do see your point, and honestly, I don't see Bioware implementing this as most of their consumers would likely agree with you.  And as a business, it is usually a good policy, not to ****** off your consumers.

[stysiaq]

@AQ:

What I would suggest in place of the weapon maintenance would be a system that rewards you for playing with different guns. You proposed something that penalises players for using the guns they enjoy, and nobody likes being penalised for no apparent reason.

For example, let's say we call our system...

THE GUN POINTS

Gun points are the points you can spend for the packs that level up your guns. You can earn a limited amount of GUN POINTS every week, so it equals, lets say, 5 additional unlocks per week. The packs are availble in the store on weekends, to create suspense.

During the week, players gather their precious PUN GOINTS by using different guns and scoring points with them, thus earning GUN POINTS. For scoring 50k regular points with a gun (for example, Claymore) you get 500 pistoletas taškas , but if you use other guns, like the Avenger, the amount is bigger. This way, the players that use less powerful weapons (because they don't have any better alternatives) have easier time earning GUN POINTS. The players who already unlocked a lot of guns are encouraged to use different guns, because the best ones don't grant enough GUN POINTS for the weekly extra packs.

[stysiaq]

GohanOwns wrote...

I think guns should level up the more you play with them. I was surprised when I saw that this wasn't the case in this game.

Would there be a limit, or could I level them up forever?

I can already see the BSN threads. "The Scimitar D is awesome!!!"

Modifié par stysiaq, 03 mai 2013 - 03:42 .

[RakeWorm]

GohanOwns wrote...

I think guns should level up the more you play with them. I was surprised when I saw that this wasn't the case in this game.

This also seems reasonable. As long as it takes time in some form, either by the packs or by gun experience points. One should have to spend quite a bit of time and effort into it.

[EVILFLUFFMONSTER]

Enemy balance is the problem, not the weapons. My solution earlier in this thread guarantees increased weapon and power variety without having to add entirely new game mechanics like weapon degradation.

I do like the gun points idea though.

[Nitrocuban]

Hell no.

[MAELXTROM]

GohanOwns wrote...

I think guns should level up the more you play with them. I was surprised when I saw that this wasn't the case in this game.

Agreed.  Could have diminishing returns for the sake of balance if necessary.  Unlimited non-conflicting weapon mods would be cool too.  That could be balanced by reducing player movement speed with successive mods.

Along similar lines I like the idea someone posted a long time ago for making promotions grant you one additional skill point to be applied to one character.

[stysiaq]

GohanOwns wrote...

RakeWorm wrote...

GohanOwns wrote...

I think guns should level up the more you play with them. I was surprised when I saw that this wasn't the case in this game.

This also seems reasonable. As long as it takes time in some form, either by the packs or by gun experience points. One should have to spend quite a bit of time and effort into it.

no packs please. I want my guns to level up just like I level up my characters, just that the guns will level up individually.

When the gun is leveled up to the maximum level, you should have a "Varren platform" mod for it.

[N7 Dynames]

 I was under the impression you were meant to play videogames for fun, I don't see how your implementation would add a fun factor. It would just deter from actual gameplay. I'm not sure why everyone here worries about balance so much, it's a team based game and if your teammates can perform better I don't see the problem. 

[EVILFLUFFMONSTER]

N7 Dynames wrote...

 I was under the impression you were meant to play videogames for fun, I don't see how your implementation would add a fun factor. It would just deter from actual gameplay. I'm not sure why everyone here worries about balance so much, it's a team based game and if your teammates can perform better I don't see the problem. 

Check out my idea earlier in the thread - much more fun and balanced.

[Cyonan]

GohanOwns wrote...

RakeWorm wrote...

GohanOwns wrote...

I think guns should level up the more you play with them. I was surprised when I saw that this wasn't the case in this game.

This also seems reasonable. As long as it takes time in some form, either by the packs or by gun experience points. One should have to spend quite a bit of time and effort into it.

no packs please. I want my guns to level up just like I level up my characters, just that the guns will level up individually.

Given the grind that would come with it to give us progression that actually lasts a good bit of time I think I'd rather have the packs.

If I randomly decide one day to use a gun I haven't used much before, I don't want to have to play 10 games with it before it's a decent weapon.

[Cyonan]

Air Quotes wrote...

N7 Dynames wrote...

 I was under the impression you were meant to play videogames for fun, I don't see how your implementation would add a fun factor. It would just deter from actual gameplay. I'm not sure why everyone here worries about balance so much, it's a team based game and if your teammates can perform better I don't see the problem. 

 

I play for fun and variety. Both in my game and in teammate game. Seeing nothing but Reetard Carbines and Carriers gets massively boring. 

Not everybody wants to use variety though.

It's fine to encourage it, as it typically keeps people playing longer, but having durability on your guns just starts punishing those who don't like to use a variety of things. It's less encouraging and more trying to force people.

Trying to force people away from a play style because you personally find it boring is poor design.

[Tokenusername]

Sounds bad and is a poor replacement for just taking the time to create a balanced weapon set.