187 réponses à ce sujet

[BattleCop88]

No. Just no, OP. Don't give EA any ideas. That just opens a window for price gouging.

This is worse than any nerf thread.

[tevix]

I like this idea, actually. admittedly I haven't read every response so far but the gist seems to be that it's an unpopular idea. Maybe a few points to add some fairness.

-50k is beyond excessive. Maybe 5k for a UR.
-Bonuses at the end of a match that affect the standard rate of decay. 10 waves survived would completely or nearly completely negate the decay rate. Say it didn't take as much of a beating.
-Bonuses for completeing the match or even just objectives quickly. Less time on the field means less wear and tear.
-Mods, gear, consumables to reduce the decay rate. Or maybe added bonuses to existing ones. Say a stabilization module reduces wear and tear as it reduces kick back.
-slow auto repair when the weapon isn't being used. 5-10% per match

Thoughts?

[Cyonan]

Air Quotes wrote...

I think you sometimes need to kick people in the nuts a little bit. Or else the nerfs will never stop. 

Once the gun is repaired, it's going to be just as OP as it was before. It's not even much of a balancing factor.

It will also probably end up being used as a reason to not buff a bad weapon, because it has really high durability.

[Ziegrif]

NOOOOOOOO!!!

Repairing weapons has NEVER been a good idea IMO.

Oblivions system sucked hard, Megatens system was a pain in the arse, Fallouts system works because you have huge amount of weapons I am literally SWIMMING in ASSAULT RIFLES.

Repairing weapons is nothing more than a money sink in mmos and multiplayer games designed to WASTE the players time and hard earned space cash because you need those weapons in tip top shape to earn more space cash. It's also a giant chore.

Modifié par Ziegrif, 03 mai 2013 - 05:00 .

[Star fury]

RoundedPlanet88 wrote...
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.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/16575851

[Dokteur Kill]

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

So, what you're saying is that you want to have more of what you consider fun, at the expense of other people's fun.

Valkyrie and Vindicator are completely different. 

No, they're not. They're burst-fire assault rifles with no special abilities that basically fill the exact same niche, except that one of them is good, and the other is... half-decent (and the Argus falls in the same category). You could tweak one of them to be a good all-round weapon and get rid of the other two, and the game would lose absolutely nothing in terms of variety.

Yeah. I adds to the balance. More variables.  

Something has to be in place so that lower powered weapons don't become paperweights. And that ultra-powerful ones don't become dominant in every game.

More variables to tweak does not necessarily make balancing easier. Some variables (like clip size, for examples) are in reality "false" balancing variables that don't actually affect how the weapon performs. Reliability is a typical example of a false balancing variable, because being "really reliable" doesn't make a bad weapon good in any way, just as having a large clip doesn't make a weak weapon powerful.

If you want to avoid having paperweights, you do it by either:
a) making sure that none of the weapons are paperweights
or
getting rid of the paperweights altogether

[Ziegrif]

Air Quotes wrote...
We're wasting money now just the same. Even more actually. And much more time.  

So you won;' use that Harrier for 1 game after playing with it for 3 consecutive ones. Big deal. Use a Valkyrie once. And then if you want - you can go back to Harrier. 

It gives people innitiative to try new stuff. Or go back to older stuff. 

Yes, the challenge system did okay to encourage people to switch up a bit. But not enough. 

You actually think they'd not put an RNG store on top of a weapon repair system?

Don't you remember who publishes BW games?

Your optimism approaches naivete.

[Cyonan]

Air Quotes wrote...

I'm not saying we should follow my idea to the letter. I just threw one up.  

Look, I know it can be really annoying. But it can't stay like in ME3. Just can't. Way too much grinding. Way too many weapons (with GOOD mechanics) are left in the dust. And way too many nerfs. 

So Cinnamon pls. 

and I threw up a counter argument as to a problem I saw with it =P

I'd be a bit surprised if there wasn't some kind of a grind in ME4, I'm mostly just hoping that it's not RNG based like it is now.

Too many weapons being left in the dust is mostly a result of power creep imo, which they should be careful about. The Carnifex used to be the go to caster pistol, and now it's largely ignored. I'd probably even call it a bit weak compared to the Arc Pistol, Acolyte, and Supressor.

BSN also should stop calling a gun garbage just because it's not good on every single character with no consumables, which we have a habit of doing.

[Tokenusername]

Air Quotes wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

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

 

Yeah. I adds to the balance. More variables.  

Something has to be in place so that lower powered weapons don't become paperweights. And that ultra-powerful ones don't become dominant in every game.

The idea is that there are no "low powered" weapons. You're trying to force people to change their weapon choice every so often because otherwise their weapon turns to ****. You are dictating the way a player has to play the game, something as a designer, you want to avoid as much as humanly possible. Some people just enjoy playing a certain way all the time. That is how they have fun. You forcing them to stop using their preferred loadout, or be punished for it is a very, very bad thing. It's basically, hot potato gameplay, where if you hold on to one set up too long it blows up in your face.

Player choice is one of the most important factors in a game's longevity. All weapons should just be balanced with each other rather than trying to making some half-arsed system to not allow you to use "OP" weapons all the time. A perfectly balanced weapon set would have all distinct strengths and weakness to each weapon, which would make them operationally different, but in the right hands effectually equal. This promotes variety because you aren't losing effectiveness when switching weapons, only having to play the game differently to reach the same effectiveness.

Also, what do you plan to do about the fact characters contribute to a large amount of what is "OP". Medical bills?

[tevix]

Well I tried to support the idea =p

[Tzarakiel]

I think reliable means better chance of hitting your target and lower chance of weapon, termal clip or ammo block jamming.

[Cyonan]

Air Quotes wrote...

If you don't find Valkyrie's, Vidicator's and Argus's mechanics different, then I don't have anything else to say to you. 

I agree that while they fall into the same category they're mechanically different.

The Avenger, Phaeston, and CAR are a much better example because they're actually very similar. You might even be able to get away with tossing the Harrier in there if you don't consider increased damage to be mechanically different.

but saying the Argus is the same as the Vindicator is like saying the Revenant is the same as the Collector Assault Rifle. They're both full auto assault rifles, but the Revenant handles much differently.

[suthelly]

Being reliable is just fluff. Plenty of time to maintain the most high maintenance gun while you flit from planet to planet for 22 minute battles.

[Dokteur Kill]

Air Quotes wrote...
If you don't find Valkyrie's, Vidicator's and Argus's mechanics different, then I don't have anything else to say to you.

How are they different? What are the factors that will drive you to choose one over the others in a given situation, beyond damage output? None of them have special abilities or damage multipliers that separate them from the others (except that the Valkyrie has a higher headshot multiplier). The only functional difference between how they play is the accuracy, and the refire time which makes the Argus a less desirable option despite its fairly high damage. The game would work just as well with only a single burst-fire assault rifle.

Now, if one of them had other abilities, for example, if the Vindicator had additional damage against shields, and the Argus was more effective against armour, then we could talk.

[Tokenusername]

Air Quotes wrote...

I'm sorry, but the weight mechanic PREVENTS me from playing my Fury with a Javelin and Claymore at the same time and reworked ME1 mechanics prevent me from unleashing all powers at once. That's NOT FUN for me.  

And RNG store prevents me from FUN.

Weight mechanic doesn't prevent you from doing anything. It balances the effectiveness of weapon strength and power strength. You can bring Javelin and Claymore on the Fury, and you would be very quick with your powers, but you would have immense weapon capabilities to compensate. This isn't an optimal strategy, but that doesn't mean it won't work.

There is a difference between guidelines and punishment. As a designer, you provide the player with a set of tools, which they can choose to use in creative ways to accomplish the goal you've given them. As a matter of balance, and for the purpose of not having to make every possibility possible since it would not work on any time schedule in the universe, certain guidelines are put in place to steer players away from actions that will be detrimental. Something like placing level boundaries isn't stiffing exploration, it prevents players from seeing that nothing actually exists beyond that hill and ruining their immersion. Limiting power usage with a universal cooldown doesn't disallow the player to use their preferred powers, it makes them choose and use them in moderation to prevent unreasonable offensive outputs.

You don't deny that your proposal would be a punishment to the player, and you should never punish the player for their choice in playstyle.