187 réponses à ce sujet

[WaffleCrab]

this idea is ****ing horrible, no offense. but FO univers and ME univers do not mix that well, not to mention lag and other variables that already play a factor in the game. Also, that would deter a part of the intended "target" group away, also, as some people mentioned, it would make for some hilarious and sad platinum/gold games. Bad idea.

[dysturbed0ne]

I didn't read any of the replies, so I'm sure someone has said this already, but I the small chance it wasn't brought up.....

This is a horrible idea. Let's say my Harrier needs repair, do you really believe EA is going to just let me buy the repair kit for the Harrier? NO. They are going to make it a random pack that the store gives out, just like everything else. Which means I will have a s**t ton of repair kits I don't need for weapons I never use and none, or next to none of the ones I do need.

Horrible idea is horrible, and you should feel bad.

Also, Could someone lose their marbles in this thread (so much so that the mods actually need to delete it, where is CS when you really need her), before someone with EA sees it and adds yet another way to troll us with the store in ME4. Please and thank you.

Modifié par dysturbed0ne, 03 mai 2013 - 08:06 .

[Trav-O]

The real issue is theres just too many guns and some just don't stand out or have unique abilities. Having your hardened veteran go back to weilding an Avenger because he has no money kind of makes you feel crappy and poor, doesn't it? Unfun.

[IUsedToDieAtWaveOne]

If this happens...
http://testyourmight...86024-png.5267/

No, not really, I just wanted to post this pic.

Modifié par Di-Datau, 03 mai 2013 - 08:04 .

[DeadeyeCYclops]

yet another stupid idea, my suprise factor isn't raising.... considering... nvm

[Fortack]

Cyonan wrote...

Fortack wrote...

So what does make a weapon garbage in your opinion?

For me it's quite simple. Everything is garbage when - regardless the circumstances - something else is always miles ahead. Something doesn't need to be the most optimal option to be a worthwhile addition, but it does need to be pretty close in performance or at least have a clear advantage in some way.
Ideally the choice which weapon one's going to use should be personal preference and not about you rock or you suck like it is in ME3.

My idea of something being garbage or not depends on how effective it actually is at killing things, not how well it performs next to a Harrier or Reegar which are both too powerful in my opinion anyway. When I can kill a gold Ravager in 1 clip on my Vindicator(with consumables) then I don't call that garbage, even if my Harrier would have killed it faster.

The Lolreegar and Harrier are indeed bad examples. However, buffing the Vindicator's damage with 50 (or more) %, and/or giving it damage multipliers against specific defenses, and/or increasing its headshot damage wouldn't upset the (AR) balance at all (it would improve it instead).
Unless the Vindicator's only reason of existence is to bridge the time it takes to get a proper AR out of the RNG system (which is really bad if true), I don't understand why it didn't get a major buff to make it more competitive in the greater scheme of things.

The problem is that people complained their guns weren't killing really quickly when they were put on a caster. Having weapons that are really good on casters with no consumables creates balance issues because of weapon users, though.

and as we see right now, weapons are out performing most non grenade powers, and weapon users are all doing great because they're just taking those weapons that were simply good on a caster then making them OP with 80% damage boosts.

That's because of the stupid insane damage boosts some kits (for unknown reasons) get. All weapons should be good on every kit (when used right of course), and it's cool that some (weapon specialized) kits make them a bit better. Powers such as Marksman, Devastator Mode and ARush can add very interesting effects but they don't break balance like Tactical Cheat does. To create weapons that are good on a few kits only is a terrible idea.

[Stardusk]

Fortack wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Fortack wrote...

So what does make a weapon garbage in your opinion?

For me it's quite simple. Everything is garbage when - regardless the circumstances - something else is always miles ahead. Something doesn't need to be the most optimal option to be a worthwhile addition, but it does need to be pretty close in performance or at least have a clear advantage in some way.
Ideally the choice which weapon one's going to use should be personal preference and not about you rock or you suck like it is in ME3.

My idea of something being garbage or not depends on how effective it actually is at killing things, not how well it performs next to a Harrier or Reegar which are both too powerful in my opinion anyway. When I can kill a gold Ravager in 1 clip on my Vindicator(with consumables) then I don't call that garbage, even if my Harrier would have killed it faster.

The Lolreegar and Harrier are indeed bad examples. However, buffing the Vindicator's damage with 50 (or more) %, and/or giving it damage multipliers against specific defenses, and/or increasing its headshot damage wouldn't upset the (AR) balance at all (it would improve it instead).
Unless the Vindicator's only reason of existence is to bridge the time it takes to get a proper AR out of the RNG system (which is really bad if true), I don't understand why it didn't get a major buff to make it more competitive in the greater scheme of things.

The problem is that people complained their guns weren't killing really quickly when they were put on a caster. Having weapons that are really good on casters with no consumables creates balance issues because of weapon users, though.

and as we see right now, weapons are out performing most non grenade powers, and weapon users are all doing great because they're just taking those weapons that were simply good on a caster then making them OP with 80% damage boosts.

That's because of the stupid insane damage boosts some kits (for unknown reasons) get. All weapons should be good on every kit (when used right of course), and it's cool that some (weapon specialized) kits make them a bit better. Powers such as Marksman, Devastator Mode and ARush can add very interesting effects but they don't break balance like Tactical Cheat does. To create weapons that are good on a few kits only is a terrible idea.

LOLtactical cheat

[Cyonan]

Fortack wrote...

The Lolreegar and Harrier are indeed bad examples. However, buffing the Vindicator's damage with 50 (or more) %, and/or giving it damage multipliers against specific defenses, and/or increasing its headshot damage wouldn't upset the (AR) balance at all (it would improve it instead).
Unless the Vindicator's only reason of existence is to bridge the time it takes to get a proper AR out of the RNG system (which is really bad if true), I don't understand why it didn't get a major buff to make it more competitive in the greater scheme of things.

I'm not saying things don't need a buff, but it's hardly "garbage" on every kit with or without consumables(especially with, because Warp Rounds). I also think that yes, 50% minimum more damage is too much for the Vindicator.

That's because of the stupid insane damage boosts some kits (for unknown reasons) get. All weapons should be good on every kit (when used right of course), and it's cool that some (weapon specialized) kits make them a bit better. Powers such as Marksman, Devastator Mode and ARush can add very interesting effects but they don't break balance like Tactical Cheat does. To create weapons that are good on a few kits only is a terrible idea.

The only weapons that TC offers a significant damage boost over AR is on Sniper Rifles. I don't see how you can claim TC is broken while AR is balanced.

If you drastically cut down on weapon damage for the weapons users, you run into the issue that the Adepts are now better weapons users because they can reliably provide priming for Warp Rounds IV. Plus things like Warp being multiplicative damage boosts.

There is nothing wrong with a kit that is tailored to certain kits. It doesn't need to be specific to one kit, but it can be fine for weapon users and not desirable for casters.

Modifié par Cyonan, 03 mai 2013 - 09:13 .

[jupitersj]

Give EA more money? Surely you Jest?

[PureGeth]

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 example 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. 

The weapon info isn't necissarily true.

[N7 Dynames]

Air Quotes wrote...

N7 Dynames wrote...

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. 

Alright then lets say your idea was implemented. Now you have less informed players using weaker weapons alongside an already confusing interface, you would have to deal with less able players being even worse off and in a team based game thats not going to help you in the slightest. 

Your argument is also very self centred for a game based on teams, you complain about what other people use yet as long as they play well it doesn't affect you in the slightest. The nicknames your using tells me a lot about you too, not only are you being selfish but your also acting immature. 

There are plenty of skilled weapons to use such as the Mattock and Saber, if you want to make yourself feel superior to other players "simply" top the scoreboards with these weapons. Everyone wins.

 

Jumping to conclusions. 

Confusing interface? If you can read - there's nothing confusing about it. In the tutorials are good - you can put a lot of stuff in.  

I have a friend in my Origin list, who only used a Widow. Only Widow, all the time. He had a much higher level Javelin than I did, but never used it. Widow is good enough for me and nothing is forcing me to change. 

Well I did. I said - dude just try the Javelin for once. And he did. And he liked it. It was different. But he liked it. And then he tried other weapons and he said - dude why I didn't do this before? 

Well? I dunno. 

Any new player to this game is faced with like 150 different  characters and weapons, masses of mods, consumables and mutiple ways to build the masses of characters. It takes a lot of time to learn, most veterans forget this as it's become second nature. It took me forever to find out that a gear bonus wasen't a consumable and i'm not the only one in that boat. 

Not sure how i'm meant to respond to your little story. Your complaining about lack of weapon variety despite having convinced one of your friends to try different weapons. You should take a look at bronze and silver, people tend to be more experimental on lower difficulties.

Like it or lump it the weapon balance is largely based on the rarity of the item. If all weapons were equal what reason would a player have to progress to other weapons? This isn't Halo (exculde 343's attempt)  where a balanced sandbox is nessesarry, it's a progressive type of game. 

If you truely wanted balance you would be throwing away the progession system. A lot of people don't like to admit it but it keeps them playing wether they like it or not. 

I don't know what your trying to achieve here but it's in no ones intrest for this line of thought to continue.

[jupitersj]

Air Quotes wrote...

jupitersj wrote...

Give EA more money? Surely you Jest?

 

No one is forcing you. Same as now. EA will monetize ME4 in every way possible like it or not. Say goodbye to free DLC. 

Who said anyone was? I don't. Monetizing ME4 to the fullest won't affect me; sucks for Bioware fans though. I haven't purchased DLC from any Mass Effect title(or any title for that matter, unless you count expansions in the days of 200 page manuals).

As to adding this mechanic it would depend on how fully fleshed out ME4's MP is. If it's ME3.5 MP, hope people enjoy their skinner boxception. Plenty of games use item degradation as a money sink but I don't think I've seen it used purely as a balancing point. Promoting variation through it could be interesting if done with the player's enjoyment in mind and/or to help ease increase of skill.

[Catastrophy]

Mhm - no - I'd rather have a skill "Assault rifle" that gives a bonus on damage but would only stay on a decent level if I used different rifles.

[Cyonan]

jupitersj wrote...

Who said anyone was? I don't. Monetizing ME4 to the fullest won't affect me; sucks for Bioware fans though. I haven't purchased DLC from any Mass Effect title(or any title for that matter, unless you count expansions in the days of 200 page manuals).

As to adding this mechanic it would depend on how fully fleshed out ME4's MP is. If it's ME3.5 MP, hope people enjoy their skinner boxception. Plenty of games use item degradation as a money sink but I don't think I've seen it used purely as a balancing point. Promoting variation through it could be interesting if done with the player's enjoyment in mind and/or to help ease increase of skill.

It's not used as a balancing point because it's not typically a good balancing point(although Fire Emblem does it very well in my opinion, but that style would not suit ME MP).

Also imagine if BioWare never buffed the Eagle, but rather just gave it really high durability and said that was a good enough up side.

You might think it's a good way to balance out the powerful weapons, but it can also be used as a reason to never buff the terrible ones.

There's also the issue that this is not actually encouraging people to use variety, it's trying to force them into it.

Encouragement doesn't punish people who choose not to do it.

[jupitersj]

Cyonan wrote...

jupitersj wrote...

Who said anyone was? I don't. Monetizing ME4 to the fullest won't affect me; sucks for Bioware fans though. I haven't purchased DLC from any Mass Effect title(or any title for that matter, unless you count expansions in the days of 200 page manuals).

As to adding this mechanic it would depend on how fully fleshed out ME4's MP is. If it's ME3.5 MP, hope people enjoy their skinner boxception. Plenty of games use item degradation as a money sink but I don't think I've seen it used purely as a balancing point. Promoting variation through it could be interesting if done with the player's enjoyment in mind and/or to help ease increase of skill.

It's not used as a balancing point because it's not typically a good balancing point(although Fire Emblem does it very well in my opinion, but that style would not suit ME MP).

Also imagine if BioWare never buffed the Eagle, but rather just gave it really high durability and said that was a good enough up side.

You might think it's a good way to balance out the powerful weapons, but it can also be used as a reason to never buff the terrible ones.

There's also the issue that this is not actually encouraging people to use variety, it's trying to force them into it.

Encouragement doesn't punish people who choose not to do it.

Well, I don't expect EA to pay anyone to take the time to do something in the interests of benefitting players or great game design. Also, I would never use it in such a simplified way to balance power. As an ex-programmer the gaming industry these days is about as interesting to me as a corporate mandated efficiency meeting at work at 7am; don't forget to wear a suit and bring the visiting 210m parachuting CEO handmade donuts. Atleast he doesn't know you're porking his daughter.

Sorry, I could probably spend time discussing this in better detail with you, but the previous paragraph is my excuse to bail so I can row the gears of my car now

[oO Stryfe Oo]

Stardusk wrote...

Air Quotes wrote...

Snipped OP

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

Ah...Fallout. Can't wait for the next one.

But yeah, let's keep ME and Fallout separate. I'd rather they rehauled the weapon system completely, gave SMGs a more defined niche and added a few new subtypes. I want another weapon mechanic, but I don't think weapon maintenance is it.

[Ziegrif]

Why does MP need to be monetized?
Can't they just, I dunno make a good MP experience sold with the SP experience and keep said games budget from blowing over to a point where the game needs to sell 10 billion copies for it to make a profit? And just attract business with a solid MP and fun?

And continuing that thought process why can't we have world peace, feed the hungry and get everyone a pony? Maybe Air Quotes would stop being so damn grumpy if he got a pony.

Modifié par Ziegrif, 03 mai 2013 - 10:28 .

[Tokenusername]

Ziegrif wrote...

Why does MP need to be monetized?
Can't they just, I dunno make a good MP experience sold with the SP experience and keep said games budget from blowing over to a point where the game needs to sell 10 billion copies for it to make a profit? And just attract business with a solid MP and fun?

And continuing that thought process why can't we have world peace, feed the hungry and get everyone a pony? Maybe Air Quotes would stop being so damn grumpy if he got a pony.

In my experence, it's quite the oppisite actually. Ponies **** everywhere.

[Ziegrif]

Air Quotes wrote...
I'm not grumpy. I just like ME and I want it to be as good as possible.   

At the possible cost of ruining the experience for everyone else in the process?

Air Quotes wrote...
But I won't say no to a pony. Where is it? :happy: 

In Equestria.

[Ziegrif]

Air Quotes wrote...
If done right it woudn't ruin anything. Same way like FB:White redesign. You may say it ruined it for campers and farmers. But in fact it made the map way more enjoyable overall. And forced people to play in a different way. 

Well intentioned extremists, lament their choices at the ruins of destroyed cities.

And you're still grumpy.