187 réponses à ce sujet

[Xaijin]

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. 

Yeah!

Paying for weapon upgrades and then paying even more to maintain basic function sounds sweet!

I mean hell yeah who wouldn't want to endlessly grind from more pointless **** so our weapons actually work correctly!

And in other news, you're a complete idiot!

[ValorOfArms777]

I say nay to it only slightly but

I think what needs to happen is LET the DEVS do all the balances and not just hold some dumb meeting over it

always TAKE in the suggestions best you can don't just **** foot it JUST test it, have a testers server that us "players" ge to try out with full lvl 1-10 versions of weapons or w/e and let us tell you what feels awesome and not

the problem was even though we had some minor control they tested the stuff not us...really, I could have said EVERYTHING I felt was good and bad what lacked and what didn't what felt knocked what out of the ball park etc.

Pull coulda recived a overhaul of being closer to it's SP counterpart to shoot 2 pulls at once though not increasing it's viability to armor etc. it would increased it's usability to a degree that felt fine in the environment

they DID hardly a reasonable touch up to carnage...wtf is up with this?

they never built AROUND glitches but 1..the Asari Infiltrator ..what they did was a good move with her...they used her flaw and reworked around it

if you cna't fix somethign full on work arounds and inbuilding etc. are good options

the Krysae never got it's usefulness upped back ...the striker never did either they needed looking at AoE weapons are still very negeltced wrongly due to lack of proper scale allot was done well allot was done badly nuff said

[BattleCop88]

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?

This. And I can tell that most of the expenses are marketing expenses without looking at the balance sheet. These video game firms should go back to making money by developing and selling good games. Do that, and the customers will market for you.

[TheKillerAngel]

Tokenusername wrote...

TheKillerAngel wrote...

the original StarCraft has extremely tight balance among the three factions.

Fastest doesn't count.

[Star fury]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

TheKillerAngel wrote...

the original StarCraft has extremely tight balance among the three factions.

Fastest doesn't count.

2-3 high templars will slaughter all these lings.

[ss9876]

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

Good idea!

Kroguard could start limping if you play him too much. Leave him alone for a few days and he recovers, or pay medical bills if you want him to recover quicker!

[Dokteur Kill]

Air Quotes wrote...
If done right it woudn't ruin anything.

Since there is no way of doing it "right" (I mean that. There is literally no way of making a decay/maintenance mechanism that doesn't make the game less enjoyable), then yes, it would.

[ss9876]

I think the challenge system (e.g. SMG mastery) already gives an incentive for players to rotate weapons / classes. However, once you've got the banner, there isn't an incentive to keep rotating.

There could be an additional reward for people who keep repeating the 'banners'. Could be something like credits or something purely cosmetic (e.g. different ranks of banner description, say 'elite marksman' instead of 'marksman' if you complete the banner enough times).

[kipac]

EA and any other typical companies will surely attach "pay cash" option to this kind of mechanic.

And this kind of system works better on RPG as that genre is about taking time, imitating some of real life-like chores (sleeping, repairing, etc), and building up your character. (Slow paced)

But ME3 MP (probably ME4 MP too) is more about get weapons&gears, hurry up and hit ready, kill enemies fast, and rinse&repeat. (Fast paced)

People won't want to spend extra time and credits on repairing their weapons.

Modifié par kipac, 04 mai 2013 - 01:29 .

[stysiaq]

Is it just me, or would this whole weapon maintenance idea look a lot better if AQ had another avatar?

[XCPTNL]

There are only a few good weapons and before anything else is implemented they should really balance the weapons so every weapon is gold/platinum usable like any other weapon. But giving the players 50 weapons and 45 are crap is not really the way to go. And if the 5 good weapons then also can break or something like that...