340 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

DocLasty wrote...


Let's make it more clear to you then. The removal of several stats (like the ones effecting healing and aiming and replacing them by auto-generation and hand-eye-coordination) are examples which lead me to believe that ME2 made the move from a RPG with guns to a TPS with a story. These are not two tiny stats. They impact gameplay significantly. It blew holes in most if not all classes. So, the character that I will import was build around these stats. These are non-existent in ME2. If you like that change, then more power to you. I won't even recognize my own player character. Maybe there is something left in the imported decision tree (which was weeded significantly because of the introduction of a new crew). I doubt it.

I think I am right on topic. Removal of gameplay features may or may not have led to other better or worse gameplay features, but what is there to show for it in my imported character? Very little. I might as well start a new character.


First and foremost, you'd miss out on all the decisions you made during the story - the people you saved, the lives you impacted, the things you did, all of it. If you start a new character, you'll be left with what the game's default is. The point of Mass Effect was and always has been that the decision you make in the story carry over from game to game. That hasn't changed.

Second, Mass Effect 1 WAS an TPS, just about as much as ME2 is. You spent a very large chunk of the game just shooting at people and getting shot at. What's changed is that now the shooting part of it is more accessible and easier to work with, but they've done that without getting rid of the RPG factor. You still have to make decisions on where you pump the points, and those decisions have more impact than ever; the skills you choose to focus on and develop branch out and have altering paths now, so you could play as the same class twice and have a different sort of experience each time.

A large part of my character has become unrecognizable. This has to do with the removal of crew members and the removal and change of stats to such an extent that it is impossible to import them. The decision tree included the choices I made with my crew. Because most of them are not returning and get a cameo at best that doesn't leave much of my characters identity. That leaves the main story, in which my character was a pragmatic paragon, the sub quests (which where not especially breath taking - even if some of them mention the word Cerberus), and the main quest. As I understand it, there is not much room for characters like that in ME2. Although pragmatic, my Shepard would probably have killed the new crew members if he/she encountered them in the first game. The same goes for Cerberus. A sworn enemy of my characters.

Of course you may like all the new features and twists, but that does not mean that I feel that my characters from ME1 are likely to feel at home.

BTW: I didn't buy ME1 as a TPS. I bought it as a RPG in a SF setting. I found a copy in the shop categorized under RPG. You can still find ME1 under RPG on Steam. It is also listed under Action, BTW. Read the reviews of the game. Most of them label it as RPG.

I also don't care that ME2 is more accessible to the shooter fans. I really don't care. I was interested in a successor to ME1 and like I said before so far I am not impressed, but maybe I will be pleasently surprised. Who knows?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 19 janvier 2010 - 06:04 .

[DocLasty]

A large part of my character has become unrecognizable. This has to
do with the removal of crew members and the removal and change of stats
to such an extent that it is impossible to import them. The decision
tree included the choices I made with my crew. Because most of them are
not returning and get a cameo at best that doesn't leave much of my
characters identity.

Two of them are actually fully recruitable characters with entire plot points devoted to them, and it seems like we'll be doing more with them than we did in the first. One of them is dead. We know from one of the recently released previews that Ashely, and by extension probably Kaiden, is involved in a way that means he'll be more than a  just a simple hi and goodbye. So I don't see what you're complaining about there.

Will the story revolve around them? No. But the way they are in ME2 will largely be determined by the way they were in ME1. Certain characters will be dead or in certain position based on what you did. It's not 'a cameo at best'.

That leaves the main story, in which my character
was a pragmatic paragon, the sub quests (which where not especially
breath taking - even if some of them mention the word Cerberus), and
the main quest. As I understand it, there is not much room for
characters like that in ME2.

There's nothing to suggest that things are going to be slanted to a renegade just because things are darker - if anything, playing a paragon in this new setting means you have a better chance to shine. When everyone else wants to do things the dirty and simple way, a Paragon Shepard wants to do them the right way. He brings others to his way of thinking. He refuses to let the darkness corrupt him. It's an interesting struggle, potentially, and it's not like the game is going to force renegade on you.

BTW: I didn't buy ME1 as a TPS. I
bought it as a RPG in a SF setting. I found a copy in the shop
categorized under RPG. You can still find ME1 under RPG on Steam. It is
also listed under Action, BTW. Read the reviews of the game. Most of
them label it as RPG.

Regardless of what you bought it as or even what certain places categorize it under, it's still was what it was - a shooter/rpg hybrid.

[MarloMarlo]

SnowHeart1 wrote...
Fair question. I think, before answering, it's worth touching on an underlying issue:  the definition of an RPG.  I'm not going to try to answer that because, I believe, it's very subjective.

How can you possibly be concerned about RPG elements if you can't even define what that means and argue for the definition.

SnowHeart1 wrote...
However, what I was trying to get at in my previous post, and what my following answer is going towards, is an argument that for a lot people an RPG -- particularly a CRPG -- necessarily incorporates a lot of the issues talked about by the OP, and they are things that Bioware, wisely or not, is cutting or scaling back on.  It is not just about the storytelling which, as I said, I think will remain excellent.  It is about certain mechanics that for twenty years or so have been staples of CRPGs.

A lot of people are saying stats, or inventory screens, or whatever are RPG elements. But they never argue why. Sometimes, like you, they'll say that RPGs have made use of them in the past. So what? A lot of computer RPGs in the past made use of the DnD ruleset. Is ME2 less of an RPG because it uses a different set of rules? If not, then why would ME2 be less of an RPG than ME1 simply for having different rules?

FPS games oftentimes make use of crosshairs in the UI. Is a game suddenly not an FPS or less of an FPS if it makes you use the gun's ironsights instead? No, because what makes an FPS an FPS is that you play it by shooting things from a first person perspective. If a UI element isn't a genre defining feature, then why would anyone be concerned that ME2's inventory screens -- UI elements -- are only accessable at terminals? Well, at terminals and whenever you can see Shepard carrying stuff on his or her back.

Where are all the immersion fanatics when you need them.

SnowHeart1 wrote...
So, as Javier said, perhaps it's just fear of change, but that doesn't make the concern somewhat less legitimate, at least insofar as any opinion is illegitimate.

The concern has never been legitimized in the first place, just introduced.

SnowHeart1 wrote...
The ending resolution and interupt features would, I argue, go to the storytelling, not the traditional RPG mechanics.

Argue it, then. Anyone can say "I would argue that Subject Zero is like Hamlet on estrogen" and then leave it at that.

[Bigeyez]

1.The inventory system was obtuse, stupid, overly complicated. Good riddance.
2.Items dropped from everything and anything and most of the stuff that dropped was usually useless and vendored or turned into omni-gel.
3.Many skills in ME 1 were pointless and the only reason people would get them was because they were pre-reqs for other skills or they had no where else to dump points into.
4.Playing an annoying Simon Says mini-game in order to open every door/box hardly qualifies as taking "skill". Not to mention that by the end of you're first playthrough you're sitting with 9999 omni-gel and just insta open everything.
5.The Mako was horrible and I (along with tons of others) cringed every time we were forced to drive the damn thing. Adding a quick jump to the points of interest on side planets saves the player both time and needless wandering aorund in a godforsaken "tank" that drove like a jet ski on land.

Sure you're entitled to you're opinions and I understand not everyone agrees with the all my aforementioned points but I'm pretty sure we can all agree that these are all weak points with ME 1. With that said, I whole heartidly look forward to playing Mass Effect 2 without any of those weak points still in the game.

Modifié par Bigeyez, 19 janvier 2010 - 06:23 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

DocLasty wrote...

A large part of my character has become unrecognizable. This has to
do with the removal of crew members and the removal and change of stats
to such an extent that it is impossible to import them. The decision
tree included the choices I made with my crew. Because most of them are
not returning and get a cameo at best that doesn't leave much of my
characters identity.

Two of them are actually fully recruitable characters with entire plot points devoted to them, and it seems like we'll be doing more with them than we did in the first. One of them is dead. We know from one of the recently released previews that Ashely, and by extension probably Kaiden, is involved in a way that means he'll be more than a  just a simple hi and goodbye. So I don't see what you're complaining about there.

Will the story revolve around them? No. But the way they are in ME2 will largely be determined by the way they were in ME1. Certain characters will be dead or in certain position based on what you did. It's not 'a cameo at best'.

In a good story the main characters are introduced and then the stories around them unfold. Well, I have been introduced tio them now and the characters have been removed from the story. That story is part of my character. The choices involved are part of my characters history. It's hard to identify yourself with a character as a large part of his past has been removed. You may not be concerned but I don't like it.

DocLasty wrote...

That leaves the main story, in which my character
was a pragmatic paragon, the sub quests (which where not especially
breath taking - even if some of them mention the word Cerberus), and
the main quest. As I understand it, there is not much room for
characters like that in ME2.

There's nothing to suggest that things are going to be slanted to a renegade just because things are darker - if anything, playing a paragon in this new setting means you have a better chance to shine. When everyone else wants to do things the dirty and simple way, a Paragon Shepard wants to do them the right way. He brings others to his way of thinking. He refuses to let the darkness corrupt him. It's an interesting struggle, potentially, and it's not like the game is going to force renegade on you.

Things are darker... And because they are darker I have to work with the scum I used to kill. Great marketing tool for kids, but I am not impressed.

DocLasty wrote...

BTW: I didn't buy ME1 as a TPS. I
bought it as a RPG in a SF setting. I found a copy in the shop
categorized under RPG. You can still find ME1 under RPG on Steam. It is
also listed under Action, BTW. Read the reviews of the game. Most of
them label it as RPG.

Regardless of what you bought it as or even what certain places categorize it under, it's still was what it was - a shooter/rpg hybrid.

That was not what you wrote. You claimed it to be a TPS. You really shouldn't do this. Are you discussing to be right? If so, let me know and I'll move on to something more interesting.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 19 janvier 2010 - 07:13 .

[Terror_K]

Okay, last night I came up with something that I feel might fix the shooting aspect and still make it a stats-based system, yet retain the TPS system at the same time. I would have posted sooner, but I had to sleep and then had 8 hours of work. I'm also hoping that since about 17 hours have passed now I remember it all too.

Okay, what if the system was pretty much as they've made it in ME2 now: basically a standard TPS model. But on top of that, one adds something like this as a skill tree:-

SHOOTING (for use with any weapon):

Level 0 - Default (i.e. 0 Points invested in skill)
- 75% Accuracy (as in 3 our of 4 shots will hit where you aim, while 1 out of four may divert off a bit. Determined by an - invisible dice roll, and if you're slightly off aiming or close enough to an enemy you may still hit.)
- Shepard can shoot only when still.
- Shepard pops out of cover to shoot, exposing 75% of him/herself to do it.
- Reloading Thermal Clips takes 5 seconds.

Level 1
- 80% Accuracy
- Shepard can shoot while walking now.
- Shepard pops partially out of cover, exposing 50% of him/herself to do it.
- Reloading Thermal Clips takes 4 seconds.

Level 2
- 85% Accuracy
- Shepard can shoot while running now.
- Shepard pops slightly out of cover, exposing 25% of him/herself to do it.
- Reloading Thermal Clips takes 3 seconds.

Level 3
- 90% Accuracy
- Shepard can shoot while vaulting over cover/shifting between cover.
- Shepard barely exposes him/herself while shooting in cover, only 10% exposure.
- Reloading Thermal Clips Takes 2 Seconds.

Level 4 - Branch Talent 1: Critical Eye
- 95% Accuracy
- Reloading Thermal Clips Takes 1 Second.
- If Shepard Kills Three Enemies or More Within 5 Seconds, the next hit scored does double damage.

Level 4 - Branch Talent 2: Blind Fire
- 95% Accuracy
- Reloading Thermal Clips Takes 1 Second.
- Shepard can fire blindly out of cover for 100% defense, but only 50% accuracy.

----

That's the basic gist of the idea. I know it's not perfect, but it's something, and I'm sure with a bit of work something along these lines could work and (I hope) satisfy both parties.

edit: renamed levels as suggested by Murmillos to fit better with current system.

Modifié par Terror_K, 19 janvier 2010 - 07:28 .

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...
*snip*

I love the idea, and something like this could have seriously worked.

Tho. one little problem.  There are only 4 levels.. you have 5.  The 4th level is the split/evolved level.
Never mind.. caught the 0 point investment.  You're alright.

But I would label it as Level 0 - 4.  As that fits more as to what we see in a skill/talent tree.


One last edit:  I think you have the reload times WAAY to high.  Even if I let my weapon over heat using ME1 system, I don't think it is 5 seconds to cool down.. is it? hold on.. let me go check.. (one more edit then ).

Modifié par Murmillos, 19 janvier 2010 - 07:19 .

[sinosleep]

Terror_K, what you've written is far better than what ME 1 had, and for actually posting a solution I give you credit. But I'd rather have all 4 of my bullets hit where I'm aiming.



Again, your systems is a hell of a whole lot better than what was in ME 1.

[Murmillos]

sinosleep wrote...

Terror_K, what you've written is far better than what ME 1 had, and for actually posting a solution I give you credit. But I'd rather have all 4 of my bullets hit where I'm aiming.

Again, your systems is a hell of a whole lot better than what was in ME 1.

3 out of 4 isn't all that bad really... it is better then 1 out of 4 for your stating AR/pistol at a target 20 feet in ME1.

[DocLasty]

In a good story the main characters are introduced and then the stories around them unfold. Well, I have been introduced tio them now and the characters have been removed from the story. That story is part of my character. The choices involved are part of my characters history. It's hard to identify yourself with a character as a large part of his past has been removed. You may not be concerned but I don't like it.



That's just the thing - they haven't been removed. Two of them are recruitable characters - heck, we already know we'll be exploring more about Tali and her history than the last game dealt with by far. Garrus is back, and he'll probably be a major player, too, with a mission revolving around recruiting him and seeing what he's been up to for the past two years. We'll travel to Tuchunka and meet up with Wrex, and we've seen that Ashely is involved with the Collectors. Even Liara is playing a big role, if the comic book is any indication. You act as if the original six are completely gone without a trace.





Things are darker... And because they are darker I have to work with the scum I used to kill. Great marketing tool for kids, but I am not impressed.



So what, they should make a bunch of squeaky clean characters? Well, then people who prefer renegades are getting shorted out...



All you've got to judge the characters on are a bunch of snippets. Garrus and Tali are old friends. Mordin's a salarian scientist, and there's been nothing to suggest he's crazy or all that dangerous. He seems quite nice, really. Jacob's a Cerberus operative, but he was a hero in Mass Effect Galaxy, and while we don't know why he joined Cerberus, I doubt it's because he's EVIL now. Samara's basically a vigilante; she follows a strict moral code and fights to uphold the law. Calling everyone 'scum' is really pushing it.



So that leaves Grunt and SuZe, and it's already been said that, if you so choose, you don't have to recruit certain crewmembers. So you might be able to avoid recruiting them, or even bring them over to a more Paragon side of thinking, like you could do with Ashely the first time around.





That was not what you wrote. You claimed it to be a TPS. You really shouldn't do this. Are you discussing to be right? If so, let me know and I'll move on to something more interesting.



All I'm saying is that it's not a pure RPG, like you seem to be focused on. You spend almost half of ME1 just shooting at stuff. At some parts, it's almost all you do. So crying 'ME2 is just another shooter now!' rings really hollow to me.

[Murmillos]

Murmillos wrote...
One last edit:  I think you have the reload times WAAY to high.  Even if I let my weapon over heat using ME1 system, I don't think it is 5 seconds to cool down.. is it? hold on.. let me go check.. (one more edit then ).

Ok, it takes your weapon somewhere between 4 to 5 seconds to cool down from over heating (I'd call 4.5 seconds).  Figuring the heatsinks are designed to be replaced nearly instantaneously, I would cut that down to like 3.5 - 3 - 2.5 - 2 - 1 seconds.

Modifié par Murmillos, 19 janvier 2010 - 07:50 .

[Terror_K]

Murmillos wrote...

Ok, it takes your weapon somewhere between 4 to 5 seconds to cool down from over heating (I'd call 4.5 seconds).  Figuring the heatsinks are designed to be replaced nearly instantaneously, I would cut that down to like 3 - 2.5 -  2 - 1.5 - 1 seconds.

Okay, that's fair enough. I wondered that, but my logic for 5 seconds was basically that Shepard wouldn't be familiar with the system, and perhaps a little rusty what with the death and all. But if you think reducing it would be better, I won't argue. It's the system itself that matters more than the finer details: that would be something to be refined later. If people on both sides agree that the general idea is good, then that's good enough for me, and I'd like to see something along these lines implemented in ME3.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Okay, last night I came up with something that I feel might fix the shooting aspect and still make it a stats-based system, yet retain the TPS system at the same time. I would have posted sooner, but I had to sleep and then had 8 hours of work. I'm also hoping that since about 17 hours have passed now I remember it all too.

Okay, what if the system was pretty much as they've made it in ME2 now: basically a standard TPS model. But on top of that, one adds something like this as a skill tree:-

SHOOTING (for use with any weapon):

Level 0 - Default (i.e. 0 Points invested in skill)
- 75% Accuracy (as in 3 our of 4 shots will hit where you aim, while 1 out of four may divert off a bit. Determined by an - invisible dice roll, and if you're slightly off aiming or close enough to an enemy you may still hit.)
- Shepard can shoot only when still.
- Shepard pops out of cover to shoot, exposing 75% of him/herself to do it.
- Reloading Thermal Clips takes 5 seconds.

Level 1
- 80% Accuracy
- Shepard can shoot while walking now.
- Shepard pops partially out of cover, exposing 50% of him/herself to do it.
- Reloading Thermal Clips takes 4 seconds.

Level 2
- 85% Accuracy
- Shepard can shoot while running now.
- Shepard pops slightly out of cover, exposing 25% of him/herself to do it.
- Reloading Thermal Clips takes 3 seconds.

Level 3
- 90% Accuracy
- Shepard can shoot while vaulting over cover/shifting between cover.
- Shepard barely exposes him/herself while shooting in cover, only 10% exposure.
- Reloading Thermal Clips Takes 2 Seconds.

Level 4 - Branch Talent 1: Critical Eye
- 95% Accuracy
- Reloading Thermal Clips Takes 1 Second.
- If Shepard Kills Three Enemies or More Within 5 Seconds, the next hit scored does double damage.

Level 4 - Branch Talent 2: Blind Fire
- 95% Accuracy
- Reloading Thermal Clips Takes 1 Second.
- Shepard can fire blindly out of cover for 100% defense, but only 50% accuracy.

----

That's the basic gist of the idea. I know it's not perfect, but it's something, and I'm sure with a bit of work something along these lines could work and (I hope) satisfy both parties.

edit: renamed levels as suggested by Murmillos to fit better with current system.

ok that's quite nicely thought out but here's your problem: level 1 - can only shoot whilest standing still. again you're imposing arbitrary limits on what should be possible. i don't mind a slight accuracy hit (as long as it's slight and dependent on the weapon) - but for an elite soldier not being able to shoot whilst strafing, etc is bull.

[Schneidend]

ztonkin wrote...

Completely agree w/ the OP. It's like they're removing RPG elements and replacing them with shooter elements to cater to a whole new audience and snuffing original fans. I mean it's one thing to maybe explain some elements' removal lore-wise, but the fact that squaddies don't need a sealed enviro suit in a vacuum, or battle armor in a firefight, while Shepard clearly does, is just puzzling. It can't possibly be explained by the lore and taken seriously. And a lot of new features clearly cater to gamers that play shooters like Gears, such as the new cover system, the ammo system, and the regen health. Still, I can't judge 'till I play. All the new stuff could be for the best.

No RPG elements have been removed.

[sinosleep]

Jebel Krong wrote...

ok that's quite nicely thought out but here's your problem: level 1 - can only shoot whilest standing still. again you're imposing arbitrary limits on what should be possible. i don't mind a slight accuracy hit (as long as it's slight and dependent on the weapon) - but for an elite soldier not being able to shoot whilst strafing, etc is bull.

Wow don't know how I missed that. Yeah, that'd be a deal breaker for me, don't agree with that at all.

[Murmillos]

sinosleep wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

ok that's quite nicely thought out but here's your problem: level 1 - can only shoot whilest standing still. again you're imposing arbitrary limits on what should be possible. i don't mind a slight accuracy hit (as long as it's slight and dependent on the weapon) - but for an elite soldier not being able to shoot whilst strafing, etc is bull.

Wow don't know how I missed that. Yeah, that'd be a deal breaker for me, don't agree with that at all.

LOL.. yea.. parts of it are starting to sink in. But also I thought, Shepard really doesn't walk and run. Its, Standing, combat jog and then finally storm speed (which is a sprint rush forward.. and doesn't fire then).

So.. maybe just adjust the penalties then? Standing and Moving.

Base -- | 75% Accuracy standing still | 67% Accuracy while moving
Rank 1 | 80% Accuracy standing still | 73% Accuracy while moving
Rank 2 | 85% Accuracy standing still | 80% Accuracy while moving
Rank 3 | 91% Accuracy standing still | 88% Accuracy while moving
Rank 4 | 99% Accuracy standing still | 97% Accuracy while moving

(edited - to give the 4th power a bigger jump in Accuracy, since the cost is 4 points, making it a huge investment to final out your Accuracy to near perfect status)

Modifié par Murmillos, 19 janvier 2010 - 02:18 .

[akintu]

I rather like that addition. The not shooting while moving was too big of a penalty, though, in my opinion. Less accuracy while moving works.

Here's a thought, though. In theory, I like the decision making in character builds. Do you focus on pumping up your weapon skill early, or on other powers? Will you make your Adept relatively weak at shooting, but focus more on biotics? Maybe build a character that is totally support oriented and never puts any points into shooting. You could still effectively shoot, but you wouldn't be great at it.



The thing is, in ME1, you theoretically had that choice, but in general a weapon skill dramatically enhanced your DPS. Almost every build I made focused on maxing a weapon skill before anything else (At least taking it to 2/3). Would this system be similar? Because the ME1 system didn't really offer a choice. Your weapon skill of choice ended up being a point sink that virtually everyone put points into from the very beginning. And with the ability to fire shots from cover with little or no exposure to enemy fire, I kinda feel like these abilities would be just as essential.



Every build, for every class, would have Level 4 Shooting. I mean, that is my concern. It might not work out that way, but my concern would be that it would become an ability that could not be forgone. And I'm kinda against that. If every single class is going to put points in it, why even have it? At least the other abilities in ME2 seem to offer choice in how you build. Do you want to max this or that?



I'm just trying to raise this question, I'm not necessarily against the idea Perhaps a shooting skill could be built into the leveling process. So you get an additional level of it at preset levels. Maybe even tie it to class. A Soldier gets a point in his shooting skill at level 2, 5, 7, and 10. A Sentinel might get a point at level 3, 7, 11, 15. You get the idea.

[LostHH]

Why not just scrap the stat crap and go with a Doom mechanic and by that I mean by the time you near the last part of the game you have a BFG-9000.

Coming in ME3

Some of these changes reek of EA's meddling

Modifié par LostHH, 19 janvier 2010 - 12:42 .

[Terror_K]

I suppose it would depend. A biotic classes may not, for instance. Keep in mind that quite often one could max out all the essential stats in ME1 fairly easily in the higher levels. Also with this system one wouldn't have to spend points halfway in a gun they're not using just to unlock one they are. It would also apply to all weapons equally. And then there's the fact that an RPG system quite often is in place to make one have to decide to do one thing or another and not both, or at least not both until later on. And I fully support that, because a good RPG system encourages people to specalise and not be a Jack of all trades but master of none. Why have a system at all if everybody is just going to have everything maxed or near maxed at the end of it all. A good build in an RPG is about choices and building your character well. I think adding something like this just enforces that more. I personally didn't invest all my points into weapons skills first in ME1 though, and usually mixed things around fairly well, but not too much and not amongst too many talents, since I only wanted to even use certain ones. I usually actually made sure my Charm or Intimidate were catered for first, then a weapon skill here and a biotic or tech skill there. Rinse repeat each level-up.

[akintu]

Terror_K wrote...

I suppose it would depend. A biotic classes may not, for instance. Keep in mind that quite often one could max out all the essential stats in ME1 fairly easily in the higher levels. Also with this system one wouldn't have to spend points halfway in a gun they're not using just to unlock one they are. It would also apply to all weapons equally. And then there's the fact that an RPG system quite often is in place to make one have to decide to do one thing or another and not both, or at least not both until later on. And I fully support that, because a good RPG system encourages people to specalise and not be a Jack of all trades but master of none. Why have a system at all if everybody is just going to have everything maxed or near maxed at the end of it all. A good build in an RPG is about choices and building your character well. I think adding something like this just enforces that more. I personally didn't invest all my points into weapons skills first in ME1 though, and usually mixed things around fairly well, but not too much and not amongst too many talents, since I only wanted to even use certain ones. I usually actually made sure my Charm or Intimidate were catered for first, then a weapon skill here and a biotic or tech skill there. Rinse repeat each level-up.

Its true that most of the choices on talent points in ME1 came early on.  By the end, you pretty much had everything filled out.  However, I always felt like, even as an Adept or Sentinel with a bonus weapon talent, your weapon ability offered the biggest bang for the buck at low levels.  An extra point of pistol skill was more valuable than almost any other ability.  Within limit.  First, you were limited in how fast you could level up a weapon ability (or any other).  And plenty of times I have chosen to slightly neglect my weapon skill to pump something else.  But weapon skill is always one of the higher abilities on my builds, early in the game.  It just offers too many benefits when weighed with low level weapons and slow cooldowns.  By the time you get Spectre weapons, you could probably get by with virtually no points in a weapon ability.

I don't want to get too much into a discussion on min/maxing, but that is a factor.  You could choose to neglect a weapon skill in favor of biotics or charm/intimidate, and I have indeed done so on some playthroughs.  But it did not feel optimized.  (I'm not a zealot when it comes to min/maxing, but I am a build geek, and I do enjoy crunching numbers, comparing percentages, etc, with an eye towards efficiency).  So that is what I mean.  Weapon skills offered massive bang for the buck in ME1, and I think the weapon skill as outlined here would be the same.

For almost any character, a point in weapon skill would be more beneficial than a point in anything else.  That is the situation I would want to avoid.  I understand that builds could choose to forgo the weapon skill, but it seems they would be choosing to "gimp" themselves (not that there is anything wrong with that, and not that I wouldn't do it for fun myself).

Any thoughts on gaining levels of weapon skill as you level, as opposed to investing in it yourself?  The more I think about it, the more I like it.  First, it fits with the concept of Shep becoming more comfortable with his weapons as he gains experience.  I also like the idea of investing points in active powers, while passive bonuses are gained with levels.

In terms of pie in the sky, ME3 discussion, I could see a very cool dual system.  You get points every level to put into your active powers.  But there is an additional point system for passive bonuses.  Perhaps every other level, or every few levels, you get a point to invest in one of several passive bonus skills.  Shooting could be one, but there could be a tree that is defensive oriented, dunno what else.  The two would not share talent points, though.  So you'd get active power points to invest, and passive power points to invest.

Uh....sorry to go off, your post got me thinking  I realize that's a bit farther out in the field from your idea.

[Murmillos]

alex_ladik wrote...
^^^ *snip*

I get what you mean, but I hope that the difference between lv3 and lv4 are close enough (yet still far enough away that the point investment is worth it), that the primary Biotic classes would only need to invest into level 2 or 3, while the more weapon combat oriented classes would be 3 to 4 (4 for solider no doubt).

But in ME1, the weapon skill ranking also increased weapon damage - so that was another reason for putting points fully into weapons.

Now that for ME2, biotics and techs do more damage out side of weapon skill alone this time around. A full Adept could never fire a single shot now that warp does massive damage when in contact with another biotic power (Pull then Warp.. or Warp then Throw) either way, they are going to be doing a ton of damage that doesn't require a weapon full time.

The difference between 91% accuracy to 99% accuracy would be negligible to an Adept or Vanguard (whom it seems will be spending 80% of their time or more in shotgun range where accuracy shouldn't matter). Mildly to slightly noticeable to Sentinels & Engineers, while Infiltrators and Soldiers would want the best Accuracy.

Modifié par Murmillos, 19 janvier 2010 - 02:19 .

[Darth_Shizz]

Terror_K wrote...

*SNIP*

I'll say first, that I'm glad to see someone providing solutions rather than complaints. Yet, I'm still not entirely sure about this. For one, the changes you've mentioned still seem unnecessarily heavy, and would certainly need some refining to make them viable. However, the most important thing is, do I believe these would be the best way to improve on ME1, as opposed to something that will appease those with such a hate for shooter aspects? No, not really if I'm honest. I think people also underestimate the difficulties that lie in making a balanced system. Even including this one line of talents for various classes would completely throw that balance off. I'm sure BW had good reason for including the amount of skills they did, especially considering the new level cap. I for one, trust their ideas on mechanics far more than those belonging to people on forums...no offence meant ;p

Having said that, a far simpler system would've been giving every class a slight penalty to their shooting ability, then having a weapon proficiency system which increases on an enemy/killed basis, and capped at a certain % Though, again, whilst I don't believe this is a bad idea in itself, it still seems as if the only real reason to use it, would be to keep people from complaining. 

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Darth_Shizz wrote...

Claiming that a bunch of stats are what make up even PART of the identity of Mass Effect, is actually incredibly demeaning to what is otherwise a brilliantly crafted game.

Where is that claim?

So far, all your complaints have been regarding the removal of a stat based combat system/stat progression. So whilst you never specifically stated "Mass Effect is not Mass Effect without stats", it's still not incredibly difficult to come to that conclusion.

Note, that I did see your complaints on the characters and darker story. However, I had to immediately laugh these claims off. You realise that this does happen in sequels right? Characters die. Characters move on to other things*. We get new characters that are appropriate to the story we're presented with. Sorry to say it, but that's just the way it works in fiction, regardless of whether that fiction be Happy Pony Sanctuary in the Sky (for those of us more mature), or Murder 3: Tale of a Bad Person (for the kids, naturally). 

*Yet many of the faces from me1 are returning for 2. Both cameo AND as full squad members.

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 19 janvier 2010 - 03:01 .

[evilhouseboat]

I'm a little disappointed that they removed so much from ME1...



However, my brother couldn't finish or even play ME1 (he never became a spectre) because he thought the game was too complicated. He didn't want to have to spend the time to learn the skills etc. I had no problems but I'm a season RPG vet. I actually thought there wasn't enough =P



At the end of the day, I think more people will enjoy the game.

[mewarmo990]

Deflagratio wrote...

All of the ammo powers of Mass Effect 1 were useless, everyone stuck with Tungsten/Shredder VII.

Really? That's news to me.

Scram Rail(s) + Cryo Rounds + AR = increased damage + accuracy penalties to ALL enemies, lower ROF prevents overheating

2 Scram Rails + High Explosive X rounds + shotguns or snipers = fun and OWNAGE

Tungsten/Shredder VII was probably best for pistol, though, since it has the highest DPS of all the weapons with Marksman and especially once you get into the HWPA series.

Inferno and Disruptor were blah.

Modifié par mewarmo990, 19 janvier 2010 - 02:43 .

[sinosleep]

mewarmo990 wrote...
2 Scram Rails + High Explosive X rounds + shotguns or snipers = fun and OWNAGE

If your idea of fun is one shot then overheat sure. I tried this the other day (originally played on 360, recently purchased for PC so I would have import saves) just to try and find SOME kind of use for high explosive rounds and even with spectre x weapons and 2 frictionless materials best I could do was one shot before overheat. Those rounds are useless.

Also, by the time you get access to scram rails you're doing enough biotic/tech damage/cc where debuffs are entirely unnecessary.

Modifié par sinosleep, 19 janvier 2010 - 02:56 .