154 réponses à ce sujet

[NuclearTech76]

IMaster757 wrote...

I like the idea. It makes missiles useful for when you are overrun, while also making sure people don't just exclusively use the missile launcher. The only (minor) problem I can see is that some people would just kill praetorians/atlas/bosses with missiles to troll their teammates.

That could be a problem. A elite enemy down to one bar of health gets rocketed or a whole spawn that someone just threw a crap ton of inferno nades in on.

[NuclearTech76]

XFG-65 wrote...

I'm not bragging. I suck at this game.

Also, why are you saying that missiles shouldn't score any points? What does that have to do with anything? Is there a reason behind that?

A lot of the misuse/abuse of rockets are because of concern about the scoreboard.

Honestly to me, I don't care if someone is a scorewh0re as long as they do it well. Score doesn't matter that much to me, just don't nuke a spawn on an objective and screw the team which happens a lot.

They almost should suspend scoring till objectives are capped anyways to prevent idiots from ignoring the objectives.

[Supreme Leech]

I used to play with someone who consistently nuked objective wave spawns every single game, I had to let him go eventually.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind not having any rockets at all if I'm just playing a regular team game. I don't care about score either, as long as I know I pulled my weight at least, then I'm a happy bunny.

[maaaad365]

I would give triple points for missiles just to ****** off the "elitists".

The game is balanced as it is , no need for radical changes. If you want to play hardcore go for a solo Platinum on level 1 and don't use any equipment.

And I say it again : grenades are more OP than missiles because you have an infinite amount of them.

[VaultingFrog]

XFG-65 wrote...
I'm not bragging. I suck at this game.

Also, why are you saying that missiles shouldn't score any points? What does that have to do with anything? Is there a reason behind that?

1: You brag about your N7 all the time (which literally means nothing). You brag about how it makes you "elite".

2: I say rockets shouldn't score points because they are a last resort. It is an instant kill out side of a power. Basically Bioware gave you, and the rest of us, a free "I win" button. Something I don't agree with. Sure they should exist for moments of extreme duress (stupid swarmer) but the way they are used currently cheapens the game play. It makes it so players don't push themselves to excel. Players don't deserve points for turning to an "I win" button to nuke spawns to make a wave go by in a minute.

Seriously a team on XBL or PSN can bring in 36 rockets into an individual match. Say you nuke 3 spawns per wave. That still leaves 6 rockets for free use on targets and or other random crap. That is an entire players regular load of rockets. And yes I am saying XBL and PSN because PC probably can hack in extra rockets or whatever. Nuking 3 separate spawns on each wave with rockets drastically cuts down on the wave budget and time to completion with little to no effort on part of the player. That to me is unacceptable.

@Nuke

Addressing the trolling issue, one could just add in assist scores which only count regular weapon damage and power damage. That way the player being trolled is still scoring points while the rocket user scores nothing. And I mean seriously who would whittle down a Prime to a single bar of armor only to rocket it? Well probably a few people, but come on you wouldn't get full points for it.

[K_O_513]

NuclearTech76 wrote...

cato_84 wrote...

The way I read it was that Nuke's idea to award no points for missile kills is designed to make spawn nuking less attractive, therefore making the game play more like it was supposed to.

Yep. Rockets can completely break the game and take away any challenge in it.

I think balance wise it really skews the difficulty as well.

Rockets only make a difference if their use is coordinated (which doesn't happen in PUGs) and if everyone is rocking Armored compartments (which also doesn't happen in PUGs).

And difficulty/challenge really goes out of the window when you have 2-3 good players in a lobby anyway. That can make the game easy with or without rockets. Hell we have people soloing Gold and Platinum without using rockets (except for High Valued Targets). I don't think changing rockets like that would make the game that much more challenging.

[NuclearTech76]

Rad_Rage wrote...

NuclearTech76 wrote...

cato_84 wrote...

The way I read it was that Nuke's idea to award no points for missile kills is designed to make spawn nuking less attractive, therefore making the game play more like it was supposed to.

Yep. Rockets can completely break the game and take away any challenge in it.

I think balance wise it really skews the difficulty as well.

Rockets only make a difference if their use is coordinated (which doesn't happen in PUGs) and if everyone is rocking Armored compartments (which also doesn't happen in PUGs).

And difficulty/challenge really goes out of the window when you have 2-3 good players in a lobby anyway. That can make the game easy with or without rockets. Hell we have people soloing Gold and Platinum without using rockets (except for High Valued Targets). I don't think changing rockets like that would make the game that much more challenging.

No. AC are completely unnecessary you can totally ROFLstomp the game with 6 rockets a piece and have some left over for cleanup.

[K_O_513]

NuclearTech76 wrote...

Rad_Rage wrote...

NuclearTech76 wrote...

cato_84 wrote...

The way I read it was that Nuke's idea to award no points for missile kills is designed to make spawn nuking less attractive, therefore making the game play more like it was supposed to.

Yep. Rockets can completely break the game and take away any challenge in it.

I think balance wise it really skews the difficulty as well.

Rockets only make a difference if their use is coordinated (which doesn't happen in PUGs) and if everyone is rocking Armored compartments (which also doesn't happen in PUGs).

And difficulty/challenge really goes out of the window when you have 2-3 good players in a lobby anyway. That can make the game easy with or without rockets. Hell we have people soloing Gold and Platinum without using rockets (except for High Valued Targets). I don't think changing rockets like that would make the game that much more challenging.

No. AC are completely unnecessary you can totally ROFLstomp the game with 6 rockets a piece and have some left over for cleanup.

Yeah if the use is coordinated. Most people in thread have been saying that PUGs always wait to use rockets on Wave 11 to try and up their score, so they aren't going to be using them the first 10 to make the game go much faster anyway.

And my other point still stands. Get 2-3 or God forbid 4 good players in a lobby and you get the same result (an easy game) regardless of rockets being used or not.

[dosomethinguseful]

NuclearTech76 wrote...

No one is stating their opinion is more important than yours and elite BSNers (damn I must call and inform my parents, they'll be so proud:D) This is just discussion to get people's input. Like I said there is probably a better solution than just my simple one.

I was having a pinch of fun. I'd rather run the risk of encountering missle glitchers than make pugs suffer through my endless kiting.

VaultingFrog wrote...

Who said you couldn't use rockets? Seriously, the original idea doesn't prevent people from using the rockets, just that the kills gained from their use didn't count towards your personal score and towards the wave budget. You can still rocket all you want.

What I meant was that you couldn't use rockets to speed up clutch attempts because they don't reduce the wave budget. We could argue about objective waves, and limited vs. unlimited enemy types but I'll only go there if you want to have a really pathetic internet slap fight over semantics.


1v1 me slapdome babby

[megabeast37215]

Fabulous idea Nuke...

[Ziegrif]

It'd encourage people to pew pew pew more at least and they'd still stay relevant in objective waves.

Modifié par Ziegrif, 26 octobre 2013 - 01:00 .

[LemurFromTheId]

Here's another wild idea: the more people are dead or bleeding out, the more missiles will reduce spawn budget - the idea being to make missiles especially useful for clutching waves.

An example:
All players alive: missiles will reduce spawn budget by 20% of the point value of the enemies it kills
1 player down: reduction 40%
2 players down: reduction 60%
3 players down: reduction 80%
(All players down: reduction 100% - just in case you die before the missile reaches its target )

Might lead to interesting speedruns where three players rush to Glacier Seeker Swarm to bleed while the fourth missiles spawns and then hustles back to revive... Maybe just bleeding shouldn't count...

Modifié par Aedolon, 26 octobre 2013 - 09:38 .

[VaultingFrog]

dosomethinguseful wrote...


What I meant was that you couldn't use rockets to speed up clutch attempts because they don't reduce the wave budget. We could argue about objective waves, and limited vs. unlimited enemy types but I'll only go there if you want to have a really pathetic internet slap fight over semantics.


1v1 me slapdome babby

Next time type what you mean instead of some half assed bull****.

1v1 wonderdome me babby

[MaxShine]

who cares... either way rockets suck, I hope they will introduce more interesting heavy weapons in the next game

[DarkseidXIII]

I wouldn't oppose a toggle in a game customization section. I'd turn off spite spawns first. Then worry about waves being trivialized. Haven't seen many glitchers. I'd also reduce the phantom swarm to 3 and force them to 2 spawn points away. Many things are more important than missiles. Remove points from them though.

[solidprice]

Ziegrif wrote...

It'd encourage people to pew pew pew more at least and they'd still stay relevant in objective waves.

[Supreme Leech]

MaxShine wrote...

who cares... either way rockets suck, I hope they will introduce more interesting heavy weapons in the next game

+1, I like this concept of heavy weaponry.

[Nitrocuban]

Great idea, but maps need to be bigger in ME4 and Platinum should not be just boss spam.
Cobraing some enemies to clear up the way for an objective and they just respawn 5m further away is kinda stupid.

Maybe bigger maps would even solve the problem Cobras are a "workaround" for and more diverse Heavy Weapons could be put in ME4MP, better integrated into the game and less of a crutch for gameplay limitations.

[ItFactorScott]

But.....but then what will I do during the double and triple Geth Prime waves?

[GordianKnot42]

I only missile Swarmers anyway.

[Caldari Ghost]

megabeast37215 wrote...

Fabulous idea Nuke...

this post reflects my thoughts exactly

[tonnactus]

Nitrocuban wrote...

Great idea, but maps need to be bigger in ME4 and Platinum should not be just boss spam.
Cobraing some enemies to clear up the way for an objective and they just respawn 5m further away is kinda stupid.

Well,with Pretorians it seems to be this way...

[Marek Intan]

On a related note, what was the "old" Cobra like? Was it a charge-up missile that fired when the trigger was released, or did it fire once it was done charging automatically?

[ManRightChea]

I have said this before, and made a thread you can find about it, but I believe the scoreboard RUINS what this game could have been. Think about it, people really don't play ME3 for the fun but for the "glory" of the scoreboard. That is why people will not detonate another's powers, why people usually won't coordinate kits, why people favor high DPS weapons/kits over other classes, why people spawn nuke etc.

If the score was tallied through actual contribution, such as the medal system, people would still have a measure to show participation. However I think that the way the score is tallied now (including rockets) its makes the game much less co-op than it would have been. This game is not a competitive game, which is why I laugh when people claim themselves to be "elite" players etc and play only for score or braggery. Skill is not determined by score, but that doesn't keep the arrogant from treating this game like a competitive game or getting big heads about it.

I guess the one thing that annoys me, is the very people that claim to be the elite players of the game, are the same one's adamantly opposed to PvP. See when you have those of us that are actually quite skilled and competitive at actual competitive shooters/fighters, it is many of these same "elite" that call us tryhards etc for being better at the game. If it is competitive then make it so, if it is co-op then make it truly so.