132 réponses à ce sujet

[TheMyron]

@Cap and gown: I think that's biased because only the veteran players' votes should count, yet we see the votes from people simply started at ME3 (and possibly only played ME3)

[RedCaesar97]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

Speaking of encumberance, I think they went about it wrong in ME3. If they really wanted it to be a factor in game balancing, they should have made a hard weight limit that varied between classes, so that certain classes simply would'nt be able to carry as much stuff as others. Also, the effect on power cooldown definitely should've been relaxed a lot for soldiers.

I am with Locutus_of_BORG on this idea. A hard weight limit based would have been better than the encumbrance system which was a half-baked idea that really seemed to hurt some classes more than others.

TheMyron wrote...
No, no, no, Power cool-down should be based on the quality of your Omni-tool like in ME1.

ME1's system sucked. There, I said it.

In all three games, some of your abilities improved based on gear -- which is fine -- but ME1 relied so heavily on it. It made early game a slog (when you had crap gear) and late game a bore (when you had good gear).

[RedCaesar97]

friezen wrote...

I think a mix of ME1 and ME2/3 cooldowns should be used where tech powers share the same cooldown, biotic powers share a cooldown, etc. And to compensate for adepts and engineers, they could fire two powers in a row before triggering a cooldown.

No. Just, no.

This was actually brought up a few times in the ME2 forums, that is, the idea to separate cooldows of different types, such as tech, biotic, and combat. 

The conclusion was always the same: it would only benefit Sentinels.

If you look at the class power sets in ME3 -- and to a lesser extent, ME2 -- in terms of powers that cause cooldowns, the Soldier has only combat powers, the Infiltrator and Engineer only tech powers, and the Adept and Vanguard only biotic powers. Only the Sentinel has different power types competing for cooldown, namely biotic and tech. 

With a bonus power, then the other 5 classes could get two different power types competing for cooldowns, but then the Sentinel could get 3. It is an unfair tradeoff.

[TheMyron]

RedCaesar97 wrote...



ME1's system sucked. There, I said it.

In all three games, some of your abilities improved based on gear -- which is fine -- but ME1 relied so heavily on it. It made early game a slog (when you had crap gear) and late game a bore (when you had good gear).

Indeed, we are not sticking to any one game's mechanics, we are consolidating the mechanics from all three games, using the good and removing the crap. ME1 did have too much reliance, but different classes of Omni-tool was a good idea.

[RedCaesar97]

TheMyron wrote...

TheMyron wrote...

In my humble opinion: The weapon variety of ME3 should stay, but the weapon upgrade system should be that of ME2. All available attachments attached to my gun is the best way to go. The various non-sniper rifle scopes of ME3 would stay too.

I honestly see little bleedin' difference between the Avenger I and the Avenger X on any of the stats of ME3, but its impossible not to see the improvements in ME2 after using Mordin's lab.

Dammit, Why did Bioware the Alliance remove that lab? I liked it...

If I had to choose between all three games, I would choose the ME2 upgrade system, if only because I hated the ME3 system and I thought the ME1 system was even worse.

Personally, I would rather weapons did not need to be levelled up/did not need upgrades. It would make it easier to balance.

As for mods, I would prefer a give+take system whereby you could improve a weapon's stats in one area but you had to compensate by decreasing stats in another area. For example, increase weapon damage but at the cost of accuracy, stability, and/or ammo capacity.

As for non-sniper scopes, I say leave them out. For some weapons, adding a scope made them better sniper rifles than some sniper rifles.

[TheMyron]

The combined squad selection should include the colored "strength bars" of ME1, along with the "loyal" or "not-loyal" status of ME2; plus of course the ability to not only change their attire while in the screen, but should different attire have different bonuses like in ME3?

[TheMyron]

RedCaesar97 wrote...



As for non-sniper scopes, I say leave them out. For some weapons, adding a scope made them better sniper rifles than some sniper rifles.

Modern militaries use such scopes all the time for a reason.

[RedCaesar97]

TheMyron wrote...

RedCaesar97 wrote...

In all three games, some of your abilities improved based on gear -- which is fine -- but ME1 relied so heavily on it. It made early game a slog (when you had crap gear) and late game a bore (when you had good gear).

Indeed, we are not sticking to any one game's mechanics, we are consolidating the mechanics from all three games, using the good and removing the crap. ME1 did have too much reliance, but different classes of Omni-tool was a good idea.

Except Omni-Tools, like Bio-Amps and weapons and mods, used the same class system:

1) Crap
2) Soon to be crap
3) Colossus X armor. Spectre X weapons. Serrice Council Bio-amp X and Omni Tool X. Medical Exoskeleton X.

Only the weapon mods were slightly different in that you could somewhat pick and choose based on how you used the weapon. But only slightly. You tended to use a lot of the same 2-3 mods.

[TheMyron]

Tali looked really good in the Colossus armor, it should be available for the whole story.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

 

capn233 wrote...

The lack of protection modifiers and then introduction of armor damage reduction is what made the biggest difference between ME2 and ME3, IMO. Really I am not sure how big the range modifier really was in ME2 outside of making shotguns bad at range.

Which they should be (other than the GPS, ofc, but that's not even a real SG, it's a cannon).

But given how big the environments got in ME3, range modifiers could've been applied to ARs and Pistols so that SRs would've actually been relevant in that game, instead of just something you bring to mess around with. Also, while I appreciate a good headshot as much as anybody else, Pistol-sniping, like SG-sniping, is a cancer that needs to be stamped out imo, lol.

TheMyron wrote...

No, no, no, Power cool-down should be based on the quality of your Omni-tool like in ME1.

Totally forgot about that. But tbh I never really missed Omni-tools or Bio-Amps as equippable items. I don't really have a strong opinion on this either way.

TheMyron wrote...

Modern militaries use such scopes all the time for a reason.

lol, the aiming reticle we get over Shep's shoulder already pretty much acts as the most fantastic reflex sight in unreality.

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 21 novembre 2013 - 05:33 .

[RedCaesar97]

TheMyron wrote...

RedCaesar97 wrote...

As for non-sniper scopes, I say leave them out. For some weapons, adding a scope made them better sniper rifles than some sniper rifles.

Modern militaries use such scopes all the time for a reason.

Forget reality, this is a video game. Leave the scopes to sniper rifles.

Likewise, some players complained that Mass Effect shotguns (and video game shotguns in general) did not reflect real-life shotguns in that they were only good at close range while real-life shotguns have much longer ranges. But the reality is you are playing a video game, and video game weapons do not need to reflect reality. "Weapon balance" in particular is pretty much required for a video game shooter, or RPG-ish shooter in the case of Mass Effect. rreal life militaries do not care about weapon balance (for good reason).

This is why I liked the weapon/protection/power system in ME2, where each power and weapon type filled a fairly unique roll. For weapons, SMGs and shotguns were better against shields and barriers, Pistols and sniper rifles were better against armor, and assault rifles were average against both. Shotguns were great at close range, and sniper rifles at "long range."

As for the complaints about there being no real "long range" for sniper rifles: that is more of a game engine and/or software limitation. Few games have what you could call "sniper rifle ranges". I suppose the Battlefield series would be one. And in "real life" sniper rifles have to deal with a lot more than range, like gravity, elevation, and wind, something you cannot really emulate in a video game.

[TheMyron]

I'd rather look through a non-sniper rifle scope than have Shepard's fat head blocking the left side of my screen.

That's an idea! During combat there should be the option to switch to first-person-view.

[cap and gown]

RedCaesar97 wrote...

As for the complaints about there being no real "long range" for sniper rifles: that is more of a game engine and/or software limitation. Few games have what you could call "sniper rifle ranges". I suppose the Battlefield series would be one.

Have you tried Far Cry 3? Sniping really shone in that game. Course, it was very focused around stealth, a mechanic that basically does not exist in ME.

[cap and gown]

TheMyron wrote...

I'd rather look through a non-sniper rifle scope than have Shepard's fat head blocking the left side of my screen.

That's an idea! During combat there should be the option to switch to first-person-view.

Skyrim has this option. OTOH, I just went back to playing some Skyrim and was really disoriented by my narrow field of view in first person. I had gotten used to ME's third person and its greater peripheral vision.

Personally, I prefer ME's system. Skyrim's third person doesn't work as well for me because I don't get the kind of depth perception I would like to gauge my sword swings correctly.

[cap and gown]

RedCaesar97 wrote...


As for mods, I would prefer a give+take system whereby you could improve a weapon's stats in one area but you had to compensate by decreasing stats in another area. For example, increase weapon damage but at the cost of accuracy, stability, and/or ammo capacity.

I have been thinking along similar lines. Something like, each gun has a base level of 100 points, some of it spent on stability, some on magazine size, some on damage, etc. You then could allocate points to various areas, perhaps reducing damage output for more stability. A "make your own gun" system.

[capn233]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

 

capn233 wrote...

The lack of protection modifiers and then introduction of armor damage reduction is what made the biggest difference between ME2 and ME3, IMO. Really I am not sure how big the range modifier really was in ME2 outside of making shotguns bad at range.

Which they should be (other than the GPS, ofc, but that's not even a real SG, it's a cannon).

But given how big the environments got in ME3, range modifiers could've been applied to ARs and Pistols so that SRs would've actually been relevant in that game, instead of just something you bring to mess around with. Also, while I appreciate a good headshot as much as anybody else, Pistol-sniping, like SG-sniping, is a cancer that needs to be stamped out imo, lol.

I don't think it is necessary to get the desired effect.

You can balance shotguns at range with their patterns and accuracy.  The main problem in ME3 is that there are too many available accuracy bonuses in general, and these basically will all apply to Shotguns in a crazy linear stacking that allows them to become near-pinpoint.  Shotguns should not have gotten improved accuracy from aiming down sight, firing from cover, or any passive or power based accuracy bonus.  Only Smart Choke should have affected pellet spread.  Ditto on the Talon, which should not have been able to get any accuracy improvements from anything given its class.

Snipers were discouraged because of level design, no-scope damage penalty, and shield gate.  Incidentally, the latter is one of the things that also encouraged shotgun sniping.

Pistol sniping is sort of a video game staple, and people do hunt with big magnums that have scopes, although this is in a large part due to hunting restrictions rather than finding the best tool for the job.  I don't mind them from a pure gameplay standpoint, but again it was another source of accuracy.  From a Mass Effect history perspective, they shouldn't exist, since all the weapons already had "smart targeting" and other forms of integrated targeting systems including optics for all the ME1 and 2 AR's.

I think I might be somewhat in agreement with Red on the mods... it would have been interesting if they increased one stat but had a penalty in a different one.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

I can accept Pistol 'sniping' maybe at medium range, but they should never allowed to be better medium/long-range weapons than ARs or SRs in a tactical shooter. I'm pretty sure IRL, hunting pistols are for close-in use, and their scopes are for precision, not ranged magnification. Also, they are definitely not combat weapons, unlike hunting rifles, which are basically battle rifles. Besides, in ME, Pistols could've emphasized other advantages, such as better synergy with powers.

All said, I think we generally agree that each of the weapon classes should have a fairly well defined role, for the sake of ME's tactical shooter elements.

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 21 novembre 2013 - 05:19 .

[capn233]

Off topic, but they are not for up close... around 100yd or so. At least if we are talking .44 magnum+ actually used for hunting and not some guy with a reflex on his automatic for target shooting. Closer than you might use a rifle for, but it is also farther than the span in any map in the game, practically.

Of course no military uses anything remotely like magnums in handgun, but they still exist in shooters.

[cap and gown]

capn233 wrote...

Of course no military uses anything remotely like magnums in handgun, but they still exist in shooters.

Last I checked, they don't use singularities or dark channels either.

[TheMyron]

The Mantis and Black Widow having equal damage is just silly. The concept for bayonets should stay in all three games, but the appropriate animation should be thrown in as well.

[RedCaesar97]

TheMyron wrote...
The Mantis and Black Widow having equal damage is just silly.

The Black Widow should never have existed in the first place, at least in my opinion. (And neither should the Wraith or Paladin. Both guns are just stupid in my opinion, not having a good place in the game.)

Modifié par RedCaesar97, 22 novembre 2013 - 12:21 .

[TheMyron]

RedCaesar97 wrote...

TheMyron wrote...
The Mantis and Black Widow having equal damage is just silly.

The Black Widow should never have existed in the first place, at least in my opinion.

Why not? The Widow is like the bolt-action .408 sniper rifle, and the Black Widow is like the M82 .50 cal. Barret.

[capn233]

Black Widow was an answer to Shield Gate, but it turns out the question should have never been asked.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

I can't say that I'm totally against the Black Widow, but in ME2 the go-to semi-auto DMR was the Viper, and that gun should never have been consigned to utter irrelevance. If they reduced the Viper's kickback a bit and maybe upped the damage somewhat, maybe it would've been a viable option in ME3... But then we'd have to look at other inane guns like the Raptor or Incisor and how how those should've been handled...

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 22 novembre 2013 - 02:39 .

[Rasofe]

Actually I think that overall the last two games could've benefited from an energy system for powers. The cooldown related to weight is one thing, but it doesn't actually stop an Adept from spamming warp-throw untill everything is dead. Kind of the whole difficulty of superdestructive casters should be a limit to how much they can spam their quick-kill ability, you know. More so than the powers having no effect on husks.

Modifié par Rasofe, 22 novembre 2013 - 07:59 .