95 réponses à ce sujet

[lightswitch]

This will be short. In general weapon design in ME3 MP is shallow and mostly uninteresting. They could be much more interesting if they were more quixotic in general and game mechanics were brought up to modern standards.

First, no stupid god mode weapons with low recoil, high DPS, high accuracy, and low cooldowns. I'm talking about the Harrier. That thing is the opposite of a good weapon design in the context of ME multiplayer because its' performance leaves every other mid-to-long range weapon in its' dust, and outperforms most short range weapons as well. The reason no one uses 90% of the assault rifles in the game is because the Harrier is so clearly better. Fixing it wouldn't even be that hard, it just needs to kick harder, and it needs its' bloom increased.

Second, shotguns should actually be limited to a very short (10m or less) effective range. Insta-gib weapons in general need to be toned down and limited to specific roles.

Third, to further delineate the roles of weapons with different optimal ranges, map sizes need to be bigger. Scopes in ME3 MP are an absurdity that are only a hindrance instead of an aid.

And finally, no more hitscan weapons. They're kind of cheesy and they're just not as satisfying or fun to play with as projectile weapons.

[Deerber]

Gotta agree with everything, but the last point. Gimme all the hitscans weapons of the world! No way to take em out unless they find a way to severely reduce lag. Which would mean dedicated servers, I guess...

[lightswitch]

Deerber wrote...

Gotta agree with everything, but the last point. Gimme all the hitscans weapons of the world! No way to take em out unless they find a way to severely reduce lag. Which would mean dedicated servers, I guess...

The lag in this game is insane. I never realized just how bad it was until I came back for some matches after playing other games - and by other games I mean Planetside 2 with all projectile weapons, literally thousands of players on one map, and sometimes generally at least a few dozen (and sometimes hundreds in some towers fights) packed into the same sized areas as a normal ME3 MP map. That game has lag, but it's not nearly as bad as ME3 MP. Not even a little bit.

Basically the netcode in ME3 MP has to be just insanely awful. There's no reason these problems should exist in the next game.

Modifié par lightswitch, 28 janvier 2014 - 04:05 .

[Simba501]

I disagree. I like current weapon design.

[Deerber]

lightswitch wrote...

Deerber wrote...

Gotta agree with everything, but the last point. Gimme all the hitscans weapons of the world! No way to take em out unless they find a way to severely reduce lag. Which would mean dedicated servers, I guess...

The lag in this game is insane. I never realized just how bad it was until I came back for some matches after playing other games - and by other games I mean Planetside 2 with all projectile weapons, literally thousands of players on one map, and sometimes generally at least a few dozen (and sometimes hundreds in some towers fights) packed into the same sized areas as a normal ME3 MP map. That game has lag, but it's not nearly as bad as ME3 MP. Not even a little bit.

Basically the netcode in ME3 MP has to be just insanely awful. There's no reason these problems should exist in the next game.

Yeah, I know. I just hope it's got to do with the fact that it was their first MP game, which makes sense to me. Given the success it had, I'm definitely hoping that they're gonna pour more resources in ME4 MP, so that maybe we can see a much more flawless and lag free game, be it by using dedicated servers or optimizing the net code, or both.

I'm no expert, but if one is to believe Caratinoid and Dunvi about this... Then the netcode reaaaally has a lot of room for improvement!

[Beerfish]

The old conundrum, do you want to nerf the harrier because it is better than the other assault rifles or should you improve some of the other assault rifles? I'd argue that if you nerfed the Harrier assault rifles in general would be left in cobwebs. You forgot to mention the fact that you have to take significant steps to deal with ammo for the harrier.

There are quite a few other 'god weapons' than the Harrier that is for sure. I might tend to want to make weapons a tad more generic but give the players a LOT more options for building them.

[razrblack]

The netcode is definitely going to be improved, and Frostbite 3 will guarantee projectile based weapons that do not lag even with 64 players.

I hope, though, that they will restrict the number to a more sane level. This is no Battlefield Effect, so a six or eight player coop match could be more than enough on a huge map. Maybe they'll go for real coop missions, designed for a small number of players, with real objectives and a path to take instead of "deathmatch" style maps with random spawns and cookie-cutter objectives.

Left4Dead 1 and 2 are great four player coop games, with campaigns and mostly linear maps. The engine doesn't give much freedom in level design, but they are fun games and a great example of coop done right.

Borderlands 1 and two also have coop missions and a more open world. This too should be looked at when incorporating multiplayer into the story. Those games, though, lack any kind of dialogue options like we are used to. I'd like to see some kind of decision making incorporated into the multiplayer aspect of the game. It won't be dialogues most probably, but multiple paths or different ways to complete a single objective are welcome.

As for the actual weapon design, I'm hoping for less weapons that are too similar to eachother and more customization options. I would also like more unique weapons, with real advantages AND disadvantages, instead of weapons that are exponentially better and get nearly godlike when you spend enough credits (both in SP or MP) to unlock them and make the game easymode at any difficulty. Some weapons are so good that they make powers nearly useless (or just fillers for when you're out of ammo). That is not good at all, because at that point we might as well all play the same character and just forget about all the gameplay mechanics that different powers bring to the table.

[LemurFromTheId]

lightswitch wrote...

This will be short. In general weapon design in ME3 MP is shallow and mostly uninteresting. They could be much more interesting if they were more quixotic in general and game mechanics were brought up to modern standards.

First, no stupid god mode weapons with low recoil, high DPS, high accuracy, and low cooldowns. I'm talking about the Harrier. That thing is the opposite of a good weapon design in the context of ME multiplayer because its' performance leaves every other mid-to-long range weapon in its' dust, and outperforms most short range weapons as well. The reason no one uses 90% of the assault rifles in the game is because the Harrier is so clearly better. Fixing it wouldn't even be that hard, it just needs to kick harder, and it needs its' bloom increased.

Second, shotguns should actually be limited to a very short (10m or less) effective range. Insta-gib weapons in general need to be toned down and limited to specific roles.

Third, to further delineate the roles of weapons with different optimal ranges, map sizes need to be bigger. Scopes in ME3 MP are an absurdity that are only a hindrance instead of an aid.

And finally, no more hitscan weapons. They're kind of cheesy and they're just not as satisfying or fun to play with as projectile weapons.

I mostly agree, especially about scopes, which really are a pet peeve of mine in this game.

Not sure about shotgun range though, for me the SG/AR divide is less about range and more about spike damage vs. sustained damage. Shield penetration vs. armor penetration is also something to be considered. That said, the way accuracy bonuses work with shotguns in ME3 is plain ridiculous.

Hitscan weapons really fit the lore, if that matters. I wouldn't mind projectile weapons though - as long as the netcode allows for a good implementation and the implementation actually is good. Projectile weapons in ME3 are either a joke or a disaster, I can't really decide.

Personally I'd love it if weapon sway was added to MEnext. Scoped pistols shouldn't be able to compete with sniper rifles.

This is maybe OT, but I'd also like it if reload canceling was made into an explicit core game mechanic instead of a "hidden feature". There are many ways how this could be done, like pressing the reload button twice with a specific timing... or something.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot the most important thing: I want every weapon to be equally good. That's very subjective of course, but in the ideal case they would all be generally considered equally good. No, that absolutely doesn't mean I want every weapon to be the same - on the contrary, they should all be unique as well.

Modifié par Aedolon, 28 janvier 2014 - 04:48 .

[lightswitch]

Beerfish wrote...

The old conundrum, do you want to nerf the harrier because it is better than the other assault rifles or should you improve some of the other assault rifles? I'd argue that if you nerfed the Harrier assault rifles in general would be left in cobwebs. You forgot to mention the fact that you have to take significant steps to deal with ammo for the harrier.

There are quite a few other 'god weapons' than the Harrier that is for sure. I might tend to want to make weapons a tad more generic but give the players a LOT more options for building them.

The Harrier excels in every situation, on every kit. The only time it suffers is on maps with bugged ammo boxes. It's good at long range, short range, mooks, bosses, hipfire, ADS, you name it, the Harrier is top tier.

The other god-mode weapons (by which I presume you mean the Talon and the Hurricane) at least have some semblance of range limitations (requiring weapon buffing powers to increase accuracy), and the Hurricane requires the player to learn recoil control. The ammo reserve of a Talon is also much more punishing than the Harriers' at lower levels, particularly if the player has poor reflexive aim.

[Beerfish]

The harrier has some weight to it, has ammo limitations and being an AR you cannot attach things like the biotic bonus to it. Hey, I'm not saying the Harrier is not the elite AR because it is in most cases but it's far from the only one that should be held up as a beacon of being over powered. I'll go for the changes you propose for the harrier if they remove reload canceling for the Claymore, tone down stagger for the venom, make penetration levels a lot less for the Javelin and do something about the Hurrduricane.

[lightswitch]

Beerfish wrote...

The harrier has some weight to it, has ammo limitations and being an AR you cannot attach things like the biotic bonus to it. Hey, I'm not saying the Harrier is not the elite AR because it is in most cases but it's far from the only one that should be held up as a beacon of being over powered. I'll go for the changes you propose for the harrier if they remove reload canceling for the Claymore, tone down stagger for the venom, make penetration levels a lot less for the Javelin and do something about the Hurrduricane.

yeah...I'm not a fish

[LemurFromTheId]

Beerfish wrote...

The harrier has some weight to it, has ammo limitations and being an AR you cannot attach things like the biotic bonus to it.

ROFL, what a huge drawback!

[XCPTNL]

In my opinion one of the biggest flaws in ME3's weapon "design" is the fact, that they are not equal in strength. There obviously weapons that serve no purpose whatsoever except for being an annoyance in the store-lottery and a waste of space in the inventory. LESS IS MORE! I like that there are different kinds of weapons per class that behave differently and by that alone come some advantages and disadvantages and a certain amount of imbalance. But in the end, every weapon of every category should be a viable candidate that you can take to the battlefield (on the highest difficulty of course). If they design the weapons in ME4 with that thought in mind, evberything will be much better.

[lightswitch]

XCPTNL wrote...

In my opinion one of the biggest flaws in ME3's weapon "design" is the fact, that they are not equal in strength. There obviously weapons that serve no purpose whatsoever except for being an annoyance in the store-lottery and a waste of space in the inventory. LESS IS MORE! I like that there are different kinds of weapons per class that behave differently and by that alone come some advantages and disadvantages and a certain amount of imbalance. But in the end, every weapon of every category should be a viable candidate that you can take to the battlefield (on the highest difficulty of course). If they design the weapons in ME4 with that thought in mind, evberything will be much better.

Well...this isn't a PvP shooter; it's PvE 3rd person shooter with RPG elements. In RPG games it's fairly normal to upgrade your weaponry over time, leaving behind the lower level equipment you used in the past. So I'm okay with that element.

[Kislitsin]

Just one question, would you mind PPR to stay as is?

Oh, oh, the second - what about claymoar?

[LemurFromTheId]

lightswitch wrote...

XCPTNL wrote...

In my opinion one of the biggest flaws in ME3's weapon "design" is the fact, that they are not equal in strength. There obviously weapons that serve no purpose whatsoever except for being an annoyance in the store-lottery and a waste of space in the inventory. LESS IS MORE! I like that there are different kinds of weapons per class that behave differently and by that alone come some advantages and disadvantages and a certain amount of imbalance. But in the end, every weapon of every category should be a viable candidate that you can take to the battlefield (on the highest difficulty of course). If they design the weapons in ME4 with that thought in mind, evberything will be much better.

Well...this isn't a PvP shooter; it's PvE 3rd person shooter with RPG elements. In RPG games it's fairly normal to upgrade your weaponry over time, leaving behind the lower level equipment you used in the past. So I'm okay with that element.

It's a huge waste of development resources when there are almost 70 weapons yet you end up using the top 10 or 15 weapons 95% of the time because the others are just sub-par. It'd be better to have 30 well-designed weapons that are all different and remain useful throughout the game.

Item scaling is already there anyway and the weapon modding system has a lot of room for improvement.

[TheNightSlasher]

As long as they have venom and arc pistol in ME4, I don't care what they do with other weapons.

Also, no hitscan seems a bad idea given the lag this game has. Many projectile weapons, if not all fire blanks due to lag. But I agree on the fact that weapons like Harrier, hurricane etc needs to be nerfed.

Modifié par bgsam1990, 28 janvier 2014 - 05:38 .

[Beerfish]

Aedolon wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

The harrier has some weight to it, has ammo limitations and being an AR you cannot attach things like the biotic bonus to it.

ROFL, what a huge drawback!

Well it isn't for 90% of the people in here who simply play weapons builds and play power classes in name only  (as in people ruinning around with long long long cooldowns and a claymore.)

We all know that weapons are the name of the game in mp for a lot of reasons.  He listed all of the benfits of the harrier and didn't bother to list any drawbacks at all.  I see as many hurricanes in mp as I do harriers.  No arguments with him saying the harrier is a powerful weapon, I do have a beef holding it up as the only over powere weapon amongst many.

[Tokenusername]

1. Don't disagree.

2. There's nothing wrong with shotguns with longer range, but they should loss significant effectivness at range. Biggest problem is there should not be a way to tighten their spread to a pinpoint.

3. Maps are smaller to accommodate low numbers of enemies. Look at the difference between Rio and Glacier in how many enemies it "feels" like you're fighting.

4. That's purely preferential and won't improve gameplay.

[The One True Crash]

lightswitch wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

The old conundrum, do you want to nerf the harrier because it is better than the other assault rifles or should you improve some of the other assault rifles? I'd argue that if you nerfed the Harrier assault rifles in general would be left in cobwebs. You forgot to mention the fact that you have to take significant steps to deal with ammo for the harrier.

There are quite a few other 'god weapons' than the Harrier that is for sure. I might tend to want to make weapons a tad more generic but give the players a LOT more options for building them.

The Harrier excels in every situation, on every kit. The only time it suffers is on maps with bugged ammo boxes. It's good at long range, short range, mooks, bosses, hipfire, ADS, you name it, the Harrier is top tier.

The other god-mode weapons (by which I presume you mean the Talon and the Hurricane) at least have some semblance of range limitations (requiring weapon buffing powers to increase accuracy), and the Hurricane requires the player to learn recoil control. The ammo reserve of a Talon is also much more punishing than the Harriers' at lower levels, particularly if the player has poor reflexive aim.

The Wraith is easily just as OP as the Harrier.

[Teh_Ocelot]

I think they should either have less weapons so you don't end up w/ useless ones clogging up your random numbers for no reason. Also, personally, I think they should have several strong, legitimate weapons in each category that excel @ different things, i.e. lower damage but large mag and good fire rate, or high damage and high fire rate but low mag, etc. And, likely going against the grain here, but I think there should be a weapon like the Harrier that once you do all this grinding and spend all these credits, you really have the option of just going in and lighting it up if you want to. Most people who max the Harrier spend more than 1500 hours playing this game. That much time begs to be rewarded with a power house. And for those who don't like to use the best guns all the time, myself included, you can always throw on the Avenger and see how well you can do.

[Deerber]

Aedolon wrote...

lightswitch wrote...

XCPTNL wrote...

In my opinion one of the biggest flaws in ME3's weapon "design" is the fact, that they are not equal in strength. There obviously weapons that serve no purpose whatsoever except for being an annoyance in the store-lottery and a waste of space in the inventory. LESS IS MORE! I like that there are different kinds of weapons per class that behave differently and by that alone come some advantages and disadvantages and a certain amount of imbalance. But in the end, every weapon of every category should be a viable candidate that you can take to the battlefield (on the highest difficulty of course). If they design the weapons in ME4 with that thought in mind, evberything will be much better.

Well...this isn't a PvP shooter; it's PvE 3rd person shooter with RPG elements. In RPG games it's fairly normal to upgrade your weaponry over time, leaving behind the lower level equipment you used in the past. So I'm okay with that element.

It's a huge waste of development resources when there are almost 70 weapons yet you end up using the top 10 or 15 weapons 95% of the time because the others are just sub-par. It'd be better to have 30 well-designed weapons that are all different and remain useful throughout the game.

Item scaling is already there anyway and the weapon modding system has a lot of room for improvement.

The modding system might just be used to help making all weapons useful.

For example, they might make it so that lower tier weapons are more customizable. They have lower base stats, but you can use more mods on them. If they expand quite a bit on the mods available and what they do, it might get interesting. Maybe even make different tier of mods, and make lower level weapons be able to use higher level mods.

Like say, they could add a mod that let's the weapon do +20% damage to shields, and the tier II does +50%. Now, you have the option of using a higher end weapon without this mod cause you need the slots for more needed mods (ext mag and whatnot), or you can use a weapon with lower base stats, but that is able to fit the +50% mod and still get the most needed mods. Obviously the numbers are just made up and they should balance it, but the concept's there. That way, lower end weapon could be built to be more "spot on" on what you need, but higher end ones would still be better overall. It would allow for more variation in what you take to the battlefield... You need your weapon for a very precise role, you take a highly customizable one... You have no idea what you're up against, and just want an all-around weapon, you take the high end one...

It would also fit the lore, as usually lower tier weapons are older and more trustworthy ones, with more spare parts in the market etc... It's logical that they could get modded further than the newest kassa fabrication top of the line SMG.

Modifié par Deerber, 28 janvier 2014 - 06:12 .

[Fixx21]

Simba501 wrote...

I disagree. I like current weapon design.

this ^^

[Tokenusername]

Lol@throwawsyweapons

[LemurFromTheId]

Deerber wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

lightswitch wrote...

XCPTNL wrote...

In my opinion one of the biggest flaws in ME3's weapon "design" is the fact, that they are not equal in strength. There obviously weapons that serve no purpose whatsoever except for being an annoyance in the store-lottery and a waste of space in the inventory. LESS IS MORE! I like that there are different kinds of weapons per class that behave differently and by that alone come some advantages and disadvantages and a certain amount of imbalance. But in the end, every weapon of every category should be a viable candidate that you can take to the battlefield (on the highest difficulty of course). If they design the weapons in ME4 with that thought in mind, evberything will be much better.

Well...this isn't a PvP shooter; it's PvE 3rd person shooter with RPG elements. In RPG games it's fairly normal to upgrade your weaponry over time, leaving behind the lower level equipment you used in the past. So I'm okay with that element.

It's a huge waste of development resources when there are almost 70 weapons yet you end up using the top 10 or 15 weapons 95% of the time because the others are just sub-par. It'd be better to have 30 well-designed weapons that are all different and remain useful throughout the game.

Item scaling is already there anyway and the weapon modding system has a lot of room for improvement.

The modding system might just be used to help making all weapons useful.

For example, they might make it so that lower tier weapons are more customizable. They have lower base stats, but you can use more mods on them. If they expand quite a bit on the mods available and what they do, it might get interesting. Maybe even make different tier of mods, and make lower level weapons be able to use higher level mods.

Like say, they could add a mod that let's the weapon do +20% damage to shields, and the tier II does +50%. Now, you have the option of using a higher end weapon without this mod cause you need the slots for more needed mods (ext mag and whatnot), or you can use a weapon with lower base stats, but that is able to fit the +50% mod and still get the most needed mods. Obviously the numbers are just made up and they should balance it, but the concept's there.

It would also fit the lore, as usually lower tier weapons are older and more trustworthy ones, with more spare parts in the market etc... It's logical that they could get modded further than the newest kassa fabrication top of the line SMG.

That's a good thought, although I'd greatly prefer it if mods came with both pros and cons - you know, so that they modify the weapon instead of just improving it. +30% against shields, -10% against everything else. +10% accuracy, -10% ROF. +30% mag capacity, +40% reload duration. Stuff like that. More mod slots. And ammo mods too, instead of one-time consumables or ammo powers.