95 réponses à ce sujet

[lightswitch]

Aedolon wrote...

My way would allow a significanly larger number of mods without making balancing a nightmare.

elaborate further, I'm not really understanding why

[Malanek]

lightswitch wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

My way would allow a significanly larger number of mods without making balancing a nightmare.

elaborate further, I'm not really understanding why

It does make sense. You could have say assault rifle mods that give +30% damage -30% clip size, a +30 damage - 20% accuracy, a + 30% damage + 50% weight etc etc which all behave quite differently but all simply grant extra damage as the benefit. How else would you design so many weapon mods revolving around the same characteristic on the same weapon?

However I'm not entirely sure we want that many weapon mods. Is added complexity desired in that area? I think something more similar to what we had but make the rare mods a bit sexier and more like Aedolon describes.

Edit Also on weapon mods it would be great to see mods that were unusable with individual weapons when they would have no effect ie Armor Piercing or Smart Choke on GPS. Just dont let the player equip these rather than lead them to believe they have some effect.

Modifié par Malanek999, 29 janvier 2014 - 01:37 .

[Fortack]

Malanek999 wrote...

lightswitch wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

My way would allow a significanly larger number of mods without making balancing a nightmare.

elaborate further, I'm not really understanding why

It does make sense. You could have say assault rifle mods that give +30% damage -30% clip size, a +30 damage - 20% accuracy, a + 30% damage + 50% weight etc etc which all behave quite differently but all simply grant extra damage as the benefit. How else would you design so many weapon mods revolving around the same characteristic on the same weapon?

That's the idea indeed.

However I'm not entirely sure we want that many weapon mods. Is added complexity desired in that area? I think something more similar to what we had but make the rare mods a bit sexier and more like Aedolon describes.

What complexity are you talking about exactly? ME3 "modding" makes no sense whatsoever. I don't see the point of half-finished products that require to be "repaired" to do the stuff they ought to be doing in the first place. It's simply ludicrous to design a shotgun with horrible accuracy on purpose just to make room for smart choke mods everyone with more than one braincell is gonna use anyway. That has nothing to do with customization.

Upgrading and customizing are two different things. When you install a grenade launcher on your AR, for example, the ME3 system only adds the launcher without any consequence. There is no point not to install it because it means you only gimp yourself on purpose. A logical system - like how stuff works in reality - gives the player the option to chose between the grenade launcher (which is a good thing) but at the cost of a heavier weapon with less stability (that's bad). Instead of a no-brainer upgrade, the grenade launcher becomes a customization option forcing the player to think whether or not firing a few grenades occasionally is worth the penalties.

[Kislitsin]

Guys, what bout my lazor??

Ok. On a serious note I sitll wan't more "deep" and logical modding system.

I.e. 6 different mod slots on each weapon:

1. different ammo types (lets hope, piercing would take less effects DPS-wise in the next game) should be a part of guns. I wan't more than 3 types of ammo to be valuable.

2. receiver-shaver group mods which allow to achieve either higher damage per shot or better RoF. So let it be: shaver X provides 10% better RoF, shaver Y provides 10% more damage per shot, shaver X1337 provides 30% better RoF with - 10% damage per shot.While unique (ultra-rare) shaver Z allows to combine 2 types of ammo but lacks any additional bonuses.

3. heatsink-barrel group mods which allow to achieve some compromise between damage, accuracy (it's a bit retarded that addition of scope increases accuracy now) and clip size.

4. stock-dampener group (do not apply to pistols): stability in leu of weight or vice versa. If "caster" kit want's to carry a new hurricane (I wish it'l receieve revenant-treatment) he should think weather he want it to be a light "oh crap" weapon or the weapon wich is a major part of his DPS.

5. scopes: 3 types - long range thermal/EM (organics/syntetics) or optic scopes - snipers only. Low magnificiency thermal/EM/optic scopes - anything but shootys. And short range magnetic/optic scopes that translate the readout on HUD when ADS. And I really wish they get rid of geth scanner and hunter mode.Every scope increases the weight to some deegre, more so for thermal/EM scopes.
1337 series allow to combine two type of scopes in expence of moar weight.

6. slot for various specific attachements: Omni-blades for shooties/ARs, melee-stunner/power amp on pistols, grenade launchers for ARs etc.

Some awesome exotic weapons should be allowed to be modded only partially, for example PPR (I hope the lazor will be here, fck the lore!) should have a 2 slots - sink-barrel and scope, no moar incendiary cheeze lazor or penetrating lazor (I repeat, I hope penetration wouldn't be such a major DPS numerator).

I wish we wouldn't have an I-win consumables like AP/Incendiary/Warp Ammo 4 or Weapon Amps 3 or cyclonics 4.
I actually wish consumables will be restricted to gells, various packs and (!!!!!) grenades.
Maybe something else. I just don't want DPS of my kit to depend on RNG every game.

Modifié par Kislitsin, 29 janvier 2014 - 11:13 .

[Fortack]

Kislitsin wrote...

I wish we wouldn't have an I-win consumables like AP/Incendiary/Warp Ammo 4 or Weapon Amps 3 or cyclonics 4.
I actually wish consumables will be restricted to gells, various packs and (!!!!!) grenades.
Maybe something else. I just don't want DPS of my kit to depend on RNG every game.

Those things are broken b/c they don't have cons - which makes no sense and ruins balance.

The Lolreegar is broken b/c the game allows to negate its fundamental drawback simply by installing mods or using ammo. Essentially, the game spits itself in the face since weapons, which are designed to be good at one thing whilst bad at another, all of a sudden become awesome against everything.

The interesting thing is that with a lot less weapons and more - balanced - mods everyone will be happy: It's a lot faster and easier for the devs to design fewer yet more specific weapons. It gives the player far more options and viable ways to customize their weapons, and it is far easier to balance on top of that. Doing more with less. The only loser would be the RNG store which is a good thing in my book anyway

[hostaman]

Simba501 wrote...

I disagree. I like current weapon design.

This ^

I think the Challenge system is a good way to get players to try different weapons. I just wish we got a better prize than just a banner. Maybe some credits?

[Teh_Ocelot]

Fortack wrote...

Kislitsin wrote...

I wish we wouldn't have an I-win consumables like AP/Incendiary/Warp Ammo 4 or Weapon Amps 3 or cyclonics 4.
I actually wish consumables will be restricted to gells, various packs and (!!!!!) grenades.
Maybe something else. I just don't want DPS of my kit to depend on RNG every game.

The interesting thing is that with a lot less weapons and more - balanced - mods everyone will be happy: It's a lot faster and easier for the devs to design fewer yet more specific weapons. It gives the player far more options and viable ways to customize their weapons, and it is far easier to balance on top of that. Doing more with less. The only loser would be the RNG store which is a good thing in my book anyway

I agree; w/ so many weapons comes more bland and ultimately useless weapons (See every Common, most  Uncommon, and what, half the Rare/Ultra Rare? Maybe 60%?) because they either duplicate each other or 2-3 are so far and away  better than the others it's like dropping from Tier 1 (Harrier, Hurricane, lolReegar) to a Tier 5 (Widow, Claymoar, Wraith, etc) b/c there's such a wide span in power. More customization w/ new/improved/different mods on fewer (not few, but fewer) weapons would be a much better way to go, imo. 

[Tokenusername]

The biggest problem with the weapon design is they tried to combine the systems of both ME1 and ME2 and the weakness of both and the strengths of neither.

The first real flaw was them deciding to teir weapons. Since they've labeled some of these weapons as "throw away" weapons (something they should never have done, but that's a different argument), they saw no problem with making stronger versions which filled the same niches. As a result, there are many weapons filling the same roles and are functional almost identical, making clear objective superiority between them. Why ever use, ever even put up with, the schimitar if you can use the piranha which will do the same thing much better.

[Malanek]

Fortack wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

lightswitch wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

My way would allow a significanly larger number of mods without making balancing a nightmare.

elaborate further, I'm not really understanding why

It does make sense. You could have say assault rifle mods that give +30% damage -30% clip size, a +30 damage - 20% accuracy, a + 30% damage + 50% weight etc etc which all behave quite differently but all simply grant extra damage as the benefit. How else would you design so many weapon mods revolving around the same characteristic on the same weapon?

That's the idea indeed.

However I'm not entirely sure we want that many weapon mods. Is added complexity desired in that area? I think something more similar to what we had but make the rare mods a bit sexier and more like Aedolon describes.

What complexity are you talking about exactly? ME3 "modding" makes no sense whatsoever. I don't see the point of half-finished products that require to be "repaired" to do the stuff they ought to be doing in the first place. It's simply ludicrous to design a shotgun with horrible accuracy on purpose just to make room for smart choke mods everyone with more than one braincell is gonna use anyway. That has nothing to do with customization.

Upgrading and customizing are two different things. When you install a grenade launcher on your AR, for example, the ME3 system only adds the launcher without any consequence. There is no point not to install it because it means you only gimp yourself on purpose. A logical system - like how stuff works in reality - gives the player the option to chose between the grenade launcher (which is a good thing) but at the cost of a heavier weapon with less stability (that's bad). Instead of a no-brainer upgrade, the grenade launcher becomes a customization option forcing the player to think whether or not firing a few grenades occasionally is worth the penalties.

In terms of complexity you could literally have hundreds of these, all different. Do you really want to be selecting from such a giant list? I do agree that smart choke is far too good.

[Gao Qiu]

 I'll be swimming against the stream here, but I cast a vote for staying with a wide variety of guns rather than paring down the selection.  When I play (admittedly it's been a while) I love the fact that I have such a large group to choose from, most of which feel/play very differently.  
I love the idea, though, of some kind of "level tree" for weapons.  This would be a good way to keep your lower level weapons relevant in higher difficulties. though it might be interesting if they made upgrades possible only if you can collect certain components only available as rewards for high-level co-op missions, defeating boss-type enemies, etc.  And then let us trade components...or sell a "high grade component pack!"  
Better get out of here before the torches and pitchforks come out... 

[Tokenusername]

lol, that's how to do it. Bring the RNG into the match too. Make no part of the game not include RNG.

[Gao Qiu]

Tokenusername wrote...

lol, that's how to do it. Bring the RNG into the match too. Make no part of the game not include RNG.

Hey, what can I say.  I'm a loot lemming ™ at heart, the more loot from more place, the better.  Give me my shinies!!

[bondiboy]

For a first attempt at MP they have done a pretty good job ( I enjoy this game) but was always experimental with the view to creating a superior version down the track.
There was always going to be issues re balance and power creep as the DLCS introduced new kits , weapons (that we wanted from SP) and Gear etc

I really cant see them repeating the same mistakes in the next MP because it will be a very different scenario and having this huge selection of weapons that will become redundant seems like an unlikely outcome. Will probably have an RNG store in some form.

Some interesting and thoughtful suggestions here for improving the weapons for the
next MP

Modifié par stricko, 30 janvier 2014 - 05:34 .

[Tokenusername]

Thinking, "they can't possibly screw this up again" is the first step to being disappointed.

[Vesorias]

I want good SMGs.

I also personally think the Harrier is fine. I don't use it very often because it runs out of ammo so freakin' quick.

Shotguns are fine as is, as well, a maximum 10m range would suck, even shotguns these days have far better accuracy than that. It makes sense for the Reegar, but that's about it. the Reegar and Pirahna (and the Raider? haven't used it in a while) are all roughly the same effective range, and it makes me cry every time I'm not allowed to move too far for the objective.

I do agree with the scope issue. Sniper rifles should have the stupid hip-fire damage reduction removed, and maps should cater to all play styles. Aka, long ranges and elevation changes, but close quarters halls and stuff that crosses the entire map, so Reegar weilding squad mates don't have to charge across 200m of open terrain to kill the Prime (Giant . . .), but snipers don't have to exclusively use sidearms because they got a bad random map (Glacier, I'm looking at you)

And finally, can someone enlighten me as to what hitscan vs projectile is? If projectile is things like the Kishock/GPSG/Striker . . . please, kill them (actually, I like the GPSG, but no armor penetration is too big of a downside) and I still have no clue what the proper definition of hitscan is.

[Vesorias]

Gao Qiu wrote...

 I'll be swimming against the stream here, but I cast a vote for staying with a wide variety of guns rather than paring down the selection.  When I play (admittedly it's been a while) I love the fact that I have such a large group to choose from, most of which feel/play very differently.  
I love the idea, though, of some kind of "level tree" for weapons.  This would be a good way to keep your lower level weapons relevant in higher difficulties. though it might be interesting if they made upgrades possible only if you can collect certain components only available as rewards for high-level co-op missions, defeating boss-type enemies, etc.  And then let us trade components...or sell a "high grade component pack!"  
Better get out of here before the torches and pitchforks come out... 

Oh, yeah, and this I totally agree with. Keeping weapons useful would be nice, but I think the rule Common/Bronze, Uncommon/Silver, Rare/Gold, UR/Plat is fine. They should probably look more closely at the weapon rarities though, the Mattock should probably be a rare and the Reegar should be a UR, but the Valiant should probably a rare.

And while I'm not an avid proponent or opponent of the RNG store, I like the idea of upgrade trees (maybe to make a weapon more situationally powerful or slighly more generally powerful) that could be advanced by certain things. Maybe tie rewards to challenges?

[Tokenusername]

Lexicon19 wrote...

can someone enlighten me as to what hitscan vs projectile is? If projectile is things like the Kishock/GPSG/Striker . . . please, kill them (actually, I like the GPSG, but no armor penetration is too big of a downside) and I still have no clue what the proper definition of hitscan is.

Hitscan is when the game draws a strait line between you and whatever you're pointing at the instant you pull the trigger. If anything intersects that line it calculates some math stuff depending on what it is. If this line intersects an enemy, that enemy instantly takes damage. In short, hitscan means that your "bullet" travels instantly to what you shot it at.
Projectile weapons on the other hand create a physical object that must travel the distance between you and the enemy. It will only do damage if the projectile created makes physical contact with an enemy.

Yes, the Kishock, GPS, and Striker are all projectile weapons, in addition to the Graal, Adas, Acolyte, Scorpion, Venom, and Krysae.

[Vesorias]

Tokenusername wrote...

Hitscan is when the game draws a strait line between you and whatever you're pointing at the instant you pull the trigger. If anything intersects that line it calculates some math stuff depending on what it is. If this line intersects an enemy, that enemy instantly takes damage. In short, hitscan means that your "bullet" travels instantly to what you shot it at.
Projectile weapons on the other hand create a physical object that must travel the distance between you and the enemy. It will only do damage if the projectile created makes physical contact with an enemy.

Yes, the Kishock, GPS, and Striker are all projectile weapons, in addition to the Graal, Adas, Acolyte, Scorpion, Venom, and Krysae.

Ah, thanks. I wouldn't mind projectile weapons if Bioware realised projectiles could move faster than Geth Juggernauts, and actually penetrate cover. I'm sure I would be even worse at sniping, but it would probably be more fun in the long run.

[Derpy]

I want my ME4 weapons to look sexy as heck and perform sexy as heck.

[Nitrocuban]

I always found scopes to be the most useless mods in the game.
Would it be a good idea to give scopes a higher headshot multiplier?

[IllusiveManJr]

Also want more customisation options for the weapons.