191 réponses à ce sujet

[Vazgen]

 

Are you this dense on purpose?

 

• Ammo powers are boring because they didn't change the playstyle at all.
• If we take those out of the question then all Vanguard has left is Biotic abilities. I didn't ****** mention Adepts once. Biotic =/= Adept. If every power that Vanguard has is Biotic then where does the Soldier component comes from?
• Following the same logic if we remove the ammo powers from Infiltrator all is left is an Engineer with Tactical Cloak. Where's the Soldier again?

 

1. Disagree. My Cryo Vanguard would not work without Cryo Ammo and that playstyle is only possible on a Vanguard. RedCaesar's Bulletless Soldier would not work without Incendiary Ammo and is only possible on a Soldier.

2. Class powers are different. Soldiers get more carrying capacity, Infiltrators get power damage, Vanguards get power damage and force (as well as unique evolution in Fitness)

[Torgette]

Just because 2 classes only differ by 2 powers doesn't matter - it's how those powers work in tandem that matters. Only thing i'd change about infiltrator is making TC more important than just a sniper-based enhancement - get some real stealth in there.

[StealthGamer92]

You don't like soldier powers so if you ignore them they don't count? Ammo powers are soldier powers, they put more emphasis in weapon use and every soldier-hybrid class has them. 

Ammo's aren't a real power though. It was a lazy way to make the soldier unique by giving him most every in game ammo so you'd have no choice but to use him if you wanted full tactical controll over ammo type, ammo types which should've been a pre-mission tactical decision based on what you expected to run intoo in the field.

[CrutchCricket]

Somethings just are not meant to be combined, Nova and Annihilation field for instance, yet the game is richer that both were available in MP.

Then don't combine them. Other people might want to though. If its SP, who cares?

[Nitrocuban]

Easy way to avoid super OP custom kits is a point system for powers. The better the power the more points it costs.

[Steppenwolf]

Or they could let the player decide if it's OP and if they want to use it or not. It's a single-player game. Balance is a non-issue in a single-player game since the player is in control.

[Torgette]

Or they could let the player decide if it's OP and if they want to use it or not. It's a single-player game. Balance is a non-issue in a single-player game since the player is in control.

 

I think the only problem with completely ditching classes is it would promote homogenization of powers and styles rather than variety, this goes for all rpg's.

[StealthGamer92]

I think the only problem with completely ditching classes is it would promote homogenization of powers and styles rather than variety, this goes for all rpg's.

Worked in Kingdoms of Amalur. That game needs a sequel.

[Golden_Persona]

They can get rid of paragon and renegade, but I sure hope they don't get rid of classes. Even if the differences can be shallow at times (especially in ME1) it still made each playthrough unique, and ME is one of the most replayable games out there. I also felt incentivized to try different armor, companions, and playstyles depending on my class. In ME2 one time I played a Sentinal who used Collector armor and he looked like MacGuyver, so I went around punching people in the face instead of shooting them. I always roll with the Terminus armor when I play as a soldier. Just giving players a pool of powers to choose from would kill all of that.

[Malanek]

Then don't combine them. Other people might want to though. If its SP, who cares?

Balance is still important in SP. It is a game, players want the level of challenge they pick from the difficulty level. There is no point in offering a combination of powers that completely trivialise the game.

[xPez]

Balance is still important in SP. It is a game, players want the level of challenge they pick from the difficulty level. There is no point in offering a combination of powers that completely trivialise the game.

 

Surely if you pick a higher difficulty level for a tougher challenge then you don't use OP builds? Otherwise there's no reason for you to pick the higher difficulty.

[Pasquale1234]

Balance is still important in SP. It is a game, players want the level of challenge they pick from the difficulty level. There is no point in offering a combination of powers that completely trivialise the game.

 

Designing / balancing all of that is a lot harder than I think most people recognize.

 

Wrt balance, you're dealing with not only MC builds but also squadmate combinations and their builds.

 

Every battle must be winnable by any combination of squadmates with any builds the game allows, and at any level of difficulty.  It's an awful lot of permutations to test out and verify.  Ideally, they will provide a worthwhile challenge to those who study the mechanics and min-max everything, while not leaving those with lesser knowledge / skills frustrated and unable to play.  Difficulty levels can help a lot, but it's still a tall order.
 

[CrutchCricket]

Balance is still important in SP. It is a game, players want the level of challenge they pick from the difficulty level. There is no point in offering a combination of powers that completely trivialise the game.

Players will also make their own difficulty. If it's too easy, they'll "gimp" themselves by only using certain weapons/powers. If it's too hard they'll use cheats/mods etc. There's enjoyment to be had out of both ends of that spectrum.

 

At the end of the day people will play SP how they damn well please. More choice is better than less. And it's easier to not select/use certain things than to mod the game.

[RedCaesar97]

I'd like a class that's kind of like a DW rogue in DA, melee focussed and able to go into stealth.  Kind of like how Thane seemed he was going to be in the ME2 attract video.

 

You mean like the Infiltrator?

[Steppenwolf]

I think the only problem with completely ditching classes is it would promote homogenization of powers and styles rather than variety, this goes for all rpg's.

I didn't say anything about ditching classes. I advocated for classes earlier in the thread... which I still think is the best plan for classes and powers...

Balance is still important in SP. It is a game, players want the level of challenge they pick from the difficulty level. There is no point in offering a combination of powers that completely trivialise the game.

Why would someone crank up the difficulty and use a broken build? If the player is free to choose a difficulty setting why shouldn't s/he be free to choose how to play the game? Why remove choice for no legitimate reason?

[Malanek]

Surely if you pick a higher difficulty level for a tougher challenge then you don't use OP builds? Otherwise there's no reason for you to pick the higher difficulty.

Part of the fun in playing any sort of a game is to figure out the best build(s) at the highest level of difficulty. It is a game, it is supposed to be a challenge. I don't want to deliberately nerf myself but I don't want to simply walk around on insanity as the enemies simply fall over and die as you get close to them either. I hate the argument that "it is only single player, balance doesn't matter". It's complete nonsense.

[Pavan]

As long as I get my vanguard biotic charge and a shotgun, Ill be happy, my favourite class in any game I have ever played I think.

[Steppenwolf]

Part of the fun in playing any sort of a game is to figure out the best build(s) at the highest level of difficulty. It is a game, it is supposed to be a challenge. I don't want to deliberately nerf myself but I don't want to simply walk around on insanity as the enemies simply fall over and die as you get close to them either. I hate the argument that "it is only single player, balance doesn't matter". It's complete nonsense.

You want the world. The game needs to be perfectly balanced so as to accommodate the best builds on every difficulty without being too easy or too hard. That's complete nonsense. And who said video games are supposed to be a challenge? Some games aren't a challenge at all(Journey, Flower, etc) and still satisfying experiences. It's not the devs' job to satisfy your every whim. The "best" builds are always broken, no matter what.

[CrutchCricket]

I don't want to deliberately nerf myself

You want others to do it for you?

 

Personally I prefer the control of deciding my own playstyle and level of difficulty.

[Malanek]

You want the world. The game needs to be perfectly balanced so as to accommodate the best builds on every difficulty without being too easy or too hard. That's complete nonsense. And who said video games are supposed to be a challenge? Some games aren't a challenge at all(Journey, Flower, etc) and still satisfying experiences. It's not the devs' job to satisfy your every whim. The "best" builds are always broken, no matter what.

I want the world???

 

I never said the game had to be completely balanced, that's unrealistic. But it should be reasonably balanced as best they are able. What I said that started this discussion is that some powers should not be allowed to be combined and gave an example of ME3 power Annihilation Field which should NOT be available to a Vanguard. Combined with Nova and Biotic charge it allows you you to deal constant massive aoe damage, provide awesome mobility, recharging your shields once or twice (or even more) every couple of seconds, invincibility frames in between, forceful aoe CC and debuffs. All on a single cooldown ability.

 

If you have an even passing understanding of how those powers work in ME3 multiplayer you would know that their combination would completely trivialize the game and overshadow the rest of gameplay as we know it (it was actually hacked by someone and demoed in Armax arena as an aside). Yet all the powers are very interesting and worthwhile to have in the game without the obscene combination.

 

I am not saying the game needs to be "perfectly" balanced. I never even implied it. But balance is still important in SP, they shouldn't put horrendously overpowered things in.

[Steppenwolf]

I am not saying the game needs to be "perfectly" balanced. I never even implied it. But balance is still important in SP, they shouldn't put horrendously overpowered things in.

And I'm saying you should learn some self-control if you can't not use OP builds. Let the players choose.

[Pasquale1234]

And I'm saying you should learn some self-control if you can't not use OP builds. Let the players choose.

 

You don't seem to appreciate the iterations and tweaking designers do to try to make every single battle provide a relatively consistent challenge.

 

Choice includes not only MC build, but also squadmate builds and combinations.  If the build possibilities are all over the map, it becomes exceedingly difficult to design battles that are consistently engaging.
 

[Steppenwolf]

You don't seem to appreciate the iterations and tweaking designers do to try to make every single battle provide a relatively consistent challenge.
 
Choice includes not only MC build, but also squadmate builds and combinations.  If the build possibilities are all over the map, it becomes exceedingly difficult to design battles that are consistently engaging.

You say this as if they design battles to be faced by OP builds. They don't see the OP builds coming so why develop the game like they're not coming?

[Pasquale1234]

You say this as if they design battles to be faced by OP builds. They don't see the OP builds coming so why develop the game like they're not coming?

 

What I'm saying is that the mechanics and battle design must take into consideration every build the game allows to provide a consistent experience and power curve.

 

Consider this:  most of the people who purchase a game are going to play it through once, if that.  (It's always sort of blown me away that only about half of the people who buy a game actually finish it).  Many of them will come into it knowing nothing about the mechanics or builds beyond the in-game descriptions.  I think most people expect that the build choices they make will influence how they can win battles, not whether they can win them.

 

It is the designer's job to make sure that every battle is winnable by every possible build and squadmate combination.  Ideally, most battles will provide a roughly equivalent challenge at a given difficulty setting.

 

It's mighty difficult to do that and make it enjoyable for everyone if you allow builds all over the map.  When a player ends up with a build that is severely over or under powered, that player's impression of the game is going to be impacted, as is their rating of it and what they tell their friends about it.
 

[Cheviot]

You mean like the Infiltrator?

Thanks for the link (and Vazgen for the build).  If I ever play the trilogy again, I'm going to give it a try. I would like something close to this in the next game, but more able to deal with groups at once, and with more variety of melee and evaision moves, and perhaps a Centurion's smoke bomb too.