184 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahglock]

 

You still have 2.5-3 second cooldowns at 200% PRS for most powers (exceptions being extremely short CD powers such as Cryo Blast). In that time I can fire 2-3 rounds from a Claymore/Widow/Javelin/Mantis (killing as many units), 3-4 from a BW, Wraith or (charged)Arc Pistol (killing as many units), 5 from a Valiant, 10 from a MM'ed Saber (killing as many unshielded units or half as many shielded ones), 22 from a Mattock, 26 from a Harrier, and 60 from a Hurricane. Why would I simply stand around doing nothing in that time period except looking at a cooldown meter when If I am good at the game I can end the fight much faster and more efficiently? As stated, the only rationale I can think of in this game is roleplaying an incompetent combatant.

 

 

1.1 seconds for throw and pull, 1.2 for singularity, 2.2 for shockwave and warp on my current character and I didn't take any of the recharge speed power evolutions for specific powers. While this character does not just use powers on the characters that did, it was roleplaying more of a strategist in combat. I'd probably take the recharge speed evolutions on them like the 40% reduction after a combo, or chances there is no cooldown on throw etc. It woukld get me to 1.9 for warp and shockwave and .95ish for throw and pull and 1.1 for singularity.  Not sure its worth it, but it would fit a all powers style.

 

That second or 2 allows you to survey more of the battlefield for you to better decide where to either explode or create a area of control. As a point though most of the classes who use this style like the engineer and adept are really short on defense.  They can't slow down time, or re-up shields or have some kind of damage reduction.  So being out to shoot frequently means 1 bullet pops your shield the next one kills or comes close to killing you. And those drop in on you .2 seconds into leaning out too shoot. This isn't too say being good enough can't overcome this, but that requires a very high level of skill on insanity most don't have. Bonus powers can help with this but they might not fit your character concept.  I never take reave or dominate for example as I think they break biotic lore and are more of a racial specific power.  reave would considerably up my survivability. I almost always take stasis for my adepts as I had it on my ME1 shepard and want to keep it through the game in order to make sense.

 

My preferred style though is a shotgun adept which is hard to get to 200% cooldown outside of near end game or NG+.  That character design uses singularity and other powers as opportunity creation to charge with his shotgun and murderlate people. It is a fun risk/reward game play.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

That sounds inefficient considering Sentry is among the weakest individual powers in the game and fights probably take an inordinate amount of time this way.

What other abilities allow me to kill multiple enemies I haven't even seen.

As soon as I saw that Flamethrower upgrade take out fully shielded Marauders, I knew I'd found my preferred tactic. If I drop a turret at a chokepoint, I can safely ignore any enemy short of a Brute or Banshee.

It certainly isn't effective in comparative terms, so what is the roleplaying significance of this strategy? Is your character mortally afraid of enemy fire or using heavy recoiling weapons, necessitating indirect fire with the turret and allowing squadmates to carry most of the combat load? Are they an incompetent or ill trained fighter who doesn't know how to optimize all the tools at their disposal?

There's no urgency in most of these fights, so there's no reason to worry about speed. The no weapon approach is lower risk, despite its slower pace.

Exposing yourself to risk when doing so provides no material benefit is reckless.

Also, Shepard is ostensibly a terrific soldier; she should be good at shooting things. But because the game won't let me trigger the gun while paused, but will let me trigger powers while paused, not shooting things reduces the risk that I will break my character by missing.

If I'm roleplaying my character, my skills as a player shouldn't be relevant. I can make them not relevant by not shooting things.

I will occasionally shoot frozen enemies. They're hard to miss.

They're still there. Even 2 seconds is an eternity for a good player.

If there are no visible enemies, I lose nothing by waiting until they appear. When enemies are behind cover, I wait. They come out eventually.

I probably pause the game 3 times for every 2 seconds of in-game time.

I'd think players who don't like the combat would be even more interested in doing so, since it minimizes the time between NPC conversations where the meat of the roleplaying is.

Not in ME. I find there's almost no roleplaying in conversations in ME games because of the obfuscstory paraphrase system and the largely fixed personality of Shepard.

I roleplay combat. I roleplay exploration. I roleplay every part of the game I can. Conversations are just about the worst part of ME3 in this regard.

Why would you worry about collecting ammo if you needn't use the gun anyway?

I don't use the gun so I won't have to collect ammo.

Sure, there's tons around, but given my extremely passive style (I find a good spot and I camp there), using my weapon a lot would risk me running out even while piles of it sit only feet away.

But if I'm not willing to pop my head out to aim, I'm not willing to leave cover entirely to grab ammo.

Not that ammo is ever a concern in ME3. I often play soldier builds where I use nothing but Marksman, grenades and a rifle/shotgun and never have issues with ammo. Crates are everywhere and the levels are so linear that you are practically forced to run over them to advance.

I advance only when all the enemies are dead.

You still have 2.5-3 second cooldowns at 200% PRS for most powers (exceptions being extremely short CD powers such as Cryo Blast). In that time I can fire 2-3 rounds from a Claymore/Widow/Javelin/Mantis (killing as many units), 3-4 from a BW, Wraith or (charged)Arc Pistol (killing as many units), 5 from a Valiant, 10 from a MM'ed Saber (killing as many unshielded units or half as many shielded ones), 22 from a Mattock, 26 from a Harrier, and 60 from a Hurricane. Why would I simply stand around doing nothing in that time period except looking at a cooldown meter when If I am good at the game I can end the fight much faster and more efficiently? As stated, the only rationale I can think of in this game is roleplaying an incompetent combatant.

A zero-risk strategy is not the hallmark of incompetence.

[KainD]

@Sylvius the Mad You must hate ME3 MP with your playstyle. 

[Laughing_Man]

Really? Hmm, I play lots of GT6 and I've never used a gun in that game. Similarly, the most commonly mentioned titles on this forum other than ME games seem to be Dragon Age, CDPR/ Witcher and Elder Scrolls titles, most of which don't really have guns either. I look at sales records, and some of the most popular video games in history are Mario and Wii titles with no guns where you swing a controller about randomly to excercise, play golf or bowl. "Almost every" seems to be an objectively incorrect statement.

Besides, that's entirely subjective. Personally, I find the more involved gameplay of using a weapon and my skill with it to hit a target or targets to be much less "boring" than repetitive button1>button2 lockon power combo spam due to the ability to constantly seek and implement ways to improve results in the former but not the latter. Fortunately for me, in this game shooting is a much more effective playstyle as well.

 

Really? Mario doesn't have guns? You don't say. Thank you for teaching me something new.

Well, last time I played mario I was ten years old probably, I don't have gaming consoles aside from my trusty PC,

and I thought it was obvious that I was referring to video games that are somewhat similar to ME, like shooters / Sci-Fi games.

 

We get your point, you are an elite MP player, you never miss a shot, and you can burn "scrubs" with your aura of coolness alone.

"Powers" are not really useful (except of course if it's the powers on Quarian kits on the MP, in that case those powers are amazing...)

because they are inefficient for a virtual killing machine like you.

 

Why are you even on this thread? You want everyone to stop liking stuff that you don't like? Just want to be contrarian?

[kajtarp]

I probably pause the game 3 times for every 2 seconds of in-game time.

 

 

holy cow. can't think of a more boring way to play a game then this. 

[Feybrad]

@Sylvius the Mad You must hate ME3 MP with your playstyle. 

 

He probably doesn't play the ME3 MP with his Playstyle. Like many of us.

[Catastrophy]

@Sylvius the Mad You must hate ME3 MP with your playstyle. 

I'm not sure if Sylvius is really serious with all that. However - when I was purely SP I played the game differently in a camping style, too.

[Sylvius the Mad]

@Sylvius the Mad You must hate ME3 MP with your playstyle.

I've never even tried it, nor do I expect I ever will.

[Sylvius the Mad]

holy cow. can't think of a more boring way to play a game then this.

All the actual gameplay happens while I'm paused.

When the game isn't paused, I'm just a passenger. I'm not doing anything.

It's the unpaused time that's boring.

[kajtarp]

I've never even tried it, nor do I expect I ever will.

 

Your loss, not ours...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Your loss, not ours...

Except I've lost nothing.

I wouldn't like MP. I don’t understand why it's there, I would always rather play alone than with others, and I don’t enjoy shooter combat.

What could MP possibly offer me that I would like?

[kajtarp]

All the actual gameplay happens while I'm paused.

When the game isn't paused, I'm just a passenger. I'm not doing anything.

It's the unpaused time that's boring.

 

sigh.

[KaiserShep]

I'm not sure if Sylvius is really serious with all that. However - when I was purely SP I played the game differently in a camping style, too.

I suspect that he's dead serious, or at least I hope he is. Disagree or no, but it's nice to see such resolve XD

[Sartoz]

                                                                           <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

It's not a bad idea. I've mused about it too.

 

If the Bio developers put their heads together, they ought to come up with this very concept for the members of your Fire Team, outside the PC's military arm or an alien's military arm. Thus, Mercs in your team will show up with their own gear and weapons.... because that's how they became surviving bad asses.

 

And, over time, their gear should change as upgrades are found.  Plus, depending on the mission profile, they will select the gear they feel appropriate, unless the PC has better options.

 

EDIT: I really like for the PC to be removed from day-to-day micromanagement.

[Incantrix]

The thing about Biotics is that you are either born with it or not. So I'm not sure how that would work.

[FKA_Servo]

The thing about Biotics is that you are either born with it or not. So I'm not sure how that would work.

 

Yep. That's why I think retaining the class archetypes would still be useful and necessary even if you otherwise opened up the skill pools for each discipline.

[KaiserShep]

The thing about Biotics is that you are either born with it or not. So I'm not sure how that would work.

This wasn't treated all that well really. In ME1, you can "cheat" by giving a soldier a biotic power like throw in NG+, since powers are wide open, even though you still have no access to amps.

[Quarian Master Race]

What other abilities allow me to kill multiple enemies I haven't even seen.

As soon as I saw that Flamethrower upgrade take out fully shielded Marauders, I knew I'd found my preferred tactic. If I drop a turret at a chokepoint, I can safely ignore any enemy short of a Brute or Banshee.
There's no urgency in most of these fights, so there's no reason to worry about speed. The no weapon approach is lower risk, despite its slower pace.

Exposing yourself to risk when doing so provides no material benefit is reckless.

Also, Shepard is ostensibly a terrific soldier; she should be good at shooting things. But because the game won't let me trigger the gun while paused, but will let me trigger powers while paused, not shooting things reduces the risk that I will break my character by missing.

A zero-risk strategy is not the hallmark of incompetence.

Any weapon with piercing, as well as most grenades (or other wide AOE damage powers) and combo detonations, and they do it instantaneously rather than whittling enemies down slowly and one at a time like the pets do.

Flamethrower evo is pretty meh. I never take it. A DPS turret is going to go 4a>5b and ignore rank 6 due to both powers interrupting the gun (which has higher DPS than both). A CC turret would take the 4b shock evo (most useful feature of the turret IMO), 5a cryo and 6b rockets.

Not in the gameplay, but there is an implied urgency in most if not all of them due to the nature of the conflict being a race against time. More people are dying for every second you waste by not completing your objectives. Narrative/gameplay seperation prevents this from being manifest in most of them, though, but there are still ingame instances of being able to improve your outcomes by destroying the enemy faster (such as saving the squads in Turian Platoon by eliminating the Harvesters before they wipe out the squads). Faster is always better assuming you reach the same success either way, so there's no reason not to aim for being as efficient as possible.

It does provide material benefits in some cases, as mentioned. 

Being a terrific soldier and missing shots aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed, in real combat more than 99% of used ammunition doesn't find a target due to suppressive fire tactics. Firing 10 shots and killing 10 enemies is better than firing 5 shots and killing 10 enemies within the same timeframe all other variables considered, sure, but firing 20 shots and killing 10 enemies faster than the previous example did is better than both, and all those examples are better than firing 0 shots and killing 0 enemies. Ammunition expended is only relevant if you don't have enough or it can't be replaced virtually at will.

It is when non lethal risk to the player character is of virtually zero importance, and the threshold for reaching the amount of risk that can get one killed is very easily managed by killing the enemy before they can react. Dead enemies don't shoot back, and melee enemies that never get in range pose zero threat as well. I'd argue my strategy has less risk, executed properly. The amount of time that enemies are posing a lethal threat to myself or the squad is extremely small, giving them less chance of being able to do damage. You mention grenades lobbed at your cover. I'd question why you are even allowing those grenades to be thrown in the first place if you can prevent it?

 

Really? Mario doesn't have guns? You don't say. Thank you for teaching me something new.

Well, last time I played mario I was ten years old probably, I don't have gaming consoles aside from my trusty PC,

and I thought it was obvious that I was referring to video games that are somewhat similar to ME, like shooters / Sci-Fi games.

 

We get your point, you are an elite MP player, you never miss a shot, and you can burn "scrubs" with your aura of coolness alone.

"Powers" are not really useful (except of course if it's the powers on Quarian kits on the MP, in that case those powers are amazing...)

because they are inefficient for a virtual killing machine like you.

 

Why are you even on this thread? You want everyone to stop liking stuff that you don't like? Just want to be contrarian?

Your comment was directed at me. You simply said "most games" without further or adequate clarification. Why are you getting mad when I respond to such a fallacious analysis? My opinion on what is "boring" is just that, and I didn't claim otherwise.

I use powers all the time. Even on kits where virtually 100% of the damage is done with a weapon (Marksman/AR Soldier or Cloak spamming inflitrators for instance) I am still using class passives and activated powers that improve weapon efficiency. Not using powers when they are available is almost as silly as not using weapons when they are available. Sure they're of secondary importance in the gameplay of this game, but that doesn't mean no importance. Why wouldn't I try to do as much damage as possible? I'm not losing anything by using powers when they aren't on cooldown unless they interfere with the damage I could do by continuing to shoot. Either example would be like refusing to use the brakes on a racing game because I can simply smash into the walls to navigate the track, even if the gameplay outcome is worse or suboptimal.

Why is anyone on this thread? Partly to discuss the issue, partly to entertain myself. I don't care what people like, or I probably wouldn't be expressing the seemingly less popular opinions that I am and continuing to rile many of them up for some reason. I don't care about being contrarian either, and I don't know why you would assume that simply because I'm not in the majority unless you think the only reason to hold a different viewpoint is to pettily spite those who don't share it.

 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Not in the gameplay, but there is an implied urgency in most if not all of them due to the nature of the conflict being a race against time. More people are dying for every second you waste by not completing your objectives. Narrative/gameplay seperation prevents this from being manifest in most of them, though, but there are still ingame instances of being able to improve your outcomes by destroying the enemy faster (such as saving the squads in Turian Platoon by eliminating the Harvesters before they wipe out the squads).

I reject narrative/gameplay segregation. There should be no such thing, and I will not acknowledge it.

Shepard's objective can be whatever you decide it is, but mine was to stop the Reapers. Risking getting killed (I only ever got killed when I got caught out of cover) wasn't worth it.

Faster is always better assuming you reach the same success either way, so there's no reason not to aim for being as efficient as possible.

Sometimes I don't.

I don't reload when my character dies if that death was the result of the character's choices. If my character dies because of something he chose to do, that playthrough is over. Reloading because I couldn't aim fast enough is just irritating, so I eliminated that possibility.

It does provide material benefits in some cases, as mentioned.

Being a terrific soldier and missing shots aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed, in real combat more than 99% of used ammunition doesn't find a target due to suppressive fire tactics. Firing 10 shots and killing 10 enemies is better than firing 5 shots and killing 10 enemies within the same timeframe all other variables considered, sure, but firing 20 shots and killing 10 enemies faster than the previous example did is better than both, and all those examples are better than firing 0 shots and killing 0 enemies. Ammunition expended is only relevant if you don't have enough or it can't be replaced virtually at will.

It is when non lethal risk to the player character is of virtually zero importance, and the threshold for reaching the amount of risk that can get one killed is very easily managed by killing the enemy before they can react. Dead enemies don't shoot back, and melee enemies that never get in range pose zero threat as well.

I'd argue my strategy has less risk, executed properly.

That it's possible to execute it improperly by getting stuck using the wrong context-sensitive control creates extra risk.

If I want to activate some missiles, and doing so triggers a cutscene that ends the combat, I might choose to run for that console even when there's a Banshee standing next to it. If I then take cover beside the console rather than activating it, I get killed.

But that can always happen. Jumping over some cover to grab ammo and then jumping back again can get me killed if I don't jump back successfully.

The amount of time that enemies are posing a lethal threat to myself or the squad is extremely small, giving them less chance of being able to do damage. You mention grenades lobbed at your cover. I'd question why you are even allowing those grenades to be thrown in the first place if you can prevent it?

Because they don't matter. I'm indifferent to the grenades.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yep. That's why I think retaining the class archetypes would still be useful and necessary even if you otherwise opened up the skill pools for each discipline.

You could open up the skill pool for the protagonist and simply have him be a biotic. He might choose not to use or learn biotic abilities, but he could.

[kajtarp]

sigh. this topic is really not going in the way i'd like it going..

[FKA_Servo]

You could open up the skill pool for the protagonist and simply have him be a biotic. He might choose not to use or learn biotic abilities, but he could.

 

Well... does that even make a difference for what you'd like to do, in this case? I guess my reason for retaining the classes is for lore coherence (and I think that it would stretch credibility a bit in the setting if we have a human with biotic ability who does not develop it, though it's not out of the question). Otherwise, if everything is unlocked within its specific proficiency, I don't think the limitations imposed by the classes are all that stringent. I guess the only thing that would not be possible would be skilling into combat, tech, and biotic skills on one character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well... does that even make a difference for what you'd like to do, in this case? I guess my reason for retaining the classes is for lore coherence (and I think that it would stretch credibility a bit in the setting if we have a human with biotic ability who does not develop it, though it's not out of the question). Otherwise, if everything is unlocked within its specific proficiency, I don't think the limitations imposed by the classes are all that stringent. I guess the only thing that would not be possible would be skilling into combat, tech, and biotic skills on one character.

There probably shouldn't be enough skill points to make that viable.

[Incantrix]

This wasn't treated all that well really. In ME1, you can "cheat" by giving a soldier a biotic power like throw in NG+, since powers are wide open, even though you still have no access to amps.

 

Me1 was an anomaly. Honestly, they really messed up the lore when they allowed a normal soldier to pick up a biotic skill. In the back of my mind, I just head canon'd that a Solder/Infil/Engineer that had a biotic skill in NG+ was born with biotics but never fully developed their gift. I know, far fetched, but hey, gotta come up with something. 

[Ghost of Margie Thatcher]

Yes, but hopefully it won't be too complicated to figure out, and the descriptions will be accurate.