50 réponses à ce sujet

[capn233]

Assuming there are multiple weapon classes in this game, the weapon classes should be better differentiated along the lines of ME2's weapon system, with only the rare exception or outlier.

 

Something simple that ME3 was missing was defense multipliers.  It was largely stripped out, except for the Talon and then some DLC weapons.

 

In the base game of ME3 the weapon design and balance did not even jive with the tips and hints, like "rapid fire weapons are good against shields," which was largely incorrect even with shieldgate.  Or the "slow fire weapons are good against armor," which wasn't true given that only base damage mattered and there were a bunch of high ROF weapons with high base damage (like the Hurricane).

[7twozero]

This should also apply to love interets, with some you're going to want more penetration, while with others rate of fire is more important.

[78stonewobble]

Njyarf... I don't know how much I wanna be a swiss army knife kinda guy in regards to weapons. 

 

I still say 1 main weapon and 1 sidearm and that's it, with my own powers, squadmate powers and weapons complimenting. 

 

And again... let my usage of a weapon level up... So I can get more out of a gun I love the sound and sight off...

[capn233]

Delineating roles and making meaningful weapon class distinctions doesn't preclude limiting the number weapons that can be carried.

 

Mass Effect is probably also better when there is not a meaningful distinction between main weapon and sidearm besides the weapon you prefer to use more often.  ME2 is the best example of this of course.  In ME3 it is somewhat similar since the Pistol and SMG class have a couple of the best weapons in the game.

[cap and gown]

I can't say I am that interested in seeing the ME2 multiplier system make a return. I prefer the ME3 system of weapon weights to differentiate power classes from weapon classes. However, I think that distinction needs to be ramped up. For instance, leveling a weapon to improve both its weight and damage at the same time defeats the purpose of the weight system. Either improve the damage (something a weapons based class would want) or improve the weight (something a power based class would want). More could be done with passives as well to differentiate weapon based classes from power classes. For a purely weapons based class like Soldier, I would say that their "powers" be de-linked from the weight system altogether.

 

Basically, I would suggest an inverse relationship between power-based DPS and weapon-based DPS. The more you lean towards power-based DPS, the less you can invest in weapon DPS and vice-versa. So, for instance, with the weight system, at a weight 1, a power user would put out 10 DPS of power damage, and 1 DPS of weapon damage. At a weight of 5, you would do 5 DPS of power damage and 5 DPS of weapon damage, and at a weight of 10 you would do 1 DPS of power damage and 10 DPS of weapon damage. Upgrades/mods would allow you to improve either weapon weight or weapon damage, but not both at the same time.

[Ahglock]

I liked the ME2 system, it was fun too change weapons for the job.  But if it doesn't come back I'm fine.  What I'm not fine with, tips being wrong, weapon bars that are meaningless.  that crap needs to be fixed.  Also while I liked the weight system conceptually, I did not like the implementation.  First cool downs were stupid long without it.  At 0% they should be at a good cool down time probably close to the -200% cooldown range for most powers in ME3,(why because even at -200% most of your DPS can be with guns shooting between the 2 seconds cool down) and that is the default assumption. Second the swing should be less like 100% max not 200%+.  Third, additional weapons just don't provide much bang for your buck especially when the ME2 system is gone, so additional weapons should provide little weight change.  Just focus on the heaviest weapon in your arsenal. Fourth all classes should be power classes, so this decision should effect all classes more than ME3.  Drop ammo powers, grenades etc.  Still keep boosts powers like adrenaline rush so if you want to be the mad gunman the playstyle is there, but give the soldier an array of powers so they have the option to play a more slow paced tactical style.

[Catastrophy]

Screw the ME2 gameplay - there was never enough thermal clips around! Multipliers should in general apply to the ammo - not the weapon.

[capn233]

Screw the ME2 gameplay - there was never enough thermal clips around! Multipliers should in general apply to the ammo - not the weapon.

 

Multipliers to the ammo?  That's a strange thought.

 

The damage multipliers increased ammo efficiency when the weapon was used against the appropriate defense.  And the lack of clips in ME2 is overblown.  There are enough clips in the early missions for every class.

 

You shouldn't really be swimming in ammo anyway, at least not at the top difficulty.  But that doesn't have a huge bearing on whether the actual weapon classes are distinct from one another and have a purpose.

[Catastrophy]

Multipliers to the ammo?  That's a strange thought.

 

The damage multipliers increased ammo efficiency when the weapon was used against the appropriate defense.  And the lack of clips in ME2 is overblown.  There are enough clips in the early missions for every class.

 

You shouldn't really be swimming in ammo anyway, at least not at the top difficulty.  But that doesn't have a huge bearing on whether the actual weapon classes are distinct from one another and have a purpose.

Not stranger than defining a weapon class especially effective against certain defence. It also allows to switch in a mission without having to draw a cart of other weapons behind you to do the job.

[capn233]

Not stranger than defining a weapon class especially effective against certain defence. It also allows to switch in a mission without having to draw a cart of other weapons behind you to do the job.

 

If you go with the defense layer paradigm, which there isn't any reason to believe they won't, then weapons should get defense multipliers.  Just like most powers do.  Helps differentiate the classes, helps balance.

 

Multipliers for ammo is unnecessary.  Spare ammo pickup is in terms of the clips anyway.

[Catastrophy]

If you go with the defense layer paradigm, which there isn't any reason to believe they won't, then weapons should get defense multipliers.  Just like most powers do.  Helps differentiate the classes, helps balance.

 

Multipliers for ammo is unnecessary.  Spare ammo pickup is in terms of the clips anyway.

Well, powers are just that: powers and they do the damage themselves. A gun uses ammo. It's the bullet that does damage - not the gun. Have different bullet - have different effect. The gun delivers the bullet nothing more.

 

In general, but I think you get the idea.

Now, tell me: Why do you think would e.g. a SMG have better effect against shields?

[capn233]

Now, tell me: Why do you think would e.g. a SMG have better effect against shields?

 

Which explanation do you want?

 

From a gameplay perspective, you give it a multiplier so it is better against shields than say a pistol.  This differentiates the weapon classes and gives you a reason to chose one over the other outside of "well the arc pistol is massively OP, I will just take it."

 

Or if you would rather a lore standpoint, the games have already made claims that kinetic barriers are more vulnerable to rapid fire weapons.

[Catastrophy]

Which explanation do you want?

 

From a gameplay perspective, you give it a multiplier so it is better against shields than say a pistol.  This differentiates the weapon classes and gives you a reason to chose one over the other outside of "well the arc pistol is massively OP, I will just take it."

 

Or if you would rather a lore standpoint, the games have already made claims that kinetic barriers are more vulnerable to rapid fire weapons.

Let's go gameplay and make up lore so it fits.

There is barrier, shield, health and armour. Not sure where the difference between barrier and shields really are gameplay-wise. You go on a mission, you have no idea how the enemy will be equipped. What do you take? If you could just swap ammo to match the enemy you won't need a bag of guns.

Gameplay-wise the gun should match your preferred range of combat. You go close you take SMG. Closer you take a shotgun. Want to snipe take a rifle.

 

Looking back this would work fine in SP. However in MP you cannot switch ammo so that bag of weapons might be needed again, but then there is weight to consider if you're in for power casting. If you ditch the weight penalty everybody ends up using the Claymore anyway. Being able to switch ammo in any game mode might just add to the variety of weapon choices.

[capn233]

There is barrier, shield, health and armour. Not sure where the difference between barrier and shields really are gameplay-wise.

Barrier and Shields are basically the same, except one is purple and one is blue, at least in ME2 and ME3. In ME1 there was no distinction. There was a difference in powers that had multipliers to each one in ME2 and ME3.
 

You go on a mission, you have no idea how the enemy will be equipped. What do you take? If you could just swap ammo to match the enemy you won't need a bag of guns.

You can take what compliments your powers. If you have powers strong against shields, you would take weapons that are good against armor, or vice versa.
 

Gameplay-wise the gun should match your preferred range of combat. You go close you take SMG. Closer you take a shotgun. Want to snipe take a rifle.

There hasn't really been much tangible difference in ranges post ME1.
 

Looking back this would work fine in SP. However in MP you cannot switch ammo so that bag of weapons might be needed again, but then there is weight to consider if you're in for power casting. If you ditch the weight penalty everybody ends up using the Claymore anyway. Being able to switch ammo in any game mode might just add to the variety of weapon choices.

Well first of all it is unclear that the weight system will return, and I am not advocating for weight-cooldown interaction mechanics. Secondly, I don't know why you need to have ammos for protections since there are essentially only two protections. In ME2 essentially you were strong against armor (pistol, SR), strong against shields and barrier (SMG, SG), or decent against both (AR). Taking ME3 as an example, every single faction has some units with armor, and every single faction has units with shields/barriers. You can't guess wrong, you always run into those protections.

If you took ME3 and completely ditched weapon weight so every weapon had identical cooldowns, everyone wouldn't jump to Claymore anyway. There are too many guns that were overpowered. And in any case, this doesn't have much to do with differentiating weapon classes with multipliers.

[Broganisity]

This should also apply to love interets, with some you're going to want more penetration, while with others rate of fire is more important.

I like this only to add on that sometimes you need a weapon with more reach. . .some with more flexibility.

[Ahglock]

Screw the ME2 gameplay - there was never enough thermal clips around! Multipliers should in general apply to the ammo - not the weapon.

 

I never got this complaint.  I'm not good at shooters, but even on insanity I felt there were so many thermal clips that ammo was effectively unlimited.  I always felt that the change from the ME1 guns was purely some psychological quirk where people added tension even though there was no real risk of running out of ammo. Kind of like how I horde potions in D&D games.

[Sartoz]

Assuming there are multiple weapon classes in this game, the weapon classes should be better differentiated along the lines of ME2's weapon system, with only the rare exception or outlier.

 

Something simple that ME3 was missing was defense multipliers.  It was largely stripped out, except for the Talon and then some DLC weapons.

 

In the base game of ME3 the weapon design and balance did not even jive with the tips and hints, like "rapid fire weapons are good against shields," which was largely incorrect even with shieldgate.  Or the "slow fire weapons are good against armor," which wasn't true given that only base damage mattered and there were a bunch of high ROF weapons with high base damage (like the Hurricane).

 

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

 

I expect to see top of the line portable weapons, including beam weapons (ie: nemesis laser) when we get to the Cluster. Then, upgrade from there. Hopefully, the Bio devs will avoid giving us a gazilion variations of the same weapon type.... at least for the SP game.

 

Cluster races may surprise us with their very own portable and nasty weapon types. Disruptor and/or Phaser weapons., pocket nukes in the .5-1 kiloton range,  How about portable kinetic weapons? A rifle that fire (auto or semi)  sliver pellets at super high speed that on impact the kinetic energy is the equivalens of grenade explosions? Neurotoxic grenades anyone?

 

What say you Bio?

[Pistolized]

Yes to new weapon types. Yes to following the lore.  Having rules and then following them is what makes a good science fiction setting.  Letting the various weapon types perform equally in all circumstances just makes it space-fantasy.  I honestly thought rapid fire still worked better against shields and hard-hitting guns worked better against armor until this thread.

[Catastrophy]

[...]  I honestly thought rapid fire still worked better against shields and hard-hitting guns worked better against armor until this thread.

That's likely due to the armour penalty and maybe shieldgate. Weapon in general have no damage multipliers vs defences in MP3.

 

Barrier and Shields are basically the same, except one is purple and one is blue, at least in ME2 and ME3. In ME1 there was no distinction. There was a difference in powers that had multipliers to each one in ME2 and ME3.
 

You can take what compliments your powers. If you have powers strong against shields, you would take weapons that are good against armor, or vice versa.
 

There hasn't really been much tangible difference in ranges post ME1.
 

Well first of all it is unclear that the weight system will return, and I am not advocating for weight-cooldown interaction mechanics. Secondly, I don't know why you need to have ammos for protections since there are essentially only two protections. In ME2 essentially you were strong against armor (pistol, SR), strong against shields and barrier (SMG, SG), or decent against both (AR). Taking ME3 as an example, every single faction has some units with armor, and every single faction has units with shields/barriers. You can't guess wrong, you always run into those protections.

If you took ME3 and completely ditched weapon weight so every weapon had identical cooldowns, everyone wouldn't jump to Claymore anyway. There are too many guns that were overpowered. And in any case, this doesn't have much to do with differentiating weapon classes with multipliers.

I assume there will be tangible difference again in Andromeda. I just don't want to swap weapons constantly or find out I picked the wrong one.

[capn233]

I never got this complaint.  I'm not good at shooters, but even on insanity I felt there were so many thermal clips that ammo was effectively unlimited.  I always felt that the change from the ME1 guns was purely some psychological quirk where people added tension even though there was no real risk of running out of ammo. Kind of like how I horde potions in D&D games.

 

IMO it comes from not giving the game a chance, and trying to brute force the game instead of taking advantage of the mechanics.  It is actually somewhat related to the complaints about the how weak the Adept is in the game.  The short of it is that ammo is somewhat limited early game due to weapons lacking upgrades, but there are a variety of different ways to up ammo efficiency:

 

1.  Use weapons against the appropriate defense type.  This is where they are most ammo efficient, not against inappropriate defenses or even health.

2.  Use skills to improve ammo efficiency.  This is where people would start to complain about Soldier and Adrenaline Rush.  Of course they apparently did not know that ragdolled targets took double damage, meaning that an Adept can boost their ammo efficiency by lifting any target on health.  Engineer can do the same by freezing them.

 

ME2's combat had better integration between powers and weapons, IMO.  It was unfairly criticized as "rock paper scissors."  So then we get ME3 and the system was essentially "me have rock, me smash!"

[Ahglock]

 

ME2's combat had better integration between powers and weapons, IMO.  It was unfairly criticized as "rock paper scissors."  So then we get ME3 and the system was essentially "me have rock, me smash!"

 

Well it was rock, paper, scissors.  But that isn't a bad thing.  It just isn't a big tactical decision as some people liked to portray it.  It does give weapon variety and while it is simple it is still a tactical decision.  I think the game was better for it.  But I'm guessing in playtesting for 3 enough people just wanted to plow through with their one gun especially with the weight system.  But to me that defeats the purpose of the weight system, I'd of doubled down on the ME2 system making it more complex with defense combinations requiring different guns other than just peeling the layer off the current defense.  This would be so people were hit hard for only taking one gun making the weight system a harder decision. 

[cap and gown]

 

ME2's combat had better integration between powers and weapons, IMO.  It was unfairly criticized as "rock paper scissors."  So then we get ME3 and the system was essentially "me have rock, me smash!"

 

The system may have had better integration between weapons and powers, but it short-changed powers compared to ME3. From watching a few of your vids it is apparent that you prefer a weapons heavy approach to play. That is fine. But some of us prefer to play as power users where weapons are secondary. What is needed, IMO, is a system where both weapons focused play or power focused play is possible.

[capn233]

How did ME2 short change powers?  Because you had to choose between them to fit different situations?

 

If that is the case, how did ME2 not short change guns relative to ME3?

[cap and gown]

How did ME2 short change powers?  Because you had to choose between them to fit different situations?

 

If that is the case, how did ME2 not short change guns relative to ME3?

 

Actually, I believe it did short change guns, at least for the Soldier, compared to ME2.

 

As to the first question, powers became much more "powerful" in ME3 with the addition of combos. With the ability to prime any target, regardless of protection, and then explode it, powers came into their own in ME3. In ME2 powers were of the control and stripping variety  which then set up the target to be finished off with weapons. There were some cases of course, where the weapon would do the stripping which would then allow a power to take effect, but on the whole there was first the strip stage, then the kill stage, with each stage done with a different tool, whereas in ME3 both the stripping and killing could be accomplished easily with powers alone.

 

There is also the simple matter of DPS. Take Heavy Warp in ME2, for instance. With a base 6 second cool down and no biotic damage upgrades, it is doing a mere 33.3333 DPS. Compare that to the base level Avenger which is doing 153 DPS, about 5 times as much as a fully ranked up power.

[capn233]

I don't know that I agree, outside of simply the fact that powers became more powerful in ME3.  ME3 was just a case of "have your cake and eat it too."  This was worse case of balance than ME1 where biotics could CC protected targets, but they essentially did no damage on their own (the sole exception is throwing ragdolled targets into invisible map boundaries which would kill them).  It also homogenized the gameplay, as you could have pretty much just had two powers:  primer and detonator.

 

I disagree that ME2 necessarily encouraged people to use weapons to finish the targets.  That was true to an extent on Vanguard and Soldier, who were the most weapon-centric, but not necessarily true on the other classes.  Really the entire point of Throw is a finisher and why it was near universally recommended to use the Heavy evolution.  Not to mention something like Reave which was outright more effective against health since that is when it granted the health buff combined with CC and damage.

 

For other damaging powers, it depended on the situation.  Use incinerate on armor for more total damage per cast, but at the cost of less CC.  Weapons were really the same story in that they were always less ammo efficient against health than the appropriate defense.