50 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahglock]

Yeah ME2 I think the powers were designed better.  Maybe the tech powers needed a bit more bling, but incinerate actually did a fairly good job killing people and stripping defenses. Warp explosions, throwing lifted targets all awesome options.  Now yes its prime, detonate across the board.  Boring as heck IMO. 

 

Heck in ME3 as powerful as explosive powers are, guns will still out DPS them between cooldowns.  This isn't necessarily bad, powers do have a wide range of other benefits.  Guns are just DPS.(okay some stagger based crowd control)

[capn233]

To clarify my post earlier, I don't think powers should necessarily take a back seat to weapons in MEA, just that they should be implemented better.  ME3 power use is basically just about combo spam, and that is boring.  I do not want powers to all be weak or useless just because I want the weapon classes to be differentiated.  I want the powers to be differentiated as well.

 

Singularity and Pull are a pretty good example of this.  In ME3 there is practically no reason to use Pull if you have Singularity, but the same was not necessarily true in ME2.  It is of course even more lopsided in MP given that Singularity primes any target.  Pull just has a big useless combo multiplier at the end.  It is redundant.

 

I also dislike that they essentially removed "physics combos" from ME3 entirely.  It was nice to be able to go Pull-> Heavy Throw and take care of a mook.  This made sense against a lone mook compared to a warp explosion because it was more cooldown efficient.

 

Lastly I want to comment on the idea of being able to go powers only.  Should you have the option to play without firing your weapon?  Sure.  You should also have the option to play without using a power.  Neither should be optimal though, and that should be the case on any class.

[cap and gown]

Power spam is boring to you, so don't do it. It is not boring to me.

 

Added: in my post earlier I indicated a design philosophy where power spamming would be possible, but at the cost of weapon spamming, while weapon spamming would prevent you from power spamming.

 

I don't see why people that like to play as a power user should be forced into being less optimal, any more that people that want to play ME as a shooter. Both should be possible, fun, and optimal, with a trade off between which style you choose.

[themikefest]

I like power spamming. I spammed powers in a playthrough without firing my weapon except when the game forced me too. Excellent

[Ahglock]

I may be wrong but I think the complaint is not about using powers consistently, but that with how combo detonations are set up its thoughtless power spaming.  Press buton one, then press button 2 over and over.  In ME2 there was a wider range of tactical options in how cooldowns were different, only warp exploded things, other powers magnified rag dall physics, you needed to strip powers(now I just drop a singularity on them then detonate them, which is no different than if they had no defenses).

 

And while I think using powers alone should be feasible, I'm not sure it should ever be optimal.  Using all of your capabilities should be optimal.  Its like saying it should be optimal to play solo without companions.  I'd have no issue if you could, and I probably would but I shouldn't get a nonsensical benefit to make it just as optimal than having companions with me.(maybe solo would be the optimal choice in stealth missions as a infiltrator though)  

[capn233]

Power spam is boring to you, so don't do it. It is not boring to me.

 

Added: in my post earlier I indicated a design philosophy where power spamming would be possible, but at the cost of weapon spamming, while weapon spamming would prevent you from power spamming.

 

I don't see why people that like to play as a power user should be forced into being less optimal, any more that people that want to play ME as a shooter. Both should be possible, fun, and optimal, with a trade off between which style you choose.

 

The above should have said "combo spam."  I fixed it with an edit.  Combo spam homogenized the gameplay because it made many of the powers amount to the same thing.

 

There is no reason that using only powers should be optimal, and that goes the same for using only weapons.  Why should it be optimal to ignore half of the combat strategy?  Every single class should need an integrated approach to perform optimally.  If not, then the balance is not right.

 

Also I am not entirely sure why you are claiming that I am against powers or "spam weapons."  I don't really know what the latter means exactly.  When I play Adept in ME2, I try to use a power every single time I am off cooldown.  I do the same in ME3 nearly all the time.  Combo spam sucks compared to using the right power for the right job in ME2.  And it also sucks that I can't do physics combos, and everything just blows up Michael Bay style.

[cap and gown]

I can't see this press button 1, press button 2, repeat business. This totally ignores the multipliers on combos. Fire combos do double damage to armor. Tech combos do double damage to shields. Biotic combos do double damage to barriers and armor. So hitting a Marauder with incinerate followed by throw is much less effect than hitting the Marauder with overload then throw. There are optimal combos, and there are sub-optimal combos. Saying that the game play is homogeneous no matter what combos you use is simply not true.

 

Also, Singularity only primes targets in MP, not in SP. Apparently this is something that MP players wanted. In SP, pull is a much better power.

[Oni Changas]

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 think they based this off of ME2. Those were the tendencies back then. But I totally agree with you, there needs to be more uniqueness in weapon stats. The Eviscerator should have innate piercing and the Geth weapons should be brutal vs shields only (except for Javelin). Just a couple of small examples.

[capn233]

I can't see this press button 1, press button 2, repeat business. This totally ignores the multipliers on combos. Fire combos do double damage to armor. Tech combos do double damage to shields. Biotic combos do double damage to barriers and armor. So hitting a Marauder with incinerate followed by throw is much less effect than hitting the Marauder with overload then throw. There are optimal combos, and there are sub-optimal combos. Saying that the game play is homogeneous no matter what combos you use is simply not true.

 

Also, Singularity only primes targets in MP, not in SP. Apparently this is something that MP players wanted. In SP, pull is a much better power.

 

It doesn't matter a great deal whether a combo is sub-optimal relative to another combo if you can perform said combo very frequently, the sub-optimal combo does more damage than any of your powers, and you can't do the alternative combos anyway.

 

How does one play an Asari Adept?  How different is it than Human Adept?  Where are you getting nearly all your power damage?

[cap and gown]

It doesn't matter a great deal whether a combo is sub-optimal relative to another combo if you can perform said combo very frequently, the sub-optimal combo does more damage than any of your powers, and you can't do the alternative combos anyway.

 

How does one play an Asari Adept?  How different is it than Human Adept?  Where are you getting nearly all your power damage?

 

So this topic is about solo play rather than team play, whether in MP or SP? Because in team play (MP or SP) I would expect people to be choosing combos based the type of protections, not based on just their own character's powers.

[KrrKs]

There is no reason that using only powers should be optimal, and that goes the same for using only weapons.  Why should it be optimal to ignore half of the combat strategy?  Every single class should need an integrated approach to perform optimally.  If not, then the balance is not right.

While i agree on that part, going for an exclusive power or weapon build (or anything inbetween, really) should definitely be viable, imo.

ME2's system was severely handicapping in that regard.

 

About appropriate weapon use/defence mechanics: I'm not sure if I want a mechanic back that strongly influences weapon use.

When thinking about this, the first memory that comes to mind is me playing an infiltrator in me2 and basically never using the class' signature weapon, because it is not efficient to do so against 85% of the encountered enemies.

 

I believe how Me3 handled armour is better than the Me2 damage modifier, allowing several ways to overcome armour. The threshold could have been a bit larger though.

On the shield site however, I would favour another system altogether. For example something that reduces the damage of only the first projectile in every time-interval.

[Sartoz]

I like power spamming. I spammed powers in a playthrough without firing my weapon except when the game forced me too. Excellent

 

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

 

My two favs are the Adept Fury and the Soldier class with Concussive shot.

 

Vanguard, I find to be a pain 'cause you must run all over the place.

[capn233]

So this topic is about solo play rather than team play, whether in MP or SP? Because in team play (MP or SP) I would expect people to be choosing combos based the type of protections, not based on just their own character's powers.

 

Nope, not necessarily.  Biotic death squad in MP will rofl stomp any faction without any sort of strategy except "spam BE."  That includes Geth, who are shield heavy.  It also largely doesn't matter which combination of biotics you use.  Some are more overpowered than others, but they all come down to BE spam.

 

While i agree on that part, going for an exclusive power or weapon build (or anything inbetween, really) should definitely be viable, imo.

ME2's system was severely handicapping in that regard.

 

Yes, but clearly if you go gun only or power only you should not be as powerful as if you use an integrated approach.

 

With regard to ME2, despite all the flak it gets, it is much easier to go power only than weapon only, despite how many claimed powers were weak in that game.  Of course some try to cite something like the Mattock (DLC gun...) under Adrenaline Rush (power) using Incendiary Ammo (power) as "weapon only," when it clearly is not.

 

This was not because of weapon multipliers though, this had to do with spare ammo on some weapons, the thermal clip drops, and the fact that it is harder to hit an enemy with a weapon than a power.  With respect to the Mantis, it was underpowered in ME2 because of its strange spare ammo count.  Off Hand Ammo Pack was also a poor armor mod that should have had a bigger bonus.  That said, Mantis is still effective against mooks with headshots despite the armor multiplier.  Soldier and Infiltrator both have a power to increase its damage to shields, and you can get extra headshot damage with the visor sold on Omega.

 

I do not begrudge them for putting a limit on clips in ME2 to encourage people to use powers on Insanity.  It doesn't make sense to have an easy time going through the top difficulty ignoring half of the combat system.

[Ahglock]

I can't see this press button 1, press button 2, repeat business. This totally ignores the multipliers on combos. Fire combos do double damage to armor. Tech combos do double damage to shields. Biotic combos do double damage to barriers and armor. So hitting a Marauder with incinerate followed by throw is much less effect than hitting the Marauder with overload then throw. There are optimal combos, and there are sub-optimal combos. Saying that the game play is homogeneous no matter what combos you use is simply not true.

Also, Singularity only primes targets in MP, not in SP. Apparently this is something that MP players wanted. In SP, pull is a much better power.

I'm not really seeing a difference in play between the various tech explosions. Sure one is more effective but both Rock everything outside boss types. Might have to throw a bullet or two to finish some mooks but meh. And really is occasionally priming with one power over the other that different when they all explode. On the biotic side you will pretty much always detonate with throw with its short cooldowns so it can detonate and end up not very throw like.

I'm all for combos in theory and they should have added more past me2. But if they weren't going to spend the time to make them truly distinct I'd rather they didnt change it. Throw is a good example of doing the exact wrong thing. It had its own distinct combo in me2. Lifted targets were mega launched. With some targeting control it would kill. Removing that unique flair(woo!!) and turning it into the standard biotic explosion was boring.

[Suron]

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.

 

Why is it a strange thought? That's how it works in RL anyway.  You don't have armor penetrating guns.  you have different types of bullets that do different things on impact that give it different properties (penetrates armor, spreads out for more internal dmg...etc.)

 

As the guy says, the Gun itself delivers the bullet...only difference is in how (shotguns spread out, snipers more accurate, etc) it's the actual bullet doing the damage...So it only makes sense that there should be ammo types and those types affect whether it's better against shields/barriers, armor, and "flesh"

 

I don't get how you think it's weird.  It's not only how guns "irl" work but also only makes sense....

[Ahglock]

Why is it a strange thought? That's how it works in RL anyway. You don't have armor penetrating guns. you have different types of bullets that do different things on impact that give it different properties (penetrates armor, spreads out for more internal dmg...etc.)

As the guy says, the Gun itself delivers the bullet...only difference is in how (shotguns spread out, snipers more accurate, etc) it's the actual bullet doing the damage...So it only makes sense that there should be ammo types and those types affect whether it's better against shields/barriers, armor, and "flesh"

I don't get how you think it's weird. It's not only how guns "irl" work but also only makes sense....

Yes and no. Yes there is specialized ammo but the gun and type of round it uses also determines armor penetration. And not just big gun punch hole in punny armor sense though yes with enough big gun it will muscle through armor as well. But there is a lot to it circumference, weight, speed, shape, materials, rifling etc. some of those are on the gun end, some on the ammo end. Add in force fields and you can make a reason why certain weapons work better against it.

[Suron]

Yes and no. Yes there is specialized ammo but the gun and type of round it uses also determines armor penetration. And not just big gun punch hole in punny armor sense though yes with enough big gun it will muscle through armor as well. But there is a lot to it circumference, weight, speed, shape, materials, rifling etc. some of those are on the gun end, some on the ammo end. Add in force fields and you can make a reason why certain weapons work better against it.

 

Which still doesn't explain why it would be a "strange thought" considering it only makes sense that both could have the affect.

 

against shields I can accept the rapid-fire weapons having more effect but take that SMG with regular bullets or diruptor bullets and which do you think would be more affective? exactly.  Same thing with armor...take that slower firing, hard hitting Claymore and compare "normal" bullets against a target and then "armor piercing" bullets and tell me which was more effective? exactly (again)

 

It's far from strange...if anything both gun type and ammo should have an effect on varying types of defense.  But if they're to ONLY go with ONE..then varying the ammo makes more sense overall....again...I don't see why it's a "strange thought" as he stated.

[capn233]

Why is it a strange thought? That's how it works in RL anyway.

 

I missed what he was getting at since he was talking about the limit to thermal clips.  Figured he meant classes should get different amounts of bullets when they pick up a clip.

 

The ammo already had defense multipliers in ME3.  But limiting defense multipliers only to ammo will penalize classes without an ammo power, who need the defense multipliers more than pure shooting classes.  The only way to make that workable is to make ammo more like in ME1.  Not completely opposed to that, but weapon variety was pretty damn poor in ME1, and the pistol was the only weapon you needed in 99.99% of situations.

 

Disagree about the point on real life, but since real life weapons have little to do with ME weapons there isn't much point in getting in to that.

[Ahglock]

Which still doesn't explain why it would be a "strange thought" considering it only makes sense that both could have the affect.

against shields I can accept the rapid-fire weapons having more effect but take that SMG with regular bullets or diruptor bullets and which do you think would be more affective? exactly. Same thing with armor...take that slower firing, hard hitting Claymore and compare "normal" bullets against a target and then "armor piercing" bullets and tell me which was more effective? exactly (again)

It's far from strange...if anything both gun type and ammo should have an effect on varying types of defense. But if they're to ONLY go with ONE..then varying the ammo makes more sense overall....again...I don't see why it's a "strange thought" as he stated.

I'll let the poster explain the strange thought part. I was replying to the part where you said you don't have armor penetrating guns but you do ammo. And you very much do have armor penetrating guns IRL. I think both should have an effect but I'd ditch ammo entirely before giving up on gun to defense distinction.(mainly because ever since it became a power I hated it, if it
Like MP I could go either way if it's just one as long as ammo provides some effect)Personally I'd ditch weapon classes and just have weapons, each with different stats and effectiveness vs different defenses. Don't make it a assault rifle thing make it a avenger thing.

[capn233]

Like MP I could go either way if it's just one as long as ammo provides some effect)Personally I'd ditch weapon classes and just have weapons, each with different stats and effectiveness vs different defenses. Don't make it a assault rifle thing make it a avenger thing.

 

That is workable, but if you do that the game will be a good deal different.  Weapon class bonuses would need to all be replaced with generic weapon damage or some other generic weapon buff.  Then you need to decide how you limit weapon carriage, if it is just a number or some form of weight system.

[Ahglock]

That is workable, but if you do that the game will be a good deal different. Weapon class bonuses would need to all be replaced with generic weapon damage or some other generic weapon buff. Then you need to decide how you limit weapon carriage, if it is just a number or some form of weight system.

I kind of like weight but honestly it felt kind of pointless for most since you usually only need one gun. Even in me2 I could shoot against my weak defense and not need to change guns. There is a diminishing return in value for extra guns and 3 didn't take that into account in the weight system. It helps especially in some of the unbalanced guns to switch like to the acolyte to destroy shields but overal you pick a gun with decent damage and ammo and you are good to go. Not optimized but still solid.

I'd probably use a weight system. Have your heaviest gun count full and each gun after that have its weight halved(maybe repeatedly so 3rd gun is 1/4th weight) and have a Max total weight based on class.

[cap and gown]

I will add this here, though it is not meant to be a response to any particular post above:

 

I do not want to see another situation like in the solo portion of the Citadel DLC where the designers decided to sh*t all over power users by giving us a weapon that requires pinpoint accuracy to work to its best effect while making sure that it weighed as much as a Javelin so that your cool downs are flushed down a toilet. Forcing me to suddenly play a twitch shooter when I have been playing a magic based game all along is pretty crappy, IMO.

[Ahglock]

I will add this here, though it is not meant to be a response to any particular post above:

I do not want to see another situation like in the solo portion of the Citadel DLC where the designers decided to sh*t all over power users by giving us a weapon that requires pinpoint accuracy to work to its best effect while making sure that it weighed as much as a Javelin so that your cool downs are flushed down a toilet. Forcing me to suddenly play a twitch shooter when I have been playing a magic based game all along is pretty crappy, IMO.

Won't argue with that. Especially when everything blocked or got in the way of trying to arc your powers in the restaurant and they all had mega shields on. I think dropping you into areas that are challenging based on class is fine. That went a bit too far.

[capn233]

I do not want to see another situation like in the solo portion of the Citadel DLC where the designers decided to sh*t all over power users by giving us a weapon that requires pinpoint accuracy to work to its best effect while making sure that it weighed as much as a Javelin so that your cool downs are flushed down a toilet. Forcing me to suddenly play a twitch shooter when I have been playing a magic based game all along is pretty crappy, IMO.

 

I think most agree that this idea wasn't great from a mechanics standpoint.  Seems like someone just had an idea that sounded cool, but wasn't really tested in game.

[capn233]

I kind of like weight but honestly it felt kind of pointless for most since you usually only need one gun. Even in me2 I could shoot against my weak defense and not need to change guns. There is a diminishing return in value for extra guns and 3 didn't take that into account in the weight system. It helps especially in some of the unbalanced guns to switch like to the acolyte to destroy shields but overal you pick a gun with decent damage and ammo and you are good to go. Not optimized but still solid.

I'd probably use a weight system. Have your heaviest gun count full and each gun after that have its weight halved(maybe repeatedly so 3rd gun is 1/4th weight) and have a Max total weight based on class.

 

That gets at why I wanted weapon classes to be more clearly delineated, and have the right tool for the right job.

 

The biggest problem that undermines any system is when you put in something that is good at everything.  That basically kills the usefulness of the other options, and is a big part of why it is typically pointless to carry two guns in ME3 from a min max point of view.

 

As for ME2, this is a case of degree, IMO.  Say you are a caster and for whatever reason decide to take down a Krogan with the Shuriken.  You can probably do it, but you will waste a lot of ammo.  I don't have a problem with this from either perspective.  I am not opposed for it to be possible to do something like this in the game, but it should be inefficient when you don't align tactics and strategy with the rules of the game.