200 réponses à ce sujet

[Vortex13]

I never was a fan of specific benefits for guns. If you are +30% with sniper rifles it's still a weapon restriction by making all other guns ineffective for you. 30% bonus for one gun ends up just being a 30% penalty for every other gun.

 

 

Agreed.

 

I also never liked the idea of a specific class being able to do more damage with a gun than another class. I mean is this one class more damaging because he/she can pull the trigger harder on the gun or something?

 

A headshot is a headshot, no matter who is shooting the gun. 

[Vortex13]

An ability for the Soldier that I think would be cool, though others might disagree would be for an armor overcharge power. Something that let's the player run through things; even walls and cover; and allows them to punch out atlas mech for a short time. Kind of like the suit powers from Section 8

 

[MichaelN7]

I find it's the powers of the class that really define what weapons work well, or "better than" others.

 

I think Mass Effect 3 was spot-on with removing the weapon restrictions and the addition of a weight system, it kept the "function" of the classes intact while increasing the "fun" in the function.

Each class can be considered a "jack-of-all-trades" to some degree, with each one emphasizing one role or another, especially with the use of their class passive.

 

The "core" classes tend to be less complex than the "hybrids", I find they have more direct strategies:

Soldier is obviously the simplest, what with "shoot it", and if that doesn't work, shoot it some more.  Emphasis on using ammo powers, and whittling down enemies with gunfire.

Engineer is simple too, with nothing but tech powers.  Emphasis on setting up/detonating combos to wear down defenses and using drones for numerical superiority.

Adept is superficially like the Engineer, but with biotics.  Emphasis on enemy disruption and battlefield control.

 

The "hybrid" classes are more about flexibility, I find they fulfill "functions" rather than specific tactics:

Infiltrator being combat/tech relies on powers to start attacks and weapons to finish them.  Emphasis on single-target elimination with careful strikes.

Vanguard being combat/biotic is a room-sweeper.  Emphasis on getting in, cleaning house, and getting out.

Sentinel being biotic/tech takes the "jack-of-all-trades" thing and runs with it.  Emphasis on being able to perform any tactic at any time, perhaps not as effective at close-quarters as a Vanguard, or as precise as an Infiltrator, etc. but is by no means lesser for it.

 

Long story short, the classes were made with different battlefield roles in mind, but are in no way saying you MUST do this in battle if you are THIS class.

In all honesty, if you want to focus on close-quarters, clearing a room with force and power, then pick Vanguard.  If you pick Engineer instead and say the class doesn't work, it's because you picked the wrong class for what you wanted to do.

 

So basically, the "problem" is not that the classes are bad, it's that we pick ones that don't match what we want to do.

BioWare did excellently with class balance, there is no "best" class, since that is determinant on what you want to actually do in-game.

[Ahglock]

Agreed.

I also never liked the idea of a specific class being able to do more damage with a gun than another class. I mean is this one class more damaging because he/she can pull the trigger harder on the gun or something?

A headshot is a headshot, no matter who is shooting the gun.

I don't mind a certain class being better as much as I get its a RPG and its representing the characters skill over players skill. So a soldier has more training than an adept at shooting and therefore gets headshots more often. Still outside an active ability I'm against this just not as strongly.

[N7Jamaican]

Why go back to restrictions when Mass Effect 3 virtually got rid of it in favor of a weight system that affects cooldowns? 

[Norhik Krios]

I'm more of a person who likes to pick things from different "classes" or archetypes and make my own class, instead of getting 6, 8 or 20 fixed classes, that all have things I kinda like but also stuff I horribly dislike.
So either ME3's system or even an "open system", where you can train biotic and pick biotic abilities you'd like, or go tech and get a sick omni blade in one hand and a omni shield in the other (lol) or just go hybrid, like the sentinel.

[Remix-General Aetius]

I'm more of a person who likes to pick things from different "classes" or archetypes and make my own class, instead of getting 6, 8 or 20 fixed classes, that all have things I kinda like but also stuff I horribly dislike.
So either ME3's system or even an "open system", where you can train biotic and pick biotic abilities you'd like, or go tech and get a sick omni blade in one hand and a omni shield in the other (lol) or just go hybrid, like the sentinel.

 

How about a Diablo 1 system?  There were still "classes" with their own starting selection of spells but you could learn new spells along the way by picking up spell books from Adria and monsters.

 

I'm not saying to introduce spell books in Adromeda, but the system which allows the player to literally grow stronger the longer he plays.

[capn233]

I agree that there should be restrictions of some sort, but what those should be depend on a whole lot of variables.  Combat classes need to have "superior access" to the weapons compared to non-combat classes.  Given that is the entire point of the combat classes.

 

I am not a huge fan of the way it was handled in ME1 where many of the classes only had pistol training, although any class could add whatever they wanted as a bonus talent (after they were unlocked).  I doubt we will get anything like the large talent trees from ME1.

 

ME2 actually had some thought put into the weapon training, and the reason the default choices worked was due to weapon multipliers against defenses.  Every class had a weapon that was good against shields/barriers and against armor.  Combat classes had more than one against certain defenses.  Somewhat ironically, Soldier was probably more gimped against shields than the other classes, but that wasn't a huge deal in practice.  While I am fine with the ME2 system, especially in the confined of ME2, for it to work well in ME4 you would need to have some discipline about the weapon design and the role of each weapon class.  It really only works if you stick with the "right tool for the right job" when designing the weapon categories.

 

ME3 wanted to make everyone happy by allowing any class weapon on any character, and then trying to balance it with the PRS / weight system.  It did not work well at all in practice.  Nevermind that the weapon loadout affecting power recharge doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with, but it requires you to get the balance right on nearly everything (power damage, base cooldown, weapon damage and weight, combo damage) for it to work well.  It also likely contributed to the fact that there were no clearly delineated roles for the weapon classes which just became a jumbled assortment of guns sharing common mods.

 

There isn't a single approach that will make everyone happy.  If I was in charge of the game, I would likely go with an encumbrance system that isn't tied to PRS, but which sets limits on total weight (or simply Tier) for various classes, combat classes having the largest limit.  The alternative is to have no formal weapon restrictions and simply place a limit on the practical usefulness of various weapons by making the most deadly weapons the hardest to use effectively without accuracy, recoil, or ammo supply bonuses, etc.

[Ahglock]

^ I wouldn't mind a weight system like that where classes had a practical limit to the number and power of guns they can carry with soldiers having a significantly higher limit without the weight effecting cooldowns. Still weight systems require a lot more balancing than I think bioware has shown a talent for.

[Spectr61]

I think ME3's weight/cooldown ratio is good, it allows for any player to use any weapon regardless of the class they choose. It should be up to the player to choose what weapon they use, not be restricted by preset weapons set for each class.

Agreed.

However I wish they would add some consistency in reaction to glitching/exploits. This affects or abrogates the weight issue or attack speed significantly.

Is reload cancelling explicitly allowed a la ME3? Attack animation cancelling a la DAI?

I hope they nail it down from the start. I would hate to see a re-run something like the dreaded ME3 missile glitch or DAI XP exploit.

[capn233]

Reload canceling is clearly allowed in ME or else they wouldn't have built in two different reload timers for every weapon.  Or stated that it was intended.

[KaiserShep]

I don't think weapon restrictions make much sense from a story perspective either. Assault rifles are the standard weapon in the military, but somehow the Soldier is the only one who's trained to use it? Vanguards not being trained in using pistols? The N7 are supposed to be the best of the Alliance, it makes more sense for them to have trained with a variety of weapons.

Yeah, this is why I don't agree with certain classes being restricted from basic weaponry. What kind of rube is trained to use weapons in the military, but can't wield a shotgun or an assault rifle?

[capn233]

Yeah, this is why I don't agree with certain classes being restricted from basic weaponry. What kind of rube is trained to use weapons in the military, but can't wield a shotgun or an assault rifle?

 

I guess the kind that says "Keep your M4, I bought a Desert Eagle at the store on the ship."

[Belial]

That's just stupid. I want more options when playing a class not less. SP classes are getting stale already, they should let us freely customize not only our weapons, but also our powers, melee attacks and dodges.

[Killroy]

I don't support artificial, arbitrary limitations. Why shouldn't my Sentinel be able to use an assault rifle? What sort of military personnel is trained to use shotguns but not rifles?
It doesn't make any sense. I would support letting the soldier carry any and as many weapons as they want without suffering cooldown penalties, but restricting what weapon types other classes can equip is silly.

[Ahglock]

I have a hard time buying Shepard adept not knowing how to use most weapons. New protagonist I can't say as the background is not released. Still I like the option to use with at least basic competency any weapon I choose. But if they make weapon training a skill choice where a adept might be giving up on learning lift for example in order to know how to use a 3rd gun it would be plausible depending on the background.

[xAmilli0n]

That's just stupid. I want more options when playing a class not less. SP classes are getting stale already, they should let us freely customize not only our weapons, but also our powers, melee attacks and dodges.

 

Hmmmm, I'm curious how ME would be if it completely abandoned classes and went with something like CoD's pick 10 system....

[Wulfram]

Agreed.
 
I also never liked the idea of a specific class being able to do more damage with a gun than another class. I mean is this one class more damaging because he/she can pull the trigger harder on the gun or something?
 
A headshot is a headshot, no matter who is shooting the gun.

Well its a way of modelling superior training with a weapon. A more logical way of showing that would be to offer higher accuracy or less sniper wobble, but as ME1 proved that sort of thing feels really annoying in play, so a damage bonus is better.

And IIRC in ME3 the specific weapon class upgrades tended to be options so you weren't really so pigeon-holed.

[Kabooooom]

I get the idea of restrictions, but honestly they kind of annoy me. I like the flexibility of playing around with things a little. For example - Sniper Vanguard.

[Ahglock]

Hmmmm, I'm curious how ME would be if it completely abandoned classes and went with something like CoD's pick 10 system....

Can you explain the pick 10 system?

I think it wouldbe hard in mass effect as powers don't have equal value and how powers work together is also hard to evaluate. I suspect a free form class system would lead to a undesirable power balancing where powers became less interesting.

[Giantdeathrobot]

No.

 

ME3's system is by far the best. If my Adept wants to use an assault rifle, he should ruddy well be able to use an assault rifle and not be forced into dingy pistols, what kind of military personnel only trains in handguns anyway?. Often, gameplay-wise the ideal was to get max cooldown rate, but not always, and anyway sub-optimal builds aren't inherently a bad thing.

 

What we could do is, say, make Soldiers have more ''carry weight'' and thus be able to use heavier weapons since they affect their cooldown rates less. But weapon restrictions are bad and ME3's system is infinitely superior.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

If I want to use a shotgun I should be able to use one. End of story.

[capn233]

Well its a way of modelling superior training with a weapon. A more logical way of showing that would be to offer higher accuracy or less sniper wobble, but as ME1 proved that sort of thing feels really annoying in play, so a damage bonus is better.

And IIRC in ME3 the specific weapon class upgrades tended to be options so you weren't really so pigeon-holed.

 

Cry baby adepts gonna cry whatever you do.

[NKnight7]

I liked the way ME3 did it, all weapons were open to each class and the weight/cooldown ratio was easy to manage.

[Ahglock]

Cry baby adepts gonna cry whatever you do.

Use lift one time to give you a biotic wedgie and you just never let it go.