200 réponses à ce sujet

[Gamemako]

But that'sno reason not to have a deeper ruleset. Communicating it to the players is simply a mattter of documentation; if the players don't read it, that's their problem

You should never force your players to read a wall of text to understand. A bad game instructs, a good game teaches.
 

What made the Soldier class special was being able to use every weapon, so yeah, in ME3 the other classes feel like Soldiers with powers. I too would like to go back to ME2 restrictions.

Then make Soldier powers which support the use of guns instead of being special attacks. Not only Adrenaline Rush and Marksman, but also Hunter Mode and Tactical Scan. You can also do load-and-launch abilities like Siege Pulse, or a deployable weapon like a mortar. Some of the active abilities are poorly suited to a Soldier concept as well; Carnage made you think shotgun overheat cannon, but what you actually get is a magical fire rocket (huh?). It would be fairly trivial to give Soldier access to a weapon type ability which just accomplishes that task. There is plenty of room to make Soldier a rightful bullet storm; Mass Effect just hasn't quite gotten there yet.
 

It would give a more compelling reason to play as the soldier class.

Handicapping other classes is just making the game less fun for everyone. This is not a zero sum game.
 

This is a common video game, and to extent cinema, trope and it is unlikely to be changed for ME4.

I have not noticed this in any film. Handguns in gaming are usually just used as starter weapons so you can get more powerful ones later, though they sometimes end up overpowered as hell (ME1, Halo 1).

[Sylvius the Mad]

You should never force your players to read a wall of text to understand. A bad game instructs, a good game teaches.

The wall of text (and ideally equations) should be available regardless.

Some of us enjoy learning that way.

If there's any math (at all) going on behind the scenes, we should be allowed to see it.

[Gamemako]

If there's any math (at all) going on behind the scenes, we should be allowed to see it.

Every bit of a video game is math. If you want all the math, you might as well ask them to hand over the source code.

[Zekka]

So go through the resources-intensive process of making and balancing 6 classes just for lazy people, while also providing the unbalanced option for everyone else? What is the point? And limiting the number of skills wouldn't make this free-for-all class as balanced as actual classes. If I had 10 power slots and could choose any powers I wanted I could break the game and be nigh-invincible 3 times over. Now personally I'm not that concerned with strictly balancing a single-player game, but BioWare clearly is. If I could take all of the best Biotic powers, all of the best Tech powers, and all of the best Soldier powers I would be playing in God Mode.

This is kind of what I'm saying. Mass Effect can't work as an rpg with no classes because of lore reasons (biotics) or having ridiculously unbalanced gameplay (mixture of all the best abilities in game).

 

It's not like TES where everyone can use magic in the world, it's not like nuFallout where every protag is still human and magic doesn't exist.

You have to restrict the player somehow here because people would just make op builds from the get go.

[AlanC9]

You should never force your players to read a wall of text to understand. A bad game instructs, a good game teaches. 

Why?

[AlanC9]

Every bit of a video game is math. If you want all the math, you might as well ask them to hand over the source code.

That's silly. It's not like he's asking for the graphics code, or the area layouts. Just how the combat works, and that's not all that complicated.

[Gamemako]

Why?

Reading is no substitute for understanding. Grasping a concept requires exploring it, manipulating it, testing it. You can spend your time reading and then test it yourself, but then you're just doing the game's job for it. A good game reveals mechanics through gameplay and appropriately tests mastery of these mechanics without the player realizing it's a test.
 

That's silly. It's not like he's asking for the graphics code, or the area layouts. Just how the combat works, and that's not all that complicated.

Actually, it is. Just shoot a weapon. What happens? How can you communicate them to the player? Well, spread is affected by movement. Movement is affected by player behavior. You may be running, in cover, aiming while moving. Range is affected by weapon type, as is spread. Spread may depend on movement, or targeting mode (aiming or hipfire). The spread falls as you stop moving. Recoil is affected by targeting mode, amps. Class skills affect each of these. So you have 2 aiming modes * 3 positioning statuses * 2 movement statuses * movement interpolation interval * recoil interpolation interval * range interval * ROF interal just to communicate the basics which do not actually relate to whether or not you can hit your target with one weapon, nevermind damage. This can only be expressed probabilistically and depends wildly on player action. Just telling people how things works is easy when it's (base + hit - evasion - range/accuracy)%, like XCOM. Mass Effect, not so much.

Also, he didn't ask for any one specific item, he asked for any and all math behind the scenes. Even if you can tell players what's happening, you might not want to do so. Life without mystery would be pretty damn dull.

[Mdizzletr0n]

I'm gonna use Divinity (I love that game) as an example again. In that, you can absolutely use any weapon type with any class. However, it doesn't mean you'll be as effective as a class who starts with attributes catered to one its "suited" for. Same goes for the armors. For example, a mage type can wear heavy armor but not without consequence.

You can change that as you level and set your attribute pts in the right places. That same mage could very well be a bastard sword wilding magic tank. The caveat is that you wouldnt be as good at two handed weapons as a pure "knight" or as powerful as a pure magic wielder. Yet still effective as a hybrid class.

Maybe ME could borrow something more in vein?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Every bit of a video game is math. If you want all the math, you might as well ask them to hand over the source code.

I don't mean the animations or the AI.  I meant the rules of the game's setting.  How does damage work.  Or aiming.  Or resistances.  Anything that would be in the rulebook for a tabletop RPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Reading is no substitute for understanding. Grasping a concept requires exploring it, manipulating it, testing it. You can spend your time reading and then test it yourself, but then you're just doing the game's job for it. A good game reveals mechanics through gameplay and appropriately tests mastery of these mechanics without the player realizing it's a test.

Mastery should be achievable without ever playing the game.  There should be no event in game where I can't have foreseen the outcome if I'd happened to consider that exact circumstance previously.

Actually, it is. Just shoot a weapon. What happens? How can you communicate them to the player? Well, spread is affected by movement. Movement is affected by player behavior. You may be running, in cover, aiming while moving. Range is affected by weapon type, as is spread. Spread may depend on movement, or targeting mode (aiming or hipfire). The spread falls as you stop moving. Recoil is affected by targeting mode, amps. Class skills affect each of these. So you have 2 aiming modes * 3 positioning statuses * 2 movement statuses * movement interpolation interval * recoil interpolation interval * range interval * ROF interal just to communicate the basics which do not actually relate to whether or not you can hit your target with one weapon, nevermind damage. This can only be expressed probabilistically and depends wildly on player action. Just telling people how things works is easy when it's (base + hit - evasion - range/accuracy)%, like XCOM. Mass Effect, not so much.

What you just said, but with numbers, would be a nice start.

 

The spread should be documented.  Range should be documented.  Damage should be documented.  How shields or armour mitigate damage should be documented.  And yes, if it's all probabilistic then the probabilities should be documented.  Just hading us the formulae allows us to work out specific interactions ourselves without the game having to make those interactions explicit.

 

Is there a spread in the ME games after the first one?  That's news to me.  Perhaps that should have been written down somewhere.  Though, I always paused to aim, so it may not have affected me.

[Killroy]

Mastery should be achievable without ever playing the game.  There should be no event in game where I can't have foreseen the outcome if I'd happened to consider that exact circumstance previously.

That's completely silly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's completely silly.

It works for tabletop RPGs.  If you had perfect knowledge of the documented rules, you could correctly list the odds of any outcome.

[Killroy]

It works for tabletop RPGs.  If you had perfect knowledge of the documented rules, you could correctly list the odds of any outcome.

Then play tabletop RPGs. Video games are infinitely more complex. There's a reason why so much coding goes into these games.

[Gothfather]

It works for tabletop RPGs.  If you had perfect knowledge of the documented rules, you could correctly list the odds of any outcome.

 

 

Life isn't like a RPG, the biggest failing of table top RPGs is that players can determine the mathematical odds of anything. People don't behave that way in real life. Good role-playing doesn't require that you know the maths behind a decision. Pretty much any action that an RPG simulates is an action where people preform said action in real life without knowing the "odds." This is why PRACTICE is required to learn new skills even purely mathematical skills like MATHS require doing not just reading to learn. It is why we give students maths problems to practise on because people don't master by not doing. They master by doing.

 

Then again i have always felt you don't want good role-playing, you simply want cRPG to stay the same as there were a decade ago.

[Mechler]

Life isn't like a RPG, the biggest failing of table top RPGs is that players can determine the mathematical odds of anything. People don't behave that way in real life. Good role-playing doesn't require that you know the maths behind a decision. Pretty much any action that an RPG simulates is an action where people preform said action in real life without knowing the "odds." This is why PRACTICE is required to learn new skills even purely mathematical skills like MATHS require doing not just reading to learn. It is why we give students maths problems to practise on because people don't master by not doing. They master by doing.

 

Then again i have always felt you don't want good role-playing, you simply want cRPG to stay the same as there were a decade ago.

 

I'm with Sylvius on this. Innovation for innovation's sake is wrong. The reason why games like dark souls are worshiped these days is because games are becomming less challenging and less complicated. I want meaningful choices in my RPG and if a soldier uses the same weapons and same armor the same way as a technician, that is not a meaningful choice. Hell, in Final Fantasy XIV, every class uses one and only one weapon type. Sure, that is a bit extreme, but at least it feals like an rpg.

 

Mass Effect Andromeda should be an action rpg, not a shooter with rpg elements.

[KaiserShep]

I'm with Sylvius on this. Innovation for innovation's sake is wrong. The reason why games like dark souls are worshiped these days is because games are becomming less challenging and less complicated. I want meaningful choices in my RPG and if a soldier uses the same weapons and same armor the same way as a technician, that is not a meaningful choice. Hell, in Final Fantasy XIV, every class uses one and only one weapon type. Sure, that is a bit extreme, but at least it feals like an rpg.

 

Mass Effect Andromeda should be an action rpg, not a shooter with rpg elements.

 

In what ways should the use of an assault rifle really differ between a tech and soldier? As for armor, that should only change depending on whether or not it applies certain bonuses for specific combatant types. Like, a soldier won't get any special benefits from any armor, because a soldier has no unique, innate abilities with which any armor would enhance that, say, an adept or engineer couldn't use, whereas armors that boost biotics only work for biotics. 

[Pistolized]

In ME 1-3 the characters (especially Shepard) were military trained.  Therefore it is reasonable that certain combat disciplines have certain and specific training, in arms and abilities (and hair...).  So, combat restrictions in ME 1-3 made perfect sense.  Now in this setting, we don't know how strict the training background is.  It could be that it's up to each person's whim which abilities and weapons they train in.  Whatever the case, it should stick with the lore and the lore should stick with it.

[Dantriges]

Life isn't like a RPG, the biggest failing of table top RPGs is that players can determine the mathematical odds of anything. People don't behave that way in real life. Good role-playing doesn't require that you know the maths behind a decision. Pretty much any action that an RPG simulates is an action where people preform said action in real life without knowing the "odds."

The DM is telling the players the odds? My players don´t even know my dice rolls most of the time, unless i want to make clear I am not pulling punches. Modifiers on players rolls are known when the die is in the hand ready to roll...perhaps.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Then play tabletop RPGs. Video games are infinitely more complex. There's a reason why so much coding goes into these games.

The reason why so much coding goes into these games isn't the mechanics.

And tabletop RPGs are multiplayer. I play CRPGs because they are single-player. Multiplayer is never acceptable.

Life isn't like a RPG, the biggest failing of table top RPGs is that players can determine the mathematical odds of anything. People don't behave that way in real life.

But they can. People routinely ignore the actual likelihood of a given outcome, but that doesn't mean they have to.

And the odds should be available. If it's possible for us to reverse engineer the equations, why not just give us the equations?

Good role-playing doesn't require that you know the maths behind a decision.

Fun gameplay does.

Pretty much any action that an RPG simulates is an action where people preform said action in real life without knowing the "odds." This is why PRACTICE is required to learn new skills even purely mathematical skills like MATHS require doing not just reading to learn. It is why we give students maths problems to practise on because people don't master by not doing. They master by doing.

That's not my recollection of how learning math went at all. We'd be presented with a concept, it would make sense, and then we'd be asked to waste a bunch of time applying that concept over and over in fundamentally similar ways. Is that what that was? Practise?

It was unnecessary.

Then again i have always felt you don't want good role-playing, you simply want cRPG to stay the same as there were a decade ago.

I enjoy the process of learning the rules. I prefer to do this before I play the game. I can't do that if the rules are gidden from me.

Given the length of most modern games (Inquisition excluded), there's hardly time in them to teach us complex mechanics and also provide us with a game in which to enjoy those mechanics. And if the mechanics are simple enough to teach us in a 30 minute tutorial, then they could also be in a book somewhere.

Everything learnable is learnable from a book.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In what ways should the use of an assault rifle really differ between a tech and soldier? As for armor, that should only change depending on whether or not it applies certain bonuses for specific combatant types. Like, a soldier won't get any special benefits from any armor, because a soldier has no unique, innate abilities with which any armor would enhance that, say, an adept or engineer couldn't use, whereas armors that boost biotics only work for biotics.

A soldier might get more protection from armour, simulating his ability to move in such a way that the shots he takes are less damaging.

Also, soldiers could be get a faster reload. They could get more accuracy (either modeled through some sort of accuracy mechanic, or just bonus damage). Soldiers could get more shots out of a thermal clip, simulating their ability to manage heat better.

[KaiserShep]

There's no reason that powered armor should work any differently based on its user. If it has servos and random techno goodies that enhance reload speed, it should work exactly the same for everyone. Otherwise, we should just get a character stat akin to dexterity that deals with how quickly the character does melee attacks or weapon reload speed. As for shots per clip, I maintain that I'd rather this be a weapon or armor mod, not a character ability, and the same for ammo types like disruptor, cryo etc. as well as grenade capacity.

[samagent]

Your an N7 trained soldier, there is no reason why your character shouldn't be trained with every weapon type. They got it right in ME3 with the weapon weight/cooldowns. 

[PlatonicWaffles]

Bring back the ME3 system. I don't see any problem with it and restricting gun classes to me is arbitrary. 

[Ahglock]

There's no reason that powered armor should work any differently based on its user. If it has servos and random techno goodies that enhance reload speed, it should work exactly the same for everyone. Otherwise, we should just get a character stat akin to dexterity that deals with how quickly the character does melee attacks or weapon reload speed. As for shots per clip, I maintain that I'd rather this be a weapon or armor mod, not a character ability, and the same for ammo types like disruptor, cryo etc. as well as grenade capacity.

You don't think training has any effect on reload speed. That someone who does it and is trained to a expert level won't have it down to a smoother motion than someone who is just competent. Pretty much every example he brought up is a logical extension of more training. It's not even that weird game mechanically as it's pretty much describing a more robust passive tree for the soldier when it comes to combat with guns.

[capn233]

You don't think training has any effect on reload speed. That someone who does it and is trained to a expert level won't have it down to a smoother motion than someone who is just competent. Pretty much every example he brought up is a logical extension of more training. It's not even that weird game mechanically as it's pretty much describing a more robust passive tree for the soldier when it comes to combat with guns.

 

Might also be a logical leap to say that soldier's armor can support more sophisticated weapon management VI's given that there is little need to interact with omnitool tech based attacks or biotic amps.  That can lead to a variety of places, but simplistically either better handling of the same weapons, or potentially support for a wider variety of weapons.