263 réponses à ce sujet

[DaemionMoadrin]

Headshots are so easy, sometimes you can hit two heads with one bullet.

[Master Warder Z_]

Where was that superiority during Thessia?

more like #asorryrace

Ha!

[UniformGreyColor]

That's what Nightmare is for. If you want to be challenged, the game can give the enemies bonuses.

But there should be a difficulty setting where the mechanics are symmetrical. Where the enemies have access to exactly the same powers as you, and they affect you for the same duration and do proportionally equivalent damage.

Ever one-shot an enemy with a headshot? Ever had it happen to you?

There's the problem.

 

To go along with this, I would not at all mind certain enemies to have special or unique abilities that you as a player, can never get. I feel it best that this go both ways, but to do this, that would mean that the abilities that are unique to you would largely have to do with you inborn human (or alien) traits.. Every human is different, so too should abilities be the same way. What I suggest is that these unique abilities are not so OP that they break the game, but would be different than say, specializations seen in DA:I where a companion can do the same things. This is not to say that the majority of abilities and their use cannot be used by people specializing in the same thing ie. sentinel abilities or whatever, just just a few that make combat unique (much like mark of the rift in DA:I).

 

This is already implemented well enough to where each char can choose to focus on different abilities, but it would be nice to have more diversity. Ofc, if the main char and its companions all have access to the same stuff, it should def be symmetric to enemies, but if its diverse, it should be truly diverse. It could depend both on race and on personal traits and on specialization.. so you can have a turian who can do something only turians can do and you can have different turians who have just ever so slightly access to different things than other turians of the same class. Think about it if you will as a system similar to the characters in Dota.. Every dota character has unique abilities, but this is because there is only one of them. Imagine if you will that there are 3 Shadow fiends to chose from who focus ever so slightly on different things all the while have most things the same.

 

Much like how the army has different roles ie. mechanic, sniper, what have you, even in those you have individual identities who may be just a bit better at one thing than the others and vise versa and the individual might not be as proficient at a certain thing or more proficient.

 

Justa as an example of this, we see in DA:I the difference in character from one companion or another.. Much akin to Serah and Solas. I wish for more of this, more diversity between similar, but not the same.

 

imagine a whole ability tree devoted to the combination of race, class, specialization and what sets apart say, the Inquisitor, from everyone else because he has the anchor. This is what I want out of a combat system -for the personality to trickle down to the very abilities that you can use.

[Sylvius the Mad]

To go along with this, I would not at all mind certain enemies to have special or unique abilities that you as a player, can never get. I feel it best that this go both ways, but to do this, that would mean that the abilities that are unique to you would largely have to do with you inborn human (or alien) traits.. Every human is different, so too should abilities be the same way. What I suggest is that these unique abilities are not so OP that they break the game, but would be different than say, specializations seen in DA:I where a companion can do the same things. This is not to say that the majority of abilities and their use cannot be used by people specializing in the same thing ie. sentinel abilities or whatever, just just a few that make combat unique (much like mark of the rift in DA:I).

Whereas, I dislike that. Mark of the Rift at least had lore-based justification, but as a matter of course I want everyone following exactly the same rules.

Those rules might have abilities that are gated by race or background, but those races and backgrounds should be available to the player character.

This is already implemented well enough to where each char can choose to focus on different abilities, but it would be nice to have more diversity. Ofc, if the main char and its companions all have access to the same stuff, it should def be symmetric to enemies, but if its diverse, it should be truly diverse. It could depend both on race and on personal traits and on specialization.. so you can have a turian who can do something only turians can do and you can have different turians who have just ever so slightly access to different things than other turians of the same class. Think about it if you will as a system similar to the characters in Dota.. Every dota character has unique abilities, but this is because there is only one of them. Imagine if you will that there are 3 Shadow fiends to chose from who focus ever so slightly on different things all the while have most things the same.

Much like how the army has different roles ie. mechanic, sniper, what have you, even in those you have individual identities who may be just a bit better at one thing than the others and vise versa and the individual might not be as proficient at a certain thing or more proficient.

That's what stats are for. And skill ranks. And synergies between skills.

Justa as an example of this, we see in DA:I the difference in character from one companion or another.. Much akin to Serah and Solas. I wish for more of this, more diversity between similar, but not the same.

imagine a whole ability tree devoted to the combination of race, class, specialization and what sets apart say, the Inquisitor, from everyone else because he has the anchor. This is what I want out of a combat system -for the personality to trickle down to the very abilities that you can use.

The PC's personality should be entirely within our control. That's why we should be the ones to choose abilities from across the entire ruleset.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You know full well that BioWare didn't intend for that to be the main playstyle and that most people don't play the game like you do.

Authorial intent never matters.

Not even a little.

And for the record, I liked the insta-kill abilities in BG. They made combat way more exciting.

I would rather play a combat only game with BG's combat or NWN's combat than I would one with the combat from any of the ME games.

[Cyonan]

Authorial intent never matters.

Not even a little.

And for the record, I liked the insta-kill abilities in BG. They made combat way more exciting.

I would rather play a combat only game with BG's combat or NWN's combat than I would one with the combat from any of the ME games.

 

Just as a test in BG I created a Sorcerer and set it to the easiest difficulty and a random encounter mob actually 1 shot that character. I don't really blame BG for that because it's something that exists in D&D, which is something that I've always had a problem with.

 

Even in a RPG, death should not be 100% up to the dice to decide.

 

The point is that you're playing a non supported playstyle that they didn't even think about and don't intend to support. I'm not going to say it's the "wrong" way to play as long as you're having fun, but you probably shouldn't expect the developer to make design decisions that hold back the way they expect the player to play based on your playstyle. You know that you're in the vast minority with that playstyle.

[UniformGreyColor]

Whereas, I dislike that. Mark of the Rift at least had lore-based justification, but as a matter of course I want everyone following exactly the same rules.

Those rules might have abilities that are gated by race or background, but those races and backgrounds should be available to the player character.

 

OK, I think I see where you are coming from now. I guess the only thing I would have to disagree with here is that while most things should be the same across the board, I am not understanding why the PC can't have a role that grants him special abilities. IMO I find diversity refreshing and as such I would rather have my PC just as unique as anyone else in the game (if not more so). I am not so keen on having a PC that is basically a god where he can do anything anyone else can do, only better, and have none of this be because of his merits and only based on his abilities. I would rather a PC be someone who rises to the occasion, not necessarily because he has some uber superiority in his combat prowess alone. Their personality should also exude excellence in whatever choices that char makes. (Not to say they need to play the paragon role all the time, but I think you understand what I mean... I hope)

 

That's what stats are for. And skill ranks. And synergies between skills.

 

Point noted.. Obviously there needs to be at least some things that are the same all across the board. I'd like to ask about your tabletop career here and ask if when there is a monster who has a different ability that no one else you are playing with can do how you feel about that (this might be a huge misunderstanding on tabletop games, IDK).

 

Other than that I see no reason why if stats are the same across the board* why the uniqueness of the characters cannot still do the other two things you talked about. 

 

So obviously we need to be dealing with the same stats across the board, that just makes sense. But I am one who desires uniqueness across the board, so we may just be disagreeing on this.

 

The PC's personality should be entirely within our control. That's why we should be the ones to choose abilities from across the entire ruleset.

 

I agree, The PC personality should be entirely within the player's control. So I might ask what you think of, say, a wraith who uses an attack that the PC cannot use? As far as that goes, what if you had access to an ability that was completely different and yet still did the same kind of damage that that wraith does?

 

*= to clarify they have access to the same stats, not that all the numerical values to those stats are the same.

[Dantriges]

The other thing I forgot was explaining why the lack of evolution is so critical for the species: They can not adapt to a changing environment. Example: A new type of plant (maybe on a colony world) distributes its pollen into the air. It leads to severe allergic reactions in one in three Asari, the others get a light fever but are otherwise okay. In a normal population the allergic Asari would die out because the healthy ones have more advantages (like being able to breath during summer). Only since that trait can't be inherited, the percentage of allergic:healthy stays the same. And that's just one environmental effect. There are thousands and the species can't adapt to a single one. By all rights and logic they should be dead already.

 
Gene therapy and genetic engineering is a thing in the ME universe.

[Helios969]

I guess the same way I can beat the crap out of Kai Lang on Thesia and be defeated in the ensuing cutscene.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Just as a test in BG I created a Sorcerer and set it to the easiest difficulty and a random encounter mob actually 1 shot that character. I don't really blame BG for that because it's something that exists in D&D, which is something that I've always had a problem with.

That happens specifically to balance arcane casters. Arcane casters are remarkably fragile, particularly at low levels.

That's exactly what I was proposing to balance biotics.

Even in a RPG, death should not be 100% up to the dice to decide.

I strongly disagree.

Survival shouldn't be guaranteed, as it largely is in modern games. Getting your character to level 5 should be a rare occurrence, not just the expected result of the tutorial.

The point is that you're playing a non supported playstyle that they didn't even think about and don't intend to support. I'm not going to say it's the "wrong" way to play as long as you're having fun, but you probably shouldn't expect the developer to make design decisions that hold back the way they expect the player to play based on your playstyle. You know that you're in the vast minority with that playstyle.

It's the only way to stop player skill from breaking the setting.

That Shepard can't miss in ME2 and ME3 seriously harms verisimilitude.

[RoboticWater]

I strongly disagree.

Survival shouldn't be guaranteed, as it largely is in modern games. Getting your character to level 5 should be a rare occurrence, not just the expected result of the tutorial.

Why? What is the value of allowing the player so be killed so quickly? If it's only verisimilitude, then what's the value of that? Why is perfect consistency the ultimate goal?

 

It's the only way to stop player skill from breaking the setting.

That Shepard can't miss in ME2 and ME3 seriously harms verisimilitude.

Then miss yourself. If you believe that gameplay and story are completely intertwined, roleplay.

[Cyonan]

That happens specifically to balance arcane casters. Arcane casters are remarkably fragile, particularly at low levels.

That's exactly what I was proposing to balance biotics.
I strongly disagree.

Survival shouldn't be guaranteed, as it largely is in modern games. Getting your character to level 5 should be a rare occurrence, not just the expected result of the tutorial.
It's the only way to stop player skill from breaking the setting.

That Shepard can't miss in ME2 and ME3 seriously harms verisimilitude.

 

I don't think survival should be guaranteed but I should be able to influence if my character lives or not. Even having some randomness in it is not a bad thing, and is to be completely expected if the game is a RPG.

 

However there is no world where I will ever consider it good design for survival to be 100% up to a dice roll, no matter even if the player makes no mistakes at all. I think it's bad that D&D does it, and I will think it's bad if Mass Effect does it.

 

It's simply not fun to have an arbitrary "you died because loldice decided you die" system in a game. It's not difficult, and it doesn't reinforce the idea that I should get better at my character. It simply punishes me for having the gall to want to play the game. It serves absolutely no real purpose in good game design, and there are far better ways of balancing arcane casters while still allowing them to retain their power.

 

The game isn't designed around your "pause to aim" system. The fact that your style would never work while using fully automatic weapons in their fully automatic fire modes while still "never missing" should suggest to you that the game is not designed around using it for every shot, even if that's how you personally want to play it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

OK, I think I see where you are coming from now. I guess the only thing I would have to disagree with here is that while most things should be the same across the board, I am not understanding why the PC can't have a role that grants him special abilities. IMO I find diversity refreshing and as such I would rather have my PC just as unique as anyone else in the game (if not more so). I am not so keen on having a PC that is basically a god where he can do anything anyone else can do, only better, and have none of this be because of his merits and only based on his abilities. I would rather a PC be someone who rises to the occasion, not necessarily because he has some uber superiority in his combat prowess alone. Their personality should also exude excellence in whatever choices that char makes. (Not to say they need to play the paragon role all the time, but I think you understand what I mean... I hope)

As long as the PC just happens to be the person who did that, sure. Anyone could have been in the situation to gain that ability. In this particular instance of reality, it was the PC.

I don't mind this, which is why I don't mind the Mark of the Rift. But I would need a similarly extraordinary explanation for each instance of a unique ability. Isabela's All Hands On Deck, for example. Why does no one else in the setting have that ability?

Point noted.. Obviously there needs to be at least some things that are the same all across the board. I'd like to ask about your tabletop career here and ask if when there is a monster who has a different ability that no one else you are playing with can do how you feel about that (this might be a huge misunderstanding on tabletop games, IDK).

Othee monsters of that type should have access to the same ability. They might not have learned it yet, and perhaps they never will, but they could.

If my character happened to be an ogre, he should be able to do, if he meatned the skilks, to do the same things this specific ogre can do.

Some tabletop systems allow for the creation of new unique abilities. But anyone could do that. That I'm the only person in the setting who can cast this spell I made up is fine as long as I'm not the only person who could have. Anyone could have invented this spell, but I'm the one who did.

Other than that I see no reason why if stats are the same across the board* why the uniqueness of the characters cannot still do the other two things you talked about.

So obviously we need to be dealing with the same stats across the board, that just makes sense. But I am one who desires uniqueness across the board, so we may just be disagreeing on this.

If the rules were fully documented, and explained why these unique abilities could exist, I'd probably mind less. The system that allows for these abilities, and how these abilities fit into that system, should ab available for us to see.

I agree, The PC personality should be entirely within the player's control. So I might ask what you think of, say, a wraith who uses an attack that the PC cannot use? As far as that goes, what if you had access to an ability that was completely different and yet still did the same kind of damage that that wraith does?

*= to clarify they have access to the same stats, not that all the numerical values to those stats are the same.

That would be fine. Just because a basilisk has a petrifying gaze doesn't mean I have to be able to have one, too (unless I'm a basilisk). But what petrification is and how one can do it should be in the rules somewhere.

[Zekka]

Maybe you could have a limited amount of biotic use or a b"iotic meter" that filled up every time you used Biotics and when the meter got full, your character would start losing health or lose a large amount of health

[capn233]

That happens specifically to balance arcane casters. Arcane casters are remarkably fragile, particularly at low levels.

That's exactly what I was proposing to balance biotics.

Well the first problem is that level 1 Shepard is already fragile in ME3. The second is focusing on biotics as the only stand in for mages, which isn't the case in ME.
 

Survival shouldn't be guaranteed, as it largely is in modern games.

As has been pointed out, this is extremely poor design. If the player plays the game perfectly, he should not be killed. The game should punish mistakes. RNG deaths make little sense in a video game played in real time.

Really this thread was mostly off the rails to begin with, since the premise was about bringing in more rule of cool, but the title has to do with balance.  Biotics were already extremely powerful in ME3, and overpowered relative to basically everything else at release.  Anybody clamoring for the ability to lift any target should actually be asking for a return to the more pure system in ME1 where biotics were largely CC only and did not deal appreciable damage.

 

Alternatively, if we want everything from cutscenes to make it into the game, then I hereby request all of the Soldier's weapons be able to one-shot any target.

 

Tech gets the short end of the stick since they don't have many overpowered cutscene heroics.  Kasumi dropping the gunship's shields in one cast is the only thing I can think of off-hand.  It is curious that biotics get all the mage-love, given that tech is your stand in for elemental magic in ME.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Why? What is the value of allowing the player so be killed so quickly? If it's only verisimilitude, then what's the value of that? Why is perfect consistency the ultimate goal?

Consistency aids roleplaying. It's much easier to maintain an in-character perspective if that perspective sees a world that makes sense.

Then miss yourself. If you believe that gameplay and story are completely intertwined, roleplay.

The roleplaying is the gameplay. All gameplay is roleplaying.

In the end it doesn't make much difference in ME3 because the combat is so dull (and easy). But I mostly avoid shooting things.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 No they should not. The lore makes it clear that biotics are not OP: the user gets exhausted from over-use.

[RoboticWater]

Consistency aids roleplaying. It's much easier to maintain an in-character perspective if that perspective sees a world that makes sense.

But why is roleplaying more important than having fun? Clearly, people don't like instant death (as evidenced by the vocal dislike of sync-kills), and effectively random instant death is much worse. Do you think that most people care more about perfect rule consistency?
 

The roleplaying is the gameplay. All gameplay is roleplaying.

Yes, which is why you should roleplay during the game and miss intentionally if you think perfect accuracy is unreasonable.
 

In the end it doesn't make much difference in ME3 because the combat is so dull (and easy). But I mostly avoid shooting things.

Maybe it would be less dull if you didn't pause to aim the whole time.

[capn233]

Yes, which is why you should roleplay during the game and miss intentionally if you think perfect accuracy is unreasonable.

 

I think the perfect accuracy talking point is a little strange anyway. For hitscan powers, I suppose that is mostly true.  Projectiles are close enough to perfectly accurate that they added enemy dodge as a compensation.  It is a relatively low percent chance, and some still get bent out of shape about how it punishes power characters.  Even though the dodge has a cooldown and basically once an enemy uses it, he is dead.  It does reduce practical hit rate though (at least if you don't force them to dodge via other means like weapons fire).

 

On the other side of the coin, many of the weapons have unbelievably low accuracy such that when the reticle is on the target you can't be reasonably assured that you will get a hit.  This is clearly a conceit to gameplay and weapon balance.

[Iakus]

 No they should not. The lore makes it clear that biotics are not OP: the user gets exhausted from over-use.

An exhaustion mechanic would be an interesting addition to the game.

 

Don't really know how it could be implemented, though.

[capn233]

An exhaustion mechanic would be an interesting addition to the game.

 

Don't really know how it could be implemented, though.

 

In practical terms, it would likely just turn into a mana bar with a different name.

 

Of course the other way to do it if you don't want a traditional mana bar is to give every power a very long individual non-shared cooldown, such that after you spam them you have to wait around for 60-120 seconds to use them again...

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think survival should be guaranteed but I should be able to influence if my character lives or not. Even having some randomness in it is not a bad thing, and is to be completely expected if the game is a RPG.

However there is no world where I will ever consider it good design for survival to be 100% up to a dice roll, no matter even if the player makes no mistakes at all. I think it's bad that D&D does it, and I will think it's bad if Mass Effect does it.

Setting aside whether there is such a thing as playing perfectly, at some point the dice are going to resolve it for you.

It's simply not fun to have an arbitrary "you died because loldice decided you die" system in a game. It's not difficult, and it doesn't reinforce the idea that I should get better at my character. It simply punishes me for having the gall to want to play the game. It serves absolutely no real purpose in good game design, and there are far better ways of balancing arcane casters while still allowing them to retain their power.

There's no getting better. Player skill shouldn't matter.

The game isn't designed around your "pause to aim" system. The fact that your style would never work while using fully automatic weapons in their fully automatic fire modes while still "never missing" should suggest to you that the game is not designed around using it for every shot, even if that's how you personally want to play it.

And yet it's been in every game so far.

In MEA doesn't have it (or some other equally effective means of completely avoiding real-time combat), I will not play MEA.

[Iakus]

In practical terms, it would likely just turn into a mana bar with a different name.

 

Probably more than a mana bar.

 

 Maybe something along the lines of Cast from Hit Points.  Or an increasing debuff that slows the character down, makes them do less damage, longer recharges, etc so they become less and less useful in combat.

[Cyonan]

Setting aside whether there is such a thing as playing perfectly, at some point the dice are going to resolve it for you.
There's no getting better. Player skill shouldn't matter.
And yet it's been in every game so far.

In MEA doesn't have it (or some other equally effective means of completely avoiding real-time combat), I will not play MEA.

 

The point of "playing perfect" is that the survivability should not be purely in the hands of the dice. The dice should allow for bad things to happen which can be eased by playing well, other than really odd things like rolling a 1 10 times in a row.

 

Player skill should always matter, otherwise there is no point in even playing the system and you might as well just roll a d20 at the start to see if you die or if you win. Even in a game like D&D it allows for player skill, despite some annoyances like casters being able to be killed by a single unlucky roll at level 1.

 

I would go as far as to argue that a system which is 100% random is not actually a game, as it cannot be played.

 

It might have been in every game, but with weapons like the Typhoon or even Avenger it's pretty clear what they were designing the game around.

[Abraham_uk]

I wouldn't mind having a super powerful biotic as the final boss.

 

Tons of hit points.

Tons of damage output.

If anything this boss dishes out hits you, you're dead.

Lots of carnage everywhere.

 

 

To beat this biotic, you must protect some other biotic who has joined your squad.

The ally biotic will try and weaken the barrier of the boss.

You will then have to set up a series of pylons to boost the power of the ally's biotics, however the pylons must be set up in a precise way in the correct order.

 

Then once the pylons are taken down, you have a brief moment to strike the overpowered boss.

If you miss the opportunity, the boss sends out a powerful biotic storm to wipe out the entire squad and half the city with it.

 

You will need puzzle solving to set up the pylons and be super fast to set them up. Also you will need to take the heat of your biotic ally and you'll need lightning quick reflexes to exploit the narrow opportunity to get that final head shot on the boss before her biotic barrier returns to full strength. You must do all of this whilst dodging biotic projectiles.