57 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

I wouldn't want to over-specialise the player in single player. Simply because the AI controlled squadmates aren't really reliable.

Of course you can make your character emphasise survivability or crowd control or whatever, but you could do that in previous games too.

[Laughing_Man]

The way I see it there is no real point in a support class for SP, squaddies are usually too dumb and/or neutered to be relied upon.

 

Otherwise, I certainly want to see a "Heavy" class specializing in super-heavy armor and heavy weapons.

That's probably the only thing that might convince me to play the vanilla soldier.

 

An engineer spawning multitudes of turrets and drones (maybe a swarm of nanobots?), and hacking electronics devices similarly to watchdogs could be interesting.

 

An Adept class that's actually awesome would be nice, it's supposed to be about pure biotic skill, yet Vanguard seems much more impressive...

[N7Jamaican]

The way I see it there is no real point in a support class for SP, squaddies are usually too dumb and/or neutered to be relied upon.

 

Otherwise, I certainly want to see a "Heavy" class specializing in super-heavy armor and heavy weapons.

That's probably the only thing that might convince me to play the vanilla soldier.

 

An engineer spawning multitudes of turrets and drones (maybe a swarm of nanobots?), and hacking electronics devices similarly to watchdogs could be interesting.

 

An Adept class that's actually awesome would be nice, it's supposed to be about pure biotic skill, yet Vanguard seems much more impressive...

 

Even if they don't do class roles, at least like you mentioned, more class specialization.

[rocklikeafool]

But I mean more in a sense of a traditional RPG.  

Yeah...because the axis of 3 is totally a traditional RPG thing. You need to play more actual traditional RPGs. Hint: MMOs are NOT traditional RPGs.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't object to the roles existing. I object to encounter design that requires I use them, and I object to the roles being tied to specific classes.

But the roles themselves are fine.

[Malanek]

Considering that past ME-games had it (though it was the most prominent in ME3MP), I don't see why not.

I don't consider ME3 to have had these roles. Although you could sort of say the Geth Juggernaut could tank and a Volus could sort of heal, they were both far more effective when used as all round damage dealers that did a little bit more. Yes there are kits that have more survivability than others, but everything was at heart a damage dealer.

 

I don't think ME:A should have these roles either, at least not to a greater extent than ME3. All kits and classes need to be able to survive on their own which destroys the need for the other roles, which destroys the concept of the trinity.

[NKnight7]

Definitely, I liked how the multiplayer expanded all of the classes. I'd really like to see some of the powers exclusive to the MP classes be available for use in the SP.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

Nope, sorry. No time for aerial bombardment.

[Ajensis]

Expanded Version:

 

One thing Mass Effect lacked was these roles. (...) I think to add variety to the combat, the inclusion of roles would be amazing. (...)

 

I'm not too fond of the idea. I like that Mass Effect is a very fresh gameplay experience that doesn't try to emulate the classic RPG's. Remember, this series is an Action-RPG. I like that combat is a bit more fluid and fast. Besides the positioning of my squadmembers in a tough fight, I don't really have to pay too much attention to the party as a whole; the majority of fights I'm peeking over my cover to throw biotics or fire a few rounds while bullets are flying past me, and I'm happy with that. You're in the fray in a way that's different from traditional RPG's.

What you're proposing would probably make the levelling up system more forcibly varied, but also less flexible. I think it's too constrictive if you have to choose between 'tank/damage/support' - and also a little trite. I liked that evolving a power indirectly asked me what kind of playstyle I wanted. Together with armour customisation, there's a lot of flexibility in how you want your character to perform.

 

This is all aimed at single-player, though. If they want MP to shift towards things like aggro management, I might be fine with that, as it's more about the party working together there. For single-player, however, I just want to pew-pew and warp-warp my way between looking at pretty skies and talking with aliens

[N7Jamaican]

This is all aimed at single-player, though. If they want MP to shift towards things like aggro management, I might be fine with that, as it's more about the party working together there. For single-player, however, I just want to pew-pew and warp-warp my way between looking at pretty skies and talking with aliens

 

Just play a soldier.  When I wanted to speed through a playthrough, soldier in ME1-3 was the way to go.  I want a challenge.  Infiltrator is fairly easy, and I find engineer was the most rewarding to get through a level.  I'm not crazy enough to try adept on insanity.  At least not in ME1.

[iM3GTR]

Just play a soldier. When I wanted to speed through a playthrough, soldier in ME1-3 was the way to go. I want a challenge. Infiltrator is fairly easy, and I find engineer was the most rewarding to get through a level. I'm not crazy enough to try adept on insanity. At least not in ME1.

Adept's quite easy in ME1 after you get rid of Saren's two assassins if you use shotgun bonus power. Though I had to cheat a little by reloading a save and choosing to let Balak go on X57.

[Taki17]

Though I had to cheat a little by reloading a save and choosing to let Balak go on X57.

The fight against the batarians is not that difficult with or without Balak. Just go and make yourself comfortable in the lower level of the medical room, and wait for them to come rushing down the stairs, then pull/lift/singularty, and from there, it is just skeet shooting.

[iM3GTR]

The fight against the batarians is not that difficult with or without Balak. Just go and make yourself comfortable in the lower level of the medical room, and wait for them to come rushing down the stairs, then pull/lift/singularty, and from there, it is just skeet shooting.

I was too impatient and kept running out getting sniped with the red beam of death. You live and learn.

[Taki17]

I was too impatient and kept running out getting sniped with the red beam of death. You live and learn.

Yeah, ME1 is kinda broken on higher difficulties as enemies are basically bullet sponges, have shield recharge and health fortification abilites, and they tend to rush you behind cover, pop a shot, and run back to their spawn point at the other end of the map. Rinse and repeat. With patience, any encounter can be managed quite easily, once you know their routes and routines. (just watch out for krogans, it is headbutt-stunlock city if they get close, plus they stand back up after downed)

[Gileadan]

I think that splitting classes between "tank" and "damage dealer" is a huge load of nonsense. I get "support", like medics or supply troops. But "tanks" (heavily armored units that usually have a low damage but high "threat" output, for balance) and "crowd control" are artificial concepts that make combat feel very gamey.

 

Tanks: in the real world, how many combat units - be they infantry or vehicles - were ever constructed with the intention to mostly take damage instead of dishing it out? Armored knights were not meant to take a pounding until some skirmisher or "rogue" made the actual kill. Tanks (as in armored combat vehicles) are not meant to be eating enemy shells while someone with a rocket launcher does the actual killing. Armored combat units are always designed not only for mere survival in battle, but also for killing their opponents, without needing help from "damage dealers". Without that factor, there would be no incentive for the enemy to try and kill the armored units first.

 

The real tradeoff between light armor and heavy armor is usually mobility, not damage potential. But I guess it's that much harder to write an enemy AI around that concept instead of "tank n spank".  

[iM3GTR]

Yeah, ME1 is kinda broken on higher difficulties as enemies are basically bullet sponges, have shield recharge and health fortification abilites, and they tend to rush you behind cover, pop a shot, and run back to their spawn point at the other end of the map. Rinse and repeat. With patience, any encounter can be managed quite easily, once you know their routes and routines. (just watch out for krogans, it is headbutt-stunlock city if they get close, plus they stand back up after downed)

I've got the hang of Insanity now. It's only hard when you don't bring biotic squad members and/or use Singularity a lot.

[Taki17]

use Singularity a lot

Used singulartiy in a narrow hallway - > chairs, tables, crates, rubble and geth troopers floating around -> shoot geth, singularity ends -> junk falls down, blocking the path -> singularity again, junk floats, singularity ends -> junk falls down, still blocking the way

 

Not the "had to reload the game because I couldn't progress any farther" moment I'm the most proud of...

[Cyonan]

Mass Effect has never used the holy trinity, and it doesn't need it.

 

All classes are just various levels of DPS and utility. Without actual healers, the only thing that ever came close to a "tank" in the game is the Vanguard because it's the only one with half way decent sustainability due to constantly regenerating shields. This is not counting ME3 MP kits like the Juggernaut or Krogan Warlord.

 

They're better off allowing us to build our classes to varying levels of survivability, utility, and damage output rather than specifically saying "this is a tank/healer/DPS".

 

I think that splitting classes between "tank" and "damage dealer" is a huge load of nonsense. I get "support", like medics or supply troops. But "tanks" (heavily armored units that usually have a low damage but high "threat" output, for balance) and "crowd control" are artificial concepts that make combat feel very gamey.

 

Tanks: in the real world, how many combat units - be they infantry or vehicles - were ever constructed with the intention to mostly take damage instead of dishing it out? Armored knights were not meant to take a pounding until some skirmisher or "rogue" made the actual kill. Tanks (as in armored combat vehicles) are not meant to be eating enemy shells while someone with a rocket launcher does the actual killing. Armored combat units are always designed not only for mere survival in battle, but also for killing their opponents, without needing help from "damage dealers". Without that factor, there would be no incentive for the enemy to try and kill the armored units first.

 

The real tradeoff between light armor and heavy armor is usually mobility, not damage potential. But I guess it's that much harder to write an enemy AI around that concept instead of "tank n spank".  

 

Actually the whole concept of "tanks can't do good damage" is primarily from MMOs and got popularized when WoW blew the market into mainstream gaming.

 

In D&D/Pathfinder if your tank is barely doing any damage then the person didn't build that character right and since threat tables aren't a thing, the GM likely wont have the enemy consider this walking wall of metal much of a threat since it doesn't do any damage.

 

The problem is that games these days put so much focus on combat, so the fact that the DPS like Rogues in Pathfinder had great utility out of combat because of all those lovely skill points they get became less relevant since there are no more out of combat skills in a lot of RPGs.

 

Even Mass Effect dropped things like Electronics and Decryption which had combat components to those skills. I'd like to actually see a return of the less combat oriented stuff myself.

[Aimi]

Not only is the trinity dumb, the trinity is so dumb that even the OP doesn't understand what it actually is.

Tanks: in the real world, how many combat units - be they infantry or vehicles - were ever constructed with the intention to mostly take damage instead of dishing it out? Armored knights were not meant to take a pounding until some skirmisher or "rogue" made the actual kill. Tanks (as in armored combat vehicles) are not meant to be eating enemy shells while someone with a rocket launcher does the actual killing. Armored combat units are always designed not only for mere survival in battle, but also for killing their opponents, without needing help from "damage dealers". Without that factor, there would be no incentive for the enemy to try and kill the armored units first.
 
The real tradeoff between light armor and heavy armor is usually mobility, not damage potential. But I guess it's that much harder to write an enemy AI around that concept instead of "tank n spank".

This is basically true. No AFV was ever designed to deliberately soak damage - although designers recognized that that was what they did in practice whenever they operated in direct support of infantry - while at the same time not dealing damage. The closest anybody ever came was the concept for the Churchill "infantry tank" of the Second World War, which was deliberately designed to have poor armament and to primarily work at clearing obstacles, but even British designers rapidly determined that this was stupid during the testing phase and worked to incorporate better armament for the vehicle's later iterations. Surprisingly, killing something that doesn't do any damage wouldn't be a high priority for most soldiers in combat.

Even the infamous American "tank destroyer" doctrine didn't use AFVs exclusively as damage soakers; in that concept, tanks supported infantry with heavy weapons designed to kill infantry, while tank destroyers fought enemy AFVs with heavy weapons designed to kill armor. And, of course, "tank destroyer" doctrine never operated that way in practice; tanks were often compelled to fight both infantry and armor, and tank destroyers rarely served as a reserve and were often incorporated into frontline units to assist them with direct fire.

[correctamundo]

I sure hope not. The less tank, support, dps focus and more character focus we get the better. Like traditional rpg:s.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Mission planners could conceive of a "Battle Robot" specifically designed for giving and taking heavy damage.  Your third companion could be the equivalent of a RoboCop. Better yet, bring along something like the Enforcement Droid:

 

http://vignette3.wik...=20100116202642

http://vignette4.wik...=20140119130721

 

Here is a much better demo on its usefullness in pacification techniques:

https://youtu.be/tyPN2Nsw30k?t=153

[iM3GTR]

Mission planners could conceive of a "Battle Robot" specifically designed for giving and taking heavy damage. Your third companion could be the equivalent of a RoboCop. Better yet, bring along something like the Enforcement Droid:

http://vignette3.wik...=20100116202642
http://vignette4.wik...=20140119130721

Those are useful, but not very helpful when you get to a door...

[SKAR]

I wouldn't get my hopes up. They're probably going to make all the classes the same as before but with more stupid teleportation powers and magical swords and space ninja BS.

Hopefully they'll prove me wrong.

I don't.

[Mdizzletr0n]

I sure hope not. The less tank, support, dps focus and more character focus we get the better. Like traditional rpg:s.

What traditional rpgs don't have those roles? You could argue some JRPGS but other than that?

[SardaukarElite]

I think that splitting classes between "tank" and "damage dealer" is a huge load of nonsense. I get "support", like medics or supply troops. But "tanks" (heavily armored units that usually have a low damage but high "threat" output, for balance) and "crowd control" are artificial concepts that make combat feel very gamey.

 

It's not even good game design.

 

All interactions become damage. Dealing it, preventing it, healing it. What the enemy is doing, where you're fighting, why you're fighting all become secondary to increasing your output and minimizing your input.

 

It's boring.