891 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

Why, thank you.

The other half is that it isn't easy to reacquire a full ammo load for SRs in ME2. Each dropped clip you pick up gives you precious little. I usually made trips to the clip stores planted in each level to try to take a full load into the next room / battle before moving on. So - it would also be helpful to increase the amount of fresh SR ammo you receive per clip.

 

So far I haven't actually gone back to previous rooms to collect ammo, though I do pretty much always do a sweep of the current room to look everything since I get 1-2 rounds per clip for the Mantis.

 

I'm expecting that the Viper will be a lot better for ammo, even though I prefer the high damage of the Mantis/Widow.

 

That is also true. I've not noticed any differences in ammo drop rates on different difficulties, but players with lesser hit rates should be expected to need more. The time dilation is pretty much automatic with an Infiltrator; I generally avoided AR with my soldier, because I don't much like it.

In any case, my previous arguments about ME2 forcing a playstyle would have been more accurately stated as not supporting / allowing some playstyles. The game really doesn't seem to want you to try to RP a sniper.

 

Overall it probably would have been better to increase the ammo pickup for lower difficulties, especially since it states that it's for people not accustomed to shooters. Those people are likely to have an even lower accuracy, or even just people not using pinpoint accurate weapons like sniper rifles.

 

The game seems to want you to switch your weapon based on enemy defense, since I remember having similar issues with shotguns on my Vanguard. Assault Rifles are about the only ones that have been fine on ammo on the higher difficulties in my experience.

 

Although I'll also say that I feel like if that's the design goal, you'd be better off designing your enemies to encourage that sort of thing rather than your ammo system. If you had an enemy with a front shield that couldn't be pierced and needed to be flanked(basically ME3 Guardians with less suck), that would also counter snipers and people would probably feel less punished by such an enemy existing rather than being low on ammo for wanting to use their sniper rifle all the time.

[capn233]

So far I haven't actually gone back to previous rooms to collect ammo, though I do pretty much always do a sweep of the current room to look everything since I get 1-2 rounds per clip for the Mantis.

 

I'm expecting that the Viper will be a lot better for ammo, even though I prefer the high damage of the Mantis/Widow.

 

 

Overall it probably would have been better to increase the ammo pickup for lower difficulties, especially since it states that it's for people not accustomed to shooters. Those people are likely to have an even lower accuracy, or even just people not using pinpoint accurate weapons like sniper rifles.

 

The game seems to want you to switch your weapon based on enemy defense, since I remember having similar issues with shotguns on my Vanguard. Assault Rifles are about the only ones that have been fine on ammo on the higher difficulties in my experience.

 

Although I'll also say that I feel like if that's the design goal, you'd be better off designing your enemies to encourage that sort of thing rather than your ammo system. If you had an enemy with a front shield that couldn't be pierced and needed to be flanked(basically ME3 Guardians with less suck), that would also counter snipers and people would probably feel less punished by such an enemy existing rather than being low on ammo for wanting to use their sniper rifle all the time.

 

The Widow will end up a lot better than the Mantis.  Widow just has a big damage and spare clip advantage.  Viper has better multipliers for an "everything" rifle, but care is going to need to be taken not to waste shots with it.  Incisor is the worst for this, Pasquale mentioned that already I think.  I always thought it was a bit bizarre that Widow has more spare ammo than the Mantis, I think the Mantis got gimped a little because they wanted to nerf Infiltrator slightly early game.  Not sure, but I wouldn't have done it this way. I think ME2 Infiltrator is a little overrated anyway and this hurts Mantis for whoever wants to use it.  And it also doesn't allow Mantis to get any spare ammo from off-hand ammo pack, which seems like an oversight.

 

As far as Assault Rifles, you can't quite get away running them exclusively on Soldier early game, at least if we are talking "normal" ish AR's like Avenger, Vindicator or CAR, I can't talk about Mattock.  I mean you can do it, but it is a lot easier to just weapon switch.  Especially Vindicator, which is really sort of a niche rifle in a way.  Part of this is just because of the middle of the road multipliers, and some of it is capacity.  Of course when you get Revenant you can use it pretty much exclusively because of the huge ammo capacity, and just all around good damage and decent multipliers.

[Cyonan]

The Widow will end up a lot better than the Mantis.  Widow just has a big damage and spare clip advantage.  Viper has better multipliers for an "everything" rifle, but care is going to need to be taken not to waste shots with it.  Incisor is the worst for this, Pasquale mentioned that already I think.  I always thought it was a bit bizarre that Widow has more spare ammo than the Mantis, I think the Mantis got gimped a little because they wanted to nerf Infiltrator slightly early game.  Not sure, but I wouldn't have done it this way. I think ME2 Infiltrator is a little overrated anyway and this hurts Mantis for whoever wants to use it.  And it also doesn't allow Mantis to get any spare ammo from off-hand ammo pack, which seems like an oversight.

 

As far as Assault Rifles, you can't quite get away running them exclusively on Soldier early game, at least if we are talking "normal" ish AR's like Avenger, Vindicator or CAR, I can't talk about Mattock.  I mean you can do it, but it is a lot easier to just weapon switch.  Especially Vindicator, which is really sort of a niche rifle in a way.  Part of this is just because of the middle of the road multipliers, and some of it is capacity.  Of course when you get Revenant you can use it pretty much exclusively because of the huge ammo capacity, and just all around good damage and decent multipliers.

 

I don't actually have the DLC with the Incisor so I wont be using it. So far the Mantis has 1 shot everything except Krogan which has required 2 headshots and of course the YMIR mech. This is all testing it on normal difficulty as well, and using Overload or Warp from Miranda to remove defenses first. I just got Incinerate so I'll have that against armour as well.

 

If the trend of the Mantis being able to 1 shot things keeps up the main reason I'll want the Widow is the 4 extra shots, or 5 with off-hand ammo pack. It does seem silly that the Mantis doesn't benefit from that, since 1 extra shot wouldn't have been game breaking or anything but I guess it only notes that 10% of the spare ammo is 0.9 and it must always round down for the final number.

 

I remember getting away with ARs around 90% of the time on a Soldier run, which was primarily Avenger until I got the Revenant. It probably would have been more efficient to weapon swap, though.

[capn233]

That's exactly right, the pack adds "10%" ammo, which is truncated.

 

Mantis should one-shot a little better after you get 3/5 upgrade to unlock the headshot upgrade.  FWIW, YMIR have lower than normal headshot bonus (just "50%").

 

I really only use Avenger on Soldier for Professor.  IIRC it sort of struggles to get through the encounter at the edge of Blood Pack territory right before Mordin's clinic.  Maybe I will load a game up later and try it out.  Of course that encounter has the elevated spot for the Mantis, or you could just go Predator.

 

For Vindi, would need to mainly just be protection stripper with squadmates doing the bulk of health damage.  I do Stealing Memory like this, since it is sort of perfect as Kasumi can't have flashbang so I give her Rapid Shadow Strike.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Grenades aren't powers in ME1.

But nor are they gunplay.

Yes Overload and Sabotage did direct damage, but how many Sabotages do I need to use on an ME1 Insanity Husk to actually kill it?

I do not care how abilities work on Insanity.

The proportion of damage from powers relative to guns in ME1 is minuscule.

This is partly true because the weapons in ME1 weren't constrained by the need for thermal clips.

Neural Shock actually does "toxic damage" which is not the same as applying damage in ME1, what it actually does is reserves a portion of the health bar that must be regenerated through before the target can regenerate lost health.

If it prevents regeneration while I wait for other cooldowns, it's still helping me kill them.

And lest we forget that biotics basically did 0 damage in ME1, outside a little force with Throw and some pitiful dot with Warp. The only practical way to kill things with Throw in ME1 is to hit a map edge with them, and this isn't usually possible in engagements on side missions, only works on mainline missions. ME1 Warp is good for dropping damage protection, it is horrible for actually damaging things.

My understanding is that they work very differently on Insanity.

Tech powers are actually much more useful for damage in ME2 as they can typically insta-strip basic protections if upgrades are being pursued correctly, every power that ragdolls or freezes gives you "100%" bonus damage to the target, and biotics were reworked so that Warp did decent up-front damage, and you could combo with lift skills and warp for AOE damage.

If I'd been allowed to play an Engineer in ME2, that would have helped.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So far I haven't actually gone back to previous rooms to collect ammo, though I do pretty much always do a sweep of the current room to look everything since I get 1-2 rounds per clip for the Mantis.

But have you usually been full of ammo? If not, then there is at least an incentive to go back.

[Cyonan]

But have you usually been full of ammo? If not, then there is at least an incentive to go back.

 

Most of the time I am full on ammo after a fight, with sweeping the current room for clips.

 

The test isn't to see if there is an incentive to go back or not, but rather if there is a requirement to do so. The main "rules" I'm imposing on myself here are:

 

1. I can't use any non sniper rifle gun. I can use powers and melee but they should supplement sniper rifle damage, not replace it entirely. So far the only enemies I've killed outright with powers are a few Assault Drones on the first mission and Pyros, because both are killed with a single Overload(and it isn't any different to how I work in a normal run)

2. I will not run back for ammo. This is to determine if the game hands you enough ammo without going on "clip hunts".

3. Headshots are allowed and will be performed the vast majority of the time.

4. I will build the strongest possible character within these restrictions. I'm not getting into specifics of "I want to play a sniper that does nothing but sits in one spot and never headshots and misses half the time and doesn't use powers and doesn't have squadmates" and so on.

 

This is a test to see if I can use sniper rifle as my gun for 100% of the game, which so far I have managed to do so on normal.

 

I feel like the real test for me is going to be Garrus' recruitment mission because of the nature of it but thankfully his place seems to have Thermal Clip replication technology, because the clips will respawn for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I feel like the real test for me is going to be Garrus' recruitment mission because of the nature of it but thankfully his place seems to have Thermal Clip replication technology, because the clips will respawn for me.

Garrus's recruitment mission was one of two places I remember having problems, but there it was because the level design really killed my accuracy.

It was Mordin's mission where I found the doors locking behind me all the time (thus preventing me from going back for the rooms full of ammo I knew were there).

[capn233]

I do not care how abilities work on Insanity.

 

A lot of people do.

[Pasquale1234]

So far I haven't actually gone back to previous rooms to collect ammo, though I do pretty much always do a sweep of the current room to look everything since I get 1-2 rounds per clip for the Mantis.

That's more or less what I've done. Backtracking isn't always possible, anyway.
 

The game seems to want you to switch your weapon based on enemy defense, since I remember having similar issues with shotguns on my Vanguard. Assault Rifles are about the only ones that have been fine on ammo on the higher difficulties in my experience.
 
Although I'll also say that I feel like if that's the design goal, you'd be better off designing your enemies to encourage that sort of thing rather than your ammo system. If you had an enemy with a front shield that couldn't be pierced and needed to be flanked(basically ME3 Guardians with less suck), that would also counter snipers and people would probably feel less punished by such an enemy existing rather than being low on ammo for wanting to use their sniper rifle all the time.

Yep. As I mentioned before, I'm not averse to ammo management, but I feel that it was abused here, and used more to strongarm than gently encourage / discourage player behaviors. I really felt like they were trying to tell me how I'm supposed to play, especially since it would have been easier all around to just let Shep carry a spare clip inventory.
 

Incisor is the worst for this, Pasquale mentioned that already I think.

Oh, yeah. I have a love-hate relationship with that thing. I've no idea why I'm so drawn to it. I really wanted to make it work for me. I think the problem is that it doesn't do quite enough damage to OHK an enemy, so unless you finish them with powers or a squadmate, you end up spending 6 rounds to do what a single round from one of the other SRs could do.
 

I feel like the real test for me is going to be Garrus' recruitment mission because of the nature of it but thankfully his place seems to have Thermal Clip replication technology, because the clips will respawn for me.

That one isn't so bad - there are some refills planted in his room and the other room on that floor.

The missions where you're swarmed with husks are rougher (not a bad place for melee, though), as are the collector ship missions especially when you're dealing with the platforms that fly in.

[capn233]

I remember getting away with ARs around 90% of the time on a Soldier run, which was primarily Avenger until I got the Revenant. It probably would have been more efficient to weapon swap, though.

 

 

I really only use Avenger on Soldier for Professor.  IIRC it sort of struggles to get through the encounter at the edge of Blood Pack territory right before Mordin's clinic.  Maybe I will load a game up later and try it out.  Of course that encounter has the elevated spot for the Mantis, or you could just go Predator.

 

Well I played Freedom's Progress and Professor with Avenger only on Soldier, I guess it is not as bad as I remembered.

 

Freedom's Progress I ran out against the YMIR, but I was using the lamppost method.  There are a lot of clips in the building to the left.

 

On Professor, the only place I hit zero was in fact in the fight at the edge of Blood Pack territory, right before Mordin's clinic, which is what I suspected.  Of course there is a pile of clips at the top, but I didn't camp up there, was doing it from the middle.  I was trying to cut off the spawn of the second Krogan, but didn't do it right.  I was able to finish after backtracking to the side and picking up one clip there. 

 

I was using Jacob's pull liberally for the damage bonus.

 

Also for whatever reason both the HW crate in the building to the left of the YMIR and one in Professor refilled my Avenger clips, although I was picking up +2 HW ammo each time.  Maybe I misremembered how HW ammo refill works for clips.

[Elhanan]

As for the OP, I would like a game with more Player freedom for:

* CC - both in appearance, attributes (if any), abilities and distribution, etc.

* Dialogue - more like DAO and DAI.

* Decisions - avoid having cut-scenes take control of the Main. I wanted to help Thane in battle, and squish Kai Lang on a low bridge overpass.

The list could go on, but a restoration of more Player control would be greatly appreciated.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As for the OP, I would like a game with more Player freedom for:

* CC - both in appearance, attributes (if any), abilities and distribution, etc.

* Dialogue - more like DAO and DAI.

* Decisions - avoid having cut-scenes take control of the Main. I wanted to help Thane in battle, and squish Kai Lang on a low bridge overpass.

The list could go on, but a restoration of more Player control would be greatly appreciated.

This is important.

Player control isn't player agency, per se. We don't need to be free to have our character do whatever we want, but we do need to be able to make an informed choice from among the limited options.

Regarding decisions, my preference would be to make those gameplay outcomes rather than dialogue options or alternative cutscenes. If we want to help Thane, we should be able to go over there and do that.

[Cyonan]

* Decisions - avoid having cut-scenes take control of the Main. I wanted to help Thane in battle, and squish Kai Lang on a low bridge overpass.

 

As much as I would love to have more control I don't think I really see BioWare doing this a whole lot.

 

They've always had moments where we get "cut scene'd" for the sake of story. Even in Baldur's Gate you can't opt to help Gorion in the first fight where he dies.

[Elhanan]

As much as I would love to have more control I don't think I really see BioWare doing this a whole lot.
 
They've always had moments where we get "cut scene'd" for the sake of story. Even in Baldur's Gate you can't opt to help Gorion in the first fight where he dies.

Have not yet played the BG series, but no game is perfect. However, does not mean that Bioware should not set their sites on achieving this goal.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As much as I would love to have more control I don't think I really see BioWare doing this a whole lot.

They've always had moments where we get "cut scene'd" for the sake of story. Even in Baldur's Gate you can't opt to help Gorion in the first fight where he dies.

While I would prefer the option to engage in that fight, doing so would result in almost instant death. Not supporting that choice is very much like not supporting the choice to flee Ferelden in DAO. Both decisions would immediately end the game.

Though having that option would be superior to not having it.

[straykat]

That's probably something TES does better. 

 

But I can't see Bioware doing it in a clever way.. their stories tend to pile on in intensity where it wouldn't feel right to abandon it. Maybe if there had been a way to do it before Ostagar, I guess. Just not after. DA2 might be the closest they came to just screwing around.

[Cyonan]

Have not yet played the BG series, but no game is perfect. However, does not mean that Bioware should not set their sites on achieving this goal.

 

I agree, just noting that BioWare has a history of doing it for the sake of story so we shouldn't be surprised if they keep doing it =P

 

While I would prefer the option to engage in that fight, doing so would result in almost instant death. Not supporting that choice is very much like not supporting the choice to flee Ferelden in DAO. Both decisions would immediately end the game.

Though having that option would be superior to not having it.

 

I'd argue that fleeing Ferelden is actually the smartest choice tactically in DA:O, but they don't let you do it.

 

Although that was just a quick example I had off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.

 

but yeah, in this case I'll agree that having the option would be superior.

[In Exile]

As much as I would love to have more control I don't think I really see BioWare doing this a whole lot.

 

They've always had moments where we get "cut scene'd" for the sake of story. Even in Baldur's Gate you can't opt to help Gorion in the first fight where he dies.

 

Sure, but sometimes Bioware uses cutscenes at stupid moments that undercut their own narrative. Like Ostagar. It's not really believable a bunch of darkspawn archers are dangerous after you massacre more than a hundred on your way up. Generally, combat-related cutscenes (especially involving or showing the PC) don't work in an RPG, where you are an unstoppable engine of death that slaughters hundreds or thousands of humans and monsters within the span of a game.

 

BG1 works better than most for the simple fact that level 1 is believably "so weak that fleeing is the best answer" to pretty much everything. 

[AlanC9]

They've always had moments where we get "cut scene'd" for the sake of story. Even in Baldur's Gate you can't opt to help Gorion in the first fight where he dies.

Come to think of it, wouldn't this have been cheap to implement? The only thing missing is some sort of forced stealth for the PC regardless of class. Break stealth, enemies spot you, game over.

[Cyonan]

Sure, but sometimes Bioware uses cutscenes at stupid moments that undercut their own narrative. Like Ostagar. It's not really believable a bunch of darkspawn archers are dangerous after you massacre more than a hundred on your way up. Generally, combat-related cutscenes (especially involving or showing the PC) don't work in an RPG, where you are an unstoppable engine of death that slaughters hundreds or thousands of humans and monsters within the span of a game.

 

BG1 works better than most for the simple fact that level 1 is believably "so weak that fleeing is the best answer" to pretty much everything. 

 

I don't disagree but again, I'm noting that this is the direction BioWare has gone for as long as they've made games. Us talking about how it's stupid on the forums isn't going to change that, so we shouldn't really expect it to change.

 

The Gorion fight was just the first thing I thought of. I'm sure I could find other examples from their early games of the same thing if I took the time.

[In Exile]

I don't disagree but again, I'm noting that this is the direction BioWare has gone for as long as they've made games. Us talking about how it's stupid on the forums isn't going to change that, so we shouldn't really expect it to change.

 

The Gorion fight was just the first thing I thought of. I'm sure I could find other examples from their early games of the same thing if I took the time.

Right. I'm not disagreeing with you there - I just think that even if we accept that this is a design goal, we can still criticize how Bioware goes about it. If you want another example, we can use DA:I and the Nightmare demon. That's another bit of a "WTF?" in terms of flight - there's no real sense of danger apart from the narrative telling you this creature is dangerous, after a not particularly challenging (IMO) boss fight. 

[RoboticWater]

Sure, but sometimes Bioware uses cutscenes at stupid moments that undercut their own narrative. Like Ostagar. It's not really believable a bunch of darkspawn archers are dangerous after you massacre more than a hundred on your way up. Generally, combat-related cutscenes (especially involving or showing the PC) don't work in an RPG, where you are an unstoppable engine of death that slaughters hundreds or thousands of humans and monsters within the span of a game.

 

BG1 works better than most for the simple fact that level 1 is believably "so weak that fleeing is the best answer" to pretty much everything. 

I don't see why cutscenes couldn't work. BioWare are just notoriously bad at maintaining consistency between cutscenes, lore, and gameplay. Hell, when's the last time we've seen kinetic barriers actually active in cutscenes? Of all the times we've held people/been held at gunpoint in Mass Effect, I don't think the narrative ever considered the fact that people will take more than a coupe of shots to take down (even to the head).

 

The solution isn't necessarily getting rid of combat-related cutscenes, it's just to marry the cutscenes with the actual mechanics of the game. Either the darkspawn need to be more formidable opponents in game or the cutscene needs to bring in a number of reinforcements that would be impossible to overcome. If that's not viable, then just give the player a decent excuse for losing: some rubble came down on our head or the darkspawn triggering some large explosive trap.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's perfectly acceptable to have degree of separation between the gameplay's presentation of reality and the cutscenes' presentation of reality, as long as both are tonally and thematically consistent. What's fun to play isn't always fun to watch and vice versa. We can't have visually engaging and dramatic cutscenes where combatants are taking minutes to kill each other, so the cutscenes speed everything up. It also doesn't make a lot of sense that some dude and three of his pals can just steamroll through every monster, bandit camp, ancient ruin, and legendary curse they come across, so the narrative just sweeps it under the rug. Cinematics and game mechanics are both just representations of reality, not the reality itself.

 

Maintaining more consistency between cutscenes, lore, and gameplay is certainly something BioWare should attempt to do. If nothing else, it would increase the overall coherence of their games, but there's a chance that it could spawn more unique game mechanics and more interesting narrative situations. However, as long as BioWare keep the dissonance to a minimum, they can comfortably hide most inconsistencies under a veil of dramatics. We only start to have problems when we encounter something so terribly written and so blatantly shoved in our face that we have no choice but to observe all the inconsistencies, i.e. Kai Leng, ME3's ending.

[Iakus]

While I would prefer the option to engage in that fight, doing so would result in almost instant death. Not supporting that choice is very much like not supporting the choice to flee Ferelden in DAO. Both decisions would immediately end the game.

Though having that option would be superior to not having it.

I would treat a cRPG as an RPG module:  there is a tacit agreement between the player and the GM that you actually want to play the module and participate in the story it contains.  So a certain amount of railroading is only to be expected.("No, you can't flee to Orlais.  This game only has a map of Ferelden")  

 

Still, within the confines of the story being told, having more freedom is better than less.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I would treat a cRPG as an RPG module: there is a tacit agreement between the player and the GM that you actually want to play the module and participate in the story it contains. So a certain amount of railroading is only to be expected.("No, you can't flee to Orlais. This game only has a map of Ferelden")

Still, within the confines of the story being told, having more freedom is better than less.

Basically, yes.

But how you delve the Tomb of Horrors is up to you. If you want to hire beggars to rush the tunnels ahead of you to set off the traps, you can do that.