How about this? I'd welcome inventory if they gave useful loot. Simple that. Well that and not make a shoddy interface like ME1.
But breaking down pointless weapons and mods every hour to omnigel is not fun. Maybe if they put in a Colony building system and copied FO4's settlers, loot would be kind of cool. Maybe if we picked up all kinds of artifacts and raw materials. Otherwise, no.
It's not clear from the documentation that they're stackable, and certainly not infinitely stackable.
Again, this example doesn't fit my example, because people weren't using it and didn't know about it. They can fix that.
I applaud the guy who figured it out, though.
People were using it, it's just nobody thought to stack it into the thousands to instantly kill raid bosses with it. Most people were using it against other players to instantly kill them with about 10-20 stacks. Hell maybe somebody even did think to stack it into the thousands before that specific time, but that was the first time somebody posted a video of it online.
In either case the point is sometimes a developer can miss something that they didn't intend that hurts the game in a big way. The example doesn't need to be perfect.
On higher difficulties (which you prefer), it cpuld be that all targets require that ammo.
It's a difference in degree, not in kind. And it doesn't change each player's gameplay unless he or she wants it to.
To make it outright required would just be another way of controlling how the player plays the game. Even if you make it heavily "encouraged" by making enemies stupidly hard to kill without it, it becomes functionally the same as normal ammo.
and consumable ammo have always been unlimited even when ammo wasn't, so we'd need a lore explanation for that anyway based on what you've said.
It can be applied less in sandboxes.
Sandboxes also have worse world reaction to player actions to account for the scope of it all, making the world less believable. A good RP world needs to react to my choices.
That I don't convince you is not evidence that I don't convince "others".
Stop projecting.
Yes, if you isolate the population which already disagrees with me, we can see how I'm not going to make much progress with them.They are not the entire population.
I never said you don't convince anybody at all, I said your approach is ineffective because you offer no reasoning as to why your way is any better. At that point you're not even really trying to convince anybody, and the only people likely to side with you are ones who already agree with you.
We've had more threads about a toggle for nudity in the game than we have about player agency or roleplaying. Exactly how effective do you think your approach is around here?
Do you honestly not see that huge leap you just took? Those two statements aren't related. One does not establish the other.
You've been here since before I started posting here and you've mentioned discussions during ME2 development, which means you've been here for many years. In that time Mass Effect has only continued to shift away from what you say you want it to be which means your approach isn't very effective if the end goal is to get Mass Effect to become what you say you want it to be.
The logical conclusion I can draw from that is that either you're okay with that, or you are unaware of that. Unless I give you too much credit in thinking that if you're aware that your approach is ineffective that you would attempt to change it.
Once again, they should have written the lore around the mechanics then.
But no, I don't see why we can't have access to all of the in-game abilities at any given time, no.
I don't understand what this means.
But why are you suddenly so concerned with what's lore-breaking?
I'm pointing out to you that it would be lore breaking, since that concerns you so greatly.
What they should or shouldn't have done is irrelevant at this point because they already did it. The lore is what it is, and it can't be changed at this point unless you want to retcon 90% of the universe's technology.
The reason why we can't have access to all abilities with biotics is because biotics have a stupidly high number of applications on account of them being so general to be applicable to most of the technology. We're talking about Adepts needing hundreds possibly thousands of abilities to account for everything one could think up that they could do with a mass effect field if they got creative.
Yeah, there's hints of it in the games. I just think it needs improvement (and the engine just needs to involve the environment more in general). ME1 might've had more going on too. I seem to remember more things flying.
I'd prefer tech overloads to be more violent too, but that's just me.
ME1 did have more things flying since objects around the room could be picked up. They probably ditched it because it could cause a number of potential problems, which is unfortunate because there are other ways they could have corrected things like being knocked out of the map during the Benezia fight.
Would a Snap Freeze->Chain Overload be violent enough where each chain of the Overload does a cryo explosion? =P
Although I actually think that tech bursts could have a more noticed visual effect to them, since they basically look exactly like Overload.
One solution to this problem could be by adding a sort of backup sidearm (or simply remove the ability to change pistol type at all, only upgrade)
that is always on the player and can't be replaced.
That would work for cutscenes, although if they're bringing back the weight system I'd rather not be stuck with a weapon unless it was weightless.
It'd seem kind of weird to switch out to my sidearm for every cutscene, but I don't think there is a perfect solution to this particular problem. Not one that I would find acceptable, anyway.
I think they should just let the equipped weapons have unusual performance in cutscenes. It makes sense that Garrus's calibrations finally worked out on his Javelin in Leviathan.
I think they should just let the equipped weapons have unusual performance in cutscenes. It makes sense that Garrus's calibrations finally worked out on his Javelin in Leviathan.
I now imagine Garrus has a button on his sniper rifle simply labelled "awesome button" that he only hits for cutscenes, which allows for infinite fire.
They should have had metrics on that. They log all in-game events. It would have been trivial to mine that data to find those patterns (I do a lot of data mining is basically my job). If people were using that before, they knew.People were using it, it's just nobody thought to stack it into the thousands to instantly kill raid bosses with it. Most people were using it against other players to instantly kill them with about 10-20 stacks. Hell maybe somebody even did think to stack it into the thousands before that specific time, but that was the first time somebody posted a video of it online.
I'm picky about analogies. But you've convinced me.In either case the point is sometimes a developer can miss something that they didn't intend that hurts the game in a big way. The example doesn't need to be perfect.
But that's what you want, isn't it? I'm trying to accommodate you.To make it outright required would just be another way of controlling how the player plays the game. Even if you make it heavily "encouraged" by making enemies stupidly hard to kill without it, it becomes functionally the same as normal ammo.
In ME1 it was said that the ammo was shaved off large pieces of ammo material. The lore would be that the pieces of the rare ammo are much smaller.and consumable ammo have always been unlimited even when ammo wasn't, so we'd need a lore explanation for that anyway based on what you've said.
First you need to be able to make choices, which the ME games mostly don't permit.Sandboxes also have worse world reaction to player actions to account for the scope of it all, making the world less believable. A good RP world needs to react to my choices.
Very.I never said you don't convince anybody at all, I said your approach is ineffective because you offer no reasoning as to why your way is any better. At that point you're not even really trying to convince anybody, and the only people likely to side with you are ones who already agree with you.
We've had more threads about a toggle for nudity in the game than we have about player agency or roleplaying. Exactly how effective do you think your approach is around here?
The Mass Effect series serves as an excellent example of things not to so when designing an RPG.You've been here since before I started posting here and you've mentioned discussions during ME2 development, which means you've been here for many years. In that time Mass Effect has only continued to shift away from what you say you want it to be which means your approach isn't very effective if the end goal is to get Mass Effect to become what you say you want it to be.
It's absolutely relevant. We're discussing RPG/game design.I'm pointing out to you that it would be lore breaking, since that concerns you so greatly.
What they should or shouldn't have done is irrelevant at this point because they already did it. The lore is what it is, and it can't be changed at this point unless you want to retcon 90% of the universe's technology.
But we should have access to all of the abilities that are actually in the game.The reason why we can't have access to all abilities with biotics is because biotics have a stupidly high number of applications on account of them being so general to be applicable to most of the technology. We're talking about Adepts needing hundreds possibly thousands of abilities to account for everything one could think up that they could do with a mass effect field if they got creative.
I'd like to think Jack actually fought like her cutscenes.. because they gimped her gameplay powers. She looks like a very agile vanguard in her scenes. ME2 gameplay in general seemed to go to extremes to keep things light.
That would work just like the DA murder knife.One solution to this problem could be by adding a sort of backup sidearm (or simply remove the ability to change pistol type at all, only upgrade)
that is always on the player and can't be replaced.
They should have had metrics on that. They log all in-game events. It would have been trivial to mine that data to find those patterns (I do a lot of data mining is basically my job). If people were using that before, they knew.
I'm picky about analogies. But you've convinced me.
That was a huge nerf. Nerfs like that are the reasons I don't like MMOs. MMOs rewrite their rules constantly, and I hate that.
Well you still have to know what you're looking for. They didn't anticipate anybody using a 1000+ swing Reckoning Bomb until the video came out, so there was no thought to go looking for it, and they aren't just going to sift through millions of player's combat logs. There's more efficient ways of determining what needs changing.
MMOs tend to focus on creating a vast world to play with other people on, typically to the point of sacrificing many other things in the process.
But that's what you want, isn't it? I'm trying to accommodate you.
But by making it difficulty based, we still leave open the ME1 playstyle (no ammo) for players who want it.
In ME1 it was said that the ammo was shaved off large pieces of ammo material. The lore would be that the pieces of the rare ammo are much smaller.
I don't object to changes that have good lore behind them, especially if the old playstyle still remains viable.
I wouldn't mind it, but you also say you don't like changes that do that and then offer one as a solution. If the point is that the change shouldn't be made to control how players play, then don't offer me a solution that tries to control how I play.
Ammo mods are already described as not being their own block of ammo. Cryo Rounds uses cooling lasers to rapidly freeze the ammo, while Phasic Rounds actually replaces the projectile entirely with an energy shot. Basically ammo mods(and later on ammo powers) enhance the weapon's existing capabilities rather than replacing it entirely.
First you need to be able to make choices, which the ME games mostly don't permit.
The ME games allow for a decent amount of choice, they just make the majority of them ultimately not matter. Sandboxes are even worse at this, however.
Very.
I think you've misidentified my objective.
Current evidence suggests you haven't been very effective at anything except continuing your personal crusade about what a RPG should be.
The Mass Effect series serves as an excellent example of things not to so when designing an RPG.
I continue to play the games only so that I can make informed comments about their content, but I have absolutely hated both ME2 and ME3.
One wonders why you're so invested in making comments about a game series you no longer like. Normally a person would move on and accept that series isn't for them anymore.
It'd be like me buying the latest Call of Duty and posting on their forums about how I hate what the series does with FPS gameplay.
It's absolutely relevant. We're discussing RPG/game design.
This is also the ME:A boards.
It's irrelevant to a discussion about game design as it pertains to Andromeda because the game already has 3 games worth of lore to deal with. Saying "you should have wrote it that way a decade ago" isn't a useful addition to how Andromeda should approach this particular issue.
But we should have access to all of the abilities that are actually in the game.
Which is the crux of the issue I presented.
The ability of biotics is simply to generate a mass effect field. The application of what one does with that field is where you get the different effects of the active abilities.
Even if we were to apply it to existing uses of the field that we see in game you still get an incredibly large number of abilities for any biotic class.
You say that they should have access to all the abilities, but biotics were designed to be so general in use that doing so creates problems.
I think its important to remember that Mass Effect was a never a true RPG to begin with(and in 2016 how do you even define whats a true RPG anymore?. Hell even COD could be described as an RPG by some. The word has become so diluted its meaningless. And i think if Bioware start pandering to RPG snobs and purists of yesteryear it will only end in tears imo. Games have grown up since those days).
This is a discussion we could unfortunately take to 100+ pages and still not be anywhere close to a consensus on the definition of what a RPG is.
But that wont stop us from doing it anyway =P
I am pretty sure RPG is roll playing game, where you play as a baked good.
I am pretty sure RPG is roll playing game, where you play as a baked good.
I Am Bread best RPG ever.
That would be terrible data mining. They would look at the numbers and find outliers. Anything over 20 would look like an outlier (and the computer could identify it). If this went on for months, they should have found it.Well you still have to know what you're looking for. They didn't anticipate anybody using a 1000+ swing Reckoning Bomb until the video came out, so there was no thought to go looking for it, and they aren't just going to sift through millions of player's combat logs. There's more efficient ways of determining what needs changing.
I used to play MMOs, but I played them alone. The idea of a huge (largely static) world to explore was hugely appealing to me, but playing with others never is.MMOs tend to focus on creating a vast world to play with other people on, typically to the point of sacrificing many other things in the process.
I thought ME1 ammo mods did just replace the ammo block. Polonium rounds used a block of polonium.I wouldn't mind it, but you also say you don't like changes that do that and then offer one as a solution. If the point is that the change shouldn't be made to control how players play, then don't offer me a solution that tries to control how I play.
Ammo mods are already described as not being their own block of ammo. Cryo Rounds uses cooling lasers to rapidly freeze the ammo, while Phasic Rounds actually replaces the projectile entirely with an energy shot. Basically ammo mods(and later on ammo powers) enhance the weapon's existing capabilities rather than replacing it entirely.
No, they don't. We don't get to choose what Shepard says or how Shepard feels on a moment-to-moment basis. We get to make a handful of big choices at branching points within the authored narrative, but that's it.The ME games allow for a decent amount of choice, they just make the majority of them ultimately not matter. Sandboxes are even worse at this, however.
Now you're starting to figure it out. If I'm not trying to get ME to conform to the ideal RPG design I describe, what am I doing?Current evidence suggests you haven't been very effective at anything except continuing your personal crusade about what a RPG should be.
One wonders why you're so invested in making comments about a game series you no longer like. Normally a person would move on and accept that series isn't for them anymore.
When MEA is released, I expect I will spend very little time here.This is also the ME:A boards.
It's a lesson to be learned for other franchises. BioWare has that Secret IP, remember?It's irrelevant to a discussion about game design as it pertains to Andromeda because the game already has 3 games worth of lore to deal with. Saying "you should have wrote it that way a decade ago" isn't a useful addition to how Andromeda should approach this particular issue.
How many abilities does an Adept get in ME3? Eight? Would you call that number "incredibly large"?Which is the crux of the issue I presented.
The ability of biotics is simply to generate a mass effect field. The application of what one does with that field is where you get the different effects of the active abilities.
Even if we were to apply it to existing uses of the field that we see in game you still get an incredibly large number of abilities for any biotic class.
I thought ME1 ammo mods did just replace the ammo block. Polonium rounds used a block of polonium.
Each ammo seems to be up to their own description as to how they work. Polonium states "This upgrade stamps a minuscule amount of radioactive polonium into every round fired, effectively poisoning enemy targets. It also prevents enemy regeneration" so it's not actually replacing the ammo block as much as it's adding something to each shot.
No, they don't. We don't get to choose what Shepard says or how Shepard feels on a moment-to-moment basis. We get to make a handful of big choices at branching points within the authored narrative, but that's it.
I got to make more choices during the mage origin of DAO than I got to make in all of ME3.
Story based choices are still choices, even if not the ones you ideally wanted. We got to make quite a few of those.
Now you're starting to figure it out. If I'm not trying to get ME to conform to the ideal RPG design I describe, what am I doing?
but your personal crusade hasn't been very effective either judging by current evidence. You've just been good at continuing it.
So either you're unaware that it's not been very effective or I really don't know what you're doing.
It's a lesson to be learned for other franchises. BioWare has that Secret IP, remember?
This is still a discussion about Mass Effect. Making a note for future IP is fine, but the discussion should still pertain to Mass Effect.
How many abilities does an Adept get in ME3? Eight? Would you call that number "incredibly large"?
I'm talking about the in-game abilities, not every conceivable use consistent with the lore.
But then you get plot holes of "Why didn't they do this thing that biotics easily could have solved? Because the gameplay didn't give me an ability completely useless except in this scenario?". The biotic field generated in the suicide mission does nothing to stop bullets or enemy troops from entering it. Literally all it seems to do is stop the swarms from entering.
Which means either A. You have to write all cutscenes to revolve around the combat abilities, B. You have to offload a bunch of useless abilities on the player just so you can use them in cutscenes later on or C. Have lore inconsistency and just deal with.
Personally I'd rather have the ability inconsistency that we have now because of the sheer number of applications of biotics.
I think if someone wants to be critical of a point of lore, specialized ammunition in ME1 is probably a great example of something that doesn't make a lot of sense when you combine it with other pieces of lore.
How is it that you can get all of these specialized effects from an object the size of a grain of sand?
Don't really even have to look at a complicated ammo, just take Shredder:
Designed to shear apart on impact for maximum damage, these rounds are particularly effective against living targets.
So with these instead of a grain of sand, you get tiny pieces of a grain of sand causing massive wounding apparently.
Little more complicated with Incendiary:
Incendiary rounds consist of a thermite paste which clings to, and burns through, nearly any known substance.
How much can you burn with thermite equal to the volume of a grain of sand?
Hammerhead
Hammerhead ammunition, also called squash projectiles, is designed to flatten on impact, increasing the amount of physical force transferred to the target.
So a little piece of rubber? Mass Effect rounds have huge energies but bad momentums, I don't know why flattening the sand grain is going to knock anybody over.
That's even better. That gives us an obvious way to make super-powerful ammo that isn't inconsistent with earlier design.Each ammo seems to be up to their own description as to how they work. Polonium states "This upgrade stamps a minuscule amount of radioactive polonium into every round fired, effectively poisoning enemy targets. It also prevents enemy regeneration" so it's not actually replacing the ammo block as much as it's adding something to each shot.
Yes, they are. But they're quite uncommon.Story based choices are still choices, even if not the ones you ideally wanted. We got to make quite a few of those.
My question wasn't rhetorical.but your personal crusade hasn't been very effective either judging by current evidence. You've just been good at continuing it.
The addition of exploration to MEA suggests what I'm doing is working. If MEA maintains the improvements in the paraphrases that we saw in DAI, what I'm doing is working. If the people continue to be aware of the costs of new features, what I'm doing is working.So either you're unaware that it's not been very effective or I really don't know what you're doing.
It does. I'm using Mass Effect as an example of what not to do, except where Mass Effect does well (the pause-to-aim mechanic, for example, which I expect to see in both MEA and the Secret IP).This is still a discussion about Mass Effect. Making a note for future IP is fine, but the discussion should still pertain to Mass Effect.
That's their fault for defining the power too broadly.But then you get plot holes of "Why didn't they do this thing that biotics easily could have solved?
Because the writers or cinematic designers didn't bother to learn the game systems before creating that scene, probably. They might have been told it didn't matter.Because the gameplay didn't give me an ability completely useless except in this scenario?". The biotic field generated in the suicide mission does nothing to stop bullets or enemy troops from entering it. Literally all it seems to do is stop the swarms from entering.
Yes.Which means either A. You have to write all cutscenes to revolve around the combat abilities, B. You have to offload a bunch of useless abilities on the player just so you can use them in cutscenes later on or C.
Really, the grain of sand alone is the problem.I think if someone wants to be critical of a point of lore, specialized ammunition in ME1 is probably a great example of something that doesn't make a lot of sense when you combine it with other pieces of lore.
How is it that you can get all of these specialized effects from an object the size of a grain of sand?
Don't really even have to look at a complicated ammo, just take Shredder:
So with these instead of a grain of sand, you get tiny pieces of a grain of sand causing massive wounding apparently.
Little more complicated with Incendiary:
How much can you burn with thermite equal to the volume of a grain of sand?
Hammerhead
So a little piece of rubber? Mass Effect rounds have huge energies but bad momentums, I don't know why flattening the sand grain is going to knock anybody over.
That's even better. That gives us an obvious way to make super-powerful ammo that isn't inconsistent with earlier design.
Because while we didn't swap out the ammo block before, nothing about the lore prevents us from doing so.
Well the one thing that actually is consistent is that they're all weapon mods and not swapping out the ammo block. Mods were their own documented thing in Mass Effect 1.
Yes, they are. But they're quite uncommon.
Dialogue choices, when we're allowed to make them, occur several times per minute. Exploration choices are made constantly.
Story choices happen how often? Hourly? Less?
That depends on how often you're doing quests. Major ones don't occur all that often, but there are a number of minor ones.
The addition of exploration to MEA suggests what I'm doing is working. If MEA maintains the improvements in the paraphrases that we saw in DAI, what I'm doing is working. If the people continue to be aware of the costs of new features, what I'm doing is working.
BioWare doesn't want the consumers to notice features that were lost. I work against that. BioWare targets the median gamer. I try to make the median gamer's preferences be something closer to the radical RPG design I describe.
I'm pretty sure most people around here were already aware of the costs of new features, we just decided they were acceptable costs. The improvement to paraphrasing are simply a natural progression of continued use. Anybody gets better at doing something the more they do it.
The exploration will have to be seen how much emphasis there is on it in ME:A. One of the major complaints about DA:I was that the exploration came at the cost of interesting side content in most of the zones. We have no idea how they're going to address that, but BioWare does have a history of being overly zealous in addressing complaints.
That's their fault for defining the power too broadly.
If they want biotics to be able to do basically anything, then the combat gameplay needs to a physics simulator where we can drop forces wherever we want.
If they want gameplay to consist of discrete abilities, they need to define biotics similarly.
And since they haven't done that so far, the only fox is a retcon. Which I would support. An explicit retcon.
I would rather just get the combat we've been getting while allowing cutscenes to have additional uses of biotics that make sense in an out of combat context.
That sounds a lot easier and doesn't have to retcon the majority of the game's technology and how pretty much everything works.
Because the writers or cinematic designers didn't bother to learn the game systems before creating that scene, probably. They might have been told it didn't matter.
But that was lousy design.
Yes.
I would think the more likely one is that they figured it didn't matter.
I say this because biotics in general are already basically space magic whenever they want it to be. Even combat abilities like Reave and Dominate were lore breaking.
I think if someone wants to be critical of a point of lore, specialized ammunition in ME1 is probably a great example of something that doesn't make a lot of sense when you combine it with other pieces of lore.
How is it that you can get all of these specialized effects from an object the size of a grain of sand?
Weapons are one of the least consistent thing in the game.
It's probably the best example of the game developers deciding that gameplay > lore since they were clearly designed with gameplay in mind and a general disregard for the lore.
We've even got a number of guns that don't even use ammo blocks like the Falcon which fabricates grenades in the field, or the Reegar Carbine which uses electricity that can be given AP rounds.
Really, the grain of sand alone is the problem.
First of all, a grain of sand hitting a person at the speeds described should just punch a tiny hole through him. It should never knock people back in the way the game displays.
But more than that, how is it hitting the target at those speeds at all? It's tiny. Does wind resistance not behave the same way it does in the real world? Yes, momentum is mass times velocity, and the velocity is huge, but the force of wind resistance squares with velocity. There's no way a grain of sand is going to have adequate range.
Perhaps, but the extremely small size of the projectile is the only thing that can explain why the gun can fire nearly unlimited bullets.
As far as actually propelling the bullet through the air, there are a lot of unknowns. Don't know the ballistic coefficient, don't know the composition of standard rounds, don't really even know muzzle velocities. Only muzzle velocity I recall being specifically stated in ME is the Alliance dreadnought main gun at 0.013c. Seen all sorts of guesstimates by fans on small arm velocities.
Tungsten is supposedly an upgrade in density for the AP ammo, but if they could already make exotic materials with mass effect fields, why weren't the bullets super-dense already? The main limitation on the material should just be that it is ferromagnetic... at the least it would need a ferromagnetic armature.
Weapons are one of the least consistent thing in the game.
It's probably the best example of the game developers deciding that gameplay > lore since they were clearly designed with gameplay in mind and a general disregard for the lore.
We've even got a number of guns that don't even use ammo blocks like the Falcon which fabricates grenades in the field, or the Reegar Carbine which uses electricity that can be given AP rounds.
Right, and for the most part I would rather have the ammo that doesn't make sense than no specialized ammo.
As far as the projectile guns go, I think ME3 was a bit too far into rule of cool territory. Why not just give these projectile weapons actual ammo and call it a day? But in the end I might be able to live without them.
Right, and for the most part I would rather have the ammo that doesn't make sense than no specialized ammo.
As far as the projectile guns go, I think ME3 was a bit too far into rule of cool territory. Why not just give these projectile weapons actual ammo and call it a day?
As would I for the ammo.
I get the sense they shoehorn thermal clips into every gun just so that they don't have to make up some kind of excuse as to why picking up thermal clips gives ammo(or create an entirely different drop for them). It's easy just to say "Heat is the limiting factor, so it uses thermal clips" for everything.
And then they make the Typhoon which ejects a bunch of thermal clips whenever you fire it, although it also has a main thermal clip. All so they could make it look like a space chain fed gun.
And then they make the Typhoon which ejects a bunch of thermal clips whenever you fire it, although it also has a main thermal clip. All so they could make it look like a space chain fed gun.
On that note they probably should have made a proper minigun.
Isn't the whole rotating barrel design to counteract overheating of the weapon? Seems like that would have been a brilliant design adaptation for the Mass Effect universe to use.
Retour en haut
