164 Antworten in diesem Thema

[Cyonan]

It doesn't really matter what the ratio is, unless you make weight nearly unimportant in the calculation.

 

Hurricane was an example just because it has similar DPS, but much lower weight.  The real reason balance is a mess is because they seemed to do weight by class instead of usefulness.

 

You can look instead at the Predator to illustrate the same thing.  Harrier does a little less than twice the dps of the Predator, yet weighs more than 6 times the weight.

 

Alternatively, look at Arc Pistol where you can potentially one-shot most humanoids depending on setup.  It weighs half as much as Harrier.

 

Wraith weighs about 3/4 as much as Harrier, but does nearly the same DPS and can one-shot a lot of units.

 

Valiant weighs less than Harrier (1.0) and it makes sense that it should do less DPS, even if it is more accurate.

 

Black Widow has lower sustained DPS than Harrier, this is true, but the difference is I can slap Phasic on it and one-shot most humanoids on gold and depending on character a lot on Platinum.  Similarly with Claymore, there is one-shot potential.  This is why I included adjusted damage per shot in the weight appropriateness score formula I made.  Doing this makes a lot of the ARs move down relative to pure dps/encumbrance though.

 

Is that a big deal that ARs seem to be pushed lower in rank?  How much do usage patterns indicate power?  How much does anybody really see the Harrier in the wild compared to other guns?  I didn't really see it more commonly than a lot of "mid tier" guns, except on TGI where it was very common.  But infiltrators don't care about weight in the first place, so does that indicate anything about weight appropriateness?  You might see it on the odd adept every once and a while, but how much more often would you see Arc Pistol, Acolyte, Hurricane, Paladin, Wraith, etc?  Looking at the Gold Solo Speedrun thread, Harrier shows up a little bit, but not nearly as much as Arc Pistol or Reegar, Talon, Hurricane, Wraith or Venom.  And when it does show up it is usually on Human Soldier or a class that doesn't care about weight.

 

How much to "weight the weight" in a power formula is an interesting question.  It does affect cooldown on most classes, and we know that very light is certainly beneficial to everybody, as very heavy is detrimental.

 

I think that Human Soldiers and classes were weight doesn't matter illustrates the point. If these kits don't care as much about weight, then why have we determined that the Harrier is one of the best weapons to use? I thought the point of a kit that cares less about weight was so that they could use the 2.0+ weight weapons which are supposed to be more powerful.

 

Also keep in mind I said "one of the worst balanced" because I consider other weapons like Arc, Reegar, Hurricane and Talon to be the absolute worst =P

 

The effect of weapon weight will vary too much between each class in order to be able to effectively have a global variable for it. The 2.0 weight of the Typhoon is a non issue to my Human Soldier since Adrenaline Rush allows for infinite fire even at that weight, but taking another gun with that weight such as the Claymore would be devastating to my N7 Fury's ability to spam BEs.

 

You've also got a problem where without combo spam most powers do either bad DPS, or only do good damage against a specific defense. When it came to MP, by the end of support even combo spam wasn't very good DPS unless one of your powers wasn't on the GCD like the N7 Fury or any kit that had grenades.

[Quarian Master Race]

 any kit that had grenades.

Saboturian says hai.

also, why are people still arguing over replacing the ammo system? Given the screenshots of gameplay we've seen, there's obviously some sort of consumable ammo system. Whether it's thermal clips, space cartridges or magic lasers powered by a mass effect field is pretty irrelevant in that it's going to operate similarly to ME2-3 (or any ammo system from any number of shooters). At this point, it's a bit like asking if the asari are in the game.
 

That said, there will probably (but not confirmed, at this point) be a minority of infinite ammo, overheating weapons to sate the minority of players who like that system, just like ME3 had. For those, I'd prefer a system closer to Battlefront's blasters, rather than the irritating "heat vents into your face and makes you walk slowly for way too long" garbage that plagued the ME3 versions. This especially if they continue tying the "magazine" capacity of these weapons to a leveling system, making them complete garbage until upgraded (which took forever with UR's like the Lancer and CSMG).

[capn233]

I think that Human Soldiers and classes were weight doesn't matter illustrates the point. If these kits don't care as much about weight, then why have we determined that the Harrier is one of the best weapons to use? I thought the point of a kit that cares less about weight was so that they could use the 2.0+ weight weapons which are supposed to be more powerful.

 

The interpretation I would make is that the characters that don't care about weight can be useful in identifying purely weapon power. But that isn't the question, the question was "which weapons have power appropriate for their weight," which would not be something looking at infiltrator would directly answer. Since infiltrator doesn't depend on weight as much as other classes, there isn't any pressure to select weapons with balanced or inappropriately high power to weight, necessarily.  They may afford opportunities for players to use weapons that are inappropriately heavy for their power, as they are less penalized for doing so, but that is going further into the realm of player preference.

I think the real reason it is on Human Soldier has more to do with ammo efficiency boost with weapon damage bonus, and also extended clip time via ARush reload.
 

Also keep in mind I said "one of the worst balanced" because I consider other weapons like Arc, Reegar, Hurricane and Talon to be the absolute worst =P

Sure, but unless you place nearly no importance on weight, then Harrier probably actually just ends up in the middle of the pack. I agree that what ends up being normal-powered is a balance consideration as well. That was partly why in my capn-factor sheet I made a column to back-calculate encumbrance for everything if I picked a score to normalize everything (although amusement was of course the primary reason).
 

The effect of weapon weight will vary too much between each class in order to be able to effectively have a global variable for it. The 2.0 weight of the Typhoon is a non issue to my Human Soldier since Adrenaline Rush allows for infinite fire even at that weight, but taking another gun with that weight such as the Claymore would be devastating to my N7 Fury's ability to spam BEs.

I think this is more a problem with the PRS system as a whole rather than if you wanted to look specifically at weapon performance versus weight. An idealized system would require the weapons to be a lot more normalized in their "power" vs encumbrance or it wouldn't work.

 

You've also got a problem where without combo spam most powers do either bad DPS, or only do good damage against a specific defense. When it came to MP, by the end of support even combo spam wasn't very good DPS unless one of your powers wasn't on the GCD like the N7 Fury or any kit that had grenades.

Sure, but again this seems like a problem with overall balance and to an extent character design. Within the scope of looking at weapon effects on DPS, a low damage character is probably low damage regardless of what weapon you put on them.

Cheating cooldown improves the relative power of a class across weapons, but if you look at that class, they will still tend to get weaker as encumbrance increases. Fury will have ever increasing Throw times, reducing BE frequency.  Which is why you wouldn't be as likely to see Claymore or even Harrier on Fury as you would Acolyte, Hurricane, Wraith.

[Sylvius the Mad]

To be entirely honest, I found the Prothean Rifle and the Lancer with the cooldown mechanic extremely difficult to start using again in ME3, so I pretty much abandoned using them, while I went back to the newer style guns.

I know that the cooldown mechanic is somewhat better in terms of the lore, as well as from a technical and theoretical standpoint. But in practice, it's a pain in the neck in ME1 how quickly your guns overheat until you got good heatsink mods by mid-to-late game.

Realistically wouldn't gun manufacturers have included those mods as standard from the off? Because the initial and unmodded guns would be a death sentence to anyone issued with them, because they overheat so quickly and often, they're a bit of a liability.

So yeah, thermal clips never really bothered me. I prefer them to the cooldown mechanic, even if I do agree it make lesser sense in terms of lore.

In ME3, clips are absurdly plentiful (which I count as a good thing), effectively rendering the old style weapons pointless.

[straykat]

In ME3, clips are absurdly plentiful (which I count as a good thing), effectively rendering the old style weapons pointless.

 

That makes things too easy.

 

Not that that's the only thing. 

 

I think there's a tag in the config file for this, so I guess it's in my power to fix this when I play again.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That makes things too easy.

Not that that's the only thing.

I think there's a tag in the config file for this, so I guess it's in my power to fix this when I play again.

Yet another reason to favour moddable games.

Sadly, Frostbite.

[Laughing_Man]

Yet another reason to favour moddable games.

Sadly, Frostbite.

 

I think it has more to do with EA's policy than a particular engine.

 

As long as EA is able to sell to their gullible fanboyz a few pieces of re-skined armors that were cut from the game for 5 Euro, why would they support modding?

[straykat]

I think it has more to do with EA's policy than a particular engine.

 

As long as EA is able to sell to their gullible fanboyz a few pieces of re-skined armors that were cut from the game for 5 Euro, why would they support modding?

 

I thought it had a lot to do with Battlefield. I could be wrong,, but it seems the obvious reason.

[Laughing_Man]

I thought it had a lot to do with Battlefield. I could be wrong,, but it seems the obvious reason.

 

Could be, but there are other ways to prevent cheating in MP aside from making your games on a platform hostile to modding.

 

Hell, it's not like there aren't cheats out there for practically every FPS including BF.

[straykat]

Could be, but there are other ways to prevent cheating in MP aside from making your games on a platform hostile to modding.

 

Hell, it's not like there aren't cheats out there for practically every FPS including BF.

 

It's not just that though. A creation kit would probably be powerful enough take out server dependency. And they want complete control of that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think it has more to do with EA's policy than a particular engine.

As long as EA is able to sell to their gullible fanboyz a few pieces of re-skined armors that were cut from the game for 5 Euro, why would they support modding?

When do they actually sell such things?

The fact is, if the engine were easier to mod we'd be modding it more. Whether EA approves is irrelevant.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's not just that though. A creation kit would probably be powerful enough take out server dependency. And they want complete control of that.

That's appalling on its own. If I bought the game, I should be able to play it forever as long as I maintain appropriate hardware, regardless of whether EA maintains appropriate hardware.

But beyond that, we don't need a full creation kit to mod. It makes things easier, especially if we're changing the UI, but it's not a necessary component.

I'd like to be able to edit things like ammo capacity or cooldowns.

[AngryFrozenWater]

The problem with games engines and community modding is the complexity of the software. The engine does not only render graphics and sounds, it also has to animate, lip sync, do lighting, etc. Each of those has specific parts like facial animation, believable landscapes and vegetation, physics, destructible environments, etc. Some of that may be handled by the engine itself, but more often than not, it is licensed from third party companies, who are specialized in that. That makes sense, because it is cheaper to buy some of that technology than to create it from scratch.

 

All the content needs to be created at some point, so there is also a layer which facilitates the content creation process and manages the work of hundreds of people, who contribute the latest version of whatever needs to be added to the game.

 

Theoretically one can scale that down to a single user tool that allows easy modding. Needless to say that this is not an easy task and one still has to find free solutions for the many licensed technologies used in the parent/original tool.

 

At the other side of the scale are games engines like those of Skyrim and Fall Out, which were created with modding in mind. And while that is cool, these engines are showing their age, because they do not offer the latest and greatest tech available.

 

Valve is also showing great interest in modding.

 

Engines totally based on open source may help, but in a market that is pushing technologies, obviously corporations are willing to invest in it. If it is in their best interest then they may also invest in open source.

 

Currently, Frostbite is not taking that last approach. So, hoping for ME modding tools with full blown editors is likely not going to happen. The best you can hope for is a modding community that can add some tools of their own. A great step in the right direction would be to document parts of their tech that are not dependent on licenses. That would help the community. It not only requires a willingness of EA/Frostbite to do that, but also a financial investment to pay the devs that are doing that kind of work. Bethesda is one of the few who see the need for that and even allow and promote mods on consoles these days. Unless EA sees some commercial benefit, they are not going to bother much.

[Laughing_Man]

When do they actually sell such things?

The fact is, if the engine were easier to mod we'd be modding it more. Whether EA approves is irrelevant.

 

Spoils of the Avvars / Qunari ring any bells?

 

And because EA disapproves - therefore you have no access to CK and a hostile engine.

 

It's not just that though. A creation kit would probably be powerful enough take out server dependency. And they want complete control of that.

 

Not necessarily, I bet you could still make the game dependent on data from EA servers.

 

But yeah, it's all about control of possible revenue channels. Frag what the customers want, frag long shelf life, frag replay-ability and frag added value.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Spoils of the Avvars / Qunari ring any bells?

Those were such pointless products I completely forgot about them.

If people are willing to buy those, then I can't really fault EA for selling them. I'd blame the consumer there.