79 ответов в этой теме

[auronvigo]

I'm expecting classes again, but I'd like some original abilities/tech to go with the new setting. We get to Andromeda and bump into our first enemies that have different protection. Something other than shields/armor/barrier. Something our Milky Way gang doesn't start with a good offense/defense for. Once we realize they're not going to be pushovers and make some alliances, they teach us some new techniques.

[Loki_344]

I am in the class based camp.

 

Classless system would make it more difficult to achieve balance while simultaneously delivering actual variety in powers.

 

With respect to giving a class specific power slots that can be used for whatever, that presents a somewhat similar problem, at least within the class.

 

In general the power systems as in ME2 and 3 were ok, and can be the basis of future systems.  Depending on where you put what evolutions, and how many talent points end up being available, it can allow for diversity of builds.  Of course I would also like for more meaningful evolutions to exist that could alter the power in fundamental ways, the example I usually gave would be an evolution of Shockwave that changes it from something that propagates in one direction, to a unidirectional power with much less range (which would in turn replace Nova).

 

That's a good point. I guess the compromise would be to keep some powers class specific like cloak for infiltrators and charge for vanguards. This would allow each class to keep their identity while still granting us some flexibility. KrrKs's post fleshes out this idea pretty well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Warp never had a CC aspect. The three aspects of Warp are: Damage, weakening damage reduction, and biotic combos(in ME2/3 only).

After a bit of research, I realise I was thinking of Singularity (which in ME1 was unlocked by buying ranks of Warp).

What I want though is for every ability to have a place in a build that's actually good compared to the other builds.

I don't think that's necessary, but it is not in itself a bad thing. I would have no objection, but nor do I require it.

Sitting there spamming Incinerate on everything is sub optimal because it deals half damage to barriers and shields(and yes, that should have been documented in-game but it wasn't =P).

The total lack of useful mechanical feedback in the game made that moot. There was no way to know how much damage we were doing or needed to do.

That said, if EDI and I both fired Incinerate at most enemies, we'd kill them instantly. That was good enough.

ME3's combat was remarkably easy. I don't really see what being that much more effective would have done for me.

That's okay though because it still has an anti-armour niche. There's a good build that uses Incinerate, it just ideally switches to Overload for shields and barriers.

Incinerate killed them. Job done.

And why would I switch to Overload without knowing about the relative mechanical benefits of doing so? By not documenting their game, BioWare kind of ruined it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I am in the class based camp.

Classless system would make it more difficult to achieve balance while simultaneously delivering actual variety in powers.

The concept of class balance would be meaningless if there were no classes.

And making the characters stronger or weaker is part of the fun of character building. A classless system gives us more options there.

[Cyonan]

The total lack of useful mechanical feedback in the game made that moot. There was no way to know how much damage we were doing or needed to do.

That said, if EDI and I both fired Incinerate at most enemies, we'd kill them instantly. That was good enough.

ME3's combat was remarkably easy. I don't really see what being that much more effective would have done for me.

Incinerate killed them. Job done.

And why would I switch to Overload without knowing about the relative mechanical benefits of doing so? By not documenting their game, BioWare kind of ruined it.

 

I'm talking about higher difficulties where 2x Incinerates wouldn't even break the shield of a Centurion.

 

Despite that it should have had better documentation, even without it a lot of people upon getting Overload would try it out and figure out that it deals a lot of damage to shields/barriers.

[SpaceV3gan]

I would like to see some sort of class-based division, since this model works really work for party-oriented gameplay. Keeping the existing classes would be fine for me, though some changes, added flexibility and new concepts would be also welcomed.
I would not like to see are the dumbed-down class limitations we have seen on the Dragon Age titles, especially on Inquisition.

[Chealec]

Since no one of those is actually necessary - you could easily have an effective squad of 3 Engineers if the game gave us enough Engineers to do that - I fail to see the problem.

 

With UO (around say pub 14) you had 50+ available skills. You could train any skill 100 and you had a maximum skill pool of 700 points. There was no limitation on what you could put where - no classes. This meant that if you wanted a warrior that could drop a magic pillar of flame on someone's head, before smacking them with a halberd, you could do that. Or a treasure hunter who could manage some spellcasting but was also a brilliant fisherman (for "message in a bottle" treasure hunts) that was also fine.

 

BioWare's Biotic > Tech > Shooty triumvirate is a way of enforcing classes that's basically at odds with a true classless character system - it's just base and hybrid classes as you'd get with AD&D. In a classless system the terms Adept, Sentinel or Engineer (for instance) wouldn't really have any meaning; just pick skills from the pool and go with it.

 

The closest UO got to classes was labels that people put on common builds, Tamer-Mage or Hally-Mage for instance, but even within those builds the actual skills varied somewhat - whether you'd secondary Eval or Resist or add Lumberjacking or Inscription for fun and profit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm talking about higher difficulties where 2x Incinerates wouldn't even break the shield of a Centurion.

Players who play on Insanity are a tiny percentage of the overall playerbase. And you know I don't play on Insanity. So why do you keep talking about higher difficulties?

I don't even know what a Centurion is (except in the Roman sense).

My approach to ME3's combat was mostly to throw a combat drone, hide behind cover, and then use double-Incinerate to take out anything that gave me a line of sight. I'd generally let the third squad member do whatever she wanted. Leaving cover to find enemies faster just exposed me to more risk, so I didn't do that.

On the default difficulty setting, ME3 was way less challenging than ME2.

Despite that it should have had better documentation, even without it a lot of people upon getting Overload would try it out and figure out that it deals a lot of damage to shields/barriers.

That should never be necessary. I hate learning by doing.

I would always rather learn from a book.

Ideally, I'd be able to read thorough documentation before even launching the game, and that documentation would include detailed labeled illustrations of the UI, so when I started the game I could hit the ground running. This is how computer game manuals used to be, and I miss that.

[capn233]

The concept of class balance would be meaningless if there were no classes.

And making the characters stronger or weaker is part of the fun of character building. A classless system gives us more options there.

 

The balance of classes is obviously not the only metric of balance.

 

Intentionally gimping one's self can be done in whatever system.  The game shouldn't throw balance out the window and claim it is doing so for more fun.

[Sartoz]

 Snip
I would not like to see are the dumbed-down class limitations we have seen on the Dragon Age titles, especially on Inquisition.

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

 

Aah... but that is exactly what I expect.

 

Bio bows to its master. That master wants to go after the casual gamers. Casual gamers are not interested in complex combat... because, well. they are casual.

 

Chris Wynn

"There are some new elements that make it more dynamics, but overall similar feel"

 

[Cyonan]

Players who play on Insanity are a tiny percentage of the overall playerbase. And you know I don't play on Insanity. So why do you keep talking about higher difficulties?

I don't even know what a Centurion is (except in the Roman sense).

My approach to ME3's combat was mostly to throw a combat drone, hide behind cover, and then use double-Incinerate to take out anything that gave me a line of sight. I'd generally let the third squad member do whatever she wanted. Leaving cover to find enemies faster just exposed me to more risk, so I didn't do that.

On the default difficulty setting, ME3 was way less challenging than ME2.

 

You know I don't play on normal, so why do you keep talking about lower difficulties? It works both ways, and I'm not talking about just insanity when I say that you wont break shields with Incinerate.

 

The Centurion is a weaker Cerberus unit that has shields, but the statement applies to pretty much any shielded unit in the game. A quick look shows that 2x Incinerates wouldn't kill a Centurion on normal on their own either, but leave it pretty close to death.

 

I'm not going to dispute that ME3 was easier than ME2, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what I've been talking about. The point is that every ability should have a place somewhere in a build that's actually good, and that means on the higher difficulty as well even though you don't care about them.

 

Making a combo-less biotic build be closer in effectiveness with the combo spam builds in Mass Effect 3 wouldn't have taken away anybody's playstyle, and that's the kind of thing that I want to see.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The point is that every ability should have a place somewhere in a build that's actually good, and that means on the higher difficulty as well even though you don't care about them.

I don't think this is important.

But aside from that, we seem to agree.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The balance of classes is obviously not the only metric of balance.

Yes, I misread what you wrote earlier.

Intentionally gimping one's self can be done in whatever system. The game shouldn't throw balance out the window and claim it is doing so for more fun.

I don't think gimping should have to be intentional.

[The Dank Warden]

Classless, We'll go to Andromeda to see the reborn of the CCCP

[capn233]

Yes, I misread what you wrote earlier.
I don't think gimping should have to be intentional.

 

Choices in game need to be compelling alternatives outside of simply "I will do this just to be different, even though this sucks."  There is a small proportion of players who may want to make builds with poorly balanced powers, but that should not be a real consideration in the design of the game.

 

And of course since MP and SP mechanics and skills are likely to be more or less the same, then it makes a whole lot more sense if the powers and weapons actually are balanced.  Which means that allowable combinations should be balanced.

[Spectr61]

I'm talking about higher difficulties where 2x Incinerates wouldn't even break the shield of a Centurion.
 
Despite that it should have had better documentation, even without it a lot of people upon getting Overload would try it out and figure out that it deals a lot of damage to shields/barriers.

This.

ME3 SP, even on higher difficulties was easy. MP, on higher difficulties is where the individual abilities, or lack thereof, were highlighted.

But agreed, better documentation would be a boon to all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Choices in game need to be compelling alternatives outside of simply "I will do this just to be different, even though this sucks." There is a small proportion of players who may want to make builds with poorly balanced powers, but that should not be a real consideration in the design of the game.

And of course since MP and SP mechanics and skills are likely to be more or less the same, then it makes a whole lot more sense if the powers and weapons actually are balanced. Which means that allowable combinations should be balanced.

Some of us make our character build choices purely for RP reasons.

Some players consider factors other than combat effectiveness when choosing abilities.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This.

ME3 SP, even on higher difficulties was easy. MP, on higher difficulties is where the individual abilities, or lack thereof, were highlighted.

I'm never going to take MP into account when building SP mechanics.

Just as MP probably shouldn't worry about SP.

But agreed, better documentation would be a boon to all.

Games used to be better documented. I get that we can't have printed manuals anymore, but all of the information that would have gone into a printed manual should still be available to players in a convenient format (in-game codices are not convenient).

[LiechockiRJ]

incinerate against shields......errr, hello? 

[capn233]

Some of us make our character build choices purely for RP reasons.

Some players consider factors other than combat effectiveness when choosing abilities.

 

It's fine if a player wants to use whatever factor to make a choice.  But it does not mean the game is better if it is not balanced.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's fine if a player wants to use whatever factor to make a choice. But it does not mean the game is better if it is not balanced.

I think it makes for a more credible setting if it isn't, and more interesting gameplay if some possible builds just don't work well. Monte Cook abilities help with that.

[goishen]

I rather like the class system to be honest. Especially if it's going to cause balance issues in having to account for every combination of abilities to go classless.

 

One of the more annoying things in ME3 MP balance was nerfing weapons like the Krysae because they were too effective on Infiltrators. I'd hate to see that happen to skills in a classless system.

 

 

I prefer the class based system just for "I'm any man!" or "I'm the jack of all trades!" style of gameplay.  I don't wanna be a female biotic strong arming down a krogan. 

[Cyonan]

I think it makes for a more credible setting if it isn't, and more interesting gameplay if some possible builds just don't work well. Monte Cook abilities help with that.

 

but some builds still wont work well if you don't build them well.

 

Balance isn't about removing the ability to make a bad choice in building a character, it's about ensuring everything has a place in a good build.

 

In Mass Effect 3 I could make a less effective build by using Singularity and Warp to combo spam in SP, which wouldn't be nearly as effective as Reave and Cluster Grenade/Shockwave. However, that doesn't mean Singularity and Warp are useless abilities. Singularity is still a pretty decent CC ability, and Warp can make some okay combos while providing debuffs. They just don't mesh together very well as your primary source of damage.

 

It makes sense that people aren't producing equipment or weapons for combat use that have absolutely no redeeming qualities. Like how is the Avenger one of the most used assault rifles in the galaxy when it's a garbage weapon in ME3? You'd be better off using the Vindicator or Katana, which are both pretty common weapons as well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

but some builds still wont work well if you don't build them well.

Balance isn't about removing the ability to make a bad choice in building a character, it's about ensuring everything has a place in a good build.

If progress renders an ability obsolete, that doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

That said, you clearly have stronger opinions on this this than I do.

It makes sense that people aren't producing equipment or weapons for combat use that have absolutely no redeeming qualities. Like how is the Avenger one of the most used assault rifles in the galaxy when it's a garbage weapon in ME3? You'd be better off using the Vindicator or Katana, which are both pretty common weapons as well.

They could be cheaper to manufacture. Or perhaps they've been surpassed by more modern weapons, but there was a time when they were ubiquitous (much like the AK-47 has been for the past 50 years).

[SPACE_GREASER]

I would like to see some sort of class-based division, since this model works really work for party-oriented gameplay. Keeping the existing classes would be fine for me, though some changes, added flexibility and new concepts would be also welcomed.
I would not like to see are the dumbed-down class limitations we have seen on the Dragon Age titles, especially on Inquisition.

 

My thoughts exactly; the most important thing is that they stick to the roots of the franchise and build upon the previous system, rather than "streamlining" it in the hopes of drawing more "casual players". 

 

Aside from this I would also like for there be a little more flexibility in terms of character progression as well. For example, I didn't like the way the class system in ME3 would lock you into certain skills that were almost pointless at end game. There would always be that one power you knew was going to suck with your build so you just ignored it and maxed out your other abilities... Then there were other times where I would have a power like "pull" or "warp" that would immediately be rendered obsolete by lash/ reave.. In short, I would like to see the return of classes but the player should be given a greater level of "choice" over what powers they have at their disposal.  This would necessitate the need for a wider variety of powers, however.

 

That's kind of what made MP so fun imo, you were able to have builds that were completely "unorthodox" yet they actually worked and stayed true to the class system