903 réponses à ce sujet

[Poison_Berrie]

Why not use probes to scan areas of the planet.
You launch a probe and it scans part of the planet for you. Inside the probes scan-range the areas with resources stand out, which you can then scan with you're ships scanners to get an idea of concentration and elemental make up. Next you use (a different?) probe to stake a claim to the resource node and either sell it or let it be mined by your crew/allies. 
Selling it either netting you only resources/money or both (your choice) instantly, while mining it yourself will mean you get a periodic influx of the resource(s).
Mines would of course be limited, because of logical and gameplay issues.
This eleminates the need to scan every inch of a planet and still requires you to do some work to get the resources.

As for a hybrid ammo system. This of course is my own opinion, but as it is the system in ME2 works well. A hybrid system seems like something that would require a lot of work to balance.
The feeling I get is that a lot of people don't like the system lore-wise. Putting both in because people think it would fit the lore does not equate good gameplay or balance and considering they already tried, they might have drawn the same conclusion.
They way you propose, Scarecrow, would require a very limited amount of heat-sinks and would probably punish people who for whatever reason used heatsinks before the battles they need them.
I see where you are coming from and it could probably be balanced out well enough, but I just don't see the point in changing this system because people don't like it lore-wise or who just liked it better when they did not need to "collect" heatsinks.

Lot's of other good stuff in there and though long, your post is very well formulated and shining example of how suggestions should be posted.

Also I'd like to see you're own team members to have casual clothes on the ship and armor outside. Changing it visually isn't nessecary, but being able to exchange certain bonuses would be nice.
Not only does it limit the places you're crew could go it just doesn't make sense.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 25 février 2010 - 05:14 .

[Scarecrow_ES]

As Dokteur pointed out, differing environmental effects has worked well in other games. Mechwarrior, as mentioned, being a great example. Generally speaking, any mission world we're likely to encounter, by necessity being reasonably habitable by humans, is likely to have an environment within certain tolerances, so obviously the effects the environment might play in weapon heat management would be somewhat minor, but just enough to be noticeable. Zero-atmosphere (space) environments would be an exception, as we have yet to have any space combat.



Obviously the differing environments could be used sparringly, more likely in various side-quests than in story missions (unless for whatever reason we returned to planetary exploration a la Mako), and gameplay within those missions would be balanced to accomodate for the type of environment (after all your enemies have to deal with it too, so it wouldn't make any sense for them to be able to go balls out in combat and not you). This would all be done to add variety to side-mission gameplay, after all. I think certainly it could be done in a way that doesn't screw with the flow of gameplay, and besides, anything that adds variety to missions is a good thing.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Poison... Even in ME1, whenever planets were scanned it was done so from the Normandy from orbit. Sending down a probe to scan, and then another to harvest, would certain work from a gameplay perspective. It accomplishes the goals... I'm just not sure it actually helps much. Theoretically you're actually adding a whole other step to the system that's completely redundant, as you yourself said that not only do you have to move your cursor around the planet to launch your scanning probes, but then will have to do it again once you've found a deposit. It would be far simpler just to scan the planet as you move your cursor, much like in the current system. Adding a revealing resource topographical map, as I've suggested, ensures that once you pass over a mineral deposit, it's locations is clearly displayed to you forever there after gets rid of a lot of the tedium of going back and scanning for the center of the mineral field (as in ME2). I just think my method is significantly faster and less cumbersome.



And you'd be ok in saying the ME2 ammo system works well, if you add to that the qualifier "for me." In reality, the new system doesn't work any better for all players, all weapons, and all situations any better than the ME1 system did. I'd argue, as well, that the ME2 system is also far more restrictive than the ME1 system in what kinds of tactics a player can successfully use in combat. The ME2 system caters to a certain type of gameplay - specifically lots of moving around and twitch firing. If you're the type of player that enjoys that type of shooter gameplay, then you might look at the ME2 system as an improvement.



I do like that type of gameplay, but not in RPGs. I love it in pure shooters like Call of Duty or Halo (well not Halo specifically, BLEH!), but the twitch nature of the gameplay is in opposition to the carefully choreographed nature of RPG battles. I think you'll find that many people who decry the ME2 system do so because it strays away from the nature of RPG combat (ie giving player nearly limiteless ways to approach battle) rather than just complete do-over (retcon) it represents in the lore.



And outside any personal preferences that exist from one player to the next, there's still the overriding, and continually nagging, problem - the ME2 system still doesn't work well for every weapon, and unfortunately, noone yet in favor of the system (and even myself as a detractor) has been able to come up with a way to fix the system in a way that is balanced and functional. Trust me, if there was a way to do it, I'd have put that up in my proposal post instead. It's far easier, and far better as I've said, to fix an existing system than replace it.

[ReDSH1FT]

Why isn't this stickied yet, it's probably the most thought out thread on these boards regarding gameplay.

[yuncas]

ReDSH1FT wrote...

Why isn't this stickied yet, it's probably the most thought out thread on these boards regarding gameplay.

It was, but it was too similar to the thread ME3 wishlist that is already stickied.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Yeah, that's the reason, supposedly. I still find it largely ridiculous. Some have argued that because it's so well presented, that's the real reason why they don't want it up there. I mean, when you've got a "wishlist" thread up there, everyone and their brother can throw up some half-cocked idea up there with a 2 line explaination that consists mostly of misspelled expletives. In here, you have to read, and only those with good ideas have the will to get through all that and post their ideas.



I mean, it's incredible that we've had so many good ideas come here, with civil discussions, and virtually NO trolling. On the one hand, a sticky would invite more of the usual negative forum elements, but the visibility for the better ideas and more well thought-out discussion would lead to a greater community consensus, which is one of the great hopes I had for the topic in the first place.

[Andaius20]

Poison I don't see how it would detract from combat any more then the "shoot some duck back under cover until health and shields regen" combat forum they have in place now. Since you are working with unlimited shooting like in ME 1 it wouldn't really effect anything other than slower shooting than if you had clips.

[Poison_Berrie]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...

Poison... Even in ME1, whenever planets were scanned it was done so from the Normandy from orbit. Sending down a probe to scan, and then another to harvest, would certain work from a gameplay perspective. It accomplishes the goals... I'm just not sure it actually helps much. Theoretically you're actually adding a whole other step to the system that's completely redundant, as you yourself said that not only do you have to move your cursor around the planet to launch your scanning probes, but then will have to do it again once you've found a deposit. It would be far simpler just to scan the planet as you move your cursor, much like in the current system. Adding a revealing resource topographical map, as I've suggested, ensures that once you pass over a mineral deposit, it's locations is clearly displayed to you forever there after gets rid of a lot of the tedium of going back and scanning for the center of the mineral field (as in ME2). I just think my method is significantly faster and less cumbersome.

The purpose behind the probe for scanning is that it takes away the need to scan every inch of the planet. 
The extra action doesn't actually take more time than the current system and has the potential to make it less tiresome and perhaps faster. I think the primary problem is that the current system takes too long. 
The probe works like giant scanner, It reveals a large part of the planet in one time and it's then up to the player to identify and select which mineral deposits to mine.
It is essential your system with scanning probes taking the place of needing to scan manually. 

I do like that type of gameplay, but not in RPGs. I love it in pure shooters like Call of Duty or Halo (well not Halo specifically, BLEH!), but the twitch nature of the gameplay is in opposition to the carefully choreographed nature of RPG battles. I think you'll find that many people who decry the ME2 system do so because it strays away from the nature of RPG combat (ie giving player nearly limiteless ways to approach battle) rather than just complete do-over (retcon) it represents in the lore.

So did the original. I'm not doing things very differently from how I went about it in the first and I honestly can't think of a way you would do it differently within this system.
All combat comes down to deploying your powers and firing your weapon at targets of choice, convenience or necessity. Careful choreography is mostly reserved to turn-based system or strategy games. 
Perhaps I'm just bland and unoriginal, but I don't see how a hybrid system would make me approach battle in limitless ways. I'd go about it the same way, this time making sure I don't overload instead of making  sure I don't run out of bullets.
Like it or not the combat is designed from the start to be like a shooter. With or without weapon skills the combat involved around hitting your target with your slug-thrower and throwing some powers to aid that. The only variety that can be thrown in is how the player approaches that combat. Does he go in guns blazing or tactically.

EDIT: In essence I'm not really against a hybrid system. I just don't think the pay off is worth the investment. It would not change combat dramatically. It would only allow you to not worry about picking up ammo that much.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 26 février 2010 - 09:06 .

[Scarecrow_ES]

Well, Poison, like I said... whether a player likes how the new system plays, likes how the old system plays, or likes a completely different system... it all comes down to preference. The only thing that matters is: 1) does the system work? and 2) does it let people play how they want to play (an even bigger issue in an RPG). The current system does NOT work. It doesn't treat all weapons with equal regard. It works overly well for SMGs and ARs, and deficiently for single-fire weapons. The current system does NOT allow a player to engage in combat however he wants. This would be a significant issue in even a pure shooter, but in an RPG is bordering on lunacy.



Can the current system be fixed in a way that balances all weapons? I think no. If you remove ammo stores from automatic weapons to have the run out as quickly as single-fire weapons, you're merely gimping one set of weapons the the already gimped level of another. If you simply add ammo to the semi-auto weapons, you're merely making those weapons, which are arguably more powerful, more sustainable in combat, and thus overpowering them at the expense of automatic weapons. In order to reach a proper balance, you'd need to institute a method that restricts the amount of damage a player can do with each individual weapon over a given amount of time without limiting his ability to use that weapon continually in combat. That simply cannot be accomplished using a purely ammo-based system, unfortunately.



As far as the probe idea, my objection is two-fold.



1) the player must already run his cursor around the planet to place probes. While he's doing that, he can be uncovering mineral deposits. It makes needing a probe to do it redundant. If the issue is one of speed in scanning, simply upping the cursor speed across the planet and eliminating backtracking or the possibility of missing deposits due to poor cursor positioning will all reduce scanning speed significantly.



2) Realistically, probes could not be used to efficiently cover the entire surface of a planet for mneral discovery. If the probes used a circular unveil pattern, then there will either be large gaps or large overlaps depending on the radius of the probe search area. If the probe searched via the marked grid area, it could lead to lower (or eliminated) overlap, but reduced efficiency at the poles versus the equator.



I don't want to say it's not a completely workable idea. It is, and I have no doubt that if it were implemented it would work just fine, and would certainly please some people. I just don't believe it's an ideal solution to the problem.

[Poison_Berrie]

I did consider the problems of overlap and gaps. It is indeed one of the less desirable parts of my proposed system.

That said the probe would off course unveil a significantly larger area than one could scan, unless you make the scanning cursor much larger tracking it yourself would take a lot more time. It would alleviate the need to scan up or down or circumnavigate the world on several latitudes to get a good view.
Your system, though it would also work ingame, is not really the ideal solution either. It might ease the current system, but certainly doesn't take away the major grievances. 

Perhaps a different approach would be to drop satellites in order that do the scanning over time. You drop them here and there and return once it has mapped ore veins. You then scan veins like in ME 2 for concentration and elemental make up.
Off course the big objection would be that it would not allow the player instant access to resources.

It's not that easy to find a solution, that's for sure.


Regarding the hybrid system. You say the current system doesn't work. I would disagree. The point is that there is a pay to how each weapon works. I will concede that regarding pistols the current system might be bit too harsh and I heard shotguns could use some work as well, but that's more of a balancing issue. In the end if you are handling your pistol like it is an SMG, you are doing it wrong.

A cooling system would however limit the player in another direction, instead of having the chance to run out of ammo, the player now has the chance to overheat when in the thick of combat. 

I sometimes found myself in a situation where I needed to fire my pistol in rapid succession to take down armored targets. In your system that would either overheat the weapon forcing me to wait for it to cool down, switch weapons or lose clips of ammo that I'm probably going to need later.
In the current system that would seriously (or completely) deplete my ammo which would force me to switch weapons or grab some new ammo. 

In essence it's the same difference. My point being I don't think it adds as much as people are claiming. It at best allows people to keep firing every gun at a very low price or just allows people not to worry about keeping track of ammo.
The way I see it you do one of two things.
1)You let the cool-down be significantly long that you want to avoid it or need to pop a clip in order for you to keep going.
2) You add ammo as a get-out-of-jail-free-card because "we put you there in the first place".
3) You make it way too easy, because there is no down-side to either.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 27 février 2010 - 12:00 .

[slyguy07]

The only suggestion I would throw in here is that the ammo training be replaced with a system that you implement on your weapon to customize it if you will like ME1. "Training" to use ammo is somewhat dumb given that anyone could use any ammo type unless they are too lazy to train. It's just a lame excuse imo. They should make it so it is a modification to the weapon. I know it was done for gameplay reasons, but I honestly wished it was a matter of putting several different types on your weapon then "switching" to that mode for certain enemy types.



Also I would like to add you are the man Scarecrow.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Poison... I have to say that you're holding up your end very well, which I think is great. Too often in one of these forum "debates" you get someone so stuck on an idea but can't back it up or see the chinks in the armor. I'm happy to be in discussions with someone who has a good head on their shoulders.



As far our approaches to modifying planet scanning, my approach is more "make an unfun system easier to manage by making it more involved and less tedious." Yours, I'd say, is more "make an unfun system easier to manage by making it less involved and time consuming." Either approach is going to work. I think the best answer just comes down to how the developer wants to approach resource management in the next game. Trying to figure out just what the community wants with regards to planet scanning is difficult, as some hate the idea altogether, some just hate spending so long in scanning, and some hate that you don't get much out of it. Depending on who the devs will try to please, you may see solutions presented in either direction we've taken here, or neither of them. Who knows.



As far as the hybrid heat system being the "same difference" as you've said, I think that really you could pay me no better complement. Realistically, I want fans of either the ME1 system or ME2 system to jump into my system and go "this plays so much more like the system I liked!" The goal is to add that sort of tactical flexibility that neither system has had to this point. If you go guns blazing, you're going to find the system plays remarkably like the ME2 system, except you won't be able to do that for long periods of time in every battle, and if you DO calm down a sec and get control of your gun hand, you'll find it magically refills with rounds. If you take your time, choose your shots, and manage your heat, you'll find it plays very much like the ME1 system, except when you finally DO have to go hog wild, you're not going to have to wait for a bunch of time to pass while your gun goes through an overheat cycle to fire again. The point is, both types of weapon combat are available to the player at any time, and he's going to have to use both if he wants to get through the game.



Balance between weapon types and scenarios can be easily achieved in the new system, as the devs have many more options at their control. They can control how much heat is output per shot per weapon (essentially setting an ammo clip number), how quickly the weapon gets rid of heat, how quickly it fires, everything. You can choose how many thermal clips to place in levels and where to place them strategically to ensure players are prepared for the battles ahead (just like medi-gel has been in the last two games). In reality, there's almost nothing you can do to balance the current system. Any change you make is going to favor one type of weapon over another.

[cancausecancer]

The only change I want is the for Shep's voice to be clear sounding when he has a helmet on. It sounds like he's talking on a phone otherwise, which makes the DLC armours get no use from me.

[Poison_Berrie]

I would disagree that there is nothing you can do to balance the current system. The different strengths of the weapons kind makes most types of weapons useful in combat. Tweaking ammo amounts could be done without making one more powerful or better to use. Though just like your system testing is necessary.

Regardless firing wildly isn't useful or encouraged in either title. In ME2's system you may fire more quickly without it actually slowing you down (because of overheat), but firing wildly means depleting your ammo reserves.

[slyguy07]

I personally dislike the ammo system. If you read the codex you know that each weapon has a metal block in it and a laser cuts a tiny piece the size of a pinhead off for each shot fired. This metal block fires approx. 3000 to 4000 rounds. That has not been replaced the thermal clip system has replaced the overheating component. Balancing the codex and the game is something BW has done remarkably well. I would suggest however getting rid of ammo. It's annoying. Instead each weapon should have a way to "vent" the heat collected that would make it malfunction instead of picking up thermal clips laying everywhere. A cooling system of sorts would be better imo. I despised the thermal clips in ME2. It was just too radical a shift from ME1

[The-OC]

Scarecrow i applaud you. These are fantastic ideas, almost all of which i agree with. Ever considerd a job at BioWare?

[Scarecrow_ES]

The problem of balance, Poison, is one of ensuring that the player can use his weapon throughout an entire battle if he chooses, but not allowing him to simply mash the trigger and get through. The problem is compounded with weapons like the pistol, sniper rifle, and shotgun, which are capable of doing a much larger amount of damage in a relatively short amount of time as compared to the automatics like the SMG and AR. I suspect that the severe limitations on ammo for these weapons came about to limit just how much a player could actually use these weapons in battle. If, for instance, a player could keep his sniper rifle in-play as long as the SMG or AR (which is to say nearly unlimited firing in most battles), the sheer amount of damage a player could do without any sort of restriction in firing speed (limitations only imposed be reload times), then the sniper rifle would become ridiculously overpowered. The same could be said of the shotdun or pistol. All 3 of these are far more effective weapons for dealing with most threats than the spray weapons. You could not simply give them more ammo, nor could you significantly reduce the ammo in the automatics to make them last as long as the semis currently do. Ammo tweaking simply isn't enough to solve the problem.



You could perhaps slow down the rate of fire for semi-automatic weapons to compensate for the increased ammo count, but this has the effect of making those weapons far less useful in the short run. With the "bolt" snipers, you already have to wait for too long between shots AND take your eyes off the target while you load. Slowing the load times further risks making this weapon all but useless in a stand-up fight for anything but the occasional pop-and-shoot scenario, which oddly negates the need for increased ammo capacity. Again, this applies equally to the other semis.



The ME1 system worked well in allowing the player to do a good amount of damage in a short period of time, and in limiting just how long a player could work under the high damage/time ratio. The major complaints against the ME1 system were that the overheat system took you out of the battle at critical moments while you waited a few seconds for the weapon to cool down, and that the system had the potential to be very forgiving of spray-and-pray tactics because there was no real penalty against the player for less-than-careful shooting. The ME2 system addresses the problem of limiting damage/time by greatly restricting ammo for powerful weapons. This has the side effect, though, of knocking those weapons out half-way through a firefight. It does NOT address the issue of spray and pray, as it actually has fortified automatic weapons and reduced any penalty for misues of these weapons by being overly generous with ammo (which in reality it has to be to make up for players losing the use of their primary weapons early in any fight).



BioWare has a tendancy to completely ditch flawed or unpopular systems rather than just seeking to fix said system. Why this is, noone seems to know. While they've shown a great deal of artistic creativity over the years, their technical creativity has lacked a bit, from a problem solving perspective. Most of the problems that crop up in their games are often dismissed as minor in the fact of the relative perfection of the total product, but any black mark detracts from the grace of the overall package. And weirdly, most of these problems can be solved with a small amount of common sense and some technical creativity and ingenuity.



Could BioWare (and most developers, really) use someone whose primary mode of expertese is problem solving? Absolutely! Would I llove to jump into a company like BioWare and just spend all day coming up with ideas to make every little thing in a game just 10% better? Absolutely! Am I available for immediate hire with absolutely zero problem relocating anywhere in the world for work? Absolutely! *wink, wink BioWare*

[JulianusApostate]

This is a pretty fantastic thread, and all of your suggestions seem very doable. The whole 'mining team' bit seems a bit too involved, but I suppose if the amount of resources gained was much higher, it might be worth it... I'd definitely like the tech system expanded to make the involved resource management more beneficial.



My favorite part of the OP was the one on ammo. A very interesting idea that may please most everyone, but I quite liked the move to an ammo system. I know, I know, it's lorebreaking and lame and not unique, but I thought it really made me more likely to use multiple weapons, instead of the one gamebreaking Spectre gear super weapon you can buy in the later game.



Anyway, I really enjoyed reading all this, but all of the topics here are strictly technical. I wish there was a dialogue thread like this that wasn't all about some specific goddamn love interest.

[Andaius20]

I think just moving to the rock -paper -scissors damage system is plenty of incentive to swap weapons. Also as Scarecrow has been saying the weapons are definitely not equal I played a Infiltrator game and a soldier and I definitely never really swapped off of my Avenger during my entire play through. I was aften forced to swap away from my sniper because of ammo reasons and the unbalanced ammo drops. IE snipers pick up one round and you could have used upto 3-4 rounds on some enemies in Insane.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Many people, Julianus, do like the ammo system. I have no real opposition to an ammo system myself, as long as it works well, which this one doesnt, as discussed in many posts in many topics beyond my own. I have no qualms about keeping such a system in the game if it could be made to work - lore be damned. Unfortunately, I see no way that it can be fixed. Many players, as you have, bring up the idea that the new system made them more likely to use different weapons. This assertion is really a half truth. You aren't likely to use other weapons because the balancing and gameplay has let you play more tactically, and thus see the benefit of using different weapons in different situations. You're likely to use other weapons because the game forces you to by ensuring you can't continually use the weapons you want to (unless you WANT to always use an SMG or AR). The subtlety of this difference is what divides a good system from a poor one. The devil really is in the details.



Having mining teams, of a sort, was my way to increase benefit over time... essentially rewarding the player for greater personal investment. He could have sold his mining rights for a quick buck, but no... he decided to stick it out and now he's pulling in boo-koo resources. I'd love to see the uses for resources be expanded well beyond simple economy. If BioWare were to reinstitute a form of weapon augmentation system as many people wish, then I'd like to see resources used in the manufacture of these augmentation components. Find an upgrade schematic, unlock a a level 5 upgrade for your sighting augmentation, spend 500 iridium and 1000 [insert other useful mineral here] to build 1 level 5 sight augmentation, put sight on weapon, take augmented weapon to battle - or something along those lines.



My resource management system proposal does hinge on the idea that resource management stays an integral part of the game, though.

[Andaius20]

It also doesn't help that the AR works good on all defenses either. I however would have like for you to buy "off the shelf" Mods and your research be in making custom modifications to them. Finding those "illegal mods" that everyone talks about all the time would be where that "getting schematic and using resources to make new ones" would come into play. This is of course assuming that individual weapons are being brought back so a modded gun stays individual, and isn't generic anymore.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Well, I imagine it would work no different than it did in ME2. You could by some research in stores, others you found in missions, and still others you had to get on the ship. I'd actually like to see the actual PRODUCTION of mods occur on the ship at the direction of the player. This avoids us getting tangled in another loot-based system. You only build the mods you want, and could always break them down or upgrade them once better ones become available. No need for 100's over slightly different parts cluttering up an inventory screen.

[Andaius20]

That wouldn't happen if they eliminated the I -X versions of everything. Then making your ship board research they actual "I - X" style upgrading. that way you still can get the Looting and buying/selling aspect of the ME 1 inventory system while keeping everything that ME 2 added. Stuff Like the "illegal mods" that are often talked about in ME 1 and 2 but never seen could be schematic's only with making them on the ship only. That way you don't have the generic upgrading and have the uniqueness of equipment like in ME 1.

[Mnemnosyne]

 I agree with the vast majority of the OP.  I'm not a big fan of the scanning suggestions (or scanning at all, for that matter) and I think that that entire part of the game could easily be dropped.

I also don't fully agree with the specific way the OP has set up the controller suggestions, however that problem could easily be remedied with the simple and logical step of allowing the user to configure their own damn controller however they damn well please.

[Soruyao]

I agree that the AR working against everything and having basically infinite ammo was a problem. I think all the ARs should have worked like the geth pulse rifle, where they're amazing against shields/barriers but terrible against armor.

I don't think it's a good idea to impliment any system that encourages people to use the same weapon for an entire playthrough.

The ammo system allowed infiltrators to have super powerful sniper rifles. It switched the difficulty from being able to kill anything at all to being able to kill enough things efficiently. (At least, on insanity, which is where my perspective comes from.) If they switch the system to where a sniper can fire forever, I highly doubt that our snipers will be able to be as powerful as they are.

Infiltrator is my main class, and I went through mainly using the sniper in the context of rock paper scissors gameplay. I used the sniper mainly against weak targets and armored targets and the SMG mainly on shielded and barriered targets. I used pistols just on husks. I almost never ran out of ammo.   (Of course when I had a bunch of spare sniper ammo, I'd use the sniper even in situations where it's slightly less optimal, and then switch to a more rock paper scissors based strategy when I had less.)

All we have to do is take a look at the GCD system to see what people do when they're allowed to use one choice out of a group of choices at all times, no matter how efficient or inefficient that is. Adepts decide the only skill they have is warp, engineers forget they have anything but their combat drone. Essentially, if players are allowed, they're going to use one weapon all the time and completely forget they have any other weapons on them. (Then they're going to complain that the combat is boring/dumb.)

Any overheat system is going to allow people to do nothing but use their favorite weapon. (If you make the sniper powerful, nobody will ever use anything else. If you make it weak, nobody will ever use it.) This might seem okay, but it makes the combat system much less complex.

Just encouraging people though defenses isn't enough people to play in a more complex and interesting way. People will be inefficient if it allows them to be intellectually lazy and always use the same strategy. People will use warp on shields even if it would be more efficient to use a singularity and gunfire, because it's all they've learned how to use. People will snipe all the time even against shielded targets and husks.

The current system has the same problem due to balancing. People use nothing but the assault rifle even on infiltrators, even when they have sniper rifle, because it allows them to do the same thing all the time. I think the solution is to simply reduce the amount of ammunition a single thermal clip gives the AR and the SMG so soldiers have to use their snipers/shotguns/pistols sometimes. (Because a smart soldier will use those things anyway.)

Using a variety of weapons is the hallmark of an efficient player. (Or aiming their shots well so that they kill someone with every sniper shot) The current system forces players to learn how to be more efficient. If they are not forced, they will not learn how to do it. You should have to adapt or die on a difficult difficulty mode.

How about this compromise for the ammo system: The game works the way it does now, except when your weapon completely runs out of ammo, it will regenerate a thermal clip every 30 seconds while not in use. (we could explain it away as the gun having a little emergency generator that creates thermal clip liquid for the gun) That way, if a player uses their sniper a lot, they will run out of ammo, however if they go long enough without using the sniper, it will be back to full ammo again. (However a player who scours for thermal clips will have their main weapon filled sooner.)

However, I still personally would prefer to have some other bonus instead, because such a bonus wouldn't affect my game at all, since I never have to go without using the weapon I want to use. I'd prefer if there was some choice between a bunch of different bonuses for different playstyles. For instance, people who don't like running out of ammo could choose having a GCD ability that makes thermal clips, or the above idea where the weapon passively regenerates once it's completely empty. or something that would actually benefit my playstyle in some way. (For instance, I'd love an upgrade that gives my melee attacks the cryo ammo effect! Or an ammo type that procs dominate on enemies! )

In other words, I think the current system would be fine if we halved how much ammo ARs and SMGS get per clip and then allowed each person one powerful combat upgrade that benefits their playstyle. People who want to use the same weapon a lot can pick something that regenerates ammo in some way, and people who want to use a variety of weapons can pick something that gives them a bonus that's relevant to them.

Switching to an overheat would at the very least punish me personally because it would force me to fire much more slowly and encourage me to stick with a single weapon. (If I tried to keep playing the way I do now, I would run out of thermal clips and be stuck with the ploddy overheat mechanic.) I can only speak for myself of course, but I would prefer firing a variety of weapons quickly to firing a single weapon slowly. I suspect there are a lot of other players who would feel the same, even ones who say they want a hybrid system now.

Modifié par Soruyao, 28 février 2010 - 03:55 .