903 réponses à ce sujet

[TurbanSoviet]

for the whole remove guns you dont use to make it not a gimp allow them to carry more heatsinks of those guns which would make sense and allow you to further customize your character which would be better so i can get my smg as a soldier

[Scarecrow_ES]

Well, I think we're in agreement that it doesn't make much sense to put effort into allowing weapons to be left behind for purely aesthetic reasons alone. If we can add some real benefit to leaving them, such as a bonus somewhere else in ammo or whatever, then yeah, maybe this would be a feature worth looking into. But again, I have to stress that there are literally dozens of things I'd prefer to see looked at first.

[TafkanX]

Somebody mentioned building your own weapons in the same manner as ME2 let's you build your own N7 armor and I think this idea has merit. Being able to change out different components (barrel, chamber, optics/sights, etc.) you could tailor your weapons to your playstyle. Different components would provide different bonuses/penalties (power, overheat rate, accuracy, whatever) and would also change the appearance of the weapon. This way you eliminate the need to design multiple weapons for each class of weapon while still allowing a number of different appearances and functions. I don't recall offhand who originally suggested this idea but I really like it more and more the longer I think about it.

Edited to add:  Components would be purchasable from vendors while upgrades would be global and done via research on the Normandy.

Modifié par TafkanX, 05 avril 2010 - 11:13 .

[EternalWolfe]

TafkanX wrote...

Somebody mentioned building your own weapons in the same manner as ME2 let's you build your own N7 armor and I think this idea has merit. Being able to change out different components (barrel, chamber, optics/sights, etc.) you could tailor your weapons to your playstyle. Different components would provide different bonuses/penalties (power, overheat rate, accuracy, whatever) and would also change the appearance of the weapon. This way you eliminate the need to design multiple weapons for each class of weapon while still allowing a number of different appearances and functions. I don't recall offhand who originally suggested this idea but I really like it more and more the longer I think about it.

Edited to add:  Components would be purchasable from vendors while upgrades would be global and done via research on the Normandy.

Several people have mentioned the idea over multiple thread, myself being one of them.  My own components were: Barrel, Grip/Stock, Magazine(Ammo), VI, and Heat Sinks.  Most of the upgrades from ME1 fall under one(or more) of these catagories, and the five overall give you a wide range of effects, while you can get specfic effects a little easier for certain slots.  Not exclusivly, but your likely to find more stability boosters from Grip/Stock then from Barrel mods.
 
In another thread, I mentioned the idea of a sixth slot for special mods that were type-specific(sniper scopes or shotgun chokes, for instance) or that caused a greater change in the guns usage(such as a double-trigger module for pistols).  These mods would be great ones to let you scan off of fallen bosses and such.
 
A note on the global upgrades - since one complaint  you see a lot is lack of 'loot', I would think the easist was to fix this is to make upgrades weapon/mod specific, and give a slight name change to the upgraded item(like the Claymore into the Claymore Decimator, or Incindeary Ammo mod into Inferno Ammo mod).  This gives a larger amount of 'loot' to find, while still keeping the inventory foundation of ME2.  Just my own thoughts on the matter though.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Well, certainly there should still be global upgrades that improve the technology you take with you on the battlefield, so that the entire class of weapons (even if you only have one modular toolset) improves at once. If there were to be individual component pieces however (in the KotOR-like fashion described above), then they should be attribute modifiers, not imbue-ers. What I mean is they should modify things like damage, rate of fire, accuracy, spread, force, or whatever rather than improve on any section outright.



Also, I don't think you should be able to buy these components outright from stores. We have a fantastic research and production system working on the Normandy, and a resource gathering sub-game to worry about, so why not use those for the production of mods? Instead of purchasing components, why not purchase schematics instead, which unlocks the next level of component, and then you actually build them using resources on the ship.



This lets us do without the tedious "loot" type inventory system where you end up with a lot of pieces you don't need. You find a level 5 schematic, it allows you to produce level 5 components of a given type and automatically improves all of the parts of that type you've already built to level 5 status. So much better than buying from stores and reselling the redundant junk parts. Plus, you can research, upgrade, build, combine, and configure all from the Normandy at this point, so no need to go wandering from planet to planet buying parts.

[ninnisinni97]

Wow, great to see someone that actually takes time to give constructive criticism instead of just whining!

[TafkanX]

@EternalWolfe good call on the weapon specific mods (sniper scope, shotgun choke, etc.), I love being able to customize things so I'm completely on board for anything that gives me more to change up. I'm one of the rare individuals who would enjoy tweaking the weapons, armor, etc. for the entire squad + shephard. I love making a character look the way I want, wear what I want them to, and shoot the bad guys with what I tell them to equip. Given the option I'd go to town with the Normandy as well.

I understand that to actually expect as much as I would optimally wish for is a fool's errand, but the fact remains. Anything that gives me more to trick out is game in my book.

@Scarecrow that works too, I'm down with getting more of my "phat lewt" back, just so long as there are no more "one and done" mission areas so that missing an item = permanently lost opportunity. That said, I still want stuff to buy, and way more than was available from ME2's vendors. More loot + more shop inventory = more stuff = better. Right? Of course it's right.

Okay I'm starting to get silly which means I'm out of points to make for the moment so I'll get moving. Loving the discussion, I wish they'd go ahead and reattach the sticky so we could get more participants though.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Well, certainly I advocate finding schematics for upgrades in stores, just as we found the same items in ME2. I just don't think we should buy the actual upgrade items for a customizable weapon set from the store, as it ends up creating a lot of unnecessary fetching. Also, the shop inventory would have to scale with the character in ways related to story progression, which might not make a ton of sense, and it creates a lot of inventory management that was not too fun in the last game once you settled on what you wanted.

[EternalWolfe]

Do not go gentle into that good night!

*bump for the day*

[Scarecrow_ES]

Thanks... that way I didn't have to do it.

[Timberley]

Hey Scarecrow, just had a quick browse through the rest of the responses, and I'm steadily working my way through your compendium; as you point out, it is a vast chunk of text to work through!  I like your proposals, and created my own (admittedly shorter - more for brevity than anything else) list of things I would see changed in ME3, and how to make them interesting for the player to do.  Here's the link to the post:

http://social.biowar...957/134#2125118

One thing I did note from my initial skim-read of your proposal document was that you're an X360 player.  Nothing against that in principle (everyone plays on what they prefer), but a push & hold mechanic for utilising skills/powers doesn't really work for us PC players who use the old mouse & keyboard approach.  One thing that irked me about ME2 on the PC was that I couldn't hit 'J' to get my Journal up, 'U' to get up the squad menu, etc.

Also, those talking about deeper weapon customisation; what about aesthetics?  Different scopes, stocks, magazine sizes, barrels, etc... Would they change the appearance of the weapon?  If so, then how?  Would the weapon look vastly different?  The animation used for unholstering the weapons isn't complex, but could be made more so (maybe even broken), if custom stocks and so on start getting in the way.

I'll post a bit more when I've read through things again.

Thanks,

Tim

Edit:  Link is now a link!

Modifié par Timberley, 08 avril 2010 - 01:02 .

[EternalWolfe]

Timberley wrote...

Also, those talking about deeper weapon customisation; what about aesthetics?  Different scopes, stocks, magazine sizes, barrels, etc... Would they change the appearance of the weapon?  If so, then how?  Would the weapon look vastly different?  The animation used for unholstering the weapons isn't complex, but could be made more so (maybe even broken), if custom stocks and so on start getting in the way.

I'll post a bit more when I've read through things again.

Thanks,

Tim

Edit:  Link is now a link!

Aesthetics is a balancing act - with just so many resources to go around, there's only so much they can create for a given section of a game.  I sure wouldn't mind some aesethic qualties being built into it, but the question is how much other content is it worth overall?  Hmm.

Anyways, it depends on how they do it.  If most of their modifications are internal(possible, since we are fabricating these onboard the ship), i doubt you'll see much of a change.  For instance, ammo blocks are  unlikely to show, same for VI mods and Heat Sink mods(unless you had to add something to the outside of the gun).  Barrel changes I could see, but doubtfully more then a little bit longer/shorter, which shouldn't interfere with the animation.  As for Grip/Stocks, this I can see messing with the animation, but only if they aren't careful and don't pay attention to how they model them.  Still, even for Grip/Stocks I'd wouldn't expect a large amount of model change, if any at all.

Of course, this only matters with model change - texture change wouldn't effect the animation at all.  Of course, I'd prefer if the parts didn't look different in terms of coloring, otherwise it looks like your gun was just thrown together rather then a sleek, slim military-grade weapon you fabricated with your ships systems.  Given the whole choice, I'd prefer if you could choose the colors of your guns yourself, like your armor, so you can match(or not, as you see fit).

Overall, I'd say 'possible, but unlikely' - in terms of resources and animations, it'd be far easier to just make all the mods internal and not have a direct effect(or only a small one) on the model of the gun itself.  The only way I see it making sense to put the time and money into it is if they went with the system like the armor - one base weapon(per type) and multiple components with model changes(although maybe not as different as armor pieces).  Would still prefer control over coloring, even then, though.

I'll read through your suggestions in your link later - gotta get going now, but for number 4, I've only got to say: WOOT!

[TafkanX]

@Scarecrow: Okay, so schematics drops vice physical component drops, I can live with that. That's basically what I was thinking anyhow. For the most part I think we're on the same page.

@Timbo: If given my way, then yes. Weapon appearance would change for major component swaps (but not necessarily upgrades). I don't think it needs to be so drastic as to affect the animations though. I'm thinking something along the lines of an Alliance military version of the M4 SOPMOD kit in terms of modularity. A heavier/longer barrel (increased accuracy) vs. a shorter, lighter barrel (better handling? Not sure how to represent that in a game...), blah blah etc. Regardless, the appearance would ideally change enough to make different components unique but not so drastic as to necessarily need separate animations or cause clipping problems and such.

@EternalWolfe: I agree that at a minimum we should be able to change color/texture. If there aren't enough resources to add the models for a modular weapon system, I'll just take what I can get. Still, I really hope this is something they incorporate.

[Scarecrow_ES]

In reality, as far as tangible aesthetic changes to weapons if reconfigurable mods were to be added, as discussed many mods are internal anyway, and thus have no effect on the actual model of the weapon. However, for those few points of customization that require outward changes to a model, this can still easily be accomplished if we pay close attention to key points of the model design.



For instance, barrels are not much of an issue for these weapons as long as we keep the length and/or thickness to reasonable levels. This will not effect the animation or player model interaction unless we go ridiculously out of proportion with the changes.



Grip and stock modifications can be made easily without conflict if you keep several key positions in mind... for stocks what matters is the point of connection to the weapon, and the point of collision with the player model. Keeping these two points the same will allow for otherwise infinite variation without conflict to model or animation. Grips simply have to be in the exact same position for a given weapon type, but the shape and appearance can be changed.



Scopes shouldn't really matter either, especially for weapons like the sniper rifle, pistol, and probably the shotgun since the wielding animation is simple for these weapons. It might cause minor conflict with the automatics, but it's questionable if there's even desire there to add one.



Ultimately though, we can simply stick to the KotOR system where mods have no real effect on weapon model appearance and only effect the actual "shot" appearance (ie thicker rays or pallette changes, etc). Very easy to impliment this way. I'd have to contest, TarkanX, though, that the SOPMOD is actually a modular system beyond the increased number of accessory rails. In truth, the weapon is fielded as a complete unit and outside of the accessory equipment cannot really be broken down and modified in a modular capacity. It is, for all intents and purposes, just a regular M4 with the improved handguard and a prepackaged suite of goodies that comes standard.

[TafkanX]

Fair enough, the SOPMOD isn't exactly what we're looking for but it was the only modular weapon system that came to mind. Not having come from a branch of the military that gets to play with all that fun stuff I'm only peripherally familiar with it. Nevertheless, I still think the idea is very workable. I can't imagine it would require that much more resources since it precludes the need to design multiple weapons in each category.

If they were going to design three separate weapons for each category, three separate components for each weapon is basically the same amount of work, just broken up differently. The trick is to avoid having a "super component" that is superior to all the others and rather have them all perform differently. "Spectre X" equipment invalidates all other equipment in the game, thus wasting any development time that went into everything so invalidated.

As an aside, three isn't the magic number or anything, just an arbitrary placeholder in lieu of whatever the developers actually find appropriate. Replace it with "X" if it makes you feel better.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Yeah, I definitely want to avoid the Uber system. I hate when one of something performs better than everything else it competes against, thus invalidating every other single thing there. Completely pointless.

[Masticetobbacco]

wow wayyy too much TL;DR



can someone highlight his main points for me?

[Scarecrow_ES]

Seriously? No. There's a lot to read for a reason. It's comprehensive. To get the full effect of it, you're going to have to read all of each individual section. And, to be honest, you'd actually get a lot more by reading the responsise in the topic too, because a lot of really clear ideas have come from the intelligent discussion we have here.



If you're looking for monosyllabic rambling and incoherant, but brief, posts, refer to the Wishlist thread.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Buuuuuuump because we need a decent topic on the front page.

[TafkanX]

I wish I had something meaningful to add rather than simply, "bump!" but I'm out at the moment. Surely we haven't covered every nuance yet?

[Raycer X]

Customizing your own weapons? YES PLEASE.



I doubt anyone has played it, but this reminds me of Ratchet and Clank A Crack in Time. In the game, the protagonist has three types of weapons that he could customize, a pistol, shotgun, and well... a bomb I guess you could say.



Players could customize (change) the weapons' rate of fire, ammo/bullet type, explosion type (wide area or highly condensed/small area), etc.



Maybe if Bioware could do something similar to that with a customizable assault rifle, shotgun, smg, pistol, and sniper rifle?



Other than customizable weapons, how about shoulder switching? I wouldn't mind being able to switch views from left and right shoulder...

[TafkanX]

Yes, that's more or less what we're going for with weapon customization (mostly). I'm not certain shoulder switching is overly necessary though, given that ME uses a cover system. Now choosing Shephard's handiness would be kinda neat if extraneous. Still, it seems like it would be a bit odd to have Shep go lefty after two games of shooting from the right.

[Raycer X]

TafkanX wrote...

Yes, that's more or less what we're going for with weapon customization (mostly). I'm not certain shoulder switching is overly necessary though, given that ME uses a cover system. Now choosing Shephard's handiness would be kinda neat if extraneous. Still, it seems like it would be a bit odd to have Shep go lefty after two games of shooting from the right.

I'm used to third person shooters with a cover system and shoulder switching so I feel very odd when I'm playing a TPS without shoulder switching.

I mean, whenever I'm leaning towards the end of an object I'm using as cover, I'm used to pressing a button (in every case until ME2, either the left or right joystick) to switch shoulders.
 
Shepherd doesn't have to switch guns on hand, just have the camera move to the other shoulder (and yes, I do know that you are talking about switching gun hands as a CC option, I just thought I'd mention this to prevent misinterpretation).

I mentioned shoulder switching because I remember I read some presentation by a Bioware employee's forum post about the design process of ME2. I recall that she mentioned something about (Bioware)  not knowing much about shooters or something similar to that idea.
 
I figured I throw the idea of shoulder switching out into the open and maybe hope (like everyone else) that Bioware will pick this up and consider it.

[TafkanX]

A similar solution could be an context-sensitive shoulder switch depending on the type and orientation of cover; For instance, switching to the left shoulder if firing from around a corner on your left side. I'm not sure how difficult that would be to implement smoothly. As usual, if something can be implemented without impacting quality I'm generally for it (or at the very least, not directly opposed to it) but as SC mentioned there are things I would consider higher priority to fix. Again, if they can fit it in along with the more pressing issues more power to them.

[Arijharn]

To divert the subject a bit, I've played through the game for like the umpteenth billionth time and there is one feature of the game that irritates me possibly more than the to-heatsink-not-to-heatsink discussion or the multitude of weapons-are-they-replacements debate and that is armour.

Not as in armour that we can wear or exchange, I find that to be quite interesting (as long as there were more options available) but the actual armour mechanic in the game. I think it's pointless, I think it arbritrarily lengthens the game without making it in any degree more tactical (or alternatively, making it several degrees more fun). Why would a Sergeant Borris for example, wear 'armour' whereas Lieutenant Locke wouldn't? Wouldn't everyone in combat logically wear armour?

Why does the existence of armour for example arbritrarily mean that the effect of a Lift, a Throw, a Shockwave, a Neural Shock or a Cyro Blast for example be less effective? Why can it not effect the actual mind or body of the person/synthetic it's attacking? From a structural point of view what is the point of an Adept even putting points into Throw if it's only truly effective against non-shielded non-armoured targets while Warp is effective against not only armoured targets and Biotic targets, but can also be detonated to cause additional effect?

I prefer a system where Armour was a constant mitigating effect on damage, as opposed to a slight immunity effect until it's expiration (and Armour only existed for players in the form of Fortification). How I envision it working would be in that greater armour values would grant percentile increases via Tech Upgrades/class Skills in offering increased protection.  For example; an armour value of 31% would functionally mitigate damage from all sources by 31% (A hit for 100 would instead course 69 instead), although the actual percentages would probably be much lower since there is no such thing necessarily as light armour, medium armour and heavy armour anymore. Powers that course no damage would therefore ignore armour, but would still put armour wearers (no matter what percentage protection they afford) under effect. A Ymir Mech could still be lifted even if it had it's Shields for example, but if it was Thrown, then it wouldn't take as much damage necessarily due to the effects of either it's shields or its armour plates (1200 Newton force throw would cause that damage, but wouldn't necessarily cause that damage due to armour/shields worn).

I would also change the effects of Shields and Barriers somewhat too, not in what sort of abilities work best against these defences as that affords some fine tactical play and encourages squad mate usage but also by making abilities that were supposedly susceptible to breaching these defences valuable again (for example, in game Husks must batter through your shields, at least on Normal difficulty) prior to defeating your health. Melee might breach shields but not necessarily breach Barrier's (since Barrier's to me, are generated by the Biotic him/herself, and not by a mass field generator), Neural Shock might penetrate Barrier's but not Shields (can't think of a reason at the moment why it wouldn't penetrate shields, but to me it would make sense to being more able to breach a Barrier since it affects the mind directly). Maybe subsonic projectiles might be more able to breach shields but not barriers, maybe hypervelocity rounds might have the reverse effect.

While gameplay must come before lore in some cases, mainly in order to make a really fun game, it seems to me more decisions where made to disregard 'lore' for no real purpose other than making a situation unique. This isn't necessarily a bad thing of course, but I did find it odd that Haestrom burnt through my shields while in ME1 it made quite a point to mention that toxic environments, gas and heat were notible in avoiding it. Basically, I don't like blackflips unless it was made for a good reason (i.e., was it sold well enough).

Anyway, sorry for the tangent, but I desperately needed to rant.