903 réponses à ce sujet

[Scarecrow_ES]

I do see, now, what you're getting at, but my answer to it is more or less the same as from my last reply. In doing it the way you describe, you're not having the player invest anything to outfit his weapon or other equipment with better (or otherwise unique) parts. Sure, he has to make the investment to unlock those parts for use, just as he would have to find, buy, or research any of the other categorical progression upgrades found in the research and upgrade terminals. But he makes no investment to actually use them.



If you look at it historically, when BioWare found that player investment/reward in the weapon and equipment augmentation area was out of sync, they decided that, since the system was basically being played as a linear system (except that the player had to do heavy and tedious management of it), then they could just force the system to be entirely linear and remove the tedium. Why involve the player if you don't have to? So in ME2, we end up with assault rifle damage being a research item that progresses linearly and automatically, as with all other modifications that used to be handled by augments.



Ultimately, if the player isn't invested in each and every weapon he augments, then there is little reason to get him involved in such a system. BioWare has shown this type of thinking all over the streamlining of ME2. If we want to have any hope of seeing a return to augments, we're going to have to get the player invested in those augments. If a player is only required to make a one-time investment into aquiring and using an augment, he'll likely not spend much time working within that system. He'll probably just pick something he kinda likes, and stick with it. He may not even see any incentive to go out and get other augments, or conversely will find the system to easy, and thus quickly aquire whatever he wants and have that be the end of it. Either way, the system doesn't get used and falls into the background.



The best thing you can do is get the player heavily invested into that system, but then make it kinda easy on him. Tie systems together so that participation in one will lead to participation in the others (need for augments leads to need for resources, which leads to resource mining, which leads to N7 missions, which leads to new augments, and back again).

[Filthy Lizard]

I don';t understand how your suggetion invests the player any more than mine, can you please explain to me why your system invests the player, and why my alteration of your system doesn't.



The way I see it what is really needed to keep the player invested for upgrades is having upgrades that feel significantly different from each other. for example. Thermal scope allows you to while zoomed see enemy heat signatures through cover/walls and while they are cloaked, while electromagnetic scope allows you to see and target synthetics and vehicles critical areas while zoomed in, while scope of monkeyvision shows all enemies in monkey form, or whatever ends up working in ME3's system. I decide to equip the Thermal scope on misssion 6 because I don't expect synthetic resistance, in mission 7 though I know I am going to be fighting an army of killbots so I equip the EM scope. In a system where upgrades provide significantly different advantages/uses you have all the reason in the world to be invested in the system, as long as the system is functional.



If I like the Thermal Scope I will spend the resources/creds to aquire the next level(if there are levels to upgrades), if I don't like it I will spend the creds/resources to try another type of scope. And even if I like the Thermal scope I will try to aquire other types of scopes because each will have different advantages.



Once I have aquired my upgrades I want to be able to use them, I don't want to spend resources researching them, and then re-spend resources adding it to my weapon. Once I have aquired the Viper I don't want to spend resources equipping it to myself or squad-mates, or after I have purchased my death mask I don't want to have to spend resources to add it to my armor.

[Scarecrow_ES]

We're talking about augments, not equipment or weapons, I just want to make that clear. It's not the gun that's going to cost you, it's the additional stuff that you modify on the gun that's gonna cost you.



The reason my system requires more investment is clear. First, in order to aqcuire the materials to produce augments, the player must engage in the system designed to allow him to get those resources, just the same as if the player had to go on missions or to shop in stores to find those pieces of equipment. The player invests playing time and energy into acquiring the means to in turn modify their equipment. Under your system, once a player has made an initial investment, he need never make that investment again.



Secondly, because there is a modest resource cost associated with adding mods, players will think more carefully about the choices they are making. They will invest more thought into which mods are available, what those mods do, what tradeoffs exist, etc etc. The amount of the resource cost for producing augments is relatively small compared to the research cost, so it should not be a deterrant for continual hot swapping to produce weapon configurations to meet specific mission needs, but should be enough so that players actually take the time to consider what they're doing to avoid wasting resources.



Beyond that, the notion that most players WILL want to hot swap augments from mission to mission is probably very optimistic at best. It's rare in games that allow for those sorts of actions for the player to do that. Realistically, the player is more likely to find a configuration that suits his needs and then stick with it for the rest of the game, changing that configuration only when new or more interesting augments are acquired. If ME1 hadn't forced you to continually update your equipment with the most currently available augments, the overwhelming majority of players would have set their mods in the beginning of the game and never looked back. This is true of most games with augments.



There is also the secondary issue of game lore. Having to spend resources to produce equipment in the ship-bourne mini-manufacturing facility is consistant with the lore represented in both ME and ME2 with respect to how new mechanical items are acquired aboard ship. ME1 cites mostly omni-gel as these resources, but ME2 cites both omni-gel and actual individual resources. If keeping to lore sources, any time you'd wish to produce an item to use, you'd build it directly on the ship with omni-gel (or other resources), and any time an item is no longer needed, it would be broken back down to omni-gel (or other resources).

[HCS01]

I posted this in the ME3 wish list thread and though it might be a worth repeating here:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I really want to see: OMNI TOOLS!!

If you read the codex in ME, the Omni tool is just that. A universal tool. It would be great to see more uses for it, as opposed to being a Biotic amp for tech powers. For example, when a unique opponent is killed, you head to the body and scan with your omni tool. You find that the weapon has a heavy barrel installed. These plans are stored in your omni tool and any weapon of the same class may be fitted with this mod. You would have to have enough omni gel available to fab the part. This could accomplish a weapon mod system similar to the armor system. Weapon performance could still be improved overall using the current method as well. In addition, the armory could actually serve a purpose. Mods could be adapted to other weapon classes through research, and the fabricated in the armory. This could also work for armor mods. Add on pieces to the basic suit. The off-hand ammo pack could be an addition to any arm piece as opposed to being one on it own. It is just N7 armor with a pouch on it, right?



Certain mods could then be installed in the field if Shepard or one of the squad mates on the mission are of a specific specialization. It would take time to fabricate parts though, so a teammate would be inactive for a period of time. Any interuption wastes the omni gel and you would have to start over. This also allows for different omni tools. One for fab work, one for hacking/bypassing, and one with a long range scan capability.



By the way, I like the current inventory system. I hope it stays. It is difficult to fathom a soldier walking around with 2 spare assault rifles, 1 spare shotgun, 10 types of ammo, 8 weapon mods AND a full suit of armor. I would just like a few more choices with my weapons. Either that, or personalization.



Would anyone else like to weigh in on this?

[JLBoyyy]

I'm not sure that fits with this thread.... although I would love to see the omnitool working more often since its supposed to be helpful for everything (or something similar to that)
and also, try reading the (long but rewarding) original post(s?)

Modifié par JLBoyyy, 06 août 2010 - 05:09 .

[Filthy Lizard]

I suppose it boils down to preference, I would feel invested already because I need to explore to aquire resources to research my ugrades in the first place.  I would find it to be an annoyance if I had to go and mine more resources after having already researched an upgrade, and it would feel like a slap in the face if I purchased an upgrade and then found out that I have to go mine some resources to apply it to my weapons. If i had to pay twice for upgrades I wouldn't bother with them unless they were necessary.  While you would feel more invested because you have the opportunity to go get additional resources.

I agree most players will not hot swap for every mission, but I do believe that most players will try other upgrades before deciding to revert back to their preference, this would be no less true for your suggested method of upgrading weapons.

Scarecrow_ES wrote...
There is also the secondary issue of game lore. Having to spend resources to produce equipment in the ship-bourne mini-manufacturing facility is consistant with the lore represented in both ME and ME2 with respect to how new mechanical items are acquired aboard ship. ME1 cites mostly omni-gel as these resources, but ME2 cites both omni-gel and actual individual resources. If keeping to lore sources, any time you'd wish to produce an item to use, you'd build it directly on the ship with omni-gel (or other resources), and any time an item is no longer needed, it would be broken back down to omni-gel (or other resources).

Yes it does cost resources to produce an item to use, however in keeping with ME2 after the cost has been payed the item is available to everyone that is applicable at no additional cost. When you research any upgrade in ME2 it is promptly applied to all squad members, not made available to be equipped to each seperately at the cost of yet more resources.

If your system were to be implemented as proposed it would only make sense to have the same rules apply to all equippable items, if I aquire 1 Vindicator I must spend additional resources to equip Vindicators to more than 1 character(unless for some reason I happened to find the right number of weapons to equip my squad, but then we are moving back towards the standard idea of how an inventory should work X number of Y item). If not implemented in this manner the system of manufacturing would be inconsistent(why do weapons lockers manufacture a vindicator for free, when it costs resources to manufacture a mod[which is much smaller and would require fewer raw materials]).

Modifié par Filthy Lizard, 06 août 2010 - 06:27 .

[Scarecrow_ES]

In regard to that last thought, Lizard, if you notice when you head into the armory on the SR-2, there are different versions of weapons lying about on the counters there. Typically, for the basic versions of weapons, you'll see a few iterations of each weapon being displayed in various states of disassembly (it is an armory, after all). Beyond that, you'll only ever need, at most, 3 versions of the same weapon at any given time (with the exception of the final mission). In reality, then, you'll never actually be producing new weapons anyway whenever they're swapped out.



Beyond that, the weapons themselves are complicated pieces of equipment containing at least dozens of other components and assemblies. It stands to reason that producing a full weapon would be extremely time consuming AND resource intensive. Additionally, weapons in most cases are standardized military-grade hardware, as opposed to the augments which will be, in almost all cases, non-standard custom pieces. As such, a ship like the Normandy can easily get access to a crate of standardized weapons from nearly any outlet that deals in weapons, but augments, being as rare and unique as they are, would be much harder to come by in this regular fashion.



If you think back to ME1, with your Normandy supply officer, he had to acquire licenses to carry certain types of goods, and the rarer or more advanced they were, the harder they were to come by. Also, if you remember from several missions (in the Citadel and on Noveria), advanced custom mods such as the ones we're talking about were not exactly easily trafficed, and often required less... ethical... means of acquiring them in places where there might be restrictions on such mods. As such, it's clearly easier to lay hands on a typical military firearm than it would be to pick up a specialized scope or modified firing chambers.



The schematics, in their way, act as these licenses from ME1. They allow you to produce the mods you need yourself, without having to spend time tracking the parts down.



You're right that some of it comes down to preference. And in a way, I'm sure not requiring additional investment, as you suggest, would probably be nearly as well-received as the player-invested suggestion I make. It's just my belief is that a player will find the experience more rewarding with greater investment. It's not as though we're miles apart on the issue.

[JLBoyyy]

wow, um, uber bump

[s0meguy6665]

bumpage.

[JLBoyyy]

^ what he said

[Scarecrow_ES]

Thanks... sorry. Weekends and early weekdays are becoming quite hectic for me, and unfortunately I've forgotten to stop by and check the thread the last couple of days. Glad to see you guys are still stopping by.

[yuncas]

Yup.

[JLBoyyy]

the guy above me inspired me to put this on my sig too!

[yuncas]

Good. Good.

[Raycer X]

Has anyone suggested customizable teammate AI behaviors by allowing players to select AI styles IE: "aggressive," "defensive," etc?

[JLBoyyy]

I believe so, but I'm not sure what Scarecrow has said.



I'm scared to bump too much... but Scarecrow, how is the thread getting stickied working out so far?

[TSamee]

I have one suggestion, though it regards existing systems and consequently sort of misses this list's point. Though your plan for planet scanning does sound considerably more fun than the actual system, I have an idea for players who don't particularly enjoy going through a minigame to collect resources.



Provided loot is present in Mass Effect 3, items that are useless to the player could be broken down into resources. Different weapons could correspond to different amounts of each resource obtained, just as different weapons currently require resources to upgrade. For example, a shorgun could break down into larger amounts of platinum than, say, an assault rifle. Unique items could yield unique parts when broken down, presenting the player with a decision between keeping a unique (which, while being useful now, may become underpowered later on) or earning a one-of-a-kind upgrade. For example, schematics for the previously-mentioned thermal scopes could only be obtained by breaking down one of the game's most powerful unique snipers.

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

I'd say give every enemy 2-3 times the amount of health they now have, that would make Biotics/Techs much more useful (talking about the second effect of Tech powers, of course).

Edit: Also, Shredder Ammo.

Modifié par BlackbirdSR-71C, 15 août 2010 - 02:51 .

[yuncas]

Raycer X wrote...

Has anyone suggested customizable teammate AI behaviors by allowing players to select AI styles IE: "aggressive," "defensive," etc?

Like Dragon Age? If so then I like it. It would defintiely add to the depth of combat (but keep the actual physical placement squad commands also) 

[William Adama]

I absolutely disagree with the armor system in ME2. I want the ability to equip my Shepard with custom mods like a Medical Exoskeleton and Shield interfaces.



Everyone's Shepard in ME2 ends up WITH THE EXACT SAME ARMOR MODS! Ya ok you can equip pieces to alter some 15% skill modifier but that doesn't compare to equipping the ability to regen health or provide cooldown improvements to powers.



What the hell was the point of research if everyone gets the same crap in the games progression?

[Lumikki]

First, alot of read, got bored in half way. Sorry..

Ammo clips. Point is not really about force players to take short pause from shooting. Point is about "force" players to think, is this best weapon to this situation. Because if I'm using wrong weapon, I could end out of ammos with this weapon, when I really could need it. That's the point of clips.

In my opinion armor customation has two different task.

1. Visuality.

Meaning this has no bonuses, this just create basic how the armor looks. You can customize the visuality.

2. Bonus features

This is about adding bonuses and functions to armor.

In ME2 armors has these base bonuses. That should not even exist, they should all be part of customation. Every armor should have 3 resistance, based games design. Bionic, physical and technological. Meaning, when player add sertain "items" to they armors, it affects these 3 stuff or it could create some special feature or advance. Now, physical resistance is agaist physical attacks. Bionic is agaist bionic attacks. Technological shields is agaist technological attacks. Player have to choose what to increase and what to leave weaker. Other attribute bonuses culd be like stealth support, light reflection, movement speed, health regeneration, bionic regeneration and so on..

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 août 2010 - 07:00 .

[JLBoyyy]

I think Scarecrow suggests that there should be more customization in armor, but also making the armor pieces make changes have at least a little impact of how the game is played.

[Scarecrow_ES]

So sorry guys that I'm not able to be around much lately. My fiance and I are getting so busy in our personal lives that I've barely had time to get online for anything other than business. Beyond that, astonishingly, my 360 hasn't been on in well over a week - which is saying a lot because I am a daily gamer (the more time the merrier) - so that just goes to show how swamped I've been.



Let's see... AI squadmate orders... it's been mentioned at some point in the topic, though you guess is as good as mine as to which pages those discussions have fallen on. I am certainly in favor of doing one of two things with squadmate AI. Either make them smart enough to operate on their own - being generally helpful in support of your Shepard as the primary combat character, staying out of the way as best as possible, and taking actions that best highlights their individual classes as well as integrates with the classes of the other squadmates - which would require highly sophisticated AI programming of which BioWare is certainly capable... OR... allow us to pick and choose basic aspects of our AI squadmat action to fit into our own personal view of how they should behave, including aggressiveness, range, primary combat type, primary combat role, etc etc etc - again this is something BioWare already has put out there in past games, and is common across other franchises (Fallout: New Vegas has this in spades).



What we don't need is poorly programmed AI teammates and no way to reign them in - more or less what we have now. But the AI is certainly functional. Your teammates assists as most "dumb" AI assists, but more often than not, you are forced to conform your efforts to your teammate's innane abilities, and not the other way around. Not really a hallmark of good RPG strategy... but then again, ME was always rpg-light, and seems to be ever pulling away from RPG roots, so who knows where this is going to go.



Armor. I'm not entirely sure I'm much interested in going back to a truly augmentable armor system like that in ME1, even if we have augmentable weapons in the next installment. Weapons are made up of a series of readily interchangeable modules and parts, and any person who wishes to replace one of those parts for a custom piece can do so to their heart's content given time, expertise, and money. If I wanna throw on a custom barrel to a gun, change the grip or butt stock, add a laser sight, mount a scope, etc etc... I can do that with no more effort than is required to break down the gun for simple maintenance. But how can I tear down an armored chest plate to insert a few layers of specially strengthed fiber material between existing layers of fiber composites? Can't.



And there's the rub with armor augments. Everything in armor is part of the integrated system. You can't simply slip in a new type of material. You can pop out and exchange the hundreds (if not thousands) of kinetic barrier emitters with a type that will give you a 3% boost in shield density. What makes sense for weapons in terms of augments doesn't for armor. Far more likely to happen would be for a person to exchange out individual complete pieces of armor for other ones that suit his purposes better, and ultimately this is what ME2 does.



Unfortunately, there IS that issue where switching out parts doesn't give you much more than a minor aesthetical change because the actual buff associated with a piece of armor is so incredibly minor as to ensure its effect won't be noticed. The solution is to make those choices more tangible to the player, which can be done simply by increasing the buff by a small percentage. And of course, to ensure the player gets the combination of buffs he wants, give him a greater variety of pieces to play with. I think once you really look at it, the ME2 armor system accomplishes the same base augmentation capability that existed in ME1, except that it accomplishes those augments in a very different way. Rather than taking a base armor suit and adding an overall improvement to the suit in one particular area (healing ability, damage/biotic/tech resistance, etc), you are given a selection of parts that have those augments built in. If you want a suit which adds health regeneration and a 3% increase in shield strenght, simply add the parts that do that. You'll also notice your suit changes in appearance as well to reflect the change you've made in attributes, which ME1's suits never did. The end result is EXACTLY the same in terms of buffs/debuffs, but now you have an aesthetic difference as well. We really just need to make all those changes more tangible to the player. A 3% difference in anything is beyond a human's ability to perceive.

[JLBoyyy]

bumpy time

[yuncas]

Yup it's a bump.