10273 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Some Geth wrote...
I have a friend who thinks like that about Age of Conan I need to try itB).

If you do, here's some brief off topic advice:

You will need to assign everything on your hotbar to a key.  If you're clicking, you're failing.  Mouse is for turning and camera only, in fact the most vile insult anyone can bestow upon an Age of Conan player is a tie between a "clicker" and "keyturner."

Anyway, it's definitely rewarding even if it's a much steeper learning curve than say, WoW.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 septembre 2010 - 06:52 .

[Clover Rider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Some Geth wrote...
I have a friend who thinks like that about Age of Conan I need to try itB).

If you do, here's some brief off topic advice:

You will need to assign everything on your hotbar to a key.  If you're clicking, you're failing.  Mouse is for turning and camera only, in fact the most vile insult anyone can bestow upon an Age of Conan player is a tie between a "clicker" and "keyturner."

Anyway, it's definitely rewarding even if it's a much steeper learning curve than say, WoW.

But is it hard at all?I like my games to be hard;).

[upsettingshorts]

Some Geth wrote...
But is it hard at all?I like my games to be hard;).

I had a longer answer typed but for the sake of remaining on topic I'll say: A qualified yes.  If ya want details, send me a PM.

[Clover Rider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Some Geth wrote...
But is it hard at all?I like my games to be hard;).

I had a longer answer typed but for the sake of remaining on topic I'll say: A qualified yes.  If ya want details, send me a PM.

That's ok just need a yes well I think I will get it as soon as I have some money<_<.

[Terror_K]

Fine. Stay ignorant. Just don't blame those who are against the dumbing down of games when everything is the same generic brown crap in the near future. What's the point in even debating with people who can't even back up their own claims and offer a decent counterpoint and instead just go "everything you say is crap and lies!" just because their precious little Fisher Price: My First RPG is getting torn apart for its inadequacies. From the sounds of it you don't even want depth, customisation or a game that requires a little thought. You are the reason that we're getting pathetically dull and shallow systems in games.

[upsettingshorts]

As my last attempt at trying to explain what's going on here despite the fact I'm being insulted, here's a handy graphical aide hastily - and comically - assembled in MSPAINT:







Notice how the RPG system lacks variety, and the Shooter system lacks progression. Also notice how each has one part "greyed out" while part is filled, that's supposed to show that neither system appeals to this so called "dumbed down" crowd - there's an equal amount to be understood and learned, it just goes about it differently. Would I love to see a full square-shaped system that has both progression and variety? You bet.

[SithLordExarKun]

Embrosil wrote...


As I said earlier, in ME2 I simply do not see ANY difference between the two assault rifles. Yes, one fires fast, second one fires short bursts. So what? It takes me EXACTLY same time to kill an enemy with one or the other.

I don't see any difference between an M-16A4 with an M16A2 or a HK416. Why don't you go to the army and complain about that? It takes ONE short from each weapon to kill an enemy ergo theres no difference between any weapons in the military.

Really, the nitpicks from some ME1 fanatics are preposterous. Sure, ME2 had PLENTLY of flaws, but some of the 'nitpicks' just get ridiculous.

[SithLordExarKun]

Kavadas wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Again, how do you know they have a different caliber? Show me a proof.

Download Notepad++, open up your Coalesced.ini, and do a quick search for "[SFXGameContent_Inventory.SFXWeapon_AssaultRifle]". 

That entry is the Avenger AR.  The first value listed in that entry is the Damage (per shot) value.  Now scroll down and notice that no two weapons have identical Damage values.  I can't even find any weapons that have identical RateOfFire values either.

For reference, the Mattock's Damage value is set at 50.8, is semi-auto, and with a 16 round magazine.  The Avenger is set to 10.8, rate of fire 850, with a 40 round magazine.  The Vindicator is set to 36.8 for damage, three round burst, with a 24 round magazine.

All weapons also have completely unique accuracy, recoil, and damage drop off at range values.

Edit: Here are the C.ini entries for the Avenger and Vindicator for a quick comparison:
Editx2: I went one further and threw in the Mattock's values complete with the actual developer notes included in BIOWeapon.ini (they'll be in green).

[SFXGameContent_Inventory.SFXWeapon_AssaultRifle] --> Avenger
Damage=(X=10.8,Y=10.8)
DamageAI=1.1f
DamageHench=0.55f
RateOfFire=(X=850,Y=850)
MagSize=(X=40,Y=40)
LowAmmoSoundThreshold=10
TracerSpawnOffset=5.0
bInfiniteAmmo=false
InitialMagazines=10
MaxSpareAmmo=(X=400,Y=400)
MinAimError=(X=1.4,Y=1.4)
MaxAimError=(X=6.2,Y=6.2)
AccFirePenalty=12.7f
AccFireInterpSpeed=12.0f
CrosshairRange=(X=30,Y=80)
MinZoomAimError=(X=0.5,Y=0.5)
MaxZoomAimError=(X=1.4f,Y=1.4f)
ZoomAccFirePenalty=28.35f
ZoomAccFireInterpSpeed=28.0f
ZoomCrosshairRange=(X=30,Y=50)
Recoil=(X=1,Y=1)
ZoomRecoil=(X=1,y=1)
RecoilInterpSpeed=10.f
RecoilFadeSpeed=0.95f
RecoilZoomFadeSpeed=0.90f
RecoilYawScale=0.2f
RecoilYawBias=0.0f
RecoilYawFrequency=4.0f
PrettyName=209727
GUIclassName=338199
GUIclassDescription=340840
GeneralDescription=338211
ShortDescription=339266
GUIImage=GUI_Codex_Images.AssaultRifle_512
IconRef=5
SteamSoundThreshold=1
NoAmmoFireSoundDelay=0.5
AI_BurstFireCount=(X=10,Y=40)
AI_BurstFireDelay=(X=0.65f,Y=3.25f)
AI_BurstFireMovingDelay=(X=0.65f,Y=2.f)
AI_AimDelay=(X=0.4,Y=0.4)

[SFXGameContent_Inventory.SFXWeapon_Needler] --> Vindicator
Damage=(X=36.8,Y=36.8)
DamageAI=1.1f
DamageHench=0.55f
RateOfFire=(X=900,Y=900)
MagSize=(X=24,Y=24)
LowAmmoSoundThreshold=15
TracerSpawnOffset=5.0
bUpgradesBasicWeapon=true
bInfiniteAmmo=false
InitialMagazines=4
MaxSpareAmmo=(X=96,Y=96)
BurstRounds=3
BurstRefireTime=0.625f
MinRefireTime=0.3f
MinAimError=(X=0.5,Y=0.5)
MaxAimError=(X=3.5,Y=3.5)
AccFirePenalty=19.0f
AccFireInterpSpeed=18.0f
CrosshairRange=(X=28,Y=60)
MinZoomAimError=(X=0.3f,Y=0.3f)
MaxZoomAimError=(X=1.2,Y=1.2)
ZoomAccFirePenalty=37f
ZoomAccFireInterpSpeed=35f
ZoomCrosshairRange=(X=25,Y=40)
Recoil=(X=0.2f,Y=0.2f)
ZoomRecoil=(X=0.2f,y=0.2f)
RecoilInterpSpeed=10.f
RecoilFadeSpeed=0.65f
RecoilZoomFadeSpeed=0.65f
RecoilYawScale=0.5f
RecoilYawBias=0.0f
RecoilYawFrequency=6.0f
PrettyName=209728
IconRef=10
GeneralDescription=338212
ShortDescription=339274
GUIImage=GUI_Codex_Images.Needler_512
SteamSoundThreshold=1
NoAmmoFireSoundDelay=0.7
AI_BurstFireCount=(X=2,Y=4)
AI_BurstFireDelay=(X=0.75f,Y=3.5f)
AI_BurstFireMovingDelay=(X=0.75f,Y=2.25f)
AI_AimDelay=(X=0.6,Y=0.6)

[SFXGameContentDLC_Desert.SFXWeapon_DesertAssaultRifle] --> Mattock
;; Damage
Damage=(X=50.4,Y=50.4)
DamageAI=0.8f
DamageHench=0.4f
;; Same ROF as the Anti-mat
RateOfFire=(X=750,Y=750)
TracerSpawnOffset=2.0

;; Not sure about the ammo, should probably be low because the gun should feel powerful
MagSize=(X=16,Y=16)
LowAmmoSoundThreshold=6
InitialMagazines=4
MaxSpareAmmo=(X=64,Y=64)

;; Burst is set so the player has to re-engage the trigger to continue firing
BurstRounds=1
BurstRefireTime=999.0f
AIBurstRefireTimeMin=0.1
AIBurstRefireTimeMax=0.2

MinAimError=(X=1.6,Y=1.6)
MaxAimError=(X=4.0,Y=4.0)
AccFirePenalty=320.0f
AccFireInterpSpeed=420.0f
CrosshairRange=(X=35,Y=65)

;; In zoom recoil is very similar to the Needler
;; Recoil
;; Zoomed accuracy
MinZoomAimError=(X=0.35f,Y=0.35f)
MaxZoomAimError=(X=1.5,Y=1.5)
ZoomAccFirePenalty=40f
ZoomAccFireInterpSpeed=38f
ZoomCrosshairRange=(X=25,Y=40)

;; Recoil is completely based off the anti-mat rifle
Recoil=(X=3.0f,Y=3.0f)
ZoomRecoil=(X=1.5,Y=1.5)
RecoilInterpSpeed=15.f
RecoilFadeSpeed=3.0f
RecoilZoomFadeSpeed=0.95f
RecoilYawScale=0.2f
RecoilYawBias=-0.2f
RecoilYawFrequench=60

;; GUI
PrettyName=362192
IconRef=2
GeneralDescription=362193
ShortDescription=362194
GUIImage="DLC_GUI_MCR_01.HeavyAssaultRifle_512"

;; AI
AI_BurstFireCount=(X=2,Y=6)
AI_BurstFireDelay=(X=0.65f,Y=2.3f)
AI_BurstFireMovingDelay=(X=0.5f,Y=2.f)
AI_AimDelay=(X=0.3,Y=0.3)

Now please stop being so horribly ignorant and wrong.  Plus how could anyone not notice the difference in damage between something like the Widowmaker and Mantis?  How stupid do you think the posters on this board are?  There's a 318 point difference in damage (Mantis does 50.1, Widowmaker does 368.1)!

And to go even further if you include the +15% weapon damage from Soldier's Combat Mastery's evolved power, Commando, and the possible +60% damage from the six sniper rifle upgrades, you end up with:

Mantis: 50.1 + (50.1*0.15) + (50.1*0.6) = 87.675
Widowmaker: 368.1 = (368.1*0.15) + (368.1*0.6) = 644.175
644.175 - 87.675 = 556.5

You never noticed a 556.5 point difference between the two sniper rifles?  Do you really expect anyone on this forum to believe you?

Pure raw ownage.  Not saying ME2's weapon system is perfect but there is a feel of variety between each weapon.

[Terror_K]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

As my last attempt at trying to explain what's going on here despite the fact I'm being insulted, here's a handy graphical aide hastily - and comically - assembled in MSPAINT:



Notice how the RPG system lacks variety, and the Shooter system lacks progression. Also notice how each has one part "greyed out" while part is filled, that's supposed to show that neither system appeals to this so called "dumbed down" crowd - there's an equal amount to be understood and learned, it just goes about it differently. Would I love to see a full square-shaped system that has both progression and variety? You bet.

And I'm not denying this aspect. But I don't think it's a good thing and the right move for BioWare to purposefully just abandon the one on the left for the one on the right, which is exactly what they did with ME2. Just because the system in ME1 was somewhat akin to the one on the left (though I have to say that the variety factor isn't entirely true on either side. Both have it in their own way, but neither are the complete package: ME1 has more variety in total items and customisation/modding, while ME2 has more in the actual weapons themselves, but at the expense of getting rid of the other) doesn't mean it has to be.

Not all RPGs have a bad inventory system, and you don't need to completely abandon them entirely to make them functional. ME2's works "better" because it simply has less moving parts and less to break, but it's also shallow and lacking because of this, and for an RPG that's a bad thing. BioWare should have tried to expand it out into --as you said-- a full square, but they didn't. They didn't even try, and purposefully turned the system on its side. And while I can understand why some can think it works better on a technical level, I simply don't get how people can see this as the right way to do things and I don't get why they'd encourage BioWare to take this route and praise them and pat them on the back for doing it. It's still a mediocre system that lacks, but in a different way. And praising mediocrity is just going to get you more mediocrity.

If those of you who defend ME2 really do claim to prefer a richer, deeper system that incorporates the best of both worlds with the weaknesses of neither, stop praising ME2 so much. The only way BioWare is going to give us a deeper system is if enough people want it, and right now as far as they seemed to be concerned Mass Effect 2 was gaming's second coming of Jesus. If you're actually satisfied with the way it is now, then fine... I really don't see how anybody can be, least of all RPG fans, but go ahead and praise the system if you really feel it's great. But if you think it can be more and be far better, then you should say so.

It doesn't really matter if ME1 did it better or ME2 did it better, what matters is that both of them didn't do it well. And that's not going to change with ME3 unless BioWare is sent a clear message that it's not good enough.

[upsettingshorts]

If I had to pick between the one on the left or right, it depends:

Firearms: Right side, no question.
Melee weapons: Left side, no question.

That explains why you won't see me complaining much about the systems Dragon Age: Origins or Baldur's Gate 2 uses - while at the same time preferring Mass Effect 2 to ME1.  It's a matter of preference not "DUR IM TOO STUPID TO READ STATS" which is why myself and I imagine many others get really annoyed when people claim we have to be stupid people who like dumbed down mechanics or something.

And it's not really about depth.  It's about progression versus variety.

Edit: More or less, a gun is a gun.  They're all equally capable of shooting things and killing people.  The differences come from caliber, rate of fire, accuracy, recoil, ammo magazine... differences that are actually reflected in Mass Effect 2.  Swords and stuff in RPGs tend to differentiate themselves from one another based on quality (material used for construction) and magical properties (basically lore-themed stat bonuses).  More often than not, your character still uses Newbie Sword the same exact way as Awesome Sword +4, the latter is just better.   But the same can't be said for an accurate semi-automatic rifle compared to a full-auto SMG, neither is "better" and they are each ideal in different situations.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 septembre 2010 - 09:35 .

[brfritos]

Just for the sake of it, that's why we need stats in ME3 (and weapons mod)

Equalizer Sniper Rifle level IV

Damage = 179
Shots before overheath = 1.4
Accuracy = 50

Striker Sniper Rifle level IV

Damage = 152
Shots before overheath = 1.5
Accuracy = 59

These stats are directly taken from ME1 weapons description and this sniper rifles are obtainable pretty earlier in the game.
The Striker is cheap and is available in the shops of the Citadel and the Equalizer is given to you in the first mission you choose (Therum, Feros or Noveria), you'll always find him in the battlefield for what I remember.

Now you people look and think, "Equalizer all the way, the Striker sucks".
Not so fast junior.

The Equalizer is indeed more powerfull and overheat in less time than the Striker.
But accuracy plays a big hole in ME1 and the Striker is more accurate.
A level IV weapon usually indicates that you have access to Kinetic Stabilizer IV, wich grants more 15% of accuracy, if I remember correctly.
And if you have sniper rifles talent in level IV, this means more 17%.

So you have the Striker 59 + 17 + 15 = 91 of accuracy and the Equalizer 50 + 17 + 15 = 82.

The next level of Striker and sniper rifle talent will make the Striker sniper rifle completelly steady.
If you people don't remember, Sniper Rifles bounce all the way if the accuracy aren't at 100%.
But hey, there's even another option for using sniper rifles in ME1 if you want: instead of upgrading your accuracy, you can upgrade the cooldown of your powers and use assassination ability, wich will make your sniper steady and more powerfull.
The choice is yours.

Using a analogy, the USAF have the bomber A-10 Thunderbolt II, called with love by the pilots as "Warthog". LOL
The specification is to provide close air support for ground forces by attacking tanks, armored vehicles, and other ground targets with a limited air interdiction capability.
But the USAF have the F-15 Strike Eagle, a all-weather tactical fighter designed to gain and maintain air superiority in aerial combat.

F-15's can be used to ground attack, as demonstrated in the first Gulf War, attacking Scud missiles launchers and artillery sites.
The purpose of the two airplanes are completelly different and that's what the stats are for, to indicate in wich situation one is better than the other.
Or will you use a F-15 to bomb tanks as a primary role?

Bioware can do better than that regarding the weapons upgrades and stats.
My pick with ME2 is another one.

In ME2 I usually have only one way to do something and I'm punished if I decided to do another way.
Let's suppose I don't want to do Miranda's loyalty mission. Yes, f**k the bimbo, I don't care about her or even if her sister were made a sex slave by the father. What the game does?
Yes, it punish me not giving the SMG and Medigel upgrade.
Or if I say to Conrad get lost?
The game punish me again doing things become more expensive.

Well we all asked the devs to give the side-quests and side-characters some meaning, right?
Even if it's make no sense.
 

[Terror_K]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

If I had to pick between the one on the left or right, it depends:

Firearms: Right side, no question.
Melee weapons: Left side, no question.

That explains why you won't see me complaining much about the systems Dragon Age: Origins or Baldur's Gate 2 uses - while at the same time preferring Mass Effect 2 to ME1.  It's a matter of preference not "DUR IM TOO STUPID TO READ STATS" which is why myself and I imagine many others get really annoyed when people claim we have to be stupid people who like dumbed down mechanics or something.

And it's not really about depth.  It's about progression versus variety.

That may be, but ME2 only has more variety amongst the weapons themselves, not overall. You can't mod the weapons (or the armour for that matter), and there's less weapons overall. Why can't we have, for example, three guns that feel exactly like The Widow, but one excels in damage, while one excels in taking down shields and barriers, another is good at armour piercing , etc. Why can't I modify the weapons? Why does progression have to be totally screwed by an awful upgrade system that does the work for you and just makes everything great with no trade-offs (since proper RPG progression is about picking and choosing what works best, not being able to have the best of everything automatically). Why does every item have to be in the same boring place? Why is every weapon pretty much inevitable? And why, most of all, do the stats HAVE to be hidden?

And that's the overall thing: it doesn't have to be this way. Like you say, it's about progression versus variety. But what I say is that it doesn't have to be, and that BioWare shouldn't have made it that way. You can have both. Variety doesn't automatically mean shallow linearity, but it did with ME2. And it didn't need to, just like it didn't need to mean that RPG was completely removed from the combat, that armour had to stop acting like armour, that biotic amps and omnitools needed to go, that thermal clips needed to be introduced, that ammo mods needed to be switched to powers, etc.

[Epic777]

brfritos wrote...

Just for the sake of it, that's why we need stats in ME3 (and weapons mod)

Equalizer Sniper Rifle level IV

Damage = 179
Shots before overheath = 1.4
Accuracy = 50

Striker Sniper Rifle level IV

Damage = 152
Shots before overheath = 1.5
Accuracy = 59

These stats are directly taken from ME1 weapons description and this sniper rifles are obtainable pretty earlier in the game.
The Striker is cheap and is available in the shops of the Citadel and the Equalizer is given to you in the first mission you choose (Therum, Feros or Noveria), you'll always find him in the battlefield for what I remember.

Now you people look and think, "Equalizer all the way, the Striker sucks".
Not so fast junior.

The Equalizer is indeed more powerfull and overheat in less time than the Striker.
But accuracy plays a big hole in ME1 and the Striker is more accurate.
A level IV weapon usually indicates that you have access to Kinetic Stabilizer IV, wich grants more 15% of accuracy, if I remember correctly.
And if you have sniper rifles talent in level IV, this means more 17%.

So you have the Striker 59 + 17 + 15 = 91 of accuracy and the Equalizer 50 + 17 + 15 = 82.

The next level of Striker and sniper rifle talent will make the Striker sniper rifle completelly steady.
If you people don't remember, Sniper Rifles bounce all the way if the accuracy aren't at 100%.
But hey, there's even another option for using sniper rifles in ME1 if you want: instead of upgrading your accuracy, you can upgrade the cooldown of your powers and use assassination ability, wich will make your sniper steady and more powerfull.
The choice is yours.

Using a analogy, the USAF have the bomber A-10 Thunderbolt II, called with love by the pilots as "Warthog". LOL
The specification is to provide close air support for ground forces by attacking tanks, armored vehicles, and other ground targets with a limited air interdiction capability.
But the USAF have the F-15 Strike Eagle, a all-weather tactical fighter designed to gain and maintain air superiority in aerial combat.

F-15's can be used to ground attack, as demonstrated in the first Gulf War, attacking Scud missiles launchers and artillery sites.
The purpose of the two airplanes are completelly different and that's what the stats are for, to indicate in wich situation one is better than the other.
Or will you use a F-15 to bomb tanks as a primary role?

Bioware can do better than that regarding the weapons upgrades and stats.
My pick with ME2 is another one.

In ME2 I usually have only one way to do something and I'm punished if I decided to do another way.
Let's suppose I don't want to do Miranda's loyalty mission. Yes, f**k the bimbo, I don't care about her or even if her sister were made a sex slave by the father. What the game does?
Yes, it punish me not giving the SMG and Medigel upgrade.
Or if I say to Conrad get lost?
The game punish me again doing things become more expensive.

Well we all asked the devs to give the side-quests and side-characters some meaning, right?
Even if it's make no sense.
 

Or just save up for spectre VII and X weapons.

[Lumikki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The combat in Age of Conan is my favorite example. The combat in that game has completely ruined me for all MMOs and most swords/magic RPGs. Nothing I've seen compares, personally.

Not much to say, I played Age of Conan one day and then I closed my account. It wasn't so bad, but there  was nothing new and some stuff was badly done.  I ques it can work for some people, but when I tryed use bow I could not stop laughing, you had to allmost walk in melee range to able shoot with range weapon.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

As my last attempt at trying to explain what's going on here despite the fact I'm being insulted, here's a handy graphical aide hastily - and comically - assembled in MSPAINT:



Notice how the RPG system lacks variety, and the Shooter system lacks progression. Also notice how each has one part "greyed out" while part is filled, that's supposed to show that neither system appeals to this so called "dumbed down" crowd - there's an equal amount to be understood and learned, it just goes about it differently. Would I love to see a full square-shaped system that has both progression and variety? You bet.

And I'm not denying this aspect. But I don't think it's a good thing and the right move for BioWare to purposefully just abandon the one on the left for the one on the right, which is exactly what they did with ME2.

So, you are more angry that they change it in between ME1 and ME2, than actually thinking what's good for games style? I don't believe you. After reading long time this thread, I would say more like You prefer anyway traditional RPG style, does it fit the theme and style of the game, has no meaning to you. Other ways you would recognize when some gameplay style is better to sertain themes and story.

I mean RPG progression is really good in games like DAO, because young new recruit starts journey and become very powefull at end. In Mass Effect story the main character is already best in the field, there is no upward progression to go. Now if You think ME1 progression, it did not make any sense. Sure, it's RPG progression, but it did not fit the games style and story.

It's difference between linear and parallel progression.

I do agree with you end comment that both of them did not do "hole" game as well. Both of them had bad and good points, just little in different areas.

Modifié par Lumikki, 18 septembre 2010 - 03:01 .

[Fhaileas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

As my last attempt at trying to explain what's going on here despite the fact I'm being insulted, here's a handy graphical aide hastily - and comically - assembled in MSPAINT:

Oooh, that's pretty! Here's mine:

[upsettingshorts]

Lumikki wrote...
Not much to say, I played Age of Conan one day and then I closed my account. It wasn't so bad, but there  was nothing new and some stuff was badly done.  I ques it can work for some people, but when I tryed use bow I could not stop laughing, you had to allmost walk in melee range to able shoot with range weapon.

Ranger was my first class, and bow was stupid overpowered (for PVP, PVE crossbow is faster for XP) starting from around level 15, peaking at around 40, and declining after that to around a balanced point at endgame.  Granted, that was before the latest patch which overhauled them completely but yes, bow range does start out very low and until 10 - when you start getting real damage abilities for it, ranger is a melee class and uses both interchangeably until around L20.   In addition, a few ranger abilities and higher level bows add to one's reach.  Again, before the latest patch.  Still, while I usually say "to each his own" and I violated the "give it a chance" principle on at least one occasion myself - I played Warhammer for approx 45 min total - judging Conan's combat by low level archery isn't fair.  The real strength and highlight of Conan's combat system are the melee classes, by an strong margin.

Fhaileas wrote...

Oooh, that's pretty! Here's mine:

And that image's point is..?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 septembre 2010 - 04:36 .

[Lumikki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Not much to say, I played Age of Conan one day and then I closed my account. It wasn't so bad, but there  was nothing new and some stuff was badly done.  I ques it can work for some people, but when I tryed use bow I could not stop laughing, you had to allmost walk in melee range to able shoot with range weapon.

Still, while I usually say "to each his own" and I violated the "give it a chance" principle on at least one occasion myself - I played Warhammer for approx 45 min total - judging Conan's combat by low level archery isn't fair.  The real strength and highlight of Conan's combat system are the melee classes, by an strong margin.

I did not judge the game, I just noticed that it wasn't for me. Why? Because I don't like to play melee classes. I did not play melee classes in DAO at all, except to see the origin content. So, I allways play range attack class. Also I wasn't thinking damage of bow , but distance. It was like 20m or something like that. I have played range attack classes where distance can be allmoust 100m. Like I sayed fine for some players, but not for me. Why You think I played mostly infiltrator in Mass Effect serie. Also after playing 10 years mmorpgs, you get bored to how same kind the all of them are.

Modifié par Lumikki, 18 septembre 2010 - 06:13 .

[upsettingshorts]

Like I said, there are some abilities and better bows that add to range, but in the way of 10 more meters, not 80. It's mostly relative anyway, ever since the casters lost their ranged CCs bow rangers have a pretty obvious plan of attack against most toons, and 30m tends to be "enough" considering the damage endgame rangers are capable of.  But yeah, if you don't like melee than Conan probly isn't for you - though the caster classes are kinda cool I never played them myself.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 septembre 2010 - 06:38 .

[Embrosil]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Embrosil wrote...


As I said earlier, in ME2 I simply do not see ANY difference between the two assault rifles. Yes, one fires fast, second one fires short bursts. So what? It takes me EXACTLY same time to kill an enemy with one or the other.

I don't see any difference between an M-16A4 with an M16A2 or a HK416. Why don't you go to the army and complain about that? It takes ONE short from each weapon to kill an enemy ergo theres no difference between any weapons in the military.

Really, the nitpicks from some ME1 fanatics are preposterous. Sure, ME2 had PLENTLY of flaws, but some of the 'nitpicks' just get ridiculous.

But it is hardly my fault you are unable to find a simple data or are unable to understand them, is it not?

HK 416

Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO 
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt
Overall length (stock collapsed/extended): 10" barrel: 686 / 785 mm; 14" barrel
Barrel lengths: 10.5" / 267mm; 14.5" / 368mm; 16.5" / 419mm and 20" / 508mm 
Weight: 3.31 kg w. 10.5" barrel, 3.5kg w 14.5" barrel, 3.85 kg w  20" barrelRate of fire: 700-900 rounds per minute Magazine capacity: 30 rounds

M16A2
Caliber 5.56x45mm NATO / M855
Action gas operated, rotating bolt
Overall length 1006 mm
Barrel length 508 mm
Weight 3.77 kg
Magazine capacity 20 or 30 rounds standard
Rate of fire, cyclic 700 - 950 rounds per minute

M16A4
Caliber 5.56x45mm NATO / M855
Action gas operated, rotating bolt
Overall length 1000 mm
Barrel length 508 mm
Weight 3.4 kg
Magazine capacity 20 or 30 rounds standard
Rate of fire, cyclic 700 - 950 rounds per minute

I can see that by equipping HK, I can choose from at least three types based upon the barrel length. And I can also see that if I needed a longer range, I would chose the 508mm barrel and M16A4 which is at least 400g lighter. But you are right, these three are really similar. And now tell me how would you know they are similar without these stats? You'd buy all three and tried them??? BTW the Czech army ordered the CZ 805 as its new main rifle. So why should I go complain anywhere?

And the second post you meant as a proof of my words, right? Why the hell would I open some file to read statistics that should be in the game in the first place but was removed because some lazy moron found it cool to make a shooter from an RPG?

Have I ever in my post mentioned sniper rifles? No, I mentioned assault rifles and SMGs. I am not that blind not to see a difference in sniper rifles. And yes, maybe I am stupid, but I do not see ANY difference in killing enemies using either Avanger or Vindicator. For me, both have the same DPS, difference in them is purely visual.

Modifié par Embrosil, 18 septembre 2010 - 07:25 .

[Embrosil]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Edit: More or less, a gun is a gun.  They're all equally capable of shooting things and killing people.  The differences come from caliber, rate of fire, accuracy, recoil, ammo magazine... differences that are actually reflected in Mass Effect 2.  Swords and stuff in RPGs tend to differentiate themselves from one another based on quality (material used for construction) and magical properties (basically lore-themed stat bonuses).  More often than not, your character still uses Newbie Sword the same exact way as Awesome Sword +4, the latter is just better.   But the same can't be said for an accurate semi-automatic rifle compared to a full-auto SMG, neither is "better" and they are each ideal in different situations.

Than I must be blind or play a different game. I do not see ANY of these at the equipment screen. All I see is This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields a and armor and This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields a and armor. Hell I even can not see the magazine size before equiping the weapon. Which would not be necessary if someone would not find it funny to implement the ammo, right?

Modifié par Embrosil, 18 septembre 2010 - 07:18 .

[lolwot]

I could be misremembering, but doesn't Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, a linear FPS played by more than 10 million people, have stat bars for comparing the attributes of any weapon? I'm pretty sure that the bars even change to reflect weapon upgrades like scopes. Granted, it's probably unnecessary, but I prefer having that option to not having that option, and I sincerely doubt that TPS/FPS fans would be repulsed by seeing stat bars in Mass Effect 2.

[Kavadas]

Let's be clear, no one in these last few pages has ever advocated that providing more statistical data for weapons would be stupid or unwelcome.

It was just a dispersion brought up by Embrosil because he or she claimed that since the interface didn't explicitly show how the stats of weapons are different then they simply weren't different at all.

Which I then proceeded to absolutely demolish by providing the raw weapon data from the Coalesced.ini for easy comparison.

Modifié par Kavadas, 18 septembre 2010 - 08:16 .

[upsettingshorts]

Embrosil wrote...
Than I must be blind or play a different game. I do not see ANY of these at the equipment screen. All I see is This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields a and armor and This rifle is good against kinetic barriers, shields a and armor. Hell I even can not see the magazine size before equiping the weapon. Which would not be necessary if someone would not find it funny to implement the ammo, right?

You're not blind.  Just because they don't display the stats doesn't mean they aren't there.  That's a GUI problem and not a weapon system problem.  And like we're saying, no one who is voicing their preference for Mass Effect 2's system is suggesting at all that stats shouldn't be displayed.  

That being said you have to actually - gasp - pick up the weapons and try them out.  Then you'll see the variation we're talking about.  Or just look at the excerpt of Coalesced.ini posted above.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 septembre 2010 - 09:11 .