40 réponses à ce sujet

[sandman7431]

Does any one else think that the next game should have a more developed CQC system?  Just having the one melee button with no melee weapons seemed a little out of place when you consider the action oriented gameplay.  I think they should have full on human-shield type stuff in the next one.  You should definately be able to grab a vorcha and use him as a shield or perhaps execute stealth kills with some type of blade as an infiltrator.  I know they have their hands full working on ship combat but I'd like to see this as well.  Thoughts?

[CrazyShuba]

Stealth combat for Infiltrators would be nice, but the whole meatshield thing just doesn't appeal to me.

They make enough barriers to hide behind, plus you have shields. Why put yourself in the open?

[sandman7431]

Good point. Maybe the human/alien shield wouldn't work but cqc weapons definately would. Stealth kills for infiltrators and powerful melee weapons for vanguards and sentinels would be great.

[rumination888]

Remember the renegade option in Miranda's mission when Shepard snapped the neck of a fully shielded merc up close?
Would've been nice if a cloaked Infiltrator could do that.

[ODST Steve]

rumination888 wrote...

Remember the renegade option in Miranda's mission when Shepard snapped the neck of a fully shielded merc up close?
Would've been nice if a cloaked Infiltrator could do that.

Yeah I was dissapointed when I couldn't assassinate while cloaked. I also think vangaurds whould get some kind of bayonett.

[TheUnusualSuspect]

What does CQC stand for?

Is it close quarters combat?

Modifié par TheUnusualSuspect, 11 mars 2010 - 06:29 .

[Zero9999]

Close Quarters Combat I'm guessing, kind of an unnecessary abbreviation.

[dkm945]

Yes, it is Close Quarters Combat. A familiar acronym to fans of the Metal Gear Solid series (well, from 3 on, actually)

[TheUnusualSuspect]

Thanks guys.

[TheUnusualSuspect]

a08m08 wrote...

I agree it would make for more interesting gameplay. Also it would allow certain charaters (Thane comes to mind) to behave more like they ought to according to their cutscenes. And taking a page out of Jack's cutscenes the vanguard having some sort of biotic punch would be pretty sweet

...or Samara's scene with Morinth.  Both seem to imply that Biotics can have a very powerful biotically enhanced melee punch attack.

That would've been a brave move for Bioware though, to take shotguns away from Vanguards, and replace it with +25/50/75/100% melee damage as they advanced through Assault Mastery.  Would certainly make for a visceral melee experience and be more like what we see of Samara in her cut-scenes.

[sandman7431]

I guess if they brought in blades, it would be complicated in terms of inventory and progression. Maybe you just allow infiltrators to snap necks when cloaked, vanguards to deliver a biotic strike beyond just the charge, soldiers to have some type of bayonette (not the GOW chainsaw please), adepts could maybe do something awesome like cause the guy's head to explode (it's not easy getting right next to someone as an adept), engineers could tazer them or something and sentinels could just eat people.

Modifié par sandman7431, 11 mars 2010 - 04:54 .

[Acero Azul]

 How about a Melee class with powers as different melee attacks instead of biotics or rather biotics could be implemented into an attack like samara's that kills morinth. I would be happy if i didnt have to carry a gun. One of my biggest problems with ME is that i have to hold the heavy weapon i dont want a gun on my back if i just want to use a shotgun and pistol. Other than that you could make the heavy weapon a melee weapon for this class if they want to keep the heavies on the back. 

[phordicus]

Acero Azul wrote...
One of my biggest problems with ME is that i have to hold the heavy weapon i dont want a gun on my back if i just want to use a shotgun and pistol.

you can edit the loadouts to carry or not carry whatever you want.

[RighteousRage]

Athenau is not here yet. The thread is safe... for now.



I think melee weapons would make sense, even if they're just Modern Warfare slices bound to the melee button, considering it doesn't make a lot of sense to punch tanks and things to death, but there are others that... disagree

[Comrade Bork]

I feel that a blade or sword or bayonet would be very out of place for most classes. However, a vanguard getting a biotic boost when punching would be cool. Also, I don't think that breaking someone's neck while cloak would be a good idea (not a lot of places to do it). I would also be afraid of people just spamming cloak and breaking necks for the entire fight, it would just be stupid.

[sandman7431]

Well CQC speaks to a larger issue that ME2 has with detection. When you cloak, for example, even if you move from cover to cover without taking a single shot, as soon as the cloak wears off, the enemies know exactly where you are. I'm not sure if I like that. I guess it makes sense that future mercs would all be equiped with some sort of land warrior system but the instantaneous recognition is a bit disturbing.



I don't think snapping necks would be a particularly spamable ability because it might just put you too close to the enemy for comfort with a long cooldown for your cloak. Also we can't think in terms of just blades and bayonettes like soldiers use today. You have to give Bioware credit for being more creative than that. They would come up with something suitably technologically advanced for the game's setting.

[TrouserSasquatch]

No.



Shepard is not Solid Snake. Let's keep it that way.



If you want CQC then go play Metal Gear Solid or MMA Fight Ring or whatever.

[sinosleep]

I don't understand why anyone would take issue with this so long as it wasn't over done. The knife and the crowbar (half life) have LONG been parts of FPS gameplay and even Halo is no stranger to it with the energy sword and hammer (don't remember their actual names as I'm not a particularly big Halo fan) and I've yet to find a more visceral experience in a TPS than chainsawing people in half in Gears of War. I've got no issue with a little neck snapping or one or two melee weapons. The only thing that would bother me is if they treated it as it's own weapon class and loaded the game up with tons of melee weapons.

Modifié par sinosleep, 11 mars 2010 - 07:31 .

[sandman7431]

TrouserSasquatch wrote...

No.

Shepard is not Solid Snake. Let's keep it that way.

If you want CQC then go play Metal Gear Solid or MMA Fight Ring or whatever.

It's a good thing Bioware aren't as closed minded as you seem to be or ME2 would never have made such a vast improvement to ME1's combat.

[282xvl]

The problem with melee in futuristic games is that it is always over-geek and over-power it to a point where it is ridiculous and stupid... Enhanced CQC would be fine if it was kept BALANCED and BELIEVABLE. Otherwise I don't want it anywhere near my ME3!!



IMO this means:



NO Swords!! ("Swords" includes maces, axes, flails, hammers and other medieval weapons.) This is NOT a medieval or fantasy game. Sorry J-RPG fans and cosplay foam-sword neckbeards but you are not wanted in the ME universe. Play a FANTASY game if you want swords. It is just so ridiculously theme-breaking having swords in science fiction, especially sci-fi that takes itself semi-seriously like ME. Swords in ME would be like Capes in RDM Galactica. Just... no.



AND



NO Golden-Punch. Melee cannot be more powerful (or even equal to) gunfire. If a 3-round burst of assault rifle fire to the head does not kill you then getting butt-stroked with same rifle should NOT cave your face in. If shooting someone in the back of the head with a magnum pistol does not drop them then molesting them with your bare hands should not be an insta-kill. Also, NO NERFING GUNS (in stopping power or ammo capacity etc.) to make melee a common forced occurrence. Overpowering melee to force (or convince) you to use it is annoying and stupid.

[SmilingMirror]

282xvl wrote...

The problem with melee in futuristic games is that it is always over-geek and over-power it to a point where it is ridiculous and stupid... Enhanced CQC would be fine if it was kept BALANCED and BELIEVABLE. Otherwise I don't want it anywhere near my ME3!!

IMO this means:

NO Swords!! ("Swords" includes maces, axes, flails, hammers and other medieval weapons.) This is NOT a medieval or fantasy game. Sorry J-RPG fans and cosplay foam-sword neckbeards but you are not wanted in the ME universe. Play a FANTASY game if you want swords. It is just so ridiculously theme-breaking having swords in science fiction, especially sci-fi that takes itself semi-seriously like ME. Swords in ME would be like Capes in RDM Galactica. Just... no.

AND

NO Golden-Punch. Melee cannot be more powerful (or even equal to) gunfire. If a 3-round burst of assault rifle fire to the head does not kill you then getting butt-stroked with same rifle should NOT cave your face in. If shooting someone in the back of the head with a magnum pistol does not drop them then molesting them with your bare hands should not be an insta-kill. Also, NO NERFING GUNS (in stopping power or ammo capacity etc.) to make melee a common forced occurrence. Overpowering melee to force (or convince) you to use it is annoying and stupid.

I like where melee damage is at right now, I just wish it was more flashy without being "medieval" stupid like you said. I wouldn't mind a Power that had something to do with melee either. like a biotic punch like Jack does.

Modifié par SmilingMirror, 11 mars 2010 - 10:46 .

[sinosleep]

282xvl, I couldn't possibly disagree more on the damage front. Sure, there should be mobs that you simply can't melee, but if it's not even as powerful weapons fire why on earth would you ever go through the increased risk of getting into melee range in the first place? Putting melee in the way you described it it would be in the game for cosmetic purposes only and serve no tactical purpose whatsoever. I thought the way it worked in Gears was great. It's a one shot kill on mobs making it worth getting into melee range but the slow animation leaves you out in the open adding to the risk of getting into melee range in the first place.

Modifié par sinosleep, 11 mars 2010 - 10:52 .

[282xvl]

IMO in a shooter you should never intentionally be seeking to melee. If for any logical reason you are then it is not actually a shooter. If you "get into melee range" in modern-to-future warfare (war with guns) it is generally because you were overextended in attack or overrun in defense - not because you wanted to.



A viable tactical option should of course have a balanced risk:reward ratio but imo melee should NOT BE considered a viable alternative to guns. It just isn't believable.



Also, only my opinion but I really do think its an immersion killer when a gunshot through the eye socket does -30% health but a stab wound to the chest kills you 19 times before hitting the ground (and 5 times after.) It also destroys immersion for me when someone runs straight at me, takes 1, 2, 3....10 gunshots in the teeth - and proceeds to kill me with a hammer. Sorry but it just feels stupid.



Also, I forgot to bring up that game technology generally makes strong melee overpowered because it is a sure hit. You get into range and hit melee and you WILL strike, without fail. Requires minimal/no aiming and has zero chance of being blocked by enemies (not in game mechanics.) This is absurdly unfair if melee is at all lethal. Real-life melee combat is insanely risky - it can be easily blocked or countered and it is quite difficult to reliably inflict lethal/incapacitating damage. If melee had to be AIMED at a critical area AND had at least a 50% chance of block/counter then I could support 1-hit-K.O.



It is unbalanced to have an un-aimed, un-blockable attack that is MORE dangerous than precisely aimed and blockable (shields/cover) gunfire.