314 réponses à ce sujet

[Kronner]

Average Gatsby wrote...

Koralis wrote...

Average Gatsby wrote...
 But if they want to keep some sort of RPG semblance, and they want to keep saying that their are ways to play that don't involve shooting, then they are going to have to make some changes.
...
I think maybe thats something else I wasn't totally clear on: can anyone really say that powers, even for the supposed power masters, engineer and adept, are primary? No. Guns are. Powers are designed to help gun play, they are a means of doing more gun damage.

My Adept spent most of her time spamming powers.  An AoE Energy Drain, AoE Warp, and Wide Singulary are much more effective than plinking at something with an SMG unless they're right on top of you.   Taking out several things at once is the point.

So did mine, with those exact powers (sub your aoe energy drain for miranda's AoE overload). But now I've gone through every class, and I look back at my adept and think wow, you really got the short end of the stick on this one, and I just pat my engineer on the head.

Think about if you were attacking just a single merc and you were using those powers. AoE Energy drain, 6 seconds, pull, 3 seconds, warp, dead. Now the vanguard. Charge, shot, dead. maybe 2 second? Soldier, doesn't even need adrenaline rush, disruptor ammo, vindicator, 4-5 bursts. Less than 3 seconds. Infiltrator, sniper, finished. You see what I'm getting at. Powers work, they are just so much weaker than guns, but if they changed powers for ME3 to take more skill to use, then they wouldn't have to be so weak.

On Insanity, I agree.
on Veteran or something it would still be easy to use and way too OP.

[_Dannok1234]

Okay we have a couple of different sort of topics going on here at once



So about direct damage powers and why they aren't needed in Mass Effect universe.

In some games you have caster classes that have rubbish weapons and depend 90% of the time on their spell/ability to get them through a fight or do damage. This isn't how things generally work in Mass effect, all the weapons are useful so having powers that increase the damage of the weapons or control enemies is a way of allowing those classes to keep having effective weapons, which would make sense RP wise as they are all Soldiers or Army/Navy/Marine trained person. If their weapons sucked, then the powers would need to be the main damage dealing capabilities but would go against (in my mind) the whole background for the "reality".



As to the safety issue and flanking. Adepts and Engineers are meant to offer you more control over the battlefield and how enemies move, preventing you from being flanked. There is no guarantee that a soldier or Vanguard or infiltrator will survive a flank by more then one enemy, just because they have a chance. Just like there is no guarantee that an Adept or engineer will. But for example using either Singularity, Shockwave, drone or maybe incendiary, you can possibly disrupt them long enough to get away. Again this plays into the fact that classes should feel different and offer a different gameplay experience. While I can agree that playing a soldier is very straight forward and easy to use, I actually find the Engineer and Adept very easy as well once you understand how the class and powers works.



Ps Every class is dependent on the terrain in some form or another. You cannot charge an enemy thats out in the open with nowhere to run for cover and expect to survive regardless of what class you play.

[Average Gatsby]

Kronner wrote...
But can you imagine how ridiculous it would be if Shep could just fire Cryo Blast (lets say your idea was implemented and Shep would have to target for a few seconds before launch) and 2 or 3 guys would just shatter? I think it is a very good idea that you have to use weapons to be the most effective. Just look at Reave, I think rumination888 made a video of a Soldier with Reave and he only used that, not firing a single shot and he run over the Collectors without any problem. That's why I refuse to use Reave and am glad BioWare made only one power so ridiculously overpowered.

Read my op. I am not, at all, asking for more powerful abilities that work like this game. Instant cast, no no. Auto aim, no. Powers have to work in a different way if they want to have them be on par with guns, which some powers should be for those classes that are powers-specialists. They have to force the user to take more risks in order to reap the kind of reward. That's why I suggest aimed, non-instant, non-locking powers, because that would require quite a bit more skill but the player could receive a bigger reward.

[Average Gatsby]

Kronner wrote...

Average Gatsby wrote...

Koralis wrote...

Average Gatsby wrote...
 But if they want to keep some sort of RPG semblance, and they want to keep saying that their are ways to play that don't involve shooting, then they are going to have to make some changes.
...
I think maybe thats something else I wasn't totally clear on: can anyone really say that powers, even for the supposed power masters, engineer and adept, are primary? No. Guns are. Powers are designed to help gun play, they are a means of doing more gun damage.

My Adept spent most of her time spamming powers.  An AoE Energy Drain, AoE Warp, and Wide Singulary are much more effective than plinking at something with an SMG unless they're right on top of you.   Taking out several things at once is the point.

So did mine, with those exact powers (sub your aoe energy drain for miranda's AoE overload). But now I've gone through every class, and I look back at my adept and think wow, you really got the short end of the stick on this one, and I just pat my engineer on the head.

Think about if you were attacking just a single merc and you were using those powers. AoE Energy drain, 6 seconds, pull, 3 seconds, warp, dead. Now the vanguard. Charge, shot, dead. maybe 2 second? Soldier, doesn't even need adrenaline rush, disruptor ammo, vindicator, 4-5 bursts. Less than 3 seconds. Infiltrator, sniper, finished. You see what I'm getting at. Powers work, they are just so much weaker than guns, but if they changed powers for ME3 to take more skill to use, then they wouldn't have to be so weak.

On Insanity, I agree.
on Veteran or something it would still be easy to use and way too OP.

Would it? I mean, they seem like they scaled weapons and ammo somewhat well. Couldn't they do the same for powers?

[_Dannok1234]

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure on normal difficulty Adepts can be some of the fastest killers in the game. Pull field+Throw field or Warp explosions can take out more then 3 enemies at a time.



Engineers are more geared towards group augmentation/enabling in a way then Adepts are, with more focus on powers that have specific utilities for specific enemies or defenses. Giving your team the advantage in a firefight, it's a support class. Which kind of goes into how it is in real life, Engineers build bridges, clear mines and lay mines, blow up bridges etc etc, they do not charge into the enemy, thats the job of the grunt. Also (saying this again because it's very important), it makes the classes play very differently.



Had this been a game were we would engage in pvp then I would be up in arms and up for radical changes, but it's not.

[Tlazolteotl]

I dunno ... on normal I can imagine incineration blast being a real level clearer.

[thisisme8]

ok, just about to leave... but I have to say this: ME9 should be awesome. Why? Because in a perfect world, enemies would have very few total HP, but near human reasoning (AI). That way, games wouldn't have to resort to defenses and large amounts of HP. Normal to Insanity wouldn't require upgrading enemy weapons and shields, it would simply be a matter of much smarter enemies.

[Average Gatsby]

Dannok1234 wrote...

Okay we have a couple of different sort of topics going on here at once

So about direct damage powers and why they aren't needed in Mass Effect universe.
In some games you have caster classes that have rubbish weapons and depend 90% of the time on their spell/ability to get them through a fight or do damage. This isn't how things generally work in Mass effect, all the weapons are useful so having powers that increase the damage of the weapons or control enemies is a way of allowing those classes to keep having effective weapons, which would make sense RP wise as they are all Soldiers or Army/Navy/Marine trained person. If their weapons sucked, then the powers would need to be the main damage dealing capabilities but would go against (in my mind) the whole background for the "reality".

As to the safety issue and flanking. Adepts and Engineers are meant to offer you more control over the battlefield and how enemies move, preventing you from being flanked. There is no guarantee that a soldier or Vanguard or infiltrator will survive a flank by more then one enemy, just because they have a chance. Just like there is no guarantee that an Adept or engineer will. But for example using either Singularity, Shockwave, drone or maybe incendiary, you can possibly disrupt them long enough to get away. Again this plays into the fact that classes should feel different and offer a different gameplay experience. While I can agree that playing a soldier is very straight forward and easy to use, I actually find the Engineer and Adept very easy as well once you understand how the class and powers works.

Ps Every class is dependent on the terrain in some form or another. You cannot charge an enemy thats out in the open with nowhere to run for cover and expect to survive regardless of what class you play.

Why I'm including all the RPG comments is because one of bioware's major goals for Mass Effect 3 is more RPG-ness, as stated in the GDC presentation. Now, maybe that means a different inventory system, but if that's all they are going to do for innovation, I'm sorry to say but that is just lame. The context of the presentation is about gameplay design and changes, so I'm assuming they are going to try to co-op some RPG gameplay elements for mass effect 3. In order to do that, they can't simply Re-buff ME2 powers because ME2 is a shooter and buffed versions of all these powers would be game breaking.

For survivability, here's the fundamental difference I've found. The soldier, sentinel, vanguard, and infiltrator, powers Themselves to the detriment of every other unit out there. They are able to "buff" themselves, which is some cases even acts like a universal debuff (cloak/Adrenaline rush). The Adept/Engineer can only distract, debuff, a single target. which means there is still plenty of others to shoot at you. And I'm not saying that the soldier, etc. crowd is an I-win button or something like that; I'm speaking in degrees. You are far more likely to survive using a "buff" type ability than attempting to CC.

Therefore, total survivability is much lower. However, in order to do equivalent damage, they must be shooting only slightly less than the other classes. So my real question is, why even have them if they are just weaker versions of classes that already exist? For Me3, they've got to have some either serious changes, to be scrapped, or they could be left the same and players will have to face the same issues. I don't think its necessary that certain classes have to be substantially weaker than others.

Modifié par Average Gatsby, 14 mars 2010 - 01:20 .

[_Dannok1234]

Average Gatsby wrote...
So did mine, with those exact powers (sub your aoe energy drain for miranda's AoE overload). But now I've gone through every class, and I look back at my adept and think wow, you really got the short end of the stick on this one, and I just pat my engineer on the head.

Think about if you were attacking just a single merc and you were using those powers. AoE Energy drain, 6 seconds, pull, 3 seconds, warp, dead. Now the vanguard. Charge, shot, dead. maybe 2 second? Soldier, doesn't even need adrenaline rush, disruptor ammo, vindicator, 4-5 bursts. Less than 3 seconds. Infiltrator, sniper, finished. You see what I'm getting at. Powers work, they are just so much weaker than guns, but if they changed powers for ME3 to take more skill to use, then they wouldn't have to be so weak.

That merc example is pretty bad, it's the least efficient way for an adept to handle a single merc. It should be, gun down shields, pull/throw shoot some more, dead dude. Not to mention you have to take energy drain as a bonus, so you actually go out of your way to make it that bad. Besides you always have 2 team members regardless of which class you are playing. They are meant to be used. 

It could go like this, overload from Garrus, pull from you, warp from Miranda, dead enemy. Soldier wouldnt be able to do that. Unless the soldier takes Energy drain and get the pull from a squaddie instead, but I think that would be a waste of cool down. Besides who wants to play a soldier like you play your adept. 

I really don't see how powers are weak in ME2 just because they aren't always the best way to outright kill enemies. Because most of the time it's better/faster/easier to use an ability to either remove health or to remove defense, and use your gun for whichever you didn't use a power on. (As long as we are talking about not involving team mates anyway)

[entekk]

So anyone has a link to the video/text you guys talking about?

[Lycidas]

Average Gatsby wrote...

For survivability, here's the fundamental difference I've found. The soldier, sentinel, vanguard, and infiltrator, powers Themselves to the detriment of every other unit out there. They are able to "buff" themselves, which is some cases even acts like a universal debuff (cloak/Adrenaline rush). The Adept/Engineer can only distract, debuff, a single target. which means there is still plenty of others to shoot at you. And I'm not saying that the soldier, etc. crowd is an I-win button or something like that; I'm speaking in degrees. You are far more likely to survive using a "buff" type ability than attempting to CC.

That is true and exactly the point why I can't see an Adept/Engineer spending 2 seconds out of cover to aim a power survive.

[Average Gatsby]

Dannok1234 wrote...

Average Gatsby wrote...
So did mine, with those exact powers (sub your aoe energy drain for miranda's AoE overload). But now I've gone through every class, and I look back at my adept and think wow, you really got the short end of the stick on this one, and I just pat my engineer on the head.

Think about if you were attacking just a single merc and you were using those powers. AoE Energy drain, 6 seconds, pull, 3 seconds, warp, dead. Now the vanguard. Charge, shot, dead. maybe 2 second? Soldier, doesn't even need adrenaline rush, disruptor ammo, vindicator, 4-5 bursts. Less than 3 seconds. Infiltrator, sniper, finished. You see what I'm getting at. Powers work, they are just so much weaker than guns, but if they changed powers for ME3 to take more skill to use, then they wouldn't have to be so weak.

That merc example is pretty bad, it's the least efficient way for an adept to handle a single merc. It should be, gun down shields, pull/throw shoot some more, dead dude. Not to mention you have to take energy drain as a bonus, so you actually go out of your way to make it that bad. Besides you always have 2 team members regardless of which class you are playing. They are meant to be used. 

It could go like this, overload from Garrus, pull from you, warp from Miranda, dead enemy. Soldier wouldnt be able to do that. Unless the soldier takes Energy drain and get the pull from a squaddie instead, but I think that would be a waste of cool down. Besides who wants to play a soldier like you play your adept. 

I really don't see how powers are weak in ME2 just because they aren't always the best way to outright kill enemies. Because most of the time it's better/faster/easier to use an ability to either remove health or to remove defense, and use your gun for whichever you didn't use a power on. (As long as we are talking about not involving team mates anyway)

Dannok, your describing exactly how I play for all of the 25 videos I made about the adept class, how I recommend to play the class. I don't play like that, sitting around. I was simply illustrating the slow speed of a shepard-powers-only approach in relation to a shepard-guns approach.

What I'm saying though, is that after seeing this presentation, I realized the my advice is essentially advice on how to get around the constraints the game throws at the Adept and Engineer classes, not advice on how to play them as they are meant to be played. Those classes don't mesh in with the gameplay nearly as well as the other classes do. There is no meant to be played for the adept/engineer, because the game is simply not as well suited to their strengths as it is the other classes.

[Average Gatsby]

Lycidas wrote...

Average Gatsby wrote...

For survivability, here's the fundamental difference I've found. The soldier, sentinel, vanguard, and infiltrator, powers Themselves to the detriment of every other unit out there. They are able to "buff" themselves, which is some cases even acts like a universal debuff (cloak/Adrenaline rush). The Adept/Engineer can only distract, debuff, a single target. which means there is still plenty of others to shoot at you. And I'm not saying that the soldier, etc. crowd is an I-win button or something like that; I'm speaking in degrees. You are far more likely to survive using a "buff" type ability than attempting to CC.

That is true and exactly the point why I can't see an Adept/Engineer spending 2 seconds out of cover to aim a power survive.

They already have to do it with guns. Why not make it with powers but put some real power behind it so they can actually kill an enemy.

[_Dannok1234]

I see ME2 as an RPG, just because the fighting mechanics are much like a third person shooter does not change that.



Did you ever play Deus Ex? It was an absolutely brilliant game, I call it an RPG, but it plays far more like a shooter then either version of Mass effect. Thats because you choose which abilities to take. You choose if the main char is a nice guy or a jerk, or something in between.

Roleplay in my mind has little to do with the inventory or not, nor do I think dice throws for every action taken is needed. For me it's much more about how the story unfolds, if your choices have an impact or not, if you can change how your char acts that to me is at the core of an crpg.

These things are present in Mass Effect. But why is it so important to classify it in a genre. It's a great story/vehicle for entertainment, thats the main thing. (To me)

[munrohk]

My first playthrough was with an Adept, and I also had a "Wait, what?" moment when I got to the pile of guns at the collector ship. I knew I'd be using the rifle more than my abilities at that point. It almost felt like I was being eased into a soldier role.

I don't like the idea of aimed powers though. The play style would become too similar to the soldier class. The fact that aiming is harder and should be rewarded more (and vice versa with powers) is good logic, but warp explosion isn't an exception: it's rewarding tactical skill instead of aiming skill.

I'd prefer to see the Adept and Engineer get abilities that have more tactical applications. The trouble with most of the Adept's biotics is that they're useless until you've stripped an enemy's defenses, and then they're overpowered. You can't "shape the battlefield" until you've pretty much won the fight, and then the biotics just make it quicker to mop up.

I suggest take out the rule where armour or shields nullify most powers, and find a different penalty. One that lets the caster have an effect at the start of the battle, rather than at the end.

For example, warping an enemy's armour could mean you can then throw/pull them, rather than making it a direct damage ability. Thus if you want to throw something with armour, you've got cooldowns before and after the event.
Make it so that pulling a shielded enemy causes some sort of feedback that damages the player. Make it so that creating a singularity requires so much concentration that the adept has to lower her barrier-shield while it's up, or maybe make the barrier double as a sort of mana bar, on top of the cooldowns. And if an adept wants to lift a Ymir mech, make it require so much effort that their health drops to 30% and they get a nose bleed animation.

Make stuff like that. I remember in ME1 playing with a femshep adept, and having Kaiden whine about his migranes on the Normandy while planetside I'd be tossing mobs around like rag dolls. Biotics need to feel more visceral.

Modifié par munrohk, 14 mars 2010 - 01:33 .

[Lycidas]

Average Gatsby wrote...

What I'm saying though, is that after seeing this presentation, I realized the my advice is essentially advice on how to get around the constraints the game throws at the Adept and Engineer classes, not advice on how to play them as they are meant to be played. Those classes don't mesh in with the gameplay nearly as well as the other classes do. There is no meant to be played for the adept/engineer, because the game is simply not as well suited to their strengths as it is the other classes.

One thing I would like to ask. Do you think that is true for all difficulties or just for the higher ones? I find it hard to discuss this topic without making clear what difficulty we are talking about first.

[Average Gatsby]

Dannok1234 wrote...

I see ME2 as an RPG, just because the fighting mechanics are much like a third person shooter does not change that.

Did you ever play Deus Ex? It was an absolutely brilliant game, I call it an RPG, but it plays far more like a shooter then either version of Mass effect. Thats because you choose which abilities to take. You choose if the main char is a nice guy or a jerk, or something in between.
Roleplay in my mind has little to do with the inventory or not, nor do I think dice throws for every action taken is needed. For me it's much more about how the story unfolds, if your choices have an impact or not, if you can change how your char acts that to me is at the core of an crpg.
These things are present in Mass Effect. But why is it so important to classify it in a genre. It's a great story/vehicle for entertainment, thats the main thing. (To me)

Oh for me too. And I love Deus Ex. Thats why I said they could make this game pure shooter and I would still buy it day one.

I wanted to get the ball rolling on how specifically they could make this game more RPG like from a gameplay mechanics perspective, because from the presentation, that seems like it is clearly one of their goals for Mass Effect 3. If it isn't than it isn't, but if it is, I can't really see how they can keep this same system and still, once again from a gameplay perspective, call it an RPG.

[_Dannok1234]

Average Gatsby wrote...

Dannok, your describing exactly how I play for all of the 25 videos I made about the adept class, how I recommend to play the class. I don't play like that, sitting around. I was simply illustrating the slow speed of a shepard-powers-only approach in relation to a shepard-guns approach.

What I'm saying though, is that after seeing this presentation, I realized the my advice is essentially advice on how to get around the constraints the game throws at the Adept and Engineer classes, not advice on how to play them as they are meant to be played. Those classes don't mesh in with the gameplay nearly as well as the other classes do. There is no meant to be played for the adept/engineer, because the game is simply not as well suited to their strengths as it is the other classes.

Thats the thing I completely disagree with, I think your guides show how they are meant to be played.
Adepts and Engineers are meant to be a blend of weapons and powers. Engineer more so then the Adept though. Remember it's balanced for Normal, and the adept is just down right silly powerful on normal.
I understand that you feel that classes such as Adept and Engineer are not meant to use their weapons to kill enemies. I disagree with that.

I very much doubt though that either of us will be able to convince the other that their point of view on that particular point is wrong

[Hulk Hsieh]

Average Gatsby wrote...
Read my op. I am not, at all, asking for more powerful abilities that work like this game. Instant cast, no no. Auto aim, no. Powers have to work in a different way if they want to have them be on par with guns, which some powers should be for those classes that are powers-specialists. They have to force the user to take more risks in order to reap the kind of reward. That's why I suggest aimed, non-instant, non-locking powers, because that would require quite a bit more skill but the player could receive a bigger reward.

Ever considered that some none-shooter/traditional-RPG gamers want to have something that doesn't need too much realtime/aiming/shooting skill to use?

[Average Gatsby]

Lycidas wrote...

Average Gatsby wrote...

What I'm saying though, is that after seeing this presentation, I realized the my advice is essentially advice on how to get around the constraints the game throws at the Adept and Engineer classes, not advice on how to play them as they are meant to be played. Those classes don't mesh in with the gameplay nearly as well as the other classes do. There is no meant to be played for the adept/engineer, because the game is simply not as well suited to their strengths as it is the other classes.

One thing I would like to ask. Do you think that is true for all difficulties or just for the higher ones? I find it hard to discuss this topic without making clear what difficulty we are talking about first.

I am talking about all difficulties.

I think the normal difficulty creates a bit of an illusion with the power of moves because every one of them can effect any enemy. However, guns are ridiculously good on normal. I'm trying my best not to speak in absolutes, its not powers bad, guns good, its powers are inferior to guns by too much of a degree.

[Koralis]

Average Gatsby wrote...
Think about if you were attacking just a single merc and you were using those powers. AoE Energy drain, 6 seconds, pull, 3 seconds, warp, dead. Now the vanguard. Charge, shot, dead. maybe 2 second? Soldier, doesn't even need adrenaline rush, disruptor ammo, vindicator, 4-5 bursts. Less than 3 seconds. Infiltrator, sniper, finished. You see what I'm getting at. Powers work, they are just so much weaker than guns, but if they changed powers for ME3 to take more skill to use, then they wouldn't have to be so weak.

For a single merc I would have Energy drained, assualt rifled for armor (if it existed) then singularitied.  If getting overwhelmed I may not even bother warping the singularitied guys and just direct Zaheed to finish them off, and energy drain the next group.

Yes, the adept isn't great for taking in single tough opponents like YMRVs, Geth Primes, etc, but it does a great job of taking out the clusters of henchmen, or at the very least quickly disabling them so that your squadmates can kill even more quickly and safely.

I personally would rather have non-banking singularities.  I'm not sure that bioware would make powers any more effective.

[Average Gatsby]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

Average Gatsby wrote...
Read my op. I am not, at all, asking for more powerful abilities that work like this game. Instant cast, no no. Auto aim, no. Powers have to work in a different way if they want to have them be on par with guns, which some powers should be for those classes that are powers-specialists. They have to force the user to take more risks in order to reap the kind of reward. That's why I suggest aimed, non-instant, non-locking powers, because that would require quite a bit more skill but the player could receive a bigger reward.

Ever considered that some none-shooter/traditional-RPG gamers want to have something that doesn't need too much realtime/aiming/shooting skill to use?

I just don't see how it would work without returning to the over-powered nature of mass effect one.

Their are other options, but I'm trying to stay within the context of the presentation. I'm sorry I don't know if I linked that in the OP. I'll go back in do it. It's very revealing. Christina Norman basically says that ME1 was too little of a shooter so they wanted to make ME2 even more of a shooter. So for better or for worse (for better in my mind), they are really trying, with mass effect, the eschew the traditional rpg gameplay style.

I think they've realized though that they went to far, and now they are going to be trying to figure out a way to co-op some of those RPG gameplay elements back without breaking the game or making something too easy.

[rumination888]

That was the first time I enjoyed reading a wall of text on a forum.

I think your idea of aiming and charging up powers would work well with the Drone and Singularity. The other powers should be kept similar to their current incarnations, though. Mainly for players who don't want to think/commit to skill and just want to play on a low difficulty setting.

Adrenaline Rush, Tactical Cloak, Tech Armor, and Charge require some semblance of thought and skill because they do nothing major by themselves. They require skill with your guns and understanding of the game field to get the most reward out of them.

Unfortunately, Drone and Singularity are the same low skill/thought, low reward power as their respective class's other powers. (The Adept does have Warp, but unfortunately so does the Sentinel.... so the Adept's high reward playstyle is the same as one of the Sentinel's possible high reward playstyles.)

Modifié par rumination888, 14 mars 2010 - 01:44 .

[_Dannok1234]

Another Deus Ex fan, yay! Until Mass effect came along it was my all time favorite I think.

It's a tricky thing though to define what is rpg gameplay and what isn't these days. Take games like Oblivion, Morrowind or even DaggerFall, going from Daggerfall to Oblivion you see some changes like, you hit the enemy if you hit the enemy, no hidden dice thrown in the background. Does that change it from RPG gameplay to action gameplay?

I pretty sure that adding strong "rpg" elements into Mass Effect would cripple it as a shooter, but softening up the traditional "rpg" elements(like they have now), doesn't change that the game still is an rpg with more action oriented gameplay, or so I think anyway.

Edit: not that your power change would really change that. Just that I love it the way it is

Modifié par Dannok1234, 14 mars 2010 - 01:46 .

[munrohk]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

Average Gatsby wrote...
Read my op. I am not, at all, asking for more powerful abilities that work like this game. Instant cast, no no. Auto aim, no. Powers have to work in a different way if they want to have them be on par with guns, which some powers should be for those classes that are powers-specialists. They have to force the user to take more risks in order to reap the kind of reward. That's why I suggest aimed, non-instant, non-locking powers, because that would require quite a bit more skill but the player could receive a bigger reward.

Ever considered that some none-shooter/traditional-RPG gamers want to have something that doesn't need too much realtime/aiming/shooting skill to use?

I'll admit I'm a bit of a shooter junkie so I might be overestimating some gamers, but with adrenaline rush I'd be surprised if anyone found aiming with a soldier difficult or even inconvenient.  It's not as RPG-friendly as Fallout 3's V.A.T.S., but it still makes aiming a piece of cake.