314 réponses à ce sujet

[Hulk Hsieh]

Average Gatsby wrote...

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

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.

But whay make people that having a blast with Adept/Engineer on normal difficulty with their favorite powers have to re-learn how to use the powers, which are made harder to use?

IMHO, it is more gamebreaking to have "casters" taking too much realtime skill than have them killing a little slower. 
 

[Average Gatsby]

So I updated the OP with a link to the presentation, so everyone can see what I'm talking about.



Also, I'm really glad that this thread has gone 50 replies without turning into a flame war, because that is not my intention. I'll also say that I'm going to be happy with mass effect 3, whatever gameplay changes are made, so long as its not a text-based adventure game.



Okay well I would play a text based adventure game but I would at least need a map. u,u,u,u,l,l,l to get to the citadel, d,r,r,d,l,d,l,u to get to earth, you know....

[Lycidas]

Average Gatsby wrote...

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.

Thank you for making this clear.
Now in my opinion powers are quite strong as they are but it just takes so much longer to strip a defence and combine 2 powers for the kill after that than just shooting the target. Aiming the powers IMHO is not the problem here the power classes have it easier to aim and therefor lack the skills to survive being out of cover. The problem is the cooldown system. Firing a power to strip defences will trigger the global cooldown for about 6 seconds. Now in a fast paced shooter game like this waiting that long is not the thing you want to do so instead you start shoot things.
Now if we had a short global cooldown like 2 seconds and a longer individual cooldown (6 seconds for a dedence stripping power) you would not have to wait that long to use your next power and feel less of an urge to fire your gun. Combining the powers right would be rewarded spamming one would hurt.

[Average Gatsby]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

But whay make people that having a blast with Adept/Engineer on normal difficulty with their favorite powers have to re-learn how to use the powers, which are made harder to use?

IMHO, it is more gamebreaking to have "casters" taking too much realtime skill than have them killing a little slower. 

That is a really good point. I am a power gamer. But on the flip side, I don't really know if my suggestion would be that much harder or more skill based than shooting. The normal difficulty would still have the health and shield boost like now, so you would still have nice survivability, but you'd simply be able to kill quicker in a different way.

It seems from the presentation, they really wanted to pick up the pace of the game, and so using that logic is how I crafted my idea. But they may change their way of thinking for ME3, who knows. ME2 was such a huge change, maybe they'll do the same thing. I don't think so, but none of us work at bioware so we can't really know.

Lycidas wrote...
Thank you for making this clear.
Now in my opinion powers are quite strong as they are but it just takes so much longer to strip a defence and combine 2 powers for the kill after that than just shooting the target. Aiming the powers IMHO is not the problem here the power classes have it easier to aim and therefor lack the skills to survive being out of cover. The problem is the cooldown system. Firing a power to strip defences will trigger the global cooldown for about 6 seconds. Now in a fast paced shooter game like this waiting that long is not the thing you want to do so instead you start shoot things.
Now if we had a short global cooldown like 2 seconds and a longer individual cooldown (6 seconds for a dedence stripping power) you would not have to wait that long to use your next power and feel less of an urge to fire your gun. Combining the powers right would be rewarded spamming one would hurt.

I am always down for more synergies, and that is a really interesting idea to prevent power spamming with keeping up with the speed of guns. I'm not sure if it fixes the issue of risk though. because the way the game is now, you can still sit behind cover, target everyone, and only pop out for the briefest of seconds where you'd have a low chance of getting hit. This would bring the adept/engineer up to speed with gun killing, but would it reflect the amount of risk the gun using classes have to take?

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

What do you mean by non-banking singularities?

[Lycidas]

Average Gatsby wrote...

Lycidas wrote...
Thank you for making this clear.
Now in my opinion powers are quite strong as they are but it just takes so much longer to strip a defence and combine 2 powers for the kill after that than just shooting the target. Aiming the powers IMHO is not the problem here the power classes have it easier to aim and therefor lack the skills to survive being out of cover. The problem is the cooldown system. Firing a power to strip defences will trigger the global cooldown for about 6 seconds. Now in a fast paced shooter game like this waiting that long is not the thing you want to do so instead you start shoot things.
Now if we had a short global cooldown like 2 seconds and a longer individual cooldown (6 seconds for a dedence stripping power) you would not have to wait that long to use your next power and feel less of an urge to fire your gun. Combining the powers right would be rewarded spamming one would hurt.

I am always down for more synergies, and that is a really interesting idea to prevent power spamming with keeping up with the speed of guns. I'm not sure if it fixes the issue of risk though. because the way the game is now, you can still sit behind cover, target everyone, and only pop out for the briefest of seconds where you'd have a low chance of getting hit. This would bring the adept/engineer up to speed with gun killing, but would it reflect the amount of risk the gun using classes have to take?

I think so! Poping out of cover to use a power in most cases will drop you shields/health by a good bit as it is now. To use the powers to their full potential in this system you would have to pop out of cover every 2 seconds. Recovering your shields/health takes way longer than that. And btw. classes like Infilitrator, Vanguard and Soldier would gain more flexibility too.

Edit: Thinking about it you would be able to pull between two charges without hurting your cooldown for the next charge. Or cloak incinerate recloak. That sounds pretty intense and exciting to me.

Modifié par Lycidas, 14 mars 2010 - 02:53 .

[ScroguBlitzen]

@The Average Gatsby- Kudos to your well thought out response. Most of us who have even tried a soldier/infiltrator/vanguard class vs an adept or engineer on anything above veteran know how completely broken the casters are on the higher difficulties. For the main proponent of caster classes to basically come out and say that says alot.



@Bioware- You guys made a great game. Vanguard and Infiltrator especially shine. It would be nice to see some actual acknowledgement that Adept/Engineer are lacking at the higher difficulties and that you will be focusing on improving that situation in ME3 (in addition to re-adding some more RPG elements and crouch ffs;).



@Dannok- All your responses are pretty much the same. "ME2 was balanced for Normal and Adept/Engineers should mostly just use guns". Quit saying that ME2 was balanced for Normal. No kidding... no one is arguing that. What we are saying is that ME2 WAS NOT balanced for higher difficulty levels, and that is what we want. For players that can beat the game easily on soldier type classes on insanity, normal and veteran are a complete joke with ANY of the classes. People who prefer the caster classes expect to be reasonably close to as powerful when played correctly as the soldier classes when playing on Insanity. Have you even completed the game on Insanity with an Adept and an Engineer? If not, then it is clear that TAG has the superior authority of actual experience with casters.

[Lycidas]

ScroguBlitzen wrote...

@The Average Gatsby- Kudos to your well thought out response. Most of us who have even tried a soldier/infiltrator/vanguard class vs an adept or engineer on anything above veteran know how completely broken the casters are on the higher difficulties. For the main proponent of caster classes to basically come out and say that says alot.

I think we should be a little more carefull with statements like that. Caster classes are far from being "completely broken" as it is. I agree that something is missing but exaggerations like this will ony heat up the discussion and thus finding any sort of consent will be less likely.

Modifié par Lycidas, 14 mars 2010 - 04:06 .

[_Dannok1234]

ScrogueBlitzen I'm not sure you even read my posts if thats what you came away with, or I must expressed myself really badly. I did not mention normal difficulty more then a couple of times just to make the point, because it is an important one to have out there.



I maintain that there is no such thing as a pure caster class in the mass effect universe. If you disagree I'd like to hear why you think that there is, I've already put some arguments out for why I think there aren't.

I also disagree with Adepts and Engineers needing more power/damage then they already have on insanity. I personally find it fine the way it is based on a risk vs reward and effort/skill/whatever. But I'm not fully comfortable lumping Engineer and Adept together because they are actually quite different. Which is also a key element. The different classes are meant to be different.



Bah I'm just repeating myself here really. I should probably go for a walk while the sun still shines instead of sitting in doors all day. I'll pop by later

[Polarl8ear]

In my mind the biggest issue with the power classes is the global cooldown.  The most effective way to use the class is mix in gun play with your powers because you should be doing something while you are on the cooldown.

One change I could see being an improvement is keeping the global cooldown but decreasing the cooldown time even further.  To avoid the spamming of certain skills if you start using a skill over and over then a penalty would be applied to your cooldown.

This would allow you to apply warp/pull/throw combo on an enemy in a quick timeframe (say 3 seconds?) and at the same time discourage the spamming of an ability over and over again.  The worst case would be would be spamming skills at the current ME2 rate, and the best case pulling off powerful combos in quick succession.

Modifié par Polarl8ear, 14 mars 2010 - 04:20 .

[Lycidas]

Dannok1234 wrote...

I maintain that there is no such thing as a pure caster class in the mass effect universe. If you disagree I'd like to hear why you think that there is, I've already put some arguments out for why I think there aren't.

Well maybe there sould.
IMHO playing the Engineer, Adept and Sentinel as pure caster classes without much support of their guns should be an option (much like the class videos made us believe it is). By saying an option I'm not talking about waiting for cooldowns quite as long as we do at the moment or having to pick exactly the right 2 biotic squadmates as an Adept wherever you can and feel kind of week on missions that reqire you to take down shields or hack synthetics. I'm not saying your squad should not matter at all but not to the point where chosing an engineer over a 3rd biotic would basically cripple you on the suicide mission as an Adept.
If that means not picking up an assault/sniper rifle or shotgun later in the game I'll be fine with it.

[Lycidas]

Polarl8ear wrote...

One change I could see being an improvement is keeping the global cooldown but decreasing the cooldown time even further.  To avoid the spamming of certain skills if you start using a skill over and over then a penalty would be applied to your cooldown.

IMHO that (varialbe cooldowns) would be way too complicated and a nightmare to balance. A mix of global and individual cooldowns would accomplish basically the same with less effort.

[munrohk]

I still think they shouldn't change the way the powers work, bu just make them more potent with bigger penalties. If you want to lift/throw/freeze something with armour then you can; only you pay more in cooldown/health/chargeup/mobility then you would if you'd cast it on a mere 'red'. Make the extra cost high enough that you have to use the power with judgement and discretion to make it worthwhile.



Abusing this extra potency to the powers, or using it with bad judgment, would be as ineffective as bad aim or spraying & praying with a firearm.



Guns reward aiming skills, powers reward battlefield judgement.

[Ginnerben]

I feel there's two halves of this thread. The problem and the solution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they can be summarised as such:



Problem - "Power-classes" (Adepts and Engineers) are low-risk, low-reward when compared to the other classes. Since everyone enjoys rewards, this makes the class less enjoyable to play.



Solution as proposed by Gatsby - Increase the risk of the powers, in order to justify an increase in rewards (Moving more towards a medium-risk, medium reward play, as opposed to the high-risk, high-reward of classes like the Vanguard)



Regarding cooldown: Global mixed with individuals would be my preferred way. Every time you cast a power, it triggers a 2 second cooldown on all your powers, with certain skills like Barrier also gaining a 15 second cooldown for themselves, while other skills might have a 4 second cooldown. This would mean that you can make use of those skills in combat, and it would regular power-use, without spamming. It would also reward diversification of skills, rather than pushing one skill straight to max.



(Numbers given as examples)

[ScroguBlitzen]

Dannok1234 wrote...
ScrogueBlitzen I'm not sure you even read my posts if thats what you came away with

I read the entire thread and all of your posts before replying.  Your comments were consistent which is why I mentioned them.

Dannok1234 wrote...
Bah I'm just repeating myself here really.

Yep.  You have repeated your view that they are fine repeatedly.  What you haven't done is explained how the changes that Gatsby and others are requesting would negatively affect your gameplay experience.

[-D-C-D-]

I agree with your points, and have spent a while thinking about it. What I disagree with, however, is your emphasis on changing the way that powers are used.



If I were allowed an experimental gameplay tweak, I would make it so that each class had very specific boosts to certain areas. This, in my opinion, would encourage the player to branch out and truly experiment with different playstyles.



As it stands(before points into class talents), the current basis is that each class starts with the same boosts to both weapon and power damage i.e. a Soldier using an SMG will do the same damage to a target as, say, an Engineer or an Adept. In addition, a Soldier with the bonus power of Reave would do the same level of damage and duration (initially) as an Adept, Sentinel or Vanguard.



I believe that this would be amended, and made significantly more varied, should the level 1 stats be as follows for each class:



Adept:

Biotic Damage/Duration +50%

Tech Damage/Duration +0%

Weapon Damage -50%

(My reasoning behind this is that Adepts are a biotic-specific class. They are not weapons specialists, and as such, the player should feel this in-game. In addition, the player should also be able to fully appreciate an Adept's biotic mastery, as compared to the "cover more bases" approach of the Vanguard or Sentinel)



Engineer:

Biotic Damage: +0%

Tech Damage: +50%

Weapon Damage: -50%

(Same situation as Adept, switching biotics for tech.)



Infiltrator:

Biotic Damage: +0%

Tech Damage: +25%

Weapon Damage: +25%



Sentinel:

Biotic Damage: +25%

Tech Damage: +25%

Weapon Damage: -25%



(While I feel that, essentially being a "caster" class, the Sentinel should by logic also have its Weapon Damage significantly lowered, a 50% reduction on weapon effectiveness may cripple the Sentinel, given its lack of specialisation in any other skillset.)



Soldier:

Biotic Damage/Duration: -25%

Tech Damage/Duration: -25%

Weapon Damage: +50%

(I feel that even with a biotic/tech bonus power, the Soldier should feel the impact of its using an ability not suited for the class. Given the Soldier's incredible adaptibility, despite being a purely combat-based class, I feel that no penalty towards powers is unjust.)



Vanguard:

Biotic Damage: +25%

Tech Damage: +0%

Weapon Damage: +25%



Of course this is just an idea, and the stats are just rough estimates, so they could be raised or lowered depending on game balance, but they were simply there to emphasise the kind of structure and balance between the classes that I was suggesting.



It just seems ridiculous that a Sentinel, for example, can warp an enemy at the same power as an Adept, despite being trained on a more spread-out range of skills. A few extra Adept powers does not justify this.



So that is my idea, not without its flaws. Just seems like it would make it more apparent that your class actually is a *specialist* in its own areas, as opposed to few nice extras to the shooting skillset.

[Datacakes]

From the start of ME2 you knew right away that it was a shooter.  Why?  Thermal clips.  That just screams shooter.  I preferred the old ME1 mechanic because it was different but if the kiddies like fast shooters then what can we do.  So I think we all agree that ME2 has way more elements of a shooter game than a rpg ... or does it?

I'm sure on one end of the spectrum, players would want to do away with goofy rpg elements like the paragon/renegade choices or dialogue choices.  And if you didn't notice these are also being streamlined for faster play via the interrupt system.  I could envision a game where dialogue is totally interrupt driven.  It would be fast for the kiddies but frustrating for the adults, but it would be something new.  Or perhaps do away with other "pointless" gameplay like collecting model ships for your cabin or fish feeding or the "pointless" interview with that reporter at the Citidal, etc...   Hell I even read a post where a guy was disappointed because Thane's loyalty mission did not involve killing anyone.  Both Thane and Samara's loyalty mission are rpg elements.  They exist to add depth, dimension, story and interest in the ME universe.  Otherwise you might has well play Pong or Tetris.

So it's important to keep one thing in mind.  In my humble opinion, this game is all about the experience...on the FIRST playthrough.  It plays like a 40+ hour movie that you are in.   You are making choices and you are acting out a romantic adventure through your avatar.   Space.  Space ships.  Explosions.  Lasers.  Biotics. Aliens. ******.  Ass.  Adventure. How much more escapist could it get. 


Gatsby, I think for you and others the illusion has far since worn out.  Oz has been revealed.  I'm sure at this point, you like me and many others would rather skip the dialogue and cutscenes and the resource gathering and get straight to the business of testing our ... kill skills.  So that being said...

1) Bioware needs to add a Danger Room to the Normandy or some spaceport.  I'm not going to explain.  You either know what it is or don't.

2)  Addition of the Danger Room does several things:
a) provides replay value for people that don't want the story driven 'rpg' elements to get in the way of doing Business because they're on their umpteeth million playthrough.

it is a much better business model for DLC - although they all ready have a handle for "Danger Room" via planetary explorations.  Ahem - a X$ monthly subsrciption to receive "Danger Room" scenarios on a monthly basis just screams mad company profits

c) provides another conduit to add more depth to the ME universe - who wouldnt like to enter  the Danger Room with EDI manifested as a blonde bombshell AI squadmate


In short, I think changing the game play mechanics to be more shooter like for all classes would detract from the expansiveness that this game has got going for it.    Why not take a simpler route and make shooting guns less powerful.  Slap a slider on it and set it too normal and if the kiddies think it's too hard they can slide the slider to easy and then get more bang out of their shots.  Or for the manly men if they feel it's too easy they can adjust  so that they - ahem - they have to use their squadmates and the tactics of the far better classes: engineer, sentinel, adept.  After all thats where the real game is, tactics & strategy > skill, always.

[_Dannok1234]

ScroguBlitzen wrote...

Dannok1234 wrote...
ScrogueBlitzen I'm not sure you even read my posts if thats what you came away with

I read the entire thread and all of your posts before replying.  Your comments were consistent which is why I mentioned them.

Dannok1234 wrote...
Bah I'm just repeating myself here really.

Yep.  You have repeated your view that they are fine repeatedly.  What you haven't done is explained how the changes that Gatsby and others are requesting would negatively affect your gameplay experience.

Alright I'll try one more time, if it doesn't work this time I'll stop replying.
.
In your first response to me, you summed up my posts with the following. "ME2 was balanced for Normal and Adept/Engineer should mostly just use guns". This is completely wrong. Thats not what I was saying at all.
In my second reply to you, I explain to you about the risk vs reward and that I feel Adepts and Engineers are fine on insanity as they are. You simply appear to ignore this part and focus on the first and last sentence. But it does actually explain how Gatsby's changes would/could affect gameplay.

Adept and Engineer are as another poster here said low risk and low reward. While I wouldn't really say low reward I can see how others might. The way Adepts and Engineers are currently, makes playing them a distinctly different experience compared to other classes. I am worried that if you change them into a high risk high reward class, that they will play more like the other classes.

Once again I will ask you to explain what makes any class in Mass Effect a pure caster class. According to "lore" it does not make sense for someone to exclusively use biotics for example. I can see why or how someone would want it in the game, but saying that there are pure caster classes or have been is not correct.

In your first post you claim that Adepts and Engineers are broken on insanity. Would you like to explain that? As it stands on it's own it would suggest that you haven't really tried playing them and if you have, your definition of broken differs greatly from mine. Now if you mean that an Adept or Engineer tends to move through a mission slower then say a Vanguard, then yes I'll agree, in some cases they clearly do, and the reason for that is that those classes are more focused on control then damage.

[infinite bias]

Some very good insights, however I have to disagree with your proposed solution of making powers aim based.

Bioware is a rpg developer despite all their attempts to make this game into a gears of war clone and it shows. NONE of the classes require you to be very good with a mouse/controller. All 6 have some kind of inherent aim assistance whether its time dilation (Soldiers' Adrenaline Rush, Heavy Charge, Infiltrator's scope in) or auto lock on powers.

The problem with the 2 caster classes is that they're underpowered that's all. I don't believe there is a fundamental fault with the way they are built. Bioware may tout their "intense combat" and "improved shooter mechanics" but they always always present the player with a way out. Even (especially) with the shooting heavy soldier class. I mean, how much skill does it take to pop a headshot when enemies are slowed down 70%? If powers are "aimed" it would make casters the hardest classes to use, something that is both counter-intuitive and undesirable.

Christina Norman claims there are no sacred cows but the game says otherwise. Bioware refuses to make Mass Effect a purely twitch based 3rd person shooter and you know what? I'm glad. Just give Adepts & Engineers a bit more power.

[Adokat]

I think I like Ginnerben's solution. I much prefer the way powers are handled in ME2 versus ME1. Though perhaps less powerful, I felt like they were much more useful since I could use them much more often.



One thing that we need to remember is that even the adept and engineer have access to ARs, shotguns, and sniper rifles, with all of the upgrades they can get. It seems intentional that even the caster classes are encouraged use their weapons quite alot. Given that design, I think that it would be difficult to balance making powers more powerful while still allowing access to the weapons. I don't think Gatsby's aimed powers solution solves that problem.



I do, though, think that more intelligent usage of powers should be promoted. Warp explosion involves using one power to strip armor (sometimes), another to lift, and then the detonation. It looks cool and there's a payoff for taking the time to set up the combo instead of simply blasting the enemy with a gun or a single power.



Two other things, just my opinion:

-I think Gatsby's perspective is primarily coming from Insanity. I won't say that adepts are the easiest on normal (although they may be) but they sure aren't weak. Perhaps a re-think of the armor mechanics would be a simpler solution?

-Even on insanity, I hardly felt like the casters were weak. I've completed Engineer, Soldier, and most of Vanguard on Insanity. Engineer felt like the easiest class. Certainly the least deaths, and by the time I'd gotten a weapon specialization, I thought the class was so much more versatile than the other two classes. The difference in offensive power was much less than it was at the beginning of the game.

[Average Gatsby]

Datacakes wrote...

In short, I think changing the game play mechanics to be more shooter like for all classes would detract from the expansiveness that this game has got going for it.    Why not take a simpler route and make shooting guns less powerful.  Slap a slider on it and set it too normal and if the kiddies think it's too hard they can slide the slider to easy and then get more bang out of their shots.  Or for the manly men if they feel it's too easy they can adjust  so that they - ahem - they have to use their squadmates and the tactics of the far better classes: engineer, sentinel, adept.  After all thats where the real game is, tactics & strategy > skill, always.

First. I do want a danger room. With Giant purple robots.

Second, gameplay is secondary in my mind to the total experience as well to me and to pretty much everyone else. The biggest evidence of that is that one version of tali's fan thread has more posts than this entire section of the forum.

Making guns weaker is definitely an option, but it seemed like from the presentation, that is the furthest thing from BioWare's mind as far as changes for the next game. They want to keep it a shooter and they don't want to necessarily detract from that experience in any way. I was trying to think of a way to give adepts/engineers a boost without having to make it seem like shooting is weaker. There's got to be a way to make the game a better experience for the adept/engineer but still keep the game a great shooter.

[sandman7431]

I've been saying this for a while and people fight me tooth and nail on it but I think ME3 should eliminate pre-canned classes. I think players should be free to sculpt their own characters with parameters set up to prevent over-powered characters (For example you cannot have singularity as your only biotic ability with a bunch of weapons specializations). I don't think the character classes are equal at all and I don't think they can be.

[Cookie775]

I think the problem isn't that abilities do too little damage, or guns do too much, I think it's that every class is heavily reliant on guns, whether or not they should be. While it makes sense for soldiers/vanguards/infiltrators to be based around their weapons, it makes less sense with the adept and engineer, even the sentinel to a point.



The main thing that struck me as odd when I first played an adept and engineer was 'damn, i'm spending a lot of time firing my gun.'



I honestly think that a change to the global cooldown of adept/engineer/sent abilities would change the game drastically. I'm not saying remove the cooldown. Make it short. Keep cooldowns on abilities the same, just individual, and incorporate global cooldown of 1-2 seconds so you can't just spam all your abilities in succession. Make the damage lower if it's overpowered.



While I know you CAN play these classes without using guns, it's a lot slower. If the whole experience was engaging and intense as combat with a vanguard or sentinel, the classes would be much more appealing imo.

[sinosleep]

Shepard is a soldier. When I was in the military a very common phrase was "soldier first". Whether you were infantry, support, or somewhere in between, you were a soldier, or better yet a RIFLEMAN first. I don't see why any class should result in a guns free playthrough when clearly Shepard is a SOLDIER of note. Regardless of what you choose for an origin story Shepard is a person who was part of an elite special forces division of the military and was being considered for the spectres before you do anything. ANYONE in that position would have had to be quite proficient with weaponry, regardless of specialization.

[_Dannok1234]

I'm starting to wonder if this idea about pure power based class or "caster" as some call it, has something to do with Dragon Age being released not too long ago. So people are more used to playing a pure mage etc from a fantasy setting, rather then how things work in the ME universe.

Edit: Bit unrelated but.. Engineer has to be one of the easiest classes to play, to me it seems to require less effort then even a soldier on insanity.

Modifié par Dannok1234, 14 mars 2010 - 07:39 .