528 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, player should be forced to use correct weapon in correct situations. Not how ever, because out of ammos, but because weapons fits the situation. Dumm example, but makes the point well. You should not be able shoot far distance enemy snipers with shotgun or pistol. Because two things, you have long range weapons too and shotguns or pistol shooting distance should never reach the sniper enemies so far.  In ME1 this was problem, because pistols distance was as long as sniper rifles. What created the problem of uber weapon, best dps, long distance and unlimited ammos. Only one weapon needed.

Players shouldn't be forced to use a weapon under any circumstancs: there should simply be ways to deal with any any using any weapoon, or at least enough tools at your disposal to do the job. If a player is silly enough to want to take out a sniper from miles away with a shotgun they should be able to; the game shouldn't wrestle the option away from you, yell "you're doing it wrong!" and sort out the solution for you. If they don't have sniper rifles because they're a biotic, then there should be a biotic solution (e.g. hurl a pull, throw, lift, etc. at them). Players should just be able to stick to a single weapon if they want: it's as simple as that. My main character import was a Pistol Vanguard, and I want to play them as such. Shotgun isn't there style, so why should I be forced into it? It was fine in the first game, so it should be fine in the second.

One of ME2's many problems is that the game restricts you when it shouldn't (i.e. forced weapon loadouts) and doesn't restrict you where it should (i.e. upgrade system that allows you to God-mod everything to the max). Overall, it's just poorly designed. I should have to choice to simply leave a weapon type behind I don't want, whether I can have an alternative or not. People complained that in ME1 they had to carry weapons they couldn't even train in, and it's no better in ME2 to have to carry weapons you have no interest in using. There's no steadfast rule that says class A has to use Weapon B just because they can. I don't see fantasy RPGs forcing me to use longswords with my fighter, they give me the option to use an axe, spear, etc. as well and let me use what I want and ignore what I don't. ME2 should be no different.

[Lumikki]

Sorry Terror_K, but it seem we have come situation where we disagree.

I support freedom, but I don't support sulutions what cause situation where player can use one weapon to do everyting, just because player favours it. I support solution where player has correct tools to correct situation. Does player use them is up to player, but wrong tool should not be good in that situation too. If player wants to gimp they playing by using wrong tools, that's players choise.

Modifié par Lumikki, 24 septembre 2010 - 09:59 .

[Embrosil]

Lumikki wrote...

You remember those rocket launcher npcs in ME2. All of them are in long range and best weapon agaist them was sniper rifle. Also there was never more than 10 of them in one place, so you could take them out with Sniper rifle first, then switch smg and starts getting closer. Because those rockets did hurt if they hit. Yes, in ME1 also taking snipers out was pretty same, but I just shooted them with pistol. Because distance did not matter there, like it did in ME2. Meaning if in ME2 something was out of range of you weapon, you did not have much change to hit it.  This how ever, has nothing to do with ammos.

Yes, player should be forced to use correct weapon in correct situations. Not how ever, because out of ammos, but because weapons fits the situation. Dumm example, but makes the point well. You should not be able shoot far distance enemy snipers with shotgun or pistol. Because two things, you have long range weapons too and shotguns or pistol shooting distance should never reach the sniper enemies so far.  In ME1 this was problem, because pistols distance was as long as sniper rifles. What created the problem of uber weapon, best dps, long distance and unlimited ammos. Only one weapon needed.

Yes, those rocket morons are the only ones a sniper rifle is usable against. Yet, they are the most laughable NPCs. First, even on insanity, I can whitstand two even three rocket hits. In ME1 on insanity, one shot from a Geth Rocket trooper killed you in most cases. Second it is incredibly easy to avoid those missiles, so they are only a threat to my retarded companions who just stand there and keep getting hit till they "die". Which brings question, why are not there ANY NPC snipers in ME2? Maybe they had enough of running out of ammo. Oh, wait, NPCs can not run out of ammo. Scrap that.

No, player should not be forced. There is enough forcing in ME2 already. Weapons, storyline missions (sorry commander, change of plans, the Illusive man wants to speak with you. So what, I WANT to get mor eminerals to upgrade my wepons. Blast it...) If you want to be forced, try to play a Modern Warfare or any other shooter.

As Terror_K mentioned. I was hoping I will be able to choose which weapons I take with me and which I do not. Instead of this my soldier runs around bejeweled like a christmas tree with a heavy weapon on the top. Why can not I choose lets say an assault rifle and a sniper rifle and leave the rest behind? And the ammo from those I left behind could be added to the two I have brought. Why the hell everyone tells me the ammo is universal, yet I can not use a shotgun ammo in my sniper rifle? Imagine a todays sniper/marksman, low on 5.56 ammo, finding a 5.56 clip from an assault rifle, but being unable to use it. I have never seen a game with such a lame concept in 20 years.

Modifié par Embrosil, 24 septembre 2010 - 10:42 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Sorry Terror_K, but it seem we have come situation where we disagree.

I support freedom, but I don't support sulutions what cause situation where player can use one weapon to do everyting, just because player favours it. I support solution where player has correct tools to correct situation. Does player use them is up to player, but wrong tool should not be good in that situation too. If player wants to gimp they playing by using wrong tools, that's players choise.

By that logic we may as well give every class every weapon. Adepts have even less weapon choices than Vanguards, limited only to Pistols and SMGs. By your logic they should be given the other weapons as well. The whole point of having different classes is so that each class deals with the same situations in a different manner. Just like in fantasy RPGs where a warrior will do things different from a rogue or mage, in Mass Effect a sniper should deal with things differently than a shotgun user or pistol user. All weapons need to be able to handle the situations before them because not everybody can.

Sure, some classes and weapon users will have an easier time than others dealing with snipers, but usually where one class lacks in one area they'll make up for in another. That's the whole point of having different classes and abilities in the first place. If the fault lies anywhere it's in the fact that pistols are just so damn good, but that's a weapon balancing issue and doesn't even relate to the mechanic of forcing players into using other weapons. Supporting your idea just encourages gameplay to become even more generic between classes to the point where they lose their identities and it wouldn't even matter which one you chose.

[Lumikki]

Embrosil wrote...

I was hoping I will be able to choose which weapons I take with me and which I do not. Instead of this my soldier runs around bejeweled like a christmas tree with a heavy weapon on the top. Why can not I choose lets say an assault rifle and a sniper rifle and leave the rest behind?

You should be able to choose, I'm not arguing agaist that, I'm arguing that one weapon is only thing you need, because it's the best weapon to every situation. Like in ME1 pistol was best to everyting, even for sniping in lower levels. Every weapon should have they best use based situation they are used and if player use wrong weapon in wrong situation, it should make it feel like gimped choise to do. I'm not preventing to use wrong weapon, I'm asking make every weapons to be best in they own weapon situations. Like you should not be able to hit anything with pistol if enemy is too far in range. Or sniper rifle becomes bad choise when enemy is too close.

Modifié par Lumikki, 24 septembre 2010 - 11:19 .

[tonnactus]

I hate clip collecting after a fight.And the clips lying around everywhere completly destroy immersion.

[tonnactus]

archurban wrote...

 limited ammo gives you more strategy, and the way of survival as a plan.

I didnt have any ammo problems even on insanity.So the "limited" ammo is just an annoyance,nothing more.

[tonnactus]

Elite Midget wrote...

The limited ammo didn't feel limited at all in ME2. I rarely ran out of ammo wile doing an Insanity run as a Sentinel. If anything you could fire more shots per second in ME2 than in ME1 without suffering any pentalties. Not to mention that everyone you shot at tended to drop termal clips and that evenmy ships, like the Collectors, loved carrying ammo and heavy ammo for you to use.

Do the Collectors even 'use' Heavy Weapons?
 

The real question is why they would use thermal clips that fits shepards weapons...

[Kronner]

tonnactus wrote...
The real question is why they would use thermal clips that fits shepards weapons...

Gameplay >>> realism. And thank god for that.

It is still a videogame.

[Razor_Zeng]

Embrosil wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Unlimited ammo systems problem is that it can cause situation where player is using one weapon to every situation. Clips in ME2 styles caused situation so that player was forced to change weapons because out of ammos. Now point here is not force change weapons because out of ammos, but force player choose best weapon to every different situation. Meaning players don't use one weapon to every situation, but change them based situation, because out of ammos.

The thing is, some of us actually find this a detriment rather than a good mechanic because we feel it limits roleplaying, and often we don't want to have to use different weapons with one character and just want to stick with one.

For example, in ME1 I had several different Vanguards that all played differently, most notably one built to use the Pistol while another was built to use the Shotgun. Now in ME1 I'm forced to use the Shotgun with the character I don't want to use it with and the same goes visa versa. It also means that there's no point in importing both Shepards now because while they were designed differently in the first game they're both pretty much identical. Forcing players to use weapons for builds they don't want to is bad design, IMO.

Sure, the option should be there, but if a player doesn't want to use a weapon because that's not how they designed their character then they shouldn't be forced into it due to limited "ammo" and not being able to switch out the weapon class they don't want for something else. You don't see DAO forcing Fighter class characters to use a Long Sword, an Axe and a Two-Handled Sword just because their class can. That's why I'm hoping that ME3 either gives me the option to leave a particular weapon class behind entirely, or allows me to switch it so I can carry two weapons of the same type instead (i.e. replacing the Shotgun slot with another, different Pistol).

I personally thought forcing players to switch weapons was a bad move on BioWare's part with ME2. It limits roleplaying and forces players down a path they don't necessarily want to go down with the way their characters are made. I've got several Shepards of each class in ME1, but it looks as though (assuming I can be bothered to) I'll only be importing one of each class because ME2's variants don't allow for enough diversity within themselves. Half of this is the complete lack of skills, and the other is forced weapon allocation.

Exactly. For example I have never used a shotgun in ME1 (8 playthrougs up to date) and I try not to use it in ME2 as well. Why? Because I just DO NOT WANT TO. Yet now I am forced to use guns I do not like. I hardly call that an improvement. Every game that forces players to do something is a bad game.

I really do not understand why a hybrid model was not implemented. When you do not shoot, the heat should go down and your "ammo" should replenish. And when you shoot like crazy, you have to drop the thermal clip to prevent overheating. I even have a modified coalsced.ini working like this, unfortunately only for version 1.00 If someone knows where to get one for 1.02 I would be grateful for a link.

The hybrid system you describe is what I would prefer aswell. Maybe also make it you have three heatsinks (available for ALL weapons) that you can swap between. They have  a cool down rate slower then if they were in your gun so if all three (one in your gun two out of it) are overheated you have to swap weapons or use more powers.

Fits both the good old system from ME1 and the shooter system from ME2.

[Razor_Zeng]

Kronner wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
The real question is why they would use thermal clips that fits shepards weapons...

Gameplay >>> realism. And thank god for that.

It is still a videogame.

It still breaks gameplay. "Oh look this alien species that doesn't even use the same system of weapons as us is conveniently carrying around heatsinks for my gun! Yay!" ...

Its like killing rats in a medieval RPG and having them drops swords and other weapons.

[Siegdrifa]

The Limited ammo in ME2 like i said in a previous thread, help to keep the weapon balanced.



If you tweak the heat generation to match the same DPS, the fact is, one would be infinte and could to much much more dommage in the long run.



I think this point is important enough to let the game design go over the "cool stuff of sf".



The widow with infite ammo would kill the game.

If you tweak the heat generation to forbide the player to beat the game with head shot kill, you also kill the gameplay balance; sometime you need the widow just for one shot, but if things are getting tense (like it must be from time to time), you need to use it 6 or 7 time in a row.

Ammo limitation work great in this case, it allow you to consume fire power at different rate but never in a abusive way.



The first time i played ME1 i found the heat limitation a lame excuse to not make extra animation and / or very badly implemented.





I think we could describ the problem of ammo limitation / heat sink in 2 major point :



- Do we want infinite ammo because it's sf ?

If YES, we have to find a solution to keep the "infinit" ammunition not a breaking balance (therefor "make the heat penaltity longer for more powerfull weapon longer " is a very bad idea because sometimes you NEED powerfull weapon a little longer to BURST and overcome a hard setup).



-Do we want a "reload" breaking animation ?

This animation serve as a controler to forbide the player to spay all the bullet, and allso because "reload animation" is an important part of using weapon.



In ME1 they could have used this breaking animation when the weapon was overheated to activate a cooler system.

That's why i don't like the heat system like it is in ME1... so lazy and cheap.

[Homebound]

Personally, Id rather have it so the Thermal sinks have a cool-down period, and the last thermal sink is the kind that was in ME1 where it overheated and you waited a couple of seconds.



Injecting thermal clips didnt make any sense to me. You can REUSE em again! just dunk em in a bucket of ice!

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

You remember those rocket launcher npcs in ME2. All of them are in long range

That is not long range.Its medium at best.The sniper rifle actually show you the distance to the target.20-60 meters is not long range.

[Mister Mida]

Siegdrifa wrote...
That's why i don't like the heat system like it is in ME1... so lazy and cheap.

At least they tried to make a unique system for the combat instead of the same old ammo system you see in every shooter.

[tonnactus]

Embrosil wrote...

. Which brings question, why are not there ANY NPC snipers in ME2?

Yes,its funny.They there planned at least but cut.(Garrus mentioned eclipse sniper,but where?)

[tonnactus]

Kronner wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
The real question is why they would use thermal clips that fits shepards weapons...

Gameplay >>> realism. And thank god for that.

It is still a videogame.

Thats the problem of course.With such junk like thermal clips,loading screens and mission complete reports,in addition
to the famous "Press B to end the mission"(my "favourite")  the game always remind me thats its only a videogame.
And good gameplay could fit the lore,its not a antagonism.

[Kronner]

Razor_Zeng wrote...

It still breaks gameplay. "Oh look this alien species that doesn't even use the same system of weapons as us is conveniently carrying around heatsinks for my gun! Yay!" ...

Its like killing rats in a medieval RPG and having them drops swords and other weapons.

No, the gameplay needs it. The ammo efficiency is important. Imagine Mattock or Viper with unlimited ammo. Crazy.
It would allow player to camp in safe spot and take out enemies without moving at all.

tonnactus wrote...

Thats the problem of course.With such junk like thermal clips,loading screens and mission complete reports,in addition
to the famous "Press B to end the mission"(my "favourite")  the game always remind me thats its only a videogame.
And good gameplay could fit the lore,its not a antagonism.

Well, the mission end screen and other stuff you mentioned is not about gameplay but design and I agree with you there. it is useless junk.

Modifié par Kronner, 24 septembre 2010 - 12:40 .

[termokanden]

The gameplay doesn't need limited ammo. It would now because the weapons are not balanced otherwise. So as it is now, with no other changes, unlimited ammo would be a bad thing.



But it would have been possible to finetune the overheating system in ME1. I have no idea why they didn't do this. I thought the overheating system was more interesting than the boring standard ammo idea. It was unbalanced in ME1, but nobody says you have to throw out the whole system because of it. They did anyway, no idea why.

[Siegdrifa]

Terror_K wrote...


Players shouldn't be forced to use a weapon under any circumstancs: there should simply be ways to deal with any any using any weapoon, or at least enough tools at your disposal to do the job. If a player is silly enough to want to take out a sniper from miles away with a shotgun they should be able to; the game shouldn't wrestle the option away from you, yell "you're doing it wrong!"

I'm sorry, but i think you are mistaking "i like / don't like" with "it's good / bad".

You are expressing YOUR opinion like fact, especialy about what i quoted.

Weapon are disigned to fill a need. (in reality, weapon AND ammunition)
There is NOTHING wrong to find weapon in video game designed to be better at this and badder at that.

I won't go into the "WHY" it serve in ME2, i will just point one thing :
If the game could be done using only your favorite weapon, i hope you realise that every player don't like the same weapon as their "favorite".
It's mean in order to please all those selfishness, ALL the weapon of the game would need to be nearly as good as anyother in every case. It's a NO gunfight design and strategie.

But the game let you do it, you just use too much ressources, and it's perfectly FINE.
To be able to take out a sniper at long range with a shot gun without too much problem would be very bad in a game.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 24 septembre 2010 - 12:47 .

[Siegdrifa]

Mister Mida wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...
That's why i don't like the heat system like it is in ME1... so lazy and cheap.

At least they tried to make a unique system for the combat instead of the same old ammo system you see in every shooter.

It's not an excuse to make NO work about it.
It's a lot harder to make extra object and animation  for "old" ammo system than a poor variable for heat generation.

I'm not against heat generation, i'm against lazy choice.

[tonnactus]

Kronner wrote...

No, the gameplay needs it. The ammo efficiency is important. Imagine Mattock or Viper with unlimited ammo.

Viper? I could do entire fights using just this weapon. Its easy to balance,high damaging weapons produce more heat
then those with lower damage.And the difference between the mattock and the revenant are not that big...
The revenant is basicly a mattock with unlimited ammo when it comes to damage alone.(or the mattock is a revenant with limited ammo for other classes then the soldier)

[termokanden]

Due to Adrenaline Rush allowing the player to maximize rate of fire, the Mattock has higher DPS than the Revenant. So no the Revenant is definitely not just a Mattock with unlimited ammo.



I can already imagine how to balance these with a heat generation system. The Mattock would obviously generate a lot of heat and the Revenant would be able to sustain fire longer but at lower damage and accuracy. Actually that would make more sense than the way things are now, because that allows a real tradeoff between the two. As it is now, the Mattock is just better with Adrenaline Rush.

[Kronner]

This alone would not be enough. Level design or AI would have to be changed completly to prevent player from staying in a safe spot and just kill everyone without any danger. Unlimited ammo is a very bad idea IMHO. It was ridiculously bad in ME1.

[termokanden]

You have enough ammo in ME2 to do that anyway, even on insanity.



It would work well if the AI was tuned to be more aggressive. This should happen anyway I think. There are some tough fights on insanity, but in most of them you really can just stay back behind cover and kill enemies one at a time.



Oh and you always have infinite ammo with powers, so the problem actually already exists.



I don't want the same system as in ME1. I don't want a regular unimaginative ammo system either. I would like to see a fine-tuned overheating and modding system instead. But if I had to choose between the two existing systems, ME2 works best. I just want to make it clear that I still think it was lazy to just throw out the overheating system instead of balancing it.