528 réponses à ce sujet

[sinosleep]

Terror_K wrote...

I think you're misunderstanding me here. I won't want a shotgun to be able to take out a long-distance enemy. What I want is to be able to play a character who specialises in close-range combat in one playthrough, one that specialises in mid-to-long range combat in another and then maybe one that mixes it up in a third. By forcing me to use weapons I have no desire to, it limits me to only playing that third option. I don't expect the weapons to be able to handle every situation, but instead I want to be able to play differently in the same situations, rather than be forced to play it the same way with the same style in every playthrough. That's why in DAO I create one fighter who uses sword and shield, one who uses a big two-handed axe and one who has a long-bow. I don't just have one fighter who uses all these things.

You can do that in ME 2. 

compare AverageGatsby's smg engineer
to my Shotgun engineer

compare Thisisme8's cqc infiltrator
to AverageGatasby's sniper infiltrator

I also don't really see how yu can make that arguemnt while at the same time making this one

Terror_K wrote...

Of course the situation what you say doesn't exist in ME1, because ME1 was build so that there is no need of multible weapons. It was one uber weapon game. I played Infiltrator in ME1 and I never needed anything else than pistol.  That's not good combat system for shooter, because the weapons system where totally unbalanced.

The weapons in ME2 aren't that different though, and all essentially act the same. The pistol isn't quite as good at it once was in ME1, and the other limits are generally now thermal clip related. Beyond that each weapon can hold its own in most situations, it just sometimes requires different tactics. A sniper will be able to take out a character from distance easily, while a shotgun user will need to close the range first, for instance.

They run counter to each other.

Although I repeat, the ONLY weapons in the game that actually have ammo issues are the sniper rifles and heavy weapons. I've run through the game using practically NOTHING but the shotgun on several vanguards, an assault sentinel, and now an engineer. I've done the same with smgs and assault rifles on egineers, caster sentinels, and adepts, I use assault rifles almost exclusively once I unlock the revenant on my soldiers. If you want to you can run through the game using only one weapon so long as that weapon isn't a sniper rifle.

Modifié par sinosleep, 25 septembre 2010 - 11:05 .

[Embrosil]

Lumikki wrote...

arcelonious wrote...

Are people constantly running out of ammo in ME 2? Because I've already beaten the game with 5 classes, and I just have never seen it as a problem.

If player picks ammos from ground and use most weapons what character has they will never run out of ammos at least allmost never. How ever, some people here thinks player should be fine with just using one kind of weapon to every situations. I don't agree with that. It creates uber weapon gameplay, where player is trying to solve every situation with same weapon, even if it doesn't fit the situation where they are. It's like some primitive RPG game systems where hole point is just to find best weapon. In shooters it's not about one weapon only, but actually change weapons based situation where players character is.

Umm, no. People do not want to be forced to run across a battlefields like idiots to just pick up ammo because the wepon they WANT to use, just run of ammo and eventhough the ammo is supposed to be universal, we can not use the ammo from our rifle in our sniper rifle.
And no, we do not want a one weapon for all. We want the possibility to USE the weapon we want. If I want to be close combat, I take a shotgun and a pistol. I do not want to bear any other weapons. Why the hell would I bear a sniper rifle to a close combat? And equipped like this, I would have to take Thane or Garrus or both as they can use sniper rifles to compensate. And vice versa. If I take a pistol and a sniper rifle, I would take Grunt and Jacob with their shotguns. 
I see people telling us about different squad members usage. I must be playing a different game. Not only we have so few powers compared to ME1 but most characters have the same powers. I play my fourth ME2 game, yet for the fourth time I ended using Garrus and Thane in 99% of missions. Give them both Incisors and even on instanity you are unstoppable. You call this a better game ballance?
And regarding the ammo, I would not mind if it was implemented logically. But what Bioware showed us is just a nonesence. Universal ammo is not universal. When you eject the heatsink, how come, you do not put in a new one? How does the new one gets there? Where does Shepard stores them? 400 heatsinks for an assault rifle, jeez, he must have a really huuge yet invisible bag. The laughable respawning of heatsinks out of nowhere. And my favorite, how the hell is it possible that enemies CAN NOT run out of ammo????

Modifié par Embrosil, 25 septembre 2010 - 11:58 .

[Embrosil]

Lumikki wrote...

termokanden wrote...

I think that's also because you spend a lot of points on weapons training in ME1 so most classes are only really good with a single type of weapon. When I played a soldier, I switched weapons a lot for fun, but that's because I had the points to max out several weapons.

Yes, but question is why did you switch weapons in ME1?

Try to kill Saren with a sniper rifle or try to snipe an enemy at 300m with an assault rifle and rethink your question.

Modifié par Embrosil, 25 septembre 2010 - 12:02 .

[Dr. Megaverse]

Topic: Unlimited Ammo: Why it's better for Mass Effect's versimilitude



Explanation: Definition of VERISIMILAR

1

: having the appearance of truth : probable

2

: depicting realism (as in art or literature



This topic was not a comparison argument based on game mechanics or gameplay buy RP immersion. I think that point may have gotten lost in all this debate.

[Embrosil]

Lumikki wrote...

termokanden wrote...

1. For fun.
2. To suit the situation. My soldier would use sniper rifles mostly outdoors, assault rifles indoors and shotguns up close.

Anything wrong with that?

Nope, that has been my point all the time. Changing weapon based situation where you are, is what makes combat more fun. How ever, some people here think it's restricting roleplaying if they can't just use one weapon, like pistol to everyting as well different weapons would be. Because having handycap to use wrong weapon to wrong situation, should not exists.

And yet again, show us, who said that wants a one weapon for everything? I do not see such a post. We want to use the weapons WE WANT the way the are supposed to be used. E.g. Why do I have to take a shotgun with me  (and am forced to use it), when I use a sniper/assault rifle combo only??

Modifié par Embrosil, 25 septembre 2010 - 12:10 .

[Embrosil]

Dr. Megaverse wrote...

Topic: Unlimited Ammo: Why it's better for Mass Effect's versimilitude

Explanation: Definition of VERISIMILAR
1
: having the appearance of truth : probable
2
: depicting realism (as in art or literature

This topic was not a comparison argument based on game mechanics or gameplay buy RP immersion. I think that point may have gotten lost in all this debate.

In that case the anwer is obvious. As it was in the first game, any change from this scheme is stupid a illogical. And as we talk about a science fiction game, I do not see much logic in trying do depict a realism.

[sinosleep]

Embrosil wrote...

And yet again, show us, who said that wants a one weapon for everything? I do not see such a post. We want to use the weapons WE WANT the way the are supposed to be used. E.g. Why do I have to take a shotgun with me  (and am forced to use it), when I use a sniper/assault rifle combo only??

You AREN'T forced to use it. Is all of this complaining seriously about the weapon simply being on your back? I would have never thought a weapon simply being in your inventory could be so egregious.

[Sidney]

sinosleep wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

And yet again, show us, who said that wants a one weapon for everything? I do not see such a post. We want to use the weapons WE WANT the way the are supposed to be used. E.g. Why do I have to take a shotgun with me  (and am forced to use it), when I use a sniper/assault rifle combo only??

You AREN'T forced to use it. Is all of this complaining seriously about the weapon simply being on your back? I would have never thought a weapon simply being in your inventory could be so egregious.

Amazing isn't? I've gone entire paythrough just using the  assault rifle, SMG or shotgun except at moments when I chose not to use them. I've so rarely bled out ammo on any weapon during a fight it isn't worth mentioning - and most of the time those were boss fights where I forgot to whip out the heavy weapons.

Yes the fact that "universal" clips aren't universally useable is stupid...if I have 20 clips I could be able to use them but the fact is that you carry around a lot of extraneous weapons in any RPG - check your inventory in KOTOR or DAO and see all the stuff you really don't want to use sitting in there.

[Sidney]

Dr. Megaverse wrote...

That being said, I really felt that Mass Effect had a bit more versimilitude for having unlimited ammo and simply applying a heat penalty to check your rate of fire.  I understand the idea and the motivations behind ME2's descision to go with the "clip" system and add an extra element of difficulty.  In roleplaying terms though everytime I fire my weapon in ME and think about the codex entries on how it all works, I feel much more "in the future" than I do in ME2.

Overheating is really a bad mechanism in terms of reality.  In mid- to late 20thc warfare machine guns would have functionally unlimited ammo. Almost any machine gun was crewed by two men. The second guy had two jobs - to feed ammo to create an endless if not unlimited ammo base for the shooter- but his other job was to swap barrels that became too hot. Notice that the "wait for it to cool down" option wasn't chosen. Essentially unlimited fire weapons worked off the same same remove something hot and replace it wirh something cool mechanism from ME2.

There are problems with the implementation - the lack of true universality being the biggest - but the theory that on the battlefield you would trade rate of fire and reliability for unlimited ammo seems like a reasonable swap.

[Sparda Stonerule]

sinosleep wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

And yet again, show us, who said that wants a one weapon for everything? I do not see such a post. We want to use the weapons WE WANT the way the are supposed to be used. E.g. Why do I have to take a shotgun with me  (and am forced to use it), when I use a sniper/assault rifle combo only??

You AREN'T forced to use it. Is all of this complaining seriously about the weapon simply being on your back? I would have never thought a weapon simply being in your inventory could be so egregious.

Actually yes, the argument seems to be about that. It also seems to be about running out of ammo and needing to pick up clips, and that you can't take clips out of one gun and put them in another. Finally it also seems to be about not being able to remove a weapon from your back.

So, most of these people liked the ME 1 inventory system, but wanted it to be tweaked. Now they are complaining about having a weapon on their back that they can use, instead of complaining about the ME 1 weapons on their back that they could not. I mean you could even craft weapons that you would want to use in different situations and just swap them in mid battle in ME 1, yet a couple people seem to wonder why we have certain guns with us. Seems odd to me.

Running out of ammo. This is anecdotal at best. However the people who don't like ME 2's ammo system seem to run out of ammo mid combat. Then they have to run around collecting ammo while still fighting. I've played every class on Hardcore and this never happens to me. Probably because I do a lot of moving as it is. You can stay behind cover all the time, but fights go faster if you try to get into better positions. I never run out of Sniper Ammo either because I watch it as I use it, and switch out before it runs dry to avoid running out completely unless I feel I need to use it.

Taking clips from one gun and adding them to another. Alright this has several in game reasons. You can't stock your gun with more thermal clips from your other guns while on your ship because all the clips in your gun are already in your gun. If you don't know what I mean, next time you reload watch what Shepard does. He ejects the clip but does not replace it because the gun is already holding all the clips it can. You also can't remove these clips while in the field because all you can do with the clips is eject them. You also can't eject a clip without using it a little. So it makes enough sense to not seem crazy. I assume the reason it doesn't show the animation of Shepard restoring the clips as he picks them up is so it saves time. Finally, yes you could carry a pack with clips, but having too many would ultimately remove any possibility of you running out of ammo. I would agree the ammo pack armor pieces should hold a bit more ammo, but the ammo pack armor pieces illustrate being able to carry a few more clips and cells.

Then we come to removing a weapon from your back. I would understand if you wanted to do this in ME 1 when you can't use some of the weapons on your back. But if you can use a weapon why wouldn't you want it with you? It doesn't shoehorn you into using the weapons you have with you, in fact most classes can be played without needing to use a gun, it just takes a lot longer. I also don't know why you'd gain a bonus for not taking a weapon. So an elite agent goes on a mission and doesn't bring his shotgun with him, so he now gains attributes for leaving a weapon behind. That does't make a lot of sense. This is the one argument I don't see precisely where people are coming from. However I guess if you really don't want to take one of your weapons with you I don't see why you couldn't take it off of your back, except for it doesn't seem something like a trained marine would do.

Anyway I like Thermal Clips and how they work. They made more sense to me to the unlimited ammo in ME 1 which when related to the lore is only pretending to be unlimited. It's kind of strange when the lore makes it clear that breaking ammo pieces off of a block would eventually require you to change it. Yet if you wanted to you could stand in the same spot for over a year and fire that gun in game without needing to swap out ammo blocks (Although no one would do this in game play, but you could). However the reasoning for the thermal clips in game is decent enough. Instead of needing for weapons to cool down you just eject a clip to keep the heat down. This would theoretically allow weapons that overheat very fast to fire more in ME 2 than in ME 1. Note I said theoretically, not everyone in the universe has military grade weapons. This would also make arms dealers able to generate more revenue by selling more thermal clips more often, well possibly. That last bit is just speculation but I'd think the stores in the galaxy want to make as many credits as possible.

So in the end, I guess it really is just preference. I just happen to be with Sinosleep and the others with this one. I also think your general arguments tend to get jumbled up somewhere along the line because they don't make much sense to me, and apparently they don't make sense to a few other people. So it's probably just a communication breakdown or a misunderstanding. Because I really hope your arguments aren't as confusing as they seem.

Modifié par Sparda Stonerule, 25 septembre 2010 - 02:27 .

[Lumikki]

In both games you are forced to take all you weapons (at least visualy) with you in mission. How ever, you aren't forced to use all you weapons. But in ME2 running out of ammos in sertain type of weapons (heavy and sniper rifle) does force you pick up more ammos from ground or switch weapon with ammos. In ME1 how ever, you could just use one weapon to everyting, what creates one best weapon gameplay.

How ever, this thread was about ammos, clips or overheat. Overheat fits very well on weapons where is very high rate of fire, like submachine gun or assault rifle or few types of heavy weapons. How ever, single shot weapons, like pistols, sniper rifle and shotgun it doesn't make any sense. Both overheat and clips create short breaks on players ability use weapons. This isn't really that important aspect as is there this break or not, more important aspect is does player switch weapons at all when playing. Meaning is there need of different kind of weapons.

In my opinion somekind of hyprid system would be best, but I don't support unlimited ammos. It's not good for gameplay, it creates too narrow type of gameplay. Allows players to use one weapon only to hole gameplay. This happens because weapons are never so balanced that some weapon doesn't come as the uber weapon. With limited ammos by weapons, player need to think more about what weapons to use in different situations.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 septembre 2010 - 04:32 .

[Xeranx]

 

I would understand if you wanted to do this in ME 1 when you can't use some of the weapons on your back. But if you can use a weapon why wouldn't you want it with you?

In ME the only weapon you couldn't use effectively without it being a class weapon was the sniper rifle. The assault rifle is mid-range and the shotgun is a close quarters weapon. So using the AR all I have to do is get within a decent range before using the weapon. Being able to focus the reticle is nice, but general area works also. Using the shotgun when it doesn't pertain to your class isn't so much of a hindrance because I still need to get up close to use it. It's still effective because of what it is and it's job and it gets easier to use with mods. The sniper rifle, because it's a long-range weapon is difficult to use because of its intended use. You're supposed to use the scope to target your enemy. Even then, with mods it can be used as a high-powered shotgun.



Now, the idea that unlimited ammo is detrimental (as I see it) comes from the idea that people would idiotically spray bullets just for the sake of spraying bullets which I find nonsensical. I feel that's tantamount to mining an entire planets resources just because you can do it (or you are given the idea that you need to). Just like Hudson didn't expect people to mine planets endlessly, no one expects anyone to just sit their firing rounds off. It's a colossal waste of time and effort, and it doesn't help you defeat enemies if all you're doing is firing at the wall (or the empty space next to your target) when they're trying to kill you.  

Weapons in ME had more versatility. We have reduced versatility in ME2. People having an issue with the marksman ability in ME probably don't think about some of the pistols that exist today that have automatic fire or can be modified to have automatic fire. The way I looked at the marksman ability is that you had a pistol that had a limited auto-fire feature with a built in fail-safe. That so many wanted weapons to be rigid role pieces and that we got it, I feel, is an unfortunate detriment to the game and its lore.  This is where I think the idea of Bioware catering to the shooter mentality comes in.  That people think combat is grittier when you have to manage ammo rather than feel you're a capable (despite not being a full-classed soldier) individual who is able to use your tools in ways others might not.  Again the marksman ability comes to mind.

The fact here is all of these things could have been tweaked. Instead we're left with guns of the old west with good forward thinking of being able to use the same caliber ammo...but not being able to use the same ammo.  Versatility is gone and I'm left questioning the imagination of the people who gave us this new system.

[Embrosil]

sinosleep wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

And yet again, show us, who said that wants a one weapon for everything? I do not see such a post. We want to use the weapons WE WANT the way the are supposed to be used. E.g. Why do I have to take a shotgun with me  (and am forced to use it), when I use a sniper/assault rifle combo only??

You AREN'T forced to use it. Is all of this complaining seriously about the weapon simply being on your back? I would have never thought a weapon simply being in your inventory could be so egregious.

Yes, because in ME1 I could easily swap the weapons using hotkeys. In ME2 I many times end up equpping a heavy weapon because in the heat of battle I turned the mouse button the wrong way. So yes, I want to have the possibility to chose which wepon I take and which I do not. Every other RPG does have it. Oh, wait, ME2 is a shooter. Scrap that.

Modifié par Embrosil, 25 septembre 2010 - 05:28 .

[Embrosil]

Lumikki wrote...

In both games you are forced to take all you weapons (at least visualy) with you in mission. How ever, you aren't forced to use all you weapons. But in ME2 running out of ammos in sertain type of weapons (heavy and sniper rifle) does force you pick up more ammos from ground or switch weapon with ammos. In ME1 how ever, you could just use one weapon to everyting, what creates one best weapon gameplay.

How ever, this thread was about ammos, clips or overheat. Overheat fits very well on weapons where is very high rate of fire, like submachine gun or assault rifle or few types of heavy weapons. How ever, single shot weapons, like pistols, sniper rifle and shotgun it doesn't make any sense. Both overheat and clips create short breaks on players ability use weapons. This isn't really that important aspect as is there this break or not, more important aspect is does player switch weapons at all when playing. Meaning is there need of different kind of weapons.

In my opinion somekind of hyprid system would be best, but I don't support unlimited ammos. It's not good for gameplay, it creates too narrow type of gameplay. Allows players to use one weapon only to hole gameplay. This happens because weapons are never so balanced that some weapon doesn't come as the uber weapon. With limited ammos by weapons, player need to think more about what weapons to use in different situations.

Yes, hybrid system would be good. I would even be ok with an ammo system, if impelemented logicaly. But the current status of impelementing is so lame, especially considering the fact that the call it an improvement. Show me any military, which would willingly change an unlimited ammo for a limited one....
The problem is that they call ammo a heatsink. And heat simply goes away by time, unless you are in a hotter environment. Hmm, anyone has seen We were soldiers? The scene where they pee to cool down mortars as they run out of water? By the logic of Bioware's new system, they should swith to a different weapon when they do not have more heatsinks...

Modifié par Embrosil, 25 septembre 2010 - 05:39 .

[Joshep]

Well i hated the whole "overheating weapons" in ME 1, the ammo in ME 2 is far better.

[sinosleep]

Embrosil wrote...

Yes, hybrid system would be good. I would even be ok with an ammo system, if impelemented logicaly. But the current status of impelementing is so lame, especially considering the fact that the call it an improvement. Show me any military, which would willingly change an unlimited ammo for a limited one....
The problem is that they call ammo a heatsink. And heat simply goes away by time, unless you are in a hotter environment. Hmm, anyone has seen We were soldiers? The scene where they pee to cool down mortars as they run out of water? By the logic of Bioware's new system, they should swith to a different weapon when they do not have more heatsinks...

Christ it was a MOVIE! I was actually in the military, there is a reason m249 and m60 gunners carry EXTRA BARRELS and not extra water. When something overheats as much as weapons barrels do you don't simply wait for them to cool off. You swap out the hot for the cool one, and more often then not that hot barrled has been permanently warped and rendered unsuseable.

[Atmosfear3]

Embrosil wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

And yet again, show us, who said that wants a one weapon for everything? I do not see such a post. We want to use the weapons WE WANT the way the are supposed to be used. E.g. Why do I have to take a shotgun with me  (and am forced to use it), when I use a sniper/assault rifle combo only??

You AREN'T forced to use it. Is all of this complaining seriously about the weapon simply being on your back? I would have never thought a weapon simply being in your inventory could be so egregious.

Yes, because in ME1 I could easily swap the weapons using hotkeys. In ME2 I many times end up equpping a heavy weapon because in the heat of battle I turned the mouse button the wrong way. So yes, I want to have the possibility to chose which wepon I take and which I do not. Every other RPG does have it. Oh, wait, ME2 is a shooter. Scrap that.

Really?

Sorry, nobody is going to cater to you because you're terrible at moving your mouse.

[PWENER]

sinosleep wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Yes, hybrid system would be good. I would even be ok with an ammo system, if impelemented logicaly. But the current status of impelementing is so lame, especially considering the fact that the call it an improvement. Show me any military, which would willingly change an unlimited ammo for a limited one....
The problem is that they call ammo a heatsink. And heat simply goes away by time, unless you are in a hotter environment. Hmm, anyone has seen We were soldiers? The scene where they pee to cool down mortars as they run out of water? By the logic of Bioware's new system, they should swith to a different weapon when they do not have more heatsinks...

Christ it was a MOVIE! I was actually in the military, there is a reason m249 and m60 gunners carry EXTRA BARRELS and not extra water. When something overheats as much as weapons barrels do you don't simply wait for them to cool off. You swap out the hot for the cool one, and more often then not that hot barrled has been permanently warped and rendered unsuseable.

Exactly.

/thread

Modifié par PWENER, 25 septembre 2010 - 07:00 .

[theelementslayer]

sinosleep wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Yes, hybrid system would be good. I would even be ok with an ammo system, if impelemented logicaly. But the current status of impelementing is so lame, especially considering the fact that the call it an improvement. Show me any military, which would willingly change an unlimited ammo for a limited one....
The problem is that they call ammo a heatsink. And heat simply goes away by time, unless you are in a hotter environment. Hmm, anyone has seen We were soldiers? The scene where they pee to cool down mortars as they run out of water? By the logic of Bioware's new system, they should swith to a different weapon when they do not have more heatsinks...

Christ it was a MOVIE! I was actually in the military, there is a reason m249 and m60 gunners carry EXTRA BARRELS and not extra water. When something overheats as much as weapons barrels do you don't simply wait for them to cool off. You swap out the hot for the cool one, and more often then not that hot barrled has been permanently warped and rendered unsuseable.

Ya sino is right, I have a buddy in the military that uses a C9, a derivative of the m249, and there is no way that metal will cool down that quickly. The reason they pop the heatsink is because after all that heat the thermal clip is probably waped to insanity. You couldnt just drop the heatsink in water and make it work again. I like the thermal clips, its better in gameplay and for realism, IMO, of course.

[Quething]

Sidney wrote...

I've so rarely bled out ammo on any weapon
during a fight it isn't worth mentioning - and most of the time those
were boss fights where I forgot to whip out the heavy weapons.

Well, yes, and that's my point, which as Dr Megaverse and Embrosil sort of glancingly mentioned in the middle of this other argument, is also actually in support of the original one; since there is no functional gameplay difference between "infinite ammo that's just there" and "infinite ammo that you have to move a few feet to activate," any claim that "the current thermal clip system is an important part of balancing/controlling weapon gameplay" is spurious. (I've also argued that even if it weren't, that would be an incredibly wrongheaded way to balance weapons, but that's admittedly tangental since infinite ammo exists either way).

And if there is no actual difference, if thermal clips place the exact same restrictions on firing forever as the ME1 heat sink system did (IE, none, apart from having to pause periodically between shots)... then there is no justifiable reason for switching away from the heat sink system, since it severely damages the lore and worldbuilding consistency of the universe and provides absolutely no benefit, combat balance or otherwise, in compensation.

[Lumikki]

Yes, there is difference.

Try to use only sniper rifle in ME2 as your only weapon. You will be out of ammos in many cases.Point is that not running out of ammos happens only if you use multible weapons or sertain weapons, it doesn't apply on all weapons. It's about weapon balance.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 septembre 2010 - 07:32 .

[theelementslayer]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, there is difference.

Try to use only sniper rifle in ME2 as your only weapon. You will be out of ammos in many cases.

Which I think is a good thing, they would be insanely overpowered as well as the vindicator would be.

[sinosleep]

Quething wrote...

Well, yes, and that's my point, which as Dr Megaverse and Embrosil sort of glancingly mentioned in the middle of this other argument, is also actually in support of the original one; since there is no functional gameplay difference between "infinite ammo that's just there" and "infinite ammo that you have to move a few feet to activate," any claim that "the current thermal clip system is an important part of balancing/controlling weapon gameplay" is spurious. (I've also argued that even if it weren't, that would be an incredibly wrongheaded way to balance weapons, but that's admittedly tangental since infinite ammo exists either way).

And if there is no actual difference, if thermal clips place the exact same restrictions on firing forever as the ME1 heat sink system did (IE, none, apart from having to pause periodically between shots)... then there is no justifiable reason for switching away from the heat sink system, since it severely damages the lore and worldbuilding consistency of the universe and provides absolutely no benefit, combat balance or otherwise, in compensation.

When I replied to you I agreed that functionally, unless you aim is off you never run out of ammo on any weapons other than sniper rifles, but I think using that to claim there is no difference between the two systems is deceptive. The key difference between the two games comes with the rate of fire. You no longer have infinite clip weapons in ME 2, which is all I ever really wanted corrected. Could that have been corrected with the old systems still in play simply by enforcing a hard overheat function on all weapons that players couldn't upgrade? Sure, but that's not the point. The point is it's still the key difference between the two games.

[Sidney]

Quething wrote...

And if there is no actual difference, if thermal clips place the exact same restrictions on firing forever as the ME1 heat sink system did (IE, none, apart from having to pause periodically between shots)... then there is no justifiable reason for switching away from the heat sink system, since it severely damages the lore and worldbuilding consistency of the universe and provides absolutely no benefit, combat balance or otherwise, in compensation.

There is a difference in terms of rate of fire, yes. In ME1 if Ihave to go full auto I'm essentially out of the fight for several second whereas in ME2 I can resume fighting in a much, much shorter period of time.  Essentially in ME2 I can put more rounds downrange in less time than I could in ME1. That is a huge advantage in terms of reality.

The fact that you don't run out of ammo isn't the issue, the issue is how the game allows you to consume your ammo. ME1 basically enforces a very narrow form of fire discipline on you that doesn't allow for situational decisions or more correctly does allow for them but levies a heavy price.

[Quething]

sinosleep wrote...

When I replied to you I agreed that functionally, unless you aim is off you never run out of ammo on any weapons other than sniper rifles, but I think using that to claim there is no difference between the two systems is deceptive. The key difference between the two games comes with the rate of fire. You no longer have infinite clip weapons in ME 2, which is all I ever really wanted corrected. Could that have been corrected with the old systems still in play simply by enforcing a hard overheat function on all weapons that players couldn't upgrade? Sure, but that's not the point. The point is it's still the key difference between the two games.

Ah, but that's exactly the point. The current gameplay setup could be achieved within the original system, and in fact did exist within the old system during certain portions of the game.* Therefore, removing the original system was unnecessary. Unnecessary + damaging to the lore = bad.

* even the 1-shot Widow is basically comparable to a Spectre X/2x Scram X/HE rounds, though the Widow is actually as lethal as the Spectre X should have been but wasn't, and obviously has about a tenth of the range. Fire one shot, wait for reload/cooldown, fire another shot, wait for reload/cooldown, fire a third shot, switch weapons because the enemy's now right on top of you. Thankfully without the shaky cam this time around. (God the shaky cam was horrible. I would have accepted a thousand stupid lore-damaging retcons if it had been necessary to get rid of the shaky cam.)

Sidney wrote...

There is a difference in terms of rate of fire, yes. In ME1 if Ihave to go full auto I'm essentially out of the  fight for several second whereas in ME2 I can resume fighting in a much, much shorter period of time.  Essentially in ME2 I can put more rounds downrange in less time than I could in ME1. That is a huge advantage in terms of reality.

The fact that you don't run out of ammo isn't the issue, the issue is how the game allows you to consume your ammo. ME1 basically enforces a very narrow form of fire discipline on you that doesn't allow for situational decisions or more correctly does allow for them but levies a heavy price.

Interesting that you say that, when the complaint in this thread has so frequently been that you could go full auto in ME1 without getting put out of the fight at all, once you had the right mods. And I admit I don't really see how ME2 gives you more freedom in fire discipline. It requires different fire discipline from ME1 (depending on ME1 mods), yes, and reload is faster than any cooldown in ME1 (actually a mod that reduced cooldown time would have been nice, and led to superior balance compared to mods that reduced heat gain), but you don't actually have the choice to go semi-auto and thereby fire forever instead of going full auto and blowing your wad. You're always going to have to stop and reload. What would serve your desire for situational decisions best would be the hybrid system some people have suggested; clips that cool over time, which can be hotswapped for immediate cooldown as long as the player has clips remaining. (Apparently this was the original intention for ME2, but they didn't like it because players wouldn't go look for new clips once they ran out. So instead of designing combat encounters more aggressively, they just flipped a switch in the ini and butchered the lore. <_<)

Modifié par Quething, 25 septembre 2010 - 08:38 .