150 réponses à ce sujet

[Oblarg]

Lumikki wrote...

Oblarg wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Nope, that's not how it works.

If you increase speed you can increase energy, but because you bullet is (hard) metal, it only means it go trough the taget easyer. Point of bullets aren't go trough , but bullet should shatter from impact so that it cause more damage inside the target. How much damage it does, is realted how big area it's affecting in human (target). That is realted size of the impact, what is related size of the bullet.

This also means more speed in bullets means more soften the bullet material need to be. Think about it, harder material go trough easyer other harder materials. Those are physical laws.

You're assuming that you know how these future materials work.  If you can super-cool your grain of sand into a bose-einstein condensate before shooting it out of a gun barrel, who's to say you can't make it out of some material which imparts all of its kinetic energy into the target?  And regardless, if you poke a hole in someone, regardless of the size of the hole, it's not going to be good for the person on the receiving end.

This is all completely irrelevant, though - they retconned the lore, yes, but that wouldn't matter if it had been for a large benefit to the quality of gameplay.  Unfortunately, it was not - all the new system added was the need to look around for ammo in the middle of your mission.  You may find that fun, but I find it tedious and bad game design.

Only way to get that impact do more damage than material (size) it self, is that the material it self will explode in impact.

It is relevant, because people here in forum use game lore as they point to support "realistic" cooling system as change of weapon system. When there is allready in weapons lore situation what does't make any sense.

How it's relevan to unlimited and limited ammo. If the clips also would include inside the clip some addional ammo material, then it would make also the weapons bullet situation more logical and realistic. My point is that unrealistic magical weapon system doesn't need any reality or logical system, if it's allready magic.

You're failing to understand physics, again.  If a particle imparts a certain amount of kinetic energy to the target, the target will, to a rough approximation, be hurt relative to the force.  The reason larger bullets do more damage is because they encounter more resistance and thus impart more force.

And even if we were arguing lore, this is science fiction - that certain things are not physically feasible doesn't even matter in a lore discussion, thus your entire argument is a giant red herring.  What bothers people is not that the thermal clip doesn't make physical sense, it's that it's in direct contradiction to what was established in the first game.  You cannot argue that point away, because it's 100% true: BioWare retconned the lore in order to add an ammo system.

I am not making this argument, though - my argument is that the ammo system detracted from the game more than it benefitted the game.  This is something you've yet to address, because you're too caught up trying to debunk science fiction rather than coming up with a coherent argument.

[Getorex]

Oblarg wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Oblarg wrote...

I already answered that, a while ago.  You would already know the answer, too, if you bothered to read the codex before pretending to know the lore.

Sorry, my fault, I missed you answer.

Okey your sayed solid metal material inside the weapon and the "bullet" (ammo) is small like grain of sand.

Now weapon has size, so if you shoot 1000 "bullet", that means 1000 grain of sand. You agree?

Also in physical facts as weapon "bullet" is that damage done to target by material impact is directly related SIZE (amount of material) of the "bullet". Meaning "bullet" weight or speed has very little to do with tha amount of damage done.

Think about that, there is direct conflict in lore.

You fire a grain of sand at 10,000 mph and it will seriously damage a space station (today). Turn it into a plasma and you are firing a ball of almost pure heat. A "cold plasma" is generally around 1000 degrees C. That's a COLD plasma. A hot one can be orders of magnitude higher. Your little grain of sand could be fired at high speed and have a temp of, say, 50,000 degrees C (the writers don't indicate this level of detail as far as I know - they just say "plasma").

As for bullets, the weight has a LOT to do with the damage done. The heavier the bullet, the more kinetic energy it carries into the target. A lighter bullet may not penetrate armor but from the same weapon firing a heavier bullet, it may penetrate that armor. The only difference being the weight of the bullet.

Nope, that's not how it works.

If you increase speed you can increase energy, but because you bullet is (hard) metal, it only means it go trough the taget easyer. Point of bullets aren't go trough , but bullet should shatter from impact so that it cause more damage inside the target. How much damage it does, is realted how big area it's affecting in human (target). That is realted size of the impact, what is related size of the bullet.

This also means more speed in bullets means more soften the bullet material need to be. Think about it, harder material go trough easyer other harder materials. Those are physical laws.

You're assuming that you know how these future materials work.  If you can super-cool your grain of sand into a bose-einstein condensate before shooting it out of a gun barrel, who's to say you can't make it out of some material which imparts all of its kinetic energy into the target?  And regardless, if you poke a hole in someone, regardless of the size of the hole, it's not going to be good for the person on the receiving end.

This is all completely irrelevant, though - they retconned the lore, yes, but that wouldn't matter if it had been for a large benefit to the quality of gameplay.  Unfortunately, it was not - all the new system added was the need to look around for ammo in the middle of your mission.  You may find that fun, but I find it tedious and bad game design.

Eh? This whole thing is off the rails. Bullets do NOT need to be softer and the ME guns fire plasma balls derived from metal shavings. Plasmas are not bose-einstein condensates and bullets fired at higher speed or with higher mass do NOT have to be "softer".

ALL bullets fired in war since, hell, at least WWI are COPPER. They are solid copper or copper jacketing a steel or tungsten penetrator for armor piercing rounds. Incendiary rounds are copper jacketing a flammable chemical or metal. In all cases the rounds are copper - in sniper rifles, in ARs, in handguns. No matter how high a velocity they are fired, they are copper. They do not need to have their metal content tuned to be softer or harder depending on how high a velocity they're fired at. Civilian bullets are virtually all hollow point copper (only muzzle loaders use lead). ALL of them. They aren't softer or harder based on velocity either.

Military rounds are designed to do as little damage as possible while getting the job done (hollow points are illegal). Civilian rounds are designed to try and prevent collatoral damage - the bullets are designed to do damage AND not continue on to penetrate walls or people BEHIND your target.

Even a hard bullet (solid copper) deforms as it enters its target. It doesn't deform as much as a hollow point but it does. An armor piercer deforms a lot more - the copper jacket deforms when it hits the target and as the steel or tungsten penetrator flies out the front of the bullet (copper is a LOT softer than steel or tungsten) it flares out a lot more. The penetrator then punches through the armor.

Modifié par Getorex, 29 octobre 2010 - 03:12 .

[Oblarg]

Getorex wrote...

Eh? This whole thing is off the rails. Bullets do NOT need to be softer and the ME guns fire plasma balls derived from metal shavings. Plasmas are not bose-einstein condensates and bullets fired at higher speed or with higher mass do NOT have to be "softer".

ALL bullets fired in war since, hell, at least WWI are COPPER. They are solid copper or copper jacketing a steel or tungsten penetrator for armor piercing rounds. Incendiary rounds are copper jacketing a flammable chemical or metal. In all cases the rounds are copper - in sniper rifles, in ARs, in handguns. No matter how high a velocity they are fired, they are copper. They do not need to have their metal content tuned to be softer or harder depending on how high a velocity they're fired at. Civilian bullets are virtually all hollow point copper (only muzzle loaders use lead). ALL of them. They aren't softer or harder based on velocity either.

Military rounds are designed to do as little damage as possible while getting the job done (hollow points are illegal). Civilian rounds are designed to try and prevent collatoral damage - the bullets are designed to do damage AND not continue on to penetrate walls or people BEHIND your target.

Even a hard bullet (solid copper) deforms as it enters its target. It doesn't deform as much as a hollow point but it does. An armor piercer deforms a lot more - the copper jacket deforms when it hits the target and as the steel or tungsten penetrator flies out the front of the bullet (copper is a LOT softer than steel or tungsten) it flares out a lot more. The penetrator then punches through the armor.

Who said ME1 rounds are plasma?  Last I checked the cryo rounds most certainly aren't, and many more of the ammo upgrades in the first game would make no sense if they were.

Still, I don't know how we were dragged into this argument, it's completely irrelevant.

[Pocketgb]

Aight, back to the action!

Getorex wrote...
Why balance them at all? Why should a pistol have any balance at all with an AR or shotgun? Why should they equal out when, in reality, they do not in any sense balance out? Why do that rather than make weapons use and choice part of what gets you killed or allows you to survive? It should matter.

Don't be so quick to jump down people's throats, because I agree with you. That's why I advocated having limited ammo: it discourages using a shotgun as a sniper rifle and vice versa (both of which were easily possible in ME1 - and successful!).

So what do I mean about 'balancing' the weapons? It's to prevent imbalance, to introduce factors so one assault rifle isn't better than all the other assault rifles, so one pistol isn't so good that it becomes interchangable with the rest. That's what I mean about balance.

The Spamming Troll wrote...
is ME1 balanced? is ME2 balanced?balance is just a word you use when your stuck against a wall. and it wont work on me.

Just because balance is rarely achieved doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it. The more variety the game has, the better the game. The less balanced it is, the less variety there is.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 29 octobre 2010 - 03:16 .

[Oblarg]

Pocketgb wrote...

Aight, back to the action!

Getorex wrote...
Why balance them at all? Why should a pistol have any balance at all with an AR or shotgun? Why should they equal out when, in reality, they do not in any sense balance out? Why do that rather than make weapons use and choice part of what gets you killed or allows you to survive? It should matter.

Don't be so quick to jump down people's throats, because I agree with you. That's why I advocated having limited ammo: it discourages using a shotgun as a sniper rifle and vice versa (both of which were easily possible in ME1 - and successful!).

Limited ammo isn't the way to fix that problem - proper cooldown times and point-blank accuracy is.  If you can't rapid-fire a sniper and you're likely to miss at point-blank range, then it will not be an effective point-blank range weapon.

The problem with snipers in general though in games such as Mass Effect is that the ranges are so small that they end up functioning more like assault rifles than sniper rifles.

[Getorex]

Oblarg wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Eh? This whole thing is off the rails. Bullets do NOT need to be softer and the ME guns fire plasma balls derived from metal shavings. Plasmas are not bose-einstein condensates and bullets fired at higher speed or with higher mass do NOT have to be "softer".

ALL bullets fired in war since, hell, at least WWI are COPPER. They are solid copper or copper jacketing a steel or tungsten penetrator for armor piercing rounds. Incendiary rounds are copper jacketing a flammable chemical or metal. In all cases the rounds are copper - in sniper rifles, in ARs, in handguns. No matter how high a velocity they are fired, they are copper. They do not need to have their metal content tuned to be softer or harder depending on how high a velocity they're fired at. Civilian bullets are virtually all hollow point copper (only muzzle loaders use lead). ALL of them. They aren't softer or harder based on velocity either.

Military rounds are designed to do as little damage as possible while getting the job done (hollow points are illegal). Civilian rounds are designed to try and prevent collatoral damage - the bullets are designed to do damage AND not continue on to penetrate walls or people BEHIND your target.

Even a hard bullet (solid copper) deforms as it enters its target. It doesn't deform as much as a hollow point but it does. An armor piercer deforms a lot more - the copper jacket deforms when it hits the target and as the steel or tungsten penetrator flies out the front of the bullet (copper is a LOT softer than steel or tungsten) it flares out a lot more. The penetrator then punches through the armor.

Who said ME1 rounds are plasma?  Last I checked the cryo rounds most certainly aren't, and many more of the ammo upgrades in the first game would make no sense if they were.

Still, I don't know how we were dragged into this argument, it's completely irrelevant.

I am fairly certain that the standard round fired is plasma (I will admit I could be wrong). All the rest would not necessarily conflict with this...though I would begin to question the physics of firing a sand grain bullet at someone at any reasonable high velocity (limiting range a great deal). Something that small, if fired at high enough velocity, would even flash and burn away due to air resistance if fired in atmosphere - never reaching its target. Hell, hollow point rifle bullets (those with lead filler in the hole) melt a lot of the lead away as they fly to their target due to heat from air resistance (they are travelling at supersonic speeds). For a grain of sand piece of metal to have ANY effect on a target it would have to be fired at VERY high speed...and then there comes the problem with heat from air resistance.

[Getorex]

Oblarg wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Aight, back to the action!

Getorex wrote...
Why balance them at all? Why should a pistol have any balance at all with an AR or shotgun? Why should they equal out when, in reality, they do not in any sense balance out? Why do that rather than make weapons use and choice part of what gets you killed or allows you to survive? It should matter.

Don't be so quick to jump down people's throats, because I agree with you. That's why I advocated having limited ammo: it discourages using a shotgun as a sniper rifle and vice versa (both of which were easily possible in ME1 - and successful!).

Limited ammo isn't the way to fix that problem - proper cooldown times and point-blank accuracy is.  If you can't rapid-fire a sniper and you're likely to miss at point-blank range, then it will not be an effective point-blank range weapon.

The problem with snipers in general though in games such as Mass Effect is that the ranges are so small that they end up functioning more like assault rifles than sniper rifles.

I agree with that. I kept thinking to myself in ME2 (with that range indicator in the sniper scope) "65 meters? Really? 65? This isn't sniper rifle territory". At that range you can hit them with a thrown rock.

[Oblarg]

Getorex wrote...

I am fairly certain that the standard round fired is plasma (I will admit I could be wrong). All the rest would not necessarily conflict with this...though I would begin to question the physics of firing a sand grain bullet at someone at any reasonable high velocity (limiting range a great deal). Something that small, if fired at high enough velocity, would even flash and burn away due to air resistance if fired in atmosphere - never reaching its target. Hell, hollow point rifle bullets (those with lead filler in the hole) melt a lot of the lead away as they fly to their target due to heat from air resistance (they are travelling at supersonic speeds). For a grain of sand piece of metal to have ANY effect on a target it would have to be fired at VERY high speed...and then there comes the problem with heat from air resistance.

Guess that's why they call it science fiction.  Besides, we have these magical "mass effect fields," I'm sure we can work that in somehow to work around that problem.

[The Spamming Troll]

i understand the point of having balance, and i agree there should be balance to a certain respect. the ting i fail to see is how limiting your shots to the number 6, or using a overheat bar that overheats in 6 shots creates imbalance.



is the mattock not the best AR? is the GPS not the best shotty? theres not much of a balance thats specific to what your referring to.



the best thing about overheating weapons means that i dont have to waste a button for reloading. i can use the D button for an ability instead. or maybe the B button as well, since i never melee anyways.



alot of changes need to happen in ME3, most of them should be reversing to what biwoare gave us with ME1, not ME2.

[Getorex]

Pocketgb wrote...

Aight, back to the action!

Getorex wrote...
Why balance them at all? Why should a pistol have any balance at all with an AR or shotgun? Why should they equal out when, in reality, they do not in any sense balance out? Why do that rather than make weapons use and choice part of what gets you killed or allows you to survive? It should matter.

Don't be so quick to jump down people's throats, because I agree with you. That's why I advocated having limited ammo: it discourages using a shotgun as a sniper rifle and vice versa (both of which were easily possible in ME1 - and successful!).

So what do I mean about 'balancing' the weapons? It's to prevent imbalance, to introduce factors so one assault rifle isn't better than all the other assault rifles, so one pistol isn't so good that it becomes interchangable with the rest. That's what I mean about balance.

The Spamming Troll wrote...
is ME1 balanced? is ME2 balanced?balance is just a word you use when your stuck against a wall. and it wont work on me.

Just because balance is rarely achieved doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it. The more variety the game has, the better the game. The less balanced it is, the less variety there is.

I wasn't jumping down your throat. If it seemed that way I apologize. I was just stating the question about "why balance weapons at all" vs make them behave more like they actually behave - without any balance.

[Lumikki]

Oblarg wrote...

You're failing to understand physics, again.  If a particle imparts a certain amount of kinetic energy to the target, the target will, to a rough approximation, be hurt relative to the force.  The reason larger bullets do more damage is because they encounter more resistance and thus impart more force.

Yes and No. When speed of bullet is too slow, very little kinetic energy, it does not have enough kinetic energy to go inside the target, like bulletproof vests tryes to do. When you increase speed it has more energy go to trough, but if speed keep increasing too much, the bullet starts to go trough the target without shatter effect, because it has too much energy. Meanign too much energy and you just create small hole to human, what isn't efficent way to do damage agaist humans. If the bullet is small and has way too much speed, the damage is very minimal to human.

Wiki bullet

And even if we were arguing lore, this is science fiction - that certain things are not physically feasible doesn't even matter in a lore discussion, thus your entire argument is a giant red herring.  What bothers people is not that the thermal clip doesn't make physical sense, it's that it's in direct contradiction to what was established in the first game.  You cannot argue that point away, because it's 100% true: BioWare retconned the lore in order to add an ammo system.

I don't argue agaist lore of Bioware, I'm arguing people here in forum using ME weapon lore to base of they argument as cooling and overheat arguments. If some part of weapon system is allready magical (bullet) by defined Bioware, there is no point for argument based cooling system to be realistic, if weapons are allready magical, because bullet system.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 octobre 2010 - 03:41 .

[Getorex]

Oblarg wrote...

Getorex wrote...

I am fairly certain that the standard round fired is plasma (I will admit I could be wrong). All the rest would not necessarily conflict with this...though I would begin to question the physics of firing a sand grain bullet at someone at any reasonable high velocity (limiting range a great deal). Something that small, if fired at high enough velocity, would even flash and burn away due to air resistance if fired in atmosphere - never reaching its target. Hell, hollow point rifle bullets (those with lead filler in the hole) melt a lot of the lead away as they fly to their target due to heat from air resistance (they are travelling at supersonic speeds). For a grain of sand piece of metal to have ANY effect on a target it would have to be fired at VERY high speed...and then there comes the problem with heat from air resistance.

Guess that's why they call it science fiction.  Besides, we have these magical "mass effect fields," I'm sure we can work that in somehow to work around that problem.

True enough, it is scifi. I come at it as a fan of hard scifi where details like that are not blown off and everything is plausible and consistent. Sometimes I wish the writers were more hard scifi types rather than fantasy game writers dabbling in scifi.

[Oblarg]

Lumikki wrote...
I don't argue agaist lore of Bioware, I'm arguing people here in forum using ME weapon lore to base of they argument as cooling and overheat arguments. If some part of weapon system is allready magical (bullet) by defined Bioware, there is no point for argument based cooling system to be realistic, if weapons are allready magical, because bullet system.

You're not reading my posts.  The lore argument is not that thermal clips do not make sense, it's that thermal clips directly contradict the preestablished lore.  Realism has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Do you even read posts before you reply to them?

[The Spamming Troll]

Oblarg wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
I don't argue agaist lore of Bioware, I'm arguing people here in forum using ME weapon lore to base of they argument as cooling and overheat arguments. If some part of weapon system is allready magical (bullet) by defined Bioware, there is no point for argument based cooling system to be realistic, if weapons are allready magical, because bullet system.

You're not reading my posts.  The lore argument is not that thermal clips do not make sense, it's that thermal clips directly contradict the preestablished lore.  Realism has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Do you even read posts before you reply to them?

i dont think lumikki does any sort of reading at all actually.

[Lumikki]

Oblarg wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
I don't argue agaist lore of Bioware, I'm arguing people here in forum using ME weapon lore to base of they argument as cooling and overheat arguments. If some part of weapon system is allready magical (bullet) by defined Bioware, there is no point for argument based cooling system to be realistic, if weapons are allready magical, because bullet system.

You're not reading my posts.  The lore argument is not that thermal clips do not make sense, it's that thermal clips directly contradict the preestablished lore.  Realism has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Do you even read posts before you reply to them?

So, you are saying that because LORE in ME1 is defined, then ME2 and ME3 has to suffer bad weapon combat systems on gameplay, because ME1 lore. What I'm saying that gameplay is more important than follow BAD weapon lore, when it's allready magic and doesn't make any sense.

[Oblarg]

Lumikki wrote...

Oblarg wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
I don't argue agaist lore of Bioware, I'm arguing people here in forum using ME weapon lore to base of they argument as cooling and overheat arguments. If some part of weapon system is allready magical (bullet) by defined Bioware, there is no point for argument based cooling system to be realistic, if weapons are allready magical, because bullet system.

You're not reading my posts.  The lore argument is not that thermal clips do not make sense, it's that thermal clips directly contradict the preestablished lore.  Realism has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Do you even read posts before you reply to them?

So, you are saying that because LORE in ME1 is defined, then ME2 and ME3 has to suffer bad weapon combat systems on gameplay, because ME1 lore. What I'm saying that gameplay is more important than follow BAD weapon lore, when it's allready magic and doesn't make any sense.

"Hello, my name is Lumikii, and my opinion is fact."

I, for one, detested the ammo system and thought it greatly detracted from the game.  If you had bothered to read my posts, you would know that.

As for the weapon lore being "bad," it's not.  It makes enough sense to be passable science-fiction, and provided a perfectly good rationale for the game mechanic, which is exactly what it was intended to do.

Modifié par Oblarg, 29 octobre 2010 - 03:42 .

[Lumikki]

Oblarg wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Oblarg wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
I don't argue agaist lore of Bioware, I'm arguing people here in forum using ME weapon lore to base of they argument as cooling and overheat arguments. If some part of weapon system is allready magical (bullet) by defined Bioware, there is no point for argument based cooling system to be realistic, if weapons are allready magical, because bullet system.

You're not reading my posts.  The lore argument is not that thermal clips do not make sense, it's that thermal clips directly contradict the preestablished lore.  Realism has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Do you even read posts before you reply to them?

So, you are saying that because LORE in ME1 is defined, then ME2 and ME3 has to suffer bad weapon combat systems on gameplay, because ME1 lore. What I'm saying that gameplay is more important than follow BAD weapon lore, when it's allready magic and doesn't make any sense.

"Hello, my name is Lumikii, and my opinion is fact."

I, for one, detested the ammo system and thought it greatly detracted from the game.  If you had bothered to read my posts, you would know that.

As for the weapon lore being "bad," it's not.  It makes enough sense to be passable science-fiction, and provided a perfectly good rationale for the game mechanic, which is exactly what it was intended to do.

How many times I have to say I read, I just disagree with your points.

It doesn't make enough sense to passable science fiction for me, that's the point. You use lore as you excuse to support you case. When I say gameplay and feeling of weapon system is more important to work well, than some pointless magical lore, what has way too many holes. That's our disagreement.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 octobre 2010 - 03:49 .

[Oblarg]

Lumikki wrote...

How many times I have to say I read, I just disagree with your points.

It doesn't make enough sense to passable science fiction for me, that's the point. You use lore as you excuse to support you case. When I say gameplay and feeling of weapon system is more important to work well, than some pointless magical lore, what has way too many holes. That's our disagreement.

If you actually read my posts, we wouldn't be arguing about lore right now, because it's completely ****ing irrelevant.

Nah, you've spent this entire thread strawmanning, and I'm done replying to you.

[Lumikki]

Oblarg wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

How many times I have to say I read, I just disagree with your points.

It doesn't make enough sense to passable science fiction for me, that's the point. You use lore as you excuse to support you case. When I say gameplay and feeling of weapon system is more important to work well, than some pointless magical lore, what has way too many holes. That's our disagreement.

If you actually read my posts, we wouldn't be arguing about lore right now, because it's completely ****ing irrelevant.

Nah, you've spent this entire thread strawmanning, and I'm done replying to you.

That's fine. Not sure if you did understand me at all.

I did not argue in anywhere is ME2 termal clip or ME1 overhead system in lore in those two games. They are both just cooling system and cooling system lore has no big meaning to gameplay, except pick up clips are needed to limited ammo system. You can limit fire rate other ways too, but you can't limit ammo capacity. That's the problem. Unlimited ammo vs limited ammo. That's related to clips, not the cooling system how it's done in lore. You could create some overheat system to simulate long pause in ability shoot, but that's not same as ammo limits. Because in ammo limits, you can't just wait and get ability shoot back. You actually have to seek more ammos. This has affect to gameplay so that when you run ammos, you may have to expose you self to enemies, if you want to use same weapon, to get more ammos. Meaning you run in battle field to collect ammos. In unlimited ammo, you could just wait in cover and never risk you self.  Assuming situation is so that some other weapon can't be used as well.

Point has been, limited ammos improve the weapon gameplay by creating addional possibilities. It creates need to take care ammo situation and that can affect the tactics what player is using. Unlimited ammo system allows players just wait for weapon to become ready and then continue situation forever. There is not need to change weapon or tactics or actions. This creates very easyly simple one weapon use behaviors.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 octobre 2010 - 04:30 .

[AdamNW]

 Guns were hella OP.  We need less ammo imo.

[ObserverStatus]

The thing I hated about ME2's ammo system was having to go scavenging in the middle of a firefight >_<

[AdamNW]

bobobo878 wrote...

The thing I hated about ME2's ammo system was having to go scavenging in the middle of a firefight >_<

...when did you ever have to do that, let alone enough times to where it becomes annoying/

[Lumikki]

AdamNW wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

The thing I hated about ME2's ammo system was having to go scavenging in the middle of a firefight >_<

...when did you ever have to do that, let alone enough times to where it becomes annoying/

I think that depense more like how good player did take care ammo situation based combat situation. If player waste alot of ammos by using wrong weapons in wrong situation or missed alot while shooting, then they could run out of ammos middle of firefight in some weapons. How ever, if player followed how many ammos where in each weapons and filled them right ways after battles, they could do fine.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 octobre 2010 - 04:50 .

[The Spamming Troll]

Lumikki wrote...

So, you are saying that because LORE in ME1 is defined, then ME2 and ME3 has to suffer bad weapon combat systems on gameplay, because ME1 lore. What I'm saying that gameplay is more important than follow BAD weapon lore, when it's allready magic and doesn't make any sense.

i think it doesnt make sense to you because it doesnt look like you know how to read or write. i dont mean to be rude here, im jujst being observant. and your posts make me feel like an idiot when im reading them. derp, derp.

you probably dont have a problem with a human being lifting someone into the air or turning invisable or chargeing through concrete walls, but overheating weapons is a huge problem????

come on man, your point is irelevant. i sorta feel bad for you and your opinions.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 29 octobre 2010 - 05:03 .

[Lumikki]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

So, you are saying that because LORE in ME1 is defined, then ME2 and ME3 has to suffer bad weapon combat systems on gameplay, because ME1 lore. What I'm saying that gameplay is more important than follow BAD weapon lore, when it's allready magic and doesn't make any sense.

i think it doesnt make sense to you because it doesnt look like you know how to read or write. i dont mean to be rude here, im jujst being observant. and your posts make me feel like an idiot when im reading them. derp, derp.

you probably dont have a problem with a human being lifting someone into the air or turning invisable or chargeing through concrete walls, but overheating weapons is a huge problem????

come on man, your point is irelevant. i sorta feel bad for you and your opinions.

Talk about misunderstanding. I never talked that overheat is problem, you people have assumed that I have talked overheating. I sayed bullet system in weapons is problem and doens't make any sense. Also I sayed overheat or cooling has no real meaning to gameplay, at least big one, because real meaning is in picking up clips.  Meaning is short shooting break done by reload clips or overheat as waiting cooling, has ZERO point. The picking up clips from ground as, limited or unlimited ammo system has more meaning to gameplay.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 octobre 2010 - 05:50 .