150 réponses à ce sujet

[ObserverStatus]

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/

Tali's recruitment mission, the collector ship, and the collector base.

[kalle90]

Severyx wrote...
Ammo isn't the correct term, and as people have already mentioned, it's not about ammo, it's about heat. Lore-wise the thermal clips make perfect sense. Gameplay-wise, it's not executed correctly.

True

If thermal clips actually felt like they had to do with "thermal" it might not be as bad, but what I see is just a simple ammo system found in 1000000 games. One that doesn't work well as the equal distribution of ammo when you pick up a clip doesn't make sense, having only 1 out of 10 enemies drop ammo doesn't make sense, Collectors etc. using the same clips as us doesn't make sense, shooting 1 bullet and ejecting a red hot clip doesn't make sense... I can't even pick up enemy weapons like in most modern shooters

[Lumikki]

kalle90 wrote...

Severyx wrote...
Ammo isn't the correct term, and as people have already mentioned, it's not about ammo, it's about heat. Lore-wise the thermal clips make perfect sense. Gameplay-wise, it's not executed correctly.

True

If thermal clips actually felt like they had to do with "thermal" it might not be as bad, but what I see is just a simple ammo system found in 1000000 games. One that doesn't work well as the equal distribution of ammo when you pick up a clip doesn't make sense, having only 1 out of 10 enemies drop ammo doesn't make sense, Collectors etc. using the same clips as us doesn't make sense, shooting 1 bullet and ejecting a red hot clip doesn't make sense... I can't even pick up enemy weapons like in most modern shooters

I think it's because people look the system from lore perspective. Meaning people thinks that thermal clips are cooling related, because lore says so. Problem here is that people can look situation from two perspective. Look it from gameplay perspective and think lore is little wrong or look it from lore perspective and think gameplay is little wrong.

I allways look from gameplay perspective, because lore is nothing more than trying to explain how the gameplay works in game worlds theme. My point is that player can ignore hole weapon lore and look just weapon gameplay and think does it feel good or not. Then when it's done, then add lore to explain how it works. Biowares problem was that they had existing lore about weapon system and then they change the gameplay to be totally different and was forced to fit the new gameplay in old lore someways. That doesn't allways work well.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 octobre 2010 - 08:58 .

[kalle90]

Well for some reason I'd assume "thermal clips" are heat/cool releated and not just ammo clips with X amount of bullets (afterall these weapons are supposed to have near infinite ammo even if they overheat)



Like I've said there are 2 issues here for me:

- ME2 contradicts what ME1 did

- ME2 still doesn't reach Gears quality gameplaywise

= So it's hard to enjoy ME2 as a story sequel because it's so different, and if I want ME2 style gameplay I rather just go play Gears.



The best thing ME3 really can do is try to find a mix and balance between ME1 and ME2 in every aspect. Items, inventories, skills, big and small scale stories, general gameplay...

[Jebel Krong]

even ignoring lore and realism perspectives (still finding ammo clips on a dead reaper no-one's visited except a team of scientists in 50,000 years) - and they are pretty big things to ingore - the ammo system is flawed gameplay-wise. they could have simply maintained me1's system and thrown more - and smarter - enemies at you and it would have had the same "ramping-up-the-pressure/tension" effect.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 29 octobre 2010 - 09:14 .

[Lumikki]

kalle90 wrote...

Well for some reason I'd assume "thermal clips" are heat/cool releated and not just ammo clips with X amount of bullets (afterall these weapons are supposed to have near infinite ammo even if they overheat)

Yeah, pretty much so. But if Bioware could have forgot hole existing weapon lore between ME1 and ME2 and just create ME2 weapon lore from totally different view point. With total conflict between two games lores. Then the clips what players pick up from ground could have been totally different.

Example Ammo clips, thermal clips, energy clips.  Because what player does in gameplay is pick up clips from gound. Result is increase amount of ammos. What causes it in lore wise can be explain many ways. Bioware did choose thermal clips, because it is best fit into old ME1 lore. How ever, it's not best lore choise when only consider the ME2 gameplay and trying to explain ONLY ME2 weapon system with it's own lore. How ever, what's done is done.

The best thing ME3 really can do is try to find a mix and balance between ME1 and ME2 in every aspect. Items, inventories, skills, big and small scale stories, general gameplay...

Hard to say what they do with ME3, but at least they have got alot of feedback about it and even totally different opinions from different people. *wink*   I believe more like choose best features from both games and then improve those features for ME3. But that's just my opinion.

Jebel Krong wrote...

even ignoring lore and realism perspectives (still finding ammo clips on a dead reaper no-one's visited except a team of scientists in 50,000 years) - and they are pretty big things to ingore - the ammo system is flawed gameplay-wise. they could have simply maintained me1's system and thrown more - and smarter - enemies at you and it would have had the same "ramping-up-the-pressure/tension" effect.

Sorry to say, but I disagree. ME1 has few major problems and they where in my opinion. Inventory system and weapon combat system as from gameplay side. Many other ways ME1 was pretty good.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 octobre 2010 - 09:26 .

[Jebel Krong]

except the ammo system doesn't add anything except frustration, whereas the cooldown system just encouraged intelligent play (or spamming of cooldown mods when you got them, but they could have just limited those).

[ashwind]

Jebel Krong wrote...

except the ammo system doesn't add anything except frustration, whereas the cooldown system just encouraged intelligent play (or spamming of cooldown mods when you got them, but they could have just limited those).

How so? 

[Lumikki]

Jebel Krong wrote...

except the ammo system doesn't add anything except frustration, whereas the cooldown system just encouraged intelligent play (or spamming of cooldown mods when you got them, but they could have just limited those).

Sorry to say, but I disagree again, but I'm not gonna argue with it. Mostly because what someone think's as good, it so much every players taste based as what they like.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 octobre 2010 - 09:33 .

[kalle90]

[quote]Lumikki wrote...

[quote]kalle90 wrote...


[quote]The best thing ME3 really can do is try to find a mix and balance between ME1 and ME2 in every aspect. Items, inventories, skills, big and small scale stories, general gameplay...[/quote]
Hard to say what they do with ME3, but at least they have got alot of feedback about it and even totally different opinions from different people. *wink*   I believe more like choose best features from both games and then improve those features for ME3. But that's just my opinion. [/quote]

Thing is often there isn't a "best" version. Some prefer Mako, some not; some prefer ME1 inventory, some not; apparently some prefer ME1 weapon mechanics and some not.

[Jebel Krong]

ashwind wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

except the ammo system doesn't add anything except frustration, whereas the cooldown system just encouraged intelligent play (or spamming of cooldown mods when you got them, but they could have just limited those).

How so? 

because you have to manage your firing rate to avoid overload and therefore pick your shots/target the most dangerous enemies first? i appreciate it went south later on with the mods, but the basic idea was sound - which is why it was included in the first-place.

[Pocketgb]

The Spamming Troll wrote...
Limited ammo isn't the way to fix that problem - proper cooldown
times and point-blank accuracy is.

You'll have to humor me and explain what you mean here.

The Spamming Troll wrote...
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.

What if you can, though?

The Spamming Troll wrote...
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.

Sounds like a good excuse for Bioware to make much more open-ended battle environments.


I like it

The Spamming Troll wrote...
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.

I don't think that's what I'm advocating here.

[ashwind]

Jebel Krong wrote...
because you have to manage your firing rate to avoid overload and therefore pick your shots/target the most dangerous enemies first? i appreciate it went south later on with the mods, but the basic idea was sound - which is why it was included in the first-place.

Managing firing rate, yes. As for choices of targets to take out first... well I do that for ME2 and other shooters.

To me, there is no difference be it overheating or ammo count. Either works fine BUT neither is superior/inferior - just... personal preferences.

In ME1, pass the 1st playthrough, overheating is not/never an issue even when restarting a new character (just need to know when to stop firing for a sec). ME2, after 1st playthough (on normal), never ran out of / low on ammo in subsequent playthroughs (on insanity).

In general, ME1 - hide behind cover and wait for weapon to cooldown if needs be, ME2 - push the line to get ammo if needs be.

Only difference is, in ME1, I can park behind cover indefinitely and shoot blindly while in ME2 - I have to move a little.

[Lumikki]

kalle90 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

kalle90 wrote...

The best thing ME3 really can do is try to find a mix and balance between ME1 and ME2 in every aspect. Items, inventories, skills, big and small scale stories, general gameplay...

Hard to say what they do with ME3, but at least they have got alot of feedback about it and even totally different opinions from different people. *wink*   I believe more like choose best features from both games and then improve those features for ME3. But that's just my opinion.

Thing is often there isn't a "best" version. Some prefer Mako, some not; some prefer ME1 inventory, some not; apparently some prefer ME1 weapon mechanics and some not.

Yeah, it's hard choise for Biowares developers, deside what is the best choise when the split of player community feedback is more even. Sometimes feature can be mixed from both games and make it even better. But sometimes it's more like choise of two, have to just choose or create something totally new.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 octobre 2010 - 10:46 .

[Getorex]

kalle90 wrote...

Severyx wrote...
Ammo isn't the correct term, and as people have already mentioned, it's not about ammo, it's about heat. Lore-wise the thermal clips make perfect sense. Gameplay-wise, it's not executed correctly.

True

If thermal clips actually felt like they had to do with "thermal" it might not be as bad, but what I see is just a simple ammo system found in 1000000 games. One that doesn't work well as the equal distribution of ammo when you pick up a clip doesn't make sense, having only 1 out of 10 enemies drop ammo doesn't make sense, Collectors etc. using the same clips as us doesn't make sense, shooting 1 bullet and ejecting a red hot clip doesn't make sense... I can't even pick up enemy weapons like in most modern shooters

Precisely. My problem with the clips was that my weapon WOULD NOT FIRE AT ALL without those "thermal clips", which makes them identical to simple ammo mags from bazillions of FPSs where you unaccountably find magazines loaded with ammo just laying around all over the place. I know that at my own house, I keep stubbing my toe on ammo mags laying all over the place. Annoying.

The clips should NOT be required, given the lore, for the weapon to fire. They should simply be a device for alleviating overheating problems due to high rate of fire for ME1-style weapons. There should be NO thermal clips laying around. You should simply be issued some that, as others have suggested here, are recycleable as they cool down over time with use. Swap one out and stick a new one in and fire away. If you get so fire-happy that you use up the thermal capacity of all your thermal clips, then you have a strictly ME1-style weapon until your clips have cooled down for reuse.

In ME1 there were weapons mods that allowed you to add heat radiating/disapating coils to your weapon to increase the number or rate of fire a little before you overheated. Think of thermal clips as simply small versions of that.

Modifié par Getorex, 29 octobre 2010 - 11:54 .

[Getorex]

kalle90 wrote...

Well for some reason I'd assume "thermal clips" are heat/cool releated and not just ammo clips with X amount of bullets (afterall these weapons are supposed to have near infinite ammo even if they overheat)



Like I've said there are 2 issues here for me:

- ME2 contradicts what ME1 did

- ME2 still doesn't reach Gears quality gameplaywise

= So it's hard to enjoy ME2 as a story sequel because it's so different, and if I want ME2 style gameplay I rather just go play Gears.



The best thing ME3 really can do is try to find a mix and balance between ME1 and ME2 in every aspect. Items, inventories, skills, big and small scale stories, general gameplay...

Well stated and precisely my position (plus you previous). Mix ME1 and ME2 together and only carry forward the best and most logical film that forms on top. That means re-reworking the weapons system to be a good hybrid between 1 and 2 (and make Collector or the next threat's weapons incompatible with Council/Alliance weapons - even the Collectors use thermal clips compatible with modern Alliance weapons?). I have no problem with not being able to pick up and use a collector's weapons, or even a geth's, as the could (and should) be incompatible with anyone but them, but I SHOULD be able to pick over the ruins of merc bodies and any and all Alliance races to pick up some Alliance/Council-standard hardware/weapons.

[Getorex]

ashwind wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
because you have to manage your firing rate to avoid overload and therefore pick your shots/target the most dangerous enemies first? i appreciate it went south later on with the mods, but the basic idea was sound - which is why it was included in the first-place.

Managing firing rate, yes. As for choices of targets to take out first... well I do that for ME2 and other shooters.

To me, there is no difference be it overheating or ammo count. Either works fine BUT neither is superior/inferior - just... personal preferences.

In ME1, pass the 1st playthrough, overheating is not/never an issue even when restarting a new character (just need to know when to stop firing for a sec). ME2, after 1st playthough (on normal), never ran out of / low on ammo in subsequent playthroughs (on insanity).

In general, ME1 - hide behind cover and wait for weapon to cooldown if needs be, ME2 - push the line to get ammo if needs be.

Only difference is, in ME1, I can park behind cover indefinitely and shoot blindly while in ME2 - I have to move a little.

Actually, in a number of instances you can park behind cover indefinitely. The enemy virtually never will come around the side of your amazingly indestructable crate/cover. The main exceptions to this are the Mechs. They will march right up to the other side of your current cover and fire over and down into you. The YMIR mega mech wont do this, none of the living opponents do this (in many of the fighting areas...there are exceptions). I've parked behind cover when badly injured with both squadmates down (and no meds available) in the face of what should have been a fatal onslaught of a number of mercs and mechs. But it isn't fatal. I can sit there and recover and then just plink away at enemies at my leisure (from hardcore to insanity). Doesn't happen that way often but enough to know the score.

[Getorex]

ashwind wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
because you have to manage your firing rate to avoid overload and therefore pick your shots/target the most dangerous enemies first? i appreciate it went south later on with the mods, but the basic idea was sound - which is why it was included in the first-place.

Managing firing rate, yes. As for choices of targets to take out first... well I do that for ME2 and other shooters.

To me, there is no difference be it overheating or ammo count. Either works fine BUT neither is superior/inferior - just... personal preferences.

In ME1, pass the 1st playthrough, overheating is not/never an issue even when restarting a new character (just need to know when to stop firing for a sec). ME2, after 1st playthough (on normal), never ran out of / low on ammo in subsequent playthroughs (on insanity).

In general, ME1 - hide behind cover and wait for weapon to cooldown if needs be, ME2 - push the line to get ammo if needs be.

Only difference is, in ME1, I can park behind cover indefinitely and shoot blindly while in ME2 - I have to move a little.

Actually, in a number of instances you can park behind cover indefinitely. The enemy virtually never will come around the side of your amazingly indestructable crate/cover. The main exceptions to this are the Mechs. They will march right up to the other side of your current cover and fire over and down into you. The YMIR mega mech wont do this, none of the living opponents do this (in many of the fighting areas...there are exceptions). I've parked behind cover when badly injured with both squadmates down (and no meds available) in the face of what should have been a fatal onslaught of a number of mercs and mechs. But it isn't fatal. I can sit there and recover and then just plink away at enemies at my leisure (from hardcore to insanity). Doesn't happen that way often but enough to know the score.

[Getorex]

DAMN EDITOR SOFTWARE! Sorry about the dbl post

[ashwind]

Getorex wrote...
Actually, in a number of instances you can park behind cover indefinitely. The enemy virtually never will come around the side of your amazingly indestructable crate/cover. The main exceptions to this are the Mechs. They will march right up to the other side of your current cover and fire over and down into you. The YMIR mega mech wont do this, none of the living opponents do this (in many of the fighting areas...there are exceptions). I've parked behind cover when badly injured with both squadmates down (and no meds available) in the face of what should have been a fatal onslaught of a number of mercs and mechs. But it isn't fatal. I can sit there and recover and then just plink away at enemies at my leisure (from hardcore to insanity). Doesn't happen that way often but enough to know the score.

Am arguing against ME1 (weapon cooldown) style requires more intelligent selection of target.

Yes - even in ME2 you can park behind cover indefinitely but the point I am trying to making is that: With weapon cooldown in ME1 - you can park behind cover indefinitely and not worry about ammo. In ME2, you can still park but you could run out of ammo and when/if you do run out of ammo, you have to leave cover to grab ammo. Hence, Do not think that ME1 style requires the game to be played more intelligently.

Ammo seems to be unlimited in both ME1 and ME2 - the only difference lies in how to "recharge" ammo. 

p/s: Not taking into account weapon lore. Just how it plays out in game. 

[The Spamming Troll]

Pocketgb wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...
Limited ammo isn't the way to fix that problem - proper cooldown
times and point-blank accuracy is.

You'll have to humor me and explain what you mean here.

The Spamming Troll wrote...
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.

What if you can, though?

The Spamming Troll wrote...
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.

Sounds like a good excuse for Bioware to make much more open-ended battle environments.


I like it

The Spamming Troll wrote...
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.

I don't think that's what I'm advocating here.

actually the only thing you quoted there that i said was the last part. you got some quotes mixed up. and i dont think i was directing that last part to you, probably was intended for lummikki.

[The Spamming Troll]

ashwind wrote...

Getorex wrote...
Actually, in a number of instances you can park behind cover indefinitely. The enemy virtually never will come around the side of your amazingly indestructable crate/cover. The main exceptions to this are the Mechs. They will march right up to the other side of your current cover and fire over and down into you. The YMIR mega mech wont do this, none of the living opponents do this (in many of the fighting areas...there are exceptions). I've parked behind cover when badly injured with both squadmates down (and no meds available) in the face of what should have been a fatal onslaught of a number of mercs and mechs. But it isn't fatal. I can sit there and recover and then just plink away at enemies at my leisure (from hardcore to insanity). Doesn't happen that way often but enough to know the score.

Am arguing against ME1 (weapon cooldown) style requires more intelligent selection of target.

Yes - even in ME2 you can park behind cover indefinitely but the point I am trying to making is that: With weapon cooldown in ME1 - you can park behind cover indefinitely and not worry about ammo. In ME2, you can still park but you could run out of ammo and when/if you do run out of ammo, you have to leave cover to grab ammo. Hence, Do not think that ME1 style requires the game to be played more intelligently.

Ammo seems to be unlimited in both ME1 and ME2 - the only difference lies in how to "recharge" ammo. 

p/s: Not taking into account weapon lore. Just how it plays out in game. 

personally i dont think you should worry about finding ammo in any video game other then a survival/horror game. if i was an infiltrator, and only had the capacity to carry 10 sniper bullets, i wouldnt be a very good infiltrator.

there was absolutely nothing wrong with the overheating mechanics of weapons in ME1. i really dont understand how some of you can say "but my weapon fired forever and thats STUPID!?!?" it was YOUR choice to fire forever! i never used a frictionless material in ME1 because i wanted my gun to overheat, becaseu i loaded up high damage mods. i never understood the point of picking mods that allowed to to fire forever in ME1, becaseu you NEVER needed to fire forever. my weapon that overheated probably put out alot more damage then yours that fired forever, even including the sometimes overheating of my gun. theres NO benefit of fireing forever, whatsoever. so why is fireing forever a downfall of ME1 weapons?

[Quething]

Why do people who talk about it being cool to be forced to move around the battlefield always ignore the possibility of destructible cover - a much more reliable, interesting, and believable mechanic?



Besides, there are a huge number of camping spots in ME2 with infinitely respawning clips. There's pretty much no couch you can hide behind in the entirety of Garrus' recruitment mission where you can't just shuffle sideways and re-up whenever you run low.

[Zal Air]

back to this age old topic

In the first game I used more ammo

In the second game I used more powers

Need to find a balance in the the third game

[Lumikki]

Quething wrote...

Why do people who talk about it being cool to be forced to move around the battlefield always ignore the possibility of destructible cover - a much more reliable, interesting, and believable mechanic?

I think it's because player should not feel to be safe all the time. Meaning sitting all the time same safe spot behind cover and kill all enemies there isn't really that good gameplay. Player should be in cover , but also move from place to place too. Not how ever so much that cover system lose it's meaning. Because player should never just stand middle of battlefield and kill enemies from there. How this all is done is the question.

Besides, there are a huge number of camping spots in ME2 with infinitely respawning clips. There's pretty much no couch you can hide behind in the entirety of Garrus' recruitment mission where you can't just shuffle sideways and re-up whenever you run low.

Yes, ME2 had too many cover possibilities and many of them where not even natural one. ME3 covers should be more natural, but not done so conveniently on player rail road path. Let play figure more where I could go or sometimes even leave player out of cover possiblities. So, that different kind of strategy is required.