451 réponses à ce sujet

[Praetor Knight]

Lumikki wrote...

Jorina Leto wrote...

Magic? lolwut

Yes, put you brains in work.

How much damage you do in impact is related size of the object (bullet). Pistol has also size as how big it is. Where are all 1000000  "ammo" material coming, because they hell don't fit inside the pistol. Because smaller the "ammo" what hits the target is, less damage it does. Increasing speed to closer to light speed does not increase the damage. Problem has been that you people and Bioware things only about heat system, but not idea that material doesn't come from nothingness. 1000000 "ammos" just doesn't fit inside the pistol if they aren't really small, but if they are that small, they can't kill human being. It's oxymoron, because it's impossible situation, so it's magic. Because everyting what can't be explained by science or principle of science, is magic. (1000000 x1mm x 1mm x 1mm ammos = 10cm x 10cm x 10cm container. (Bigger than pistol is) So, unlimited ammo is impossible situation, even for 1mm size of bullet.

Well projectile lethality has different factors that work into having stopping power. The size of powder charge, shape of the projectile, what the projectile is made of, length of the barrel, style of the firing mechanism and so on.

The slugs fired in the ME universe are supposed to have different properties than our modern bullets, and are supposed to flatten on impact, similar to hollow point rounds or shotgun slugs.

[SalsaDMA]

Jorina Leto wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

Cuz no matter what reasoning you wanna give me, no military commander is going to go from "infinite ammo for troops" to "limited ammo for troops"

That's a silly statement.

Ammo isn't the only consideration when considering weapons.

Let's take your argument and pervert it to show a flaw in it:

"No millitary commander is going to go from swords (unlimited ammo) for troops to guns (limited ammo) for troops"

In other words, your basic argument is too simplistic and inherently flawed at its level of simplicity.

Your argument is just wrong. Modern guns are better than swords but the heatsinks are a downgrade.

Appearantly some people need stuff cut out in cardboard to get a point <_<

I was taking the prior argument amd swapping in a weapon with infinite ammo and a weapon with finite ammo. This shows that the argument could be used to claim that swords would always be prefered over guns, simply because of the ammo capabilities of the weapons in question. This is quite OBVIOUS a faulty assumption (that swords are more prefered than guns to any millitary commander), and thus should illustrate the inherent flaw in the original sentence.


But hey, be my guest to purposfully mis-interpret stuff if you want.

Heatsinks are not a downgrade as such, and especially not with the uni-lateral arguments used by people advocating for this.

If you fling a paperball at a steel shield, it doesn't matter if you got unlimited paperballs. It'd still be quite useless as a regular weapon towards the steelshield. Now fling grenades at the steelshield instead, while you only have a handfull of those. The grenades work, the paperballs don't. Unlimited paperballs, limited grenades. Grenades win.

The only technical flaw in the games representation of the whole thing is that weapons should be quite literally turn anything unshielded/unarmored into a bloody pulp with a few strokes of the trigger, which they don't (asumingly because of gaming balance).

Technology moved forward, shields became too powerfull for the 'paperball' throwers, so they had to upgrade the arsenal to the 'grenade' throwers instead (metaphorically speaking).

[The Smoking Man]

Severyx wrote...

The Smoking Man is correct. Heat sinks are ejected, thermal clips hold multiple heat sinks. The lore reason for thermal clips does make perfect sense. The problem is, as stated many time before in this thread and others, there was a lot of oversight in the continuity regarding this issue. For those silly people using Jacob's loyalty mission as an argument, there are a few very valid reasons for why there are thermal clips there.

1) It would be an utterly retarded waste of precious development time to revamp the heating system, regardless of how potentially simple it would be, for a few NPCs on one loyalty mission.

2) I wouldn't be happy if I was playing the mission on insane and was completely forced to rely on biotics/tech for the Ymir battle because I ran out of thermal clips and there were none to be found. Soldier classes would be straight up boned.

In areas where clips were mentioned pre-Shepard's death (example: One of Zaeed's stories about Jessie), it is nothing more than a brief oversight. This does not destroy immersion. I personally think the story has more impact than it would without it. This is the equivalent of complaining that Shepard was looking straight ahead when the person he was conversing with was on his right.

There are massive lists of inconsistencies far more critical than this in movies popular far and wide. Just acknowledge it and move along.

That said, I fully appreciate what the OP was trying to accomplish by taking a shot at educating the masses. Unfortunately, there will always be people that will complain simply because it 'wasn't like the first game', or even more shallow, 'because they just don't like it'. I still have some minor issues with the execution of the clip system, as I favor a hybrid heating system (if you don't know what a hybrid system is, look it up elsewhere in the forums), but I still recognize this as a move in the right direction.

My main problem with the thermal clip explanation is that it gives no reason why the thermal clips/heatsinks can't be reused and cycled through, something that would be totally logical to do for multiple reasons, nevermind that they don't ever cool down by themselves no matter how long you wait. (If the lore on thermal clips mentioned they worked using an endothermic reaction or some such like didymos suggested, then there'd be an explanation, but the evidence points to that they're simple heat sinks.) Kind of like how you inexplicably can't duct tape a flashlight onto your gun in Doom 3. The inconsistencies such as Jacob's loyalty mission and Jessie, however minor these may be, just further add on to the problem.

SalsaDMA wrote...

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

Cuz
no matter what reasoning you wanna give me, no military commander is
going to go from "infinite ammo for troops" to "limited ammo for
troops"

That's a silly statement.

Ammo isn't the only consideration when considering weapons.

Let's take your argument and pervert it to show a flaw in it:

"No millitary commander is going to go from swords (unlimited ammo) for troops to guns (limited ammo) for troops"

In other words, your basic argument is too simplistic and inherently flawed at its level of simplicity.

Irrelevant. The argument did not even touch on the factor of the type of weaponry used. It's "going from guns (unlimited ammo) for troops to guns (limited ammo) for troops", or in simplest/net terms, "going from unlimited ammo to limited ammo". The only factor mentioned in the argument was ammunition, or more precisely, the effective quantity thereof.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:38 .

[Lumikki]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Well projectile lethality has different factors that work into having stopping power. The size of powder charge, shape of the projectile, what the projectile is made of, length of the barrel, style of the firing mechanism and so on.

The slugs fired in the ME universe are supposed to have different properties than our modern bullets, and are supposed to flatten on impact, similar to hollow point rounds or shotgun slugs.

Sure, there are many thing what can be used to increase the damage. But there is also stuff what decrease it as well. Air dynamic is one what cause also problems, when speed of bullet is increased. Air isn't same as vacuum.

Mass Effect lore is just flat badly writen in weapon ammo cases. There are alot better ways to explain alot of ammos, then what Mass Effect tryed to do. Of course I don't think Bioware thinked that it would be this big issue with players. That's why I just say it's magic, because this kind of  "unlimited" situation is impossible in science.

If I would tryed to explain how we can have so many ammos, I would have gone more like anti-material bullet type and so that weapons ammos get automaticly reloaded between missions, when in Normandy.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:44 .

[Phaedon]

Except that heat sinks always existed, it's just that now they are removable. Having a weapon that is useless after a few seconds of suppressing fire is a bad tactical move.

[The Smoking Man]

Phaedon wrote...

Except that heat sinks always existed, it's just that now they are removable. Having a weapon that is useless after a few seconds of suppressing fire is a bad tactical move.

Having heat sinks that are purely disposable and non-reusable is a bad strategic, tactical and logistics move.

[SalsaDMA]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Irrelevant. The argument did not even touch on the factor of the type of weaponry used. It's "going from guns (unlimited ammo) for troops to guns (limited ammo) for troops", or in simplest/net terms, "going from unlimited ammo to limited ammo". The only factor mentioned in the argument was ammunition, or more precisely, the effective quantity thereof.

Only as irrelevant as ignoring everything else about the weapons except for one single attribute. That's what I was pointing out.

You cannot compare only one attribute of a weapon and then say, "This one is better". You need to take the whole package into consideration, as well as which enviroment it is being used in.

The original statement I was replaying to did not take anything into consideration except for wether or not it had 'unlimited' ammo. That is a fallacy, which I pointed out with an extreme example.

Or to put it in slightly different terms a tunnelvisioned ME1 player would hopefully be better able to understand: If every gun had to be modded with explosive ammo with twice the heat output to be able to penetrate kinetic shields of opponents, ME1 guns wouldn't be worth squat in a 'real' firefight compared to a gun that could produce the same effect on the shields, but keep a steady rate of fire via expendable heatsinks.

Edit: You take your 'have to wait 6 seconds for the gun to cool off after every shot' While I'll happily mow you down with a gun that keeps firing while you're sitting cursing at a hot piece of junk metal for being useless.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:50 .

[M8DMAN]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Except that heat sinks always existed, it's just that now they are removable. Having a weapon that is useless after a few seconds of suppressing fire is a bad tactical move.

Having heat sinks that are purely disposable and non-reusable is a bad strategic, tactical and logistics move.

I agree.

[samurai crusade]

diskoh wrote...

What is the very first line Shepard says when he awakens?

"This pistol doesn't have a thermal clip!" as if he's familiar with it already. If it was something developed while he was dead, he would've said "WTF is with this gun it's all different!"

So the concept must have been implemented in the brief period after ME1, before the Collectors attacked Shepard.

Bingo... if ME1 would have had post game free-roam... I would have loved a DLC that encountered this "technology".      Or someone mentioning research into thermal clips.         Maybe if they remake it in 5 years *cough* halo *cough* then they may take the opportunity to clear up some things.

[Phaedon]

The Smoking Man wrote...
Having heat sinks that are purely disposable and non-reusable is a bad strategic, tactical and logistics move.

Then I guess that all of the armies of the world have been doing it wrong. They should have just huge a 1 meter long clip that takes a minute to reload with. 

No seriously, having disposable heat sinks makes perfect sense, whereas non-disposable make none. Mass accelerated bullets kill immediately without armour or barrier protection. Waiting for half a minute to wait for it to get cool again, before shooting back at your enemy? Why don't you reserve a nice bed in the morgue before doing that?

[The Smoking Man]

SalsaDMA wrote...

The Smoking Man wrote...

Irrelevant. The argument did not even touch on the factor of the type of weaponry used. It's "going from guns (unlimited ammo) for troops to guns (limited ammo) for troops", or in simplest/net terms, "going from unlimited ammo to limited ammo". The only factor mentioned in the argument was ammunition, or more precisely, the effective quantity thereof.

Only as irrelevant as ignoring everything else about the weapons except for one single attribute. That's what I was pointing out.

You cannot compare only one attribute of a weapon and then say, "This one is better". You need to take the whole package into consideration, as well as which enviroment it is being used in.

The original statement I was replaying to did not take anything into consideration except for wether or not it had 'unlimited' ammo. That is a fallacy, which I pointed out with an extreme example.

Or to put it in slightly different terms a tunnelvisioned ME1 player would hopefully be better able to understand: If every gun had to be modded with explosive ammo with twice the heat output to be able to penetrate kinetic shields of opponents, ME1 guns wouldn't be worth squat in a 'real' firefight compared to a gun that could produce the same effect on the shields, but keep a steady rate of fire via expendable heatsinks.

Which, in this context, is entirely irrelevant, and therefore my point still stands. You also keep glossing over the logistics problem inherent to supplies in limited quantity and focus only on amount of lead downstream. What would make the most sense is having removable, but reusable, heatsinks. That would essentially result in having the comparative stengths of both systems and the comparative weaknesses of neither.

Phaedon wrote...

The Smoking Man wrote...
Having heat sinks that are purely disposable and non-reusable is a bad strategic, tactical and logistics move.

Then
I guess that all of the armies of the world have been doing it wrong.
They should have just huge a 1 meter long clip that takes a minute to
reload with. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

No
seriously, having disposable heat sinks makes perfect sense, whereas
non-disposable make none. Mass accelerated bullets kill immediately
without armour or barrier protection. Waiting for half a minute to wait
for it to get cool again, before shooting back at your enemy? Why don't
you reserve a nice bed in the morgue before doing that?

Irrelevant notion. As for your praise of the disposable heatsinks, I'll point you to my aforementioned argument that they could be reused instead.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:57 .

[Praetor Knight]

The Smoking Man wrote...

My main problem with the thermal clip explanation is that it gives no reason why the thermal clips/heatsinks can't be reused and cycled through, something that would be totally logical to do for multiple reasons, nevermind that they don't ever cool down by themselves no matter how long you wait. (If the lore on thermal clips mentioned they worked using an endothermic reaction or some such like didymos suggested, then there'd be an explanation, but the evidence points to that they're simple heat sinks.) Kind of like how you inexplicably can't duct tape a flashlight onto your gun in Doom 3. The inconsistencies such as Jacob's loyalty mission and Jessie, however minor these may be, just further add on to the problem.

What I figured with being unable to reuse Thermal Clips is that the intense heat warps and stresses the heat sink / thermal clip and reusing them risks causing a malfunction. (Sometimes I wonder if the ME Overheat Bug was actually a feature).

IMHO, I have no issue with Jacob's LM because enemies only drop one each, if at all. I figure they appear to fall for gameplay convenience, instead of animating Shep & Co from pulling the dropped guns apart and prying out the Thermal Clips, or my theory, that Shep & Co are making fresh Thermal Clips from the omnigel they are converting items into.

And any found on the ground are there again for gameplay convenience also.

Related to Jessie, I need to read or listen to that part. I can't remember off-hand what was said.

[The Smoking Man]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

What I figured with being unable to reuse Thermal Clips is that the intense heat warps and stresses the heat sink / thermal clip and reusing them risks causing a malfunction. (Sometimes I wonder if the ME Overheat Bug was actually a feature).

ME1's guns would logically have heat dissipation systems, and these didn't suffer rapid degredation from intense heat.

[Phaedon]

Irrelevant notion. As for your praise of the disposable heatsinks, I'll point you to my aforementioned argument that they could be reused instead.

It depends. Who knows if thermal clips have the capability to be 'recharged' like heat sinks?



Anyway, anything is better than heatsinks that take seconds to cool down, so I am OK with what happened in ME2.

[The Smoking Man]

Phaedon wrote...

Irrelevant notion. As for your praise of the disposable heatsinks, I'll point you to my aforementioned argument that they could be reused instead.

It depends. Who knows if thermal clips have the capability to be 'recharged' like heat sinks?

The evidence points to that thermal clips are heat sinks, and thus work via radiative cooling. Therefore, according to the second law of thermodynamics, they can.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:06 .

[Praetor Knight]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

What I figured with being unable to reuse Thermal Clips is that the intense heat warps and stresses the heat sink / thermal clip and reusing them risks causing a malfunction. (Sometimes I wonder if the ME Overheat Bug was actually a feature).

ME1's guns would logically have heat dissipation systems, and these didn't suffer rapid degredation from intense heat.

I agree that when they did not remove the Thermal Clip in ME, they attempted to actively cool the Thermal Clip, but it was still vulnerable to Sabotage and malfunctions.

In ME2, since they can task the Thermal Clip to its breaking point, with abandon, they simply max the strength, stress out the Thermal Clip and then swap out the used one for a fresh Thermal Clip, and keep up the rate of fire.

If I remember correctly, defenses also improved from ME to ME2 to compensate against the increased firepower.

[Phaedon]

Note how there may be more differences. Clips could use some sort of material that helps the weapon stay cool, but is used completely when the weapon overheats. It's possible, for all we know they are not exactly the same as heat sinks.

[Jalisurr]

Yes, thermal clips make sense. However, if clips are universal, why can't a heavy pistol use my extra SMG rounds?

[The Smoking Man]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

In ME2, since they can task the Thermal Clip to its breaking point, with abandon, they simply max the strength, stress out the Thermal Clip and then swap out the used one for a fresh Thermal Clip, and keep up the rate of fire.

Which is a bad tactical/logistics move. You now have to worry about the distribution of these scarce supplies, and you have to ensure you don't run out of thermal clips, and thus have to spend them wisely, counteracting the ability to stress them to their breaking point to begin with.

Phaedon wrote...

Note how there may be more differences.
Clips could use some sort of material that helps the weapon stay cool,
but is used completely when the weapon overheats. It's possible, for all
we know they are not exactly the same as heat sinks.

The unused Thermal Clip Codex entry specifically says that thermal clips are, basically, heat sinks. It's not really possible to "deplete" the material the heatsinks are constructed with in the way you are suggesting. None of the uncut lore refutes this, either.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:15 .

[Phaedon]

No,again, it's not a bad tactical move. They work just like modern clips.

You want to know what happens when you are incapable of shooting back at your enemy? You die. Now that's a bad tactical move.

The unused Thermal Clip Codex entry specifically says that thermal clips are, basically, heat sinks. None of the uncut lore refutes this, either.

Cut material are not canon and have been contradicted in game several times. 

Modifié par Phaedon, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:14 .

[HTTP 404]

its just a game play mechanic which I like but this is one codex that kinda makes me say "reeeally?"

[didymos1120]

The Smoking Man wrote...
The evidence points to that thermal clips are heat sinks, and thus work via radiative cooling. Therefore, according to the second law of thermodynamics, they can.

Actually, the evidence points to them being something with a large heat capacity with rapid absorbtion, which are then simply ejected.  Cooling never even enters into it.  They simply heat up, and get ditched.

[The Smoking Man]

Phaedon wrote...

No,again, it's not a bad tactical move. They work just like modern clips.

You want to know what happens when you are incapable of shooting back at your enemy? You die. Now that's a bad tactical move.

The unused Thermal Clip Codex entry specifically says that thermal clips are, basically, heat sinks. None of the uncut lore refutes this, either.

Cut material are not canon and have been contradicted in game several times. 

You want to know what happens when you run out of thermal clips, something that is now possible under this new system but not under the old one? You become permanently incapable of shooting back at your enemy, unless you happen to get your hands on more thermal clips, which isn't a guarantee, unlike the guarantee that your weapon will cool down within a few seconds and be ready again. You want to know what happens when you are incapable of shooting back at your enemy? You die. Now that's a bad tactical move.

No lore has contradicted the idea that thermal clips are/contain heat sinks.

didymos1120 wrote...

The Smoking Man wrote...
The
evidence points to that thermal clips are heat sinks, and thus work via
radiative cooling. Therefore, according to the second law of
thermodynamics, they can.

Actually, the evidence
points to them being something with a large heat capacity with rapid
absorbtion, which are then simply ejected.  Cooling never even enters
into it.  They simply heat up, and get ditched.

The fact that cooling, and thus their ability to be reused, inexplicably never enters into the equation is my problem with it.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:20 .

[didymos1120]

Phaedon wrote...
Cut material are not canon and have been contradicted in game several times. 

And indeed, what material there is in the Codex about the clips does contradict that cut Codex entry, which says there are multiple, individual heat sinks in every thermal clip.  And also, amusingly enough, that cut Codex entry specifically uses the word "depleted".

Modifié par didymos1120, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:20 .

[Praetor Knight]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

In ME2, since they can task the Thermal Clip to its breaking point, with abandon, they simply max the strength, stress out the Thermal Clip and then swap out the used one for a fresh Thermal Clip, and keep up the rate of fire.

Which is a bad tactical/logistics move. You now have to worry about the distribution of these scarce supplies, and you have to ensure you don't run out of thermal clips, and thus have to spend them wisely, counteracting the ability to stress them to their breaking point to begin with.

Not necessarily, since every soldier should have an omnitool and should then have the capacity to convert items on the battlefield into omnigel that can then be used to make fresh thermal clips or other needed components.

IMHO, Thermal Clips could be some rod / block of copper or some other heat conductive material, while ME Heat Sinks could have been more expensive and complex, making it easier to replace the ME2 variety than the ME variety.

Also tactically, the soldiers should have more combat flexibility since they would not have to worry about having their weapons sabotaged as they advance or maneuver on the battlefield.