451 réponses à ce sujet

[The Smoking Man]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

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.

Every soldier, except Shepard and his squadmates in ME2, apparently.

[Phaedon]

I have only once been out of ammo in Mass Effect 2, so I don't know what's your point. I'll just point you to how modern warfare works. I don't think that you can find any soldiers or police officers who would rather have a weapon which is rendered useless. Everything happens in miliseconds, so you don't have the luxury to 'wait for it too cool'. As for the lore, these entries weren't used for a reason.

[C-Gamer90]

Thermal clips are not a game breaking issue. Why is this argument still going on?

[Devos]

It is intensely silly because all guns have lost their ability to cool passively entirely. Why would they not be able to do both. Why don't thermal clips passively cool after they are ejected? (on this I suppose their ability to absorb thermal energy could be the result of some state transition which doesn't reverse on cooling but even that is reaching)

I mean think about it, the guns are limited by ability to transfer heat to an internalised heat sink. Setting aside how dubious it is that there is any advantage in internalised heat sinks why not have some stage in the heat transfer circuit where cooling is performed by external heat sinks as well? Don't get me wrong, ME1's system was pretty ridiculous too. For example your guns cooled off just as quick in a vacuum as in an atmosphere.

But I don't really care about making sense. The scientific legitimacy of anything that occurs in a setting with faster than light travel is iffy let alone faster than light travel with no time distortion. I don't like the ammo system because it's poorly implemented as a gameplay feature, not because it's unrealistic. It's one of the weakest features in an excellent game.

Modifié par Devos, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:27 .

[The Smoking Man]

Phaedon wrote...

I have only once been out of ammo in Mass Effect 2, so I don't know what's your point. I'll just point you to how modern warfare works. I don't think that you can find any soldiers or police officers who would rather have a weapon which is rendered useless. Everything happens in miliseconds, so you don't have the luxury to 'wait for it too cool'. As for the lore, these entries weren't used for a reason.

They are temporarily rendered useless. Whereas a weapon without any thermal clips is rendered useless in a more "permanent" fashion as relevant to the scenario of the firefight.

Dark_Dahlia wrote...

Thermal clips are not a game breaking issue. Why is this argument still going on?

The argument is really about (bad/illogical) writing. As far as gameplay is concerned, I much prefer the thermal clip system to ME1's mindless bullet spam; it's better balanced, even though it's not perfect.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:28 .

[SalsaDMA]

The Smoking Man wrote...
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.

Having usable weapons seems alot more relevant than whether what they got can shoot in a specific colour or weighs less.

You keep focusing on the ammo as if it is an insurmountable logistic problem. It's not. Todays armies successfully deal with an ammo logistic issue that is far more complicated than having to deal with an universal heatclip that fits all regular infantry weapons.

If I have the option of equipping an army with a weapon that needs 6 seconds of cooldown after every shot, but doesn't need to carry ammo; or a weapon that requires ammo but provides a steady fire DURING THE ENGAGEMENT, then the choice is never really in question. I would choose the ammo requiring weapon at a heartbeat. The non-ammo one is just too weak in actual engagements compared to the other.

As for the re-usability of heatclips. We have no knowledge of the mechanical workings of them, materials they consist of, decay and degradation values of the components or anything else. If a non-reusable medium is superior, that is what will be used.

For comparison, some of the actual research being done in lasers as a weaponssystem have included research into disposable 'ammo' systems. If the disposable system is able to produce the effects needed, and the alternative is a powerplant needed to power the thing (but hey, it got unlimited ammo then) it should be easy to see that the disposable ammo system in this alternate case too would be the better.

The 'proper' solution to issues are never just about a single of the attributes of an item, yet that seems to be where you fixate your assumptions.

[Praetor Knight]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

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.

Every soldier, except Shepard and his squadmates in ME2, apparently.

Well, I always figured that for a gameplay convenience the Thermal Clips are prefabricated, waiting on the ground to be picked up.

Honestly, I would have prefered a better explanation, acknowledgement in-game and / or have that actually animated in game of the assumption I am making about making the Thermal Clips on the battlefield, hopefully in ME3.

[The Smoking Man]

SalsaDMA wrote...

The Smoking Man wrote...
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.

Having usable weapons seems alot more relevant than whether what they got can shoot in a specific colour or weighs less.

A weapon that requires thermal clips when all the thermal clips have been used up is less usable than a weapon that does not require thermal clips but has overheated and needs to cool down for a few seconds.

SalsaDMA wrote...

If the disposable system is
able to produce the effects needed, and the alternative is a powerplant
needed to power the thing (but hey, it got unlimited ammo then) it
should be easy to see that the disposable ammo system in this alternate
case too would be the better.

Irrelevant. You're comparing a permanent but hugely impractical power supply system to a disposable but practical one. Practical, permanent heat dissipation systems for weapons have already been demonstrated by ME1.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:32 .

[Jorina Leto]

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.

So guess what happens if you're running out of thermal clips Your weapons are useless for the rest of the fight. Yeah this an improvment to just wait a few seconds.

[C-Gamer90]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

I have only once been out of ammo in Mass Effect 2, so I don't know what's your point. I'll just point you to how modern warfare works. I don't think that you can find any soldiers or police officers who would rather have a weapon which is rendered useless. Everything happens in miliseconds, so you don't have the luxury to 'wait for it too cool'. As for the lore, these entries weren't used for a reason.

They are temporarily rendered useless. Whereas a weapon without any thermal clips is rendered useless in a more "permanent" fashion as relevant to the scenario of the firefight.

Dark_Dahlia wrote...

Thermal clips are not a game breaking issue. Why is this argument still going on?

The argument is really about (bad/illogical) writing. As far as gameplay is concerned, I much prefer the thermal clip system to ME1's mindless bullet spam; it's better balanced, even though it's not perfect.

But it is a work of fiction. Not everything is going to make perfect sense.

[Phaedon]

The Smoking Man wrote...

They are temporarily rendered useless. Whereas a weapon without any thermal clips is rendered useless in a more "permanent" fashion as relevant to the scenario of the firefight.

As I said, modern combat depends on miliseconds. 1 shot and you are dead.
Future combat? Well let's say that I wouldn't want to be hit by a mass accelerated projectile. 

Therefore, the "temporary" fashion may have a "permanent" product.

Modifié par Phaedon, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:32 .

[didymos1120]

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

I was just looking at the Codex material about them that is in the game, and noticed this:

Faced with superior enemy firepower, organic armies soon followed the geth's lead, and today's battlefields are littered with these thermal clips.

This looks to me like a justification for clips just randomly dropping, so the thought occurs: what if we are re-using some clips, and they've just artificially restricted it for gameplay and resource limitation reasons?

I mean, if you think about how many clips they'd have to draw and keep track of if every single time we ejected one it persisted, and the fact that allowing us to just gather up all the ones at our feet after a few seconds would defeat the entire point of having a limited "ammo" system, it kinda makes sense.  It's not unlike the fact that bodies just evaporate, or how we can't steal everyone's guns after killing them, or take all their credit chits, or a million other artificial restrictions on resource gathering.

[SalsaDMA]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

I have only once been out of ammo in Mass Effect 2, so I don't know what's your point. I'll just point you to how modern warfare works. I don't think that you can find any soldiers or police officers who would rather have a weapon which is rendered useless. Everything happens in miliseconds, so you don't have the luxury to 'wait for it too cool'. As for the lore, these entries weren't used for a reason.

They are temporarily rendered useless. Whereas a weapon without any thermal clips is rendered useless in a more "permanent" fashion as relevant to the scenario of the firefight.

Unless you plan on going into an egagement without ammo, then it is far more likely that you will have issues with the gun that forces you to wait after every shot, than the one that lets you fire when you want it.

The only 'bad tactical choice' in your arguments are sillynilly people that wade into engagements without carrying ammo. By your anology every fighting unit in modern day armies should be having severe issues all the time with their weapons BECAUSE of ammo being a limited quantity. Yet for some in-explicable reason, lack of ammo is rarely a problem I hear about when people are talking about engagements they partook in.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:33 .

[The Smoking Man]

Phaedon wrote...

The Smoking Man wrote...

They are temporarily rendered useless. Whereas a weapon without any thermal clips is rendered useless in a more "permanent" fashion as relevant to the scenario of the firefight.

As I said, modern combat depends on miliseconds. 1 shot and you are dead.
Future combat? Well let's say that I wouldn't want to be hit by a mass accelerated projectile. 

Therefore, the "temporary" fashion may have a "permanent" product.

Modern combat doesn't have mass effect shields/barriers/tech armor.

SalsaDMA wrote...

Unless you plan on going into
an egagement without ammo, then it is far more likely that you will have
issues with the gun that forces you to wait after every shot, than the
one that lets you fire when you want it.

The only 'bad tactical
choice' in your arguments are sillynilly people that wade into
engagements without carrying ammo. By your anology every fighting unit
in modern day armies should be having severe issues all the time with
their weapons BECAUSE of ammo being a limited quantity. Yet for some
in-explicable reason, lack of ammo is rarely a problem I hear about when
people are talking about engagements they partook in.

Irrelevant and gross exaggeration. ME1's guns didn't force you to wait after every shot, unless you're talking about some stupid shotgun or sniper rifle with high explosive rounds and scram rails for mods. Try again.

The "bad tactical choice" in my argument applies to drawn-out firefights/large-scale warfare.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:37 .

[Phaedon]

Jorina Leto wrote...
So guess what happens if you're running out of thermal clips Your weapons are useless for the rest of the fight. Yeah this an improvment to just wait a few seconds.

Yeah well, I am pretty sure that this isn't a huge problem in modern warfare, is it? And that is when a common soldier has even less ammo than Shepard does.

[Phaedon]

The Smoking Man wrote...
Modern combat doesn't have mass effect shields/barriers/tech armor.

Ask the mercs that you kill. Three shots, your shields are down, every shot from now on is lethal, but not if you shoot back, since your opponent doesn't even have a shield, but damn, your gun has overheated.

Modifié par Phaedon, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:37 .

[The Smoking Man]

Phaedon wrote...

The Smoking Man wrote...
Modern combat doesn't have mass effect shields/barriers/tech armor.

Ask the mercs that you kill. Three shots, your shields are down, every shot from now on is lethal, but not if you shoot back, since your opponent doesn't even have a shield, but damn, your gun has overheated.

Three shots, your shields are down, every shot from now on is lethal, but not if you shoot back, since your opponent doesn't even have a shield, but damn, you ran out of thermal clips.

In one of these scenarios, you can start shooting again within a few seconds (or swap weapons and start shooting immediately - gasp!). In the other, you don't.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:42 .

[Jorina Leto]

HTTP 404 wrote...

its just a game play mechanic which I like

But I do not like it. I usually do not play shooters. And if it weren't the sequel of a good bioware rpg I wouldn't have bougth it.

Bioware, please add an option to choose the prefered combat mode. Then the shooter fans can have their standard shooter gamplay and everyone else can enjoy the game as well.

[Phaedon]

The Smoking Man wrote...
Three shots, your shields are down, every shot from now on is lethal, but not if you shoot back, since your opponent doesn't even have a shield, but damn, you ran out of thermal clips.

Stop using this argument, please, there is no point to it, people with less ammo than your random video game protagonist rarely have no ammo left, or at least being unable with getting more ammo, irl.

But I do not like it. I usually do not play shooters. And if it weren't the sequel of a good bioware rpg I wouldn't have bougth it.

Yes, heatsinks have been my favourite traditional RPG element too. They remind me of Baldur's Gate and Dungeons and Dragons.

Modifié par Phaedon, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:43 .

[Bamboozalist]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

The Smoking Man wrote...
Modern combat doesn't have mass effect shields/barriers/tech armor.

Ask the mercs that you kill. Three shots, your shields are down, every shot from now on is lethal, but not if you shoot back, since your opponent doesn't even have a shield, but damn, your gun has overheated.

Three shots, your shields are down, every shot from now on is lethal, but not if you shoot back, since your opponent doesn't even have a shield, but damn, you ran out of thermal clips.

In one of these scenarios, you can start shooting again within a few seconds. In the other, you don't.

Except that those guns would take so long to cool down that it wouldn't be a few seconds, it wouldn't be a few minutes either. Overheating is very bad and if a heat sink is getting hot enough to where it's visably glowing, that's very bad for the weapon and would be causing serious internal damage. My biggest problem in ME1 was how quickly the weapons cooled down.

[Praetor Knight]

The Smoking Man wrote...

The "bad tactical choice" in my argument applies to drawn-out firefights/large-scale warfare.

Fortunately not every firefight is like the Battle of the Bulge or of Stalingrad.

[SalsaDMA]

[quote]The Smoking Man wrote...

[quote]SalsaDMA wrote...

[quote]The Smoking Man wrote...
A weapon that requires thermal clips when all the thermal clips have been used up is less usable than a weapon that does not require thermal clips but has overheated and needs to cool down for a few seconds.
[/quote]

Anyone going into combat without stocking up on ammo before hand is asking to die. You cannot base your entire argument on "But but but, if the extremely artificial situation that someone was stupid enough to enter an engagement without bringing along ammo for their weapons, THEN the other system would be better!!!"

By now your whole argument relies on a scenario where basicly, a baseball club would be an even better weapon than either of the 2 ammo models.

There is a thing called proper preparation. It's a thing anyone dealing with combat engagements deals with. And bringing along a proper amount of ammo is one of the things you just do. Ammo doesn't weigh enough that it is EVER going to be an issue, especially not in the ME universe.

Your claim of running out of ammo as being an actual issue is more a claim that every user of firearms is a nutjob that couldn't hit the broadside of a barn if he was standing 1 meter from it. Otherwise there is no way in hell that people would run out of ammo.

[quote]Irrelevant. You're comparing a permanent but hugely impractical power supply system to a disposable but practical one. Practical, permanent heat dissipation systems for weapons have already been demonstrated by ME1.
[/quote]

Very relevant. I was making an anology to show you that you CANNOT make a simple claim of 'this attribute universally means that an item with it is superior'. The example made it quite clear that the attribute of 'unlimited ammo' was not the 'be all, end all' atribute some people seem to claim it is, but rather an insignificant attribute of the whole package.

[The Smoking Man]

Phaedon wrote...

The Smoking Man wrote...
Three shots, your shields are down, every shot from now on is lethal, but not if you shoot back, since your opponent doesn't even have a shield, but damn, you ran out of thermal clips.

Stop using this argument, please, there is no point to it, people with less ammo than your random video game protagonist rarely have no ammo left, or at least being unable with getting more ammo, irl.

People with less ammo and soldiers than Shepard don't mow down endless waves of mercs Superman-style "irl".

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:43 .

[C-Gamer90]

Jorina Leto wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

its just a game play mechanic which I like

But I do not like it. I usually do not play shooters. And if it weren't the sequel of a good bioware rpg I wouldn't have bougth it.

Bioware, please add an option to choose the prefered combat mode. Then the shooter fans can have their standard shooter gamplay and everyone else can enjoy the game as well.

If they were to bring back the system from ME1 wouldn't that just cause further storyline issues than just sticking with thermal clips?

Modifié par Dark_Dahlia, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:43 .

[Phaedon]

The Smoking Man wrote...
People with less ammo and soldiers than Shepard don't mow down endless waves of mercs Superman-style "irl".

Which is why video game characters have more ammo.
I am not speaking in hypotheticals, The Smoking Man, there is no way that you can survive CQB with a (temporarily) disabled gun. And yes, "CQB" is the kind of combat ME2 had.