86 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

[quote]SalsaDMA wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

[quote]SalsaDMA wrote...

You still needed to reload. Instead of wathcing an animation for a second (ME2) you needed to wait several seconds while your were scratching your bum while the weapon cooloed down (ME1).

Wait a second or wait several seconds... The choice seems rather easy given those 2 options.[/quote]

Fire a single shot from a high-quality sniper rifle in ME1 and wait 2 seconds for it to cool back down vs. fire a single shot from your sniper rifle in ME2 and wait 2 seconds while a reload animation plays... and then run out of "ammo" and be unable to fire after 10 shots.

The choice seems rather easy given those 2 options.
[/quote]

Funny. In ME1 when I fired from a 'high quality sniper rifle' it was an instant overload every shot. Cooling down from an overload was more than 2 seconds. And if you fire 10 shots with sniper rifle and then are unable to do anything afterwards, I'd like to direct you to the fact that you actually got more than just a sniper rifle on you. I know that would actually mean that you *gasp* had to diversify your gameplay beyond just playing as if you were standing ina shooting gallery at the fair, but who knows.. you might actually enjoy it?[/quote]

Not unless you had Scram Rails or High-Explosive Rounds in that sniper rifle. Even the default, sh*tty-as-all-get-out sniper rifle could fire two shots in rapid succession before overheating.

And obviously what you consider "diversification", I consider "enforcement". If I want to "diversify" my arsenal by switching to my pistol when the situation shows that it would benefit me, then I'll do so. It should be my choice. Not yours. Not BioWare's.

[quote]SalsaDMA wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

And, not getting into all the reasons why thermal clips make no logical sense in the context of the Mass Effect universe where functional passive cooling systems and frictionless materials mods are established to exist because I'm sick of having to rehash the same argument for the umpteenth time, the whole "ME1 sucked because you could use the same weapon for the entire game/ME2 is better because it foces you to switch weapons" concept is ludicrous. How is being able (the game doesn't force you) to use your preferred weapon for the entirety of the game a bad thing? If I want to specialize in assault rifles, then I'm going to use assault rifles predominantly. If I want to specialize in sniper rifles, then I'm going to use sniper rifles predeominantly. That's my choice. How is forcing the player, against their will, to switch to and use weapons they don't want to use somehow a good thing? How is forcing players to scavenge around the battlefield after every fight so they can continue to use the weapon they want to use somehow a good thing?
[/quote]

You're not getting into reasons, cause they aren't really there. Science reports and documents on research you can look up on the web should both tell you that heat is a very real problem in modern and future arms, and that research is being done into disposable heatsinks because the premise works better than non-disposable heatsinks.
As for being 'forced' into using different weapons... Are you actually saying that you want a game where one tool is the ultimate answer to everything? You want to use your assault rifle to hack terminals too? Romance your LI witht he assault rifle? Sounds a heck of a boring game if you ask me. Different tools for different tasks. think of it like this: If the assault rifle was just 'that much better than all other weapons at everything' why would arms manufactorers even bother making other weapons?[/quote]

Not getting into reasons because they aren't there? Mass Effect 1 is "there". Mass Effect 1 shows us that functional passive cooling systems exist. Mass Effect 1 shows us that additional cooling mods exist. Mass Effect 1 shows us that weapons can fire in the Mass Effect universe without thermal clips and not be reduced to a pile of slag. Are you dense or something?

On the other hand, Mass Effect 2 simply tells us that "Yeah, uh, there's some kind of benefit to using these here thermal clips, but you'll just have to take our word for it that it's there cause you'll be buggered to see it yourself when your favorite weapon is constantly non-functional due to lack of ammo."

And to counter your other "disingenuous assertion", is it "poor game design" that I can use nothing but two-handed swords in Dragon Age and I'm never forced at any point to switch to a dagger? That I think I should be able to use whichever weapon in combat that I choose to doesn't mean that I want to "romance my LI with my assault rifle." That you would so quickly jump to such a ridiculous notion tells me that you're either highly immature or you should pursue a career in politics.

The "if the assault rifle was clearly superior for all situations, why would anyone use anything else" remark shows me that you clearly have no understanding whatsoever of the argument presented to you. The assault rifle wouldn't be "clearly superior" if you instead chose to specialize in pistols or sniper rifles. It's your choice which weapon you choose to specialize in. If I wanted to, I could make my pistol just as lethal as any assault rifle you could present me with. The same goes for any other weapon. Does each weapon have an inherent speciality? Yes. Shotguns are always going to be best at short-ranged combat, pistols and assault rifles are always going to be best for mid-range combat, and sniper rifles are always going to be best for long-range combat. Which weapon I use for which circumstances should be up to me, not up to which weapon currently has ammo.

[quote]SalsaDMA wrote...

ME1 combat was a farce. A farce. Even the devs admitted in interviews that their combat engine sucked compared to what was available on the market at that time, and that was one of the major proponents for the changes in the combat engine. they wanted a less sucky combat engine to go with their awesome story.[/quote]

A "farce" compared to shooters like Gears of War, not RPGs. There was nothing wrong with it from an RPG standpoint. That BioWare attempted to bring ME2 more in-line with traditional shooters of the day is kind of a sore point among most fans of the original.

[quote]SalsaDMA wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

Choosing to use assault rifles predominantly (eg: specializing in them) and choosing to load said weapons up with dual Frictionless Materials X mods was just that: the player's choice (and wasn't even something you could do until late in the game/a second playthrough). Complaining about it after the fact is basically saying "I'm unable to play the game "properly" myself, so I need the game to hold my hand and make all these decisions for me." There was nothing preventing you from switching to any other weapon whenever you wanted. That some people chose to play through the entirety of the game with nothing but an assault rifle, I don't see as some sort of failing of ME1.
[/quote]

If one choice is flat out superior, there is no real choice. If anything, you are asking for a game that holds your hand because you want situations where there is no real choice.[/quote]

Again, your inability to understand is baffling. There was tons of choice in ME1's combat. Do I want to mod my weapon with Scram Rails so it deals massive damage up-front but overheats quickly? Do I want my weapon to deal less damage but deal it consistently with Frictionless Materials? Do I want to focus on sustainable accuracy with Improved Sighting and a Kinetic Coil? Do I want to go middle of the road and combine mods? Do I want to factor in enemy detection by sacrificing a mod slot for a Combat Optics upgrade so I can better know enemy positions? Or do I just want to have fun with the physics engine by tossing some High-Explosive Ammo and make myself a miniature hand-cannon?

What choice does ME2 give you besides "Hmm, which gun has ammo?"

[quote]SalsaDMA wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

For that matter, there are several weapons in ME2 where "ammo" is basically a non-issue as well. How many Soldier players switch to anything else after they've acquired the Revenant LMG? Both the Revenant and Locust are powerful enough and with large enough ammo pools that you can use them exclusively and never have to switch to anything else unless you're needlessly wasteful with your shots. The first can be acquired about half-way through the game and the second can be acquired practically from the start. So where ME2 supposedly succeeds, it actually doesn't.
[/quote]

Not entirely. I don't recollect just holding down the trigger button and never letting go at any point in ME2. I DO recollect that on several occasions in ME1. IN FACT, after 3 playthroughs on different classes the only unlocked bonus skill for me when I created a new character was... dun dun dun.... Assault rifle... Which I unlocked on my first playthrough as a soldier... that should tell you something about the 'diversity' of combat in ME1, even between different classes

Obviously you like not having to worry at all about tactics and just hold down the trigger untill nothing moves, given your 'arguments'. Some of us like a bit more tactical variety than that, though, and ME2 gave us that compared to ME1.
[/quote]

Says the guy who just admited to playing through ME1 by "holding down his trigger and never letting go"; and you want to accuse me of "not wanting to worry about tactics"? Sounds to me like you're projecting your own failings.
[/quote]

And you seem to continue to be of the misconception that ME1 combat acutally worked. I'm sorry, but it didn't. I find it especially funy that when I exemplified that you could easy do away entirely with ME1 combat with just holding down thr trigger button and forget about tactics entirely, but couldn't do so in ME2 while I prefer ME2s approach, you somehow get this to me having a 'failing'. Awesome. Lack of arguments turn into random unfounded insults.

That you are only able to see a difference in ME2 weapons as them having different amount of shots says everything about your desire to actually look into the details or mechanics of them. Seriously, why discuss something when you are using as baseless arguments as that? Anyone having played ME2 with at least some level of awareness should know that there are multiple differences between the weapons, and claiming amount of shots is the only defining factor shows that you either didn't play, or is woefully unaware of mechanics of a game you actually played.

Furthermore, you jump haphazardly around and combine different mechanics into random straws of arguments trying to claim they are related. I too wouldn't have minded the ability to modify weapons in various ways on a member basis. I'm not as silly as you and claim that it is intricately tied to the heatmodel used in ME1, though, as you try and do. Claiming they are related in the same way you do, would be the same as if I claimed that discussing the taste of steak should naturally include claiming that the knife I used while tasting steak 'A' compared to tasting steat 'B' had an impact on the taste of it.

Youre asumption of 'ME1 weapons are superior!' includes a certain sense of wanting to induce a staleness in evolvment of technology, despite the fact that technology even in ME1 itself moved at a brisk pace. You take a Hahne Kedar Assault rifle Mark I and try and use it against end game enemies and tell me what you think the result will be when your peashooter pings of the shields. The mark I is the standard armement of soldiers, and you expect armed forces to stick to such a design unvierselly when it that ineffective against the kind of shields it encounters? Even asuming that the topsecret spectre gear we received in the endgame would become widely available, what is making you asume that both:
A) Shield technology stops evolving
and
weapon technology stops evolving
?
Cause evolvement of any kind leads to manufactorers looking at what factors they can improve. Improving the punishment the weapons can deliver will automatically increase the heatoutput. If your materials are unable to cope with stresslevels above what your current materials will allow you to, but implementing a disposable system will allow you to get at stress levels safely above what the materials normally allow you to, it is only natural to evolve into the disposable system. Even today in various flightsystems they are researching into making disposable heatsinks because it allows them to get better heat reduction results than if you are relying on 'internal cooldown'.

Your entire argument can acutally be boiled down to: I think it was different, so I liked it.

Unfortunately for you, it have both been done before, and was the worse alternative both from a scientific aproach as well as a gameplay mechanic approach. Thus it was removed.

They even tried a hybrid system during the development of ME2, but abandoned it because their experiences with it weren't satisfactory.

In short: Get over it already.

[jamesp81]

Rolenka wrote...

I just bought ME2, so you'll have to bear with me.

What is it they are supposed to do? The loading screen tooltip says ejecting thermal clips keeps weapons cool. So is each "shell" like, a little capsule of coolant? Or what?

Humanity has had weapons that fire bullets without overheating for hundreds of years. Yes, heat is a problem if you modify the weapon or don't use or maintain it properly, but no military in the world has that problem. So the ME1 system was closer to reality. Just ease off the trigger once in awhile.

I see from the wiki that firearms in Mass Effect fire little bits of metal shaved off of a block which are shrunk by a mass effect field and somehow propelled forward (no propellant is named). I suppose the implication is that this process creates a lot of heat; enough to melt your weapon in one shot if you don't have a thermal clip.

I fail to see how this is an improvement over present day firearms. Instead of hauling around ammo, you haul around coolant. And if there's a problem with the weapon, instead of jamming, it melts your hands off or something.

Have we figured out what the deal is?

The propellant is probably electromagnetism....think railgun.  Throwing that amount of energy around creates a LOT of heat.  I do gunsmithing as a hobby, so believe me, I know about the issues heat can cause in present day firearms.  I think the reason the thermal clip design is superior is because by having extra coolant, you can release more energy per shot, giving you much higher muzzle velocity.  Though the firearms in ME are similar to present day weapons in that they fire projectiles, my read is that ME firearms allow much higher velocities to be attained in the same size package.  Additionally, it seems to me that if you didn't have any thermal clips, you should be able to program the weapon to use a much lower charge to propel the projectile and keep heat at bay; this would reduce the weapon's effectiveness, but if you got no thermal clips, crappy weapons are still better than no weapons.

And actually, ME weapons are even more complicated than gameplay suggests.  In order for the weapon to function, it needs 1) thermal clips, 2) ammunition and, 3) power supply.  My read is that 2 and 3 are much more compact and in terms of gameplay, you carry enough of them that you needn't worry about it for the length of one mission.

[jamesp81]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Rolenka wrote...

Humanity has had weapons that fire bullets without overheating for hundreds of years. Yes, heat is a problem if you modify the weapon or don't use or maintain it properly, but no military in the world has that problem. So the ME1 system was closer to reality. Just ease off the trigger once in awhile.

Something tells me you never tried firing a LMG? When I was in the army we had got round in trying out all the different weaponstypes, just in case we ended up needing to swap in for an emergency. The LMG is the most prone to overheat, but other weapons can get quite hot as well if you fire enough. The LMG was so bad that you need the assistant to swap out the barrel every now and then to be able to keep the weapon usable.  I am NOT over 'a hundred years' (quite alot less, in fact), so your asumption that heat haven't been an issue for hundres of years just reeks of ignorance of the actual area and wrong assumptions on your part.

Heat in weapons is a very real problem in modern arms as well. The Heckler & Koch G11 rifle had serious heat issues, for example, while it was being tested, and this was an assault rifle design that was attempted as late as the 80'ies. Here's an interesting line form the wiki of that particular weapon: "In addition, extracting a hot case removes heat from the system. As a result of doing away with traditional cases, the G11 became a safety
hazard and had to be withdrawn from the 1979 NATO trials. The high rate of fire and lack of cartridge cases made cooking-off a significant problem."

While cooking-off shouldn't be an issue as such in the 'propellant' used for ME weapons, conditional 'wear' of high heat still exists when you speed projectiles to ridcilous speeds. When looking at ME type of weapons, we can examine the wiki page for railguns, which follow a theory that is closer to ME type of weapons. Here we find this on heat: "Massive amounts of heat are created by the electricity flowing
through the rails, as well as by the friction of the projectile leaving
the device. The heat created by this friction itself can cause thermal
expansion of the rails and projectile, further increasing the frictional
heat. This causes three main problems: melting of equipment, decreased
safety of personnel, and detection by enemy forces. As briefly discussed
above, the stresses involved in firing this sort of device require an
extremely heat-resistant material. Otherwise the rails, barrel, and all
equipment attached would melt or be irreparably damaged.In practice the rails are, with most designs of railgun, subject to
erosion due to each launch; and projectiles can be subject to some
degree of ablation also, and this can limit railgun life, in some cases
severely.[/i][i]"

But you come here and claim that heat is not an issue... Because you have.... what exactly, to back up that statement?

I wondered when someone was going to bring up the G11.  Caseless ammo is a popular thing in scifi, but in reality there are real problem with using it.

As for ME weapons....mostly a gameplay issue, I suppose.  Truth is, you could probably make a rifle of similar performance using an electrothermal chem gun design (ETC gun) that would not require power cells for magnetic acceleration or generate nearly the heat.

[Undertone]

JKoopman wrote...

Long post filled with good stuff.

Aye. Perfectly and eloquently said. This man knows what he is talking about.

Going around the level picking up big flashy red things is not fun, nor is it cool. Not to mention ME2 system completely disregarded the lore established in ME1. Not suprising with all the stupid books and comics ruining even more the consistency of the story.

The ejectable sinks make absolute no sense within the context of the story established in the first game. No matter what explanation was given in the second.

[jamesp81]

William Adama wrote...

Shields are still shields... did you even read the thermal clip codex?

Seriously though, the ME2 mechanic  FORCES players to pick the best weapon specialized for whatever defense stands in your way. Armor = carnifex with incendiary ammo, Shields = tempest with disruptor ammo. etc.

ME1 required only ONE type of gun (usually the assault rifle) with super mods and you could complete the game without ever using any other gun. The sniper rifle was useless to me and I WAS AN INFILTRATOR! Unlike in ME2 where the sniper actually can tip the scale of a battle.

Do you remember in ME1 when the geth attacked the citadel? My infiltrator had a assault rifle specialization maxed out with frictionless X, scram rail and tungsten rounds VII. All I did was run through the level holding the trigger button down. OK I admit using the sniper to take out the mounted guns, but the whole battle consisted of me mowing down legions of geth with one gun. Not only was in not challenging, it was also tedious and boring. The combat sequences were something I wanted to get over and done with so that I could progress the story.

Clips make combat more exciting and meaningful, and you actually get attached to certain weapons.

I used to hate the thermal clips BUT after understanding the implications it had both WITHIN the universe and the games combat mechanics, I eventually came around.

If you are disappointed with the explaination because you expected a IMPROVEMENT due to future tech and lapsed time frame, consider this: Knights templar wore steel armor to protect themselves from arrows, modern marines use kevlar/body armor to stop bullets. Over 500 years of warfare and the SAME principle exists; projectile shot at man, man wears armor to stop projectile. Armor gets better, projectile is improved to compensate and so on.

This is what happend in the ME universe.

If I was Bioware, I would honestly give the player in ME3 or ME2 DLC the opportunity to use an outmodded ME1 pistol in the ME2 universe to see how it would fare against the new shields developed within the 2 year span. That would be a major F U to the whiners that would settle this complaint once and for all.

I agree.  ME2's combat is so much more varied and flavorful than ME1 for this reason.

[Praetor Knight]

Undertone wrote...

The ejectable sinks make absolute no sense within the context of the story established in the first game. No matter what explanation was given in the second.

So, I suppose fighting Geth in ME was a dream , and Technology must be stagnant and never evolve to make sense?

I think there are a few threads about the reality of the ME universe. Shutter Effect or Mass Island, anyone? :innocent:

[wolfennights]

If the purpose of thermal clips is to reduce overheating, then wouldn't it be easier to use a certain upgrade from the first game that reduced your heat generation basically to nothing?



I remember using that certain upgrade on Ilos with my Shotgun. Every shot was -BOOM-BOOM-BOOM repeatedly as long as I wanted with no overheating. Unless that certain upgrade is expensive or rare, then I guess thermal clips would make more sense.

[Undertone]

William Adama wrote...

Shields are still shields... did you even read the thermal clip codex?

Seriously though, the ME2 mechanic  FORCES players to pick the best weapon specialized for whatever defense stands in your way. Armor = carnifex with incendiary ammo, Shields = tempest with disruptor ammo. etc.

ME1 required only ONE type of gun (usually the assault rifle) with super mods and you could complete the game without ever using any other gun. The sniper rifle was useless to me and I WAS AN INFILTRATOR! Unlike in ME2 where the sniper actually can tip the scale of a battle.

Do you remember in ME1 when the geth attacked the citadel? My infiltrator had a assault rifle specialization maxed out with frictionless X, scram rail and tungsten rounds VII. All I did was run through the level holding the trigger button down. OK I admit using the sniper to take out the mounted guns, but the whole battle consisted of me mowing down legions of geth with one gun. Not only was in not challenging, it was also tedious and boring. The combat sequences were something I wanted to get over and done with so that I could progress the story.

Clips make combat more exciting and meaningful, and you actually get attached to certain weapons.

I used to hate the thermal clips BUT after understanding the implications it had both WITHIN the universe and the games combat mechanics, I eventually came around.

If you are disappointed with the explaination because you expected a IMPROVEMENT due to future tech and lapsed time frame, consider this: Knights templar wore steel armor to protect themselves from arrows, modern marines use kevlar/body armor to stop bullets. Over 500 years of warfare and the SAME principle exists; projectile shot at man, man wears armor to stop projectile. Armor gets better, projectile is improved to compensate and so on.

This is what happend in the ME universe.

If I was Bioware, I would honestly give the player in ME3 or ME2 DLC the opportunity to use an outmodded ME1 pistol in the ME2 universe to see how it would fare against the new shields developed within the 2 year span. That would be a major F U to the whiners that would settle this complaint once and for all.

Then you are basically saying ME2 got boring unless you are one of those tools that likes to be told what to do. Sorry but that's a normal reaction for someone who says that FORCING them to do something makes for more interesting and varied gameplay.

And if you are bad at sniping, don't project it as a fault of the game. Not only I had no problem with the sniper in ME1, I was owning with it. You say yourself you specialized in assault rifle, uhm what the hell do you expect? 

Clips make for more dull gameplay because now instead of fighting and progressing I have to spend extra time walking across the empty level collecting big red shiny things that supposedly the entire galaxy has and works on every single weapon... Uhm, okay sure. Totally belieavable.

Uhm give me the weapons from ME1 and I would enjoy ME2 ten times more. No longer have to spend needless time finding "ammo".

I also like how everyone that is proponent of the new system convieniently forgets about the modding part. That was one of the most fun I had in the game. Making Garrus anti-mechanic, Wrex anti-organic and me anti-shields. It actually provided much more thought.

ME2 = no variety.

[JKoopman]

SalsaDMA wrote...

And you seem to continue to be of the misconception that ME1 combat acutally worked. I'm sorry, but it didn't.

Well, seeing as I played all the way through ME1 and had quite a deal of fun with it's combat... yeah, I'm kinda of the opinion that ME1's combat did, in point of fact, "work".

SalsaDMA wrote...

I find it especially funy that when I exemplified that you could easy do away entirely with ME1 combat with just holding down thr trigger button and forget about tactics entirely, but couldn't do so in ME2 while I prefer ME2s approach, you somehow get this to me having a 'failing'. Awesome. Lack of arguments turn into random unfounded insults.

You said that you preferred ME2's combat because you distinctly recalled playing through ME1 by "holding down the trigger and never letting go," right before you accused me of doing the same thing and wanting a game with "no tactics". That you chose to play that way does not mean that everyone chose to play that way, least of all the people who actually enjoyed the game. So it's neither unfounded to say that it's a failing of yours that you're projecting on everyone else (by virtue of the notion that anyone who actually prefers ME1's cooldown mechanic invariably must have preferred holding down their trigger and never letting go) nor to say that it shows that you need ME2 to hold your hand to keep you from doing the same thing again.

SalsaDMA wrote...

That you are only able to see a difference in ME2 weapons as them having different amount of shots says everything about your desire to actually look into the details or mechanics of them. Seriously, why discuss something when you are using as baseless arguments as that? Anyone having played ME2 with at least some level of awareness should know that there are multiple differences between the weapons, and claiming amount of shots is the only defining factor shows that you either didn't play, or is woefully unaware of mechanics of a game you actually played.

And your inability to see any differences between ME1 weapons save for length of cooldown time says what about you? What works for the goose, works for the gander.

Also, ammo capacity may not be the only consideration when choosing weapons in ME2, but it is by far the greatest consideration. After all, unique weapon characteristics don't really matter for much if it's constantly out of thermal clips and can't fire, right?

SalsaDMA wrote...

Furthermore, you jump haphazardly around and combine different mechanics into random straws of arguments trying to claim they are related. I too wouldn't have minded the ability to modify weapons in various ways on a member basis. I'm not as silly as you and claim that it is intricately tied to the heatmodel used in ME1, though, as you try and do. Claiming they are related in the same way you do, would be the same as if I claimed that discussing the taste of steak should naturally include claiming that the knife I used while tasting steak 'A' compared to tasting steat 'B' had an impact on the taste of it.

Kind of like how you jumped to the conclussion that preferring to specialize in a single weapon meant that I wanted to hack terminals and romance my LI with my assault rifle? Your entire argument is hypocritical. You lambast me for "combining different mechanics [...] and trying to claim they're related", yet you yourself use the Frictionless Materials mod as your sole basis for why the cooldown mechanic "didn't work" when the two are completely separate. You can have a cooldown mechanic without the Frictionless Materials mods and it works quite well, so your beef is with that particular mod and not the cooldown mechanic as a whole.

To use your clever analogy, that's like claiming that discussing the "taste of a steak" (eg: the functionality of a cooldown mechanic) should naturally include claiming that the "knife" (eg: weapon mods) you used while tasting "steak A" (ME1's system) compared to tasting "steak B" (ME2's system) had an impact on the "taste" of it (the base functionality between a cooldown mechanic and an ammo mechanic).

All it comes down to is personal preferrence. There was nothing inherently wrong with ME1 cooldown system. There's nothing inherently wrong with ME2's reload system. It's how those systems were incorporated that matters. The Frictionless Materials mods were unbalancing; everyone agrees on that. But getting rid of the cooldown mechanic entirely instead of simply removing or rebalancing the offending mod was throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I'd be willing to buy the rationale for why thermal clips were adopted if it actually fit with how they were implemented in-game and if that implementation made sense.

Basically, if the primary consideration for adopting thermal clips was that you wanted more rounds downrange for a sustainable period of time, then adding a system whereby you run out of "ammunition" and can no longer put any rounds downrange versus a system where you could put a functionally limitless number of rounds downrange with short sustained bursts to manage heat is a herp-derp of colossal proportions. Why not take the heat sinks from ME1 that were more than capable of disipating heat quickly and efficiently, put them in a revolving cylinder inside the weapon and simply rotate to a fresh one every time the current sink reached capacity while the others cooled? You've got all the benefits of a thermal clip/reload system and none of the weaknesses.

In other words, something like this.

Modifié par JKoopman, 24 février 2011 - 09:23 .

[Praetor Knight]

Hmm... what would Commander John Shepard say?

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 24 février 2011 - 09:00 .

[Ahglock]

These threads never end well. Anyways I generally prefer ME2 combat, but I don't think the ammo system had anything to do with that. It didn't add any tension and it doesn't really motivate me to use other weapons. Why do I use the pistol I'm facing a guy with armor, why do I use the SMG, because of shields. It has nothing to do with ammo, and since I never run out of ammo I don't see how it could. Sure my heavy pistols have run out occasionally, but only when I only need a smidgen more damage which my SMG which packs crap tons can easily handle.

[JKoopman]

Ahglock wrote...

These threads never end well. Anyways I generally prefer ME2 combat, but I don't think the ammo system had anything to do with that. It didn't add any tension and it doesn't really motivate me to use other weapons. Why do I use the pistol I'm facing a guy with armor, why do I use the SMG, because of shields. It has nothing to do with ammo, and since I never run out of ammo I don't see how it could. Sure my heavy pistols have run out occasionally, but only when I only need a smidgen more damage which my SMG which packs crap tons can easily handle.

Exactly. There are so many other factors influending combat in ME2 that saying "limited ammo is what made ME2 combat better" is completely lacking in any sort of factual basis. Switching to other weapons is easily encouraged (NOTE: I said "encouraged", not required) by the rock-paper-scissors armor mechanic in ME2. If the goal was to get players to "diversify" their weapons, then there was no need for limited ammunition to make that happen. The trick to making a good game is to make the player want to do something, not force them to.

Modifié par JKoopman, 24 février 2011 - 09:20 .

[The Spamming Troll]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Btw, when you say 'use B for reload' I take it you say this as a console player? So your argument is based on the user interface on a single platform?

yes, one of the 3.

jkoopman, you are absolutely 100% correct. im glad i dont have to write it down for these people.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 24 février 2011 - 09:54 .

[Praetor Knight]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

jkoopman, you are absolutely 100% correct. im glad i dont have to write it down for these people.

I disagree, but I'm tired of the back and forth that goes on regarding Thermal Clips, considering how much is assumed and how much is known.

I've tried to provide theories as to how they might work in other threads from what is actually known. But I also accept that they are here to stay, and at this point I hope they do.

and "these people"

meh. I'm not surprised

[William Adama]

It's a videogame, a form of fictional entertainment. It's not real enough to be upset about. If you have fun and are being entertained by it that's all that matters. Videogames are a DISTRACTION from real life and basically serve to kill time for the bored.



Live in the real world and worry about things that matter. You people are getting upset about a work of fiction, which is something cooked up by some writer/creator at Bioware designed to make money for themselves.



That's the same reason GL created Star wars and why Ridley Scott made Alien, it was a form of trade to gather money. It's a job. Bioware and other videogame companies "trick" people into buying their product by making them fun and entertaining. The better they are at tricking you into immersion, the more sales they'll get.



It's all an elaborate illusion that serves NOTHING of any relevance in life, just to waste the number of heartbeats that you have to live. Wake up, stop living in your fantasy, and make a Shepard out of REAL LIFE.



You may be a hero in videogames, but are you in reality? I thought not.

[Praetor Knight]

William Adama wrote...

You may be a hero in videogames, but are you in reality? I thought not.

yes, not a hero in reality cuz:

John McClane once said...

You know what you get for being a hero? Nothin'. You get shot at. You get a little pat on the back, blah, blah, blah, attaboy. You get divorced. Your wife can't remember your last name. Your kids don't want to talk to you. You get to eat a lot of meals by yourself. Trust me, kid, nobody wants to be that guy.

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 24 février 2011 - 11:34 .

[The Spamming Troll]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

jkoopman, you are absolutely 100% correct. im glad i dont have to write it down for these people.

I disagree, but I'm tired of the back and forth that goes on regarding Thermal Clips, considering how much is assumed and how much is known.

I've tried to provide theories as to how they might work in other threads from what is actually known. But I also accept that they are here to stay, and at this point I hope they do.

and "these people"

meh. I'm not surprised

whats wrong with saying "these people?" your either these people or those people. whats to be suprised about?

i read more of jkoopmans posts, and i really dont know how hard it is to understand "our" side of the argument.

[Undertone]

William Adama wrote...

It's a videogame, a form of fictional entertainment. It's not real enough to be upset about. If you have fun and are being entertained by it that's all that matters. Videogames are a DISTRACTION from real life and basically serve to kill time for the bored.

Live in the real world and worry about things that matter. You people are getting upset about a work of fiction, which is something cooked up by some writer/creator at Bioware designed to make money for themselves.

That's the same reason GL created Star wars and why Ridley Scott made Alien, it was a form of trade to gather money. It's a job. Bioware and other videogame companies "trick" people into buying their product by making them fun and entertaining. The better they are at tricking you into immersion, the more sales they'll get.

It's all an elaborate illusion that serves NOTHING of any relevance in life, just to waste the number of heartbeats that you have to live. Wake up, stop living in your fantasy, and make a Shepard out of REAL LIFE.

You may be a hero in videogames, but are you in reality? I thought not.

Thanks for giving me a lesson on real life. I feel enlightened.

[Praetor Knight]

@The Spamming Troll

Regarding the "people" comment: you people, these people... and other such phrases, well there happen to be many ways to interpret such a phrase, but in general it is dismissive, in this case, dismissive of those who happen to disagree, so again meh.



Anyway, the difficulty of understanding, is in being selective in what is chosen to defend a position. So you agree with jkoopman's other posts, I disagree with some of the arguments raised.

So again it is not an issue of understanding sides to an argument, it is about disagreeing to the points raised.

Here is why I disagree:

• The example of the Sniper Rifle begins by calling it high-quality, and then comparing Sniper Rifles in general between the two games. At issue with this comparison is that the quality of the ME Rifle depends on your level and the rifle's level, compared with Shepard being able to pick up the weapon without investing in a Skill like in ME and then upgrading the rifle's capabilities.
  Also, one must make a significant investment in two Talents so that the Sniper Rifle can take out targets in the first place for the Soldier and Infiltrator. With Assault Rifles or Pistols the Talents needed to unlock Sniper Rifles and then 11 or 12 more to use the Sniper Rifle. And for other classes to effectively use that weapon the player must unlock the Achievement and still invest the 11 or 12 points into using the weapon.
• The Frictionless Materials is not available until you hit a high level, ~43+, with the Frictionless Materials X like level 55+. Also, the Spectre - Master Gear is available from an Achievement as a reward, IMHO.
• Also the idea of using a weapon that stores the heat sinks like a revolver is interesting, and plausible for a future DLC or ME3, but my main concern is not knowing exactly how Thermal Clips function in the weapon. And since it's stated that lithium is involved, there is a chance that such a system would still need to be reloaded with fresh heat sinks or Thermal Clips.

Another factor to consider is that defenses improved from ME to ME2, so then firepower must have followed suit to keep up.

It's known that mass acceleration generates heat, so I assume stronger accelerators thus generate more intense heat, enough to work as an igniter for flammable liquids on contact. So although the weapons are likely ceramic, managing the heat will be an issue that disposable heat sinks resolves more easily with increased firepower to match improved defenses, and then the last fight in the Game and against the Batarian Terrorists I remember having my weapons disabled for bit when I leave behind a Tech, and without mods I would be forced to switch or wait a good while.

Lastly, considering that Heat Sinks and Frictionless Materials are a Weapon Modification in ME1, I am beginning to wonder if the Citadel species' weapons even used them in ME1 without the mod attached?
Meaning that the weapons did not use them to cooldown in the first place and that those two weapon mods were not commonly used until the Geth adapted after the Battle of the Citadel, with the Citadel species following behind.

So I am beginning to assume that Thermal Clips are likely a weapon mod also, that improves upon and replaces those two mods, with the only real problem being the need to scavenge for them.
The beauty is that the nature of the Tech goes generally unstated, so the nature of Thermal Clips can go either way in ME3, if the subject is touched upon of course, so it could very well return to ME1's active cooling or improve upon ME2's system.

[Sidney]

wolfennights wrote...

If the purpose of thermal clips is to reduce overheating, then wouldn't it be easier to use a certain upgrade from the first game that reduced your heat generation basically to nothing?

I remember using that certain upgrade on Ilos with my Shotgun. Every shot was -BOOM-BOOM-BOOM repeatedly as long as I wanted with no overheating. Unless that certain upgrade is expensive or rare, then I guess thermal clips would make more sense.

Yes but herein lies the problem with "frictionless materials"...it elminates the only known weakness in the gun and allows you do just go stupid holding down the fire button as long as you want. People talk about dumbing down but here you are basically asking to dumb down the game so you can spam shotgun blasts. Good plan, screw play balance and thought.

[Null_]

A wizard did it

[JKoopman]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Anyway, the difficulty of understanding, is in being selective in what is chosen to defend a position. So you agree with jkoopman's other posts, I disagree with some of the arguments raised.

So again it is not an issue of understanding sides to an argument, it is about disagreeing to the points raised.

Here is why I disagree:

The example of the Sniper Rifle begins by calling it high-quality, and then comparing Sniper Rifles in general between the two games. At issue with this comparison is that the quality of the ME Rifle depends on your level and the rifle's level, compared with Shepard being able to pick up the weapon without investing in a Skill like in ME and then upgrading the rifle's capabilities.

I specifically mentioned "high-quality sniper rifles" when referring to cooldown times in ME1 because I knew someone would point out the obvious and cry that the default starting sniper rifle without any mods took longer than ~2 seconds to cool down from a single shot (it's only about 1-2 seconds more, but enough to ruin the comparison). Once you get high enough in level to start seeing weapons in the V-VII range, their heat management is good enough that a single shot will only generate enough for ~2 seconds of downtime (or roughly equal to the time it takes to reload in ME2).

And as the debate made no mention of "starting weapons only", I don't feel like it was innapropriate to make the distinction. After all, there aren't any "high quality" sniper rifles in ME2 the same way there are in ME1; there's just the Mantis, Viper, Widow and Incisor.

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Also, one must make a significant investment in two Talents so that the Sniper Rifle can take out targets in the first place for the Soldier and Infiltrator. With Assault Rifles or Pistols the Talents needed to unlock Sniper Rifles and then 11 or 12 more to use the Sniper Rifle. And for other classes to effectively use that weapon the player must unlock the Achievement and still invest the 11 or 12 points into using the weapon.

Level 11-12 can easily be reached before you even leave the Citadel for the first time, so I don't really see it as being particularly damning (and that's to get the Sniper Rifles skill MAXED, which you don't need to do to use them effectively). It also doesn't pertain to cooldowns vs. thermal clips in any way, so it's mostly irrelevant to the argument.

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Also the idea of using a weapon that stores the heat sinks like a revolver is interesting, and plausible for a future DLC or ME3, but my main concern is not knowing exactly how Thermal Clips function in the weapon. And since it's stated that lithium is involved, there is a chance that such a system would still need to be reloaded with fresh heat sinks or Thermal Clips.

Hence why I said "heat sinks" and not thermal clips. Thermal clips--if gameplay is to be believed--are terrible at dispersing heat; terrible to the point that they don't disipate heat at all, which completely breaks the Laws of Thermodynamics, but that's an argument for another time. Obviously it wouldn't do to have a revolving cylinder filled with permanently white-hot thermal clips after a few reloads, which is why a "revolver" filled with ME1 heat sinks (which were more than capable of managing and dispersing heat quickly and efficiently) would be the better choice.

Modifié par JKoopman, 25 février 2011 - 02:21 .

[Praetor Knight]

@JKoopman,
Regarding Sniper Rifles in ME1, I did not mean Shep's actual level (I can't remember what's a good level is to have the Sniper Rifle skill high enough off-hand, to make the weapon manageable in ME1).

I meant 11 or 12 Talent Skill points in the Sniper Rifle Talent itself, to control the swaying motion that the rifle has. I can get a bit wordy, sorry for any confusion.



The Weapon you describe would be a wicked Heavy Weapon at least, regardless of what materials are used to cool it.

The only rapid fire HW is the Firestorm and Collector Beam, so I'd like another Rapid Fire weapon in the Shepard arsenal and your idea is very interesting and can work, IMHO.

So accepting that the weapon's platform can manage the high heat with that revolver type system you describe, then one can argue that Power Cells would be necessary to replenish the ammo block / brick in the weapon to continue firing in the field, since that weapon's platform should be more than capable to go through alot of it.



And to clarify where I am coming from with the heat sinks and Thermal Clips; my personal confusion is finding that one mention of lithium used in the heat sink material, which can get orange hot and is used in nuclear reactors today.

So in the ME universe, what is not clear for me is what the heat sinks are made of, and what they can actually tolerate in heat.

But evidence suggests they get really hot. So either way, I don't know for sure how much of a difference there is between a heat sink and Thermal Clip until we find out more .

[The Spamming Troll]

Sidney wrote...

wolfennights wrote...

If the purpose of thermal clips is to reduce overheating, then wouldn't it be easier to use a certain upgrade from the first game that reduced your heat generation basically to nothing?

I remember using that certain upgrade on Ilos with my Shotgun. Every shot was -BOOM-BOOM-BOOM repeatedly as long as I wanted with no overheating. Unless that certain upgrade is expensive or rare, then I guess thermal clips would make more sense.

Yes but herein lies the problem with "frictionless materials"...it elminates the only known weakness in the gun and allows you do just go stupid holding down the fire button as long as you want. People talk about dumbing down but here you are basically asking to dumb down the game so you can spam shotgun blasts. Good plan, screw play balance and thought.

i would actually say frictionless materials were your guns weakness. i never used anything other then scram rail/ rail extensions. im not even familiar with the type of gameplay in ME1 that nesecitates fireing forever. what im saying is my gun would obliterate your gun, so who cares if you could "fire forever?" my gun threw the game out of balance because i couldnt fire forever.

now ask yourself whats better, a game that allows that much freedom in weapon variety, or one that gives you the predetor and the shiruken? ....why not one that allowed for both? my problem is ME1 set the standards for a great game, and ME2 said "i think well just try it this way"

Praetor Shepard wrote...

@JKoopman,
Regarding Sniper
Rifles in ME1, I did not mean Shep's actual level (I can't remember
what's a good level is to have the Sniper Rifle skill high enough
off-hand, to make the weapon manageable in ME1).

I meant 11 or
12 Talent Skill points in the Sniper Rifle Talent itself, to control the
swaying motion that the rifle has. I can get a bit wordy, sorry for any
confusion. [smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/blushing.png[/smilie]



The Weapon you describe would be a wicked Heavy Weapon at least, regardless of what materials are used to cool it.

The
only rapid fire HW is the Firestorm and Collector Beam, so I'd like
another Rapid Fire weapon in the Shepard arsenal and your idea is very
interesting and can work, IMHO.

So accepting that the weapon's
platform can manage the high heat with that revolver type system you
describe, then one can argue that Power Cells would be necessary to
replenish the ammo block / brick in the weapon to continue firing in the
field, since that weapon's platform should be more than capable to go
through alot of it. [smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/devil.png[/smilie]



And
to clarify where I am coming from with the heat sinks and Thermal
Clips; my personal confusion is finding that one mention of lithium used
in the heat sink material, which can get orange hot and is used in
nuclear reactors today.

So in the ME universe, what is not clear
for me is what the heat sinks are made of, and what they can actually
tolerate in heat.

But evidence suggests they get really hot. So
either way, I don't know for sure how much of a difference there is
between a heat sink and Thermal Clip until we find out more [smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png[/smilie].

ofcorse a weapon or ability would suck if you didnt invest in it. your infiltrator wouldnt be very successfull if you didnt invest in immunity either. ....i dont remember what else i had to tell you.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 26 février 2011 - 12:25 .

[Praetor Knight]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

ofcorse a weapon or ability would suck if you didnt invest in it. your infiltrator wouldnt be very successfull if you didnt invest in immunity either. ....i dont remember what else i had to tell you.

You're right, I must have missed something playing both games then.

Hmm... but I don't remember having to invest in a power to use a Sniper Rifle in ME2 like I did in ME1, let me think... What could it be that you didn't tell me?

*Puts Thinking Cap on*  

*Still thinking*


Great Scott!   The two games must have different Combat systems!

*joking around by the way*