74 réponses à ce sujet

[cpt. awsome]

JKoopman wrote...

cpt. awsome wrote...

am i the only one who though thermal clips where a good idea ? every weapon uses some kind of resource. since the ME weapons use a system that creates a ****load of heat without somekind of way to ditch that heat the weapon would be dangerous to the carrier. having your weapon heat up every 2 mins for a long period could easely damage its componants (especially any electronics or chips) using a heatsink clip to store the heat in is the best option. it saves the weapon from beeing overheated and mallfunction. as for beeing able to recollect the thermal clips again: the thing is glowing hot and will likely take some time to cool down. in a combat situation your not just gonna sit there getting shot at waiting for the clip to cool down to re-use it.

This is where I would repeat my idea for an internal revolving cylinder of heatsinks ala this proposed system where you could cycle to a fresh heatsink while the used one(s) cooled down. Making thermal clips disposable, ejectable and non-recyclable was about the most colossaly stupid move weapons designers could've made in the Mass Effect universe (it basically adds nothing to the previous system but a rather hefty logistics requirement that didn't exist before), especially in light of the system that came before it and how this new system was supposed to be some kind of improvement.

cpt. awsome wrote...

and besides infinite ammo is weak for gameplay. in ME1 i barely switched weapon at a certain point. in ME2 i used every weapon equaly as much,makes u use your sqaud allot more aswell if only to save ammo.

ME1 also had weapon proficiencies like most RPGs. Was it having "unlimited" ammo that kept you from switching weapons, or was it the fact that most of your weapon skill points were in a select few of your weapons?

Fantasy RPGs like Dragon Age have weapon proficiencies as well. Often, players will specialize in a single weapon type (ie: two-handed swords or bows) and use nothing but that one weapon type for the entirety of the game. I don't know of anyone who considers that "weak for gameplay" and complains that they should be using everything from sword & board to two-handed axes to daggers to magic staves all on the same character, so why should a sci-fi RPG be different?

Mass Effect IS an RPG, remember (although it's becoming increasingly more difficult to recognize it as such). The focus of RPGs is supposed to be story, character-building and stat development, NOT blasting enemies with a variety of unique weapons. That's what shooters focus on. If a shooter is what BioWare wants to make, that's all well and good, but if that's the case then they need to stop pitching Mass Effect as an RPG and advertise it for what it is.

i agree with most of your points but mass effect isnt just an RPG. it has obvious shooter aspect. and they still need to be good. infact a big group loves ME for its combo of rpg and shooters.

[Bloggers99]

I think most people have trouble with accepting that Mass Effect is a shooter/rpg hybrid. They want it to be D&D with guns and spaceships but it's not. Honestly, I prefer it the way it is now (as opposed to ME1) because combat was boring and shallow in ME1 (for me). The thought that an Alliance soldier can't shoot a sniper rifle without the gun wobbling beyond belief is just plain silly.

[JKoopman]

Bloggers99 wrote...

I think most people have trouble with accepting that Mass Effect is a shooter/rpg hybrid. They want it to be D&D with guns and spaceships but it's not. Honestly, I prefer it the way it is now (as opposed to ME1) because combat was boring and shallow in ME1 (for me). The thought that an Alliance soldier can't shoot a sniper rifle without the gun wobbling beyond belief is just plain silly.

A return to a cooldown mechanic doesn't mean a return to ME1 combat. There was far more to the changes made to combat in ME2 than just thermal clips, and more often than not people mistakenly think that thermal clips are making combat in ME2 better when in fact what is appealing to them is something completely different.

For example, the excuse that you just used--that combat in ME1 was "silly" because an Alliance soldier should be able to use a sniper rifle at least somewhat effectively without having to specialize entirely in it--has nothing at all to do with ammunition. Weapons in ME2 could use ME1's cooldown mechanic and still be just as functional as they currently are. Just like the rock-paper-scissors armor mechanic added to ME2 is all the encouragement that players need to switch weapons to more effectively deal with each individual engagement, and the desire not to get killed is what encourages players to seek cover and not lack of ammunition (I still don't entirely understand that argument).

People really need to stop and consider whether what they like about combat in ME2 is actually a result of thermal clips or something else entirely. For my part, thermal clips add nothing to ME2 but annoyance and actually slow things down and break my pace by forcing me to spend 20-30 seconds after every fight scouring the battlefield for shiny clips before I can proceed to the next area.

Modifié par JKoopman, 05 mars 2011 - 09:28 .

[Bloggers99]

There is no rock paper scissors effect unless you're playing on insanity. I can kill everything in the game with a smg, shotgun or heavy pistol. The presence of other weapons does little for the feel of combat. The thermal clips, however, force you to conservatively use weapons. Sure, that SMG can rip up some Geth with disruptor ammo, but if you run the risk of being out of ammo.

I never used cover in ME1, even on insanity, as your shotgun knocks everything over and you can just bumrush your foes, sliding them across the ground for a minute or two until they die. Infinite ammo + cooldown is just too cheap. A cooldown mechanic on the widow would mean sitting in the back of an area all day and never engaging your foes. I like that my infiltrator can kill from range with ease, but I also like running out of ammo and having to cloak and move in for close kills with my pistol.

[Rawke]

JKoopman wrote...

Bloggers99 wrote...

I think most people have trouble with accepting that Mass Effect is a shooter/rpg hybrid. They want it to be D&D with guns and spaceships but it's not. Honestly, I prefer it the way it is now (as opposed to ME1) because combat was boring and shallow in ME1 (for me). The thought that an Alliance soldier can't shoot a sniper rifle without the gun wobbling beyond belief is just plain silly.

A return to a cooldown mechanic doesn't mean a return to ME1 combat. There was far more to the changes made to combat in ME2 than just thermal clips, and more often than not people mistakenly think that thermal clips are making combat in ME2 better when in fact what is appealing to them is something completely different.

For example, the excuse that you just used--that combat in ME1 was "silly" because an Alliance soldier should be able to use a sniper rifle at least somewhat effectively without having to specialize entirely in it--has nothing at all to do with ammunition. Weapons in ME2 could use ME1's cooldown mechanic and still be just as functional as they currently are. Just like the rock-paper-scissors armor mechanic added to ME2 is all the encouragement that players need to switch weapons to more effectively deal with each individual engagement, and the desire not to get killed is what encourages players to seek cover and not lack of ammunition (I still don't entirely understand that argument).

People really need to stop and consider whether what they like about combat in ME2 is actually a result of thermal clips or something else entirely. For my part, thermal clips add nothing to ME2 but annoyance and actually slow things down and break my pace by forcing me to spend 20-30 seconds after every fight scouring the battlefield for shiny clips before I can proceed to the next area.

It's not that cooldowns for weapons encourage people to stand out in the open. However, having only a cooldown to worry about makes the principle of "fire & maneuver" kind of redundant. With thermal clips, you simply have to change your position once in a while because sniper rifles run out of ammo quite fast and you can't just hammer away with an assault rifle hoping to land 4 or 5 hits and then wait for the cooldown. Once again, thermal clips essentially force you to aggressively move against the enemy because you have to end the fight before you run out of ammo. If you do that and, e.g., first use your sniper rifle for long range kills against tough enemies and annoying melee enemies such as guys with flamethrowers and krogans, then move in with your assault rifle from mid to close range and then finish off at close range with SMGs/pistols you should still have tons of ammo left. Also, you can very easily pick up ammo dropped while fighting (as you usually have to go where the enemy was before).  There are very few sequences in the game where this is not possible (such as the mercenary siege on Omega). However, there usually is ammo lying around anyway in those cases (there are thermal clips everywhere in Garrus' compound).

If you move and fight clever, you really don't have to waste any time looking for ammo. Of course on lower difficulties you can use a single weapon for eache and every fight. But then you should't be surprised to run out of ammo. Also, the only class in danger of running out of ammo is the soldier as he doesn't have any active powers that do damage besides concussive shot and a potential bonus power such as reave. The soldier compensates that by having a huge range of weapons for every range and enemy. I really don't see how you could possibly run out of ammo for every gun.

Modifié par Rawke, 05 mars 2011 - 09:50 .

[cpt. awsome]

btw not that its confirmed or anything but the teaser clearly shows the soldier reloading his sniperrifle and shooting out a thermal clip

[JKoopman]

Rawke wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Bloggers99 wrote...

I think most people have trouble with accepting that Mass Effect is a shooter/rpg hybrid. They want it to be D&D with guns and spaceships but it's not. Honestly, I prefer it the way it is now (as opposed to ME1) because combat was boring and shallow in ME1 (for me). The thought that an Alliance soldier can't shoot a sniper rifle without the gun wobbling beyond belief is just plain silly.

A return to a cooldown mechanic doesn't mean a return to ME1 combat. There was far more to the changes made to combat in ME2 than just thermal clips, and more often than not people mistakenly think that thermal clips are making combat in ME2 better when in fact what is appealing to them is something completely different.

For example, the excuse that you just used--that combat in ME1 was "silly" because an Alliance soldier should be able to use a sniper rifle at least somewhat effectively without having to specialize entirely in it--has nothing at all to do with ammunition. Weapons in ME2 could use ME1's cooldown mechanic and still be just as functional as they currently are. Just like the rock-paper-scissors armor mechanic added to ME2 is all the encouragement that players need to switch weapons to more effectively deal with each individual engagement, and the desire not to get killed is what encourages players to seek cover and not lack of ammunition (I still don't entirely understand that argument).

People really need to stop and consider whether what they like about combat in ME2 is actually a result of thermal clips or something else entirely. For my part, thermal clips add nothing to ME2 but annoyance and actually slow things down and break my pace by forcing me to spend 20-30 seconds after every fight scouring the battlefield for shiny clips before I can proceed to the next area.

It's not that cooldowns for weapons encourage people to stand out in the open. However, having only a cooldown to worry about makes the principle of "fire & maneuver" kind of redundant. With thermal clips, you simply have to change your position once in a while because sniper rifles run out of ammo quite fast and you can't just hammer away with an assault rifle hoping to land 4 or 5 hits and then wait for the cooldown. Once again, thermal clips essentially force you to aggressively move against the enemy because you have to end the fight before you run out of ammo. If you do that and, e.g., first use your sniper rifle for long range kills against tough enemies and annoying melee enemies such as guys with flamethrowers and krogans, then move in with your assault rifle from mid to close range and then finish off at close range with SMGs/pistols you should still have tons of ammo left. Also, you can very easily pick up ammo dropped while fighting (as you usually have to go where the enemy was before).  There are very few sequences in the game where this is not possible (such as the mercenary siege on Omega). However, there usually is ammo lying around anyway in those cases (there are thermal clips everywhere in Garrus' compound).

If you move and fight clever, you really don't have to waste any time looking for ammo. Of course on lower difficulties you can use a single weapon for eache and every fight. But then you should't be surprised to run out of ammo. Also, the only class in danger of running out of ammo is the soldier as he doesn't have any active powers that do damage besides concussive shot and a potential bonus power such as reave. The soldier compensates that by having a huge range of weapons for every range and enemy. I really don't see how you could possibly run out of ammo for every gun.

It always amuses me how people who support the thermal clip system can--almost in the same sentence--both say that limited ammo enforces weapon variety and encourages movement and say that ammo is plentiful enough in ME2 that "if you play right" you should never have to worry about running out.

If you're never running out, then ammo may as well be unlimited and therefor isn't having any effect on gameplay whatsoever.

Modifié par JKoopman, 05 mars 2011 - 10:15 .

[Phaedon]

matt-bassist wrote...

once they ran out, you could still fire your weapon, but with the over-heating aspect of ME1?

There is a mod that does that, and to be honest, it sucks. I didn't notice much of a difference, even when I burst-fired.

Modifié par Phaedon, 05 mars 2011 - 10:14 .

[Bloggers99]

@Jkoopman

The point was that you never run out if you switch up and use other weapons. Sticking to a single weapon means you will run out except in rare situations (i.e. Garrus' safe house). Nice attempt at twisting words, chief, but the fact remains that thermal clips enforce tactical combat and not steamrolling everything with a shotgun.

Modifié par Bloggers99, 05 mars 2011 - 10:16 .

[Rawke]

JKoopman wrote...

Rawke wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Bloggers99 wrote...

I think most people have trouble with accepting that Mass Effect is a shooter/rpg hybrid. They want it to be D&D with guns and spaceships but it's not. Honestly, I prefer it the way it is now (as opposed to ME1) because combat was boring and shallow in ME1 (for me). The thought that an Alliance soldier can't shoot a sniper rifle without the gun wobbling beyond belief is just plain silly.

A return to a cooldown mechanic doesn't mean a return to ME1 combat. There was far more to the changes made to combat in ME2 than just thermal clips, and more often than not people mistakenly think that thermal clips are making combat in ME2 better when in fact what is appealing to them is something completely different.

For example, the excuse that you just used--that combat in ME1 was "silly" because an Alliance soldier should be able to use a sniper rifle at least somewhat effectively without having to specialize entirely in it--has nothing at all to do with ammunition. Weapons in ME2 could use ME1's cooldown mechanic and still be just as functional as they currently are. Just like the rock-paper-scissors armor mechanic added to ME2 is all the encouragement that players need to switch weapons to more effectively deal with each individual engagement, and the desire not to get killed is what encourages players to seek cover and not lack of ammunition (I still don't entirely understand that argument).

People really need to stop and consider whether what they like about combat in ME2 is actually a result of thermal clips or something else entirely. For my part, thermal clips add nothing to ME2 but annoyance and actually slow things down and break my pace by forcing me to spend 20-30 seconds after every fight scouring the battlefield for shiny clips before I can proceed to the next area.

It's not that cooldowns for weapons encourage people to stand out in the open. However, having only a cooldown to worry about makes the principle of "fire & maneuver" kind of redundant. With thermal clips, you simply have to change your position once in a while because sniper rifles run out of ammo quite fast and you can't just hammer away with an assault rifle hoping to land 4 or 5 hits and then wait for the cooldown. Once again, thermal clips essentially force you to aggressively move against the enemy because you have to end the fight before you run out of ammo. If you do that and, e.g., first use your sniper rifle for long range kills against tough enemies and annoying melee enemies such as guys with flamethrowers and krogans, then move in with your assault rifle from mid to close range and then finish off at close range with SMGs/pistols you should still have tons of ammo left. Also, you can very easily pick up ammo dropped while fighting (as you usually have to go where the enemy was before).  There are very few sequences in the game where this is not possible (such as the mercenary siege on Omega). However, there usually is ammo lying around anyway in those cases (there are thermal clips everywhere in Garrus' compound).

If you move and fight clever, you really don't have to waste any time looking for ammo. Of course on lower difficulties you can use a single weapon for eache and every fight. But then you should't be surprised to run out of ammo. Also, the only class in danger of running out of ammo is the soldier as he doesn't have any active powers that do damage besides concussive shot and a potential bonus power such as reave. The soldier compensates that by having a huge range of weapons for every range and enemy. I really don't see how you could possibly run out of ammo for every gun.

It always amuses me how people who support the thermal clip system can--almost in the same sentence--both say that limited ammo enforces weapon variety and encourages movement and say that ammo is plentiful enough in ME2 that you should never have to worry about running out.

If you're never running out, then ammo may as well be unlimited and therefor isn't having any effect on gameplay whatsoever.

You know what amuses me? That you fail to comprehend. You shouldn't run out of ammo if you play accordingly; i.e. IF you move from cover to cover and IF you switch weapons once in a while and IF you pick up ammo during combat (which ties in with moving from cover to cover) you DON'T have to was the horrible amount of 20 seconds to pick up clips. If you, however, prefer to use one weapon the whole time without having any active powers that do considerable damage you can be sure to run out of clips pretty fast.

[JKoopman]

Bloggers99 wrote...

@Jkoopman

The point was that you never run out if you switch up and use other weapons. Sticking to a single weapon means you will run out except in rare situations (i.e. Garrus' safe house). Nice attempt at twisting words, chief, but the fact remains that thermal clips enforce tactical combat and not steamrolling everything with a shotgun.

Funny, because "steamrolling everything with a shotgun" is the fundamental of the entire Vanguard class in ME2 and it's easily possible to do just that.

[Rawke]

JKoopman wrote...

Bloggers99 wrote...

@Jkoopman

The point was that you never run out if you switch up and use other weapons. Sticking to a single weapon means you will run out except in rare situations (i.e. Garrus' safe house). Nice attempt at twisting words, chief, but the fact remains that thermal clips enforce tactical combat and not steamrolling everything with a shotgun.

Funny, because "steamrolling everything with a shotgun" is the fundamental of the entire Vanguard class in ME2 and it's easily possible to do just that.

The Vanguard is a high risk/high reward class. Believe it or not, you have to choose your target and, most importantly, strip it of it's defeneses before "steamrolling" anything. Again, if you charge on anything that moves, you will very quickly get a good look at the game-over-screen. Which makes the Vanguard one of the most tactical and demanding classes to play.

[JKoopman]

Rawke wrote...

You know what amuses me? That you fail to comprehend. You shouldn't run out of ammo if you play accordingly; i.e. IF you move from cover to cover and IF you switch weapons once in a while and IF you pick up ammo during combat (which ties in with moving from cover to cover) you DON'T have to was the horrible amount of 20 seconds to pick up clips. If you, however, prefer to use one weapon the whole time without having any active powers that do considerable damage you can be sure to run out of clips pretty fast.

And again, what you fail to comprehend is that none of those are dependent on limited ammo.

What reason should players have to change cover in a shooting game? To get a more advantageous firing position, to flank enemies or to avoid enemies that are rushing/flanking the player (eg: a charging krogan). Not to collect ammunition.

What reason should players have to switch weapons in a shooting game? Because different weapons are better in different circumstances. A shotgun is better in close-range than a sniper rifle, SMGs are better at taking down shields than pistols, etc. Not because they ran out of ammo for their favorite weapon that's perfectly suited for current situation.

What reason should I have to take a certain tech or biotic ability? Because it suits my playstyle, fits my character and/or because it's fun. Not because I need to do so to offset lack of ammunition.

That you view all these things as somehow being benficial to gameplay rather than detrimental is baffling to me.

Modifié par JKoopman, 05 mars 2011 - 10:31 .

[Bloggers99]

@ Rawke

I guess he's doing it right and we're doing it all wrong. lol
Honestly, there's no argument that ME2 has a much more developed tactical feel. I can't just pull a bastion + stasis on the final boss and call it good. I can't sit a mile from a Geth base with a sniper until everything outside is dead. etc. etc. etc.

@ Jkoopman

That is entirely dependant on ammo. With limitless ammo the Vanguard would never have to charge. Phalanx + limitless Armor Piercing or Warp ammo = Game over. Why get in close, ever?

Modifié par Bloggers99, 05 mars 2011 - 10:31 .

[ThomasAM]

Just saying in the arrival trailer it shows the sniper firing aweapon from today instead of ME where weapons shave off rounds from a large chunk of metal inside the gun, the whole lore idea is that the guns eject the clips to allow more constant fire. But a smaller sink might be inside and the thermal clip simply a container.

[JKoopman]

Bloggers99 wrote...

@ Rawke

I guess he's doing it right and we're doing it all wrong. lol
Honestly, there's no argument that ME2 has a much more developed tactical feel. I can't just pull a bastion + stasis on the final boss and call it good. I can't sit a mile from a Geth base with a sniper until everything outside is dead. etc. etc. etc.

@ Jkoopman

That is entirely dependant on ammo. With limitless ammo the Vanguard would never have to charge. Phalanx + limitless Armor Piercing or Warp ammo = Game over. Why get in close, ever?

That you cannot stasis the end boss in ME2 nor are you ever in a position to fire on a geth base from a mile away has nothing whatsoever to do with thermal clips or limited ammo and everything to do with how the boss encounter and maps were designed. You don't need one to have the other.

And in answer to you second statement: because it's fun? Why do you apparently need to be forced to do things that appeal to you? I CAN take the Cain with me on the Derelict Reaper and destroy the core in one hit without having to bother with the husks, but I don't do so because it's cheap and isn't fun for me. Why do you need the game to hold your hand to keep from playing in a way that you don't find entertaining?

[JKoopman]

Rawke wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Bloggers99 wrote...

@Jkoopman

The point was that you never run out if you switch up and use other weapons. Sticking to a single weapon means you will run out except in rare situations (i.e. Garrus' safe house). Nice attempt at twisting words, chief, but the fact remains that thermal clips enforce tactical combat and not steamrolling everything with a shotgun.

Funny, because "steamrolling everything with a shotgun" is the fundamental of the entire Vanguard class in ME2 and it's easily possible to do just that.

The Vanguard is a high risk/high reward class. Believe it or not, you have to choose your target and, most importantly, strip it of it's defeneses before "steamrolling" anything. Again, if you charge on anything that moves, you will very quickly get a good look at the game-over-screen. Which makes the Vanguard one of the most tactical and demanding classes to play.

Yep. That sure looks tactical to me. And that's on INSANITY too.

[Bloggers99]

Who says we don't find it entertaining? Perhaps in ME3 they'll let you load your tears into the gun so you wont ever run out of ammo, as you seem to have a limitless supply.

[Rawke]

JKoopman wrote...

Rawke wrote...

You know what amuses me? That you fail to comprehend. You shouldn't run out of ammo if you play accordingly; i.e. IF you move from cover to cover and IF you switch weapons once in a while and IF you pick up ammo during combat (which ties in with moving from cover to cover) you DON'T have to was the horrible amount of 20 seconds to pick up clips. If you, however, prefer to use one weapon the whole time without having any active powers that do considerable damage you can be sure to run out of clips pretty fast.

And again, what you fail to comprehend is that none of those are dependent on limited ammo.

What reason should players have to change cover in a shooting game? To get a more advantageous firing position, to flank enemies or to avoid enemies that are rushing/flanking the player (eg: a charging krogan). Not to collect ammunition.

What reason should players have to switch weapons in a shooting game? Because different weapons are better in different circumstances. A shotgun is better in close-range than a sniper rifle, SMGs are better at taking down shields than pistols, etc. Not because they ran out of ammo for their favorite weapon that's perfectly suited for current situation.

What reason should I have to take a certain tech or biotic ability? Because it suits my playstyle, fits my character and/or because it's fun. Not because I need to do so to offset lack of ammunition.

That you view all these things as somehow being benficial to gameplay rather than detrimental is baffling to me.

You still don't get it.

If you had unlimited ammo there would be no reason whatsoever to ever move. In fact, sitting behind and giving you as much distance as possible would be logical. You don't run out of ammo so the more time you have till a potential enemy reaches you for close range combat the better. Assuming you don't have to watch the ammo counter. Why would you want to close in if the only limiting factor would be having to fire in burst rather than fully atuomatic?
I never argued that they have to switch weapons because their first choice is dry. No; my argument was that to use different types of weapons effectively you have to move. If you have unlimited ammo, this is NOT necessary. You can sit around in the back with a sniper rifle and just shoot until nothing moves without EVER having to switch unless you are not capable of aiming fast enough.

I didn't say that you HAVE to have biotics to save ammo. All I'm saying is that ammo isn't a pressing issue for classes that have a lot of active abilites (e.g. adepts) either way.

If you play tactical ANYWAY, why would you complain about thermal clips? Because in that case you'll pick up ammo on the go. What exactly is your problem? Even if you argue that thermal clips bring nothing beneficial to the game (which isn't true), neither does reverting to the old system. And from a lore-wise point of view the transition actually makes sense, because with thermal clips you actually IMPROVE the total ROF. Changing a clip takes only a fraction of the time the cooldown in ME1 took. 

Yep. That sure looks tactical to me. And that's on INSANITY too.

You did notice he/she waisted three medigel loads? That's not exactly smart and something you can't pull off infinetely (unless you tweak your medigel supply, that is).

Modifié par Rawke, 05 mars 2011 - 10:52 .

[JKoopman]

Rawke wrote...

You still don't get it.

If you had unlimited ammo there would be no reason whatsoever to ever move. In fact, sitting behind and giving you as much distance as possible would be logical. You don't run out of ammo so the more time you have till a potential enemy reaches you for close range combat the better. Assuming you don't have to watch the ammo counter. Why would you want to close in if the only limiting factor would be having to fire in burst rather than fully atuomatic?
I never argued that they have to switch weapons because their first choice is dry. No; my argument was that to use different types of weapons effectively you have to move. If you have unlimited ammo, this is NOT necessary. You can sit around in the back with a sniper rifle and just shoot until nothing moves without EVER having to switch unless you are not capable of aiming fast enough.

I didn't say that you HAVE to have biotics to save ammo. All I'm saying is that ammo isn't a pressing issue for classes that have a lot of active abilites (e.g. adepts) either way.

If you play tactical ANYWAY, why would you complain about thermal clips? Because in that case you'll pick up ammo on the go. What exactly is your problem? Even if you argue that thermal clips bring nothing beneficial to the game (which isn't true), neither does reverting to the old system. And from a lore-wise point of view the transition actually makes sense, because with thermal clips you actually IMPROVE the total ROF. Changing a clip takes only a fraction of the time the cooldown in ME1 took.

At no point have I said that I was unable to play the game with limited ammo or even that I struggle with ammo. My reservations about the thermal clip system stems simply from what I view as an uneccessary change that was pathetically shoe-horned into the game with a nonsensical codex explaination. I'm simply arguing in addition that thermal clips add nothing to gameplay that isn't or couldn't be accomplished by other means.

Rawke wrote...

You did notice he/she waisted three medigel loads? That's not exactly smart and something you can't pull off infinetely (unless you tweak your medigel supply, that is).

The point is, if it's possible for a Vanguard to "steamroll" a fully armored and shielded YMIR mech on INSANITY, how much trouble would steamrolling basic enemies be, especially on Normal difficulties?

Bloggers99 wrote...

Who says we don't find it entertaining? Perhaps in ME3 they'll let you load your tears into the gun so you wont ever run out of ammo, as you seem to have a limitless supply.

So that's how you're gonna be, huh? Guess I don't have to bother with you anymore.

And for the record, disagreeing with you =/= crying. Otherwise, I could just as easily say you're crying about the cooldown mechanic.

Modifié par JKoopman, 05 mars 2011 - 11:14 .

[Rawke]

JKoopman wrote...

Rawke wrote...

You still don't get it.

If you had unlimited ammo there would be no reason whatsoever to ever move. In fact, sitting behind and giving you as much distance as possible would be logical. You don't run out of ammo so the more time you have till a potential enemy reaches you for close range combat the better. Assuming you don't have to watch the ammo counter. Why would you want to close in if the only limiting factor would be having to fire in burst rather than fully atuomatic?
I never argued that they have to switch weapons because their first choice is dry. No; my argument was that to use different types of weapons effectively you have to move. If you have unlimited ammo, this is NOT necessary. You can sit around in the back with a sniper rifle and just shoot until nothing moves without EVER having to switch unless you are not capable of aiming fast enough.

I didn't say that you HAVE to have biotics to save ammo. All I'm saying is that ammo isn't a pressing issue for classes that have a lot of active abilites (e.g. adepts) either way.

If you play tactical ANYWAY, why would you complain about thermal clips? Because in that case you'll pick up ammo on the go. What exactly is your problem? Even if you argue that thermal clips bring nothing beneficial to the game (which isn't true), neither does reverting to the old system. And from a lore-wise point of view the transition actually makes sense, because with thermal clips you actually IMPROVE the total ROF. Changing a clip takes only a fraction of the time the cooldown in ME1 took.

At no point have I said that I was unable to play the game with limited ammo or even that I struggle with ammo. My reservations about the thermal clip system stems simply from what I view as an uneccessary change that was pathetically shoe-horned into the game with a nonsensical codex explaination. I'm simply arguing in addition that thermal clips add nothing to gameplay that isn't or couldn't be accomplished by other means.

Even if we agree do disagree on the effect it has on gameplay, I still find the codex explaination absolutely sound. There really is only one disadvantage to the thermal clips, and that is the fact that they are, no question, limited. But since there are means to destroy kinetic barriers and armour with special ammo, tech or biotics this shouldn't really be an issue, not to mention the increased ROF that overall makes it easier to maintain the fire necessary to keep kinetic barriers (that are supposed to be standard in council race militaries and everywhere else but the Terminus systems) down.
I would also be interested to hear what exactly WAS added to gameplay in your opinion (since you only seem to see negative points that wouldn't need to be in the game anyway) and how you would have achieved that otherwise.

The point is, if it's possible for a Vanguard to "steamroll" a fully armored and shielded YMIR mech on INSANITY, how much trouble would steamrolling basic enemies be, especially on Normal difficulties?

Wouldn't agree on that, unless we are talking casual and normal difficulties (in which case the whole discussion is pointless anyway because the amount of ammo you carry is larger than you need). THe weaker the enemy, the higher the numbers are (usually). It's one thing to dodge an occasional rocket and survive the barrage of automatic fire, but trying to minimize the hits you take from several enemies from different directions can actually bring you down as easily as the YMIR, if not fast because the amount of damage you deal is decreased because of the fact that you have multiple targets.

Modifié par Rawke, 05 mars 2011 - 11:41 .

[cpt. awsome]

JKoopman wrote...

Rawke wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Bloggers99 wrote...

I think most people have trouble with accepting that Mass Effect is a shooter/rpg hybrid. They want it to be D&D with guns and spaceships but it's not. Honestly, I prefer it the way it is now (as opposed to ME1) because combat was boring and shallow in ME1 (for me). The thought that an Alliance soldier can't shoot a sniper rifle without the gun wobbling beyond belief is just plain silly.

A return to a cooldown mechanic doesn't mean a return to ME1 combat. There was far more to the changes made to combat in ME2 than just thermal clips, and more often than not people mistakenly think that thermal clips are making combat in ME2 better when in fact what is appealing to them is something completely different.

For example, the excuse that you just used--that combat in ME1 was "silly" because an Alliance soldier should be able to use a sniper rifle at least somewhat effectively without having to specialize entirely in it--has nothing at all to do with ammunition. Weapons in ME2 could use ME1's cooldown mechanic and still be just as functional as they currently are. Just like the rock-paper-scissors armor mechanic added to ME2 is all the encouragement that players need to switch weapons to more effectively deal with each individual engagement, and the desire not to get killed is what encourages players to seek cover and not lack of ammunition (I still don't entirely understand that argument).

People really need to stop and consider whether what they like about combat in ME2 is actually a result of thermal clips or something else entirely. For my part, thermal clips add nothing to ME2 but annoyance and actually slow things down and break my pace by forcing me to spend 20-30 seconds after every fight scouring the battlefield for shiny clips before I can proceed to the next area.

It's not that cooldowns for weapons encourage people to stand out in the open. However, having only a cooldown to worry about makes the principle of "fire & maneuver" kind of redundant. With thermal clips, you simply have to change your position once in a while because sniper rifles run out of ammo quite fast and you can't just hammer away with an assault rifle hoping to land 4 or 5 hits and then wait for the cooldown. Once again, thermal clips essentially force you to aggressively move against the enemy because you have to end the fight before you run out of ammo. If you do that and, e.g., first use your sniper rifle for long range kills against tough enemies and annoying melee enemies such as guys with flamethrowers and krogans, then move in with your assault rifle from mid to close range and then finish off at close range with SMGs/pistols you should still have tons of ammo left. Also, you can very easily pick up ammo dropped while fighting (as you usually have to go where the enemy was before).  There are very few sequences in the game where this is not possible (such as the mercenary siege on Omega). However, there usually is ammo lying around anyway in those cases (there are thermal clips everywhere in Garrus' compound).

If you move and fight clever, you really don't have to waste any time looking for ammo. Of course on lower difficulties you can use a single weapon for eache and every fight. But then you should't be surprised to run out of ammo. Also, the only class in danger of running out of ammo is the soldier as he doesn't have any active powers that do damage besides concussive shot and a potential bonus power such as reave. The soldier compensates that by having a huge range of weapons for every range and enemy. I really don't see how you could possibly run out of ammo for every gun.

It always amuses me how people who support the thermal clip system can--almost in the same sentence--both say that limited ammo enforces weapon variety and encourages movement and say that ammo is plentiful enough in ME2 that "if you play right" you should never have to worry about running out.

If you're never running out, then ammo may as well be unlimited and therefor isn't having any effect on gameplay whatsoever.

stop making a fool out of yourself... obviously its about the change in gameplay. you can play the game without running out of ammo. yet this will require you to think ahead and use different typs of attack. so its having a huge effect on the gameplay even if your not running out. unlimited and not running out are 2 different things.

so the amusing part of your post is your own post contradicts what you claim.

[JKoopman]

Rawke wrote...

Even if we agree do disagree on the effect it has on gameplay, I still find the codex explaination absolutely sound. There really is only one disadvantage to the thermal clips, and that is the fact that they are, no question, limited. But since there are means to destroy kinetic barriers and armour with special ammo, tech or biotics this shouldn't really be an issue, not to mention the increased ROF that overall makes it easier to maintain the fire necessary to keep kinetic barriers (that are supposed to be standard in council race militaries and everywhere else but the Terminus systems) down.
I would also be interested to hear what exactly WAS added to gameplay in your opinion (since you only seem to see negative points that wouldn't need to be in the game anyway) and how you would have achieved that otherwise.

• Thermal clips solved one small problem at the expense of adding a HUGE penalty in limited ammunition; hardly an ideal solution.
• The "problem" could've easily been better solved with a hybrid system or with the aforementioned cycleable heatsink system which would've resulted in no appreciable penalty whatsoever; all the good and none of the bad. Replacing heatsinks entirely with thermal clips with no backup method of heat dissipation makes absolutely zero sense from a design standpoint.
• It's unrealistic that every weapon in the galaxy was supposedly updated to incorporate thermal clips in the space of 2 years and weapons featuring the old heatsink system are now completely non-existant, especially in the Terminus Systems which is generally poorer and where shielding systems (and especially newer shielding systems) are less common, and therefor there should be less need for "higher rate of fire" to compensate and less desire or capability to support the logistics requirements of thermal clips.
• Thermal clips apparently never cool down, which completely contradicts the Laws of Thermodynamics. I can fire a single shot from my pistol, put it away for the entirety of the mission, take it out at the end and the "heat" generated by that single shot still has not dissipated from the weapon.
• The codex explaination contradicts itself by stating that thermal clips are universal, yet I cannot take the excess thermal clips from my pistol and put them in my sniper rifle and vice versa.
• Thermal clips appear at or are referrenced several times where they should no exist. The most notable examples are on Aeia where the crash survivors have been stranded for a decade and in Zaeed's backstory where he referrences thermal clips in a story that takes place 3 years before they were even invented.

Those are my problems with thermal clips as far as lore in concerned. If you want gameplay reasons, it's mainly because thermal clips force me to use weapons that I don't wish to. I find that I end up using my Locust SMG far more than anything else as my Infiltrator simply because my Mantis/Widow and Phalanx pistol are so ammo-inefficient. I find this annoying and restrictive, and can find no benefit to gameplay whatsoever in it. In apparently trying to prevent players from "overusing" the weapons they want to use, it basically forces them to use weapons that they don't want to use nigh-exclusively.

Things that were added to gameplay that I don't find disagreeable and that don't involve thermal clips are locational damage, each weapon feeling distinctive from the others in it's type,  being effective in all weapon types your character can equip (so I'm no longer walking around with 2-3 weapons strapped to my back that I can't even use) and, to a lesser extent, the rock-paper-scissors armor mechanic (which can be a little irritating when you're playing as a biotic). I also like the feel of reloading a weapon (it gives the Mantis and Widow a heavy, powerful feeling that wasn't there in ME1 sniper rifles), but you don't necessarilly need limited ammunition to have reloading as it could've easily been accomplished with either the aforementioned system or by a "venting" action, etc.

cpt. awsome wrote...

stop making a fool out of yourself... obviously its about the change in gameplay. you can play the game without running out of ammo. yet this will require you to think ahead and use different typs of attack. so its having a huge effect on the gameplay even if your not running out. unlimited and not running out are 2 different things.

so the amusing part of your post is your own post contradicts what you claim.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If you set a limit for something but that limit is never reached in practical gameplay, then that limit effectively may as well not exist. That's common sense. If you're going to call someone a fool, at least have a rational argument to back it up.

Forcing me to use my Locust SMG instead of my sniper rifle doesn't make the game "more tactical" to me or force me to "think ahead". It's just annoying.

Modifié par JKoopman, 06 mars 2011 - 04:32 .

[Homey C-Dawg]

1 vote here for a hybrid system in ME3.

[rancid banana]

lets go back to bullets and casings and the hot smell of lead