411 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

ifander wrote...

Jesus christ, not this again.

Please do NOT remove ammo clips from ME3, k?

This has been argued to death already, and my guess would be that the majority of players like the new system introduced in ME2. The explanation given in the codex is not perfect, and there are some problems (like Jacobs mission) but overall it's not something you notice. In the end it comes down to personal preference, this is such a small issue, lore wise, that gameplay obviously trumps lore.

And the gameplay changes are debatable. To a small fraction of people, who were not into any kind of shooter mechanic, they were totally aversive. To a larger fraction of people, including myself, they were just "for the worse". Compared to ME1, the ME2 combat feels overly simplified, repetitive, boring and at times annoying. Let alone the inherent insoluble issue of any 3rd person shooter, namely, the counter-intuitive aiming.

But the absolute fact here is that the ammo retcon has severely damaged the series' lore, and dumped the "infinite ammo" thing, which, if refined, could have become a trademark of the franchise, distinguishing it from most other games with "pew-pew" elements.

So, even with two thirds of people happy with the change, the unhappy third makes it doubdful it was worth it.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 20 avril 2011 - 10:48 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

So, even with two thirds of people happy with the change, the unhappy third makes it doubdful it was worth it.

Depends on how you define worth; assuming the larger two-thirds appreciating the change means more sales, then I'd say it was worth it.

[Zulu_DFA]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

So, even with two thirds of people happy with the change, the unhappy third makes it doubdful it was worth it.

Depends on how you define worth; assuming the larger two-thirds appreciating the change means more sales, then I'd say it was worth it.

How does "two thirds" mean "more sales"?

[crimzontearz]

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Zulu here.

Bioware merely needed to tweak the heat management to keep everyone happy...that said according to the GI article I'm pretty sure the heatsinks are going to stay

also the thermal clips are not officially a retcon, well, they are but Bioware and the BDF (I use the term jokingly not offensively) will argue about the fact no one ever said when they were really introduced

[Schattenkeil]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

ifander wrote...

Jesus christ, not this again.

Please do NOT remove ammo clips from ME3, k?

This has been argued to death already, and my guess would be that the majority of players like the new system introduced in ME2. The explanation given in the codex is not perfect, and there are some problems (like Jacobs mission) but overall it's not something you notice. In the end it comes down to personal preference, this is such a small issue, lore wise, that gameplay obviously trumps lore.

And the gameplay changes are debatable. To a small fraction of people, who were not into any kind of shooter mechanic, they were totally aversive. To a larger fraction of people, including myself, they were just "for the worse". Compared to ME1, the ME2 combat feels overly simplified, repetitive, boring and at times annoying. Let alone the inherent insoluble issue of any 3rd person shooter, namely, the counter-intuitive aiming.

On the contrary. Most tactical situations in ME2 are more complex, not so much for the rule system but for the environment design and the NPC scripts. Particularly good examples in ME2 are Horizon or Garrus recruitment mission on Omega. There are virtually always several routes to the same target, different ways offer different cover, opportunities to fire at the enemy, set up your team to flank the enemy etc.

An example for a bad mission layout was Miranda's loyality mission, i.e. the Oriana thing. There is typically exactly one way and you just gotta push through it. With situations where two opposing forces are bunkered down on opposing sides and storming the enemy's side requires you to run through cross fire from several enemies.

I think you're confusing difficulty with complexity here. Mass Effect 2 was easier because you had often more tactical opportunities, but that's not a simplification, it's the exact opposite.

The typical mission layout in Mass Effect was relatively simply and straight forward compared to that. There were large rooms with cover spread around them. There may be different ways you could have crossed that room but it was still just one room. In Mass Effect you could clear out a room with a sniper rifle alone, peaking around corners and shooting the enemy as soon as you saw a shoulder. Their behavior was more predicatable. The enemy wouldn't storm your position if you stayed behind a certain line, making it possible to reap them off  with any real diffciulty.

And there were other things... in Mass Effect a submachine pistol would become simply less and less accurate in longer bursts, in Mass Effect 2 the gun would pull upwards, making necessary to aim for the head if you wanna score head shots. It had some more character in that regard.

But the absolute fact here is that the ammo retcon has severely damaged the series' lore, and dumped the "infinite ammo" thing, which, if refined, could have become a trademark of the franchise, distinguishing it from most other games with "pew-pew" elements.

So, even with two thirds of people happy with the change, the unhappy third makes it doubdful it was worth it.

Hm, not really. It is a retcon, sure, but it is in fact technically more efficient to manage heat with coolant gas cartridges than radiating it off as infrared light or, if available, cooling with the environment atmosphere.

To me it sounds as though your pre-occupation on the topic clouded your judgement. I actually thought hard "what could he possibly have meant", but no, the levels in Mass Effect 2 are a lot more complex than in Mass Effect, with a few exceptions where it is about the same level.

[Zulu_DFA]

Schattenkeil wrote...

I think you're confusing difficulty with complexity here. Mass Effect 2 was easier because you had often more tactical opportunities, but that's not a simplification, it's the exact opposite.

And I think I am not confusing anything with anything. ME2 sometimes gets difficult due to respawning enemies sucking in your frigging thermal clips, but never more complex than ME1 with its open space battles, crouching, enemy snipers, biotics and engineers, Mako support and non-linear level design simetimes heavily intertwined with the plot of the  mission. And weapon and armor mods. And the radar.

Schattenkeil wrote...

 I actually thought hard "what could he possibly have meant", but no, the levels in Mass Effect 2 are a lot more complex than in Mass Effect, with a few exceptions where it is about the same level.

I meant Peak 15 and Virmire. What's more complex in ME2 than that?

ME2 combat basically boils down to:

Take cover - shoot-shoot - use power - rinse and repeat till all enemies die. And then you get the bonus "Collect Red Flashy Things" minigame.

In ME1 even the most lazy level designs lacked the rinse and repeat element...

And the combat was never the main part of the game in ME1. The main part of the game was the story, and the combat was the means to tell that story, and it worked. The combat by itself, on the other hand... Let's just say I've recently replayed Duke Nukem 3D, made in 1996, and its combat is way more enjoyable than that of ME2.

[Schattenkeil]

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

[quote]Schattenkeil wrote...

I think you're confusing difficulty with complexity here. Mass Effect 2 was easier because you had often more tactical opportunities, but that's not a simplification, it's the exact opposite.
[/quote]
And I think I am not confusing anything with anything. ME2 sometimes gets difficult due to respawning enemies sucking in your frigging thermal clips, but never more complex than ME1 with its open space battles, crouching, enemy snipers, biotics and engineers, Mako support and non-linear level design simetimes heavily intertwined with the plot of the  mission. And weapon and armor mods. And the radar.[/quote]
The level design in Mass Effect was extremely linear. And an open space battle isn't exactly complex...


[quote]Schattenkeil wrote...

 I actually thought hard "what could he possibly have meant", but no, the levels in Mass Effect 2 are a lot more complex than in Mass Effect, with a few exceptions where it is about the same level.
[/quote]
I meant Peak 15 and Virmire. What's more complex in ME2 than that?

ME2 combat basically boils down to:

Take cover - shoot-shoot - use power - rinse and repeat till all enemies die. And then you get the bonus "Collect Red Flashy Things" minigame.

In ME1 even the most lazy level designs lacked the rinse and repeat element...

And the combat was never the main part of the game in ME1. The main part of the game was the story, and the combat was the means to tell that story, and it worked. The combat by itself, on the other hand... Let's just say I've recently replayed Duke Nukem 3D, made in 1996, and its combat is way more enjoyable than that of ME2.[/quote]
I don't know what to say. Exactly the opposite is the case. In a typical Mass Effect battle you'd wait at the end of the battle field and solve the whole situation without ever moving with your sniper rifle. In Mass Effect 2 you'd had to actually work to avoid getting flanked, using your weapons to its best etc.

[crimzontearz]

a nice point...but flawed (at least the last part I'm not arguing about the tactical complexity)

Ask any soldier if he would rather have a weapon that he can shoot FOREVER without reloading as long as he does not use it as a hose or a weapon that can simply stop shooting without extra clips. Go on...I dare you.

Seriously, My stepson is a Marine, he was frontline at the taking of Marjha (or however the hell you spell it),to the question "whuch kind of weapon would you prefer?" he actually laughed

Also, I already proposed a better way of managing heat that would please everyone. Bioware keeps saying they are looking at the best shooters out there, they need to look at GOW2 a lil closer

[Zulu_DFA]

Schattenkeil wrote...

I don't know what to say. Exactly the opposite is the case. In a typical Mass Effect battle you'd wait at the end of the battle field and solve the whole situation without ever moving with your sniper rifle. In Mass Effect 2 you'd had to actually work to avoid getting flanked, using your weapons to its best etc.

Yeah, let's nerf our superhero's abilities and weapons, and make krogans regen and husks respawn like crazy. Like I said, nothing complex, just a bit difficult at times. At that, every enemy is totally predictable. There are just more of them. Good thing, I can spam Incineration infinitely and non-stop, if everything else fails.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 20 avril 2011 - 01:07 .

[Avissel]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
I meant Peak 15 and Virmire. What's more complex in ME2 than that?

Yes....Peak 15....what is more complex than a series of narrow Hallways.

Virmire....wait...also narrow corrodors, but now You're in the Mako for part of it.

[The Spamming Troll]

crimzontearz wrote...

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Zulu here.

Bioware merely needed to tweak the heat management to keep everyone happy...that said according to the GI article I'm pretty sure the heatsinks are going to stay

also the thermal clips are not officially a retcon, well, they are but Bioware and the BDF (I use the term jokingly not offensively) will argue about the fact no one ever said when they were really introduced

zulu is spot on.

im getting the impresion anything bioware says after the fact is a lie.

thermal clips are ammo. period.

[Phaelducan]

I still think each weapon should "cool down" after set amount of time so that even if you don't have any more clips you can always at least fire a minimum reload capacity. Would kill two birds, as it were.No infinite spraying of ammo, but no frustratingly long sections of gameplay spamming power cooldowns trying to get more ammo to drop.

[Avissel]

The Spamming Troll wrote...
thermal clips are ammo. period.

They function as ammo as a gameplay mechanic, yes.

Lore wise they are not ammo.

Gameplay mechanic does not equal lore.

This is not the first or only game to involve something like this so I still have to wonder why people have trouble with the concept.

[ifander]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Schattenkeil wrote...

I don't know what to say. Exactly the opposite is the case. In a typical Mass Effect battle you'd wait at the end of the battle field and solve the whole situation without ever moving with your sniper rifle. In Mass Effect 2 you'd had to actually work to avoid getting flanked, using your weapons to its best etc.

Yeah, let's nerf our superhero's abilities and weapons, and make krogans regen and husks respawn like crazy. Like I said, nothing complex, just a bit difficult at times. At that, every enemy is totally predictable. There are just more of them. Good thing, I can spam Incineration infinitely and non-stop, if everything else fails.

You could spam powers in ME too, so I don't see your point. Some enemies had immunity, which was a goddamn grind, especially Krogans. It wasn't complex, it was a grind. And anyway, that's not the point of this thread I think. How is Shep nerfed in ME2 anyway?

[The Spamming Troll]

Avissel wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...
thermal clips are ammo. period.

They function as ammo as a gameplay mechanic, yes.

Lore wise they are not ammo.

Gameplay mechanic does not equal lore.

This is not the first or only game to involve something like this so I still have to wonder why people have trouble with the concept.

lore went out the window as soon as ME2 hit the shelves. id even say logic followed as well.

thermal clips function as ammo, because it IS ammo. it just has a differnt name. the casual gamer, which is waht biwoare is gonig for, has no clue about heat build ups in their guns. they see a number counter and say "hey this gun uses ammo." its certainly not the same thing, nor is it better then what i was doing in ME1.

the first time you fired that pistol after waking up on the lazerous project, you didnt stop and go "what the hell is this thing?!?!?" its a good thing sheaprd played gears of war, or hed be lost.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 20 avril 2011 - 03:57 .

[Avissel]

They are not ammo.

If the gun FIRED THERMAL CLIPS. Then yes the thermal clips would be ammo.

They serve the game play function of adding an ammo counter to the game that depicts how many shots can be fired before the current heat sink can no longer be used.

Lore did not "Go out the window". The gun still has an unlimited ammo supply, it simple no longer has the ability to infinitely disperse heat.

[Praetor Knight]

How about we improve on what ME2 gave us, and give plausible ideas on how to add to ME3 Combat, instead of going back and forth, simply arguing.

If there are players that want to rely on a signature weapon, outside of increasing the total number of spare shots available, we can employ the Omni-tool to manufacture Thermal Clips during and/or after Combat in different ways.

On why I bring up Omni-tools for this discussion,

The fabrication module can rapidly assemble small three-dimensional objects from common, reusable industrial plastics, ceramics, and light alloys. This allows for field repairs and modifications to most standard items, as well as the reuse of salvaged equipment and applying medicine from stimulants to medi-gel.

So, here are two ideas:

• Since a limited # of total shots is a concern for some of us here, then how about automatically refilling the weapons after a firefight when there is a lull/ transition to the next engagement, normally we find Thermal Clips on the ground some where, Power Cells or an Armory in the level during this time anyway.
• And maybe provide (at least the Combat) classes a new tool in the arsenal, a power that would allow Shepard to manually restore the equipped weapon's capacity, during a fight.

Edit: fixing grammar/ syntax

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 20 avril 2011 - 04:09 .

[Avissel]

If you were going to refill the ammo automatically after a fight, it would be simpler just to not worry about it at all.

The active ability is one idea, and not entirely a bad one, Shepard manually cools down the gun allowing for a limited number of shots.

It's about like the idea I had, basically a "fail safe" in case you did manage to run totally out thermal clips for all your weapons, where the gun would allow you to make a very limited number of shots, 1 or 2 for slow firing weapons, more for the smg/assault rifles, before entering a forced cool down time which would force you to switch weapons.

It's sort of like the ME1 system but that number of of shots before overheat would be set low so that you couldn't just go back to the "fire for ever" style.

[The Spamming Troll]

Avissel wrote...

They are not ammo.

If the gun FIRED THERMAL CLIPS. Then yes the thermal clips would be ammo.

They serve the game play function of adding an ammo counter to the game that depicts how many shots can be fired before the current heat sink can no longer be used.

Lore did not "Go out the window". The gun still has an unlimited ammo supply, it simple no longer has the ability to infinitely disperse heat.

what? if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then sorry, its a duck. i dont need to be explained how guns work now, or in ME. i use ME2s weapons in the exact same way i use gears of wars or call of duties.

ME2s guns dont have an unlimited ammo supply.

why arent thermal clips usable across all weapons? how come they NEVER cool off? why are thermal clips EXACTLY like ammo?

[Praetor Knight]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

what? if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then sorry, its a duck. i dont need to be explained how guns work now, or in ME. i use ME2s weapons in the exact same way i use gears of wars or call of duties.

ME2s guns dont have an unlimited ammo supply.

why arent thermal clips usable across all weapons? how come they NEVER cool off? why are thermal clips EXACTLY like ammo?

:innocent:

[Bourne Endeavor]

Avissel wrote...

They are not ammo.

If the gun FIRED THERMAL CLIPS. Then yes the thermal clips would be ammo.

They serve the game play function of adding an ammo counter to the game that depicts how many shots can be fired before the current heat sink can no longer be used.

Lore did not "Go out the window". The gun still has an unlimited ammo supply, it simple no longer has the ability to infinitely disperse heat.

That doesn't even make sense. The game itself refers to Thermal Clips as ammo and you collect it in cumulative fashion. This is identical to every shooter game available just moonlighting in a scarcely different capacity. We pick up clips instead of walking over our enemy' gun like in Halo or Gears. That is the only difference.

[Avissel]

Thank you, robocop.

[Avissel]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
That doesn't even make sense. The game itself refers to Thermal Clips as ammo and you collect it in cumulative fashion. This is identical to every shooter game available just moonlighting in a scarcely different capacity. We pick up clips instead of walking over our enemy' gun like in Halo or Gears. That is the only difference.

They are the games ammo system, they are not themselves ammo.

I have never disputed that gameplay wise they are an ammo system, I am saying that lore wise they are not ammo.

If the gun fired thermal clips, then thermal clips would be ammo.

From the lore side of things you are picking up heat sinks that allow the gun to continue firing it's actaul ammo.

You are not cramming a big magazine full of heat sinks into the gun and then shooting the enemy with said heat sinks.

Modifié par Avissel, 20 avril 2011 - 04:55 .

[M8DMAN]

Durgon Ironfist wrote...

Mykel54 wrote...

I really liked the improvements of the ME2 combat system over the first game, but what annoyed me to no end is having to look up for ammo for my weapons. I don´t like shooters too much, and one of the reasons is that they all use ammo. When i played ME1 i was delighted to see the weapon heat system and how it worked, it stopped you from shooting non-stop but at the same time avoid the mindless grind for ammo. You could waste a shot here an there without worry, say shooting at a crystal or the water to see the effect. With ammo you can´t waste any shoot doing these things.

My suggestion for ME3 is to remove ammo completely for the game, and bring the old heat system back. Instead of ammo there would be certain mods like in ME1 that allowed you to fire longer. The recharge button "R", would now consist on a heatsink but not like those on ME2. When you press R your weapon automatically cool down, instead of you having to wait to cool off like in ME1, and shepard does the reload animation as the heat sink goes off. I believe this is the best of both systems. Powerful weapons would have very high heat increase after each shoot, and heavy weapons may be the exception, having a limited number of charges per mission. Say a grenade launcher has 10 shots, that replenish after each mission, so you don´t have to go around looking for ammo as well.

I wonder what other people thought about the ammo system, i think it was agaisnt the lore of the game and was also a liabilty that added nothing to the game, but instead made it more similar to all the other shooters out there. I know there are older threads about this topic but given that ME3 is not too far away i think it is a good time to bring up this topic to see what people think about it.

Yeah no. The heat system was terrible and if you can't manage your ammo supply you fail at gaming as a whole simple as that.

 Even though I didn't run out of Thermal clips in ME2.  I think your statement is retarded

Modifié par M8DMAN, 20 avril 2011 - 05:10 .

[Schattenkeil]

I hope you'll forgive me for some more physical considerations. If you don't care about idle calculations, you might just wanna skip this.

I've thought some more about the physical implications of a projectile that would be as small and fast as that. In earlier discussions there was the question about the muzzle fire, which an actual rail gun would not have... but there would be fire...

On Wikipedia are photos of railgun projectiles in flight, moving with more than 9000 km/h and it would develop incredible heat, similar to an asteroid entering planetary atmosphere, becoming a meteorite.

That leads us to the question, how fast would our "grain of sand" projectile be? It takes a lot of assumptions to make a guess there, but I've calculated the following, and I think it gives us an idea of what kind of velocities we're talking here:

Muzzle Energy: 3800 Joule is given as typical muzzle energy of .308 winchester projectile. Since the recoil is about the same, the muzzle energy must be about the same. Actio est reactio. We'll use 3.8 kJ

Weight: I don't know how much weight an average grain of sand has nor do I know the material. Let's say 0.1 gram i.e. 0.0001 kg. I think that realistic.

Mass Effect Field: Let's say the mass effect field reduces the mass by half. So we're at 0.00005 kg. I could also double the muzzle energy, since that is the result, but it doesn't matter for the computation.

Formula: I only remember a few distant fragments of physics from ... well, you'd probably say highschool, but if I don't misinterprete wikipedia the formula for kinetic energy or work is:
W = 1/2 mv² <=> v = sqrt(2W/m)
I've calculated the units through and it seems to work, so it can't be completely wrong.
The result is: 12,329 meters/second. That's 44,384 km/h or 27,578 mph. In other words: it's pretty fast, but not fast enough to employ relativistic calculations (lightspeed is 300,000,000 meters/second)

The question is just far it would fly before it would utterly become gaseous and dissolve in atmosphere. My most accurate estimation is: Not very.

Modifié par Schattenkeil, 20 avril 2011 - 06:42 .