411 réponses à ce sujet

[flem1]

Whereto wrote...

Now if you want to stay behind one block of cover with your never ending supply of shots, be my guest.

This is, in fact, exactly what half the complainers want.  With a sniper rifle, no less.

Lame.

Modifié par flem1, 18 avril 2011 - 06:51 .

[Drake_Hound]

flem1 wrote...

Whereto wrote...

Now if you want to stay behind one block of cover with your never ending supply of shots, be my guest.

This is, in fact, exactly what half the complainers want.  With a sniper rifle, no less.

Lame.

While I am just argueing cause of the sense argueing , I do find lame a bit unappropiate .
So take my post with a big grain of salt , it is not a attack .

The problem is this is a singleplayer game , people should already remember how many mods or cheats there will be out there , for unlimited ammo .
So forcing it on other people , who had fun understanding the ammo perspectief is silly .
But a comprimise can be made for both parties , those who really really hate FPS stress (you got thos people)
Who simply panics when shot , and the ammo counter is not helping them .
So offcourse they want something to ease there tensions , and play the game at release .
Even if it is Lame sitting behind a box with unlimited ammo sniping away ....
They bought the product , so there way of entertainment , anyway easy level should allow them that freedom.

Don´t forget success like Metal Gear solid , is based on 2 kinds of people those who really like infiltration.
Those who just love Metal Gear solid story line and on easy level , you can go gung ho infact its like a FPS shooter.

[CroGamer002]

^First person shooter shooter in Metal Gear Solid that is TPS?




Also if they want to play game just for story, they should choose easier difficulty.

If you are running out of ammo on easy difficulties thwn you just suck, A LOT.

Modifié par Mesina2, 18 avril 2011 - 07:09 .

[Admoniter]

It's an ammo mechanic plain and simple; ignoring the logical issues with going from a system with virtually unlimited ammo and requiring just a block of metal to a system where that is not only a concern but constantly having to pump new thermal clips into your weapon or else it refuses to function. Siege situations with the new system would be utterly suicidal.

That aside however, my problem comes from this. I can load a half empty thermal clip into my weapon, every time I reload I clearly see the clip being ejected no matter the amount remaining in the clip, and to add to that the excess cooling capacity is somehow transferred back to my pool leading to situations where reloading a half empty clip while having half a clip in reserve somehow lead to a full clip when I reload. Bioware meet me on camera 2*

*Bioware just bite the bullet on this one, either stick with the current system, call it a retcon and say that instead of thermal clips it's now ammo, because that is the only way the system makes any sense.

Or pull a page from Doom 3 and make it so that when you reload the entire clip is discarded regardless of the capacity left in the clip. Atleast this way it makes more sense to call something a thermal clip designed to prevent overheating and not just an ammo mechanic for the sake of an ammo mechanic.

Or just figure out a way to get a proper hybrid system working.

Modifié par Admoniter, 18 avril 2011 - 07:11 .

[ExtremeOne]

Mass Effect 2 ammo system is better unless they go with lasers which can be unlimited

[Schattenkeil]

crimzontearz wrote...

uh....and someone needs to read the codex, all Mass Effect Field weapons have recoil...even more than normal weapons

Recruit! What's newton's third law of motion? Exactly, actio est reactio.

The same force with which accelerates a bullet works backwards through the gun. That means that in a normal convential gun the amount of mechanical work transfered into the shooter is the same as the amount of mechanical work transfered into the target. Or even more since the projectile decelerates in the air and gives off part of it's energy.

That's different in a mass effect field weapon. The mass effect field reduces the mass of the projectile.

Now what's Newton's second law? Well, it's F = ma. Force equals mass by acceleration. That means, you need considerably less force to accelerate the same body the same amount. Since the projectiles of mass efffect fields are only as large as a grain of sand, so it's already considerably less massive than a modern projectile, it weighs a fraction of a gram even with mass effect field. You can accelerate it to pretty insane velocities, without recoil, because it would have no mass. The difficult part is not the acceleration, but the mass reduction.

To say that it generates more recoil is completely nuts, because that would imply that the amount of mechanical work transfered into the shooter would be considerably higher than that transfered into the bullet. So maybe you wanna re-read those articles, because you got it completely wrong. (I think... according to wikipedia the 7.62x51 mm cartridges we use in the G3 rifles at the army produce about 3.8 kJ of mechanical work - http://en.wikipedia....i/Muzzle_energy - that does mean the same work is transfered into the shooter shoulder just over a different time with more mass?)

Anyway. If you accelerate an object that has virtually no mass you need virtually no force to do so and thus would be the force producing the recoil.

Besides a lighter, faster projectile would leave completely different marks they would sound different and produce different wounds. The weapons in Mass Effect do look like completely normal weapons. A pistol that shoots projectiles the size of a grain of sand doesn't need 9mm barrel and there would be no visible mussle fire. The sound it generates would ultrasonic. You could probably shoot through a person without hurting as long as you don't hit bones and bullet holes in walls would be so small that you would need a magnifying lense to see them. However, ricochets would be a lot less predictable and extremely dangerous.

So what's so frakkin complicated about admitting that it's not a mass effect field pistol but simply exactly what a looks like, a 9mm pistol.

PS: My ideal system would work so: There are two types of basic amunition, 5.56x45mm for assault and sniper rifle. 9mm for pistol and submachine rifle. Those types of amunitions are very common and can be found everywhere.

There are advanced versions of pistol and sniper rifle amunition, depending on the exact model, though. They are more rare but the weapons are more effective, 7.62x51mm for the upgraded sniper rifle, and .45 ACP for the upgraded pistols. These types of ammunition are less common and you must use those weapons carfully.

What you carry is up to the player and must be decided in the loadout screen. You can carry two pistols (including submachine pistols) and two rifles. You can choose two sniper rifles if you're an infiltrator, but then you'd be unable to carry an assault rifle should you have the skill. So you would have one basic weapon with comparable little damage but a high rate of fire and little recoil that fires basic ammunition, and one weapon that's hardler to handle but can one-shot the vast majority enemies, given a headshot, using ammunition that's harder to come by.

I left the shotgun intentionally out because I don't know a first thing about them. Maybe it should count as rifle, maybe it should have an own slot. I don't know about ammunition - unfortunately they would need a complete own type of ammunition, but that could made up by making them a bit more powerful.

Modifié par Schattenkeil, 18 avril 2011 - 07:58 .

[Drake_Hound]

Mesina2 wrote...

^First person shooter shooter in Metal Gear Solid that is TPS?




Also if they want to play game just for story, they should choose easier difficulty.

If you are running out of ammo on easy difficulties thwn you just suck, A LOT.

People some people cannot help stinking at a game .
A lot of bioware fans have those problems , you would be suprised HOW much TPS lately the games have become.
Halo Gears of War etc all give you a option for that .
Anyway ME is also a TPS then cause you can see Shepard running around .
Now don´t be grumpy cause I am defending the poor people .
That they also have a right to play there game there way .

Look am just seeing it from more perspectief then my own .
My own I wouldn´t have anything to add , then stuff it ammo system is fine .
But do not alienate the old fans at the cost of even bigger amount of fans .
Metal Gear solid never did .

[MrDizazta]

Schattenkeil wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

uh....and someone needs to read the codex, all Mass Effect Field weapons have recoil...even more than normal weapons

Recruit! What's newton's third law of motion? Exactly, actio est reactio.

The same force with which accelerates a bullet works backwards through the gun. That means that in a normal convential gun the amount of mechanical work transfered into the shooter is the same as the amount of mechanical work transfered into the target. Or even more since the projectile decelerates in the air and gives off part of it's energy.

That's different in a mass effect field weapon. The mass effect field reduces the mass of the projectile.

Now what's Newton's second law? Well, it's F = ma. Force equals mass by acceleration. That means, you need considerably less force to accelerate the same body the same amount. Since the projectiles of mass efffect fields are only as large as a grain of sand, so it's already considerably less massive than a modern projectile, it weighs a fraction of a gram even with mass effect field. You can accelerate it to pretty insane velocities, without recoil, because it would have no mass. The difficult part is not the acceleration, but the mass reduction.

To say that it generates more recoil is completely nuts, because that would imply that the amount of mechanical work transfered into the shooter would be considerably higher than that transfered into the bullet. So maybe you wanna re-read those articles, because you got it completely wrong. (I think... according to wikipedia the 7.62x51 mm cartridges we use in the G3 rifles at the army produce about 3.8 kJ of mechanical work - http://en.wikipedia....i/Muzzle_energy - that does mean the same work is transfered into the shooter shoulder just over a different time with more mass?)

Anyway. If you accelerate an object that has virtually no mass you need virtually no force to do so and thus would be the force producing the recoil.

Besides a lighter, faster projectile would leave completely different marks they would sound different and produce different wounds. The weapons in Mass Effect do look like completely normal weapons. A pistol that shoots projectiles the size of a grain of sand doesn't need 9mm barrel and there would be no visible mussle fire. The sound it generates would ultrasonic. You could probably shoot through a person without hurting as long as you don't hit bones and bullet holes in walls would be so small that you would need a magnifying lense to see them. However, ricochets would be a lot less predictable and extremely dangerous.

So what's so frakkin complicated about admitting that it's not a mass effect field pistol but simply exactly what a looks like, a 9mm pistol.

Straight from the codex:
A mass accelerator propels a solid metal slug using precisely-controlled electromagnetic attraction and repulsion. The slug is designed to squash or shatter on impact, increasing the energy it transfers to the target. If this were not the case, it would simply punch a hole right through, doing minimal damage.Accelerator design was revolutionized by element zero. A slug lightened by a mass effect field can be accelerated to greater speeds, permitting projectile velocities that were previously unattainable. If accelerated to a high enough velocity, a simple paint chip can impact with the same destructive force as a nuclear weapon. However, mass accelerators produce recoil equal to their impact energy. This is mitigated somewhat by the mass effect fields that rounds are suspended within, but weapon recoil is still the prime limiting factor on slug velocity.

[Schattenkeil]

MrDizaztar wrote...

Straight from the codex:
A mass accelerator propels a solid metal slug using precisely-controlled electromagnetic attraction and repulsion. The slug is designed to squash or shatter on impact, increasing the energy it transfers to the target. If this were not the case, it would simply punch a hole right through, doing minimal damage.Accelerator design was revolutionized by element zero. A slug lightened by a mass effect field can be accelerated to greater speeds, permitting projectile velocities that were previously unattainable. If accelerated to a high enough velocity, a simple paint chip can impact with the same destructive force as a nuclear weapon. However, mass accelerators produce recoil equal to their impact energy. This is mitigated somewhat by the mass effect fields that rounds are suspended within, but weapon recoil is still the prime limiting factor on slug velocity.

Hm. Ok I was wrong about the recoil, and it explains - more less - the wounds (such ammunition would be horribly inefficient against armor though). Well, if you take "mitigated somewhat by the mass effect field" as explanation. How can a weapon electromagnetically accelerating a projectile of the size of a grain of sand produze muzzle fire as an actually modern weapon and sound like it (though obviously not as loud as an actual weapon), though? There is no expanding gas, the only thing that moves is the bullet - and maybe a few parts of the weapon, including the mechanism to eject the thermal clip. The bullet moves to fast for the sound to be audible, so it would probably sound completely different. Why do you need a barrel that wide for a grain of sand?

Modifié par Schattenkeil, 18 avril 2011 - 08:16 .

[Avissel]

Schattenkeil wrote...
Hm. Ok I was wrong about the recoil, and it explains - more less - the wounds (such ammunition would be horribly inefficient against armor though). Well, if you take "mitigated somewhat by the mass effect field" as explanation. How can a weapon electromagnetically accelerating a projectile of the size of a grain of sand produze muzzle fire as an actually modern weapon and sound like it (though obviously not as loud as an actual weapon), though? There is no expanding gas, the only thing that moves is the bullet - and maybe a few parts of the weapon, including the mechanism to eject the thermal clip. The bullet moves to fast for the sound to be audible, so it would probably sound completely different. Why do you need a barrel that wide for a grain of sand?

Because otherwise it wouldn't look like a gun, and people would complain that it didn't look like a gun.


Why do the Star Trek's phasers come in a "rifle" version?

Why do the blasters in Star Wars have barrels?

[Schattenkeil]

Avissel wrote...

Schattenkeil wrote...
Hm. Ok I was wrong about the recoil, and it explains - more less - the wounds (such ammunition would be horribly inefficient against armor though). Well, if you take "mitigated somewhat by the mass effect field" as explanation. How can a weapon electromagnetically accelerating a projectile of the size of a grain of sand produze muzzle fire as an actually modern weapon and sound like it (though obviously not as loud as an actual weapon), though? There is no expanding gas, the only thing that moves is the bullet - and maybe a few parts of the weapon, including the mechanism to eject the thermal clip. The bullet moves to fast for the sound to be audible, so it would probably sound completely different. Why do you need a barrel that wide for a grain of sand?

Because otherwise it wouldn't look like a gun, and people would complain that it didn't look like a gun.


Why do the Star Trek's phasers come in a "rifle" version?

Why do the blasters in Star Wars have barrels?

Why not simply call it "gun"? Why come up with an explanation that doesn't work, if simply calling it gun does?

[Avissel]

You can't just call it "gun" because it's not a "gun" as people traditionally think of one. But it has to look enough like a gun that people will be able to figure out what it is.

Same reason most Sci-fi series make aerodynamic space ships.


and it's not that hard to explain the sounds and muzzle flash.

The sound is the projectile breaking the sound barrier, the muzzle flash is the discharge of electromagnetic energy that pushes the projectile.

Modifié par Avissel, 18 avril 2011 - 08:34 .

[Niddy']

ITT:

MY OPINIONS > YOUR OPINIONS.

[Schattenkeil]

Blasters in Star Wars have barrels because the beam, whatever it is, goes through it. Looks a charge of hot plasma to me, but could be anything. Star Wars didn't come up with fancy explanations for their weapons, the presented them as is, Mass Effect came up with more or less normal looking weapon and told us to believe they are fancy high tech equipment. It's like wanting to have the "realistic" style of Battle Star Galactica (re-imaged) and the fancy fantasy tech of Star Wars in one, two things you can't combine. Either you go the BSG way and have normal weapons or you go the Star Wars way and have fantasy weapons, but you can't have both.

That's what I meant with the race cars examples. It's like producing a car chase scene for a movie and tell us we shall believe it's a dogfight in space.

Modifié par Schattenkeil, 18 avril 2011 - 08:47 .

[The Spamming Troll]

i dont know where your at here, but i hate ammo clips. theres a few reasons why....

1. i dont need a "reload" button. theres a few reason why this is good. it frees up another button on my controller for an ability, which cant be undervalued. (i only wish i could hotkey B as an ability instead of being the melee button, which i NEVER use, so its a complete waste of a button i could be using). instead of hitting the realod button EVERY time you fall back into cover, your gun automatically does that for you.

2. unlimited ammo. searching for ammo sucks. if one block holds millions of bullets, why does my infiltrator get 12 bullets, and why cant i use sniper bullets for my shotgun, since they are the same? limiting ammo for heavy weapons should be kept the same, but i hope bioware removes heavy weapons, and actually makes our abilities worth while. make the abilities our heavy weapons, dont give me a gun that does what singularirty SHOULD do!

3. variety. ive played 100 shooters and each one of em had bullets. ME1 was a different game, not just because of its story and characters. overheating weapons gave ME1 an EXTREMELY unique feel to gunplay, while ME2 gives a crappy gears-esque shooter.

im sure i can think of more reasons why ME1 did it right, but im bored of it already.

[didymos1120]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

2. unlimited ammo. searching for ammo sucks. if one block holds millions of bullets, why does my infiltrator get 12 bullets, and why cant i use sniper bullets for my shotgun, since they are the same?.

Thermal clips =/= Bullets.  They're limited because they're what you're dumping heat into. Sniper rifles generate a lot of heat per round fired. Thus, the heat sinks have to be swapped out more often.  It's got nothing to do with how many rounds are left in the actual ammo block.

Modifié par didymos1120, 19 avril 2011 - 12:45 .

[Gabey5]

no, i hated that overheat noinsense, heatsink ftw

[eye basher]

the guns in ME1 made the game too easy drop 2 frictionless materials x in an spectre assault rifle x and you have an unlimited gun that kills everything.

[The Spamming Troll]

didymos1120 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

2. unlimited ammo. searching for ammo sucks. if one block holds millions of bullets, why does my infiltrator get 12 bullets, and why cant i use sniper bullets for my shotgun, since they are the same?.

Thermal clips =/= Bullets.  They're limited because they're what you're dumping heat into. Sniper rifles generate a lot of heat per round fired. Thus, the heat sinks have to be swapped out more often.  It's got nothing to do with how many rounds are left in the actual ammo block.

no, im saying a class designed to be a sniper, can only carry a MAX of 12 shots. i thought clips were universal. i have no problem picking up flashing round cyliners and filling up X amount of shots for each weapon, so why cant i use that same thermal clip, in a different weapon? FYI, its because bioware sucks at making sequals.

eye basher wrote...

the guns in ME1 made the game too easy
drop 2 frictionless materials x in an spectre assault rifle x and you
have an unlimited gun that kills everything.

dual
frictionless materials means your using the weakest possible gun. sure
you can fire forever, but it wont match the destruction of a dual scram
rail weapon.

the complaint that "i can fire forever" only applies to those who wanted to fire forever.

[ROF_Inferno]

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.

OMG really, so u like ME 1 where u can overdrive ur weapons a shoot weapons like a pistol and shoot 200 shots in over a minute. this is REALITY kid nothing keeps shooting all day long and FYI most ppl hated the fact there was no ammo clips it takes a lot of strategy and difficulty out the game the point is to make ME REALISTIC and believable i mean geez not even star wars has unlimited ammo - the lightsaber. If anything ammo shouldnt replentish itslef automatically

Modifié par ROF_Inferno, 19 avril 2011 - 02:29 .

[The Spamming Troll]

ROF_Inferno 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.

OMG really, so u like ME 1 where u can overdrive ur weapons a shoot weapons like a pistol and shoot 200 shots in over a minute. this is REALITY kid nothing keeps shooting all day long and FYI most ppl hated the fact there was no ammo clips it takes a lot of strategy and difficulty out the game the point is to make ME REALISTIC and believable i mean geez not even star wars has unlimited ammo - the lightsaber. If anything ammo shouldnt replentish itslef automatically

...........................................

just wanted to leave a few periods for you to use.

also, this isnt reality its a video game. star wars would never incorporate something as stupid as ammo clips or enemy protections. mass effect would.

[Epic777]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

ROF_Inferno 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.

OMG really, so u like ME 1 where u can overdrive ur weapons a shoot weapons like a pistol and shoot 200 shots in over a minute. this is REALITY kid nothing keeps shooting all day long and FYI most ppl hated the fact there was no ammo clips it takes a lot of strategy and difficulty out the game the point is to make ME REALISTIC and believable i mean geez not even star wars has unlimited ammo - the lightsaber. If anything ammo shouldnt replentish itslef automatically

...........................................

just wanted to leave a few periods for you to use.

also, this isnt reality its a video game. star wars would never incorporate something as stupid as ammo clips or enemy protections. mass effect would.

In Star Wars Ewoks save the day:whistle:

[Drake_Hound]

eye basher wrote...

the guns in ME1 made the game too easy drop 2 frictionless materials x in an spectre assault rifle x and you have an unlimited gun that kills everything.

haha that is what I used , sniper rifle zoom and precision , without the hinderance of scoop .
And assault rifle power and fire if needed in panic situations .

See wasn´t the only one , using that combination .

[Epic777]

Drake_Hound wrote...

eye basher wrote...

the guns in ME1 made the game too easy drop 2 frictionless materials x in an spectre assault rifle x and you have an unlimited gun that kills everything.

haha that is what I used , sniper rifle zoom and precision , without the hinderance of scoop .
And assault rifle power and fire if needed in panic situations .

See wasn´t the only one , using that combination .

[Skid606]

Don't really have the patience to run through all the pages on this topic so if I'm repeating please forgive me.

I like the idea of having thermal clips for Mass Effect 3, in fact I want them to be rare, valuable and hard to find at times. Before you claim blasphemy listen to my revised system. The thermal clips are supposedly meant to allow weapons to essentially instantly cool off because all the thermal energy resides in the clip. That doesn't mean the weapon can't cool on its own though.

Allow a ME1 system where a certain number of shots fired consecutively will result in an overheat. once the weapon builds up excessive (to the player) amounts of heat, the player can eject the thermal clip which is lost forever. If there is breathing room the player has the option to simply wait the overheat out and not waist a clip.