791 réponses à ce sujet

[Father_Jerusalem]

Murmillos wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
why are people so against using multiple weapons? i constantly switch weapons, use them all. you're just limiting yourself if you ONLY snipe. or ONLY shotgun. ect.

And why should one way be forced upon the player over the other.

What would you say if the game allowed use of only one weapon? Would you continue to try to argue your point that multiple weapons are better if some smart ass told you to shut up because thats just the way is?

If the game only allowed usage of one weapon, and that weapon ran out of ammo on a consistent basis, then I would agree with you that that would be a problem.

Luckily, Mass Effect 2 circumvents this problem by.... allowing you to use more than one weapon.

If you stubbornly refuse to switch weapons when the situation calls for it, and then compain that there's not enough ammo, or that enemies are immune or whatever, then that is a problem that YOU are having, not in game design. The game gives you options to get by, you're refusing to use those options.

[Clonedzero]

Murmillos wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
why are people so against using multiple weapons? i constantly switch weapons, use them all. you're just limiting yourself if you ONLY snipe. or ONLY shotgun. ect.

And why should one way be forced upon the player over the other.

What would you say if the game allowed use of only one weapon? Would you continue to try to argue your point that multiple weapons are better if some smart ass told you to shut up because thats just the way is?

if the game only allowed one weapon then it'd be a horrible gameplay design choice.  i'd argue that its dumb and bad design to limit players to a single weapon.

and its not forcing one way over another. its just creating oppertunities for more diverse gameplay.

ive beaten ME2 many times, i cant remember ever having an issue with low ammo. the only way i could see ANYONE running out of ammo is if they sit in one spot the entire fight and shoot from behind a piece of cover without moving, without changing weapons, without doing anything than popping up and down shooting at random enemies. i cant imagine that being even remotely fun.

[CajNatalie]

I'm with Clonedzero on this one... the game isn't supposed to be played with just one weapon.
Different weapons are for different situations. If you know what you're doing, you'll never run out of ammo. Maybe one particular weapon will run out in certain situations with a hell of a lot of things to kill (usually in collector missions), but any good player won't let that get them down.

However, I'm still up for the idea of letting Shep carry at least one spare pack of thermal clips - enough to fully restock all weapon totals during a non-hostile moment. You just don't go out there with a sane amount of ammo for taking down an entire building full of mooks/collectors... I can't imagine playing ME2 without resorting to scrounging to keep my totals up... if I didn't scrounge, then I really might just find mystelf out of ammo afterall. I'm also including power cell pick-ups under scrounging... thinking realistically here... Shep shouldn't assume to find these power cell boxes (which fully refill your weapons in addition to the gain of heavy ammo) when going on a mission, a true elite should be prepared with enough ammo in case they don't find any of them.

Modifié par CajNatalie, 25 mai 2011 - 09:42 .

[Someone With Mass]

Murmillos wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
why are people so against using multiple weapons? i constantly switch weapons, use them all. you're just limiting yourself if you ONLY snipe. or ONLY shotgun. ect.

And why should one way be forced upon the player over the other.

What would you say if the game allowed use of only one weapon? Would you continue to try to argue your point that multiple weapons are better if some smart ass told you to shut up because thats just the way is?

Plus, using one special weapon is pretty much the point behind the Infiltrator and the Vanguard. 

[Clonedzero]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
why are people so against using multiple weapons? i constantly switch weapons, use them all. you're just limiting yourself if you ONLY snipe. or ONLY shotgun. ect.

And why should one way be forced upon the player over the other.

What would you say if the game allowed use of only one weapon? Would you continue to try to argue your point that multiple weapons are better if some smart ass told you to shut up because thats just the way is?

Plus, using one special weapon is pretty much the point behind the Infiltrator and the Vanguard. 

not its not.
i dont only use the shotgun when i play a vanguard. i dont only use the sniper when i play an infiltrator.

[Admoniter]

Phaedon wrote...
The only lore-breaking concept that I see here is that some genious in the 2180s would sent a team in CQB with overheating weapons.

They only overheated if you let them, and I'm not even talking about the infi-firing mods, regular weapons would only overheat if you weren't paying attention, in which case overheating is the least of your worries especially in CQC.

You what I find even more lore-breaking and all around illogical? The idea that the military would switch from a system which has all the maintenace concerns one would expect to have with firearms and a block of ammo that is a non issue for most missions. And then switch to a system with all those same concerns plus a second "ammo" concern or else the gun becomes an expensive ceramic club. Yeah that makes a ton of sense... I sincerly hope every military instituion in the ME2 universe has some stockpile of these old outdated and illogical weapons because in siege situations against foes who do not use or need TCs, the side with TCs in ****ed from the word go, no ifs ands or buts about it.



Also completely unrelated but the ability to transfer capacity from one TC into another needs to go. I can deal with havings TCs but that dog won't hunt. Having the ability to conserve excess ammo when you clearly eject the TC is so asinine and illogical that it boggles the mind.

[Someone With Mass]

Clonedzero wrote...
not its not.
i dont only use the shotgun when i play a vanguard. i dont only use the sniper when i play an infiltrator.

Eh, they were designed with those weapons in mind. Duh.

[Someone With Mass]

Do you know which weapon was also old and outdated? The Mattock.

[Wulfram]

It's not like you can't use the Tempest SMG or the Geth Pulse Rifle for the entire mission if you really want to. It's the pistols, the vindicator and the sniper rifles where you might have problems.

[Clonedzero]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
not its not.
i dont only use the shotgun when i play a vanguard. i dont only use the sniper when i play an infiltrator.

Eh, they were designed with those weapons in mind. Duh.

right. but they arent exclusively designed for only one weapon. if other builds arent possible than thats a pretty lame thing if a class is limited to only really using one weapon, dont you think? i'd like classes to be built differently and work differently based on the way the person levels and plays.

i certainly dont want every vanguard to be the same, i dont want every adept to be the same, ect. that'd be lame.

[Wulfram]

Switching from the sniper rifle because the enemy is close, or shielded, and another weapon is better in the circumstance is great. Switching to a pistol because Shepard is for some unknown reason incapable of carrying sufficient ammo for his sniper rifle is annoying.

The limited ammo also creates an incentive to only shoot under the effects of your damage boosting power. And in easier battles, you're encouraged to simply let your unlimited ammo team mates finish the enemy off. Neither of which is really interesting gameplay.

[Aimi]

Murmillos wrote...

daqs wrote...

(also violates the the laws of thermodynamics), but it's very easily possible in ME1.

How is venting heat violating the laws of thermodynamics? Is my PC violationg the laws of thermodynamics right now? I mean, its doing exactly right now what the guns in ME1 did.

Not a very good analogy.  Your PC may be blowing off heat now, but it can't do that forever.  Anyway, the second law of thermodynamics, among other things, prohibits perpetual motion machines, of which a sufficiently upgraded pistol or assault rifle is one.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
not its not.
i dont only use the shotgun when i play a vanguard. i dont only use the sniper when i play an infiltrator.

Eh, they were designed with those weapons in mind. Duh.

You know what else they were designed with in mind? A pistol or submachinegun as a backup weapon.

Omgnowai, right?

[Sgt Stryker]

daqs wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

daqs wrote...

(also violates the the laws of thermodynamics), but it's very easily possible in ME1.

How is venting heat violating the laws of thermodynamics? Is my PC violationg the laws of thermodynamics right now? I mean, its doing exactly right now what the guns in ME1 did.

Not a very good analogy.  Your PC may be blowing off heat now, but it can't do that forever.  Anyway, the second law of thermodynamics, among other things, prohibits perpetual motion machines, of which a sufficiently upgraded pistol or assault rifle is one.

Come to think of it, you bring up an excellent point by mentioning perpetual motion machines. What exactly powers these man-portable railguns? Other than the rage of angry gamers, of course.

[Someone With Mass]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

You know what else they were designed with in mind? A pistol or submachinegun as a backup weapon.

Omgnowai, right?

Yeah, I know.

[Clonedzero]

Wulfram wrote...

Switching from the sniper rifle because the enemy is close, or shielded, and another weapon is better in the circumstance is great. Switching to a pistol because Shepard is for some unknown reason incapable of carrying sufficient ammo for his sniper rifle is annoying.

The limited ammo also creates an incentive to only shoot under the effects of your damage boosting power. And in easier battles, you're encouraged to simply let your unlimited ammo team mates finish the enemy off. Neither of which is really interesting gameplay.

you're acting like ammo in ME2 was as scarce as a survival horror game.

i dunno what you played, but in ME2 theres ammo laying all over every battlefield, enemies drop even more, and in between shootouts theres usually enough scattered on tables and such to fill you up between each firefight.

also, the incentive to make your shots actually count, prioritize targets, be careful not to miss, ect. adds extra layers to the combat.

again, if you're having the issue of constantly running out of ammo with your sniper rifle, use the one that has a higher ammo capacity. its not rocket science.

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...

iakus wrote...
Because the codex says they're not the same.  They aren't even referred to the same way.  It's like saying a steel canteen and a dixie cup are the same because they are both used for drinking water.

Errr, that's because the word 'clip' implies that the device is flexible.

In fact, do you want to know what the codex says?

To eliminate this inefficiency, the geth adopted detachable heat sinks known as thermal clips. While organic arms manufacturers were initially doubtful this would produce a net gain, a well-trained soldier can eject and swap thermal clips in under a second. Faced with superior enemy firepower, organic armies soon followed the geth's lead, and today's battlefields are littered with these thermal clips.

It is.


Literally.


The same.


Thing.

I'll give you partial credit on that.  All thermal clips are heat sinnks.  But not all heat sinks are thermal clips.  Let me demonstrate:

"To eliminate this inefficiency, the geth adopted detachable heat sinks known as thermal clips"

These are not the same heat sinks as before.  My first clue was they are never called "heat sinks"   These are detatchable, and by implication, disposable, heat sinks.  Not the older model ones which were designed to be used over and over after cooling off.   These are tossed aside after being used up.  At least, I assume so, because they're never held onto to be reused after they've had a chance to cool down.  You know, like the ones in ME 1 did eventually?

Thermal clips:  Limited use, disposable, faster bursts
Heat sinks:  Reusable.  longer-lived, "slow but steady"

It is

Not

The same

Thing

What would have made it better for me?  How about adding a few lines to the codex:

"Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that many older model heat sinks could be modified into makeshift thermal clips with little effort.  This drastically lessened the lifespan of the heat sink, but greatly increased the rate of fire for the weapon itself.  News of these modification spread like wildfire through the Extranet, and before long the vast majority of the private security and criminal elements had changed over to the thermal clip system as well."

Not perfect, but it's something.

Oh, and at the very start, change Shepard's lines to:

Shepard: "This gun is missing its heat sink"
Miranda: "Heat sinks haven't been used in firearms for over a year.  Disposable thermal clips are now standard.  There should be one..." blahblahblah

[Murmillos]

daqs wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

daqs wrote...
(also violates the the laws of thermodynamics), but it's very easily possible in ME1.

How is venting heat violating the laws of thermodynamics? Is my PC violationg the laws of thermodynamics right now? I mean, its doing exactly right now what the guns in ME1 did.

Not a very good analogy.  Your PC may be blowing off heat now, but it can't do that forever.  Anyway, the second law of thermodynamics, among other things, prohibits perpetual motion machines, of which a sufficiently upgraded pistol or assault rifle is one.

Sure it can, as long as it has power.  But ok then, instead of a PC, its a laptop. As long as the battery has power, it will be moving a fan to remove excess heat. Once the battery runs out, the laptop shuts down. You can't use any more (other then a paperweight) and the fan stops removing the excesss heat (also on the bonus side, no more heat will be generated).

Do you even know what a perpetual motion machine is?  Its nothing even related to the weapons of ME.

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Come to think of it, you bring up an excellent point by mentioning perpetual motion machines. What exactly powers these man-portable railguns? Other than the rage of angry gamers, of course.

I may be wrong here, but I believe they are battery charged, which is able to recharge from the suit when in the compact method. The suit is somewhat able to generate some charge to power weapons and its onboard computer when the user moves around. And of course, a super lightweight of the future battery pack.

Modifié par Murmillos, 26 mai 2011 - 12:09 .

[Sgt Stryker]

Murmillos wrote...
I may be wrong here, but I believe they are battery charged, which is able to recharge from the suit when in the compact method. The suit is somewhat able to generate some charge to power weapons and its onboard computer when the user moves around. And of course, a super lightweight of the future battery pack.

And now we have another great reason for proper combat hardsuits instead of spacespandex, trenchcoats and tattoos! Brilliant! 

(Sorry about going off-topic, just had to get that off my chest)

[Notanything]

iakus wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

iakus wrote...
Because the codex says they're not the same.  They aren't even referred to the same way.  It's like saying a steel canteen and a dixie cup are the same because they are both used for drinking water.

Errr, that's because the word 'clip' implies that the device is flexible.

In fact, do you want to know what the codex says?

To eliminate this inefficiency, the geth adopted detachable heat sinks known as thermal clips. While organic arms manufacturers were initially doubtful this would produce a net gain, a well-trained soldier can eject and swap thermal clips in under a second. Faced with superior enemy firepower, organic armies soon followed the geth's lead, and today's battlefields are littered with these thermal clips.

It is.


Literally.


The same.


Thing.

I'll give you partial credit on that.  All thermal clips are heat sinnks.  But not all heat sinks are thermal clips.  Let me demonstrate:

"To eliminate this inefficiency, the geth adopted detachable heat sinks known as thermal clips"

These are not the same heat sinks as before.  My first clue was they are never called "heat sinks"   These are detatchable, and by implication, disposable, heat sinks.  Not the older model ones which were designed to be used over and over after cooling off.   These are tossed aside after being used up.  At least, I assume so, because they're never held onto to be reused after they've had a chance to cool down.  You know, like the ones in ME 1 did eventually?

Thermal clips:  Limited use, disposable, faster bursts
Heat sinks:  Reusable.  longer-lived, "slow but steady"

It is

Not

The same

Thing

What would have made it better for me?  How about adding a few lines to the codex:

"Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that many older model heat sinks could be modified into makeshift thermal clips with little effort.  This drastically lessened the lifespan of the heat sink, but greatly increased the rate of fire for the weapon itself.  News of these modification spread like wildfire through the Extranet, and before long the vast majority of the private security and criminal elements had changed over to the thermal clip system as well."

Not perfect, but it's something.

Oh, and at the very start, change Shepard's lines to:

Shepard: "This gun is missing its heat sink"
Miranda: "Heat sinks haven't been used in firearms for over a year.  Disposable thermal clips are now standard.  There should be one..." blahblahblah

Had the codex and lore put in terms like that from the very beginning, I would have been appeased.

[CajNatalie]

iakus wrote...

"Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that many older model heat sinks could be modified into makeshift thermal clips with little effort.  This drastically lessened the lifespan of the heat sink, but greatly increased the rate of fire for the weapon itself.  News of these modification spread like wildfire through the Extranet, and before long the vast majority of the private security and criminal elements had changed over to the thermal clip system as well."

Not perfect, but it's something.

Oh, and at the very start, change Shepard's lines to:

Shepard: "This gun is missing its heat sink"
Miranda: "Heat sinks haven't been used in firearms for over a year.  Disposable thermal clips are now standard.  There should be one..." blahblahblah

This is all I would really want. Right here.
Something to that effect.

Especially the bit at the beginning where Shepard somehow knows what a thermal clip is despite being dead when they were adopted. Plot-holes right at the beginning of a game are never good. =/

[Gatt9]

CajNatalie wrote...

iakus wrote...

"Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that many older model heat sinks could be modified into makeshift thermal clips with little effort.  This drastically lessened the lifespan of the heat sink, but greatly increased the rate of fire for the weapon itself.  News of these modification spread like wildfire through the Extranet, and before long the vast majority of the private security and criminal elements had changed over to the thermal clip system as well."

Not perfect, but it's something.

Oh, and at the very start, change Shepard's lines to:

Shepard: "This gun is missing its heat sink"
Miranda: "Heat sinks haven't been used in firearms for over a year.  Disposable thermal clips are now standard.  There should be one..." blahblahblah

This is all I would really want. Right here.
Something to that effect.

Especially the bit at the beginning where Shepard somehow knows what a thermal clip is despite being dead when they were adopted. Plot-holes right at the beginning of a game are never good. =/

Gets more interesting than that when you think about it.

Heat sinks are passive cooling,  Thermal clips must therefore be active cooling.  Active cooling means they must be refrigerated in some form.

The weapons don't build up heat,  so they must be so cold as to be able to completely negate the heat gain from firing.  Since heat sinks are no longer viable,  and weapons cannot be fired without thermal clips,  we can infer that the heat generated must be substantial,  to the point where firing the weapon without a clip must be fatal.

If heat generated is very substantial,  and thermal clips result in a 0 heat gain when firing,  we can infer that they must be extremely cold.  So there must be a very significant power source in each clip providing the cooling.  We're talking supercooling,  and likely the equivalent of a power plant or more...

...Which begs the question...

Why are they even using projectile weapons?  Clearly they have more than sufficient capability to create laser,  plasma,  or matter/antimatter weapons.  All 3 of which would be substantially more powerful,  as they don't have to deal with the issues of friction and resistance.  Especially if the rounds are neutronium,  which IIRC,  would have pretty significant mass making velocity an even bigger problem.

Then there's the other problem,  if you and they are carrying around power sources of that magnitude,  why are we even shooting for the head?  We should be aiming for the clips,  rupturing one of those should be fatal to at least the carrier if not everything around him.

Modifié par Gatt9, 26 mai 2011 - 03:42 .

[Jebel Krong]

Clonedzero wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

1. you can do that anyway with either game, but that's the players fault, not the game's.
2. ME1 depended on the setup, i preferred accurate burst-firing, personally, made the firefights more intense. doesn't make ME2's system any better - if i want to play a primarily sniping infiltrator, then i shouldn't be forced to go close-range in every fight when i run out of ammo, especially if the skill-tree doesn't support dual-flexibility - you have to specialise in ME2.
4. you still have to specialise, and goes back to #2 - the RPing aspect is built around customising and specialisation of your playstyle, so it should be supported, not hobbled. the ammo was there for different varieties of enemies, not the guns, so your argument falls down there. it's a terrible idea anyway - why should one weapon, used properly and situationally, be more effective than another against different enemies? (excluding heavy weapons because they work fundamentally differently). again ammo is the differentiator, not the guns as they are class-assigned for the class playstyle.
5. don't tell me how to play, i know how to prioritise etc. what is INCREDIBLY STUPID is being a specialist who then runs out of ammo towards then end of a firefight and has to resort to a back-up weapon because the game dictates that you don't go properly equipped for a mission. it's immersion-breaking, illogical and retarded. that applies to any non-soldier class btw.

1.) yeah, it sure is the players fault, but the game should be designed to make that not preferable.
2.)thats the thing, classes have strengths but they should be able to ALWAYS use those strengths, there some be enemies that get close up on an infiltrator for example. there should be enemies that are on towers or something at long range against vanguards. ect. always playing exclusively to your strength is bland gameplay.
4.) yes, just because you tend to specialize and having strengths doesnt mean you should never have to encounter stuff you're not particularly good at fighting. an infiltrator should never be able to snipe everything on a mission. a vanguard should not be able to stay in CQC the entire mission.
5.)  no its not. if you select a weapon with a low ammo capacity then you should be aware of that and play to that situation. its not "immersion breaking", how is it? that makes no sense. of course you're not going to have unlimited supplies. you're saying because you run out of ammo and need to use another weapon that "breaks immersion"? how so? if shepard ran out of ammo he'd use a different gun. its not illogical at all because you can only carry so much with you at a time.

if you're a sniper and run out of rifle rounds, what are you going to do? you're gonna pull out your side arm and use that till you find more ammo/supplies. its perfectly logical, realistic and intelligent game design to balance out things.

if you're constantly running out of ammo with the widow use the viper, or something else. its there to balance out weapons. i use the avenger over the vindicator because it has a much larger ammo capacity but the vindicator is otherwise way better.

other people have also responded to you on this, but i will add: the game doesn't play to your strengths - that's stupid, but you SHOULD be able to. that means use the cloak and sniper rifle to go around assassinating enemies at range - because that's why you specialise in that! likewise with vanguard, engineer etc. it's about YOU being able to use your class flexibility to adapt and exploit your skills to overcome the odds, not the other way around - the ammo system just hinders you in that by compromising your speciality. now if you had a decent cqc move/whatever it may not be such a big deal, but swapping out to an inferior weapon just because i didn't seem to pack enough thermal clips for my rifle is retarded.

[Bozorgmehr]

Wulfram wrote...

Switching from the sniper rifle because the enemy is close, or shielded, and another weapon is better in the circumstance is great. Switching to a pistol because Shepard is for some unknown reason incapable of carrying sufficient ammo for his sniper rifle is annoying.

The limited ammo also creates an incentive to only shoot under the effects of your damage boosting power. And in easier battles, you're encouraged to simply let your unlimited ammo team mates finish the enemy off. Neither of which is really interesting gameplay.

You let your squadies do all the work because you are somehow playing Shep-in-a-wheelchair and complain that isn't interesting gameplay? Are you serious, or trolling?

You're playing a (former) spectre, with multiple guns, powers and a squad available. Almost all missions require you to advance yet you want to stay put (defending instead of attacking). If you're looking for 'interesting' gameplay, move your butt, when moving you can use your precious SR all the time without having to look for ammo. This isn't gameplay related, but player related.

[Wulfram]

Clonedzero wrote...

you're acting like ammo in ME2 was as scarce as a survival horror game.

i dunno what you played, but in ME2 theres ammo laying all over every battlefield, enemies drop even more, and in between shootouts theres usually enough scattered on tables and such to fill you up between each firefight.

Usually, but it's not predictable.  In some missions you get masses of ammo, in some you're stingy.  Since I haven't memorized the whole game and their is no logical basis to when this will be, I'm obliged to be conservative or find myself fighting the end boss with my pistol.

also, the incentive to make your shots actually count, prioritize targets, be careful not to miss, ect. adds extra layers to the combat.

The incentive is to be defensive and boring, since powers and team mates are unlimited by ammo.

again, if you're having the issue of constantly running out of ammo with your sniper rifle, use the one that has a higher ammo capacity. its not rocket science.

I suck with the Viper, and anyway it's not doing what I want an SR to do.