791 réponses à ce sujet

[CajNatalie]

You suck with the Viper...?
Well you seem to suck with other sniper rifles, too... undestandably you're given a poor ammo count to go out there with, but that doesn't mean you can just imagine the ammo issue away and pretend it's not there... you need to know how to use your ammo count. If you can't moderate the ammo of a low-count sniper properly, then you suck with it.

The Infiltrator is NOT the 'Sniper class'. Yes it 'specialises' in Sniper Rifles, but that's not the sole purpose of the Infil. There is no sole purpose: it's a combat/tech hybrid class. You need to use your techs and your guns to really play your Infiltrator right.
Note that 'guns' is plural. You are not equipped with only a Sniper and nothing else.

Modifié par CajNatalie, 26 mai 2011 - 11:03 .

[CroGamer002]

CajNatalie wrote...

You suck with the Viper...?
Well you seem to suck with other sniper rifles, too... undestandably you're given a poor ammo count to go out there with, but that doesn't mean you can just imagine the ammo issue away and pretend it's not there... you need to know how to use your ammo count. If you can't moderate the ammo of a low-count sniper properly, then you suck with it.

The Infiltrator is NOT the 'Sniper class'. Yes it 'specialises' in Sniper Rifles, but that's not the sole purpose of the Infil. There is no sole purpose: it's a combat/tech hybrid class. You need to use your techs and your guns to really play your Infiltrator right.
Note that 'guns' is plural. You are not equipped with only a Sniper and nothing else.

Oh and let me help you with that one.


Not me, I can't play without my dear Widow.

Modifié par Mesina2, 26 mai 2011 - 11:15 .

[Wulfram]

As I've said, I've no problem with using powers and other weapons when appropriate. The question is how it adds to the game if you're required to use less effective strategies because Shepard is inexplicably incapable of carrying ammo appropriate to his combat style.

[Bozorgmehr]

Wulfram wrote...

As I've said, I've no problem with using powers and other weapons when appropriate. The question is how it adds to the game if you're required to use less effective strategies because Shepard is inexplicably incapable of carrying ammo appropriate to his combat style.

What strategies? All you're saying so far is you like to hide behind the first piece of cover out there and wear the enemy down. If you're playing a sniper, regardless what game you play, your strength lies in having the optimal position to snipe enemies. ME2 Infiltrators have Cloak, which can be used to move around the battlefield at will - getting you into superior positions and while moving around you're likely going to 'pick up' clips along the way.

Having Cloak to boost damage, hide you from the enemy (no damage taken) plus sniper time dilation makes it harder to miss than to hit enemies. If you take your time to make each shot count, you'll hardly every have to switch weapons at all. You can easily kill more than 80-90% of all enemies using only the Widow without having to look for ammo.

If you want to snipe the lot, you have to adjust your strategy to make it so. You cannot blame a game when you don't have a strategy to begin with.

[Jebel Krong]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

As I've said, I've no problem with using powers and other weapons when appropriate. The question is how it adds to the game if you're required to use less effective strategies because Shepard is inexplicably incapable of carrying ammo appropriate to his combat style.

What strategies? All you're saying so far is you like to hide behind the first piece of cover out there and wear the enemy down. If you're playing a sniper, regardless what game you play, your strength lies in having the optimal position to snipe enemies. ME2 Infiltrators have Cloak, which can be used to move around the battlefield at will - getting you into superior positions and while moving around you're likely going to 'pick up' clips along the way.

Having Cloak to boost damage, hide you from the enemy (no damage taken) plus sniper time dilation makes it harder to miss than to hit enemies. If you take your time to make each shot count, you'll hardly every have to switch weapons at all. You can easily kill more than 80-90% of all enemies using only the Widow without having to look for ammo.

If you want to snipe the lot, you have to adjust your strategy to make it so. You cannot blame a game when you don't have a strategy to begin with.

nice. [bolded]. in theory. in practice you waste your cloak time moving to get randomly-placed ammo, rather than getting to a superior position and one-shotting an enemy, which is what you should be doing, were you so enabled. this doubly hobbles you as enemies automatically zero in on you as soon as you come out of cloak, whatever you are doing.

and the Viper is an inferior rifle because it eats ammo, and each shot does markedly less damage, meaning you have to hit multiple times, even with fast firing your accuracy suffers when enemies move and even recoil after the first shot. not ideal at all.

sniping in general is also hobbled by the awful auto-aim system that drags you away from your intended target as often as not, and really slow-bullets (apparently at any rate).

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 26 mai 2011 - 01:56 .

[Someone With Mass]

Here's one interesting note.

Do you remember what happened when you were hit by Sabotage in ME1? I do. It overheated my weapon like hell.

Do you know what would've been a easy solution for that?

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 26 mai 2011 - 02:11 .

[Wulfram]

Bozorgmehr, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea I don't do all that.

[Ahriman]

Someone With Mass wrote...

When I look at this, I quest myself: what's the the point of this damn mass acceleration and other sci-fi stuff anyway? I mean it looks like contemporary weapon, shoots like contemporary weapon and kills like contemporary weapon.

Modifié par Wizz, 26 mai 2011 - 07:29 .

[Jorina Leto]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Here's one interesting note.

Do you remember what happened when you were hit by Sabotage in ME1? I do. It overheated my weapon like hell.

Do you know what would've been a easy solution for that?

Doesn't make sense without the hybrid system.

[Notanything]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Here's one interesting note.

Do you remember what happened when you were hit by Sabotage in ME1? I do. It overheated my weapon like hell.

Do you know what would've been a easy solution for that?

A flashbang ability can cause weapon overheats to enemies, according to the description.  They didn't seem to take the easy way out.  So no, and yes.  Yes to allies, but no to enemies, another hole.  And switching weapons was a remedy, so it wasn't that bad.  What's the point if both gun types are still prone to overheating?

Modifié par Notanything, 26 mai 2011 - 04:55 .

[Bozorgmehr]

Jebel Krong wrote...

nice. [bolded]. in theory. in practice you waste your cloak time moving to get randomly-placed ammo, rather than getting to a superior position and one-shotting an enemy, which is what you should be doing, were you so enabled. this doubly hobbles you as enemies automatically zero in on you as soon as you come out of cloak, whatever you are doing.

I have a different opinion. First of all you don't need Cloak's damage bonus to one-shot enemies with the Widow, second, you get sniper-slowdown by aiming (no need to Cloak), third, Cloak has the highest cooldown of all powers in ME2 (the time Cloaked + the (base) 6 seconds cooldown). Using Cloak before firing is, imo, a waste of cooldown - only when you're dealing with elites and bosses (who cannot be OSOK ed) the damage bonus is worth is.

One of the greatest strengths of Cloak is the maneuverability it provides. You can even chose to simply ignore all enemies and move along (dull though). Getting yourself in a position, that will ensure enemies will be exposed to you or your squadmates, is very effective and Cloak's duration allows you to move almost anywhere, and should an enemy occupy your desired position - draw you SMG and unload a clip in his head at close range.

Ammo is everywhere, and ME2's levels are very linear. It's hard to miss anything simply moving forward. Almost every cover spot has clips around; dead enemies drop clips; there are multiple heavy weapon containers in every level. Point being, if you play dynamically - i.e. don't stay in one place all the time - you'll hardly ever run out of SR ammo (assuming you make each shot count).

and the Viper is an inferior rifle because it eats ammo, and each shot does markedly less damage, meaning you have to hit multiple times, even with fast firing your accuracy suffers when enemies move and even recoil after the first shot. not ideal at all.

Viper is an awesome weapon; maybe more a AR with scope than a sniper rifle though. It's insane against armor and is best used against powerful enemies who cannot be OSOK ed. Harbinger, Scions, YMIRs, Gunships and the like, Geth Primes etc are killed faster with Viper than any other SR. It's also worth noting that the Viper will stagger enemies (100% chance) who got hit in the head. You can empty a clip into a Geth Prime, for example, without having to worry it shoots back (will be staggered the entire time); Viper is also great when you slap Cryo Ammo on it (which is useless on the Widow); every shot which hit enemy health bar will freeze target.

sniping in general is also hobbled by the awful auto-aim system that drags you away from your intended target as often as not, and really slow-bullets (apparently at any rate).

Can't comment on that one, fortunately there's no (crappy) aim assist on pc - good point though, I've heard a lot of complains about this poor system, shouldn't be hard to add the option to turn is off in ME3

[Bozorgmehr]

Wulfram wrote...

Bozorgmehr, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea I don't do all that.

I exaggerated a little But I do mean what I said before, I find it hard to believe ammo is problematic in ME2.

Almost all missions have around 50 enemies you need to kill; you start fully loaded, you should be able to kill 10 enemies without ammo pickups (and you can still miss a shot or two). Every mission has (at least) two heavy weapon containers to restore ammo (almost) completely (depends on HW upgrades) > so even without ever picking up clips you can kill around 30 enemies with the Widow. Since clips are all over the place, you're going to collect a couple - if you're not deliberately try to avoid them.

You have heavy weapons to use against the strongest enemies, and always have HP and SMG to back you up. Even without moving you can still kill 80-90% of all enemies in the game with the Widow. To kill everything, you need to pick up a clip every now and then - I don't think this is a major issue and I think it's a good thing. Personally I would never play like that, but anyone who wants to, can - if they put in the tiny effort to look around for shining thermal clips.

[Wulfram]

It's not massively problematic, it's mildly annoying and needless. Fundamentally, I have more fun in missions which effectively remove it, like when you're opening vents in the Suicide mission, or fighting the husks on the collector ship.

If ammo has as little influence on the game as you suggest, what's the point of having it then?

[Clonedzero]

Wulfram wrote...

It's not massively problematic, it's mildly annoying and needless. Fundamentally, I have more fun in missions which effectively remove it, like when you're opening vents in the Suicide mission, or fighting the husks on the collector ship.

If ammo has as little influence on the game as you suggest, what's the point of having it then?

its confirmed in ME3. deal with it.

[Someone With Mass]

Never mind that my companions and I can spawn holographic bombs out of nowhere. No, the ammo system, which can still shoot bullets, is what annoys people.

[Xeranx]

Wizz wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

When I look at this, I quest myself: what's the the point of this damn mass acceleration and other sci-fi stuff anyway? I mean it looks like modern weapon, shoots like modern weapon and kills like modern weapon.

I'm not trying to be a jerk.  Actually I hope I'm not coming across as a jerk.  Modern isn't the word you want to use.  Contemporary is correct.  Modern means new.  Contemporary means current.

[Ahriman]

Xeranx wrote...
I'm not trying to be a jerk.  Actually I hope I'm not coming across as a jerk.  Modern isn't the word you want to use.  Contemporary is correct.  Modern means new.  Contemporary means current.

*Cough*
Thanks.

[Bozorgmehr]

Wulfram wrote...

It's not massively problematic, it's mildly annoying and needless. Fundamentally, I have more fun in missions which effectively remove it, like when you're opening vents in the Suicide mission, or fighting the husks on the collector ship.

If ammo has as little influence on the game as you suggest, what's the point of having it then?

Those are two different things. I think there is way too many ammo in ME2, I'd like to have ammo drops / - pickups reduced (drastically) when you raise difficulty in ME3.

Limit ammo allows dozen times more and different, yet still balanced, weapons - unlimited ammo allows little to no weapon differentiation. I already mentioned this earlier in this thread, just think about what unlimited ammo would do to heavy weapons. Blasting your way through with the Cain is lame - cheating imo - and why would anyone ever want to use one of the others? Limiting ammo has a huge impact on their usefulness. Cain can only be used a few times during an entire playthrough, but you can also chose a less powerful type which can be used liberally on every mission > ammo restrictions ensures balance.

Same with every other weapon type. The Mattock is the most powerful AR in ME2; unlimited ammo completely breaks balance with the other ARs. Unfortunately, the Mattock still has a large ammo capacity and only a couple clips will get it back to its max. This allows using it almost the entire time - not good. Imagine ammo capacity cut in half and reduced ammo pick up rate. You'll have a very powerful weapon, but it can be used for a limited time only.

Having very powerful but situational weapons also adds to the class system. In ME3 casters can only carry two different weapons while Soldiers can carry five. This gives Soldiers a lot of options and they can equip a bunch of insanely powerful guns for specific circumstances (but with limited ammo of course). The casters can equip one 'super' weapon (which can only be used for, say 20% of the time fighting), but they also need a weaker - but with a huge ammo supply - weapon to prevent running out of ammo.

Ammo simply adds a lot more choices and options - it's vastly superior to a unlimited ammo system.

[Bill the Illusive man]

I prefer the clip system, but I liked the weapon mods in ME1. Clips with Mods would be excellent to me.

What I would really like to see is making the Shotgun relvant in ME3.  In ME2 the Shotgun was useless to me.  If you had the Cerberus Shotgun DLC, was is it of any use to you?  I haven't used it, nor did I opt for the Krogan Shotgun as I preferred the Assault Rifle.

In ME1 I was all Shotgun, it was dubbed the "deathstick" as I distributed death across the cosmos.  A Tweaking off the Shotgun would be great.  Maybe the enemies could bounce back or fall of the buckshot impact.  Them falling could be followed up with me walking over to them while their on the ground and introducing them to the afterlife (via me actually lowering my gun).  

[Alienmorph]

Bill the Illusive man wrote...

I prefer the clip system, but I liked the weapon mods in ME1. Clips with Mods would be excellent to me.

That's exaclty what we're going to have

[Phaedon]

iakus wrote...
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?

Eh, obviously...?

They are not disposable during battle, and that was true throughout ME1?

Your point is completely invalid, however. I present the argument that thermal clips are heatsinks, so it's based on the same components and to an extent technolodgy, and you say that they didn't dispose thermal clips when they were expensive and well...not disposable? This is why you throw away a plastic bag but not a leather bag, you know.

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

It is

Not

The same

Thing

It...is?!

You are repeating whatever I have just said, and that only gets the argument further downhill.

Thermal Clips = Heatsinks. The kind that you throw away.

I never claimed that thermal clips were reusable (Hint: They burn up faster, which is why they are cheaper), but you claim that thermal clips are not heatsinks.

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."

What adjustments?
Every model is different from each other, due to the materials that it is made of. Thermal clips just use cheaper materials...

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

You have no evidence to disprove that:
1) The Alliance didn't start alpha, beta or even regular development of thermal clips during ME1.
2) "Thermal clips" are not military jargon.

[Phaedon]

[quote]Wizz wrote...
No. [/quote]
Yeah, look, I am not going to be reposting Codex entries again and again, read the previous posts.
[quote]Codex? Where exactly Codex says that?[/quote] http://masseffect.wi...ps#Small_Arms_2[/quote][quote]Are you trying to tell that Reapers use Citadel Space thermal clips standarts for their weapon? And geth weapon is not Reaper technology. (Dragon Teeth and Virus are)[/quote]
Um, yup? The Reapers could have just as well lended that technolodgy as well? Also, thermal clips/heatsinks are universal in organic space, so it would be silly to not have the geth to not have adaptable models.  Same applies for the Collectors, for starters, the CB can't be self-reliant forever.[/quote][quote]First, it's more effective but not "much more".[/quote]
Yeah, OK, that's like your opinion.
[quote]Second, even marines don't have modern weapon. Nobody simply sell it to them.[/quote]
This. Argument. Again. 
They don't need new weapons, how did you deduce that? They just reload their older ones with thermal clips instead of classic heatsinks. No, they don't even have to refit them.
[/quote][quote]Third, heatsink is a radiator. It's not changed every time weapon is overheated.[/quote]
I..never said that? 
The more you shoot a weapon, no matter if it overheats or not, the more it "breaks", until you have to change it. And I doubt any military would use unreliable heatsinks for more than a mission.

[quote]Admoniter wrote...
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.[/quote]
Except that the point of a difficult CQB situation is that you can not use burst fire against several enemies, from different dirtections in a very short period of time.

[quote]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.[/quote]
Yeeah, here we go again. The maintance thing is a huge misconception. Every time you fire, your weapon must become less efficient, if it follows any laws of physics. Therefore, heatsinks must be changed frequently as well.

[quote]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.[/quote]
Yeah, here are some news:
You wouldn't survive in a siege situation in the 2180s, no matter your heatsink.

Not only do you not exactly fight against footmen most of the time, but heatsinks and ammo blocks degrade as well, which makes your argument unfounded.




[quote]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.[/quote]
I am glad that you are not a gameplay designer then, but I still don't see your point.

[Halo Quea]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I really hate when people say "Go play a shooter"

MASS EFFECT IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE A SHOOTER, YOU ****ING IDIOTS!

Wow.........what a reaction.    I was only poking fun at Clonedzero's comment, but I can't help myself.  Whenever someone says "deal with it" on matters of role playing elements or game lore concerning ME I usually just come in with a, "Well why don't you go play Call of Duty for awhile"  or  "Go shoot something while the rest of us play rpgs"  lol

I know it's pressing people's buttons, but it's not really mean spirited.  I know that the shooters are very sensitive about their favorite genre and they don't like being referred to as unintelligent just because they like to play them. I play them all the time, good ones and bad ones. 

But I also like some variety in my gaming, I like to have a different pace from the norm every now and then.   I like cerebral fiction, and I like characters that are endearing and/or memorable. I like stories that open up the imagination and cause me to think.  I like immersing myself in the worlds I'm playing in, and enjoying the elements that allow me to interact with those worlds.

Shooters don't provide us with too many of those opportunities.  In shooters very little care is given to the SP campaign as the developer isn't selling the story or the characters, they're selling us the gunplay.  And there's nothing wrong with that, each genre does what it does best entertaining gamers.   But I don't see developers of shooters sacrificing gameplay mechanics to oblige role playing gamers.   I DO see developers of rpgs sacrificing role playing elements and lore to accommodate fans of shooters.

Why does my favorite gaming genre have to lose so much of itself to attract a crowd that admittedly doesn't like to play or finish the SP campaigns of their favorite shooters?  So there's nothing about role playing games that they couldn't learn to appreciate?  That the only way to bring them on board is to give them more guns, less story, less elements, broken lore, and then pretend that they're all pubescent males that need  redundant ammo clips, giant swords, huge knockers, oversexualized characters and buckets of blood? 

I don't think fans of shooters are unintelligent, and most rpgs fans despite what they've been saying agree with me.   But clearly developers think they're all just idiots in the numbers game.  It doesn't matter anyway because everytime we try to voice our concerns we're told that we're afraid of change, or that we're all nerds that just want to do stat crunching instead of having fun.  But that's not what pushes my buttons, what gets me is that so many of them seem to be satisfied WITH LESS. 

Wouldn't they think that the long time fans of this genre would know a thing or two about what makes a good role playing game?  Note that I'm not saying what IS a role playing game, only what makes a good one.  Wouldn't it have been smarter to join their voices with ours in asking for devs to keep to the lore, restore lost elements AND improve the shooter mechanics?   Do they really honestly think that there's a benefit to letting game quality slide and let a dev get away with doing less?   Would they accept less quality from their favorite shooters?

When I visit the forums of popular shooters,  I LISTEN to what those fans say about what makes a good FPS.  They get just as worked up about gunplay as we do role playing elements.  They stress over the hit box, maps that that are exploited by campers. They HOUND developers about graphics and performance, they DEMAND that certain guns be improved or be returned to their former damage capability.  They provide everything from whiny rants to constructive criticism.

But in here, long time role playing gamers are simply told to shut up and deal with it.  lol    And that's where this whole response began.   I hope I provided a little bit of clarity, or maybe you just don't want to understand what we've been trying to say. 

Modifié par Halo Quea, 26 mai 2011 - 08:21 .

[Someone With Mass]

Phaedon wrote...
You have no evidence to disprove that:
1) The Alliance didn't start alpha, beta or even regular development of thermal clips during ME1.
2) "Thermal clips" are not military jargon.

I think the Alliance had plenty of geth material to work with after the battle of the Citadel too.

[Bozorgmehr]

Bill the Illusive man wrote...

What I would really like to see is making the Shotgun relvant in ME3.  In ME2 the Shotgun was useless to me.  If you had the Cerberus Shotgun DLC, was is it of any use to you?  I haven't used it, nor did I opt for the Krogan Shotgun as I preferred the Assault Rifle.

In ME1 I was all Shotgun, it was dubbed the "deathstick" as I distributed death across the cosmos.  A Tweaking off the Shotgun would be great.  Maybe the enemies could bounce back or fall of the buckshot impact.  Them falling could be followed up with me walking over to them while their on the ground and introducing them to the afterlife (via me actually lowering my gun).

ME2 shotguns are not useless, they are insanely powerful but you'll need to get close to get the most out of em - the Cerberus Shotgun is effective at range though, but it's not really a shotgun in my book anyway - great weapon for casters

To differentiate weapon types in ME2, BW used range to balance things. Shotguns are awesome at close range, sniper rifles unsurpassed at long range, assault rifle are good at any range (except the Revenant). It's a simple principle but it works well. If shotguns were effective regardless range, there's no difference between em and sniper rifles. As it is, you have to chose which weapons you use or take (bonus weapon).

ME3 brings back weapon mods, so who knows