791 réponses à ce sujet

[Cloaking_Thane]

Eh, its an issue for some players (if forums are to be believed), you did not address the second point either..

I think the game is pretty tame on insanity myself and dont have many if any management issues (me1 as well)

[Bozorgmehr]

kregano wrote...

It's been a while since I've played HL2, but what gun are you talking about? The Gravity Gun?

Not the Gravity Gun, that's HL2's coolest weapon

It's been a while for me too, but I recall the machine gun mounted on both vehicles use the system (gun could also be charged like the GPS

[Bozorgmehr]

Ahglock wrote...

Since the ME2 system had pretty much 0 effect on gameplay I'd hardly call it the superior system.  The overall combat system was superior but the ammo system pretty much is irrelevant given the loads of ammo in the game.  ME3 may make it scarce enough to have an impact on gameplay, but as is there just isn't any real impact.

ME1 & 2's implementation of the ammo system is irrelevant - it isn't about ME1 vs ME2, it's about limited versus unlimited ammo. Limiting ammo is a powerful balancing tool. Without it, you'll end up with less weapons.

And as for balancing, outside of the widow and maybe the pistols ammo is not an issue at all so gain it does no effect balance at all.  The temepst has about twice the ammo of the shuriken but since neither gun comes close to running out the imapct on balance is negligible at best.

Ammo did have an impact on gameplay in ME2; heavy weapons, for example, are for the most part balanced using ammo. And the Mattock with half its ammo capacity and a low ammo pickup rate (so you can only use it ~30-50% of the time even if you collect every clip around) would make it a reasonable balanced weapon. It's current ammo system is at the root of its OP ness.

Outside of the lore I don't really care which way they go, and given the change in lore I think it would be worse to change it back lore wise.  But game play, balance of guns neither system had an impact really.

I don't care about something tiny as the lore behind a clip system or whatever to call it. It is negligible in the larger scheme of things imo. If a tiny piece of the (original) lore has to be sacrificed to improve a more import aspect of the game then the devs made the right call.

Modifié par Bozorgmehr, 27 mai 2011 - 09:14 .

[Murmillos]

Bozorgmehr wrote...
Not really, Bioware chose the superior system - for gameplay and balancing reasons; so did all other games in which you have to shoot. The ME1 system is also not innovative - Half Life 2 used the overheat-unlimited-ammo system too; the weapon that used named system was the worst gun of the entire game.

Your argument is based off of one gun from another game which was balanced to be the way it was?

Good logic there lou.  You know what weapons also sucked.. the crowbar, because it doesnt have range.  Unlimited ammo, but required you to be in melee range... >worst weapon ever<

Modifié par Murmillos, 27 mai 2011 - 09:21 .

[samurai crusade]

I'm a little late to the party but here goes.

I loved ME1's system except the sabatoge on insanity. Reguardless, I never just laid down the trigger to the point that I sensed "unlimited" I always played tactical and used short bursts.
Loved ME2's more fluid combat. I liked the more powerful weapons but would also have liked a few "non-upgraded" versions with the original ammo style.

Love both styles... it was just the 100% in your face switch that bothered me.

Vehicles: Mako vs Thresher Maw is the only time I laid on the trigger.
Hammerhead. Would have been much more fun with limited ammo

[Bozorgmehr]

Murmillos wrote...

Your argument is based off of one gun from another game which was balanced to be the way it was?

Good logic there lou.  You know what weapons also sucked.. the crowbar, because it doesnt have range.  Unlimited ammo, but required you to be in melee range... >worst weapon ever<.

You're trying to dismiss my argument using the exact same reasoning - funny.

I don't know what melee weapons have to do with ammo - they don't have ammo, you're not even right about that one.

[Notanything]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

kregano wrote...

It's been a while since I've played HL2, but what gun are you talking about? The Gravity Gun?

Not the Gravity Gun, that's HL2's coolest weapon

It's been a while for me too, but I recall the machine gun mounted on both vehicles use the system (gun could also be charged like the GPS

The airboat has a pulse gun that isn't introduced until a later time, and it's very powerful.  It has a system in which 'ammo' start at 100, and the longer you fire the lower the number will go until it hits 0.  Once it hits zero, or you stop firing, the 'ammo' regenerates back up to 100, but you don't have to wait until it hits 100 to continue firing.

I wouldn't call it crappy at all considering you take down a helicopter with it.  The Jeep has a weapon called the Tau Cannon mounted on it that can be charged or fired rapidly.  It doesn't overheat.  However, in the first game, the Tau Cannon can overheat and damage the user from overcharging, potentially killing the user.  It's ammo is not infinite in that game.

I know this is about Mass Effect, but I can't help but feel your example was wrong.  But I think I understand what your intentions were for this attempted example.

Modifié par Notanything, 27 mai 2011 - 10:05 .

[Bozorgmehr]

@ Notanything: Thanks for clearing this up - I knew I had overlooked something

P.S. My feeling toward those two guns has nothing to do with the ammo system they used; They just didn't feel right. When I used the Jeep I always got out to fight on foot whenever I could.

[Notanything]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

@ Notanything: Thanks for clearing this up - I knew I had overlooked something

P.S. My feeling toward those two guns has nothing to do with the ammo system they used; They just didn't feel right. When I used the Jeep I always got out to fight on foot whenever I could.

I wouldn't call it a unique choice, especially considering the jeep had an ammo box of SMG rounds that you could take from indefinitely.  I sometimes had more fun on foot myself.

[Iakus]

Lady Olivia wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

iakus wrote...

The hypothetical adjustments I just made up on the spot that would allow old-style heat sinks to function like thermal clips, to help explain why every merc in teh Terminus and his brother drops them instead of using weapons with the old school cooldown system.

Okay, look.
Old-style heatsinks? Yeah, they can work life thermal clips. But it is is expensive and stupid to throw them away once they overheat. Why they are using the new heatsinks? Because they are cheaper.

lol, as I read what you wrote there, I could totally hear it in Garrus's voice. Too much fanfiction.

Your argument (as in, iakus's and yours) stopped making sense some time ago. You're both saying things that are true - the problem is, they don't contradict so you can't really argue over them. Thermal clips are a subclass of heat sinks, yes. That means that thermal clips are heat sinks, and thermal clips aren't exactly the same as heat sinks, having some additional properties. Both true. And pretty much irrelevant. The speculations you're both making about how much time it would take to mass-produce and distribute them are just that - speculations, probably the kind that will never be resolved in all detail by official canon. So... yeah. Definitely.

I was going to do a long response to Phaedon's latest response.  But you know what?  You're right.  We're operating on two completely different wavelengths and literally can't comprehend each others' responses.  So rather than keep banging my head against a wall, and receiving even more veiled insults, I'll just bow out.

BTW, Lady Olivia, you do seem to understand where I'm coming from, which encourages me that I'm not just typing gibberish

[Weiser_Cain]

I died three times yesterday because I ran out of ammo.
I am hostile to this choice.

[CliffShepard]

BlueDemonX wrote...

This whole weapon system problem really isn´t an issue for me! I fared pretty well in both games, although I haven´t tried it out on in an ME2 insanity playthrough.

As long as it doesn´t get worse than it is now, I´m good =)

I agree, I don't care about ammo mechanics and things like that which fanboys fight over and critique harshly. I just hope the game will have fun gameplay, (Which I'm pretty sure it will), whether it leans more towards the action rpg side or the tactical rpg side. That central fun gameplay element, along with an amazing story, which mass effect has already been building on throughout the series, make a great rpg. However, I am hoping they have a fair amount of party members, unlike Mass Effect 1. I enjoyed the diversity of party members in the second game, especially their complex personalities, backstories, and more. I think the characters matter a lot in RPGs, especially in ones where the protagonist is not linear and preset, but customizable and more controlled by the player. Since Mass Effect is one of few games where the protagonist is completely controlled by character's decisions, I think the characters are increasingly important. But, I think BioWare did a great job on Mass Effect 2's crew.
Sorry for getting off topic.    

[JKoopman]

Phaedon wrote...

Saying that the ME2 system is terrible is a bit silly if you ask me. 95% of all shooters use that system, so I suppose that you find them all terrible. Sorry, I can't help but frown at such extreme arguments.

The fact that 95% of all shooters use an identical system (but just call it "ammo" and don't try to disguise it behind contradictory techno-bable) doesn't make it bad per se (and I've certainly never referred to it as such). It just makes it incredibly generic.

ME1 had something new and unique (and, to many people, fun). Then ME2 came along and shoe-horned an ammo mechanic in with a half-assed explanation. That not only took away the uniqueness, but it severely damaged the preexisting universe and lore for many players.

I had no expectations that BioWare would ditch the thermal clip system for ME3, but I had at least hoped that they would tweak it and possibly create a hybrid system...

[Lunatic LK47]

JKoopman wrote...


ME1 had something new and unique (and, to many people, fun). Then ME2 came along and shoe-horned an ammo mechanic in with a half-assed explanation. That not only took away the uniqueness, but it severely damaged the preexisting universe and lore for many players.

Except what made it "unique" did not work that well when it came to combat. There was no way of combating a gun that is sabotaged for at least TWO MINUTES, and even as a competent shooter player, the system itself left a lot to be desired. Hell, even 1992's Terminator 2: The Arcade Game's overheat system is miles better than ME1, and that's saying something.

[Weiser_Cain]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...


ME1 had something new and unique (and, to many people, fun). Then ME2 came along and shoe-horned an ammo mechanic in with a half-assed explanation. That not only took away the uniqueness, but it severely damaged the preexisting universe and lore for many players.

Except what made it "unique" did not work that well when it came to combat. There was no way of combating a gun that is sabotaged for at least TWO MINUTES, and even as a competent shooter player, the system itself left a lot to be desired. Hell, even 1992's Terminator 2: The Arcade Game's overheat system is miles better than ME1, and that's saying something.

Worked pretty well for me, the trick was to not let it overheat. Granted some set-ups were unforgiving switching to an ammo system that negated the advantages of the first one is stupid in-universe. Even if you wanted a rifle that could spray like crazy, why would you adopt that system for pistols?

[Lunatic LK47]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

Worked pretty well for me, the trick was to not let it overheat.

Uh, how about being sabotaged by an enemy Engineer? You're ****ed if you're not a Soldier/Infiltrator/Vanguard.

[Dave666]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Weiser_Cain wrote...

Worked pretty well for me, the trick was to not let it overheat.

Uh, how about being sabotaged by an enemy Engineer? You're ****ed if you're not a Soldier/Infiltrator/Vanguard/Adept/Engineer/Sentinel.

Fixed that for you.

[Lunatic LK47]

Dave666 wrote...


Uh, how about being sabotaged by an enemy Engineer? You're ****ed if you're not a Soldier/Infiltrator/Vanguard/Adept/Engineer/Sentinel.

Adepts, Engineers, and Sentinels only have access to a pistol, smart-ass.

[Weiser_Cain]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Weiser_Cain wrote...

Worked pretty well for me, the trick was to not let it overheat.

Uh, how about being sabotaged by an enemy Engineer? You're ****ed if you're not a Soldier/Infiltrator/Vanguard.

I played as an Adept, my gun was for back-up. Unless there was a rush I could wait out the disable. Or throw up my barrier, come out of cover hit them with a biotic throw and pull back to more secure cover.
It's actually the focus on guns and the nerfing of biotics that has got my panties in such a bunch in the first place.
It's like the worse of both worlds.

[Dave666]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Dave666 wrote...


Uh, how about being sabotaged by an enemy Engineer? You're ****ed if you're not a Soldier/Infiltrator/Vanguard/Adept/Engineer/Sentinel.

Adepts, Engineers, and Sentinels only have access to a pistol, smart-ass.

Adepts have Biotics.  An enemy can't sabotage you if he's floating in the air.

Engineers have Damping (and Sabotage).  An enemy can't sabotage you if you disable him. Damping disables abilities, Sabotage disables their weapons.

Sentinels have both.

[tjzsf]

Thermal clips only make sense if guns can still be aircooled, or if they actually do form an ammo pool that all your guns draw from. The way it is now makes absolutely no sense, as it leads us to the conclusion that somehow reintroducing the need to reload and ship "ammo" to armies represents an advancement in technology from ME1 to ME2, and that thermal clips that are explicitly stated to fit every weapon cannot be swapped from a pistol to a sniper rifle.

[JKoopman]

Which just goes to show that many of the people complaining about how Sabotage "crippled" them just have no idea how to play anything other than a straight shooter.

ME1 wasn't about gung-ho blasting. You had tech powers and biotics as well as a whole squad which you were supposed to be using tactically. Unfortunately, too many people played it like it was Gears of War, and every time their primary weapon was *gasp* disabled for a whole 60 seconds, they were screwed. And then they came to the forums to whine about it. Never mind that they either had other weapons to switch to if they were a Soldier class or they had tech and biotics to fall back on.

But nope, easier just to strip Sabotage and passive cooling from the game entirely and replace it with ammo so the CoD kiddies can have an easier time of it.

[Lunatic LK47]

JKoopman wrote...


ME1 wasn't about gung-ho blasting. You had tech powers and biotics as well as a whole squad which you were supposed to be using tactically.

Except the squad is utterly brain-dead, is prone to dying, and required excessive micromanaging as a badly designed Tom Clancy game.

Unfortunately, too many people played it like it was Gears of War, and every time their primary weapon was *gasp* disabled for a whole 60 seconds, they were screwed

Uh, which is the case if you happened to get hit with damping and Sabotage THE SAME ****ING TIME WHEN THEY WERE SPAMMED. 4 minutes of being screwed right there. S.O.L. if there were two Engineers, making back-up weapons and skills useless for another 4 minutes there. It was badly designed no matter how you spin it. I avoided Sentinel, Adept, and Engineer like the plague because of it.

[Weiser_Cain]

One of the side effect of being disabled is that you now have time to micromanage your team, tell Tali to get back behind cover and whatever Krogan you have to blast whoever is giving you too much heat... like say that engineer.
I feel like this discussion needs to be in another topic as it has next to nothing to do with the ammo system.

[Notanything]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...


ME1 wasn't about gung-ho blasting. You had tech powers and biotics as well as a whole squad which you were supposed to be using tactically.

Except the squad is utterly brain-dead, is prone to dying, and required excessive micromanaging as a badly designed Tom Clancy game.

Unfortunately, too many people played it like it was Gears of War, and every time their primary weapon was *gasp* disabled for a whole 60 seconds, they were screwed

Uh, which is the case if you happened to get hit with damping and Sabotage THE SAME ****ING TIME WHEN THEY WERE SPAMMED. 4 minutes of being screwed right there. S.O.L. if there were two Engineers, making back-up weapons and skills useless for another 4 minutes there. It was badly designed no matter how you spin it. I avoided Sentinel, Adept, and Engineer like the plague because of it.

As an Adept player, I can say that I was spammed by Sabotage, but I don't ever remember being struck with damping at the same time.  Whenever I was sabotaged, I'd do the smart thing and retreat to some cover, if my biotics were available, I'd send the enemy engineers into the wall with push.  Amazingly enough, my allies killed them basically every single time.  We both have rather contradicting experiences, but I don't think sabotage was bad at all.  It helps keep you on your toes.  And people are always complaining on how Mass Effect combat is easy.  What better way to gain difficulty than to disable your weapons temporarily?