791 réponses à ce sujet

[Da_Lion_Man]

500th post.

[Lunatic LK47]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

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.

Congratulations, thanks for assuming I have the PC version of ME1, which I DON'T.

[Lady Olivia]

iakus wrote...

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

Gibberish? Not at all. You're a sharp critic with a hell of an eye for details. I happen to agree with all your observations, I just don't think these inconsistencies are worth all the fuss. As retcons go, this one wasn't too bad at all.

[Bozorgmehr]

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. 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.

ME1 was about non-stop gun blasting, it's the only thing you can do to kill enemies (unlike ME2); ME1 was about taping down the fire-button without having to bother about reloading, ammo, aiming and whatnot. ME1 wasn't a shooter, it's a sadistic execution game - BW gave us guns, but fist or a baseball bat would be equally effective. Whatever the class you play; enemies are harmless fools the whole time.

Overheated weapons only meant a 60 second delay in butchering helpless 'enemies' - horrible gameplay (technically it isn't even gameplay).

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.

Are you riding a horse to go to work; and feel sorry for the CoD kiddies with their cars?

ME tries to be a (part) shooter; limited ammo is superior to unlimited ammo; this is a fact, not an opinion. If your childish and consider everything used in a 'shooter' to be something for brain-death CoD morons, then I feel sorry for your pathetically narrow mindedness.

If I may ask, have you ever designed, created or build something yourself? If you did, which I doubt considering this post, how did you do it? Did you thought of everything yourself or did you borrow ideas from others? It's kinda pointless to re-design the wheel you know. Just saying.

[DieBySword]

Bozorgmehr wrote...
limited ammo is superior to unlimited ammo; this is a fact, not an opinion.

this has the same impact on reality as dividing by zero A black hole gonna emerge soon

Modifié par DieBySword, 28 mai 2011 - 12:17 .

[Bozorgmehr]

DieBySword wrote...

this has the same impact on reality as dividing by zero A black hole gonna emerge soon

Ah, a smart one

Answer me this: What's the point of the Grenade Launcher, Arc Projector, Avalanche and all the other heayy weapons if you can have Cain with unlimited ammo?

You can design different weapons around a bunch of parameters, like accuracy, RoF, damage per shot, recoil ... and ammo. Taking one thing away ALWAYS results in fewer option = less weapons. Having only one, or a few, weapons to chose from (without massively gimping yourself on purpose); or a wide selection of weapons which are reasonably balanced is an easy choice imo. Fortunately BW figured this out after the disatrous weapon selection/balance in ME1.

[CroGamer002]

Bozorgmehr 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. 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.

ME1 was about non-stop gun blasting, it's the only thing you can do to kill enemies (unlike ME2); ME1 was about taping down the fire-button without having to bother about reloading, ammo, aiming and whatnot. ME1 wasn't a shooter, it's a sadistic execution game - BW gave us guns, but fist or a baseball bat would be equally effective. Whatever the class you play; enemies are harmless fools the whole time.

+10

[DieBySword]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

DieBySword wrote...

this has the same impact on reality as dividing by zero A black hole gonna emerge soon

Ah, a smart one

Answer me this: What's the point of the Grenade Launcher, Arc Projector, Avalanche and all the other heayy weapons if you can have Cain with unlimited ammo?

You can design different weapons around a bunch of parameters, like accuracy, RoF, damage per shot, recoil ... and ammo. Taking one thing away ALWAYS results in fewer option = less weapons. Having only one, or a few, weapons to chose from (without massively gimping yourself on purpose); or a wide selection of weapons which are reasonably balanced is an easy choice imo. Fortunately BW figured this out after the disatrous weapon selection/balance in ME1.

Ok lets forget the Heavy weapons are weapons of mass destruction new to ME universe and were design to have limited ammo from the very begining because of that. Then yeah I agree with you - unlimited ammo for them is bad.

Unlimited versus "kind of we want you too feal limited" ammo - depends on the player preferences, I wont say one is better than the other because its not and I can live with anything they throw at me For the sake of continuality I am pleased with the ammo system we have in ME2 but if we could get a hybrid it would be appreciated.

Unlimited versus limited by logic - hell unlimited all the way who sane enought would choose a limited gun in a fire fight.

[Someone With Mass]

Whenever the game gives me unlimited ammo, it becomes boring.

I can might as well pin the fire button on something and never let go. Because that sounds like great fun. Keep shooting enemies with no struggle whatsoever. Should just skip the battles completely instead if you have such a problem with managing ammo. Which is scattered everywhere.

[Ahglock]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

DieBySword wrote...

this has the same impact on reality as dividing by zero A black hole gonna emerge soon

Ah, a smart one

Answer me this: What's the point of the Grenade Launcher, Arc Projector, Avalanche and all the other heayy weapons if you can have Cain with unlimited ammo?

You can design different weapons around a bunch of parameters, like accuracy, RoF, damage per shot, recoil ... and ammo. Taking one thing away ALWAYS results in fewer option = less weapons. Having only one, or a few, weapons to chose from (without massively gimping yourself on purpose); or a wide selection of weapons which are reasonably balanced is an easy choice imo. Fortunately BW figured this out after the disatrous weapon selection/balance in ME1.

In a heat based system you would just make the cian shot take so long to cool down it was effectively one shot per level.  I mean sure maybe technicaly you can sit behind cover for 10+ minutes waiting for it to recharge but ti would still work.,  

The problem with your idea is ME1 had unlimited ammo, but ME2 has effectively unlimited ammo so there really is no difference on game play.  If you want to think it does fine, think it does.  But since you can use something like the claymore one of the most ammo dependent guns in the game willy nilly running aorund killing everything and never swithcing guns I think you are mistaken.  The only person who needs to change guns is the dedicated sniper role and that is handled worse by making it ammo based instead of situation based.    

About the only reason to change guns is because of the rock/paper system they have set up.  Getting double damage vs the right defense is hard to pass up.  But you don't really need to switch guns even then since you pretty much face the same defense the entire level.  I don't bother switching to a pistol to handle loki mechs on a blue suns heavy map, and I don't bother swithcing to a SMG when I bump into the guy with a barrier on a blood pack/krogan map.  And once I get either my shotgun or assault rifle I never switch from that gun and never run low on ammo, and I don't  use the firepower pack weapons anymore.

[Murmillos]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Whenever the game gives me unlimited ammo, it becomes boring.

I can might as well pin the fire button on something and never let go. Because that sounds like great fun. Keep shooting enemies with no struggle whatsoever. Should just skip the battles completely instead if you have such a problem with managing ammo. Which is scattered everywhere.

I don't think any of us want "unlimited ammo" in the sense that you could press the fire button and never let go (like you could worthlessly do in ME1) but instead want to bring back the heat mechanic that still caused the weapon to over heat in 4-6 seconds worth of constant firing (if your paper shields could handle standing up that long). But then still cool off on its own once you stopped firing (with in a well reasonable amount of time, say 2.5 seconds at 99% heat).

If your weapon over heated (and coundn't be modded out of into the endless firing mode), that would be almost like having ME2 "overly abundant" thermal clips, just without the busy work of looking for more clips.  You shoot, kill, move on. shoot, kill, move on.

This forces the player to still keep a need to "make every shot count" as there is a small window of operation before the weapon overheats, while also making sure the cool down wait time isn't pace breaking.

ME1 system was great, it just got mangled to poor balancing. With better balance in regards to the heat management, this system can almost rival traditional weapons ammo management in terms of gameplay.

The only thing heat management can never solve is player camping, unless you introduce degradable barriers/cover (which degrade if the player sits there for too long.. <-- what is the proper time balance? I'd say 1-2 minutes).

Modifié par Murmillos, 28 mai 2011 - 05:05 .

[Ygolnac]

if thermal clips are universal, why if i finish them on my rifle i am forced to use a pistol intead of transferring the clips from the pistol to the rifle? Does my suit have no pockets and the only place i can store clips is the gun itself? These things do bother me, and even if ME2 combat system is superior to ME1, i preferred the infinite ammo/overheating mechanism.
Well, ME series is amazing and thermal clips are not that an issue, i just think the whole system can and shall be polished. And well, as a PC player i can just change a couple of lines in the coalesced.ini and tweek the ammo system to my liking... (love widow that needs recharge after 6 shots instead of 1 )

[Sgt Stryker]

Murmillos wrote...

The only thing heat management can never solve is player camping, unless you introduce degradable barriers/cover (which degrade if the player sits there for too long.. <-- what is the proper time balance? I'd say 1-2 minutes).

You make it sound like camping is a bad thing.

Ygolnac wrote...

if thermal clips are universal, why if i finish them on my rifle i am forced to use a pistol intead of transferring the clips from the pistol to the rifle? Does my suit have no pockets and the only place i can store clips is the gun itself?

That seems to be what the current system is implying. I believe the clip consists of several heat sinks, and these are stored within the gun itself. Notice how the reload animation never shows Shepard grabbing anything from the hardsuit. Why Shepard doesn't try putting on some web gear to hold additional spare clips is beyond me....

[SalsaDMA]

Ygolnac wrote...

if thermal clips are universal, why if i finish them on my rifle i am forced to use a pistol intead of transferring the clips from the pistol to the rifle? Does my suit have no pockets and the only place i can store clips is the gun itself?

Yes, internally stored and.. um... pockets? Doesn't appear like there's alot of those on the armors Shepard (or the squadmates) can carry.

I can imagine it would make for some nice collateral if heatsinks/powercells got breached by a shot while in your pant pocket....

Which begs the question, ofc: Why can't weapons be damaged by shots either?

[Notanything]

Murmillos wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Whenever the game gives me unlimited ammo, it becomes boring.

I can might as well pin the fire button on something and never let go. Because that sounds like great fun. Keep shooting enemies with no struggle whatsoever. Should just skip the battles completely instead if you have such a problem with managing ammo. Which is scattered everywhere.

I don't think any of us want "unlimited ammo" in the sense that you could press the fire button and never let go (like you could worthlessly do in ME1) but instead want to bring back the heat mechanic that still caused the weapon to over heat in 4-6 seconds worth of constant firing (if your paper shields could handle standing up that long). But then still cool off on its own once you stopped firing (with in a well reasonable amount of time, say 2.5 seconds at 99% heat).

If your weapon over heated (and coundn't be modded out of into the endless firing mode), that would be almost like having ME2 "overly abundant" thermal clips, just without the busy work of looking for more clips.  You shoot, kill, move on. shoot, kill, move on.

This forces the player to still keep a need to "make every shot count" as there is a small window of operation before the weapon overheats, while also making sure the cool down wait time isn't pace breaking.

ME1 system was great, it just got mangled to poor balancing. With better balance in regards to the heat management, this system can almost rival traditional weapons ammo management in terms of gameplay.

The only thing heat management can never solve is player camping, unless you introduce degradable barriers/cover (which degrade if the player sits there for too long.. <-- what is the proper time balance? I'd say 1-2 minutes).

Destructible cover to get you out of hiding is a great idea.  I'm sure people would be upset, but what's wrong with a challenging game, right?  Now..  I don't see why people implying overheating in any game is bad.  An overheating mechanic done properly can be quite good.  Had thermal clips not been the final decision for Mass Effect 3, I'm absolutely positive that the developers could have been more than competent enough to figure out a way to include a much more improved system derived from the first game.  But the sad truth is they didn't.

To me overheating still promotes making every shot count, and managing your weapon more than you would a clip based gun.  The only difference is since you effectively are only limited by heat generated, you are still able to pump out a sufficient amount of rounds accurately without having to resort to spraying like an idiot, making yourself a big bullseye on the battlefield that people seem to think overheating mechanics equate to.

If you actually thought logically on how to balance a potentially infinite firing weapon, all you'd have to do is make it so the gun's accuracy lowers the longer one fires.  Or better yet:  Don't include a modification that lowers the heat generation like the first game, since people are complaining about that one so much.  Make it so the heat generated remains the same throughout the game if you're that picky. 

The only real trouble I see is how to manage sniper rifles, and shotguns, since those would be the most difficult to balance out in a precise way.  Do you make a shotgun like the Claymore overheat after every shot, or make it go just on the threshold of overheating?  Does the Widow overheat as well on every shot, or is there a small opportunity before one more shot?  Possibly difficult choices on how to balance those.

Modifié par Notanything, 28 mai 2011 - 05:58 .

[Someone With Mass]

Most enemies in ME3 will be more than happy to flank you, so the camping in a corner strategy won't work for long.

[Phaedon]

JKoopman wrote...
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...

I'll remind you that I was the first one who said that, on the OP.

Bioware went with the safe solution with way too many things in ME2, but I respect or endorse all of the changes, and I explain why I respect this one, specifically.

iakus wrote...
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.

Those don't only come by the inclusion of something, but the lack of something as well.

Anyway, I still don't see you can't explain your main point?

Are ME2's thermal clips lore breaking?
Why?
a) Because the galaxy switched to quickly to them? Nope.
Because weapons would need to be retrofitted to carry them? Nope.
c) ?

Anyway, I'll be more than happy to continue the other debate that we are having once I have more time.

Modifié par Phaedon, 28 mai 2011 - 06:38 .

[Bozorgmehr]

DieBySword wrote...

Unlimited versus "kind of we want you too feal limited" ammo - depends on the player preferences, I wont say one is better than the other because its not and I can live with anything they throw at me For the sake of continuality I am pleased with the ammo system we have in ME2 but if we could get a hybrid it would be appreciated.

Unlimited versus limited by logic - hell unlimited all the way who sane enought would choose a limited gun in a fire fight.

Player preference is irrelevant; some like to be invincible and/or have unlimited money and resources etc. Something rare is valuable; without unlimited funds and resource you have to think and chose what stuff you use them on; limited ammo also forces you to chose when and how you use weapons that are very powerful but can only be used occasionally.

Having weapons which are powerful but cannot be used long adds options; are you going to use this weapon to take out the weakest enemies quickly so you have an easier time dealing with the stronger enemies (which have to be dealt with using lesser weapons who have plenty of ammo). Or maybe you think it's better to use the powerful weapon on the strong ones first and the lesser to handle the weaklings next. It's also a bad idea to waste your best weapon in a relatively easy fight - like you're not likely going to use Cain in ME2 with only a couple LOKI's heading your way.

[Bozorgmehr]

Ahglock wrote...

In a heat based system you would just make the cian shot take so long to cool down it was effectively one shot per level.  I mean sure maybe technicaly you can sit behind cover for 10+ minutes waiting for it to recharge but ti would still work.

Heat has nothing to do with (un)limited ammo. ME1's overheating system puts a restriction on RoF - basically heat has similar purpose as clip-size > Widow, one shot (reload/heat); Carnifex, 6 shots (reload/heat) etc.

The problem with your idea is ME1 had unlimited ammo, but ME2 has effectively unlimited ammo so there really is no difference on game play.  If you want to think it does fine, think it does.  But since you can use something like the claymore one of the most ammo dependent guns in the game willy nilly running aorund killing everything and never swithcing guns I think you are mistaken.  The only person who needs to change guns is the dedicated sniper role and that is handled worse by making it ammo based instead of situation based.

I already said ME2 hasn't a very good ammo system; there're too many clips around. I think we agree the Mattock is superior to the other ARs; if weapons remain the same in ME3 and you have unlimited ammo, nobody will use the other ARs (it's pointless to put em in ME3 if they're useless). Using ammo to restrict the Mattock, so it can only be used for 30% of the time fighting; the Vindicator up to 60% whilst the others (Avenger, GPR, CAR) have enough ammo for an entire mission. The same can be done with all the other weapons; giving purpose to the Soldier class who can carry 5 weapons compared to only 2 for the casters. Soldiers can equip multiple Mattock style OP weapons whereas the casters can only use one OP weapon or they will be out of ammunition half the time.

[SalsaDMA]

Also, shouldn't we cut the 'unique' talk about the heat system. Plenty of games prior to ME1 had weapons that used recharging energy as ammo, which is the exact same thing gameplay wise as the overheating in ME1.

It wasn't unique.

[MassEffect762]

At this point I'm playing Mass Effect 3 for the story and consequences.

ME2 did a great job of killing my expectations.

The combat mechanics are the last thing on my mind.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Any Vanguard players looking forward to a system where you have to 1) look at your Charge cooldown 2) look at your weapon cooldown and 3) looking at the 6 enemies attacking you all at the same time? Or you woud rather have a weapon with a set damage output that can be reset by a click of a button and focus more on the other two things during the fight?

[Murmillos]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
Any Vanguard players looking forward to a system where you have to 1) look at your Charge cooldown 2) look at your weapon cooldown and 3) looking at the 6 enemies attacking you all at the same time? Or you woud rather have a weapon with a set damage output that can be reset by a click of a button and focus more on the other two things during the fight?

I'd still take the weapon that has a cool down period. Because with charge, it also has a cool down period. So balancing the two together were the weapon is ready as soon as Charge is ready would be nothing really.

And many people have still advocated to still allow some sort of emergency limited capacity cool down clip (which allows for instant cool down) - which can be restocked from heavy weapon ammo boxes and weapon exchange stations.

[Murmillos]

Bozorgmehr wrote...
Heat has nothing to do with (un)limited ammo. ME1's overheating system puts a restriction on RoF - basically heat has similar purpose as clip-size > Widow, one shot (reload/heat); Carnifex, 6 shots (reload/heat) etc.

Only in your opinion does heat put a restriction of RoF. There is zero difference in RoF if the weapon is either heat or clip based.

The only reason people would more likely use Mattock then anything else is because of its DPS potential. RoF means nothing if a 60 RoF does 1000 damage per round and a 1000 RoF does only 2 per round.

Modifié par Murmillos, 28 mai 2011 - 07:47 .

[Bozorgmehr]

Murmillos wrote...

Only in your opinion does heat put a restriction of RoF. There is zero difference in RoF if the weapon is either heat or clip based.

Huh? Are you saying heat has no impact on RoF?

The only reason people would more likely use Mattock then anything else is because of its DPS potential. RoF means nothing if a 60 RoF does 1000 damage per round and a 1000 RoF does only 2 per round.

You're confusing DPS with RoF; they have nothing to do with eachother - both have nothing to do with (un)limited ammo either. What's your point exactly?