791 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

Not to mention RoF without a timeunit is meaningless.

[Murmillos]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

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?

Thats what I want to know.. why would heat management (instead of ammo management) make a difference on the RoF?  RoF is just a magical number on how many rounds a gun can fire in a given measured period in time.

Modifié par Murmillos, 28 mai 2011 - 09:18 .

[Bluko]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

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?

The Cain has a terribly slow fire build-up. You can also kill yourself with it. Personally an Arc Projector, Grenade Launcher, and Avalanche are prefential to me with unlimited fire. However Heavy Weapons are suppose to have limited ammunition since they fire large packaged rounds or have limited energy. It would have been silly if they functioned this way even in ME1. And as I recall Grenades were limited.


Anyways no matter what way you wanna spin it the game is always going to provide the player with sufficient ammunition to kill all the enemies in the level. If they didn't that would be rather problematic, unless the Devs want you to sit around and wait casting using only your abilities. The only difference between ME1 and ME2 is: ME1 places a set time limit for how long you run out of ammunition. In ME2 the time difference for how long you run out of ammunition depends solely on your ability to pick up clips.

This in essence means you may never run out of ammo ever in ME2 if you keep picking up clips. This is a stark contrast to ME1 where no matter what if you fire your weapon for too long it will overheat and you will be "out". Even with the Frictionless Materials Mod your gun will eventually overheat. (True enough you can use two Frictionless Mods to negate just about any such possibility, though why you would ever feel compelled to do this beyond me. Even on Insanity I didn't find myself firing at enemies long enough to need more then one Frictionless Mod. Also those Mods are only in the very late game and for the majority you do not have them.)

ME1 encourages you to let go of the trigger button sometimes and "burst fire" (scary concept!) or otherwise control your rate of fire. Sadly I think this is asking a bit too much from most folks since most like to hold the trigger button down until the enemy drops. And that's basically what ME2 allows you to do. Besides the guns firing method in ME2 the only thing in ME2 controlling your rate of fire is reloading. Which essentially encourages to fire your entire clip and let the game reload for you. Or you can choose to reload yourself. Frankly there are only about 3 scenarios in which I reload:

1) When my gun is out ammo.
2) When I've used part of my clip, but enemy fire is too heavy. So I reload while taking cover.
3) After all the enemies are eliminated.

In ME2 I actually find myself rather often simply holding down the trigger button until I either kill the enemy or I need to stop and reload. On Normal Difficulty I find you have to expend about 1 clip from each weapon to kill an enemy roughly so the only impediment upon me is a very breif reload. That's it. The only thing that encourages me to not hold the trigger button like a 5 year old is reduced accuracy and kickback from prolonged fire. And hey you know what ME1 had that as well. And like ME1, in ME2 the further you progress the noticeably less those effects are due to in ME1 spending weapon skill points or in ME2 getting upgrades.

The only thing going for the arguement that ME2 makes you play any smarter is the addition of locational damage. Shooting any enemy in the leg is not as effective as it's head relatively speaking. And this is a good addition to be sure and certainly an improvement over ME1.

But other then that I see no real difference in terms of skill. Making your shots count is as important in both games. You certainly can't hope to blindly fire everywhere in ME1 and do very well. The only difference in mechanics really is in ME2 you are penalized a bit more for missing too many shots. So really in ME1 if you're really bored you could shoot at a wall, but ME2 encourages you heavily not to do this as you'll be noticeably low on ammo. So all ME2 really accomplishes is making it explicitly clear that you should really only fire your gun at enemies and the few exploding barrels.

The only thing ME2 really did different was it added a reloard mechanic (which is fine by me) and the need to scavenger hunt for ammo. I like looking for new weapons, upgrades, credtis, etc. But I could really do without having to stare at the floor looking for the glow sticks enemies only sometimes drop. If ammo was dropped on a consistent basis or better yet ammo could only be found in specific locations I'd probably have less serious qualms about Thermal Clips (besides the poor explanation/lore issues anyways). Is it really fun to look for random ammo drops in random places?

Do I not do enough Easter Egg hunting with Planet Scanning?  Wait that's it! In ME3 you will now have to scan the Battlefield for ammo! Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!

[JKoopman]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

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.

Or maybe (and this is a revolutionary concept) rather than basing your weapon selection on what currently has more ammo and only thinking ahead to how much ammo you may or may not potentially have for said weapons if a boss is encountered...you based your weapon selections on what weapon does the job better for the given situation (crazy, I know)?

Going up against enemies at long range and you're in a good firing position? Pull out your sniper rifle. Going up against enemies in close quarters where encounters are unpredictable and cover is spotty? Shotgun is the go-to weapon. Up against lots of fast-moving, lightly-armored enemies? Switch to the assault rifle. Facing an armored mech or a dug-in opponent? Time to make use of those limited heavy weapons. Don't choose the right weapon for your situation? Then you're going to take more hits, lose more health and have to waste more medi-gel patching yourself back up (of course, that would be dependant on them NOT having added auto-regenerating health like in every other shooter on the market).

Every time I see someone complain about how cooldowns meant that they could "pin down their trigger and fire forever", what they're really complaining about was the Frictionless Materials mod. For the umpteenth time, Frictionless Materials was an UNBALANCED and OVERPOWERED mod. It WAS NOT, however, indicative of the cooldown mechanic as a whole. Until you got that mod, ME1's overheating system made it impossible to "fire forever" as so many people decry. At best, without some sort of heat disipation mod, even the high-level Spectre weapons could only fire in 3-5 second bursts before overheating alarms would start blaring.

All BioWare had to do was balance or remove Frictionless Materials and ME1's cooldown mechanic would've worked just as well as any traditional ammo mechanic. And it CERTAINLY would've been preferable to the thermal clip scavenger hunt that we're forced to engage in after every battle in ME2 (and now apparently ME3 as well).

[Someone With Mass]

I don't see what's so bad with looking for clips. Most of the times, I pick them up at random or without even knowing it. Or they're in plain sight. And considering that the majority of the classes have powers you can fall back on if you happen to completely run out of ammo, it's not that big of a deal. As for the "But then I can't use my favorite weapon the whole time", there are many shooters that are motivating you to use more than just one gun throughout the whole game, so I don't see why ME2 or 3 should be any different. Just use a sidearm until you find more ammo for you favorite gun and quit yer whining.

[JKoopman]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Just use a sidearm until you find more ammo for you favorite gun and quit yer whining.

"Just stop putting dual Frictionless Materials mods on every weapon you have, use a sidearm until the effects of Sabotage wear off and quit yer whining." (argument circa 2007 before BioWare redesigned their entire combat engine to cater to FPS fans playing their game like a straight shooter)

And what of Adepts who have no sidearm to fall back on and must wait for the ridiculous global cooldown between each power usage?

[Tony Gunslinger]

JKoopman wrote...

Or maybe (and this is a revolutionary concept) rather than basing your weapon selection on what currently has more ammo and only thinking ahead to how much ammo you may or may not potentially have for said weapons if a boss is encountered...you based your weapon selections on what weapon does the job better for the given situation (crazy, I know)?

Going up against enemies at long range and you're in a good firing position? Pull out your sniper rifle. Going up against enemies in close quarters where encounters are unpredictable and cover is spotty? Shotgun is the go-to weapon. Up against lots of fast-moving, lightly-armored enemies? Switch to the assault rifle. Facing an armored mech or a dug-in opponent? Time to make use of those limited heavy weapons. Don't choose the right weapon for your situation? Then you're going to take more hits, lose more health and have to waste more medi-gel patching yourself back up (of course, that would be dependant on them NOT having added auto-regenerating health like in every other shooter on the market).

There's no motivation to 'switch things up' and be actively marching forward to your mission objective if you have unlimited ammo with your sniper rifle, camping out in the distance. This has been mentioned in this thread for the 100th time now, fyi. Even with overheat, you're still inclined camp far away and sticking with your SR with no sense of urgency.

[JKoopman]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Or maybe (and this is a revolutionary concept) rather than basing your weapon selection on what currently has more ammo and only thinking ahead to how much ammo you may or may not potentially have for said weapons if a boss is encountered...you based your weapon selections on what weapon does the job better for the given situation (crazy, I know)?

Going up against enemies at long range and you're in a good firing position? Pull out your sniper rifle. Going up against enemies in close quarters where encounters are unpredictable and cover is spotty? Shotgun is the go-to weapon. Up against lots of fast-moving, lightly-armored enemies? Switch to the assault rifle. Facing an armored mech or a dug-in opponent? Time to make use of those limited heavy weapons. Don't choose the right weapon for your situation? Then you're going to take more hits, lose more health and have to waste more medi-gel patching yourself back up (of course, that would be dependant on them NOT having added auto-regenerating health like in every other shooter on the market).

There's no motivation to 'switch things up' and be actively marching forward to your mission objective if you have unlimited ammo with your sniper rifle, camping out in the distance. This has been mentioned in this thread for the 100th time now, fyi. Even with overheat, you're still inclined camp far away and sticking with your SR with no sense of urgency.

As opposed to camping out with your Revenant or Locust and mowing down everyone from a single point of cover without worrying about ammo? How exactly did ME2 "fix" this?

And the reason I put "fix" in quotes is because there's nothing inherently wrong with hanging back in cover and sniping people. Hell, there's a whole class in Mass Effect that's dedicated to sniping; something which that class doesn't get to do nearly enough in ME2. It's a perfectly legitimate playstyle for a single-player game, and that some people don't agree with it or think that its "cheap" doesn't in any way impact it's legitimacy.

Besides, if certain areas allow for excessive camping then that's a problem with map design and AI and not an inherent failing of a cooldown system.

Modifié par JKoopman, 28 mai 2011 - 10:41 .

[Someone With Mass]

JKoopman wrote...

"Just stop putting dual Frictionless Materials mods on every weapon you have, use a sidearm until the effects of Sabotage wear off and quit yer whining." (argument circa 2007 before BioWare redesigned their entire combat engine to cater to FPS fans playing their game like a straight shooter)

And what of Adepts who have no sidearm to fall back on and must wait for the ridiculous global cooldown between each power usage?

Yeah, God forbids that you wait a whole three seconds until your Throw power cools down. <_<

[Tony Gunslinger]

Murmillos wrote...

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.

A couple of problems with this. First, you're going to have to look at two cooldown bars, one to make sure Charge is ready while you're trying to outdamage the opponents, and another bar to make sure you don't 'shoot too much'. Have you played the Vanguard? The whole point of Charging is to go balls out with your weapon. You're contantly scanning 360 degrees looking for targets. As a player processing the environment, your health, your cooldown, you really think adding another meter to constantly monitor is going to improve the Vanguard's gameplay? Is it fun to watch more meters, or is it more fun to do the stuff that actually matters to combat? When you reload, it's a contant. It's predictable, when you press a button, takes exactly the same time to refresh your gun. And your guns shoots exactly the same amount of bullets everytime. That's something you can rely on. It becomes a natural extension of yourself. With another meter to watch, you're putting up an abstract interface that blocks people from being engaged to the environment.

Secondly, by 'tweaking' guns to work with Charge, you're basically saying that the cooldown system is influencing weapon design, which is exactly the problem I've mentioned before. Every gun you design is being influnced by the cooldown.

[JKoopman]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

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.

A couple of problems with this. First, you're going to have to look at two cooldown bars, one to make sure Charge is ready while you're trying to outdamage the opponents, and another bar to make sure you don't 'shoot too much'. Have you played the Vanguard? The whole point of Charging is to go balls out with your weapon. You're contantly scanning 360 degrees looking for targets. As a player processing the environment, your health, your cooldown, you really think adding another meter to constantly monitor is going to improve the Vanguard's gameplay? Is it fun to watch more meters, or is it more fun to do the stuff that actually matters to combat? When you reload, it's a contant. It's predictable, when you press a button, takes exactly the same time to refresh your gun. And your guns shoots exactly the same amount of bullets everytime. That's something you can rely on. It becomes a natural extension of yourself. With another meter to watch, you're putting up an abstract interface that blocks people from being engaged to the environment.

How is keeping track of a heat gauge any different or more distracting than keeping track of an ammo gauge?

[Tony Gunslinger]

JKoopman wrote...

As opposed to camping out with your Revenant or Locust and mowing down everyone from a single point of cover without worrying about ammo? How exactly did ME2 "fix" this?

You will run out of ammo with the Revenant and the Locust if you stay in the same spot in a lot missions. Unless of course, you're talking only about playing normal difficulty or below, where I can do the same with any RPG and turn on autoleveling and put the game on easy, hacking my way through anything with my sword without worrying about enemy's physical resistances.

And the reason I put "fix" in quotes is because there's nothing inherently wrong with hanging back in cover and sniping people. Hell, there's a whole class in Mass Effect that's dedicated to sniping; something which that class doesn't get to do nearly enough in ME2. It's a perfectly legitimate playstyle for a single-player game, and that some people don't agree with it or think that its "cheap" doesn't in any way impact it's legitimacy.

You can certainly snipe 13 enemies before you switch or move your butt. You may or may not need ammo, but the very idea of having limited supply of something very powerful makes you think about what you're doing more. How would you know there are x-amount of enemies in a given battle? Can you really snipe the whole time? Is it a good idea to switch weapons now or move up? You don't think about these things when you don't worry about ammo. You just look a target and pull the trigger. Isn't that the opposite of what you want ME to be?

Besides, if certain areas allow for excessive camping then that's a problem with map design and AI and not an inherent failing of a cooldown system.

Then how would you deter people from camping out with your unlimted ammo gun? Get rid of the cover system, make enemy AI suicical and rush you? All this for you to have unlimited ammo?

[Tony Gunslinger]

JKoopman wrote...

How is keeping track of a heat gauge any different or more distracting than keeping track of an ammo gauge?

You don't look at the ammo gauge after every clip you shoot, whereas you have to constantly monitor a heat gauge for pretty much every time you pull the trigger.

Edit: if you are not convinced. Let me ask you: what exactly are you staring at in the middle of your screen all the time? That's right, the global power cooldown itself. Now imagine having another one on the screen. How much attention are you giving away (the enviroment, the enemies, your health, your squad, your ammo, when enemies are charging, when they're reloading, when they're retreating, when they are staggered) in the name of the weapon cooldown system?

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 28 mai 2011 - 11:09 .

[JKoopman]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

How is keeping track of a heat gauge any different or more distracting than keeping track of an ammo gauge?

You don't look at the ammo gauge after every clip you shoot, whereas you have to constantly monitor a heat gauge for pretty much every time you pull the trigger.

No, you don't. Often, you know exactly how many shots you can fire before the weapon will overheat, or failing that you have a rough idea of approximately how long you can fire before having to pause for cooling. For example, I always knew in ME1 that I could fire 2 shots from my SR in rapid succession before overheating or 1 shot with a 1 second pause in between to avoid it. Similarly, with my AR I always knew that I could hold my trigger down for approximately ~5 seconds before having to break for cooling. This is fundamentally no different than counting bullets, and like you yourself said before long it becomes almost an extension of yourself and you don't even have to consciously think about it.

The only difference between a cooldown meter and an ammo mechanic is that you sometimes have to press a button to reload with the ammo mechanic.

You seem to be either advocating that it's IMPOSSIBLE to keep track of more than one cooldown at a time (which ME1 would seem to refute, as that had weapon cooldowns AND power cooldowns (individual power cooldowns even!) and it was apparently "too easy") OR you're advocating that the average gamer is too stupid/ADD-adled to do so and thus the game needed to be simplified, which would seem to contradict the idea that ME2 is more hardcore and difficult.

Modifié par JKoopman, 28 mai 2011 - 11:19 .

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...

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.

Since you asked, I'll try to answer, at the risk of repeating myself.

Thermal clips are not, by themselves, lore breaking. 

However...

a) The problem is not t that the galaxy switched to them, but because everyone in the galaxy now has them.  From the lowest vorcha scavenger on Omega to Vido Santiago's personal guards.  From quarian marines to Collector  drones to batarian prison guards.  There was little to no transition time, as I would have expected for the introduction of a new feature to weapons technology.

Yes I get the concept that these thermal clips may be cheaper.  But was no one in the galaxy too cheap to spring for them, and figured the old fashioned heat sinks they already had were "good enough"?  No group with limited funds and couldn't afford these new clips, or only partially switch over?  There are military and paramilitary groups out there today still using old Cold War gear. 

At any rate, I find the universal distribution of thermal clips ridiculous  I tried to explain why.  I failed.  You tried to explain to me why it makes perfect sense.  You failed.  We both failed.

  You assume retrofitting would be no problem.  I on the other hand believe the old heatsinks were not meant to be removed.  At least, not easily.  Otherwise the fact that thermal clips were removable would not be a big deal, a stroke of genius only geth mathematics could uncover. 

If the codex mentioned that retrofitting old weapons was cheap and easy, I'd be willing to go along with that.  But it does not. 

So you have your assumptions and I have mine.

And yeah, the other debate was way more fun.

[Tony Gunslinger]

JKoopman wrote...

No, you don't. Often, you know exactly how many shots you can fire before the weapon will overheat, or failing that you have a rough idea of approximately how long you can fire before having to pause for cooling. For example, I always knew in ME1 that I could fire 2 shots from my SR in rapid succession before overheating or 1 shot with a 1 second pause in between to avoid it. Similarly, with my AR I always knew that I could hold my trigger down for approximately ~5 seconds before having to break for cooling. This is fundamentally no different than counting bullets, and like you yourself said before long it becomes almost an extension of yourself and you don't even have to consciously think about it.

The only difference between a cooldown meter and an ammo mechanic is that you sometimes have to press a button to reload with the ammo mechanic.

And the reload button is a constant that you can rely upon. In ME2, it's 1.5 secs. Doesn't matter if you make 1 shot or 50 shots or 37 shots. When you need another 50, you press a button.

The cooldown system will always make you feel as if you're not using the full potential of the weapon itself. If you really need to get off that extra shot, there's a chance you're screwed by overheat if you don't time it right. If you really need that extra shot, when you're pressing a button to reset the ammo, it's YOUR decision. YOU are dictating the performance of the gun, not the cooldown.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 28 mai 2011 - 11:20 .

[Someone With Mass]

iakus wrote...
If the codex mentioned that retrofitting old weapons was cheap and easy, I'd be willing to go along with that.  But it does not. 

The Mattock seemed to be retrofitted with ease.

If I understand it right, all you need to do in order to modify your gun to use the clips is to add a slot for the heatsinks and a slider to eject them with. Doesn't sound that difficult.

[Someone With Mass]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
And the reload button is a constant that you can rely upon. In ME2, it's 1.5 secs. Doesn't matter if you make 1 shot or 50 shots or 37 shots. When you need another 50, you press a button.

The cooldown system will always make you feel as if you're not using the full potential of the weapon itself. If you really need to get off that extra shot, there's a chance you're screwed by overheat if you don't time it right. If you really need that extra shot, when you're pressing a button to reset the ammo, it's YOUR decision. YOU are dictating the performance of the gun, not the cooldown.

And while you're waiting behind cover for the weapon to cool down, the enemies can advance or flank you. Better to just eject it and be done with it.

[JKoopman]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

No, you don't. Often, you know exactly how many shots you can fire before the weapon will overheat, or failing that you have a rough idea of approximately how long you can fire before having to pause for cooling. For example, I always knew in ME1 that I could fire 2 shots from my SR in rapid succession before overheating or 1 shot with a 1 second pause in between to avoid it. Similarly, with my AR I always knew that I could hold my trigger down for approximately ~5 seconds before having to break for cooling. This is fundamentally no different than counting bullets, and like you yourself said before long it becomes almost an extension of yourself and you don't even have to consciously think about it.

The only difference between a cooldown meter and an ammo mechanic is that you sometimes have to press a button to reload with the ammo mechanic.

And the reload button is a constant that you can rely upon. In ME2, it's 1.5 secs. Doesn't matter if you make 1 shot or 50 shots or 37 shots. When you need another 50, you press a button.

The cooldown system will always make you feel as if you're not using the full potential of the weapon itself. If you really need to get off that extra shot, there's a chance you're screwed by overheat if you don't time it right. If you really need that extra shot, when you're pressing a button to reset the ammo, it's YOUR decision. YOU are dictating the performance of the gun, not the cooldown.

There's a chance that you could be hit by any number of things in either game that can screw with your ability to put rounds accurately downrange. That's a pretty flimsy and circumstantial argument. If the entirety of your criticism is that you might get hit by a Sabotage and be screwed by an overheat at an inopportune time, then simply remove Sabotage from the game (like they did for ME2). Apparently your problem would be solved, and people could still have their cooldowns.

That the cooldown system might have made you feel a certain way affects you and only you, and can not be held as an example of why cooldowns are fundamentally flawed compared to ammo systems. I did not have the experience you did, clearly.

Modifié par JKoopman, 28 mai 2011 - 11:29 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

JKoopman wrote...

There's a chance that you could be hit by any number of things in either game that can screw with your ability to put rounds accurately downrange. That's a pretty flimsy and circumstantial argument. If the entiretey of your criticism is that you might get hit by a Sabotage and be screwed by an overheat at an inopportune time, then simply remove Sabotage from the game (like they did for ME2). Apparently your problem would be solved, and people could still have their cooldowns.

That the cooldown system might have made you feel a certain way affects you and only you, and can not be held as an example of why cooldowns are fundamentally flawed compared to ammo systems. I did not have the experience you did, clearly.

You're shooting your Revenant for 50 shots, 30 shots left. You catch a big Krogan charging at you at the corner of your screen. Under the cooldown system, if you're not keeping track how long you've stopped shooting, you have no idea how long you can shoot at the Krogan before it overheats. So now you're looking at a gauge instead of looking at the Krogan. With a reload, you make a habit of hitting the button after a kill, regardless of how many shots you've fired and regardless how long ago that was. It's going to be 80 every time. Why is this worse than a cooldown where guns are not guns, but another minigame you have play?

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 28 mai 2011 - 11:39 .

[JKoopman]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

There's a chance that you could be hit by any number of things in either game that can screw with your ability to put rounds accurately downrange. That's a pretty flimsy and circumstantial argument. If the entiretey of your criticism is that you might get hit by a Sabotage and be screwed by an overheat at an inopportune time, then simply remove Sabotage from the game (like they did for ME2). Apparently your problem would be solved, and people could still have their cooldowns.

That the cooldown system might have made you feel a certain way affects you and only you, and can not be held as an example of why cooldowns are fundamentally flawed compared to ammo systems. I did not have the experience you did, clearly.

You're shooting your Revenant for 50 shots, 30 shots left. You catch a big Krogan charging at you at the corner of your screen. Under the cooldown system, if you're not keeping track how long you've stopped shooting, you have no idea how long you can shoot at the Krogan before it overheats. So now you're looking at a gauge instead of looking at the Krogan. With a reload, you make a habit of hitting the button after a kill, regardless of how many shots you've fired and regardless how long ago that was. It's going to be 80 every time. Why is this worse than a cooldown where guns are not guns, but another minigame you have play?

If you "weren't keeping track" then how would you know that you had 30 shots left in your Revenant and therefor how would you know how long you could shoot at said krogan? Because you're "in the habit" of reloading after every kill? Why can you not develop a similar habit of firing short controlled bursts to limit heat generation? You seem to be holding one game to a standard that you do not hold the other to.

I've never said that a reload mechanic is worse than a cooldown mechanic. I've said that a reload and cooldown mechanic serve fundamentally the same purpose and that neither is functionally better than the other.

To answer your question, the longest that it ever takes to go from nearly-overheated to cool in ME1 is 5 seconds. If you're so obsessed with "constants", then just count to 5 after every burst and you'll always know that your weapon is good to go. And if you're for some reason unable to use your peripheral vision and must sit there directly watching the heat bar throughout every engagement, then I can only wonder at you.

Modifié par JKoopman, 29 mai 2011 - 12:18 .

[Dave666]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

There's a chance that you could be hit by any number of things in either game that can screw with your ability to put rounds accurately downrange. That's a pretty flimsy and circumstantial argument. If the entiretey of your criticism is that you might get hit by a Sabotage and be screwed by an overheat at an inopportune time, then simply remove Sabotage from the game (like they did for ME2). Apparently your problem would be solved, and people could still have their cooldowns.

That the cooldown system might have made you feel a certain way affects you and only you, and can not be held as an example of why cooldowns are fundamentally flawed compared to ammo systems. I did not have the experience you did, clearly.

You're shooting your Revenant for 50 shots, 30 shots left. You catch a big Krogan charging at you at the corner of your screen. Under the cooldown system, if you're not keeping track how long you've stopped shooting, you have no idea how long you can shoot at the Krogan before it overheats. So now you're looking at a gauge instead of looking at the Krogan. With a reload, you make a habit of hitting the button after a kill, regardless of how many shots you've fired and regardless how long ago that was. It's going to be 80 every time. Why is this worse than a cooldown where guns are not guns, but another minigame you have play?

That argument works both ways though.

You're shooting your Revenant for 50 shots, 0 shots left. You catch a big Krogan charging at you at the corner of your screen. Under the ammo system, if you're not keeping track how many bullets you've been shooting, you have no idea if you'll have enough so you can shoot at the Krogan before it kills you. So now you're looking at an ammo count instead of looking at the Krogan. With an overheat, you make a habit of using some trigger discipline so that you are not caught on overheat, and don't have to scavenge for ammo regardless of how many shots you've fired and regardless how long ago that was. It's going to be infinite every time.

[Murmillos]

Someone With Mass wrote...

And while you're waiting behind cover for the weapon to cool down, the enemies can advance or flank you. Better to just eject it and be done with it.

If the enemies can flank you in 3 seconds, then the problem isn't with the weapon, cool down, it would be the player.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Dave666 wrote...


That argument works both ways though.

You're shooting your Revenant for 50 shots, 0 shots left. You catch a big Krogan charging at you at the corner of your screen. Under the ammo system, if you're not keeping track how many bullets you've been shooting, you have no idea if you'll have enough so you can shoot at the Krogan before it kills you. So now you're looking at an ammo count instead of looking at the Krogan. With an overheat, you make a habit of using some trigger discipline so that you are not caught on overheat, and don't have to scavenge for ammo regardless of how many shots you've fired and regardless how long ago that was. It's going to be infinite every time.

The Revy has 80 per clip.

Under the reload system, if I'm not keeping track of my ammo count, I'll shoot 30 then suffer a reload of 1.5 seconds. Under the cooldown system, I'll suffer a 3-4 sec overheat penality.

[Murmillos]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Dave666 wrote...


That argument works both ways though.

You're shooting your Revenant for 50 shots, 0 shots left. You catch a big Krogan charging at you at the corner of your screen. Under the ammo system, if you're not keeping track how many bullets you've been shooting, you have no idea if you'll have enough so you can shoot at the Krogan before it kills you. So now you're looking at an ammo count instead of looking at the Krogan. With an overheat, you make a habit of using some trigger discipline so that you are not caught on overheat, and don't have to scavenge for ammo regardless of how many shots you've fired and regardless how long ago that was. It's going to be infinite every time.

The Revy has 80 per clip.
Under the reload system, if I'm not keeping track of my ammo count, I'll shoot 30 then suffer a reload of 1.5 seconds. Under the cooldown system, I'll suffer a 3-4 sec overheat penality.

True, thats only if we ONLY go back to the ME1 system and don't modify it. Thats why many people whom want to bring back heat management also want to bring back "emergency cooling sinks", in which you would be able to flash cool your weapon and be able to start firing with 1 second of activating the flash cool.

Maybe you could only carry 3-(6 upgradeable) clips a mission, only able to restock at heavy weapons boxes. Thus should find a unexpected Krogan around the corner, your weapon is ready to go when you need it - as quick or if not quicker then reloading. But its up to the player to use, or hold off and try to use another power or squad member power to delay the Krogan's charge until you can take cover and take control of the situation.